Suchergebnisse

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.

Kostas Sarris, Chrysanthos Notar as and the publication of "Dodekavivlos" by Dositheos of Jerusalem: a case of false publication date (1715 / c.1722)The article focuses on «Dodekavivlos» by Dositheos the patriarch of Jerusalem (1641-1707). His historiographic work was published after his decease by the Greek publishing house of Anthime in Bucharest. The book was edited by his nephew and successor to the patriarchical throne of Jerusalem Chrysanthos Notaras and the publisher and future bishop of Wallachia Mitrofanis Grigoras. The study concentrates on the false date of publication noted under the title of "Dodekavivlos", that is to say, October 1715, whereas, in reality, the book was published between 1721 and 1723. In the first part of the article, the process followed during the edition and the publication of the book is depicted. Moreover, the outset of the aforementioned procedure as well as the publication date of «Dodekavivlos» is determined. In this context, some aspects of history of the publishing house Anthime are clarified whilst the publishing work and the technical impediments confronted by a Greek publishing house in the Rumanian Principalities in the turning point of the 18th century are delineated. The second part of the article attempts to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive interpretation of the false publication date. Both the polemic character of the content of «Dodekavivlos», which due to the rivalry over the religious establishments of the Holy Land, was of political nature, and Chrysanthos Notaras' correspondence along with the historical background of the publication can conduce to some conjectures over Chrysanthos' decision not to record the real date but an earlier one as well as the choice of the particular date of the title. According to the interpretation brought forward, Nicolaos Mavrokordatos' potential political ventures played a significant role. Also, telltale, though of less importance, is the fact that the name of the publisher and bishop of Wallachia Anthimos Iviritis is not recorded under the false date of the title of «Dodekavivlos». ; Kostas Sarris, Chrysanthos Notar as and the publication of "Dodekavivlos" by Dositheos of Jerusalem: a case of false publication date (1715 / c.1722)The article focuses on «Dodekavivlos» by Dositheos the patriarch of Jerusalem (1641-1707). His historiographic work was published after his decease by the Greek publishing house of Anthime in Bucharest. The book was edited by his nephew and successor to the patriarchical throne of Jerusalem Chrysanthos Notaras and the publisher and future bishop of Wallachia Mitrofanis Grigoras. The study concentrates on the false date of publication noted under the title of "Dodekavivlos", that is to say, October 1715, whereas, in reality, the book was published between 1721 and 1723. In the first part of the article, the process followed during the edition and the publication of the book is depicted. Moreover, the outset of the aforementioned procedure as well as the publication date of «Dodekavivlos» is determined. In this context, some aspects of history of the publishing house Anthime are clarified whilst the publishing work and the technical impediments confronted by a Greek publishing house in the Rumanian Principalities in the turning point of the 18th century are delineated. The second part of the article attempts to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive interpretation of the false publication date. Both the polemic character of the content of «Dodekavivlos», which due to the rivalry over the religious establishments of the Holy Land, was of political nature, and Chrysanthos Notaras' correspondence along with the historical background of the publication can conduce to some conjectures over Chrysanthos' decision not to record the real date but an earlier one as well as the choice of the particular date of the title. According to the interpretation brought forward, Nicolaos Mavrokordatos' potential political ventures played a significant role. Also, telltale, though of less importance, is the fact that the name of the publisher and bishop of Wallachia Anthimos Iviritis is not recorded under the false date of the title of «Dodekavivlos».

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα Ελληνικά. ; In the years 1830-1860 the formation of the newly established Greek State was based theoretically and practically on the political views of 19th century European liberalism. In accordance to the liberal beliefs, the Greek state political power was based on a small section of the adult male population. This section disposed additional economic and cultural qualifications compared to the rest of the population of the country. It is worthnoting that only to the above mentioned section of the population the state recognized full civil and political rights. In this context the term eligible citizens is used to describe those social strata which held the above mentioned special qualifications. In view of these qualifications the eligible citizens could not only exercise their electoral rights but they could be also elected or appointed as political, magisterial or administrative officials. Within the framework of the historical study of social stratification in the Greek society, during the period 1830-1860, it is worth concentrating on the analysis of historical sources relevant to the eligible citizens. These sources should supply information about the economic and cultural characteristics of these citizens. Based on this type of approach we present in this study the catalogues of candidate jurymen in the period 1849-1861 concentrating on the analysis of the year 1860. These catalogues constitute an important source of information about the characteristics of the eligible citizens. The candidate jurymen catalogues, for the year 1860, include information regarding the value of estate property, income, profession, age and place of inhabitancy for 8.337 adult men. These men amount to the 3.4% of the over 25 years old male population of the country in 1860. The quantitative analysis of the above mentioned catalogues led to the following general conclusions: In 1860 the greatest percentage of the eligible citizens derived from the middle social strata of property owners and income earners. These strata included mainly land owners, wealthy farmers and merchants. But there was also a much smaller section of social strata of wealthy men who possessed a relatively large amount of estate property and income of the country. The sharp economic inequality observed among the eligible citizens of the country permits the assumption that there was also among them a sharp social inequality. According to this we propose the continuation of the research with a more detailled study. This study will examine particular aspects of economic and social inequalities between the lower, the middle and the higher social strata. The same study will also examine in detail the regional aspect of these inequalities.