'Romans', Greeks, Hellenes: Pre-revolutionary notions of national identity
Disclaimer
The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2003, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.
The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academic historians. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation.
The author believes that the article is useful to those studying Greek archaeology, as it provides a basis for understanding the political and ideological context in which the archaeology of the modern Greek state was developed. Detailed discussions on the ideological parameters behind early archaeological practice in Greece are presented by various other scholars (e.g. Yiannis Hamilakis).
To non-Greek readers and to readers with no prior knowledge of the ethnic or religious identities of the Ottoman world, the English translations of the names used in this article are likely to be problematic. Some detailed explanations and a brief history of these names are presented in the glossary at the bottom of this page.
Introduction
This article examines the ideas that circulated among educated Greeks prior to the War of Independence in 1821, in relation to the development of Greek national identity. The essay is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the broader social and political context of the Ottoman Empire during the 18th century AD and the conditions under which some new ideas were introduced into society as a result of political changes in Western Europe. This section outlines the conditions under which the Greeks transformed from a race (genus or genos- γένος) into a modern nation (ethnos – έθνος). The second section discusses the three most popular names proposed to define the Greeks' national identity during the above period. These were Greeks (Graecoi or Graecians – Γραικοί), ‘Romans’ (Romyoi – Ρωμιοί) and Hellenes (Έλληνες). These names were thoroughly suggested and argued for by four scholars: Demetrios Katartzis, Daniel Philippides, Gregorios Konstantas, and Adamantios Koraes. Furthermore, the second section correlates the three names and identifies any connections among them, also in relation to the popular perceptions of national identity prevalent in the social and political environments in which each of the above scholars lived. The third section discusses the broader attitudes and political pursuits of the social groups that each scholar represented. The final section presents the conclusions of this short study; it discusses the prevalence of the term "Hellenes" and the role Hellenism played in the minds of the people during the Greek War of Independence.
The need for separation from the Ottoman Empire
The 18th century was characterised by stark contrasts in social, political and economic developments between Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire. The movement of the European Enlightenment opened new horizons for the Western world, leading to the development of the sciences through the cultivation of reason and free thought. The results of this intellectual movement included the Industrial Revolution, the development of trade, economic prosperity, and the emergence of capitalism (Margaritis 1999a, 31).
In the social domain, the rise of the urban middle classes was the most characteristic feature of Western societies during this period. The infiltration of the ideas of the Enlightenment in social and political thought led the urban classes of France in 1789 to the notorious French Revolution, which was to preach human rights for the first time, to abolish feudal privileges and to nominate the state as the nation’s sole source of power and authority (Margaritis 1999a, 32).
On the other side of such important social and political events stood the declining Ottoman Empire of the 18th century. Its economy remained agricultural, and no effort was made to develop industry. The cost of the wars conducted during the 17th century had gradually brought the Empire into economic crisis. The heavy taxation of the Greek-Christian subordinates, the so-called Rayades (Rayas in singular), in conjunction with the increasing ideological distance between the Ottomans and the West, produced the first reactions among the Empire’s Christian populations (Margaritis 1999b, 44-77).
Within the multi-racial and multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire, citizens were divided solely by religion. The Millet of the Roum, literally meaning the confessional community of the ‘Romans’, was a legal entity comprising all Greek Christian populations and was under the control of the Orthodox Patriarchy of Constantinople. Within the Ottoman administrative mechanism, the Patriarchy enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy. Its main concern was the preservation of the Greek language and the practice of the Orthodox Christian faith, two features that defined the ‘Roman’ genus (Margaritis 1999b, 48-50).
The Phanariot officials held prominent posts at the Patriarchy and, in many cases, enjoyed special privileges by serving as administrators of the Ottoman government in the Danube provinces. Due to their education and contacts with the Western world, the Phanariots soon introduced the ideas of the European Enlightenment into the Ottoman Empire, which were later passed on to the suppressed rayades. The migration of many Greeks to the West and their contact with Western ways of thinking soon made armed revolt necessary among the rest of the enslaved Greeks. This need was further motivated by the desire to revive the ancient Greek past, which was believed to set the Greeks apart from the Sultan’s other subordinates (Margaritis 1999b, 50-6).
