The Regeneration of Hellas: Influences on the Greek War for

Claremont Colleges

Scholarship @ Claremont

CMC Senior eses CMC Student Scholarship

2011

e Regeneration of Hellas: Inuences on the

Greek War for Independence 1821-1832

Stefanie Chan

Claremont McKenna College

is Open Access Senior esis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized

administrator. For more information, please contact scholarship@cuc.claremont.edu.

Recommended Citation

Chan, Stefanie, "e Regeneration of Hellas: Inuences on the Greek War for Independence 1821-1832" (2011). CMC Senior eses.

Paper 188.

hp://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/188

CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE

THE REGENERATION OF HELLAS:

INFLUENCES ON THE GREEK WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

1821-1832

SUBMITTED TO

PROFESSOR JONATHAN PETROPOULOS

AND

DEAN GREGORY HESS

STEFANIE LANI CHAN

FOR

SENIOR THESIS

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011

APRIL 25, 2011

Acknowledgements

I want to express my gratitude to my reader and adviser Professor Petropoulos for

guiding me through the process of completing my senior thesis. I also want to extend my

appreciation to my friends and family for their unwavering support and understanding.

But most of all, I would like to thank my parents for allowing me to study abroad in

Athens to experience the glory and beauty of Hellas and develop my own personal sense

of Philhellenism.

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1: The Foundation for the Independence Movement ..................................... 5

An Ancient Rivalry ......................................................................................................... 5

Ottoman Rule and Life under the Tourkokratia .............................................................. 6

Ottoman Oppression and the Implementation of the Millet System ............................... 9

The Rise of Klepthouria ................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 2: The Guiding Light of the Enlightenment .................................................. 21

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 21

The Enlightenment Defined .......................................................................................... 22

Influence of Western Independence Movements-The United States and France ......... 26

The Universal Rights of Man “Rightly Understood” .................................................... 27

Translation of Enlightenment Theory into Rebellious Action in Greece...................... 30

Application to the establishment of government institutions ........................................ 31

Johann Joachim Winckelmann: The Origin of Enlightened Philhellenism .................. 33

The Modern Greek Enlightenment ................................................................................ 40

Adamantios Korais: The Greatest Greek Nationalist .................................................... 43

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 3: The Philhellenes and the Influence of Romanticism ................................ 53

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 53

The Loss of Classical Greek Culture............................................................................. 56

Romanticism Defined .................................................................................................... 60

Byron: Romantic Philhellenism Personified ................................................................. 65

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4: Great Power Politics and International Influence .................................... 77

Russia ............................................................................................................................ 82

Great Britain .................................................................................................................. 89

France ............................................................................................................................ 95

United States ............................................................................................................... 101

Germanic States........................................................................................................... 110

iii

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 116

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 120

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 125

Works Consulted ........................................................................................................... 131

Introduction

In 1812, Lord Byron published Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, a collection of

poems that served as a literary memoir Grand Tour experience throughout the

Mediterranean region. In his reflections and references to Greece, Byron depicted the

plight of the Hellenes and their quest to gain independence from the yoke of Ottoman

rule.

Fair Greece! Sad relic of departed worth!

Immortal, though no more; though fallen, great!

Who now shall lead thy scattered children forth,

And long accustomed bondage uncreate?

As presented in Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage and other subsequent poetical

works, Greece had fallen from its former grace and glory. Under the oppression of

Ottoman rule, the question of the future of Greece concerned European leaders and

intellectuals. Through work such as Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, Byron’s poetry invoked

a sense of sympathy for the state of a Greece. These emotions fostered the growth of

Philhellenism throughout the world, and served as the underpinning force of the Greek

independence movement.

As the leading Romantic figure of the nineteenth century, Byron championed the

Greek independence movement by assuming the role of Europe’s foremost Philhellene.

Byron’s poetry embodied the Philhellenic desire to liberate the descendents of ancient

Greece, the civilization that modern society was so indebted to. His poetry encompassed

all the facets of Philhellenism that generated support for the Greek people—the

Byron, George Gordon. “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”

appreciation for the Classics, the sensational fantasies of the Greek state under the yoke

of Ottoman rule, and the application of an intellectual framework of that spoke to the

principles of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Through Philhellenism, the

people of Greece experienced the regeneration of Hellas, the revival of the Greek state.

Given this, the leaders of Greece campaigned to rally support for the cause of Greek

independence at the outbreak of the war.

Fight for Faith and Motherland! The time has come, O Hellenes. Long ago the people

of Europe, fighting for their own rights and liberties, invited us to imitation. These

although partially free tried with all their strength to increase their freedom and

through all their prosperity. Our brethren and friends are everywhere ready. The

Serbs, the Souliots, and the whole of Epirus, bearing arms, await us. Let us then

united with enthusiasm. The Motherland is calling us!

Inspired by texts and speeches issued by Greeks leaders such as Alexandros Hypsilantes,

the Greek people united behind the movement for independence. Consumed by the

passionate fervor for the revival of Hellas, the Greek people readily engaged in the

struggle for independence and freedom. Inspired by the ideology of the Enlightenment,

buoyed by the principles of Romanticism, and conditioned by Great Powers politics, the

Greek War for Independence represented a broader Pan-European phenomenon.

The origins of Philhellenism stemmed from a myriad of factors, the very first being

the Enlightenment and the success of the subsequent revolutionary movements that

occurred as a result of the movement. Beginning in the eighteenth century, the

Enlightenment introduced a period of philosophical, intellectual, scientific, and cultural

transformation. Emphasizing reason as the principle source of legitimacy and authority,

L. I Vranousis and N. Karamiarianos, Athanasiou Xodilou: I Etaireia ton Philikon kai ta prota symvanta

tou 1821 (Athens, 1964) pp 24-8. Cited in Clogg, Richard, “Fight for Faith and Motherland”: Alexandros

Ypislantis’ Proclamation of Revolt in the Danubian Principalities, 24 February 1821, The Movement for

Greek Independence 1770-1821 (London, 1976), 201.

the values of the Enlightenment served as the impetus for a series of revolutions around

the world beginning with the American colonies in 1776. Inspired by Enlightenment

scholars such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, American colonists applied the

Enlightenment values of freedom, independence, and liberty to revolt against the British

monarchy. During the next century, the success of the American colonists emboldened

nationalist independence movements throughout Europe, including Greece.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, the intellectual landscape transformed in

philosophical and ideological thought. Scholars no longer embraced the Enlightenment

principles of reason and logic as the primary source for political authority. Instead,

European intellectual theory transitioned from the Enlightenment to Romanticism, a

period that gravitated toward an appeal to the senses, passion, and emotions. During this

period, tenets of Romanticism promoted the growth and expansion of Philhellenism. This

yield to Romantic enthusiasm and fervor compelled many Europeans to partake in the

Philhellenic cause and engage in the Greek movement for independence.

The political landscape of the nineteenth century also induced foreign interference in

the Greek War for Independence. Beginning in 1815, leaders of the European powers

united to ensure the stability and maintenance of power in the European Concert.

Consequently, the onslaught of Greek independence movement against the Ottoman

Empire threatened the balance of power in Central Europe. At the outbreak of war in

1821, the leaders of the Great Powers invoked diplomatic action to in order to forestall

war in Central Europe. However, Greek and Ottoman relations reached a climax in 1826.

With the Ottoman Porte’s refusal to comply with the terms of agreement cited in the 1827

Treaty of London, the leaders of the Great Powers—Britain, France, and Russia—

pursued to military intervention on behalf of the Greek people to ensure the maintenance

of peace in the Mediterranean region. The final years of the Greek War for Independence

represent the crucial role of foreign involvement in the achievement of Greek freedom

and autonomy.

The analysis of the greater influences on the Greek War for Independence—the

Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Great Power politics—reveals the birth of a Pan-

European phenomenon that was representative of the broader political context of the

nineteenth century. The history of the Greek War for Independence, and the story of the

Greek struggle for national independence from its historic oppressor resonates with the

modern state of Hellas today. As the first successful European revolution in the

nineteenth century, the Greek War for independence preceded the European national

uprisings that ultimately defined the modern European state and the development of

modern Greece.

Chapter 1: The Foundation for the Independence Movement

An Ancient Rivalry

Although Greco-Turkish relations escalated during the Greek War for Independence

in 1821, Greece and Turkey have shared a long-fraught history that can be traced to the

Pre-Hellenistic Era. As early as 499 B.C., conflict erupted between the Persian

Achaemenid Empire and the Greek city-states. Fiercely independent, the leaders of the

Greek city states refused to submit to Persian tyranny, resulting in a series of battles that

persisted for over a century. Following Battle of Chaeronea and the unification of the

Greek city states under the League of Corinth in 338 B.C., Philip II of Macedon was

appointed as strategos and guarantor of peace in the Greek campaign against the Persian

Empire.

However, before these plans could be fully executed, Philip was assassinated in

336 B.C. Consequently, the responsibility of fulfilling the Greek campaign against Persia

fell to his son, Alexander III, more commonly known as Alexander the Great.

Beginning with the fall of the Darius II of Persia at the Battle of Issus in 333 B.C.,

Greece achieved its sovereignty as a nation comprised of city-states.

Although

Macedonian victory signified the freedom of Greece, peace in the Mediterranean region

did not endure. Following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., the

Mediterranean world experienced nearly a century of conflict and strife. Referred to as

the period of the Diadachoi, the Macedonian kingdom was subsequently divided into

regional empires amongst Alexander’s generals—the Seleucid Empire, the Antigonid

Plutarch, The Age of Alexander – Nine Greek Lives (London: Penguin, 1973), 265.

Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium, 3.

Plutarch, Age of Alexander, 274.

Empire, and the Ptolemaic Empire.

Regional stability was not achieved until the

assertion of Roman power in 31 B.C. with the reign of Octavian Augustus as the sole

imperator of the Roman Empire.

These three centuries marked the demise of the

Hellenistic Era, but did not eradicate the tension between the Greek and Persian people.

The rule of the Roman Republic extended into the fifth century A.D. until the reign

of Romulus Augustus. During this period, the western Roman Republic fell to Odoacer,

an Ottoman overlord, and the Persian-Turks reclaimed the territory they had lost nearly

seven centuries earlier. In 1435 following the death of Constantine XI, the Eastern

Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. With the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Greece

returned to Ottoman control, leading to four hundred years of political submission.

Ottoman Rule and Life under the Tourkokratia

Despite the development of the Greek independence movement, the Greek people

enjoyed relative autonomy under three and half centuries of Ottoman rule, an era known

as the Tourkokratia.

During the period, the Greek Orthodox Church was indispensable

to the preservation of Greek culture and religious identity. Centered in Constantinople,

the Greek Patriarchate exercised religious autonomy in both dogma and doctrine. Yet

even so, the Patriarchate treaded cautiously to prevent provocation of the Ottoman Porte.

As Bishop Theopphilos of Kampania observed, “In the days of the Christian kingdoms

prelates had jurisdiction only over the priesthood and ecclesiastical matters and did not

meddle in civil matters…now prelates must have experience not only in ecclesiastical law

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, 135.

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, 679-82.

Richard Clogg, The Struggle for Greek Independence; essays to mark the 150th anniversary of the Greek

War of Independence (Hamden: Archon Books, 1973), 21.

but also in civil law so as not to make illegal and stupid judgments.”

Although the

Ottoman Porte conferred religious freedom to the Greek people, the perceptible

differences between Islam and Christianity and their ensuing tradition and practices

resulted in several occasions of religious persecution and discrimination against the

Greek people.

During the Tourkokratia, the Greek people also received the privilege of retaining

positions of power in the Ottoman Porte. Known as Phanariots for their residency in the

Phanar region of Constantinople, this small population of Greeks enjoyed life under

Ottoman rule.

There is in a suburb called Phanar a race of Greeks who call themselves nobles, and

affect to despise those of the islands: they are certain opulent families, from which are

generally appointed to drogomans of the Porte, and the waywodes of Wallachia and

Moldavia. They have kept these places among them, as they are mostly allied

together and keep up constant connection with the officers of the Porte.

As the Greek noble class, the Phanariots assumed the responsibility of acting as liaison

on behalf of the Greek people to the Ottoman Porte. As dierminefs tou slou (interpreters)

and waywodes (local rulers), the Ottoman Porte bequeathed relative power and authority

to the Phanariot class to exercise influence over Ottoman politics.

In addition, the

Ottoman Porte also appointed the Phanariots to government positions such as governor in

of the Greek archipelago islands, and to the seat of hospodar (prince) of Moldavia and

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 2.

William Eaton, A Survey of the Turkish Empire (London, 1799) PP 351-354. As cited in Clogg, Richard.

"The Phanariots." In Movement for Greek Independence, 1770-1821: a collection of documents (New

York: Barnes & Noble, 1976), 46.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 9.

Wallachia.

These titles permitted Greek political representation in the distant provinces

of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, in specific regions of the empire, the Greek people

enjoyed a high degree of self governance. These areas included the Dervenokhoria (the

seven villages in the Megarid plain), the Eleftherokhoria (the three confederations of

villages in Khalkidiki), Zagora, Sphakia, Mani, Ayvalik (Kydonies), Chios and the

Peloponnese.

Greek political representation under the Ottoman Empire, albeit limited,

existed under the Tourkokratia.

Greek mercantilism prospered under Ottoman rule during the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries. Long before the achievement of Greek independence, the Greek

merchant class dominated Balkan trade and commerce.

The Greek language served as

the lingua franca of Balkan commerce and the Greek population constituted the largest

element of the Balkan merchant class. During this time, Greek mercantilism expanded to

regions throughout the Ottoman Empire and the Mediterranean, leading to the

establishment of Greek communities throughout Europe.

Newly created towns on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, such as Odessa,

Mariuopol, ad Taganrog, contained large Greek colonies, while Greeks were able to

trade under the Russia flag in the Black Sea after the Treaty of Kucuk Kynarca. The

bulk of commerce of the principal seaports of the Ottoman Empire such as

Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Patras, Smyrna and Alexandria, was shared between

Ottoman Greeks and foreign merchants. During the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries, flourishing Greek communities developed throughout the Mediterranean in

Venice, Trieste, Livorno, Marseilles, Naples, etc.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 10

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 2.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 10.

A.G. Politis, L’Hellénisme et l’Egypte moderne (Paris, 1928) I, i-ii. As cited in Clogg, Struggle for Greek

Independence, 11.

Given the vast expansion of trade and commerce throughout the Mediterranean region,

the Greek merchant class accordingly reaped the financial benefits of mercantilism. This

also signified the expansion of Greek international relations. As a result of the growth of

Greek mercantilism, Greek communities emerged around the globe, and consequently

established foreign networks in many countries.

The Diaspora of the Greek mercantile class also contributed to the elevation of Greek

education during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Largely financed by the Greek

merchant class, many Greek scholars were educated abroad in countries such as Austria,

England, and France. These opportunities provided Greek individuals with exposure to

the ideals of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Deeply influenced by foreign culture,

many Greek scholars returned to Greece to share their experiences and impart the

Enlightenment principles of freedom, equality, and independence with their Greek

compatriots.

Ottoman Oppression and the Implementation of the Millet System

Despite the few privileges granted to the Greek people under Ottoman rule, the Greek

movement for independence revealed a sense of dissatisfaction with Ottoman rule.

Notwithstanding the historic rivalry between the two nations, the people of Greece cited

numerous reasons for their engagement in the movement for independence. Subjected to

unfair taxation, religious discrimination, and granted limited political representation

under Ottoman rule, the Greek people subsequently

During the three and a half centuries of Ottoman rule, preservation of Greek cultural

identity fell to the Greek Orthodox Church. As mentioned, the Patriarchate exercised

considerable jurisdiction over civil affairs in the Ottoman Empire. Without the Greek

Patriarchate, many facets of Greek culture would have undoubtedly been lost to Turkish

culture. Yet at the same time, the Patriarchate also fell under the rule of the Ottoman

Empire and were required to exercise the government’s bidding. As a result, the Greek

Orthodox Church enforced the status quo of Ottoman rule and demanded Greek

compliance. In a particular sermon, Patriarch Anthimos of Jerusalem attempted to

discourage and dispel liberal theory from his congregants.

You should understand, brethren that true freedom cannot exist in a good government

without faith in God. And for this reason, the Holy Apostles, the immovable pillars of

the godliness of our faith, who were enlightened by God, thus preached to the world,

thus they and their successors behaved. These same things the Church of Christ

received from them and guarded steadfastly. And when we see with such clarity that

this new system of liberty is none other than a confusion and overturning of good

government, a path leading to destruction, or simply speaking, a new ambush of the

evil devil to lead astray the abandoned Orthodox Christians, are we not going to be

judged worthy of condemnation if we give the slightest hearing to these sly and

deceptive teachings?

In many sermons, the Patriarchate stressed the immorality of the pursuit of political

liberty, and often associated the school of thought with the devil and damnation.

Although the Patriarchate served as representatives of the Orthodox Church, the Greek

religious leaders were nothing more than figureheads appointed to infiltrate the Greek

Orthodox community. “Those who in this century rise to office in the hierarchy are slaves

and servants either of the patriarch or of the higher clergy,” revealed Patriarch Anthimos

in his polemical work against the Ottoman Empire entitled Submission to the Powers that

Patriarch Anthimos of Jerusalem. Submission to the Powers that Be: The Paternal Exhortation. 4:1

(Constantinople, 1798) As cited in Clogg, Richard. In The Movement for Greek independence, 62.

Be.

Given this relative lack of governmental influence and authority, the Patriarchate

represented little more than a religious puppet maneuvered by the Ottoman Empire.

During the Tourkokratia, the implementation of the Ottoman millet system ensured

that all constituents living in the Ottoman Empire were segregated by religion. This

guaranteed that all aspects of cultural heritage were preserved through the continuation of

religious customs and practices. Under this system, all Orthodox Christians, regardless of

ethnic nationality, were grouped under the Orthodox Christian millet. Besides the Muslim

millet, the Orthodox Christian group constituted the second largest population in the

Ottoman Empire. While the millet basi, or head of the Rum milleti of the Ecumenical

Patriarch was granted relative jurisdiction over civil affairs within his constituency, the

millet system included a series of unfair government policies that invoked the anger of

the Greek constituency.

Under the millet system, Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire were subjected to

unreasonable policies. In 1770, Sultan Selim III reinstated the dress codes enacted by the

government to distinguish all non-Muslims living in the empire. Orthodox men were also

forbidden to bear arms or ride horses. The Greek people also assumed a greater

proportion of Ottoman taxation policies, and were subjugated to additional taxes such as

the cizye poll tax system and the military harac tax. Although many of these orders were

enforced by the Ottoman Porte, as stated by Richard Clogg, “more were breached in their

observance.”

Patriarch Anthimos, Submission to the Powers, 62.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 2.

While the Ottoman Empire prided itself on its religious tolerance, many Ottoman

policies fostered prejudice against Orthodox Christians. The Ottoman Porte instigated a

series of stipulations that clearly favored the Islamic class over Orthodox Christians. In

any court cases between Greek and Muslim parties, the court endorsed pro-Islamic

measures that nearly always adjourned in favor of the Muslim party. “His evidence in the

Muslim kadi’s court was not accepted against that of a Muslim nor could he marry a

Muslim woman.”

The Ottoman Porte implemented additional measures such as a

societal dress code to ensure the differentiation of classes between people of Christian

and Muslim faith. But by far, the most demanding Ottoman policy was the devsirme or

paidomazoma. Under this policy, the Balkan Orthodox Christians were subjugated to the

policy of releasing their children to the Ottoman government. Administered on an

interval basis, a proportion of the infant population in the empire was taken by the

government and raised under the Ottoman Porte. The Porte converted the youth

population to Islam and prepared the children to serve in the Ottoman government in

either a civilian or military capacity as janissaries.

While many Greeks resented this

practice, many parents, regardless of Islamic or Christian faith, actively sought to enroll

their children in devsirme or paidomazoma due to its prominent status and room for

governmental advancement. While a fairly popular Ottoman tradition, this practice was

abandoned in the eighteenth century, although accounts of the process persisted n the

rural areas of Greece.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 2.

Political representation was also another matter of contention for the Greek people

living under the Tourkokratia. While the Phanariot class represented the Greek people in

positions in the Ottoman Porte, the Phanariot positions were often only nominal and

limited in power. Drawn from eleven families in Constantinople, the exclusive selection

of the Phanariot classes to government positions prevented many Greeks from exercising

political power in the empire. While it appeared that the Phanariots fairly represented the

interests of the Greek people, this was hardly the case. The Phanariots simply acted as

instruments of Turkish oppression. In Rossangalogallos, a popular satirical poem that

enjoyed wide circulation during the first decade of the nineteenth century, the vlakhbey of

Wallachia, declared, “The freedom of Hellas implies poverty to me…As a slave I am

glorified, beloved by the Turks.”

Although the Phanariot class identified culturally as

“Hellenic,” many of the families were not of Greek origin. Instead, many Phanariot

families represented other Orthodox cultures, such as Albania and Romania. In a

description provided by Cyril Mango, the Phanariots were a “thoroughly iniquitous lot

who lived by intrigue and base adulation, who were indifferent to the real interests of the

compatriots and who cynically exploited the Rumanian principalities that they were

appointed to govern.”

Regardless of religion or ethnic origin, the Phanariot class simply

had one agenda to maintain, and that was the assurance of their prosperity under the

Ottoman Porte, even if it was achieved at the expense of their Greek compatriots.

K.Th. Dimaras. “Rossanglogallou” as cited in Clogg, Richard “Aspects of the Movement for Greek

Independence.” Struggle for Greek Independence, 10.

Cyril Mango, “The Phanariots and the Byzantine Tradition. As Cited in Clogg, Struggle for Greek

Independence, 41.

The role of the Phanariot class in preserving Greek culture and identity is an issue of

debate topic among Greek historians. In past analyses, scholars have often arrived at

divergent conclusions. Greek historians such as Richard Clogg believe the Phanariots

merely sought to maintain the peaceful co-existence between the Greek and Turkish

populations by the self preservation of their positions of power and influence.

Comparatively, other historians such as Cyril Mango assert that the Phanariots were

“animated by the purest patriotism” despite the certain vices that surrounded them in their

positions of influence.

While some Phanariots espoused the ideas of the liberalism and

Greek nationalism, by virtue of their position in the Ottoman Porte—the sources of their

wealth and their association with the Patriarchate, reflected a tradition that was

essentially anti-national.

Although the role of the Phanariot class in fostering Greek

nationalism and support in the Greek independence movement remains a matter of

contention, the general acknowledgement and of the influence of the Phanariot class in

the development of the Greek independence movement cannot be disputed.

Perhaps the most decisive factor that promoted the rise of the Greek independence

movement was the virtual decline of the Ottoman Empire during the eighteenth century.

Due largely to the growth of the political autonomy exercised by the Greek people

throughout the empire, the Ottoman Porte increasingly lost control of its territorial

holdings and over its constituents. Greek historian Richard Clogg attributes this rise to

the increased power of the provincial warlords and the elites of the Anatolian derebeys

Mango, “Phanariots and the Byzantine Tradition, 41.

Mango, “Phanariots and the Byzantine Tradition, 59.

and the Ruemliot ayans.

Along with the rise of provincial power in the rural regions of

the Ottoman Empire, the collapse of authority also marked the deterioration control in

these areas.

In response to the insurgent uprisings that occurred throughout the empire, the

Ottoman Porte adopted Western military combat techniques and technology. Sultan

Selim III enacted a series of military reforms to his program known as the Nizam-I Cedid,

or the New Order. Under this program, the Porte modernized Ottoman military and naval

forces by opening new facilities and schools. The Hendeshane, a modern army school,

was erected in 1734, followed by the opening of the naval academy at Ayynalikavak in

1770.

However, in reality, the Sultan experienced little success with his reform efforts.

