Chapter III: Hellenic Pontus, a Resume of Its History

By DEMOSTHENES H. OECONOMIDES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) ALEXIOS I., the great Comnenos, the son of
Manuel, Sebastocrator and the founder of the
Trapezuntian Empire 1204-1222

(2) ANDRONIKUS I. Ghidus, son-in-law of the preceding 1222-1235

(3) JOHN I. Axouchus 1235-1238

(4) MANUEL I., the great Comnenos, who built the
beautiful church of St. Sophia in Trapezus
(still existent) 1238-1263

(5) ANDRONIKUS II., oldest son of the preceding 1263-1266

(6) GEORGE I., brother of the preceding 1266-1280

(7) JOHN II., brother of George I. 1280-1297

(8) THEODORA 1285

(9) ALEXIOS II., the great Comnenos 1297-1330

(10) ANDRONIKUS III., oldest son of Alexios II. 1330-1332

(11) MANUEL II. 1332

(12) BASIL 1332-1340

(13) IRENE, Palæologina 1340-1341

(14) ANNA, Comnenos 1341-1342

(15) JOHN III., Comnenos 1342-1344

(16) MICHAEL I. 1344-1349

(17) ALEXIOS III., the great Comnenos 1349-1390

(18) MANUEL III. 1390-1417

(19) ALEXIOS IV. 1417-1446

(20) JOHN IV., Kalogiannes 1446-1458

(21) DAVID Comnenos, brother of John IV. and last
emperor in the Trapezuntian Empire of the
Comneni 1458-1461

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

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

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

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

THE GREEK DIALECT AS SPOKEN IN PONTUS

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

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

AMERICAN-HELLENIC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

SPEECH OF GEORGE ROUSSOS, THE MINISTER OF GREECE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permit me a parenthesis, at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY

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

FOOTNOTES

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

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

[3] See Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society, entitled _Persecutions of the Greeks in Turkey since the Beginning of the European War_, June, 1918.

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

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

[6] Supplement to the Greek White Book, entitled _Ministère des Affaires Étrangers, Documents Diplomatiques, Supplément_, 1913-1917, Nos. 1 and 4.

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

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

[9] See Gaston Deschamps, _Sur les routes d’Asie_, 1894, p. 152.

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

[11] A political treatment of the “Greek Question” was presented in a pamphlet of the Vorderasienkomitee, under the title, _Die asiatische Türkei und die deutschen Interessen_, Leipzig, 1913, S. 23-26.

[12] The successors of Alexander the Great.

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

[14] Cf. J. Strzygowski, _Kleinasien, ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte_, Leipzig, 1903.

[15] K. Krumbacher, _Gesch. der byzantin. Litteratur_, 2, § 358.

[16] Cf. Von der Goltz, _Anatol. Ausflüge_, Berlin (1896), S. 70 ff.

[17] As to the type of the Anatolian Turks, see L. Heermann, _Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient_ (Aschaffenburg, 1886, S. 13, 126); A. Philippson, _Das Mittelmeergebiet_, 2, (Leipzig, 1906, S. 197); H. Gelzer, _Geistliches und Weltliches aus dem griechisch-türkischen Orient_ (Leipzig, 1900, S. 185); R. Fitzner, _Anatolien_ (Leipzig, 1902, S. 19).

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

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

[20] On the question of the racial characteristics of the Greeks of Asia Minor, cf. A. von Luschan, _Verhandlungen d. Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. zu Berlin_, 15 (1888), S. 47-60; _Archiv f. Anthropol._, 19 (1889-90), S. 31-53; _L’Anthropologie_, I., p. 679 ff., II., p. 25 f.

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

[22] Exact statistics as to the number of Greeks in Cappadocia are given by R. M. Dawkins, in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 30 (1910), pp. 109-132, 267-291.

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

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

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

[26] The statistical data are based on Cuinet, _La Turquie d’Asie_ (Paris, 1890-95), II. and III., completed from Baedeker, _Constantinopel und Kleinasien_, 2 (1914).

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

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

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

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

[31] As to the decrease of the Turkish population of Asia Minor and its causes, see L. Heermann, _Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient_ (Aschaffenburg, 1886), S. 128 Anm.; R. Fitzner, _Anatolien_, S. 20 f.; on the increase of the Greeks: K. Humann, _Verhandlgn. d. Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. zu Berlin_, 7 (1880), S. 249-252; R. Fischer, _Mittelmeerbilder_, N. F. (Leipzig, 1907), S. 401 f.

[32] Hugo Grothe, too, in _Die Asiatische Türkei und die deutschen Interessen_ (_Der neue Orient_, S. 25, 9 Heft), pleads for a closer feeling between the Germans and the Asia Minor Greeks. So, too, Blankenburg, Heft 1 of the _Schriftensammlung des Deutschen Vorderasienkomitees, Die Zukunftsarbeit der deutschen Schule in der Türkei_.

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

[34] The “Association d’Orient” in Athens.

[35] See, for example, E. Naumann, _Vom Goldnen Horn zu den Quellen des Euphrat_ (1893), S. 208.

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

End of Project Gutenberg's Hellenism in Asia Minor, by Karl Dieterich