15

Thenationbetweenutopiaandart:canonizingDionysiosSolomosasthe

nationalpoetofGreece

VassilikiDimoula

PerhapsthemostcontroversialelementintheworkofDionysiosSolomos,the

nationalpoetofGreece,ishisnationalism.Myaiminwhatfollowswillbeto

discussacontrastiverelationshipbetweentheutopianelementinSolomoss

nationalpoetryandhiscanonizationasthenationalpoetofGreece.The

tensionbetweenSolomossworkanditsreceptionhasrecentlybeendiscussed

byGiorgosVeloudisfromthepointofviewoftheappropriationofSolomos

fortheneedsofGreeknationalideology(Veloudis2004).Bycontrast,my

ownfocusherewillbeontheideologizationoftheaestheticdimensionof

Solomossworkinthecourseofhiscanonizationastheleadingfigureof

Greeknationalliterature.AlthoughIwillnotdiscussthepoetsreceptionin

anydetail,mypointsofreferencewillbeIakovosPolylasandKostisPalamas.

Thesocialimaginaryinstitutionofthenationisbydefinition

ideological;itconstitutesasocialrealitywhoseveryexistenceimpliesthe

nonknowledgeofitsparticipantsastoitsessence(iek1995,2,citedin

Gourgouris1996,26).Inordertojustifymydiscussionofitasautopiainthe

poeticworkofSolomos,Iwillrefertothetranscendentalpoeticsofhistime,

Dimoula

2

aswellastomoderntheorizationsofutopia,withparticularemphasisonthe

notionofnegativeutopianismsuggestedbyTheodorAdorno.1

Veloudis,inhisrecentbook(2004),providesadetailedaccountof

SolomossappropriationbyGreeknationalideology,whichwasbasedona

politicallymotivateddistortionofhiswork.2ThenationalizationofSolomos

inthecourseofhismultifacetedreceptionobscuredtheinitial,historically

veryspecificgroundsofhiscanonizationasthenationalpoetofGreeceby

theHeptanesians.ThefirsttodescribeSolomosasthenationalpoetaswell

asthefirsttousethisphraseinGreekwasIakovosPolylasinchaptersXI

andXVIIIofhisProlegomenatohisposthumouseditionofSolomossworkin

1 As a socialimaginary institution, the nation is impossible to fix as a

positive entity.However, it does register a topographic desire. Its topos has

beendefinedbysomescholarsasheterotopiainMichelFoucaultssenseof

aneffectivelyenactedutopia(Foucault1986,24;Leontis1989,43;Gourgouris

1996,46).Myuseofthetermutopiainsteadofheterotopiaisnotintended

todenythenationsspatialgrounding,buttoalludetoadifferenttheoretical

corpus, fromBloch toAdornoandJameson,whichprovesmoresuitablefor

mypurposesinthisessay.

2 Indeed,Solomossnameiscitedinconnexionsasdiverseasthe

nationalwarsof1897and1922andtheGreeklanguagequestion(Veloudis

2004,94,216).

Dimoula

3

1859(Veloudis2004,81).ForPolylas,nationalpoetrywasbynomeans

restrictedtoanarrowpatrioticsense,butdependedonthecombinationofthe

nationalpreoccupationsoftheworkwithitsaestheticquality(Veloudis2004,

81,147).Inthissense,itcoincidedwithRomanticpoetry,definedasa

modern,urban,nationalliterature,whichsupportedthecreationofthe

new,nationalstatesinEuropeduringthefirstdecadesofthenineteenth

century(Veloudis2004,3001).Polylassemphasisontruthasessentialtothe

national,onthegeniusoftheindividualpoet,andonthevisionofabetter

Greekworldinthefuture,issuggestiveofthedistinctivepositionofthe

Heptanesiansonthenewlyformedconceptsofnationalpoetryandnational

poet.3

Despite the distance that separates the Heptanesians from overtly

political misappropriations of Solomos, whether later or contemporary,

VeloudisseesintheinterpretiveinterventionsofPolylasinthepoetsoeuvre

3 SeeSolomos1961,forthepoetsstatementthatthenationmustlearn

toconsidernationalwhatistrue(26).Polylasalsowritesaboutthetrue

GreeceinTheFreeBesieged(29).SeealsoVeloudis2004,1512,for

SolomossendorsementoftheviewsoftheHeptanesiansonnationalpoetry.