While he increased the size of the army incrementally, he could not mend the differences

between the troops and janissaries. As a result of his failure to modernize the Ottoman

armed forces, Greek nationalists encountered very little opposition in their revolts. At the

outbreak of the war in 1821, the Greek people engaged in battle against a poorly

disciplined, disorganized, ill-equipped Ottoman force.

The Rise of Klepthouria

Given the weakened state of Ottoman jurisdiction and law enforcement in the

empire, the Ottoman Porte experienced the uprisings of various insurgency groups

throughout the region. These belligerent assemblages were important to fostering the

leadership and organization of armed rebellion necessary for Greek the independence

movement. Additionally, these insubordinate bands served as the fundamental means for

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 5.

the development Greek independence movement. During the eighteenth century, three

prominent organizations engaged in the Greek revolt—the klepths, armatoloi, and the

Philiki Etairia. Through the operations of these three organizations, the Greek people

established an organizational foundation for the movement for Greek independence.

The first signs of the Greek independence movement appeared with the rise of

rebel groups in the mountainous regions of the Ottoman Empire. Formally recognized as

klepths, the bandit gangs were a disruptive nuisance to the Ottoman Porte. Klepth

organizations operated in bands that numbered fifty to two hundred members.

The

klephths engaged in rebellious actions for varying reasons. Some desired to avoid tax

payment, while others held personal vendettas against the Ottoman Porte and targeted

classes such as the Greek elite, merchants, primates, clerics, and monasteries.

In the

execution of rebellious campaigns, the scourge of klepths disrupted the state of the

Ottoman Empire through rural pillaging and plundering, staging civilian hostage crises,

and in some extreme cases, conducting murder. Due to nature of their belligerent

operations, the klepths assumed popular folk images that were immortalized in eighteenth

century Greek ballads and literature. In the popular Ballad of Kitzio Andonis, the author

portrayed the extent to which the klephic banditry wreaked havoc throughout the empire.

Here we have not seen klefts, here there are no klepths.

They told us that they passed beyond, over to Makrinoros,

They laid waste to villages, they devastates vilayets.

He (Kitzio Andonis) set fires to churches, fire to monasteries

He made slaves of the children, of the wretched women!

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 8.

F. H. Marshall, “Four Klephtic Songs,” Eis Mnimin S. Lambrou (Athens, 1935), 42-45. As cited in

Clogg, Movement for Greek Independence, 1770-1821: a collection of documents (New York: Barnes &

Noble, 1976), XVI.

A disorganized, disjointed rural phenomenon, the klepths served as a form of early

resistance to Ottoman rule. Although the klepths pursued Greek independence through

rebellious action, the rebel groups were crucial to the achievement of Greek

independence and fostered the grassroots movement of the Greek revolt and bred early

leaders for the Greek independence movement.

In response to the klepth phenomenon, the Ottoman Porte established the

armatloi, an organization of Christian troops commissioned to combat klepth banditry.

Yet suppression of the klepths proved to be extremely difficult. Due to their rural

inhabitance, the klepths maintained power by preventing passage through the

mountainous regions and by staging hostage crises. Klepth bandits attacked unsuspecting

travelers and prevented the prosperity of commerce in rural Greece. Consequently the

responsibility of patrolling the mountain passages and protecting innocent travelers fell

upon the armatoloi. In a particular account given by an armatloi stationed in

Thessaloniki, the general of the millet region, Koprulu Zada Ahmed issued a series of

orders to address the attack made by the local klepths.

Take care to arrest these wherever they jay be found and to oblige them to return

the value of the objects they have expropriated and of the ransoms imposed to

their principles, carrying out the necessary against them. Impose order and report

on the measures taken. Already as soon as you receive this high freeman of mind,

since I do not wish for injustices to be practiced the inhabitants, take care that

affronts or arbitrary acts do not take place against those who did not take part in

this robbery, but arrest and imprison the above brigands wherever they may be

found and take back the stolen objects and animals, as well as the ransom

imposed, returning these to the principals and cleansing the place of evildoers.

I.K. Vasdravellis, Armatloi kai Klepthes eis tin Makedonian (Thessaloniki, 1970), 131-2. As cited in

Clogg, Movement for Greek independence, 73.

The general tone of Ahmed’s orders reflect the Ottoman Porte’s irritation with the

klepths. It also reveals the klepths’s capability for destruction and the extent to which the

bandits acted in order to protest against the Ottoman Porte. In subsequent orders, General

Ahmed declared all actions taken against the klepths imperative to preventing future

attacks on the region. Despite these efforts, the reality of klepthouria was its

organizational sustainability regardless of the Ottoman measures to suppress their action.

Without any united mission, formal leadership, or jointed organization, the klepths

operated in a virtually indestructible manner.

Quite often, the distinction between the armataloi and klepths was difficult to

determine. In many cases, members of each group exchanged allegiances, depending on

the receipt of commission and payment. In an account given by a klepth, “For twelve

years long, I lived kleft on Chasia and Olympos, At Luros and Xermoeros, I served as

armatalos.”

This practice of exchange was a common and frequently practiced by both

groups. Although appointed to enforce Ottoman jurisdiction, the armatoloi were not

constant in their loyalty to the Ottoman Porte. As revealed by Douglas Dakin, “The two

terms became almost interchangeable, or rather it was the custom to speak of tame

klepths and wild klepths, the latter frequently being armatoloi who happened to be in

rebellion.”

Granted little distinction between the two forces, this phenomenon, the rise

of klepthouria contributed to the growth of the grassroots campaigns for the

independence movement under the Ottoman Porte.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 9.

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 8-9.

Unlike the historic phenomenon of klepthouria, the Philiki Etairia represented the

first formal revolutionary society led by the Greek people. Founded in 1814 by Greek ex-

patriots residing in Odessa, the organization assumed the mission of liberating the Greek

people from Ottoman rule. The radical liberation party received attention throughout the

early eighteenth century. In an address made by the Holy Synod against the Philiki

Etairia, the Patriarch denounced the role of the Philiki Etairia and directed his attacks

towards Alexandros Hypsilantes, the leader of the insurgency movement in Morea and

the Peloponnese.

Hence, whoever objects to this Empire which is vouchsafed to use by God, he

rebels against God’s command. And these two fundamental and basic moral and

religious obligations have been trampled upon with unequalled impudence… by

the ungrateful Alexandros Hypsilantes, son of the notorious and ungrateful

fugitive Hypsilantes. To all our compatriots are known the countless mercies, of

which the perpetual source is our ordained and mighty kingdom…

As is gleaned from the excerpt, the Philiki Etairia posed as a serious threat to the stability

and control of the Ottoman Empire. Through its operations, the overarching mission of

the Philiki Etairia was two-fold—1) to recruit foreign aid and 2) to propagate the Greek

cause throughout Greece. The organization was thus essential to the spread of the

independence movement throughout the empire

Given the culmination of these factors and conditions experienced by the Greek

people during the Tourkokratia, the relative ease to which the revolutionary and

independence movement materialized indicate the stirrings of a larger movement in the

Ottoman Empire. While in some cases the Greek people exercised considerable authority

G. G. Pappadopoulos and G.P. Angelopoulos, Ta kata ton aoidimon protathlitin tou ierou ton Eliinon

agonos ton Patriarkhin Konstantinoupoleos Gigorion ton E (Athens, 1865) I, 235-41. As cited in Clogg,

Struggle for Greek Independence, 204.

and influence, this representation accounted for a minority of the Greek population. The

remainder of the Greek class suffered religious discrimination, political oppression, and

were subjected to unfair social policies. Through these factors, the Greek people

recognized the necessity for independence and pursued the struggle for liberty and

freedom from the Ottoman Empire.

Chapter 2: The Guiding Light of the Enlightenment

Introduction

The advent of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century marked a period in

history that altered the development of modern culture, politics, and intellectual thought

throughout the world. The theories central to the Enlightenment had a far-reaching

impact on the development of social, cultural, and political institutions that still exist

today. Moreover, the subsequent movements and events that emerged in response to the

Enlightenment transformed the traditional political landscape of Europe and modern

society. Established with an emphasis of reason as the primary source for political

legitimacy and authority, the Enlightenment served as a pivotal force that inspired the

birth of a revolutionary age. The nations that subsequently developed during this era

exemplify the general magnitude and impact of the Enlightenment on the development of

modern society.

Originating in Western Europe, the Enlightenment principles of liberty and

independence arrived in Greece amid a period of growing cultural tension and political

dissatisfaction. After nearly six centuries under Ottoman rule, the Greek nation far from

resembled the former grandeur of the Classical period. Instead, the Greek state had been

reduced to a shadow of its former glory and achievement. The dawning of the

Enlightenment provided the basis for the Greek return to the former splendor of the

antiquity. During the late eighteenth century, Enlightenment values and precepts found

expression in the Greek independence movement largely through the Greek ex-patriot

and mercantile classes situated throughout Europe. Transmission of Enlightenment theory

and its ensuing principles of freedom, equality, and independence returned to Greece

where it was wholly embraced by the Greek population. Founded during an age of global

expansion and liberalism, the ideals of the Enlightenment fostered a sense of Greek

nationalism that ultimately contributed to the Greek revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

This chapter examines the factors that contributed to the birth of the Modern Greek

Enlightenment—the rise of global revolutionary movements, the influence of

Enlightenment independence principles, and the nationalist underpinning that defined the

Greek people. An analysis of these elements in relation to the Greek independence

movement will reveal the extent to which the Enlightenment influenced the development

of the free Greek nation.

The Enlightenment Defined

Characterized by the metaphor of light, the Enlightenment challenged the

fundamental truths and mores of society. A period enlightened by logic and reason, the

Enlightenment introduced an age of Western philosophy that promoted the achievements

produced in the fields of science, literature, and intellect. Enlightenment theory did not

originate from one founder or derive from a specific country. Instead, the Enlightenment

emerged simultaneously in various Western European countries, such as France, Great

Britain, the Germanic lands, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and the American colonies.

The metaphoric light of the Enlightenment represented the potential to confront the

unchallenged boundaries of social order and culture. As characterized by Margaret Jacob,

the channeling and application of this metaphoric light yielded a wealth of possibilities

for society and its accompanying institutions.

The light that filled the universe could be channeled, dissected, magnified, and

measured by human ingenuity. The question arose, could the light not also be

trained inward to banish the darkness from human minds long trapped by

conventions, superstitions, and prejudices? With that question began the struggle

to dare to know, to invent an alternative to the pieties about churches and kings to

which most people still subscribed.

As was the case for Greece and for many nations under oppressive rule during the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this metaphoric light granted license for

revolutionary uprisings throughout Europe and the Western world. Subscription to these

Enlightenment ideals produced an age defined by nationalism, liberalism, and radicalism.

Immanuel Kant defined the Enlightenment as a period identified by “man’s

emergence from his self-imposed nonage.”

His axiom, Sapere aude, or “Dare to know!

Have the courage to use your own understanding,” underlined the very basis of the

Enlightenment.

For many Enlightenment thinkers, the application of reason and logic

to intellect, politics, and culture encapsulated Kant’s “daring to know.” During the

greater part of the Enlightenment, scholars questioned the very tenets of the established

religious, social, and political order. The dissemination of the ideas that emerged from

these inquiries and examinations rapidly rendered the masses and manifested into

grassroots independence campaigns around the globe.

Enlightenment theory also centered upon the question of the natural rights of man.

Encompassed by the ideals of liberty and freedom, Enlightenment philosophy reflected

on religion, political oppression, freedom, and the natural right of mankind to challenge

and question these institutions. “The Enlightenment requires nothing but freedom—and

Margaret C. Jacob, The Enlightenment A Brief History with Documents. (Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s,

2001), 2-3.

Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” 203.

Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” 203.

the most innocent of all that may be what Kant defined as, “freedom”: freedom to make

public use of one’s reason in all matters…The spirit of freedom is spreading beyond the

boundaries.”

For the discontented European masses, these principles merited the

independence movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The Enlightenment produced a legacy reflective of both the progress and

deterioration of European society during the eighteenth century. Despite the political

autonomy achieved during the revolutions of the late eighteenth century, many of the

successive governments returned to a state of repression and censure. The period of the

Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution illustrates this case. “In France, the

Revolution itself turned into scenes of tumult and of death…a dark stain on the annals of

the revolution.”

Anarchy and political radicalism replaced the former stability of

monarchical reign. This emergent egalitarian disease plagued the progress of the

country’s development and induced many European monarchical governments to heavily

defend against the Enlightenment beliefs of freedom and liberty. The response to the

period, Romanticism, embraced the appeal to the senses and emotions. As remarked by

historian Margaret Jacobs, “the Enlightenment did not so much end as it became

transformed into reformist agitation and utilitarian practices.”

This transition away from

the reason of the Enlightenment represented a shift in political and intellectual theory to

Romanticism.

Kant, What is Enlightenment?” 204-207.

Helena Maria Williams, “Letters of August 18, 1794 and September 4, 1792.” Plain Reasons for

Adopting the Plan of Societies Calling Themselves the Friends of the People (Edinburgh, 1793); Cited in

George Claeys ed, Political Writings of the 1790’s (London: William Pickering, 1995), 8:24. As Cited in

Jacob, Margaret. The Enlightenment and Other Documents, 68.

Jacob, The Enlightenment and Other Documents, 70.

While not all outcomes of radical Enlightenment politics of the eighteenth

century resulted in immediate success, the democratic and republic institutions that

emerged in response to the Enlightenment reflected a period of reformation. The growing

power of the public sphere indicated the influence of the masses over the landed elite and

aristocratic government. “The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the

sphere of private people come together as public; they soon claimed the public sphere

regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a

debate over the general rules governing relation in the basically privatized by publicly

relevant sphere... The medium of this political confrontation was peculiar and without

historical precedent: people’s public use of their reason.”

The organization of the public

masses into radical societies signified the development of nationalist undercurrent in

society. Political frustration and social discontent were channeled in a manner that

informed the masses through charitable efforts, the construction of libraries, the

publication of weekly journals, and by word of mouth. Through these grassroots

campaigns, these societies emerged from the shadows of secrecy and found expression in

the growing cultural and intellectual acceptance of the Enlightenment.

Although delayed in arriving to Eastern Europe, the Enlightenment principles

deeply resonated with the Greek people under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

Transmitted back to Greece through the mercantile and ex-patriot classes, application of

Enlightenment theory generated nationalist sentiment among the Greek population. The

principles of the Enlightenment accommodated the escalating tension and resentment of

Jürgen Habermas, “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere-An Inquiry into a Category of

Bourgeois Society,” (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973), 27.

the Greeks under their historic rivals. Even more, Enlightenment philosophes embraced

the former glories of the ancient past, serving as another vehicle for Greek support. This

renewed interest in the antiquity spurred a newfound appreciation for ancient Greece as

the framework for modern society. These factors generated a new era stemming from the

European Enlightenment, known as the Modern Greek Enlightenment. From its founding,

the Modern Greek Enlightenment adopted the sentiment of Western independence

movements and applied the concepts of freedom and liberty to the very core of

Philhellenism and the Greek independence movement.

Influence of Western Independence Movements-The United States and France

The undercurrents of the Enlightenment deeply resonated with the independence

movements of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Of the major government

insurrections, none was more influential in defining the period than the American and

French Revolutions. Both uprisings characterized an era of revolution and reformation

that consequently served as the political framework for the subsequent independence

movements of the period, including the Greek War for Independence. The increasing

pervasiveness of the universal rights of man—life, liberty, and property—all deeply

reverberated with many intellectuals under oppressive political regimes. An evaluation of

the Enlightenment principles in relation to the Greek state under the Ottoman Empire

reflect the greater impact of the Enlightenment on the precipitation of the Greek War for

Independence.

The Universal Rights of Man “Rightly Understood”

The ideas of liberty and the universal rights of man served as the foundational

basis for the nationalist movements that emerged throughout the late eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries. Promulgated by Enlightenment thinkers throughout the world,

Enlightenment theory functioned as the impetus for the American and French

independence movements. Beginning with Montesquieu’s theories on liberty and equality

as outlined in Lettres Persanes of 1721, the natural development of equality and its

benefits to society outweighed the subjection to monarchical power. “The very equality

of citizens, which ordinarily produces equality of fortune brings abundance and life into

every organ of the body politic and extends such benefits generally.”

Similarly, Jean

Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract reinforced Montesquieu’s theories on the rights of

man and expanded on the determination of the rights of the individual versus the

collective in society. Through the doctrines expounded by Rousseau in the Social

Contract, the government was deeply indebted to society and must ensure the protection

and defense of the natural rights of man. Although monarchs are endowed with royal

power, Rousseau asserted that the stipulations of the Social Contract held that people had

the right to liberty and freedom.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains…As long as a people is

compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well, as soon as it can shake off the yoke,

and shakes it off, it does still better, for regaining its liberty by the same right as

took it away, either it is justified in resuming tor or there was no justification for

those who took it away.

Montesquieu, Lettres persanes. 1721. As cited in Gay, Enlightenment: A Comprehensive Anthology.

(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 141.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, Contrat Social. As cited in Gay, Enlightenment: A Comprehensive Anthology,

322.

According to Rousseau, the violation of the social contract warranted rebellious action.

Lastly, John Locke’s Two Treatise on Government clearly advocated the universal rights

of man as justification for rebellious action. Under the social contract, Locke defended

life, liberty, and property as the universal rights of man. Similar to contemporary

Enlightenment philosophes, Locke maintained the power of society extended to the

people of society, and therefore the legislative body must defend the state. However, if

the legislature forfeited its powers in contempt of society, Locke viewed it permissible to

remove the institution in power. “There still remains in the people a supreme power to

remove or alter legislature, when they find the legislative act contrary to what the trust

reposed in them.”

Thus Locke asserted that society maintains the ultimate power and

yields the right to control whomever is in power. These theories resonated with the

American colonists and the French people, and thus promoted an age of revolution and

reformation that greatly influenced the birth of the Greek independence movement.

The rise of the American Revolution in 1776 deeply inspired the people of

Greece, as well as many other countries throughout Europe. A nation founded upon the

tenets of religious and political freedom that began with the migration of the British

Puritans in 1692, the ideology of the American revolutionary ideology encompassed

ideals from Puritan religion along with Enlightenment doctrines. As the first successful

national uprising, the American Revolution was the “earliest successful assertion of the

principle that public power must arise from those over whom it is exercised.”

For many

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. (London: Whitmore and Fenn, 1690), 317.

R.R. Palmer, The Age of Democratic Revolution- Apolitical History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 185.

American colonists, the British monarch violated the universal rights of man and thereby

warranted rebellious action.

Dissemination of revolutionary material was critical to the success of the

American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia-based printing company The

Pennsylvania Chronicle. was particularly influential in the publication of revolutionary

propaganda and criticism of the British monarchy. Similarly, Thomas Paine’s Common

Sense served as another example of the effective translation of Enlightenment theory to

the compulsion of revolutionary action. Prior to the Battle of Trenton in 1776, General

George Washington distributed Paine’s pamphlet amongst his troops to inspire his

soldiers before battle. Common Sense detailed the very nature of England’s prerogatives

in the American colonies along with a cited list of reasons as to why the colonies no

longer benefited from an association with Great Britain. Sooner or later, Paine concluded,

the colonies would require their independence.

The government of Great Britain over this continent is a form of government,

which sooner or later must have an end…As parents, we can have no joy in

knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to endure anything which

we may bequeath to posterity, and by plain method of argument, as we are

running the next generation into debt, we ought to do work of it, otherwise we use

them meanly and pitifully.

As a responsibility of American colonists to their posterity, Paine considered it their duty

to seize independence from British oppression. Inspired by the Enlightenment values of

freedom, liberty, and independence, the American colonists applied theses mores to

rebellious action against the British monarchy.

Thomas Paine, “Common Sense: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America.” (London: H.D. Symonds,

Paternoster-Row, 1792), 15.

The translation of the universal rights of man to the French Revolution was

apparent in the publication of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man. Proposed by the

National Assembly of France in August of 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man

served as the fundamental document of the French Revolution. It outlined the individual

and collective rights guaranteed to man to prevent future political disruption in society.

As stated in the declaration, “the ignorance, neglect or contempt of the rights of man are

the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined

to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man.”

The document expounded the natural rights of man as liberty, property, security, and the

right to resist to oppression. Additionally, the document dictated the rights and power of

the sovereignty over the political masses, in which case the “the principle of all

sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. Nobody nor individual may exercise any

authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.”

As the precursor to

contemporary human rights doctrines, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man

reflected the application of the Enlightenment ideals to the state of France under

monarchical oppression. With the greater understanding of the rights of the individual

and collective body, the French people interpreted Enlightenment ideals as license for

rebellious activity, thereby precipitating the rise of the French Revolution in 1789.

Translation of Enlightenment Theory into Rebellious Action in Greece

“Motivated by these principles of natural rights, and intending to be equated with

our other confreres, we started a war against the Turks,” proclaimed the First Greek

Declaration of the Rights of Man-1789. Article 2. ( New Haven: The Lillian Goldman Law Library in

Memory of Sol Goldman-The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, 1996-2007), 1.

Declaration of the Rights of Man-1789. Article 3. 1.

National Assembly in 1822.

By this time, the Greek people had formally declared their

independence from the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. Greatly influenced by the

Enlightenment principles of the eighteenth century, the Greek people translated the ideals

of freedom and liberty into rebellious action. The manifestation of these ideals

represented the realization for the achievement of Greek independence.

The influence of the American Revolution on the Greek independence movement

was revealed through the grassroots campaigns assumed by the Greek people against the

Ottoman Empire. The overall effectiveness of the Greek insurgency reflected the

operations of the underground resistance movement against Ottoman rule. Inspired by the

success of rebellious action in France and America, resistance groups emerged

throughout the Ottoman Empire. For the Philiki Etairia, the motive of this secret society

was clear; “the liberation of the fatherland from the terrible yoke of Turkish

oppression.”

The organization represented an amalgam of social and regional members

of the Greek world. According to a collated list of the organization’s membership, over

half (53.7%) of the members accounted for the merchant class, followed thereafter by the

“professional class” (13.1%).

The Philiki Etairia drew recognizable parallels with the

American Sons of Liberty. Both organizations represented the influential and educated

classes of society, and its members served as the basis for future political leadership.

Application to the establishment of government institutions

“Proclamation of the First National Assembly,” (Epidauros, January 15, 1822)

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence, 87-89.

Clogg, Struggle for Greek Independence , 95.

The first steps towards the establishment of an independent Greek state were the

organization of a national government. In light of the Enlightenment, the leaders of the

Greek independence movement emulated the political institutions created by American

the United States and France. Similar to the French National Assembly and the American

Congressional Committee, the Greeks founded the Greek National Assembly as the first

provisional government in December of 1821. As observed by a Greek eye-witness at the

drafting of the Greek provisional constitution, “a new era commences with the year 1822.

Disorders are claimed, and faults diminish. A political constitution is proclaimed, and a

central government formed. The Greeks are on the point of trying if they can govern

themselves. May they succeed in both these attempts!”

The political body mirrored the

institutions implemented by the French and Americans. Demetrius Hypsilantes presided

over the executive body while Sotiri Charalampi served as the Greek Vice President. The

legislature was comprised of thirty three deputies.

Following the precedent set forth by

the American Revolution, the Greek National Assembly produced a provisional

constitution to govern the Greek people during the time of the war. Furthermore, the

Greeks declaration of independence greatly resembled both the French Declaration of the

Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence. In its contents, the Greek

National Assembly justified its rebellious action and need for autonomy. The provisional

constitution ensured the protection of the equal rights of man along with a guarantee for

the proper and fair representation of government in Greece. “Thus, discerning their true

interests, the magistrates by a vigilant foresight, the people by a sincere devotion, will

Greek Eye-Witness. “General View of the Origin and Progress of the Revolution.” The Provisional

Constitution of Greece. (London: John Murray, 1822), 35.

