![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The debate from the Byzantine Empire should be continued here. Jarvis' last edits proved that our little dispute can be in fact harmful to other people's hard work in the article Byzantine Empire. I don't want this to be repeated. Miskin 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Varana what we proposed about the marking point between the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empires is already treated here. Have a look and at the same time we can discuss the name issue. Miskin 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
In attempting to provide usable references for the sources cited in this page, the following footnote stumps me:
Woodhouse 1986, 109; Sp. Lambros, "Argyropouleia", Athens 1910, 7,29
Three problems here:
1) In the previous incarnation of this article (in the main article on the Byzantine empire) this citation supported only the remarks about the "sun king"; I find it unlikely that a presentation of Argyropouleia would say anything about Plethon, but perhaps the remarks in question are to be found in --
2) "Woodhouse 1986" -- which is what, exactly?
&
3) I assume that the Lampros in question is Spyridon, who of course published many texts from manuscripts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly working on Athos. But a search of the major catalogues reveals no monograph with the title "Argyropouleia". Is this perhaps an article published in the Νέος Ελληνομνήμων? -- Javits2000 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I made this edit by retro-translating D. Nicol, who is most likely providing his personal opinion on how the majority of the Byzantine Emperors would perceive themselves. I'm saying 'retro-translating' because I own the French version of the book (translation from the English original). As Jarvis puts it, the author most likely aims to describe how the Byzantines had developped a unique culture from their Greco-Roman heritage. It is not stated as a rule of the type "no Byzantine emperor ever laid claims to Augustus and Pericles". Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You should register a username, it would make it easier to track your edits. Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick note on "levels of style." "Low-level Gk." was of course used in writing through at least the 10th c., most notably in hagiography, but also in other contexts (e.g. certain of the administrative and other treatises from the circle of Constantine VII). (Cf. for example I. Ševčenko, "Levels of style in Byzantine prose," JÖB 31 (1981), 289-312.) The major problem is that most of the hagiographic examples were re-written in atticizing Gk. as part of the Metaphrastic project, although enough pre-Metaphrastic lives survive to give us an idea of their style. The question of whether "low-level" written Gk. was equivalent to vernacular / demotic spoken Gk. is another one altogether. In any case there are some fine points here in need of untangling. -- Javits2000 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Jarvis").
I think 'popular' or 'vulgar' Greek are more popular terms for 'spoken Byzantine Greek'. If by 'low-level' it is meant 'popular' then it does refer to the spoken vernacular/demotic Greek, in which very few written texts survive. Miskin 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm troubled by this reference to the Ptochoprodromic corpus: "As shown in the poems of Ptochoprodromos, Modern Greek had already been shaped by the 11th [sic] century AD and possibly earlier." The poems are written in a mixed style, incorporating a great number of contemporary (i.e. 12th century) vernacular usages -- but they're hardly in "modern Greek" (is there a "sto" to be found therein?). I'm not a native speaker, so I can't say, but I imagine the effect would be something like that of reading Chaucer, if not slightly weirder (the lexicography is eccentric to say the least). I find an article in which Alexiou uses the corpus to argue for the 12th century as the "starting point for 'modern' Greek," (DOP 53, p. 109), but clearly the scare quotes are significant. Please shed some light. -- Javits2000 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the majority of linguists consider the poems of Ptochoprodromos as the first attested text that can be identified as "eary Modern Greek" (H. Tonnet, N. Andriotes and N. Nicholas just to name a few sources easily accessible to me). Andriotes (whose historiography of the Greek language is used by wikipedia and Britannica) clearly states that 1453 is only set as a symbolic starting date in the history of Modern Greek, only to make it compatible with history (which of course also applies to the starting dates of Koine and Medieval Greek). H. Tonnet follows a different and more analytical approach, which ignores the actual historical periods of states, and places its starting point earlier (12th century if I'm not mistaken). There must definitely be some scholars who would put that into question, but in my knowledge, consensus places Modern Greek's starting point at Ptochoprodromos, and many historians speak of Modern Greek as a the vulgar language of Byzantium. However I'm also familiar with some sources that regard the Acritic poems as the earliest form of Modern Greek, hence my edit ""and possibly earlier"". I don't remember whether Ptochoprodromos uses modernisms such as 'ston' or 'sten'. He probably doesn't because I remember that it was the Chronicle of Morea that introduced this construct, but still that wouldn't be a reason to exclude Ptochoprodromos from modern Greek. It definitely doesn't use "tha", which is a pure post-1453 construct. I guess it would be impossible to trace all characteristics of today's demotic Greek to the 12th century, this is why it is often called an early stage modern Greek. I can't draw a parallel to Chaucer because I'm not familiar with his language's phonology. However I know that demotic Greek phonology is unchanged since the 11th century. Miskin 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I know where the confusion lies. If you have access to TLG (which you probably do) and look up Ptochoprodromica you'll be confused as his language seems to be somewhat mixed. The first page of poem 1 has clearly Atticizing elements (it uses infinitives and other archaisms), but the second page for instance is much more closer to the vernacular. I guess linguists who view it as early Modern Greek must have isolated the "archaism-free" text, and interpreted it as the vernacular. I agree with you that many parts are nowhere near demotic Greek (not even Koine Greek), but those were very different to the texts cited by other linguistic sources. I suppose that not all of his poems are using vernacular language. Miskin 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting source on this [1] ("it is conventional to date the emergence of Modern Greek dialects to about the 10th to 12th centuries (AD)"). Miskin 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Where it mentions that it was probably best to be a Greek speaker and member of the Orthodox Church at least in ones public persona, perhaps cite the example of Zeno who was, as we all know an Isaurian known as Tarasicodissa, that was until he changed his name, according to Norwich, to Zeno to appeal to the Greek speakers of the Empire as more of a 'Roman' (i.e. Greek Roman).
