REFUGEES AND NARRATORS: A NARRATOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE TREATMENT OF THE ASIA MINOR REFUGEE IN NOVELS.

Chrysoula Tirekidis

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of New South Wales, Australia 2012

PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: Tirekidis

First name: Chrysoula Other name/s:

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: International Studies Faculty: Arts and Social Sciences

Title: Refugees and Narrators: A narratological approach to the treatment of the Asia Minor refugee in modern Greek novels.

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

In this thesis, I examine the structures of a variety of modern Greek novels referring to the Asia Minor refugees to examine how the form of a text articulates a message to produce a particular effect on the reader. By applying Gérard Genette’s methods of structural narratology, my main aim is to determine the role of refugee characters within the narrative situations. This will allow us to explore the depiction of the refugees within these narratological conventions and will indicate the authors’ choices in employing particular narrative techniques to present the refugees. In this way, we may be able to determine whether the treatment of refugee characters in the narrative structure of the novel can be correlated with the author’s level of perceived historical experience of the refugee situation in . One might expect that as a result of the refugee writers’ personal background they would give more emphasis to the refugees by using them as narrators of their own stories than authors from and the Greek mainland; however, a major finding of the way these authors use the refugees in their narrative situations shows that this is not the case. The chapters of this thesis are organised according to the narrative situations identified from the examination of the 13 novels that fit the appropriate criteria set for this study. Each novel had to include the theme of the Asia Minor refugee in Greece after the Asia Minor Disaster. As well as this, the author’s biography had to suggest the possibility of their direct knowledge of the refugees in Greece, either by being a refugee, witnessing the influx or by living amongst them after their immediate arrival. Ultimately, what I ask is: How do authors who simply observed the refugees’ situation and refugee authors who experienced this situation at first-hand employ the refugee character in narratological conventions? In addition, what are the affects of these techniques on the reader’s perception of the refugee characters in the novels?

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

3/08/2012 …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….……………………...…….… Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

ii

iii

Refugees and Narrators Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

ii Refugees and Narrators Originality Statement

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material, which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project‟s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Signed......

Date......

iii Refugees and Narrators Copyright Statement

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.

Signed......

Date......

iv Refugees and Narrators Authenticity Statement

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.

Signed......

Date......

v Refugees and Narrators Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this thesis, I examine the structures of a variety of modern Greek novels referring to the Asia Minor refugees to examine how the form of a text articulates a message to produce a particular effect on the reader. By applying Gérard Genette‟s methods of structural narratology, my main aim is to determine the role of refugee characters within the narrative situations. This will allow us to explore the depiction of the refugees within these narratological conventions and will indicate the authors‟ choices in employing particular narrative techniques to present the refugees. In this way, we may be able to determine whether the treatment of refugee characters in the narrative structure of the novel can be correlated with the author‟s level of perceived historical experience of the refugee situation in Greece. One might expect that as a result of the refugee writers‟ personal background they would give more emphasis to the refugees by using them as narrators of their own stories than authors from Constantinople and the Greek mainland; however, a major finding of the way these authors use the refugees in their narrative situations shows that this is not the case. The chapters of this thesis are organised according to the narrative situations identified from the examination of the 13 novels that fit the appropriate criteria set for this study. Each novel had to include the theme of the Asia Minor refugee in Greece after the Asia Minor Disaster. As well as this, the author‟s biography had to suggest the possibility of their direct knowledge of the refugees in Greece, either by being a refugee, witnessing the influx or by living amongst them after their immediate arrival. Ultimately, what I ask is: How do authors who simply observed the refugees‟ situation and refugee authors who experienced this situation at first- hand employ the refugee character in narratological conventions? In addition, what are the affects of these techniques on the reader‟s perception of the refugee characters in the novels?

vi Refugees and Narrators Contents

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix

Introduction Aims and method 1 Outline of the history of the Asia Minor refugee 7 Literature review 22 Methodology 38 Structure of the thesis 62 PART ONE Refugees in minor roles: Extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators

Chapter 1 Two different views: zero focalization 63 Chapter 2 The refugee in internal focalization 99

PART TWO Refugees as protagonists: Extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators and zero focalization Chapter 3 A refugee author‟s narrative 139 Chapter 4 A Constantinopolitan author‟s view 162 Chapter 5 A native author‟s perspective 185

PART THREE Experiencing vs. observing: Extradiegetic-homodiegetic narrators

Chapter 6 „I, Refugee‟. Refugees as narrators. 212 Chapter 7 Observing the refugees: A case for paralepsis. 242

Conclusion 261 Bibliography 269

vii Refugees and Narrators Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like extend my sincerest and most heartfelt thanks to my „informal supervisor‟, Dr Alfred Vincent, for assuming the responsibility of supervising my thesis for the majority of my candidature. His unceasing patience, support and optimism throughout this journey saw me to the end. I would also like to thank him for giving his time generously, his invaluable advice and for his substantial assistance in the editing of my thesis, although of course I am accountable for any errors. I consider myself extraordinarily fortunate to have worked with such an exceptional scholar, who has continually inspired me with his breadth of knowledge and sense of humour. I would also like to acknowledge Dr Seong-Chul Shin, the School Postgraduate Research Coordinator in the School of International Studies. Many thanks also go to Dr Eleni Amvrazi and Dr Vicky Doulaveras, who acted either as a supervisor or co-supervisor at the very early stages of my research prior to their resignations from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in 2008 and 2005, respectively. Really, these women initiated and inspired my interest in the modern Greek novel as an undergraduate. I gratefully acknowledge the School of International Studies and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), both at UNSW, for the support provided to me throughout my candidature. It was largely due to their financial support that I was able to undertake a brief course of study of classical Greek at the University of Sydney. I am also grateful to them for providing me with an office and workspace throughout my candidature. I was also fortunate to receive funding from the faculty for two international conference trips, where I was able to discuss my thesis with other researchers in my area. In addition, I acknowledge the substantial scholarships offered to me through the Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) and the University Postgraduate Award (UPA), which assisted me financially to travel to Greece, and the UK for eight weeks of necessary research and allowed me to work on my research full-time.

viii Refugees and Narrators Acknowledgments

There are a number of people I would like to thank for their assistance in this project in one way or another. They are: Dr Roderick Beaton, Dr Panayiotis Diamadis, Manolis and Vaso Dimeas, Dr Nicholas Doumanis, Nikolaos Emmanouilidis, Dr Renee Hirschon, and Dr Maria Zarimis for her constant encouragement. In addition, I acknowledge that the support and encouragement of my friends and family over the years has been essential to me throughout my candidature. I have been grateful for interaction with fellow graduate students in the Postgraduate Research Laboratory and the Postgraduate Study area at the UNSW library, where I spent most of my candidature; both were funded by the FASS. I would also like to recognise and thank my immediate family for their ongoing love and support. I would especially like to mention my nephews, Johnathon and Dion, and my nieces, Angelique and Jenny, for providing me with an escape from my studies. Though no words can adequately express the depth of my gratitude and appreciation, I would like to thank my parents, John and Angela Tirekidis, and my husband, Louis Visvis, for their generous financial support; but more than that, for their consistent love, encouragement and unfaltering confidence in my choice to undertake this task. However, I owe my deepest gratitude to my late father, John. His bloodline, as the son of from the region of the who arrived in the evacuated Muslim village, Simantron, , in Greece in 1923, provided me with the inspiration to engage in this part of Greek history. I wish he were able to see the finished product of my contribution to a part of our family history. Finally, to my supportive and patient husband who has been by my side, sharing every step of this project with me from beginning to end: I dedicate this project to you and to our future.

ix Refugees and Narrators Acknowledgments

NOTE ON SPELLING AND GRAMMAR In all the Greek texts quoted, I have chosen to use only the monotonic accent system. and, in some cases to leave non-standard forms of words in quotes to be true to the original text since they are often purposely included in a text to denote the background of a particular character. For instance, in the following example the word „πρόσφυγκοι,’ which sounds like the Greek word for wasps (σφήκες), is derogatorily used to describe the refugees. In this same example the word ‘οπίσω‟ is an older form of „πίσω‟ (back), which is used to denote an uneducated person or their lower social class status: Γλόγου σας το λοιπόν είστε οι πρόσφυγκοι; Θαι τι κοπιάσετε να κάνετε στα μέρη μας; Ξού ‟ναι τα παιδιά μας; Αιατί φορτώσανε την αφεντιά σας στα βαπόρια κι αφήσανε οπίσω τους φαντάρους; (Sotiriou 1976: 131, emphasis added). With regard to the grammar used throughout this thesis, I have tried to be consistent by using the 6th edition of the 2002 publication of the Style Manual (Snooks & Co. 2007). However, in some cases I have opted for a more basic use of grammar. For instance, while I acknowledge that the possessive forms of personal names ending in „s‟ take „apostrophe s‟; e.g. Doulis‟s work, Venizelos‟s policies, Athanasiadis‟s trilogy, this can look awkward. For this reason, I have only used „apostrophe s‟ where the word is only one syllable, as in „boss‟s‟.

NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS AND TRANSLITERATIONS All translations from Greek to English are my own unless otherwise specified. Greek terms that I wish to draw attention to are enclosed in quotation marks with their English translation in brackets, e.g. „ανατολίτες‟ (Anatolians). However, when an English equivalent that completely captures the meaning of a Greek term cannot be found, I have not included a translation, e.g. „χοντροανατολίτες‟. For transliterations from Greek to English for some proper nouns, I have used their existing English versions. For example, for Αθήνα, Myrivilis for Μυριβήλης. Where there is not a well-established form, I adopt Roderick Beaton‟s method: my „transliteration is broadly phonetic but allows some concessions to the written form of the Greek (Beaton 1999: xiv)‟.

x Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

INTRODUCTION

AIMS AND METHOD Central figures of this dissertation are the fictive representations of the Asia Minor refugees who retreated to Greece in the aftermath of the Asia Minor Disaster of 1922. The Asia Minor refugee in Greece is a common theme in a number of literary works by modern Greek authors. While other studies have examined this character from a historical, sociological and thematic aspect, this study observes the refugee character from a narratological perspective. The aim of this thesis is to examine the relation between a variety of narrative techniques and their literary effects in the treatment of refugees and their issues in a selection of modern Greek novels. In other words, it examines the way the form of a text can articulate a message to produce a particular effect on the reader. This leads to another aspect of the thesis: it seeks to investigate whether an author‟s background influences their presentation of the refugee. In particular, this thesis looks for differences between the way narrative techniques are used to portray the refugee character in novels by authors who observed the refugees‟ situation and authors who experienced this situation at first-hand. The refugees are the focus of this study because extensive research has shown that the refugee character, in general, has not received much attention. Moreover, interest in the refugee character has begun to fade with modern Greek fiction taking new directions and new writers coming to prominence with new genres and modern issues. Not only does this thesis intend to contribute to the study of the refugee character in modern Greek novels, but it also seeks to expand our understanding of narratological devices and the influence these have on the ultimate understanding of a narrative. The starting point for this thesis was comments by two scholars on modern Greek novels. Thomas Doulis (1977) and Tonia Kafetzaki (2003) have claimed that refugee and native authors differ in the way they thematically portray the refugees, which led me to question to what extent an author‟s experience of the refugees affects their work. These thoughts then instigated a consideration of a much more wide-ranging investigation into narrative

1 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

techniques, in particular the narrative situations used by a variety of writers on this issue. Therefore, the question of refugee and non-refugee writers is integrated into a broader study of narrative techniques. The analysis of the way writers, from Asia Minor, Constantinople and Greece, use and portray the refugees through their chosen narrative techniques will bring any differences between these portrayals into the foreground. The thesis tries to identify any contrast in the narrative structure of native and refugee authors depicting the refugee character, analogous to the thematic perspective of this contrast that is noted by Doulis and Kafetzaki. However, where both Doulis and Kafetzaki group authors from Constantinople as refugee writers, this study considers that Constantinopolitans‟ had a different refugee experience from that of refugees from other areas of Asia Minor.1 Therefore, the thesis also examines the way narrative techniques are used by refugee authors with varied experiences of the Disaster and refugeehood. By employing the methods of structural narratology as defined by Gérard Genette, the thesis will identify the function of the refugee characters in the narrative situation of the novels and an analysis of their depiction within narratological conventions will ensue. Based on this examination, then, the thesis seeks to determine, firstly, the assigned position of the refugees in the narratological structure of the narrative and, secondly, the way in which the refugee characters are presented. This will indicate the author‟s choices in employing narrative techniques to create a particular effect on the reader. In order to undertake this task, I have decided to focus on the narrator since it is this narrative device that the author uses to convey the story to the reader. This formal analysis is not treated as an end in itself. By bringing together an analysis of particular narrative techniques, relating to narrative situation, focalization and the treatment of time in the depiction of the refugee characters in the novels, the thesis achieves a more nuanced understanding of the way different authors present the refugees. Although it is outside the scope of this thesis, this topic lends itself to further research in relation to trauma theory in particular, through further analysis into the specific narratological strategies used by authors who

1 This is explained later in this thesis.

2 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

were victims of trauma for representing, remembering, commemorating or dealing with events they experienced. This thesis has taken as its field of enquiry the treatment of Asia Minor refugees in an extensive body of fiction that features refugee characters with varied degrees of prominence. It seemed important to include novels in which refugees have a comparatively minor role, as these too contribute to the overall picture of the refugee in modern Greek fiction. In the Athanasiadis trilogy, Οι Πανθέοι, they are minor though not insignificant characters, appearing on less than 5% of the total number of pages. Their presence in Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη is also small, though unforgettable because of the narrator‟s use of reported discourse, allowing a refugee character to speak in his personal style, eccentric and powerful. Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας is another novel where refugees play a small role, but their inclusion has a substantial consequence to the diegesis. In Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα their presence is much stronger, and their traumatic experiences are highlighted, although the book, as we will see, moves further than any of the others from being a historical novel. In Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, the main focus is on refugees, though not to the exclusion of native Greek characters. At the other end of the spectrum from Athanasiadis, in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη all the main characters are refugees, from a variety of social backgrounds, while in both Theotokas‟ Λεωνής and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια the single main protagonist and focalizer is a displaced person. Finally, with a refugee protagonist and narrator, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν focuses on refugee issues, while in Iatridi‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά the refugee is an influential character though refugee issues are trivialised. The main criteria for the selection of the corpus are that each novel had to include the theme of the refugee in Greece after the Disaster, and the authors‟ biographies needed to show that there was a possibility that they had direct knowledge of the refugees in Greece, either by being a refugee themselves, or by witnessing the influx or living amongst refugees after their immediate arrival. In selecting the corpus to be examined, I tried to achieve a logical and equal distribution between male and female writers from Asia Minor, Constantinople and Greece. I attempted to cap the number of authors for each group at four because of space and time constraints. The novels selected for examination in the

3 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

thesis are listed in Table 1. As can be seen at Table 2, a full examination of the novels analysed for this research would have included three refugee, two Constantinopolitan and five native Greek authors. A more comprehensive study could be conducted at some point in the future. However, the thesis examines only three refugee authors, which equates to five books since Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι is analysed as one continuous narrative when it is in fact a trilogy. The corpus includes four novels by native Greek authors, and four authors born in Constantinople who experienced the Disaster as persons exempt from the Exchange of Populations but not from by the Turks.2 The discrepancy between the number of novels by refugee authors and those from Constantinople and Greece is due to the background of some of the refugee authors who might have been included. For instance, the novel Άποικοι (1934) by Pavlos Floros, who was born in , was excluded because although Floros fled Smyrna during the years of the Disaster, he did not find refuge in Greece, but in Hamburg. It must also be noted that there are not many novels that represent the Asia Minor Disaster or the refugee, as Doulis states: The representation in fiction of the Greco-Turkish War, the Greek military rout, the massacre and persecution of the Christian minorities, their migration, their life as refugees in Greece; and their eventual assimilation into the mainstream of Greek society has not had, the Greek critics almost unanimously claim, the abundant witness that a series of events of such magnitude should have had. (1977: 261)

2 The 1923 Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey involved the Greek Orthodox citizens of Asia Minor and the Muslim citizens of Greece. It was a major compulsory population exchange based on religious identity. The Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations was signed at , Switzerland, on 30 January 1923, by the governments of Greece and Turkey. Approximately 2 million people (around 1.5 million Anatolian and 500,000 in Greece), were forcibly made refugees and denaturalised from their homelands. Greek citizens of Constantinople were exempt from this exchange but as with all unwanted populations, they were still a target for reprisal attacks. For more information, see below.

4 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

Some suggestions as to the reasons for this lack is the refugees‟ preoccupation with survival and assimilation did not allow them the time to document their experiences and/or they were not interested in reliving their experiences through literature. Since it would have been impossible to examine every narrative that dealt with the Asia Minor refugee, the corpus was narrowed down to those novels that are well known for their representation of the refugee character and that are set in Greece. It is true that there are relevant literary works as important, or even more important, than those I have included, such as ‟ Ο Φριστός ξανασταυρώνεται (1973), which is set in Asia Minor not Greece, M. Karagatsis‟ Ο Γιούκερμαν και τα στερνά του (1938), which depicts the assimilation of a Finn in Greece after the Russian Revolution, or Kosmas Politis‟ ΢του Φατζηφράγκου (1962), which is set in Smyrna and whose main temporal setting is 1902-03. However, to incorporate these in the thesis would have been to the detriment of a thorough examination of the texts that depict the Asia Minor refugee in Greece. In addition, the choice of novels was made in an attempt to provide a greater variety of images of the refugees. Where there were two or more novels by the one author, I chose the work that is either lesser known or that I found unique in some way within the corpus. For example, two of Athanasiadis‟ multi- volume works, Οι Πανθέοι and Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης, were on my original list; however, due to the interesting use of the refugee in the former, only it was included. In addition, another reason Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης was not considered for this study was because it has already received much exposure not only as a text but also as an adaptation to a television mini-series. In the case of Myrivilis, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971) was chosen because of the interesting use of focalization and the greater variety of refugee characters than in Η δασκάλα με τα χρυσά μάτια (1982). As for Theotokas‟ novels, Λεωνής (1988) was chosen over Αργώ (1936) because I found the former to be more focused on the refugee identity. Finally, regarding Sotiriou‟s novels, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) was selected for inclusion over Ματωμένα χώματα (1972), because although refugees narrate them both, the former includes more information on the refugee in Greece.

5 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

The following table (Table 1), organised in chronological order of the novel‟s first publication, provides information on the selection of writers and their works examined in the thesis. The subsequent table (Table 2) provides the details of some novels that were analysed for this thesis but were not included in the final form because of space restrictions.