TheutopianinSolomosinthesensegiventothisnotionhereisrealised

exclusivelyatthelevelofverseandnotattheleveloftheovertstatementsof

thepoetabouthispoetry.

Dimoula

4

thebeginningofhisintegration into national ideology (Veloudis2004,104,

108).Frommypointofview,Ibelievethatthemainideologicalgestureofthe

Heptanesiansislocatedintheiremphasisontheaesthetic,theindividual,the

visionary;inwhatfollowsIshalldrawattentiontothedifferencebetweenthis

ideologyandtheutopianinSolomossnationallatework.

Polylassemphasisontheaestheticdimensionofthenewlyformed

notionofnationalpoetryplaceshisProlegomenaatthebeginningofthe

appropriationofSolomossworkwithintheframeofanaesthetic

nationalism.4Thisappropriationwouldbecompletedattheendofthe

nineteenthcenturybythesecondmajorfigureinGreeknationalliteratureto

playakeyroleinSolomosscanonization,KostisPalamas.Apartfromsome

textsofapanegyricalcharacter,whichdirectlyaimedattheintegrationofthe

poetintonationalideology(Veloudis2004,84),Palamasgradually

prioritizedtheaestheticdimensionofSolomosswork.Thisstartedasa

justifiedmoveawayfromthepatriotic,butresultedinaneglectofthe

nationalaltogetherandafailuretoacknowledgeitscentralityforSolomos.

ThecharacterizationofTheCretanasthemostmusicalembodimentofthe

4 TheProlegomenahaveinterestinglybeenparalleledwiththegenreof

BildungsromanbyLambropoulos1988,16.Onaestheticnationalism,see

Redfield1999,60.Inanearlierbook(1996),Redfielddiscussesthe

Bildungsromaninconnectionwiththeproblematicofaestheticsandideology.

Dimoula

5

mostdreamlikemysticism,andofthelastperiodofSolomossworkinits

entiretyasthatofmetaphysicalcreationareamisunderstandingofthereal

significanceoftheaestheticinSolomosasanenablingconditionofthe

utopianwithinthenational(Palamas1981,46,58).Indeed,Palamas

characteristicallyrejectswhatis,fromthispointofview,themostcrucial

aspectofSolomossaesthetics:fragmentariness.5Hisinsistenceonthe

eloquenteffusionsoflyricisminSolomosslatepoetryisalsotellingforhis

intentiontogroundthenationaluponthelyricalspaceofaesthetic

abstraction,itselfbasedonanimpressionisticidentificationofthelyricasthe

genremostunboundfromhistory(Palamas1981,43).Thequestionhasbeen

raisedwhetheralyricpoetcanalsobeanationalpoet(Tziovas1999,164).In

fact,itseemsthatlyricabstractionisnolessessentialthanepicgrandeurfor

thecanonizationofapoetasnational.6

TheutopianelementinSolomosslatepoetryemergesclearlythrougha

comparisonwithhisearlywork.Thedifferentrealizationofthenationalin

5Seehisdisapprovalofthedisjectamembra()ofthepoets

oeuvre(Palamas1981,106)andthediscussionofthisissuebyAngelatos

(2000,73191).

6SeeMacPfailonthecanonizationofWhitmanasthelyricpoetofan

epicconsciousness(2002,137).

Dimoula

6

thedifferentstagesofSolomosspoeticcareerissuggestiveoftheevolutionof

hispoetics.

TheHymntoLiberty(1823)andtheOdeontheDeathofLordByron

(1824)engagewithcontemporaryeventsinalargelydocumentaryway,in

ordertoservethecauseoftheWarofIndependence.7Therevivalistaspiration

oftheancientGreekpastisthemainideologemeevokedinsupportofthe

nationalcauseinthesepoems.IfSolomossearlyworkhasautopian

potential,thisisonlytotheextentthatallideologicaland,morespecifically,

nationalpoetrydoes.AsFredricJamesonputsit,thesimultaneously

ideologicalandUtopiancharacterofthenationalphenomenonoffersa

centralexampleofthefactthateveryideologicalgestureparticipatesina

dialecticbetweenideologyandutopia,totheextentthatitinvolvesaneffort

toattainuniversalizing(Jameson1981,289,271290).

