The Galleys, the Oarsmen and the Scapoli

October, as the month in which the Naval Battle of Lepanto took place, is a month that brings in mind the galleys. Also, the hardships, the whippings, the illnesses and the battles that cost the lives of thousands of people from the Greek islands and shores.

Even though, since the 15^th century the firearms and cannons started to take their place in the battlefields, their dominance was yet to come, especially in the naval warfare. The innovations in navigation and shipbuilding may had introduced the caravel and other types of sophisticated vessels, but the naval battles kept on being decided by resaltos (rebounds) and hand-to-hand fights.

Especially in the Mediterranean Sea, the heavy sail vessels did not prevail until the middle 18^th century. Until then the navies of the Mediterranean states were relied on oar ships: the galleys and the galleasses. These vessels were performing good in short distances, while the fact that they could move considerably easily in case of lull weather, gave them a significant advantage. But in what price!

The men that consisted the moving power of the warships were fiercely tantalized oaring for days, covering vast distances. The exhaustion, combined with the awful living conditions and the poor food, caused huge losses in their ranks, which, according to some historic sources, could reach up to 80-85%!

The oarsmen of the Venetian galleys there were Muslim slaves, convicts, draftsmen from the overseas possessions, and also some mercenaries who, either chasing their fortune or been in need of the payment, exposed themselves in the conditions we described above.

Having in mind these very conditions, we can easily understand the reasons for which many of the oarsmen deserted, despite of the harsh punishment they faced. Even the mercenaries coulddesert their post on the bench and the coins that would fulfill their purse trying to save their health and life.

Such a case we detected in the following notaric paper from northern Corfu:

Recoupment payed by deserter (17^th century)

1636, day 10^th of August. Inside the house of Mr Ioannes Revis, in the village of St. Athanasios. Because Michelis Livadiotis from the above village had agreed to go with the galley of the Noble Venetian Mr Gianalivize Balbi, and received tornesia (coins) from the above Lord and then he left from this galley and today Sinior Capo Zorzis and other scapoli (marines) of the above galley came to find and arrest the above Michelis, and because they did not find him, they wanted to arrest the present Mr Andreas Mourmouris, father in law of the above Michelis, Mrs Eleni appeared and appealed to Sinior Capo to release the above Mr Andreas, and stated that if the above Michelis should have to pay recoupment to the above Lord, she would pay it. And today, willingly, the above and present Mrs Eleni and Mr Andreas, obliged together to give to the above Capo, in December 1636, as much olive oil, as the equivalent of Mr Michelis’ debt.

APC, Not. Vol. M246

Michelis Livadiotis, led by poverty, decided to embark with the galley of Sinior Balbi as an oarsman. This galley was probably private, either as privateer or part of the Venetian Navy, as both were common at the time, and was most probably engaged in the operations of the defense of Crete, which was under Ottoman attack since the 1620’s.

Michelis was exhausted by the hard work and little galeta that was available to eat. For tens, hundreds of miles he was sitting naked on his bench, oaring with three more men, who may were foreigners or convicts, or were too weak to oar forcing him to put an extra effort. He was oaring and thinking of his home island, Corfu, his wife he had left behind. And at some point he decided that money were not worth of any more sacrifice and deserted.

(The above article was written by Andreas Grammenos)