6 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

TABLE 1: THE CORPUS Date of first Author’s name Author’s background Title of the novel and edition Extradiegetic narrative situation publication consulted for our analysis Relation Focalization Grigorios Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1934 Xenopoulos Native Πρόσφυγες (1994) narrator Constantinopolitan Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1936 Tatiana Stavrou refugee Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) narrator Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1939 Ilias Venezis Refugee Γαλήνη (1939) narrator Giorgos Constantinopolitan Heterodiegetic Internal focalization 1940 Theotokas refugee Λεωνής (1988) narrator Heterodiegetic Internal focalization 1946 Melpo Axioti Native Εικοστός αιώνας (1966) narrator Tasos Οι Πανθέοι. Η χαρισάμενη εποχή Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1948 Athanasiadis Refugee (1978) narrator Homodiegetic External focalization 1956 Stratis Myrivilis Native Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971) narrator (paralepsis) Tasos Οι Πανθέοι. Μάρμω Πανθέου Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1953 Athanasiadis Refugee (1977a) narrator Autodiegetic Internal focalization 1959 Dido Sotiriou Refugee Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) narrator Tasos Οι Πανθέοι. Η Κερκόπορτα Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1961 Athanasiadis Refugee (vol. 1, 1977b; vol. 2, 1979) narrator Autodiegetic Internal focalization 1963 Ioulia Iatridi Native Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980) narrator Menelaos Constantinopolitan Heterodiegetic Internal focalization 1970 Lountemis refugee Αγέλαστη άνοιξη (1972) narrator Maria Constantinopolitan Heterodiegetic Zero focalization 1978 Iordanidou refugee ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά (1978) narrator

5 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Aims and method

TABLE 2: OTHER NOVELS EXAMINED Date of first Author’s name Author’s Title of the novel and edition Extradiegetic narrative situation publication background consulted for analysis Relation Focalization Η δασκάλα με τα Heterodiegetic Zero 1933 Stratis Myrivilis Native χρυσά μάτια (1982) narrator focalization Antonis Autodiegetic Internal 1935 Travlantonis Native Λεηλασία μιάς ζωής (1966) narrator focalization Constantinopolitan Heterodiegetic Zero 1936 Giorgos Theotokas refugee Αργώ (1936) narrator focalization I.M. Heterodiegetic Internal 1945 Panagiotopoulos Native Αστροφεγγιά (1981) narrator focalization Menelaos Constantinopolitan Autodiegetic Internal 1948 Lountemis refugee ΢υννεφιάζει (1986) narrator focalization Heterodiegetic Zero 1956 Kostas Soukas Native Σο ποινικό μητρώο μιάς εποχής (1981) narrator focalization Autodiegetic Internal 1962 Dido Sotiriou Refugee Ματωμένα χώματα (1972) narrator focalization Autodiegetic Internal 1962 Themos Kornaros Native Σο ξεκίνημα μιάς γενιάς (1974) narrator focalization Ifigenia Ξεριζωμένη γενιά: το χρονικό της Heterodiegetic External 1977 Chrysochoou Refugee προσφυγιάς στη Θεσσαλονίκη (1977) narrator focalization Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης Heterodiegetic Zero 1988 Tasos Athanasiadis Refugee (vols 1 and 2, 1988) narrator focalization Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης (vol. 3, 1997; vol. Heterodiegetic Zero 1995 Tasos Athanasiadis Refugee 4, 1995) narrator focalization

6 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE ASIA MINOR REFUGEES3 The Asia Minor refugees were Greek Orthodox Christians living under the prior to their arrival in Greece.4 Hostility between Greece and Turkey as outlined in the following table of events caused Greek Christians in Asia Minor to seek refuge in Greece. 1821 ~ The onset of the Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire.5 1832 ~ Independence of Greek nation from the Ottoman Empire. 1844 ~ formulates the concept of the Great Idea or Greek irredentism.6 1910 ~ Liberal leader becomes Prime Minister and continued with the project of the Great Idea. 1912 ~ In the Greece acquires some former Ottoman territory, including the island of Lesvos, by the (May 1913).7 1913 ~ The Second Balkan War against ends with the Treaty of Bucharest (August 1913), conferring more of the Ottoman Empire to Greece.8

3 Many events included here are mentioned in the narratives examined in this dissertation. Where appropriate I have provided cross-references in footnotes. Since the author‟s first name and the publication date of the edition consulted for our analysis have already been stated in Table 1, these are not repeated in the cross-references. 4 The Ottoman Empire, terminated by the , encompassed much of the area previously occupied by the . On the life of the Greeks living under the Ottoman Empire, see Clogg 1976; Clarke 2006. 5 On the Greek War of Independence, see Brewer 2001; Paroulakis 2000. 6 „Great Idea‟ is a translation of the common term „Κεγάλη Ηδέα‟. Charles B. Eddy provides a clear definition: „The aim pursued by this policy was to reunite in a single Greek state all the provinces of the old Byzantine Empire where the Greek element predominated, with Constantinople as capital‟ (1931: 32). See also Milton 2008: 37-62; Eddy 1931: 33-34; Clogg 2002a: 46-65; McNeill 1978: 51-3. 7 As will be seen in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, this event is alluded to as the reason for the Greek natives‟ altered view of Asia Minor. 8 On the Balkan Wars, see Dakin 1972: 190-206; Lada 1932: 10-15; Clogg 2002a: 77-86.

7 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

1917 ~ Venizelos brings Greece into the First World War on the side of Britain and France, in return for a promise to ensure Greece‟s acquisition of Northern , the except and a substantial amount of territory on the western coast of Asia Minor, including Smyrna and other provinces heavily populated by Greek Christians. Venizelos‟ policy had created a rivalry between himself and King Constantine in 1915, known as the „‟.9 1919 ~ The area promised on the west coast of Asia Minor was not ceded to Greece since Britain had already consigned this area to under the St Jean de Maurienne Treaty. The Entente allies authorised the landing of Greek troops in Smyrna to seize it and protect the local Greek population from Italian and Turkish retaliation. Britain subsequently renounced the Treaty and Italian troops retreated from Smyrna. The conflict over the ownership of Smyrna became a contest between the Greeks and the Turks. Disgruntled at the hasty landing of Greek and allied troops in Smyrna, Mustafa Kemal, the leader of the Turkish nationalist movement, declared war against Greece. The Greek-Turkish War lasted three years, 1919-1922. 1920 ~ The Treaty of Sèvres was formulated by the Entente allies to prevent further massacres between the Greeks and the Turks and to end the dispute over Smyrna and other parts of Asia Minor.10 In theory, the Treaty of Sèvres divided parts of the Ottoman Empire among Britain, France and Greece, with the latter acquiring Eastern , Smyrna and the Aegean Islands. It was considerably favourable to the Greek cause and thus it was in Greece‟s best interests to ratify and enforce it. However, the Turkish nationalists refused to acknowledge Greece‟s gains. Returning to Greece with the favourable Sèvres Treaty,11 Venizelos called for a national election but lost because the Greek people were war weary,

9 See Llewellyn Smith 1973: 35-6; Pentzopoulos 2002: 34-6. 10 See Pentzopoulos 2002: 38; Hirschon 2004: 7; Pollis Koslin 1958: 357. 11 As Pentzopoulos states, „Venizelos returned to Athens to present to parliament the Greece of the two continents and the five seas‟ (2002: 39). The two continents were Europe and Asia, and the five seas were the Mediterranean, the Aegean, the Ionian, the and the Black Sea.

8 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

blaming Venizelos‟ policies for troops remaining at war. The king‟s party, which promised a cessation to the war, was re-elected and Venizelos resigned.12 However, the king continued to uphold the Greek . Continuing their allegiance to Venizelos, the allies withdrew their support of the Greek army, recalling the king‟s inclination to side with Germany during the First World War. An exhausted Greek army was left to uphold the Treaty on its own, while Kemal‟s army became stronger with the support of France and Italy.13 1922 ~ Without allied support, lacking munitions and food supplies, with many losses, the Greek army were pushed back into Smyrna, unable to defend themselves against Mustafa Kemal‟s offensive. They evacuated Smyrna in defeat on 26 August/8 September. With the evacuation of the Greek army, the Greek Christian citizens of Asia Minor were vulnerable, many hastily abandoning their homes to escape.14 Fleeing to different ports and „converging in a terrified mob on the city of Smyrna, where they hoped to get protection or to be evacuated‟, they became trapped between the Turks and the harbour (Pentzopoulos 2002: 46). On 8/9 September 1922, the Turks entered Smyrna, firing at the Greek and foreign ships

12 See Cosmetatos 1928: 306. 13 On Mustafa Kemal‟s leadership of Turkey, see Swallow 1973: 89-135. 14 Detailed descriptions of these events are given in many books by eyewitnesses; see for example Dobkin 1988; Horton 1927; Horton 1926; and Lovejoy 1933. Published more recently, Milton (2008: 235-387) presents accounts from eyewitnesses about the days leading up to, including and following the Greek army‟s defeat, specifically 6–30 September 1922. There are a number of examples of refugees arriving in Greece with random, useless objects that they managed to take from their homes prior to their evacuation. For instance, the man who arrives in Greece with okra pods instead of his jewels in Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and the young mother who took a pillow instead of her baby in Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, amongst others. It should be noted that there are other examples of refugees who left in such haste that they brought nothing with them to Greece. One memorable depiction of this is evident in Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη. Explaining to the protagonist Melios that he has arrived in Greece with nothing, the refugee character Pythagoras also expresses the magnitude of the uprooting: „Ώπ‟ τα Ηωνικά παράλια δεν εφέραμεν τίποτα άλλο εξόν απ‟ την ομηρικήν μας ψυχήν‟ (18).

9 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

attempting to rescue tired Greek soldiers and citizens. Parts of Smyrna were set on fire and thousands of people died. According to Pentzopoulos, the permanent loss of people‟s homes and their hasty and permanent removal from areas all over Asia Minor meant that: The blow of September 1922, proved to be a greater blow to Hellenism than the fall of Byzantium in 1453 […] for the Turks resolved this time to stamp out Hellenism for good and all (2002: 47). The Turks enforced compulsory conscription into forced labour battalions for Christian men between the ages of 18 and 45, marching them into the interior of to repair areas damaged in the years of war.15 Along the way if they collapsed from malnutrition, disease or injury they were executed; otherwise, they were forced to endure both physically and psychologically inhumane treatment (Hirschon 1998: 9). Young men outside the age for conscription were allegedly executed on the spot because of their ability to produce offspring and thus continue the Greek race. Christian women were also victims of the war, sexually assaulted by Turkish soldiers or enclosed in harems (Pentzopoulos 2002: 47).16 By September 1922 Greece had already received more than 150,000 refugees from Asia Minor, Thrace, Pontus, Bulgaria as well as the Caucasus and other areas. After this date, Greece received the majority of refugees from Asia Minor (Pentzopoulos 2002: 98).17 Well over one million more refugees arrived suddenly on Greece‟s doorstep. Nearly 600,000 of these were from Asia Minor, over 160,000 more from the Pontus region, and over 200,000 from Thrace.18 However, these figures are uncertain since they take into account only those

15 The forced labour battalions are mentioned in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Venezis‟ Γαλήνη. Both novels depict the arrival in Greece of captives from the forced labour battalions, but with differing intensities. 16 See also Panagiotarea 1994: 110. 17 It is worth noting that some Greeks from Asia Minor found refuge in other countries such as Egypt, France and the United States. In this thesis, of course, we are only concerned with those who settled in Greece. 18 The approximate figures are based on the 1928 census, which is probably the best source. See Pentzopoulos 2002: 99.

10 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

refugees who remained in Greece until 1928 when the census was conducted. Therefore, they exclude those refugees who stayed for a while but emigrated prior to the census date, as well as those refugees who may have died prior to the census. Charles B. Eddy, the third Chairman of the Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC), claims the total number of refugees who arrived in Greece shortly after the Disaster to be approximately 1.3 million (Pentzopoulos 2002: 98).19 1923 ~ The „Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations and Protocol‟20 was agreed to in order to achieve a permanent settlement to the humanitarian problem caused by the Disaster. The and signing members officially inaugurated this Exchange as part of the Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the dispute over Asia Minor‟s ownership and the bilateral massacres of Christians and Muslims. It also reversed Greece‟s acquisition of territory gained in the Treaty of Sèvres; specifically, it restored Eastern Thrace, Smyrna and the islands of and to what had now become the Republic of Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne‟s provisions stated that the Exchange was to be based on religion, enforcing a permanent exile for those who had already fled the safety of Greece.21 Upon the arrival of the exchangeables in their new homeland, they would acquire the nationality of the country they were entering, consequently forfeiting their original nationality regardless of personal choice and heritage (Hirschon 2004: 283).22 However, not all Christians living in Turkey and Muslims living in Greece were subject to the Treaty of Lausanne. With the granting of special status and protection under its second article, Christians of Constantinople, Imbros and Tenedos, and Muslims of , were exempt from the Exchange. The

19 On the condition of the refugees upon arriving in Greece, see Pentzopoulos 2002: 48. 20 From here on this will be referred to as the ‘Exchange‟. For more information, see Ladas 1932: 335–590; Hirschon 2004; Pentzopoulos 2002; Eddy 1931: 45-241; Clark 2006; Keyder 2004: 39-52; Aktar 2004: 79-96. 21 See Hirschon 2004: 281-7. For the original text in French, see Ladas 1932: 787-816. 22 See also Clark 2006: xv.

11 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

populations in these areas were allowed to remain, affording them the option to leave their homes at any time without suffering too great an economic loss since they had time to plan their departure (Pentzopoulos 2002: 71). However, it has been suggested that those exempted faced the difficulties all unwanted minorities faced in their host countries, such as prejudice and .23 Consequently, although Constantinopolitans were not exchangeable, many of those exempted felt compelled to leave, and for this reason, they can be considered refugees. It is worth noting that the 1928 Greek census found that only 4,109 Christians from Constantinople arrived in Greece before the Disaster as opposed to 35,349 after the Disaster (Pentzopoulos 2002: 99). This could be attributed to the dominant groups‟ increasing pressure and harsh treatment of their minorities, the aim of which was to make the minorities‟ life difficult in the hope they would voluntarily leave (Oran 2004: 110). The difference between the experiences of those refugees from Constantinople and those from other areas of Asia Minor was taken into consideration in this thesis. As mentioned earlier, this is the reason Stavrou, Theotokas, Lountemis and Iordanidou are grouped as Constantinopolitan authors, as opposed to Venezis, Athanasiadis and Sotiriou, whom we call refugee authors. The term „Constantinopolitan refugee‟ is used to describe refugee characters from Constantinople in the novels, and is a reference to their background and experiences of the Disaster, which are perceived to be different from that of refugees from other areas of Asia Minor. The irreversible and compulsory nature of the Exchange increased Greece‟s national and linguistic homogeneity, leaving Greece with comparatively small minority communities.24 However, it created the pressing issue of accommodating the refugees since the number of houses left behind by the departing Muslims was nowhere near enough to house all the Greek refugees.25

23 See Oran 2004: 104-07; Tsimouris 2001; Alexandris 2004: 117-32; Aktar 2004: 92; Clogg 2002b: xiii. 24 See Pentzopoulos 2002: 132. Although Greece‟s linguistic homogeneity increased, some refugees‟ highly divergent dialects precipitated their isolation and ostracism by the natives; see Stelaku 2004: 188-9. 25 Pentzopoulos (2002: 104) notes that the agricultural settlement of the refugees would have been even more difficult without the vacated Muslim properties. See also Oran

12 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

Inhabiting makeshift shelters, the refugees disrupted the social, economic and religious life of the cities (Pentzopoulos 2002: 113).26 With most refugees arriving in Greece with little capital and resources to create new homes, the Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC) was established to supervise the settlement of 46% of the refugees in rural areas, while the Greek government managed the 54% who settled in urban areas (Liakos 1993: 32).27 Most of the land assigned to the refugees in rural districts was in areas evacuated by the Muslims, namely Thrace and . This large area absorbed most of the refugee population so that the cities were not overrun by the unemployed, who could have posed a threat to social order. In addition, its fertile soil increased the likelihood of the refugees supporting themselves immediately through cultivation of land and consumption of their own produce, which could also be used for trade.28 Because of this, apart from land, the RSC also provided rural refugees with agricultural implements and livestock, using 86.35% of available funds, while urban refugees were allocated only 13.7%. This lack of expenditure for urban refugees exacerbated two major problems: housing and employment (Liakos 1993: 34). Greece‟s economy was profoundly influenced with refugees amounting to one fifth of the population. In some ways the refugees were an asset because

2004: 99. On the town planning that went into the refugee settlements, see Yerolympos 2004: 133-44; Colonas 2004: 163-78. Issues arising from the refugee settlement are also mentioned later in this chapter since the loans taken for the settlement of refugees are an economic consequence of the refugees‟ arrival in Greece. See also Hirschon 2004: 14. 26 The distribution of refugees in the major cities is outlined by Liakos (1993: 33). The reason many settled in the cities was that they believed their chances of finding kin and employment opportunities were greater; however, there was not enough housing in the cities, leading them to occupy theatres, schools, churches and other public buildings. Accommodation of the refugees in makeshift shelters in the cities is mentioned in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Theotokas‟ Λεωνής. 27 The RSC‟s settlement of refugees in rural areas is featured most prominently in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα. 28 See Pentzopoulos 2002: 105-11; Kontogiorgi 2004: 63-78.

13 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

once they came to terms with their situation many turned to agriculture and industry. While some scholars attribute the economic development of Greece to the influx of refugees since many had special skills,29 others claim that the returning soldiers and the natural improvement of a country after a war‟s end also had some bearing (Pentzopoulos 2002: 158). Nevertheless, the industrial and commercial sectors of Greece certainly were boosted by the contributions of the refugees. Although in their roles as consumers the refugees made little impact, since only a small number brought some capital, their most important contribution was as entrepreneurs and producers.30 Accredited for the development of the textile industry and business, the refugees utilised their experience in Asia Minor and applied it productively to Greece (Pentzopoulos 2002: 161). The refugees were also considered liabilities to the Greek state and contributors to its economic problems.31 Loans and revenues from Muslims‟ vacated properties were mere band-aids over Greece‟s financial wounds. The high interest rates from external loans, the flooding of the job market by refugees, which contributed to an increase in unemployment, and the world crisis of 1929 eventually led to the bankruptcy of many new businesses. As a result, the unemployed refugees and natives looked to the state for support, but to no avail, since the Greek nation was on the brink of bankruptcy itself.

