THE BATTLE FOR ARAB CRETE

For the approximately one hundred and thirty five years, Crete, an island that is in the Greek popular consciousness, inextricably linked to the foundations of civilization and Greece itself, was one of the major foes of Byzantium. Commanding the sea lanes of the Eastern Mediterranean and functioning as a forward base and haven for pirate fleets that ravaged the Byzantine-controlled shores of the Aegean Sea, Crete was able to achieve considerable prosperity, not just through naval plundering but also, through more mainstream agriculture and trade. Moreover, its rulers did not speak Greek. Instead, for just over a century and a quarter, in the ninth century AD, the island of Crete was Arab speaking and formed an integral part of the Islamic world.

Though parts of Crete were temporarily occupied during the reign of the Caliph al-Walid I in approximately 710AD, it was, according to Arab legends, a revolt against Emir al Hakam I of Córdoba in Islamic Spain that caused a mass exodus of rebels to Alexandria in 818. Numbering over 10,000, they took over that city and held it until 827. Expelled in that year, according to Muslim sources, they landed, most probably on the north of the island, in 828, during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Michael. In time, they would come to found a city and main fortress near their landing place, to which they gave the name Chandax, from the Arabic “rabḍ al-kḫandaq,” meaning Castle of the Moat, a name that persisted until modern times, when the city was renamed Heracleion.

The leader of the Arabs, Abu Hafs, known in Byzantine sources as Απόχαψις, set about defeating a number of Byzantine attempts to reconquer Crete, commencing with an expedition under Photeinos, strategos of the Anatolic Theme, and Damianos, Count of the Stable, in which Damianos was killed. A year later, a Byzantine armada of seventy ships under the strategos of the Cibyrrhaeots, Krateros successfully landed on the island, but was then routed in an Arab night attack. Krateros managed to flee to Kos, but there he was captured by the Arabs and crucified.

Byzantine efforts to reconquer Crete were hampered by the Arab invasion of Sicily, where the Aghlabid Arabs set about establishing a polyethnic, sophisticated, multicultural and religiously tolerant regime in which the Sicilian Greeks played a key role, and the revolt of Thomas the Slav, which took place in Asia Minor. Unlike their counterparts in Sicily, the Cretan Arabs seem to have treated the land they conquered, at least in the early years as merely a base from which to conduct piratical expeditions, though this was to change. Consequently, the Arab conquest transformed the naval balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean and opened the hitherto secure Aegean Sea littoral to frequent raids. 

The Cretan Arabs thus were able to occupy several of the Cyclades islands, destroyed a Byzantine fleet off Thasos, raiding and pillaging Euboea, Lesbos, north western Asia Minor, the Peloponnese and Mount Athos. So devastating were the Cretan raids upon the Byzantine Empire that in 829, the Emperor Theophilos was compelled to send an embassy to Arab Emir Abd ar-Rahman II of Córdoba proposing a joint action against the erstwhile Andalusian rebel Cretans, though this proved fruitless. In an early exercise of global warfare and proving just how extensive the Arab world had become at this time, in 853, the Byzantines attacked the Egyptian naval base of Damietta, capturing weapons intended for Crete.

During the early 870s, the Cretan raids against the Byzantine intensified, aided as they were, by Byzantine renegades who adopted Islam. One such raid in 873 under the renegade Photios penetrated into the Marmara Sea and unsuccessfully attacked Proconnesos, near Constantinople. Though many of these raids were repulsed, the Cretan Arabs returned again and again, often reinforced by the Arab North African and Syrian fleets. As a result, the islands of Patmos, Karpathos and Sokastro came under Arab Cretan control, with Cretan Arab rule extending as far north as Aegina in the Saronic Gulf, and to Elafonisos and Cythera off the southern coast of the Peloponnese, while Naxos, Paros and Ios, was forced to pay the poll-tax or jizya, prescribed as payable by subject Christians to Muslim rulers. The impact of this wave of Arab raids from Crete, caused some Aegean islands to be deserted altogether, and many other coastal sites were abandoned for inland locations. It also appears that Athens may have been occupied between 896–902, by Cretan Arabs while in 904, Cretan Arabs took part in a Syrian expedition that sacked Thessalonica, the Byzantine Empire’s second most important city. 

