S
Shaman
Гостин
Кој е Constantine Paparrigopoulos (Κωνσταντίνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος) (1815-1891) ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Paparrigopoulos
European historiographical influences upon the
young Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos
Ioannis Koubourlis
All national historiographies comprise texts that constitute turning points in their
respective courses towards formation. In general, the main aim of the authors
of such texts is to note the advances towards the writing of an all-encompassing
history of the relevant national past; but, equally importantly, it is to point out
persisting lacunae in such a history. These lacunae may concern certain ‘missing
links’ in a given national narrative; and this is precisely the case of Greek national
historiography before 1853, which had not as yet fully integrated Byzantium or
the ancient Macedonians into the Greek national past. But these lacunae may also
concern the very formation of the relevant national conception of history. For in
order to reach maturity a national historiography must be based on a particular
philosophy of history that establishes the ‘nation’ as the prime agent of historical
action within a linear and, most importantly, homogenous historical time.
- До 1853 македонија сеуште не била интегрирана во грчката национална историја, што јас го сваќам како доказ дека они всушност не ја гледале Македонија и Македонија и македонците како нешто блиско до нив.
Paparrigopoulos’s second book, The Last Year of Hellenic Freedom (1844), was
an attempt to prove that the destruction of Corinth by the Romans took place
in 145, and not in 146 BCE. As we know, his assumptions never convinced the
historical community. That notwithstanding, this work is equally revealing of the
contrast between the young essayist and the future national historiographer: in this
text, Paparrigopoulos (1844, 8–11) spoke of the ancient Macedonians, in a similar
vein to the Romans, as a foreign power against which the Greeks failed to unite so
as to avoid being conquered.
- ... зборувал за античките Македонци во ист контекст како и за Римјаните, како за странска сила против која грците не успеале да се обединат за да не бидат освоени.
This may in many respects have been an intellectual project, conceived and
implemented from the top down. It also took shape under the influence of the
Western powers, whose projections of classical models onto the new state played
an important part in the process. Here the contribution of the leading German
historian of ancient Greece, Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), must be
stressed, since it was he who composed the unitary narrative that gave Macedonia
an integral place in the story of the Greek nation (Droysen 1833; 1836–43; cf.
chapter 4 by Ioannis Koubourlis below). The parallel to Mommsen’s Italian history
is striking, since both operated with a strong unifying agent who overcame petty
particularism in order to realize the national mission. The inspiration clearly came
from contemporary Prussia, but while in Italy this role was given to Rome, in
Greece it fell to Macedonia.
- значи толку биле свесни грците за „грчкото“ потекло на Македонците што требало германец да им каже кои сме. циркус.
Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), to whom Paparrigopoulos (1849–53,
1.206) referred for the first time in his Textbook of 1849, but without being able
to take advantage of the contribution of the great German historicist, offered him
weighty arguments regarding the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians
and the spread of Hellenic civilization eastwards. He also offered him one of the
key concepts of the newly born Greek national historical school: the concept of
‘Hellenism’. Although Droysen himself restricted its use to the Hellenistic world,
he and his disciples, such as Otto Abel (1824–1854), understood ‘Hellenism’ in
the sense of a ‘Hellenic genius’, which had a historical trajectory of its own. In fact,
what Paparrigopoulos and other Greek national historians such as Zambelios had
to do after having read Droysen was to generalize the use of the concept so as to
apply it to the whole of Greek history and, at another level, to identify it with the
concept of ‘Greek nation’. The final result of this double intellectual process was
the production of a series of terms and concepts well known to all contemporary
Hellenists: ‘Ancient Hellenism’, ‘Macedonian Hellenism’, ‘Byzantine Hellenism’,
‘Modern Hellenism’, and so forth.
