La USTR

glory and G eist and consequently the ‘devotion to the A ncient Greek ancestors’ w as based on the historicity

that the Greek nation claim ed during the period o f Greek Enlightenm ent w hen it w as first constructed. At that period M od em Greeks claim ed that they w ere the natural descendants and heirs o f classical A ncient Greece. Part o f this claim w as that their historical past stopped at 338 BC, w hen A lexander the Great conquered the cities o f G reece and forced their participation in a unified kingdom . Their historical present, as the natural continuity o f that past, started again in 1832 A D , w hen G reece w as recognised as an independent kingdom . Thus at the beginning neither the M acedonian period nor the H ellenistic nor the Byzantine periods w ere considered as inseparable parts o f the history o f the Greek nation. For a bibliography in this issue see Introduction, footnote 12, p. 9.

this concept o f ‘tradition’ the literary generation o f the 1880s counter-proposed a ‘tradition’ that drew on the Byzantine and the more recent Greek cultural tradition and a form o f language, demotiJd, which was the form the Greek population spoke instead o f the artificial katharevousa}2 Furthermore the subsequent history o f the field o f literature was developed following the norms that Tsoukalas ascribes to the capitalist centre. As he argues in the capitalist centre, “the new springs up from the old and modernisation respects the tradition and builds on it the basis o f its perennial developing course. ‘Tradition’ is conceived as what is still in existence and ‘m odernisation’ is conceived as the process o f its (the tradition’s) transmutation and reasoning”.23 This is precisely the way literature was developed in Greece from the 1880s onwards. One can very easily perceive the history o f the literary field unfolded in the oppositions between generations and artists in a w ay that, in Bourdieu’s words, becomes “more and more linked to the field’s specific history and to it alone”.24 And I will argue in this thesis that this was also

22 The ‘rupture’ betw een these tw o concepts o f Greek culture in volved also the clash betw een the pre­ capitalist class, dom inant during the nineteenth century, and the capitalist c la ss’ aspiration to ascend into power. A nd furthermore it denoted tw o distinct perceptions o f ‘G reece’. The one w as lim ited in the territorial borders o f A ncient G reece and w as ‘trapped’ in its aspiration to ‘r ev iv e’ an id eologized ancient glory. The second w as engaged in a vision o f G reece’s territorial expansion to reach the borders o f the Byzantine Empire, w hich proved to be fruitless, and placed em phasis on the B yzantine and the follow in g phases o f ‘G reek’ culture. S ee am ong others noA.ixr|<;, AX6£,r|<;, P opavxixa x p d via : ISeoXoyieg xai

vooxpom eq crcrjv EXXada xov 183 0 -1 8 8 0(R om antic Years: Id eo lo g ies a n d A ttitu d es in G reece betw een 1830- 1880) and Kixpo|iri?d5r|c;, flaax&Xriq, «I5eoXoyiK(i tcai 7roA.ixuc& aixf||iaxa» (“Ideological and Political R equests”), in: O epaxa veoeXXrjviKrjg loxoplaq ( 18oq-20o<,; aicbvaq)(Issues o f M odern G reek H istory: 18th to 20fh C entury), p.p. 59-72. D espite the lim itations o f this second perception o f G reece it w as characterised by a distinctive dynam ism that succeeded in shifting Greek culture from the pondering o f the past to the action for the future.

23 IxCg jiegioodrEQ E g d n d rig e v g w n a i x i g x o iv to v ie g xd v i o (pvxgcovei in d v t o o x d n a X id , x a i 6 ix o v y x g o v io f i d g o efiex a i xCg jx a g a b d o e ig xaC o i x o b o p s l in d v o ) x o vg xCg fid o e ig xf\g d iv a r ig i& X ix x ix fjg x o v nogsC ag. l a v « n a g d b o o r \» v o s lx a i xd vcp io x d p e vo , xaC o d v i x o v y x g o v i o p d g fi b i a b i x a o i a pExaXXayijg x o v xaC ixX oyiX E vorlg xov. TaouicaXd<;, Kcovaxavrivoq, «FIap(i5oar| tcai Exouyxpoviapbg: Mepucd yevucdxepa ep(oxf|paxa» (“Tradition and M odernisation: Som e General Q uestions”), in: EXXrjvwpog - EXXrjvucoxrjxa(H ellenism - H ellen ikotita), p. 38.

the form o f the development o f the Greek theatre between 1919 and 1967 with regard to the productions o f tragedy.