While the Arabs of Crete ravaged the Byzantine Empire, we know little of prevailing social conditions on the island itself. Apart from a few place names recalling the presence of Arabs, there is little in terms of surviving archaeological evidence attesting to their long rule. Byzantine sources, unsurprisingly, given the amount of devastation caused by the Cretan Arabs, are extremely negative and this has traditionally influenced western scholars’ attitudes towards Arab rule in Crete.

From contemporary Muslim chroniclers, however, we can glean references of Arab Crete as being an orderly state with a balanced economy and enjoying extensive trading ties in the region, especially with Egypt and the rest of the Islamic world. Finds of gold, silver and copper coins of standardized weight attest to state regulated commerce, while it is believed that the Arab capital, Chandax, was a significant Islamic cultural centre. It is also considered that Arab rule saw an agricultural boom in Crete, with sugar cane first being introduced to the island during this time.

The fate of the Christian population of Crete during Arab rule is also a matter of debate. In the past, it was believed that the Cretans were either expelled, killed or converted to Islam in droves, a process that was repeated again during the Ottoman conquest. Careful analysis of the sources however, suggests that while large numbers of Cretans did convert to Islam especially in cities and along with the original invaders and other muslim migrants formed the majority of the population, Christians remained as a subject class, most particularly in the countryside. Theodosius the Deacon, for example, records that rural Christian Cretans, “inhabitants of crags and caves,” a metaphor that is reminiscent of Rhigas Pheraios’ “Thourion," almost a millennium later, descended from the mountains under their leader Karamountes during the siege of Chandax by Nikephoros Phokas to assist the besieged Muslim Arabs, against the Byzantines, their co-religionists. Further, in a surviving letter sent by the Patriarch Nikolaos Mystikos of Constnatinople to the Emir of Crete about the release of Byzantine prisoners the patriarch calls the emir an honourable man and praises his administration . He also adds that the Cretans and Romans (and it is noteworthy that the patriarchs considers the Cretans to be Arabs) could live side by side even though they have many religious differences. 
Eventually, successive Byzantine Emperors began a converted effort to rid the Empire of the Cretan menace for good. In 960, Emperor, Romanos II entrusted his general Nikephoros Phokas with a vast armada. In or July 960, Phokas landed on the island, and defeated the initial Muslim resistance. A long siege of Chandax followed, which endured until 6 March 961, when the Byzantines stormed the city. According to chroniclers, the Byzantines pillaged Chandax, and tore down its mosques and city walls. A massacre of its Muslim inhabitants took place, with many killed and others carted off to slavery, while Crete’s last Emir, Abd al-Aziz ibn Shu'ayb , known in the Byzantine sources as Kouroupas, and his son al-Numan, known as Anemas were taken captive and brought to Constantinople, where Phokas celebrated a triumph. Crete was converted into a Byzantine theme, and the remaining Muslims were converted to Christianity by such missionaries as St Nikon Metanoeite (meaning "Repent"), so called because his zeal in converting the population to Christianity. Among the Muslim converts was prince Anemas himself. He joined the Byznatine army and died at Dorystolon in 970, fighting against the Rus.

Capitalising upon his experience as the re-conqueror of Crete, Phokas went on to re-conquer Cilicia in Southern Asia Minor and Cyprus from the Arabs. His fame was so great, that he was able to utilise it in order to make an imperial marriage and propel himself to the Byzantine throne. Crete, on the other hand, thoroughly cleansed of one hundred and thirty five years of Islamic Arab rule, to the extent that little lasting legacy or memory remained of it, abided in Byzantine hands until 1204, when it was occupied by the Venetians. Today, all that remains to bear witness of the time when the Cretans were Arabs and the Arabs, Cretans, is a few scattered placenames: Sarkenos, Souda, Aposelemis (Abu Salim) and Choumeri. This is a battle for Crete that to all intents and purposes, has been  forgotten.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 26 May 2018

THE HOLOCAUST OF THE OLD GODS

Superficially, at least, Constantine Cavafy’s enigmatic last ever poem, completed just days before his death in 1933, “On the Outskirts of Antioch,” focuses upon an episode in the life of the controversial Emperor Julian the Apostate, who decreed that the Roman Empire discard Christianity as its official religion and return to the old gods instead. In the poem, Cavafy relates how the god Apollo refused to provide any more oracles until the remains of Christian martyrs were removed from the environs of his temple. Thus:
“We in Antioch were astonished when we heard/ what Julian was up to now./ Apollo had made things clear to him at Daphni:/ he didn’t want to give an oracle (as though we cared!),/ he didn’t intend to speak prophetically, unless/ his temple at Daphni was purified first./ The nearby dead, he declared, got on his nerves.”