Incontrast,thelatepoetryofSolomosresistsideologyataformallevel.

Its utopian potential consists in the indirectness of its engagementwith the

national. However, to describe this indirectness through the aestheticizing

discoursewhichmarkstherhetoricofPolylas,Solomossposthumouseditor,

is to narrow down its utopian dynamic and reduce it to what has been

criticized as the aesthetic ideology of high Romantic poetics. Aesthetic

7 ForSolomossconversiontothenationalcausebySpyridon

Trikoupisinearly1823,seeVeloudis2004,73.

Dimoula

7

ideologyservesbourgeoishegemonypreciselyasanescape fromthesocio

politicaltotheaestheticrealm(DeMan1996).Mysuggestionwillbethatthe

utopian in Solomos relies on specific formal qualities of his poetry, which

resisttheaestheticideologyimpliedinthediscourseoftheHeptanesiansor

Palamasdevoted tohiswork. In supportof this suggestion, Iwill allude to

Adorno as the thinker who, par excellence, and from within a Marxist

vocabulary, made the case for the aesthetic against aestheticization and

aestheticideology.8

The utopian in Solomoss poems that I will discuss here also differs

radically from the emphasison the future that tended tobe stressedby the

Heptanesians.Thisemphasisis,itistrue,bynomeansabsentfromSolomoss

poetry, even the latepoetry. It appears, for instance, in the fragmentwhich

waslatergivenbyPolylasthetitleTheEasternWar(1854):Thefourthone

look seems to the eye to be, but is not (Solomos 1961, 261).AsVeloudis

suggests,forallitsindirectness,thislinereferstothevisionofabetterGreek

world in the future (Veloudis 2004, 106).He identifies Solomoss interest in

the future in general as the ideological kernel of previous, contemporary

and later utopianism and connects it with the utopian and mysticist

ideologemesformulatedinGiuseppeMazzinismanifestoIdoveridelluomoof

8 Ontherehabilitationoftheaestheticasdistinctfromaestheticization

bytheFrankfurtSchool,seeKaufman(2000,683).

Dimoula

8

1841(Veloudis2004,105,1289).Frommypointofview,Iwouldarguethat

there is also in Solomos a utopian dimension which differs from the

ideologicalutopianismdescribedbyVeloudis anddependspreciselyon the

renunciationofanypositiveexpressionofhopeforthefuture.

Adornocriticizedtheexplicitnessofhopeandbeliefinitsrealizationas

positiveutopiaandopposedtoithisownnotionofnegativeutopia,which

referstothepossibilityofartnegativelytoregisterfreedomoraura.9Ashe

writesintheAestheticTheory,iftherelationshipbetweenartandutopiaisnot

mediatedbynegativity,ifutopiabecomestheobjectofart,thenartbetrays

utopia:

atthecentreofcontemporaryantinomiesisthatartmustbeandwants

tobeutopia[]yetatthesametimeartmaynotbeutopiainordernot

tobetrayitbyprovidingsemblanceandconsolation.[]A

cryptogramofthenewistheimageofcollapse;onlybyvirtueofthe

absolutenegativityofcollapsedoesartenunciatetheunspeakable:

utopia(Adorno1997,41).

9 OnAdornoscritiqueofwhathereadsasconcreteutopiainthework

ofErnstBloch,seeJimenez1986,192.