A better example might be the one of Abba Maximus (Saint Maximus), who was accused by the Byzantine state as a heretic who "loved the Romans and hated the Greeks" (Oxford History of Medieval Europe), and gave the diplomatic response that he loved the Romans because he followed their religion but he also loved the Greeks because he spoke their language. Miskin 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the recent citation of Millar under "Byzantine Greek language" for the following reasons: 1) it has nothing to do with "language," rather the "spiritual center of the empire," whatever that might mean; 2) whereas the suggestion of a crucial break under Heraclius, posited directly above, is well-explained (loss of significant non-Greek speaking territories), the reference to Theodosius II is simply asserted without any explanation; 3) it's tendentiously worded ("many, such as," when only Millar is cited). -- Javits2000 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Anna Comnena learned Greek as a foreign language?? You must mean classical Attic Greek..? Miskin 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
'the pretence of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades'
I disagree. In The Alexiad, not once does Anna Comnena refer to her people as anything but Roman. Furthermore, Anna frequently uses titles such as 'Augustus' and 'Caesar' to describe members of the Imperial family. She also displays a very Roman attitude in describing the Latins as 'Kelts' and 'barbarians' and also describing the Turks and Arabs of the east as 'barbarians.' She certainly does not appear to consider her Romanity to be a 'pretence' and there is no evidence that her identity as a Roman is wearing thin.
The book is thought to have been published at around 1148 I believe, which was the height of the crusader era. Hera52 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Just started a new page on the Massacre of Latins 1182. Does anyone have a source for more info on any reasons or explanantions for the masacre other than. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
This article is written from a Western point-of-view. It's biased. -- Nikoz78 ( talk) 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is an unreliable source that has no place in this asticle. The fact that he has a WP article is not reason enought to label him a "famous Byzantinist". He is nothing of the sort. What the citation says is disputed by all serious scholars. Byzantine Greeks did not as a whole consider the ancient Greeks their ancestors. Unless WP:RS can be brought to the effect that they did this source should be removed.-- Anothroskon ( talk) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Demetris J. Constantelos was a renowned Byzantine scholar way before Wikipedia had an article written about him. And just because you and "all serious scholars" (extreme appeal to an unspecified authority) say that Demetris Constantelos is "unreliable" doesn't make him so. The only scholar I can think of who supports your view is Anthony Kaldellis who claims that Constantelos pays "lip service to cultural Hellenism" (wording that, even if true, embodies an implicit form of ad hominem). I won't lose any sleep, however, if your insistence over *one sentence* ultimately "blockades" Constantelos's standpoint from being incorporated into the article.
The next issue I find a bit contentious on your part is your statement regarding the Byzantine Greeks and their ancestral ties to the ancient Greeks:
You can argue, of course, that the aforementioned sources provide no clear argument about the Byzantines themselves regarding the Greeks as their ancestors. But why would the Byzantines even bother to retain the ideas, perceptions, and experiences of their "Greek forebears" (verboten) if they had no physical or cultural connection with them? Here's a simple answer:
Given that you appear quite attached to this article, you can go ahead and keep it for all the good it'll do you. Auf wiedersehen mein herr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 ( talk) 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, it was your contributions that have largely impacted the development of this article. My contributions, on the other hand, are hardly valuable. Any editor could have easily stepped in to make spelling and grammatical corrections.
Anyway, I find that the majority of the "Rhomaioi" did regard themselves as "Graikoi" (or "Hellenes sans paganism") except when it came to pre-1204 politics. It is no secret that before the Fourth Crusade, the Empire's political interests in official correspondences were "Roman" (politically ecumenical) and that admitting to their obvious Grecian civilizational nature would jeopardize their claims to titles and territories. Simple as that.