Influenced therefore by Droysen and Zambelios, Paparrigopoulos started from
the mid-1850s to think of Greek history not merely as a complex of facts, as he
had done early in his life, but as the history of a Geist: ‘Hellenism’. In his five volume
History of the Hellenic Nation, Paparrigopoulos was to present this Geist
transforming itself into something else, every time that it moves to a different
geographical terrain or historical era, and this in order to accomplish each time a
different historical mission, without, nevertheless, losing its one and only identity. In
fact, this particular conception of history, with all its idealistic anthropomorphism,
constitutes the theoretical basis of Paparrigopoulos’s final argument in support
of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians and the national role of the
Byzantine monarchy:
That [Macedonian Hellenism] is not Ancient Hellenism, we have [already] conceded;
that it is not Hellenic at all, we deny with all our powers […] What really is a pure
Hellenism […]? Nations can accomplish different missions at different periods and try
to achieve different ends by different means […] So when we see the same language
and the same […] quality of moral and spiritual force, it is not permissible to doubt the
existence and the action of the same nationality, even if its action has been modified
by time and circumstances (Paparrigopoulos 1860–74, 2.175).
Thirlwall organized his History according to a cyclical schema of national rise
and fall, based upon a theory that maintained that all nations passed through a series
of analogous developmental stages.7 This national schema allowed him to rearrange
the various historical and symbolic loci of Greek antiquity in a hierarchical fashion,
pushing the classical period, strictly defined, towards the centre of the ancient Greek
historical experience. Indeed, his History went a long way towards the positive reevaluation
of ‘liberal’ Athens from the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE, while
‘heroic’ Sparta was accommodated in the background as the representative of an
earlier, ‘frozen’ stage of Greek national development (Thirlwall 1835–44, 1.335–
40). Finally, monarchical Macedonia was excluded altogether from the ‘national’
space of Greece: Thirlwall presented the ascendancy of Philip over the classical
city-states as a ‘conquest’ of Greece by a foreign power.8
fusnota- 8 Note, for example, Thirlwall’s presentation of the revolt of the Spartan Agis against Macedonian
power in 330 BCE, as a struggle against foreign dominion (Thirlwall 1835–44, 6.257).
Поздрав до сите
ова ми е прв пост на форумов
се надевам дека не згрешив нешто.
не ме бива многу за форуми.
--- надополнето ---
Еве ја и книгата од која се извадени деловите.
интересно е да се прочита и објаснува многу работи.
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Hellenic-Studies-College-Publications/dp/0754664988
--- надополнето ---
и нормално под изговор дека е економска криза....
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KCOOYLCF
Да живее Македонија, СМРТ или СЛОБОДА!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Paparrigopoulos
European historiographical influences upon the
young Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos
Ioannis Koubourlis
All national historiographies comprise texts that constitute turning points in their
respective courses towards formation. In general, the main aim of the authors
of such texts is to note the advances towards the writing of an all-encompassing
history of the relevant national past; but, equally importantly, it is to point out
persisting lacunae in such a history. These lacunae may concern certain ‘missing
links’ in a given national narrative; and this is precisely the case of Greek national
historiography before 1853, which had not as yet fully integrated Byzantium or
the ancient Macedonians into the Greek national past. But these lacunae may also
concern the very formation of the relevant national conception of history. For in
order to reach maturity a national historiography must be based on a particular
philosophy of history that establishes the ‘nation’ as the prime agent of historical
action within a linear and, most importantly, homogenous historical time.
- До 1853 македонија сеуште не била интегрирана во грчката национална историја, што јас го сваќам како доказ дека они всушност не ја гледале Македонија и Македонија и македонците како нешто блиско до нив.
Paparrigopoulos’s second book, The Last Year of Hellenic Freedom (1844), was
an attempt to prove that the destruction of Corinth by the Romans took place
in 145, and not in 146 BCE. As we know, his assumptions never convinced the
historical community. That notwithstanding, this work is equally revealing of the
contrast between the young essayist and the future national historiographer: in this
text, Paparrigopoulos (1844, 8–11) spoke of the ancient Macedonians, in a similar
vein to the Romans, as a foreign power against which the Greeks failed to unite so
as to avoid being conquered.
- ... зборувал за античките Македонци во ист контекст како и за Римјаните, како за странска сила против која грците не успеале да се обединат за да не бидат освоени.
This may in many respects have been an intellectual project, conceived and
implemented from the top down. It also took shape under the influence of the
Western powers, whose projections of classical models onto the new state played
an important part in the process. Here the contribution of the leading German
historian of ancient Greece, Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), must be
stressed, since it was he who composed the unitary narrative that gave Macedonia
an integral place in the story of the Greek nation (Droysen 1833; 1836–43; cf.
chapter 4 by Ioannis Koubourlis below). The parallel to Mommsen’s Italian history
is striking, since both operated with a strong unifying agent who overcame petty
particularism in order to realize the national mission. The inspiration clearly came
from contemporary Prussia, but while in Italy this role was given to Rome, in
Greece it fell to Macedonia.