The most offensive of the dead to the god Apollo, was the martyr Vavylas, and the removal of his remains seemed to have been a matter of some urgency: “There are many tombs at Daphni./ One of those buried there/ was the triumphant and holy martyr Vavylas,/ wonder and glory of our church./ It was him the false god hinted at, him, he feared./ As long as he felt him near he didn’t dare/ pronounce his oracle: not a murmur./ The false gods are terrified of our martyrs.)

Unholy Julian got worked up,/ lost his temper and shouted: “Raise him, carry him out,/ take him away immediately, this Vavylas./ You there, do you hear? He gets on Apollo’s nerves./ Grab him, raise him at once,/ dig him out, take him away, throw him out,/ take him/ wherever you want. This isn’t a joke./ Apollo said the temple has to be cleansed.”

In accordance with Julian’s wishes, the faithful gather to remove the bones of the saint: “We took it, the holy relic, and carried it elsewhere./ We took it, we carried it away in love and in honour.” This having been done, retribution, whether by divine, or other means, is not long in coming: “And hasn’t the temple done brilliantly since!/ In no time at all a colossal fire/ broke out, a terrible fire,/ and both the temple and Apollo burned to nothing./ Ashes the idol: dirt to be swept away. Julian exploded, and he spread it around/—what else could he do?—that we, the Christians,/ had set the fire. Let him say so./ It hasn’t been proved. Let him say so./ The essential thing is—he exploded.”

As with all his works, Cavafy’s poem is imbued with a multiplicity of meanings. Ostensibly referring to the triumph of Christianity over paganism, a close reading of the text reveals that the poem acts also, as a coded metaphor for the Asia Minor Catastrophe and the annihilation of the Greek presence in that region, in 1922.

According to this reading, given that Apollo is the god of civilisation, it is the Allied Powers, through the League of Nations that order Eleutherios Venizelos, (equally as revisionist and apostatic in the eyes of half of the Greek population at the time, as Julian himself), to remove the remains of the martyred Greeks of Asia Minor (personified by the remains of Vavylas), somewhere else, so that the problem of the co-existence of Christians and Muslims, Turks and Greeks within Asia Minor, cease to vex the International Community and “get on their nerves.” They threaten to withhold their aid, (“the oracle”) until this is done. In particular, the verse describing the translation of the relics of Vavylas are eerily reminiscent of harrowing accounts of the long processions of Asia Minor refugees, fleeing their villages, carrying their church labara, relics and the bones of their ancestors before them, to a new land.

The irreverent Cavafy has “false gods” tremble before such martyrs. Here, he is quite possibly parodying what he perceived to be Eleutherios Venizelos’ blind trust and belief in the absolute benevolence of the Allies, even as they betray him. Without question, he agrees to their demands, lest he incur the ire of his gods, for after all, in an expression that is a disquieting precursor for ethnic cleansing, “the temple has to be cleansed,” and no alternative course of action is to be considered. As such, he becomes the unwitting tool for the destruction of Hellenism in the East. We know from the writings of his friends, that Cavafy had mild monarchist leanings and thought poorly of Venizelos and his politics, for his conception of Hellenism transcended the bounds of the nation-state.

Having left Asia Minor/ the temple, a great conflagration breaks out which renders everything before it to ashes. Is this a not-so veiled reference to the great Holocaust of Smyrna, where the warships of the World Powers remained anchored in the harbour, watching the city being burnt and its inhabitants massacred without intervening? When Cavafy relates that Apollo is burnt to nothing, is he implying that in the aftermath of one of the greatest ever humanitarian disasters, caused in no small part by the cynicism and vested interests of the powers underwriting the League of Nations, that our faith in those International Institutions that supposedly bring about justice are now ashes? He is certainly prescient, given that the League of Nations went on to perish in an even large conflagration, that of the Second World War and the Holocaust. Furthermore, given the destruction of Smyrna, is it one of the most powerful driving forces of Modern Greek foreign policy, the “Megali Idea,” that is the idol that is consumed to dust in Apollo’s conflagration? 

