Hellenism in Asia Minor
Date: 2017-10-10T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Greeks -- Turkey; Hellenism; Turkey -- Civilization; Pontus -- History

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Hellenism in Asia Minor

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Hellenism in Asia Minor

Author: Karl Dieterich

Author of introduction, etc.: Theodore P. Ion

Contributor: D. E. Oikonomides

Translator: Carroll N. Brown

Release date: October 10, 2017 [eBook #55728]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55728

Credits: Produced by Turgut Dincer and Online Distributed Proofreading Team
at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made
available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR ***

HELLENISM
IN
ASIA MINOR

BY
DR. KARL DIETERICH

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN
BY
CARROLL N. BROWN, Ph.D.
The College of the City of New York

With an introductory preface by Theodore P. Ion, D.C.L., and
a brief article on Hellenic Pontus by D. H. Oeconomides, Ph.D.

This publication is due to the generosity of
EURIPIDES KEHAYA of New York

PUBLISHED FOR THE
AMERICAN-HELLENIC SOCIETY
105 WEST 40th STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y.
BY
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMERICAN BRANCH
35 WEST 32nd STREET, NEW YORK
1918

COPYRIGHT 1918
BY THE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
American Branch

THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS
RAHWAY, N. J.

CONTENTS

PAGE
I | A Survey of Hellenism in Asia Minor | 1

II

Hellenism in Asia Minor—By Karl Dieterich, of the University of Leipzig, translated by Carroll N. Brown, Ph.D., of the College of the City of New York. With a preface by Theodore P. Ion, D.C.L.

8

III

Hellenic Pontus—A Résumé of its History, by D. H. Oeconomides, Ph.D.

56

| American-Hellenic News | 63

A SURVEY OF HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR

Asia Minor is the country which, more than all others, recalls the highest development of Hellenic civilization. Its deeply indented coast formed a chaplet of Hellenic democracies which reached out into the interior and actually attacked the Persian civilization, upon which they imposed their own stamp. These democracies constituted the first rampart of the civilized world of that time, holding back Persian barbarism. Their history is one of continual struggle between these two civilizations, a struggle that was terminated at Salamis and at Platæa, where the Persian ambitions were definitively buried and Greek civilization saved.

The wise men, the thinkers, the philosophers, that these democracies produced, were numerous, and the influence of their teachings was very great. These even today are radiant with a sublimity that has never been excelled.

It was in this Greek element and among the populations Hellenized by them that Christianity first germinated. It was the Greeks of Asia Minor who first offered their blood for the triumph of the new faith. The foremost Church Fathers, John Chrysostom, Saint Basil and very many others, were born there or taught there.

Throughout the Middle Ages the Byzantine-Greek civilization flourished in these lands. It formed the most powerful barrier against the wave of barbarism which threatened to inundate the civilized world. The desperate resistance offered by Hellenism permitted the West, by its contact with Byzantine Hellenism, to acquire those requisite elements which have formed the basis of Western civilization.

When the powerful tide of Turkish invasion, coming after so many other barbarian inroads, completely submerged Greek culture there, the Hellenic idea which this element represented was so strong that it survived everything. It was in vain that the fierce conquerors, as the tradition states, cut out the tongues of the inhabitants in order to cause this people to unlearn its language; it was in vain that they carried away their children to make of them fierce and cruel janissaries, who became exterminators of their own people. The Hellenic idea, the attachment to national traditions, was never submerged.

As soon as the fury of the conqueror was somewhat appeased, and at a time when that part of the Balkan Peninsula where Hellenism first arose and from which later it radiated over the then known world all the brilliance of its beauty was no longer showing any sign of life, the Greeks of Asia Minor founded the first Greek school of modern times, that of Cydonia (Aïvali). This school produced the first real ecclesiastics, the first genuinely educated men. Smyrna, called by the Turk himself “the infidel city,” because of its preponderant Greek element, followed her example. The graduates of these schools formed the nucleus from which the idea of the Greek renaissance sprang forth. From this source have come the men that have sacrificed their lives and their fortunes in order that Hellenic culture, which seemed forever to have disappeared, might again be revived.

It is this country of which we are going to study the ethnological composition.

Its boundaries are, on the north, the Black Sea; on the east, the Russian frontier traversing the snow-covered mountain range of the Taurus and Antitaurus and continuing to the Gulf of Alexandretta; on the south, west and northwest, the Mediterranean, the Ægean Sea and the Sea of Marmora.

Its area is 534,550 square kilometers; it is traversed by numerous watercourses and is one of the richest countries in the world. If well administered, it could support tens of millions of inhabitants.

It is divided for purposes of administration into eight provinces, Sebastia, Trebizond, Kastamuni, Konia, Angora, Aïdin, Broussa, Adana and four independent provinces, Chryssioupolis, Nicomedia, Balukiser, Vizi or Dardanelles.

To determine the importance of the Greek element in the population let us examine each archbishopric from the ecclesiastic as well as secular point of view.

The following table presents statistics as to the numbers of churches, priests, schools, etc., supported by the Greeks of Asia Minor:

Metropolis

Churches

Priests

Boys’
Schools

Teachers

Pupils

Girls’
Schools

Women
Teachers

Pupils

1. | Smyrna | 40 | 114 | 35 | 241 | 11,055 | 27 | 202 | 7,651
2. | Crine | 46 | 75 | 34 | 65 | 3,965 | 14 | 32 | 2,055
3. | Heliopolis | 53 | 77 | 41 | 100 | 4,360 | 19 | 49 | 2,120
4. | Pisidia | 46 | 54 | 18 | 53 | 2,685 | 10 | 31 | 1,235
5. | Philadelphia | 20 | 22 | 15 | 26 | 1,060 | 8 | 16 | 723
6. | { | Ephesus | } | | | | | | | |
Magnesia | 126 | 177 | 100 | 286 | 15,940 | 65 | 150 | 10,150
7. | Cydonia | | | | | | | |
8. | Broussa | 24 | 27 | 13 | 40 | 2,975 | 7 | 20 | 1,045
9. | Nicæa | 29 | 41 | 23 | 63 | 3,155 | 8 | 25 | 1,210
10. | Chalcedon | 43 | 100 | 28 | 99 | 6,970 | 25 | 70 | 4,230
11. | Nicomedia | 76 | 75 | 77 | 83 | 3,479 | 6 | 20 | 1,120
12. | Cyzicus | 81 | 128 | 72 | 195 | 8,115 | 25 | 67 | 2,630
13. | Proconnesos | 26 | 33 | 13 | 48 | 2,280 | 8 | 19 | 790
14. | Amassia | 330 | 441 | 286 | 586 | 17,000 | 69 | 87 | 3,910
15. | Ancyra | 8 | 13 | 5 | 20 | 840 | 2 | 7 | 260
16. | Iconium | 50 | 102 | 42 | 159 | 6,915 | 23 | 50 | 2,070
17. | Cæsarea | 44 | 98 | 58 | 133 | 5,075 | 16 | 49 | 1,778
18. | Rhodopolis | 65 | 86 | 57 | 120 | 3,300 | | |
19. | Chaldia | 211 | 259 | 189 | 380 | 9,705 | 2 | 5 | 160
20. | Trapezus | 250 | 161 | 95 | 203 | 8,535 | 11 | 35 | 1,679
21. | Colonia | 120 | 140 | 93 | 182 | 3,840 | | |
22. | Neocæsarea | 300 | 400 | 150 | 300 | 11,300 | 15 | 36 | 2,100
| —— | —— | —— | —— | ——— | —— | —— | ———
| 1,988 | 2,523 | 1,444 | 3,382 | 132,549 | 360 | 970 | 46,916

The administration of the Greek Orthodox Church is in the hands of twenty-two Metropolitans, or Archbishops, having under them a proportionate number of bishops and priests. The Metropoles, or Archbishoprics, are the following: Smyrna, Crine, Heliopolis, Pisidia, Philadelphia, Ephesus and Magnesia, Cydonia, Broussa, Nicæa, Chalcedon, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Proconnesos, Amassia, Ancyra, Iconium, Cæsarea, Rhodopolis, Chaldia, Trapezus, Colonia and Neocæsarea, under the authority of the Œcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.1

The number of Greek inhabitants is probably above 2,000,000. The Hellenic populations are chiefly concentrated in the provinces of Aïdin and Broussa, where out of a population of approximately 3,000,000 the Greek element is about 1,300,000, the coast regions, however, being inhabited almost purely by Greeks. The non-Greek inhabitants are largely Catholics, Armenians, Turks and Jews. On the coasts of the Black Sea, too, the Greeks are largely in the majority. It is to be noticed that in many villages of this region the inhabitants speak a language closely approaching the ancient Greek, from the point of view of syntax as well as of verb-formation.

For their religious needs they have 1,988 churches and 2,523 priests, and for the instruction of their children they maintain 1,444 schools for boys with 3,382 teachers and 132,549 pupils, and 360 schools for girls with 970 women teachers and 46,916 pupils.

We must remember that the churches and schools are maintained at the expense of the Greeks themselves, since the Turkish Government only intervenes in order to impede and destroy. Reckoning at $500 a year the pay of a priest or teacher, man or woman, we arrive at the sum of $5,000,000 a year, which must be multiplied by three in order to cover the expenses of the construction of churches and schools, their repair and upkeep, and the salaries of the inferior employees of all these establishments.

The number of pupils of both sexes constitutes nearly nine per cent of the whole Greek population (179,465 boys and girls). This is due to the fact that many of the Greeks, not included in the preceding enumeration, who live mingled with other populations, whether Armenian or Turk, and who do not possess the means of supporting schools of their own, send their children from great distances, in spite of the difficult communications, in order to attend these schools. Often the parents, who have lived for generations among the Turks, have lost the knowledge of their national language, but their national consciousness is nevertheless so strong that they expose their children to countless dangers in order to permit them to learn the language of their ancestors. These Turkish-speaking Greeks live chiefly in the interior of the country, even as far as the Persian frontier, and the greater part of these, lost among other more numerous peoples, are not included in the above statistics.

These numbers show that the people are loyally devoted to their language, their traditions and their religion, for the tremendous sacrifices to which they subject themselves for the sake of the maintenance of Hellenic culture evidence the tenacity with which they cling to their national sentiments.

They show equally that this people is eager for progress in civilization, for the number of educational establishments that it maintains and the large number of children that attend them, show that it wishes to acquire a higher civilization and thus become an agent of progress for the peoples whom the fate of conquest has established among them.

Sober, industrious, intelligent and honest, it demands only liberty in order to be able to give scope to its activity. Though conquered by the Turk, the Greek, in his turn, won the upper hand by his intellectual superiority. The Turk, who has become accustomed to the Greek way of living and thinking, and has adopted many of his habits, among the most prominent of which is the respect for woman and the sanctity of the home, will be happy to live under the administration of his Greek compatriot, with whom he was perfectly satisfied when the Turkish Government, before the chauvinistic Young Turk party had established its fierce tyranny, renounced the services of the Greek functionaries.

An interesting side of this dwelling together of Greek and Turk is the respect that the Anatolian Turk habitually professes for the Orthodox religion. Sometimes the Mussulman even has recourse to the offices of the Greek priest, either to have a mass chanted, or in order to touch the holy sacraments, the saints’ pictures, etc., so as to be cured of some illness, or to obtain some benefit which his ascetic religion does not afford him.

If the Turkish Government by its misrule had not provoked the driving out of the Mussulman populations of Europe (a course which has gradually reduced the territory of the Ottoman Empire), the uprisings experienced periodically would not have been so frequent. These numerous fanatics who had lived since the time of the conquest by exploiting the Christian populations, transported their methods to Asia Minor, and, seconded by a government whose materialism knew no limits, they undertook the extermination of the Christian populations of Asia Minor in order to rob them of their property.

When one realizes that, under an administration which existed only to mulct the worker by taxation, these populations have succeeded, in spite of numberless persecutions, in making so formidable an effort in order to secure their spiritual needs, it is easy to imagine what progress in civilization and wealth awaits this country, when an era of liberty and security shall be introduced under a paternal administration.

The Anatolian Mussulmans will be the first to profit by this. Patient workers, loving the land, and living in harmony with their Christian compatriots, they will be happy to secure the product of their labor, of which the Turkish functionary constantly robbed them, so that he finally made them dislike all labor, and urged them on into the path of crime.

This living together as friends, on a footing of equality, will perhaps make Christianity flourish anew in this land which was the first to be saved from paganism, and whose fruits, transplanted to the rest of the world, have caused the springing forth of that glorious civilization which Prussian megalomania is now staining with blood.

II. HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR

By Karl Dieterich

Translated from the German
By CARROLL N. BROWN, Ph.D.,
The College of the City of New York

PREFACE

By Theodore P. Ion, D.C.L.

The German dream of dominion from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf has naturally attracted the attention of the world to Asia Minor, a country which has been for centuries in a dormant condition on account of its subjection to a moribund state. Conquered and reconquered by Asiatic hordes, its wealth ravaged and pillaged many and many times, its cities, towns and villages razed to the ground more than once, and its inhabitants having been subjected again and again to massacres en masse, Asia Minor has been and will naturally continue to be the reservoir, so to speak, of European civilization for the Great East.

From ancient times the rays of civilization which shone on this peninsula were not Asiatic but European, that is Hellenic, the civilizing influences of the language of Homer and Plato having been kept alive even during the rule of the Mohammedan Arabs.

As is well known, the Arabian Caliphs of Bagdad were always surrounded by Hellenists and considered the books of the Greek sages more valuable than gold.2

Hence came the great impetus given to Arabian philosophy and positive science through the translation of the writings of the Greeks, which were subsequently transplanted to Europe by the Moors even before the time of the renaissance.

The darkest epoch of Asia Minor began undoubtedly with the advent of the followers of Osman, who, ever since their irruption into that country, have wrought havoc among its people, and within a comparatively short space of time have reduced that fair land to barbarity and desolation. The ancient seats of learning, the theaters, the stadia, the treasures of art and other tokens of Hellenic civilization are now nothing but heaps of ruins, inarticulate witnesses to the ancient glory of Hellenism.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that beneath these smoldering ruins civilization was not entirely destroyed, for in spite of the slowly burning fire Hellenism continued to exist, and toward the close of the 18th century began to show clear signs of that vitality and vigor which blossomed forth so quickly in the following century, and, in our own time, have produced such far-reaching results.

