.

NET MAUI in Action (MEAP V06) Matt Goldman pdf

download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/net-maui-in-action-meap-v06-matt-
goldman/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

.NET in Action, Second Edition (MEAP V06) Dustin

Metzgar

https://ebookmeta.com/product/net-in-action-second-edition-
meap-v06-dustin-metzgar/

Dead West Matt Goldman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/dead-west-matt-goldman/

Microsoft Azure in Action (MEAP V06) Lars Klint

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-azure-in-action-
meap-v06-lars-klint/

Parallel Programming And Optimization With Intel Xeon

Phi Coprocessors Handbook On The Development And
Optimization Of Parallel Applications For Intel Xeon
Processors And Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessors 2nd Edition
Andrey Vladimirov
https://ebookmeta.com/product/parallel-programming-and-
optimization-with-intel-xeon-phi-coprocessors-handbook-on-the-
development-and-optimization-of-parallel-applications-for-intel-
Whelon 1st Edition Celia Kyle

https://ebookmeta.com/product/whelon-1st-edition-celia-kyle/

Partners in the Research Enterprise: University-

Corporate Relations in Science and Technology Thomas W.
Langfitt (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/partners-in-the-research-
enterprise-university-corporate-relations-in-science-and-
technology-thomas-w-langfitt-editor/

Hearing Voices Qualitative Inquiry in Early Psychosis

1st Edition Katherine M Boydell H Bruce Ferguson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hearing-voices-qualitative-inquiry-
in-early-psychosis-1st-edition-katherine-m-boydell-h-bruce-
ferguson/

Seaview Cottages Cozy Mystery Box Set Books 1 3 Anna

Celeste Burke

https://ebookmeta.com/product/seaview-cottages-cozy-mystery-box-
set-books-1-3-anna-celeste-burke/

Albert Einstein The Man the Genius and the Theory of

Relativity 1st Edition Walter Isaacson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/albert-einstein-the-man-the-genius-
and-the-theory-of-relativity-1st-edition-walter-isaacson/
Foot Surgery Viewed Through the Prism of Comparative
Anatomy : From Normal to Useful 1st Edition Cyrille
Cazeau

https://ebookmeta.com/product/foot-surgery-viewed-through-the-
prism-of-comparative-anatomy-from-normal-to-useful-1st-edition-
cyrille-cazeau/
.NET Maui in Action MEAP V06
1. Copyright_2022_Manning_Publications
2. welcome
3. 1_Introducing_.NET_MAUI
4. 2_Build_a_.NET_MAUI_app
5. 3_Making_.NET_MAUI_apps_interactive
6. 4_Controls
7. 5_Layouts
8. 6_Advanced_layout_concepts
9. 7_Pages_and_navigation
10. 8_Enterprise_app_development
11. 9_The_MVVM_pattern
12. Appendix._A_Setting_up_your_environment_for_.NET_MAUI_development
MEAP Edition

Manning Early Access Program

.NET MAUI in Action

Version 6

Copyright 2022 Manning

Publications

©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in

the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes.

These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and

proofreaders.

https://livebook.manning.com/#!/book/dot-net-maui-in-action/discussion

For more information on this and other Manning titles go to

manning.com
welcome
Thank you for purchasing the MEAP edition of .NET MAUI in Action.

I came to .NET MAUI via Xamarin, and when I first started learning
Xamarin, it was because I wanted to build apps, not because I wanted to
become a Xamarin expert. I quickly found, though, that a level of expertise
was required to achieve even the simplest tasks; and not just expertise in
Xamarin, but expertise in the iOS and Android platform APIs too.

Xamarin, and especially Xamarin.Forms, has come a long way since then,
and building rich, functional cross-platform apps with Xamarin.Forms as
very achievable for .NET developers. But .NET MAUI takes this even further
by providing a top down, .NET first API for .NET developers to build mobile
and desktop apps, by leveraging their existing skills to get started right away.

Building expertise in a topic is valuable, but I don’t believe it should be a

prerequisite to getting started. My goal with this book is to teach you the
fundamentals you need to get started with .NET MAUI right away. As you
progress through the book we’ll add more skills to your toolchest, and by the
end of the book you’ll know how to build some cool mobile and desktop
apps, but you’ll also know exactly where to go to learn more, as and when
you need to.

I love building software, but there’s something extra special about mobile
apps. Being able to physically hold your creation in your hand and interact
with it through touch gives me an elevated sense of satisfaction. Building
web and cloud products is cool too, but mobile, and to nearly the same degree
desktop, development is on another level for me.

I hope that this book helps me to share some of that enthusiasm with you, and
I hope you find an appreciation for building mobile and desktop apps by
building on a foundation of your existing skills in .NET.

As .NET MAUI is still somewhat in its infancy, as you progress through the
book, you may encounter some issues with the code that are not just errors on
my part (although feedback for my own errors is of course the most valuable
feedback you could give me).

At time of writing, there are over 1,600 open issues on the .NET MAUI
repository on GitHub. Most of these are trivial and none of them are
showstoppers, but if you encounter a problem in the book it’s worth checking
here first: https://github.com/dotnet/maui/issues. If you encounter an issue
and find it’s been raised there, your upvote will help to push it up the queue.
And if you encounter a new issue that’s not been logged yet, logging it on
GitHub would be doing an immense service to the .NET MAUI community.
Alternatively, I am happy to log issues on your behalf.

It’s important to me to make .NET MAUI approachable and accessible to

.NET developers, so your feedback via liveBook Discussion Forum will be
invaluable as I write this book.

Thank you for being a part of this journey!

Matt Goldman

In this book

Copyright 2022 Manning Publications welcome brief contents 1 Introducing

.NET MAUI 2 Build a .NET MAUI app 3 Making .NET MAUI apps
interactive 4 Controls 5 Layouts 6 Advanced layout concepts 7 Pages and
navigation 8 Enterprise app development 9 The MVVM pattern
Appendix. A Setting up your environment for .NET MAUI development
1 Introducing .NET MAUI
This chapter covers:
What .NET MAUI is
How MAUI fits into .NET
Why you would want to use .NET MAUI to build desktop and mobile
apps
Writing cross-platform UIs

The dream of write once, run anywhere (WORA) cross-platform software

began in earnest in 1996 with the release of the first version of Java by Sun
Microsystems. Before Java, software developers could only write their code
against APIs provided by the operating system. Java was different – not only
was it a new programming language, but it was also a runtime with its own
set of APIs, allowing developers to ignore the target platform or operating
system. Sun provided a runtime for nearly every available operating system
(called the Java Virtual Machine, or JVM), which meant that developers
didn’t have to worry about whether they were building a Windows
application, a Unix application, a Linux application, or a Mac application.
They were building a Java application.

Microsoft started its own journey toward a cross-platform runtime shortly

afterwards, releasing the first public version of the .NET Framework in 2000.
It wasn’t cross-platform, but the development paradigm was similar –
developers didn’t have to write code against Windows APIs anymore, they
used the .NET Base Class Library (BCL) to write code using the .NET APIs.
Like the JVM, the .NET Framework was a runtime that was installed
independently of the operating system, so developers didn’t have to worry
about what version of Windows their users had installed, they just needed to
ensure they had the right version of the .NET Framework.
Figure 1.1 Legacy applications are built directly on top of operating system
APIs. Java and .NET provide their own APIs for developers to use and
provide runtimes that hide the platform APIs.

But there was still one problem with this approach – the .NET Framework
was Windows only. Developers writing .NET applications couldn’t target the
Mac or Linux platforms, both of which were gaining momentum. This didn’t
really change, at least from Microsoft’s perspective, until 2016 with the
release of .NET Core. .NET Core diverged from .NET Framework in a few
ways, but critically by stripping out key Windows dependencies, and
abstractions for Windows APIs. Unlike .NET Framework, which had to be
installed and would only work on Windows, .NET Core is a truly portable
runtime that can be shipped alongside the code that it executes, and runs on
Windows, Mac and Linux.

