By Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos
His Contribution to the Struggle for Liberation
Germanos of Old Patras was an outstanding figure of the Greek Revolution and a distinguished clergyman, with significant contribution to both the Church and the Nation. His secular name was Georgios Kozias or Kotzias. He was born in Dimitsana on March 25, 1771, Great Friday. His family was large and poor. At the school of his birthplace he learned his first letters, but he continued his studies under the teacher Agapios Leonardos in Argos. His intelligence and academic performance attracted the attention of the Metropolitan of Argos and Nafplion, Iakovos, who took the young Georgios as his secretary, tonsured him a monk giving him the name Germanos, and ordained him a deacon.
Shortly before 1797, Germanos was in Smyrna with his compatriot Metropolitan Gregory. When the latter was elected Ecumenical Patriarch (1797), Germanos followed him to Constantinople. From that time the two men were bound by close friendship. It is not absolutely verified whether Germanos followed the exiled Gregory V to Mount Athos. It is certain, however, that he remained in the City as Archdeacon of Kyzikos under Joachim and later became his Protosyngellos. When Joachim, who had resigned, was succeeded by Makarios of Old Patras, Germanos was elected as his successor, to shepherd in difficult times one of the most important dioceses of the Greek lands. It was March of 1806. He arrived at his see in the summer of that year and was received with enthusiasm by his flock.
With his prudence and maturity he quickly gained the respect and esteem of the people and the notables of the Peloponnese, as well as of the Islands and Central Greece, exercising great influence over them. Moreover, by nature he was “majestic,” as Ioannis Philemon informs us, “a man of gravity and intelligence.” His qualities became even more evident when later he undertook his own mission in the national struggle. It should be noted that he also maintained a close bond with his native land, which he visited frequently, offering much to his fellow citizens, as well as to the school that had nurtured him, of which in 1816, after it had been united with the Monastery of Philosophou, he became general overseer.
During the years 1815–17 he was in Constantinople as a member of the Synod, and there he first became aware of the movement of the Filiki Etaireia. However, he returned to his see without being initiated, and was received with enthusiasm by the people, who felt secure in the presence of their Shepherd. Yet, through a chance incident in November 1818, the member of the Society Antonios Pelopidas initiated Germanos into the Society, something which confirms the patriotic activity of Germanos, who thus participates in the preparation of the struggle, even assuming a leading role. In the developments that followed he distinguished himself as a most capable political figure, so that many consider his national-political role more significant than his ecclesiastical one.
Germanos’ contribution to the work of the Filiki Etaireia is today well known. We know that he initiated into it Prokopios of Kernitsa, Bessarion of Charitoupolis, and other notables and clergy. He worked for the better organization of the Society’s activity in the Peloponnese, while at the same time trying to influence the stance of Ali Pasha toward the impending struggle. It was, after all, known that Ali Pasha would attempt to exploit the plans of the Greeks for his own benefit, either by using them against the Sultan or even by betraying them if that would serve him. Indeed, at the suggestion of Germanos, the supreme authority of the Society appointed an Ephorate in the Peloponnese (1820), in order to maintain discipline and to organize the effort more systematically. Thus, those initiated in the Morea were able to address key issues, to collect contributions, and above all to mislead the Turks, while also preempting, through various measures, any British reaction, which would have been extremely dangerous.
The Ephorate of the Filiki Etaireia had, ostensibly, as its head the Russian consul in Patras, Vlasopoulos, but in reality its president was Germanos, who always signs first. The other members of the Ephorate were Germanos of Christianoupolis, Prokopios of Kernitsa, Asimakis Zaimis, S. Haralambis, Andreas Lontos, Asimakis Fotilas, Sotirios Theocharopoulos, G. Papadopoulos, and I. Papadiamantopoulos. Regardless of intentions, which ultimately cannot always be easily discerned, the fact remains the participation of clergy and notables in the preparation of the struggle, as well as the unity, from the beginning, of the forces of the nation toward the sacred goal.
The Leadership Personality of Germanos of Old Patras
The prudence of Germanos was revealed in all its greatness at the Assembly of Vostitsa, at the end of January 1821. There it became evident that the material organization of the movement, despite efforts, was still weak and rudimentary. In these secret meetings, prudence and untimely enthusiasm came into opposition, the logic of experience and over-optimism. Germanos stood in contrast with the impetuous and excessively passionate Gregorios Dikaios—Papaflessas, himself also a pioneer and hero of the struggle. Having recently arrived in the Morea, Papaflessas, equipped with money and war material, was creating, “through his reckless behavior, his over-optimism and exaggerations, anxiety and disturbance among the local bourgeois leaders, notables, and hierarchs, who — as the very critical Apostolos Vakalopoulos rightly observes — were playing with their heads.”
It is not insignificant that the member of the Society, Panagiotis Sekeris, on January 18, warned Papaflessas: “Be more moderate in your impetuosity and never decide rashly, lest you later have cause to repent…”. Papaflessas presented everything at Vostitsa as ready, with such unrealistic enthusiasm that he justifiably alarmed the notables and hierarchs, prompting Germanos to say to him in indignation: “Where are the munitions? Where are the weapons? Where are the abundant funds? Where is the trained army? Where is the equipped fleet? Whatever leader we have, to contend with the most terrible beast of the Ottoman Empire… let us bring before our eyes for a moment, brethren, the destruction of the Peloponnese (in 1769), even though then there appeared a Russian fleet, which at least was a sign that the Russian Empire had some involvement; but in the present time, what clear signs do we have to believe what Dikaios says and what Ypsilantis writes?”
It is indeed a fact that the insistence of Dikaios — fruit of a “paradoxical” heroism, guided by the heart and not by reason — did, to some extent, move even the notables. “Undoubtedly, if Papaflessas had not appeared on the eve of the outbreak of the revolution and had not used every means to ignite the fuse which he carried beneath his heroic cassock, the revolution would not have taken place and freedom would not have returned to the country” (Tasos Gritsopoulos). However, the stance of Germanos is also fully justified, who maintained the position of a true shepherd and leader, conscious of his responsibility for the safety of his flock and the consequences of every reckless and hasty action. He sought — and rightly — the proper conditions for the beginning of the struggle.
Judging matters after the fact, it is easy for us to find reasons to criticize those figures. But if we place ourselves in their position, we will be able to assess their actions more objectively and avoid every ideological interpretation or misuse of history. It is well known, moreover, the response that Germanos later gave to Ignatios of Ungro-Wallachia, who mocked his letters as ignorant and irrational, advising him to rest because nothing would come of it: “I, brother, had both rest and glory and wealth, serving as a bishop in splendid Patras in the time of Turkish rule, but I despised all these things and chose, together with the rest of my compatriots, hardship in hope of the common benefit of the fatherland, without ever having any private aim of personal gain.”
Two months later, Germanos took the lead in raising the banner of the revolution in the Peloponnese, blessing the struggle of the rayahs. Of course, that Germanos together with the other notables of Achaia raised the revolutionary flag (banner) on March 25 at the Monastery of Agia Lavra is a popular legend. It is known today that the revolution began in various parts of the Peloponnese almost simultaneously, according to plan, on March 23, although small clashes had already occurred earlier. However, the popular belief regarding the solemn raising of the flag by Germanos constitutes a brilliant confirmation of his place in the national consciousness, as well as of the unity and cooperation of all the leaders — especially the ecclesiastical ones — in the revolution, which was a pan-national and all-Hellenic event.
Germanos became a symbol of the struggle and functioned as such in the collective consciousness of the people. It is nevertheless true that the course of events dispelled every hesitation, even among those who were more cautious — and not without justification.
The Contribution of Germanos of Old Patras to the War of Liberation
Germanos was in Nezera when the first clashes began. The suspicion of the Turks, who perceived the suspicious movements of the rayahs and naturally became concerned, led them to demand explanations from the notables. Their plan was to imprison bishops and leading men, something that shows that the Turks themselves were aware of the national role of the Greek leadership and its stance toward them. Their aim was to decapitate the uprising against them. The intelligence of Germanos managed, through a stratagem of his own devising, to prevent them from falling into the Turks’ trap. As he himself writes in his Memoirs, a council of the notables was held in Kalavryta, and they decided not to respond to the Turks’ invitation. They even wrote a forged letter, in which supposedly a Turkish friend informed them that they were about to be executed. Cleverly, they ensured that the Turks learned of the contents of the letter, which explained the reason for their refusal to go to Tripoli.
Among the first actions of Germanos was the formation of a force of 500 men, who took part in the siege of the Turks in the castle of Patras. Germanos was present at all phases of the siege, continuously equipping fighting units. He cooperated with the local leaders Andreas Zaimis and Andreas Londos, as well as with the men of Koumani. Confronting the opposition of the pro-Turkish consul of Patras, Philip Green, he wrote a strong protest (his autograph has been preserved), denouncing Green’s actions to international public opinion.
His role was also important when disputes and rivalries arose between political and military leaders during the struggle. Germanos, as a true clergyman, tried to remain outside the divisions and to play a conciliatory and reconciling role. In many cases, however, the animosities were so strong that this became not only difficult but almost impossible. Nevertheless, he persisted in his efforts toward unity. Such a role was not unfamiliar to Germanos. Much earlier, from the beginning of his episcopacy, he had undertaken similar efforts, mediating both among factions of notables and between notables and Turks. If his stance then is interpreted by some as “pro-kodjabashis,” his unifying role during the revolution is clearly national and patriotic, since he labored for the success of the common struggle.
Among his most essential contributions to the revolution was his proclamation of general conscription, his prudent direction of the revolutionary chancellery with the use of the famous Seal of Freedom, the distinction between the legislative and executive powers through the Organization of January 1, 1822, and other similar measures. The general esteem in which Germanos was held is shown by his recognition as the only suitable person to represent the Nation in informing the papal court and the Pope about the ongoing struggle. At the end of October 1822, he was sent to Italy together with Georgakis Mavromichalis, in order to present appeals to the members of the Congress of Verona for the recognition of the National Struggle. His patriotic spirit and intentions are evident in his partially published correspondence from this period. He was not received by the Pope. However, this did not prevent him from developing significant activity. He took care to establish contact with prominent Greeks of the diaspora (e.g., Ioannis Kapodistrias, Dionysios Roma, Ignatios of Ungro-Wallachia, etc.) and made efforts to secure a loan.
In his correspondence with Greece, he struggled to keep alive the revolutionary flame and the unity and cooperation of the leaders of the struggle.
He remained in the West for two years, promoting the just cause of the rebelling nation, but also continually experiencing bitterness and disappointment, as in the case of the peculiar Ignatios, as we have seen. What especially saddened him were the ongoing conflicts among the leaders in Greece, and he tried to maintain the necessary balance in his stance toward the opposing sides. On February 22, 1824, he wrote to Dionysios Roma: “My soul is in pain, seeing from here the compatriots pushing the fatherland into the abyss; but what is to be done? I can neither correct anything from here nor go there; thus I pass my days in sorrow and have no hope except that Divine Providence will transform crooked paths into straight ones…”
He returned to Greece in July 1824. It was precisely the period of the harsh civil war. He sought to withdraw to the Monastery of Chrysopodaritissa, but the storm of conflict did not leave him untouched. By order of General Ioannis Gouras, soldiers arrested him and treated him like a criminal. He was publicly humiliated and exhausted, being transported on foot at the end of 1825, in the heart of winter, to Gastouni. At the same time, his possessions were looted. Eventually, he was released to go to Nafplion, but he was extremely weakened by hardship and seriously ill. His shaken health was further worsened by the bitterness and disappointment caused by the unexpected course of the struggle.
Despite all this, he offered his remaining strength to the Nation. In 1826 he was elected a member of the Third National Assembly and a member of the Committee “on Foreign Affairs.” This revived his hopes and restored his prestige. He ensured that his views on ecclesiastical matters were recorded in a memorandum, later published from his papers. Shortly afterward, however, he contracted typhus and died in Nafplion, possibly from an excessive dose of medication. He was buried with honors and general recognition, and later his remains were transferred to Dimitsana. Bronze statues of him were erected in his birthplace and in Patras, as a sign of national gratitude.
Germanos of Old Patras also emerged as a memoirist of the struggle. His memoirs refer to the early years of the war. They begin with an introductory section on Ottoman rule and the events preceding the revolution and present the events of the struggle up to April 1823. Although they are not a systematic historical work, they are a highly valuable source for the struggle, as well as an important psychological source regarding the author himself. They present — and illuminate — his own participation in the revolution and clarify his political stance.
Bibliography:
- D. Ainiatos, Germanos of Old Patras, Athens 1854.
- A. N. Goudas, Parallel Lives…, vol. A’, Athens 1869.
- D. Kampouroglou, “P. P. Germanos,” “Athena” 27 (1915) 209–72 and 28 (1916) 205–51.
- Ioanna Giannaropoulou – Tasos Ath. Gritsopoulos, Introduction to the Memoirs of Germanos, Athens 1975 (with extensive bibliography).
- T. Ath. Gritsopoulos, Monastery of Philosophou, Athens 1960, pp. 458–69 and his article in THE, vol. 4 (1964), cols. 391–96.
- Ap. E. Vakalopoulos, History of Modern Hellenism, vol. E’, Thessaloniki 1980, passim.
Source: From the book: Τεύχος A’, σελ. 41-47, Πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου Γεωργίου Λ. Μεταλληνού «Μικρά Ιστορικά», Πρώτη έκδοση, Λευκωσία 1988. Translation by John Sanidopoulos.