The separation and independence of the Greeks from the Ottoman Empire necessitated transforming their ethnic group from a genus to a nation (ethnos). The victories of the Russians during the Russo-Turkish War of 1774 and the Napoleonic Wars, a lot later, showed the Greeks that, in armed conflict, the Ottoman Empire was likely to be defeated (Margaritis 1999b, 54). Furthermore, the ideas of the French Revolution of 1789 pointed to the Greeks the necessity of fighting for their freedom so that they can be an independent ethnic group. It was the moment when the educated Greeks of the period began to consider an appropriate name to define the new national identity of the genus.
The problem of the Greek (Hellenic) national identity
The three prevailing names for the genus and later nation of the congressional community of the Roum were ‘Romans’, Greeks and Hellenes. The texts from four scholars of the Greek Enlightenment of the 18th century, Demetrios Katartzis, Daniel Philippides, Gregorios Konstantas and Adamantios Koraes, present strong and conflicting arguments on the issue of the nation’s new identity and name.
Demetrios Katartzis is one of the first representatives of the Greek Enlightenment. In his book Dokimia (Essays), written either in 1783 or 1785, he suggests that the right name of the genus is ‘Romans’. According to his view, the name ‘Romans’ is the same as the name ‘Christians’ (Katartzis 1974, 44). The name "Hellenes" lacks a substantial basis, as it is associated with the ancient Greeks, who were pagans. Furthermore, the name Greeks cannot be used, as it is not only foreign, but it also associates with another part of the ancient pagan past (Katartzis 1974, 49-50). In his views, the only name that is appropriate for the right Christian, who is the loyal servant of the Sultan, or in his own words, the subordinate servant of the most dominant ruler, is ‘Roman’. This name does not define a person as a slave but as a believer in the religious sense. It should not be forgotten that the Orthodox church has an ecclesiastical hierarchy, indicating that this believer is under an autonomous administration. Furthermore, the example of the ‘Bashkapikehaya of Wallachia-Bogdania’ (Katartzis 1974, 44), who were Greek-Phanariot administrators of the Danube regions, shows that the ‘Romans’ are a projection of the Sultan’s authority.
Demetrios Katartzis's conservative views and strong support for Christian ideals were mainly due to his Phanariot descent. He was born and educated in Constantinople, and he had always accepted the usefulness and functionality of the Patriarchy for all Christian populations of the Ottoman Empire. He even managed to be appointed to a high administrative position in Bucharest at the Sultan’s request and reached the rank of Grand Logothetes (Demaras 2002, 176-7). His position in the highest administrative mechanism of the Ottoman Empire required recognition of the Sultan’s authority and of the Orthodox church’s hierarchy, which mediated between the Sultan and his subordinates, the ‘Romans’.
Karartzis identifies the Hellenes as idolatrous and mocks the ancient Peripatetic and Stoic philosophical schools, calling a sinner whoever studies their work. He suggests a clear-cut distinction between ancient Greek culture and language to support his theory that people must be taught the ‘Roman’ language (the Romeiki) instead, which should be the new language for the ‘Roman’ genus. In his view, after receiving the right education, people will not be ashamed to admit that they descend from the ancient Hellenes (Katartzis 1974, 50-1).
Through this suggestion, Katartzis demarcates what is perceived to be the ‘Roman’ self-identification and heritage. In his view, the ‘Roman’ language derives from the Hellenic language, as does the name ‘Roman’, which descends from the ancient name Hellenas; however, the two terms do not coincide (Demaras 2002, 219). He argues that the new generation of ‘Romans’ can neither use inactive words from the ancient Greek language, nor memorise words from a non-natural (non-personalised) ancient vocabulary (Demaras 2002, 227). For ecclesiastic circles of his time, the preservation and teaching of the ancient Greek language always carried the danger of reviving idolatrous (pagan) ideas in youths’ education (Demaras 2002, 231). For the same reason, in 1787, Katartzis composed the “Grammar of the ‘Roman’ or Natural Language” (Demaras 2002, 190).