Dimoula

9

Moreover,accordingtoAdornoscelebratedessayOnlyricpoetryand

society(1957),lyricpoetryisaprivilegedsiteofnegativeutopia.Lyric

formalismisanalysedbyAdornonotasanescapefromthesociopolitical,but

astheonlypossiblewayofinvestigatingthenew,orthenotyetgrasped,

featureofwhatisemergentinthesocial.10

Theconnectionoftheutopianelementwiththefigureofthenegative

originatedinearlyGermanRomanticpoetics,whichexercisedapervasive

influenceoverSolomosslatework.MarkGrunertdirectlyrelateswhathe

callsRomanticutopianismormessianismwiththefigureofthenegative

andarguesthatfromSchlegeltoHegelandBenjamintoAdornothenegative

asaprimalfigureofdialecticalthinkingisattheheartoftheutopian

programmeofmodernity(Grunert1995,47).TheRomantickingdomofgod

orabsoluteisnotavaguehopeforthefuture,butispartofthe

transcendentalconsciousness,andthusinextricablylinkedwiththeinfinite

processofpoeticselfreflection(Grunert1995,70).Inpoetrytheabsoluteis

onlytemporarilyandimperfectlyrepresented;itdoesnotappearasafinished

content.ForFriedrichSchlegelthisabsoluteisthehighestgoodwhich

coincideswithanidealpoliticalorder(Grunert1995,99).ForSolomos,itis

10 Forpoetrysindirectengagementwiththesocialthroughlanguage,see

Adorno2000,218.Fortheconnectionofthisindirectnesswiththeutopiannot

yet,seeKaufman2004,355.

Dimoula

10

arguablythenation.ThecaseofHlderlin,forwhomthehigherunityin

poetrywasthesiteofboththenationalandthereligious,couldbeevokedasa

closerparallelthanSchlegelinsupportofthissuggestion.11

ThelinefromTheEasternWar(1854)quotedaboveadmittedlydiffers

from Solomoss early work in that it does not refer directly to the

contemporary event of the Crimean war (18531856). It does not explicitly

nameGreeceeither(Veloudis2004,106).Yetitdoesnotachievethenegative

dynamicof theutopian,because it comes tooclose toastatementabout the

utopian,toagnomiclikedisplacementofhopeforGreeceasabetterworldof

thefuture.

ThemuchdiscussedimageofthetreeinCarmenSeculare(1849)

offersamorerepresentativeexampleoflyricpoetrysnegativeandcritical

relationshipwithreality.Thereceptionofthispoemisdivided.Polylas

interpreteditasadepictionofthepresentstateoftheGreeknationandits

future(Solomos1961,362).Somemodernscholars,ontheotherhand,have

rejectedPolylassfocusonthenationinfavourofthemysticalaspectofthe

11 OnHlderlin,seeGaier19867,3033,52.AsVeloudisindicates,there

isnoattestedinfluenceofHlderlinonSolomos(1989,223).However,the

twopoetsshareanindirectandcomplexengagementwiththenationaland

aparallelreadingwouldshedlightonthisvexedissueinSolomos.Dueto

limitedspace,Iherelimitmyselfonlytosomeallusionstothisparallel.

Dimoula

11

poem.12ThediscussionoftheutopianaspectofthenationalinSolomosis

arguablyawayoutofthedilemma.TheproblemwithPolylassinterpretation

isnotsomuchthathemissesthemysticalaspectofthepoemthenational

forSolomoswasprogrammaticallyaprioritybutthatitmakesitsaywhatit

deliberatelyabstainsfromsaying.DraftedatthetimeoftheEuropeanrisings

of1848,CarmenSeculareincludesexplicitreferencesneitherto

contemporarysociopoliticalreality,nortoanyfuture.13Inordertoalludeto

both,Solomosinventedinthispoemafigurativeidiomwhichwasinnovative

inmodernGreekliteratureandbrokewithpreviousformsofpoliticalpoetry.

Itisonthegroundsofthisinnovationthatthepoemofferstheformalmeans

ofprefiguringthenewandshapestheemotionalandintellectual

preconditionsforunderstandingit.Asaliteraryrepresentation,theimageof

thetreesetstheplaceoffigurabilitywhichintroducesthepossibilityof

futuretheoreticalconstructions,buthasnothingoftheirsystematicityand

12 SeeespeciallyPapazoglou(1995,94),whoarguesforSolomoss

mysticalpatriotismhere.

13 Veloudisreferstothepoemsconnotativeengagementwithreality,but

doesnotconnectitwiththeproblematicoftheutopiandevelopedhere(2004,

108).

Dimoula

12

ideologicalclosure.14Bycontrast,thedifferentdiscourseofPolylass

commentarynarrowsdowntheutopianpotentialofthisfiguration,

inseparabletopoetrysformalmeans,byconceptualizingitasthefutureof

Greece.