While this was a huge step closer to the WORA dream, UI applications were
still missing from the picture. .NET Core applications are command line only
(this includes web servers and other services). .NET Framework provided
platforms for developing UI applications for Windows, initially with
Windows forms and later the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) but,
being Windows specific, these were never brought across to .NET Core.

Outside of Microsoft, the journey towards cross-platform UI applications in

.NET took on a life of its own. Within a year of release of the first version of
the .NET Framework, the .NET specification became an open standard. Open
standards drive the modern web and enable the development of competing or
complimentary runtimes. For example, because HTML, JavaScript and CSS
are open standards, anyone can build a web browser, and developers and
users have a choice of which technologies to use. While the journey to .NET
being fully open was by no means a straight line nor without its bumps,
opening the .NET standard enabled Miguel de Icaza, working at Novell at the
time, to release an open-source .NET compiler for Linux, called Mono.

By the end of the 2000s the iOS and Android operating systems, and more
importantly their application distribution platforms (the iOS App Store and
Google Play store respectively), had become well established, and any
discussion around cross-platform UI applications became dominated by
mobile. iOS and Android use different languages and paradigms for app
development, and while it’s possible to learn both, most developers prefer not
to write and maintain multiple versions of their software if they don’t have to.

Mono was ported to iOS in MonoTouch and to Android in MonoDroid.

These eventually evolved into Xamarin, which provided not only a .NET
compiler for iOS and Android, but a complete abstraction of the iOS and
Android APIs in .NET. Using Xamarin, you still had to learn the iOS and
Android APIs, but then you would write your code in a .NET language like
C# instead of in a vendor provided language (like Objective-C or Swift for
iOS or Kotlin for Android). Using Xamarin, you could also share all your
non-UI code between the two platforms, so any business logic or code for
communicating with a back end could be written once and used in a
Xamarin.iOS project and a Xamarin.Android project.

In 2014 Xamarin introduced Xamarin.Forms, which provided an API for

writing cross-platform UI code using extensible application markup language
(XAML), the markup language originally introduced in WPF. This allowed
developers to share not just business logic, but UI as well, across iOS,
Android and UWP (and, at the time, Windows Phone). Just like the other
abstractions, the UI code you write in XAML is an abstraction, and when you
compile your app for iOS, your XAML code gets interpreted into iOS’ native
UI, and when you compile for Android, the XAML is compiled to native
Android UI code.

Xamarin was acquired by Microsoft in 2016 and has been under active
development there ever since. Xamarin.Forms is now a stable and mature
product, used to build many successful enterprise and consumer applications.
But the current version, Xamarin.Forms 5, will be the last. Coming in its
place is .NET MAUI, which is described by Microsoft as the next evolution
of Xamarin.Forms. While .NET MAUI shares a lot of its DNA with Xamarin
and Xamarin.Forms, it is an entirely new platform built from the ground up to
usher in a new era of truly cross-platform, WORA applications written in
.NET.

It’s an exciting time to be a .NET developer.

1.1 What is .NET MAUI?

The .NET Multiplatform App UI (MAUI) is a new framework from
Microsoft for building cross-platform UI applications that target Windows,
macOS, iOS and Android.

With .NET MAUI, you can build a rich, interactive, native UI application that
runs on any one of these platforms. With a single code base, you can build an
application that supports all these platforms and share 100% of the code
between them. In short, you write an application in a .NET language, and it
runs without any changes on any of the target platforms. All your logic can
be written in a .NET language, and your UI can be defined in either XAML
or in your .NET language of choice too.

.NET MAUI Development Languages

You can write code in .NET MAUI apps using your .NET language of choice
(VB.Net, F# or C#). It’s possible to define your UI in code too, but only C#
and F# are supported.

In this book, we will be using C# to write our logic and XAML for defining
our UI (although there will be some exceptions) as these are the most
common approaches.

It should be possible to adapt the C# code to another language, but I would

recommend working through the examples in the book in C# first.

Figure 1.2 shows the architecture of a .NET MAUI application, and we will
examine the layers and steps to see how a .NET MAUI application comes
together.

Figure 1.2 .NET MAUI is built bottom-up; each platform provides APIs, and
there is a .NET runtime for each platform (WinRT on Windows, Mono on
everything else) that is built on these APIs. Each layer provides APIs use to
build the APIs in the layer above. Meanwhile, your code is written top-down;
you write a .NET MAUI app, and the architecture takes care of encapsulating
it for lower layers.
Let’s start by looking at the layers in this diagram. At the bottom we have the
target operating system (Android, iOS, macOS and Windows). The next layer
up shows the .NET runtime that will execute our .NET MAUI app on each
target OS. For Android, iOS and macOS, this runtime is Mono, and for
Windows it is WinRT.

The next layer up is our first abstraction – the .NET Base Class Library
(BCL). The BCL provides access to all the common language features we
would expect, such as lists and generics, that don’t form part of .NET’s
primitives. From .NET 5 onwards, .NET (without Core or Framework) has
become the new standard, replacing the .NET Standard too. From a developer
perspective, .NET 5 and .NET 6 have become target frameworks, replacing
netcoreapp and netstandard. When writing a .NET MAUI app in .NET 6,
you have access to the BCL across all platforms.

The next layer, which sits on top of the BCL, provides access to abstractions
for platform specific APIs. .NET for Android and .NET for iOS are the next
iterations of Xamarin.Android and Xamarin.iOS respectively. These are
bindings to the platform APIs, using the same types and namespaces used by
Objective-C, Swift, Java or Kotlin developers. .NET for Mac is new but
operates the same way, and for Windows, the WinUI API is used. This
includes everything available in each platform’s API, from simple layouts
and controls like buttons and text entry fields to more sophisticated APIs like
ARKit on iOS and ARCore on Android, for developing augmented reality
(AR) applications..

The last abstraction is .NET MAUI. This is a unified API that provides UI
elements that are common to all supported platforms. This includes various
views like layouts, buttons, text entry fields, navigation APIs, and many
more. Through the Essentials namespace (in Xamarin this was started as a
separate package), you also get access to common hardware features, such as
Bluetooth, location services, and device storage.

While we looked at the layers bottom-up, the philosophy of building a .NET

MAUI app is very much considered top-down:

1. You build a cross-platform application by writing .NET MAUI code

(rather than, say iOS or Android code).
 2. If you want to, you can still write platform or OS specific code in your
application, but you don’t have to.
3. .NET MAUI takes your code and compiles it for the target platform.
Understanding how .NET MAUI builds your application for various
platforms is not necessary to build a .NET MAUI application, although
having a good understanding of these platforms is beneficial. Not only
will you be better able to troubleshoot OS or platform specific errors,
but you’ll also open up the entire spectrum of platform APIs, not just
those exposed in top-level .NET MAUI wrappers. We’ll cover some
platform specific aspects of .NET MAUI development as we go.

.NET MAUI is much more than just the next version of Xamarin.Forms.
Whereas Xamarin was a software development kit (SDK) that you installed
independently of .NET, MAUI is a workload, meaning it is a part of .NET,
just like ASP or console app development. This approach provides a few
benefits which we will cover later, but most importantly it demonstrates
Microsoft’s commitment to the future of .NET MAUI and its inclusion as a
core part of .NET.

1.2 Cross-platform vs ‘native’ apps

When you decide to build an application, either as an independent developer
or as part of an enterprise development team, you must ask a few questions
and make some decisions.

Will you build an installable, native binary executable application? Or

will you build a web app?
If you build a web app, will you use a single page application (SPA)
framework (such as Angular or Blazor) or will you use a traditional
server generated page framework (like ASP.NET or PHP)?
If you build an installable app, will you build one for each platform
where you want your users to run it, or will you build a single app that
runs on every platform?

