Μ. Christopoulos, Greek Communities Abroad

Representations

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration. A Case Study of Trieste

Marianna D. ChristopoulosAristotle University of Thessaloniki

AbstrAct

An important area of historical research is the study of how people organize themselves into communal existence, especially when conscious of their difference in a foreign en-vironment. The focus of this study is the formation of the community of Greek immi-grants in 18th-century Trieste. The main aim of the chapter is to view the organization, administration and function of the Greek community of Trieste by studying its statutes and the influences it received from administrative models both in the immigrants’ na-tive places of origin and their host country. In addition to this, the following analysis tracks factors and indices relating to the gradual integration of the immigrants and ex-amines the role of the community in the process of immigrants’ integration into the host society.

Το ελληνικό παροικιακό φαινόμενο προσφέρει ένα ευρύ πεδίο αναζητήσεων για τη δράση, οργά-νωση, πορεία και το βίο εν γένει των ελληνικών κοινοτήτων του εξωτερικού. Θέμα του παρόντος άρθρου είναι η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης και ο στόχος του είναι διττός. Αφενός μεν παρουσιάζει την οργάνωση της κοινότητας βάσει του καταστατικού της (1786), υποδεικνύ-οντας σημεία σύγκλησης αλλά και απόκλισης από τις άλλες κοινότητες του εξωτερικού ή της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας. Αφετέρου δε, επιχειρεί να παρουσιάσει όλα εκείνα τα στοιχεία που αποτελούν ενδείξεις της ενσωμάτωσης των μελών της στην κοινωνία της Τεργέστης άρα και της σταδιακής αφομοίωσής τους, εμβαθύνοντας παράλληλα, στο ρόλο της κοινότητας στην αφομοιωτική διαδικασία.

community: A Quest for Definition After a painstaking review of a long and varied bibliography, one comes to the con-clusion that any attempt to define the term “community” is elusive1. G. Hillary’s well-known article, “Definitions of community: Areas of agreement” concludes that the only element that his 94 featured definitions of community had in common, was that they all dealt with people2. The contrasting anthropological and symbolic ap-proaches are indicative of the problematic nature of this term. For L. W. Warner3, a community is a “socially functioning whole” – a body of people functioning as a specific “organism” with its own social structure, which sets it apart from other simi-

24 MariannaD.Christopoulos

lar “organisms”. Consciousness of this distinction gives the community members a sense of mutual belonging. So long as this whole functions coherently, the structure of the community can be expected to propagate itself through time. In contrast to this view Anthony Cohen has stated that, “community must be seen as a symbolic construct”. The symbolic approach to community depends primarily on the use of ab-stract, rather than empirical models. A key dimension of the symbolic approach is the identification of perceived boundaries that delineate and distinguish social groups; the awareness of community thus depends on the members’ consciousness of this perceived boundary4. Hence, communities and their boundaries exist essentially, not as socio-structural systems and institutions, but as worlds of meaning in the mind of their members. Although seemingly incompatible, these two approaches provide historians with a valuable theoretical framework with which to address a topic as complex as the history of human communities.

The word “community” in Greek history applies primarily to an institution of local self-administration, consisting of the entire population of a city or village, headed by its elected archons. The roots of this institution may be traced back to the Byzantine period. One important reason for its survival was that the Ottoman rulers exploited the existing traditional forms of self-administration in their new dominions in order to ex-ercise their power more efficiently. Influenced by different historical circumstances, the administration of communities has varied from area to area. For example, the commu-nities found on the Aegean Islands had traditional administrative regulations, which went back to their Latin rulers, mainly the Venetians5. An unofficial regulatory status also existed in the communities of most regions in Greece, such as the wealthy commu-nity of Ambelakia in Thessaly, and the regions of Epirus and the Peloponnesus6.

For a number of centuries the Ottoman rulers used communities, in the specific sense described above, as an unofficial organ for regional administration, particularly for lev-ying and collecting taxes. The official recognition that the Ottomans gave communities in 1856 was in effect a formality that acknowledged and defined established forms of administration. The general responsibilities of community leaders included: represen-tation of the community in the Ottoman administration, tax-collection, and the provi-sion of education, religion, and welfare to the poorest community members.

The historiography on communities within Greece rests on a consensus amongst the senior, leading historians in the field, including Paparigopoulos7, Moschovakis8, Pan-tazopoulos9 and Giannopoulos10, that a community is essentially a social institution of local administration. Historiographical debate has focused on the origins and evolu-tion of communities, and their function as shields against Ottoman overlordship. A divergent line of thought has viewed community as an oppressive organism, for more often than not, community leadership was in the hands of the wealthy, who frequently exploited poorer members. Working from a sociological perspective Kontogiorgis, for example, favoured this latter interpretation11. More recently, the economic character of communities has also been stressed. Asdrachas, amongst other Greek historians, has viewed community primarily as an economic entity. He has signaled how a communi-

GreekCommunitiesAbroad:OrganizationandIntegration 25

Representations

ty’s tax levying function resulted in its controlling production and the mobility of its population, as well as certain legal issues related to fiscal matters12.

The development of the historical study in Greece of Greek communities abroad re-flects international historiographical trends. Its origin may be traced to “autobiogra-phies” written by the communities themselves. Until the 20th-century Greek historians focused on the communities’ role in relationship to the national question, their contri-bution to Greek culture, the influences that the model of the Greek communal system in the Ottoman Empire had on their organization, etc. In the 20th century, however, under the influence of the Annales school, Marxist historiography, and the growth of economic history, Greek historical studies shifted to a more open and comprehensive approach towards these communities, which included consideration of the host soci-ety’s perspectives, the process of integration into the local society, commercial activities, and family networks13.

Despite this wide range of subjects, what Greek historiography still lacks, as far as Greek communities abroad are concerned, are studies devoted to expounding a theo-retical framework through which to study this phenomenon. Apart from attempted definitions or theoretical frameworks offered in the introductory chapters of a multi-tude of monographs on the history of Greek communities abroad, a searching critical study solely devoted to theoretical questions and definition of terms remains to be un-dertaken. I. Chassiotes’ book, Episkopisi tis ellinikis Diasporas [Overview of the Greek Diaspora], could be regarded as an early attempt at the definition of terms such as “di-aspora”, “community” and paroikia.

A valuable aspect of Chassiotes’ work is that it clearly articulates how Greek historians have hitherto understood community abroad. According to Chassiotes, when an im-migrant population in a host country is referred to, the word παροικία (paroikia) is used. Unfortunately this term has no direct English equivalent, but in its literal usage it signifies “living near someone else’s ‘household’”, that is, an organized entity. Accord-ing to Chassiotes the term “community” may be applied to an ethnic-religious entity, into which the members of the paroikia organized themselves, and was recognised by the host country as a private chartered body14. Though short and lucid, Chasiote’s defi-nition is not subtle enough to interpret the tendency of many Greek communities, mostly those ‘born’ before the second half of the 19th century, to define themselves as “confraternita” and not as “community”.

Confraternities were initially religious associations, recognized by the state, whose chief purpose was charity. Dedicated to a patron saint and each being directly affiliated with a church, the Vatican favoured the establishment of confraternities15. However, in the absence of other forms of social, national or professional associations, confraterni-ties were also viewed as a means of confirming and strengthening the social, economic and cultural ties between people with common interests. In many cases confraterni-ties evolved as social organisations or business associations; the latter were referred to as “Sc(u)ola”16. In regions where Catholicism predominated, confraternities were the


principal and most common form of institutional or group organization. For this rea-son, emigrant Greek communities would define themselves as “Confraternita”, since their chief aim was to establish and protect their religious practices, build churches and schools and contribute to the welfare of their poorer members. Self definition as a “Confraternita” evolved into a tradition repeated by subsequent emerging Greek com-munities, even when the term “Comunità” [community] was accepted by the host state as a legal term. As may be expected, the two terms tended to merge, and either could be applied to the same entity. Thus it was not unusual for the classification of a community to change over time. For example, the name of oldest Greek community abroad, in Ven-ice, changed from its original title, “Scuola di San Nicolo”, to “Scuola o Confraternita di San Nicolo”, and then finally at the beginning of the 19th century it changed once more to “Comunità dei Greci”17.