Despite his original and groundbreaking views on the ‘Roman’ language, after 1789 and under pressure from other Phanariots who demanded a strictly conservative approach to the language issue, Katartzis was obliged to abandon his radical views. He complied with the style and grammar of the ‘most logian’ (logiotate - λογιότατη) Greek language of the Phanariots, so that he could maintain the respect that was appropriate to his higher administrative position (Kitromelides 2000, 220).
In their volume “Neoteric Geography” (Νεωτερική Γεωγραφία) in 1791, Daniel Philippides and Gregorios Konstantas, who used to be the students of Demetrios Katartzis, suggest that the correct name for the genus should be Hellenes. In their views, the term ‘Romans’ was created abusively. The Romans and their Byzantine descendants were those who fought against and finally enslaved the Hellenes, in the same way this happened again with the Turks. Their entire text portrays the Byzantine era as a period during which Hellenism was under occupation: the inhabitants of Byzantium were Hellenes who spoke the ancient Hellenic language and received a Hellenic education; however, they were all referred to as Romans. Furthermore, Philippides and Konstantas argue that the name Greeks (as in Grecians) is equally unacceptable. It is a name that lacks any rationale and has been given to the Hellenes by Europeans, who, in the most unacceptable manner, are trying to connect the name 'Greeks' with Hellenic antiquity (Philippides & Konstantas 1988, 120-1).
An interesting point in their work is their reference to the study of Hellenic (ancient Greek) texts by the Romans during the Roman Republic; as a result, the course of Roman civilisation was greatly influenced by Greek ideas. During the time of Philippides and Konstantas, the Hellenic language and the name Hellenes were associated with the ancient Greek ideals of liberty and democracy, which the Europeans were trying to revive (Philippides & Konstantas 1988, 121). Although Demetrios Katartzis was a supporter of the enlightened monarchy, his students during the 1790s sought another form of political expression, perhaps more democratic and more radical for the era in which they lived (Kitromelides 2000, 220). Such political expression was expected to return to the social values of liberty and democracy, which inspired the supporters of the French Enlightenment to launch their revolution in 1789.
It can be noted that Daniel Philippides and Gregorios Konstantas represent this sudden shift towards the notion of Hellenism that occurred during the 18th century. At the time of the European Enlightenment, Hellenism enjoyed an increasing glamour (Demaras 2000, 54-5). The new generation of representatives of the Greek Enlightenment moved away from the traditional conservative views of the Orthodox church and the Phanariot scholars, such as Demetrios Katartzis (Kitromelides 2000, 210-11). They stressed the genus's connections and bonds with the ancient Hellenic past and even dared to express them openly. This way, they rejected the attitude of traditional scholars toward the groundbreaking changes introduced by the European Enlightenment, while adopting those changes to promote the idea of Hellenism as an element responsible for social and cultural development across Western Europe.
Another representative of the Greek Enlightenment, who is also consorting with the ideas of the European Enlightenment, is Adamantios Koraes. Koraes, who lived in many European capital cities (Amsterdam, Venice, Montpellier, and Paris), knew better than any of the other discussed scholars the thoughts, ideas, and functions of the modern European states of the 18th century. In 1788, he moved to Paris and became acquainted with the glamour of the French capital. He embraced the ideas of the European Enlightenment and, in 1789, witnessed the French Revolution. He followed the course of events, reflecting on their political, economic and social causes (Kitromelides 2000, 251-5).
According to Koraes, the French Revolution was inevitable and stemmed from the economic malaise the French monarchy had brought upon its people through endless wars and the royal household's spending. The collaborators in this exploitation of the people were the aristocracy and the clergy, who never ceased to undermine the people’s efforts towards justice. A remedy for this corruption was the abolition of the privileges of the clergy and the aristocracy, and the full equality of all citizens (Kitromelides 2000, 256-8).