These are just some of the questions and decisions you need to resolve. Your
decision process might look something like this.
Figure 1.3 Assuming you are a .NET developer, the biggest decision to make
is whether you want to build a web app or an installable/executable app. If
you choose to build an executable, .NET MAUI is a no-brainer.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
their smaller number, but also through the fact that only scanty and weak settlements
in the inland correspond to them. In the west, on the contrary, as we have already
seen, Greek colonization has, since late antiquity, extended up into the interior, and the
consequences of this have been felt even up to the present time, or, at any rate, have
been made anew noticeable, owing to the fact that the Greeks of the west coast have
for several decades been pressing farther and more vigorously into the interior, and
have settled there more definitely. This region that has at present been occupied by
them only in its chief centers is, in general, bounded by a line which may be drawn
from Ismid in the north, past Eskishehr, Afiun-Karahissar, and Isbarta to Adalia. All that
lies between this line and the west coast may be regarded as within the Greek sphere.
The second phase of these Hellenizing efforts of today begins with this forward push
into the interior of this region. Just how far and in what way has this succeeded?
If we start on the basis of the actual facts of the case, we find that in thirty towns of
the western interior of Asia Minor of more than 5,000 inhabitants, the Greeks have a
share in the population of from 1,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. Arranged according to the
ratio of this share in the population, these cities fall into different groups, as follows:
First, a Greek majority is found in only two cities, Michalitsh (about 7,000 Greeks out of
a total of 8,000) and Koplu (about 5,000 out of 8,000). Second, in nine cities the
Greeks form between one-half and one-third of the population: Baindir (4,500 out of
10,000), Tireh (6,000 out of 14,000), Edemish (3,000 out of 7,000), Menemen (about
3,000 out of 10,000), Bergama (5,500 out of 14,500), Isbarta (7,000 out of 20,000),
Sokia (4,000 out of 12,000), Soma (2,000 out of 6,000), Manissa (11,000 out of
35,000). Third, in four cities the Greeks form about a fourth: Inegeul (about 2,000 out
of 8,000), Kassaba (6,000 out of 23,000), Kermasti (1,200 out of 4,800), Aïdin (8,500
out of 35,000). Fourth, in five cities they form from a fifth to a sixth part: Kutaiah
(4,000 out of 22,000), Dimetoka (1,300 out of 7,000), Alashehr (4,500 out of 22,000),
Milas (2,000 out of 12,000), Bigha (1,600 out of 10,000). Fifth, in five cities the Greeks
form from a seventh to a ninth of the total population: Kirkagatch (2,000 out of
18,000), Ushak (1,500 out of 12,500), Balukiser (1,300 out of 10,000), Sabandsha
(1,000 out of 7,500), Kyrkagatch (about 200 out of 18,000). Sixth, less than a tenth in
seven cities: Denizli (1,600 out of 17,000), Soyut (1,500 out of 18,000), Nazilli (1,700
out of 21,000), Brussa (6,000 out of 80,000), Adabazar (1,600 out of 24,000),
Eskishehr (1,150 out of 19,000), Nugla (1,100 out of 15,000).
From this combination of facts several interesting conclusions may be drawn as to the
distribution of the Greek population in the interior itself, and as to the relation between
the Hellenization of the interior as compared with that of the coast regions.
If we group the cities named above according to their distribution in the various
provinces and districts, we find that only fifteen of these fall within the province of
Aïdin, the largest province of the west coast of Asia Minor, and the one that is held to
most stubbornly by the Turks. Of these fifteen, again, only thirteen come in the district
of Smyrna, Sarukan and Aïdin, which form the most populous part of this province.
These are Menemen, Manissa, Kassaba, Alashehr; Kirkagatch, Soma, Bergama; Baindir,
Tireh and Odemish; Sokia; Aïdin and Nazilli. Now these thirteen towns, with the
exception of Bergama, all lie, as the above grouping indicates, on the four railroad lines
which go out in four directions from Smyrna, that is in those regions of the province
which belong economically to Smyrna. At any rate, the significance for the Greek
settlements of the economic factor is clearly evidenced in these towns, for they are,
almost without exception, “capitals,” so to speak, of smaller districts, and are therefore
important distributing and collecting centers for the local trade to and from Smyrna.
With the increase of this trade the number of the Greeks in this group of interior cities
is bound to increase quickly or has already done so.
Most of the other towns named above are in the province of Hodavendikiar, which lies
due north of that of Aïdin; and once more is it true that they are in the most densely
inhabited parts of the province, Brussa, Ertogrul and Kutaiah. Of the nine cities that
belong here, five, again, are found on the line of the Anatolian Railroad, namely,
Biledjik, Soyut, Eskishehr, Kutaiah and Ushak; one, Brussa, on a branch road and three
on no railroad at all, though within reach of the Michalitch-Kirmasti-Inegeul Railroad.
Here, too, therefore, the cities which are more or less decidedly Greek in their
population lie along the main railroad lines, though they are not quite so strongly Greek
as those in the province of Aïdin; for we are here in the very heart of Turkey, and its
greatest city Brussa, which more than all the other cities of this region has preserved its
Turkish character more purely. It is always to be borne in mind that the Anatolian
Railroad goes out from Constantinople and that this, with its strong Greek population, is
as important a gate of entrance to the northwest of Asia Minor as Smyrna is for the
west.
Although up to this time it is impossible to speak of a Hellenizing of the great interior
cities of western Asia Minor, since these are (thus being quite different from the coast
cities) very far from succumbing, either numerically or culturally, to the Greek invasion
—the number of Greeks is the largest in Manissa—yet, if one looks into the matter
narrowly, he gains the impression that in the interior the Hellenizing influence comes
from the smaller towns. This supposition, to be sure, is opposed to the view, still
broadly accepted, that the Greek element is purely a city element, and that the country-
folk consist only of Turks. This view, which, as we have seen, does not hold even in the
coast regions, is, however, absolutely false and is only to be explained as arising from
the impressions of superficial travelers who have rarely penetrated into the remoter
regions with a predominantly rural population. Anyone who has, for example, visited
the larger Greek islands of the Asiatic coast, like Mitylene, Chios, Samos and Rhodes,
knows that these dense populations live in great measure from grape and fruit-raising
or from silk culture, and only in a very small degree from trade. Farming plays no very
large part, simply because of the lack of arable land. Since now, as we have said, these
very islands for something like fifty years have become very densely populated or even
in part overpopulated (as, for instance, Samos), there have been periodical emigrations
of the island peasants, in considerable numbers, over to the mainland, where they
have, in particular, settled in the fruitful valleys of the Mæander and the Hermos in the
western parts of Asia Minor and in that of the Sangarios, farther north. In part, it is the
descendants of the former Greek landowners who have been reduced to socagers or
serfs, who, on getting possession of some little capital, have now, in their turn, driven
back the Turks by buying them out or by working the soil more scientifically, a process
in which they were helped by the immigrant islanders. If a sufficient number of them is
thus found settled together, they try to obtain the Sultan’s firman permitting them to
settle in a town. Thus the English traveler Hamilton states that the Greeks in a little
town of Lydia (Singerli), in which they had settled ten years before, had, in his time
(1837), increased to 40–50 families and were busied with building a new market. In
this way numerous new and dense settlements came into existence in the midst of the
more scattered Turkish populations, and the higher fecundity of the Greek settlers,
combined with their industry, their intellectual keenness, their frugality and their
community-feeling, helped always by the retrogression of the Turkish population itself,
have contributed to extend the Hellenizing process more and more to the country
districts.31
In particular have they taken possession of the regions adapted to silk culture, like that
of the lower Sangarios Valley, and also of such regions as are adapted to raising grapes.
More recently, Greek industrial enterprises, too, especially silk-spinning mills, cognac
factories and steam oil mills, have sprung into existence, meeting with no rivalry on the
part of the Turks. With this Greek peasant of Asia Minor, who is on a higher moral
plane, and who is therefore more congenial to us Germans than the Greek trader or
innkeeper in the coast-towns, our German spirit of enterprise which is seeking to get
the economic control over Asia Minor, will have to come to terms, and it would be just
as perverse as it would be foolish to depend on the Turk to the exclusion of the Greek,
who has the controlling hand in trade and traffic, as well as in the cultivation of the
soil.32
Even to a traveler of a hundred years ago the great difference between the Greeks of
the cities and the peasants was especially noteworthy. The former were subservient and
cringing like the Armenians, while the latter were energetic and intelligent,
irreconcilable in their hatreds and by no means lacking in courage. And it is to these
praiseworthy qualities, and not to their much-bruited craftiness, that they owe their
progress in the interior of Asia Minor.33
As to the numbers of the Greek inhabitants of the interior of Asia Minor, only an indirect
estimate can be made. The whole number of all the Greeks in the interior of the two
provinces of Brussa and Aïdin, exclusive of the inhabitants of the coast regions, even
twenty years ago, amounted to 200,000, i.e., less than half as many as in the coast
regions. About 100,000 of these lived in places with a population of more than 5,000,
so that about 100,000 were scattered among the villages and towns. The distribution of
this interior population is very uneven. The densest Greek populations have gathered in
the Prefecture of Aïdin and here chiefly in the sub-prefecture of Smyrna, with its five
districts (Sarukan, with four districts, and Aïdin, with only one). These three sub-
prefectures, therefore, in their ten districts, comprised, twenty years ago, a fifth part of
the entire population. In the province of Brussa the number of districts with a
considerable Greek population was only five, in the sub-prefecture of Ertogrul, three; in
those of Brussa and Kutaiah, one each. There were the largest numbers in the district
of Eskishehr, the ancient Dorylæum, where they comprised two-fifths of the population,
and in Michalitch, where they formed one-third of the total. In fifteen of the twenty-five
districts of the interior of the two prefectures fifteen, therefore, already contained a
considerable part of the population. To speak in greater detail, these districts may be
classified as follows, with relation to the proportions of their Greek inhabitants: The
Greek population is densest in the districts of Magnesia (Sanjak Sarukan), and
Eskishehr (Sanjak Kutaiah), where they constitute a fifth of the population; less dense
in the district of Sokia (Sanjak Aïdin), with about a third; next comes the district
Michalitch (Sanjak Brussa), with from a fourth to a third; and then those of Bergama,
Menemen, Baindir, Tireh and Odemish (Sanjak Smyrna), where they form about a
fourth; next those of Alashehr (Sanjak Sarukan) and Yenishehr (Sanjak Ertogrul) with
about a fifth; and finally those of Inegeul, Biledjik (Sanjak Ertogrul) and Soma (Sanjak
Sarukan), with a sixth to a seventh of the entire population.
What made the estimating of the numbers of these Greeks in the interior so very
difficult was the fact that up to a few years ago they spoke Turkish and therefore did
not share in the national and racial consciousness of their kinsmen on the coast, and
also the fact that they do not essentially differ in physical type from the Ottomans, who
have become assimilated to the race type of the conquered people and have lost their
special Turkish characteristics. This state of affairs began to change when the Greeks,
with the help of their church, succeeded in introducing the Greek language in their
schools alongside of the Turkish. Since then, that is, since the seventies of the last
century, the national propaganda has made great progress among them, and the
number of schools has greatly increased.
In the thirty cities of the interior of this region (prefectures of Aïdin and Brussa) they
possessed in the last decade of the 19th century more than 400 schools with about
25,000 pupils, while the Mohammedans in their thousand schools had only 20,000
pupils. The number of pupils in each Greek school therefore averaged 60, while those in
the Turkish schools averaged only 20, a disproportion which is to be explained by the