Greek Eye-Witness, “General View of the Origin and Progress of the Revolution.” 36-38.

succeed in founding the long-desired prosperity of our common country.”

The

establishment of a structured representative political body and detailed constitution

reflect the growing influence of the Enlightenment independence movement on the

emerging independence movements that occurred throughout Europe. Although the first

of three political documents constructed within the ten year span of the war, these first

steps towards achieving a representative body reflected the impact the American and

French Revolutions on the development an independent Greek state.

Johann Joachim Winckelmann: The Origin of Enlightened Philhellenism

Of the many Enlightenment philosophes that influenced the evolution of

European artistic and literary culture, Johann Joachim Winckelmann was critical to the

foundational development of Philhellenism and the Modern Greek Enlightenment. His

exploration of the aesthetics and history of Ancient Greek art ignited an enthusiasm

among contemporary European artists and stimulated an outpouring of literary writings,

criticism, as well as theoretical and philosophical reflections on ancient Greece and

Greek culture through the larger part of the eighteenth century Enlightenment.

Acknowledged as the founding father of German Classicism, Winckelmann’s works

inspired a generation of Enlightenment contemporary philosophes such as Goethe,

Hölderlin, Kant, and Herder. His first fundamental work, The Reflections on the Imitation

of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture introduced European intellectual society to the

works of the Greek past. Written in 1755, Reflections delineated the basic tenets of art

First Greek National Assembly. Address of the National Assembly to the Greeks. Jan 15, 1822. As

provided in The Provisional Constitution of Greece. (London: John Murray, 1822), 35.

Elfriede Heyer and Roger C. Norton. Introduction to Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. Reflections on the

Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture. (La Salle: Open Court, 1987), Original translation

from original German Essay 1755. P IX.

history that remain seminal to his future works and subsequent thinking.

But by the far,

Winckelmann’s Geschichte der Kunst des Altherums, or The History of Ancient Art of

Antiquity of 1764 served as his masterpiece in defending the superiority and paramount

of Greek art and culture. Through an examination of Winckelmann’s life and work as an

Enlightenment intellectual, the extent of his contribution to Philhellenism can be

understood in 1) his role as a German Classicist prompting the advent of Neoclassicism,

2) his influence on the contemporary practices of the Enlightenment, and 3) his effect on

the development of the radical thinking of artistic and cultural norms initiated by his

contemporaries.

Prior to Winckelmann, any connection between the art of the ancient world and

contemporary art history existed primarily in the form of iconographic decoding. This

method of study focused heavily on the ultimate goal of eighteenth century

antiquarians—to “discover equivalences between the motifs, symbols, and narrative

scenes represented in ancient art and the myths, symbols and stories found in ancient

texts.”

The pinnacle of Winckelmann’s work—The History of the Art of Antiquity

during the mid-eighteenth century signified a shift in focus and attention to the artistic

style and subject matter of ancient artifacts. Widely circulated among the educated

classes, Winckelmann’s Geschichte aroused a newfound interest in the art of antiquity in

Germany and Europe. The History of the Art of Antiquity and Reflections on the Greek

Works of Painting and Sculpture demonstrate Winckelmann’s role in exploring the

contemporary facets of ancient artwork that were previously unacknowledged.

Heyer, Introduction, XVI.

Potts, Flesh and the Ideal, 19.

Winckelmann’s work prompted an appreciation for Greek cultural history with his

exploration of Ancient Greek art. He introduced the untraditional aspects of Greek

sculpture and art such as natural beauty, human form, drapery, light, and allegory to

praise ancient artwork as the pinnacle of all work.

As the founding father of German classicism, Winckelmann was significant to the

early development of the study of art history. Neoclassical scholar Lorenz Eitner states,

“he indeed restored to the soul its full efficiency in art, and raised it from its unworthy

dependence into the realm of spiritual freedom. Powerfully moved by the beauty of form

in the works of antiquity, he taught that production of ideal nature elevated above the

actual, together with the expression of spiritual conceptions, is the highest aim of art.”

Most central to Winckelmann’s studies were the conceptions of “noble simplicity” and

“sedate grandeur,” conclusions he arrived at when studying imitations of Greek

masterpieces such as Virgil’s Laocoön.

Through his observations, Winckelmann

introduced theory on the natural form in ancient sculpture. He proclaimed the superiority

of Greek sculpture in capturing the human soul through the expert application of drapery,

contour, and natural beauty.

The presentation of new theories represented the extensive

contribution made by Winckelmann to the development of Philhellenism during the

Enlightenment.

Heyer, Introduction, XVI.

Lorenz Eitner, Neoclassicism and Romanticism 1750-1850 Sources and Documents, Volume II

Restoration/Twilight of Humanism. (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1970), 44-45.

David Irwin, Neoclassicism. (Phaidon Press Limited: London, 1997) , 34-35.

Johann Joaquin Winckelmann, Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture.

(La Salle: Open Court, 1987) Original translation from original German Essay 1755.

Due to the revived appreciation for the Classical period during the eighteenth

century, Enlightenment societies attempted to emulate the cultural practices of Ancient

Greece. “Good taste, which is becoming more prevalent throughout the world, had its

origins under the skies of Greece…The only way for us to become great or, if this be

possible, inimitable, is to imitate the ancients.”

Winckelmann’s influence on the

development of Philhellenism across continental Europe can be observed in the

application of his studies to his contemporary Enlightenment counterpart. For

Winckelmann, imitation of Ancient Greek culture and artwork was the highest

achievement that society could obtain. He drew comparisons between the ancient

objectives of perfect imitation of the human form to that of contemporary standards of

emulating work created by the ancients. As observed by Polygnotus, “the highest law

recognized by Greek artists was to create a just resemblance and at the same a more

handsome one—it assumes of necessity that their goal was a more beautiful and more

perfect nature.”

Winckelmann advocated the imitation of Ancient Greek culture and

ideals. He thoroughly believed the imitation of the Ancient Greeks would yield the

rebirth of the Classical Era, a common conviction that served as the founding theory of

Philhellenism throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Winckelmann asserted

this belief in his Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture;

Winckelmann, Reflections, 4-5.

Winckelmann, Reflections, 17.

I believe that the imitation of the Greeks can teach us to become knowledgeable

more quickly, for it shows us on the one hand the essence of what is otherwise

dispersed through all of nature, and , on the other, the extent to which the most

perfect nature can boldly, yet wisely, rise above itself. Imitation will teach the

artist to think and to draw with confidence, since he finds established in it the

highest limits of that which is both humanly and divinely beautiful.

Winckelmann defended this belief and reaffirmed ancient Greek culture as the

penultimate framework for modern society. In assuming this position, Winckelmann’s

literature propagated Philhellenic sentiment that persisted throughout the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries.

In a commemorative essay in the period following Winckelmann’s death, Johann

Gottfried Herder asked, “Who in the world, unless he be a prophet, a god, or a devil,

could write a complete History of Art?”

Winckelmann understood his final

achievement; The History of the Art of Antiquity was destined to remain unfinished. Due

to the evolving assessment of beauty, style, and form, the real history of the art of

antiquity could never truly be completed. Consequently, many of Winckelmann’s

contemporaries contributed to his legacy into the Enlightenment period. Philosophers

such as Herder, Goethe, and Hegel maintained Winckelmann’s tradition in celebrating

the Classics. “They were all inspired by his account of the Greek ideal when they began

to imagine a historical divide separating ancient from modern culture. They were the first

to fully historicize the antique ideal, defining modern culture as the antithesis of the

integrated wholeness of ancient Greek culture, of its naïve simplicity and centeredness,

Winckelmann, Reflections, 21.

Johann Gottfried Herder, “Denkmal Johann Winckelmanns,” in Gesammelte Werke, Ed. Suphan (re-print

of 1892 ed., Hildesheim, 1967), VILL, 468. As cited in Lepmann, Wolfgang. Winckelmann (Alfred A.

Knopf: New York, 1970), 295.

and of its unmediated relation to itself and nature.”

By completing Winckelmann’s

unfinished work, these German scholars promoted the value of the Classics to the

Enlightenment Age.

As commentators of the Neoclassical period, many philosophes attributed their

careers to Winckelmann’s pioneering work. Through the study of Winckelmann’s

principles, these philosophes adopted two major aspects of his work—1) his newfound

artistic analysis method, and 2) his ardor for Classical culture and intellect. For many

years, scholars studied Winckelmann’s works extensively, and applied his theories to

construct their own ideas and principles. His introduction of artistic theory on the state of

nature in the representation of art resulted in the birth of a new perspective in the study of

art.

The journeys and studies Winckelmann conducted for the sake of his work

inspired the careers many of his contemporaries. For Goethe, exposure to the Italian

imitations of the Greek sculptural masterpieces represented a high point in his life, and

symbolically captured the famous first line of his journal—“Auch ich arkadien” or “I too,

am in Arcadia.”

Winckelmann inspired contemporary philosophes by presenting classic

Greek sculpture as the visual embodiment of the larger values thought to be inherent in

the Greek culture as a whole.

In this way, later Enlightenment thinkers not only

inherited Winckelmann’s ideas on art history, but also his appreciation for Ancient Greek

culture. In expanding upon Winckelmann’s theories, contemporary scholars inherited his

Potts, Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History, 19-20.

Heyer, Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works, XVII.

Potts, Flesh and the Ideal , 20.

celebration of ancient Greece. For Hegel, “Winckelmann succeeded in representing art as

a phenomenon that transcended the narrowly professional concerns of the art world, and

made it the basis for analyzing some of the fundamentals of human culture and

philosophic self-awareness.”

As proposed by Hegel’s affirmation of Winckelmann’s

contributions to modern society, Winckelmann undoubtedly impacted the development

of contemporary Enlightenment philosophes. In his Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, Hegel

commented on the extent Winckelmann inspired his work:

Winckelmann was inspired by his contemplation of the ideals of the ancients to

fashion a new sense for contemplating art, which saved art from perspectives

dictated by common aims and mere imitation of nature, and set up a powerful

stimulus to discover the true idea of art in art works and in the history of art. For

Winckelmann is to be seen as one of those who managed to open up a new organ

and a whole new way of looking at things for the human spirit.

For Hegel and other Enlightenment contemporaries, Winckelmann’s theories served as

the archetype for a new study in art history. Yet as presented by Alex Potts, “no one quite

succeeded in producing a historical analysis of an artistic tradition that was as resonant as

his, that truly functioned as his History had done, as a point of reference for those

engaged in larger speculation about the present day significance of the artistic and

cultural ideas of the past.”

Nevertheless, Winckelmann’s work and legacy succeeded in

two major ways—his introduction to a new perspective in artistic analysis, and his

historical and cultural appreciation for the Classical period. Given these factors,

Winckelmann’s teleological influence on the development of future Enlightenment

Potts, Flesh and the Ideal, 20.

Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, (Frnakfurt-am-Main, 1970), vol. I, 92. As cited in Potts,

Flesh and the Ideal, 20.

Potts, Flesh and the Ideal, 20.

thinkers revealed the extent of the overall impact of his work in the Enlightenment

period.

Winckelmann was instrumental to the advancement of the European

understanding of ancient Greek culture and art. Through his studies, Winckelmann

established ancient Greek art as paramount and fostered contemporary views of the

superiority of Greek art. His conviction in the imitation of ancient Greece was not only

limited to art, but also to contemporary culture. Winckelmann strongly believed the

imitation of the Greeks would improve society all together.

Following this belief,

Enlightenment scholars engaged in the quest to imitate the ancient Greeks in the sciences,

art, and literature. Winckelmann’s contemporaries adopted and expanded upon his

theories to carry on his legacy. “Its effect on Goethe, Schiller, and the entire German

classical period and beyond is legend,” remarked Elfriede Heyer in his reflection on the

impact of Winckelmann’s work

More importantly, the contemporary discussions and

theories inspired by Winckelmann’s studies led to a transformation in consciousness

during the eighteenth century.

The Modern Greek Enlightenment

To eighteenth century and modern travelers alike, the light of Greece is a unique

characteristic of the country. More than usual, the image of Greece conjures up visions of

whitewashed houses perched above island hilltops surrounded by the sparkling

Mediterranean Sea, and set against a magnificent cerulean sky. This perception implies

an unusual characteristic of brightness and light that is distinctive to Greece. Beginning in

Winckelmann, Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works, 4-5

Heyer, Elfriede and Roger C. Norton, XXI.

the late eighteenth century, the “light” of the Enlightenment engulfed the state of Greece,

yielding the illumination of the period in Greek history known as the Modern Greek

Enlightenment. “Incisive thinking, uncompromising conviction in high ideals, including a

superior aesthetic such as that exhibited in the ancient ruins scattered across the country,

relentless freedom and independence, and an inferred readiness to take absolute and

passionate action in heroic ways are vital parts of the contemporary Greek myth and the

‘Greek light.’”

During the eighteenth century, this Greek light represented the growing

hope and idealization of a unified, free Greek state.

The Modern Greek Enlightenment emerged as a period of Greek history in

response to the greater Enlightenment. For many Greek ex-patriots, the Enlightenment

principles reverberated with the state of the Greece under Ottoman rule. After three and a

half centuries of slavery and oppression, the ideals of the Enlightenment presented a

series of principles that wholly connected with the Greek people. The origins of the

movement can be traced back to the financial prosperity of the Greek mercantile class in

the eighteenth century. Communities throughout the Greek islands such as Corfu, Chios,

and Ioannina served as major centers for Greek commerce and trade. The rise of the

mercantile class also signified not only the increase in the exchange of wealth and

resources, but also the exchange of knowledge. Through the transmission of information,

notions of Enlightenment values on liberty, freedom, and independence reached the

Greek people and resonated in both ideology and practice.

Halkias, Alexandra. “The Empty Cradle of Democracy-Sex, Abortion, and Nationalism in Modern

Greece,” (Duke University Press: Durham, 2004), 19.

The greater objective of the Modern Greek Enlightenment was the realization of

the greater need of education in Greece. Enlightenment philosophes were convinced that

the “intellectual awakening” of the Greek nation would produce freedom and autonomy

from Ottoman oppression. The campaign for the re-education of the Greek population

was largely achieved through three major components. Following the Philhellenic

principles of the Western Enlightenment, prominent Greek scholars throughout Europe

assumed the responsibility of expanding education through the increased accessibility

and availability of text material to the Greek people. A greater understanding of the

achievement of the ancient past was a critical to the restoration of Greek nationalism and

cultural pride. The publication of original works and the translation of ancient Greek texts

permitted the growth and expansion of Greek education. Second, the growing

benevolence and generosity of the Greek mercantile class endowed Greek schools and

institutions of higher learning. The final component of campaign for the re-education of

the Greeks was the ultimate hope that the revival of Greek intellect would lead to the

generation of Greek nationalism, and thereby compel intellectual theory to rebellious

action.

The advent of the Modern Greek Enlightenment significantly influenced the

progress of the Greek state during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by successfully

constructing a Greek national identity. Fueled by the Philhellenic ideals embraced by

Enlightenment philosophes, the Greek people cultivated a national consciousness and

awareness of Greek culture and heritage. Prior to the Enlightenment, the Greek people

remained relatively unaware of the past of their glorious ancestors. However, the

expansion of education and Philhellenism led to a greater understanding of the Classical

period. Formally recognized as Hellas, this undercurrent fueled the advancement of

nationalism and ignited the Greek independence movement.

The Modern Greek Enlightenment pursued the application of Enlightenment

values to the Greek state to achieve the emancipation from Ottoman rule. Through the

adoption of Enlightenment theory, the Greek people recognized the capability for

achieving autonomy after nearly six centuries of oppression and discrimination at the

hands of the Ottoman Empire. Similar to the many independence movements of the

Enlightenment, the Greek movement represented a significant period in European history.

The Modern Greek Enlightenment represented the formation of a Greek national identity

and the restoration of Greek culture. It also signified a greater appreciation for the

Classical period. A period critical to the establishment of the Greek state, the Modern

Greek Enlightenment can be understood as the very basis of Philhellenism and the

precipitation for the Greek War for Independence.

Adamantios Korais: The Greatest Greek Nationalist

Of the many individuals involved in the Greek War for Independence, none was

more critical to the development of the Modern Greek Enlightenment than Adamantios

Korais. A product of the Greek mercantile class, Korais reaped the benefits of the

growing influence of the Enlightenment on the independence movements across Europe.

As a scholar in France, Korais witnessed the rise of the French Revolution and

consequently was exposed to the political climate of Europe. His legacy as a Greek

independence figure is thus encompassed in his efforts to promote the intellectual revival

of the Greek state in the eighteenth century. Korais declared education the primary

mechanism for the achievement of Greek liberation. He dedicated the greater part of his

life to raising the educational level of his Greek compatriots, and thereby attempted to

liberate them from the slavery and oppression of Ottoman rule. By undertaking this

Enlightenment campaign, Korais succeeded in establishing Greek nationalism in three

major ways—by 1) founding a greater awareness of the glorious Greek past, 2)

generating the publication of seditious political propaganda, and 3) by creating a unified

Greek language. Through the culmination of these nationalist and academic endeavors,

Korais represented one of the first Enlightenment generation to be involved in the

movement for Greek independence.

Korais mourned the deterioration of the Greek academia and viewed education as

the fundamental means for the achievement and progress of political emancipation for the

Greek people. For Korais and Enlightenment thinkers alike, the determination of social,

cultural, and political progress reflected the advancement of education in European

society. “Education not only illuminates, but it also liberates from poverty and the shame

of poverty. Education not only serves as a cure to ignorance and foolishness, but it also

grants to the educated a sense of dignity and self-appreciation,” remarked Korais in his

work the Prolegeomena

Korais proposed education as the basis for the achievement of

Greek emancipation. “The scheme was simple. The people would be educated to desire

independence, and then taught to govern themselves once it was attained.”

This

Utilitarian theory encompassed Korais’s twenty year Enlightenment project entitled the

Prolegomena, 1, p 63. As cited in Kitromilides, Paschalis M. Adamantios Korais and the European

Enlightenment. (Voltaire Foundation University of Oxford: London, 2010), 235.

Stephen George Chaconas, Adamantios Korais-A Study in Greek Nationalism. (Columbia University

Press: New York, 1942), 35.

Hellenic Library, a twenty-five piece literary compilation designed to educate the Greek

masses. Beginning in 1805, Korais compiled, translated, and annotated texts of ancient

Greek philosophers and poets. The purpose of the Hellenic Library was two-fold—1) to

solicit funding and support from Philhellenes throughout Europe, and 2) foster Greek

cultural pride and nationalism.

Distribution of the Hellenic Library throughout Europe and Greece was achieved

largely through the magnanimity of the Greek mercantile class. This show of

benevolence included the founding of libraries, construction of orphanages and hospitals,

and the subsidized funding for Greek foreign education.

In literary works such as The

Solicitude for Hellas, Korais appealed to the European landed nobility, urging national

unity and cooperation in the regeneration of the Greek fatherland. “He petitioned that

priests, bishops, and all spiritual leaders, be transformed into Chrysostoms—benevolent,

learned, and wise men. He hoped that “scholastics” or literary pendants might be

endowed with sound judgment and brotherly love. He wished students to display greater

eagerness for enlightenment, and wealthy merchants more patriotic generosity.”

these means, Korais ensured the fulfillment of his commitment to expanding education to

the Greek masses, and thus inspired the subsequent foundations for the Greek

independence movement.

Following the influence of early Enlightenment thinkers such as Johann Joachim

Winckelmann, Korais’s campaign for the elevation of Greek education focused upon the

restored recognition of the former glories of Ancient Greece.

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 36-7.

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais-A Study, 101.

Inspiring his compatriots with a profound feeling of humiliation for their political

servitude, Korais reminded them that Greece had once been the most renowned of

all nations, the first to develop the principles of democracy and liberty, the mother

of arts and sciences. In contrast, the Modern Greeks, laboring under the yoke of

the “Moslem barbarian,” had sunk to national oblivion; such were the fruits of

foreign domination. But finally the time of vengeance had arrived; the bright light

of “salvation” indicated the way.

For many of the modern Greeks of the eighteenth century, the Classical Age represented

a period of pagan culture and practice. Under Muslim rule, the Ottoman government

conditioned Greek history in a manner that prevented the proper recognition and

celebration deserved among the Greek masses. Degraded to this state, Greece appeared a

shadow of its former condition. The former Greek state no longer remained—the ancient

ruins reduced to rubble and stones, Greek culture ethnically diluted, and the literary texts

relatively forgotten by the public. Western society deeply revered culture, political, and

intellectual achievements of the Classical Period and strove to emulate the success of the

ancient Greeks. As a result, Korais sought “to encourage awareness of the incomparable

Greek intellectual heritage to which his fellow countrymen were heirs and urged them to

cast off the mantle of Byzantine ignorance in which they had been enveloped.”

Through

these efforts, Korais’s moved to educate his Greek compatriots about their glorious

ancestral past to yield the enlightenment of the Greek independence.

Another major component of Korais’s campaign for education reform in Greece

was his publication of seditious political propaganda against the Ottoman Empire. As a

Greek ex-patriot in France, Korais witnessed firsthand the events of the French

Revolution. He recognized the manifestation of Enlightenment ideals into rebellious

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais-A Study, 91.

Richard Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, 2

Ed. (Cambridge University Press: London, 1992), 28.

action and realized its ability for political change. “The French Hellenists provided

Korais with an ideology; the French Revolution with a program of action. It taught him

that progress was man-made, that laws stemmed from the sovereignty of the people, that

nationalities had an inherent right to political freedom”

Inspired by these events, Korais

envisioned a Greek state free from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire. He thus

produced revolutionary literature with the hope of awakening a desire for national

independence. In his first polemical poetic work, The Song of War, Korais declared the

dawning of the Greek independence movement—“The time of vengeance had arrived, the

bright light of “salvation” indicated the way,” and that “tyranny be wiped off the face of

the earth! LONG LIVE LIBERTY!”

Through such inflammatory language, Korais

urged his compatriots to escape this state of ignorance and slavery to achieve

emancipation and freedom from Ottoman rule.

Korais’s second piece, The Trumpet sought to arouse the Greek people by

appealing to their sense of their ancestral pride. According to Korais, it was the

responsibility of the modern Greeks to resist Ottoman tyranny of in a manner worthy of

their ancestry. That being said, Korais viewed the slavish state of servitude of the modern

Greeks as the greatest form of human degradation. “Why must men honored with the

names of Hellenes accept this most outrageous misfortune? Why must they live in

humiliation? Why must the Greeks, in every way superior to the Turks, be slaves of

infidels?”

In an effort to combat this debased state, Korais attempted to unify the Greek

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 30.

Therianos, Korais, Ladas Works, (K.N. Sathas, Greece Under Turkish Domination, Athens, 1869) 24-

28. As cited in Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 91.

Korais, Trumpet As cited in Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 95-96.

masses by emphasizing the state over the individual. In preparing for the hour of liberty,

“every man was to adopt a magnanimous and sacrificial patriotism. All were to conduct

themselves in accordance with the dictates of national interest.”

Woven into the fabric

of his education reform campaign, Korais’s exhortations echoed the sentiments of

Enlightenment thinkers across Europe. The Enlightenment themes of liberty and freedom

resonated with the Greek population and inspired the application of his seditious work

into rebellious action, and thus propelled the Greek state closer to war.

Korais’s final legacy to the achievement of a Modern Greek identity was his

establishment of a uniform Greek language. Commissioned to translate Classical texts

from ancient Greek to French by Napoleon Bonaparte, Korais gradually earned the

reputation as one of the premier philologist in Europe. While undertaking in his studies,

Korais recognized the deficit of a common language as a contributing to the absence of a

Greek national identity. During the eighteenth century, usage of the classical Greek

language was no longer conversed and served solely as a literary language. This

translation between the written and spoken Greek resulted in a state of general confusion

and chaos as described by Chaconcas;

There was a complete absence of a fixed standard or grammatical canons; it was a

potpourri of obsolete words and syntax with the colloquialisms of the day and the

unadorned expressions of the masses. Its orthography was unsettled, varying with

the preference of each writer, that is between the ancient, medieval, or modern

form, and it abounded in solecism and flowery sentences.

