Part 5
As to the numbers of the Greek inhabitants of the interior of Asia Minor, only an indirect estimate can be made. The whole number of all the Greeks in the interior of the two provinces of Brussa and Aïdin, exclusive of the inhabitants of the coast regions, even twenty years ago, amounted to 200,000, _i.e._, less than half as many as in the coast regions. About 100,000 of these lived in places with a population of more than 5,000, so that about 100,000 were scattered among the villages and towns. The distribution of this interior population is very uneven. The densest Greek populations have gathered in the Prefecture of Aïdin and here chiefly in the sub-prefecture of Smyrna, with its five districts (Sarukan, with four districts, and Aïdin, with only one). These three sub-prefectures, therefore, in their ten districts, comprised, twenty years ago, a fifth part of the entire population. In the province of Brussa the number of districts with a considerable Greek population was only five, in the sub-prefecture of Ertogrul, three; in those of Brussa and Kutaiah, one each. There were the largest numbers in the district of Eskishehr, the ancient Dorylæum, where they comprised two-fifths of the population, and in Michalitch, where they formed one-third of the total. In fifteen of the twenty-five districts of the interior of the two prefectures fifteen, therefore, already contained a considerable part of the population. To speak in greater detail, these districts may be classified as follows, with relation to the proportions of their Greek inhabitants: The Greek population is densest in the districts of Magnesia (Sanjak Sarukan), and Eskishehr (Sanjak Kutaiah), where they constitute a fifth of the population; less dense in the district of Sokia (Sanjak Aïdin), with about a third; next comes the district Michalitch (Sanjak Brussa), with from a fourth to a third; and then those of Bergama, Menemen, Baindir, Tireh and Odemish (Sanjak Smyrna), where they form about a fourth; next those of Alashehr (Sanjak Sarukan) and Yenishehr (Sanjak Ertogrul) with about a fifth; and finally those of Inegeul, Biledjik (Sanjak Ertogrul) and Soma (Sanjak Sarukan), with a sixth to a seventh of the entire population.
What made the estimating of the numbers of these Greeks in the interior so very difficult was the fact that up to a few years ago they spoke Turkish and therefore did not share in the national and racial consciousness of their kinsmen on the coast, and also the fact that they do not essentially differ in physical type from the Ottomans, who have become assimilated to the race type of the conquered people and have lost their special Turkish characteristics. This state of affairs began to change when the Greeks, with the help of their church, succeeded in introducing the Greek language in their schools alongside of the Turkish. Since then, that is, since the seventies of the last century, the national propaganda has made great progress among them, and the number of schools has greatly increased.
In the thirty cities of the interior of this region (prefectures of Aïdin and Brussa) they possessed in the last decade of the 19th century more than 400 schools with about 25,000 pupils, while the Mohammedans in their thousand schools had only 20,000 pupils. The number of pupils in each Greek school therefore averaged 60, while those in the Turkish schools averaged only 20, a disproportion which is to be explained by the fact that the Mohammedan schools are almost exclusively poorly attended mosque-schools, while the Greek schools are community-schools that are very well attended. The religious character of the Turkish educational system is just as prejudicial to the Turks as the nationalistic tendency of the Greek schools is beneficial to the Greeks. There are towns in which, in spite of the Greeks being in a minority, more Greek children attend the schools than Turkish children. So Sokia, with 180 Turkish and 218 Greek children in school; the same is true of Bigha (125:140), Alashehr (250:525), Nazilli (162:220), Menemen (220:325), Biledjik (1,100:1,113). In other towns, such, for example, as Bergama, Magnesia, Milas, Soyut, the number of the Greek pupils almost equals that of the Turkish, and in most of them the number is more than half as large as that of the Turkish pupils, even in that stronghold of Mohammedanism, Brussa, where there are something like 2,500 Greeks, as compared with 5,000 Turkish pupils, although the Greeks comprise here only ten per cent of the population. These are figures which more than anything else are indicative of the activity and capacity for education of the Greek part of the population. The intellectual superiority of the Greeks is set forth in an even stronger light when one compares the sum total of the Greek schools and of their pupils in both prefectures with that of the Turkish. For we find that even in 1894 there were 540 Greek schools, with about 30,000 pupils, as compared with 1,900 Turkish schools, with about 42,000 pupils. The slight numerical superiority of the Turkish scholars is, to say the least, entirely disproportionate to the large majority of Turks in the population.