The lost churches of Corfu

The visitor who walks by the old town of Corfu is impressed by the exceptionally large number of churches. There’s probably no other town in Greece with such a ratio of churches and people.
The number of the churches is the outcome of the intense religiousness of our ancestors, but also the estate of familial, guild and co-operational churches, which had the effect of the intense construction of religious buildings in the town, as well as in the country side. Corfiots were so determined to keep building more churches, that the Venetians had to introduce a number of laws forbidding the construction of new churches, although those laws were not enforced consistently.
Nevertheless, historians note that the number of the churches in Corfu town was much larger in the distant past. The calamities that the town suffered in times of war, from the raid of Barbarossa in 1537 to the bombing during WW II, resulted to the ruination of many churches. Nevertheless, most dismantlements occurred during the works of the fortification of the town, from the end of the 16th century, to the beginning of the 19th.
The only way to locate the churches that disappeared in the past is the study of the historic documents of the Metropolis (bishopric) and the Historic Archive of Corfu. Due to relevant papers we are able to determine almost precisely how many and which churches were lost, or “moved” in past centuries and recompose the topography of the religious buildings in Corfu.
In the Old Fortress, for example, nowadays there is only the church of St George, built as an Anglican Church by the British, in the period of the Protection (protectorate). The historian Sp. Carydes, in his study “Urban space and sanctuaries: the case of Corfu in the 16th century”, has located in the Old Fortress sixteen churches! Those churches, fifteen Greek Orthodox and one Roman Catholic, are the following: of St Paraskevi located near the “Clock”, of St Anargyroi right above the (now) toppled walls in NE of the fortress, of St Theodoroi under the “Campana” entrenchment, of St Vlassios at the north end of the Dry Fosse, of St George where about today is the cafeteria, of St Demetrios of the Bridge at the north end of Contra Fossa, of St Ioannes the Baptist just above St George, of St Nicolaos of “Evrais” (Jewish Quarter) at the north end of Martinego Rampart, of St Nicolaos of the Forum located in the yard in front of the old British Hospital, of St Pangratios at the place where the Music Department of the Ionian University is today, of St Elias in front of today’s St George, of St Mary Acheiropiitos east of “Castel Da Mar”, of St Mary Odigitria in the modern concert area, of St Mary Portiotissa above the entrance of Mandrachio, of St Mary Soteriotissa at the area of the ruined fortifications opposite St George, and the Roman Catholic church of Peter and Paul at the leveled area under the British Hospital.
Next we present a notaric paper of the 16th century, referring to the lost church of St George in the Castle:
Contract of Construction works at St George in the Castle (16th c.)


1545, day 26th of July. Present Master Ritzo Zoticos acknowledged that promises to build the walls of the church of St George, the one located in the Castle, towards the representatives of the former Master Stefanos Sarantaris and Master Marcos Martenegos, in the manner that as much wall he builds, all the clay, stone, lime and labour to be of the craftsman, apart of the marbles, and to have one net Ducat for every yard he builds and he is obliged to build well and all the stones he finds to keep as gift....
A.P.C., Not., Vol. M 182, p. 193v

(the above article was written by Andreas Grammenos and was published in the newspaper "Corfu Today")

The feudal system and the agrarian problem of Corfu – Part 1

Since Corfu came under the rule of western sovereigns, the feudal system was introduced, although with some variations.
First the Anjou dynasty, sovereigns of Sicily and S. Italy, introduced the French model of feudalism, with the exceptions of a series of aspects conjectured by the treaty with the Despotate of Epirus. They were followed by the Venetians who nevertheless were pledged by the Chrysobull of 1387, by which Corfu acceded to the Republic.
In any case, until the 15th century when a situation was established, we notice the effect of the formation of large possessions of land. Those possessions are sorted to three main categories: the “immediate” feuds, the “public” baronies and the lands of the Roman Catholic Archbishopric. The main difference in the character of these possessions was who had sovereignty over the inhabitants, mostly peasants of the feud. In the case of the “immediate” feuds the full authority belonged to the feudarch, while, in the other two categories it belonged to the state.
The fact that the above possessions were not cohesive, but on the contrary they were scattered along the island, and also the fact that their owners were annexing more and more lands, also scattered, led to the effect of the fragmentation of the cultivable lands of Corfu.
Irrespectively, though, of who was their sovereign, the peasants of Corfu were living under hard conditions. Those who were serfs under the authority of a lord had very small earnings, but also the free farmers, who cultivated their own or rented lands, had to face the rents, the capitations of the olive-presses and the payments to the lenders to whom they regularly turned when the harvest was small.
There was also another group of peasants, who either had not inherited land by their parents, or they had lost their land in some way. Those unfortunate people had to subordinate to a lord willingly, in order to survive from starvation.
In the text below we can see such a case:

Bond contract from Corfu (16th c.) (translation)