In general, no agreement existed over the construction of modern vernacular. As a result,

the Greek linguistic education system existed in three schools of teaching methodology.

Korais, Ode for Hellas. As cited in Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 102.

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 54.

The Greek Orthodox Church celebrated medieval ecclesiastical Greek as the liturgical

literary medium. Greek church schools practiced a teaching style that favored ancient and

medieval language as a means to transform the modern Greek language to emulate and

more closely resemble the ancient language. Conversely, the speech of the educated

classes encapsulated expressions of both classical and medieval Greek with modern

vernacular. Finally, the vernacular of the un-educated classes experienced the problem of

differing local dialectic peculiarities. Despite these differences, Korais created a fusion of

the three schools, uniting the speech of the educated classes and implementing the

simplistic vernacular and expression of the illiterate masses. Known as Katharevousa,

Korais’s language “was designed to be comprehensible to the masses and still not too

crude to offend the upper classes. It was unambiguous and an intelligible literary medium

not too far removed from the capacity of the average reader or too remote from its

classical prototype.”

Korais ultimately succeeded in establishing a Greek language that satisfied all

classes. But even more, Korais’s success proved to be invaluable in fulfilling his

commitment to the expansion of Greek education. Not only did a uniform Greek

language signify the establishment of a standardized educational foundation, it also

succeeded in creating a fundamental mechanism for the development of Greek

nationalism. Linguistic barriers in academia, social class, and religion no longer

prevented the achievement of national unity, and thus provided license for the realization

of the Enlightenment independence principles. As provided by Chaconas, “the primary

objection of the Koraiste was to bring about the linguistic unification of modern Greek as

Chaconas, Adamantios Korais, 57.

the first step toward the attainment of political liberty and a happier life for the people

under their own nation-state.”

By 1976 Greece officially abandoned Katharevousa as

the national language of the country in favor of the Demotic Dimotiki School. Yet despite

this, Katharevousa was a major solution to a linguistic controversy that prevented the

unification of a nation. Korais’s contribution to the creation of Katharevousa signifies the

first steps made by the Greek people at achieving unity and nationalism.

Although Korais greatly believed the Greek War for Independence occurred

prematurely, he whole-heartedly devoted himself to the Greek cause. As the intellectual

leader amongst his Greek compatriots, he worked indefatigably to spread the

achievement of liberty and freedom among the Greeks. A true product of the Modern

Greek Enlightenment, Korais applied education as a vehicle for the fundamental

improvement and emancipation of the Greek state. By increasing the education level of

the Greek people, Korais believed that the Greek people could be uplifted from the

degrading oppression of Turkish rule. He recognized the press as an enlightened and

liberating force critical to the generation of nationalism and revolutionary action.

Although he published his work under a pseudonym and distributed the material in

secrecy, his ideals deeply reverberated with the Greek people. Following the initial

success of the independence movement in 1821, Korais with his “soul shaken by the

great earthquake,” believed that that the realization of national independence had been

achieved.

Throughout his forty five years of dedication to the liberalization of Greece,

This thesis is frequently expressed in the preface to Korais’ Heliodorus’ Aiethiopica, which was first

written as a private letter to his friend in Vienna, Basilis. See Fournarakis, op. cit., 1-58. The same text

may be found din Anonymous, op. cit., 13-54. As cited in Chaconas, Stephen George. Adamantios Korais-

A Study, 57-58.

Paschalis Kitromilides, Adamantios Korais and the European Enlightenment, 220.

Korais remained steadfast in his Enlightenment campaign. As a result, the success of his

endeavors revealed him as the model figure of the Modern Greek Enlightenment.

Conclusion

Between December 1821 and January 1822, the Greek National Assembly

convened in Epidauros to declare war against the Ottoman Empire. In the proclamation of

the First National Assembly, the Greek people justified their actions. “After a long

slavery, we were finally forced to take up arms and defend ourselves and our country.”

This convention of revolutionary leaders marked the dawning of a new period of Greek

history. For Philhellenes across Europe, this declaration of independence symbolized the

reclaiming of the Greek past and the revival of the Greek spirit of Hellas. For the Greek

people, this uprising represented freedom from centuries of slavery and oppression. And

for the Ottoman Empire, this assertion indicated a threat to the state of the empire.

The Greek revolutionary uprising against Turkish rule proved to be the first

successful national revolt of the nineteenth century. The leaders, philosophy, and culture

that emerged during the Enlightenment all directly influenced the onset of the Greek War

for Independence. Enlightenment reasoning and logic compelled the Greek people to

strive for freedom and liberty. The success of the foreign independence movements in

France and the United States inspired many Greeks to realize the capability of achieving

similar success in Greece. Imbued with the fervor and enthusiasm inspired by

Romanticism along with the rational faculties of the Enlightenment, the Greek people

engaged in their battle for liberty and freedom. At the outbreak of war and by the formal

“Proclamation of the First National Assembly,” (Epidauros, 1822), 1.

declaration of independence in 1822, the people of Greece succeeded in assuming the

first steps towards achieving their autonomy. The realization of their struggle and quest is

best summed up in the introductory statement of the Greek provisional constitution: “The

Greek Nation, wearied by the dreadful weight of Ottoman oppression, and resolved to

break it yoke, though at the price of the greatest sacrifices proclaims today its

independence.”

The Provisional Constitution of Greece. Translated from the Second Edition of Corinth Accompanied by

the Original Greek Piece. (London, 1843), 57

Chapter 3: The Philhellenes and the Influence of Romanticism

Introduction

With the seeds of the Greek independence movement firmly planted as early as

the late eighteenth century, signs of Greek revolt and resistance against Turkish authority

reached a climax in 1821. Rural bandits wreaked havoc throughout the Greek mainland,

while pirates plundered the Mediterranean coastline. Secret societies gathered throughout

the country to formulate resistance movements against the Ottoman government and local

authorities. During this period, many of the Turkish communities situated throughout

regions of Greece, primarily in the Southern Peloponnese, were increasingly victimized

by the Greek population. In response to these actions, the Ottoman Porte enforced a series

of highly stringent measures to subdue the Greek masses. While Ottoman officials

attempted to suppress the Greek resistance, their efforts proved ineffective and ultimately

failed. This consequently permitted the sustainability of the Greek independence

movement and increased Greek fervor and enthusiasm. After almost four centuries of

control over Greece, the Ottoman Empire witnessed its startling decline in Eastern

Europe. What was once previously a peaceful coexistence between the Turkish and

Greek populations evolved into a highly racial and religiously segregated war zone.

Transmission of the news depicting the atrocities committed by both the Greek

and Turkish parties spread throughout Western Europe, and traveled as far as the United

States. In general, European leaders adopted a firm neutral policy in reaction to the

outbreak of Greek insurgency. European leaders viewed the Greek movement for

independence as an isolated case and refused to become involved in the politics of the

Ottoman Empire, a territory deemed strategic to the stability of Eastern Europe politics.

As a result, European governments did not acknowledge Greek independence or

officially support the Greek cause. Political leaders enacted more stringer policies to

discourage the provision of support for the Greek cause. Yet despite these decrees,

individuals throughout Europe gathered to provide aid to the Greek people. Recognized

as the revival of the phenomenon known as Philhellenism, the movement generated the

necessary international financial, military, and literary support for the Greek cause.

At the same time, paralleling the emergence of Philhellenism, Europe experienced

the birth of Romanticism. Characterized by an emphasis on emotion, intuition,

individualism, and imagination, Romanticism proved to be the underlying ideology that

influenced the foundation of the Greek War for Independence. Bred in countries of

affluence and political power, this intellectual and cultural movement influenced the

development of societies throughout Europe. Although initially unknown amongst the

Greek population, Philhellenic societies across Europe applied Romantic principles to

Philhellenic action to serve as the fundamental basis for their motivation to support the

Greek cause.

The transfer of Philhellenic influence from the Enlightenment to Romantic period

also contributed to the Greek cause. The revival of the classical education of the

Enlightenment period invoked a renewed sense of appreciation for Greek literary and

philosophical classics. This restored admiration for the Classics manifested into the

Romantic belief that the modern Greeks were the direct descendents of the ancient heroes

of the Classical Era. Central to Philhellenism during the nineteenth century was the

presumption that the liberation of the modern Greeks would yield the rebirth and the

return of Greece’s “Golden Age.” Furthermore, the Romantic tradition of the Grand Tour

was another aspect of period that greatly exposed the state of the Greek people under the

yoke of Ottoman rule. Given the varying facets of Romanticism, it is evident that the

intellectual movement substantially influenced both Philhellenism and the success of the

Greek independence movement.

The leaders that emerged during the Romantic period also proved to be essential

to the success of the Greek independence movement. For many European elites, the

Grand Tour experience exposed European travelers to the political state of continental

Europe and the plight of the Greek people under Ottoman rule. Consequently, Grand

Tour travelers returned home with a new outlook on the state of Greece and the politics

of Eastern Europe. Inspired by the accomplishments of ancient Greeks and sympathetic

to the modern Greeks and their struggle for autonomy, these Romantics were the first of

many Philhellenes to engage in the Greek independence movement. United by a common

cause, these figures founded the first Philhellenic societies in Europe. Through the

collective social, financial, and military efforts of these Philhellenic organizations, the

Greek people received much needed aid to achieve their autonomy.

Of the many Philhellenes dedicated to the assisting the Greek people during the

Greek War for Independence, none was more influential to the expansion of

Philhellenism than George Gordon Byron, the Greek hero more commonly referred to as

Lord Byron. Not only did Byron freely go to Greece to lend his celebrity, financial

resources, and literary fame, but he also died in the process. Though even in death, Lord

Byron proved to be a valuable figure to Philhellenism and the Greek War for

Independence. His pseudo-martyrdom in the Greek independence movement is easily

summarized through the two major aspects of his endeavors—his political association

and network in United Kingdom and the disposal of his personal wealth as a British

aristocrat.

Much of the success of the Greek War for Independence relied heavily on the

influences of Romanticism and Philhellenism. Both movements were vital to the Greek

cause. While Enlightenment theory served as the founding ideology of the Greek war,

Romanticism provided the missing emotional component that compelled Philhellenes to

action. Through the application of Philhellenism, the people of Greece received the

necessary international support to successfully finance and fight the war. While some

aspects of Philhellenism were founded upon blatant misperceptions and assumptions, the

principle facets of Romanticism—the classical studies, the Grand Tour experience, and

the charismatic literary leaders who emerged, all proved to be essential components in

fostering Greek nationalism during the Greek War for Independence.

The Loss of Classical Greek Culture

Although both Philhellenism and Romanticism were critical to the success of the

Greek War of Independence, the Greek people were not initially aware of the existence of

either movement prior to the outbreak of the war. Since antiquity, Greek culture had been

diluted by the immigration of populations from Albania, Italy, the Slavic regions, and

other surrounding Balkan countries. Greek culture reflected a compendium of cultures

C.M. Woodhouse, The Philhellenes (Cranbury: Farleigh Dickinson, 1971), 10-11.

that no longer resembled the customs and practices of ancient Greece. The modern

Orthodox Christian Greeks of the nineteenth century viewed their classical ancestors as

pagans who engaged in cult worship and practice. Classical literature was lost as a result

of changes in the Greek language, and the remains of once sacred temples and sites of

mysticism represented nothing more than a pile of crumbling rocks. As a result, the praise

and glory of the ancient Greeks was effectively adulterated through the ethnic

amalgamation of Balkan immigration and the shift in religious culture and practices of

the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Greece.

The geographical location and isolation of Greece apart from the remainder of

continental Europe also proved to be a factor that isolated the Modern Greek people and

prevented the initial reception of Romantic and Philhellenic principles. Under the

authority of Ottoman rule, the Greek people were insulated from the remainder of

Western Europe. However, this quarantine was not absolute and the Turkish authorities

ultimately failed to suppress the dissemination of revolutionary ideas. Despite the efforts

of the Ottoman authorities, the fundamental principles of Romanticism became

incorporated in the foundation of Philhellenism.

The emergence of the Greek merchant class in the late eighteenth century offered

yet another means for the integration of international philosophy into Greek culture

during the period Ottoman rule. During this time, prosperous Greek mercantile

communities surfaced in major port cities throughout Europe—the Italian lands, Britain,

France, the Hapsburg Empire, and Russia. Initially interested solely in reaping the

financial benefits of Greek mercantilism, the Greek communities abroad gradually

accepted and adopted the ideals of the Enlightenment independence movements and

Romanticism. Despite the distance and location, these communities were thoroughly

determined to maintain their Greek ethnic identities. Nonetheless, these communities

integrated and assimilated into the countries they settled in. Their children attended

European universities and received Western-style educations, served in European armies,

and adopted European political and intellectual ideas. As Greek ex-patriots, these

communities sustained and stimulated support for the Greek cause abroad. It was this

Greek class that “first conceived a Greek Revolution as a nationalist movement on the

European model,” as noted by Greek historian William St. Clair.

Through this

conceptualization and accessibility to foreign aid, the relative determination of Greek

patriotism appeared plausible and capable of success.

While fifteenth century Byzantine monks preserved the Greek classical texts, the

teachings of renowned ancient scholars and orators such as Diogenes and Demosthenes

were neither recognized nor incorporated in the primary Greek education. Consequently,

classic Greek literature was not readily available or accessible to the Greek population.

Furthermore, the established academic institutions under the Tourkokratia were poor and

failed to educate the Greek populations. Given these varying aspects of the intellectual

and educational climate in Greece, the value of the Greek classics was fundamentally lost

under the Ottoman rule and reserved to only a small portion of the Greek population.

The improvement of Greek education was also paramount to the establishment of

Greek nationalism. “Education among the Greeks was the herald of liberty,” stated

William St. Clair, That Greece might still be free; the Philhellenes in the War of Independence (London:

Oxford University Press, 1972), 9.

British historian George Finlay in his primary account of the Greek War for

Independence.

During the late eighteenth century, educational opportunities under

Ottoman rule were limited in span and scope. Public education was inadequate in the

urban regions of the empire and nearly non-existent in rural communities. Instead, Greek

children ventured abroad to Western and Northern Europe to pursue their education under

the more modernized Western education systems. However, this opportunity was rare

and reserved exclusively for the affluent and merchant classes of the Greek population.

Through the efforts of these privileged students, Romanticism principles circulated and

returned back to Greece to be shared with the masses. In other instances, wealthy

individuals and ex-patriots endowed schools in an effort to “raise their countrymen from

the degradation to which they had sunk towards the middle of the last century.”

Education served as a vehicle of nationalism for the Greek people. By raising the

knowledge and awareness of the Greek past, Philhellenic leaders hoped to uplift the

Greek people from the Ottoman yoke. Many of the educated youth from the generation

grew to be the founders of nineteenth century literary clubs and secret societies that

enabled the Greek independence movement.

But in reality, it was not until the benefits of Philhellenism were fully understood

that the Greek leaders recognized the potential in adopting the elements of the movement.

By simply acknowledging the values endorsed by Philhellenism, the Greek people

received a wealth of foreign assistance that arrived in the form of financial and military

support, as well as the production of literary propaganda. Furthermore, in the process of

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, and the reign of King Otho( London: Zeno, 1971), 71

Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, 97.

accepting Philhellenism, many Greeks managed to reclaim and reaffirm their ethnic

heritage. Inspired by this Romantic tradition, many Philhellenes flocked to Greece to

provide their support and aid to the Greek cause. Consequently, both Philhellenism and

Romanticism proved to be influential movements in the achievement Greek

independence for both the Greek people and the international movements that mobilized

support for Greek cause domestically and from abroad.

Romanticism Defined

The nineteenth century intellectual movement of Romanticism characterized the

fundamental principles of the Greek War of Independence. While the Enlightenment

valued logic and rationalism, Romantics intellectuals rejected the traditional precepts of

eighteenth century Neoclassical period of the Enlightenment. Instead, Romantic scholars

emphasized the value of individualism and stressed the importance of the emotions and

the senses.

Through the development of Romanticism emerged a dramatic

transformation in the areas of art, music, literature, and politics. Originating in the late

eighteenth century in the Germanic states and Great Britain, the influence of

Romanticism spread throughout the European society, followed by its eventual spread to

South America and the United States.

The rise of Romanticism also corresponded with revolutionary movements of the

eighteenth century, most notably the American Revolution of 1776 and the French

Revolution of 1789. During an era of political, social, and economic upheaval, an

unprecedented liberal fervor appeared in response to the Enlightenment. Reinforced by

"Romanticism." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,

2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/508675/Romanticism>.

the tenets of Romanticism, these ideals emerged and found expression in religion,

nationalism, and the conception of the individual in relation to society. Through the

application of Romantic principles, these revolutionary movements proved to be

exemplary incidences that defined the national revolt and uprisings of countries

throughout South America and Eastern Europe.

The tenets of Romanticism were not adopted by Greek nationalists until the early

nineteenth century for a several reasons. First, the vast majority of the Greek population

under Ottoman rule was illiterate, while the remainder was woefully unaware of the

events occurring throughout the remainder of the world. But by the beginning of the

nineteenth century, notice of the revolutionary movements around the globe reached

Greece by way of the Greek intellectuals abroad and through the Greek merchant class.

With the surge of Greek mercantilism and the popularity of international education,

exposure to Romanticism and the events of the revolutionary movements ignited a

national enthusiasm among the Greek mercantile and intellectual masses. Even more, the

ideals of Romanticism imparted by Romantics and Philhellenes to the Greek people

established foreign relations that proved invaluable to financing the war.

The Grand Tour experience was a popular Romantic tradition among the

European aristocracy during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Upon the

completion of one’s studies, European elites traditionally embarked across Europe, Asia,

or Russia prior to receiving their inheritance of an aristocratic title and marriage. This

exposure to other cultures not only proved to be beneficial for European travelers, but

also for the countries that received them as tourists. For Greece, the Grand Tour provided

an affiliation for the Greek people to the European aristocracy that resulted in the

exchange of ideas and information. This repertoire signified the foundational

establishment of a political network between the Europeans and the Greek elites. For the

Greek people, these relationships revealed a vivid awareness of the international

revolutions and provided exposure to the ideals of Romanticism and the Enlightenment.

Given the incorporation of Greek classical literature into European primary

education of European elites, many representatives of this class included Greece as a

primary destinations in their Grand Tour experiences. Travelers relished the idea of

traveling to the sites of classical battles and sacred Greek mythology and expressed

strong desire to tour places such as Delphi, Olympus, and the Parthenon. This increase of

foreign interest in the antiquity and ancient Greece sparked the birth of early Greek

tourism. Additionally, it also provided license for foreigners like Lord Elgin to remove

ancient artifacts and relics from the sites. For the most part, many Greeks viewed these

sites as reminders of their pagan ancestors and generally looked upon the monuments

with disdain and apathy, rather than the admiration and awe exhibited by European

tourists.

The application of Romantic ideals to the Greek cause metamorphosized into the

development of Philhellenism during the Greek War for Independence. Leading

Romantics of the period engaged in the mission to liberate the descendents of the ancient

Greeks. Many Europeans believed that contemporary society was indebted to Greece for

its influence on the development of the modern world. It was thus the responsibility of

modern society to uplift the modern Greek people from their state of oppression. Through

the achievement of Greek independence, many Romantics believed Greece would return

to the state of its former glory. This idea is embedded in the appeal for aid made by the

London Greek Committee in the presence of the British Parliament:

The valor and virtue of the heroic descendents of these great masters of art and

science, their extraordinary successes in the midst of incredible privation and

active sufferings, the calm and steady progress of their emancipation towards a

regularly organized and national Government, cannot but have excited the

admiration and they sympathy of the generous and good.

Romantics and Philhellenes alike embraced this illusion of Greece. As the intellectual

descendents of the ancient Greeks, society’s debt to Greece needed to be repaid.

Romantic artists and authors propagated this belief. In Percy Bysshe Shelley’s infamous

Hellas, Shelley revealed the inherent relationship all European societies shared with

Greece;

We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their roots

in Greece. But for Greece, we might still have been savages and idolaters. The

Modern Greek is the descendent of those glorious beings that the imagination

almost refuses to figure to itself as belonging to our kind, and he inherits much of

their sensibility, their rapidity of conception, and their courage.

While some aspects of this vision appeared true, the basis for this belief had many

shortcomings. Despite this, literature of the propagandist nature inspired support for the

Greek cause. For many Philhellenes, the revitalization and achievement of the Greek

“Golden Era” was the ultimate goal of the Greek independence movement. As Shelley

declared in his poem Hellas, “The world’s great age begins anew, the golden years

“Appeal from the Greek Committee to the British public in general, and especially to the friends of

religion,” Hume Tracts (1823) UCL Library Services. Accessed January 24, 2011.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/60208451>, 8.

David Howarth, The Greek Adventure-Lord Byron and Other Eccentrics in the War of Independence.

(New York: Athenaeum, 1976), 73 as cited from Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Hellas.

return.”

By providing aid to Greece, Shelley, along with many Philhellenes, believed

that the people of modern society would witness the revival of ancient Greece.

Another Athens shall arise,

And to remoter time,

Bequeath, like sunset to the skies,

The splendor of its prime

And leave, if naught so bright may live,

All earth can take heaven can give.

Through this Romantic propaganda machine, Philhellenism spread rapidly throughout

Europe. Artists flocked to Greece to capture the beautiful landscape. Sculptures crafted

statues that emulated the Greek masters. Newspapers published information in a literary

style skewed to the Greek perspective, and often grossly exaggerated. As this fantasy

grew, so did the presence of Philhellenic societies across Europe. Under this fictional

inspiration, Philhellenic societies throughout Europe offered their aid to the Greek

people, and thus fulfilled and perpetuated this successful propaganda campaign.

Romanticism proved to be an agency Philhellenism during the late eighteenth and

early nineteenth centuries. The movement not only encompassed the foundational

principles of the Greek War for Independence, but it also inspired the cultivation of

Philhellenism throughout Europe. While the Enlightenment provided the ideological

basis for the Greek War for Independence, Romanticism propelled Enlightenment

thought into rebellious action. Given this function in the determination of the success of

the war, Romanticism served as a necessary component of the Greek War for

Independence.

Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Hellas, 73.

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 73.

Byron: Romantic Philhellenism Personified

By far, the figure most involved and invested in the Greek independence

movement was Lord Byron. Considered the first of many foreign promoters for the Greek

cause, Lord Byron epitomized Philhellenism and proved to be an invaluable character

and hero of the Greek war. His involvement in Greece served as the agency of Hellas on

multiple levels. A famous British aristocrat, Byron played an integral role in generating

political and financial support from Philhellenic organizations across Europe. His

position as a prominent British aristocrat provided a wealth of political and social

contacts for the Greek cause. Even more, Bryon’s celebrity as a popular Romantic poet

served as a literary propaganda machine that promoted the Greek cause. Lastly, Bryon’s

notoriety and celebrity resulted in the development of his role as the quintessential

‘Hellenic hero” of the Greek Revolution. Given this trio of roles as a British politician,

Romantic propagandist, and Hellenic figure, Bryon personified the core elements of

Philhellenism in the Greek independence movement.

Byron first experienced the wonder of Greece in 1809 during his Grand Tour

through the Mediterranean. Due to the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars in Western

Europe, many aristocrats alternatively chose to travel to Eastern Europe and the

Mediterranean. At the age of twenty-two, Byron departed from Portugal accompanied by

his Cambridge classmate John Cam Hobhouse. The pair arrived in Athens on Christmas

Day of 1809.