29 Hirschon (1998: 6) claims, „The expansion and diversification of the Greek economy from the 1920s is directly attributable to the influx of refugees‟; cf. Pentzopoulos 2002: 155. On the refugees‟ employment upon entering Greece, see Liakos 1993: 31-57. 30 The issue of employment is a common theme in the novels examined in our corpus. The image of wealthy refugees who were able to contribute to Greece‟s economy immediately upon their arrival is evident in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες and Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι. Regarding refugees who had difficulty finding employment, see Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. Interestingly, the texts suggest that a common occupation assumed by refugee women was as servants. This occurs in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. 31 See Mazower 1992: 119-34; Mazower 1991; Kontogiorgi 2004: 63-78.

14 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

In the realm of Greek politics, the refugees were a formative factor and a critical element. The arrival of 300,000 males of voting age accounted for the abrupt swing in favour of Venizelos after years of political division (Mazower 1991: 129). Up until 1932, refugees‟ support for Venizelos and his policies remained strong because he represented the Great Idea, which had culminated in the successful achievement of the Treaty of Sèvres, and the hope of the refugees‟ return home. Support for the monarchy was not common among refugees because many blamed King Constantine I for the Disaster and they perceived the monarchy as an establishment out of touch with the modern world. The refugees‟ discontent with the monarchy was also evident in the restoration of the republic in 1924, since their numbers swung the vote in its favour (Pentzopoulos 2002: 181). The influence of the refugees in Greek politics is also demonstrated by the „Trial of the Six‟, which refers to the trial for treason of the officials who were held responsible for the Greek defeat in the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922. Although nine were trialled, six were sentenced to death. It has been argued that this was conducted in anticipation of the refugees‟ political reaction to the situation they encountered in Greece.32 Internationally, European governments were appalled; nationally, satisfaction was brought to some officers and refugees. That top officials, such as the Prime Minister Dimitris Gounaris, the commander of the Greek army in Asia Minor G. Hatzianestis, and four ministers, could be tried for treason and executed in a matter of months is testimony to the government‟s fear of rebellion by the refugees (Doulis 1977: 67). Apart from the vote, the refugees were able to influence the political scene through the media. They established newspapers, such as Παμπροσφυγική, devoted explicitly to their issues, thus influencing the political scene of Greece and creating a forum for refugees to voice their issues and accomplishments to a wider audience.33 Regardless of their best efforts, however, the refugees were constantly under-represented in the government, with 12-13% of the total

32 See Doulis 1977: 66-7; Clogg 2002a: 98-9. 33 Circulation of information concerning the refugees in newspapers is evident in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη.

15 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

number of seats in parliament held by refugees, while the refugees accounted for 20% of Greece‟s total population (Pentzopoulos 2002: 187). The refugees‟ dissatisfaction at the inability of the Venizelos Government to support them and his acceptance of the Ankara Convention of 1930 was reflected in Greece‟s political sphere.34 In 1932, the refugees took the opportunity to show their discontent and Venizelos marginally won over the People‟s party, though a year later he was defeated. However, the refugees‟ dissatisfaction with both the monarchists and Venizelos caused social unrest and they began looking to the left for possible support (Pentzopoulos 2002: 192).35 Some refugees openly supported communism but not all followed communist ideology, despite a common misconception. This seems to have arisen because their misery and discontent was a major attraction for communist recruitment, therefore „on a percentage basis, the communist party was able to recruit more refugees than natives‟ (Pentzopoulos 2002: 190).36 In addition, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), which was established in 1918, entered politics as a legitimate political party only after the Disaster. Soon after the end of the Metaxas dictatorship (1936-1941), during which communists were temporarily run underground, various parties that sided with the left joined forces to resist the German Occupation through the National Liberation Front (EAM), spreading their propaganda messages through the destitute and desperate refugee settlements (Clarke 2006: 231). Later, its military arm, the National People‟s Liberation Army (ELAS), was established through the recruitment of men and women from poor villages, including

34 As Mazower (1991: 129) states: „[The refugees] resented Venizelos‟ apparent acceptance of the Turkish argument that Greek properties in Asia Minor had amounted to less than those vacated by the Muslims in Greece. They bitterly attacked the Liberal Government for refusing to provide them with full compensation; and perhaps, at a deeper level, they also reacted strongly to the idea that all their hopes of an eventual return to their former homes must now be given up‟. 35 The involvement of the refugees in the communist movement is mentioned in three novels in our corpus, all of which were written by females: Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. 36 See also Legg & Roberts 1997: 84, 149.

16 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

refugee centers, who longed for their country‟s liberation from the occupiers. At the end of the Second World War, communism was quite popular with the refugees; as Pentzopoulos puts it, „the communist microbe had irretrievably permeated many urban refugee centers of the principal Greek cities, providing the electoral basis of the KKE‟ (2002: 192). Following the Second World War, the majority of the refugee vote went against the return of the monarchy. Many refugees were not only anti- monarchists, but supported the KKE. Anastasios Bakalbassis, the Under- Secretary of Agriculture in 1926, distinguished four factors that contributed to the refugees‟ acceptance of communist ideology: the lack of attention by various governments to rectify poor housing and living conditions; the inauguration of the Ankara Convention; the government‟s disregard of refugees‟ citizenship rights through its opposition to refugee participation in national affairs and public organizations; and finally the „utterly deficient way in which refugee education and guidance was planned and administered‟ (Pentzopoulos 2002: 194). Perceptions of the refugees played an integral part in their social integration to Greece and, as will be seen, these perceptions are overtly demonstrated in the narratives examined in this dissertation. Although the Greeks of Asia Minor and the natives lived divergent lives, they had much in common prior to the Disaster. Gerasimos Augustinos claims that the Greeks of Asia Minor identified with the Greek culture in the nation state while maintaining their own (1992: 7, 170; see also p. 217). Both groups believed in the improvement and development of Greece, which is evident in their combined effort to realise the Great Idea by supporting Greek policy. Finally, their shared religion was one of the foundations of their bond (Anagnostopoulou 1998: 532). As a result, Hirschon notes: „One might reasonably have expected that the two populations would have merged quite smoothly over [5-6 decades]‟ because of shared characteristics (1998: 5).37 However, in another of her works, Hirschon qualifies this by noting:

37 See also Eddy 1931: 15.

17 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

Observable or objective similarities between incomers and hosts… [do] not always result in smooth assimilation. Even when common factors exist between the host society and the incomers which might lead to the expectation of accommodation, such as in the case of Greece and Turkey and their exchanged people, this expectation is not substantiated (2004: 20). The sympathy felt towards the refugees during their arrival by the native population was not necessarily long lasting.38 Prior to the Disaster, some Greeks of the nation state hoped to incorporate parts of Asia Minor into the motherland. Others blamed the Asia Minor Greeks for the wars and subsequent deaths of their soldiers and civilians, and for Greece‟s descent into poverty. With their livelihoods at risk many natives resented the refugees (Hirschon 2004: 19). With regard to the allocation of land through the refugee settlement policies, neither group was satisfied with the outcome. Expecting to be allocated the estates left behind by the departing Muslims first, the natives were infuriated to learn that they were allotted only 20%, and the refugees 80% (Hirschon 2004: 285). Also, on a social level, the poor living conditions of the refugees repelled many native Greeks from associating with them, thus further widening the gap (Pentzopoulos 2002: 211).39 However, the issue of employment was perhaps the greatest cause

38 In our corpus the antagonistic relationship between refugees and natives is mentioned in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. For native characters who are sympathetic towards the refugees, see Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. 39 Native men were reluctant to marry refugee women and vice versa, because the „inter- marrying‟ between these two groups was frowned upon. Hirschon noted that even in 1972, in the suburb of Kokkinia, „marriages were preferably contracted from within the “refugee” population‟ (1998: 111). While this is a major topic that could be examined further at a later stage, it is not a significant issue in our analysis of narrative techniques. Suffice to say here, marriages between refugee and native characters are mentioned in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Athanasiadis‟

18 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

for antagonism. The refugees‟ flair for business and industry and their desperate need to support themselves provoked competition with the natives over employment opportunities, which often gave the natives a reason to resent them.40 The distinction in the refugees‟ heritage and their way of life also delayed their symbiosis with the natives, as the two groups viewed each other as strange. With regard to the view of the refugee by the native, Hirschon claims, In response [to the influx of refugees], identity issues arose among the incoming displaced. In particular, those who had been supporters of the Greek cause in Anatolia were shocked by their exclusion and the prejudice they encountered, expressed in pejorative names: „Turkish seed‟ (τουρκόσποροι), „baptised in yoghurt‟ (γιαουρτοβαπτισμένοι) or „Orientals‟ (Ώνατολίτες) (2004: 19).41 Also, Oran states, that many: [Refugees]… belonged to a higher social class than mainland Greeks. As a result, they were met with jealousy and despised as „τουρκόσποροι‟ (Turkish seeds). In addition, they also segregated themselves from indigenous Greeks (2004: 112).

Οι Πανθέοι, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη. Only Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες present the marriage of a native to a refugee with negative connotations. 40 See Pentzopoulos 2002: 210; Katsapis 2003: 104-26. 41 As will be seen, the term „Turkish seeds‟ (τουρκόσποροι) to refer to refugees is used in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. As for the term „Ώνατολίτες‟ it has been translated as „Anatolians‟ for the purposes of this thesis, since the word „Orientals‟, though a standard translation of „Ώνατολίτες‟ includes Chinese, Japanese, Thais etc. The term „Ώνατολίτες‟ is used on numerous occasions in Athanasiadis‟ trilogy Οι Πανυέοι to refer to two refugee brothers.

19 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

While the cosmopolitan character of Asia Minor42 should have taught the refugees tolerance for other cultures, the refugees treated the natives with contempt: Their initial impressions of mainland Greek life were disappointing. By contrast with the towns and villages of their homeland, metropolitan Greece could not be viewed in a favourable light. This small country was backward, and parochial, and its people unsophisticated (Hirschon 1998: 31; see also p. 12).43 These negative sentiments and derogatory opinions by both groups towards each other widened the gap between them (Hirschon 1998: 12, 33). Three phases of the „refugee consciousness‟ have been identified by researchers. The first phase lasted for a few years after their arrival, when the word „πρόσφυγας‟ (refugee) carried neutral connotations, simply describing their status as displaced persons (Pentzopoulos 2002: 201) and their distinct identity from the native (Hirschon 1998: 4). While many refugees after this phase came to terms with their reality and integrated into Greek society without any controversy, those who did not constituted the second phase lasting until the Second World War. As Hirschon has claimed, the refugees‟ self-designation emphasised their differences from the rest of the population purposefully or subconsciously in order to attract sympathy and preferential treatment by the authorities and the native population, since the issue of refugee compensation had not been settled and the refugees needed to be clearly identified (1998: 4). According to Pentzopoulos, this phase caused the most tension between the two groups: [The Tendency] of the newcomers to impress upon the indigenous population their defenceless position and the attempt of some of them to exploit it provoked an almost hostile reaction on the part of

42 On the cosmopolitan heritage of the Greeks of Asia Minor under the Ottoman Empire, see Hirschon 1998: 28. 43 There is a very detailed examination of Anatolian refugees in Greece and their encounters with the natives in Volos, in mainland Greece, by Kirtsoglou & Theodossopoulos 2001: 395-415.

20 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: History of the refugees

the natives, hindering an amiable symbiosis of the two groups (2002: 203). After the end of the Second World War, the word „refugee‟ became a badge of honour, assuming positive connotations in Greece (Voutira 2004: 145) because it identified a marginalised group of people who were initially at the bottom of the social scale but had improved their lot by becoming a group identified by their rich heritage and their determination to prosper (Pentzopoulos 2002: 204). Interestingly, the refugee identity was used by descendants of the refugees, „often third and fourth generation born in Greece so as to differentiate themselves from the native‟, conveying in a single word their difference from the native (Hirschon 1998: 4). Regarding the changing use of the terms refugees used to describe themselves, Hirschon observed in her study of the refugee settlement in Kokkinia, that the term „πρόσφυγες‟ (refugees) was used to indicate the „mode of migration and subsequent state of dependence [with] political and economic overtones‟, while the term „μικρασιάτες‟ (Asia Minor people), was used to „[convey] a particular cultural endowment associated with place of origin and their unique heritage‟ (1998: 12).

21 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

LITERATURE REVIEW There are two roles that the Disaster played in the development of modern Greek fiction: first, the events of the Disaster and its aftermath were directly represented in novels and stories; and second, many refugees assumed roles as writers. A number of refugee writers became key members of two major overlapping groups of authors who revolutionised Modern , the „Generation of 1930‟ and the „Aeolian school‟. The two groups are discussed in some detail in general histories and studies of . The „Generation of 1930‟ includes those who first published prose in the 1930s and, according to Doulis, wrote „fiction whose primary concern is the description of the social, political and moral realities of Greece in the ‟ (1977: 152).44 According to literary historian Linos Politis, the new writers of the „Generation of 1930‟ dealt with complicated psychological conditions and faced more serious social and human problems than ever before, which manifested into their work (1989: 247). Writers belonging to the „Generation of 1930‟, such as Myrivilis, Venezis, Theotokas, Axioti and Athanasiadis, whose works are featured in this study, drew from their personal experiences and recollections of the Disaster and the Exchange. Kariofillis Mitsakis, whose work focuses on the authors that make up the „Generation of 1930‟, offers a succinct and clear definition of this term: Ν όρος „γενιά του τριάντα‟ αποτελεί λοιπόν μια σύμβαση, γιατί περιλαμβάνει μια σημαντική πλειάδα δημιουργών, τόσο στην ποιήση όσο και στην πεζογραφία, οι οποίοι δεν εντάσσονται σε καμιά σχολή, εφόσον ο καθένας τους διατηρεί τη δική του ιδιοτυπία, και οι οποίοι έκαναν την εμφανισή τους στα νεοελληνικά γράμματα γύρω στο 1930, άλλοι ενωρίτερα και άλλοι αργότερα (1986: 162). Mitsakis groups the writers included in the „Generation of 1930‟ into three categories based on the themes they present in their novels, which seem to mirror Doulis‟ categories, as will be seen. One issue is the peaceful aspects of life for the

44 For more information on the „Generation of 1930‟, see Beaton 1999: 131 and Vitti 1989: 14.

22 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

Greeks in Asia Minor that is presented in novels by Myrivilis and Venezis. Another is the different experiences of the Disaster, such as the captivity of young men enlisted in the forced labour battalions as seen in the works of Venezis and Doukas. Also evident in the works of Venezis and Myrivilis, Mitsakis defines a third theme: Ρο τεράστιο ηθικό, κοινωνικό, πολιτικό, οικονομικό και πολιτιστικό πρόβλημα που δημιουργήθηκε για την Γλλάδα από την ανταλλαγή των πλυθησμών και την έλευση περίπου 1.500.000 προσφύγων απο τη Κικρά Ώσία (1986: 166). Despite acknowledging the quality of work that deals with these three themes, Mitsakis claims that refugee authors, from the „Generation of 1930‟ or any other, have been unable to present the Disaster in such a way that mirrors the level of destruction it caused (1986: 166). He also claims that the magnitude of destruction caused by the Disaster is completely absent from work by native authors (1986: 167). Although Mitsakis is referring to the themes of the Disaster in Greek fiction, his distinctions between refugee and native authors have also added to the motivation for one aim of the present study. That is, to investigate distinctions between the refugee and native author in the way they use narrative techniques to present the refugee character in Greece. With regard to the „Aeolian school‟, this consists of writers who originate from the area around ancient Aeolia and who were directly involved in the Disaster. They include Fotis Kontoglou, Giorgos Valetas, Stratis Doukas, Myrivilis and Venezis.45 According to the historian Pentzopoulos (2002), the social changes that took place because of the Disaster and the Exchange led many writers to comment on their experiences and the social changes in their society by abandoning the romanticism of the 19th century in favour of a more realistic tone (216). During the first ten years after the Disaster, the refugees were preoccupied with re-establishing their lives. However, as early as the 1920s some writers began to express their personal experiences of the Disaster. The most prominent members of the Aeolian group were refugee writers from Asia Minor, who

45 See Doulis 1977: 55; Beaton 1999: 133.

23 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

matured during the changes that were taking place in Greece after the Disaster. In particular, Pentzopoulos states: The young Asia Minor intellectuals, with their bitter experience and their lost ideals, personified the feelings of the average citizen, spoke for him, embodied his pessimistic outlook and his lack of faith (2002: 217). Using prose, these refugee writers drew attention to the social, psychological and political problems that plagued the Greek people. While the main literary figures of this period were refugees, such as Venezis, Doukas and Theotokas, there were other people profoundly moved by the national disaster and its aftermath, who presented contemporary events in their novels (Pentzopoulos 2002: 218). Writers in the „Aeolian school‟ changed their focus from the realism of the experiences and aftermath of the Disaster to a nostalgic view of life in Asia Minor (219). Apart from influencing the subject matter of contemporary Greek fiction, the „Aeolian school‟ of writers also contributed to resolving the language question that plagued Greece, through their use of the demotic language. Above all, though, they assisted in improving society‟s awareness of the refugees, as Pentzopoulos states: „More important, however, was the role they played in the unification of the newcomers and the natives‟ (2002: 219). Literary historian Roderick Beaton also demonstrates the significant influence of the Disaster. In his study of modern Greek literature, he shows that with the Disaster modern Greek literature moved from the „ideological novel‟ to „fiction as testimony‟, a change that is directly linked to the introduction of the Disaster as a literary topic (1999: 133-4). Significantly, the group that initiated this change include some refugee writers who experienced the Disaster first-hand, such as Venezis and Doukas, and some Greek native writers. Beaton also mentions the „Aeolian school‟ of writers as the first group of writers to appear during the phase he calls „The new fiction 1929-1936‟ (1999: 133). The ‟Aeolian school‟ and another two groups of writers, categorised as „Urban Realism‟ and „Realism Rejected: the Modernists‟, share similar aims to communicate experiences of historical significance, but with varying methods. The „Aeolian school‟ of writers, according to Beaton, had been directly involved in the uprooting of the Greek population of Anatolia in 1922 and used fiction as a way