Theimpliedequivalencebetweenthereligiousandthenationalis

moreoverinherentintheutopiancharacterofthelatter,astheconvergenceof

thepoliticalwiththeabsoluteinearlyRomanticpoetics,mentionedearlier,

suggests.BesidesCarmenSeculare,theconnectionofthereligiousandthe

nationalisevidentthroughouttheTheFreeBesieged.Thedreamofthe

womenintheseconddraftisanallusiontothecommunityofthenation,but

atthesametimeechoesthevisionoftheriveroflifedescribedinEzekiel47

(112):

Andonesaid:Itseemedtomethatallofus,menandwomen,children

andoldpeoplewererivers,somesmall,somelargeandwereflowing

amongbrightplaces,anddarkplaces,ingullies,overcliffs,upand

down,andafterwardswearrivedtogetherattheseawithagreatrush,

14 AtthispointIalsodrawonLouisMarinsfoundationalwork(1984,

163).SeealsothediscussionbyWegner(2002,38).

Dimoula

13

andintheseaourwaterskepttheirsweetness[](Solomos2000,256,

draftII,fragment7).15

Throughoutthepoemthemostinclusivelyutopianvisionavailable,

Christianity,isintertwinedwiththenationalcause.Christianconnotations

colourthewholetreatmentoftheGreeksinthepoem.Theyarerepeatedly

paralleledwithmartyrs(draftII,fragments4and13)andpresentedasthe

successorsoftheIsraelites,thechosenpeopleofGodintheBible.ThePalm

Sundaysymbolismtogetherwiththesymbolismof25Marchasthedayofthe

AnnunciationrunsthroughTheFreeBesieged(seedraftIII,fragment1),as

15 OnJamesonsMarxistreading,thisfigurationofcollectivity,

prefiguringtheultimateutopiancollectivity,wouldbevirtuallysynonymous

withtheutopianmomentintheaestheticrealm.Jamesonspowerfulgesture

ofrehabilitatingtotality,inthesenseofcollectivehumandesire,attheheart

ofutopiaisformulatedinanoftenopenantagonismtoAdornosnegative

utopianism(seePizer1993).Aswillbesuggestedbelow,readingSolomosin

thelightofAdornosuggeststhatfragmentarinessunderminesthedefinite

characterofanyfigurationembeddedinimages.Certainly,thealternative

readingremainspossible:toreadfigurationsoftheultimatecollectivityasthe

missedchancetoputanendtofragmentariness,asthepotentialsolutionto

fragmentarinessintheunconsciousofthetext.

Dimoula

14

doestheideaoftheresurrection(draftII,fragment44).ErnstBlochtheorized

thereligiousspaceasaprivilegedsiteoftheutopianimpulseandrefashioned

itasaspaceforthevisionofasocietypotentiallyrealisedinandthroughthe

historicalprocess(Raulet1976,7185;Moylan1997;Levitas1990,97).InThe

FreeBesiegedthenationbecomesthisspacewherereligioushopehasbeen

reterritorializedafterithadabandonedthefieldoforthodoxfaith(cf.Politis

2005,2569).Thismakesitautopiansiteparexcellence.

Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthedynamicofSolomosslatework

dependsonthefactthatthisutopiansocietyofthenationisneveractually

realised.Theequivalencebetweenthenationalandthereligiouspreservesits

revolutionarypotentialonconditionthatitreliesontheformalmeansof

poetryandisnotexplicitlystated.Thisequivalence,asisimpliedbySolomos

throughoutthesecondandthirddraftsofTheFreeBesieged,isnottobe

confusedwiththewellknownprogrammaticdeclarationinSolomossprose

Thoughts,wheretheuseofnationalorgansiscalledupontoembodythe

transcendentaldepthoftheIdea,andnationalitybecomesthemeans

throughwhichmetaphysicsbecomesphysics(Solomos1999,31).Whatis

expressedhereisthephilosophicalidealistconceptofartasthemeansof

reconciliationoftheinfinitewiththefinitewhichforSolomostakesthe

morespecificformoftheembodimentoftheabsoluteinthenational.