Certainly, the final verse, supports the view that in the arson of the god Apollo’s temple, Smyrna’s destruction is being referenced. When he states: “he spread it around—

what else could he do?—that we, the Christians, had set the fire,” Cavafy seems to conflate Julian/ Venizelos with Venizelos’ partner in achieving the population exchange in Asia Minor: Kemal Atatürk, who famously blamed the burning of Smyrna on the Christian Greeks and Armenians. Similarly, Eleutherios Venizelos blamed the mismanagement of the war which saw the Greek presence in Asia Minor go up in flames upon the royalists. If it is Atatürk that Cavafy is inferring, then his last line, in which he is said to have “exploded,” (the Greek is έσκασε and here means to be upset) is doubly ironic, for the condition of exploding/being upset (σκασίλα), translates in the colloquial as not caring in the slightest.

Considering that Cavafy was an inhabitant of Alexandria, one of the greatest Hellenistic cities, that his historical poems generally are set during Hellenistic and/or Byzantine times, when the lands ruled by Greeks reached their greatest geographical extent and that he was attracted to characters and themes existing upon the margins of Hellenism and which expressed its decline in multi-faceted forms, it is ironic but not unexpected, that in the last poem of his life, he chose to deal with the final act of the most marked contraction and reversal of the geographical spread of Hellenism, the Holocaust of Smyrna. His paralleling of Antioch with Smyrna is inspired because in many ways Antioch is its counterpart: historically a vibrant and important centre of Greek civilisation that was repeatedly and violently sacked, burnt and fell into decay, until it was written out of the Greek discourse altogether. 

Despite his lament and deeply emotive evocation of the Asia Minor Catastrophe, embedded within Cavafy’s poem are the seeds of survival, the prophetic keys to the regeneration of Hellenism, unconstrained by borders and narrow ideologies: “We took it, the holy relic, and carried it elsewhere./ We took it, we carried it away in love and in honour.” And we did take it, that holy relic, far from the blasted lands of conflict and genocide, into continents Cavafy‘s heroes never imagined existed. We retained it, and founded colonies of such hellenisticity as to rival Cavafy’s own poetic geography. And though we declined in the same bittersweet and disarmingly innocent manner in which Cavafy’s described our forefathers’ fate, we keep it still, and will continue to do so, preserving the ashes and the memory of those who burned to keep it for us, until the time comes for that imperishable holy relic, in love and honour, to be carried away, somewhere else.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on 19 May 2018

DEFINITION SHIFT

Some years ago, I was re-reading Stratis Myrivilis’ classic anti-war novel «Η ζωή εν τάφω,» (Life in the Tomb), a harrowing account of life in the trenches of the Macedonian Front during the First World War, first published in 1924. Suddenly I stopped. In a scene describing how he was billeted with a Slav family, the author describes the woman as a «Μακεδονίτισσα,» that is, a Macedonian woman. In another passage, the author goes on to observe that the Slavs of the region he found himself in, «δὲ θέλουν νά ᾽ναι μήτε Μπουλγκάρ, μήτε Σρρπ, μήτε Γκρρτς. Μονάχα Μακεντὸν ὀρτοντόξ,» that is, “they don't want to be neither Bulgarian, nor Serbian nor Greek. Only Macedonian Orthodox." Tellingly, in later editions, Myrivilis, who came from the island of Lesbos, removed this most contentious sentence, but allowed the reference to the Μακεδονίτισσα to remain.

I was dumfounded. Here was no less a personage than Stratis Myrvilis, three time nominee for the Nobel Prize for Literature, and strident anti-communist, in a novel that established him as a master craftsman of Greek prose, and with the work itself constituting a turning point in the development of Modern Greek prose fiction, describing Slavs as Macedonian, at a time when, according to the vast majority of accounts, the so-called “Macedonian ethnic identity” had neither been invented nor articulated. Furthermore, his subsequently deleted observation seemed to attest to the fact that despite Greek and Bulgarian assertions to the contrary, in some sections of the regional Slavic population at least, there must have, during the First World War, which is the period Myrivilis describes, some sort of conviction that they had a “Macedonian identity,” regardless of whether this was historically plausible. I was deeply disquieted.