As for Constantelos, he is simply a Hellenist. Branding this author as a "nationalist" implies that he utilizes pseudo-historical narratives and illogical discourses to substantiate his arguments (not the case in reality). If anything, "Kaldellists" should avoid the implicit ad-hominem "lip service" lingo and focus on Constantelos's forthcoming arguments (not unless they want to be ridiculed for assuming that the phrase "Graikos by genos" is supposedly ambiguous when Priscus, an objective historian, uses it to describe the reason why a Scythian-dressed member of Attila the Hun's court learned to speak Greek). I honestly mean no offense by this, but you must understand that subjectivity is a two-way street and should largely be left aside. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 ( talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Convincingly, but not conclusively. Kaldellis appears to interpret the primary literature in a manner conducive to his somewhat tendentious attempts at proving the existence of a "Roman ethnic identity" that hardly coincides with the general definition of a "Byzantine" (Roman citizenship, Greek ethnicity/language/culture, Christian Orthodoxy). I am not saying that Kaldellis rejects the Greek ancestry of the "Romaioi". However, it does appear that he is erroneously incorporating Greek ethno-cultural connotations to a term that explicitly has political connotations ("Romaios"). Moreover, Kaldellis is trying to convince his readers that only the term "Romaios" was used by medieval Greeks to self-identify as Greeks (by making it appear that the term "Graikos" was ambiguous and only applicable to geography). But why bother questioning Kaldellis on this issue? Here's a simple answer:
The reason why the terms "Romaios", "Graikos", and "Christianos" were synonymous was because each term reflected an inseparable *aspect* of Byzantine identity. "Romaios" was relegated to politics, "Graikos" relegated to ethnicity/culture/language, and "Christianos" relegated to religion. The Christian Greeks of New Rome adhered to this paradigm quite strictly. Any severe deviations from this rudimentary equation would be met with resistance or condemnation from both locals and aristocrats. If "Romaios" superceded "Graikos", then why would the latter term still be in consistent use throughout the Byzantine period? Angelov is clear on the fact that the term "Graikos" was commonly used and that it was used to denote a Roman citizen's ethno-religious and linguistic orientation rather than merely his place of origin (Greece was not the only area where "Graikoi" resided). Also, many Armenians became "Romaioi" (Roman citizens) but very few of them actually adopted Greek cultural mores (graikosas).
As for the term "Hellene", it was abandoned purely for its religious connotations. But as an ethnonym, it was surprisingly preserved in areas such as Pontus well before its revival during the 12th and 13th centuries. But the ethnonymic substitution of "Hellene" with "Graikos" gave most Greeks the means to maintain their unique heritage without being branded as pagans (even though pagan and Christian rituals in the Greek East were technically the same given that they both stem from Greek cultural norms). What changed after 1204 AD was the *frequency* of the use of terms such as "Hellenes" and "Graikoi" in official documents. It is only after the Fourth Crusade that the "Byzantine equation" undergoes a major paradigm shift where the Empire's politics directly mirrored its painfully obvious Christian Greek civilizational nature. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 ( talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more sources I think would make great additions to the article:
Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 ( talk) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Archive 1/GA1
Miskin, I take it that your unexplained deletions mean I am banned from editing your articles? -- Mcorazao 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I misread the edits. -- Mcorazao 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should introduce the topic a little differently, perhaps more in the fashion that the Byzantine Empire article does. Maybe something like
Given that the term "Greek" was used in the Middle Ages as a derogatory term for the Eastern Romans and the term "Byzantine" was brought into play for a similar purpose I think the article should follow the lead of modern historians to, while still allowing "Byzantine" to be used, be careful about overly distinguishing this from "Roman" and to be careful about implying too close a relationship between Ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire. Such implications are misleading.
Similarly the article is vague about the Byzantine identity in many parts, presumably trying to be "unbiased." Among other things there is the statement
This is a bit of a dangerous statement. Modern historians pretty much all agree (as indicated in the Byzantine Empire article) that the Emperors of Constantinople, before the Ottoman conquest, were the legitimate emperors of the Roman Empire. Other claims at best had very tenuous merit. I certainly do think that the article should attempt to be unbiased but I would argue that sticking with the thinking of modern mainstream historians is the more "unbiased" viewpoint here. It is certainly appropriate to state that Western Europeans of the later Middle Ages did not agree with the viewpoint of modern historians (most of those same people also thought the Earth was the center of the universe) but that viewpoint should not be given the same weight as the historians.
Also, I don't think the following statement is appropriate.