Hence the apprehension shown by the Turkish conquerors during the tyrannical régime of Abdul Hamid. Hence the great efforts made by that potentate to bring from the confines of Russia Mohammedan hordes such as Circassians and other unruly tribes and freebooters in order that they might roam about or settle there according to their fancy, with the view to offsetting the ever-increasing Greek population of Asia Minor. Hence the inrush to that country of Mohammedan emigrants from the territories which have been wrested from the Turk ever since the events of 1878, it being immaterial whether these Mussulman fanatics gave themselves to robbery, murder and massacres of the Christians in the land, or settled there in order to develop the great possibilities of agriculture in the country.

The diplomacy of Europe, having been satisfied with the platitudes embodied in the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 as to the introduction of reforms by the Sublime Porte, both in its European and Asiatic provinces, has let things take their natural course, the first outcome being the Armenian horrors of the Hamidian era, which were continued under the “constitutional régime of the Young Turks” and culminated in the scientific extermination, by starvation, of that highly gifted Armenian nation, carried out under the high patronage and guidance of the Germano-Turanians, whose diabolical activities during the present world war have overwhelmed in a like catastrophe the Hellenic population of the Ottoman Empire and particularly of Asia Minor.3

From the time that the present German emperor resolved to make the Near and perhaps the Far East the great market for Teutonic trade, German scientists of all kinds have been dispatched to Asia Minor to study the country from every point of view, so that the German Government may, at the opportune moment, be ready to seize the “golden fleece.”

As a result there have appeared various essays dealing with Asia Minor from different points of view, and in particular the one with which we are here concerned, by Dr. Karl Dieterich, forming the principal part of the present publication of the American-Hellenic Society.4

It is worth noticing that the German essayist describes in a vivid manner the vitality and the potentialities of the Hellenic population of Asia Minor, and, unlike the ruling class of Germany and many of his compatriots, he speaks favorably of the Greek populations of Anatolia.

Dr. Dieterich, referring to the persecution of the Greeks, says erroneously that these “systematic persecutions,” as he admits them to be, began with the spring of 1914 (see p. 19), while, as a matter of fact, they commenced on the very day that the Young Turks consolidated their power (1908–1909), when, in spite of their much heralded formula of “equality, justice and fraternity,” they designed and instituted a well-organized method for the annihilation of the Christian populations, the Adana massacres of the Armenians in April, 1909, being the precursors of all the subsequent horrors.

Nor did these would-be “reformers,” or “constitutionalists,” conceal their plans for the Turkification of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, for they openly resorted either to forced conversions to Mohammedanism or to the annihilation of those who seemed unlikely to submit to be “Ottomanized.” Thus, as early as September, 1908, one of the moving spirits of the Committee of Union and Progress, namely, Dr. Nazim, during his visit to Smyrna, at a social gathering held in the house of a British subject, spoke freely about this matter.5

The Young Turks having thus initiated, under the very eyes of Europe, a systematic extermination of the Armenians,—whom the bloody hand of Abdul Hamid had not completely destroyed,—turned their attention to the “more dangerous Greeks.”

It was this plan for the destruction of the Christian nations that, in 1912, brought together the Balkan States, who saw that under the new régime in Turkey the peoples of these various nationalities would gradually be annihilated, if they did not take some preventive steps. The result was the war of these States against Turkey, the complete defeat of the latter and the freeing from the Turkish yoke of hundreds of thousands of people. As a further consequence of this war, there began on the part of Turkey a wholesale expulsion of the Greek population from the coast of Asia Minor simply because the neighboring islands of the Ægean had been incorporated with the Greek Kingdom. Up to the declaration of the present world war hundreds of thousands of Greeks were expelled from Turkey, having been, at the same time, deprived by the Turks of all their movable and immovable property. All these unfortunate people took refuge in Greece and gave no little embarrassment to the Greek Government.6

It is therefore incorrect to say, as the German writer alleges, that the persecutions of the Greeks began with the outbreak of the present war (p. 19).

The difference, however, between the ante-bellum persecutions and those perpetrated subsequently is this, that while in the former cases the Greeks were expelled from their native country and were deprived only of their wealth and their property generally, in the latter not only were they compelled to abandon everything they owned, but they also perished through untold hardships and starvation. (See details about the tragical condition of the Greeks in Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society cited above.)

Nor did the Turks in carrying out this cruel work care whether Greece was friendly or unfriendly to Turkey. As a matter of fact, these persecutions were in full swing during the “régime of Constantine” (see dates in Persecutions of the Greeks, etc.) when that potentate was in close relationship not only with the Germans, but also with the Bulgarians and the Turks, and consequently the persecutions of the Greeks had nothing to do with the alleged projected territorial compensations to Greece; besides, Turkey was assured by Germany that Constantine, who then had the upper hand in Greece, would under no circumstances attack Turkey.

Therefore it is not correct to say, as the German writer asserts, that one of the reasons for these persecutions was the promise made to Greece by the Entente Powers in 1915 of territorial concessions in Asia Minor (see p. 19).

An indication that even such an evidently impartial writer as Dr. Dieterich cannot divest himself of the German point of view is his statement that in the struggle for life the Greeks were on the offensive, while the Turks were on the defensive (see p. 19). This, in plain words, means that it suffices for a nation to be intelligent, active, frugal, moral (as he too acknowledges the Greeks to be, p. 50), in order to acquire the odium of carrying on an offensive struggle if another nation living side by side with it happens to be stupid, fatalist, immoral and incapable of holding its ground in the struggle for life.

The writer’s theory of the existence of a Greek propaganda in Asia Minor, “forwarded by every possible means,” is a gratuitous supposition. Dr. Dieterich evidently misunderstands the conditions in which the Greek populations have been living in Asia Minor and trying to promote or revive their national ideals. As a matter of fact, all the existing Greek schools in Asia Minor,—which is also the case with the Greek educational institutions in every part of Turkey,—have been established and supported by the Greek communities themselves, and if, at times, they have received outside financial aid, this was due to the generosity of persons who were natives of the country, who had emigrated to foreign lands and acquired wealth abroad. The many names of these benefactors appearing on the Greek school buildings attest the accuracy of this statement.7 Therefore the allegation of the writer that a Greek propaganda is carried out in Asia Minor is totally incorrect.

Another supposition of the German author that the Greeks of Anatolia intermarried with the “Seljuk Conquerors” is not a historical fact. On the contrary, judging from the general character of the people and their attachment to the Christian religion, it is certain that the Greeks did not intermarry with the Seljuks, since they invaded Asia Minor after their conversion to Mohammedanism.

That many Greeks, abandoning the faith of their forefathers, embraced Mohammedanism, is an incontrovertible and historical fact, but that Turks or other adherents of Islam could not become Christians and consequently could not intermarry with the Greeks is also a truism. For, according to Mohammedan Law, a “true believer” who abandons Islam is liable to be put to death. Therefore, although many Greeks by becoming Mohammedans lost their nationality, no Turks or other Mussulmans could become Christians and, consequently, Greeks. That has been the strongest shield of Hellenism for the preservation of the Greek nationality.

In the same way his allegation that, as the language of the Greeks in the interior of Asia Minor was Turkish, they “did not share in the national and racial consciousness of their kinsmen on the coast” (p. 52) is equally erroneous. Anyone who has lived in that country and intermingled with these people could not have helped noticing their intense patriotic spirit and their attachment to Greek ideals, the best evidence of these being the creation of schools for the study of the language of their forefathers, namely Greek. Nor is the other statement of this writer that the Greeks “succeeded in introducing the Greek language in their schools alongside of the Turkish” correct, because, as a matter of fact, these schools were established for the study of the Greek and not the Turkish language, the latter tongue being taught as a foreign language, occupying the same place in the curriculum of the Greek schools as foreign languages hold in European or American schools.

The observation of the author that Germany will have to come to terms with the Greek peasant of Asia Minor, because “he is on a higher moral plane,” is worthy of especial notice, and his further remark that “it would be just as perverse as it would be foolish to depend on the Turk to the exclusion of the Greek, who has the controlling hand in trade and traffic, as well as in the cultivation of the soil” (p. 50), confirms the favorable opinion of both German and other writers and travelers as to the vitality of the Hellenic element of Asia Minor.

Thus, a distinguished French geographer,—whose statistics, however, on the populations of Asia Minor are not accurate, since they are presumably based principally on Turkish sources,—referring to the Greeks of the Province of Smyrna, says that “among all the Christian communities of the Province of Smyrna that of the Orthodox Greeks is the most considerable and that it is, in a general way, better educated and more prosperous. It is among them,—apart from the merchants who are best fitted for handling large enterprises,—that are found the most clever mechanics, often excelling in their various callings, and the best agriculturists, their well-known characteristics being industry and activity.” (See Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie, Géographie Administrative, etc., vol. III., p. 355.)

So, too, the famous English historian of the Crimean War, Kinglake, writing in 1845, refers to Smyrna, which the Turks call, as he says, “infidel Smyrna,” in the following terms: “I think that Smyrna may be called the chief town and capital of the Grecian race. For myself, I love the race, in spite of all their vices.”8 (See Eothen, or Traces of Travel brought Home from the East, by Alexander William Kinglake, p. 41, ed. 1876).

Another English traveler, who made the tour of Asia Minor on foot, describing the American College in the city of Marsovan and referring to the Greek students there, says: “Like all Greeks, whether of Europe or of Asia, they have a quality which always compels interest. In general intelligence, in quickness of perception, in the power of acquiring knowledge, they are said, as a race, to have no equals among their fellow-students—nor in their capacity for opposing each other and making mountains of difference out of nothing. Watching them, it grows upon the observer that traditional Greek characteristics have survived strongly in the race, and that Asia Minor Greeks of today are probably not different from the Greeks of twenty centuries ago.” (See W. J. Childs, Across Asia Minor on Foot, p. 55, 1917.)

An English general, who during the administration of Lord Beaconsfield was sent to Asia Minor on a special mission after the conclusion of the Cyprus Convention of 1878, after referring to some of the well-known characteristics of the Greeks of Anatolia as an enterprising, keen-witted people, well gifted with a rare commercial instinct, goes on to say:

“Profuse expenditure on education is a national characteristic, and to acquire a sufficient fortune to found a school or hospital in his native town is the honorable ambition of every Greek merchant.... The Anatolian Greeks generally are active and intelligent, laborious and devoted to commercial pursuits. They learn quickly and well, and become doctors, lawyers, bankers, innkeepers, etc., filling most of the professions. They are good miners and masons, and villages are generally found near old lead and copper mines. They have much of the versatility, the love of adventure and intrigue, which distinguished the ancient Greeks, and a certain restlessness in their commercial speculations which sometimes leads to disaster. The democratic feeling is strong; the sole aristocracy is that of wealth, and ancient lineage confers no distinction. The children of rich and poor go to the same schools and receive the same free education” (Sir Charles W. Wilson, Murray’s Hand-book for Travellers in Asia Minor, 1905, pp. 70–71).

A brilliant French Hellenist and scholar, in referring to the Greeks of Smyrna, gives the following picturesque description of them. “They are,” he says, “so numerous in that city, that they consider it as part of their domain. Wide-awake, lively, playfully sly and always interesting, they are here the tavern-keepers, the grocers, the boatmen. These are the three trades that most of the Greeks of the poor class prefer, just as the profession of lawyer and that of physician are particularly popular among the Greeks of the well-to-do class. As tavern-keepers they talk all day long; they keep up with the news, they discuss politics, they run down the Turks, they are always stirring, bustling and struggling, in their way, for the ‘grand idea.’”

“As grocers they sell a little of everything. They do business as money changers, an infinite happiness for a Hellene. As boatmen they have the sea, this old friend of the descendants of Ulysses, as their constant companion; they go right and left in the hustling of the port, they see new faces; they question the travelers who come from afar; they dispute with them about the boatfare, which is yet another rare pleasure for the Greeks. An amusing race, sympathetic, on the whole, notwithstanding its faults; patriotic, persistent, sober, mildly obstinate in its indomitable hope.”

“Because of their constant activity and their wit, the Greeks have supplanted the Turks in many places in Turkey.”9

The vivid description of Hellenism in Asia Minor given by the German author, and corroborated by numerous other writers and travelers, shows the important rôle that the Hellenic element is destined to play if that unfortunate country is ever favored with the blessings of good government.

The Hellenic State should undoubtedly be the natural inheritor or at any rate the executor of the estate of the Sick Man of the East; if not of all of Asia Minor, at any rate of a great part of it, i.e., western Anatolia. But if the Ottoman sway in Anatolia is prolonged, it is to be hoped that the country will, at least, be under the joint tutelage of some civilized states which will take into consideration the wishes and aspirations of the Hellenic people.

HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR10

By Karl Dieterich,

Privatdocent in Mediæval and Modern Greek Literature in the
University of Leipzig.

The political unrest in the Near East which preceded the present world war and accompanied its beginnings has turned attention once more to the existence of the Greek element in the population of Asia Minor. Two factors in particular have entered into this feeling of unrest: first, the systematic persecutions of the Greeks by the Young Turks, which have been going on ever since the spring of 1914, and secondly, the recent communications in the press dealing with alleged promises on the part of the Triple Entente to indemnify Greece through extensive territorial concessions in Asia Minor—the talk was of an extent of 100,000 to 120,000 sq. km.—in order to repay her for her intervention in the war. However one may feel as to both these points and their justification, this much is clear, that the Turks believed that they were in the presence of a Greek peril.11

There was thus started, in Asia Minor, a defensive struggle on the part of the Turks that was just as sharply defined as the offensive which this Greek element had for a long time been actually carrying on against the Turks of this region; with this difference, however, that the Turkish defensive has only recently acquired sufficient strength to make its action felt, while the Greek offensive has for decades been quietly at work getting the upper hand economically, culturally and nationally in that land where they once ruled for a period of more than a thousand years. Granted that the Greek propaganda, which has, for a considerable time, been forwarded in Asia Minor by every possible means, has in many particulars been carried on too bitterly, and has injured the sensibilities of the Ottomans, the fact remains that the Greeks in Asia Minor economically and culturally have control of Asia Minor even now, not as an outside or foreign element in the population, though the movement has been forwarded from the outside, but as something that has developed from within on the very soil of the country itself, something that has in centuries of growth become a historic fact and that is only to be understood when one has fully grasped what has gone before.