fact that the Mohammedan schools are almost exclusively poorly attended mosque-
schools, while the Greek schools are community-schools that are very well attended.
The religious character of the Turkish educational system is just as prejudicial to the
Turks as the nationalistic tendency of the Greek schools is beneficial to the Greeks.
There are towns in which, in spite of the Greeks being in a minority, more Greek
children attend the schools than Turkish children. So Sokia, with 180 Turkish and 218
Greek children in school; the same is true of Bigha (125:140), Alashehr (250:525),
Nazilli (162:220), Menemen (220:325), Biledjik (1,100:1,113). In other towns, such, for
example, as Bergama, Magnesia, Milas, Soyut, the number of the Greek pupils almost
equals that of the Turkish, and in most of them the number is more than half as large
as that of the Turkish pupils, even in that stronghold of Mohammedanism, Brussa,
where there are something like 2,500 Greeks, as compared with 5,000 Turkish pupils,
although the Greeks comprise here only ten per cent of the population. These are
figures which more than anything else are indicative of the activity and capacity for
education of the Greek part of the population. The intellectual superiority of the Greeks
is set forth in an even stronger light when one compares the sum total of the Greek
schools and of their pupils in both prefectures with that of the Turkish. For we find that
even in 1894 there were 540 Greek schools, with about 30,000 pupils, as compared
with 1,900 Turkish schools, with about 42,000 pupils. The slight numerical superiority of
the Turkish scholars is, to say the least, entirely disproportionate to the large majority
of Turks in the population.
According to recent statistics, which are, to be sure, taken from Greek sources34 and
are, therefore, perhaps a little too optimistic in their tone, the number of Greek schools
has since then risen to more than 700 and that of the pupils to more than 100,000
(69,274 boys and 48,468 girls), which leads one to conclude that the Greek population
numbers a million, a number which, compared with the 650,000 of twenty-five years
ago, does not seem to be too high an estimate, particularly if we take into account the
great increase of the Greeks through a higher birthrate and through immigration. Thus,
the sum total of the Greeks in both prefectures, which have together a population of
about three millions, would be about a third of this number and would, at any rate, not
fall far below this.
With this rapidly increasing Greek population of the west coast and interior, the
prefectures of Brussa and Aïdin, and that in the mountains of Pontus (prefecture of
Trebizond) and Central Cappadocia (prefecture of Angora), which number together a
million and a third more, we have not exhausted the list of Greeks of Asia Minor. There
are, as a matter of fact, large numbers scattered through the interior and along the
south coast, chiefly in the prefecture of Sivas and Konia, where their number in 1890
approximated 75,000. Next comes the prefecture of Adana, with about 50,000, and,
least strongly Greek, the prefectures Angora (about 30,000) and Kastamuni (about
25,000). It has, however, been observed that the number of Greeks in the middle and
eastern provinces is always decreasing, which is doubtless due to the fact that they
wander away into the livelier and more fruitful regions to the westward.35 These are in
this way becoming more and more solid nuclei for the process of crystallization for
Hellenism in Asia Minor, which is thus once more, as it did in late antiquity, shifting its
center of gravity toward western Asia Minor, as though it felt that here is ever that
original free-flowing source to which it now for the fourth time owes its strengthening
and rejuvenation: the first being when in the last centuries before the Christian Era the
native Lydians and Phrygians were assimilated; the second, when in early Byzantine
times it turned back the Romanizing process which had been going on since the
beginning of this era; the next, when in the 7th to the 10th centuries it averted the
threatening Arabic peril, and finally when, though apparently defeated by the Turkish
conqueror, it has after 500 years of relaxation again regained its vigor and strength in
order to fulfill its old historical mission, which consists not in forcing its way on with the
wild alarum of weapons, but through the peaceful weapons put in its power by nature,
i.e., by material and spiritual civilizing agencies, that do their work quietly. This mission
Mohammedanism must meet through appropriate measures in administration and
education, if it desires to secure its political control even in the western part of Asia
Minor, now and in the future.
 III. HELLENIC PONTUS, A RESUME OF ITS HISTORY
By Demosthenes H. Oeconomides
[Among the most interesting of the irredenta regions of Asia Minor, from many points of
view, is Pontus, on the southeast coast of the Black Sea. So strong is the anti-Turkish
feeling in this intensely Hellenic land that a strong movement has recently arisen
among her expatriated sons to establish an independent Republic of Pontus. Its
mountainous inland districts have been so isolated from the rest of the Greek world and
its coast regions have so strongly preserved their individuality that language, blood and
national feeling have been maintained in quite a different way from elsewhere in the
Greek world. It has seemed fitting that Pontus therefore should receive special
consideration in this number of the American-Hellenic Society’s publications, and we are
glad to present this scholarly treatise by Demosthenes E. Oeconomides, a philologian of
no mean repute, who is a native of this region and has written amongst other things an
authoritative treatise on the Pontic dialect entitled: Lautlehre des Pontischen, Leipzig,
1908.]
Pontus is bounded on the north by the southeast shore of the Euxine or Black Sea, on
the east by the Phasis River and Iberia, on the south by the Argaeus and Antitaurus
mountains, and on the west by the Halys River. The whole country has at several
epochs been variously divided and has gone under different names, thus, for example,
in the time of the Parthians, the region that extended from the Phasis to the Bosporus
was called the Kingdom of Pontus; in the time of the Romans, preserving the same
boundaries, it was called the Polemoniac Pontus. The best known cities of Pontus are
Rizus, Trapezus, Kerasus, Kotyora, Oenoe, Amisos, Sinope, Inepolis and Heraclea, all of
which are coast cities, while in the interior are Amasea, Paphra, Neocæsarea, Nicopolis,
Argyropolis, etc. Ecclesiastically it is divided into six, or if Cæsarea be included, into
seven Metropolitan districts: Trapezus, Rhodopolis, Chaldia, Neocæsarea, Amasea,
Cæsarea and Colonia. Of the many monasteries in Pontus, the most important is that of
Mela (now called Soumela) founded by the Athenian monks, Barnabas and Sophronios,
in 376 A.D. in the time of Theodosius the Great.
Since Trapezus, even in ancient times, was the most important of the Pontic cities and
in the Middle Ages was, in fact, the capital of the Trapezuntian Empire of the
Comnenes, we must give a brief sketch of its history.
Trapezus, which was founded by a colony of Sinopians 756 B.C. on a site peculiarly
adapted to the cultivation and development of commerce, is a most ancient and
illustrious city. “The city Trapezus,” as Eugenicus says, “most ancient and best of all the
cities in the East,” and “most venerable of all” according to the expression of Besarion
(MS. Ven. p. 133). We learn from Xenophon’s “Anabasis” (Book V. 5, 10) that Trapezus
paid tribute to its metropolis Sinope. Since, according to this historian, neither the
Colchians nor Chaldians recognized the Persian sovereignty, we may infer from this that
the Trapezuntians never submitted to the Persians. Xenophon also furnishes us
historical and geographical information about Trapezus and the countries and peoples
round about it, for he was hospitably entertained there for thirty days on the return of
the 10,000. The fine coins of gold and silver struck both before and after the time of
Alexander the Great testify that it was a free and prosperous city. It certainly
maintained its independence and freedom under Alexander the Great, for it is well
known that he drove out the Persian satraps and rulers wherever these existed in
Pontus and left all the districts and cities autonomous, among which, under Persian
rule, Amisos (Samsun) had been deprived of its democratic government. During the
time of the Diadochi, (Alexander’s successors), there are recorded as ruling in
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia and a part of Pontus as far as Trapezus, Eumenes (322–315
B.C.), Perdiccas, Mithridates and in particular Seleucus I, called Nicator (312–208 B.C.),
until the Mithridates again gained control up to 63 B.C., when upon the final dissolution
of their empire, Pontus, under the Romans, entered upon a new period of life.
From that time there was sent there by them annually a special governor until in 46
B.C. Polemon from Tralles in Phrygia was established as king of Pontus from Bosporus
to Colchis. Many of the coast cities which had been the allies of the Romans during the
wars waged by them from 89–63 B.C. against Mithridates VII, called Eupator, and
among them Trapezus, were, however, still left autonomous. The Polemoniac Empire
lasted till 63 A.D., when Nero made Pontus a Roman province.
After a short period of decline Trapezus rose again in the time of Julian in 333. It had
accepted Christianity from the first apostle, Andrew, who came there from Samsun in
34 A.D. and transmitted it to the surrounding peoples. Its first bishop was Eugeneos,
known as the patron and protector of the city, who endured martyrdom in 216 under
the reign of Diocletian (a Byzantine church, still existing, preserves his name). He was
succeeded by a long line of bishops who honored the Church. In fact, some of them
participated in Ecumenical Synods.
In the time of the great Constantine, Trapezus continued to be a provincial city under a
pro-consul, as also in the time of Justinian (6th century). As such it belonged, along
with Cerasus, to Polemoniac Pontus, the capital of which was then Neocæsarea. From
then up to the time of Leo the Isaurian, unfortunately, we know nothing about it, but in
the time of the Isaurians it appears as a starting point for political and warlike
operations undertaken against the Persians, the Turcomans and the Arabs, having
become the metropolis of the large and important “thema” (district) of Chaldia, while it
was, at the same time, and even before the time of the Isaurians, a home of learning,
as the Siracene Ananias, a trustworthy Armenian writer of the 7th century, testifies.
With regard to the thema of Chaldia (the eighth in Asia Minor), it is to be noted that
this originally extended as far as Colonia, Kamak and Keltzene, but in the time of Leo
the Wise the two last districts were added to the thema of New-Mesopotamia. We know
that the archons and dukes of Chaldia in the 11th century, seeking little by little to free
themselves from Byzantine rule, began to call themselves dukes of Trapezus and their
country Trapezousia. One in particular, Theodore Gabras, from a noble family in
Trapezus, and most skillful in war, saved Trapezus and the surrounding country from
two invasions, one by the Seljuk-Turks in 1049 and the other under David, the king of
Georgia. He, therefore, regarded the country as his own private possession and held it
up to his death, as a prince, independent of Byzantium. Of these Gabrades dukes of
Trapezus, Theodore’s son Gregory and his grandson Constantine Gabras are known to
us. In the time of the former Trapezus was again made dependent on Byzantium, but in
the time of the latter, since the dukes had offered important services to the Byzantine
Empire, it gained its independence again and held it till Manuel I (Comnenos) 1143–
1180, succeeded in attaching it to his realm by taking advantage of a faction that had
risen there against the Gabras family, and from that time on Trapezus continued to be
dependent on Byzantium until its capture by the Latins, because at that time the
Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni was established.
From the foundation of this new empire until its fall through the capture of Trapezus by
the Turks, that is from 1204–1461, the following rulers occupied the throne:
(1) Alexios I., the great Comnenos, the son of Manuel, Sebastocrator
and the founder of the Trapezuntian Empire 1204–1222
(2) Andronikus I. Ghidus, son-in-law of the preceding 1222–1235
(3) John I. Axouchus 1235–1238
(4) Manuel I., the great Comnenos, who built the beautiful church of St.
Sophia in Trapezus (still existent) 1238–1263
(5) Andronikus II., oldest son of the preceding 1263–1266
(6) George I., brother of the preceding 1266–1280
(7) John II., brother of George I. 1280–1297
(8) Theodora 1285
(9) Alexios II., the great Comnenos 1297–1330
(10) Andronikus III., oldest son of Alexios II. 1330–1332
(11) Manuel II. 1332
(12) Basil 1332–1340
(13) Irene, Palæologina 1340–1341
(14) Anna, Comnenos 1341–1342
(15) John III., Comnenos 1342–1344
(16) Michael I. 1344–1349
(17) Alexios III., the great Comnenos 1349–1390
(18) Manuel III. 1390–1417
(19) Alexios IV. 1417–1446
(20) John IV., Kalogiannes 1446–1458
(21) David Comnenos, brother of John IV. and last emperor in the
Trapezuntian Empire of the Comneni 1458–1461