24 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

of communicating and preserving their experiences (1999: 133). The heading Beaton uses to present the „Aeolian school‟ of novelists, „Fiction as Testimony‟, succinctly suggests the desire of these writers to preserve and perpetuate a personal recollection of events (134). The four writers in this group are Stratis Doukas from Moschonisia, Asia Minor; Venezis and Kontoglou from Aivali, Asia Minor. As for the inclusion of Myrivilis, who was a Greek native from Mytilene and never displaced. A second group of writers, that includes Stavrou, also manifest a desire to capture their contemporary historical climate, though they looked to the future rather than focusing on the past (133). Like the „Aeolian school‟ of writers, some authors that Beaton groups in the heading called „Urban Realism‟ had also been displaced from Anatolia. The novels in this group, such as Stavrou‟s Οι Πρώτες ρίζες, explore the changes that were taking place in the urban society of Athens in the early 1930s. A common theme amongst the novels presenting „urban realism‟ is the decline and adjustment of a traditional class to their new social situation because of the Disaster (140). With regard to the presentation of the events surrounding the Disaster in modern Greek fiction, along with the scholars already mentioned, a number of others have acknowledged and defined the historical developments of this subject in Greek fiction. Due to space restrictions, I have only included some of the more important studies. Furthermore, space restriction and the fact that these studies are not closely connected to my field of study prohibit the inclusion of further detail. They do not focus on the presentation of the refugee in narrative techniques. Many literary historians have studied the influences of the Disaster on modern Greek literature, but very few have exclusively examined the themes that characterise fiction dealing with the Disaster. Much work has been carried out since Aimilios Hourmouzios‟ article „Ε προσφυγική λογοτεχνία‟ (1940) was published over 70 years ago. Hourmouzios claimed that despite the seriousness of the Disaster and its prominence in modern Greek literature, its impact on literature was not dealt with in proportion to the magnitude of the disaster (1940: 106-09). Keeping in mind that Hourmouzios‟ article was written in 1940, his claim that refugee issues had not been examined from a social and philosophical perspective is quite remarkable considering the number of years between this

25 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

article and the arrival of the refugees. Perhaps the most pertinent recommendation of Hourmouzios‟ article is the appeal to his readers for their support of refugee literature. Arguing that the refugees are responsible for changes to the new Greek reality, suggesting that literature written by refugees about refugee issues contains significant topics relevant to Greek history. Therefore, he shows support for an analysis of literature in order to understand the life of the refugee. Despite the many mentions of changes caused by the Disaster in the canon of modern Greek literature, Hourmouzios‟ observations are still relevant today, for, as will be seen later, the central figure of the Disaster in literature, the refugee, has received little scholarly attention. Over 35 years after Hourmouzios‟ article (1940), Doulis professes in his work that the study of the Disaster as a theme is still under-represented in Greek literary criticism (1977: 262). All historians and scholars on Greek literature agree that the Disaster and refugees as a theme are important to modern Greek literature. However, there have been comparatively few book length studies on the themes as it appears in fiction. In 1967, Nikos Milioris published a seminal article called „Ε Κικρασιατική τραγωδία στη λογοτεχνία και την τέχνη‟, in which he discusses the studies concerned with literature that featured the Disaster and refugees. He recognised that although some research has been conducted on literary works that include the theme of the Disaster and refugees:

Βε φτάνουν σε έκταση αλλά και στο βάθος, το ανάλογο στη μεγίστη σημασία του θέματος, του σπουδαιότητα του γεγονότος της πτώσεως του Κικρασιατικού Γλληνισμού και των κρισίμων και θεμελιακών ηθικο-κοινωνικών αλλαγών και εξελίξεων, που επέφερε στο σύνολο του σύγχρόνου ελληνισμού (1967: 339).

Konstantinos Demaras (1968) separates literature into two groups: that published before 1923 and that published after. While this is in itself testimony to the changes that took place in modern Greek literature because of the Disaster, the following statement emphasises the magnitude of these changes on Greek fiction: Ε Κικρασιατική Θαταστροφή βρήκε την νεοελληνική λογοτεχνία στην πιο αχάριστη ώρα μιάς οδυνηρής εφηβείας. Βεν υπάρχουν πιά

26 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

και δεν υπάρχουν ακόμη εξωπνευματικά κίνητρα ικανά να συντηρήσουν την έμπνευση των νέων. (1968: 471) Another literary historian, Mario Vitti, mentions that the Disaster influenced many modern Greek writers, describing a changing trend from folkloric narrative before the Disaster to contemporary social reality after the Disaster (1987: 367-8), which is echoed in Politis (1973), Pentzopoulos (2002) and Beaton (1999) as previously mentioned. Perhaps the most eloquent recognition of the Disaster on modern Greek literature has been noted by Greek literary historian Linos Politis: One event exercised a great influence on the writers…an event which was to cast its heavy shadow over all subsequent literary production and the whole intellectual and social background: the Asia Minor disaster and the exchange of populations which followed (1973: 247). Doulis, the first scholar to have published a full book on the Disaster and refugees in Greek fiction, states: With the events of 1922, the Greek people suffered an ideological, social and emotional dislocation that changed the course of modern Greek civilisation. Fiction, as the mirror of this civilisation, could not help but reflect that cataclysmic change (1977: 42). Niki Eideneier, in her examination of the way the Turk is depicted in modern Greek fiction dealing with the Disaster, also makes a comment about the Disaster being a widely used theme in modern Greek prose and that the importance of this event in modern Greek literature has been widely recognised. In particular, she found that: Ε Κικρασιατική Θαταστροφή αποτελεί σε ένα πλήθος πεζογραφικών έργων αποκορύφωση της θεματικής τους αφετηρία ή απόληξη του υλικού τους, με χρονικές προεκτάσεις πρίν, κατά τη διάρκεια και μετά το 1922, ή και αφορμή για περαιτέρω διηγηματικές διακλαδώσεις (1999: 178). Finally, Maria Nikolopoulou (2007) also attests to the importance of the depiction of the Disaster and the refugees in Greek novels, as she says that the „literary representations of both the refugee experience and of the life before it were instrumental in rendering it a central issue in Greek public discourse‟ (3).

27 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

Other important scholars also attest to the significance of the Disaster in modern Greek literature. Pentzopoulos states: „Besides being a turning point in the political , the year 1922 constitutes also a landmark in the development of Greek literature‟ (2002: 216). Influential scholar Peter Mackridge also maintains the importance of the Disaster on modern Greek literature, as he says: The loss of the Greek Orthodox communities of Asia Minor marked a watershed in Greek literature, and those who entered the literary scene after 1922 – whether they were refugees or not – felt that their collective experiences had nothing in common with those of their elders (1992: 225-26). In another of Mackridge‟s studies on the fiction of the Disaster (2004), he reiterates the prominence of the Disaster in the development of the modern Greek novel […] a significant number of widely read and influential novels and short stories concerned with Asia Minor and the Asia Minor Catastrophe have appeared since 1922. Some of these texts are central to the canon of modern Greek literature. Their importance should not be underestimated, for they are among the texts primarily responsible for instilling the myth of Asia Minor in the Greek consciousness (2004: 236). Over the years, numerous scholars have focused on examinations of particular characters in texts dealing with the Disaster.46 One popular branch of study is the manner with which the Turk is depicted in these Greek novels. In 1986, Marianthe Colakis presented an article about the differences in the portrayal of the Turk in early and later Greek fiction that used the Disaster as a theme. Colakis‟ research reveals the minor role of the Turkish characters in Greek

46 There are a number of studies on the portrayal of refugees and related issues in other literatures, such as those documented in Daniel Dombrowski‟s (2004) Women and war in the Twentieth Century, and Mary Layoun‟s (2000), Wedded to the land?: Gender boundaries and nationalism in crisis. However, due to space restrictions I was unable to include these and due to time restrictions I was unable to access these particular works.

28 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

literature and challenges the common misunderstanding of the Turk as enemy of the Greeks. Grouping novels in two of the three themes Doulis created in 1977, Colakis finds that novels featuring the theme of the imprisonment of Greeks in Turkish labour battalions, such as Venezis‟ Σο νούμερο 31,328, do not condemn the Turks as a race and nor do they present Turkish and Greek customs as being different (1986: 103). In a second group of novels that describe the experiences of refugees and their resettlement Greece, such as Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Colakis finds that the Turk is more vicious than those presented in the first group of novels, but their reasons for this brutality is explained to the reader as being a direct result of war (104). Colakis‟ conclusion on the Turk as presented in the Greek fiction she examines is echoed in later studies on this subject, as will be seen. Colakis concludes her study with this statement: Beside the torturers and murderers stand the kindly peasants and doctors; lost friends and fellow victims appear more frequently than wealthy Agas. The morality our authors create is complex; like most of humanity, their Turks are simultaneously guilty and innocent (1986: 105). In a literary analysis of novels featuring the theme of the Disaster, Aggela Kastrinaki examines the way authors modify the image of the Turk in their works in later editions (1999). In her assessment of the changing images of the foreigner in modern Greek fiction, she finds that such developments are common and that they are often dramatic enough to completely alter the ideas that were presented in the original publication, resulting in a complete adjustment of the original message (166). Kastrinaki makes a strong argument for the importance of noting the edition used in the examination of novels. Niki Eideneier‟s assessment of the image of the Turk (1999) is similar to that presented by Kastrinaki and Colakis, as mentioned. Eideneier finds that it is not common practise for the Turk to be presented as a hero or as an anti-hero. Often their presentation is incidental and they usually assume roles as an enemy or friend of the Greek hero, showing humanity or repentance, but most commonly as a savage group or individual (179). Eideneier‟s study is focused on the novels that present the period prior to the war and the Disaster, such as Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, which generally characterise that time as one of

29 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

peace between the Turks and Greeks (180). Another scholar, Iraklis Millas (2001) has produced a book length study on the image of Greeks and Turks in schoolbooks, historiography and Greek literature. His focus in on the way the Greek is represented in Turkish texts, while his work on the way the Turk is represented in Greek novels is merely a pilot study. Nevertheless, Millas‟ discussion highlights the fascinating difference in the way refugee and native authors portray the Turk. In particular, he claims that refugee authors, such as Venezis, Myrivilis and Iordanidou, present the Turk according to the relevant event discussed in the novel without succumbing to stereotypes (2001: 351-2). Interestingly, this contrasts to the image of the Turk that native authors present, which usually has negative undertones (352). Though he does acknowledge that there are exceptions and that much work needs to be done for a precise conclusion, Millas makes a general statement about the main differences in the portrayal of the Turk in novels by native and refugee authors: ΋ταν αναφέρονται στον «ιστορικό» Ρούρκο (Θαζαντζάκης, Θόντογλου) αυτός είναι γενικά αρνητικός, όταν πάλι γίνεται λόγος για τον «υπαρκτό» (Βούκας και ειδικά Πωτηρίου, Ηορδανίδου) είναι πιο ανθρωπινός και εξεζητημένος. (353) In regards to the refugee experience, which is the issue preoccupying this thesis, only a small number of scholars have examined this in detail. Although she does not mention novels featured in our corpus or the refugee experience, Maria Nikolopoulou (2007) investigates the reason for the presentation of the refugee experience and the Disaster in novels of the 1960s that commemorate the 40-year anniversary of this event. Furthermore, her analysis shows how textual techniques depicting this theme subvert the nationalist discourse that usually characterises anniversaries. In regards to the portrayal of refugees, Nikolopoulou only claims that these texts ‟employ the refugee experience to challenge nationalistic discourse for reasons pertinent to the political and cultural conditions of the 1960s Greece‟ (2007: 2). Finally, in her study she found that novels published in the 1960s emphasised the anniversary of the Disaster through their subject matter and the authors‟ textual choices, such as the authors‟ prefaces and their selection of discourses.

30 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

Despite the numerous studies on various subjects involving the Disaster, few have exclusively examined the themes that characterise literature dealing with the Disaster. Regarding the topic of the current thesis, only a very number of scholars have focused specifically on the refugees in the Greek novel. In 1977 Doulis publishes a book-length study dedicated exclusively to the theme of the Disaster in modern Greek literature. As well as offering a discussion on the „Generation of 1930‟ and the ideological reactions of Greek intellectuals, such as Nikos Kazantzakis, to the Disaster, Doulis presents a general overview of the themes. By analysing novels featuring the Disaster published until the 1970s, Doulis found three main themes that are the focal point of this fiction. The first he has calls, „narratives of captivity‟, which includes novels mostly produced between 1923 and 1930, dealing with the sensitive and painful issue of „captivity‟ and the actual experiences of the Greek-Turkish War, 1919-1922 (1977: 49-63). Examples of this type of novel are Doukas‟ Ιστορία ενός αιχμαλώτου (1929), first published in 1929; Myrivilis‟ Η ζωή εν τάφω: το βιβλίο του πολέμου (1946), first published as a novel in 1930; and Venezis‟, To νoύμερο 31328: το βιβλίο της σκλαβιάς (1931), first published in 1931. Our corpus does not contain any novels that are included in this group. Doulis observes that although a small number of authors write about captivity in the 1920s, refugee writers were reluctant to begin writing about their experiences of the Disaster. Perhaps due to the psychological trauma associated with this, their displacement and subsequent difficulties in Greece or their preoccupation with rebuilding their lives and starting anew, no novels dealing with the refugee experience appeared until 1929, when the Constantinopolitan Petros Afthoniatis published his novel Πρόσφυγες (Doulis 1977: 72) even though it is only a superficial representation of the refugees.47 It is interesting to note, however, that a Constantinopolitan would present this topic first, perhaps because his experience of the Disaster was milder than those from Asia Minor and he was able to deal with it more readily; after all, Constantinopolitans were exempt from the forced migration of the Exchange.

47 See also Kafetzaki 2003: 67.

31 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

A second theme, which Doulis calls „the refugee experience‟, is pertinent to the present study. According to Doulis, the native and the refugee writer present this theme differently, although both detail various facets of the refugees‟ struggle to assimilate into Greek society (1977: 63-105). Examples of this theme include a number of the texts used in our study, such as those by refugee authors: Venezis‟ Γαλήνη (1939), first published in 1939; and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b), first published in 1936.48 Regarding native authors and the presentation of the refugee experience, Doulis asserts that „each writer [sensed] the unmistakable change Greece had undergone with the events of 1922 and the arrival of the Anatolians‟ (1977: 71). This sense of change caused by the influx of refugees filtered through to their novels as native authors began to deal with the general transformation of Greece and Athens in particular, the refugees‟ influence on politics, such as their following of Venizelos, „the Trial of the Six‟ and their republicanism. They also express the attitudes of the Greek native towards the refugees, especially in regard to the economy, and they present the refugee experience from their own point of view. The example Doulis uses of novels by native authors who present the „refugee experience‟ is Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες (1994), which was first published as a book in 1934. Of the works by refugee writers in the 1930s, Doulis notes that until 1936 the majority of them expressed a strong dissatisfaction towards the political institutions for their inability to improve Greece and the lives of the Greek people, more so than native authors. He attributes this to the refugees‟ first-hand experiences of the „disgrace Greece suffered‟ or the shock in their change of living standards from those which they were accustomed to in Asia Minor (1977: 96). According to Doulis, the Metaxas dictatorship put an end to novels dealing with

48 Due to space restrictions, any significant contributions made by Doulis to the analysis of the refugees as presented in novels in our corpus will be referred to throughout the analysis where relevant.

32 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

political issues.49 After the establishment of the Dictatorship, novels continued the theme of the „refugee experience‟, but did so to the exclusion of political ideology (1977: 96-7). Examples are Venezis‟ Γαλήνη (1939), and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b). Both of these novels focus on the economic, psychological and social problems that the refugees faced in the process of their assimilation (Doulis 1977: 97). Doulis‟ third theme, „sounds of another war‟, marks the shift in focus from the theme of the „refugee experience‟ (1977: 106-15). The distance between the Disaster and the refugee writers‟ current situation allowed them to gain some perspective on their experiences. As the Second World War approached many refugee writers began to present a nostalgic view of their life and their lost homeland prior to the Disaster (Doulis 1977: 109). Examples are Venezis‟ Αιολική γη (1969), first published in 1943, and Theotokas‟, Λεωνής (1988), first published in 1940 (Doulis 1977: 106). After the 1940s, a great majority of writers began to write about contemporary events such as the German Occupation and the Resistance. Novels in this group sometimes focus on the presentation of life prior to the Disaster and the refugees‟ lost homeland. According to Doulis, as time passed refugee writers were able to gain some perspective on the Disaster, its aftermath and the period before their expatriation, and were finally able to comment on it (1977: 106-15). Though the novel from our corpus that fits into this theme is Theotokas‟ Λεωνής (1988), Doulis claims that „it is not a refugee novel. It is something else, because World War II put an end to the fictional use of the “refugee experience” narrowly conceived‟ (1977: 109). Despite this, Λεωνής will be examined as a novel that portrays the refugee experience, since Peter Mackridge (1986) states, that „although [Constantinople is not] Asia Minor, the experience is the same (76). Novels that have not been mentioned in Doulis‟ three categories of themes in fiction of the Disaster, but that he does discuss elsewhere in his work are Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, and Sotiriou‟s Οι

49 Novels that deal with political issues include Myrivilis‟ Η δασκάλα με τα χρυσά μάτια (1982), first published in 1933; and Theotokas‟ Αργώ (1936), first published in 1936 (Doulis 1977: 96).

33 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

νεκροί περιμένουν. Doulis has classified these three novels under the heading of „Fiction of History‟ since „the historical uniqueness of the Asia Minor tragedy is ever-present‟ (1977: 185). With regard to the novels by Iatridi and Sotiriou, they differ from Myrivilis‟ work since they employ an autobiographical style „with candid references to the first person, his family, social environment, and the period of historical change through which he lived‟ (1977: 187). Finally, it must be noted that Doulis does not mention the following novels that feature in our corpus: Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη. In an article titled „Kosmas Politis and the Literature of Exile‟, published in 1992, Peter Mackridge investigates literature of the Disaster. Categorizing the novels‟ themes into three basic groups according to the way they depict issues relevant to the Disaster, he presents three chief themes: (a) peacetime life in Asia Minor or Constantinople before the Disaster; (b) narratives of war, captivity and or expulsion and (c) depictions of the economic, social and, particularly, psychological difficulties faced by the refugees on arrival in Greece. According to Mackridge, after the 1940s the theme of the Disaster is relegated a secondary role to the new events facing the Greeks, though around the 40th anniversary of the Disaster three novels using this theme are published. In another of Mackridge‟s articles (2004) titled, „The Myth of Asia Minor in Greek Fiction‟, he echoes his earlier three themes of fiction depicting the Disaster. As the title suggests, he focuses exclusively on peacetime life in Asia Minor before the Disaster, which corresponds to Doulis‟ „sounds of another war‟, and the presentation of the old homeland as a lost paradise. According to Mackridge, the popularity of these novels helped perpetuate this myth to wider audiences across successive generations. While his article focuses exclusively on this theme, he does mention the other two themes. That is, the theme of experience of war, captivity and expulsion, which correlates with Doulis‟ „narratives of captivity‟, and the theme of refugees‟ settlement in Greece and the difficulties they faced, which recalls Doulis‟ „refugee experience‟ and is also the

34 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

focus of Kafetzaki‟s study (2003).50 The only novel from our corpus covered in Mackridge‟s work is Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, which he uses as an example of a novel by a non-refugee author who wrote about Asia Minor „and contributed to the formation and propagation of the myth‟ (2004: 238). In 1977, when Doulis published his work on fiction of the Disaster, he noted a lack of scholarly study on novels dealing with the Disaster (262). Twenty- six years later, Kafetzaki (2003) publishes another book-length study on the fiction of the Disaster, this time the focus is on the portrayal of the refugees and their experiences. Through open content analysis, the theory of cultural iconology and using literature as „testimony‟ Kafetzaki presents the image of the refugee in novels of the interwar period (2003: 25-32). Her research endeavours to examine how literature of the interwar period deals with the image of the refugees after their arrival in Greece and how the themes often found in oral testimony are illustrated in Greek fiction. In Part Two of her book, Kafetzaki carries out her analysis by separately examining the treatment of a large number of themes, such as: the departure, journey and arrival of the refugees, people and history, the trauma of war, the sense of being a stranger, determining a fatherland, refugee settlement, employment, the relations between natives and refugees, the Greek government and the refugees, natives and refugees, memory, and nostalgia. She assumes this task by taking excerpts from a number of novels, many of which appear in this thesis, which illustrate these themes and analyses the various ways in which they are portrayed. Despite the inevitability of the analysis of the novels in the current thesis overlapping with Kafetzaki‟s discussion, it must be reiterated that the premises of this study differ from that of Kafetzaki‟s. This study investigates the way refugees in Greece are presented in narrative techniques that are identified by a particular narratological methodology, while Kafetzaki‟s study is thematic. In Part Three of her study, Kafetzaki focuses on particular themes of three novels that are also covered in this thesis: Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα. The common themes she examines in

50 In a footnote, Mackridge (2004: 237) mentions that the only book-length study of the Asia Minor theme in modern Greek fiction is Doulis‟ (1977).

