Talk:Phanariots/Archive 1

Apparently Romanians believe that Phanariot Greeks were strictly involved in the administration of the Danubian provinces. That is completely false, in fact this was probably the less important Phanariote responsibility in the Ottoman Empire. More important ones would involve the Sultans external affairs and relations with the Great Powers. This article focuses strictly on the Phanariots of Romania, therefore it needs to be renamed to "Phanariote epoch" or something like that, and "Phanariotes" needs an article of its own (which I'm willing to start). Miskin 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't add that here and adapt the text, frankly. Dahn 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add info about contemporary presence with the Phanari article? Dahn 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Miskin that a lot of info could be added. however, as dahn says its better to add it here instead of creating a new text.--Greece666 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you also agree with my idea about how what Miskin considers to be contemporary presence belongs on the article for the quarter? Dahn 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's leave contemporary presence out of it, theoretically the term "Phanariotes" is connected to the Ottoman Empire. However I find that this article appears to focus on a specific period of Romanian history, and I wouldn't want to defocus its content. The simplest and most precise solution would be to rename this article and create a separate one which deals with Phanariotes in general. Miskin 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that from, Miskin. Most English-speaking sources identify the Phanariotes with the Romanian context. The problem you point is strictly reduced to Greece, where -iotes works for the inhabitants of Phener (and not in English, where the suffix is always linked with the word and this sense of the word). All other info belongs with the quarter. I also want to express my concern that you are trying to link the issue with a Greek ethos invented in retrospect for a cosmopolitan population of a medieval state. Dahn 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not me who does that, it's the scholars. Miskin 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See Britannica. --Telex 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This article includes text from a Britannica. Furthermore, the ultimate object of Phanariote policies, as any source may point out, was candidacy for one of the two thrones (Wallachia, Moldavia). Dahn 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understand well there are two issues here: a) whether this article should be renamed and create a new one. b) whether "Most English-speaking sources identify the Phanariotes with the Romanian context" and so the article should be dedicated mostly to the importance of phanariots in Romania.

In reply to a) this is wikipedia's policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."

b)I copy the Shorter OED.

"Phanar, noun.

/"fanA;/ Also Fanar. E19. [Turkish fener from Greek phanarion (mod. phanari) lighthouse, lantern, dim. of phanos torch, lamp, lantern. So called from a lighthouse formerly in the Phanar.]

Hist. The area of Istanbul which became the chief Greek quarter after the Ottoman conquest; the Greek official class under the Turks, through whom the affairs of the Christian population in the Ottoman Empire were largely administered; the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople after the Ottoman conquest.

• phanariot /f@"narI@t/ noun & adjective [mod. Greek phanariZtUs] a resident in the Phanar; (designating) a Greek official under the Ottoman Empire: E19."