According to recent statistics, which are, to be sure, taken from Greek sources[34] and are, therefore, perhaps a little too optimistic in their tone, the number of Greek schools has since then risen to more than 700 and that of the pupils to more than 100,000 (69,274 boys and 48,468 girls), which leads one to conclude that the Greek population numbers a million, a number which, compared with the 650,000 of twenty-five years ago, does not seem to be too high an estimate, particularly if we take into account the great increase of the Greeks through a higher birthrate and through immigration. Thus, the sum total of the Greeks in both prefectures, which have together a population of about three millions, would be about a third of this number and would, at any rate, not fall far below this.
With this rapidly increasing Greek population of the west coast and interior, the prefectures of Brussa and Aïdin, and that in the mountains of Pontus (prefecture of Trebizond) and Central Cappadocia (prefecture of Angora), which number together a million and a third more, we have not exhausted the list of Greeks of Asia Minor. There are, as a matter of fact, large numbers scattered through the interior and along the south coast, chiefly in the prefecture of Sivas and Konia, where their number in 1890 approximated 75,000. Next comes the prefecture of Adana, with about 50,000, and, least strongly Greek, the prefectures Angora (about 30,000) and Kastamuni (about 25,000). It has, however, been observed that the number of Greeks in the middle and eastern provinces is always decreasing, which is doubtless due to the fact that they wander away into the livelier and more fruitful regions to the westward.[35] These are in this way becoming more and more solid nuclei for the process of crystallization for Hellenism in Asia Minor, which is thus once more, as it did in late antiquity, shifting its center of gravity toward western Asia Minor, as though it felt that here is ever that original free-flowing source to which it now for the fourth time owes its strengthening and rejuvenation: the first being when in the last centuries before the Christian Era the native Lydians and Phrygians were assimilated; the second, when in early Byzantine times it turned back the Romanizing process which had been going on since the beginning of this era; the next, when in the 7th to the 10th centuries it averted the threatening Arabic peril, and finally when, though apparently defeated by the Turkish conqueror, it has after 500 years of relaxation again regained its vigor and strength in order to fulfill its old historical mission, which consists not in forcing its way on with the wild alarum of weapons, but through the peaceful weapons put in its power by nature, _i.e._, by material and spiritual civilizing agencies, that do their work quietly. This mission Mohammedanism must meet through appropriate measures in administration and education, if it desires to secure its political control even in the western part of Asia Minor, now and in the future.
III. HELLENIC PONTUS, A RESUME OF ITS HISTORY
By DEMOSTHENES H. OECONOMIDES
[Among the most interesting of the irredenta regions of Asia Minor, from many points of view, is Pontus, on the southeast coast of the Black Sea. So strong is the anti-Turkish feeling in this intensely Hellenic land that a strong movement has recently arisen among her expatriated sons to establish an independent Republic of Pontus. Its mountainous inland districts have been so isolated from the rest of the Greek world and its coast regions have so strongly preserved their individuality that language, blood and national feeling have been maintained in quite a different way from elsewhere in the Greek world. It has seemed fitting that Pontus therefore should receive special consideration in this number of the American-Hellenic Society’s publications, and we are glad to present this scholarly treatise by Demosthenes E. Oeconomides, a philologian of no mean repute, who is a native of this region and has written amongst other things an authoritative treatise on the Pontic dialect entitled: _Lautlehre des Pontischen_, Leipzig, 1908.]