To do this one must go back into times which are long since past, though their resultant forces, far from having ceased to operate, seem just now, as a matter of fact, to be renewing their strength.

Asia Minor was in prehistoric times a field for Greek colonization. Long after its littoral had, in early Hellenic times (dating back, in fact, to the 10th century B.C.), been bordered with a fringe of Greek settlements, which were the basis of the old Ionic and Æolic civilizations, this coast colonization had, in later Greek times, been extended and developed through the victorious eastern expeditions of Alexander the Great into a real colonization of the interior.

Just as had been the case in the whole of the western regions of Asia Minor, there arose in the 4th to 2nd centuries B.C., in the interior of the country as well, a whole series of new Greek cities, which from that time on have constituted firmly fixed centers for the Hellenizing and civilizing of the land. This began with Byzantine and Turkish times and has extended up to the present, forming a sure testimony to the stubborn endurance of this late Greek civilization. One needs only to think of towns like Nicæa, Nicomedia, Prusa, Pergamon, Philadelphia, Thyatira, Laodicea, etc., which were all founded in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. and were named after the Diadochi12 or their wives. After the fall of the states founded by the Diadochi, the Romans came in and conquered Asia Minor. Without having succeeded in permanently Romanizing it, they gave it a solidity which enabled the Byzantine emperors, after the later Hellenizing of the Eastern Roman Empire, to advance farther and farther into the interior and toward the east, accompanying the victorious advance of Christianity: in Cappadocia, the home of Greek monastic life in the East, there was firmly established in Cæsarea, in the 6th century, a new outpost of Greek civilization.

Thus, throughout the centuries, by a process of colonization that was forwarded now by peaceful means and again by war, Hellenism forced its way steadily eastward, and on the basis of the older indigenous population a new sphere for Greek colonization was opened up which developed its own peculiar cultural strength only after the passing away of the ancient Greek civilization, in Christian, that is, and Byzantine times. Up to the end of the first millennium of the Christian Era, at a time when the Balkan Peninsula, including Ancient Greece, had long since lost its ancient city-life and culture beneath the inroads and devastations of Goths, Avars and Slavs, Asia Minor was still a populous and blooming land with countless large cities, whose inhabitants combined Hellenistic culture with Christian fervor. Intellectual traditions, associated with the names of Arrian, Dio Cassius, Strabo, Galen and Epictetus, were still living and were perpetuated in the writings of the Byzantine historians of the 10th-14th centuries, the most famous of whom came from Asia Minor.13 At that time the strongly ascetic ideals of Greek monastic life were still in full vigor, as they had been first preached and practiced by the three great Church Fathers, Basil of Cæsarea, the Cappadocian, and the two Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzus, and as they had assumed controversial form in the monastic castles of Asia Minor (the forerunners of the monasteries of Mount Athos), built on the Bithynian Olympus, which is still called by the Turks Keshish-Dagh, i.e., Monks’ Mount, on the Auxentios (also in Bithynia), on Mounts Sipylus, in Lydia, and Latmos, in Caria. In ecclesiastical architecture, too, Asia Minor was an originator: the so-called “Domed” Basilika, which reached its greatest perfection in St. Sophia in Constantinople and its most perfect reproduction in St. Mark’s in Venice, owes its development to Asia Minor.14

Finally there arose in Asia Minor a new folk-poetry that dealt with the deeds of heroes. What the Nibelungen is to the Germans, the Chanson de Roland to the French, and Beowulf to the English, that, to the Greeks of the Middle Ages, was the romantic epic of Akritas (i.e., Count) Basilios. Discovered only a few decades ago, though scattered widely, wherever Greek is spoken, in countless fragments of folk-poetry, it is a sort of crystal precipitate in verse of those struggles which the Byzantine Counts were forced to wage against the Saracens on the eastern confines of their realm, in Cappadocia. The poem has for us a double value: first, as proving that the national center of gravity of Hellenism lay then in Asia Minor, and second, as enlightening us as to the ethnological relations of the country, for its hero is the son of a Greek woman by an Arab Emir (hence his surname Digenis, that is, born of two races).15

From a political as well as a cultural point of view, Asia Minor formed a center of Hellenism. From here sprang all the great ruling families, which from the 8th century to the 13th constantly renewed the kingdom: the Isaurians (717–867), the Armenians (867–1057), the Comneni (1057–1185), the Laskarides (1204–1261), the Palæologi (1261–1453). They are all rooted in the feudal nobility of Asia Minor, which is comparable with our east Elbe colonial nobility. If it had not been for these powerful and energetic noble families the Byzantine Empire, and with it Hellenism as well, would long ago have been destroyed, and if the Greeks in Asia Minor had not succeeded in these struggles, that lasted 300 years, in stemming the advance of the Turks, their hordes would have poured over the Balkan Peninsula and Hungary centuries earlier than they did. We must briefly review these wars, for in no other way can the present ethnical and cultural constitution of the country and the position of Hellenism in it be fully understood. The annihilation of Hellenism and the coincident erection, one after the other, of two Turkish empires came in two great phases: the first, at the end of the 11th century, in the conquest by the Seljuks, and the second, at the beginning of the 14th century, in that by the Ottomans. The geographical situation of the capitals of these two kingdoms, Iconium (Konia) and Prusa (Brussa), is in itself an indication of the swinging of the Turkish center of gravity from the east toward the northwest.

Although the Seljuk kingdom did not embrace the whole peninsula within its boundaries, it threatened, at first, with that terrific thrusting strength of the Mongolian conquerors, to reach out far beyond its boundaries, and to wrest from the Greeks that northwestern part of Asia Minor that was so greatly coveted. In 1080 the Seljuks were already in the extreme northwest in Bithynia, and in possession of Nicæa and Nicomedia, and were ranging the whole coast regions from Smyrna to Attalia (Adalia) as pirates. The Greeks, who were at first purely on the defensive, joined in with the Crusaders, and succeeded, after twenty years of stubborn fighting, in thrusting the Turkish conquerors back of a line which corresponds pretty closely to that of the Eskishehr-Karahissar-Akshehr railroad line of today. This was in the early part of the 12th century (1117). A second thrust by the Greeks (1139) drove them back upon their old base and center, Iconium. Western Asia Minor was thus again rescued to the Greeks and nearly forty years of quiet followed. This time was utilized by the Greek emperors to build a strong line of fortresses against possible further attacks; all strategically important points were defended by strong forts, especially the valley of the Sangarios, which formed the corridor of attack against Constantinople. Even today, as one travels over the railroad from Ismid-Eskishehr, he sees numerous, fairly well preserved ruins of these Byzantine forts which served the same purpose of border-defense as those of today in the valley of the Saal in our own land.16 They bear Turkish names, but he who has studied into these things knows that these are only literal translations of old Greek names: Inegeul, shortened from Angelokome = Angelstown; Kupruhissar, from the Greek Gephyrokastron = Bridgefort; Karadjahissar = Greek Melangeia (Turkish, karadja = blackish). They mark, therefore, the boundary between Byzantine and Turkish history.

Thanks to these fortresses, the Greeks succeeded in repulsing the Turkish assaults, so vehemently renewed in 1177, until, by the Latin conquest of 1204, the Byzantine Empire was entirely restricted to Asia Minor, where, in the so-called Nicæan Empire, it experienced such a promising rebirth that it soon embraced the whole northern half of western Asia Minor. This new kingdom secured to the Greeks the mastery in Asia Minor for 125 years more, and it would have secured it to them for an even longer period if the Mongol invasion of 1241 and the consequent weakening of the Seljuks had not tempted the ambitious Greek emperors to stretch out their hands once more toward that fatal Constantinople, instead of using their whole strength in maintaining their hold on Asia Minor; for the Greek Empire of that time was no longer strong enough to hold control over two continents that were so seriously threatened, especially since a new avalanche was already rolling in from the east, the mighty Ottomans, who rose up in the strength of youth among the ruins of the fallen empire of the Seljuks. What the Seljuks in 240 years had failed to accomplish, the Ottomans were destined to bring about in a single generation, the ruination of Hellenism in Asia Minor.

It was in 1299 that the petty Turkish feudal prince, Osman, broke through the fortified region of the Sangarios, and after sixteen years of desperate fighting succeeded in forcing his way through to Nicæa, the chief defensive point of the Greeks, in order to lay the foundations of that great Ottoman Empire that was to be the mighty successor to the Byzantine Empire. He still met with almost invincible resistance; Nicæa with its mighty walls could not be forced, and it was only in 1326, the year of his death, that Prusa, after a ten-year siege, fell, and under the name of Brussa became the first Ottoman capital. In 1330, and after a siege of fifteen years, came the fall of Nicæa, and later that of Nicomedia. The hardest part of the task had thus been done, the first great breach had been made in the stronghold of the Greek Empire, and the conquerors now turned to the south. Pergamon fell in 1335, Sardis in 1369, and Philadelphia (Alashehr), the last of the Greek cities of the interior, which, according to the expression of a Greek chronicler, stands like a star in a clouded sky, was captured in 1391. Smyrna, the old Greek acropolis, had already fallen a prey early in the 14th century to the Seljuks, who had found in Aïdin, the ancient Tralles, a last support for their sinking power. Apart from Trebizond in the extreme northeast, which up to 1461 maintained itself as the capital of the little coast state which was also called Trebizond, all Asia Minor was now in the hands of the Turks. The Greeks, as a political factor, had ceased to play any part. The question as to whether they had ceased to be of any importance as a civilizing and cultural factor we must now attempt to investigate.

Byzantine sources show clearly enough that Asia Minor, even in the 11th century, was suffering from decrease in its population. This was caused partly by the endless levies of troops, necessitated by the struggles against the Bulgarians in the Balkans, and partly by agrarian conditions in Asia Minor, of which I have yet to speak. The consequences of this systematic depopulation first became evident when the country collapsed under the inroads of Seljuks, Mongols and Ottomans; for the defensive military strength that was for a while maintained could not disguise the fact that the national strength of the Greeks was already broken when the inroads of these peoples began. Furthermore, there was no longer any means at hand to renew this strength which had been for centuries so systematically drained. On the contrary, the depopulation went on from bad to worse, and it took place in different ways according to the varying character of the three conquering peoples.

The Seljuks, who were bent chiefly on gaining new pasturing grounds, seem to have drawn the Greek population closer to themselves and to have made them of some service, instead of attempting to drive them out by force. This is proven by the accounts of voluntary or forced submission to the conquerors, into which the inhabitants were driven by the unsound agrarian conditions in Asia Minor, which were characterized by an ever-growing tendency toward larger and larger estates, a tendency against which, even in the 10th century, the clear-sighted emperors had vainly enacted the strictest laws. The consequences appeared at the time of the inroads of the Seljuks; evidently with full knowledge of these conditions, they promised the oppressed peasants in the conquered regions complete freedom in return for the payment of a head tax, if they would yield to their control. Thus great masses of the Greek population went over to the Turks and were lost to Hellenism. Emperor John Comnenos, on one of his campaigns against the Seljuks of Iconium (1120), was forced first to fight bitterly with the Greeks of that region, who had either been already half Turkified, or were, at any rate, strongly Turcophile. We see, then, that at that time large intermixtures of the native Greeks (or of the Hellenized native population) with the Seljuks must have taken place, for only through such intermixture is the fact to be explained that the Anatolian population of today, both Christian and Mohammedan, instead of showing a distinct racial stamp, rather presents strongly modified features which cannot be described as either Aryan or Mongolian.17

The Ottomans were less bent on peaceful assimilation than on forcible subjection and extermination. In their character as masters they sought to make the conquered as harmless as possible, and they used to this end a means that they had learned from the Byzantine emperors; they transplanted, from the conquered cities that had a large Greek population, large numbers of these Greeks to other cities where the Greeks were less numerous, so that everywhere the Greeks were forced into a minority. Furthermore, the Greeks were no longer permitted to live in the large cities that were at that time still strongly walled, but were compelled to settle outside in the suburbs. From these suburbs there gradually developed later, as the Greek population increased, entirely new towns, which crowded the old city-center from its predominating position and established itself in its place. This system, as we shall see, resulted in strengthening rather than weakening the Greek element. And yet, in this Turkish conquest, a great part of the Greeks in the towns were constantly being forced to leave Asia Minor and to take refuge in the European part of the Empire, for the Byzantine historians of that time (the 14th century) tell of mass emigrations to Europe, of homeless refugees crowded in and around Constantinople, and of growing insecurity in the neighborhood of the capital. This exodus from the towns betokens a second essential difference as compared with what had happened in the Balkan Peninsula. While, in the Balkans, the cities appear as the supporting centers, the bulwarks, of the Greeks against the Slav inundation, forming a base of operations for winning back the open country that had become Slav, in Asia Minor not only the country regions but the towns as well fell into the hands of the conquerors, evidently because the Turks were better trained soldiers and more familiar with the art of besieging towns than were the Slavs, who were accustomed only to campaigns in the open. The degree to which the Greek communities of Asia Minor suffered under the Turkish conquest is shown by the old Church Acts which are still preserved in the Patriarchate in Constantinople.18 While Asia Minor before the Turkish invasion counted no less than fifty seats of Metropolitans (the highest church dignitaries) it has today only twenty.19 Of these, twelve alone are distributed in the western provinces, while the other provinces have only eight. Even of these the greater part are maintained only for the sake of the names. These numbers show better than anything else how seriously the Greek town-population in the interior of Asia Minor melted away as a result of the Turkish conquest, for every withdrawal of the seat of a Metropolitan, and every uniting of several such seats in one, presupposes a decided decrease in the population of a district.