As is written in the SOED phanariots administered largely "the affairs of the Christian population in the Ottoman Empire". Although they have a very important role in Romanian history, their role is also important in other countries and IMO this should be mentioned in the article.best,--Greece666 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and I have never implied that mention of activities in other places should be discarded. I had stressed that at no point can they be separated from the Romanian context - and this not to "favor the Romanians" (which would be nonsensical, as many Romanians would agree to pointing them as even more "foreign"). Dahn 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see Dahn I'm not making anything up. Phanariotes is in fact used by english-speaking scholars in the way I described above. If you don't mind defocusing the article from Romanian history then it's fine by me, we can stick everything in and share different sections (Phanariotes in Porte, Phanariotes in the Church, Phanariotes in the philiki etairia, phanariotes in Romania etc). But if wish to have a separate article on the Phanariote period of Romania, then we'd have to rename. I'm looking for a solution that would be fair to everybody. Miskin 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Add if you want to, and if it would be that long a text, we will reduce the content of the Romanian section to basic outlines, reference under the main article system, and then and only then (and if) make a new article for "Phanariote rules in Romania". Also note: this article still contains a large part of what was in a Britannica. The focus it had on a larger scheme other than the Danubian Principalities is only alluded to in the idea that most would compete for positions, of which the ultimate one (and usually most treasured office after Dragoman) was the title of Prince (hence the usual "term" for a rule in Bucharest or Iaşi). If what you want to do is an original research that would in fact point to how extremely fluid identities can turn into nationality because, by some miracle, Orthodox/Byzantine becomes Greek (which, the Phanariotes were not more than they were), count me out. And again, the question of the absurdity of the stubborn post-factum nationalism aiming to baptise its ancestors goes for any nationalism (including the Romanian one). Dahn 00:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I can cite as many sources as you want. "Byzantine" did not magically became Greek, it's been known under that name to its contemporaries during all of its history. The contemporary European name of Byzantium was "Imperium Graecorum", the name "Byzantine" is a modern exonym. The Byzantines identified themselves "Romaioi" as all Greeks did until the start of the 20 c. and some still do. The ethnic criterion of Greekness has for the last 1000 years been the affiliation with Greek Orthodoxy, period. If someone has baptized anybody then it's scholars, for I'm using terminology as it appears in my sources. Then again I know that they didn't baptized anybody either. Miskin 00:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What a Great Idea. To see the limits of your sophistry: am I Greek? Cause I sure have been baptized Orthodox! Were the Russian czars Greek? How many Greeks live in Alaska? Dahn 01:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Ottoman Empire you would be regarded as one. If you weren't then you'd hate both Turks and Greeks alike. If you were or felt like a Greek, you'd accept it and try to take advantage of it. That's what phanariotes did. The Russians czars and Alaskans were not in the Ottoman Empire last time I checked. Really it's not wise to question this, it's common knowledge - fundemental Ottoman law. Miskin 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. that definition would always coincide with "Christian Orthodox" (no "Eastern Orthodox" but "Greeks" is also no "Greeks" but the "Eastern Orthodox"). 2. Phanariotes were largely operative in territories outside the Ottoman law (clue: Wallachia, Moldavia). 3. You'll have to go at lenghts to make it sound as if all Phanariotes chose to be Greeks when the question was posed (it would be news to the Wallachian nobility - the Sturdzas, Ghicas, Soutzos, etc). 4. "If you weren't then you'd hate both Turks and Greeks alike" just doesn't work - I have peeled mt fingers off typig about the circumstances of the Wallachian Revolution, which indicate that this was not the case. I may also point out the massive allignment of Orthodox forces, be they Romanian or Greek or Serbian in retrospect, to give assistance to the "true Christian Emperor" in Petersburg, an attitude which was at the core of "being anti-Ottoman" for 100 years before 1821 (and of which the Wallachian nobility only cured itself around 1830, because no one made them independent to have a "base identity" to pass into conversation). Dahn 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Jelavich - History of the Balkans (Cambridge press):

"Because Turkish officials did not easily learn other languages, they became depended on intermediaries in their dealing with foreigners. As the best educated of the Balkan people, and the most closely connected with european countries, the Greeks were fully suited to this task. They thus filled the post of dragoman at all levels... The most famous phanariot statesman was, however, Alexander Mavrokordatos, who was grand dragoman from 1673 to 1709. Like many Greeks of the time he was educated in Italy at the University of Padua... A Greek hierarchy was also in control in Moldavia and Wallachia. Here Phanariot Greeks ran the political life of the country."