During their tour, the duo witnessed the plight of the Greek state under

Ottoman rule in the decline of Greek culture and the loss of the appreciation for ancient

Greek civilization. Their journey included a tour of the Parthenon, the Temple of

Woodhouse, The Philhellenes, 14.

Poseidon, the Delphic oracle, the court of Ali Pasha in Epirus, and finally Missalonghi

where their trip concluded. This two year experience throughout Greece proved to be the

foundation for Byron’s initial love affair with Greece.

Upon completion of his Grand Tour experience, Byron returned to England to

claim his inheritance as a British aristocrat and assume his responsibilities as a Member

of Parliament. Yet after only five years, Byron briefly left Britain to escape the censure of

his personal life. Allegations of incest and sodomy along with rumors of numerous sexual

exploits followed him throughout England. Finally in 1816, Byron left England, never to

return, and departed for the Italian Peninsula. There he settled in Genoa where he adopted

Teresa Guccioli as his mistress for four years. While in Italy, Edward Blaquiere, a

representative of the London Greek Committee sought an audience with Byron with the

hope of recruiting the his celebrity and wealth for the Greek cause.

“My Lord,” he wrote in his hotel on the morning of April 7, 1823, “having

reached this place last night on my way to Greece, I could not pass through Genoa

without taking the liberty of communicating with your Lordship and offering you

my best services in a country which your powerful pen has rendered doubly dear

to the friends of freedom and humanity.”

100

Blaquiere’s request presented Byron with new opportunities—an escape from Genoa and

the opportunity to renew his fame. At the age of thirty-five, Byron was immensely

dissatisfied with his life. His physical state had slowly deteriorated and he no longer

retained the handsome features that he was once famous for; his hair had receded, his

teeth loose and rotted, and his weight had vastly increased as a result of his years in

100

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 123.

Italy.

101

By 1820, Byron yearned to reclaim the fame of his youth. He thus viewed the

Greek cause as an outlet for the revival of his public image.

Even more, Byron feared what he believed was his impending death. In his youth,

a fortune teller warned him of his death during his thirty-sixth year, “He told several

people he had a strong presentiment he would die in Greece…He said he hoped to die in

battle, because that would be a good ending and he had a horror of death bed scenes.”

102

His sense of approaching doom deeply depressed him, and he viewed his involvement

with Greece as an opportunity to die with glory. Given these factors, Byron accepted

Blaquiere’s invitation to join the Greek cause.

After Edward Blaquiere’s approach in Genoa, Byron assumed the position of

pseudo-British ambassador to Greece. In accepting this role, Byron responded in a letter

stating, “I have the pleasure in acknowledging your letter, and the honor which the

committee has done me. I shall endeavor to deserve their confidence by every means in

my power.”

103

A representative of English Philhellenism, leaders of the London Greek

Committee entrusted Byron with delivering financial installments to the Greek people.

Byron also provided frequent status reports on the state of Greece. These reports were

directed to the London Greek Committee and were often published and exaggerated to

increase attention to the Greek state and heighten publicity for the desperate need for aid.

Byron’s correspondence with the London Greek Committee was essentially critical to

updating Britain on the status of the Greek war.

101

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 124-25.

102

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 130-31.

103

Howarth, Greek Adventure , 128

Byron also contributed his personal wealth to finance the Greek cause.

Immediately upon joining the London Greek Committee, Byron requested a credit of

£5,000 from his financial adviser, Douglas Kinnaird, stating, “There may be prisoners to

ransom, some cash to advance, arms to purchase, or if I was to take an angry turn some

sulky morning and raise a troop of my own, any of all of them would require a command

of credit.”

104

Byron understood that his survival in Greece depended heavily on how he

expended his personal finances. Nevertheless, Byron’s desire to fulfill his dream of dying

gloriously as a Greek hero superseded his concern for his personal finances, and he

decided to leave for Greece. In the summer of 1823, Byron chartered the ship Hercules to

depart for Greece along with £8,000 or £9,000 of his personal wealth.

105

Sadly, Byron

did not live to see the fruit of his financial contributions. Prior to the arrival of the first

loan installment from the London Greek Committee, Byron suffered from a seizure and

died on April 19, 1824. Deprived of the glorious death he so yearned, Byron reportedly

muttered, “Poor Greece,” in his final words.

106

Byron was not the first Romantic to comment on the extensive beauty of Greece.

Many travelers before him noted the ancient glory of Hellenic state. Romantic artists and

literary scholars returned from their journeys with new insight and perspectives on the

physical and political state of Greece under Ottoman rule. However, Byron can be

credited with creating a pseudo-Romantic propaganda machine. As affirmed by David

Howarth, “What he did for better or worse, in the ten years before the war, was to make

104

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 129.

105

F. Rosen, Bentham, Byron, and Greece- Constitutionalism, Nationalism, and Early Political Thought.

Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1992), 259.

106

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 71-72.

the romance of Greece a best-seller.”

107

The sensational fantasies of Greece constructed

in Byron’s work lured adventure seekers from afar to engage in what became known as

the “Greek adventure,” a journey which he also assumed.

Due the renowned nature of his work, poetic pieces such as Childe Harold’s

Pilgrimage, The Siege of Corinth, and The Isles of Greece were widely received and read

throughout Europe. Byron’s poetry praised the glory of ancient Greece and the sacred

mysticism of the Greek culture. His poetry often invoked a sense of political urgency and

moral obligation to assist the Greek people in achieving political autonomy from the

Turkish rule. In his famous work, Don Juan, Byron mourned the lack of modern heroes

in European society.

And where are they? And where art thou,

My country? On thy voiceless shore

The heroic lay is tuneless now

The heroic bosom beats no more

And they lyre, so long divine

Degenerate into hands like mine?

108

The cantos referring to Greece in Don Juan were meant to compel Philhellenic action

among Europeans throughout the continent. The destitute state of Greece under Ottoman

rule, and its lack of leadership, arms, and military support, was meant to compel

Romantic action and recruit aid to Greece. Byron’s poetic work as political propaganda

proved to be an effective means for recruiting military and financial aid throughout

Europe. As stated by Greek historian David Howarth, “The influence of Bryon’s poems

was fortuitous. He seems not to have dreamed, when he wrote them, that they would be

107

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 72.

108

George Gordon Byron, The Isles of Greece from Don Juan Canto the Third LXXXVI. 1819-1820.

read a few years later in the context of a genuine blood revolution.”

109

Inspired by the

glories of the Classical Era, excited by the supposed Romantic adventures of Greece, and

infuriated by the political status of the Greeks under Ottoman rule, Byron’s literary

propaganda can be credited with generating support among the European society.

Byron’s notoriety and celebrity also greatly contributed to the general awareness

of the state of Greece under the Ottoman Empire. Given his reputation as the “Hellenic

hero” of Greece, Byron’s initial motives for enlisting in the Greek cause were purely self-

serving. Due to the tumultuous nature of his personal life, Byron simply wanted to be

removed from English society. “I dislike England and the farther I go, the less I regret

leaving it,” he wrote from Patras in November of 1809.

110

For Byron, Britain represented

his growing resentment of home. His thoroughly detested his relationship with his mother

in Scotland and resented his childhood upbringing. The reception of his first poetic work,

The Hours of Idleness was critically reviewed by The Edinburgh Review. Inflamed,

Byron responded with the scathing publication of the English Bards and Scotch

Reviewers before fleeing to Italy. Lastly, Byron thoroughly disliked British aristocratic

society. Figures such as Lord Elgin disgusted Byron for their elitism. Byron denounced

Elgin’s removal of the portraits from the Parthenon frieze in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,

citing it as “the last poor plunder from a bleeding land.”

111

Greece served as a highly

desired respite from his life in England.

112

109

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 72.

110

George Gordon Byron, Letters and Journals, Volume VI, p 448 As cited in Woodhouse, The

Philhellenes, 42-43.

111

Byron, Childe Harold Pilgrimage. As cited in Clogg, Concise History of Greece 2

Edition.

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 210.

112

Woodhouse, Philhellenes, 43-46.

Byron’s dedication to the Greek cause received praise from Philhellenic societies

throughout Europe and the United States. His charisma as both a renowned Romantic

poet and British aristocrat, were implemental in his ability to attract support for the Greek

cause. The culmination of the assumption of these roles warranted his recognition as the

first of many “Hellenic heroes” in the Greek War for Independence. His arrival and

involvement in Greece inspired both Philhellenes and Greek insurgents alike. Upon his

arrival in Greece, the London Greek Committee’s Leicester Stanhope reported; “All are

looking forward to Byron’s arrival as they would the coming of the Messiah.”

113

Proclaimed a “Hellenic hero” by Greeks and Europeans alike, Byron’s contributions to

the Greek cause certainly warranted his reputation. The extent of Byron’s financial,

political and literary support also merited recognition. In essence, Byron personified the

ideals Philhellenism. Not only did he freely offer his support to the Greeks freely, he also

died for the sake of the cause. According to Howarth, “Byron’s death has often been

called a death for Greece.”

114

While his assistance to the Greek cause deserves praise and

recognition, his death is a factor of significance that truly impacted his contribution to

Greece. “His death in the cause of Greek freedom helped to keep interest in the plight of

the insurgents alive among an admiring European readership,”

115

wrote historian Richard

Clogg. In reflecting on his dedication to Greece and his imminent death, Byron stated, “I

do not lament, for to terminate my wearisome existence I came to Greece. My wealth,

my abilities, I devoted to her cause. Well there is my life to her.”

116

113

Rosen, Bentham, Byron, and Greece, 60.

114

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 124-25.

115

Clogg, Concise History of Greece 38.

116

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 164.

Conclusion

“Philhellene,” strictly translated from Greek to English, means “friend of the

Hellenes.”

117

Historically, this term referred to non-Greek people fond of Greek culture

and Greek patriots and nationalists of antiquity. By the turn of the eighteenth century, the

term evolved to encompass a broader and much larger phenomenon throughout Europe

known as Philhellenism. Paralleling the rise of Romanticism and the independence

movements of the Enlightenment period, Philhellenism served as a major vehicle for the

achievement of success in the Greek War for Independence.

Romanticism acted as the catalyst for Philhellenism in the Greek movement for

independence. The very tenets of the intellectual movement provided the fundamental

principles for the Greek War for Independence. The Romantic ideals of passion, emotion,

and individualism dovetailed with the struggle of the Greek people under Ottoman rule.

While Philhellenism and Romanticism went relatively unrecognized in the initial stages

of the war, its adoption to the Greek independence movement played an integral role in

the war’s success.

The impact of Romanticism on Philhellenism is best exemplified through the

assessment of the Philhellenes who traveled to Greece to partake in the independence

movement. “Hundreds, probably thousands, of young men all over Germany, and in

Poland, Denmark and Switzerland, gave up their jobs, broke their apprenticeships or

interrupted their studies and set off to find the committees.”

118

Inspired by Romantic

117

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout

by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).

118

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 80.

literary propaganda, fueled by the success of the independence movements of the

eighteenth century, and attracted to the Romantic adventures that waited in the land of

antiquity, many Europeans traveled to Greece to supply their physical and financial

resources to the Greek movement.

Many European leaders suppressed the provision of Greek aid by enforcing

mandates to prevent any expression of support against the Ottoman Turks. Prussian

government officials deemed volunteering in Greece illegal, while the leaders of both

Italy and Austria closed their ports and restricted access and transport to Greece. Yet

despite these measures, many men blindly joined the cause to contribute to the revival the

Classical period. “Nobody listened. The young men had their dream, and they could not

bear to be woken. They continued to come like lemmings, and about once a month, the

German or Swiss committees, chartered a ship to take everyone who was waiting in

Marseilles.”

119

Between November 1821 and 1822, no less than eight convoys of

Philhellenes departed from Marseilles to Greece.

120

These ships landed in areas

throughout Greece—Navarino, Kalamata, Missolonghi, Monemsvasia, and other coastal

villages.

121

Other Philhellenes navigated their way to Greece by land, crossing

treacherous terrain and braving the extreme Mediterranean climate. Despite the distance

and government discouragement, these Philhellenes genuinely believed in the Greek

cause, and many were willing to die for the achievement of Greek independence.

119

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 81.

120

A. Debidou, Le general Fabvier Sa vie, se ecrits. (1904), P 259. J. G. Eynard, Lettres et documents

officiels relatives aux derniers evenements de la Grec. (1831), 8 ff. 43-46. As cited in Dakin. British and

American Philhellenes, 42.

121

St. Clair, Greece That Might Still Be Free. (Oxford University Press: London, 1972), 82.

Yet in many cases, the Philhellenes who journeyed to Greece were wholly

misinformed on the state of the Greek people under Ottoman rule. After an extended stay

and the exhaustion of their personal resources, many men seriously regretted their

decision to journey to Greece.

One Prussian officer, an eye witness of Tripolitsa, stopped in Marseilles to write a

warning to the youth of Europe and it contained three sentences which summed

up everything the others were trying to say, the antithesis of the Philhellenic

creed: “The ancient Greeks no longer exist. Blind ignorance has succeeded.

Solon, Socrates, and Demosthenes. Barbarism has replaced the wise laws of

Athens.”

122

For a majority of Philhellenes, most of the intended goals and expected outcomes of the

war were not achieved. Dr. Samuel Howe, an American scholar and Philhellene

commented in his journal on the extreme naiveté of the men who rushed to Greece to

provide their services: “What a queer set! What an assemblage of romantic, adventurous,

restless crack-brained young men from the four corners of the world! How much courage

and talent to be found among them; but how much more of pompous vanity of weak

intellect of mean selfishness of utter depravity.”

123

Despite these reflections, the sheer

measure of support that arrived in Greece to provide aid reveals the very power of

Romanticism and the appeal of Philhellenism to Europeans during the nineteenth century.

Another measure of the success of Romanticism over Philhellenism was the

emergence of Philhellenic societies across Europe. Dedicated to the Greek cause, these

organizations rose throughout Europe in response to the Greek pleas for assistance.

Following the infamous massacre of Chios in April 1822, Greek committees were

founded in Madrid, Stuttgart, Munich, Darmstadt, Zurich, Berne, Genoa, Paris, and

122

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 81.

123

Samuel Howe, Journals. As cited in Dakin, British and American Philhellenes 4.

Marseilles.

124

At its founding, the London Greek Committee contained twenty-six

members.

125

By1824, the committee expanded tri-fold and include ninety-six members.

126

This increase in membership represented the growing influence of Romanticism and the

acquisition of Greek propaganda and support. In response, Philhellenic societies rose to

provide aid for the Greeks. Inspired by the ideals of Romanticism, the members of these

societies contributed their financial and political resources to Greece. Comprised of

famous Romantic intellectuals, aristocrats, and politicians alike, Philhellenic societies

expanded throughout Europe. These organizations were responsible not only for

financing the Greek war, but also for the dissemination of information on the state of the

war. The very backbone of the Greek movement for independence, Philhellenic societies

played an integral role in the achievement of Greek autonomy.

The exhaustion of Philhellenic financial resources also reflected the degree to

which Romanticism influenced Philhellenism. Philhellenic societies throughout the world

invested considerable amounts of their finances to fund the Greek cause. During the later

years of the war, the main concern for Philhellenic societies was the security of military

support. However, in order to realize these accommodations, the committees recognized

the greater need for financial assistance. In the case of British Philhellenes, the London

Greek Committee financed installment packages throughout the length of the war. After

investing Philhellenic donations in the London stock market, the London Greek

Committee dedicated the accrued interest to the Greek people. By 1823, the Greek

124

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 42.

125

E/S/ de Neer and Walter Seton: Byronaiana: The Archives of the London Greek Committee (Nineteenth

Century, Vol. C, September, 1926), P 389. As Cited in Woodhouse, C.M, The Philhellenes. (Cranbury:

Farleigh Dickinson, 1971), 72.

126

The Nineteenth Century, Vol C. (September 1926), P 389n. As Cited in Woodhouse, Philhellenes, 182-

184.

government received a £315,000 loan from the London Greek Committee. The first of the

packages arrived to Greece in a series of two £40,000 loans.

127

While these financial

resources were quickly depleted, their value to the Greek war effort was immeasurable

and influenced the outcome of the war.

The influence of Romanticism and Philhellenism on the outcome on the Greek

War for Independence was undeniably crucial to the achievement of Greek independence.

Philhellenism, reaffirmed by Romantic ideals, enveloped the Greek cause and compelled

European volunteers to service in Greece. Imbued with the emotional fervor promoted by

Romanticism, the Philhellenic volunteers braved the journey to Greece. As fittingly put

by Douglas Dakin, “These adventurers had one thing in common, and that was their

consuming love for Greece-a sentiment which we call Philhellenism. This sentiment,

which had been nourished and strengthened by Romanticism, was nothing new. It has a

history which began long before the War of Independence and which, one need hardly

say, is still unfinished.”

128

To this day, Philhellenism can still be observed in the very

fabric of the Modern Greek government and politics, serving as a reminder to Greeks and

foreigners alike of this ancient phenomenon and its age-defying appreciation and

admiration for Greece and the Classical Era.

127

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 75-77.

128

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 4.

Chapter 4: Great Power Politics and International Influence

As the reach of Philhellenism extended to become an international phenomenon,

Philhellenism transformed from simply an ideology to the provision of support for the

Greek people. Beginning with the emergence of Philhellenic societies in the Germanic

states, the ideals of Philhellenism spread to unite individuals and countries alike for the

sake of the Greek cause. Whether inspired by Philhellenic values, sympathetic to the

uprising against Ottoman oppression, seeking political alliance, or purely motivated by

material and financial gain, the Greek independence movement attracted an extensive

international following that was crucial to the outcome of the Greek War for

Independence.

Prior to the foreign intervention of the Great Powers of France, Russia, and Great

Britain, the Greek rebellion against the Ottoman Porte functioned under the disruptive

state of rural banditry and coastal piracy. Under the yoke of the Tourkokratia, the Greek

people established rebellion campaigns against Ottoman rule as early as the fifteenth

century. With the establishment of the Philiki Etairia in 1814¸ members of the Greek

opposition party witnessed the beginnings of the Greek independence movement. Under

the auspices of Greek ex-patriots and mercantilists, the Philiki Etairia emerged as the

first organized independence society. Through an international campaign, members of the

Philiki Etairia established the basis for future appeals for aid and assistance.

129

C.W. Crawley, The Question of Greek Independence A study of British Policy in the Near East, 1821-

1833. (Cambridge: University Press, 1930) , 10-11

The Greek independence movement deeply resonated with individuals throughout

the world. Many responded to the appeals for support and self financed expeditions to

Greece. For many European individuals, the Greek war promised not only the

opportunity to serve an honorable cause, but also the chance to revive their own fortunes.

“They drew out money from their banks, bought a personal set of arms, equipped

themselves with uniforms, and took passage on merchant vessels.”

130

Many expected

their enrollment in the Greek army to provide opportunity for military advancement and

distinction. Yet in reality very few succeeded in making an impact on the war.

Disillusioned with the state of the war, many European volunteers returned home

disappointed.

The European volunteers in the Greek War for Independence represented an

amalgam of individuals with unique ethnic, social, and political backgrounds. Many

volunteers migrated to Greece as a result of revolutionary circumstances in their

homeland. Some were displaced by the ravage of war, others sought freedom from

political persecution, but the majority sought the prospect of new beginnings and

adventure. The wars in the Italian and the Iberian peninsulas prompted the purge of

radical individuals deemed undesirable to society. “No government wanted potential

revolutionaries within its own borders, political refugees were therefore continually being

moved on…the number of places of refuge for these men became progressively

130

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 29.

fewer.”

131

These refugees were consequently driven to move to places such as Britain,

the United States, South America, Egypt, and Greece.

At the outbreak of the Greek war in September of 1821, approximately two

hundred volunteers arrived in the Peloponnese. Upon arrival to Greece, many European

volunteers encountered disillusioned individuals determined to return home. Regardless,

many of the newcomers refused to accept the tales of the grim reality presented by those

disgruntled and homeward bound. “But still, nobody listened. The young men had their

dreams and they could not bear to be woken.”

132

For many of the volunteers, returning

home was not a possibility. “By taking part in the constitutionalist revolts and plots they

had become stateless persons and in many cases deprived of their livelihood as well.

Somehow they had to make the best of it.”

133

However, this was often difficult to

achieve, considering the reality of the conditions presented to the volunteers. Instead of

finding an organized, highly trained army, volunteers discovered the Regiment Baleste, a

group of half a dozen European officers and three half-trained companies of Greek

refugees. “There was no military treasury, no commissariat, none of the conveniences

which they associated with an army. Far from being given the high commands they had

been led to expect, there was clearly no room for the newcomers even as junior

officers.”

134

Disappointed by the conditions, lack of pay, services rendered, and the

inability to elevate to positions of rank and authority, many volunteers sought the next

ship home.

131

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 31.

132

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 81.

133

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 34.

134

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 33.

Following the first signs of Greek rebellion and revolt in 1815, European leaders

reacted to maintain the status quo of European politics. The powers maintained the view

that “the Sultan was the legitimate sovereign of the Greeks and that they were wrong to

rebel against him.”

135

Determined to prevent further revolutionary rebellion, Czar

Alexander I of Russia initiated the formation of the Holy Alliance. An allegiance founded

upon the religious affiliation between Russia, Prussia and Austria, the Holy Alliance

sought to apply Christian values to ensure the existence of peace throughout Europe.

“The sovereigns would be guided in their relations with their subjects and with one

another by the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace.”

136

Established with the

intent of maintaining peace and suppressing future national uprisings, the Holy Alliance

embraced ideological and moral premises as the means to combat against rebellion.

Consequently, rational leaders educated in Realpolitik viewed the Holy Alliance pact

with derision and ridicule. Austria’s Klemens von Metternich described the document as

“high sounding nothing,” while Britain’s Viscount Robert Stewart Castlereagh viewed it

as “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense.”

137

Nevertheless, nearly all European

leaders agreed to the terms proposed in the treaty.

Following the conclusion of the Napoleonic War along with the establishment

1815 Treaty of Paris, Castlereagh arranged for the organization of the Quadruple

Alliance, a congress of European nations that included Britain, Austria, Prussia, and

Russia “to consider the measures which are regarded as most salutary for the peace and

135

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 52.

136

Arthur May, The Age of Metternich 1814-1848, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1933), 21.

137

Jacques Droz, Europe Between Revolutions 1815-1848, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1967),

217.

prosperity of the nations and for the maintenance of European peace.”

138

At the Congress

of Aix La Chapelle in September of 1818, the Great Powers gathered to regulate

European diplomatic affairs. Paramount to debate and discussion was the question of the

French state following the Napoleonic wars, and the subsequent indemnities incurred at

the conclusion of the war. At the Congress’s conclusion, the Great Powers invited France

into the Alliance, solidifying the unity of the Great Powers in the European Congress.

Austria’s Klemens Von Metternich organized the political parameters of

European politics from 1815 to 1830. He believed liberal and radical nationalism

threatened the stability of European politics, and therefore requested European

unification to save Europe from impending destruction. According to Metternich, “the

sovereigns should not only agree between themselves and meet frequently in congresses

to discuss what measures should be taken, but they should also be able to intervene in

neighboring countries to restore order when it was threatened. They should form

themselves into a supreme political court to police Europe against revolution.”

139

In spite

of Greek efforts to maintain the status quo of power in Europe, Philhellenism, spurred by

the Enlightenment and Romanticism, percolated into European society and ignited the

outbreak of Greek Revolution in 1821. After six years of relative peace and prosperity,

the Greek insurrection compromised the balance of power in the European state.

The period following the founding of the Quintuple Alliance from 1815 to 1830

marked the deterioration of the sovereign powers in Europe. Following the revolutions in

Iberian and the Italian peninsulas, leaders of the Great Powers realized their failure to

138

May, Age of Metternich, 21-22.