Inoppositiontothismaximofidentitybetweenwordandthing,art

andIdea,subjectandobject,Solomossfragmentarylatepoetrytestifiesto

Dimoula

15

whatAdornocalledtheprincipleofnonidentitybetweenthebinariesjust

mentioned(Adorno,1973,5).Itisonthesegroundsalsothatitjoinsthe

utopianismofRomantictranscendentalpoetics.Itisutopianbecausethe

absolutecoincideswiththenationalnotwithinthework,butoutsideit;both

areequallyabsentfromtheworkitself,whichmayinfinitelyevokebutnever

reachthem.Seeninthislight,theunfinishedcharacterofSolomosslatework

canbereadasthebasicconditionfortheutopiancharacterofthenationinhis

poetryofthisperiod.TherepresentationofthenationinSolomos,likethatof

theabsoluteinearlyRomantictranscendentalpoetics,takesplaceatthelevel

ofthereflexivestructureoftheworkofart;itisnotafinishedcontentora

realisedpresence.Ideologyismosteffectivelyresistedinthehorizonopened

upbythenonidentityoftheselfreflectiveworkwithitself,whereaprocess

ismobilizedinwhichheterotopiaandutopiaalternate.

ThroughoutSolomosswork,GreeceisevokedastheOther,that

cannotbecontainedwithinthework.Asautopianhomeland,Greeceis

registerednegatively,throughtheimpossibilityofeverbeingnamed.Atthe

beginningofthethirddraftofTheFreeBesieged,thepoetconfrontsa

deifiedGreece,whoisaddressedasGoddessandMother,againsta

symboliclandscapeofleavesofResurrection,Palmbranches(inallusionto

theritualcelebrationofPalmSunday),andaddressesher:

But,Goddess,Icannothearyourvoice,

Dimoula

16

AndamItoofferitstraightawaytotheHellenicworld?

(Solomos2000,47).

Theemphasisonthesecretmystery(Solomos2000,47),orrite,inthe

samepassage,aswellastheendlessreworkingofTheFreeBesieged,

togethersuggestanegativeanswertothehopefordirectnessexpressedinthe

question.Inasimilarscene,butagainstadifferentlandscape,Hlderlinhad

metthedeifiedpriestessGermania,hiddeninthewoodsandflowering

poppies,andexpressedthesameideaofspeakingatruthwhileleavingit

unspoken:

Nowthreefoldcircumscribeit,

Yetunutteredalso,justasyoufoundit,

Innocentvirgin,letitremain(Germania,inHlderlin2004,

497).

WithNationhoodturnedintoadivinity,thefusionofthenationaland

thereligiousresurfaceshereindirectrelationshipwiththeproblematicof

unutterability(cf.Philipsen2002,358360).InSolomos,thispatternis

nowheremoresuccessfullyimpliedthaninthenegativesimileinThe

Cretan(Solomos2000,78;cf.Mackridge19845,1989).ToplaceGreece

safelyatthesiteoftheineffabledeliberatelyleftemptybythepoemwould

Dimoula

17

certainlyshortcircuitthenegativedialecticofthefigureandthusdestroythe

utopianastheplaceofOtherness.Theinversegestureishoweverlegitimate:

inthecontextofSolomossprogrammaticallynationallatepoetry,this

negativesimilestronglysuggeststhat,althoughthesiteoftheineffable

mightnotcoincidewiththenation,thenationdoesinhisworkrepresenta

siteoftheineffable.

Solomossnationalismifitmaybecalledthatwasaselusiveaswemight

expectfromonewhosteadilymovedawayfromthedocumentaryinfavour

oftheutopian.Itisnowonderthatitsexactnaturewasoftenmissedinthe

historyofhisreception,andthatindeedstillremainsacontestedelementin

themakingofmodernGreece.Thequestionwhichmayberaisedasa

conclusionregardsthisparadoxofafiguresoconsistentlymisunderstoodand

sounanimouslyrecognizedasthenationalpoet.AglancebacktoPalamas

encouragesthesuggestionthatitwaspreciselyatthecrossroadsbetweenhis

complexpoeticidiosyncrasyanditsmisunderstandingbylatercriticsthat

Solomoscametobecanonized.