Simply put, there is no universally agreed upon date for the "start" of the "Byzantine" period (and many historians argue that this is a pointless debate since the Byzantine and Roman Empires are the same thing). In particular this date contradicts what the Byzantine Empire article lists as a start date, the founding of Constantinople (I think that article needs to be more careful as well). IMHO, this article should not try to make statements like this but rather leave it to the Byzantine Empire article to clarify these details. -- Mcorazao 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As an additional comment, I know that some of the viewpoints expressed are in fact consistent with some of what the Roman Catholic Church says even today. Although Catholic histories can be valuable sources of knowledge it is important to recognize that some of what the Church says is not regarded by mainstream historians as "unbiased" so the information should be treated carefully. -- Mcorazao 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century. The reason that this ethnonym was given up for 'Hellenes' was due to Western pressure. So there's no need to ask for a trick of fate, this has actually happened already, and it was the West that changed the native name of the Byzantines from Romans to Hellenes in the "Romaic language". Actually the West had never called Byzantium or any Greek-speakers 'romans' in the first place, precisely because the ancient Roman heritage was very much alive in Western Europe and the Latin world. This was acknowledge in Byzantium only after 1204. This is why Hellenic identity became a very important factor in the late centuries of the Empire. Miskin 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, you mentioned and i quote: "...Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century..". No. The name still used until today actually is not "Rhomaioi" as you say, but "Rhomioi" (I am a descendant of a Constantinople family) to differentiate themselves from the Romans i.e. Greek citizens of the Roman empire. Another comment that i would like to make (and a question to who ever has information on this) is that the people coming from the east of the Mediterranean basin call the Greeks with the name Unan which from what i know comes from Ionian. How come after the Byzantine empire this name (more appropriate than Greek) prevailed? [user: Nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Nice! It could go for GA!-- Yannismarou 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I examined the sources contained in footnotes 4 and 5 of the article's current version and found out that (after an arbitrary edit by an anonymous contributor) the content of the sentence is not actually supported by the references.
Fn. 4 only includes primary sources.
Re fn. 5:
Angelov 2007, p. 96 writes that Graikoi "was acceptable in Byzantium, even though it was rarely used etc" and acquired "far greater extent of usage" after 1204. His footnote 67 states that "the usage of the word Graikoi self-referentially to designate orthodox Greek-speakers is attested in earlier times in Byzantium, although never in official correspondence".
Makrides 2009, p. 74, after noting the usage of "Graeci" from Westerners from the 9th c. onwards states that "Byzantines have also used the term Γραικοί (Greeks) for themselves for cultural reasons, in order to avoid confusion with the term "Hellenes" (pagans), but they never rejected Roman identification in terms of the imperial Roman tradition".
Magdalino's reference (from which the sentence's wording is obviously copied) is p. 420 of the book, where he notes that "in all their writings concerning the Roman church, the Byzantines habitually described themselves as Graikoi in order to avoid confusion".
None of the three sources describes a "habitual" and general usage of the term, but they all speak of a limited, context-specific usage of the term in certain occasions. The sentence should be rewritten to reflect this.
Moreover, relevant passages with scholars' estimations should be updated and enriched with recent scholarship employing quantitative research methods regarding the frequency of the appearance of ethnonyms, such as Kaplanis, Tassos (2014). "Antique Names and Self-Identification: Hellenes, Graikoi, and Romaioi from Late Byzantium to the Greek Nation-State". In Tziovas, Dimitris (ed.). Re-imagining the Past: Antiquity and Modern Greek Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–97., whose reseach concludes that "up until the early nineteenth century, Graikoi was used by a limited number of intellectuals and in very specific contexts which relate it in one way or another to the West". Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a duopoly conducting editor suppression against anyone who's knowledgeable about Hellenistic and Byzantine studies. A simple paragraph transfer was reverted twice ( once by Jingiby and again by Ashmedai 119) even though it's a "fish" belonging in the "waters" of the Byzantine studies page (first sentence is a dead giveaway: "In modern Byzantine scholarship..."). Also, the claim made by Ashmedai 119 about the (absolute) preponderance of one view of "Roman" identity in Byzantine studies is not a solid consensus view shared by any segment of Byzantinologists (Stouraitis, on page 176, uses ambiguous language, i.e., "could be regarded as preponderant", to describe a potential school of thought). In closing, I suspect this page suffers from two systemic problems: 1. a failure to discern facts from opinions that makes otherwise straightforward information obscure to visitors ( example), 2. the misuse of impartiality to promote overlapping dogmas in Byzantine studies rejected by Byzantinists such as the English School (rejected for its racially-charged "thinking" among other problems) and the School of Names (rejected for its intellectual superficiality). Neo-Brasidas ( talk) 00:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen that there was a lot of debate going on about this specific topic and I wouldnt like to take part however I have a doubt. We have the below section:
What is referenced among others is this: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482: "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew full well that they were ethnically Greeks."
[1]
I have a feeling that this is not reflected above and it is neglected, hopefully not intentionally. Of course we know that the Empire was a multinational and the citizens were calling themselves Rhomaioi, a self appellation used to this day in Modern Greece, however, we need to understand that Greeks were called from the Latins especially after the coronation of Charlemagne. The self appellation Greek didn't not exist at that time equally as many other self appellations of peoples of modern nation states. That does not change the fact that ethnically many of the Eastern Romans were of Hellenic stock as it is stated in the source and this must be reflected.