The fall of Trapezus which occurred a few years after the capture of Constantinople
dealt the final deadly blow to Hellenism as a whole. At this time, in the very nature of
things, it was impossible for the Trapezuntian Empire to escape its fate, being
compelled, as it was, to fight against innumerable and well organized enemies, while
previously, during the 257-year period of its life, it had repulsed many barbarian
invasions and had shown great political and military efficiency. But even in her fall she
contributed not a little to the dissemination of the seeds of civilization and literature in
the West through her illustrious sons, such as Bessarion, George the Trapezuntian and
other learned men. By a strange coincidence the two last emperors of Hellenism,
Constantine Palæologus of Byzantium and David of Trapezus, fell as soldiers, the first
fighting for his fatherland like a hero on the fortifications of his capital, the second for
his religion in Constantinople itself, preferring with nobility of soul and true Christian
fortitude to see his children fall beneath the ax of the executioner and then to fall
himself exclaiming, “Just art Thou, O Lord, and righteous are Thy judgments” rather
than to forswear his faith as proposed by the conqueror Mohammed.
As everywhere, so, too, in Pontus, the Greek, though subjected to harsh slavery, did not
lose courage and hope, but by uniting the strength left him and taking courage anew,
he endeavored, just in so far as he could, to render his living with his conquerors as
endurable as possible, an attempt in which he succeeded by enlisting their sympathy
and esteem whenever they made use of him for high positions, or in the arts and trades
in which they needed his help. Those that had special skill in iron-working in Chaldia
and others in other places were even granted special privileges.
The services rendered to the Ottoman Empire by the Hypsilanti, Mourouzae and
Carotsades of Pontus, were indeed invaluable, services which brought honor and profit
to their own fatherland and the Greek race in general. Thus, Hellenism in Pontus partly
by its steadily honorable and sincere character, and partly by its intellectual superiority
generally, has made its impress on the conquerors and has succeeded in distinguishing
itself in education, in trade, in the arts and sciences as the only element that makes for
civilization. Unceasingly cultivating Greek letters under the shield of the Greek church,
now in the monasteries or under the roof of the church, now in special schools, it keeps
alive the national feeling and sentiment, which it has preserved and is preserving in a
high degree, with the hope of a more auspicious future and of some day recovering its
full freedom.
Never has it forgotten its glorious past. Glorying in this, with beating heart it sings, as it
has always sung, of the Greek name and of Greek courage. A clear testimony of this is
the preservation of the name “Hellene” and the words “Hellenic spear” in the demotic
songs of the period after the fall of Constantinople. Having succeeded in preserving
even in the times of slavery its language and nationality and the faith of its fathers, it
takes pride in this and cherishes unshaken the conviction that at the proper time the
historical rights that it possesses will not be overlooked.