35 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

all three novels are place setting, the motif of the „rooting‟, the tough struggle, the natives, and those who adjusted and those who did not. Throughout the study, Kafetzaki mentions all novels in our corpus except for Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. Regarding Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Kafetzaki‟s treatment is very brief and adds little to our analysis. Where relevant, references to Kafetzaki‟s discussions of novels that feature in our corpus will be noted throughout this thesis. However, it should be clarified that while Kafetzaki does mention the majority of the novels in this corpus, her discussion of these novels is limited, often using excerpts from them to illustrate how themes in fiction featuring the refugees mirror the themes raised in the oral testimony of refugees. Kafetzaki‟s work is the only specific study on the differences between refugee and native writers with regard to the way they portray this refugee phenomenon. Her assessment of the way the refugee and native authors present the Disaster is quite similar to Doulis‟. According to Kafetzaki, the presentation of the refugees in novels by native authors is minor, though they do refer to the social problems created by the reality Greece faced after 1922 (2003: 89), as seen in those novels in our corpus by Axioti, Xenopoulos, Myrivilis and Iatridi. An interesting discovery Kafetzaki made is that while native authors mention the contrast between the locals and the refugees and the problem of their symbiosis, they tend to minimise the issue as they emphasise the refugees‟ „Greekness‟. Overall, Kafetzaki has found that the native authors present the image of the refugee character and the experience of refugeehood as part of an attempt to promote an ethnic union between the refugees and the locals in the hope that this would occur in reality. According to Kafetzaki, refugee writers, in which she includes those from Constantinople, make most references to the refugees and their experiences. Employing realistic narratorial devices to convey their experiences of refugeehood, they are able to maintain the memories of their lost homeland (95). However, Kafetzaki does not elaborate on what these devices are or how they affect the reader‟s perception of the refugees. She explains that the refugee author feels obliged to give a realistic picture that takes the form of a release from both their personal and collective trauma. This is accomplished by preserving their

36 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Literature Review

identity as refugees through the memory of their lost homeland. Furthermore, refugee authors present the notion that refugees do and should form a different social group from the native Greeks for a number of reasons. The refugee authors want to be differentiated because of their present status as refugees who have lost their homeland and been forced to assimilate into another, and because of their past as people who have managed to retain their „Greekness‟ and Greek national ideals while surviving under the Ottoman Empire. Kafetzaki also asserts that the refugee authors‟ separate identity is reinforced through the presentation of their past and their present, which is derived from their experiences as refugees. Finally, she believes that the aim of representing the past and present in their narratives enables refugee authors to illustrate to the natives the difficulties associated with their personal experiences and to appeal to them for sympathy, consideration and recognition (Kafetzaki 2003: 98). As can be seen, the current study has set out from the idea behind the work of Kafetzaki (2003) and to a lesser extent, Doulis (1977), because both have noted differences between native and refugee writers. However, there are a number of differences between these studies and this dissertation. It is clear that the narratological choices made in the presentation of the refugee in modern Greek fiction by native and refugee authors have not received much attention. While Kafetzaki has demonstrated thematic differences between the way the refugee and native authors present refugees and has mentioned that refugee writers use realistic narratorial devices, the present study examines the narrative techniques used by the authors and how the narrative techniques influence a reader‟s perception of the refugee. Specifically, the focus of this thesis is the refugees as presented narratologically in novels written by refugee, Constantinopolitan and native authors who would have experienced the influx of refugees, and first published between 1934 and 1978. Another distinctive aspect of this thesis is that one aim is to examine whether the authors‟ perceived experience of the influx of refugees affects their choices in the way they use narrative techniques to present the refugees and their experiences. Thus, this study adds to the existing assessments of the novels in our corpus and identifies the portrayal of the „refugee experience‟ through an analysis of narrative techniques.

37 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

METHODOLOGY Literary research often relies upon the analysis of documents, primary and/or secondary sources, but producing mere personal responses to a text is a simplification of the research process, which could lead to a sense of formlessness and a lack of direction. While the series of questions with regard to the way the refugee is presented in narratological conventions could take on a personal response, I have chosen to use an objective methodology that concentrates on the way the form of the narrative articulates a message. The questions raised seemed to be answerable by an application of precise analytical tools that could be applied to the texts in order to critically examine the narrative techniques that influence the readers‟ response to the authors‟ construction of their novels, specifically with regard to the refugee character. Therefore, this thesis relies on a narratological method of analysis. The term „narratology‟ refers to a specific way of understanding narrative that developed out of structuralism and Russian Formalism. The development of narratology can be traced back to Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE), but the most important work for narratology is the work of Russian Formalism in the 1920s, especially Vladimir Propp, whose work concentrated on creating „a system capable of generating meanings which goes beyond the confines of the individual work, and its concomitant lack of interest in the interpretation of individual works‟ (Hawthorn 1992: 174). Narratology encouraged the study of narrative in general and grew out of the structuralist need to subject different forms of media to an objective method of questioning. With regard to structuralism, Hawthorn offers this basic definition: it „is interested rather in that which makes meaning possible than in the meaning itself […] in form rather than content‟ (Hawthorn 1992: 174). As structuralism spread through Europe and then America, structuralist-orientated literary theory also emerged, often associated with Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, Seymour Chatman, Dorrit Cohn, Gerald Prince and Gerard Genette. Theoretically, analysis based on narratology is able to identify the key structuring devices in narratives through the reference of some core concepts evident in all narratives.

38 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

While the title of this thesis suggests the possibility of other types of narratological approaches to the treatment of the refugee in Greek novels, Genette‟s theory of structural narratology was chosen over others for a number of reasons. It would have been possible to address the thesis questions using the old concepts of point of view and first person narrations that have been noted by numerous critics, but Genette greatly refines these by describing focalization and narrator types. The main characteristics of his concepts of structural narratology are its systematic, thorough, and formal system of useful description applicable to any narrative content, with a particular preference for the mechanics of narrative. Thus, the use of Genette‟s study as a point of departure was the obvious choice because his work has for many years been considered as one of the most important models of structural narratology and he is largely considered to be the pioneer of structural narratology (Hawthorn 1992: 175-6). He has developed a theory of methodological devices that may be used to address the entire inventory of narrative processes in use. His study, although focused on the narrative in Proust‟s A la recherché du temps perdu, provides a method of analysis that can be applied to any work. Genette‟s methods are valuable to the study of narrative because they provide a way of understanding the structure and the techniques in the construction of any narrative. In our case, the application of his concepts provides a suitable and consistent method of analysis to be applied to each novel in the corpus to identify the author‟s choice of techniques in presenting the refugee. Furthermore, the approach advocated here clearly addresses the way Genette‟s narrative techniques can be applied to a text to infer a particular meaning or affect on the reader. Genette‟s tools ensured that focus remained on the message the author conveys through his or her choice of narrative situation. This was a major factor since an aim of this thesis is to examine the relevance of the author‟s background in the way they present the refugee in their novel. Finally, Genette‟s work is not so much a general theory of literature as a body of practical analytical concepts and terminology about the „mechanics‟ - the techniques - of narrative fiction, which offers a way of addressing this thesis‟ particular questions. The methods used in this analysis are mainly derived from Genette‟s classification of narrative techniques as set out in Narrative discourse (1980). While

39 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

other theorists, such as Mieke Bal and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, use most of his devices, though often criticising or elaborating on them, they do not make any revolutionary new contribution to narratology. In addition, Narrative discourse revisited (1988) is also referenced since it contains revisions of his earlier work (Genette 1980), in response to his critics such as Mieke Bal and Rimmon-Kenan. This ensures that this thesis embraces Genette‟s methods soundly. Narrative discourse revisited (1988) is especially important since this is where Genette introduces his theory of narrative situations, which is the primary concept used in this dissertation. Although heavily focused on the „mechanics‟ of the novel, Genette‟s methods also allows a textual analysis. With Genette‟s structural theory, the thesis tests the usefulness of narrative theory in character analysis and extraction of meaning from a text. Once the narrative techniques have been identified, an interpretative mode of analysis will identify the position of the refugee in the narrative structure and how the certain narrative technique used by the narrator portrays the refugee. It must be stressed that there are limitations to the use of Genette‟s theory. To some, the analysis can seem sterile, dry, or, as Genette suggests in his revision of Narrative discourse: „what irritates [some people about the discipline of narratology] is its “soulless” and sometime mindless technicalness and its pretension to the role of “pilot science” in literary studies‟ (1988: 8). However, it shows a respect for „the mechanics of the text‟ and increases the reader‟s understanding of the novelists‟ intentions (1988: 8). As for the use of Genette‟s complicated language, which to some may be a drawback of his theory, it is (ironically) necessary since it assists in the clarification of the practical analysis that occurs in this thesis. Genette‟s complicated language can seem self-defeating but really, there is no way around this; if we are going to use a practical theory, then we must use it correctly. While there are a number of criticisms of narratology in general, this thesis does not set out to answer them. Suffice to say that, one criticism is that narratology ignores the multifaceted nature of the characters that make a narrative interesting and dramatic. It should be noted that narratologists never explicitly deny such features of narrative. In any case, in this study the meaning

40 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

that results from the application of the narrative techniques is analysed. In other words, a strict focus on narratological analysis would only list the narrative techniques and how they interact, but in this thesis, we will attempt to gain meaning from these narrative techniques. Genette‟s methods have been applied successfully to modern Greek fiction. One scholar who has effectively applied Genette‟s methods to the work of is Georgia Farinou-Malamatari (1987). Dividing her book into chapters covering time, description, speech (narrative distance and perspective) and first person narration, Farinou-Malamatari demonstrates how an examination of the literary devices in Papadiamantis‟ novels provides a more meaningful understanding of the text and the way the author achieves a particular effect on the reader. In a more recent study, Maria Kakavoulia (1992) applies Genette‟s relevant theories to Melpo Axioti‟s Δύσκολες νύχτες (1938) in order to analyse the way in which Axioti uses „spoken and unspoken discourse‟ in the novel (1992: vii). Even more recently Paraskevi Kalliga-Gerasimou (2005) successfully used Genette‟s methods to develop a much more meaningful understanding of the works by the native Greek author Kosmas Politis. The particular approach to the use of Genette‟s theory gives this dissertation its distinctive character. Firstly, his theory will be applied to multiple authors in the one study to identify their use of narrative techniques. As mentioned earlier, this will reveal how refugee and non-refugee authors present the refugees in the structure of their narrative. Secondly, while Genette‟s theory is essentially used to „investigate [the] structures and devices‟ in literature (Genette 1980: 8), in this thesis it is applied to the text in order to analyse the techniques of character representation. By identifying the narrator, the narrative techniques used in the novel and its organization, a deeper understanding of the narrative and of the role of the refugees in the narrative‟s structure is achieved. In this way, the thesis offers another reading of the texts in the corpus, many of which have only been examined in relation to their themes. From the outset, it is important to explain the technical terms mentioned in the analysis. Due to space restrictions, I have not identified and analysed every instance of Genette‟s narrative techniques in the texts. Instead, I have focused on

41 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

the techniques in the theory of narrative situations, while highlighting other techniques useful in my analysis. On a basic, non-academic level, one could argue that the narrator of a story is a product of the person who writes the text and representations of characters and events in the narrative are also a part of this product. However, it must be emphasised that the representation of a character in a narrative is not necessarily a representation of the author‟s opinions of that character. The narrative techniques used by the narrator present the characters and the story; therefore, the narrative techniques enable the narratee to understand the story and its characters as the narrator sees fit. In this case, this dissertation examines how various authors use the narrator to present the refugee. The narrator is obviously a very important aspect in any narrative, as has been emphasised by numerous scholars. According to Bal, „the narrator is the most central concept in the analysis of narrative texts. The identity of the narrator, the degree to which and the manner in which that identity is indicated in the text, and the choices that are implied lend the text its specific character‟ (1997: 19).51 Genette suggests the importance of the narrator is a result of their prime role as being „the act of telling a story‟ (1980: 255) and he clarifies this by offering five definitive functions of the narrator that link the narrator to one or more of the three main aspects of any narrative: the story, the text and narrating situation. In our case, by applying Genette‟s concepts of narrative techniques to the novels in our corpus, we will reveal these functions of the narrator. However, in the chapters featuring our analysis there will not always be a distinct mention of the relationship between the narrative techniques and these functions, no doubt my readers will be able to infer the function of the narrator. Firstly, the narrating function is essential to any narrative as it defines the narrator‟s act of telling the story, which is the reason that the narrator is conferred his or her identify as the „narrator‟, making this function indispensable to any narrative. The importance of this function in our study is the determination of the type of narrator the author designates to tell the story and what effect this has on the way the refugee character is presented. Secondly, the

51 For more information, see Bal 1997: 19-23.

42 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

directing function defines the role of the narrator as being the organiser of the narrative. Essentially, this is concerned with the management of a narrative text‟s „articulations, connections, interrelationships, in short, its internal organisation‟ (1980: 255). As will be seen in our analysis of the novels in our corpus, the narrative techniques that are used in each narrator‟s directing function are a major focus in the examination of how the narrator, who is created by the author, presents the refugees. Thirdly, the function of communication concerns the choices a narrator makes in „establishing or maintaining with the narratee a contact, indeed, a dialogue‟ (1980: 255). The choices made by the narrator to impart the story to the reader will be examined in our analysis. In particular, the analysis of narrative techniques used in the narrator‟s communication with the reader will reveal how the narrator decides to tell the story and present the role of the refugee in it. Fourthly, the testimonial function deals with: „the part the narrator as such takes in the story he tells, the relationship he maintains with it- an affective relationship, of course, but equally a moral or intellectual one. It may take the form simply of an attestation, as when the narrator indicates the source of his information, or the degree of precision of his own memories, or the feelings which one or another episode awakens in his‟ (1980: 256). The narrative techniques that reveal this function are also indicated in our analysis of the texts because of the potential affect the narrative techniques associated with the testimonial function has on the reader‟s perception of the refugee. This is most noticeable in Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, when the narrator constantly asserts how she has acquired the information she reveals. Finally, the ideological function operates in the narrative situation as the „narrator‟s interventions, direct or indirect with regard to the story‟, often in the form of didactic commentary on the action. This is also a strategy used by narrators to demonstrate their views on the action, which may alter the way a reader responds to the story or to the character. Despite separating the functions of the narrator in this way, it is important to remember that they often overlap (Genette 1980: 257). Since the narrator is the vehicle through which the story is conveyed and the characters are presented, it is through the narrator that the author is able to

43 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

convey his or her message to the implied narratee. For this reason, Genette‟s work will provide the theoretical framework for the examination of the way the narrator controls the story and their relation with the refugee character. Genette distinguishes between three different notions that are implied by the term narrative. The first most common meaning is the narrative, which is also called the narrative statement or narrative discourse. Narrative, as it will be called here, denotes the narrative text itself or the signifier, whether oral or written, that recounts an event or a series of events. Secondly, the term story is defined by Genette as the subject of the discourse, or the successive events that are signified by the narrative. Lastly, the word narrating refers to the act of recounting an event. Highlighting the importance of an analysis of all three elements of the concept narrative, Genette argues that these three aspects all together constitute a narrative, making them interrelated and their analysis important in the understanding of a text. In other words, what constitutes a narrative is a story told through the act of narrating (Genette 1988: 15). Our analysis of the corpus examines all three of these aspects. Genette‟s study of narrative discourse implies an investigation into the relationships between narrative, story and narrating. According to Genette, the three classes of determinations in analysing narrative discourse are tense, which deals with the temporal relations between narrative and story; mood, which bears on the forms and degrees of narrative representation; and voice, which relates to the way in which the narrating is implicated in the narrative. Since a comprehensive study of the aspects relating to these three determinations would be far beyond the scope of this thesis, we will only deal with techniques pertaining to Genette‟s theory of narrative situations. The identification of the novel‟s narrative situations will provide us with a better understanding of the refugees‟ role not only in the structure of the novel but in the story as well. Genette‟s narrative situations refer to a table of six narrative possibilities that identify the structure of the narrative or how an author has chosen to coordinate the three prime aspects of the novel to present a story to the reader: narrative level, person and focalization. Identifying and analysing these aspects of the novel determines the setting from which the events regarding the refugees are recounted.

44 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

Part of Genette‟s determination of voice, narrative level refers to the different narrating instances that are recounted in a novel, adding diversity and complexity to the narrative. Through narrative level, Genette identifies narratives according to the position of the narrator within the story (1980: 228-9). The first level is extradiegetic, which refers to the narrator standing outside of the main plot as they recount it. The story narrated in the extradiegetic level is called diegetic or intradiegetic and the „universe‟ of this level is called diegesis. When a second narrative is told in the main plot, or diegetic level, this is known as a metadiegetic, or embedded, narrative. The „universe‟ of this second level is called metadiegesis and the narrator of this story is called an intradiegetic narrator since the narrator recounts the story „within‟ the diegesis. To summarise simply, the term diegesis refers to the main narrative and narrators can be extradiegetic because they are „outside‟ the diegesis, which occurs when the extradiegetic narrator is not involved at all in the story; or intradiegetic because they are „inside‟ the diegesis, which occurs when a character involved in the intradiegetic level narrates a story. Rimmon-Kenan (1983) provides a useful description of narrative level: „narratives within narratives create a stratification of levels whereby each inner narrative is subordinate to the narrative within which it is embedded‟ (91). However, Genette does not suggest that a second narrative within a first narrative is „subordinate‟, but rather their relationship is one of dependence, not hierarchy, despite the classification given to each diegesis. To clarify this concept further I have used Genette‟s diagram (1988: 85), elaborating on it by providing an explanation of the various components of narrative level.