 My sense of mystification grew upon discovering in Ion Dragoumis’ influential  book «Μαρτύρων και ηρώων αίμα, (Blood of Martyrs and Heroes) published in 1907, presents a dialogue between a Greek and Bulgarian prisoner in Thessaloniki, in which reference to a «Μακεδονικὴ γλῶσσα» (a Macedonian language) is made. In the dialogue, the Greek protagonist goes on to deny that the language is Bulgarian, stating: «Σεῖς θέλετε νὰκάμετε δικὸ σας τὸ διαμέρισμα τοῦ Μοναστηριοῦ καὶ τὸ Μοναστήρι, ἐπειδὴ βρίσκονται μερικὰ χωριὰ ἐκεῖποὺ μιλοῦν τὴν μακεδονικὴ γλῶσσα, ποὺ τὴ λέτε σεῖς βουλγάρικη». (You want to make the region of Monastiri and Monastiri yours, because there are a few villages there  that speak the Macedonian language, which you call Bulgarian). Astoundingly, Ioan Dragoumis has the Greek prisoner go on to state that: «Τὴ γλῶσσα αὐτὴπρῶτα-πρῶτα δὲν τὴν μιλοῦν ὅλοι, ἀλλὰ μόνο μερικοὶ Μακεδόνες, χωριάτες. Ἔπειτα, ἐκεῖνοι ποὺ τὴσυνηθίζουν, τὴ μιλοῦν μόνο στὸ σπίτι καὶ ὄχι στὴν ἀγορὰ, ὅπου μιλιοῦνται τὰ ἑλληνικὰ, καὶ τέλος ἡ γλῶσσααὐτὴ δὲν εἶναι βουλγάρικη, ἀλλὰ ἕνα ἀνακάτωμα ἀπὸ σλαυικὰ καὶ ἑλληνικἀ. Βουλγαρικὴ γλῶσσα δὲνεἶναι…» (Firstly, this language is not spoken by all but only by some Macedonians, villagers. Further, those who use it, only speak it at home and not in the marketplace, where Greek is used and finally, this language is not Bulgarian, but a mixture of Slavic and Greek. It is not Bulgarian.” In one fell swoop, Ion Dragoumis not only appears to disagree with the Modern Greek contention that the language of FYROM is Bulgarian, but is adamant in showing that it has not relationship with Bulgarian whatsoever.

This is significant because Ion Dragoumis was one of the main instigators of the Macedonian Struggle and it is arguable that if it was not for him, Macedonia would not have been liberated and included within the Modern Greek State at all. Indeed, his book Blood of Martyrs and Heroes which contains the above contentious passages, was written by Dragoumis in order to tacitly argue for the annexation of the region to Greece. What possible reason could this ultra-patriotic nationalist Greek hero have to advance a position which if propounded today, would have him branded a traitor and a communist by even mild-mannered contemporary Greek patriots?

In her children's book about the Macedonian Struggle: Τα μυστικά του βάλτου (Mysteries of the Swamp) (1937) Penelope Delta referred to the slavic idiom as "Μακεδονική διάλεκτο" (the Macedonian Dialect). Elsewhere, she states: «Ἦταν ἕνα κράμα ὅλων τῶν βαλκανικῶν ἐθνικοτήτων τότε ἡ Μακεδονία. Ἕλληνες, Βούλγαροι, Ρουμάνοι, Σέρβοι, Αλβανοί, Χριστιανοὶ καὶ Μουσουλμάνοι, ζοῦσαν φύρδην-μίγδην κάτω ἀπόταὸν βαρύ ζυγὸ τῶν Τούρκων. Ἡ γλῶσσα τους ἦταν ἡ ἴδια, μακεδονίτικη, ἕνα κράμα καὶ αὐτή ἀπὸ σλαβικὰκαὶ ἑλληνικά, ἀνακατωμένα μὲ λέξεις τούρκικες..» (“Macedonia was then a conglomeration of all the Balkan ethnicities. Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanian, Serbs, Albanian, Christians and Muslim lived higgledy piggedly under the heavy Turkish yoke. Their language was the same, Macedonic, a conglomeration of Slavic and Greek, mixed in with Turkish words.”)