I would suggest to change the wording of the first "school" and reword it as below:
First, the preponderant view considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire, in which the elite did not self-identify as Greek and the average subject considered him/herself as Roman. However they knew that ethnically were Greeks. Othon I ( talk) 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The debate from the Byzantine Empire should be continued here. Jarvis' last edits proved that our little dispute can be in fact harmful to other people's hard work in the article Byzantine Empire. I don't want this to be repeated. Miskin 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Varana what we proposed about the marking point between the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empires is already treated here. Have a look and at the same time we can discuss the name issue. Miskin 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
In attempting to provide usable references for the sources cited in this page, the following footnote stumps me:
Woodhouse 1986, 109; Sp. Lambros, "Argyropouleia", Athens 1910, 7,29
Three problems here:
1) In the previous incarnation of this article (in the main article on the Byzantine empire) this citation supported only the remarks about the "sun king"; I find it unlikely that a presentation of Argyropouleia would say anything about Plethon, but perhaps the remarks in question are to be found in --
2) "Woodhouse 1986" -- which is what, exactly?
&
3) I assume that the Lampros in question is Spyridon, who of course published many texts from manuscripts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly working on Athos. But a search of the major catalogues reveals no monograph with the title "Argyropouleia". Is this perhaps an article published in the Νέος Ελληνομνήμων? -- Javits2000 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I made this edit by retro-translating D. Nicol, who is most likely providing his personal opinion on how the majority of the Byzantine Emperors would perceive themselves. I'm saying 'retro-translating' because I own the French version of the book (translation from the English original). As Jarvis puts it, the author most likely aims to describe how the Byzantines had developped a unique culture from their Greco-Roman heritage. It is not stated as a rule of the type "no Byzantine emperor ever laid claims to Augustus and Pericles". Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You should register a username, it would make it easier to track your edits. Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick note on "levels of style." "Low-level Gk." was of course used in writing through at least the 10th c., most notably in hagiography, but also in other contexts (e.g. certain of the administrative and other treatises from the circle of Constantine VII). (Cf. for example I. Ševčenko, "Levels of style in Byzantine prose," JÖB 31 (1981), 289-312.) The major problem is that most of the hagiographic examples were re-written in atticizing Gk. as part of the Metaphrastic project, although enough pre-Metaphrastic lives survive to give us an idea of their style. The question of whether "low-level" written Gk. was equivalent to vernacular / demotic spoken Gk. is another one altogether. In any case there are some fine points here in need of untangling. -- Javits2000 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Jarvis").
I think 'popular' or 'vulgar' Greek are more popular terms for 'spoken Byzantine Greek'. If by 'low-level' it is meant 'popular' then it does refer to the spoken vernacular/demotic Greek, in which very few written texts survive. Miskin 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm troubled by this reference to the Ptochoprodromic corpus: "As shown in the poems of Ptochoprodromos, Modern Greek had already been shaped by the 11th [sic] century AD and possibly earlier." The poems are written in a mixed style, incorporating a great number of contemporary (i.e. 12th century) vernacular usages -- but they're hardly in "modern Greek" (is there a "sto" to be found therein?). I'm not a native speaker, so I can't say, but I imagine the effect would be something like that of reading Chaucer, if not slightly weirder (the lexicography is eccentric to say the least). I find an article in which Alexiou uses the corpus to argue for the 12th century as the "starting point for 'modern' Greek," (DOP 53, p. 109), but clearly the scare quotes are significant. Please shed some light. -- Javits2000 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the majority of linguists consider the poems of Ptochoprodromos as the first attested text that can be identified as "eary Modern Greek" (H. Tonnet, N. Andriotes and N. Nicholas just to name a few sources easily accessible to me). Andriotes (whose historiography of the Greek language is used by wikipedia and Britannica) clearly states that 1453 is only set as a symbolic starting date in the history of Modern Greek, only to make it compatible with history (which of course also applies to the starting dates of Koine and Medieval Greek). H. Tonnet follows a different and more analytical approach, which ignores the actual historical periods of states, and places its starting point earlier (12th century if I'm not mistaken). There must definitely be some scholars who would put that into question, but in my knowledge, consensus places Modern Greek's starting point at Ptochoprodromos, and many historians speak of Modern Greek as a the vulgar language of Byzantium. However I'm also familiar with some sources that regard the Acritic poems as the earliest form of Modern Greek, hence my edit ""and possibly earlier"". I don't remember whether Ptochoprodromos uses modernisms such as 'ston' or 'sten'. He probably doesn't because I remember that it was the Chronicle of Morea that introduced this construct, but still that wouldn't be a reason to exclude Ptochoprodromos from modern Greek. It definitely doesn't use "tha", which is a pure post-1453 construct. I guess it would be impossible to trace all characteristics of today's demotic Greek to the 12th century, this is why it is often called an early stage modern Greek. I can't draw a parallel to Chaucer because I'm not familiar with his language's phonology. However I know that demotic Greek phonology is unchanged since the 11th century. Miskin 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I know where the confusion lies. If you have access to TLG (which you probably do) and look up Ptochoprodromica you'll be confused as his language seems to be somewhat mixed. The first page of poem 1 has clearly Atticizing elements (it uses infinitives and other archaisms), but the second page for instance is much more closer to the vernacular. I guess linguists who view it as early Modern Greek must have isolated the "archaism-free" text, and interpreted it as the vernacular. I agree with you that many parts are nowhere near demotic Greek (not even Koine Greek), but those were very different to the texts cited by other linguistic sources. I suppose that not all of his poems are using vernacular language. Miskin 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting source on this [1] ("it is conventional to date the emergence of Modern Greek dialects to about the 10th to 12th centuries (AD)"). Miskin 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Where it mentions that it was probably best to be a Greek speaker and member of the Orthodox Church at least in ones public persona, perhaps cite the example of Zeno who was, as we all know an Isaurian known as Tarasicodissa, that was until he changed his name, according to Norwich, to Zeno to appeal to the Greek speakers of the Empire as more of a 'Roman' (i.e. Greek Roman).