In what concerns C hatteijee’s observation it has to be noted that the actual point where Greek culture stressed its difference from Europe was the concept o f Hellenism itself. In many ways the difference concealed also the concept o f dispute over a cultural reference, which Europe also claimed as its own, that is, ancient Greek civilisation and its cultural ‘survival’ within the framework o f its re-negotiation by contemporary W estern cultures. Tsoukalas observes that the heritage o f Ancient Greek civilisation primarily gave the impression to Greeks that the new Greek State could occupy a respected position within

the capitalist world, due to the respect held universally for Ancient Greece. However, it

found itself in a position where it had to dispute for its right to use Ancient Greece as its own symbolic and cultural past, precisely because o f the position that Ancient Greek civilisation held within Western European culture.

This concealed dispute explains in a way the tensions inherent in the construction o f Greek n ational c ulture. From 1 880 o nwards t he a im o f G reek culture was t o s tress i ts

difference by constructing a contemporary cultural present which would draw on all the

phases o f what was considered ‘G reek’ culture and would express in a dynamic and explicit way the Greek w ay o f seeing and experiencing the world. The notion itself o f the ‘Greek w ay’ would implicitly underline and ‘prove’ the continuity o f the nation from

antiquity to the m odem times. As Tziovas argues the tensions inherent in the

25 TooDKaMq, K uvaxavrivoq, Ta£idi a ro A o y o m i orrjv laxopia, K eipeva 1 9 6 9 -1 9 9 6 (A Journey into D iscou rse a n d H isto ry, Texts 1969-1996), p. 276.

construction o f ‘G reek’ culture involved primarily two issues.26 The first one concerned the particular mode in which Ancient Greek civilisation would be creatively incorporated into what was considered as contemporary ‘G reek’ culture. The second one concerned the basis upon which the relationship between Greece and Europe would be formed. Both these issues were considered to be the catalytic points where Greek culture could stress its difference from Europe. Both issues also touched heavily on the issue o f hellenikotita.

Initially, that is from the 1880s to the beginning o f the twentieth century, Greek culture projected its difference from Europe through the emphasis drawn on the Byzantine and the following phases o f what was considered to be ‘G reek’ culture. This emphasis also stressed the notion o f Greece being at the crossroads o f W est and East underlining the eastern qualities o f Greek culture and thus creating a basis upon which Greek culture could promote a notion o f ‘G reece’ that claimed its difference from Europe’s notion o f ‘Greece’. This ‘Greek’ notion o f Greece being at the crossroads o f W est and East is frequently m et in the writings o f the entire period from the 1880s to 1967 and it was again raised from 1974 onwards. Both the Byzantine and the following phases o f ‘Greek’ culture were historically and culturally linked with the geographical territory o f the Balkans, Asia Minor, and the Christian Orthodox part o f the M iddle East. These areas consisted o f an ideologized ‘Greek’ East in what concerned Greece and were considered as ‘East’ in what concerned Europe. The phases o f ‘G reek’ culture that were historically

26 T^i6(3a<;, Armrpprn;, O i pexapop^cboeig xov eOviopov k o u t o iSeoXoyrjpa xrjQ eXXrjviK&xrixou; m o peooTtoXepo ( The T ransform ations o f N ationalism an d the Ideologem o f H ellen ikotita in the In terw a r P e rio d ), p.p. 39- 40.

and g eographically 1 inked w ith t he ‘ Greek’ E ast, a nd e specially t he B yzantine a nd t he following phases o f Greek culture formed a huge body o f rich tradition that was considered to be ‘G reek’. M ore importantly, however, they formed a body o f tradition that had not been ‘renegotiated’ in Western European terms, at least not in the way Ancient Greek civilisation had been.27 Thus the emphasis on the phases o f Greek culture that were related to the ideologized concept o f this ‘Greek E ast’ directly stressed the

difference between the ‘G reek’ culture and the European notion o f ‘Greece’.