Quite apart from the fact that Penelope Delta was Ion Dragoumis’ lover, in possibly one of the most powerful and tragic love-affairs of early Modern Greece, like Dragoumis, Delta was a staunch proponent of the necessity to liberate and annex Macedonia to the Greek state. How is it possible then, that she would advance a position about the language of the region that appears to refute the oft-cited Greek contention that there is no such thing as a Macedonian language and that the concept was invented by Tito in 1944, especially when Delta predates Tito by seven years and Dragoumis, by thirty seven? 

 Furthermore, as  early as 1858, in the newspaper Αυγή, (Dawn) intellectual Alexander Rhangavis made fun of Bulgarian philhellene and accomplished poet in the Greek language Gregor Parlichev, also known as Grigorios Stavridis for writing a poem protesting against the disrespect shown by a visiting Russian, in a Greek church. Rhangavis stated that as Parlichev, who was the winner of the prestigious Academy of Athens poetry prize and was hailed as the “Second Homer” was a “Macedonian” (he was born in Ohrid) he ought to be grateful to the Russians. Parlichev himself identified as Bulgarian. Why would Rhangavis, refer to him as a Macedonian, almost a century before the concept of such an ethnic identity existed?

From the above examples we can see that even among nationalistic Greeks there has been inconsistency in the use of terms to describe the Slavs of the region and/or their language. In Rhangavis’ example, the term Macedonian is used maliciously, he seeking to impugn Parlichev’s attachment to Greece by emphasising his Slavic roots supposedly giving him an affinity to the Russians he so derides. There is no evidence however, that Rhangavis is using the term in an ethnic sense. He is merely being extremely nasty and stupid.

Even in the cases of Dragoumis and Delta, their musings over the “Macedonian language,” should not necessarily be taken as supporting the linguistic aspirations of the modern inhabitants of FYROM.  None of them were linguists. Instead, their observations are deeply political. In the face of Bulgarian claims on the region and the irrefutable fact that a Slavic idiom was spoken there, both Dragoumis and Delta are seeking to differentiate that idiom from Bulgarian as much as possible, by emphasizing its hybrid quality (both claim it is a conglomeration) and its regional quality, which is why Dragoumis describes it as “Macedonian” and Delta as “Macedonic.” None of them recognize a “Macedonian” ethnic identity. Dragoumis’ dialogue in  his book then cleverly goes on to state that language is no determinate of ethnic  identity, having his Greek protagonist state:  «Θέλουν ὅμως ἢ δὲν θέλουν νὰ εἶναι ἕλληνες; Καὶ ἀφοῦ τὸ θέλουν, δὲν ξέρω ἂν ἡ γλῶσσα ποὺ μιλεῖ κανεὶςεἶναι ἀρκετὴ ὰπόδειξη τοῦ ἐθνισμοῦ ἑνὸς λαοῦ.» (“Do they or do they not want to be Greeks? And since they do, I don’t know whether the language one speaks constitutes adequate proof of a people’s ethnic identity.”) In other words, in a period before any “Macedonian identity” was claimed, Dragoumis tried to differentiate a regional language from Bulgarian nationalist aspirations by regionally rebranding it, in a manner what would have been completely out of context today. He then goes on to advance the contention that the Slavs speaking the idiom he terms Macedonian, are lapsed Greeks, which is why linguistic considerations, in his view, are unimportant when assessing ethnic identity.

As for Myrivilis’ observation that persons he came across identified as “Macedonian Orthodox,” does this constitute evidence of the emergence of such an identity, much earlier than is commonly accepted by Greeks? Or does it merely evidence a reaction of a people, caught between competing nationalist claims, not wishing to buy into either, a theory considered by historian Nada Boskovska, in her book “Macedonia (sic) before Tito.” The fact that he caused the observation to be removed in later editions, when the Macedonian issue took a different turn, probably suggests that he too, was merely trying to distance the Slav speakers he came across from the Bulgarians, in order to “gain them from Hellenism,” in a manner which would be unacceptable to the contemporary Greek position on the Macedonian Issue. After all, just because the people Myrivilis describes felt that they were “Macedonian,” doesn’t mean that they actually were.