45 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

If the metadiegetic character recounts a story about another character, a third

level is created. This is called a meta- metanarrative, with a meta-metadiegesis.52

The metadiegetic character

The intradiegetic character appearing The extradiegetic narrator on this intradiegetic level becomes an on the extradiegetic level. intradiegetic narrator of a metadiegetic narrative.

Extradiegetic narrator produces a first The second narrative produced narrative with its diegesis. by the intradiegetic narrator This first level narrative is called is called a metadiegetic narrative. the diegetic or intradiegetic. This level is known as the metadiegesis.

An examination of narrative levels will show us how the narrator uses narrative levels to present refugees and the content pertaining to them. For instance, whether particular authors present refugees in the extradiegetic level or in the intradiegetic level; and how they use various narrative levels to create a particular effect on the reader. Just as Genette does not suggest that a second narrative within a first narrative is subordinate, so too this thesis does not suggest that positioning refugees on an intradiegetic level is a sign that they are not important to the story. Instead, the relationship between the levels is one of dependence not

52 For the sake of clarity and simplicity, I have chosen not to identify meta-metanarratives in the texts.

46 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

hierarchy as Genette observes six main functions of an intradiegetic narrative.53 When an intradiegetic narrative is included it could have: (1) an explanatory function, which, as the name suggests, identifies the intradiegetic narrative’s purpose of explaining the events that led to the present situation in the diegesis; (2) a predictive function, in which the intradiegetic narration acts as an intradiegetic prolepsis, revealing the subsequent consequences of the situation in the diegesis; (3) a purely thematic function, in which the intradiegetic narrative acts as a contrast or analogy to the events in the diegesis; (4) a persuasive function, in which the theme of the intradiegetic narration affects actions in the diegesis; (5) a distractive function, where the intradiegetic narrative acts as a distraction from events in the diegesis; and (6) an obstructive function, which identifies no explicit relationship between the intradiegetic and diegetic levels (1988: 93-4). The relations of the majority of the diegetic and intradiegetic levels in the novels analysed in this thesis pertain to the first type of relation but others are also evident. For instance, in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες Eva‟s second intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration has a persuasive function for the diegesis. Although relations between narrative levels may not always be specified in the analysis, these are easily identifiable by the reader of the thesis since the content of the levels is analysed where relevant. As discussed earlier, it is clear that Genette regards the narrator as the most important element in the narrative. Without a narrator, there could be no narrative and the five functions of the narrator mentioned earlier are indicative of the narrator‟s responsibility: they are accountable for the entire narrative since they control and regulate the narrative discourse, the story and narrating instance (1980: 255-7). This has a significant bearing on Genette‟s concept of narrative situations, which are related to the function of communication, in which there are two protagonists, the narratee – present, absent or implied – and the narrator. The narrator in this instance has the onus of establishing and maintaining contact or even a dialogue with the narratee in order to sway them into believing or accepting the narrator‟s story, perceptions and feelings. The

53 In Narrative discourse (1980: 232-3) Genette mentioned three types of relationship between the diegetic and metadiegetic narratives: 1. Direct causality; 2. A thematic relation; and 3. No explicit relationship.

47 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

narratee learns about characters and situations only from the information that the narrator includes or excludes from the narrative; for instance, when the narrator deliberately ignores a fact in order to present a certain story. 54 Since the narrator is the vehicle through which the author presents a story, which includes characters, events and any message conveyed to the reader, it can be argued that the techniques employed by the narrator are assigned by the writer in order to create a particular effect on the reader. For this reason person, which is part of Genette‟s determination of voice, is an important aspect in our study. Genette does not refer to narrators as „first person‟ and „third person‟ because „the narrator can be in his narrative (like every subject of an enunciating in his enunciated statement) only in the “first person”‟ (1980: 244). In other words, the narrator is the agent who narrates to us, regardless of the grammar the writer chooses to use. Furthermore, Genette claims that „the novelist‟s choice, unlike the narrator‟s, is not between two grammatical forms [“first person” or “third person”], but between two narrative postures‟ (1980: 244). That is, whether the writer chooses „to have the story told by one of its “characters” or to have it told by a narrator outside of the story‟ (1980: 244).55 Having established that all narratives with a narrator are „first person‟, regardless of grammar, Genette states, that „the real question in regards to the type of narration is whether or not the narrator can use first person to designate one of his characters‟ (1980: 244). Thus, he distinguishes between two types of narratives both of which are „first person‟ and identify the relationship between the narrator and the story. The heterodiegetic type is characterised by a „narrator who is absent from the story he tells‟, and shares similarities with the traditional concept of „third person‟ narrator (Genette 1980: 244). The second type of narration features a „narrator present as a character in the story he tells‟, which Genette calls homodiegetic (1980: 245). Distinguishing two subgroups under the heading of

54 In our analysis of the extradiegetic level, instead of using the term narratee, I use „reader‟. When I discuss a metadiegetic narrative, I use the term intradiegetic narratee to describe the audience of the intradiegetic narrative. 55 Both of which are considered first person narrations because in both instances the „narrator can at any time intervene in the narrative‟ (Genette 1980: 244).

48 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

homodiegetic narration, Genette claims that the presence of the narrator „has degrees‟ (1980: 246). Genette uses the term homodiegetic when the „narrator plays a secondary role… as observer and witness‟, but when the „narrator is the hero of his narrative‟, representing the essence of the homodiegetic narrative, Genette refers to this as autodiegetic narrative (1980: 245). By presenting their own story to the reader, diegetic narrators provide their own views on particular subjects. While Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα all feature a homodiegetic narrator, only the first two are autodiegetic since Myrivilis‟ narrator uses paralepsis, as explained below. This raises the issue of the importance of grammatical person, in particular, how important it is in creating an effect on the reader. In his PhD thesis in psychology entitled, Grammatical Person in Text and Narrative (2009), Tristan Calhoun Thomte examined whether or not the novelist‟s choice of grammatical person has any effect on the reader. Through empirical studies, Thomte concludes that „there is evidence that changing the grammatical person of a story changes how it is processed‟ (2009: 88). However, from a narratological perspective Genette openly dismisses the claim that grammatical person is of prime importance in a narrative, and Thomte agrees (2009: 30-1). Heterodiegetic narrators appear to put some distance between the narrator and the reader. This is more restrictive than the homodiegetic narration since the reader never gets to completely understand the thoughts of the characters, but only what the narrator wants the reader to know. However, it provides the narrator with a wider scope. It allows them the freedom to present their story in the way they see fit to achieve a desired effect. The author‟s choice to use a heterodiegetic narrator provides an opportunity to provide the perspective of a narrator outside of the story or that of various characters; however, it lacks an identifiable perspective. Homodiegetic narrators, on the other hand, provide the reader with a definite perspective and the reader is fully immersed in the thoughts of the narrator. However, this too is much more restrictive because we only ever get to know the thoughts of one person, and all that is presented are the narrator‟s thoughts. The study of person in various narrative levels in the novels selected for this thesis will determine how the writers choose to present the refugees; and in the

49 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

case of a refugee assuming the role of a homodiegetic narrator, whether they provide a more convincing image of the refugee or incite the reader‟s sympathy for them more than a heterodiegetic narrator. Interestingly, the hypothesis that refugee authors would prefer a technique such as homodiegetic narration, in either extradiegetic or intradiegetic levels, for a heightened affect on the reader is not supported by this thesis. In our selected corpus, only one refugee author, Sotiriou in Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, uses an extradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator; the other two choose to use heterodiegetic narrators.56 Regarding person in intradiegetic levels, in the few instances where refugee writers use intradiegetic narrators, there does not seem to be a clear preference for homodiegetic narration. Having established the story through the identification of person, a study of narrative situations also includes the technique of focalization. This technique seeks to determine the origin from where the narrated story is perceived and thus is a tool used by narrators to regulate information. Part of Genette‟s theory of perspective, focalization replaces the traditional theory of „point of view‟, which used the terms „first-person‟ subjective narratives, where the narrator was present as a character in the narrative, and „third person‟ objective narratives, where the narrator was merely telling the story of someone else. According to Jonathan Culler‟s foreword to Genette‟s first book (1980: 10) Genette‟s major review of „point of view‟ came about because all theories on point of view had failed to distinguish between two important questions: „Who is the character whose point of view orients the narrative perspective?‟ or „who sees?‟, which Genette has called focalization; and „who is the narrator?‟ or „who speaks?‟, which Genette called voice or the narrating instance (1980: 186).57 These two distinctions allow us to analyse whose perspective the narrator uses to provide us with information on the refugees. The identification of the focalizer in the narrative will uncover whose point of view of events, actions and characters is provided, and more importantly, what views this focalizer conveys to the reader about the refugee and their

56 See Table 3. 57 The study of a novel‟s narrative situations covers focalization and voice (person and narrative level).

50 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

situation. Genette distinguishes between three types of focalization that can feature throughout the entire narrative, can be confined in only a section of the narrative or can alternate throughout the novel. The first is non-focalized or narrative with zero focalization, when the narrator knows more than the characters, or as Genette prefers, „says more than any of the characters know‟ (1980: 189). This is the narrative with the omniscient narrator and as such has the least restrictive perspective on the view of events. Zero focalization appears to be the most popular in our selection of novels, perhaps because it allows the narrator to present information they consider essential to the overall effect of their story from any perspective without any constraints or questions of their reliability as a narrator. In Theotokas‟ Λεωνής, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη and Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, the second type of focalization is used. This is called internal focalization, where the narrator says only what a given character knows or sees. This is more restrictive than zero focalization since it implies that the character whose point of view we are privy to, „can never be described or even referred to from the outside, and his thoughts or perceptions never be analysed objectively by the narrator‟ (Genette 1980: 192). In other words, the information provided to the reader is filtered through the character (who is the focalizer), and the narrator only ever reports on the thoughts of this character, making the view restrictive since the reader only knows what the character knows. Genette further complicates internal focalization with three subgroups fixed, variable and multiple. Fixed internal focalization is where everything passes through one character; variable internal focalization where the focal character changes; and multiple internal focalizations where the same event may be recollected several times according to the point of view of a number of characters. The third type of focalization is external focalization, which pertains to the type of narrative where the narrator says less than the characters know. In other words, the narrator unfolds the narrative in such a way that he regulates the amount of information about the characters, all the while knowing more than the characters but divulging less. Typical examples of this most restrictive focalization are novels of adventure, intrigue and mystery, where „the author does not tell us immediately all that he knows‟ (Genette 1980: 190). In terms of point of view, this

51 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

is restrictive in the sense that the narrator reports on the character from the outside only and is never able, theoretically, to inform the reader of the character‟s thoughts. Identifying the focalizer is important in this study because it determines the point of view of the refugees that is provided in the novel. It also influences the subject/object position of the refugees that affects the way details about the refugees are interpreted. As will be seen, only Theotokas‟ Λεωνής, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, where the internal focalizer is a refugee, non-refugees are presented through their association with them. In all other focalization, including the prolepsis used by Myrivilis‟ narrator in Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, the refugee is presented only through their association with the native. Genette develops the concept of focalization further by establishing two variations.58 The first is called alterations, referring to isolated violations of the narrative‟s focalization as long as the „coherence of the whole still remains strong enough for the notion of dominant mode/mood to continue relevant‟ (1980: 195). There are two types of alterations: paralipsis and paralepsis. Paralipsis is the usual type of internal focalization that refers to „giving less information than is necessary‟ or omitting important information that should be taken up. Paralipsis is common in the detective or mystery novels where vital information is left out and revealed to the reader near the end. Paralepsis can be internal or external and refers to the situation where the narrative gives information that should be left aside or provides an excess amount of information that is beyond the view of the focalizer. This has been identified in only one novel in our corpus: Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971), in which paralepsis is employed to regulate information in the narrative, adding to the mythical quality of the story. Genette‟s theory of narrative situations suggests six narrative possibilities that every narrative can correspond to (1988: 114-29). The following illustration (Table 3) offers a way of organizing the novels into groups that show the narrative situations of the extradiegetic level that the authors in our corpus have chosen to use to present the refugees. The narrative situations of the intradiegetic levels of

58 The second type is polymodality, which refers to the blurring of focalization in autobiographical novels. This does not feature in any of the novels in our corpus.

52 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

each novel is difficult to present in the same way as the extradiegetic levels since they cannot be attributed to the entire text but rather to sections of the novel. Nevertheless, reference is made to the narrative situation of the intradiegetic narrations where it is relevant in the portrayal of the refugee character. This table is the starting point of the narratological analysis of the texts and it also informs the organisation of the thesis. What stands out from this table is the over-representation of authors who use extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators, and the single refugee author, Sotiriou, who uses a narrative situation in which the narrator‟s voice has a personal undertone. As we saw earlier in Table 2 (p. 6), this seems to be a characteristic of Sotiriou‟s style, as this narrative situation was also identified in her other novel Ματωμένα χώματα. Even in a group of 24 novels, that is the combined number of novels featuring the refugee that were analysed in preparation for this thesis, Sotiriou is still the only refugee author to use the extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrator with internal focalization.59 Of the other two groups of authors, only three native authors (Antonis Travlantonis, Themos Kornaros and Ioulia Iatridi) choose to use the first person narrative, while only one Constantinopolitan author, Lountemis in ΢υννεφιάζει, employs this type of narrative situation.

59 See Table 2 for an outline of the narrative situations of other novels that were analysed for this thesis but were not included in the final form because of space restrictions.

53 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

TABLE 3: NARRATIVE SITUATIONS OF NOVELS EXAMINED IN THE CORPUS

Level Extradiegetic →

Relation ↓ Focalization→ Zero Internal External Heterodiegetic Refugee authors: Constantinopolitan authors: Ilias Venezis, Γαλήνη (1939) Giorgos Theotokas, Λεωνής (1988) Tasos Athanasiadis, Οι Πανθέοι: Η χαρισάμενη εποχή Menelaos Lountemis, Αγέλαστη άνοιξη (1978) (1972) Tasos Athanasiadis, Οι Πανθέοι: Μάρμω Πανθέου (1977a) Native author: Tasos Athanasiadis, Οι Πανθέοι: Η Κερκόπορτα (vol. 1, Melpo Axioti, Εικοστός αιώνας (1966) 1977b; vol. 2, 1979)

Constantinopolitan authors: Tatiana Stavrou, Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) Maria Iordanidou, ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά (1978)

Native authors: Grigorios Xenopoulos, Πρόσφυγες (1994) Homodiegetic Refugee author: Native author: Dido Sotiriou, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) Stratis Myrivilis, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971) Native author: Ioulia Iatridi, Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980)

54 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

Despite the usefulness of Genette‟s theory of narrative situations, these are not the only aspects of his work applied in the novels. Understandably, it is outside the scope of the thesis to identify and analyse the occurrences of every narrative technique as outlined by Genette, even if they are related to the refugee character. For this reason, I have used my discretion and included in my analysis those techniques that are most pertinent to our identification of the way the authors present the refugee characters. Genette‟s determination of mood, which includes focalization, also incorporates the technique he calls distance. It should be noted that this is different to Bal‟s theory of distance, which she uses to measure the „distance‟ between the time an event that is recounted in an anachrony occurred and the point in the narrative where the anachrony is being recounted (1997: 59). For Genette, distance measures the „distance‟ between the narrator and the story, it measures the accuracy of a character‟s speech as conveyed by the narrator. This is often mentioned in the analysis since it is important to note the way some information is conveyed, which adds to, hinders or assists the effect of the character‟s portrayal on the reader. Distance helps us to determine the degree of precision in a narrative and the accuracy of the information conveyed. Whether the text is a narrative of events (tells what the character is doing) or a narrative of words (tells what the character is saying or thinking), there are four types of discourse, each demonstrating progressively greater distance taken by the narrator with respect to the text (Genette 1980: 171-2). The first type Genette calls, narratised discourse when the character‟s words and actions are integrated into the narration, and are treated like any other event. For example: He confided in his friend, telling him about his mother's death. This creates the greatest distance between the character and the reader, but it closes the gap between the narrator and the text. Secondly, transposed speech, indirect style alludes to the occurrence where the narrator presents the character‟s words or actions with his interpretation. For example: He confided to his friend that his mother had passed away. This type of narration creates less distance between the character and the reader, and more distance between the narrator and the text than that in narratised discourse. The third type is transposed speech, free indirect

55 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

style, where the character‟s words or actions are reported by the narrator, but without using a subordinating conjunction. For example: He confided to his friend: his mother had passed away. There is less distance between the character and the reader than the first two, but more distance between the narrator and the text. The distinction between the second and third types is not always clear and may vary between languages. Finally, with the least distance between the character and the reader, reported discourse, refers to the occurrences where the narrator cites the character‟s words verbatim. For example: He confided to his friend: ‘My mother passed away’. This also creates the greatest distance between the narrator and the text because the narrator is merely recounting the words of a character, instead of interpreting them or using his own words to present the character‟s speech. In order to clarify Genette‟s theory of distance I have created the following diagram.

TABLE 4: DISTANCE Discourse Relations between Relation between narrator (N) and text (T) character (C) and reader (R) Narratised discourse. E.g. He confided in his N---T C------R friend, telling him about his mother‟s death Transposed speech, indirect style. E.g., He confided to his N------T C------R friend that his mother had passed away. Transposed speech, free indirect style. E.g., He confided to his N------T C------R friend: his mother had passed away. Reported discourse. E.g., He confided to his friend: „My mother N------T C---R passed away‟.