1674, 12th of August. In the court (the courtyard of the mansion) of the present Honest Senior Alexandros Kartanos (Quartano), [son] of the late Honest Marinos, in his mansion at Cothoniki, [agreed with Mr Konstantis Soukeras [son] of the late Mr Stathis, and he hired to him all his fields he possesses in the above region.... also and the garden, with all the trees inside it. Also and the olive trees at ... He also give him and the hut in order to stay inside with his family, with no burden (rent), and he also give him the old hut, if he, Soukeras, in any time should have the means to repair it, to live in it with no burden... With the bond of Mr Soukeras to bring two loads of firewood per week at the holidays to the house of Honest Kartanos in the town, from the lumber of the same Kartanos....
Before the witnesses Mr Zafiris Potamitis and Mr Giorgakis Kampisas.
Α.P.C., Notaries, V Γ 76, p. 333v

In the above text we can note the use of the term “rent” referring to the lands the Sinior Kartanos gave to Mr Soukeras, but the absence of any reference to a relevant sum, as well as the terms of the concession of the huts to Mr Soukeras, imply that we have to deal with a “παροικική σύμβαση”, a bond contract between a lord and his serf, the terms of which do not differ much from those of the byzantine ones.
Under the status of παροικία (serfdom), the receiver of the land had the right to live in the possessions of his lord, with no right to leave it. The difference with the “immediate” feuds was that the lord had no legal judicatory authority over his serf.

(the above article was written by Andreas Grammenos and was published at the newspaper "Η Κέρκυρα Σήμερα)

A CORFIOT REBEL AGAINST THE BRITISH

The feelings of the Corfiots for the Biritsh Protection (1815-1864) are rather positive. Most of the people consider Protection as one of the most prosperous periods in local history, as Corfu has inherited a large legacy of infrastructure and cultural elements from the British governors and the local authorities of the time. Even the visitors can’t help but noticing the Palace, Mon Repos etc, even ginger-beer or cricket games. But what were the feelings of Corfiots towards the Protection in those years?
When the Ionian Islands were conquered by the British (1809-14), the locals, except from the Zacynthians, whose interests matched those of Britain, maintained a rather neutral stance. Only in Corfu there was a taste of bitterness, since the French (sovereigns of the Ionian Islands before the British), especially general Donzelot, had favored the island. Nevertheless, the feeling of relief for the end of the war was much stronger.
Soon, though, the Ionians realised that the “Protection” didn’t mean nothing but occupation for the British. The political system imposed by the new sovereign was authoritarian, and the islanders’ dreams for (relative) democracy and national independence since 1800 were buried under the presence of a mighty military force, of which the expenses were paid by themselves!
Such was the despotism of the state on those first years of the Protection, that the Ionian people neglected even the civil works plan or the law for the disarmament of the civilians. After all, most of the civil works were aiming to the convenience of the British and the disarmament was to secure that the Ionians wouldn’t have he means to revolt. The islanders bent their head, but not their soul towards the harshness of their new master.
For the whole duration of the Protection, the Ionians never stopped reacting vigorously to the British arrogance. The riots of 1848 that distressed the British regime are well known. But there were many reactions before that, even if they were sporadic and scimbly.
In an old notebook, right after a copy of an extract from an anthology of Galenus and Hippocrates, Spyridon Koskinas, a priest from the Village of Kouramades, wrote a story of great value. It’s the true story of a man from the village of Castellani, who raised a lonely fight against the British and their collaborators in the occasion of the disarmament of the villagers by the authorities.
In the next paragraphs we cite a few parts of this dramatic story.