The greatest direct losses of the Greeks were caused by the two great Mongolian invasions of the years 1241 and 1402, especially the latter under the much-feared Timur. These hordes found their only joy in burning, murdering and pillaging, and poured forth like a plague of locusts “in separate bands over Galatia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, the coast region of Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia in such a way that it seemed as if the whole Tartar army was billeted in every separate province, so numerous were they.” So says one of the last Byzantine historians (Dukas), who pictures also, in vivid colors, the consequences of this predatory incursion in the words, “Timur left neither living men, nor weeping children, nor barking dogs, nor crowing cocks, but everywhere nothing but the stillness of death.” Thus every one of these three Turkish inundations had in its own way contributed to decimate the Greek population of Asia Minor.

Only in two greater districts have compact groups of Greeks of considerable extent preserved their nationality, their speech and, in part, their religion, that is, in Middle Cappadocia, in the interior of eastern Asia Minor, and in Pontus, in the extreme northern coast region; in the former as a relic of the old church settlements and in the latter as the last remains of that latest Greek effort at establishing a state in Asia Minor, the Empire of Trapezus. The Greek population of these two districts can therefore serve to bring clearly before us the Asia Minor Greeks of the Middle Ages, in their physical as well as their linguistic character.

Before proceeding further I must state that these peoples, like those of the Balkan Peninsula, must already have acquired their present physical stamp in the early Middle Ages, at any rate, before the Seljuk-Turkish conquest, for the modified, ethnically but slightly distinguished type of the western Anatolian peasant population is not characteristic of these Greeks. Rather do the Cappadocian Greeks show unmistakable Armenian influence, especially in the broad and extraordinarily high skull, and the large fleshy nose, as well as in their compact and sturdy build, while those of the mountainous coast region of Pontus have retained the more finely cut features of the Greeks and their more graceful form. Some claim to find a third type in the Greeks of south-eastern Asia Minor, a type which shows strikingly Semitic features, and which is probably to be traced back to the numerous Syrian immigrations into Asia Minor during the supremacy of the Isaurian Dynasty of Byzantium, 717–867. In the same way the Armenian type of the inland Greeks is to be traced back to the extensive intermingling of Byzantine Greeks and Armenians during the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Byzantine Empire received a strong quickening of Armenian blood. A dynasty of Armenian origin at that time gave the Byzantine imperial throne a new hold and lent renewed strength to the new kingdom and a great Byzantine province of Asia Minor was called “the Armenian Province.” In any case, we must be on our guard against deriving our present ethnographical picture of Asia Minor directly from the old racial divisions into Hittites, Phrygians and Lydians. The fact that Asia Minor served as a bridge between Asia and Europe prevented such a preservation of the old ethnical relations, as had been the case in the Balkan Peninsula, that great reservoir of people in migration; here as there, in judging of ethnological characteristics, we should, far more than has up to now been the case, start out from Byzantine times, which completely transformed the ancient ethnological nature of both peninsulas.20 That we have to do, however, in the case of the Cappadocian and Pontic Greeks with autochthonous remains of pre-Turkish times, and not with later immigrants, is shown not only by their racial type but by their dialect. This belongs to the very oldest forms of the Modern Greek language, if one leaves out of account the still more ancient Tzakonian, and enables us to conclude that it broke away from other Greek at a very early period, and followed a separate development of its own. This is particularly true of the Pontic dialect of Samsun (Amisos), Œnoe (Unieh) and Ophis; there is in the phonetics of the dialect, as well as in the vocabulary, so much that is peculiar that it is almost unintelligible to those conversant with the ordinary Modern Greek. But this holds true also of the dialect of some twenty Cappadocian towns—for with only twenty are we here concerned—a dialect which is still quite on the level of the Greek of the early Middle Ages, evidently going back to the time of the settlements in the country of the old monks, which can be proved, in the region of Cæsarea, to go back in many cases as far as the 4th century B.C. These dialects,21 however, are, as compared with those larger and continuous regions where common Greek is spoken, only small and distinct islands of the Greek speech, which are constantly wearing away and giving up ground, more and more, although the proportion of Greeks in these regions is much higher than elsewhere. The ratio is highest in Pontus, where there are nearly 250,000 Greeks (25 to 30 per cent of the population), and where they form a large percentage even of the city population, especially in Trebizond and Samsun. On the contrary, in Cappadocia they are to be found settled only in a large number of villages, comprising altogether something like 40,000 souls.22 The number of these Greeks in Pontus as well as in Cappadocia is, furthermore, all the harder to fix accurately, because there are among them many communities of Christians who conceal the fact that they are Christians, and, for political reasons, pass as adherents of Islam (even making use of the Turkish language), but who are really devoted to Christianity and have kept up their Greek national feeling. In Pontus they are especially to be found in the districts of Tonia and Ophis, where in the seventies of the last century they were estimated at about 14,000, while in other districts, as in Krom and Torul, a strong process of Christianizing them anew has taken place.23

Apart from these two isolated areas of Greeks, the Turks have inundated the whole peninsula, subjecting it to the Turkish nationality and to the Turkish language, while Hellenism, though not entirely destroyed, has been so seriously broken up and shattered that it has been obliged to give up even its language and its religion, that is to say, has completely lost its national consciousness. The numerous Greek names of rivers, villages and mountains have, with very few exceptions, all disappeared, being replaced by Turkish names.24 As far as administration and ways of living were concerned, the Turkish conquest produced very few radical changes. The very towns which under Greek control had formed commercial and administrative centers, continued to be such under the Turks, keeping, for the most part, their old Greek names as a proof of the strength of 1500-year-old traditions. Towns like Smyrna, Prusa, Pergamon, Magnesia, Attalia, Adana, Tarsus, Iconium, Ancyra, Cæsarea, Amasia, Castamuni, Trapezus, Sinope, Amisos and others experienced a new quickening under their old names, which the Turks altered only slightly. Not only did they continue to be the capitals of their various districts for purposes of administration, but their names were extended so as to apply to the entire districts of which they were centers. Practically all the vilayets and sanjaks of Asia Minor received their names from these old centers of city-civilization and comparatively few have Turkish names, the ancient Tralles, Philadelphia and Dorylæum, for example, bearing the Turkish names Aïdin, Alashehr and Eskishehr respectively. On this weighty point, therefore, the Turks, as an unhistoric people, have been as little able to interrupt the continuity of civilization as in the Balkan Peninsula, where the larger towns likewise have kept their Greek names.

Just as the Turks in Asia Minor have taken over the way of living of their predecessors in power, so too have they accepted almost unchanged their social relations. Two points alone deserve special mention here, the possession of large landed estates and the feudal system. The Turkish landowners, the Beys, are nothing but the direct successors of the Byzantine archontes, and the Turkish peasants have been forced to render compulsory service to the Beys just as the Christian peasants did to the archontes. That strongly developed feudal system, too, which has existed from Byzantine times, especially ever since the 11th century, with its distinction between the little and large fiefs for foot soldiers and cavaliers, respectively, was taken over by the Turks, and was by them even more highly developed.

In this accommodation to the conditions and institutions of the subject peoples did the strength, as well as the weakness, of the new masters consist: in so far as they found before them fast-bound customs, which they simply took over, they were obliged to accept, along with their advantages, their drawbacks as well. The only real advantage that they received came from their acceptance of feudalism, while the retention of cultural and social conditions in town and country was bound gradually to weaken their power, because these conditions either outlived them or, at any rate, were not suited to them. The first statement applies to agrarian relations, and the latter to commercial relations in the towns. This free shepherd and peasant race (for this they had previously been) lost its free character through taking over the Byzantine provincial nobility without, however, in doing this, developing a genuinely urban civilization, which is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for trade-activity. Thus the Turkish peasantry went backward without a Turkish bourgeoisie arising. At any rate, only a limited town-folk arose which made its living by handicraft but did not know how to conquer economically the regions that it had subdued politically. There existed here, therefore, a twofold, dangerous breach in the social organism of Mohammedanism, and into this breach sprang the ever-alive and ever-enterprising Greek, first the Greek trader, and then the Greek farmer. Both had in the west coast of Asia Minor and in the islands, regions where Greeks have always lived, a field for their activity that, though at first modest, has slowly but steadily broadened out.

In the first place, Greek trade in Asia Minor was destined to have an awakening. The impulse to this came from the trade policy inaugurated in the Levant by Colbert, the gifted Minister of Louis XIV. A special trade-society was founded for this purpose (1664), the consular system was reformed, French merchants were united in permanent corporations and a state system of control was arranged between the most important harbors of the Levant and Marseilles. An interesting account has been preserved, dating back to the year 1733, which tells of measures taken to increase the trade of Smyrna as over against its rival Constantinople, and one from the year 1778, containing a regulation decided upon by the Marseilles Chamber of Commerce for the French merchants of Smyrna.25

The number of firms there that represented French houses had, in the period from 1752 to 1783, already increased to twenty-nine as against eleven in Constantinople and eight in Salonika. This French trade-policy was systematically based on a strengthening of Smyrna, with the evident purpose of driving the rival trade of Italy out of the field. In this it must have succeeded, for in the forty years from 1750 to 1789 the value of French goods imported from Smyrna to Marseilles rose from 5,629,000 pounds to 12,805,000 pounds and, at the same time, the export from Marseilles to Smyrna rose from 4,250,000 pounds to 9,500,000 pounds. This increase in the trade of Marseilles naturally postulated a similar increase in the trade of Smyrna; this attained even in 1787 no less a figure than 52,750,000 Turkish pounds, in which figures is included the rapidly increasing trade with Russia which resulted from the latter’s position as Turkey’s protector since 1774. Smyrna thus became a new and important reloading place in the trade of the Levant, and although, at the beginning of the 18th century, it had numbered hardly 30,000 inhabitants, it had, in the year 1803, 100,000, of whom about a third were Greeks. The new blood was mostly to the advantage of the Greeks. In fact, one may say that the new enlargement of Smyrna, which had formerly been the center of Hellenism in Asia Minor and became so in an increasing degree from now on, opened a new period of prosperity to the Greeks of Asia Minor; from all parts of the Greek Orient a stream of enterprising Greeks gathered together here, so that the old capital of Ionia soon became once more an almost purely Greek city; in 1850, of about 125,000 inhabitants, 60,000 were Greeks, in 1880 of about 160,000, 75,000 or 80,000 were Greeks, and in 1910, over 100,000 inhabitants of the city’s 225,000 were Greeks. On the contrary, the number of Turks has, in the last 100 years, dropped from 75,000 to 60,000, or, according to some authorities, to 50,000, while the number of Greeks has almost quadrupled.26 The trade of Smyrna has correspondingly increased, especially since the opening up of the interior through the railroads that go out from Smyrna into the valleys of the Hermos and Mæander. Though the trade in 1839 amounted only to 53 million francs, it had increased in 1855 to 120 million, and by 1881 had even reached the figure of 220 million francs. It had already surpassed the commerce of Constantinople, and the Turks therefore call Smyrna too, mingling envy and scorn, “the infidel Smyrna” (Giaour Ismir). For Hellenism in Asia Minor, however, it became a new and firm support for its interests and a source of prosperity. Even in the year 1818 the Greek merchants of Smyrna were able to build at their own expense a beautiful casino, intended alike to serve business and social ends. This proved, however, to be a tender blossom that had come out prematurely and was soon destroyed by the storms of the Greek War for Independence (1821–1829), though it did bloom forth all the more strongly after the war’s fortunate ending.

For Hellenism began to spread over the west coast in a large number of little places, which were in part old Hellenic sites, and in part places settled during the Middle Ages, or in later Turkish times. Among the very old sites is Phocæa, which through a strange play of circumstances has formed the beginning and the ending of a development that has embraced the world. Famous as the metropolis of Marseilles (Massilia), it was, after a long period of decay, revived in modern times by the reflux movement from her daughter of old, a movement that affected Smyrna first, and then its neighbor Phocæa as well, for this too, in spite of its changing political fortunes, had always been a bulwark of Christianity and was again destined to experience a new, though modest, rejuvenescence. Although, during the first half of the 19th century, the Greeks there were still in the minority, as compared with the Turks, constituting two-fifths of the population (2,000 out of 5,000), the relation has in the intervening decades so changed that now out of 8,000 inhabitants, 6,000 are Greeks, so that these now form three-quarters of the inhabitants. This increase is due to the vigorous local shipping trade which centers here and which numbers annually something like 3,000 ships. The most remarkable thing is, however, that this rejuvenated Old Phocæa has already become once more the mother-city of a young Phocæa (New Phocæa), which is about ten kilometers northwest of the old and although only a few decades old already has about 5,000 inhabitants of whom about 4,000 are Greeks. New and Old Phocæa then, taken together, already number about 10,000 Greek inhabitants as compared with 3,000 Turks. Working the salt pits and exportation of raisins constitute the chief sources of livelihood of the two cities.

The two other important harbors north of Smyrna are, like Phocæa, of recent origin and are therefore purely Greek; I mean Dikeli and Aïvali. Dikeli may really be described as founded by the German archæologist Karl Humann, who in 1869 had the road that led to this place from Pergamon rebuilt, in order the better to transport the Pergamene sculptures excavated by him. Enterprising Greek merchants have taken advantage of this road in the exportation of the products of the country, and have built up here a trading place which in 1880 had 3,000 exclusively Greek inhabitants but which now contains 5,000 such.27 Owing to this fact the older harbor of Chandirli, situated more to the north, has steadily diminished in importance. The chief exporting harbor of northwest Asia Minor is, however, Aïvali, newly built in the third decade of the 19th century on the site of an older Greek settlement named Cydonia, a name which, like Aïvali, means “quince.” It is an almost unique example, on Asia Minor soil, of a large, purely Greek and practically self-governing community, with 25,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, a yearly export business of ten to twelve million francs and a shipping of over 3,000 vessels. It has thoroughly modern business institutions as well as a Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture and an Agricultural Bank. It is the seat of three consular agents, those of England, France and Italy. Through Aïvali’s growth the ancient Adramit (Adramyttium), which was formerly on the coast but is now further inland away from the bay, has been put into the background and now contains about 6,000 inhabitants. As compared with these three ports, the three that are situated on the west coast, south of Smyrna, are by no means so important, perhaps just because they are older settlements, in which Hellenism has had to force its way against the Turks, who were here numerically superior. This is particularly true of Chesme, which lies on the projecting west point of the peninsula of Clazomenæ.28 It is a town of about 6,000 inhabitants, which prospers through its raisin trade. The Turks, to be sure, form the majority of the population (about two-thirds), but the shipping (2,500 ships annually) is entirely in Greek hands. The chief place of export for the products of the Mæander valley is Scalanova, settled in the Middle Ages and named by the Turks Kush-Adassi, by the Greeks New Ephesus. The Greeks, 3,000 to 4,000 in number, are constantly forcing the Turks, who are settled in the old walled town and are about equal to them in number, further into the background, and in commerce they completely control the field. Lastly, Budrum, a Turkish settlement on the site of the ancient Halicarnassus and still inhabited by about 3,000 Turks, has become Hellenized in proportion as the growing importance of the place as a center of export for southwest Asia Minor—the ancient Caria—has been appreciated by the Greeks. Their number, which twenty years ago was a little over 2,200, may since then have come to equal that of the Turks, or may even have surpassed it.