Sooner or later, however, Greek culture had to resolve the issue o f the creative incorporation o f Ancient Greek civilisation within its own tradition, that is, to use it as tradition in the creation o f new cultural products, in a way that it stressed its difference from Europe’s ‘Ancient Greece’. It also had to stress its difference from the notion o f Ancient Greece as this was used within the framework o f the nineteenth-century ‘devotion to Ancient Greek ancestors’. Thus Ancient Greek civilisation had to be approached, interpreted and creatively used in a way that would be recognised as ‘purely Greek’.

This could be achieved through the cultural appropriation o f Ancient Greece within the M odem Greek culture that would be based on the renegotiation o f Ancient Greek civilisation through the Byzantine and the following phases o f ‘G reek’ culture. The

27 H istorically Europe’s relationship w ith what w as considered to be the ‘Greek East’ w as hostile. In many cases the ‘Greek E ast’ consisted o f the ‘Other’ in what concerned European thought. This concept can be found as late as the nineteenth century in m ovem ents o f anthellenism . O ne o f the m ost know n

representatives o f this approach w as Fallmerayer. See lK07rer6a, 'EAAr|, (P alpepavep: T eyyaapaxa xov avxlnaXov S io v g (F allm erayer: D evices o f the O pponent), Athens: 0£p6A.io, 1997 and V ryonis, Speros Jr., “Recent scholarship on C ontinuity and D iscontinuity o f Greek Culture: C lassical Greeks, B yzantines, M odem G reeks”, in: The ‘P a s t ’ in M ed ieva l a n d G reek culture, vol. I, p.p. 237-56.

notion o f the ‘Greek E ast’ provided a central point in this renegotiation and furthermore in its legitimisation. One o f the main points stressed in the discourse on the relationship between Ancient and M odem Greece was that Ancient Greece like M odem Greece was situated in the crossroads between the West and the East.28 It is m y contention that this geographical and cultural positioning o f Ancient Greece in the ‘Greek E ast’ provided two very necessary conditions in the renegotiation o f Ancient Greek civilisation. On the one hand, it allowed M odem Greek culture to include Ancient Greek civilisation in its indigenous ‘past’ using as its base the notion o f the ‘Greek E ast’ as a qualitative criterion consisting o f the ‘G reekness’ itself o f Ancient Greece. Thus emphasis was placed on the eastern qualities o f Ancient Greek civilisation. At the same time these eastern qualities created a cultural bridge that linked Ancient with M odem Greece. W ithin this framework

hellenikotita as the ‘Greek’ way o f seeing, experiencing and expressing the world could

be traced in works from antiquity to the present time. Thus the renegotiation o f Ancient Greek civilisation within contemporary ‘G reek’ terms was not only legitimate but it also claimed its authenticity and uniqueness in m odem times since all phases o f ‘Greek’ culture were characterised by their hellenikotita. On the other hand, this renegotiation o f

Ancient Greece within M odem Greek culture directly stressed its difference from

Europe’s renegotiations o f Ancient Greek civilisation because the emphasis on the eastern qualities o f Ancient Greece and consequently o f its renegotiation ‘proved’ almost automatically its difference from the European ones. M oreover the emphasis on the eastern qualities o f Ancient Greece provided the necessary conditions for Modem Greece’s claim to the authority o f its renegotiation o f the antiquity in comparison to

28 Sikelianos and K oun exp licitly referred to this issue, see Chapters III and IV. P olitis and Rondiris had