Ultimately, the terms we use reflect political necessities and context, of the times. Their meanings and connotations shift over time in a manner in which their original coiners have no control and if taken out of their historical frame of reference can give rise to misunderstandings and misconceptions.  Had they lived now, it is most likely that the above mentioned authors would have avoided those contentious terms. Nonetheless, the way they employed them in their own writing testifies to crucial changes in the negotiation of identity, within the geographical region of Macedonia, prior to the emergence of the Macedonian issue in its most modern form.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 12 May 2018

THE EUROVISION CODE

I don’t know about you, but I am incensed but not unduly astonished at the poor reception afforded by Europeans to Greece’s worthy contribution to the Eurovision song contest.

In the song “Όνειρο μου,” (My dream), the anglic Yianna Terzi ostensibly articulates a melancholy tone poem that, just like the current Greek government, broadcasts a profound message to the effect that she will not change, she will not adapt, she will not adulterate even one note of her song in order to pander to the questionable and of considerably less pedigree than our own, aesthetic preferences and preconceptions of the Europeans. Her song, a typical Greek ballad, is a sad, lonely one.

Just like modern Greece, it is composed of a few variations that repeat themselves ad nauseum, contributing to that bitter-sweet sense of ennui that so encapsulates the modern Greek condition. Just like modern Greece, these variations drag on and on, leading nowhere. What the noble and possessed of incredible poise Yianna Terzi has remarkably done, is to convincingly interpret a song that personifies contemporary crisis-ridden Greece, and to compel the rest of the Europeans, finally to come face to face with her, a musical J’ accuse, if there ever was one.

The Europeans of course have turned that vision away, voting Greece out of the competition, for in the crass Babylon of Eurovision, true images are heresy and must be covered up. That they have done so, is derisory for encoded within Terzi’s ostensible J’accuse and staunch assertion of the Greek identity within the cacophonous melting pot of Europe united, is in fact, a deep and heart-felt profession of love, loyalty and devotion, to Europe, its leaders and of course, its bankers.

Thus, while in the first stanza, Terzi attributes European disdain at modern Greeks to a misunderstanding, that does not deserve condemnation. Our supposed inability to conform to European norms or indeed the regulations of the troika can be justified. What is required here is a deep connection, an opportunity for the West to penetrate our inner most sanctum, deeply and thoroughly, in order to allow a satisfied Greece to whole-heatedly embrace the dream that is Europe. Terzi thus implores: “If you plumb my depths/ you will awaken my dream./ And if you see my heart/ I will embrace you.”

Articulation and words are important because though Greece means well, it is obvious the bankers are not getting the message. They think Greece is defying them, or is being deliberately recalcitrant, not realising that this is solely due to Prime Minister Tsipras’ novel but brave command of the English language. Terzi’s second stanza, bravely and boldly, addresses the bankers and seeks clarification: “Who do you want me to say it?” What she/Greece wants to tell Europe and the bankers is that domestic reference aside and adopting Elena Paparizou’s sure-fire proven method for Eurovision success, “that I would die for you.” As if to drive this powerful message home, she rephrases: “I would give you my life,” going on to enunciate a profession of faith, in which there can be no reality without the totality of Europe and its financiers, and accordingly no recourse against it: “Beginning and End, you are Everything.”

Obviously, as heartfelt these professions of utter subjection are, Terzi feels that they are nowhere near enough to mitigate the righteous anger of the bankers. For this reason, she feels that the time has come to discard the mouthing of platitudes and address the root cause of the bankers’ wrath. This is, in her opinion, the constant threats by the Greek government to “rip up” the Greek Memorandum of Understanding and its supplements, struck between it and its creditors, or expressions of defiance as to its provisions. Consequently, Terzi is quick to reassure the bankers that the memoranda will be adhered to, to the letter, no matter the cost: “As much as I am in pain/ I would never erase you from my charter.” Again, everything is just a misunderstanding. The bankers’ ire seems to be intense and they must be receiving her affirmations of obedience with scepticism, for at this juncture, Terzi feels that she needs to underwrite her performance of the Memorandum with the only security she/Greece has left to her disposal, her life: “I would give you my life.” This reflects her legal understanding of the Memorandum as the sole repository of any agreement between the parties, as she reaffirms: “Beginning and End, you are Everything.”