It may be argued that the major external unifying concern for immigrants to a new country is the effort to cushion, through a community structure, the shock of mov-ing from their native environment to a new and foreign society. As in most cases the host authorities welcomed their presence and supported the creation of such communities. A second significant factor is the support of mutual interests amongst immigrants, such as business, education, and religious freedom in the host country. Finally, in the case of the different Balkan peoples belonging to the Orthodox faith, one cannot underestimate the significance of belonging to a general Orthodox com-munity as an internal unifying bond among immigrants – hence the tendency of Orthodox groups of diverse backgrounds to co-exist in communities until the emer-gence of national sentiments. In every case, the nucleus of each community was the church, which played an important role in organizing community life. Communities administered themselves through a charter of statutes they created, which had to be submitted to the host state for official approval. According to these statutes the com-munity elected members responsible for its affairs and as representatives before the authorities of the host country.

community: time, PlAce AnD HistoricAl circumstAnce

In addition to the general factors of time and place which determine the identity and ev-olution of a community two more specific criteria directly related to migration are: the make-up of immigrant groups and the social conditions and resources of their host com-munity. With regard to the Greek community of Trieste, it came into being during the 18th-century, which was a significant period for the migration of Ottoman subjects. The movement of peoples during the 18th century may be studied within the framework of the “push and pull” factors of populations. The “push” factor is the motivations behind migrants choosing to leave their country, while a country’s “pull” factor relates to reasons for emigration to a specific place. In the case of free migration for economic purposes, the pull motivation is stronger and more important than the push factor18. In the case of the Greek community in Trieste, and all the communities that flourished abroad in the


Representations

18th century, both push and pull factors provoked widespread emigration to Europe, in particular to the Balkans, and to the Habsburg and Russian empires.

By the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, the Ottoman Empire was increasingly beset by demographic and economic stagnation. The absence of industrial protectionism combined with the rise of industry in the West, resulted in an upsurge of commerce and trade, and a decline in what little Ottoman industry existed. Conse-quently, Balkan merchants became the commercial “conquerors” of the Balkans and, in time, substantial migration followed the trade routes to Venice, Livorno, Marseilles, and Amsterdam. In the 18th century, trade was reoriented towards Central Europe and southern Russia, where new urban centers were emerging outside the direct influence of western European economies19.

The main pull factor bringing merchants to these regions was related to the growing interest of European monarchies in trade with the eastern Mediterranean and the Bal-kans. In central Europe, emperor Charles VI (1711-1740) and his successors, Maria Theresa (1740-1780), Joseph II (1780-1790) and Leopold II (1790-1792), sought to strengthen the Austro-Hungarian economy by stimulating industry, business, and par-ticularly trade with easily accessible regions, such as the Balkans and other territories in the Adriatic. The treaties of Karlowitz (1699) and Passarowitz (1718) stabilized the European borders of the Ottoman Empire and offered Austria a variety of commer-cial advantages over the Ottomans which resulted in the extension of its trade routes southward into the Balkans20. Despite the Hapsburgs’ efforts to advance Austrian en-trepreneurial activity in these regions, trade was still controlled by Ottoman subjects, who enjoyed preferential treatment thanks to the Passarowitz treaty. So to boost the economic activity of their developing cities and seaports and to make Austrian trade competitive with other mercantile powers, such as Venice, the Hapsburgs began to lure experienced merchants to their realms, and in particular the mercantile “conquerors” of the Balkans.

It was for this reason that, in 1717, Charles VI declared freedom of trade and navi-gation in the Adriatic and promised to facilitate mercantile enterprise. The same mo-tivation sparked his decision of March 1719 to declare both the seaports of Trieste and Fiume, with their advantageous geographical positions, as a porto franco [tariff free port]. Charles’s declaration of 1719 gives a foretaste of his intentions:

We permit the traders and merchants of any nation for the benefit of their business, to build their homes and set up their shops within the walls of Trieste… [and] to buy their own lands… Moreover, in order for small tradesmen and merchants to obtain privileges and gain recognition, we promise them, their nation, and families, that we will confer on them all the necessary, real and personal rights, which have more than hitherto been bestowed on merchants of other cities21.

Following this declaration Trieste became one of the major destinations for Greek im-migrants. Its seaport was located at the crossroads of land and sea routes, and was con-nected with major commercial centres like Leipzig, Carinthia, Istria, Lombardy, Anco-na, Venice, Tuscany, Naples and Sicily as well as the Adriatic coastal areas. Furthermore,


an important distinction between Trieste and other cities was that it had the status of Reichsstadt, which signified that it was directly controlled by the emperor himself. This meant that the citizens of Trieste, as well as immigrant merchants, could benefit from more immediate access to the center of power22. A combination of tax incentives for merchants and the imperial infrastructure of mercantile regulations, facilities and amenities enhanced Trieste as a centre for trade. The official concern to develop the sea-port of Trieste bore fruit. In 1765 Lord Stormont, the English ambassador in Vienna, reported to his superiors that: “… Trieste is chiefly remarkable for its harbour, which is the only considerable one in the Empresses’ German Dominions. Immense sums of money have been expended on it in this Reign…”23.

Commerce aside, what made the Habsburg Empire exciting during the 18th and 19th centuries were the radical changes that swept through it during the enlightened reigns of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. Ranging from the creation of a more unified, cen-tralized state to the redefinition of the relationship between Church and state, these changes also encompassed agrarian reform and public education for all Austrian sub-jects24. Inadvertently, the Greek community found itself caught up in these changes and affected by them.

The terms governing migration to Trieste for all immigrants, and for Greeks in particu-lar, could not have been better. Commerce was at its height25. Ambitious and conscious of the power they wielded, the newcomers exerted a strong influence on the establish-ment and future of the Greek paroikia. In addition, most of them were accompanied by assistants or clerks, a presence which presupposed a sound economic base26. One can surmise that the arrival of Greek merchants in Trieste was motivated by economic self-interest and the lure of a ‘promised land’.

tHe Greek PAroikiA – initiAl stAGes of institutionAl orGAnizAtion The documented presence of the Orthodox Greeks and Illyrians, who were mostly Serbs27, in Trieste provisionally dates from the declaration of Trieste as a free port in 1719. The historian Olga Katsiardi-Hering, who has collected much of the information regarding the Greek community in Trieste, has stated that demographic figures can be traced back to 1719, but until 1746 most of these are fragmented or unreliable. The few merchants, and even fewer families, who settled in Trieste at the beginning of the 18th century constituted a nucleus that started gradually to expand. According to Katsiardi-Hering’s thorough research, in 1749 the Greek paroikia numbered 21 members. Seven years later, in 1756, it had increased to 149. Just prior to the split of the Greco-Illyrian community, in 1781, the Greeks numbered approximately 277. The influx of Greek refugees during the Greek revolution against Ottoman rule marked the community’s demographic zenith. Between 1822-1823 the Greek population in Trieste numbered 3,500, although this figure would drop in the following years28.

As their numbers grew, the Greeks felt the need officially to establish their presence in the city. This led nineteen Greek navy captains to ask Empress Maria Theresa in 1747


Representations

to appoint Charles Pelegrini as their mediator in Trieste29. The objectives of Trieste’s Greeks became more clearly defined in 1748, when two very prominent community members, Daniel Sphoggara and Fr. Damascene Homer, sought permission from the Austrian authorities to build an Orthodox church in Trieste. Then in 1749, Fr. Da-mascene Homer submitted requests to the Trieste authorities concerning the settle-ment of Greek immigrants30. From what has been handed down by the community, it can be deduced that the older Greek community in Venice requested Fr. Damascene Homer to try to gain official permission for the construction of an Orthodox church in Trieste and the establishment there of a confraternity. It is apparent that these initial demands of the emerging Greek community in Trieste were based on the experience of the longer established Greek community in Venice, which had fought hard for religious freedom and permission to construct an Orthodox church31.

Apart from certain religious observances, such as public funeral processions and the request that children of inter-faith marriages be brought up in the Orthodox faith, most of Fr. Damascene Homer’s requests were accepted. Admittedly, Trieste’s Cath-olics found the latter proposal too much of a provocation. The Austrian authorities first made a counter-proposal that intermarriage be blessed by a Catholic priest and the child raised as a Catholic. However, this triggered such a strong reaction that it was omitted in the final version of the Decree of Privileges in 1751. Despite its omission, Catholic baptism of children prevailed when the husband of an inter-faith marriage was Catholic32. Be that as it may, the very existence of such a request from the Greeks il-lustrates both the degree of tolerance of the host country and the Greeks’ sense of their own strength in Trieste.