- значи толку биле свесни грците за „грчкото“ потекло на Македонците што требало германец да им каже кои сме. циркус.
Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), to whom Paparrigopoulos (1849–53,
1.206) referred for the first time in his Textbook of 1849, but without being able
to take advantage of the contribution of the great German historicist, offered him
weighty arguments regarding the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians
and the spread of Hellenic civilization eastwards. He also offered him one of the
key concepts of the newly born Greek national historical school: the concept of
‘Hellenism’. Although Droysen himself restricted its use to the Hellenistic world,
he and his disciples, such as Otto Abel (1824–1854), understood ‘Hellenism’ in
the sense of a ‘Hellenic genius’, which had a historical trajectory of its own. In fact,
what Paparrigopoulos and other Greek national historians such as Zambelios had
to do after having read Droysen was to generalize the use of the concept so as to
apply it to the whole of Greek history and, at another level, to identify it with the
concept of ‘Greek nation’. The final result of this double intellectual process was
the production of a series of terms and concepts well known to all contemporary
Hellenists: ‘Ancient Hellenism’, ‘Macedonian Hellenism’, ‘Byzantine Hellenism’,
‘Modern Hellenism’, and so forth.
Influenced therefore by Droysen and Zambelios, Paparrigopoulos started from
the mid-1850s to think of Greek history not merely as a complex of facts, as he
had done early in his life, but as the history of a Geist: ‘Hellenism’. In his five volume
History of the Hellenic Nation, Paparrigopoulos was to present this Geist
transforming itself into something else, every time that it moves to a different
geographical terrain or historical era, and this in order to accomplish each time a
different historical mission, without, nevertheless, losing its one and only identity. In
fact, this particular conception of history, with all its idealistic anthropomorphism,
constitutes the theoretical basis of Paparrigopoulos’s final argument in support
of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians and the national role of the
Byzantine monarchy:
That [Macedonian Hellenism] is not Ancient Hellenism, we have [already] conceded;
that it is not Hellenic at all, we deny with all our powers […] What really is a pure
Hellenism […]? Nations can accomplish different missions at different periods and try
to achieve different ends by different means […] So when we see the same language
and the same […] quality of moral and spiritual force, it is not permissible to doubt the
existence and the action of the same nationality, even if its action has been modified
by time and circumstances (Paparrigopoulos 1860–74, 2.175).
Thirlwall organized his History according to a cyclical schema of national rise
and fall, based upon a theory that maintained that all nations passed through a series
of analogous developmental stages.7 This national schema allowed him to rearrange
the various historical and symbolic loci of Greek antiquity in a hierarchical fashion,
pushing the classical period, strictly defined, towards the centre of the ancient Greek
historical experience. Indeed, his History went a long way towards the positive reevaluation
of ‘liberal’ Athens from the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE, while
‘heroic’ Sparta was accommodated in the background as the representative of an
earlier, ‘frozen’ stage of Greek national development (Thirlwall 1835–44, 1.335–
40). Finally, monarchical Macedonia was excluded altogether from the ‘national’
space of Greece: Thirlwall presented the ascendancy of Philip over the classical
city-states as a ‘conquest’ of Greece by a foreign power.8
fusnota- 8 Note, for example, Thirlwall’s presentation of the revolt of the Spartan Agis against Macedonian
power in 330 BCE, as a struggle against foreign dominion (Thirlwall 1835–44, 6.257).
Поздрав до сите
ова ми е прв пост на форумов
се надевам дека не згрешив нешто.
не ме бива многу за форуми.
--- надополнето ---
Еве ја и книгата од која се извадени деловите.
интересно е да се прочита и објаснува многу работи.
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Hellenic-Studies-College-Publications/dp/0754664988
--- надополнето ---
и нормално под изговор дека е економска криза....
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KCOOYLCF
Да живее Македонија, СМРТ или СЛОБОДА!