It is only at the end of this dolorous dirge to Greece’s divested dignity, that Terzi offers us insight as to the reasons for such abject submission and she offers these by way of justification: “Because you want to change me/ and wash away my blue.” The stanza is laden with ambiguity. Are we lamenting the demographic and social changes affecting Greece over the past decade, or are we applauding Europe’s presiding over these? Given that blue is the colour of Greece, is Terzi protesting against a perceived de-Hellenisation of Greece, lamenting the loss of its sovereignty, therefore placing her prior expressions of devotion in the context of a Stalinist purge victim professing love for the Party prior to being sent to the Gulag? Or is blue, in fact, the blues, with Terzi variously offering gratitude to the bankers for stamping on a derivative and clichéd emerging blues culture in Athens, or by means of a financial lobotomy, thanking them for curing her of depression?

The last verse in the stanza, offers a clue: “If you speak to my mountains/ my loneliness will hear you.” Here Terzi again is offering collateral. The mountains are prefaced by a proprietorial “my.” The mountains of Greece, unlike everything else, are still owned by Greece, and therefore, Terzi points out, they too can be mortgaged. Moreover, as they are unoccupied, their erstwhile inhabitants having had to migrate to seek a sane and better life elsewhere in the wake of the Greek Crisis, vacant possession can immediately be provided.

This profound and thought-provoking aside however, is lost towards the end of the song, which consists of Terzi repeating that she would give her live for the bankers and again mouthing the mantra that they are all. The song is bone-crushingly heavy. It places itself firmly under the jackboot of European financial benevolence and yet by its end fails to resolve itself. Furthermore, no one likes a victim whining, especially its bully, and predators are known to treat ‘sure things’ with contempt, instead becoming aroused by the pursuit of more lively and possibly inflammatory prey. It is unfortunate but unsurprisingly therefore, that after being granted the statutory one audience, Terzi and Greece, are relegated to the outer darkness. Obviously submission has come too late.

Enter the infernal Entela Fureraj, also known as Eleni Foureira, representing Cyprus in Eurovision with her explosive song “Fuego.” Rather than sook in an obscure language no other European can understand, the elusive Entela, who can slip as seamlessly between cultures, identities and languages as she can slip into impossibly tight-fitting garb, therein to mimic Beyonce and Shakira respectively, energetically and orgiastically gyrates and bounces on stage as she conveys a simple message for the bankers in English, even as her posterior leaves them breathless: “‘Cause I’m way up and I ain’t comin’ down/

Keep taking me higher. /’Cause I’m burning up and I ain’t coolin’ down/ Yeah I got the the fire.” In other words, Cyprus is on the way up because it acknowledges that it can only do so in partnership with the bankers, who are the real ones who are taking her higher. Most importantly, Eleni/ Cyprus is possessed of commercially viable quantities of combustibles. Literally, she has the “fire,” and the possession of this resource, makes Cyprus and Eleni, a greatly to be preferred economic resource.

Unlike Terzi’s the funereal Greek lament, Eleni’s defiance of the bankers is nuanced and sophisticated. It too however has a message encoded within it. At the same time that she is placating the bankers by attributing to them, everything that she needs: “I was looking for some high-high-highs, yeah ‘Til I got a dose of you,” Eleni goes on to evoke a bizarre image: “You got me pelican fly-fly-flyin.'” Bizarre that is, until one realises that traditionally, the pelican was believed to pierce its own breast with its beak and feed its young of its blood. As such, the pelican became a symbol of Christ sacrificing himself for mankind and need one be reminded who it was that threw the money-lenders of the Temple in the first place?

“Cause I’m… Fuego Fuego Ah yeah ah yeah ah yeah, yeah ah yeah ah yeah Fuego,” warns Eleni. Fire also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. In the books of Hosea and Nahum, God’s anger burns and pours out like fire. In Isaiah, the ability for God to eliminate sin and purify his people, is expressed as fire, and in Thessalonians and the Revelation, God’s future and final judgment is often depicted as fire as well. The decoded message is now clear: A conflagration of Biblical proportions awaits any European or banker who purports to mess with Eleni and Cyprus. Eurovision you have been warned: You play with fire at your peril.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Thursday 10 May 2018