The other little seaport towns on the southwest coast, as Marmaras, Macri, Levisi, Kalamaki and Phœnix, since they are not connected by railroad lines with the interior, are as yet without any commercial significance and are of importance only in connection with local coast-shipping. None of them has more than 3,000 inhabitants, but these are overwhelmingly Greek.

With these constantly increasing Greek settlements on the west coast, settlements which have their economical support in the great islands just off the coast, Mitylene, Chios, Samos and Rhodes, the settlements on the extended, exposed and less indented north and south coasts of Asia Minor can bear no comparison either in number or in importance, and this is true particularly of the south coast. The chief places here are the ancient Adalia (Attalia) founded in Hellenistic times, with about 30,000 inhabitants, and the entirely modern Mersina, founded in 1832, with about 22,000 inhabitants. In Adalia, which was an important station for the fleet in Byzantine times, and is now the chief emporium for the whole interior of the southwest, there live about 10,000 Greeks, i.e., about a third of the total population, while in Mersina they form the majority. This city, too, owing to the fact that it is connected with the Bagdad railroad by the Mersina-Adana line, has obtained the commercial supremacy on the south coast; it had in 1911 an import and export business of some twelve to thirteen million francs, while Adana had a business of only two and a quarter million. Here too, therefore, the more flourishing condition of the cities is in direct ratio with the increasing number of Greeks. On the north coast, which is twice as long as the southern, no new Greek settlements have developed, but those that have existed since antiquity have maintained their importance, thanks to the fact that they have preserved their Greek element, which from these bases has controlled the trade of the Black Sea. Trebizond, Kerasunda (Kiresun), Œnoe (Unieh), Amisos (Samsun), Sinope (Sinop), Ionopolis (Ineboli), Heraclea (Eregli) are still strong supporting and gathering points of the Greeks, who constitute in Trebizond half of the population (about 25,000 Greeks out of 50,000 inhabitants), while Samsun, the greatest trade center of the north coast, with an export business of about forty million francs, has even a larger proportion of Greeks.

Economically developed in quite another way, because more blessed by nature and more highly favored by its nearness to Constantinople, and on these accounts from of old, more densely populated, is the northwest coast of Asia Minor, the littoral of the Sea of Marmora. Here are situated on relatively shorter stretches of coast, no less than seven important old seaports which also belong completely to the Greek sphere of influence. There lie first, at and on the peninsula of Cyzicus, the old cities of Panormos (Panderma) and Artake (Artaki). The former is the more important as being the chief place of export for the sheep of Asia Minor, the value of which, even in 1893, amounted to fifteen million francs. Since then, the town, which has about 12,000 inhabitants, of whom 2,000 are Greeks, has become the terminus of the road that branches off from Manissa, and will take a sudden jump as soon as it has direct steamer connection with Constantinople. Artaki, an almost purely Greek town of about 7,500 inhabitants, subsists, in great part, from its manufacture of wine, liqueurs and cognac. In particular, the white wines produced here are highly esteemed in Constantinople. In the southeast corner of the Sea of Marmora are situated Mudania and Gemlik, the former, the old Apamea, the point of departure of the railroad to Broussa, having about 4,000 Greek and 2,000 Turkish inhabitants; the latter, the ancient Kios, which the Greeks have once more renamed by its old name, being an almost purely Greek town of 5,000 to 6,000 inhabitants, which, like Aïvali, enjoys an almost complete independence. The chief exports are chromium-ore and tobacco (Kios-cigarettes!). Finally, in the deep bay of Ismid, besides Ismid itself, are at one and the other side of the city Karamursal (the ancient Prænetus) and Gebize (the Byzantine Dakibyza). Both are the capitals of districts in which the Greek population already surpasses the Turkish (1893: 15,000 Greeks and 11,000 Turks), although in the towns themselves the Turks are still in the majority (Gebize has about 4,000 Turks and 2,000 Greeks). Alongside of these places, however, especially along the line of the Haidar-Pasha-Ismid Railway are to be found many Greek places whose Greek population increases, in a very striking way, the nearer one gets to Constantinople. So, for example, Daridsha, the Byzantine Aretzu, which is now once more inhabited exclusively by Greeks, and Cadikioi, the ancient Chalcedon, which now numbers 30,000 to 35,000 inhabitants, who consist in almost equal numbers of Armenians, Greeks and Turks, while at the beginning of the 19th century it was inhabited almost entirely by Turks.

Coming now to the last of these places, Ismid (the ancient Nicomedia), we find that this has lost its old significance as a place of transfer, toward Constantinople, of the products from the rich Bithynian plain, since the Anatolian Railroad has drawn this business in great part to itself, and its exports, which in 1893 amounted to thirty-two million francs, have since then decreased proportionately with the decrease in the number of its inhabitants, which furthermore is fluctuating greatly, being now reported as 40,000, again as 25,000, and again as only 20,000. The number of the Greeks up to twenty years ago, when they numbered 6,000, was constantly increasing, for in the first half of the 19th century they were estimated at not more than 1,000.

The whole Greek population of these sixteen towns is about 240,000, of which number about half are found in Smyrna, so that the other fifteen comprise a number about equal with that in Smyrna. But the number of Greek inhabitants of the coast has not yet been fully enumerated. For if we add the number of those who are settled in the districts of the various provinces that border on the coast, we arrive at almost twice this number, i.e., 450,000. There must then be living in these coast regions, scattered outside the cities in the country, more than 200,000 Greeks. These make their living by fishing, and grape and fruit raising, and extend in almost unbroken stretches between the towns along the whole coast, so that the whole Greek population of the coast consists in about equal proportions of city and country dwellers, a ratio that we shall also find obtaining in the interior as well.

This fringe or wreath of Greek colonies which extends toward the south as well as toward the north forms not only a strong economical force, but also a no less strong spiritual force. This is usually underestimated, as is too, in general, that idealistic element which is coexistent in the Greeks with that confessedly very prominent materialistic element, and this even in the times of its deepest national humiliation it has never lost. This idealistic element is rooted in a very strong national feeling, which has been nourished by the recollection of a great intellectual past and which finds its finest and most effectual expression in the fostering of Greek schools. This desire for schooling is implanted in the Greek nature from the times of late antiquity, and though it often savors rather strongly of scholasticism, it has prevented the Greeks from losing their national consciousness, as have the Jews and, to a certain degree, Armenians. Even the church is held so sacred by the Greeks only because she has been the bearer of national ideals in the times of slavery and has, at the same time, been a powerful political organ of administration, forming the only means in Turkey of putting through the national demands for schools. The relation of church and school is therefore, in the Greek Orient, quite different from that in Catholic or even Protestant Christian lands. The church regards itself not as the mistress of the school but rather as her servant and patron. This fact must be clearly understood in order rightly to estimate the relations now to be considered. If, for example, a Greek community wishes to establish a school on Turkish soil, the council of the community informs the bishop of the diocese of this desire and the latter communicates it to the superior bishop, who then acquaints the Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople with the matter. The latter is the religious head of the Greeks in Turkey and must therefore represent their educational interests. It is his task then to obtain the Sultan’s permission to establish the desired school, and in obtaining this, money plays a not unimportant rôle. The richer the community is, therefore, the more easily does it obtain the permission, and since the Greek communities of the coast of Asia Minor have always been, for the most part, very rich, they were able to proceed to establish their own schools at an early date. The oldest are those in Smyrna, Aïvali and Chesme, and those that first came into existence were not common schools but higher institutions of learning, corresponding to the development of the times and the aristocratic character of the Greek merchants. The oldest and most famous of these schools, and the only one which still exists, is the so-called Evangelical School in Smyrna. It goes back to 1708, but the year 1733 is really to be regarded as the year of its foundation. Existing under English protection since 1747, and being therefore absolutely autonomous, it was, in 1810, recognized by the Sultan as a fully authorized gymnasium, and after being twice reorganized—in 1810 and 1828—the Greek Government, too, gave it full recognition. Although supported entirely by the funds of the community and benefactors’ gifts, and demanding for its upkeep more than 100,000 francs, it still maintains in Smyrna two great affiliated schools. Its significance for the intellectual life of Smyrna rests in its ancient museum and in its rich library (30,000 volumes and 200 manuscripts), the only one on Asia Minor soil.29

In Smyrna too is still published the first Greek newspaper to appear on Turkish soil, Amalthea, which has existed now for almost seventy-five years. Alongside of this old school for advanced studies there were in Smyrna in 1894 other Greek schools, and in particular seventeen grammar schools, two trade schools (the oldest having existed since 1857), four private girls’ schools and one large girls’ college with three associated schools and more than 2,000 pupils in all. The largest Greek school community in Asia Minor, next to that of Smyrna, is that of Aïvali, the second largest Greek colony of the west coast. It supports more than twenty grammar schools, two intermediate schools, a gymnasium and a girls’ boarding school, which in 1892 were attended by more than 1,100 pupils. Then comes Chesme, known for its old advanced-school, which at that time possessed only eleven schools but showed the largest number of pupils (675). Nearly equal to this were Phocæa with nine schools and 560 pupils, Adramit with nineteen schools and about 600 pupils, Artaki with twenty-two schools and 700 pupils, Panderma with fifteen schools and 536 pupils, Gemlik (Kios) with nine schools and 530 pupils, Mudania with eight schools and 330 pupils, Gebize with thirteen schools and 1,000 pupils. Although the wide dissemination, as well as the prosperity and the intellectual development of the Greeks on the north part of the west coast is reflected in the large number of Greek schools, that of the southern part is in this particular far more backward. Apart from Scalanova with five Greek schools and 440 pupils, Adalia on the south coast is alone worthy of mention with its ten schools and 600 pupils. Taken all together these sixteen cities have more than two hundred schools with more than 17,000 pupils,30 a number, the significance of which can only rightly be appreciated when compared with the corresponding Turkish figures, which show, to be sure, that the number of schools is a hundred larger but that the number of pupils is 6,000 less than that of the Greeks. There are therefore nearly three times as many pupils per school in the Greek schools as in the Turkish. The Greek settlements on the north and south coasts are to be distinguished from those on the west coast not only through their smaller number, but also through the fact that only scanty and weak settlements in the inland correspond to them. In the west, on the contrary, as we have already seen, Greek colonization has, since late antiquity, extended up into the interior, and the consequences of this have been felt even up to the present time, or, at any rate, have been made anew noticeable, owing to the fact that the Greeks of the west coast have for several decades been pressing farther and more vigorously into the interior, and have settled there more definitely. This region that has at present been occupied by them only in its chief centers is, in general, bounded by a line which may be drawn from Ismid in the north, past Eskishehr, Afiun-Karahissar, and Isbarta to Adalia. All that lies between this line and the west coast may be regarded as within the Greek sphere. The second phase of these Hellenizing efforts of today begins with this forward push into the interior of this region. Just how far and in what way has this succeeded?

If we start on the basis of the actual facts of the case, we find that in thirty towns of the western interior of Asia Minor of more than 5,000 inhabitants, the Greeks have a share in the population of from 1,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. Arranged according to the ratio of this share in the population, these cities fall into different groups, as follows:

First, a Greek majority is found in only two cities, Michalitsh (about 7,000 Greeks out of a total of 8,000) and Koplu (about 5,000 out of 8,000). Second, in nine cities the Greeks form between one-half and one-third of the population: Baindir (4,500 out of 10,000), Tireh (6,000 out of 14,000), Edemish (3,000 out of 7,000), Menemen (about 3,000 out of 10,000), Bergama (5,500 out of 14,500), Isbarta (7,000 out of 20,000), Sokia (4,000 out of 12,000), Soma (2,000 out of 6,000), Manissa (11,000 out of 35,000). Third, in four cities the Greeks form about a fourth: Inegeul (about 2,000 out of 8,000), Kassaba (6,000 out of 23,000), Kermasti (1,200 out of 4,800), Aïdin (8,500 out of 35,000). Fourth, in five cities they form from a fifth to a sixth part: Kutaiah (4,000 out of 22,000), Dimetoka (1,300 out of 7,000), Alashehr (4,500 out of 22,000), Milas (2,000 out of 12,000), Bigha (1,600 out of 10,000). Fifth, in five cities the Greeks form from a seventh to a ninth of the total population: Kirkagatch (2,000 out of 18,000), Ushak (1,500 out of 12,500), Balukiser (1,300 out of 10,000), Sabandsha (1,000 out of 7,500), Kyrkagatch (about 200 out of 18,000). Sixth, less than a tenth in seven cities: Denizli (1,600 out of 17,000), Soyut (1,500 out of 18,000), Nazilli (1,700 out of 21,000), Brussa (6,000 out of 80,000), Adabazar (1,600 out of 24,000), Eskishehr (1,150 out of 19,000), Nugla (1,100 out of 15,000).

From this combination of facts several interesting conclusions may be drawn as to the distribution of the Greek population in the interior itself, and as to the relation between the Hellenization of the interior as compared with that of the coast regions.