The Greek Dialect as Spoken in Pontus

Of the many dialects of Modern Greek, that spoken in Pontus has taken a prominent
place in the investigation into Modern Greek in general ever since linguistic scientists
have undertaken to study it. And this is certainly justified, for this study contributes
substantially to the elucidation, explanation and solution of many linguistic phenomena
in the other dialects and in the Κοινὴ διάλεκτος in general, for many forms and many
words which were formerly inexplicable from the point of view of phonetics or
semantics have been most happily explained by the comparison of corresponding forms
or words in the Pontic dialect. This, too, is derived from the Koine, but owing to an
admixture of certain Ionic elements, and to the fact that in taking shape in the Middle
Ages it admitted new Byzantine words, it has so developed and grown that its use on
the one hand of sounds unknown to the common Greek, and, on the other, the
astounding variety of phonetic changes and modifications (which appear in different
forms) which it presents, its manifold transformations on the basis of analogy, its not
infrequent syntactic peculiarities (which are due especially to the influence of the
Turkish language), and the large number of nouns, verbs and adverbs formed from
Turkish words or Turkish roots through the use of Greek terminations, render it
incomprehensible to many. This evolution and the great difference between the Pontic
language and the common Greek are perfectly natural, both on account of the Ionic
elements which have been preserved from of old, and of the Turkish elements which
the language has received through the conquest of Pontus by the Turks, and thirdly
from its geographical position which separates its inhabitants from the great masses of
the Greek people and thus limits the assimilating influence of modern Greek on the
Pontic dialect.
This form of the language has great importance for the reason that in the variety and
richness of its vocabulary it has preserved a rich and extremely valuable store of forms
and ancient words, some wholly unchanged in form and signification, and some
modified, to be sure, but perfectly capable of being reduced to their original form by
the philologist.36
 AMERICAN-HELLENIC NEWS
The first anniversary of the entrance of Greece into the great World War was officially
celebrated in New York City by a banquet tendered by His Excellency, George Roussos,
the Minister of Greece at Washington, to about forty prominent and representative
citizens of New York at Delmonico’s, and these guests were invited to participate later in
an imposing celebration in the Century Theater.
Many thousands of Greeks and Americans formed most enthusiastic and appreciative
listeners to speeches made by Mr. Roussos (whose address is given below in full),
Francis M. Hugo, Secretary of State of New York, who came in behalf of His Excellency
Governor Whitman; Richard Enright, Commissioner of Police of New York City, who
represented the Mayor of the city; Demetrios Verenikis, Consul General of Greece and
recently appointed Minister of Greece to Japan; William Fellowes Morgan, President of
the Merchants’ Association, and Constantine Voicly, President of the Pan-Hellenic Union
in America. The invocation was pronounced by the Rev. Demetrios Callimachos of the
Greek Church.
Among those guests at the banquet, who were also present at the theater, were the
Honorable Cunliffe-Owen, who presided and felicitously introduced the various
speakers; the Countess Cunliffe-Owen; Baron de Sadelaer, formerly Minister of State of
Belgium; General Daniel Appleton, U. S. A.; Colonel DeWitt Clinton Falls, commanding
the Seventh Regiment; General W. A. White, C. B., of the British War Mission;
Commodore Lionel Wells, of the Royal British Navy; General William A. Mann, U. S. A.,
commanding Governors Island; Colonel George W. Burleigh, of the Governor’s Staff;
Captain L. Rebel, of the French Navy; J. K. Ohl, editor-in-chief of the New York Herald;
Pay Director Charles W. Littlefield, U. S. N.; David Penny, vice-president of the Irving
National Bank; Robert Grier Cooke, president of the Fifth Avenue Association; Hon.
Byron B. Newton, collector of the Port of New York; J. S. Alexander, president of the
National Bank of Commerce; R. C. Veit, vice-president of the Standard Oil Company;
Elbert H. Gary, Samuel W. Fairchild, A. E. Stevenson, H. W. Sackett, George T. Wilson,
Colonel Benda of the Italian Army, and Commodore Morrell, U. S. N.
The members of the Executive Committee of the American-Hellenic Society participated
in both parts of the great celebration, which had been so ably organized and effectively
carried out by Mr. Cunliffe-Owen, a member of our Committee as well as one of the
Board of Governors of our Society.
The sentiment so eloquently uttered by Commissioner Enright that Constantinople,
which has always been an essentially Greek city, should, at the round table of the peace
delegates, be returned to Greece, was greeted with cheers and the loudest applause.