56 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

Along with person and narrative level, Genette‟s determination of voice also includes time of narrating. He explains that although one can get away with neglecting to provide the space in which the narrative is taking place, one cannot tell a story without locating it „in time with respect to my narrating act, since I must necessarily tell a story in a present, past or future tense‟ (1980: 216). For this reason, he has distinguished four temporal types that define the distance between the actual time of the story of events and the time they are narrated. The most logical and common type is subsequent narrating or simply a past tense narrative, where the story is told after it has occurred. In the event of a subsequent narration, the time elapsed between the event narrated and the narrating instance may have some bearing on the reliability of the information imparted. The main body of the texts in our corpus feature subsequent narrating; however, the narrator of Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας also uses simultaneous narrating interspersed with an analepsis, which are generally always subsequent narrating. Narration recounting a story that postdates the narrating instance and is therefore written in the future tense is called prior narrating, which is seldom used throughout an entire novel but is typical of predictive narrative such as prophetic and apocalyptic narration. While prior narrating does occur, it usually takes the form of prolepses since they mainly occur on the second level of diegesis or in the second narrative (metadiegetic level).60 Prior narrating can bring into question the reliability of the narrative since it can make the reader question the narrator‟s prediction: how do they know? In the case of prior narrating as prolepses, which allude to events that may happen after the main plot has ended, it arouses the reader‟s curiosity. The third temporal narration, simultaneous narrating, refers to present tense narration without a time lapse between the act of narrating and the events narrated. When narration in the present occurs simultaneously with the action of the story, reliability of the narration is high since the time elapsed between the narrating instance and the event-story is negligible, thereby leaving little room for „memory lapses‟. The fourth and most complex type of narrating is interpolated narrating, which denotes narrative between the moments of the action. It pertains to narratives where the narrating and the story alternate in

60 On prolepses, see the discussion of anachronies later in this chapter.

57 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

such a way that the latter has an effect on the former. The time elapsed between the occurrence of the story and the „complete simultaneousness in the report of thought and feeling‟ in the narrative is slight (Genette 1980: 217). This is typical of the epistolary novel where the letter is the medium of the narrative as well as part of the plot. As will be seen, interpolated narrating is evident in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, as the letters, with which the refugee characters Eva and Anna communicate, are a method used by the narrator to reveal certain events that affect the plot. Under the determination of order, Genette refers to chronological time, where the events in a story correspond to the order in which they are recounted. While chronological time is seldom the case in an entire narrative since more often succession of events is interrupted in some way, Genette uses the term anachrony to „designate all forms of discordance between the two temporal orders of story and narrative‟ (1980: 40). Anachrony, then, occurs most commonly when an event that either happened in the past or will happen is inserted into a narrative, creating a specific effect on the reader. This phenomenon involves the narrator opting to choose some things or events (in the past or the future) over others, depending on their intention. Genette establishes two elements within anachronies; they are reach and extent, both of which begin from the moment of interruption in the narrative. A reach is a temporal name indicating the distance between the start of a narrative in an anachrony and the narrative present of the main story. Extent defines the duration of the anachrony’s analepsis or prolepsis; or how long the event narrated in the anachrony lasted or is going to last. The identification of the reach and extent of an anachrony assists the reader to situate the temporal setting of the anachrony, which is always different from the temporal setting of the diegesis. There are two types of anachronies; the first is prolepses (flash-forward), which alludes to events that will happen „in the future‟ relative to any particular point in the main narrative (Genette 1980: 40), and in so doing, arouses the reader‟s curiosity. There are two types of prolepses: external, which describes the narration of episodes that take place after the closing point of the story, but do not interfere with the first narrative; and internal, which does interfere with the story line since it fills in the gaps of the main narrative.

58 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

The second type of anachronies is analepses (flashback), which refers to „any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at a given moment‟ (Genette 1980: 40). It tells of what has happened and often helps to explain a character‟s psychology by relating events from their past to what is happening at the point of interruption in the narrative. One of the three types of analepses is external, when the extent of the analepsis remains outside of the first narrative, reaching back before the starting point of the narrative. External analepses do not meddle with the main narrative, or diegesis, but only inform the reader about something that had happened before the beginning of the main narrative. The second type is the internal analepsis, which occurs when an event that occurred within the extent of the first narrative is narrated after the starting point of the diegesis and finishes before or near the point in the narrative where it originated. The third type of analepsis is the mixed analepsis, which describes those analepses that interrupt and then rejoin the first narrative. In other words, the analepsis reaches back to a point earlier than the starting point of the first narrative and its extent arrives at a point later than the beginning of the first narrative. All three types of analepses are used in the novels studied here. Most notably the majority of Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια are presented in analepses. Although anachronies disturb the first narrative, creating a second narrative, it is important to note that the use of the terms first and second to refer to a narrative‟s position is not an indication of importance. Genette uses these terms to distinguish between temporal levels in a narrative and make discussion of these easier. However, since anachronies have to do with the interruption of the first narrative by second narratives, they play an important role in the examination of the refugee in this dissertation. The identification of anachronies that occur in the narratives and the analysis of the story in these will allow us to determine, firstly, the information the author chooses to include in anachronies, and secondly, the effect this creates. Two terms that will be used in the analysis of the way the authors present the refugees in their novels, come under Genette‟s heading of duration. These are summary and ellipsis, both of which create an acceleration of the story. The analysis of summary and ellipsis in this thesis will only be highlighted in relation

59 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

to the refugees where its occurrence is important in the analysis of their portrayal. Summary, as its name suggests, refers to some part of the event-story being summarised in the narrative, which ultimately creates an acceleration of the story time (Genette 1980: 95-6), bringing to light the events that the narrator deems least important since they do not spend a lot of time on them. The narrator glosses over information that may not be relevant to his narrative or may seem to him to be unimportant. Ellipsis is defined as the technique when the narrative says absolutely nothing about some part of the event-story (Genette 1980: 106). Ellipsis is a practical technique, allowing the narrator to omit events from the story. This shows the reader that time has passed during which nothing significant happened and it was therefore simply not worth informing the reader about it. There are two types of ellipses: definite ellipses indicate the omitted time, and indefinite ellipses, which do not. Furthermore, ellipses can be explicit, as occurs in the definite and indefinite ellipsis, where the time lapse is acknowledged; or it can be implicit or hypothetical, in which case the narrative leaves the reader to work out that some indefinite time has elapsed only after they become aware of some chronological gap in narrative continuity. If an author passes quickly over a particular event, lingers over it or omits it completely, the reader needs to ask why the author has made these narratological choices. Through the identification of duration in the texts, we will be able to determine what the author felt is important or unimportant and what is achieved with the use of this technique. To record the occurrences of summary and ellipsis in the entire narratives and in every instance relating to the refugees is outside the scope of this thesis. The other two narrative movements under duration, pause and scene, are not analysed here because they do not assist us in identifying the refugee in the narrative. Suffice to say here, the phenomena of summary and scene involve the narrative preferring some things or events rather than others. Summary is a form of prose in a narrative that tells about events or people without directly presenting their speech; for instance, a narrative might move, by way of summary, to a later point in time, passing over quickly what happens in between. Scene is a more dramatic form of narrative as it shows events, that may contain speech that the narrator may present through the use of quotation marks.

60 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Methodology

Finally, narrative frequency is another of Genette‟s determinations, which measures the relationship between the number of times an event occurs and the number of times it is recounted in the narrative. While Genette organises this theory into four categories, only two are featured in our analysis. One is repeating narrative, where the narrative recounts more than once what happened once. When something is repeated it implies that this event is important, compelling the narrator to emphasise it through repetition and ensuring that the reader cannot ignore it. The other category featured in this thesis is iterative narrative, where a narrative relates one time what happened several times. An example of this is „Every day of the week I went to bed early‟, instead of „Monday I went to bed early, Tuesday I went to bed early, Wednesday I went to bed early‟. Genette describes this functions as an „informative frame or background, therefore they are rather subordinate to singulative scenes (1980: 117). Iterative frequency is a narrative technique that also suggests there is no special significance in the occurrence happening repeatedly. In other words, it allows the author to summarise the amount of time something occurred once and hence does not dwell on the occurrence. The other two narrative frequencies are: Singulative narrative, which is the most common type in narrative discourse, referring to the single narration of something that happened once; and anaphoric narrative, identified when something that occurred more than once is narrated more than once. It needs to be emphasised that the main focus of this thesis is the presentation of the refugees in modern Greek novels. It does not intend to add to literary or narrative theory, and it does not seek to develop the theory of structuralism. It merely uses the structures and codes provided for by Genette to provide a more nuanced understanding of the way the refugee is presented in Greek novels. In this way we may be able to detect any differences in the way refugee and native Greek authors use narrative techniques to present the refugees.

61 Refugees and Narrators INTRODUCTION: Structure of the thesis

STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS The remainder of the thesis will be organised into three parts. Part One, consisting of Chapters 1 and 2, presents the analysis of the novels by authors who have chosen to present the refugees in secondary, though significant roles, through an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator. These novels are separated into two chapters according to the type of focalization the narrator has chosen; Chapter 1 contains novels using zero focalization, while Chapter 2 presents novels using internal focalization. In Part Two, featuring Chapters 3, 4 and 5, I analyse novels by authors who employ the same narrative situation as those novels in Chapter 1; however, the novels in Part Two are dedicated to the refugees, who play crucial roles in the narrative‟s diegesis. Part Three, Chapters 6 and 7, presents an examination of novels that feature an extradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator. The two novels examined in Chapter 6 use the refugee as an autodiegetic narrator with internal focalization, while Chapter 7 features one novel whose author chose to employ a native homodiegetic narrator using the technique of external focalization to observe the refugees. I believe that this organisation of the thesis avoids excessive repetition and allows for a complete understanding of the way each author structures his or her novel to achieve a particular effect.

62 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

PART ONE REFUGEES IN MINOR ROLES: EXTRADIEGETIC-HETERODIEGETIC NARRATORS

CHAPTER 1 TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS: ZERO FOCALIZATION

The events and characters that are presented in the works examined in this chapter are revealed through an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator using zero focalization. In simple terms, the narrator in this narrative situation tells a story he or she is not part of. Standing outside of the main plot, the narrator‟s information is derived from any point of view that they deem necessary to reveal a story. This technique provides the narrator with complete control of the way the story is communicated to the reader. In this chapter, we examine the way this technique is employed to present the refugees in the works of two authors, who had personal experience with the Disaster or refugeehood. The first work to be analysed is in fact a trilogy, Οι Πανθέοι1, written by the refugee author Tasos Athanasiadis. Although his more famous work Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης has much more to say about the refugees than Οι Πανθέοι, my choice was based upon the fact that the latter provides a different view of the refugees as well as a different way of presenting them narratologically, thus adding depth to this thesis.2

1 Athanasiadis‟ novel will be examined in a continuum since the characters are introduced in the first narrative, Η χαρισάμενη εποχή (1978), and all three novels are designed to be parts of a larger whole. 2 The theme of refugeehood is evident in many of Athanasiadis‟ novels, such as Οι φρουροί της Αχαΐας, Οι τελευταίοι έγγονοι and Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης.

63 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

Born in Salihli, Asia Minor, in 1913, Athanasiadis migrated to Athens in 1922 where he lived until his death in 2006.3 Athanasiadis‟ work will be compared to ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά (1978), by the Constantinopolitan author Maria Iordanidou. Residing in Athens and Russia for most of her youth, Iordanidou returned to Constantinople in 1919, though she left again for Alexandria where she spent some time before returning to Athens in 1923. It is therefore inferred from Iordanidou‟s biography that she had conscious knowledge of the refugees in Greece. What will emerge throughout this analysis is that both Athanasiadis and Iordanidou position their refugee characters in minor roles that are included in the novel only because of their association with local Greek characters. Furthermore, while the roles of the refugee character in the two books differ, in both of them refugees are given secondary roles; they are not used as narrators and their roles are limited to their relations with non-refugee characters.

The first part of Athanasiadis‟ trilogy is called Η χαρισάμενη εποχή (1978),4 first published in 1948; the second is, Μάρμω Πανθέου (1977a),5 first published in 1953; and the final part, Η Κερκόπορτα (vol. 1, 1977b; vol. 2, 1979),6 that was first published in 1961. The subject of the trilogy is the story of three generations of a

3 Athanasiadis is a well-known author in Greece since many of his novels have been adapted to television. 4 For this analysis, I used the Γστία 1978 printing, which is the 5th reprint of the 1st edition printed in 1948. Since Η χαρισάμενη εποχή is the first part of the trilogy, references will be by page number following ‘i ‘ in brackets, e.g. (i: 97). 5 For this analysis, I used the Γστία 1977 printing, which is the 4th reprint of the 1st edition printed in 1953. Since Μάρμω Πανθέου is the second part of the trilogy, references will be by page number following ‘ii’ in brackets, e.g. (ii: 91). 6 For the analysis of Η Κερκόπορτα (vol. 1), I used the Γστία 1977 printing, which is the 4th reprint of the 3rd edition printed between 1976 and 1977. References to this volume will be by page number following ‘iii, vol. 1’ in brackets, e.g. (iii, vol. 1: 27). As for the analysis of Η Κερκόπορτα (vol. 2), I used the Γστία 1979 printing, which is the 5th reprint of the 1968 edition. Page references to this volume will be by page number following „iii, vol. 2‟ in brackets, e.g. (iii, vol. 2: 36).

64 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

native Greek family whose name, Pantheos, is lent to the title of the book.7 The narrator has chosen to tell the story mostly in chronological time, with instances of analepses associated with a native included to influence the reader‟s perception of the refugees. The trilogy Οι Πανθέοι covers just over one year, from the European autumn of 1939 until just after the death of Metaxas in January 1941, in 1411 pages altogether. The story in the first book, Η χαρισάμενη εποχή, begins in the autumn of 1939, with the death of the patriarch, Vlasis Pantheos, whose ancestors were native Greeks living in Athens. The plot, which continues throughout all three volumes, mostly focuses on the relationship between the natives Andreas Pantheos and his wife Marmo. It is predominantly concerned with the extramarital affair between Marmo and her husband‟s nephew, Kitsos Galatis. The narrative also deals with less important stories concerning other members of the Pantheos family, of which the most important to this study is the story focusing on Stathis Monogios, whose mother is a Pantheos. Through Stathis‟ character, the narrator introduces a family of refugees in a sub-plot as secondary characters. They are the Vallidis brothers, Simeon and Iordanis, Iordanis‟ wife who remains anonymous, their daughter Aleka and the maid Sultana. Iordanis‟ wife makes a very brief appearance in the story, presented in a traditionally female role and is only referred to as „η ΐαλλίδαινα‟. During one scene in the narrative where Iordanis is ill, Stathis imagines Iordanis‟ wife in the following way: „Πε μια γωνιά η δυσκίνητη ΐαλλίδαινα κλαψουρίζει‟ (ii: 91). Another mention of her character occurs in Η Κερκόπορτα (vol. 1). When her brother-in-law Simeon dies, she laments his loss using „φράσεις ελληνοτουρκικές‟ (iii, vol. 1: 301), which also indicates her Karamanlidiki background.8 The second novel to be examined here, Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, was first published in 1978. The extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator recounts the

7 For clarity, when referring to the title of the book we will use Οι Πανθέοι, while the family will be referred to as the Pantheos family. 8 The family‟s background will be discussed later in this chapter.

65 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

life of the protagonist Anna and her mother Cleo.9 Like Athanasiadis, Iordanidou has also created a narrator who uses zero focalization to retain ultimate control of the story she recounts. Similar to Athanasiadis‟ use of the narrative situation, the narrative present of Iordanidou‟s diegesis is presented in chronological time with few anachronies and no major intradiegetic narrations interrupting its flow. Covering the period between 1917 and 1940, the narrator depicts Anna and Cleo as witnesses of events that compelled people to migrate. Iordanidou‟s background and novel can be compared to Tatiana Stavrou and her novel Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) as both authors are from Constantinople and choose to present stories of women refugees from Constantinople that almost mirror their own respective backgrounds. However, unlike Stavrou, Iordanidou does not present her main characters as refugees. As will be seen, Cleo and Anna arrived in Greece from Alexandria and do not consider themselves to be refugees. In the title, ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, refugees are compared to birds, who rebuild their homes after their old one is destroyed.10 Most notably, however, the narrator aims to illustrate the strength and resilience of women refugees and natives since they dominate the story, with male characters playing only minor roles.11

While refugees do not play a large role in the trilogy Οι Πανθέοι, the author‟s use of narrative techniques to present the characters is interesting and unique. In the first book, Η χαρισάμενη εποχή, refugee characters feature on

9 For this analysis, I used the 1st edition published by Γστία. ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά is the sequel to Iordanidou‟s earlier novel Λωξάντρα (1965), which deals with the life of Loxandra, who is Cleo‟s mother and therefore Anna‟s grandmother, in Constantinople from 1901 to 1914. 10 This issue seems to be important to the story because the term „σαν τα τρελά πουλια‟ is mentioned throughout the novel approximately eight times. 11 Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, for clarity we will refer to the narrator as she since the author is female and it seems as though the narrator has a female voice as she predominantly focuses on the lives of women. The male characters in this novel are the man mysteriously called „ο Βάσκαλος‟ (the Teacher), who plays a minor role as the protagonist‟s husband, the servant boy Halil and two male cats, Aslan and Pambouk.

