Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration.

A Case Study of Trieste

Marianna D. Christopoulos
Aristotle 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 environment. The focus of this study is the formation of the community of Greek immigrants 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 native 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 examines the role of the community in the process of immigrants integration into the host society. , , . . (1786), . , , , .

Community: A Quest

for

Definition

After a painstaking review of a long and varied bibliography, one comes to the conclusion that any attempt to define the term community is elusive1. G. Hillarys wellknown 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 approaches 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 simiRepresentations

24

Marianna D. 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 abstract, 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 exercise their power more efficiently. Influenced by different historical circumstances, the administration of communities has varied from area to area. For example, the communities 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 community 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 levying 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: representation of the community in the Ottoman administration, tax-collection, and the provision 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, Pantazopoulos9 and Giannopoulos10, that a community is essentially a social institution of local administration. Historiographical debate has focused on the origins and evolution 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-

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

25

tys 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 reflects international historiographical trends. Its origin may be traced to autobiographies written by the communities themselves. Until the 20th-century Greek historians focused on the communities role in relationship to the national question, their contribution 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 societys 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 theoretical framework through which to study this phenomenon. Apart from attempted definitions or theoretical frameworks offered in the introductory chapters of a multitude 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 undertaken. 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 diaspora, 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 immigrant population in a host country is referred to, the word (paroikia) is used. Unfortunately this term has no direct English equivalent, but in its literal usage it signifies living near someone elses household, that is, an organized entity. According 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, Chasiotes definition 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, confraternities were also viewed as a means of confirming and strengthening the social, economic and cultural ties between people with common interests. In many cases confraternities evolved as social organisations or business associations; the latter were referred to as Sc(u)ola16. In regions where Catholicism predominated, confraternities were the
Representations

26

Marianna D. Christopoulos

principal and most common form of institutional or group organization. For this reason, 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 communities, even when the term Comunit [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 Venice, 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 Comunit dei Greci17. 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 moving 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 community as an internal unifying bond among immigrants hence the tendency of Orthodox groups of diverse backgrounds to co-exist in communities until the emergence 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 community 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 evolution 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 community. 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 countrys 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

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

27

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. Consequently, 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 Balkans. 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 particularly 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 commercial advantages over the Ottomans which resulted in the extension of its trade routes southward into the Balkans20. Despite the Hapsburgs efforts to advance Austrian entrepreneurial 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 navigation in the Adriatic and promised to facilitate mercantile enterprise. The same motivation 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]. Charless 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 immigrants. Its seaport was located at the crossroads of land and sea routes, and was connected with major commercial centres like Leipzig, Carinthia, Istria, Lombardy, Ancona, Venice, Tuscany, Naples and Sicily as well as the Adriatic coastal areas. Furthermore,
Representations

28

Marianna D. Christopoulos

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 seaport 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 Reign23. 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, centralized state to the redefinition of the relationship between Church and state, these changes also encompassed agrarian reform and public education for all Austrian subjects24. 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 particular, 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 establishment 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 selfinterest 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 KatsiardiHerings 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 communitys 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

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

29

to appoint Charles Pelegrini as their mediator in Trieste29. The objectives of Triestes 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. Damascene Homer submitted requests to the Trieste authorities concerning the settlement 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 Homers requests were accepted. Admittedly, Triestes Catholics 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 illustrates 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 condition 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 Italian). It was the second corroboration of the Emperors declaration in 1719, the first being 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 community 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 nationalities 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 provide for the Illyrians religious needs. That, combined with the fact that the Illyrians outnumbered the Greeks, especially in the Hungarian dominions, gave them sufficient
Representations

30

Marianna D. Christopoulos

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 spiritual 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 disappeared33. 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 compromise 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 nationalities34. 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 church35.