139

Droz, Europe Between Revolutions, 219.

prevent the rise of liberalism, and the Greek revolt proved to be no exception. However,

the Greek war presented a movement unlike past revolutions. At its core were religious

and nationalist undercurrents that greatly differed from the culture of the Ottoman

Empire. Great Power intervention in the Greek War for Independence represented both a

religious and national movement for freedom. For this reason, the response to the Greek

question differed from past actions.

International aid and involvement was also critical to success of the Greek War

for Independence. Without the financial and military provisions granted by countries of

greater wealth, power, and influence, the success of the Greek War for Independence

would undoubtedly have been difficult to achieve. An analysis of the involvement of the

individual nations of the Quintuple Alliance—Russia, France, Britain, Prussia, and

Austria—along with the United States, and their assistance provide the necessary design

to arrive at a greater understanding of the international politics that influenced the

outcome of the Greek War for Independence.

Russia

Prior to the Greek War for Independence in 1821, the origins of Russian-Turkish

relations could be traced to the 1541 struggle between Ivan “The Terrible” IV and the

Crimean Tartars. According to Russian historian Alexander Bitis, “Ivan saw his state not

only as gatherer of the historic lands of Russia’s but as the successor to the Golden Horde

and its vast territories.”

140

Accompanying Ivan’s reign over the Muscovy included the

responsibility of protecting the Christian subjects of the Balkan region. Since the fall of

140

Alexander Bitis, Russia and the Eastern Question- Army, Government, and Society 1815-1833, (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2006), 17.

Constantinople in 1453, Byzantium, the center of Orthodox Christianity “had been

punished for its union with Roman heretics by Turkish enslavement.”

141

Muscovy

(Russia) consequently assumed the role as protector for the survival of Christianity in the

Balkan region. This precedent served as the political theory assumed by Russia during the

Greek War for Independence.

For nearly three centuries, the Russian Empire expanded at the expense of the

Ottoman Empire. Under the co-regency of Ivan V and Tsar Peter the Great, Russia

transformed from the Muscovy Republic into a first-rate European Power. Yet it was

during the reign of Catherine the Great from 1762 to 1796 that Russia received its

greatest territorial gains. During this period, the “Eastern Question acquired its classic

meaning, namely ‘an expression used to comprehend the international problems involved

in the decay of the Ottoman Empire and its supposed impending dissolution."

142

In 1821,

Tsar Alexander inherited this political attitude towards the Ottoman Empire and

continued ensuing Russian territorial expansion. During the early period of reign,

Alexander utilized the freedom of action conferred by the Treaty of Tilsit, permitting the

invasion of the Danubian Principalities.

143

The area, neither Russian nor Turkish, was

predominantly inhabited by a Greek population. Conflict settlement was achieved largely

through the intervention of Napoleon and the terms included in the Treaty of Bucharest.

Under the terms of the agreement, Russia assumed the role as protectorate of the

Danubian region while the Ottoman Porte appointed the officials to the region. While

141

Bitis, Russia and the Eastern Question, 17- 18.

142

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11

Ed, 29 Vols. (Cambridge, 1910-11), VIII, p. 831. As cited in Bitis,

Alexander, Russia and the Eastern Question, 21.

143

Kissinger, World Restored, 287.

Russia and the Porte may have reached an agreement, the appointment of “Greek”

nobility to the positions of power was not well received among the Greek population, and

subsequently triggered Greek rebellion.

The Greek revolt in the Danubian Principalities in February of 1821 prompted the

precipitation of the Greek War for Independence. Following the events, insurgency leader

Alexander Hypsilantes looked to Tsar Alexander for aid. “Save us, your Majesty, save

our religion from which divine light radiated to the great nation your govern.”

144

At the

outbreak of the Greek Revolution, the Greeks first looked to their religious compatriots

for assistance. Many Greeks recalled Ivan IV’s patronage and protective policy over

Orthodox Christian countries and sought to renew his avowal. Furthermore, Russia’s

historic rivalry with the Ottomans presented the Greek people with an ideal ally. In the

1822 publication of the “Declaration to the Christian Powers,” the Greek National

Assembly, led by Alexander Mavrokoradtos formally extended a plea for assistance

beyond Russia to the Great Powers of Europe. In the address, the assembly defended its

rebellious action and outlined European moral motives for engaging in the war.

We did right in taking up arms, if it was only to fall with honor, and when the first

step was trodden, it was necessary to advance. The revolution, popular in its motives,

became still more so in its progress…In a word, humanity, religion, interest, all plead

in their favor. It is for the powers of Christendom to decide on this occasion, what

legacy they propose bequeathing to history, and to posterity.

145

144

Anton Von Prokesch-Osten, Geschichte des Abfalls der Griechen, 5 vols. (Vienna, 1867), Vol, III, 61f.

As cited in Kissinger, World Restored, 287.

145

Declared on behalf of the members of the Central Government in Greece. A. Mavrocrodato,

Athanasius Canacari, Anagnostic Pappaiannopoulo, Joanis Orlando, Joanis Logotheti, Th, Negri,

Declaration to the Christian Powers, 15 April 1822.

Mavrokordatos’s appeal intended to evoke a sense of European moral responsibility to

the Christian Greeks. Yet, however sympathetic to the Christian appeal for aid, the

leaders of the Holy Alliance did not respond or recognize the independent Greek state.

Instead, the Great Powers encouraged foreign diplomacy to prevent the precipitation of

war.

Tsar Alexander’s initial response to the Greek revolt in the Danubian

Principalities in 1821 necessitated the suppression of the Greek uprising. Alexander

suspended consideration for unilateral action and support for the Greek patriots. Instead,

he sought a Congress-wide solution in order to avert yet another war with the Ottoman

Empire and to prevent alienation from the European Powers.

146

Metternich obtained a

promise from Alexander agreeing to withhold action in the Balkans, unless he received

prior consent from the Allies. However, the Easter Sunday hanging of members of the

Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople directly challenged Russian protection over those of

Orthodox faith. The incident provoked Russian defensive action, and contributed to the

mounting tension between the opposing parties.

The possibility of Russian intervention in the Balkans rendered numerous

outcomes that affected the balance of power in Europe. The Tsar’s struggle to arrive at a

conclusive decision regarding Russian policy in Greece fostered a period of heightened

apprehension and unease among the European Congress. As commented on by European

historian Henry Kissinger, “Alexander withdrew into his characteristic pose of indecision

masquerading as fortitude. He wanted to retain Metternich’s friendship without exposing

146

Kissinger, World Restored, 33.

himself to the strictures of his minister. He desired Allied unity, but he also wished to

appear as the Savior of the Greek-Orthodox religion.”

147

Supporters of Russian

intervention appealed to Alexander’s morality, while non-interventionists pled for the

balance of European political power. Consequently, Alexander vacillated in his position,

but ultimately withheld aid and intervention in the war. His untimely death in 1825 and

succession by his brother Nicholas I prompted a change in Russian foreign policy.

Russian interest in the Greek war with the Ottoman Empire was twofold. The

Greek War for Independence reflected Russia’s moral responsibility to protect Orthodox

Christian countries in danger of religious oppression. Second, the war offered Russia the

opportunity to expand its territory into the Mediterranean region, and thus increase its

presence in the European Concert. The latter alarmed the leaders of the Holy Alliance,

and prompted involvement in the question of Greek independence. Unlike previous

events that required mediation by the Powers, the Greek independence movement

represented both a moral and physical dilemma. The possibility of war between Greece

and the Ottoman Empire threatened the stability and balance of power in Europe. Under

Metternich’s parameters, the Great Powers mediated the dispute between Russia and

Turkey. George Canning’s negotiation of the Protocol of Petersburg in 1826 and its

byproduct, the 1827 Treaty of London, signaled Russia’s entrance into the Greek War for

Independence.

Russia’s involvement in the Greek War for Independence can also be measured in

the founding of the Philiki Etairia. Its 1814 establishment in Odessa proved to be idyllic

147

Kissinger, World Restored, 290-91.

to the cultivation of the Greek independence movement. “The growing émigré

community of Greek seamen acted as the perfect cover for the society’s secret activities

and allowed it access to the high-ranking Greeks within the Russian service.”

148

Within

two years of its founding, the organization moved to Moscow for closer proximity to the

Tsar’s court. Although the Philiki Etairia dissolved at the outbreak of revolt in 1821,

members of the Etairia emerged as leaders in the Greek war and served as the founders

of the first official Greek government. Led by Prince Alexander Hypsilantes, the Philiki

Etairia instigated the very beginnings of the Greek revolt, and sparked the span of the ten

year war for Greek independence.

Of the many Greek leaders who emerged in Russia, none was more critical to the

establishment of the free Greek state than Ioannis Kapodistrias. Although unaffiliated

with the Philiki Etairia, Kapodistrias worked alongside members of the organization to

promote the Greek cause. As a member of the Russian government, Kapodistrias exerted

considerable influence and power over Russian politics in his role as Foreign Minister.

Throughout the entirety of his service to the Tsar, Kapodistrias strove to support his

Greek homeland. Yet amidst a period of revolutionary turmoil and tension, Kapodistrias

faced the difficulty of convincing Alexander to engage in war with the Ottoman Empire.

“It is not among my intentions to leave the field free to the enemies of order. At all costs

we must find a way of avoiding war with Turkey,” said Alexander in an address to his

foreign minister.

149

Consequently, Kapodistrias struggled to isolate the notion of the

Greek war from its perceived threat to the European order. While Kapodistrias desired

148

Bitis, Russia and the Eastern Question, 98-99.

149

C.M. Woodhouse, Capodistria, The Founder of Greek Independence, (London: Oxford University

Press, 1973), 267.

the freedom of his Greek compatriots, his obligation to Alexander as Foreign Minister

superseded his personal agenda. For this reason, Kapodistrias concluded that the best

solution to the dilemma was an allied intervention against the Turks. However,

Alexander’s differing views ultimately resulted in the inability of both parties to arrive at

a mutual agreement, thus prompting Kapodistrias’ resignation and retirement in Geneva,

Switzerland.

150

Yet even while abroad, Kapodistrias attempted to negotiate Greek aid

from Western European. Although unsuccessful in inducing Alexander’s commitment to

the Greek people, Kapodistrias’s appointment as the first President of the Greek National

Assembly represented the fulfillment of his political efforts and work on behalf of the

Greek people.

Despite the Tsar’s ambivalence toward Greek independence, Russian intervention

in the Greek war was sensitive to determining the balance of power in Western Europe.

Although Alexander held the means and motives to engage in war with the Ottoman

Porte, his desire to remain in favor with the Great Powers prevented him from assuming

action on behalf of Greece. Nevertheless, the possibility of Russian involvement in the

war was an issue of great concern for the European Concert. The growth of Greek ex-

patriot population along with the Russia’s religious ties to the Greek Orthodox religion

created the fear of a large scale war in Eastern Europe. For this reason, Russian

involvement in the Greek War for Independence proved to be imperative to the stability

of European politics in the nineteenth century.

150

Woodhouse, Capodistria, 291.

Great Britain

Following the defiant triumph over Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, Great Britain

emerged as the most powerful country in the world. During the nineteenth century,

Britain surged to a position of influence through imperial expansion and colonization.

Amidst an era of growing liberalism and revolutionary uprising, Britain’s primary

political concern was the preservation of power and the stability of European diplomacy.

Consequently, the Greek independence movement sanctioned British mediation and

intervention.

Under the terms assigned by the Treaty of Paris in 1815, Britain acquired the

Greek Ionian Islands in the territories ceded by France. Britain assumed the role as

protectorate of the region and appointed Sir Thomas Maitland as High Commissioner.

“King Tom” enacted authoritarian rule and re-structured the Ionian political, judicial, and

economic bases. Maitland worked tirelessly to increase the efficiency of Ionian trade and

commerce by modifying laws, advancing loans, building roads, and simplifying tariffs.

151

Through his efforts, the Ionian Islands became a center of British commerce in the

Mediterranean region. Greek insurgency and piracy in the Mediterranean demanded

British intervention to protect its financial investment. Consequently, the threat to British

territory and commercial trade by the prospect of war between Greece and the Ottoman

Empire induced British intervention in the Greek War for Independence.

As the foremost European power of the nineteenth century, the Greek people

naturally turned to Britain for aid. “The more the Greeks looked westward, the more they

151

W.F. Monk, Britain in the Western Mediterranean. (London: Hutchinson House, 1953) 160-61.

began to place their hopes in England,” remarked W.F. Monk is in his analysis of

Britain’s involvement in the Mediterranean region.

152

In an appeal made by Edward

Blaquiere to the London Greek Committee on September 13, 1823, Blaquiere pressed

Parliament for British intervention in Greece. After his return from Greece, Blaquiere

shared the formal pleas of the Greek National Assembly;

This energetic paper also proclaimed the national independence, appealing once

more to the Christian world for its sympathy and support, and after thanking those

who had merited its approbation by their patriotism and public spirit, concluded

by imploring ‘the omnipotent father of all to extend his almighty protection to the

people of Greece, and crown their efforts with success.

153

An advocate of the Greek cause, Blaquiere served as a British agent to Greece. Having

served in the British Navy in the Mediterranean, Blaquiere witnessed firsthand the

complex political problems in the region.

154

Appointed by the London Greek Committee

to survey Greece, Blaquiere returned to Britain and assumed the role as a Greek political

propagandist. “England, as her natural friend and ally, without one solitary hand being

stretched forth either to sympathize with her sufferings or co-operate in her

regeneration!”

155

From 1821 to 1825, the Greek government actively sought aid from

Britain. On July 21, 1823 the Greek National Assembly presented a declaration

requesting British protection. “In virtue of the present act, the Greek nation places the

sacred deposit of its liberty, independence, and political existence under the absolute

152

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 95.

153

Edward Blaquiere, Report on the Present State of the Greek Confederation and on its Claims to the

Support of The Christian World Read to the Greek Committee on Saturday, September 12, 1823, (London:

G. and W.B. Whittaker), Sept. 19, 1823, 9.

154

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 140.

155

Edward Blaquiere, Report on the Present State of the Greek Confederation, 22.

protection of Great Britain.”

156

Through this appeal, the Greek National Assembly

entrusted its future on the dependence of aid from Britain.

At the beginning of the Greek War for Independence in 1821, Britain supported

the policy encouraged by Metternich and the Great Powers. Under the leadership of

Foreign Secretary Robert Stewart Castlereagh, Britain claimed strict neutrality.

Castlereagh viewed the Greek insurgency as yet another example of “the unaccountable

restlessness in Europe” and Castlereagh did not want to entrench Britain in other

European matters.

157

“Castlereagh was determined not to interfere, if he could avoid it, in

the Greek question”… “He had no desire to see a Greek State, but the aloofness of

England was in fact the best chance for the Greeks.”

158

At the Congress of Laibach in

March 1821, Castlereagh supported the establishment of the Concert of Europe, an

institution designed to maintain and monitor the political activity of Europe.

159

Although

Castlereagh did not share the same political views as his Holy Alliance counterparts, his

foreign policy towards Greece indicated Britain’s desire to maintain its position of power

in Europe and ensure the stability of European politics. However, the culmination of

Castlereagh’s personal troubles, public criticism, and his inability to successfully

negotiate peace in the Europe Concert resulted in his paranoia and anxiety. His

subsequent suicide marked the beginning of new British policy towards the question of

Greek independence.

156

Lewis Sergeant, Greece in the Nineteenth Century: A Record of Hellenic Emancipation And Progress

1821-1897. (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1897),

157

C.W. Crawley, The Question of Greek Independence A study of British Policy in the Near East, 1821-

1833. (Cambridge: University Press, 1930) 19-20.

158

Crawley, Question of Greek Independence, 25.

159

Crawley, Question of Greek Independence, 17.

George Canning succeeded as British Foreign Secretary in 1822. Canning was a

firm supporter of the “Pitt tradition,” a policy which maintained the integrity of the

Ottoman Empire despite the reported atrocities and barbarism of the Turkish people.

160

At the same time, Canning sympathized for the Greeks and their struggle for

independence. Consequently Canning engaged in a policy of appeasement and

intervention. This forced Canning to negotiate the recognition of Greek freedom with

Tsar Alexander of Russia, while also preventing Russia from engaging in war with the

Ottoman Empire.

161

On February 26, 1826, Canning negotiated the Protocol of Petersburg between

Britain and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, Britain and Russia extended an offer of

mediation to the Ottoman Porte. Arrangements of the Protocol recognized Greece as an

autonomous state, yet provided the condition of an Ottoman tribute system.

162

Meant to

appeal to both parties, the Protocol of Petersburg extended to the Courts of Paris, Vienna,

and Berlin, in which the following parties were invited to support reconciliation between

the Greeks and the Ottoman Porte. However, only France accepted the invitation. On July

6, 1827 in London, Great Power representatives from Britain, France, and Russia

gathered to sign the Treaty of London, a converted version of the Protocol of

Petersburg.

163

However, the Ottoman Porte did not find the terms of the treaty

satisfactory and rejected the proposal, leading to the precipitation of the war.

160

R.B. Mowat, A History of European Diplomacy 1815-1914. (London: Edward Arnold, 1922), 47.

161

Mowat, History of European Diplomacy, 47-48.

162

Mowat, History of European Diplomacy, 48-49.

163

Mowat, History of European Diplomacy, 48-49.

British Philhellenism played a considerable role in the financing and provision of

aid during the war. Inspired by the renewed appreciation for the Classics, Enlightenment

philosophy, and Romantic literature, British Philhellenism contributed to the spread of

Philhellenism throughout Europe. Founded in 1823, the London Greek Committee served

as the major center of European Philhellenism until 1825. Nonetheless, the members of

the London Committee reflected an organization disproportionately represented by

Britain’s political class. In 1824, the Committee arranged for the procurement of two

loans, which totaled £315,000.

164

Figures such as Lord Byron and Parliament

representatives such as John Cam Hobhouse served as major Philhellenic leaders during

campaign for Greek independence. The determinism of these individuals and their

investment in the Greek cause represented the initial wave of substantial support from

Europe. In a letter from Edward Blaquiere addressed to Prince Mavrokordatos in

September 26, 1823, Blaquiere expressed his desire for the realization of Greek freedom.

No people upon earth ever stood more in need of Divine assistance, nor ought to

have greater confidence in the deliverance they pray for since, as all human

changes will probably by human means be accomplished, the otherwise

unaccountable skill, fortitude, and patience with which your highly gifted people

have started up on a sudden, even to rival the most memorable acts of their

illustrious fathers, seem like a forecast of an irresistible conclusion.

165

Similar to many Philhellenes, Blaquiere whole heartedly believed in the inevitable

achievement of Greek independence. The successive Philhellenic campaigns that

emerged throughout Europe as a result of the initial campaigns undertaken by Britain

reveal the extent of the efforts exerted by the British Philhellenes.

164

Dakin, British and American Philhellenes, 77.

165

Edward Blaquiere, in a letter addressed to Prince Mavrokordato. 26, Sept 1823. Report on the Present

State of the Greek Confederation and on its claims to the Support of the Christian World Read to the Greek

Committee on Saturday, September 13, 1823. (London: G & W.B. Whittaker, 1823), 29-32.

Yet the London Committee was not successful in recruiting public support for the

Greek cause. The British public viewed the London Greek Committee as a radical

political entity. All but one individual was a member of the Whig party.

166

As a result of

the committee’s political polarization, the British public did not contribute funding to the

Philhellenic cause. The total sum collected from the public in 1823 earned an estimate of

£11,421, a quota minor in comparison to the funds gathered by other Philhellenic

societies.

167

Although the efforts of the London Greek Committee ultimate peaked in

1823, the organization provided the basis for Philhellenism throughout Europe through its

publicity and political influence.

Britain’s role as political arbiter of foreign policy during the Greek War for

Independence substantiates the claim of Britain’s influence on the Greek independence

movement. As the greatest European nation, negotiation of foreign diplomacy between

Russia and the Ottoman Empire was critical to Britain’s position of power. With an

invested interest in the Ionian Islands, the possibility of war threatened Britain’s

commercial presence in the Mediterranean. In general, British leaders sympathized for

the Greeks, yet remained constrained by the political measures enforced by the Great

Powers. Nonetheless, Britain proved to be the first active supporter of Greece and

therefore remained critical to the overall success and outcome of the war.

166

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 146.

167

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 145.

France

French involvement in Greece proved to be yet another critical component to the

Greek War for Independence. France was significant in fostering Philhellenism and

interest in the Greek cause throughout Europe. Yet France’s entrance to the Greek War of

Independence did not occur until 1823 due to involvement in the Spanish Civil War of

1820. Following the foreign policy encouraged by Metternich and the Holy Alliance,

France did not offer aid to Greece. Considered a matter of internal policy by the Ottoman

Sultan, European leaders vowed to support the position of the established sovereign

powers in Europe. At the time, the prevention of war between Russia and the Ottoman

Porte remained the greatest priority for France and the Great Powers.

French entrance into the Greek independence movement proved to be seminal to

the success of the war. The deterioration of Philhellenism due to the disenchantment with

the reality of the Greek state induced a period of relative decline in support for Greece.

France’s entrance to the politics of Central Europe marked the resurgence of

Philhellenism that surpassed the efforts of other Philhellenic organizations throughout

Europe. At the signing of the Treaty of London in 1827, France proved to be the only

Great Power other than Britain and Russia willing to support the European Congress’s

final movement towards diplomacy. As a result, France proved to be the remaining

component critical to the overall success of the Greek War for Independence.

Beginning in 1821, the French government found itself involved in two wars—the

Spanish Civil War and the Greek War for Independence. As Spain’s neighbor, French

directed its attentions to the Spanish “Trienio Liberal.” Beginning in 1820, King

Ferdinand VII accepted the conditions of the Spanish constitution after eight years of

political turmoil between Spanish royalists and liberals. Under the constitution, Ferdinand

agreed to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Yet in 1822, Ferdinand lobbied

the Holy Alliance to restore absolutism and reclaim Spanish territories lost in the

Americas. Despite France’s royalist insistence on French intervention, King Louis XVIII

supported the Holy Alliance’s denial of Ferdinand’s request for aid. However, at the

summit of the Congress of Verona in October of 1822, the Quadruple Alliance instructed

France to intervene and restore the Spanish monarchy. Under these orders, France

directed its focus away from the Greek revolt and intervened in the Spanish war. On

April 7, 1823, the Ten Thousand Sons of St. Louis crossed the Pyrenees Mountains with

little resistance.

168

Spanish liberals released Ferdinand and the French restored the

absolute monarchy. Correspondingly, the coup in Lisbon also restored the absolute

monarchy of Portugal. “In a brief, almost bloodless, campaign the French army

extinguished the last liberal revolutionary governments in Europe.”

169

Nearly eight years

after the French defeat at Waterloo, France regained a position of power in Europe. The

pacification of Spain permitted the returned focus to Greece. French entrance into Great

Power politics led to a new phase of Philhellenism. “The torch which had been taken up

by the German and Swiss and then passed to the English was now to be carried by the

French.”

170

Nearly two years since the outbreak of the Greek war, France entered the

battle for Greek independence, provided the military organization and leadership, and

revived the Greek cause in Europe.

168

Raymond Carr, Spain 1808-1939. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 141.

169

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 244.

170

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 244.

At the outbreak of the war, appeals for French aid were made on behalf of the

Greek people throughout France. Exposed to the French Revolution and inspired by their

French compatriots, Greek scholars such as Adamantios Korais appealed to the French

public for their aid in the Greek cause.

Men of France, do not be deaf to my prayer, arm yourselves, go and join my son.

My children will erect monuments to you, they will raise alters to you, their

children will adore and forever hold your names in the greater veneration! Let us

form sacred battalions, let us arm ourselves with invincible weapons let us march

and let us go and purge the earth of these barbarians just as long ago Hercules

purged if of the monster which were ravaging it.