Speech of George Roussos, the Minister of Greece

There are certain anniversaries, such as that of today, that fully deserve to be
celebrated, for they contain such reassuring lessons that they are justly brought into
prominence.
We cannot help admiring the heroism of little Belgium, which stood out so boldly
against the outrageous demand of a militaristic power that had resolved to trample
upon morality, and to violate justice.
We are compelled to extol that superhuman calmness with which peace-loving France
accepted the challenge which the German Colossus launched at her, bidding her forget
her sworn faith and all the principles which she had taught and which gave her her
beauty.
We must honor, too, Great Britain, which, simply because, in the person of Belgium,
international right had been outraged, entered into the war so gallantly at its very start,
and sent her children—an act unparalleled in history—by millions to offer their lives
voluntarily for the defense of the right.
The Japanese, faithful to their alliance with Great Britain, followed.
It is an indisputable fact that these countries have saved the world, for the example
that they have thus given humanity was so grand and glorious that it has carried other
nations with it.
There have been moments of uncertainty and doubt, in the face of the colossal strength
of Germany, and the ferocity of her attacks. In view of the destruction which seemed so
certain, the instinct of self-preservation, for a considerable time, dominated the peoples
not immediately touched by the war.
But the cruelty of Germany and of her accomplices has finally roused all the nobler and
more generous nations. One after another they have become involved, for their
revulsion of feeling at her atrocities is such that it has silenced every other sentiment.
Italy was the first to set the example by turning away from an alliance, the evil aims of
which had been revealed to her, and she was soon followed by Rumania.
The Great Republic of the United States, after having for a long time hoped to induce
Germany to respect international treaties, has resolutely entered into the great conflict.
Greece was the last European state to enter into the fight. I say, the last, although, in
fact, she really takes her place next to England. For it is a well-known fact that in
August, 1914, before the battle of the Marne had taken place, at the time when the
Germans were at the gates of Paris, Greece, through her government, had offered her
aid: perhaps if at this moment the Allies had understood aright the situation in the
Orient, if they had taken advantage of this offer, many disasters might have been
averted.
This mistaken policy on the part of the Allies permitted Germany to utilize the
instruments that she had been preparing for a long time in the Orient. Two years had
been lost: disasters had been piled on disasters, before the necessary measures were
taken and the Greek people had become free to act according to its aspirations. There,
too, we see the same reassuring results. Noble sentiments obtained the upper hand
over feelings of self-interest. These feelings were so strong that they silenced the
doubts and fears even of timid souls. We must recall that in June, 1917, Rumania was
defeated, the Russian collapse was complete and the German armies free to turn
against Greece. On the other hand, the dissension caused by German propaganda in
Greece seemed so deeply rooted, that even the friends of Greece did not believe that
she was capable of taking any important part in the struggle.
Under the inspiring influence of the man who knows Greece best, because he embodies
all the better qualities of the Greek nature, Eleutherios Venizelos, Greece refused to see
the danger; she became united and filled with an eager enthusiasm, and in less than a
year her troops have obtained appreciable results.
What this renaissance cost in effort the world cannot yet know. When the facts are
known, when they can be fully studied, the Greek people will receive the credit that it
deserves, because what it has achieved is due only to its patriotism and self-sacrifice.
From the close of 1916, when Greece, though still divided, began the struggle, up to
today, when, as a united people, she is carrying on the fight, she has sacrificed
thousands of her children for the triumph of the common ideal, and is arming herself
more fully day by day, to pour out her blood to the last drop in order to secure the
victory for freedom and right. She is paying forth freely without having demanded
anything in return.
These facts prove our superiority to our enemies. A superiority which consists in the
fact that we are fighting for principles created and imposed by a civilization which
began with the beginnings of history, principles that we wish to apply even to our
enemies and which, moreover, are free from any selfish motives.
It is this absence of egotism in our aims which assures our perfect union and, through
this, our victory.
If you wish to appreciate the palpable difference between us and the others, look at
what is today taking place in a hostile country which I refrain from naming.
Four peoples, that had formed a coalition, took from their neighbors all that they could
get. Now, in dividing the spoil, because of their distrust of each other, they are taking
precautions against one another. One of the peoples against whom these precautions
are being taken becomes sulky and shows signs of wanting to go over to the other side,
because all Dobrudja (of which a large part is acknowledged to be Rumanian by the
official representative of this people in the United States) is not given to her; because
all Greek Macedonia is not declared to be hers; because Serbia is not today obliterated
from the map.
When people are associated in order to bring about some good result, good faith is
preserved in the partnership, but when, on the contrary, an evil act is accomplished and
unlawful gains are obtained, disunion necessarily results, for “honor among thieves” is,
after all, extremely rare.
Permit me a parenthesis, at this point.
I have read lately with regard to this quarrel that the hope exists that this country to
which I have referred may become detached from her allies and join in with us.
I am convinced that this supposition cannot be realized. I insist, however, in protesting
even against the reasoning based on such an hypothesis.
Whatever may be the practical result that we can expect from the perfidy of our
enemies, our feelings revolt against profiting by such treachery. Our cause is so just
that it admits of no compromise.
Should the country of which I am speaking show her repentance, by restoring all that it
has taken from its neighbors, it can find a place at our side. But to admit in our circle of
nations one who flees from the enemy camp against which we are fighting because his
part in the booty is not that which his appetite has fixed, is impossible. In fact, such an
act would constitute the negation of the principles for which we are fighting.
We have no need of weakening ourselves. We are materially and, above all, morally, far
superior to our enemies. We must conserve the dignity of our cause if we wish the
results to be commensurate with our efforts.
This is what stands forth preëminently in the celebration of such anniversaries. They
show to us that our civilizations, the Greco-Latin as well as the Anglo-Saxon, have deep
roots, and that they have created conditions which are essential to our existence.
That when these aspirations thus created in us are threatened, we are willing to submit
to any sacrifices, no matter how great they may be, in order to defend them.
That our ideals have conquered the greater part of the world, creating strong bonds of
solidarity between the peoples who are impregnated with them, permitting us to face
with confidence the creation of the league of nations which will assure to the world an
era of happiness in freedom through law.
Let us continue the fight; let us win, maintaining our principles without compromise.
We shall thus be sure of winning the commendation of humanity.
But we must understand that in order to achieve this result, the complete liberation of
the world, we must submit to great sacrifices of men and of money.
It is the need of our making these sacrifices which are being utilized by the German
propaganda in order to obtain an immediate peace which is to the Germans an absolute
necessity.
Through its secret agents, she tries to convince us that in order to obtain the victory
against her, our sacrifices will be enormous, while, if we satisfy some of her aspirations,
she will be ready to respect the liberty of the world.
We must close our ears to these insidious suggestions. Everything that comes from the
enemy camp must arouse our distrust, for Germany wishes indirectly to obtain what
she has originally sought when she let loose upon the world the dogs of war.
Russia lies prostrate, and Germany wishes to reanimate her, but to raise her with a
German soul. When she has at her disposal the enormous power of Russia, organized
with Prussian efficiency, a more terrible war awaits the world. The sacrifices to which
we shall then be obliged to submit will be much more terrific.
If we wish to put our programme into operation, we must set ourselves to change the
German mind, showing the ruins that its inhumane conceptions have accumulated, and
the fall of German power that must result from it. We have to do with fanatics of a
peculiar kind, whom only reality can bring to their senses. The Germans are fighting in
order to impose their civilization on the world by establishing a domination like that of