Organization

of the

Greek Community: The Statutes

of

1786

The organization of the life of a community is often most clearly illustrated in its statutes. 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 community during its early stages. A key feature of the Statutes was a clause that divided the members of the Community 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-

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

31

munity members into four classes according to their financial status and their corresponding required contribution to the Communitys funds. Moreover, provision was made for the revision of an individuals 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, attracted 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 membership 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 contributions remained unaltered until 1803, when it was amended for the first time. However, the clause dictating members participation according to their contribution was never eliminated from the Communitys Statutes. The argument that he who contributes 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-contributions. 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 Community, 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 Communitys open attitude towards Trieste society is clearly indicated by
Representations

32

Marianna D. Christopoulos

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 distinguishing characteristic. The fact that Greeks conceived their Community as a national-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 Venices, 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 Fortys rejection of the proposal to exclude Slavs from the Venetian community40. The Trieste Communitys 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 Trieste. 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 Orthodox to whom the church belonged. This emphasized the Communitys Greekness, and defined the national-religious identity of the genos [the Greek people]. A vivid example 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 Communitys daily needs could not have been looked after by absentee governors who were out of touch with the life of the Community. 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 indigenousness, 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 Communitys 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 mercantile 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-

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

33

tive assemblies for greater effectiveness43. Secondly, one can note the influence of those members who came from other communities which had already instituted representative 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 Trieste44. 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 advantage 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 Trieste Capitolo possessed both advisory and executive powers, and it functioned so effectively that its governing regulations were copied into the Venice communitys 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 criteria 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 secretary. 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 minimize 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 administrative 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 following information regarding the make-up of the community council of Thessaloniki in the early modern period: During the first Ottoman occupation of Thessaloniki (13911403, according to Archbishop Isidoro Glava), the Ottomans coarsely treated even the leaders of communities who had been elected from the wealthiest and noblest Greek
Representations

34

Marianna D. Christopoulos

families47. 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 Mary48. The weighty appellations 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 preferential 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 measures. 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-governors, 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 welfare 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 involved service as a revenue officer, responsible for church properties, the Communitys 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.

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

35

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 permission 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 attitude towards the clergy indicates how the wealthy and secularized mercantile communities51 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 contemporary developments in the Hapsburg Empire. It was during the period under discussion 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 states 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 Churchs historical role under Ottoman rule, according to which all Orthodox subjects constituted an entity recognized by the Sultan as the Orthodox millet, the head of which was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus under the Patriarchs 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 Communitys children. Besides responding to the Greeks own wishes, this plan was also prompted by Maria Theresas request that the Greek children in Trieste receive an education. Her request was part of her overall reformation of the empires educational 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 auRepresentations

36

Marianna D. Christopoulos

thorities of Trieste56. The appointment of teachers also followed Austrian state ordinances57. The schools 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 recommended 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 increased fees were introduced. Understandably, poorer students were exempted from paying tuition, and it was the affluent parents who contributed most to the schools 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 conclusion 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 painful 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 aspect. Wherever they may have settled, [the ancient Greeks] managed to preserve Greek identity, language and traditions and transmit them to neighboring peoples. In contrast, the Greeks abroad today, after the first generation, have been Russianized, Germanized, Italianized59

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 describe 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 attachment to their forefathers both in the host country and in the land of origin. Among the phases of a communitys life that mark progressive integration are: increased incidents of intermarriage; involvement in the political activity of the host country; expanding

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

37

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 chiefly 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 Golesku, 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 elsewhere63. Moreover, after the declaration of Trieste as a porto franco, the city became a cosmopolitan seaport embracing Greeks, Serbs, Armenians, Jews, and northern European Lutherans 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 other64. 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. Safrans suggestion that that very tolerance may make minorities feel so at home as to dissipate their cultural alienation and, hence, their diasporic identities65. 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 between the state and the Community. There were times, especially during the Communitys initial years, when rights and privileges were conferred only after a struggle. But even
Representations

38

Marianna D. Christopoulos

in these cases rationality and good will prevailed. Trieste itself seems to have been one of the empires favoured children, and the benefits of this preference were enjoyed by its foreign 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 citys emerging bourgeois class68. Coexistence inevitably led to intermarriage. At first the Trieste communitys 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 communitys acceptance of entering Austrian society at large69. In certain cases, the entrance and acceptance of Greeks into the predominantly mercantile 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 community. 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 frequent 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 intermarriage 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 oversimplification 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.

