No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
The aim of this paper is to discuss the literary qualities of Psycharts’s To Tαξίδι μοο, in particular, to analyse specific examples that demonstrate its playful mode of writing. Firstly, it will attempt to place the text in the literary context of its period by discussing its conception and significance for Modern Greek literature. Secondly, it will focus on the element of humour in the text, which can best be described as a playful mode of writing. The playfulness can be explained as raising false expectations in readers in a way that does not become obtrusive or unpleasant, but aims to entertain through the effects of surprise. This mode of writing is created mainly through intertextual allusions, incongruous juxtapositions, and comical, satirical or parodic undertones.
I am grateful to Professor Peter Mackridge for reading drafts of this article and for making helpful suggestions.
1 The text was first published in 1888 (by S.K. Vlastos) and it was altered in two subsequent editions produced during the author’s lifetime (in 1905 and in 1926). All references in this article are to the 1993 Estia edition (a reprint of the edition first published by Ermis in 1971), which reproduces the text of the first edition of 1888. Psycharis’s spelling is idiosyncratic; I have left the quotations in their original spelling but for technical reasons I have used the monotonic system. Other passages in Greek are also quoted in monotonic.
2 Psycharis published his Essais de grammaire historique néo-grecque I and 11 (a collection of articles written in French examining the development of the Greek language) in 1886 and 1889 respectively, and his first literary text after To Τιχξίδι μου was the novella Ζούλια, which was written both in Greek and French. Ζούλια was published in Εστια 12 (24 March 1891) 177-84 and 14 (7 April 1891) 209-15. Jalousie appeared in Nouvelle Revue from 1 October to 1 November 1891, as is indicated in its book form printed in Paris in 1892, in one hundred copies only. I was able to consult the second edition: Psichari, J., Jalousie (Paris 1895) 5 Google Scholar.
3 Not that Ζούλνχ remains free from the author’s didactic injunctions, as can be attested, in particular, in the last pages of the text. See Psycharis, Ζούλια, 215.
4 See also the distinction made by Angelatos, D., ‘“To άκρον άωτον της επιτεχνήσεως του ύφους” Kat η “ορχήστρα” των “λογοτεχνικών ειδών”: To διαλογικό Ταξίδι του Ψυχάρη’, in Farinou-Malamatari, G. (ed.), О Ψυχάρης кал η εποχή του (Thessaloniki 2005), esp. pp. 155, 158, 163Google Scholar.
5 See Beaton, R., Άπορίες διαβάζοντας τον Ψυχάρη: αφηγηματικά και ειδολογικά προβλήματα στο Τοίξίδι ’, Μαντατοφόρος 28 (December 1988) 48 Google Scholar.
6 This comedy was known to Solomos’s circle in the Ionian Islands and it must have been known to Psycharis, who as mentioned already, closely followed the work of the poets of the Ionian Islands School. For a discussion of this text, see Walter Puchner’s introduction to Neroulos, I.R., Γα θεατρικά (Ασπασία 1813, Πολυξενη 1814, Κορακιστικά 1813) (Athens 2002), 157–226 Google Scholar.
7 See Beaton, Άπορίες διαβάζοντας τον Ψυχάρη’, 48.
8 See Pateridou, G., Yannis Psycharis’s Greek Novels (1888-1929): Didactic Narratives, Cultural Views, and Self-referentiality (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham 2004), 108 Google Scholar.
9 There is, for example, the metaphor of literary language as a sleeping beauty in a palace, awaiting the prince to save her, a common image in Western folktales (57-8). The presentation of ancient Greek writers and their work is also given in an imaginary atmosphere, introduced by the theme of reading stories whilst gathered around the fireplace in winter, which is a Western tradition (159).
10 The genre of parody presupposes the existence of other texts.
11 Meraklis, for example, compares To Τα,ξίδι μοο to some of Márquez’s prose. See Meraklis, M.G., ‘To “Ταξίδι” ως λογοτεχνικό έργο’, Νεα Εστία 123 (15 June 1988) 798 Google Scholar.