If we group the cities named above according to their distribution in the various provinces and districts, we find that only fifteen of these fall within the province of Aïdin, the largest province of the west coast of Asia Minor, and the one that is held to most stubbornly by the Turks. Of these fifteen, again, only thirteen come in the district of Smyrna, Sarukan and Aïdin, which form the most populous part of this province. These are Menemen, Manissa, Kassaba, Alashehr; Kirkagatch, Soma, Bergama; Baindir, Tireh and Odemish; Sokia; Aïdin and Nazilli. Now these thirteen towns, with the exception of Bergama, all lie, as the above grouping indicates, on the four railroad lines which go out in four directions from Smyrna, that is in those regions of the province which belong economically to Smyrna. At any rate, the significance for the Greek settlements of the economic factor is clearly evidenced in these towns, for they are, almost without exception, “capitals,” so to speak, of smaller districts, and are therefore important distributing and collecting centers for the local trade to and from Smyrna. With the increase of this trade the number of the Greeks in this group of interior cities is bound to increase quickly or has already done so.

Most of the other towns named above are in the province of Hodavendikiar, which lies due north of that of Aïdin; and once more is it true that they are in the most densely inhabited parts of the province, Brussa, Ertogrul and Kutaiah. Of the nine cities that belong here, five, again, are found on the line of the Anatolian Railroad, namely, Biledjik, Soyut, Eskishehr, Kutaiah and Ushak; one, Brussa, on a branch road and three on no railroad at all, though within reach of the Michalitch-Kirmasti-Inegeul Railroad. Here, too, therefore, the cities which are more or less decidedly Greek in their population lie along the main railroad lines, though they are not quite so strongly Greek as those in the province of Aïdin; for we are here in the very heart of Turkey, and its greatest city Brussa, which more than all the other cities of this region has preserved its Turkish character more purely. It is always to be borne in mind that the Anatolian Railroad goes out from Constantinople and that this, with its strong Greek population, is as important a gate of entrance to the northwest of Asia Minor as Smyrna is for the west.

Although up to this time it is impossible to speak of a Hellenizing of the great interior cities of western Asia Minor, since these are (thus being quite different from the coast cities) very far from succumbing, either numerically or culturally, to the Greek invasion—the number of Greeks is the largest in Manissa—yet, if one looks into the matter narrowly, he gains the impression that in the interior the Hellenizing influence comes from the smaller towns. This supposition, to be sure, is opposed to the view, still broadly accepted, that the Greek element is purely a city element, and that the country-folk consist only of Turks. This view, which, as we have seen, does not hold even in the coast regions, is, however, absolutely false and is only to be explained as arising from the impressions of superficial travelers who have rarely penetrated into the remoter regions with a predominantly rural population. Anyone who has, for example, visited the larger Greek islands of the Asiatic coast, like Mitylene, Chios, Samos and Rhodes, knows that these dense populations live in great measure from grape and fruit-raising or from silk culture, and only in a very small degree from trade. Farming plays no very large part, simply because of the lack of arable land. Since now, as we have said, these very islands for something like fifty years have become very densely populated or even in part overpopulated (as, for instance, Samos), there have been periodical emigrations of the island peasants, in considerable numbers, over to the mainland, where they have, in particular, settled in the fruitful valleys of the Mæander and the Hermos in the western parts of Asia Minor and in that of the Sangarios, farther north. In part, it is the descendants of the former Greek landowners who have been reduced to socagers or serfs, who, on getting possession of some little capital, have now, in their turn, driven back the Turks by buying them out or by working the soil more scientifically, a process in which they were helped by the immigrant islanders. If a sufficient number of them is thus found settled together, they try to obtain the Sultan’s firman permitting them to settle in a town. Thus the English traveler Hamilton states that the Greeks in a little town of Lydia (Singerli), in which they had settled ten years before, had, in his time (1837), increased to 40–50 families and were busied with building a new market. In this way numerous new and dense settlements came into existence in the midst of the more scattered Turkish populations, and the higher fecundity of the Greek settlers, combined with their industry, their intellectual keenness, their frugality and their community-feeling, helped always by the retrogression of the Turkish population itself, have contributed to extend the Hellenizing process more and more to the country districts.31

In particular have they taken possession of the regions adapted to silk culture, like that of the lower Sangarios Valley, and also of such regions as are adapted to raising grapes. More recently, Greek industrial enterprises, too, especially silk-spinning mills, cognac factories and steam oil mills, have sprung into existence, meeting with no rivalry on the part of the Turks. With this Greek peasant of Asia Minor, who is on a higher moral plane, and who is therefore more congenial to us Germans than the Greek trader or innkeeper in the coast-towns, our German spirit of enterprise which is seeking to get the economic control over Asia Minor, will have to come to terms, and it would be just as perverse as it would be foolish to depend on the Turk to the exclusion of the Greek, who has the controlling hand in trade and traffic, as well as in the cultivation of the soil.32

Even to a traveler of a hundred years ago the great difference between the Greeks of the cities and the peasants was especially noteworthy. The former were subservient and cringing like the Armenians, while the latter were energetic and intelligent, irreconcilable in their hatreds and by no means lacking in courage. And it is to these praiseworthy qualities, and not to their much-bruited craftiness, that they owe their progress in the interior of Asia Minor.33

As to the numbers of the Greek inhabitants of the interior of Asia Minor, only an indirect estimate can be made. The whole number of all the Greeks in the interior of the two provinces of Brussa and Aïdin, exclusive of the inhabitants of the coast regions, even twenty years ago, amounted to 200,000, i.e., less than half as many as in the coast regions. About 100,000 of these lived in places with a population of more than 5,000, so that about 100,000 were scattered among the villages and towns. The distribution of this interior population is very uneven. The densest Greek populations have gathered in the Prefecture of Aïdin and here chiefly in the sub-prefecture of Smyrna, with its five districts (Sarukan, with four districts, and Aïdin, with only one). These three sub-prefectures, therefore, in their ten districts, comprised, twenty years ago, a fifth part of the entire population. In the province of Brussa the number of districts with a considerable Greek population was only five, in the sub-prefecture of Ertogrul, three; in those of Brussa and Kutaiah, one each. There were the largest numbers in the district of Eskishehr, the ancient Dorylæum, where they comprised two-fifths of the population, and in Michalitch, where they formed one-third of the total. In fifteen of the twenty-five districts of the interior of the two prefectures fifteen, therefore, already contained a considerable part of the population. To speak in greater detail, these districts may be classified as follows, with relation to the proportions of their Greek inhabitants: The Greek population is densest in the districts of Magnesia (Sanjak Sarukan), and Eskishehr (Sanjak Kutaiah), where they constitute a fifth of the population; less dense in the district of Sokia (Sanjak Aïdin), with about a third; next comes the district Michalitch (Sanjak Brussa), with from a fourth to a third; and then those of Bergama, Menemen, Baindir, Tireh and Odemish (Sanjak Smyrna), where they form about a fourth; next those of Alashehr (Sanjak Sarukan) and Yenishehr (Sanjak Ertogrul) with about a fifth; and finally those of Inegeul, Biledjik (Sanjak Ertogrul) and Soma (Sanjak Sarukan), with a sixth to a seventh of the entire population.

What made the estimating of the numbers of these Greeks in the interior so very difficult was the fact that up to a few years ago they spoke Turkish and therefore did not share in the national and racial consciousness of their kinsmen on the coast, and also the fact that they do not essentially differ in physical type from the Ottomans, who have become assimilated to the race type of the conquered people and have lost their special Turkish characteristics. This state of affairs began to change when the Greeks, with the help of their church, succeeded in introducing the Greek language in their schools alongside of the Turkish. Since then, that is, since the seventies of the last century, the national propaganda has made great progress among them, and the number of schools has greatly increased.

In the thirty cities of the interior of this region (prefectures of Aïdin and Brussa) they possessed in the last decade of the 19th century more than 400 schools with about 25,000 pupils, while the Mohammedans in their thousand schools had only 20,000 pupils. The number of pupils in each Greek school therefore averaged 60, while those in the Turkish schools averaged only 20, a disproportion which is to be explained by the fact that the Mohammedan schools are almost exclusively poorly attended mosque-schools, while the Greek schools are community-schools that are very well attended. The religious character of the Turkish educational system is just as prejudicial to the Turks as the nationalistic tendency of the Greek schools is beneficial to the Greeks. There are towns in which, in spite of the Greeks being in a minority, more Greek children attend the schools than Turkish children. So Sokia, with 180 Turkish and 218 Greek children in school; the same is true of Bigha (125:140), Alashehr (250:525), Nazilli (162:220), Menemen (220:325), Biledjik (1,100:1,113). In other towns, such, for example, as Bergama, Magnesia, Milas, Soyut, the number of the Greek pupils almost equals that of the Turkish, and in most of them the number is more than half as large as that of the Turkish pupils, even in that stronghold of Mohammedanism, Brussa, where there are something like 2,500 Greeks, as compared with 5,000 Turkish pupils, although the Greeks comprise here only ten per cent of the population. These are figures which more than anything else are indicative of the activity and capacity for education of the Greek part of the population. The intellectual superiority of the Greeks is set forth in an even stronger light when one compares the sum total of the Greek schools and of their pupils in both prefectures with that of the Turkish. For we find that even in 1894 there were 540 Greek schools, with about 30,000 pupils, as compared with 1,900 Turkish schools, with about 42,000 pupils. The slight numerical superiority of the Turkish scholars is, to say the least, entirely disproportionate to the large majority of Turks in the population.

According to recent statistics, which are, to be sure, taken from Greek sources34 and are, therefore, perhaps a little too optimistic in their tone, the number of Greek schools has since then risen to more than 700 and that of the pupils to more than 100,000 (69,274 boys and 48,468 girls), which leads one to conclude that the Greek population numbers a million, a number which, compared with the 650,000 of twenty-five years ago, does not seem to be too high an estimate, particularly if we take into account the great increase of the Greeks through a higher birthrate and through immigration. Thus, the sum total of the Greeks in both prefectures, which have together a population of about three millions, would be about a third of this number and would, at any rate, not fall far below this.

With this rapidly increasing Greek population of the west coast and interior, the prefectures of Brussa and Aïdin, and that in the mountains of Pontus (prefecture of Trebizond) and Central Cappadocia (prefecture of Angora), which number together a million and a third more, we have not exhausted the list of Greeks of Asia Minor. There are, as a matter of fact, large numbers scattered through the interior and along the south coast, chiefly in the prefecture of Sivas and Konia, where their number in 1890 approximated 75,000. Next comes the prefecture of Adana, with about 50,000, and, least strongly Greek, the prefectures Angora (about 30,000) and Kastamuni (about 25,000). It has, however, been observed that the number of Greeks in the middle and eastern provinces is always decreasing, which is doubtless due to the fact that they wander away into the livelier and more fruitful regions to the westward.35 These are in this way becoming more and more solid nuclei for the process of crystallization for Hellenism in Asia Minor, which is thus once more, as it did in late antiquity, shifting its center of gravity toward western Asia Minor, as though it felt that here is ever that original free-flowing source to which it now for the fourth time owes its strengthening and rejuvenation: the first being when in the last centuries before the Christian Era the native Lydians and Phrygians were assimilated; the second, when in early Byzantine times it turned back the Romanizing process which had been going on since the beginning of this era; the next, when in the 7th to the 10th centuries it averted the threatening Arabic peril, and finally when, though apparently defeated by the Turkish conqueror, it has after 500 years of relaxation again regained its vigor and strength in order to fulfill its old historical mission, which consists not in forcing its way on with the wild alarum of weapons, but through the peaceful weapons put in its power by nature, i.e., by material and spiritual civilizing agencies, that do their work quietly. This mission Mohammedanism must meet through appropriate measures in administration and education, if it desires to secure its political control even in the western part of Asia Minor, now and in the future.

III. HELLENIC PONTUS, A RESUME OF ITS HISTORY

By Demosthenes H. Oeconomides

[Among the most interesting of the irredenta regions of Asia Minor, from many points of view, is Pontus, on the southeast coast of the Black Sea. So strong is the anti-Turkish feeling in this intensely Hellenic land that a strong movement has recently arisen among her expatriated sons to establish an independent Republic of Pontus. Its mountainous inland districts have been so isolated from the rest of the Greek world and its coast regions have so strongly preserved their individuality that language, blood and national feeling have been maintained in quite a different way from elsewhere in the Greek world. It has seemed fitting that Pontus therefore should receive special consideration in this number of the American-Hellenic Society’s publications, and we are glad to present this scholarly treatise by Demosthenes E. Oeconomides, a philologian of no mean repute, who is a native of this region and has written amongst other things an authoritative treatise on the Pontic dialect entitled: Lautlehre des Pontischen, Leipzig, 1908.]

Pontus is bounded on the north by the southeast shore of the Euxine or Black Sea, on the east by the Phasis River and Iberia, on the south by the Argaeus and Antitaurus mountains, and on the west by the Halys River. The whole country has at several epochs been variously divided and has gone under different names, thus, for example, in the time of the Parthians, the region that extended from the Phasis to the Bosporus was called the Kingdom of Pontus; in the time of the Romans, preserving the same boundaries, it was called the Polemoniac Pontus. The best known cities of Pontus are Rizus, Trapezus, Kerasus, Kotyora, Oenoe, Amisos, Sinope, Inepolis and Heraclea, all of which are coast cities, while in the interior are Amasea, Paphra, Neocæsarea, Nicopolis, Argyropolis, etc. Ecclesiastically it is divided into six, or if Cæsarea be included, into seven Metropolitan districts: Trapezus, Rhodopolis, Chaldia, Neocæsarea, Amasea, Cæsarea and Colonia. Of the many monasteries in Pontus, the most important is that of Mela (now called Soumela) founded by the Athenian monks, Barnabas and Sophronios, in 376 A.D. in the time of Theodosius the Great.

Since Trapezus, even in ancient times, was the most important of the Pontic cities and in the Middle Ages was, in fact, the capital of the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comnenes, we must give a brief sketch of its history.

