1. Enlightenment and archaeology

The phenomenon of Hellenization and archaisation of names was in no case exclusive in Pontus or in Asia Minor, but it appeared in the Greek world as one of the consequences of the Greek Enlightenment and the “discovery of history” by the Greek scholars of that time, namely the prevailing concept that around 1750 “as they approached the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Greek literature, they did not explore a new field, but they reconnected with the education and culture of their ancestors”, according to K. Dimaras.¹ This reappraisal of the past resulted in the emancipation of academic pursuit from the clergy, and it was initiated by the Phanariots, later spreading to the wider bourgeoisie. This separation produced two interrelated consequences; firstly a reconnection to antiquity, which had up to that point been rejected and considered pagan, but which was already directly influenced by western culture, especially that of France, which was dominated by a strong group of lovers of antiquity (before, but also after the Revolution). This trend influenced the choice of names. According to Dimaras, the practice of archaisation of names in Greece also stemmed from the French Revolution, which is a result of the Greek scholars’ fascination with the western world. However, this general borrowing ought not to be necessarily assigned to the above practice. It probably sufficed that the suitable ideological conditions had been created, and thus a part of the Greek Orthodox population, initially the most cultured one, was soon keen to acknowledge its ancestors and pursue the revival of Hellenism. Besides, neither the process of renaming (of the clergy, for example), nor the idea of assigning a name to someone as a form of ‘resurrection’² are unfamiliar in the Greek world. In all cases, in the beginning of the 19th century, the phenomenon gained momentum, and thus fell prey to the strict criticism of the church. In 1819 Patriarch Gregorios V issued an encyclical which condemned the new custom. As I. Petropoulou³ points out, the process of renaming (in a way akin to baptism) is a transitive ceremony, as it signals the uprooting of a subject from its previously inferior condition, and its accession to a newly upgraded status. Through baptism, the Church sanctified the exclusive right of the individual’s social position, their passage from nature to civilisation, represented by Christianity, which, according to the Church is the only possible form of civilisation. The method of renaming students was considered nothing but dangerous by the clergy of that era.

2. Pontus and name changing

The changing of names is an early phenomenon which also appears in Pontus. Around 1820, a teacher of the Frontistirion, Sabbas Triantiaphyllides, systematically renamed his students. Theodoros became Xenophon, Iordanis became Isocrates, and Ioannis Socrates. As a matter of fact, Theodoros-Xenophon, when he became a teacher at the Frontistirion, renamed Constantinos, the son of Triantaphyllides, Perikles, “following the habit of that time, according to which the students also received a Greek name”.⁴ Besides, the example of the Triantaphyllides family is very characteristic of that period, not only as far as renaming Christian names was concerned, but also relating to the consolidation of surnames in ‘-idis’ – an ending which was also indicative of the archaisation attitude. In this way, Triantaphyllides the Elder was actually called Savas Constantinou, and his son Constantinos Sava. After he was renamed, the latter initially adopted the name ‘Perikles Constantinou’, before it resulted in the name ‘Perikles Triantaphyllides’. It is highly likely that the most notable and long-standing influences of the archaisation phenomenon were evident in Pontus, and concerned primarily surnames and not personal names. Judging by Kyriakides’ list of scholars, the practice of changing names did not appear to have continued for more than two generations, at least within the realm of the Frontistirion. Conversely, in Cappadocia, despite the fact that this phenomenon took much longer to appear, it lasted for a long time, but also occurred outside the boundaries of educational establishments and the scholarly strata. Thus, it has been observed that, while the phenomenon appeared wherever Greek-Orthodox people were attested, it nevertheless was not accounted for to the same extent, nor did it have the same significance. Possibly, in the case of Cappadocia, the widespread number of Turkish-speaking people among the Greek-Orthodox population played a significant part, leading to their being marginalized on account of the very practice of changing names. On the other hand, it may be the case that in Pontus the Church’s disapproval towards this practice played a decisive role. Within the second generation of teachers who had been renamed, around 1850, the Frontistirion underwent a crisis, due to an internal upheaval, which was resolved only with the intervention of the Church. This intervention produced results beyond the initial target, namely the one related to the field of changing names, which was thoroughly rejected by the Church. However, this does not mean that the tendency towards Hellenisation and archaisation of names in Pontus was halted, since it developed into new practices other than name changing within the educational institutions. Apart from the practice of forming surnames with an ending in ‘-ides’, another application which was mentioned is the Hellenisation or archaisation of certain place-names, like Argyroupoli, which was thus renamed in 1846 by the teacher G. Kyriakidis. Finally, love for antiquity was displayed in the names which were given to various clubs, and made direct or indirect mentions to the vividness and refinement of this fashion, such as Xenophon, Pericles, Argonautai.