12 See Christidis, Ch., ‘О Ψυχάρης ύστερα από πενήντα χρόνια’, in Ψυχάρης: στα πενηντάχρονα cató τον θύνοίτό του (Athens 5 December 1979) 7–34 Google Scholar. The conference was cancelled, however, because of Turkish intervention, and even though the papers were included in a celebratory volume, Psycharis’s ‘avant-propos’ and ‘notes’, which were written in French, were translated into high katbarevousa, against his will, which totally opposed the spirit and the point of his talk (ibid., 10). Psycharis’s detailed account of the preparation for the conference and his views on the dialects spoken in Constantinople and Smyrna can be found in Psichari, J., ‘Rapport d’une mission en Grèce et en Orient’, in Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires: choix de rapports et instructions publié sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique et des beaux-arts (Paris 1890)Google Scholar.
13 See Psichari, J., Essais de grammaire historique néo-grecque, I (Paris 1886) 287 Google Scholar. See also Kriaras, E., Ψοχάρης: ιδεες, αγώνες, о άνθρωπος, 2nd edn (Athens 1981) 318 Google Scholar, and E. Kriaras, ‘To νόημα του τίτλου “To Ταξίδι μου” και άλλα σχετικά με το βιβλίο’, θα,λλώ 15 (Summer 2004) 13.
14 Vertsoni-Kokoli, M., ‘Γράμματα του Ψυχάρη στον Κωνσταντίνο Σάθα’, Nea Estia 107 (1-15 Jan. 1980) 102 Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that in this correspondence, Psycharis writes in French. His first text written in demotic Greek, his paper for the conference in Constantinople, was written or perhaps reworked while he was in Greece, as is mentioned in this letter. In previous years, from 1881 onwards, in his letters to Sathas, Psycharis used katbarevousa (ibid., 83-9). There is, however, a letter to Nikolaos Politis dated 18 August 1885, written in demotic, perhaps his earliest attempt to abandon katbarevousa (see Kriaras, Ψυχάρης: ιδεες, αγώνες, о άνθρωπος, 159) and Kriaras, E., Γράμματα Ψοχάρη προς Νικόλιχο Γ. Πολίτη (Thessaloniki 2003 Google Scholar) and Kriaras, E., Ανιχνεύσεις: μελετήμκτα. кал άρθρα, σνμβολή στο χρονολόγιο του δημοτικισμοό (Thessaloniki 2004)Google Scholar.
15 Kriaras, Ψυχάρης: ιδεες, αγώνες, о ύνθρωπος, 116.
16 Beaton, R., An Introduction to Modern Greek Literature (Oxford 1994) 311 Google Scholar.
17 ‘Ένα έθνος για να γίνη έθνος θέλει δυο πράματχ va μεγαλώσουν τα σύνορά του και va κάμη φιλολογία δική του. Άμα δείξη που ξέρει n αξίζει η δημοτική του γλωσσα κι άμα δεν ντραπή γι’ αφτή τη γλώσσα, βλέπουμε που τόντις είναι έθνος. Πρέπει va μεγαλώση όχι μόνο τα φυσικά, μα και τα νοερά του τα σύνορα. Γι’ αφτά τα σύνορα πολεμώ’ (37).
18 The competition was in fact an indication of the fluidity of narrative genres in Greece up to that time. As Georgia Gotsi has argued, the persistence in defining what was Greek, together with the emphasis on ‘themes from Greek life’, obscured rather than promoted the cause of the development of Greek prose fiction See Gotsi, G., H ζωή εν τη πρωτεοούση (Athens 2004) 65-7Google Scholar.
19 For example, in Dimitrios Vikelas’s novel Λοοκης Λάρας (1879), the spoken language is used for the dialogues in the text.
20 See Mastrodimitris, P. D., О Ζητιάνος τοο Καρκαβίτσα, 2nd edn (Athens 1985) 27, 48Google Scholar.
21 As Psycharis suggested in a letter to Eftaliotis: Τράφεις για το Ρωμιό, πρέπει να συλλογιέσαι ρωμαύκα. О Γαβριηλίδης όμως όλους διόλου άδικο δεν έχει. Θέλουμε παραμύθια σαν τον Γκουλλιβερη. Τέτοια χρειάζεται о λαός [...]’. See Karatzas, St. et al., Γιάννη Ψοχάρη кои Αργόρη Εφταλιώτη Αλληλογραφία: 716 γράμματα (1890-1923), I (Ioannina 1988) 9 Google Scholar.
22 Palamas, K., ‘То “Ταξίδι” του Ψυχάρη’, Άπαντα, VI (Athens 1960) 311 Google Scholar (first published in Νοομάς 183 (1906) 1-3). The same review in K. Palamas, ‘To “Ταξίδι” του Ψυχάρη’, Νεοελλψικά Γράμματα (13 Aug. 1938) 13-14. See also Beaton, Άπορίες διαβάζοντας τον Ψυχάρη’, 47. Nevertheless, in Psycharis’s correspondence, there is mention of a plan for another similar text, wider in scope, which would present the true essence of ‘Greekness’. The narrative Psycharis had in mind would again describe a long journey that would include his visits to the Ionian Islands, Crete and Cyprus. The journey would involve linguistic research aimed at preparing a grammar of spoken Modern Greek. He had presented that idea to his friend Eftaliotis in a letter written in 1901 (see St. Karatzas et al., Γιάννη Ψοχάρη кш Αργύρη Εφταλιώτη Αλληλογραφία, I, 374). There were many points in common between this and the previous journey: the purpose of the voyage and its objectives, a similar title for the text (‘To μεγάλο το Ταξίδι’), and the same duration of four months, all suggest that Psycharis was preparing a duplicate of his first text. It must be noted that the idea for that ‘second narrative’ did not materialize, and even though there are further mentions of this idea in his correspondence (ibid., 504), Psycharis did not accomplish those plans. Instead, he reworked the first edition of To Ταξίδι μου and wrote a different introductory note and a lengthy prologue which he named Άπολογία’ by analogy with Socrates’s Apology. This became the second edition of the text, in 1905. As the prologue was very long it was published separately in the third volume of his critical essays Роба. кш Μήλα (Psycharis, Роба. кш Μήλιχ, III (Athens 1906)) and in Νοομάς (6 Nov. 1905 to 25 Jan. 1906) and, although it refers to the main text, it can also be read as an independent document.
23 See Palamas, ‘To “Ταξίδι” του Ψυχάρη’ (1938), 14 and Palamas, Λπαντα, VI, 315.
24 See Abrams, M.H., A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th edn (London 1999) 331 Google Scholar.
25 See Jordan, D., Du Comique dans le texte littéraire (Paris 1988) 147 Google Scholar.
26 See Émelina, J., Le Comique: essai d’interprétation générale (Paris 1996) 129 Google Scholar.
27 See Beckson, K. and Ganz, A., Reader’s Guide to Literary Terms: A Dictionary (London 1961) 86 Google Scholar.
28 See Rose, M., Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-Modern (Cambridge 1993) 32 Google Scholar.
29 See Yannakakis, E., Narcissus in the Novel: A Study of Self-Referentiality in the Greek Novel, 1930-1945 (unpublished doctoral thesis, King’s College London 1990), 72 Google Scholar.
30 The folktale (παραμύθι) plays a central role in the demoticist ideology because of its simple language, its collective creation and its origins. For the use of the term in Psycharis’s texts, and its various meanings, See Melissaratou, G., Ή χρήση του όρου “παραμύθι” και η τύχη του Γκάλιβερ στον Ψυχάρη’, in Επιστημονική Επετηριδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής Α.Π.Θ., τιμητικο’ς τόμος στη μνήμη Στ. Καρατζά (Thessaloniki 1990) 197–215 Google Scholar.
31 In most uses of irony there is the sense of evading or hiding the facts, not in order to deceive but to achieve special rhetorical or artistic effects. See Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 134–5. See also Frye, N., Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton 1971)Google Scholar. For a text-centred analysis of the use of irony see Peter Mackridge’s introduction to Kosmas Politis’s Eroica (Athens 1982).
32 In many parts of the narrative the demoticist vision for the Greek language and culture is put in a religious framework.
33 ‘Double-voiced’ means that we can discern two different and almost competing voices and discourses from different contexts: the one tries to convey a message, the other to make an amusing account, in accordance with the author’s set aim to entertain and to teach. The term refers to Bakhtin’s polyphony. See Bakhtin, M.M., Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans. Emerson, C. (Minneapolis 1999) 34 Google Scholar.
34 The italicization is as in the original.
35 This chapter is discussed in my doctoral dissertation: Pateridou, Yannis Psycharis’s Greek Novels, 108-9, 113.1 am also indebted to Karen Van Dyck’s insightful analysis of this chapter, which connects issues of transliteration and translation theory to diaspora literature. See Van Dyck, K., ‘Tracing the Alphabet in Psycharis’s Journey’, in Farinou-Malamatari, G. (ed.), О Ψυχάρης και η εποχή του (Thessaloniki 2005) 141-51Google Scholar.
36 The term ‘multilingual’ refers to the existence of different languages (i.e. French and Greek) as well as the existence of two different varieties of the same language (i.e. katharevousa and demotic) for different purposes: the katharevousa of the newspaper text and the demotic of the narrator’s comments.
37 See M. Theodossopoulou, ‘Βουτυράδες’, Εποχή, 18 Apr. 2004, 24. See also Pateridou, G., ‘What’s in a name?’, Μικροφιλολογικά 19 (Spring 2006) 53-4Google Scholar.
38 Xenopoulos, G., Νικόλας ΣιγαΑός: Αθηναϊκή μυθιστορία, ed. Amilitou, E. (Athens 2002) 347 Google Scholar; see also the editor’s comments on pp. 24-7.
39 In his novel Ta δοο αδέρφια Psycharis notes a similar mixture of different languages, French, Greek and Turkish, in the conversations of passengers on the boat from Constantinople to Prinkipos, as overheard by the narrator: Psycharis, Ta δοο αδερφια (Athens 1955) 68-9.
40 See Hutcheon, L., A Theory of Parody (New York 1985) 11 Google Scholar.
41 So as not to leave anything to chance, the message is repeated in one of the narrator’s conversations with a local man in Chios, who confirms that the ordinary people could not understand newspapers and books because of the language in which they were written: “‘Δεν μπορώ, μ’ έλεγε, να διαβάσω τίποτις απ’ όσα σήμερα γράφουν. Τις φημερίδες δεν τις καταλαβαίνω κ’ ετσι δεν ξερω και τι γίνεται στον κόσμο. Ας μας κάμουν και μας ένα βιβλίο, που va νοιώθουμε λίγο τι λεει!”‘ (137). Readers are supposed to understand that Psycharis’s text responds to the old man’s wish.
42 See Chryssanthopoulos, M., ‘Anticipating Modernism: Constructing a Genre, a Past, and a Place’, in Tziovas, D. (ed.), Greek Modernism and Beyond (Lanham 1997) 62-3Google Scholar.
43 It is worth remembering perhaps that Psycharis enjoyed provoking and surprising his readers/audience. A characteristic example is his talk at the Parnassos society in 1893 regarding the history of ‘the kiss’. See Psycharis, , To φιλί: ιστορική кса φοχολογική μελετη, ed. Tziovas, D. (Athens 1996)Google Scholar.
44 According to some theorists, satirical works often use elements of fantasy (in particular Menippean satire) in order to discover and represent the ideas and ideologies beneath political appearances. See Knight, C., The Literature of Satire (Cambridge 2004) 231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the general characteristics of Menippean satire see Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics.
45 He follows the same practice in another imaginary incident (in the chapter Όι Αρχαίοι’), when the ancient Greek writers judge the modern ones and break into laughter when they realize the state of their work. In a self-deprecating manner, Psycharis suggests that he should better avoid their judgement (168).
46 For the analysis of laughter as a subversive element in a narrative, see Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 126-7.
47 As Glinos pointed out in the 1930 edition of Αγνή: ‘Μέσα στο “Ταξίδι” είναι όλος о Ψυχάρης, о επιστήμονας, о λογοτέχνης, о κριτικός, о μαχητής, о άνθρωπος. Είναι το “έργο” του. Μπορούσε και να πεθάνει ύστερ’ απ’ αυτό χωρίς να χάσει τίποτε από τον ιστορικό του ρόλο. Όλες οι ικανότητες του Ψυχάρη συντρέξανε για να συνθέσει με μιας το έργο αλάκαιρης της ζωής του’: Psycharis, Αγνή, 2nd edn, ed. D. Glinos (Athens 1930) 29-30.
48 See Beaton, Άπορίες διάβαζοντας τον Ψυχάρη’, 48.