Trapezus, which was founded by a colony of Sinopians 756 B.C. on a site peculiarly adapted to the cultivation and development of commerce, is a most ancient and illustrious city. “The city Trapezus,” as Eugenicus says, “most ancient and best of all the cities in the East,” and “most venerable of all” according to the expression of Besarion (MS. Ven. p. 133). We learn from Xenophon’s “Anabasis” (Book V. 5, 10) that Trapezus paid tribute to its metropolis Sinope. Since, according to this historian, neither the Colchians nor Chaldians recognized the Persian sovereignty, we may infer from this that the Trapezuntians never submitted to the Persians. Xenophon also furnishes us historical and geographical information about Trapezus and the countries and peoples round about it, for he was hospitably entertained there for thirty days on the return of the 10,000. The fine coins of gold and silver struck both before and after the time of Alexander the Great testify that it was a free and prosperous city. It certainly maintained its independence and freedom under Alexander the Great, for it is well known that he drove out the Persian satraps and rulers wherever these existed in Pontus and left all the districts and cities autonomous, among which, under Persian rule, Amisos (Samsun) had been deprived of its democratic government. During the time of the Diadochi, (Alexander’s successors), there are recorded as ruling in Cappadocia, Paphlagonia and a part of Pontus as far as Trapezus, Eumenes (322–315 B.C.), Perdiccas, Mithridates and in particular Seleucus I, called Nicator (312–208 B.C.), until the Mithridates again gained control up to 63 B.C., when upon the final dissolution of their empire, Pontus, under the Romans, entered upon a new period of life.

From that time there was sent there by them annually a special governor until in 46 B.C. Polemon from Tralles in Phrygia was established as king of Pontus from Bosporus to Colchis. Many of the coast cities which had been the allies of the Romans during the wars waged by them from 89–63 B.C. against Mithridates VII, called Eupator, and among them Trapezus, were, however, still left autonomous. The Polemoniac Empire lasted till 63 A.D., when Nero made Pontus a Roman province.

After a short period of decline Trapezus rose again in the time of Julian in 333. It had accepted Christianity from the first apostle, Andrew, who came there from Samsun in 34 A.D. and transmitted it to the surrounding peoples. Its first bishop was Eugeneos, known as the patron and protector of the city, who endured martyrdom in 216 under the reign of Diocletian (a Byzantine church, still existing, preserves his name). He was succeeded by a long line of bishops who honored the Church. In fact, some of them participated in Ecumenical Synods.

In the time of the great Constantine, Trapezus continued to be a provincial city under a pro-consul, as also in the time of Justinian (6th century). As such it belonged, along with Cerasus, to Polemoniac Pontus, the capital of which was then Neocæsarea. From then up to the time of Leo the Isaurian, unfortunately, we know nothing about it, but in the time of the Isaurians it appears as a starting point for political and warlike operations undertaken against the Persians, the Turcomans and the Arabs, having become the metropolis of the large and important “thema” (district) of Chaldia, while it was, at the same time, and even before the time of the Isaurians, a home of learning, as the Siracene Ananias, a trustworthy Armenian writer of the 7th century, testifies.

With regard to the thema of Chaldia (the eighth in Asia Minor), it is to be noted that this originally extended as far as Colonia, Kamak and Keltzene, but in the time of Leo the Wise the two last districts were added to the thema of New-Mesopotamia. We know that the archons and dukes of Chaldia in the 11th century, seeking little by little to free themselves from Byzantine rule, began to call themselves dukes of Trapezus and their country Trapezousia. One in particular, Theodore Gabras, from a noble family in Trapezus, and most skillful in war, saved Trapezus and the surrounding country from two invasions, one by the Seljuk-Turks in 1049 and the other under David, the king of Georgia. He, therefore, regarded the country as his own private possession and held it up to his death, as a prince, independent of Byzantium. Of these Gabrades dukes of Trapezus, Theodore’s son Gregory and his grandson Constantine Gabras are known to us. In the time of the former Trapezus was again made dependent on Byzantium, but in the time of the latter, since the dukes had offered important services to the Byzantine Empire, it gained its independence again and held it till Manuel I (Comnenos) 1143–1180, succeeded in attaching it to his realm by taking advantage of a faction that had risen there against the Gabras family, and from that time on Trapezus continued to be dependent on Byzantium until its capture by the Latins, because at that time the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni was established.

From the foundation of this new empire until its fall through the capture of Trapezus by the Turks, that is from 1204–1461, the following rulers occupied the throne:

(1)

Alexios I., the great Comnenos, the son of Manuel, Sebastocrator and the founder of the Trapezuntian Empire

1204–1222

(2) | Andronikus I. Ghidus, son-in-law of the preceding | 1222–1235
(3) | John I. Axouchus | 1235–1238

(4)

Manuel I., the great Comnenos, who built the beautiful church of St. Sophia in Trapezus (still existent)

1238–1263

(5) | Andronikus II., oldest son of the preceding | 1263–1266
(6) | George I., brother of the preceding | 1266–1280
(7) | John II., brother of George I. | 1280–1297
(8) | Theodora | 1285
(9) | Alexios II., the great Comnenos | 1297–1330
(10) | Andronikus III., oldest son of Alexios II. | 1330–1332
(11) | Manuel II. | 1332
(12) | Basil | 1332–1340
(13) | Irene, Palæologina | 1340–1341
(14) | Anna, Comnenos | 1341–1342
(15) | John III., Comnenos | 1342–1344
(16) | Michael I. | 1344–1349
(17) | Alexios III., the great Comnenos | 1349–1390
(18) | Manuel III. | 1390–1417
(19) | Alexios IV. | 1417–1446
(20) | John IV., Kalogiannes | 1446–1458

(21)

David Comnenos, brother of John IV. and last emperor in the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni

1458–1461

The fall of Trapezus which occurred a few years after the capture of Constantinople dealt the final deadly blow to Hellenism as a whole. At this time, in the very nature of things, it was impossible for the Trapezuntian Empire to escape its fate, being compelled, as it was, to fight against innumerable and well organized enemies, while previously, during the 257-year period of its life, it had repulsed many barbarian invasions and had shown great political and military efficiency. But even in her fall she contributed not a little to the dissemination of the seeds of civilization and literature in the West through her illustrious sons, such as Bessarion, George the Trapezuntian and other learned men. By a strange coincidence the two last emperors of Hellenism, Constantine Palæologus of Byzantium and David of Trapezus, fell as soldiers, the first fighting for his fatherland like a hero on the fortifications of his capital, the second for his religion in Constantinople itself, preferring with nobility of soul and true Christian fortitude to see his children fall beneath the ax of the executioner and then to fall himself exclaiming, “Just art Thou, O Lord, and righteous are Thy judgments” rather than to forswear his faith as proposed by the conqueror Mohammed.

As everywhere, so, too, in Pontus, the Greek, though subjected to harsh slavery, did not lose courage and hope, but by uniting the strength left him and taking courage anew, he endeavored, just in so far as he could, to render his living with his conquerors as endurable as possible, an attempt in which he succeeded by enlisting their sympathy and esteem whenever they made use of him for high positions, or in the arts and trades in which they needed his help. Those that had special skill in iron-working in Chaldia and others in other places were even granted special privileges.

The services rendered to the Ottoman Empire by the Hypsilanti, Mourouzae and Carotsades of Pontus, were indeed invaluable, services which brought honor and profit to their own fatherland and the Greek race in general. Thus, Hellenism in Pontus partly by its steadily honorable and sincere character, and partly by its intellectual superiority generally, has made its impress on the conquerors and has succeeded in distinguishing itself in education, in trade, in the arts and sciences as the only element that makes for civilization. Unceasingly cultivating Greek letters under the shield of the Greek church, now in the monasteries or under the roof of the church, now in special schools, it keeps alive the national feeling and sentiment, which it has preserved and is preserving in a high degree, with the hope of a more auspicious future and of some day recovering its full freedom.

Never has it forgotten its glorious past. Glorying in this, with beating heart it sings, as it has always sung, of the Greek name and of Greek courage. A clear testimony of this is the preservation of the name “Hellene” and the words “Hellenic spear” in the demotic songs of the period after the fall of Constantinople. Having succeeded in preserving even in the times of slavery its language and nationality and the faith of its fathers, it takes pride in this and cherishes unshaken the conviction that at the proper time the historical rights that it possesses will not be overlooked.

The Greek Dialect as Spoken in Pontus

Of the many dialects of Modern Greek, that spoken in Pontus has taken a prominent place in the investigation into Modern Greek in general ever since linguistic scientists have undertaken to study it. And this is certainly justified, for this study contributes substantially to the elucidation, explanation and solution of many linguistic phenomena in the other dialects and in the Κοινὴ διάλεκτος in general, for many forms and many words which were formerly inexplicable from the point of view of phonetics or semantics have been most happily explained by the comparison of corresponding forms or words in the Pontic dialect. This, too, is derived from the Koine, but owing to an admixture of certain Ionic elements, and to the fact that in taking shape in the Middle Ages it admitted new Byzantine words, it has so developed and grown that its use on the one hand of sounds unknown to the common Greek, and, on the other, the astounding variety of phonetic changes and modifications (which appear in different forms) which it presents, its manifold transformations on the basis of analogy, its not infrequent syntactic peculiarities (which are due especially to the influence of the Turkish language), and the large number of nouns, verbs and adverbs formed from Turkish words or Turkish roots through the use of Greek terminations, render it incomprehensible to many. This evolution and the great difference between the Pontic language and the common Greek are perfectly natural, both on account of the Ionic elements which have been preserved from of old, and of the Turkish elements which the language has received through the conquest of Pontus by the Turks, and thirdly from its geographical position which separates its inhabitants from the great masses of the Greek people and thus limits the assimilating influence of modern Greek on the Pontic dialect.

This form of the language has great importance for the reason that in the variety and richness of its vocabulary it has preserved a rich and extremely valuable store of forms and ancient words, some wholly unchanged in form and signification, and some modified, to be sure, but perfectly capable of being reduced to their original form by the philologist.36

AMERICAN-HELLENIC NEWS

The first anniversary of the entrance of Greece into the great World War was officially celebrated in New York City by a banquet tendered by His Excellency, George Roussos, the Minister of Greece at Washington, to about forty prominent and representative citizens of New York at Delmonico’s, and these guests were invited to participate later in an imposing celebration in the Century Theater.

Many thousands of Greeks and Americans formed most enthusiastic and appreciative listeners to speeches made by Mr. Roussos (whose address is given below in full), Francis M. Hugo, Secretary of State of New York, who came in behalf of His Excellency Governor Whitman; Richard Enright, Commissioner of Police of New York City, who represented the Mayor of the city; Demetrios Verenikis, Consul General of Greece and recently appointed Minister of Greece to Japan; William Fellowes Morgan, President of the Merchants’ Association, and Constantine Voicly, President of the Pan-Hellenic Union in America. The invocation was pronounced by the Rev. Demetrios Callimachos of the Greek Church.

Among those guests at the banquet, who were also present at the theater, were the Honorable Cunliffe-Owen, who presided and felicitously introduced the various speakers; the Countess Cunliffe-Owen; Baron de Sadelaer, formerly Minister of State of Belgium; General Daniel Appleton, U. S. A.; Colonel DeWitt Clinton Falls, commanding the Seventh Regiment; General W. A. White, C. B., of the British War Mission; Commodore Lionel Wells, of the Royal British Navy; General William A. Mann, U. S. A., commanding Governors Island; Colonel George W. Burleigh, of the Governor’s Staff; Captain L. Rebel, of the French Navy; J. K. Ohl, editor-in-chief of the New York Herald; Pay Director Charles W. Littlefield, U. S. N.; David Penny, vice-president of the Irving National Bank; Robert Grier Cooke, president of the Fifth Avenue Association; Hon. Byron B. Newton, collector of the Port of New York; J. S. Alexander, president of the National Bank of Commerce; R. C. Veit, vice-president of the Standard Oil Company; Elbert H. Gary, Samuel W. Fairchild, A. E. Stevenson, H. W. Sackett, George T. Wilson, Colonel Benda of the Italian Army, and Commodore Morrell, U. S. N.

The members of the Executive Committee of the American-Hellenic Society participated in both parts of the great celebration, which had been so ably organized and effectively carried out by Mr. Cunliffe-Owen, a member of our Committee as well as one of the Board of Governors of our Society.

The sentiment so eloquently uttered by Commissioner Enright that Constantinople, which has always been an essentially Greek city, should, at the round table of the peace delegates, be returned to Greece, was greeted with cheers and the loudest applause.

Speech of George Roussos, the Minister of Greece

There are certain anniversaries, such as that of today, that fully deserve to be celebrated, for they contain such reassuring lessons that they are justly brought into prominence.

We cannot help admiring the heroism of little Belgium, which stood out so boldly against the outrageous demand of a militaristic power that had resolved to trample upon morality, and to violate justice.

We are compelled to extol that superhuman calmness with which peace-loving France accepted the challenge which the German Colossus launched at her, bidding her forget her sworn faith and all the principles which she had taught and which gave her her beauty.

We must honor, too, Great Britain, which, simply because, in the person of Belgium, international right had been outraged, entered into the war so gallantly at its very start, and sent her children—an act unparalleled in history—by millions to offer their lives voluntarily for the defense of the right.

The Japanese, faithful to their alliance with Great Britain, followed.

It is an indisputable fact that these countries have saved the world, for the example that they have thus given humanity was so grand and glorious that it has carried other nations with it.

There have been moments of uncertainty and doubt, in the face of the colossal strength of Germany, and the ferocity of her attacks. In view of the destruction which seemed so certain, the instinct of self-preservation, for a considerable time, dominated the peoples not immediately touched by the war.

But the cruelty of Germany and of her accomplices has finally roused all the nobler and more generous nations. One after another they have become involved, for their revulsion of feeling at her atrocities is such that it has silenced every other sentiment.

Italy was the first to set the example by turning away from an alliance, the evil aims of which had been revealed to her, and she was soon followed by Rumania.

The Great Republic of the United States, after having for a long time hoped to induce Germany to respect international treaties, has resolutely entered into the great conflict.

Greece was the last European state to enter into the fight. I say, the last, although, in fact, she really takes her place next to England. For it is a well-known fact that in August, 1914, before the battle of the Marne had taken place, at the time when the Germans were at the gates of Paris, Greece, through her government, had offered her aid: perhaps if at this moment the Allies had understood aright the situation in the Orient, if they had taken advantage of this offer, many disasters might have been averted.