IntheIntroductiontotheMaraslisedition,Palamasdeploredthestate

ofaffairsinGreece,accordingtowhichSolomoswasmerelythepoetofthe

nationalanthem,andrespectforhisnameresembledaduty,onewhich

seemedtobebasedonalawthatoneisscaredofdisobeying,orasocial

contract,that[]youareobligedtoobserve(Palamas1981,104).However,

Dimoula

18

thedifferencesbetweenPalamasandSolomosintermsofaesthetics

complicatedhisprogrammeofmakingamendsforthissituationand

establishingrespectforSolomosonpurelypoeticgrounds.Thedifficultyis

manifestwhenPalamascomparesSolomoswithKalvosandValaoritis.Itthen

becomesevidentthathecannotjustifyplacingSolomosfirst;forPalamas,

SolomosispreciselytheequalofKalvosandValaoritis,exceptthatheismore

equal:Valaoritisisapoetsimilarlysupreme()toSolomos;

thelatterneverthelessstandsatthesummitalone(

)(Palamas1981,133).Kalvosisemphaticallytheequalof

Solomos(),withthedifferencethatincomparisonhe

provesimperceptibly([])inferior(Palamas1981,1545).

Seeninthislight,PalamasscontinuingpreoccupationwithSolomos

beginstoresembleanungrounded,dutylikeobediencetoalaw,acharge

whichhehimselfhadlaidatthedoorofthosewhocaredonlyabout

Solomosspatriotism.Paradoxically,thisfactisimmediatelyconnectedwith

thecontinuingappealofSolomosasthenationalpoet,towhichPalamas

himselflargelycontributed.Iftheconceptofthenationalpoetstillexercises

someattractiontoday,thisistotheextentthatitstillhastheenjoyment

propertoanideologicalform,whosefunctionisbasedonobediencetoa

constitutivelynonsensicalandunfoundedlaw(seeiek1995,367,824).

Readoutofcontext,PalamassreferencetoSolomosasthePoetwithoutany

qualificationorornament(Palamas1981,105)comesclosetoexplainingthe

Dimoula

19

functionofSolomosasthenationalpoet.SolomosisthePoet,apure

signifierthatgivesunitytotheideologicalfieldofnationality,notbecauseit

symbolizessomething,butbecause,asasignifierwithapurelystructural,

performativefunction,itresistssymbolization.16IfSolomoswinsoutagainst

hispoeticrivals,principallyKalvosandValaoritis,asthenationalpoetof

Greece,thisisnotbecauseheismorenationalbutbecausehehasalways

beenreadasnotsimplynational;notbecausehesymbolizesmoreaspectsof

thenation,butbecausehegiveslittlesupporttosymbolization.

16 Mydiscussionhereisbasedonieksanalysisoftherigid

designator(1995,95100).

Dimoula

20

References

Adorno,T.(1973),Negativedialectics,trans.E.B.Ashton,NewYork:

Continuum.

Adorno,T.(1997),Aesthetictheory,trans.R.HullotKentor,London:

Continuum.

Adorno,T.(2000),Onlyricpoetryandsociety,inB.OConnor(ed.),The

AdornoReader,Oxford:Blackwell.

Anderson,B.(1983),Imaginedcommunities:reflectionsontheoriginandspreadof

nationalism,NewYork:Verso.

Angelatos,D.(2000),...[...][],[]...:

(18591929),Athens:Patakis.

Apostolidou,B.(1992),OK

,Athens:Themelio.

Bloch,E.(1986),Theprincipleofhope(3vols),trans.N.Plaice,S.PlaiceandP.

Knight,Oxford:Blackwell.

DeMan,P.(1996),Aestheticideology,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota

Press.

Foucault,M.(1986),Ofotherspaces,trans.J.Miskowiec,Diacritics16/1:22

27.

Gaier,U.(19867),HlderlinsvaterlndischeSangart,HlderlinJahrbuch25:

1260.

Dimoula

21

Garantoudis,E.(2001),,Athens:Kastaniotis.

Gourgouris,S.(1996),Dreamnation:Enlightenment,colonisationandthe

institutionofmodernGreece,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Grunert,M.(1995),DiePoesiedesbergangs.HlderlinsspteDichtungim

HorizontvonFriedrichSchlegelsKonzeptderTranscendentalpoesie,

Tbingen:Niemeyer.