Koraes identified that the conditions in 1789 France were similar to those in the Greek mainland. The barbarity of the Turkish tyrants and the vileness of an Orthodox church that still enjoyed privileges granted by the conquerors were the main reasons preventing the people from improving their lives and coming into contact with the splendour of the West (Kitromilides 2000, 262).
In his abstract under the title “Dialogue of two Greeks when they heard about the brilliant victories of Napoleon”, written in December 1805, Koraes does not hesitate to show his indescribable admiration for the French nation. He also touches on the Russian barbarity and rejects any form of help from them by describing them as equally barbarian conquerors as the Turks. He directly blames the Byzantine Emperors for their extreme barbarity in altering the Greek race, while he shows a characteristic preference for this specific name for the nation’s new national identity (Koraes 1969/70, 105-6).
For Koraes, the name 'Greeks' is the most appropriate for the newly born nation, particularly because it is also used by the civilised European nations to define the Greek genus. He argues that the French, who claim their wisdom stems from the study of the ancient ancestors of the Greeks, ensured that their modern descendants were given this specific name so they could become equal to the other civilised nations of the West. The name Hellenes is equally acceptable to Koraes, as this also reflects the glorious past. Even the two characters participating in his fictional dialogue have ancient Hellenic names: Cleanthes and Aristocles (Demaras 2000, 86). By contrast, the name ‘Romans’ (Romyoi) is a name given to slaves, reflecting the surrender of the genus’ ancient ancestors to the actual Romans (Koraes, 1969/70, 108).
In conclusion, one can note that the name Greeks was more common among scholars who maintained frequent contact with the Western world, such as Adamantios Koraes (Demaras 2000, 84).
The reasons for differentiation in relation to the nation’s new name
The reader of the three texts can note several differences in the arguments each author presents in relation to the new name and national identity of the genus. Demetrios Katartzis, who is the most conservative among all other scholars, is in favour of the name ‘Romans’ in order to gut the genus of its idolatrous past. The survival of his political career and his acceptance by his social circle of Phanariot scholars are intertwined with the survival of the Patriarchy and the Orthodox faith. His most obvious aim is the maintenance and support of the ecclesiastic Phanariot elite through the Sultan’s approval. For this reason, he does not hesitate to abandon any radical thoughts in relation to the nation’s new language, particularly because such thoughts would not have been accepted by the rest of the Phanariots and other members of his social circle.
Daniel Philippides and Gregorios Konstantas belong to the 1790s generation of the Greek Enlightenment, meaning they followed the events of the French Revolution and were inspired by it. Compared with their teacher, Demetrios Katartzis, their views are radical and groundbreaking. They do not hold any official positions in the Ottoman government and stand apart from the Turkish-friendly attitudes of other scholars of their time; therefore, they support the name Hellenes, as it is associated with the rich history of ancient Hellas. To them, it is more than clear that subordination does not conform to the Hellenic genus, and so the Hellenes need to fight for liberty, democracy and equality, ideals that originate in ancient Hellenic social values and stand against any purposeful enslavement.
Finally, Adamantios Koraes is a man living in France in the troubled year of 1789; he understands the struggles of the Greek people, but he follows the changes from abroad. He admires the Hellenic consciousness, and he agrees with the use of the name Hellenes, particularly because these were the ones who passed the lights of civilisation to all Western European nations of his time. Despite this, his admiration for France is even greater than his admiration for ancient Hellas for two reasons: first, because the French were the ones who revived the glorious ancient Hellenic past after the Middle Ages, and second, because he personally witnessed the greatest achievements of his era while living in France. For these reasons, he prefers the name Greeks, showing his appreciation to the French for using the same exact name, adding that “after all, they are the most enlightened European nation” (Koraes 1969/70, 105).
Epilogue
From all names suggested by the scholars of the Greek Enlightenment prior to the War of Independence, the name Hellenes prevailed and strengthened the consciousness of the enslaved genus, leading to the birth of the Hellenic Republic. The connections between this name and the ancient pass were the main reason for its prevalence.