A better example might be the one of Abba Maximus (Saint Maximus), who was accused by the Byzantine state as a heretic who "loved the Romans and hated the Greeks" (Oxford History of Medieval Europe), and gave the diplomatic response that he loved the Romans because he followed their religion but he also loved the Greeks because he spoke their language. Miskin 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the recent citation of Millar under "Byzantine Greek language" for the following reasons: 1) it has nothing to do with "language," rather the "spiritual center of the empire," whatever that might mean; 2) whereas the suggestion of a crucial break under Heraclius, posited directly above, is well-explained (loss of significant non-Greek speaking territories), the reference to Theodosius II is simply asserted without any explanation; 3) it's tendentiously worded ("many, such as," when only Millar is cited). -- Javits2000 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Anna Comnena learned Greek as a foreign language?? You must mean classical Attic Greek..? Miskin 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
'the pretence of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades'
I disagree. In The Alexiad, not once does Anna Comnena refer to her people as anything but Roman. Furthermore, Anna frequently uses titles such as 'Augustus' and 'Caesar' to describe members of the Imperial family. She also displays a very Roman attitude in describing the Latins as 'Kelts' and 'barbarians' and also describing the Turks and Arabs of the east as 'barbarians.' She certainly does not appear to consider her Romanity to be a 'pretence' and there is no evidence that her identity as a Roman is wearing thin.
The book is thought to have been published at around 1148 I believe, which was the height of the crusader era. Hera52 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Just started a new page on the Massacre of Latins 1182. Does anyone have a source for more info on any reasons or explanantions for the masacre other than. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
This article is written from a Western point-of-view. It's biased. -- Nikoz78 ( talk) 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is an unreliable source that has no place in this asticle. The fact that he has a WP article is not reason enought to label him a "famous Byzantinist". He is nothing of the sort. What the citation says is disputed by all serious scholars. Byzantine Greeks did not as a whole consider the ancient Greeks their ancestors. Unless WP:RS can be brought to the effect that they did this source should be removed.-- Anothroskon ( talk) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Demetris J. Constantelos was a renowned Byzantine scholar way before Wikipedia had an article written about him. And just because you and "all serious scholars" (extreme appeal to an unspecified authority) say that Demetris Constantelos is "unreliable" doesn't make him so. The only scholar I can think of who supports your view is Anthony Kaldellis who claims that Constantelos pays "lip service to cultural Hellenism" (wording that, even if true, embodies an implicit form of ad hominem). I won't lose any sleep, however, if your insistence over *one sentence* ultimately "blockades" Constantelos's standpoint from being incorporated into the article.
The next issue I find a bit contentious on your part is your statement regarding the Byzantine Greeks and their ancestral ties to the ancient Greeks:
You can argue, of course, that the aforementioned sources provide no clear argument about the Byzantines themselves regarding the Greeks as their ancestors. But why would the Byzantines even bother to retain the ideas, perceptions, and experiences of their "Greek forebears" (verboten) if they had no physical or cultural connection with them? Here's a simple answer:
Given that you appear quite attached to this article, you can go ahead and keep it for all the good it'll do you. Auf wiedersehen mein herr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 ( talk) 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, it was your contributions that have largely impacted the development of this article. My contributions, on the other hand, are hardly valuable. Any editor could have easily stepped in to make spelling and grammatical corrections.
Anyway, I find that the majority of the "Rhomaioi" did regard themselves as "Graikoi" (or "Hellenes sans paganism") except when it came to pre-1204 politics. It is no secret that before the Fourth Crusade, the Empire's political interests in official correspondences were "Roman" (politically ecumenical) and that admitting to their obvious Grecian civilizational nature would jeopardize their claims to titles and territories. Simple as that.