A CORFIOT LONELY REBEL

1825, 7th October

...Stamatis A. (potentate, collector and sub-superintendent of the seigneur’s revenues), bad and corrupted,... put many men in prison, he forced us give many tributes to the government, he was ... tyrant over the forced work ... that men were working in the roads, working from 12 to 66 years old...
In 1822, with order by the government, they collected the handguns from all over the island... having also issued a resolution for 10 thalers and 6 months captivity on the island for whom should have a riffle without licence. Ioannes Alefotzios, kept a riffle, not to hurt anyone, but just for fun.
On 1825, on September, Stamatis saw Ioannes with his riffle. Rightaway, he reported him to the police... he put men into his house, paid with 2 silver coins per day ... in order to arrest him. ... Ioannes never stopped begging him to release him from the charge... The tyrant did not mercy him... Having no other option, the good Ioannes... decided to kill him, dooming himself too, but free the island.
Right when he killed him he shouted up loud: “I killed him! See and tell, so no one else is blamed!” After three hours the cavalry came to see the dead body [and they released] order to all the havens that no boat should leave. In the very village of Castellani two hundred English troops came with trumpets, drums, officers and the rest. They gathered more than four hundred locals out of eight hundreds. They left no lamb, ox, poultry, oil, wine, bread, but they devastated the area, having all the people closed up ...in the church of Ypapanti.
For forty days all the authorities of the island were after Ioannes. There was no place unsearched. They even formed a line from Perama to the shore of Pentati, but there was no way they could arrest him. The poor Ioannes never stopped running in the dells through the bushes, thirsty and starving.
One day, starving and exhausted, he found a small cabin at Cochini, and thinking that the people living there are Christians, he walked asking for some bread. These people treat him in a good manner, but they drunk him and took his arms. But when they fell asleep, Ioannes woke up, took back his arms and jumped out the window. Again, an even worst gibbet: they immediately informed the Police at Castellani, and they formed a line from Gouvia to Ermones, but Ioannes flew away to Garitsa, where he spent fifteen days in an old mine.
Three months later, they arrested him after a relative of his betrayed him.
When Ioannes was presented to the Governor, he confessed that he indeed killed Stamatis. But the points he made and his true sayings left all the courts speechless. So, all the people were leaving their businesses and were going to hear Ioannes justifying himdelf, while he criticised the tyranny of Stamatis towards him and the common people.
Anyway, the decision was made, according to the Law to hang Ioannes, six months after he killed Stamatis, bringing great sorrow to all the people, for a great hero was doomed. And when they were going to hang him they all run, young and old, men, women and children, crying, begging mercy for him. But their cries made no good to him. Seeing that it was the end of his life, Ioannes forgave everyone, including Stamatis, and he himself then put the gibbet around his own neck, on Wednesday the 7th of March, 1826, leaving behind him his magnanimity to be fabled by the forthcoming generations.

It is obvious from the story above that the British Protection of the Ionian Islands wasn’t quite a nice time. Of course, the British had in mind building an extensive series of infrastructure, but they also forced the locals to work (unpaid) for a number of palaces, fortifications etc, which were in their sole interest. They even forced the Corfiots to give up their arms – something that was perceived as humiliating in those days and, after all, it was with this arms that the Corfiots defended their homeland against so many intruders in the past – not in order to maintain civil security, but to ensure that the Corfiots would not turn them against them, or use them to assist their revolting brothers in the ottoman empire.
That is the reason why the Corfiots strugled for decades for their right to unify with Greece and celebrated when that happened in 1864, even though at the same time the British were demolishing the Island’s fortifications, i.e. the Corfiot property, history and pride.

written by Andreas Grammenos

ABOUT THE "AUTONOMY" OF CORFU

In the past few days the Corfiots are frustrated by an issue derived from reportages published by The Guardian and BBC, following the allegations of a small group of residents of Corfu, concerning their wish to “split” from Greece.
It is a fact that many Corfiots still carry the memory of the distinct past of the island, when, together with the other Ionian Islands, formed the Septinsular Republic and later the United States of the Ionian Islands, under the British Protection. It appears that in those times the separate Ionian state was far more efficient than Greece, as far as it concerns investments in infrastructure and generally administrative and financial organization. It is also a fact that the Corfiots have many reasons to complaint about the lack of public investments in Corfu along with the negaqtive effect of the endemic Greek corruption, which is blamed for the country’s misfortune.
But, are these the only reasons why a small and yet unidentified group of Corfu’s residents ask for “split” from Greece and “autonomy”?

In the recent few years there we observe a lively activity by some international forces, such as Russia and Italy, who are trying to build up a status of interference in the region, in order to gain a position of control over the petroleum deposits of northern Ionian Sea and the endings of the natural gas pipelines in the area. One could interpret the interest of The Guardian and BBC for the Corfiot “autonomy” issue, as an effort of the British to take part in this game. After all, Corfu used to belong to the British sphere of power once.
In 1864, after many years of the Eptanesians (Corfiots and residents of the other Ionian Islands) struggling for Union with the Greek Kingdom, the British were forced to withdraw from the Islands and sign the Treaty of London, by which the Union was proclaimed. In the last couple of years before the treaty, the British were trying to keep Corfu and Paxos out of the forthcoming Union, and to transform them into a colony. Since they did not achieve that due to the reactions of the Corfiots, they managed to introduce an article in the Treaty of London, by which it was proclaimed that the two islands should remain in an “eternal neutrality” status. Later, they also managed to ensure the same status for the Corfu Straits between the island and the Balkan Peninsula. It seems that some people, one and a half century later, are considering to make use of this facts.

It is so far uncertain what the motives of the “autonomy” group are. The point is that regardless of their own intentions, they may serve foreign interests by setting the status of Corfu under revision. It is certain, though, that the vast majority of the Corfiots are not attracted by their ideas. Corfiots have always been proud of their Greek nationality, and have fought hard, in many occasions, in peace and war, for the national independence and welfare of Greece.
Note that many Corfiots have foreign origins: Italians and Dalmatians settled in Corfu during Venetian rule (1386-1797), Albanian and Arvanite populations came to the island (15th to 18th c.) and Maltese emigrants settled around Corfu Town during the British Protection (1820’s – 1860’s), but they all consider themselves as Greeks, and no other language is spoken by the natives but Greek. So, any thought of separating Corfu from the Greek state is at least mistaken, if not dangerous for the interests of the Corfiots. The populace of Corfu forms a solid Greek population so any separatist movement has nothing to be based on.

What the Corfiots (as most of the Greeks living in the provinces, i.e. not in Athens and a couple more metropolitan cities) could really ask for is the direct transformation of the Greek administrative system and the self-government of the provinces, concerning issues of public investment and aspects of local interest. It is commonly accepted that the Greek administrative and political system has reached to a dead end – the reestablishment of the structures of the state is a “sine qua non” demand for a better future.

Hence, any calls for “autonomy” are either ridiculously away from the will of the Corfiots, or against their interests, serving foreign stakes. Nevertheless, the Corfiots are getting tired by the international games on their island and the inertia of their government.

THE DEATH PENALTY IN CORFU

Until the 20th century the penal systems are characterised by their severeness. This severeness does not refer only to the penalisation of acts that nowadays are not considered as criminal, but also to the extreme sentences imposed to the convicts.
In other articles we saw how one could be sentenced to prison, even for a small debt. We also saw that imprisonment, under the conditions of those times (before the 20th c.) was placing the lives of the convict under direct threat.
But the lives of many individuals brought in the courts of law, were not just in danger. The death penalty was once pretty common, for a large variety of offences. Needless to say that the evidence provided in the courts were usually insufficient from the modern point of view, and the judicial resolutions were mostly based on testimonies and avowals coming out from torture, putting their value under question.
It was this situation that drove the Italian Cesare Becaria to publish in Milan an essay “On crimes and Penalties”, in the Enlightenment era. In this text he formulated a series of principles that should dominate Justice, pointing out the principle of correction, instead of the extermination of the offender.
Unfortunately for our ancestors, this principle and the calls for improvement of the conditions under which Justice was operating, were adopted many years later. Humanitarianism was not considered as a commitment for the authorities in the past. Their aim was primely their own security and the maintenance of order, and hence Justice’s mission was mainly emulation.
Emulation, as a cause, was fulfilled both by the death penalty and the procedure of its execution. The convict was pilloried on his way to the scaffold and the executions were carried out with brutal and painful procedures: the decapitation with a broadaxe and the gallows were the most common. Note that during the French Revolution the guillotine was invented as a more “humanitarian” and painless means of execution of the death penalty, and it was used until the beginning of the 20th century. In Corfu, the last execution with the guillotine was carried out in 1887 in the grounds of the New Fortress (Bonates’s Case[1])
Regardless of the crime committed by or inputted to the convict, it is a fact that the death penalty is unacceptable for humanitarian reasons and matters of justice. The death penalty is not reversible, it does not aim to the correction but revenge, and it causes negative feelings and traumas to the relatives of the executed. That’ s why the European civilisation has unanimously rejected the death penalty.
The following document from the Historical Archives of Corfu pictures the last tragic hours of a convict before his execution on some Spring’s day of the 16th century.

LAST WILL OF A MAN SENTENCED TO BE DECAPITATED (translated)

ƒ 30th of May, in the courtyard of the upper prison in the Castle, where is Zacharias Manetas, who tomorrow is going, under the decision of the Glorious Government, to be decapitated for his crime. He called for me, as a notary, to write his last will, in order to set his affairs. He set his own goods and he asks for forgiveness by the Resurrected God and every man. He wishes, as he said, that his wife, becoming now a widow, to be the mistress of all his own goods until the end of her life. And the boy, Georgios, to be the heir of his own assets. He satisfied Miser Perotas Polites for which he owed him. As he says, he received a young ox from Miser Tzortzes Sordinas and he trained it.....

H.A.C., Notaries, Vol. M 180, p. 181v

In this will, the notary does not reveal the reason that Zacharias Manetas was sentenced to death. The information we extract from the text – except from the obvious ones – is the rush or the disturbance of the notary and the collectedness of the goner.
Indeed, the handwriting gradually becomes hasty and indecipherable, either because of emotion (especially at the point that Zacharias refers to his wife and child), or because of lack of time. Nevertheless, the goner is collected enough to “set” his affairs, i.e. to settle his pendant accounts and his assets. Maybe he managed to stand as collected before the executioner’s broad axe.

notes

[1] See Σ. Κατσαρός, Ιστορία της Κέρκυρας, 20032, pp. 417-21.

_____________________

Thiw article was written by Andreas Grammenos and was published in the newspaper "Η Κερκυρα Σημερα"

THE UNION AND THE INCORPORATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS WITH GREECE: FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Every year, on May 21st, the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands celebrate the Union with Greece, which took place in 1864. Every year, on that day, the festivities are grand, with decorations, parades and various happenings. Nevertheless, one might hear some words about the unfavorable effects the Union carried for Corfu and the rest of the Islands.
No one can doubt the Hellenism of the Ionian Islands, nor the national belief of their inhabitants. Hence, the Union was a historical necessity, derived from the desires and struggles of the Ionians, their self-definition and the feeling of belonging to the Greek Nation.
Nevertheless, the mode that the Incorporation of the Islands with Greece took place caused a heavy shock to the local communities. The Incorporation, which was so passionately supported by many Ionians, with specific and definitely just expectations, not only did not repaid their efforts, but also left deep wounds on the locals.
A series of establishments and institutions – among others the Ionian Academy and the Archbishopric throne – stopped their operation, while others had to suffer under the constant poverty of the Greek State. The new political system was more democratic, but expanded the corruption and political clientele. In the same time, the agrarian reformation for the favour of which P. Konstantas and other Ionian politicians struggled for so many years, was never introduced until today.
Corfu, an important Mediterranean economical and cultural metropolis of the 19th century, was degraded into a small, remote town of the Greek territory. The wounds of WW II, probably the heaviest among other Greek towns, were never treated by the state, resulting to the current situation: no industrial infrastructure, minor (above the Greek usual, but far from the past status of Corfu) cultural development, insufficient services provided by the state and the local authorities.
The general looseness of the state institutions and the gradual disintegration of the local cultural elite had a negative effect on the local political and cultural civilisation. Perhaps, those negative effects are not so much a result of the situation in Greece itself, but rather of the turbulence of the “transplantation” of the Greek situation into the Ionian Islands.
In any case, it is a fact that, even decades after the Union and the Incorporation, those Ionians who blamed those procedures for the misfortune of the Island, weren’t few.
Among other references to the above, the one by Ambrosios, a monk from the monastery o Myrtidiotissa, written in the beginning of the 20th century, is of great value:

THE UNION WITH THE EYES OF A MONK (translated)

Archives of the monastery of Myrtidiotissa, Catastico 1, p. 168r

During the year 1814, the English conquered Corfu, and their occupation lasted until 1864, when the Union with the rest of Greece took place. It would be better if the earth were torn apart and swallowed us all alive. Three times damn, according to the Triode[1], to Bishop Athanasios who made (sic) the Union and doomed the Ionians.
In the times of England everything was good, and when the Greek nation came, God’s rage came with them, and all the expensiveness and all the great blasphemy. I remember, when I was a little schoolboy, in 1888, that my father – God rest his soul - used to tell me that at the time that the English were in Corfu, in the village of Synarades only two men used to utter profane oaths, a Stathes P. and another Petros, son of A, and no one else. And the Greek nation brought all the sins to the Ionian Islands.[2]


notes

[1] Greek Orthodox religious book.
[2] Extract from the book of Spyros Karydes Αμβροσίου Μοναχού Χρονικά Σημειώματα, η Κέρκυρα των αρχών του 20ου αιώνα μέσα από τα μάτια ενός μοναχού, 2004, p. 107.

_______________

This article was written by Andreas Grammenos and was puplished in the newspaper "Η Κερκυρα Σήμερα"

HISTORY CALLS FOR REPARATION

The most significant historic heritage of the island and the town of Corfu are, undoubtedly, the two stunning fortresses and the remains of other fortifications, which embrace the historic part of the island’s capital for more than four centuries. The significance comes not only by the fact that these enormous arts of the Renaissance architectural science are unique, as human erections, in Greece and the whole of the NE Europe, but also due to their measureless contribution to the formation of the political and cultural character of modern Europe.
In three major occasions, the forts and people of Corfu formed the ultimate outpost of the European world in its struggle to keep the Ottoman Turks away from the heart of the continent. In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Corfu, along with Vienna, were for the Europeans the equivalent of Marathon and Salamis for the ancient Greeks. In 1537, Corfiots faced the wrath of the infamous Chairedin Barbarossa, moaned almost 30,000 dead and captured, but they maintained an unmatched defense and won the battle against the conqueror of Brindisi and other castles in southern Italy. In 1571, Corfu, with its fortifications, ports and people, played the role of the remote base of the Sacred League’s fleet before and after the Battle of Lepanto. Finally, in 1716, the fortifications of Corfu “broke the spear” of the Turkish expansionism for the last time, having, thus, a large part in the decay of the Ottoman Empire.
One and a half century later, the British Armed Forces, while departing after the end of British Protection and the Union of the Ionian Islands with Greece, detonated explosives under these very same fortifications that had saved Europe in the past. Their excuse was that they couldn’t leave such a strong fort standing, since poor Greece was not in position of maintaining and defending it.
Despite the fact that the destruction of Corfu’s fortifications was “legitimated” by two treaties signed in 1863 and 1864 by the European Great Powers (the latter signed by a Greek representative, as well), it was clearly an action against the international (absence of an Ionian representative) and civil laws (destruction of another’s property) and the ideas of preservation of monuments and freedom of independent states (deliberate reduction of an independent country’s means of defense). Under the Treaty of Paris (1815), the Ionian Islands formed “a single, Free and Independent State”, under the exclusive protection of the United Kingdom. Article V of the same treaty, clarifies that the British armed forces should occupy the fortresses, while their ownership was to be maintained by the Ionians. Furthermore, for the duration of the British protection, the Ionian State, paid no less than £ 1.395.000 (mid-19th century equity) as contribution to the occupying British forces, with the greater part concerning the maintenance and expansion of the fortifications.
These facts led even some spokesmen in the British Parliament to blame their government for the illegal action against the Corfiot historic heritage in 1864. At the same time, a century before the UN Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), Corfiot scholars appealed to the international community for the urgent need to protect the monuments of the European history.
The international political environment of the mid-19th century left no space for sensitivities for the protection of monuments and the respect towards one’s historic heritage, as the rulers of the world would sacrifice almost anything on the sake of raison d’ état. Today things have changed a lot· the international law and the voice of the people force the governments to act for the preservation of monuments which consist part of the world heritage. Corfu is such a case, now expecting from the international community to rectify the mistakes and unfairness of the past.

_____________

This articled was written by Andreas Grammenos and was first uploaded in http://corfuheritage.blogspot.com/

THE CORFIOTS IN THE BATTLE OF LEPANTO

October 1571. One of the greatest naval battles in human history –before the 20th century-, took place in the waters of the Ionian Sea. As an outcome of the tragic (for the Christians) turnout of the war between the Venetians and the Ottoman Turks for Cyprus, the European states formed the Sacra Lega, the Holy Coalition, in order to confront the Ottoman tide. The states that formed the Sacra Lega were Spain, Genova, the Knights of Malta, the German Empire and – off course – Venice with her possessions in the Levant. The Sultan, on his behalf, gathered as many warships as possible from his empire and the vassal emirates of Northern Africa.
In total, about 150,000 man and over than 500 warships collided in the area of the Echinades islands, in a fierce close combat, which lasted five full hours. The naval battle ended with the glorious victory of the Christians, but the bloodshed was heavy for both rivals: the Christians lost about 11,000 souls, while the Ottoman casualties reached 29,990 men.
The fierceness of the fighting was raised by the propaganda of the two rivals, since both the Pope and the Sultan (as the Great Chaliph), each on his behalf, had declared holy war, promising their followers full forgiveness for their sins, and the status of martyr to the dead of the war.
The Corfiots, as vassals of the Venetian Republic, fought also in this harsh battle, having already to demonstrate an exceptional tradition in the wars against the Ottomans. According to the Chrysobul of 1386, by which the Corfiots swore faith to Venice, they were obliged to maintain and man three war galleys to serve beside the metropolitan navy. In 1571, though, due to the exceptional circumstances, Corfu offered four galleys to the Sacra Lega: the “Christ of Corfu”, with Christoforos Contocales as sopracomitto (captain), the “Eagle of Corfu” under the command of Pierros Buas, “Saint Michael” under Georgio Cochinnes, and the “Angel of Corfu” of captain Stylianos Chalikiopoulos.
Nevertheless, a closer look at the list of the warships that fought in the battle, reveals another galley under commander Marcos Fiomachos, named “Saint Peter”. Hence, we should reconsider the number of Corfiote galleys and men that fought in Lepanto, regardless the possibility that Fiomachos fought as a privateer. In any case, the crew of “Saint Peter” were mostly Corfiotes, as proved by a document from the Historical Archives of Corfu[1].
From the commanders mentioned above, Christoforos Contokales gained glory, as he managed to seize the galley of the Pasha of Rhodes, while, on the other hand, Pierros Buas suffered a martyr’s death, after been captured by the Algerian Admiral Ulutch Ali, who ordered to skin him alive. Buas’ galley was captured while it rushed to cover a gap that threatened the centre of the Christian line. Eventually, “Saint Peter” was surrounded by the enemy ships and its crew was massacred.
One of the Corfiots serving in the fatal galley was Theodoros Picernes from the village of Kalafationes, as we are informed by the following document:


CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A DRAFTSMAN (translated)

May 5th 1571
Mr Antonios Mavros from the village of Counavades, of the Practoria[2] of Gyros, and mr Theodoros Picernes from the village of Kalafationes, both agreed as follows: because mr Antonios was placed in the Galley of the Noble Master Buas, to work himself, as and the other men of the Island, so, the said mr Theodoros promises to work in the said galley in his place, as replacement, for as much time as the rest islanders will work. And in the name of the above (agreement) he (mr Antonios) promises to pay him (mr Theodoros) zeckins in total 24, and a pair of trousers, and to receive (mr Theodoros) the usual wage from the Governor, and the contribution of the village, as the rest of the draftsmen. The 24 zeckins, the said Picernes received from the said Antonios. Mr Christos Macres and mr Ioannes Lagadites guaranteed for mr Picernes. If he leaves (the service) they will serve in his behalf.
A.P.C. (H.A.C.), Notaries, Vol. N 328, p48r

Theodoros Picernes was seeking for a revenue and, since he possibly had an experience as a galley serviceman, he replaced the draftsman Antonios Mavros in the fatal galley of Pierros Buas. The documents of the notaries from the Historical Archives of Corfu do not include more information for his fate. But, having in mind the end of the captain of the Galley, it is rather improbable that the brave villager from Kalafationes survived the Battle.
For centuries, this Corfiot warrior remained unknown and unmentioned, among so many others, but we now are able to address him by name the respect we owe to the thousands of our ancestors that kept away the Ottoman Conqueror from our island and the Christian Europe.

notes
[1] A.P.C. (H.A.C.), Notaries, Volume Π 41, p. 135v
[2] Practoria: administrative district, part of Baylato.

___________________

This article was written by Andreas Grammenos and was published (in Greek) in the newspaper "Η Κέρκυρα Σήμερα"