171

While some French men respond to the plea for Greek reinforcement, the greater majority

of French men held very little incentive to engage in the Greek war. With the greater part

of the country concerned with the state of Spain, many French remained uninvolved and

uninterested in the state of Greece.

From the very beginning of the Greek War for Independence, the French

government assumed a paradoxical view towards the Greek cause. Some Frenchmen

believed that promotion of the Greek cause might atone for the disgrace of Waterloo.

Others viewed the Greek war as an opportunity to reassert and restore French power in

European politics. Under the constitutional monarchy, France supported Metternich and

the Great Powers’ policy of the maintenance of absolutism in Europe. Following the

Napoleonic Wars, France maintained an outlook of contempt and dislike for the Britain.

French entrance into the Greek War for Independence insured that France remained

involved in Great Power politics and that the neither Russia nor Britain acquired any

more power.

171

Author Unknown. The Appeal to the French People, France, 1822. As cited in St. Clair, William,

Greece Might Still Be Free, 56-57.

By 1825, the French government enacted policies that favored the Greek cause.

After three years of closure, the French government re-opened the port of Marseilles and

permitted the purchase and export of arms and provisions intended for the Greek forces.

Recruitment of volunteers for the Greek cause went uncensored, and all returning

Philhellenes received sanction to promote the Greek cause by sharing their experiences

abroad.

172

The distinguished Colonel Charles Nicolas Fabvier was appointed as

commander of the Greek forces. A fierce liberal and supporter of Napoleon, Fabvier was

described as “an ardent Philhellene, a blunt straightforward soldier, hating all the

diplomatic feints and parries which characterized the period, an idealist whose one desire

was to see the descendents of the ancient Greeks made members of a strong united

modern state.”

173

Fabvier campaigned heavily throughout Western Europe to recruit

soldiers and secure financial aid for the Greek cause. Appointed to general of the Greek

armed forces in Navarino, Fabvier fortified Greek defenses at the setting of the decisive

battle between the Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire t.

Yet at the same time, the French government supported the Ottoman Porte by

reinforcing Egypt, the Ottoman Empire's only ally. Since the 1798 expedition of

Napoleon through the Levant, Egypt and France engaged in political relations. In

exchange for technical and economic support, France received access to the Middle East

through Egypt. This relationship was central to France’s expansion into Asia Minor and

India. Due to increasing competition with British colonization, France thus chose to

maintain diplomacy with Egypt. In 1824, France dispatched a detachment of six soldiers

172

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 273.

173

Philip P. Argenti, The Expedition of Colonel Fabvier to Chios. (Great Britain: The Bodley Head Ltd,

1933), xlvii.

led by Generals Boyer and de Livron to Egypt in response to Sultan Mehmet Ali’s

request for military aid and training. While French officials did not engage in battle, they

followed orders from the French government to provide combat training to the Egyptian

forces.

174

The French government also supplied the Egyptian navy with ships. As

volunteers embarked for Greece from Marseilles, many boarded ships anchored alongside

shipyards constructing naval frigates for the Egyptian naval fleet. Reception of this news

was not deemed acceptable by the French public. “Born along by the gathering tide of

philhellenism, these men were simply renegades, traitors and unspeakable

mercenaries.”

175

Outraged, many French Philhellenes resorted to sabotage to prevent

further aid to the Greek opposition. A report of attempted arson occurred in July of 1825.

The incident alarmed French officials who feared liberal conspiracy and the possibility of

political instability.

176

Through 1827, France continued to comply with the requests made

by Egypt, even if it meant combat between French men supporting opposing ends of the

war. The indecisive nature of France amidst the Greek War for Independence suggests

French political self interest superseded the Greek cause.

Despite the ambivalent nature of the French government, the French public

contributed whole heartedly Philhellenism and the Greek Revolution. In 1823, the first

French Philhellenic organization emerged as a sub-committee of the Société de la Morale

Chrétieene. During the period of Philhellenic apathy, French philhellenes were largely

responsible for the survival of the Philhellenism. The year 1825 marked the founding of

the Société philanthropique en faveur des Grécs, the French Philhellenic society more

174

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 274.

175

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 274.

176

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 275.

100

commonly recognized as the Paris Greek Committee. For remainder of the war, the

committee raised over one and a half million Francs, approximately £65,000 to towards

Greece.

177

As affirmed by William St. Clair, “the Committee became the center for

renewed Philhellenic activity all over Western Europe. It sent men, equipment, and

money to war, and was undoubtedly the best organized and most effective of all militant

Philhellenic movement to arise during the war.”

178

During the period of Philhellenic apathy, French Philhellenism fueled the

continuation of the Greek cause in Europe. Unlike the London Greek Committee,

Philhellenic societies across France extended membership to individuals of all

backgrounds, and thus generated more net funding than any other European Philhellenic

society. The inspiration of Byron’s death and the losses incurred at Missolonghi led to the

development of a French period reflective of the propagandistic nature of the Greek war.

French literature, operas, painting, and sculpture, all reflected the growing influence of

Classic Greek culture on French society. The funding received from the charitable events

furthered the Greek cause in France and financed Greek activity during a period of

relative disregard for the Greek movement. This revival of French Philhellenism

sustained the final years of the war by perpetuating the Philhellenism throughout Europe.

177

Documents relatives a l’état present de la Gréce, as cited in St. Clair, William, Greece Might Still Be

Free , 267

178

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 267.

101

United States

Nearly fifty years after the American Revolution, Greece and European nations

alike viewed the United States as the epitome of liberty, freedom, and equality. Ignited by

the radical and liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, many

European nations under oppressive regimes followed suit from the American colonists

and thus recognized the feasibility of achieving political autonomy. A symbol of

freedom and independence, many Europeans looked to the United States as a beacon of

hope for the birth of independent nations in the future.

Many Greeks turned to the United States for support during the early years of the

Greek War for Independence. Educated Greeks such as Adamantios Korais who were

familiar with the success of the American Revolution and with the American principles

of liberty and justice believed the American government would sympathize with the

national and liberal aspirations of the Greek state. In 1823, Korais wrote to American

octogenarian and former president Thomas Jefferson requesting advice on the proper

approach to Greek statecraft. Jefferson responded and offered insight on his prior

experiences, and extended his well-wishes to the Greek people.

We offer to heaven the warmest supplications for the restoration of your

countrymen to the freedom and science of their ancestors. And nothing indeed but

the fundamental principle of our government, never to entangle us with the broils

of Europe, could restrain our general our generous youth from taking some part in

the holy cause.

179

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Adamantios Korais. 31, October 1823. The Thomas Jefferson Papers,

<http:///memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers.>. Earle, Edward Mead, “American Interest

in the Greek Cause, 1821-1827,” The American Historical View 33:1 (Oct, 1927). Accessed September 26,

2010. <http://www.jstor.or/stable/1828110>, 49.

102

This extension of prosperity and success encompassed the view shared by Americans

throughout the United States. For many Americans, the Greek independence movement

reflected the values intrinsic to the very fabric of American independence that they

wished upon for the Greek people.

Many Philhellenes believed the situation of the Greek people under the yoke of

the Ottoman Porte would deeply resonate with the American people. However, the Greek

people did not receive full support from the United States. The question of American

interference in the Greek War for Independence proved to be a hotly debated political

matter in American politics. Although the United States government sympathized with

the Greek cause, the isolationist foreign policy under the Monroe Doctrine prevented

American interference in European affairs. While President James Monroe expressed

interest and sympathy for Greece in his Congressional address on December 2, 1823, he

did not indicate the prospect of offering official assistance to the Greek people, nor did he

suggest American recognition of the independent Greek state. Despite this, Monroe

expressed hopes for the success of the Greek people. “It is good cause to believe that

their enemy has lost forever…Greece will become again an independent nation.’”

180

Contrary to the American political position on the Greek war, many Americans

responded to the Greek cause, popularly referred to in the United States as “Greek

fever.”

181

During the entirety of the Greek War of Independence, the United States

struggled to remain uninvolved in the Greek movement. Regardless of the American

180

Paul Constantine Pappas, The United States and the Greek War for Independence 1821-1828 (New

York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 60.

181

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, xvi.

103

government’s attempt to remain impartial and neutral amidst the European political

spectrum, the spread of the endemic “Greek fever” proved to be overwhelming and many

Americans enlisted their aid and efforts to the Greek cause.

Regardless of the Atlantic divide, information of the Greek independence

movement returned to the United States. In general, the American press favored Greek

aid and sought to arouse public interest in the Greek independence movement. The

objective of the press was twofold—to inform the American public of events transpiring

in Greece, and to encourage Pan-European support for the Greek cause. American

newspapers published the tragedies inflicted upon the Greek people by the Ottoman

Porte. “It praised Greek victories and denounced Turkish atrocities in detail and with

horror while explaining away Greek atrocities. It expressed shock at the massacre of

Chios and the destruction of Kasos and Psara.”

182

Meant to incite the American public,

newspapers published material inclined to favor of the Greeks. Drawing facts and

information from English newspapers, letters, and journals, newspapers such as The

Western Star and Lebanon Gazette (Ohio) portrayed the Ottoman Turks as “barbarous”

villains who “butchered Greek Christians.”

183

Very rarely did the press include German

sources, which often detracted from the positive portrayal of Greek insurgents. Finally,

Americans utilized the press to advertise the appeals made by the Greek national

assembly. Pamphlets, newspapers, and journal published specific addresses to the

American population to recruit support for the Greek cause. In an address made by Petro

182

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 30.

183

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 31.

104

Mavromichalis in an 1821 assembly gathering, Mavromichalis issued a formal appeal to

the United States

To the Citizens of the United States of America, Having formed the resolution to

live or die for freedom, we are drawn toward you by a just sympathy, since it is in

your land that Liberty has fixed her abode, and by you that she is prized as by our

fathers. Hence, in invoking her name, we invoke yours at the same time, trusting

that in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors, and be though worthy of

them if we succeed in resembling you. Though separated from you by mighty

oceans, your character brings you near us. We esteem you nearer than the nations

on our frontiers, fellow-citizens and brethren, because you are just, humane, and

generous.

184

Through the publication of Greek political propaganda and literary support, the people of

the United States became greatly informed of matters concerning the Greek Revolution.

Aroused by a desire to assist the civilization that modern society was indebted to for its

origins of democratic government, philosophy, poetry, architecture, and the arts and

sciences, many Americans enlisted their services in the effort to restore the liberty of the

Greek people.

The overwhelming response of American individuals to the Greek appeal for help

began following the outbreak of war. Charleston, South Carolina acted as the American

first city to respond to the Greek request for aid. Charleston’s citizens sent fifty barrels of

dried meat with a letter of encouragement in the fall of 1821. Shortly after, the citizens of

Springfield, Massachusetts dispatched fifty sacks of flour, twenty barrels of fish, twenty

barrels of meat and ten sacks of sugar.

185

Many Americans exhausted their personal time,

effort, and finances to provide aid to the Greek cause. Some citizens petitioned Congress

184

Petros Mavromichalis in an address to the Messenian Senate at Calamata. May 25, 1821. Political

Science Quarterly, vol. 42 (Sept., 1927), pp 343-44. As cited in Cline, Myrtle A. American Attitude Toward

the Greek War of Independence 1821-1828. (Atlanta: Columbia University, 1930), 33-34.

185

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 32.

105

for the appropriation of provisions. Others gathered to raise funds and contacted

associates and acquaintances abroad for support. By whatever means, the American

people strove to aid Greece in any way they could.

In spite of the government policy of neutrality, many Americans gathered to

support the Greek independence movement. United by a common cause and course of

action, many American citizens followed many European countries and established

Philhellenic societies throughout the United States. The earliest account of the

philhellenism in the United States is the 1822 founding of a society in Albany, New

York. From there on, societies surfaced throughout the United States in cities such as

Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City. By 1823, pro-Greek communities existed both

east and west of the Allegheny Mountains.

186

These societies undertook numerous

campaigns to provide assistance to the Greek people. “The Greek fever reached epidemic

proportion, manifesting itself in meetings, orations, benefit balls, theatrical performances,

concerts and sermons.”

187

These fundraising outlets generated considerable funding for

the Greek war. By May 1, 1824, the New York Philhellenic committee secured £6,000,

which translated to nearly $32,000 worth of financial support for the Greek people. In an

address forwarded by Richard Rush, an American minister to Britain,

186

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 34.

187

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 35.

106

As the representative of the American people, and therefore as sympathizing with

them in the glorious struggle now carrying on by the Greeks for the recovery of

their independence, we take leave to address ourselves to you in a matter relating

thereto. The sum of $32,000 has been subscribed by the citizens of this and other

of the United States as a contribution from American freemen to the cause of

Grecian freedom.

188

Shortly thereafter, the New York Committee received an additional $5,000 in finances

that was subsequently remitted to London May 1824.

189

In addition to the financial

contributions made towards the Greek cause, many American adventurers journeyed to

Greece to offer their services to the Greek regiment. Although few encountered success,

individuals such as Samuel Gridley Howe returned to the United States to share their

experiences in Hellas. In all, American participation in the Greek Revolution, albeit from

afar, proved to be an important component to the Greek war.

While the American public fully supported the Greek independence uprising

against the Ottoman Porte, the leaders of American government attempted to maintain a

position of strict neutrality throughout the duration of the war. While sympathetic to the

Greek cause, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams compelled President Monroe to

endorse the non-interventionist policy of the Monroe Doctrine. Amidst a period of

growing European imperialism and colonization in the Western Hemisphere in 1823,

Adams viewed the Monroe Doctrine as a policy key to the survival of the United States.

Yet in essence, Adams sought to separate America from European politics. The politics

of South America was the paramount concern for the United States and Adams believed

188

Richard Rush, as published in N. Y. American, March 22, 1824, as cited in Cline, American Attitude

Toward the Greek War of Independence, 115.

189

Cline, American Attitude Toward the Greek War of Independence, 117.

107

that the establishment of nonintervention in South America to be a more pressing concern

for the American government.

After nearly fifty years following the American Revolution, the United States

government valued the expansion of American commerce and trade establishments

abroad. The outbreak of the war in the Ottoman Empire alarmed leaders of the American

government, but also provided the United States the opportunity to extend commerce to

Russia by aligning with a Turkish opposition.

190

Consequently, the United States

government recognized the benefits of alignment with the Greek people, hoping it might

yield an important naval and commercial port in the near future.

Debates in Congress also reflected conflicted political climate of the American

government towards the question of Greek independence. While many Congressmen

sympathized with the Greek cause, political incentive to enter into the Greek Revolution

remained a highly debated topic. On December 8, 1823, Daniel Webster, an orator from

Massachusetts advocated Greek recognition before Congress. He proposed a resolution

providing the appointment of an American agent to Greece to obtain authentic

information on the war. Implementation of this resolution, according to Webster, would

lead to the formal recognition and assistance to the Greek revolutionaries.

191

A close

associate with Edward Everett, the leading American Philhellene of the period, Webster

received substantial information concerning the state of Greece for his proposal to

Congress. He defended his proposition on the grounds that “it will give them courage and

190

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, xvi.

191

Stephen Larrabee, Hellas Observed The American Experience of Greece 1775-1865. (New York: New

York University Press, 1957), 71.

108

spirit, which is better than money. It will assure them of the public sympathy, and will

inspire them with fresh constancy. It will teach them that they are not forgotten by the

civilized world, and to hope one day to occupy, in that world, an honorable station.”

192

Webster’s proposal unveiled three focus issues—1) the role of the House of

Representatives in foreign relations, 2) the threat of the Great Powers to the Americans

and liberal principles, and 3) the role of agents and recognition of Greek independence.

Supporters of Webster’s resolution such as Henry Dwight, Samuel Houston, and Henry

Clay asserted the United States should defend the principles of liberty and national

independence, and that the Great Powers presented no real threat to America. They

argued that agents had been sent to governments in the past during the revolutions in

France and South America without any incidence of political threat or harm to the United

States.

Although Webster’s resolution sparked considerable debate after a week of

deliberation, House members decided Monday, January 26, in a vote of 131 to 0 to

adjourn without voting for Webster’s resolution.

193

With the opposition led by Adams,

opponents of Webster’s resolution feared the proposal challenged the Monroe Doctrine’s

non-interventionist policy and precipitate war with the Holy Alliance. The immediate

danger of the politics in South America and the Western hemisphere was far more

important to the United States than Greece. Additionally, Webster’s opponents refused to

send agents to Greece until Greek freedom was achieved. In the past, agents were sent to

192

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Annals of Congress of the United States, 18

Congress, 1

Session, I, 1836. As cited in Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 67.

193

Pappas, United States and the Greek War for Independence, 72.

109

South America only once safety was ensured through the establishment of South

American governments. Instead, the opposition proposed that Greece send ministers to

America. Although Andreas Lurriotis journeyed to United States on behalf of

Mavrokordatos in 1822, the Greek delegate appeared more interested in receiving

recognition of Greek independence from the United States rather than receiving aid.

194

Consequently, unless the Greeks establish a sound de facto government, the United States

had no intention of recognizing Greek independence.

Although President Monroe issued and enforced the Monroe Doctrine, American

foreign policy was largely influenced by Secretary Adams. While Adams sympathized

with the Greek state, he feared war with Europe would endanger the American

institutions of democracy and freedom. He was not willing to compromise neutrality to

even provide private aid to Greece. During the war, Adams sought to negotiate a

commercial treaty with the Ottoman Porte as a gesture of goodwill despite America’s

overwhelming popular support for the Greek cause. Ultimately, Adams did not wish to

offend the Porte, and the treaty represented American diplomatic outreach. Finally,

Adams reasserted the precedent set by George Washington in affirming the executive

power reserved to the president to assign agents and ministers abroad. The practice of the

separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches was an American

principle that Adams believed should be upheld. Yet upon his election to president,

Adams sent a secret agent the Mediterranean region, however, the individual did not

survive the journey and died before arriving in Greece.

194

Pappas, The United States and the Greek War for Independence, 76.

110

Despite the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine’s isolationist policies, the people

of the United States supported the Greek cause for many reasons. Although restricted in

the political recognition of Greek independence, the Americans were seminal in

imparting financial and material provisions to Greece. Many Americans sympathized

with the oppression of the Greek people under Ottoman rule. Others recognized the debt

of modern society to the institutions founded by ancient Greek civilization. Some drew

religious motives as an incentive. Yet what really laid the heart of the American

movement for Greek support was simply the American appreciation of liberty, freedom

and equality. The desire to relieve the human suffering and widespread destitution of the

Greek people spoke to the American people. According to Myrtle Cline, the

humanitarianism of providing support to the Greek people during the Greek War for

Independence most appealed to the American people. “To alleviate this misery and

wretchedness became the dominant purpose of American friends of Greece. The

salvaging of human lives, especially those of helpless women and children, appealed

strongly to humanitarians, who labored zealously to meet the challenge of human

need.”

195

Motivated by these reasons, Americans throughout the United States worked

tirelessly to provide aid to for the liberation of the Greek people.

Germanic States

The prevalence of Philhellenism during the early years of the Greek War for

Independence reveals the decisive role played by the Germanic states in contributing to

the Greek independence movement. Following the Napoleonic Wars, the powerful

concept of freedom resounded with the German people. According to William St. Clair,

195

Cline, American Attitude Toward the Greek War of Independence, 217.

111

“the ‘freedom’ had been mainly thought of as freedom from the foreign rule of the

French, but many who took part in the last successful campaigns had dreamed of political

freedom, of constitutional government, and they had been encouraged to do so by their

leaders.”

196

And these dreams transferred to the situation of their Greek neighbors.

German intellectuals drew parallels between the German and Greek people in their

struggle against oppressive rule. In a statement provided by German scholar Karl Iken,

“we Germans see in the Greeks the image of ourselves. Our minds are taken back

instinctively in an obscure way to the time when we were delivered from the French

yoke.”

197

The realization of this relationship prompted an immense outpouring of support

for the Greek.

The origins of Philhellenism are entrenched in German history. Fostered amongst

German philosophes during the Enlightenment, the German people revered Greece

through the revival of the Classics. Enlightenment scholars such as Winckelmann

promoted the former glories of ancient Greece through a renewed interest in Greek art,

sculpture, architecture, philosophy, and literature. German Philhellenism thrived in the

earlier years of the Greek revolt due to the popularity of Classical studies conducted in

German universities. “The students of Germany, conscious of having played a leading

part in the expulsion of the French, had made themselves into an important political force

on the return of peace.”

198

This role assumed by the German scholars was crucial to the

promotion of the Greek cause throughout the Germanic nations—Germany, Prussia, and

Austria.

196

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 60.

197

Karl ken, Hellenion, Leipzig, 1822. As cited in St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 62.

198

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 61.

112

At the beginning of the war in 1821, the people of Greece issued an appeal to the

Germanic states for aid.

Proclamation to the Youth of Germany. The fight for religion, life and freedom

calls us to arms! Humanity and duty challenge us to hurry to the aid of our

brothers, the noble Greeks, to risk our blood, our lives for the Sacred Cause! The

reign of the Moslems in Europe is nearing its end. Europe’s most beautiful

country must be freedom, freed from the monsters! Let us throw our strength into

the struggle! Seize your weapons, honorable youth of Germany, let us form a

Greek-German legion and soon bring support to our brothers!

199

In response, many young German men deployed for the port of Marseille in 1822.

Between November 1821 and August 1822, eight ships of volunteers departed from

Marseille to Greece. Of the two hundred men on board, the vast majority were German.

Many were educated and thirty provided accounts of their experience in Greece. “Student

left their universities, officers gave up their commissions, clerks and apprentices obtained

release from their contracts, the unemployed and the disillusioned from many walks of

life found new hope and set off to join the new crusade.”

200

Despite these sacrifices,

German youth flocked to Marseilles to depart for Greece. About once every month,

German Philhellenic committees chartered a ship to take volunteers to Greece.

201

route to Marseilles, many Germans encountered volunteers returning home, often

disappointed and disgusted with the state of Greece. “One Prussian officer, an eye-

witness at Tripolitsa, stopped in Marseilles to write a warning to the youth of Europe, and

it contained three sentences which summed up everything the others were trying say, the

antithesis of the Philhellenic creed: ‘The ancient Greeks on longer exist. Blind ignorance

has succeeded Solon, Socrates, and Demosthenes. Barbarism has replaced the wise laws

199

Barth and Kehrig-Korn, 95. As cited in St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free ,63.

200

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free ,69.

201

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 81.

113

of Athens.”

202

Yet in light of these warnings, many Germans remained determined to

reach Greece to support the people to which modern civilization was so indebted to, and

to embark in the adventures they believed lied ahead.

In spite of the numbers of German, Austrian, and Prussian youth who set forth

for Greece at the outbreak of the war in 1821, German foreign policy maintained a

strictly neutral position regarding the Greek war. Both Austria and Prussia feared the

possibility of revolution within its own borders and resorted to stringent measures to

suppress liberalism and political discontent. Prussian authorities censored the presses in

order to prevent the circulation of liberal text material. Authorities admonished scholars

who published Philhellenic material and demanded refrain from further publication. With

the rise of the 1821 Greek nationalism, Prussian and Austrian governments encouraged

other German nations to enact similar measures. By suppressing liberal sentiment and

sympathy for the Greek people, the German states hoped to prevent future nationalist

uprisings.

The leaders of the Germanic government bolstered anti-revolution sentiment by

restricting travel to Greece to prevent German volunteerism in Greece. Prussian leaders

deemed volunteering in Greece illegal. General policy in the Germanic states enforced

the closure of international borders and official ports. Marseilles notwithstanding, all

major ports in the Mediterranean were closed with access to the sea restricted. Austria’s

reign on the Italian peninsula and the cooperation of the Papal State prevented the

passage of European volunteers to Greece through the Italian ports and territory borders.

202

Howarth, Greek Adventure, 80-81.