As for Constantelos, he is simply a Hellenist. Branding this author as a "nationalist" implies that he utilizes pseudo-historical narratives and illogical discourses to substantiate his arguments (not the case in reality). If anything, "Kaldellists" should avoid the implicit ad-hominem "lip service" lingo and focus on Constantelos's forthcoming arguments (not unless they want to be ridiculed for assuming that the phrase "Graikos by genos" is supposedly ambiguous when Priscus, an objective historian, uses it to describe the reason why a Scythian-dressed member of Attila the Hun's court learned to speak Greek). I honestly mean no offense by this, but you must understand that subjectivity is a two-way street and should largely be left aside. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 ( talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Convincingly, but not conclusively. Kaldellis appears to interpret the primary literature in a manner conducive to his somewhat tendentious attempts at proving the existence of a "Roman ethnic identity" that hardly coincides with the general definition of a "Byzantine" (Roman citizenship, Greek ethnicity/language/culture, Christian Orthodoxy). I am not saying that Kaldellis rejects the Greek ancestry of the "Romaioi". However, it does appear that he is erroneously incorporating Greek ethno-cultural connotations to a term that explicitly has political connotations ("Romaios"). Moreover, Kaldellis is trying to convince his readers that only the term "Romaios" was used by medieval Greeks to self-identify as Greeks (by making it appear that the term "Graikos" was ambiguous and only applicable to geography). But why bother questioning Kaldellis on this issue? Here's a simple answer:
The reason why the terms "Romaios", "Graikos", and "Christianos" were synonymous was because each term reflected an inseparable *aspect* of Byzantine identity. "Romaios" was relegated to politics, "Graikos" relegated to ethnicity/culture/language, and "Christianos" relegated to religion. The Christian Greeks of New Rome adhered to this paradigm quite strictly. Any severe deviations from this rudimentary equation would be met with resistance or condemnation from both locals and aristocrats. If "Romaios" superceded "Graikos", then why would the latter term still be in consistent use throughout the Byzantine period? Angelov is clear on the fact that the term "Graikos" was commonly used and that it was used to denote a Roman citizen's ethno-religious and linguistic orientation rather than merely his place of origin (Greece was not the only area where "Graikoi" resided). Also, many Armenians became "Romaioi" (Roman citizens) but very few of them actually adopted Greek cultural mores (graikosas).
As for the term "Hellene", it was abandoned purely for its religious connotations. But as an ethnonym, it was surprisingly preserved in areas such as Pontus well before its revival during the 12th and 13th centuries. But the ethnonymic substitution of "Hellene" with "Graikos" gave most Greeks the means to maintain their unique heritage without being branded as pagans (even though pagan and Christian rituals in the Greek East were technically the same given that they both stem from Greek cultural norms). What changed after 1204 AD was the *frequency* of the use of terms such as "Hellenes" and "Graikoi" in official documents. It is only after the Fourth Crusade that the "Byzantine equation" undergoes a major paradigm shift where the Empire's politics directly mirrored its painfully obvious Christian Greek civilizational nature. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 ( talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more sources I think would make great additions to the article:
Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 ( talk) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Archive 1/GA1
Miskin, I take it that your unexplained deletions mean I am banned from editing your articles? -- Mcorazao 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I misread the edits. -- Mcorazao 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should introduce the topic a little differently, perhaps more in the fashion that the Byzantine Empire article does. Maybe something like
Given that the term "Greek" was used in the Middle Ages as a derogatory term for the Eastern Romans and the term "Byzantine" was brought into play for a similar purpose I think the article should follow the lead of modern historians to, while still allowing "Byzantine" to be used, be careful about overly distinguishing this from "Roman" and to be careful about implying too close a relationship between Ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire. Such implications are misleading.
Similarly the article is vague about the Byzantine identity in many parts, presumably trying to be "unbiased." Among other things there is the statement
This is a bit of a dangerous statement. Modern historians pretty much all agree (as indicated in the Byzantine Empire article) that the Emperors of Constantinople, before the Ottoman conquest, were the legitimate emperors of the Roman Empire. Other claims at best had very tenuous merit. I certainly do think that the article should attempt to be unbiased but I would argue that sticking with the thinking of modern mainstream historians is the more "unbiased" viewpoint here. It is certainly appropriate to state that Western Europeans of the later Middle Ages did not agree with the viewpoint of modern historians (most of those same people also thought the Earth was the center of the universe) but that viewpoint should not be given the same weight as the historians.
Also, I don't think the following statement is appropriate.