The request to found a confraternity, whose members would be responsible for the election of its priests was accepted on condition that a representative of the Intendenza Commerciale (an Austrian administrative body) attend its official meetings. This con-dition indicates that the Community was to become a component part of the state administration.

In 1751, the Decree of Privileges was issued in three languages (German, Latin and Ital-ian). It was the second corroboration of the Emperor’s declaration in 1719, the first be-ing the Charter of 1746, which allowed Jewish merchants to live within the city walls. In 1772 the promulgation of the first Statutes of the Orthodox Greek-Illyrian commu-nity met with so much strife and disagreement that neither side fully approved it. This unsettled state lasted till April 1781, when the Greeks and the Illyrians finally split.

The Greco-Illyrian split was the predictable outcome of emerging nationalism in the Balkans, which shattered the peaceful co-existence of communities of different na-tionalities who shared the same faith. The nationalist awakening manifested itself in a variety of religious requests. At the turn of the 18th century the establishment of the Orthodox Illyrian Metropolis of Karlowitz was permitted by the Hapsburgs to pro-vide for the Illyrians’ religious needs. That, combined with the fact that the Illyrians outnumbered the Greeks, especially in the Hungarian dominions, gave them sufficient


means with which to dominate the church and by extension all the affairs of the mixed communities. The Greeks, who strove to preserve both their autonomy and their spir-itual bonds with the Orthodox Patriarchy of Constantinople, naturally felt threatened. Therefore, disputes broke out in many Greco-Illyrian communities, and most of them resulted in the separation of the two groups.

The possession of the Orthodox church and a chapel in Vienna was one of the main contentions that brought about inter-community confrontations prior to 1776, when the church was officially ceded to the Greeks. Similar incidents occurred in Pest, where the Greeks decided to leave the church they shared with the Illyrians and build their own, which was completed in 1790. The Greek communities in Novi Sad and Orsova, cities with a predominant Illyrian population, succumbed to Illyrian pressures and dis-appeared33. In Trieste, national sentiment was expressed by the demand that an Illyrian priest be hired to cater for the religious needs of the Illyrians, while the liturgy would be conducted in both Greek and Serbian. Since both parties felt too strongly to com-promise there was no reconciliation. This demonstrated that religion alone could no longer serve as a unifying force for the communities made up of various Balkan nation-alities34.

As mentioned previously, the stance of the host country is of vital importance to the existence and development of an immigrant community. This is illustrated by Emperor Joseph II overruling his advisors’ denial of the Greek request for the construction of a second Orthodox church in Trieste, the first having been given to the Illyrians. Emperor Joseph, a firm believer in religious tolerance and deeply convinced of the significance of the contribution of the Greeks in Trieste, officially stated in August 1782: “Despite the objections, I am favorably inclined to permit the Greeks to build a new church”35.

orGAnizAtion of tHe Greek community: tHe stAtutes of 1786The organization of the life of a community is often most clearly illustrated in its stat-utes. For this reason analysis of the Statutes of 1786 – unfortunately the study of later statutes is beyond the scope of this chapter – offers the framework for this overview of the organization of the Greek community in Trieste.

In November 1782, in the presence of the representative of the imperial government, 36 Greek residents of Trieste elected six delegates who would be charged with drawing up the Statutes. Those elected were among the wealthiest Greeks in the city. Already accepted in Trieste society, they were expected to be able to negotiate effectively with the local Austrian administration. They were moreover mostly merchants with business acumen that qualified them to manage the serious economic problems facing the com-munity during its early stages.

A key feature of the Statutes was a clause that divided the members of the Commu-nity into classes, and which served as a basis for its administrative procedures. In the very first draft of the Statutes in 1783 its authors had proposed categorizing Com-


Representations

munity members into four classes according to their financial status and their cor-responding required contribution to the Community’s funds. Moreover, provision was made for the revision of an individual’s classification every five years. Following a bitter reaction to this proposal a change in 1784 allowed each community member to subscribe to any of the four classes he wished, on the condition that he pay the prescribed contribution36.

Members of the first class, called Fondatori [Founders], paid an annual contribution of 50 florins and participated in all of its functions. They also had the exclusive privilege to be elected as Deputati [Deputies], the highest executive rank of the community. Most members of this first class were individuals who had become wealthy as merchants, ship owners, financiers and insurers. Together they made the largest contribution to the Community accounts. The second class members, who contributed 30 florins yearly, were known as Fondatori Aggiunti. Their payment allowed them to participate in all of the hierarchical administrative ranks of the Community except that of Deputati. The third class, the Benefattori [Benefactors], consisted of those Greeks who chose to pay an annual contribution of only 20 florins. There was no noticeable difference in the rights of this class from those of the second class, which may explain why its membership, at-tracted by the lower contribution, was much larger. Finally, the fourth class, identified as Benemeriti [Honoured], paid a contribution of ten florins a year. Their one and only prerogative was the right to vote, although they were allowed to choose a member to represent them in the collective governing body, a Representative Assembly known as the Capitolo.

The original intention of the authors of the Statutes was for the relatively high mem-bership dues to remain in force until the debt incurred by building the church was paid off. After this the amounts would be reduced to a nominal fee, similar to the sort levied by communities in Venice, Livorno, Vienna and other cities37. Despite the influence on some Community members of the contemporary liberal spirit emanating from the French Revolution, this method of determining privilege according to financial contri-butions remained unaltered until 1803, when it was amended for the first time. How-ever, the clause dictating members’ participation according to their contribution was never eliminated from the Community’s Statutes. The argument that he who contrib-utes the most should have the greater say in community matters clearly prevailed. The Community in Trieste was the first Greek community in western Europe to include and base the structure of its administration on members’ classification and class-con-tributions.

Another extremely interesting detail of the preliminary draft of the Statutes, although never adopted, was the creation of a special group, called the Fraterna di S. Spiridione38. This was to be open to any citizen of Trieste, i.e. non-Greeks, who wished to contribute any sum. In return, members of this class would enjoy the respect of the Greek Com-munity, would be honorary members of various classes (although without the right to vote), and their names would be included in the daily prayers of petition in church39. The Greek Community’s open attitude towards Trieste society is clearly indicated by


this proposal. At the same time, this openness would with time unwittingly erode the homogeneous Greek character of the community.

In the Greco-Illyrian community, religion had served as the major unifying and dis-tinguishing characteristic. The fact that Greeks conceived their Community as a na-tional-religious entity was a consequence of the painful experience of their separation from the Illyrians. In this regard the Trieste community differed from the older Greek communities, such as Venice’s, which from its inception in 1498 until 1821 continued to embrace Albanian, Serbian and Dalmatian immigrants under the sole condition that they be Orthodox. That this attitude persisted as late as 1893 was demonstrated by the Assembly of the Forty’s rejection of the proposal to exclude Slavs from the Venetian community40.

The Trieste Community’s statutes were headed, “Statuti e Regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca…”. This phrase differentiated the nation (Greek entity) from the community and defined the latter as the sole legal representative for the Greeks in Tri-este. As for the Greek entity the Statutes reveal its two facets, the “spiritual body” and the “natural body”. The former applied to all those who subscribed to one of the four classes, whether they lived in Trieste or not. The latter included all of the Greek Ortho-dox to whom the church belonged. This emphasized the Community’s “Greekness,” and defined the national-religious identity of the genos [the Greek people]. A vivid ex-ample of this was the characterization of the church in Trieste as the church “di Nazione vera Greca”. More restrictive was the definition of the ‘political and economic body’ of the community, which referred to Greeks who had settled in Trieste permanently and were enlisted in one of the four classes. In the Statutes, this included both men and women, but in practice, women seem not to have registered in any of the four classes.

Members of the Community entitled to participate in its organization were required to be permanent residents of Trieste. The Community’s daily needs could not have been looked after by absentee governors who were out of touch with the life of the Commu-nity. Similar restrictions held sway in other Greek communities under Ottoman rule, as is revealed in the statutes of the communities in Thessaloniki, Kavala and Siatista41. According to the 1882 analysis of communities by the historian Moschovakis, in many cases the most important criterion to qualify in a community was that of indigenous-ness, of being native-born to its territory42.

All members of the Trieste Community were allowed to participate in the Generale Raddunanza, [General Assembly], which was the electoral body for members of the Capitolo. The Capitolo was required to render a statement on the state of the Commu-nity’s financial resources to the Generale Raddunanza in one of its two annual sessions. The concern, signaled in the statutes, to create a representative assembly was probably influenced by two factors: firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the members’ mer-cantile trade which required them to leave Trieste, making a representative assembly imperative. It is for the same reason that other Greek mercantile communities, such as the older one in Vienna and the younger one in Alexandria, had also created representa-


Representations

tive assemblies for greater effectiveness43. Secondly, one can note the influence of those members who came from other communities which had already instituted representa-tive assemblies, such as those in Macedonia.

The Capitolo was the second collective governing body. Its primary purpose was to counsel the Deputati on administrative issues and prevent any abuses of office. Among its other powers were the election of the Deputati, the Sindici [Inspectors of Finances], and the employment of teachers, a secretary and the verger amongst others, whom it supervised and whose wages it determined. Its final, but most sensitive responsibility, was to ensure peace and brotherhood among Community members, “so that the nation would not have to account for itself to the authorities of Trieste”44.

The first Capitolo consisted of 12 members. Class representation was disproportionate. The most populous fourth class had only one representative out of the twelve, whilst the first class had five, the second had four, and the third had two. Besides the advan-tage gained through wealth and status, the official criteria for candidacy were that the individuals be over 24 years old and not related by kinship. The elections were held in the presence of an imperial representative. Fines were levied when an elected member resigned his post, or was absent from assemblies. Based on the 1786 statutes the Tri-este Capitolo possessed both advisory and executive powers, and it functioned so ef-fectively that its governing regulations were copied into the Venice community’s 1821 Statutes45.

The so called ‘executive authority’ in the Community was handed over to the Deputati, who were the Governatore [Governor] and the Assessori-Deputati [sub-Governors]. As has been mentioned, their posts were a prerogative of members of the first class. The cri-teria for candidacy for these posts were that the candidates be at least 30 years old and not related to the third degree of kinship. The Deputati were elected by the Capitolo in the presence of both an official Austrian representative and the Community secre-tary. The appointment lasted for a year, and was renewable for up to three consecutive years. The stipulation of annual tenure was probably influenced by older administrative models of domestic Greek communities, which by fixing yearly tenures sought to mini-mize the likelihood of abuses of power that often arose from longer appointments46. Theoretically, all members of the first class could participate in this highest rank of ad-ministrative hierarchy. In practice, however, the electoral lists of the Community show that it was the minority of the wealthiest and most recognized Greek families in Trieste society who were chosen.

The tendency for the rich to dominate the governing bodies of the Community is not a novelty; in most organized societies the control of government by the most powerful and affluent members appears to be de facto. Ap. Vakalopoulos has recorded the follow-ing information regarding the make-up of the community council of Thessaloniki in the early modern period: “During the first Ottoman occupation of Thessaloniki (1391-1403, according to Archbishop Isidoro Glava), the Ottomans coarsely treated even the leaders of communities who had been elected from the wealthiest and noblest Greek


families”47. In later times, a similar pattern can be detected in almost all communities of the Greek region. A document relating to the community of Milos (an island of the Cyclades) records that: “the Most Reverend Archbishop, the reverend clergy, the holy abbots and archimandrites, the noblest archons, deputies, notables, and the common people… were gathered in the holy temple of the Virgin Mary…”48. The weighty appel-lations appearing next to the titles of all community representatives attest to a certain elevation above the “common people”.

A further key characteristic of the rank of deputy is that it received no direct or indirect monetary rewards. It was considered an “honorary” post and was so closely monitored by the other deputies that misdemeanors were impossible. The unpaid post of deputy contrasts with practices among the communities at home in the Greek region, most of whom paid their deputies’ wages. What is more, these deputies also received preferen-tial status from their Ottoman overlords49.

The Governatore of the Community oversaw the conduct of its members, as well as of the Greeks of Trieste as a whole. He was not only empowered to enact emergency meas-ures. He also served the final arbiter in internal Community disputes, and thus helped Greek Community members avoid appearing as litigants before the Austrian courts. The Governor moreover monitored the handling of economic matters by the Sub-gov-ernors, together with whom he was accountable to the Capitolo. In general, this system of internal checks and balances effectively prevented problems from arising.

The Assessori-Deputati had three main obligations. They were responsible for the wel-fare of the poorer Greeks in Trieste and organized charity collections. They also formed the School Board and Church Council, recommended both teachers and priests for employment, and supervised hiring for these positions. Again there is a clear parallel between the ecclesiastical, educational and communal obligations of the Deputati in Trieste and those on the Greek mainland.

The post of Sindici (a prerogative of the members of the three first classes) essentially in-volved service as a revenue officer, responsible for church properties, the Community’s book-keeping, and the ratification of the Assembly proceedings. The same post existed in the Greek community in Venice with similar obligations and powers, and in fact, the title and position of the Sindici had been borrowed from the Venetian administration50. The institution of Sindici also existed in the communities of the Cycladic islands back in Greece, which for a long time had been a Latin dominion.

The aforementioned salaried Community staff, including teachers, clergy, the verger, and the secretary, was appointed by the Capitolo. These were not simply clerical positions. For example, the post of secretary required fluency in Greek, Italian and German as well as knowledge of book-keeping and public relations. The role of the priesthood in the Greek Community of Trieste is significant, as the Community departed from the preferential treatment accorded the clergy on the Greek mainland. Orthodox priests in Trieste were basically regarded as respected salaried clerks. In the Statutes their duties were confined to performing church rituals and to looking after the spiritual needs of the community.


Representations

Their duties were described in such thorough detail that one cannot help feeling that the priest was almost under surveillance.

Memorial services, marriages, and christenings were performed with the general per-mission of the Deputati; marriages, in particular, had to be approved by the family and registered with the Community. Priests were forbidden to record and witness wills without the secretary of the Community being present. Although the accounts of the church were separate from those of the Community, church funds were handled by an appointed official. In all the Greek communities abroad, even in previous centuries, there existed regulations restricting clerical activities. It has been argued that this at-titude towards the clergy indicates how the wealthy and secularized mercantile com-munities51 were very receptive to liberal ideologies in regard to the role of the Church and ecclesiastical matters.

Apart from liberal thinking on the Church, the Trieste Community responded to con-temporary developments in the Hapsburg Empire. It was during the period under dis-cussion that Maria Theresa undertook a major redefinition of the relations between Church and State with the aim of reducing ecclesiastical influence in secular affairs. The extensive Habsburg administrative changes that took place after 1760 included provisions for enforcing state regulations in regard to clerical matters. According to the secret instructions given in 1768 to the Giunta Economale in Milan, an administrative body specifically designed to settle all outstanding problems between the Church and the state in favour of the latter, Church jurisdiction should be restricted to matters “that had been entrusted by Christ to His Apostles” and every right or privilege granted by the sovereign to the clergy could be amended or revoked52. Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II also restricted the wealth of the Church in favour of the state’s needs53.

As has been mentioned, the role of the clergy in the Trieste Community differs from that of communities within the Greek mainland, where the clergy operated in both religious and secular arenas. The latter practice stemmed from the Orthodox Church’s historical role under Ottoman rule, according to which all Orthodox subjects consti-tuted an entity recognized by the Sultan as the Orthodox millet, the head of which was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus under the Patriarch’s authority bishops and priests were responsible for many affairs of their communities54. In later centuries, this secular role was curtailed and finally set aside55.

The final issue the Statutes were concerned with was the establishment of a school for the Community’s children. Besides responding to the Greeks’ own wishes, this plan was also prompted by Maria Theresa’s request that the Greek children in Trieste receive an education. Her request was part of her overall reformation of the empire’s educa-tional system, as stated in her General School Ordinances of 1774 and 1777. These good intentions aside, financial setbacks delayed construction of the school for fifteen years, until 1801.

The Greek school was designed to function much like public schools throughout the empire, and was placed under the nominal supervision of the Austrian educational au-


thorities of Trieste56. The appointment of teachers also followed Austrian state ordi-nances57. The school’s internal affairs were run by the Deputati, who themselves chose the Community school officials. Substantial cooperation with the state came only in 1816, when the school curriculum was revised. At that time, state inspectors recom-mended that the pupils be taught German, as well as Greek and Italian.

Initially education at the Community school was free, but as the number of pupils in-creased fees were introduced. Understandably, poorer students were exempted from paying tuition, and it was the affluent parents who contributed most to the school’s upkeep. One interesting clause in the Statutes provided for the enrollment, tuition-free, of six Catholic students who wished to learn Greek58.

Study and analysis of the Statutes of the Greek Community in Trieste leads to the con-clusion that the aim of the Community was to achieve self-administration based on a very tight organizational structure. Its main concern was to provide for the physical, social, and religious needs of its members, while also protecting them from any ‘pain-ful’ exposure to Austrian society. While the Statutes display similarities to those drawn up by other Greek immigrant communities, particularly that of Venice, as has been discussed they also betray additional influences from administrative models employed on the Greek mainland and from enlightened Habsburg policy, as well as the bourgeois preferences of its own members.

community AnD inteGrAtion The Greek communities abroad do not bear resemblance to the ancient Greek colonies in any as-pect.… Wherever they may have settled, [the ancient Greeks] managed to preserve Greek iden-tity, language and traditions and transmit them to neighboring peoples. In contrast, the Greeks abroad today, after the first generation, have been Russianized, Germanized, Italianized…59

These comments offer an interesting insight into the way a leading Greek intellectual of the 19th century and a teacher of the Greek School in Trieste, Konstantinos Koumas, perceived the essence of the integration of Greek communities abroad. In order to de-scribe and define different aspects of the integration process, the academic community has employed a plethora of terms, such as: “adjustment”, “assimilation”, “integration”, “acculturation” and “absorption”. While some of these terms overlap, others define stages of a process that leads to the complete absorption of an immigrant community into the host country. Despite the problems and subtleties of definitions, there seems to be an underlying agreement that the integration is a series of adjustments that the immigrant community undergoes, which lead to the individual immigrant becoming woven into the fabric of the host society, without obliterating his diasporic identity. It may be argued, however, that in most cases, assimilation60 comes about inevitably for the third and the following generations, leaving them simply with a sentimental attach-ment to their forefathers both in the host country and in the land of origin. Among the phases of a community’s life that mark progressive integration are: increased incidents of intermarriage; involvement in the political activity of the host country; expanding


Representations

economic transactions; changes of citizenship; and adoption of the language of the host country by immigrant families for domestic communication. On one level, the process of integration is an individual matter. However, on another it is a communal experience, as the community also exists as a collective entity within the host society61.

Greek historiography has tended to focus on the process of integration in Diaspora communities of the 20th century. Prior to the 20th century most studies – with the exception of those devoted to the Greek communities in Livorno and Vienna62 – have dealt with smaller communities. These could only feebly oppose external pressure, such as that exerted by the Catholic Church, and eventually succumbed to conversion and absorption. The case study of Trieste, however, affords a clear and comprehensive study of the integration of a community whose economic strength, size, preferential status and national consciousness allowed for a marked degree of integration, yet significantly protected it from absorption.

The evolution and integration of a community or a homogeneous ethnic group is chief-ly determined by the socio-cultural environment in which it flourishes, and the stance of the host government towards it. The Greek Community in Trieste benefited from contemporary changes in the empire and the city itself, which made Greek settlement not only a painless experience, but almost a pleasurable one. In 1826, Constantin Go-lesku, wrote in his sojourns: “From hence, the earthly paradise [of Trieste], Italy is not far distant, nor is Vienna, where wealthy people are compelled to live. A more agreeable life and better organized society [of Trieste] will not easily be found elsewhere”63.

Moreover, after the declaration of Trieste as a porto franco, the city became a cosmopoli-tan seaport embracing Greeks, Serbs, Armenians, Jews, and northern European Luther-ans and Calvinists. These religious and ethnic communities lived together peacefully and developed friendly commercial and social relationships, with the exception of the Greeks and “Illyrians”, who maintained their distance after the painful split of 1781. A modern Greek writer, N. Themelis, captures the mood of separation between the two communities in a scene in his novel Anatropi, in which he describes the two Orthodox churches of Trieste “as if they had their backs to each other”64.

To all these immigrant groups, the Austrian government offered economic and trade privileges, curbed the power and pressure of the Catholic Church, and tolerated a high degree of community homogeneity. The government position helped to consolidate communal trust in the central government, which was a subtle factor that diluted their sense of foreignness, along the lines of W. Safran’s suggestion that “…that very tolerance may make minorities feel so at home as to dissipate their cultural alienation and, hence, their diasporic identities”65. The integration of the Greeks in Trieste was also facilitated by various social allowances, such as the right to be treated in the public hospital of Trieste and receive various free medications66.

However, it would make little sense to assume that there was no friction or differences be-tween the state and the Community. There were times, especially during the Communi-ty’s initial years, when rights and privileges were conferred only after a struggle. But even


in these cases rationality and good will prevailed. Trieste itself seems to have been one of the empire’s ‘favoured children’, and the benefits of this preference were enjoyed by its for-eign communities. In defense of the latter the historian Eva Faber has argued that Maria Theresa did not treat other foreign communities of her empire in the same tolerant and liberal way as she did those of Trieste, except when specific benefits were to be gained67.

The tolerant and cosmopolitan environment of Trieste was conducive to lowering the Greeks’ religious and cultural barriers and to paving the way to their transition into Austrian society. This environment of social tolerance combined with Greek prowess as merchants, ship-owners, insurers and manufacturers, to facilitate their insertion into the city’s emerging bourgeois class68. Coexistence inevitably led to intermarriage. At first the Trieste community’s marriages were only between its own members. In time, however, wealthy families, who were more open-minded and hoped to improve their economic prospects, began to sanction their children marrying into wealthy families of other faiths. Community records also reveal that soon after intermarriage appeared in the upper classes, less affluent families followed suit. From 1810, when the registration of intermarriages was instituted, to 1829, for example, such unions became more and more frequent. Between 1810 and 1814 there were 17 marriages between Orthodox Christians, while from 1815 to 1819 there were 13 Orthodox marriages and 5 mixed marriages. Of the 41 marriages recorded between 1820 and 1824, 31 were Orthodox and 10 were mixed. Finally, between 1825 and 1829 there were 33 orthodox marriages and 21 mixed, which demonstrates the Greek community’s acceptance of entering Aus-trian society at large69.

In certain cases, the entrance and acceptance of Greeks into the predominantly mer-cantile bourgeois class of Trieste resulted in individuals identifying more with the new, social and professional identities of their host society, than with that of the Greek com-munity. Verification of this is offered by the fact that a substantial number of Greeks exchanged their Ottoman citizenship for Austrian – a decision that became more fre-quent when the Hapsburgs instigated economic measures to protect the interests of Austrian subjects over those of foreigners. Whether or not out of personal interest, gaining Austrian citizenship meant immediate entrance into the wider community of the Austrian citizens with civil rights and obligations towards the Hapsburg Empire.

Greek communities abroad did not all respond in the same way to the issues of intermar-riage and citizenship. The 1775 statutes of the Greek Community in Livorno denied administrative posts in the Community to any members who married into families of a different dogma, although this clause was revised in 1873 when it became obvious that it deprived the administration of the richest members of the community70. Regarding the citizenship question, the Greek Community in Vienna had split into two camps: one of Greeks, who remained Ottoman subjects, and another of Greeks with Austrian citizenship, with each rallying around its own church71. It would be an oversimplifi-cation to attribute these attitudes merely to ideology, especially when analyzing the mentality of merchants. There were deep economic and political reasons behind these two choices and each of these two examples differs from Trieste in important ways.


Representations

However, the fact that the Trieste Community accepted both intermarriage and the change of citizenship is a clear indication that its members would more easily and with little intimidation undergo integration.

Once they had developed a thriving economic base and a public identity, Trieste Greeks interacted with all ranks of society, which hastened their merging with Austrian soci-ety. Regarding the stages of the gradual absorption of different ethnic groups into a single nation, Paul James has identified the role played by “agency-extended integra-tion”. According to James, this form of integration encompasses all those institutions or “agencies”, such as the church, state, guilds, corporations, as well as commodities, which tend to bind people across large geographical areas and thereby strengthen their mu-tual bonds72. “Agency-extended integration” is a useful way of understanding the social microcosm of Trieste. Both the Austrian Borsa, a form of Board of Commerce, and the Masonic lodges can be regarded as such agencies. Greeks soon became members of the Borsa and some of them rose to enter its highest echelons. On the other hand, the majority of wealthy Greeks were members of Masonic lodges, a fact that is verified by the existence of Masonic symbols in 8 out of the 13 Greek signatures on the very first draft of the Statutes of the Greek Community signed in 178373. Participation in such agencies suggests that the members of the Greek community were exploring outside the boundaries of their own community and accepting new roles and new identities in the larger community of the Trieste city.

Members of the Greek Community soon linked their fate to that of their host city, which in time they looked upon as their own. Indeed, not only Greeks, but all for-eign residents of Trieste felt much the same way. It was this shared sentiment that led inevitably to the emergence of a new local identity, so-called “triestinità”. During the three French occupations of the seaport of Trieste, Greeks for ideological and financial reasons participated in the city’s commissions and protested against the exorbitant war taxes imposed on the city by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1797. Not all Greeks were against the French, however; a sizeable number were attracted to the liberal philosophies that circulated after the French Revolution. Yet, this did not stop them from participating in the city’s celebrations honoring the visit of Francis I (1792-1835) to Trieste in 1813. For his reception the Greeks raised 160,318 florins, a considerable sum for the com-munity, and sang praises in his honor.

Up to this point this study of the Community has centered on specific issues relating to integration, each of which increased the collective accommodation of the Greeks into Austrian society. To offer a different perspective on the issue of integration, the role of Community as the legal representative organ of the Greeks ought to be considered and in particular whether it aided or obstructed the process of integration.

It may be argued that by its very nature, the vertical function of the community acted as an obstacle to absorption, and was instrumental to the preservation of a sense of differentiation. Vertically administrating its power from the highest to the lowest socio-economic ranks, the community strove to preserve its own unity. One of the Capitolo’s


main duties was to advise, reprimand and, in the worst case, ostracize any members whose disobedience threatened the structure and existence of the Community74. How-ever, by also trying to protect the Greeks in a new and unknown land, it served as a buffer to alleviate the need for contact between the majority of its members and the civil authorities of Trieste. This could be verified by the fact that the Statutes obligated the Community Deputati to represent and assist members with cases before the Aus-trian courts, while the Capitolo was assigned to prevent this from going that far when-ever possible. Another example of this tendency to protect and isolate its members can be seen in the Community’s continuous refusal to permit government inspection of its funds and those of the church, though it naturally manifested its great respect for the emperor.

Additionally, the desire to build a school sprang from the Community’s intent to pre-serve the mother language and through it to perpetuate the dogmas of the Orthodox faith. When the Community shouldered the cost of welfare for the poorer Greek im-migrants of Trieste, and a little later, for newly-arrived Greek refugees, for whom no state protection measures existed, it extended its influence. The waves of new immigra-tion not only boosted the Greek population, but also helped rekindle the ethnic senti-ments of the older settlers.

It should be noted that the defensive bulwark provided by the Community’s ethnic and religious character was not an indirect outcome; it was a conscious aim of its govern-ing bodies. However, the activity of the Community may be considered from another perspective. Horizontally functioning with the state and government agencies, and other migrant communities, the Community hastened its integration into mainstream society.

The Community was the organ that issued official documents, such as letters of rec-ommendation and birth certificates, so that its members could apply for membership in the Borsa or obtain Austrian citizenship. Thus it also actively aided its members to participate more fully in the economic and political life of Trieste. Furthermore, com-munity officials appear to have increasingly enjoyed the public recognition that came through interaction with the Austrian authorities, and as time went on, they grew in-creasingly at ease in Austrian society.

Another example of the community’s “horizontal functioning” was the previously-men-tioned resolution in the Statutes, inviting six Catholic children to enroll in the Greek school, which had been requested by the Austrian authorities. Such a measure would in-evitably lead to friendships and affinities between Trieste’s Greeks and Austrians in the future. An even more radical proposal deriving from the Community’s increasing need for funds was that, if non-Greeks wished to support the community with a contribution, they would immediately be made honorary members in one of the four classes. Although this suggestion was not implemented, the very fact that it was proposed shows that the community was inclined to open its doors to others. Such openness inevitably led to cracks in its homogeneity. Additionally, many members of the Trieste Greek Commu-nity, particularly those in the first three classes, displayed increasing affinity with Austrian


Representations

society75. Apart from accepting intermarriage, the Community’s members also became involved in civil matters by becoming members of the Trieste City Council76.

During the mid-18th century the Hapsburgs moved toward more centralized govern-ment and greater control over the empire’s administration and agencies. In their view, the Community probably seemed to function as an instrument through which the gov-ernment could reach every Greek newcomer77. Examples of the Austrian government’s interest in the community include firstly, the authorities’ expectation that the Greek Community school be placed under its supervision, and secondly, the compulsory pres-ence of a government representative in Assembly meetings during the elections of the candidates. The presence of an Austrian representative witnessing the Community’s most sensitive elections can be seen as an example of the discrete, yet cautious means by which the Crown kept track of the Greek community within its borders. The com-pulsory acceptance of the Austrians’ condition of a surveillance role, which apparently the majority of Greeks did not resent, became the first step towards a sense of the Com-munity’s belonging to a greater whole.

Thus, it may be argued that the Community behaved in ways that were simultaneously both reasonable and inevitable. Working vertically within its own structure it sought to preserve its diasporic identity, while in working horizontally with Trieste society it imbued members with a sense of belonging to a wider society, and smoothed their admission into the larger society78. A word of caution is, however, in order here. One must not succumb to the impression that this integration led to the obliteration of the Community’s cultural background and heritage. As E.J. Hobsbawm remarks, the emer-gence of nation-states that bring about the absorption of smaller communities within their borders does not necessarily lead to a repudiation of the community’s past by its members79. The “marginal man” theory, despite the historiographical dispute it has provoked, does underline the tragedy of the immigrant individual who fully belongs neither here nor there, and whose descendants carry the burden of existing in or be-tween two different cultures80. This ambivalence is well-illustrated in the later politi-cal loyalties of the Greeks in Trieste. Although law-abiding and loyal citizens of the Austrian state, they both applauded the French Revolution of 1789 and supported the revolutionary movement in Greece in 1821, attitudes which were both contrary to the official ideology of the Habsburg Empire81.

Furthermore, it should be noted that until 1830 the absence of a sovereign Greek na-tion-state deprived Greek immigrants of a “mother” country that would psychologi-cally support its migrant “children”. Later Greek communities, such as those in Egypt, who were also economically powerful and enjoyed privileges similar to those extended to the Greeks in Trieste, showed greater resistance to assimilation. In the case of Egypt this situation was the product of both the Moslem environment that hindered integra-tion and the influence of the Greek state, through its consulate in Cairo, which from the inception of the Greek community had strengthened the Greek immigrant’s sense of belonging to, and being protected by, a “motherland”82. The Trieste Community also welcomed the creation of the Greek national state which boosted its national senti-


ment. However, by then, integration had already left its own mark on the Community which continued to exist with a definite European orientation.

conclusion In light of this study, one can conclude that an immigrant community like that of the Greeks in Trieste could not help but undergo a certain degree of change in its identity. Its hopes for the future would inevitably have been shaped by awareness of its prospects in the host society. Its organization and mechanisms of internal governance would have been modeled upon other administrative models of the time, while also being attuned to its own unique, specific reality. Every community borrows those elements that can secure its existence in a new environment and discards whichever variables proved ob-structive. The Trieste community sustained itself by changing and adjusting to the needs and requirements of changing times. For Greek communities that settled in foreign territories, particularly before their own nation-state emerged, integration took place “naturally”, but it did not erase the immigrants’ attachment to their own heritage.

notes1 Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, London 1996, pp. 114-5.2 G. Hillary, Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement, in “Rural Sociology”, 1995, 20, pp.111-123.3 L.W. Warner, Social Anthropology and Modern Community, in “American Journal of Sociology”, 1941,

46, 6, pp. 785-796.4 A. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community, London 1985, p. 30. 5 For the history of those communities see: Α. Παπαδία-Λάλα, Ο θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων στον

ελληνικό χώρο κατά την περίοδο της Βενετοκρατίας (13ος – 18ος αι.), Venice 2004, p.43 ff. 6 Α. Βακαλόπουλος, Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού,, vol. B1, Thessaloniki 1964, pp. 279-314.7 Ν. Παπαρρηγόπουλος, Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους, Athenes 1970 (orig. ed. 1853) passim.8 Ν. Μοσχοβάκης, Το εν Ελλάδι Δημόσιον Δίκαιον επί Τουρκοκρατίας, Athens 1882, passim.9 Ν. Πανταζόπουλος, Ελλήνων συσσωματώσεις κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, Athens 1958, passim.10 I. Γιαννόπουλος, Η παρακμή του Οθωμανικού κράτους, Η προσαρμογή των θεσμών στη νέα πραγματικότητα,

and Κοινότητες in Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους, Athens 1971, pp. 98-110, 134-143.11 Γ. Κοντογιώργης, Κοινοτική Δυναμική και Πολιτική Αυτοδιοίκηση, Athens 1982, passim. 12 Σπ. Ασδραχάς, Οικονομία και Νοοτροπίες, Athens 1988, passim. 13 13 Ολγ. Κατσιαρδή – Hering, From the “ Greek Communities Abroad” to the Historiography of the

Migration problem (15th -19th century) and Λ. Βεντούρα, Post World War II approaches to Greek mi-gration” both in: Ιστοριογραφία της νεότερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας 1833-2002, vol. II, Kentro Neoel-linikon Erevnon, Ethnikou Idrimatos Erevnon, Athens 2004, pp. 223-249 and 250-269 respectively.

14 I. Χασιώτης, Επισκόπηση της ελληνικής Διασποράς, Thessaloniki 1993, pp. 20-21. 15 Φ. Μαυροειδή, Συμβολή στην ιστορία της ελληνικής αδελφότητας Βενετίας το 16ο αι., Athens 1976, pp.

6-10.16 B. Pullan, Poverty and Charity – Europe, Italy, Venice 1400-1700, Great Yarmouth 1994, pp. 1-13.17 Α. Ξανθοπούλου-Κυριακού, Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Βενετίας 1797-1866 Thessaloniki 1978, p. 7.


Representations

18 For types of migration see: W. Petersen, “A General Typology of Migration”, in R. Cohen (ed.), Theories of Migration, London 1996, pp. 256-266.

19 T. Stoianovich, The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant, in “Journal of Economic History”, 1960, 20, 2, pp. 259-263.

20 J. E. Boqert, Austro-Hungarian Maritime Trade With The Ottoman Empire, 1873-1895: A Commercial History with Diplomatic Considerations, vol. I, (n.p.), 1976, p. 29 ff.

21 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή, Hering, Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης (1751-1830), vol. I, Athens 1986, p. 8.22 Id., Tεργέστη: Μια πόλη της Διασποράς in Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου: Νεοελληνική πόλη, οθωμανικές

κληρονομιές και ελληνικό κράτος, vol. I, Athens 1985, pp. 43-48. 23 P. G.M. Dickson, Finance and Government under Maria Theresia 1740-1780, vol. I, Oxford 1987, pp.

394-395. 24 R. Okey, The Hapsburg Monarchy c.1765-1918, New York 2001, p. 25 ff.25 T. Stoianovich, The conquering cit., p.234. 26 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, pp. 71-75, 123-127.27 The term “Illyrian” was mainly used by the Austrian authorities of this time to refer to the native Ortho-

dox peoples of Istria, Dalmatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 28 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, pp. 71-75.29 Γ. Λαδάς, Συνοπτική ιστορία του Ελληνισμού της Τεργέστης, Athens 1976, p. 12. 30 Fr. Homer requested that Orthodox priests be permitted to perform the mass and the sacraments, visit

parishioners in their official capacity, and bury the Greek dead with the Orthodox funeral service. He also asked the authorities to allow intermarriage with the Orthodox, and that the children of such unions be brought up in the Orthodox faith. In addition he petitioned for the official recognition of a self-governing brotherhood (community), which would consist of Orthodox members who would elect their hierarchy and their priests.

31 See generally: I. M. Μανούσακας, Η ελληνική κοινότης της Βενετίας και οι Μητροπολίται Φιλαδελφείας, in “Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών”, 1970, 37, pp. 170-210.

32 It appears that this stipulation was not respected by the Greeks, since there are many examples of chil-dren of such marriages being brought up according to the Orthodox dogma. There are also cases of Catholic wives converting to Orthodoxy.

33 Ι. Χασιώτης, Η επισκόπηση cit., pp. 65-66. 34 J. Pirjevec, The Greek colony in Trieste in the 18th-19th Century in Proceedings of the First International

Congress of the Hellenic Diaspora, from Antiquity to Modern times, vol. II, Amsterdam 1991, pp. 29-30. 35 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit, vol. I, p. 122, note 21.36 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, pp. 138-141. 37 In the Greek community in Vienna the fee was kept nominal and voluntary up until 1810, when due to

grave economic problems it was made compulsory. See. Â. Óåéñçíßäïõ, ¸ëëçíåò óôç ÂéÝííç 1750-1850, Athens 2002, p. 262.

38 The usage of Saint Spiridon (the first church that the Greeks shared with the Illyrians) for the name of that class is intriguing. It could be seen as implying that the Greeks respected and were still attached either to their past and/or to their saint.

39 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, pp. 136-137, 141-145. 40 Α. Ξανθοπούλου- Κυριακού, Η ελληνική cit., p. 6.41 Χ. Παπαστάθης, Οι κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων κοινοτήτων του Οθωμανικού Κράτους και της Διασποράς,

Thessaloniki 1984, p. 147, 304. The Statutes of the Community in Thessaloniki (1886) stipulate that: “The Orthodox Greek Community of Thessaloniki covers every Orthodox resident of the city…”. The


1899 statutes of the community in Kavala mentions the following: “The voters must be 25 years old and above and must have lived in the city for at least five years”.

42 Ν. Μοσχοβάκης, Το εν Ελλάδι cit., pp. 81-82. 43 Ευθ. Σουλογιάννης, Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Αλεξάνδρειας 1843 -1993, Athens 1994, p. 30. Accord-

ing to paragraph 4 of the 1843 Statutes of the Greek Community in Alexandria “The members of the Assembly will elect 12 members, who will represent them in the elections of the deputies of the com-munity”.

44 Statuti e regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca Stabilita nella Citta, e Porto Franco di Trieste, sotto gli Auspicij dell’ Augustissimo Imperatore Giuseppe Secondo felicemente regnante. E dell’Eccelso Gov-erno di detta Citta, e Porto Franco, Trieste 1787, (reproduction 1889), pp. 26-36.

45 Α. Ξανθοπούλου- Κυριακού, Η ελληνική cit., pp. 22-30.46 Ν. Μοσχοβάκης, Το εν Ελλάδι cit., p. 83.47 Απ. Βακαλόπουλος, Δομή και σύνθεση των κοινοτικών Συμβουλίων δύο μακεδονικών πόλεων της

Θεσσαλονίκης και των Σερρών, Thessaloniki 1991, p. 199. In regard to the political domination of a few families in the administrative hierarchy of the Greek region K. Koumas wrote: “In many communities of Thessaly and Greece the father would hand down his post in the community to his son and this is how some families in Agrafa and Peloponnisos became as powerful as the Phanariotes” Ê. Êïýìáò, Éóôïñßá ôùí áíèñùðßíùí ðñÜîåùí áðü áñ÷áéïôÜôùí ÷ñüíùí Ýùò ôéò ìÝñåò ìáò, vol. XII, Vienna 1830, p. 538.

48 Ε. Κούκκου, Οι κοινοτικοί θεσμοί στις Κυκλάδες κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, Athens 1980, pp. 67, 68. 49 Ε. Κούκκου, Οι κοινοτικοί cit., pp. 231-234. 50 Φ. Μαυροειδή, Συμβολή στην Ιστορία cit., p. 28 and Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Παύλου Δρανδάκη,,

Athens 1926, vol. 22, p. 563.51 Ευθ. Σουλογιάννης, Η θέση των Ελλήνων στην Αίγυπτο, Athens 1999, pp. 169-171.52 A. Goodwin (ed.) The American and the French Revolutions 1763-1793 in The New Cambridge Modern

History: vol. 8, Cambridge 1964, pp. 283-285, 292-295.53 For Joseph II’s religious policy see: P. G.M. Dickson, Joseph II’s Reshaping of the Austrian Church, in

“The Historical Journal”, 1993, 36, 1, pp. 89-114.54 Ν. Πανταζόπουλος, Ελλήνων Συσσωματώσεις cit., p.13.55 Χ. Πααπαστάθης, Οι κανονισμοί cit., p. 138.56 Γ. Λαδάς, Συνοπτική cit, pp. 26-27.57 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Ηελληνική cit., vol. I, pp. 260-261. 58 Regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca, 1889, p. 65.59 Κ. Κούμας, Ιστορία cit, vol. XII, p. 551.60 For the terms assimilation and integration see E. Cashmore (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Race and Ethnic

Studies, London 2004, pp. 44-46, 206-207. 61 A brief historiographical mapping and a conceptualization of assimilation are presented in: Ev. C. Vla-

chos, The assimilation of the Greeks in the United States, Athens 1968, pp. 19-34. 62 Two recent and outstanding PhD theses that focus on the integration of mercantile communities of the

eighteenth to nineteenth centuries are those of Β. Σειρηνίδου, Έλληνες cit., and Δ Βλάμη, Το φιορίνι, το σιτάρι και η οδός του κήπου, Έλληνες έμποροι στο Λιβόρνο 1750-1868, Athens 2000.

63 N. Powell, Travellers to Trieste, Plymouth 1977, p. 41.64 Ν. Θέμελης, Ανατροπή, Athens 2000, p. 23.65 W. Safran, Deconstructing and comparing diasporas, in W. Kokot, K. Toloyan, C. Alfonso (eds.) Di-


Representations

aspora Identity and Religion, London 2004, pp. 18-19 66 Διήγησις των περί την εν Τεργέστη Ελληνική κοινότητα σπουδαιοτάτων συμβάντων από της συστάσεως αυτής

μέχρι τον καθ’ ημάς χρόνων, Trieste 1882, (offprint Athens 1972), p. 34. 67 E. Faber, Trieste and the Austrian Littoral 1700-1850, in L. François, A. K. Isaacs (eds.), The Sea in

European History, Pisa 2001, p. 64. 68 J. Pirjevec, The Greek cit., p. 31 and Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Ηελληνική cit., 1986, vol. II, pp. 396-408.69 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Ηελληνική cit., vol. I, p. 129. 70 Β. Βλάμη, Το φιορίνι cit., p. 303.71 Σπ. Λουκάτος, Ο πολιτικός βίος των Ελλήνων της Βιέννης κατά την Τουρκοκρατία και τα αυτοκρατορικά προς

αυτούς προνόμια, in ”Δελτίον της Ιστορικής και Εθνολογικής Εταιρείας της Ελλάδας”, 1961, 15, pp. 287-350. 72 P. James, Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community, London 1996, pp. 25-26. 73 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή - Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, p. 319.74 Regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca., 1889, p. 43. 75 In 1830 K. Koumas said for the Greek community in Vienna: “But parents being ignorant of the signif-

icance of the Greek language, they underestimate it and communicate with their children in German. Young ladies feel intimidated when their Greek identity is revealed. Even though they speak Greek, they communicate proudly in German. Greek mothers talk to their children in German. The fact that nannies use the Greek language proves, that it is the humble people who will preserve it”, in Κ. Κούμας, Ιστορία cit., vol XII, p. 552.

76 Oλγ. Κατσιαρδή-Hering, Η ελληνική cit., vol. I, p. 328. Katsiardi mentions that in 1812 among the 12 members of the city council of Trieste four were powerful Greek merchants: Kyriakos Kartraros, Dim-itiros Kartsiotis, Ioannins Drosos-Plastaras and Antonios Vikos.

77 The significance of state’s continuous presence in the everyday life of its citizens for the making of the nation is stressed by E.J. Hobsbawm in his Nation and Nationalism from 1780: Programme. Myth, Real-ity, Cambridge 1990, p. 80 ff.

78 The terms “vertical” and “horizontal” are borrowed from Antony Smith’s theoretical framework in An-thony D. Smith, National identity, (Greek edition Athens 2000), p. 81.

79 Ε.J. Hobsbawm, Nation cit., p. 38.80 E. Stonequist, The Marginal Man. A study in Personality and Cultural Conflict, New York 1961, p. 2-3.

See also, Arnold W. Green, A Re-Examination of the Marginal Man Concept, in “Social Forces”, 1947, 26, 2, pp. 167-171.

81 J. Pirjevec, The Greek cit., p. 31.82 Al. Kitroeff, The Greeks in Egypt: Ethnicity and Class, in “Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora”, 1983, 3, 10, p. 11.

biblioGrAPHy

Primary Source

Statuti e regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca Stabilita nella Citta, e Porto Franco di Trieste, sotto gli Auspicij dell’ Augustissimo Imperatore Giuseppe Secondo felicemente regnante. E dell’Eccelso Governo di detta Citta, e Porto Franco, Trieste 1787, (reproduction 1889)

Secondary Works

Ασδραχάς Σπ., Οικονομία και Νοοτροπίες, Ermis, Athens 1988


Apih E., La societa Triestina nel secolo XVIII, Torino 1957.Χασιώτης, Ι., Επισκόπηση της Ελληνικής Διασποράς, Thessaloniki, 1993.Fossey J. (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic Diaspora from Antiquity to Modern Times (Montreal 17-22.IV.1998; Athens, 26.03.IV 1988), vo. I, II, Amsterdam 1991.Stefani G., I Greci a Trieste nel Settecento, Trieste, 1960.Κατσιαρδή- Hering Όλγα, Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης (1751-1830), Athens 1984.Kitroeff A., The Greeks in Egypt, 1919-1937: Ethnicity and Class, London 1989.Karidis V., The Mariupol Greeks: Tsarist treatment of an Ethinc Minority ca. 1778-1859, in “Journal of Modern Hellenism”, 1986, 3, p. 57-74.Λαδάς Γ., Συνοπτική Ιστορία του Ελληνισμού της Τεργέστης, Athens 1976.Μοσχοβάκης Ν., Το εν Ελλάδι Δημόσιον Δίκαιον επί Τουρκοκρατίας, Athens 1882.Παπαδία-Λάλα Αναστασία, Ο θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων στον ελληνικό χώρο κατά την περίοδο της Βενετοκρατίας (13ος – 18ος αι.), Venice 2004.Παπαστάθης Χ., Οι κανονισμοί των oρθοδόξων κοινοτήτων του Οθωμανικού κράτους και της Διασποράς, Thes-saloniki 1984.Σειρηνίδου Β. Έλληνες στη Βιέννη 1750-1850, Athens 2002.Stoianovich T., The conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant, in Journal of Economic History, 1965, 20, pp. 234-313.Βεντούρα Λ., Μετανάστευση και Έθνη, μετασχηματισμοί και συλλογικότητες, Athens 1994.Ξανθοπούλου Κυριακού Α., Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Βενετίας (1797-1866), Thessaloniki 1978 Rich and trustworthy information as well as bibliography for the communities of the Greek Diaspora can be traced at the internet site. http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/migration/15-19/

sources Statuti e regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca Stabilita nella Citta, e Porto Franco di Trieste, sotto gli Auspicij dell’ Augustissimo Imperatore Giuseppe Secondo felicemente regnante. E dell’ Eccelso Governo di detta Citta, e Porto Franco, Trieste 1787, (Reproduction Trieste 1889).

Μ. Christopoulos, Greek Communities Abroad

Documents

Transcript of Μ. Christopoulos, Greek Communities Abroad