114

Yet despite these restrictions, many men found alternative means to get to Greece. Some

encountered sympathetic border patrol officers. Others obtained alternative methods of

receiving passports. Needless to say, government restrictions may have prevented access

to Greece, but for the many determined individuals, finding a way to Greece was not all

together impossible.

German foreign policy regarding the state of Greece was strictly non-

interventionist. At the outbreak of the war, the Great Powers, led by Metternich,

Castlereagh, and Tsar Alexander, remained embroiled in a highly contentious debate

regarding foreign policy in Greece. Metternich and the Austrian government shared the

view of the Ottoman Sultan as the legitimate sovereign of the Greek people. The Greeks

were therefore wrong for their rebellion. “As early as 1808 he had declared the

preservation of the Ottoman Empire a fundamental Austrian interest, for the characteristic

reason that it secured the tranquility of Austria’s southern borders, while any change in

this situation could only bring about prolonged turmoil.”

203

Maintenance of the status

quo in Europe included the stability of politics in the Mediterranean region. But most of

all, Metternich feared the impending war that could ensue between Russia and the

Ottoman Empire as a result of the Greek Revolution. At the 1826 drafting of the Protocol

of Petersburg, both Austria and Prussia rejected the terms assigned to the treaty, thereby

upholding Metternich’s policy to remain uninvolved in the Greek War for Independence.

203

Clemens Von Metternich, Aus Metternich’s Nachgelassenen Papieren, 8 vols. Edited by Alfons von

Klinkowstrom. (Vienna, 1880). Vol. VIII, 164. As cited in Kissinger, World Restored, Metternich,

Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957), 288.

115

The Russo-Turkish rivalry and its impact on European politics deeply concerned

both Metternich and Castlereagh. Both leaders believed the collapse of the Ottoman

Empire would produce the instability of power in the Balkan region.

204

Together,

Castlereagh and Metternich collaborated to achieve diplomacy in Eastern Europe.

According to Henry Kissinger’s analysis on the foreign policy on Greece, “the Austro-

British understanding gave Britain an advocate on the continent defending its policy in

continental terms, while it furnished Metternich with an option which was condition for

the flexibility of his policy.”

205

Displaying his diplomatic skill and talent, Metternich

negotiated a proposal with Tsar Alexander to subdue tension in the Balkan region. He

succeeded by transforming the dispute from a moral into a political issue, and addressed

the needs of the Greek people. Russia approved the terms of the agreement. Following

the negotiation, Alexander reported, “I could have permitted myself to be swept along by

the enthusiasm of the Greeks, but I have never forgotten the impure origin of the

rebellion or the danger of my intervention for my allies. Egotism is no longer the basis of

policy. The principles of our truly Holy Alliance are pure.”

206

Although Metternich’s

efforts succeeded in temporarily quelling tensions between Russia and the Ottoman

Empire, he could not prevent the national uprising of the Greek War for Independence.

Kissinger’s commentary on nineteenth century politics reveals Metternich’s disillusion

with the state of European affairs. “Metternich’s dream that the Greek uprising would

204

Kissinger, World Restored, 294.

205

Kissinger, World Restored, 307.

206

Alfred Stern, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertraegen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871.

(10 vols,) (Munich-Berlin, 1913-1924) As cited in Kissinger, World Restored, 308.

116

burn itself out beyond the ‘pale of civilization had been rudely shattered. An irreparable

breach had been made in his vaunted system of repose and immobility.”

207

German foreign policy regarding the question of the Greek independence

movement ultimately proved ineffective in preventing the rise of the Greek War for

Independence. Fearful of the radial liberalism of the Enlightenment and the possibility of

a revolutionary uprising, the German governments avoided interference in Greece and

suppressed the provision of aid to the Greek people. While the Germanic states upheld

Metternich’s non-interventionist policy, this did not prevent the hoards of German

volunteers from journeying to Greece. Despite the policy of non-intervention in favor of

diplomacy, the German states were critical to the six years of diplomacy and evasion of

war in the Balkan region. Although this prolonged the efforts for Greek independence,

German policy assisted in augmenting Philhellenism and support for the Greek people

throughout Europe. As a result, German non-interference unintentionally succeeded in

aiding the Greeks.

Conclusion

The European independence movements of the nineteenth century represented the

dawning of a new political era in Europe. Amidst a period of liberal radicalism, leaders

collectively sought to defend the established institutions of power. As the first successful

revolutionary uprising of the nineteenth century, the Greek War for Independence marked

the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a nation vital to the balance of power in Eastern

Europe. For the first time in European history, a small Christian nation achieved

207

May, Age of Metternich, 41.

117

independence through nationalist uprising. The success of the Greeks emboldened a

series of nationalist movements throughout the Ottoman Empire, and lead to the birth of

the modern Balkan states of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

In spite of its deteriorating state, the Ottoman Empire occupied a position of power

and control in the Eastern Europe prior to the Greek revolt. Although Russia threatened

its territorial holdings, the Ottoman Empire succeeded in preventing Russian access to the

Mediterranean region, and thus entrance into Europe. However, the onset of the Greek

independence movement in 1815 posed a potential threat to the balance of power in

Europe. With the establishment of the Holy Alliance, European leaders sought to prevent

further destruction and instability in Europe. In spite of diplomatic negotiations, the

efforts of the Holy Alliance leaders failed to avert the Greek War for Independence.

Nevertheless, the ten year span of diplomacy reflects the sheer impact and involvement of

international relations on the outcome of the Greek war. From the ensuing events, Greece

emerged as the first successful independence uprising of the nineteenth century.

Throughout the entirety of the war, the Greek people relied on international aid for

survival. Lacking substantial resources for the war—finances, material provisions,

leadership, and manpower, the Greek people desperately turned to the European

Congress for aid. While European political leaders deferred Greek appeals, Philhellenes

throughout the world responded to the pleas from Greece. Many insisted that unnecessary

warfare was avoidable and crucial to the stability of European politics. However, upon

realizing that peace could not be achieved, the Great Powers fully engaged in the Greek

118

cause. With the proper reinforcement, Greece successfully overthrew the yoke of their

Ottoman oppressors.

Under the terms agreed upon in the Treaty of London of 1827, the Great Powers

assumed the responsibility for establishing the Greek Republic at the war’s conclusion in

1832. Despite Ottoman defeat at the Battle at Navarino, the Ottoman Empire remained

defiant and refused to accept Greek independence. Instead, they insisted upon

arrangements for the preservation of Ottoman sovereignty over Greece, a proposal that

had previously been rejected by the Sultan in the London Treaty of 1827. Nevertheless,

the Great Powers persisted in the debate over the appointment of a potential leader to the

constitutional monarchy. After failing to negotiate terms for a suitable candidate, the

Great Powers installed King Ludwig of Bavaria as Otto, King of Greece.

208

Even with the formal establishment of the Greek Republic in 1828, warfare continued

between the belligerent parties. Great Power military forces intervened once again to

ensure the rightful incorporation of Greek territory. Conceived as the Megali Idea, the

Greek people assumed a new campaign to rescue and unite Greek populations still under

Ottoman control. Despite continued civil strife, the young Greek nation sought to reclaim

its history and ancestry. Traces of Muslim oppression were removed; mosques destroyed,

minarets razed, and most signs of Turkish culture obscured. The new Greek nation

embraced its ancient heritage by renaming streets and buildings after historical figures,

renovating archaeological remains, and by restoring the Greek language as the lingua

208

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 348.

119

franca of the region.

209

In doing so, the Greek Republic succeeded in fulfilling the ideals

of Philhellenism.

The Greek’s dependency on international aid has thus been a defining characteristic

in the development of the modern country. Clientelistim is still prevalent to modern

Greek society, and even more so with the current economic crisis. However, these

relations have come to represent the general politics of the modern Europe and the

European Union. Since 1821, many countries in Europe have achieved independence

through international aid and intervention. Greece’s accomplishment as the first

successful nationalist movement in the nineteenth century simply marked the

commencement of many more nations yet to come.

209

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 350-51.

120

Conclusion

Under the conditions of the 1827 Treaty of London, leaders of the Great Powers

united to mediate the conditions of the Greek War for Independence. In the treaty, the

leaders of the Great Powers proposed Greek independence in exchange for the

establishment of an Ottoman tributary system. However, the Ottoman Porte refused to

comply with the terms of the treaty. As a result, following six years of unsuccessful

diplomacy, war could no longer be avoided. The Great Powers exercised the right to

pursue military action under the terms of the treaty to maintain peace in the

Mediterranean region.

On October 20, 1827, the Great Power naval forces destroyed the Ottoman and

Egyptian fleet in the Bay of Navarino.

210

During the cold Mediterranean winter, the Great

Power forces entered the harbor seeking shelter from the harsh winds. But Ottoman and

Egyptian forces misinterpreted the naval muster as a pre-emptive naval blockade and

responded with defensive fire: “For four hours until darkness fell the guns roared in the

last great battle of the sailing ship era.”

211

At the break of dawn the next morning, only

twenty-nine of the Ottoman force’s eighty-nine ships remained intact and approximately

eight thousand men had died. Conversely, the allied ships sustained minor damage, and

all twenty six ships remained afloat. Only one hundred seventy six men were lost.

212

the conclusion of the war, French reports outlined the conditions that were agreed upon in

the cease fire.

210

Sergeant, Greece in the Nineteenth Century, 194

211

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 331.

212

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 331.

121

If a single musket or cannon shot be again fired on a ship or boat of the allied

powers, we shall immediately all the remaining vessels as well as the forts of

Navarino, and that we shall consider such a new act of hostility as a formal

declaration of the Porte against the three Allied power, and which the Grand

Segnor and his Pachas must suffer the terrible consequences.

213

Although the Battle of Navarino transpired as a result of a misconstrued naval blunder,

the outcome of the battle determined the ultimate fate of the Ottoman Empire and its

reign over the Greek people. The struggle for Greek independence continued for five

years and required two additional military interventions by the Great Powers. However,

without a naval fleet to reinforce the armed troops or attack the Greek islands, Greece

could not be re-conquered. Given the weak state of the Ottoman forces, the Great Powers

and the Greeks proceeded essentially unopposed in the war. Greece was free.

214

After nearly two centuries following the conclusion of the Battle of Navarino and

the Greek War for Independence, the elements that once defined Philhellenism and the

Greek independence movement remain entrenched in the modern framework of Greek

culture and politics. Evidence of the application of the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and

foreign intervention to the modern Greek state is observed in the current Greek economic

crisis. In a state of bankruptcy and virtual financial ruin, Greece has resorted to clientele

politics to remain solvent. Reminiscent of the nineteenth century appeal for aid to the

Great Powers, the Greek Parliament turned to the European Union for financial

assistance.

215

Similar to the Great Powers, the European Union responded by issuing a

Greek stimulus package along with a series of financial measures to ensure the recovery

213

Comstock, John L. History of the Greek Revolution: Compiled from Official Documents of the Greek

Government Sketches of the War in Greece(Hartford: Silas Andrus and Son, 1853), 430-31.

214

St. Clair, Greece Might Still Be Free, 333.

215

Katie Martin and Terrence Roth, “S&P Downgrades Greek debt to junk,” The Australian, April 28,

2010.

122

of the Greek economy. Yet public reception to the terms of the stimulus package was not

positive, and triggered protests throughout the country that resemble the Romantic fervor

once displayed by Greek nationalists under the state of Ottoman oppression. Guided by

the modern application of the “natural rights of man” propounded by Enlightenment

theory and underlined by the dictates of the social contract, Greek protests shadow the

rebellious action once assumed by their patriotic forefathers.

216

Greek rebellion has since

become an identifiable symbol of Greek politics in the twenty first century. The modern

application of the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and international politics once witnessed

in the Greek War for Independence has thus resurfaced, prompting the renewal of

Philhellenism and the reconstruction of Greece.

* * *

During the independence movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,

the Enlightenment provided the ideological basis for the Greek War for Independence.

Not only did the success of the Enlightenment provide the fundamental justification for

the war through European culture and intellection, it also provoked a campaign of

revolutionary uprisings throughout the world. Inspired by the Enlightenment principles of

the “natural rights of man,” and the formula of the social contract, many oppressed

people asserted their right to question the legitimacy of the regnant institutions of

authority. Enlightenment theory thus manifested into rebellious action, and resulted in the

successful revolutionary campaigns in both the United States and France. Inspired by the

216

Dan Bilefsky, “Three Reported Killed in Greek Protests,” The New York Times, May 5, 2010.

123

success of these nations and by the principles of the Enlightenment, the Greek people

assumed their own right and reason to achieve their own independence.

Yet these uprisings would not have been possible without the Romanticism

movement. While the Enlightenment theory reinforced the ideology of the Greek War for

Independence, Romanticism fueled the emotional component of the Greek movement and

triggered nationalist sentiment among the people of Greece. Evidence of this is observed

in the expansion of Philhellenism under Romantic principles. Between the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries, philhellenic societies surfaced throughout Europe, undertaking the

mission of liberating the descendents of ancient Greece. Buoyed with the Romantic

fervor and passion, Philhellenism became the ultimate cause and means for the

realization of Greek independence.

Influenced by Enlightenment theory and the principles of Romanticism, the Greek

people united to defend their nation. But these domestic efforts could only go so far. With

the circumstances in Greece having repercussions across Europe, foreign intervention

was critical to securing battlefield victory. Great Power politics, in response to public

outcry for Greek aid, interfered in Greek affairs to maintain the political status quo of

Europe. However, despite six years of attempted mediation and pacification, the

overwhelming desire for Greek independence and the consistent refusal for diplomatic

appeasement could not be achieved. In the end, only three European powers interfered on

behalf of the Greek people—Britain, France, and Russia. Although the Great Powers

achieved victory at the Battle of Navarino, Ottoman occupation in Greece did not cease

124

until 1832 after additional armed attempts at Ottoman expulsion. Through their

intercession, the Greek people achieved their independence and freedom.

In spite of the prevalence of the prejudice and antagonism that exists between

contemporary Greek and Turkish people, the two cultures are inextricably tied by history.

This complicated, long-fraught history reached a climax with the Greek War for

Independence. The war represents a historic phenomenon that encompasses more than

simply a national uprising, but the culmination of generational influences produced by

contemporary intellectual movements and the political atmosphere of the period. This

contemporary David and Goliath battle between the Greek people and the Ottoman

Empire is forever sensationalized in European history as the first of many successful

national uprisings in Europe.

125

Bibliography

“Appeal from the Greek Committee to the British public in general, and especially to the

friends of religion,” Hume Tracts (1823) UCL Library Services. Accessed

January 24, 2011.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/60208451.

Argenti, Philip P. The Expedition of Colonel Fabvier to Chios. (Great Britain: The

Bodley Head Ltd, 1933).

Bilefsky, Dan. “Three Reported Killed in Greek Protests.” The New York Times, May 5,

2010.

Bitis, Alexander. Russia and the Eastern Question- Army, Government, and Society

1815-1833. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Blaquiere, Edward. Report on the Present State of the Greek Confederation and on its

Claims to the Support of The Christian World Read to the Greek Committee on

Saturday, September 12, 1823. (London: G. and W.B. Whittaker), Sept. 19, 1823.

Blaquiere, Edward. Letter addressed to Prince Mavrokordato. 26, Sept 1823. Report on

the Present State of the Greek Confederation and on its claims to the Support of

the Christian World Read to the Greek Committee on Saturday, September 13,

1823. (London: G & W.B. Whittaker, 1823).

Byron, George Gordon. The Isles of Greece from Don Juan Canto the Third LXXXVI.

(London, 1819-1820).

Carr, Raymond. Spain 1808-1939. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).

Cline, Myrtle A. American Attitude Toward the Greek War of Independence 1821-1828.

(Atlanta: Columbia University, 1930).

126

Chaconas, Stephen George. Adamantios Korais-A Study in Greek Nationalism.

(Columbia University Press: New York, 1942), 35.

Clogg, Richard. A Concise History of Greece, 2

Ed. (Cambridge University Press:

London, 1992).

Clogg, Richard. The Movement for Greek independence, 1770-1821: A Collection of

Documents (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1976).

Clogg, Richard. The Struggle for Greek independence; essays to mark the 150th

anniversary of the Greek War of Independence. (London: Archon Books, 1973).

Crawley, C.W. The Question of Greek Independence A study of British Policy in the Near

East 1821-1833. (Cambridge: University Press, 1930).

Comstock, John L. History of the Greek Revolution: Compiled from Official Documents

of the Greek Government Sketches of the War in Greece. (Hartford: Silas Andrus

and Son, 1853).

Dakin, Douglas. British and American Philhellenes During the War of Greek

Independence. (Thessaloniki: 1955).

Declaration of the Rights of Man-1789. Article 2. (New Haven: The Lillian Goldman

Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman-The Avalon Project at Yale Law School,

1996-2007).

Droz, Jacques. Europe Between Revolutions 1815-1848. (New York: Harper & Row

Publishers, 1967).

Eitner, Lorenz. Neoclassicism and Romanticism 1750-1850 Sources and Documents,

Volume II Restoration/Twilight of Humanism. (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,

1970)

127

Finlay, George. History of the Greek Revolution, and the reign of King Otho. (London:

Zeno, 1971).

Gay, Peter. The Enlightenment, A Comprehensive Anthology. (New York: Simon and

Schuester, 1973).

Greek Eye-Witness. “General View of the Origin and Progress of the Revolution.” The

Provisional Constitution of Greece. (London: John Murray, 1822),

Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium: the historical evolution of the Hellenistic age.

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

Habermas, Jürgen. “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere-An Inquiry into

a Category of Bourgeois Society,” (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973), 27.

Halkias, Alexandra. “The Empty Cradle of Democracy-Sex, Abortion, and Nationalism

in Modern Greece,” (Duke University Press: Durham, 2004).

Henry, George Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and

augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. With the assistance of.

Roderick McKenzie. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).

Heyer, Elfriede and Roger C. Norton. Introduction to Winckelmann, Johann Joachim.

Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture. (La Salle:

Open Court, 1987), Original translation from original German Essay 1755.

Howarth, David. The Greek Adventure, 81. Mowat, R.B. A History of European

Diplomacy 1815-1914. (London: Edward Arnold, 1922).

Iken, Karl. Hellenion, Leipzig, 1822. As cited in St. Clair, William, The Greece Might

Still Be Free.

128

Jacob, Margaret C. The Enlightenment A Brief History with Documents. (Boston: Bedford

St. Martin’s, 2001).

Kant, Immanuel. “What is Enlightenment?” As cited in Margaret C. Jacob, The

Enlightenment A Brief History with Documents. (Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s,

2001).

Kitromilides, Paschalis. The Enlightenment as Social Criticism. (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1992).

Larrabee, Stephen. Hellas Observed The American Experience of Greece 1775-1865.

(New York: New York University Press, 1957).

Leppmann, Wolfgang. Winckelmann. (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1970).

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. (London: Whitmore and Fenn, 1690).

Martin, Katie and Terrence Roth. “S&P Downgrades Greek debt to junk,” The

Australian, April 28, 2010.

May, Arthur. The Age of Metternich 1814-1848. (New York: Henry Holt and Company,

1933).

Monk, W.F. Britain in the Western Mediterranean. (London: Hutchinson House, 1953).

Pappas, Paul Constantine. The United States and the Greek War for Independence 1821-

1828. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985).

Palmer, R.R. The Age of Democratic Revolution- Apolitical History of Europe and

America, 1760-1800. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959).

Paine, Thomas. “Common Sense: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America.” (London:

H.D. Symonds, Paternoster-Row, 1792).

129

Plutarch. The Age of Alexander –Nine Greek Lives (London: Penguin, 1973).

Potts, Alex. Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History. (Yale

University Press: New Haven, 1994).

“Proclamation of the First National Assembly,” (Epidauros, January 15, 1822)

Prokesch-Osten, Anton. Geschichte des Abfalls der Griechen, 5 vols. (Vienna, 1867),

Vol, III, 61f. As cited in Kissinger, Henry, A World Restored.

"Romanticism." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/508675/Romanticism>.

Rosen, F. Bentham, Byron, and Greece- Constitutionalism, Nationalism, and Early

Political Thought. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).

Rush, Richard. as published in N. Y. American, March 22, 1824, as cited in Cline, Myrtle

American Attitude Toward the Greek War of Independence.

Sergeant, Lewis. Greece in the Nineteenth Century: A Record of Hellenic Emancipation

And Progress 1821-1897. (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1897).

St. Clair, William. That Greece Might Still Be Free; the Philhellenes in the War of

Independence. (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).

The Provisional Constitution of Greece. Translated from the Second Edition of Corinth

Accompanied by the Original Greek Piece. (London, 1843).

Declared on behalf of the members of the Central Government in Greece. A.

Mavrocrodato, Athanasius Canacari, Anagnostic Pappaiannopoulo, Joanis

Orlando, Joanis Logotheti, Th, Negri, Declaration to the Christian Powers, 15

April 1822.

130

Woodhouse, C.M. Capodistria, The Founder of Greek Independence. (London: Oxford

University Press, 1973).

Woodhouse, C.M. The Philhellenes (Cranbury: Farleigh Dickinson, 1971).

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. History of the Art of Antiquity. (Los Angeles: Getty

Research Institute, 2006).

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting

and Sculpture. (La Salle: Open Court, 1987) Original translation from original

German Essay 1755.

131

Works Consulted

Athanassopoulou, Effie F, “An ‘Ancient’ Landscape: European Ideals, Archaeology, and

Nation Building in Early Modern Greece,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 20

(2002).

Austin, Michael. The Hellenistic World From Alexander to the Roman Conquets: A

Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation 2

Ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2006).

Bien, Peter, “Inventing Greece.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 23 (2005).

The Carlsbad Resolutions. (Boston: Ginn, 1906).

Clogg, Richard, Balkan Society in the Age of Greek Independence. (London: Kings

College Press, 1981).

Cunningham, Allan, “The Philhellenes, Canning, and Greek Independence,” Middle

Eastern Studies 14:2 (May, 1978) Accessed September 26, 2010.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282697>.

Downer, Alexander. “A Greek tragedy Economy in ruins as the euro sinks,” The

Advertiser, March 1, 2010.

Dolan, Brian. Exploring European Frontiers: British Travelers in the Age of

Enlightenment. (New York: MacMillan, 2000).

132

Earle, Edward Mead, “American Interest in the Greek Cause, 1821-1827,” The American

Historical View 33:1 (Oct , 1927). Accessed September 26, 2010.

<http://www.jstor.or/stable/1828110>.

Howe, Samuel G. A Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution. (Austin: University of

Texas, 1966).

Irwin, David. Neoclassicism. (Phaidon Press Limited: London, 1997).

Jones, Howard Mumford. Revolution and Romanticism. (Cambridge: Harvard Press,

1974).

Koumoulides, John T., Greece in Transition: Essays in the History of Modern Greece

1821-1974. (London: Zeno Booksellers and Publishers, 1977).

Penn, Viriginia, “Philhellenism in Europe, 1821-1828,” The Slavonic and East European

Review. 16 Accessed October 18, 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4203426>.

Piattoni, Simona, Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Polybius. The Rise of the Roman Empire. (London: Penguin, 1979).

Stoneman, Richard, “The Origins of European Philhellenism,” History Today. (1994).

Sauvigny, G. de Beterier “Metternich on the Greek Question, Letter to Prince Paul

Esterhazy, the Austrian Ambassador in London, on September 1829,” Metternich

and His Times (Darton, Longmann and Todd, 1962).

133

Talmon, J.L. Romanticism and Revolt, Europe 1815-1848. (London: Thames and

Hudson, 1967).

Webster, C.K. The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh Britain and the Reconstruction of

Europe 1812-1815. (London: G Bell and Sons, 1931).

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. Essays on the Philosophy and History of Art Vol. 2.

(New York: Continuum, 2001).