As you can see I'm making any of this up. I've want more sources let me know. Miskin 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Look in the article, Miskin, and note that I did not delete reference to them being Greek. But you might want to see my points about what that meant. Dahn 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I know but you're still implying that my claims are based on original research and fall under POV. I feel obliged to prove the opposite by citing sources who use the terms I use. Miskin 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "what that meant". To me this falls under POV. Blatantly the definition of "Greek" used by Romans in antiquity, differed from the one used by Italians in the middle ages, and the one used by French or Britons in modern times. Yet they all used the same word to refer to a specific group of people, and today the term can be applied independently of the historical period. Exonyms such as "Mycenaeas", "Byzantines" etc were coined in modern times to scholars a great deal of explanations. Miskin 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a single term for self-definition had not been established by those who defined themselves as "Greeks" to the outsiders until cca. 1830. It is my understanding that a single language was not being spoken, and that Grrek diasporas became hoplessly involved in the Greek cause while wishoing to remain deep in foreign territory - hence the failure of the Empire dream when the other emerging nationalisms discovered that "Greek" had become exclusive. It is my understanding that the several Greek languages in circulation were spoken and written intensly by people who, when it came to chosing, never picked "Greek" as their ethnicity (it was the language of teaching in Wallachia). It is my understanding that the Tanzimat finally removed the religious identity, and that the Balkans started engaging in a game of musical chairs over ethnicity. It is my understanding that the Byzantine identity had been claimed with nonchalance by all possible branches of Orthodoxy, and even before Constantinople fell. All of this is not to argue that "a Greek identity did not exist", but that stating the word and giving it the same meaning belongs to the realm of wishful thinking. Dahn 02:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm there's a misunderstanding to what you translate as "Byzantine". What the Byzantines possessed that was claimed by everybody was the cultural heir to the Roman Empire. This is how Russia became the 3rd Rome, and it's in that respect that "Roman" identity of Byzantium was claimed by Orthodox branches. This had nothing to do with the Greek ethnic identity of the Byzantines (who near the end even recognised their Emperor as the "Emperor of the Hellenes"). The very Russians and all Slavonic peoples referred to them as 'Greeks', never as Romans, yet they viewed them as the heir to Rome. The Greeks of Constantinople and Asia Minor were not some "Diaspora" at the time, they were indigenous Greek populations which consituted almost half of total. They didn't just choose a newly-invented Greek nationality that was offered to them as you imply. They simply chose a new name for their existing "Romaic/Greek" ethnicity, and replaced the older one "Romioi" (Romans/Byzantines), which wouldn't attract much sympathy from the West. The "new" ethnic name was the one that the West had always been using. My point is that if you were right, we'd have to question the Greekness of every single person who's labeled as Greek before 1821, whether he comes from Athens or Pontus, and not restrict ourselves to a certain region. Peloponnesians also called themselves 'Romans' in the 19th century. What is anachronistic is to bind the Greekness with the Greek peninsula and the ancient definition. Miskin 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The identity of "Romioi" was certainly not without fundament, since a large part of the East, no matter what its "ethnicity", could rise to back the "let's make a Christian empire" offer of the Russian czar in the early 1700s. In fact, Phanariotes had established a nuance in accordance with that, when they came to Danubian thrones to replace the Princes who had engaged in support for the universal empire, and persecuted their supporters in the name of the Ottoman sultan. If the article as you will write it will descard the fact that "being Greek" was a political option, available only from the late 1700s, and made by most, but not by all Phanariotes, it will certainly be driven by subjectivity.