Pontus is bounded on the north by the southeast shore of the Euxine or Black Sea, on the east by the Phasis River and Iberia, on the south by the Argaeus and Antitaurus mountains, and on the west by the Halys River. The whole country has at several epochs been variously divided and has gone under different names, thus, for example, in the time of the Parthians, the region that extended from the Phasis to the Bosporus was called the Kingdom of Pontus; in the time of the Romans, preserving the same boundaries, it was called the Polemoniac Pontus. The best known cities of Pontus are Rizus, Trapezus, Kerasus, Kotyora, Oenoe, Amisos, Sinope, Inepolis and Heraclea, all of which are coast cities, while in the interior are Amasea, Paphra, Neocæsarea, Nicopolis, Argyropolis, etc. Ecclesiastically it is divided into six, or if Cæsarea be included, into seven Metropolitan districts: Trapezus, Rhodopolis, Chaldia, Neocæsarea, Amasea, Cæsarea and Colonia. Of the many monasteries in Pontus, the most important is that of Mela (now called Soumela) founded by the Athenian monks, Barnabas and Sophronios, in 376 A.D. in the time of Theodosius the Great.
Since Trapezus, even in ancient times, was the most important of the Pontic cities and in the Middle Ages was, in fact, the capital of the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comnenes, we must give a brief sketch of its history.
Trapezus, which was founded by a colony of Sinopians 756 B.C. on a site peculiarly adapted to the cultivation and development of commerce, is a most ancient and illustrious city. “The city Trapezus,” as Eugenicus says, “most ancient and best of all the cities in the East,” and “most venerable of all” according to the expression of Besarion (MS. Ven. p. 133). We learn from Xenophon’s “Anabasis” (Book V. 5, 10) that Trapezus paid tribute to its metropolis Sinope. Since, according to this historian, neither the Colchians nor Chaldians recognized the Persian sovereignty, we may infer from this that the Trapezuntians never submitted to the Persians. Xenophon also furnishes us historical and geographical information about Trapezus and the countries and peoples round about it, for he was hospitably entertained there for thirty days on the return of the 10,000. The fine coins of gold and silver struck both before and after the time of Alexander the Great testify that it was a free and prosperous city. It certainly maintained its independence and freedom under Alexander the Great, for it is well known that he drove out the Persian satraps and rulers wherever these existed in Pontus and left all the districts and cities autonomous, among which, under Persian rule, Amisos (Samsun) had been deprived of its democratic government. During the time of the Diadochi, (Alexander’s successors), there are recorded as ruling in Cappadocia, Paphlagonia and a part of Pontus as far as Trapezus, Eumenes (322-315 B.C.), Perdiccas, Mithridates and in particular Seleucus I, called Nicator (312-208 B.C.), until the Mithridates again gained control up to 63 B.C., when upon the final dissolution of their empire, Pontus, under the Romans, entered upon a new period of life.
From that time there was sent there by them annually a special governor until in 46 B.C. Polemon from Tralles in Phrygia was established as king of Pontus from Bosporus to Colchis. Many of the coast cities which had been the allies of the Romans during the wars waged by them from 89-63 B.C. against Mithridates VII, called Eupator, and among them Trapezus, were, however, still left autonomous. The Polemoniac Empire lasted till 63 A.D., when Nero made Pontus a Roman province.
After a short period of decline Trapezus rose again in the time of Julian in 333. It had accepted Christianity from the first apostle, Andrew, who came there from Samsun in 34 A.D. and transmitted it to the surrounding peoples. Its first bishop was Eugeneos, known as the patron and protector of the city, who endured martyrdom in 216 under the reign of Diocletian (a Byzantine church, still existing, preserves his name). He was succeeded by a long line of bishops who honored the Church. In fact, some of them participated in Ecumenical Synods.
In the time of the great Constantine, Trapezus continued to be a provincial city under a pro-consul, as also in the time of Justinian (6th century). As such it belonged, along with Cerasus, to Polemoniac Pontus, the capital of which was then Neocæsarea. From then up to the time of Leo the Isaurian, unfortunately, we know nothing about it, but in the time of the Isaurians it appears as a starting point for political and warlike operations undertaken against the Persians, the Turcomans and the Arabs, having become the metropolis of the large and important “thema” (district) of Chaldia, while it was, at the same time, and even before the time of the Isaurians, a home of learning, as the Siracene Ananias, a trustworthy Armenian writer of the 7th century, testifies.
With regard to the thema of Chaldia (the eighth in Asia Minor), it is to be noted that this originally extended as far as Colonia, Kamak and Keltzene, but in the time of Leo the Wise the two last districts were added to the thema of New-Mesopotamia. We know that the archons and dukes of Chaldia in the 11th century, seeking little by little to free themselves from Byzantine rule, began to call themselves dukes of Trapezus and their country Trapezousia. One in particular, Theodore Gabras, from a noble family in Trapezus, and most skillful in war, saved Trapezus and the surrounding country from two invasions, one by the Seljuk-Turks in 1049 and the other under David, the king of Georgia. He, therefore, regarded the country as his own private possession and held it up to his death, as a prince, independent of Byzantium. Of these Gabrades dukes of Trapezus, Theodore’s son Gregory and his grandson Constantine Gabras are known to us. In the time of the former Trapezus was again made dependent on Byzantium, but in the time of the latter, since the dukes had offered important services to the Byzantine Empire, it gained its independence again and held it till Manuel I (Comnenos) 1143-1180, succeeded in attaching it to his realm by taking advantage of a faction that had risen there against the Gabras family, and from that time on Trapezus continued to be dependent on Byzantium until its capture by the Latins, because at that time the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni was established.
From the foundation of this new empire until its fall through the capture of Trapezus by the Turks, that is from 1204-1461, the following rulers occupied the throne:
(1) ALEXIOS I., the great Comnenos, the son of Manuel, Sebastocrator and the founder of the Trapezuntian Empire 1204-1222
(2) ANDRONIKUS I. Ghidus, son-in-law of the preceding 1222-1235
(3) JOHN I. Axouchus 1235-1238
(4) MANUEL I., the great Comnenos, who built the beautiful church of St. Sophia in Trapezus (still existent) 1238-1263
(5) ANDRONIKUS II., oldest son of the preceding 1263-1266
(6) GEORGE I., brother of the preceding 1266-1280
(7) JOHN II., brother of George I. 1280-1297
(8) THEODORA 1285
(9) ALEXIOS II., the great Comnenos 1297-1330
(10) ANDRONIKUS III., oldest son of Alexios II. 1330-1332
(11) MANUEL II. 1332
(12) BASIL 1332-1340
(13) IRENE, Palæologina 1340-1341
(14) ANNA, Comnenos 1341-1342
(15) JOHN III., Comnenos 1342-1344
(16) MICHAEL I. 1344-1349
(17) ALEXIOS III., the great Comnenos 1349-1390
(18) MANUEL III. 1390-1417
(19) ALEXIOS IV. 1417-1446
(20) JOHN IV., Kalogiannes 1446-1458
(21) DAVID Comnenos, brother of John IV. and last emperor in the Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni 1458-1461
The fall of Trapezus which occurred a few years after the capture of Constantinople dealt the final deadly blow to Hellenism as a whole. At this time, in the very nature of things, it was impossible for the Trapezuntian Empire to escape its fate, being compelled, as it was, to fight against innumerable and well organized enemies, while previously, during the 257-year period of its life, it had repulsed many barbarian invasions and had shown great political and military efficiency. But even in her fall she contributed not a little to the dissemination of the seeds of civilization and literature in the West through her illustrious sons, such as Bessarion, George the Trapezuntian and other learned men. By a strange coincidence the two last emperors of Hellenism, Constantine Palæologus of Byzantium and David of Trapezus, fell as soldiers, the first fighting for his fatherland like a hero on the fortifications of his capital, the second for his religion in Constantinople itself, preferring with nobility of soul and true Christian fortitude to see his children fall beneath the ax of the executioner and then to fall himself exclaiming, “Just art Thou, O Lord, and righteous are Thy judgments” rather than to forswear his faith as proposed by the conqueror Mohammed.