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

39

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 society. 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 integration. 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 mutual 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 foreign 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 triestinit. During the three French occupations of the seaport of Trieste, Greeks for ideological and financial reasons participated in the citys 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 citys 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 community, 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 socioeconomic ranks, the community strove to preserve its own unity. One of the Capitolos
Representations

40

Marianna D. Christopoulos

main duties was to advise, reprimand and, in the worst case, ostracize any members whose disobedience threatened the structure and existence of the Community74. However, 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 Austrian courts, while the Capitolo was assigned to prevent this from going that far whenever possible. Another example of this tendency to protect and isolate its members can be seen in the Communitys 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 Communitys intent to preserve 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 immigrants 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 immigration not only boosted the Greek population, but also helped rekindle the ethnic sentiments of the older settlers. It should be noted that the defensive bulwark provided by the Communitys ethnic and religious character was not an indirect outcome; it was a conscious aim of its governing 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 recommendation 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, community officials appear to have increasingly enjoyed the public recognition that came through interaction with the Austrian authorities, and as time went on, they grew increasingly at ease in Austrian society. Another example of the communitys horizontal functioning was the previously-mentioned 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 inevitably lead to friendships and affinities between Triestes Greeks and Austrians in the future. An even more radical proposal deriving from the Communitys 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 Community, particularly those in the first three classes, displayed increasing affinity with Austrian

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

41

society75. Apart from accepting intermarriage, the Communitys 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 government and greater control over the empires administration and agencies. In their view, the Community probably seemed to function as an instrument through which the government could reach every Greek newcomer77. Examples of the Austrian governments interest in the community include firstly, the authorities expectation that the Greek Community school be placed under its supervision, and secondly, the compulsory presence of a government representative in Assembly meetings during the elections of the candidates. The presence of an Austrian representative witnessing the Communitys 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 compulsory 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 Communitys 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 Communitys cultural background and heritage. As E.J. Hobsbawm remarks, the emergence of nation-states that bring about the absorption of smaller communities within their borders does not necessarily lead to a repudiation of the communitys 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 between two different cultures80. This ambivalence is well-illustrated in the later political 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 nation-state deprived Greek immigrants of a mother country that would psychologically 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 integration and the influence of the Greek state, through its consulate in Cairo, which from the inception of the Greek community had strengthened the Greek immigrants sense of belonging to, and being protected by, a motherland82. The Trieste Community also welcomed the creation of the Greek national state which boosted its national sentiRepresentations

42

Marianna D. Christopoulos

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 obstructive. 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.

Notes
1 2 3

4 5

Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, London 1996, pp. 114-5. G. Hillary, Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement, in Rural Sociology, 1995, 20, pp.111-123. L.W. Warner, Social Anthropology and Modern Community, in American Journal of Sociology, 1941, 46, 6, pp. 785-796. A. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community, London 1985, p. 30. For the history of those communities see: . -, (13 18 .), Venice 2004, p.43 ff. . , ,, vol. B1, Thessaloniki 1964, pp. 279-314. . , , Athenes 1970 (orig. ed. 1853) passim. . , , Athens 1882, passim. . , , Athens 1958, passim. I. , , , and in , Athens 1971, pp. 98-110, 134-143. . , , Athens 1982, passim. . , , Athens 1988, passim. 13 . Hering, From the Greek Communities Abroad to the Historiography of the Migration problem (15th -19th century) and . , Post World War II approaches to Greek migration both in: 1833-2002, vol. II, Kentro Neoellinikon Erevnon, Ethnikou Idrimatos Erevnon, Athens 2004, pp. 223-249 and 250-269 respectively. I. , , Thessaloniki 1993, pp. 20-21. . , 16 ., Athens 1976, pp. 6-10. B. Pullan, Poverty and Charity Europe, Italy, Venice 1400-1700, Great Yarmouth 1994, pp. 1-13. . -, 1797-1866 Thessaloniki 1978, p. 7.

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14 15

16 17

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

43

18

19

20

For types of migration see: W. Petersen, A General Typology of Migration, in R. Cohen (ed.), Theories of Migration, London 1996, pp. 256-266. T. Stoianovich, The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant, in Journal of Economic History, 1960, 20, 2, pp. 259-263. 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. O. , Hering, (1751-1830), vol. I, Athens 1986, p. 8. Id., T: in : , , vol. I, Athens 1985, pp. 43-48. P. G.M. Dickson, Finance and Government under Maria Theresia 1740-1780, vol. I, Oxford 1987, pp. 394-395. R. Okey, The Hapsburg Monarchy c.1765-1918, New York 2001, p. 25 ff. T. Stoianovich, The conquering cit., p.234. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, pp. 71-75, 123-127. The term Illyrian was mainly used by the Austrian authorities of this time to refer to the native Orthodox peoples of Istria, Dalmatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, pp. 71-75. . , , Athens 1976, p. 12. 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. See generally: I. M. , , in , 1970, 37, pp. 170-210. It appears that this stipulation was not respected by the Greeks, since there are many examples of children of such marriages being brought up according to the Orthodox dogma. There are also cases of Catholic wives converting to Orthodoxy. . , cit., pp. 65-66. 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. O. -Hering, cit, vol. I, p. 122, note 21. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, pp. 138-141. 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. . , 1750-1850, Athens 2002, p. 262. 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. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, pp. 136-137, 141-145. . - , cit., p. 6. . , , 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
Representations