Despite their Orthodox Christian identity, the modern Greeks never felt detached from their ancient Hellenic past. During their efforts to regain their freedom from the Turks, their War of Independence of 1821 was regarded as the continuation of the ancient wars against Asiatic barbarity (Margaritis 1999b, 55). Furthermore, regardless of how many conquerors came after the Greeks, their language was the main element that united them and, at the same time, separated them from their foreign invaders. It was the Hellenic language, and despite its dialects and intrusive elements, it had been preserved for many years (Margaritis 1999b, 56).
The modern Hellenes (or modern Greeks, for the English reader) of the 19th century had no apparent reason to abandon their Christian faith. The fact that the Orthodox Patriarchy and the Phanariots were instruments of the Ottoman political system and power dynamics (Margaritis 1999b, 49) never resulted in any loss of Orthodox faith. By contrast, the people isolated the political role of the church and the Phanariots within the Ottoman system and sought liberty and equality in line with values rooted in their ancient past.
Finally, the European West had prepared the ground for the revival of the ancient Hellenic spirit since the Renaissance. The only thing expected to happen was the resurrection of the descendants of these ancient people.
Bibliography
Demaras, K.Th., 2002, Neo-Greek Enlightenment, Athens: Hermes.
Katartzis, D. (1783 or 1785)(1974), Essays, edited by K.Th. Demaras, Athens: Hermes.
Kitromilides, P., 2000, Neo-Greek Enlightenment, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Koraes, A. (1969/70), Complete Works, Vol. 2, Koraes and the 1821, Athens: Mpiris.
Margaritis, G., 1999a, ‘Europe of revolution’, in Rotzokos, N. (ed.) Greek History, Vol. 3, Recent and Modern Greek History, Patra: Greek Open University, 23-40.
Margaritis, G., 1999b, ‘The Ottoman territories and the formation of a new Hellenism’, in Rotzokos, N. (ed.) Greek History, Vol. 3, Recent and Modern Greek History, Patra: Greek Open University, 41-65.
Philippides, D. & Konstantas, G., (1791)(1998), Neoteric Geography, edited by A. Koumarianou, Athens: Hermes.
Explanatory glossary
For non-Greek readers or those without specific knowledge of the ethnic and religious identities of the Ottoman world, the English translations of the names used in this article may be problematic. Some detailed explanations and a brief history of these names are presented below:
Greeks or Hellenes:
The term Greeks is an internationally recognised name for the people living in modern Greece; however, it is not the name under which modern Greeks identify themselves. The word Greek is a paraphrased version of the Latinised Graecus, referring to an ancient Greek tribal group. In reality, the commonly used term ‘Greeks’ should be translated as ‘Graecians’ instead. The name under which the ‘Greeks’ always identified themselves is Hellenes, and the name of their country is Hellas or Hellenic Republic. The word ‘Greek’ in the Hellenic language is a post-Byzantine linguistic loan, written Graecoi (Γραικοί). This is how the Western European nations of the post-medieval era defined the Hellenes, and unfortunately, this still carries on today.
‘Romans’:
The populations of the Eastern Roman Empire, which consolidated during the 4th century AD, continued to regard themselves as Romans even after the fall of Rome in AD 476. This practice continued despite the fact that the official language of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Greek, not Latin. The noun Romyoi (Ρωμιοί), and its Turkish equivalent Roum (Ρουμ), were popular names for the Greek-speaking Christian populations of the Ottoman Empire, who still regarded themselves as Roman descendants. Here, the word ‘Romans’ in quotation marks is used to define the name Romyoi or Roum.