As everywhere, so, too, in Pontus, the Greek, though subjected to harsh slavery, did not lose courage and hope, but by uniting the strength left him and taking courage anew, he endeavored, just in so far as he could, to render his living with his conquerors as endurable as possible, an attempt in which he succeeded by enlisting their sympathy and esteem whenever they made use of him for high positions, or in the arts and trades in which they needed his help. Those that had special skill in iron-working in Chaldia and others in other places were even granted special privileges.
The services rendered to the Ottoman Empire by the Hypsilanti, Mourouzae and Carotsades of Pontus, were indeed invaluable, services which brought honor and profit to their own fatherland and the Greek race in general. Thus, Hellenism in Pontus partly by its steadily honorable and sincere character, and partly by its intellectual superiority generally, has made its impress on the conquerors and has succeeded in distinguishing itself in education, in trade, in the arts and sciences as the only element that makes for civilization. Unceasingly cultivating Greek letters under the shield of the Greek church, now in the monasteries or under the roof of the church, now in special schools, it keeps alive the national feeling and sentiment, which it has preserved and is preserving in a high degree, with the hope of a more auspicious future and of some day recovering its full freedom.
Never has it forgotten its glorious past. Glorying in this, with beating heart it sings, as it has always sung, of the Greek name and of Greek courage. A clear testimony of this is the preservation of the name “Hellene” and the words “Hellenic spear” in the demotic songs of the period after the fall of Constantinople. Having succeeded in preserving even in the times of slavery its language and nationality and the faith of its fathers, it takes pride in this and cherishes unshaken the conviction that at the proper time the historical rights that it possesses will not be overlooked.
THE GREEK DIALECT AS SPOKEN IN PONTUS
Of the many dialects of Modern Greek, that spoken in Pontus has taken a prominent place in the investigation into Modern Greek in general ever since linguistic scientists have undertaken to study it. And this is certainly justified, for this study contributes substantially to the elucidation, explanation and solution of many linguistic phenomena in the other dialects and in the Κοινὴ διάλεκτος in general, for many forms and many words which were formerly inexplicable from the point of view of phonetics or semantics have been most happily explained by the comparison of corresponding forms or words in the Pontic dialect. This, too, is derived from the Koine, but owing to an admixture of certain Ionic elements, and to the fact that in taking shape in the Middle Ages it admitted new Byzantine words, it has so developed and grown that its use on the one hand of sounds unknown to the common Greek, and, on the other, the astounding variety of phonetic changes and modifications (which appear in different forms) which it presents, its manifold transformations on the basis of analogy, its not infrequent syntactic peculiarities (which are due especially to the influence of the Turkish language), and the large number of nouns, verbs and adverbs formed from Turkish words or Turkish roots through the use of Greek terminations, render it incomprehensible to many. This evolution and the great difference between the Pontic language and the common Greek are perfectly natural, both on account of the Ionic elements which have been preserved from of old, and of the Turkish elements which the language has received through the conquest of Pontus by the Turks, and thirdly from its geographical position which separates its inhabitants from the great masses of the Greek people and thus limits the assimilating influence of modern Greek on the Pontic dialect.
This form of the language has great importance for the reason that in the variety and richness of its vocabulary it has preserved a rich and extremely valuable store of forms and ancient words, some wholly unchanged in form and signification, and some modified, to be sure, but perfectly capable of being reduced to their original form by the philologist.[36]
AMERICAN-HELLENIC NEWS
The first anniversary of the entrance of Greece into the great World War was officially celebrated in New York City by a banquet tendered by His Excellency, George Roussos, the Minister of Greece at Washington, to about forty prominent and representative citizens of New York at Delmonico’s, and these guests were invited to participate later in an imposing celebration in the Century Theater.