This mistaken policy on the part of the Allies permitted Germany to utilize the instruments that she had been preparing for a long time in the Orient. Two years had been lost: disasters had been piled on disasters, before the necessary measures were taken and the Greek people had become free to act according to its aspirations. There, too, we see the same reassuring results. Noble sentiments obtained the upper hand over feelings of self-interest. These feelings were so strong that they silenced the doubts and fears even of timid souls. We must recall that in June, 1917, Rumania was defeated, the Russian collapse was complete and the German armies free to turn against Greece. On the other hand, the dissension caused by German propaganda in Greece seemed so deeply rooted, that even the friends of Greece did not believe that she was capable of taking any important part in the struggle.

Under the inspiring influence of the man who knows Greece best, because he embodies all the better qualities of the Greek nature, Eleutherios Venizelos, Greece refused to see the danger; she became united and filled with an eager enthusiasm, and in less than a year her troops have obtained appreciable results.

What this renaissance cost in effort the world cannot yet know. When the facts are known, when they can be fully studied, the Greek people will receive the credit that it deserves, because what it has achieved is due only to its patriotism and self-sacrifice.

From the close of 1916, when Greece, though still divided, began the struggle, up to today, when, as a united people, she is carrying on the fight, she has sacrificed thousands of her children for the triumph of the common ideal, and is arming herself more fully day by day, to pour out her blood to the last drop in order to secure the victory for freedom and right. She is paying forth freely without having demanded anything in return.

These facts prove our superiority to our enemies. A superiority which consists in the fact that we are fighting for principles created and imposed by a civilization which began with the beginnings of history, principles that we wish to apply even to our enemies and which, moreover, are free from any selfish motives.

It is this absence of egotism in our aims which assures our perfect union and, through this, our victory.

If you wish to appreciate the palpable difference between us and the others, look at what is today taking place in a hostile country which I refrain from naming.

Four peoples, that had formed a coalition, took from their neighbors all that they could get. Now, in dividing the spoil, because of their distrust of each other, they are taking precautions against one another. One of the peoples against whom these precautions are being taken becomes sulky and shows signs of wanting to go over to the other side, because all Dobrudja (of which a large part is acknowledged to be Rumanian by the official representative of this people in the United States) is not given to her; because all Greek Macedonia is not declared to be hers; because Serbia is not today obliterated from the map.

When people are associated in order to bring about some good result, good faith is preserved in the partnership, but when, on the contrary, an evil act is accomplished and unlawful gains are obtained, disunion necessarily results, for “honor among thieves” is, after all, extremely rare.

Permit me a parenthesis, at this point.

I have read lately with regard to this quarrel that the hope exists that this country to which I have referred may become detached from her allies and join in with us.

I am convinced that this supposition cannot be realized. I insist, however, in protesting even against the reasoning based on such an hypothesis.

Whatever may be the practical result that we can expect from the perfidy of our enemies, our feelings revolt against profiting by such treachery. Our cause is so just that it admits of no compromise.

Should the country of which I am speaking show her repentance, by restoring all that it has taken from its neighbors, it can find a place at our side. But to admit in our circle of nations one who flees from the enemy camp against which we are fighting because his part in the booty is not that which his appetite has fixed, is impossible. In fact, such an act would constitute the negation of the principles for which we are fighting.

We have no need of weakening ourselves. We are materially and, above all, morally, far superior to our enemies. We must conserve the dignity of our cause if we wish the results to be commensurate with our efforts.

This is what stands forth preëminently in the celebration of such anniversaries. They show to us that our civilizations, the Greco-Latin as well as the Anglo-Saxon, have deep roots, and that they have created conditions which are essential to our existence.

That when these aspirations thus created in us are threatened, we are willing to submit to any sacrifices, no matter how great they may be, in order to defend them.

That our ideals have conquered the greater part of the world, creating strong bonds of solidarity between the peoples who are impregnated with them, permitting us to face with confidence the creation of the league of nations which will assure to the world an era of happiness in freedom through law.

Let us continue the fight; let us win, maintaining our principles without compromise. We shall thus be sure of winning the commendation of humanity.

But we must understand that in order to achieve this result, the complete liberation of the world, we must submit to great sacrifices of men and of money.

It is the need of our making these sacrifices which are being utilized by the German propaganda in order to obtain an immediate peace which is to the Germans an absolute necessity.

Through its secret agents, she tries to convince us that in order to obtain the victory against her, our sacrifices will be enormous, while, if we satisfy some of her aspirations, she will be ready to respect the liberty of the world.

We must close our ears to these insidious suggestions. Everything that comes from the enemy camp must arouse our distrust, for Germany wishes indirectly to obtain what she has originally sought when she let loose upon the world the dogs of war.

Russia lies prostrate, and Germany wishes to reanimate her, but to raise her with a German soul. When she has at her disposal the enormous power of Russia, organized with Prussian efficiency, a more terrible war awaits the world. The sacrifices to which we shall then be obliged to submit will be much more terrific.

If we wish to put our programme into operation, we must set ourselves to change the German mind, showing the ruins that its inhumane conceptions have accumulated, and the fall of German power that must result from it. We have to do with fanatics of a peculiar kind, whom only reality can bring to their senses. The Germans are fighting in order to impose their civilization on the world by establishing a domination like that of the Mussulmans, who have slaughtered the Christians in order to assure their happiness in the future life. If our victory is incomplete, if the liberty of the nations is not completely restored, we shall have simply an interlude between acts. The curtain will rise upon a more terrible tragedy.

Let us endeavor to see beyond the limits of the present. Let us rise to meet the emergency. The responsibility of our rulers is tremendous, but they are endowed with the necessary ability to rise to these heights.

Let them not be influenced by these crafty serpents which are subtly attempting to weaken our moral fiber, for the confidence of the leaders will maintain the strength of our peoples, which up to the present nothing has been able to affect, and which constitutes our best means to win.

Following the example of the countries that for four years have been shedding their precious blood to conquer the monster, and consenting to undergo the same sacrifices, we can be absolutely sure that our victory will be complete.

In the name of the Government which I have the honor to represent, I can assure you that Greece’s determination to see the struggle through to the bitter end, is unshakable.

OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY

The American-Hellenic Society is organized for the general purpose of extending and encouraging among the citizens of the United States of America an interest in the cultural and political relations between the United States and Greece; and in particular to promote educational relationships, including the establishment of exchange professorships in the Universities of the United States and Greece, as a means to diffuse knowledge of the literature and political institutions of the United States throughout Greece, and to encourage in America the study of the ancient and modern Hellenic language and literature; and further to defend the just claims of Greece in particular and of Hellenism in general.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Metropolis of Tarsus and Adana, although it is, geographically, in Asia Minor, falls under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and is therefore omitted here.

2 See authorities for these statements in an essay by the present writer, published in the Michigan Law Review, vol. VI., 1907–1908, pp. 50–52, and entitled, “Roman Law and Mohammedan Jurisprudence,” Part I.

3 See Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society, entitled Persecutions of the Greeks in Turkey since the Beginning of the European War, June, 1918.

4 The present writer, in carrying on researches dealing with Asia Minor, came upon Dr. Dieterich’s study, and, after reading it, thought that it would be better to publish this essay than to write a new one, inasmuch as he noticed that, with the exception of a few observations which were to be expected from a German writer, the author gives, on the whole, an accurate and impartial account of the condition of things in Asia Minor, and does not seem to share the views of many of the civil and military officials of Germany, who consider that the existence of the Hellenic element there is detrimental to the interests of Deutschtum. It seemed, therefore, that no better testimony could be found than that adduced by a subject of Kaiser Wilhelm on the material and intellectual strength of Hellenism in Asia Minor, which is the latest bugbear of the Teutons and the target of Turkish cruelty.

5 See an account of this interview in a Greek pamphlet entitled How Germany Destroyed Hellenism in Turkey, by G. Mikrasianou, 1916, and particularly the confidential letter of the Turkish Minister of the Interior, Talaat Bey (now Prime Minister), dated May 14, 1914, to the Governor of Smyrna, reproduced in Le Temps of July 20, 1916, and the English translation of it in Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society, p. 70.

6 Supplement to the Greek White Book, entitled Ministère des Affaires Étrangers, Documents Diplomatiques, Supplément, 1913–1917, Nos. 1 and 4.

7 Oftentimes the name of the school embodies that of the donor, as, e.g., Marasleion, Zographeion, Theologeion are named from Marasles, Zographos and Theologos.

8 A much earlier and well-known English traveler calls Smyrna “the lovely, the crown of Ionia, the ornament of Asia.” (See Travels in Asia Minor and Greece, by Richard Chandler, ed. N. Revett, vol. I., p. 73, ed. 1825.)

9 See Gaston Deschamps, Sur les routes d’Asie, 1894, p. 152.

10 Das Griechentum Kleinasiens, von Dr. Karl Dieterich, in Länder und Völker der Türkei (Schriften des Deutschen Vorderasienkomitees, herausgegeben von Dr. jur. et phil. Hugo Grothe, Leipzig, 1915).

11 A political treatment of the “Greek Question” was presented in a pamphlet of the Vorderasienkomitee, under the title, Die asiatische Türkei und die deutschen Interessen, Leipzig, 1913, S. 23–26.

12 The successors of Alexander the Great.

13 So Michael Psellus (11th-12th century) of Nicomedia, Michael Attaliates (11th century) from Attalia in Pamphylia, Nicetas Acominatos (12th-13th century) from Phrygia, Georgius Pachymeres (13th-14th century) of Nicæa; Nicephoros Gregoras (14th century) from Pontus. The two latter are, also, our chief source of information about the invasion of Asia Minor by the Turks. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2, München, 1897, §§ 126 and 128.

14 Cf. J. Strzygowski, Kleinasien, ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte, Leipzig, 1903.

15 K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzantin. Litteratur, 2, § 358.

16 Cf. Von der Goltz, Anatol. Ausflüge, Berlin (1896), S. 70 ff.

17 As to the type of the Anatolian Turks, see L. Heermann, Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient (Aschaffenburg, 1886, S. 13, 126); A. Philippson, Das Mittelmeergebiet, 2, (Leipzig, 1906, S. 197); H. Gelzer, Geistliches und Weltliches aus dem griechisch-türkischen Orient (Leipzig, 1900, S. 185); R. Fitzner, Anatolien (Leipzig, 1902, S. 19).

18 On these old Church Acts is based the instructive investigation of A. Waechter, Der Verfall des Griechenthums in Kleinasien im 14. Jhd., Leipzig, 1903.

19 Translator’s note: There are at present twenty-two Metropolitans in Asia Minor, or better, including that of Tarsus and Adana, which is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, twenty-three.

20 On the question of the racial characteristics of the Greeks of Asia Minor, cf. A. von Luschan, Verhandlungen d. Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. zu Berlin, 15 (1888), S. 47–60; Archiv f. Anthropol., 19 (1889–90), S. 31–53; L’Anthropologie, I., p. 679 ff., II., p. 25 f.

21 Specimens of the Pontic and Cappadocian dialects of today are to be found in A. Thumb’s Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, 2 (Strassburg, 1910), S. 294–298. Grothe, in his treatise, Meine Vorderasienexpedition 1906 u. 1907, Bd. II., S. 175, calls attention to the dialect of the Greeks of Farash in the southern Antitaurus.

22 Exact statistics as to the number of Greeks in Cappadocia are given by R. M. Dawkins, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 30 (1910), pp. 109–132, 267–291.

23 For more exact information, see H. Kiepert, Die griechische Sprache im pontischen Küstengebirge, Zeitschr. d. Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. in Berlin, 25 (1890), S. 317 ff.

24 Only the two largest rivers of western Asia Minor, the Mæander and the Sangarios have, in a characteristic manner, kept their old names in the form of Menderes and Sakkaria.

25 These texts, so interesting for the history of trade, are reproduced by D. Georgiades in La Turquie actuelle, Paris, 1892, pp. 197 ff., 218 ff., 224 ff.

26 The statistical data are based on Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie (Paris, 1890–95), II. and III., completed from Baedeker, Constantinopel und Kleinasien, 2 (1914).

27 In a similar way, in more recent times, the German excavations of Priene and Miletus have benefited the neighboring Greek settlements. Cf. H. Gelzer, Geistliches und Weltliches, S. 231.

28 Also called Kuru-Chesme, i.e., “dry fountain.” The place seems to have a Greek name, Ξεροκρένε as its prototype, though no place of this name is provable in Byzantine times.

29 Details about the history of this school are to be found in K. Krumbacher, Populäre Aufsätze (Leipzig, 1909), S. 251 ff.

30 These statistics about the schools are derived from Cuinet, as above cited.

31 As to the decrease of the Turkish population of Asia Minor and its causes, see L. Heermann, Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient (Aschaffenburg, 1886), S. 128 Anm.; R. Fitzner, Anatolien, S. 20 f.; on the increase of the Greeks: K. Humann, Verhandlgn. d. Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. zu Berlin, 7 (1880), S. 249–252; R. Fischer, Mittelmeerbilder, N. F. (Leipzig, 1907), S. 401 f.

32 Hugo Grothe, too, in Die Asiatische Türkei und die deutschen Interessen (Der neue Orient, S. 25, 9 Heft), pleads for a closer feeling between the Germans and the Asia Minor Greeks. So, too, Blankenburg, Heft 1 of the Schriftensammlung des Deutschen Vorderasienkomitees, Die Zukunftsarbeit der deutschen Schule in der Türkei.

33 It is to be remembered that the higher professional places in the towns of Asia Minor are filled almost exclusively by Greeks. Teachers, doctors and engineers are for the most part Greeks and therefore among the higher engineering and administrative officials of the Anatolian and the Bagdad railways there are many Greeks.

34 The “Association d’Orient” in Athens.

35 See, for example, E. Naumann, Vom Goldnen Horn zu den Quellen des Euphrat (1893), S. 208.

36 For complete details and examples illustrating these relations, see D. E. Oeconomides’ above cited work, pp. vii and viii.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

back

Table of Contents

- HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR
- CONTENTS
- A SURVEY OF HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR

- II. HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR

- PREFACE

- HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR10

- III. HELLENIC PONTUS, A RESUME OF ITS HISTORY

- The Greek Dialect as Spoken in Pontus

- AMERICAN-HELLENIC NEWS

- Speech of George Roussos, the Minister of Greece

- OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY
- FOOTNOTES
- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE