Reviewed by:

• The Greek Fire: American-Ottoman Relations and Democratic Fervor in the Age of Revolutions by Maureen Connors Santelli
• Ada Dialla (bio)

The famous Greek leader Petrobeis Mavromihalis, upon the start of the Greek Revolution in the Peloponnese, sent to the Americans a document titled “Declaration to the Americans by the Kalamata Messinian Senate and the Field Marshal Petros Mavromihalis” (March 1821). In the document, the political affinity between Greeks and Americans was stressed. Despite the geographical distance, wrote Mavromihalis, the revolutionaries regarded the Americans as familiar; they regarded them as friends and fellow citizens, philanthropists, brave and with the Bible in hand. With this “Declaration,” Mavromihalis hoped to provoke the philhellenic sentiments of the Americans.

Regarding European Philhellenism, most researchers agree that the phil-hellenic discourse included—and was based on—three main pillars: (a) religion, namely Christian religion, which in those days witnessed various changes in Europe as a vehicle for reshaping society, with Christianity associated with civilization and Europe/the West identified with Christian civilization; (b) antiquity, with Greek antiquity as the cradle of civilization (actually of European civilization, which was then seen as global); and (c) humanitarianism. When the Greek Revolution erupted, politicians, intellectuals, and public figures—everyone who could speak, write, and comment on what was happening among the Orthodox Greeks of the Ottoman Empire—had no difficulty in associating the uprising with the discourse on slavery and in empathizing with the Christian populations ruled by the Sublime Porte, seeing them as having been enslaved by the Sultan and as victims of various barbarities. From the first moment, language was mobilized which was intended to evoke humanitarian sentiments. Words and phrases such as “extermination,” “annihilation,” “effusion of blood,” “massacres,” and “slavery” were in common use. Elsewhere, Philhellenism, as a movement for supporting the revolutionaries, expressed itself in poems, art, [End Page 494] articles, fiery speeches, fundraising, the creation of various active committees and societies, and so on.

But what was the reception in the United States of the Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian revolutionaries, subjects of the Sultan? This is a little-known and seldom-discussed subject: one of the few exceptions is an extended chapter titled “Americans and Greeks” in Gary Bass’s 2008 book Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention. And this gap in the literature is what Maureen Connors Santelli has come to address. The philhellenic movement in the United States and elsewhere developed mainly in the wake of the Chios massacre of April 1822. In the US, the philhellenic movement had reached a peak by 1824, with the press referring to the “Greek Fire,” a phrase that alluded to Byzantine liquid fire but that also underscored how the philhellenic movement was spreading like fire across the whole of the United States.

This book examines American philhellenism at two levels: (a) as a movement of support for the Greek insurgents; and (b) as an issue internal to American society, linked with discussions of the need for social and political reforms, especially regarding the questions of slavery and the emancipation of women. Santelli’s study thus connects, in an original manner, issues of foreign policy with burning internal questions. It examines Philhellenism, within a global framework and in terms of the interrelationship and overall movement of ideas, as a model for popular political action. In the United States, Philhellenism raised important questions of collective identity—a result of Americans’ comparison of themselves to European societies across the Atlantic, including with respect to stereotypes regarding the Ottomans—and of the political affinities between Americans and Greeks.

The author begins her presentation by bringing to the fore the history and context of the period immediately prior to the Greek Revolution and shedding light on the little-known subject of US-Ottoman relations. The United States was not yet a great power. Its presence in the Mediterranean, though conspicuous, was not a result of diplomatic missions or international trade agreements. As the author explains in an initial chapter titled “Americans, Greeks, and Ottomans before 1821,” the...

审核人：

• 希腊之火：革命时代的美国-奥斯曼关系和民主热情作者 Maureen Connors Santelli
• 阿达迪亚拉（生物）

著名的希腊领导人彼得罗贝斯·马夫罗米哈里斯在伯罗奔尼撒半岛的希腊革命开始后，向美国人发送了一份题为“卡拉马塔麦西尼亚参议院和陆军元帅佩特罗斯·马夫罗米哈里斯致美国人的宣言”（1821 年 3 月）的文件。该文件强调了希腊人和美国人之间的政治亲和力。马夫罗米哈里斯写道，尽管地理上相距遥远，但革命者认为美国人很熟悉。他们视他们为朋友、同胞、慈善家、勇敢且手握圣经。马夫罗米哈里斯希望通过这份“宣言”来激起美国人的亲希腊情绪。

关于欧洲的亲希腊主义，大多数研究人员一致认为，亲希腊话语包括并基于三个主要支柱：（a）宗教，即基督教，在当时见证了欧洲作为重塑社会的工具的各种变化，与文明相关的基督教和与基督教文明相关的欧洲/西方；(b) 古代，希腊古代是文明的摇篮（实际上是欧洲文明，当时被视为全球文明）；(c) 人道主义。当希腊革命爆发时，政治家、知识分子和公众人物——每个会说话、写作、并评论奥斯曼帝国的东正教希腊人中发生的事情——毫不费力地将起义与奴隶制的话语联系起来，并同情崇高门统治下的基督教人口，认为他们已被苏丹和作为各种野蛮行为的受害者。从一开始，就动员了旨在唤起人道主义情感的语言。诸如“灭绝”、“歼灭”、“流血”、“大屠杀”和“奴隶制”等词语和短语很常见。在其他地方，Philhellenism 作为支持革命者的运动，表现在诗歌、艺术、动员了旨在唤起人道主义情绪的语言。诸如“灭绝”、“歼灭”、“流血”、“大屠杀”和“奴隶制”等词语和短语很常见。在其他地方，Philhellenism 作为支持革命者的运动，表现在诗歌、艺术、动员了旨在唤起人道主义情绪的语言。诸如“灭绝”、“歼灭”、“流血”、“大屠杀”和“奴隶制”等词语和短语很常见。在其他地方，Philhellenism 作为支持革命者的运动，表现在诗歌、艺术、[完第494页]文章、火热的演讲、筹款、创建各种活跃的委员会和社团，等等。

但是，说希腊语的东正教基督教革命者，苏丹的臣民，在美国是如何接受的呢？这是一个鲜为人知且很少讨论的主题：少数例外之一是加里·巴斯 2008 年出版的《自由之战：人道主义干预的起源》一书中题为“美国人和希腊人”的扩展章节. 文献中的这一空白正是 Maureen Connors Santelli 所要解决的问题。美国和其他地方的亲希腊运动主要是在 1822 年 4 月的希俄斯大屠杀之后发展起来的。在美国，亲希腊运动在 1824 年达到了顶峰，媒体提到了“希腊之火”，这句话是提到拜占庭的液体火，但这也突显了 philhellenic 运动如何像火一样在整个美国蔓延。

本书从两个层面考察了美国的亲希腊主义：（a）作为支持希腊起义者的运动；(b) 作为美国社会内部的一个问题，与社会和政治改革的必要性讨论相关，特别是关于奴隶制和妇女解放的问题。因此，桑特利的研究以一种独创的方式将外交政策问题与紧迫的内部问题联系起来。它在全球框架内，从思想的相互关系和整体运动的角度，将费城主义作为大众政治行动的典范进行考察。在美国，Philhellenism 提出了集体认同的重要问题——这是美国人将自己与大西洋彼岸的欧洲社会进行比较的结果，

作者首先介绍了希腊革命之前的历史和背景，并阐明了鲜为人知的美国与奥斯曼关系的主题。美国还不是一个大国。它在地中海的存在虽然引人注目，但并不是外交使团或国际贸易协定的结果。正如作者在标题为“1821 年之前的美国人、希腊人和奥斯曼人”的第一章中解释的那样，...