Ethnos (έθνος):
In its traditional ancient Greek form, the word ethnos was used to describe a conglomeration of tribal groups that unified around common characteristics that defined their ethnic identity (language, religion, racial or ancestral bonds, territorial ties, etc.). An ancient Greek ethnos lacked clearly defined borders and a uniform political structure. Nowadays, the word ethnos equates to nation-state, and is used to define a group of people living united within distinct borders, under an autonomous government, with a defined political structure and laws; for these people, however, having a common ethnic identity is not always the case. In Western Europe, nation-states are a relatively recent political development; they first emerged in the 18th century AD during the gradual dissolution of multi-ethnic empires. The situation in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East, however, was slightly different, and the emergence of such nation-states varied.
Genus or genos (γένος):
In natural sciences, the word genus translates as a group of beings or living entities sharing ‘common birth’ and comprising a species of their own. Nowadays, the word sounds unusual when defining the characteristics of the human species; however, in the 18th-century Ottoman Empire, the ‘ethnic’ groups that could identify themselves with a set of distinct cultural features formed a distinct genus. In its own understanding, a genus was almost like what an ethnos was in ancient Greece: a community of people with uniform cultural identity but no distinct borders or political structure. The ‘Romans’ in the Ottoman Empire were all Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, with the spiritual leader being the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, while their political leader remained the Ottoman Sultan.
The Patriarchy of Constantinople:
During the Ottoman period, the Patriarchy of Constantinople was the sole defender of the religious and civil rights of all Orthodox Christian populations within the Ottoman Empire. Although the Patriarchy had no political authority and limited judicial authority, it played an important role in representing the Orthodox Christian populations to the Ottoman government. This role declined after the gradual dissolution of the Empire and the creation of autonomous ethnic churches in the newly formed nation-states, which did not always accept the Patriarchy’s new spiritual role. The Greek Orthodox Church still recognises the powers of the Patriarchy of Constantinople. It should be noted that in Greek, the word Istanbul is never used. It is a paraphrase of the Greek expression “eis tin Poli” (Εις την Πόλη), which means “in the City”. The name Constantinople, which translates as “the City of Constantine”, is still being used by all Greeks instead of Istanbul.
Phanariots (Φαναριώτες):
The name derives from the Greek word Phanari, meaning street lamp or street light, or in a more contextual sense, spiritual light. In reality, Phanari was the name of a suburb of Constantinople, now called Fener, and still hosts the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although the word Phanariots refers to the people residing in the suburb of Phanari, during the 18th century, the name took on a different meaning. As Phanari was the area where prominent Greek families lived during that period, and as most of these families consisted of highly educated members associated with the Orthodox Patriarchy, the name Phanariots became a synonym for the educated Greek Orthodox bourgeoisie of Constantinople. Due to their education, which normally followed Western European standards, the Phanariots occupied important positions in the Ottoman administration and often gained significant privileges.
Rayas/Rayades (Ραγιάς/Ραγιάδες):
It is a paraphrase of the Greek word reayah, which means "flock" in Ottoman Turkish. It was used to define the ‘second-class’ citizens of the Ottoman Empire, who were subject to taxation and did not participate in the government and the army. The word was used for any social or religious group (Muslim, Christian or Jew) that was subject to the Sultan or the Ottoman government, although there was a different name for slaves, who were called kul. For the Greek populations, the word rayas (or rayades in the plural) meant mistreated, subordinate, or slave.
Millet (Ottoman Turkish):
A court of law meeting for the matters of a specific religious community. The legal system of the Ottoman Empire recognised that each confessional community needed to abide by the laws of its own religion and to have its own court of justice; therefore, Christians were tried according to the Canon Laws, Muslims according to the Sharia, and Jews according to the Halakha. From the 18th century onwards, the word Millet acquired a broader meaning, and instead of referring to a specific court of law, it came to denote the entire religious community subject to it.
Personal remark: ancient Greek, modern Greek and the Hellenic language
It has been a long-standing debate among linguists and other scholars over whether modern Greek is a continuation of ancient Greek. In general, almost every Greek scholar sees obvious continuity between the two, while many (if not most) non-Greek scholars see discontinuity and modern political manipulation. It is also a non-hidden fact that the language departments of many universities tend to treat ancient Greek as a dead language. In the above article, the discussed scholars, including the academics mentioned in the bibliography and the author himself, take for granted that the Greek language and its ancient forms form a continuum, and this is now described as the Hellenic language.
Even though I am not a linguist but a Doctor of Archaeology, I wish to add my personal views on the ‘ancient versus modern Greek language’ debate. To do so, I need to begin with a simple question for those supporting the ‘dead language’ theory. When such scholars speak about the ‘ancient Greek’ language, which chronological period are they actually referring to?
The Hellenic language is the oldest written language on the European continent. Linear B tablets from the Mycenaean palaces, which have been deciphered and proven to be Greek, date back to the 15th century BC. Despite the lack of inscriptions during the Greek Early Iron Age and the adoption of a new alphabet during the Archaic period, the Hellenic language has been around without interruption for 3.5 millennia, if not slightly longer. During this long period, the language has undergone various changes and modifications (structural, grammatical, contextual, etc.), which continue to this day.
The ‘dead language’ approach results from artificial divisions and categorisations of the Hellenic language, applied by modern linguists to specialise in a specific chronological period. As with any division, categorisation, fragmentation, and compartmentalisation of a scholarly subject, the broader picture is ultimately lost. This is exactly what is happening with the scholars who see two totally different languages, which they name ‘ancient Greek’ and ‘modern Greek’. The question, however, is whether there are only two different forms of ‘Greek’.
Considering the course of the Hellenic language through time, one can argue that there are more than two ‘Greek languages’. To give a few examples, there is the Mycenaean Greek of the Linear B tablets, the Homeric Epics, the language (and dialects) of the Archaic poets, the Classical Greek authors of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, the simplified Koine of the Hellenistic period, Biblical Greek, the Middle Greek of the Byzantine period, the post-Byzantine/modern Greek language of the Memoirs of the Heroes of the Greek Revolution, the scholarly Kathareuousa of the previous century, and the language I speak with my friends at home.
If a scholar wishes to focus on a specific chronological period of the Hellenic language, it is easy to isolate a particular form and mistakenly treat it as a separate language. If this person wishes to comment on the continuity or discontinuity between this ‘distinct language’ and the ‘different languages’ of subsequent periods, then this person needs to be knowledgeable of more than one form of the Hellenic language. Throughout my academic career, I have met only one non-Greek scholar who knew every linguistic form encountered in the Hellenic language over time. This was the departed and most respected Professor Frank Trombley. Unfortunately, most of the other scholars I met had narrow-minded views and failed to recognise that there are more than two linguistic forms of ‘Greek’.
Presuming that a scholar is capable of comparing different forms of the Hellenic language across different chronological periods, then any debate on continuity and discontinuity will be by definition subject to that person’s approach: if the focus of the study is on the differences between two forms of ‘Greek’, then the conclusion will be that we are dealing with two totally different languages. If the focus of the study is on the similarities, however, then the conclusion will be that we are dealing with the same language in two different forms.
Leaving the cloud of subjectivity aside, I can only point out the most obvious mistake of linguistic studies in relation to Greek: they compartmentalise a nation’s linguistic heritage, leading to the creation of independent linguistic studies on specific linguistic forms. Such forms are studied as ‘separate languages’, and, as they have some chronological distance between them, any direct comparison results in the conclusion that these ‘separate languages’ are totally different. To give an example, if a scholar compares an ‘ancient Greek’ text of the Classical period (e.g. Thucydides) with a ‘modern Greek’ newspaper, the linguistic differences will be obvious; therefore, this scholar can claim that these are two completely different languages. What is totally wrong in this approach is that the scholar purposely neglects the literature prior to and after Thucydides, and until the moment that the modern newspaper came out of the press. Expanding this example, it is more than likely that a non-trained reader of the Hellenistic period probably had difficulties understanding Homer’s Iliad, just as Homer was probably unable to read any of the Linear B tablets, if he was not as blind as tradition believes. In reality, the Hellenic language is one, although it has undergone continuous changes over time, which linguists should treat as linguistic forms rather than separate languages.