Guillory,J.(1993),Culturalcapital:theproblemofcanonformation,Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress.

Hlderlin,F.(194385),SmtlicheWerke(8vols),ed.F.Beissner,A.Beck,U.

Oelmann,Stuttgart.

Hlderlin,F.(2004),FriedrichHlderlin:PoemsandFragments,trans.M.

Hamburger,London:Anvil.

Jameson,F.(1981),Thepoliticalunconscious:narrativeasasociallysymbolicact,

London:Methuen.

Jimenez,M. (1986),Adorno et lamodernit. Vers une esthtique ngative, Paris:

Klincksieck.

Kaufman,R.(2000),RedKant,orthepersistenceoftheThirdCritiquein

AdornoandJameson,CriticalInquiry26:682724.

Kaufman,R.(2004),Adornossociallyricandliterarycriticismtoday:poetics,

aesthetics,modernity,inR.Huhn(ed.),TheCambridgeCompanionto

Adorno,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,35475.

Dimoula

22

Lambropoulos,V.(1988),Literatureasnationalinstitution:studiesinthepolitics

ofModernGreekcriticism,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Leontis,A.(1995),TopographiesofHellenism:mappingthehomeland,Ithaca:

CornellUniversityPress.

Levitas,R.(1990),Theconceptofutopia,London:PhilipAllan.

Mackridge,P.(19845),Timeoutofmind:therelationshipbetweenstory

andnarrativeinSolomossTheCretan,ByzantineandModernGreek

Studies9:187209.

MacPfail,S.(2002),Lyricnationalism:Whitman,AmericanStudiesandthe

NewCriticism,TexasStudiesinLiteratureandLanguage44/2:13360.

Marin,L.(1984),Utopics:spatialplay,trans.R.A.Vollrath,AtlanticHighlands,

NJ:HumanitiesPress.

Moylan,T.(1997),BlochagainstBloch:thetheologicalreceptionofDas

PrinzipHoffnungandtheliberationoftheutopianfunction,inT.

MoylanandJ.O.Daniel(eds),NotYet:ReconsideringErnstBloch,

London:Verso,96121.

Palamas,K.(1981),,ed.M.Chatzigiakoumis,Athens:

Ermis.

Papazoglou,Ch.(1995),Carmen

Seculare,Athens:Kedros.

Philipsen,B.(2002),Gesnge(Stuttgart,Homburg),inJ.Kreuzer(ed.),

HlderlinHandbuch,Stuttgart:Metzler,34778.

Dimoula

23

Pizer,J.(1993),JamesonsAdorno,orthepersistenceoftheutopian,New

GermanCritique58:12751.

Politis,A.(2005),:

,O

Eranistis25:24560.

Raulet,G.(1976),Critiqueofreligionandreligionascritique:thesecularised

hopeofErnstBloch,NewGermanCritique9:7185.

Redfield,M.(1996),Phantomformations:aestheticideologyandthe

Bildungsroman,Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

Redfield,M.(1999),Imagination:theimaginedcommunityandthe

aestheticsofmourning,Diacritics29/4:5883.

Schutjer,K.(2001),NarratingcommunityafterKant:Schiller,Goetheand

Hlderlin,Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress.

Solomos,D.(1961),,vol.1,ed.L.Politis,Athens:

Ikaros.

Solomos,D.(1999),,ed.S.Alexiou,Athens:Stigmi.

Solomos,D.(2000),TheFreeBesiegedandotherpoems,trans.P.Thomsonetal.,

Nottingham:Shoestring.

Tziovas,D.(1986),Thenationismofthedemoticistsanditsimpactontheirliterary

theory,Amsterdam:Hakkert.

Tziovas,D.(1999),ThereceptionofSolomos:nationalpoetryandthe

questionoflyricism,ByzantineandModernGreekStudies23:16494.

Dimoula

24

Veloudis,G.(1989),,:

,Athens:Gnosi.

Veloudis,G.(2004),,Athens:Patakis.

Wegner,P.E.(2002),Imaginarycommunities:nation,utopia,andthespatial

historiesofmodernity,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Wellbery,D.(1996),Thespecularmoment,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

iek,S.(1995),Thesublimeobjectofideology,London:Verso.