21 22

23

24 25 26 27

28 29 30

31

32

33 34

35 36 37

38

39 40 41

44

Marianna D. Christopoulos

42 43

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. . , cit., pp. 81-82. . , 1843 -1993, Athens 1994, p. 30. According 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 community. 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 dellEccelso Governo di detta Citta, e Porto Franco, Trieste 1787, (reproduction 1889), pp. 26-36. . - , cit., pp. 22-30. . , cit., p. 83. . , , 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 . , , vol. XII, Vienna 1830, p. 538. . , , Athens 1980, pp. 67, 68. . , cit., pp. 231-234. . , cit., p. 28 and ,, Athens 1926, vol. 22, p. 563. . , , Athens 1999, pp. 169-171. 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. For Joseph IIs religious policy see: P. G.M. Dickson, Joseph IIs Reshaping of the Austrian Church, in The Historical Journal, 1993, 36, 1, pp. 89-114. . , cit., p.13. . , cit., p. 138. . , cit, pp. 26-27. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, pp. 260-261. Regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca, 1889, p. 65. . , cit, vol. XII, p. 551. For the terms assimilation and integration see E. Cashmore (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Race and Ethnic Studies, London 2004, pp. 44-46, 206-207. A brief historiographical mapping and a conceptualization of assimilation are presented in: Ev. C. Vlachos, The assimilation of the Greeks in the United States, Athens 1968, pp. 19-34. Two recent and outstanding PhD theses that focus on the integration of mercantile communities of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries are those of . , cit., and , , , 1750-1868, Athens 2000. N. Powell, Travellers to Trieste, Plymouth 1977, p. 41. . , , Athens 2000, p. 23. W. Safran, Deconstructing and comparing diasporas, in W. Kokot, K. Toloyan, C. Alfonso (eds.) Di-

44

45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52

53

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61

62

63 64 65

Greek Communities Abroad: Organization and Integration

45

66

67

68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75

76

77

78

79 80

81 82

aspora Identity and Religion, London 2004, pp. 18-19 , Trieste 1882, (offprint Athens 1972), p. 34. E. Faber, Trieste and the Austrian Littoral 1700-1850, in L. Franois, A. K. Isaacs (eds.), The Sea in European History, Pisa 2001, p. 64. J. Pirjevec, The Greek cit., p. 31 and O. -Hering, cit., 1986, vol. II, pp. 396-408. O. -Hering, cit., vol. I, p. 129. . , cit., p. 303. . , , in , 1961, 15, pp. 287-350. P. James, Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community, London 1996, pp. 25-26. O. - Hering, cit., vol. I, p. 319. Regolamenti della Nazione e Confraternita Greca., 1889, p. 43. In 1830 K. Koumas said for the Greek community in Vienna: But parents being ignorant of the significance 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 . , cit., vol XII, p. 552. O. -Hering, 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, Dimitiros Kartsiotis, Ioannins Drosos-Plastaras and Antonios Vikos. The significance of states 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, Reality, Cambridge 1990, p. 80 ff. The terms vertical and horizontal are borrowed from Antony Smiths theoretical framework in Anthony D. Smith, National identity, (Greek edition Athens 2000), p. 81. .J. Hobsbawm, Nation cit., p. 38. 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. J. Pirjevec, The Greek cit., p. 31. 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 dellEccelso Governo di detta Citta, e Porto Franco, Trieste 1787, (reproduction 1889) Secondary Works ., , Ermis, Athens 1988
Representations

46

Marianna D. Christopoulos

Apih E., La societa Triestina nel secolo XVIII, Torino 1957. , ., , 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. - Hering , (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. ., , Athens 1976. ., , Athens 1882. - , (13 18 .), Venice 2004. ., o , Thessaloniki 1984. . 1750-1850, Athens 2002. Stoianovich T., The conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant, in Journal of Economic History, 1965, 20, pp. 234-313. ., , , Athens 1994. ., (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).