the Mussulmans, who have slaughtered the Christians in order to assure their happiness
in the future life. If our victory is incomplete, if the liberty of the nations is not
completely restored, we shall have simply an interlude between acts. The curtain will
rise upon a more terrible tragedy.
Let us endeavor to see beyond the limits of the present. Let us rise to meet the
emergency. The responsibility of our rulers is tremendous, but they are endowed with
the necessary ability to rise to these heights.
Let them not be influenced by these crafty serpents which are subtly attempting to
weaken our moral fiber, for the confidence of the leaders will maintain the strength of
our peoples, which up to the present nothing has been able to affect, and which
constitutes our best means to win.
Following the example of the countries that for four years have been shedding their
precious blood to conquer the monster, and consenting to undergo the same sacrifices,
we can be absolutely sure that our victory will be complete.
In the name of the Government which I have the honor to represent, I can assure you
that Greece’s determination to see the struggle through to the bitter end, is
unshakable.
 OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY
The American-Hellenic Society is organized for the general purpose of extending and
encouraging among the citizens of the United States of America an interest in the
cultural and political relations between the United States and Greece; and in particular
to promote educational relationships, including the establishment of exchange
professorships in the Universities of the United States and Greece, as a means to
diffuse knowledge of the literature and political institutions of the United States
throughout Greece, and to encourage in America the study of the ancient and modern
Hellenic language and literature; and further to defend the just claims of Greece in
particular and of Hellenism in general.
FOOTNOTES
1 The Metropolis of Tarsus and Adana, although it is,
geographically, in Asia Minor, falls under the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and is therefore omitted
here.
2 See authorities for these statements in an essay by the present
writer, published in the Michigan Law Review, vol. VI., 1907–1908,
pp. 50–52, and entitled, “Roman Law and Mohammedan
Jurisprudence,” Part I.
3 See Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society, entitled
Persecutions of the Greeks in Turkey since the Beginning of the
European War, June, 1918.
4 The present writer, in carrying on researches dealing with Asia
Minor, came upon Dr. Dieterich’s study, and, after reading it,
thought that it would be better to publish this essay than to write
a new one, inasmuch as he noticed that, with the exception of a
few observations which were to be expected from a German
writer, the author gives, on the whole, an accurate and impartial
account of the condition of things in Asia Minor, and does not
seem to share the views of many of the civil and military officials
of Germany, who consider that the existence of the Hellenic
element there is detrimental to the interests of Deutschtum. It
seemed, therefore, that no better testimony could be found than
that adduced by a subject of Kaiser Wilhelm on the material and
intellectual strength of Hellenism in Asia Minor, which is the latest
bugbear of the Teutons and the target of Turkish cruelty.
5 See an account of this interview in a Greek pamphlet entitled
How Germany Destroyed Hellenism in Turkey, by G. Mikrasianou,
1916, and particularly the confidential letter of the Turkish
Minister of the Interior, Talaat Bey (now Prime Minister), dated
May 14, 1914, to the Governor of Smyrna, reproduced in Le
Temps of July 20, 1916, and the English translation of it in
Publication No. 3 of the American-Hellenic Society, p. 70.
6 Supplement to the Greek White Book, entitled Ministère des
Affaires Étrangers, Documents Diplomatiques, Supplément, 1913–
1917, Nos. 1 and 4.
7 Oftentimes the name of the school embodies that of the donor,
as, e.g., Marasleion, Zographeion, Theologeion are named from
Marasles, Zographos and Theologos.
8 A much earlier and well-known English traveler calls Smyrna
“the lovely, the crown of Ionia, the ornament of Asia.” (See
Travels in Asia Minor and Greece, by Richard Chandler, ed. N.
Revett, vol. I., p. 73, ed. 1825.)
9 See Gaston Deschamps, Sur les routes d’Asie, 1894, p. 152.
10 Das Griechentum Kleinasiens, von Dr. Karl Dieterich, in Länder
und Völker der Türkei (Schriften des Deutschen
Vorderasienkomitees, herausgegeben von Dr. jur. et phil. Hugo
Grothe, Leipzig, 1915).
11 A political treatment of the “Greek Question” was presented in
a pamphlet of the Vorderasienkomitee, under the title, Die
asiatische Türkei und die deutschen Interessen, Leipzig, 1913, S.
23–26.
12 The successors of Alexander the Great.
13 So Michael Psellus (11th-12th century) of Nicomedia, Michael
Attaliates (11th century) from Attalia in Pamphylia, Nicetas
Acominatos (12th-13th century) from Phrygia, Georgius
Pachymeres (13th-14th century) of Nicæa; Nicephoros Gregoras
(14th century) from Pontus. The two latter are, also, our chief
source of information about the invasion of Asia Minor by the
Turks. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen
Litteratur, 2, München, 1897, §§ 126 and 128.
14 Cf. J. Strzygowski, Kleinasien, ein Neuland der
Kunstgeschichte, Leipzig, 1903.
15 K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzantin. Litteratur, 2, § 358.
16 Cf. Von der Goltz, Anatol. Ausflüge, Berlin (1896), S. 70 ff.
17 As to the type of the Anatolian Turks, see L. Heermann,
Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient (Aschaffenburg, 1886, S. 13,
126); A. Philippson, Das Mittelmeergebiet, 2, (Leipzig, 1906, S.
197); H. Gelzer, Geistliches und Weltliches aus dem griechisch-
türkischen Orient (Leipzig, 1900, S. 185); R. Fitzner, Anatolien
(Leipzig, 1902, S. 19).
18 On these old Church Acts is based the instructive investigation
of A. Waechter, Der Verfall des Griechenthums in Kleinasien im 14.
Jhd., Leipzig, 1903.
19 Translator’s note: There are at present twenty-two
Metropolitans in Asia Minor, or better, including that of Tarsus and
Adana, which is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the
Patriarch of Antioch, twenty-three.
20 On the question of the racial characteristics of the Greeks of
Asia Minor, cf. A. von Luschan, Verhandlungen d. Gesellsch. f.
Erdkde. zu Berlin, 15 (1888), S. 47–60; Archiv f. Anthropol., 19
(1889–90), S. 31–53; L’Anthropologie, I., p. 679 ff., II., p. 25 f.
21 Specimens of the Pontic and Cappadocian dialects of today are
to be found in A. Thumb’s Handbuch der neugriechischen
Volkssprache, 2 (Strassburg, 1910), S. 294–298. Grothe, in his
treatise, Meine Vorderasienexpedition 1906 u. 1907, Bd. II., S.
175, calls attention to the dialect of the Greeks of Farash in the
southern Antitaurus.
22 Exact statistics as to the number of Greeks in Cappadocia are
given by R. M. Dawkins, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 30
(1910), pp. 109–132, 267–291.
23 For more exact information, see H. Kiepert, Die griechische
Sprache im pontischen Küstengebirge, Zeitschr. d. Gesellsch. f.
Erdkde. in Berlin, 25 (1890), S. 317 ff.
24 Only the two largest rivers of western Asia Minor, the Mæander
and the Sangarios have, in a characteristic manner, kept their old
names in the form of Menderes and Sakkaria.
25 These texts, so interesting for the history of trade, are
reproduced by D. Georgiades in La Turquie actuelle, Paris, 1892,
pp. 197 ff., 218 ff., 224 ff.
26 The statistical data are based on Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie
(Paris, 1890–95), II. and III., completed from Baedeker,
Constantinopel und Kleinasien, 2 (1914).
27 In a similar way, in more recent times, the German excavations
of Priene and Miletus have benefited the neighboring Greek
settlements. Cf. H. Gelzer, Geistliches und Weltliches, S. 231.
28 Also called Kuru-Chesme, i.e., “dry fountain.” The place seems
to have a Greek name, Ξεροκρένε as its prototype, though no
place of this name is provable in Byzantine times.
29 Details about the history of this school are to be found in K.
Krumbacher, Populäre Aufsätze (Leipzig, 1909), S. 251 ff.
30 These statistics about the schools are derived from Cuinet, as
above cited.
31 As to the decrease of the Turkish population of Asia Minor and
its causes, see L. Heermann, Rückerinnerungen aus dem Orient
(Aschaffenburg, 1886), S. 128 Anm.; R. Fitzner, Anatolien, S. 20
f.; on the increase of the Greeks: K. Humann, Verhandlgn. d.
Gesellsch. f. Erdkde. zu Berlin, 7 (1880), S. 249–252; R. Fischer,
Mittelmeerbilder, N. F. (Leipzig, 1907), S. 401 f.
32 Hugo Grothe, too, in Die Asiatische Türkei und die deutschen
Interessen (Der neue Orient, S. 25, 9 Heft), pleads for a closer
feeling between the Germans and the Asia Minor Greeks. So, too,
Blankenburg, Heft 1 of the Schriftensammlung des Deutschen
Vorderasienkomitees, Die Zukunftsarbeit der deutschen Schule in
der Türkei.
33 It is to be remembered that the higher professional places in
the towns of Asia Minor are filled almost exclusively by Greeks.
Teachers, doctors and engineers are for the most part Greeks and
therefore among the higher engineering and administrative
officials of the Anatolian and the Bagdad railways there are many
Greeks.
34 The “Association d’Orient” in Athens.
35 See, for example, E. Naumann, Vom Goldnen Horn zu den
Quellen des Euphrat (1893), S. 208.
36 For complete details and examples illustrating these relations,
see D. E. Oeconomides’ above cited work, pp. vii and viii.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HELLENISM IN ASIA
MINOR ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE