European Philhellenism stood as one of the most influential cultural and political movements of the early 19th century. This extraordinary expression of support for Greek independence fundamentally altered European perspectives on national liberation struggles and cultural identity. The Greeks’ determination to regain freedom or die in the process stirred an unprecedented wave of sympathy and support across Europe for their struggle against the Ottoman Empire. The established political systems in Europe were shaken as, in the name of liberty, a tiny group of rebels risked everything to defy an empire that was supposed to be beyond challenge. Who thought in 1821 that a few Greek farmers could hold off a force of several thousand crack Ottoman troops? Yet that’s what happened time after time, as the Greeks took to arms in the mountains and valleys of their ancient homeland. They declared themselves free or died in the process. And to do them even partial justice in such an astounding challenge requires lots of resources and volunteers. Thus did the Philhellenic committees, those strange and wonderful combinations of support and enthusiasm that appeared all across Europe, come into existence.
The Genesis of European Philhellenism
The initial Greek declaration of independence brought forth an extraordinary showing of solidarity that began to change minds in Europe. The very first day that the news broke, crowds gathered across European societies and in places all over the world to show their support for the Greeks. Even people at the highest levels of society expressed their backing, with some going so far as to drop everything and join the Greeks in their fight (much to the dismay of their countries’ militaries, which, in some instances, ended up having to escalate their own policing actions to rein in these wayward soldiers).
In-depth academic study of pre-revolutionary literary Philhellenism in France has uncovered complex forms of cultural and intellectual exchange that set the stage for the rapid, large-scale growth of the Philhellenic movement. As Professor Pantelodemos details in his extensive analysis, no amount of political calculation could dampen the enthusiasm of nations for those who, with the glorious name of Greeks, were illuminating the world through their own actions. Indeed, this kind of admiration for a nation’s bold, albeit desperate, efforts to win its freedom from foreign rulers seemed to be in the air everywhere, even with people who, for whatever reasons, weren’t too keen on the idea of popular sovereignty.
Support from around the world for the Greek revolution burst into being with the establishment of Philhellenic committees in many different countries. These entities were not only efficient but also very effective in what they set out to do. They did a number of things—collected money, for example. They also sent military supplies to Greece, along with a number of volunteer fighters who wished to do the same kind of fighting that the Greeks were doing. They published material that sang the praises of the Greek fighters and, in some cases, lampooned the Turks. They might not have been quite as powerful as all that, but they were a pretty important force.
The effect of these committees and their supporters was to give the movement an unstoppable momentum. Philhellenism appeared and spread with lightning speed across Europe and America. What was so thrilling about this phenomenon? The established committees, particularly active in France, Switzerland, Germany, and England, systematically stirred global public opinion in ways that were remarkable for the time. And what was even more astonishing was the way that public opinion, once stirred, carried along with it a set of far-reaching and profound consequences—changing, for generations to come, the very intellectual and cultural texture of Europe.
When the support for the Greek cause spread to include people suspected by conservative regimes of holding liberal ideas, it garnered the staunch backing of a diverse array of prominent figures. They included major poets, writers, artists, and scholars; politicians; and even some princes. Their participation could not be written off as mere political subversion. Whatever else these people were, they were commitments to the European status quo that few in official conservative circles had the nerve to challenge.
Political Dimensions of Philhellenic Support
The transformation of European political attitudes toward the Greek cause proceeded through distinct phases of development.
At first, European diplomats were suspicious of the Greek uprising. After all, they were dealing with pretty conservative regimes—certainly not the kinds of governments that would enthusiastically embrace a revolutionary movement. But as the Greek independence movement broadened, gathered strength, and developed a popular base, that initial resistance to the uprising turned into something much closer to support.
The early diplomatic predictions of a swift suppression of the Greek revolt proved to be quite wrong. And all in all, over the several years of the Greek War of Independence, what the Greek forces managed to achieve was nothing short of remarkable. They not only withstood Ottoman counteroffensives but also won too many impressive victories to name. Their defeats of significantly larger Ottoman armies at several key moments in the war commanded the attention of the international community. More than recuperation, what these victories cumulatively achieved was the apparent viability of the Greeks’ efforts to throw off Ottoman rule and to reestablish a Greek state.
The particularly complex interplay of diplomatic considerations and national interests saw various European powers concentrate on the implications of Greek independence for stability in the region. This movement began to draw in not just presumed liberal firebrands, but also well-respected cultural figures and members of the nobility, whose involvement turned this business of “liberty, equality, fraternity” into something that looked a lot more like the business of “Christian liberation.” The Greeks.
The possibility of an independent Greece in the eastern Mediterranean forced European powers to rethink their strategies in the region. Any freed Greek state would most certainly contest Ottoman claims to territory in the east Mediterranean, as well as push for the liberation of other Greeks still living under Ottoman rule. These movements would create fresh conflicts in the region and would be in the interests of, well, anyone who didn’t want Ottoman rule to extend unchecked in the eastern Mediterranean (Billa).
The intricate relationship between public sentiment and state policy is revealed in the diplomatic dynamics surrounding Greek independence. At first, governments opposed Greek revolutionary activity. But as the Philhellenic movement gained strength, Athens attracted unprecedented levels of public support. The Eastern Mediterranean became a focal point of international discourse. It was not enough for great powers to simply issue statements of approval, however. Statements needed to be backed by actions that would persuade other Western powers to preserve what was left of the Ottoman Empire. Ultimately, the combination of public relations, intellectual persuasion, and very intense lobbying resulted in the Western powers granting recognition of the newly independent Greek state.
Cultural Impact and Intellectual Legacy
The Philhellenic movement in Europe had not only political consequences but also worked on the level of cultural and scholarly expressions of a lovely kind. This “Greece-loves” from Europe had almost no limits in its ardor and affected Greek modern-day realities in a most propitious manner. It reshaped Greece’s ancient and modern cultural presentation to Europe and set the stage upon which Greek modern culture could be presented in a way that warranted European admiration and, indeed, love. This was a Pygmalion impulse where Greece’s modern form could be unveiled in such a way as to make all forms of Hellenism praiseworthy.
In the broader European intellectual sphere, this incident triggered a remarkable combination of meticulous academic work and popular culture that, for the foreseeable future, would dramatically change public discourse and reshape academic disciplines. This occurred because foreign academics and collectors, during this period, fastened an unusual amount of attention on the Greek folk tradition, the linguistic fine points, and the idiosyncratic home rituals that Greeks were likely to stage when no one from the outside was watching. These sharp-eyed investigators and (in many cases) almost apologetic tourists in the academic field went to great lengths to study and understand the kinds of private performances and rough-hewn rituals our peasants were likely to stage.
The modern disciplines of folklore and anthropology were created during this period of great upheaval when some very essential and systematic studies were made of Greek folk songs, traditional narratives, and age-old practices. What these scholars and collectors were up to may have seemed harmless enough. They were simply trying to pin down the elusive “simple life of the Greeks.” And yet, what they were doing had a powerful political charge. For, in “the simple life of the Greeks,” they were associating with the very last thing that the new Greek state wanted associated with it: the existence of a preindustrial subsistence culture that ancient and modern alike had not changed in any significant way for centuries.
Philhellenism in Europe had a powerful effect across many realms of intellectual and artistic creation and expression. These intellectuals and artists were responsible for a huge range of productions of all sorts—they had a huge effect on literature, visual arts, music, and architecture. They wrote a huge number of scholarly publications, too. They were very much in love with Greece and with all things Greek. And they were in the public eye. Their love for Greece and for Greek culture, and their huge public profile, no doubt had a strong effect on public opinion in favor of Greece’s struggle for independence.
The movement to support the Greeks fighting for independence had an effect that went well beyond the help it provided to their cause. It generated an intellectual buzz that really made people sit up and take notice. It caused a kind of cultural reexamination—a not-so-moribund autopsy on the nascent idea of national identity—that was anything but idly curious. Yet, for all its good intentions, that buzz might have had another effect: a kind of “Stathis-Talk” effect—making and remaking Greek cultural superiority.
The history of Greek independence and the history of European intellectual life are both profoundly influenced by European Philhellenism. It was a political and cultural movement that crossed national boundaries and united people of all social classes and even different ideologies. For a concentrated but brief period, it managed to achieve a remarkable mobilization of enthusiasm and support across the whole of Europe. As it passed, it left behind a renewed thinking not only about the classical civilizations to which it was devoted but also about the emergence of modern nations—an idea that it was revolutionary in that period. To supporters of Philhellenism, the formation of modern national identities could not be seen as anything but a risky and quite nationalistic undertaking. Yet from our perspective, as we look back at Philhellenism, it is quite apparent that “Philhellenes” had not fully grasped the significance of modern nationalism.
elpedia.gr
Bibliography
- Pantelodemos – Pre-revolutionary literary Philhellenism in France
- Paouri – Social representations and stereotypes of Modern Greek History
- Billa – The search for Greek identity through folk song collection prologues