Byzantine identity was a lot more inclusive than Greek - a point with should not be forsaken. Let me bring forth the Wallachian example again, especially relevant because it happen after the Eteria had allegedly made people pick sides. An alliance of foreign and local boyars backed Tudor Vladimrescu against further competition from foreign boyars (which Vladimirescu named "Greek", a fact that should add to the complication); they all allied themselves with the Eteria; the Eteria came and governed the larger part of the country's territory as a Greek province of a future Empire - no one, not even Vladimirescu, seemed to have a problem with that; Vladimirescu became concerned when he was pointed out that the Russian and Christian emperor was no longer backing the Eteria; the Eteria and his former Wallachian allies killed him when they discovered that he was dealing with the Ottomans; the larger part of Tudor's Wallachian insurgents reacted to this by simply going home; the Ottomans massacred the Eteria on Wallachian soil, and then re-established the Phanariotes, while the Phanariote-Wallachian gentry did not seem to be able to remember that they had instigated a rebellion against precisely these measures; the Ottomans officialy eliminated "Greek" rules, but many rulers after that were of exactly the same Phanariote families, and, by sheer musical chairs-ism, defined themselves as "Romanian". If indeed "Greek", what does the word "condition in behavoiur"? This is why I have chosen to describe it as a non-sequitur. Dahn 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a point. The Ottoman Empire was essentially an 'Islamic Empire' but no-one ever called it anything but 'Turkish'. The Byzantine Empire was in all accounts much more Greek than the Ottoman was Turkish, and none of its contemporaries called it anything but 'Greek'. In Ostrogorsky's own words on Byzantium: "an Empire that became a nation almost by the modern definition of the term". The Greek ethnonym was not invented in the 18th century, it never ceased to exist in the mouths of the Westeners, and the Byzantines/modern Greeks were well aware of it. Your views on the Phanariotes "choosing an identity" is a biased POV which has no academic basis whatosever. I've already cited sources and now you start being repetitive, I don't think there's a reason to continue. I think you have a personal agenda on the subject and no matter what I say you'll stick to your views. That fine by me, as long as you don't try to pass them into the articles. Miskin 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am yet to read a single document of the times that would indicate "Greek" or "Romanian" or "Turkish" in those times got even close to the meaning they have today. That is sources. I am yet to read a document that would indicate people favored "Greek" over "Christian", unless to mean "Greek Orthodox". That is sources. And about your statements: the Byzantine Empire might have constructed itself as something resembling a nation-state, although the permanent reference to Emperor=Christianity=Universality makes that doubtful, but that identity tended to be its own, and it was supplanted by nothing until "being Greek" turned into a Herder-Byron imagery. Certainly not "Greek", as in "inhabitant of Greece". Sources? The Russian Empire as a "Rome", the claim of noblemen to Byzantine legitimacy rather than Greek or something else, and even the Ottoman claim to Byzantine inheritance. Sources? The fact that the Byzantine reserved special and "universally-aimed" titles for their rulers, the fact that Emperors were predilect Christians. Frankly, the prototype Greek nationalist claim to Byzantine sequel has been contested by 1,000 different perspectives, and no source thatv you cite dealing with the Byzantine Empire has expressed an opinion on its "link" with Modern Greece. The "millet" system makes my point even more clear. And that supposedly objective "ethnicity" is and will remain a non-sequitur wherever it is "applied". Dahn 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No one ever called the "Ottoman Empie anything but 'Turkish'"? Hm. Then I guess the fact that they were rulers of the Ummah was something largely ignored... The fact that European sources got lazy and imposed "take" on things sure does not make others apply for a need to say "how high?". Did "The Turk" actually mean "of Turkish ethnicity", or did it imply a vision of alterity and indifference as to "just who the Turk is"? 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to offend you Dahn but your encyclopaedic knowledge on Greek history is not sufficient to have an objective view. Due to events such as the Fourth Crusade, Byzantium became hated in the West and nobody recognised anything Roman about it. In fact as early as the 8th century the name "Imperium Graecorum" and "Graecia" was coined in an official level, and after the Battle of Manzikert the dreams of a "Universal Christian Empire" were over. In Byzantinologist terms, the Empire was reduced to a "Greek Orthodox state fighting for survival". I recently read a book about Byzantium in the eyes of the Islamic world, which mentioned that Russia also referred to Byzantines as 'Greeks', so unless you claim that the Russian Empire wanted to claim a Greek ethnicity, you must admit that your judgement on the "Third Rome" has nothing ethnic about it (and use this an example for the rest of your misjudgement. Europe had always regarded "Classical Greece" as the cradle of Western Civilisation while Byzantium was nothing but a corrupted successor of the Roman Empire. I don't know how familiar you are with the Greek war of independence, but whole movement of the Philhellenes was meant to revive Classical Greece, while nobody gave a toss about Byzantium. Greek continuity with Byzantium has been intentionally not emphasized in order to revive the romantic continuity with ancient Greece, which is what the West demanded. Therefore, Greek nationalism aimed to hide the "Romaic" (Byzantine) reality of modern Greeks by emphasizing a connection with classical Greece (exactly the opposite of what you thought); and this is something academically uncontested. There's no political continuitity between Greece and Byzantium, such a claim would be ridiculous. However Modern Greeks are themselves the Byzantines (also known as modern Greeks by the contemporaries), speakers of the same Modern Greek language, inhabitants of the same lands and followers of the same religion and originally users of the same ethnonym "Romioi" (no connection to Romanians) etc. The question is whether should someone refer to modern Greeks as anything other than 'Byzantines' rather than the other way around. Don't forget that the Ottomans ended up being "Turkish nationals" in the same way that the Byzantines ended up being "ethnic Greeks". None of it happened due to "coincidence" or "option" as you would like to imagine. Miskin 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, nationality is a political option. Many Phanariotes have not made it. The Greek language did not "a single version", it had several. If you can possibly imagine that I would indicate that the "Romioi" meant "Romanians", it means that you are not able to understand anything in what is opposing your views. Dahn 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You said earlier that "Romioi" could be applied to any Christian group within the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires, so I was just checking. If that was the case, Stephan Dusan wouldn't have been called "Emperor of Serbs, Romioi, Bulgarians and Albanians", which translates in english as "Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians". Miskin 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)