Simply put, there is no universally agreed upon date for the "start" of the "Byzantine" period (and many historians argue that this is a pointless debate since the Byzantine and Roman Empires are the same thing). In particular this date contradicts what the Byzantine Empire article lists as a start date, the founding of Constantinople (I think that article needs to be more careful as well). IMHO, this article should not try to make statements like this but rather leave it to the Byzantine Empire article to clarify these details. -- Mcorazao 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As an additional comment, I know that some of the viewpoints expressed are in fact consistent with some of what the Roman Catholic Church says even today. Although Catholic histories can be valuable sources of knowledge it is important to recognize that some of what the Church says is not regarded by mainstream historians as "unbiased" so the information should be treated carefully. -- Mcorazao 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century. The reason that this ethnonym was given up for 'Hellenes' was due to Western pressure. So there's no need to ask for a trick of fate, this has actually happened already, and it was the West that changed the native name of the Byzantines from Romans to Hellenes in the "Romaic language". Actually the West had never called Byzantium or any Greek-speakers 'romans' in the first place, precisely because the ancient Roman heritage was very much alive in Western Europe and the Latin world. This was acknowledge in Byzantium only after 1204. This is why Hellenic identity became a very important factor in the late centuries of the Empire. Miskin 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, you mentioned and i quote: "...Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century..". No. The name still used until today actually is not "Rhomaioi" as you say, but "Rhomioi" (I am a descendant of a Constantinople family) to differentiate themselves from the Romans i.e. Greek citizens of the Roman empire. Another comment that i would like to make (and a question to who ever has information on this) is that the people coming from the east of the Mediterranean basin call the Greeks with the name Unan which from what i know comes from Ionian. How come after the Byzantine empire this name (more appropriate than Greek) prevailed? [user: Nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Nice! It could go for GA!-- Yannismarou 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I examined the sources contained in footnotes 4 and 5 of the article's current version and found out that (after an arbitrary edit by an anonymous contributor) the content of the sentence is not actually supported by the references.
Fn. 4 only includes primary sources.
Re fn. 5:
Angelov 2007, p. 96 writes that Graikoi "was acceptable in Byzantium, even though it was rarely used etc" and acquired "far greater extent of usage" after 1204. His footnote 67 states that "the usage of the word Graikoi self-referentially to designate orthodox Greek-speakers is attested in earlier times in Byzantium, although never in official correspondence".
Makrides 2009, p. 74, after noting the usage of "Graeci" from Westerners from the 9th c. onwards states that "Byzantines have also used the term Γραικοί (Greeks) for themselves for cultural reasons, in order to avoid confusion with the term "Hellenes" (pagans), but they never rejected Roman identification in terms of the imperial Roman tradition".
Magdalino's reference (from which the sentence's wording is obviously copied) is p. 420 of the book, where he notes that "in all their writings concerning the Roman church, the Byzantines habitually described themselves as Graikoi in order to avoid confusion".
None of the three sources describes a "habitual" and general usage of the term, but they all speak of a limited, context-specific usage of the term in certain occasions. The sentence should be rewritten to reflect this.
Moreover, relevant passages with scholars' estimations should be updated and enriched with recent scholarship employing quantitative research methods regarding the frequency of the appearance of ethnonyms, such as Kaplanis, Tassos (2014). "Antique Names and Self-Identification: Hellenes, Graikoi, and Romaioi from Late Byzantium to the Greek Nation-State". In Tziovas, Dimitris (ed.). Re-imagining the Past: Antiquity and Modern Greek Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–97., whose reseach concludes that "up until the early nineteenth century, Graikoi was used by a limited number of intellectuals and in very specific contexts which relate it in one way or another to the West". Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a duopoly conducting editor suppression against anyone who's knowledgeable about Hellenistic and Byzantine studies. A simple paragraph transfer was reverted twice ( once by Jingiby and again by Ashmedai 119) even though it's a "fish" belonging in the "waters" of the Byzantine studies page (first sentence is a dead giveaway: "In modern Byzantine scholarship..."). Also, the claim made by Ashmedai 119 about the (absolute) preponderance of one view of "Roman" identity in Byzantine studies is not a solid consensus view shared by any segment of Byzantinologists (Stouraitis, on page 176, uses ambiguous language, i.e., "could be regarded as preponderant", to describe a potential school of thought). In closing, I suspect this page suffers from two systemic problems: 1. a failure to discern facts from opinions that makes otherwise straightforward information obscure to visitors ( example), 2. the misuse of impartiality to promote overlapping dogmas in Byzantine studies rejected by Byzantinists such as the English School (rejected for its racially-charged "thinking" among other problems) and the School of Names (rejected for its intellectual superficiality). Neo-Brasidas ( talk) 00:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen that there was a lot of debate going on about this specific topic and I wouldnt like to take part however I have a doubt. We have the below section:
What is referenced among others is this: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482: "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew full well that they were ethnically Greeks."
[1]
I have a feeling that this is not reflected above and it is neglected, hopefully not intentionally. Of course we know that the Empire was a multinational and the citizens were calling themselves Rhomaioi, a self appellation used to this day in Modern Greece, however, we need to understand that Greeks were called from the Latins especially after the coronation of Charlemagne. The self appellation Greek didn't not exist at that time equally as many other self appellations of peoples of modern nation states. That does not change the fact that ethnically many of the Eastern Romans were of Hellenic stock as it is stated in the source and this must be reflected.
I would suggest to change the wording of the first "school" and reword it as below:
First, the preponderant view considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire, in which the elite did not self-identify as Greek and the average subject considered him/herself as Roman. However they knew that ethnically were Greeks. Othon I ( talk) 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
References