66 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

approximately 26 of 422 pages, or only 6% of the book. The second book, Μάρμω Πανθέου, takes up the story from the spring of 1940. In this book, refugee characters appear on approximately 33 pages of 312, or 10% of the narrative, thus giving slightly more emphasis to the refugee than the first and third books. Published in two parts, the final instalment of the trilogy, named Η Κερκόπορτα (vols 1 and 2), begins in the autumn of 1940 where the second book finished off. In Η Κερκόπορτα refugee characters feature on only 37 (5.5%) of the 677 pages. The refugees become part of the story through Stathis, a native who is presented as untrustworthy and driven by his fear of poverty and resentment against those wealthier than he. Since we are privy to his ulterior motives in marrying the refugee Aleka to ensure his future is secure, the reader dislikes him and gains a measure of sympathy for the refugees. The members of the Vallidis household are the main refugees featured in varying degrees in Οι Πανθέοι through the narrative technique of zero focalization. The Vallidis brothers, Simeon and Iordanis, are powerful entrepreneurs introduced to us by the extradiegetic narrator in the diegesis. Physical descriptions of refugees are mostly disparaging and presented via the native Stathis‟ focalization as he describes Iordanis as having a „πελώρια κοιλιά‟, and Simeon as bald (ii: 91). We are also privy to his unflattering description of the maid Sultana: „Κια κακομούτσουνη υπηρέτρια κουτσαίνοντας απ‟ την πλατυποδία της‟ (i: 91). Furthermore, in this first introduction, she does not speak but rather she communicates with Stathis by pressing her finger to her lips; a sign for Stathis to be quiet for there is an ill person in the house (i: 91). This first impression of Sultana as an ugly, limping woman who does not speak suggests that she is somewhat primitive.12 A description of Sultana from Stathis‟ point of view confirms this notion. Imagining the family crowded around Iordanis, who is ill, Stathis says, „Ε γριά Πουλτάνα με την πλατυποδία της μπαινοβγαίνει από κάμαρα σε κάμαρα περπατώντας σαν παπί‟ (ii: 91). The narrator does not refer to these characters as refugees, but the reader classifies them as such because they are uniquely identified as „Ώνατολίτες‟

12 Unflattering descriptions of refugees can also be seen in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα.

67 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

(Anatolians) (see i: 47, 51, 86, 91, 117, 121, 316, 325; ii: 59, 89, 158, 177, 280; iii: vol. 1: 90, 298; iii, vol. 2: 183). Kafetzaki agrees with this assessment as she says, „το επίθετο «ανατολίτης» συνοδεύει τις αναφορές σε πρόσφυγα‟ (2003: 196). However, the use of the term „ανατολίτες‟ to refer to the Vallidis brothers has posed a challenge in the way these characters are meant to be seen. On the one hand, we can look at the novel‟s narrative present as a way of accounting for this word referring to refugee characters. Commencing the story almost 20 years after the Disaster, the narrator is perhaps commenting on the changes in the perception of refugees. Instead of referring to them with a term that has traditionally held negative connotations, this narrator chooses to ignore the stereotype and opts to use the term „ανατολίτες‟. In this way, the narrator emphasises the refugees‟ ancestry rather than their distressing past and uses this classification as an illustration of the refugees‟ difference from the natives (Kafetzaki 2003: 196). On the other hand, however, it could be argued that the term „ανατολίτες‟ is also used derogatorily, as part of the narrator‟s agenda to influence the reader‟s opinion of the Vallidis brothers. This is more likely considering the generally unflattering depiction of them. The demeaning treatment of the brothers is evident not only because they are often labelled in the narrative, while other characters are referred to with their proper names, but also because on a few occasions Iordanis and Simeon are referred to as „χοντροανατολίτες‟ (i: 47, 51, 316, 325; ii: 89). This offensive reference to the men, the lack of information as to their thoughts and the lack of character development despite the narrator‟s omniscience, suggests that the narrator wants the reader to view them in a negative way. While it is unclear as to exactly why the reader should view them as such, apart from the fact that they had underhanded dealings, the reader‟s view of the Vallidis family becomes similar to Stathis‟, as presented in narratised discourse: „...τους αντιπάθησε από την πρώτη κιόλας μέρα‟ (ii: 158). Thus, the narrator does not provide a clear reason for the reader to sympathise with the refugee brothers, other than their exploitation by Stathis, as will be seen. With regard to the Vallidis‟ exact origins, these are not clarified and their heritage is vague; a situation that also occurs in Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας. Through Sultana and her presentation though various

68 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

narrative techniques in Οι Πανθέοι, the narrator does confirm the family‟s Karamanlidiki background. Sultana appears in the stereotypical role of the refugee as domestic servant, which is also seen in Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. However, Sultana is depicted as being more subordinate than the other refugee servants in the novels mentioned. Through Sultana, the family‟s Karamanlidiki background is clarified. Her Turkish words, showing her gratitude to Stathis for saving Aleka‟s life, are not translated by the narrator who presents them in reported discourse for emphasis: „Ρσοτζούμ, Ώλλάχ μου γιολλαντί!‟ (My child, God sent you to us) (i: 97). The inclusion of these words also draws the reader‟s attention to the issue of language and the refugees. To be precise, that Turkish speaking people were not necessarily classified as Turks. Another instance of Turkish spoken by Sultana is presented by the narrator in narratised discourse: „αγκάλιασε την Ώλέκα μουρμουρίζοντας όσα τούρκικα χαϊδόλογα ήξερε‟ (ii: 176). Apart from confirming her heritage, these examples also show that language was an issue in some refugees‟ failure to settle into the Greek way of life. Despite spending some 20 years in Greece, Sultana has not managed to learn the probably because she lacked contact with others outside of her home. While the –idis ending of the Vallidis family name could suggest a Pontian origin, their „Karamanlidiki‟ accent (i: 91; see also i: 118) certainly confirms their identity as „Karamanlides‟. This term refers to Christians from the interior of Asia Minor who kept their Christian faith but adopted the . As will be seen, the –idis ending of refugee characters‟ surnames is also featured in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and most prominently in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, whose use of this ending for three native characters that show considerable compassion for the refugees suggests that they share with the refugees an outsider status. As for refugees from Pontus, their appearance in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά are mostly sympathetic characters. Through various narrative techniques, the narrator reveals the Vallidis elders‟ experience of the Disaster. Presented in reported discourse Stathis explains the reason for his inexperience with manufacturing in a conversation with

69 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

another character, „Ρα πεθερικά μου ιδρύσανε την Γριουργία με τη Κικρασιατική Θαταστροφή, έτσι, δεν είχα την ευκαιρία να φωτιστώ‟ (iii, vol. 1: 278). The Vallidis‟ experience of the Disaster is difficult to ascertain, but there is some information that could lead the reader to infer this background. For instance, their fear of the blackouts during the Second World War, which obscured the enemy‟s view of targets, and of the alarms used to warn citizens of attacks (iii, vol. 1: 90), infers the possibility of previous trauma during times of war, such as that experienced by the refugees during the Greek-Turkish War, 1919-1922. Moreover, the narrator describes the brothers‟ withdrawal from society because of the Second World War, and their emotional reaction to the news (iii, vol. 1: 91). While these instances suggest the brothers‟ fragility, the narrator‟s directorial function and choices in the techniques used to communicate with the reader provide a seemingly negative portrayal of the brothers. Presented in the diegesis without any analepses disrupting the story, Simeon and Iordanis are depicted as representative of Asia Minor entrepreneurs who prospered in Greece. They are owners of a textile factory called „Erika‟, established in the first few years after the Disaster (i: 90, 91). While it is recognised that the refugees assisted in the development of the textile industry and business (Pentzopoulos 2002: 161), this does not seem to be a common depiction in Greek novels. In our corpus, apart from Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, only Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες present some refugees as business owners. Most commonly, refugees are portrayed as underprivileged hard workers (Kafetzaki 2003: 174-9) as seen in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, while in the case of Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες they are minor characters. From the outset the novel presents the brothers as being corrupt. Their first mention in the novel is a story recounted by the narrator where Stathis, who is their employee, resigns and requests a bribe in return for his silence regarding the brothers‟ involvement in smuggling. Stathis‟ motivation for blackmailing the brothers is made clear by the narrator‟s inclusion in narratised discourse of Stathis‟ ingrained fear of poverty exacerbated by the approach of the Second World War:

70 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

„Ξώς θα ζούσε, λοιπόν; Ξώς θα δικαιολογόταν σπίτι του, σε μίαν ώρα που ο καθένας κοίταζε ν‟ ασφαλίσει τη ζωή του κάτω απ‟ τον εφιάλτη του πολέμου;‟ (i: 87). The narrator‟s directing function in the presentation of Stathis‟ meeting with Simeon influences the reader‟s opinion of the latter. Disgusted by Stathis‟ extortion attempts, Simeon‟s comment as presented in reported discourse that Stathis will end up „πίσω απ‟ τα κάγκελα!‟ (i: 91), is perceived to be ironical later in the novel when Stathis ends up becoming the proprietor of „Erika‟. The inclusion of the dialogue that occurs at this meeting shows the underhanded manner by which Stathis attempts to achieve his financial security. However, this interaction also depicts negative aspects of Simeon‟s character, which is highlighted by the following description of him. Appearing to be focalized through Stathis, the description adds to the reader‟s dislike for Simeon and sympathy for Stathis: ...Ε ματιά του, τρία χρόνια τώρα, τους κυνηγούσε στο γκισέ του λογιστηρίου, στις αποθήκες, στα βαφεία, στα φινιριστήρια, στην αίθουσα του φαγητού, προσπαθώντας να βρει κάτι ύποπτο και στην πιο απλή χειρονομία (i: 92-3). Simeon‟s apprehensive nature is also demonstrated in his view of Stathis. The reported discourse of Simeon calling Stathis a „snake‟ and the narrator‟s inclusion of Stathis‟ thoughts about Simeon‟s insinuation that he is a covert operative uncovering Erika‟s secrets for the opposition (i: 93), affects the reader‟s opinion of Simeon. Through the narrator‟s arrangement of the encounter between the two men, the reader accepts Stathis‟ viewpoint since they can see for themselves that, although Stathis is an opportunist, Simeon is indeed paranoid as Stathis believes. Yet, despite the negative presentation of Simeon‟s character, the reader is made to feel some sympathy for him because Stathis, in his quest for financial security, does exploit Simeon and his family. Interestingly, it is Stathis‟ conduct in gaining the Vallidis fortune that arouses the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees. Though Stathis‟ blackmail attempts are unsuccessful, another opportunity presents itself immediately. As Stathis tries to leave the Vallidis home he is stopped by Iordanis and Doctor Hristos Avgoustakis, who inform Simeon of his niece Aleka‟s deteriorating

71 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

health. Iordanis‟ first act in the novel provokes the reader‟s sympathy for him as he is cries into his palms at the thought of losing his only daughter, who is in need of a blood transfusion (i: 94). Iordanis‟ desperation is evident in his decision to use Stathis as a blood donor. From this moment, Stathis becomes involved with the family, exploiting his blood donation to pursue a relationship with Aleka, which ultimately secures his financial future. Aleka‟s role in the novel is much more pivotal than the rest of the refugee characters. Despite the fact that she was part of the generation after the one which experienced the Disaster directly, it can be argued that her exploitation by Stathis is also an exploitation of the Vallidis family since the company and money Stathis chases originally belonged to them. Her well-to-do upbringing and background, her taste in fashion and her penchant for tennis (i: 299) result in her acceptance into the high society of Athens. Apart from this information, Aleka is portrayed largely as a one-dimensional character since the narrator, though omniscient, does not report on her internal thoughts and feelings. This indicates that information revealed to the readers about her character is filtered through the words and actions of native characters. Her inclusion in the narrative, however, is interesting because of the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques through other native characters to influence the reader‟s feelings towards her. At the outset, it would appear that the insight provided by the narrator into Stathis‟ thoughts and feelings as opposed to Aleka‟s is a method of provoking in the reader sympathy for Stathis, instead of Aleka, even though she is the exploited. Naïve and unaware of Stathis‟ ulterior motives, Aleka believes his every word, but the narrator‟s regular references to Stathis‟ true intentions develops our sympathy for Aleka and an emotion best described as antipathy towards Stathis. Through their relationship, the narrator portrays the native‟s dependence on the refugee to survive; for Stathis‟ goal to be rich and influential is achieved through his union with Aleka. Though the reader understands that Stathis is responsible for Aleka‟s exploitation, the narrator‟s presentation of the manner with which this begins appears to implicate another character. Through internal analepsis, the narrator reveals that the conception of Stathis‟ plan is initiated by his lover, the native,

72 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

Nina Avgoustakis. She argues that Aleka can provide Stathis with a secure future (i: 430) as her dialogue presented in reported discourse shows: Ώπ‟ ό,τι κατάλαβα στο χορό του „Ξαρνασού‟, το κορίτσι φαίνεται τσιμπημένο. Κη χάσεις την ευκαιρία. Νι ανατολίτες το ‟χουν μη στάξει και μη βρέξει. „Ιουλούδι των Ιουδοβίκων‟, όπως τη λέει ο άντρας μου. Θαταλαβαίνεις τώρα τι σημασία θα ‟χει για σένα, όταν το άβγαλτο παιδί γίνει μια μέρα η μοναδική κληρονόμος της υφαντουργίας „Έρικα‟ (ii: 59). By presenting this in reported discourse, the narrator leaves no question as to whose idea it was to exploit Aleka for financial gain. Further urging Stathis to exploit the opportunity he created through his blood donation, Nina proposes the idea of his marriage to Aleka and recommends a method: ΋ταν δημιουργήσεις πια την κατάλληλη ατμόσφαιρα [...] και γίνει το ανεπανόρθωτο – η Ώλέκα είναι από τα λίγα κορίτσια της εποχής μας, που πιστεύουν στο ανεπανόρθωτο – τότε το περιστατικό της αιμοδοσίας θα είναι το τελευταίο σου ατού, για να την πείσεις πως σε στέλνει κοντά της... ο Ζεός (ii, 59-60). Though this suggests that Stathis was not the sole instigator of Aleka‟s exploitation, throughout the novel it becomes clear that Stathis continues his unpleasant treatment of Aleka on his own. Stathis‟ ulterior motive for pursuing Aleka is also evident in his interaction with Dr Avgoustakis, in which Aleka‟s character is involved passively in a very brief intradiegetic narration about her blood transfusion. Presented in narratised discourse and only summarised by the narrator, the story of Aleka‟s transfusion has an explanatory function to the diegesis. It is an anecdote to explain how Dr Avgoustakis met Stathis, and the narrator‟s description of the way Stathis inquires about Aleka‟s health as „πονηρά‟ (guilefully) (i: 316) alerts the reader to Stathis‟ underhanded treatment of her. The doctor‟s reply to Stathis as imparted in reported discourse not only adds to the negative portrayal of the Vallidis brothers as mentioned earlier, but it also adds to the reader‟s sympathy for Aleka: „Ρί μυστηριώδεις διασταυρώσεις, φίλε μου. Ώπό αυτούς τους χοντροανατολίτες να ξεφυτρώσει ένα λουλούδι των Ιουδοβίκων...‟ (i: 316, emphasis added). The addition of the Doctor‟s high opinion of Aleka increases

73 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

the reader‟s compassion for her; she is exploited, tricked into a marriage with Stathis whose affections were insincere because of his revenge against her father and uncle. The omniscient narrator‟s use of narrative techniques and directing function influences the readers‟ perceptions of Aleka as he reveals Stathis‟ lack of interest in her. In an interaction at a high society party early in their relationship, it appears Stathis‟ advances charm Aleka. This is evident through a combination of the narrator‟s presentation of Aleka‟s reported discourse and his description of her actions, which reveal to the reader Aleka‟s feelings: „Λαι... του αποκρίθηκε με κοριτσίστικη ντροπαλοσύνη. Γίμαι πολύ ευτυχισμένη απόψε‟ (i: 428). Although the narrator does not reveal Aleka‟s inner feelings about Stathis, the readers are aware of her ignorance of his true motives, which increases the reader‟s pity for her, especially when Stathis shows indifference to her. This is illustrated in the narrator‟s interruption of the diegesis to reveal Stathis‟ thoughts. While Aleka explains Iordanis‟ health, Stathis‟ attention is diverted by a minor thought about characters that pass the couple by, leading him to wonder where he had seen one of them before: Βεν πάει στο εργοστάσιο... άκουσε να του λέει η Ώλέκα. Μαφνικά, θυμήθηκε πως είχε πρωτοδεί την Ξέλα στο τμήμα Κεταγωγών του Ξειραιά. (i: 428) While this directing function purposely exposes Stathis‟ disregard of Aleka‟s news about her father, the inclusion of Stathis‟ abrupt change of subject, from her father‟s illness to how he knows her father, reinforces it (i: 428). While this should have been the point where Stathis reveals to Aleka his role in saving her life, he does not. Instead, he uses the mystery to his advantage, describing her home to legitimise his claim and to build her trust in him. Believing that his hints as to his familiarity with her home and family will be enough to make her trust him, his invitation for her to go to his apartment is followed by a taunting question: „Βε μού ‟χεις εμπιστοσύνη;‟ (i: 428). While the irony of this remark is lost on Aleka, the reader, who has been informed of Stathis‟ ulterior motives, views this statement as an insincere one. The reader‟s reaction to Aleka is also influenced by Stathis‟ schemes to make her believe that they are meant to be together, as though some divine being

74 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

has influenced their relationship. During an outing with some of the Pantheos children to see the „Γπιτάφιος‟ (the liturgy of the on Good Friday in which a representation of Christ in the tomb is central), Stathis adds to the aura of mystery created by the religious ceremony. He refers to Aleka with the nickname Dr Avgoustakis‟ uses for her, „Ιουλούδι των Ιουδοβίκων‟ (ii: 58). By rousing Aleka‟s curiosity about Stathis‟ connection to her family, Stathis gains the credibility he needs to earn her trust, which is demonstrated in Aleka‟s renewed willingness to accompany him to his home. Even his treatment of Aleka while at his home is contrived. First, he teases her for thinking that her arrival at his home is sinful: „ΐλέπεις η ατμόσφαιρα δε μυρίζει καθόλου αμαρτία‟ (ii: 60). Secondly, in an effort to diminish her frigidity, Stathis plays on her fantasies of being with a perfect gentleman, creating a relaxing atmosphere by fluffing her pillows and acknowledging her Anatolian background: „για να γίνει ανατολίτικο το προσκέφαλο‟ (ii: 60) and performing a „ανατολική υπόκλιση‟ (Anatolian bow) (ii: 61). Stathis‟ attempts to sweet-talk Aleka appear to the reader an exaggerated flattery: „Θυρά μου, να γίνω αέρας να μ‟ αναπνεύσετε, κύμα για να λουστούν τα ροδοδάχτυλά σας ...‟ (ii: 61). Apart from these flattering gestures, Stathis generates the greatest reaction in Aleka by revealing the crucial evidence of their celestial connection. Exploiting the situation, he emphasises the mystical nature of their bond, giving the story an air of fantasy. Awareness of Stathis‟ deception of Aleka makes the readers feel as though they wish to intrude on the narrative in order to expose Stathis‟ motives. Through the narrator‟s commentary on the scene involving Stathis‟ explanation of his blood donation to Aleka, the reader is persuaded to take up a similar stance to the narrator: viewing Stathis as untrustworthy and Aleka as naive. Her initial shock at Stathis‟ revelation about his knowledge of her family gives him satisfaction and confidence that his strategy was going to work. This is evident in the narrator‟s description of Stathis‟ smile, exposing his deceit: „Κά μέσα στο σκοτάδι δεν μπορούσε να ξεχωρίσει το σαρκαστικό του χαμόγελο‟ (ii: 61). The narrator at this point directly attempts to influence the reader‟s perception of Stathis by commenting on Aleka‟s innocence and insinuating the potential for her to succumb to Stathis‟ manipulative plan: „Κα ήταν πολύ αθώα τα είκοσι δυο χρόνια της, για να υποπτευθούν πως η ειλικρίνειά του ήτανε μια

75 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

συμπαθητική μπλόφα‟ (ii: 61). With this commentary, the reader expects Aleka to be seduced by Stathis‟ confession, but this is not the case. Firstly, after Stathis‟ explanation the narrator includes a definite ellipsis, which can be interpreted as a period of time in which Aleka was considering the new situation: „Ζα ‟χε περάσει πάνω από μισή ώρα‟ (ii: 61). Secondly, knowing that her family would not appreciate her liaising with the enemy, Aleka asks to leave his apartment (ii: 62). The continual depiction of Stathis‟ manipulation of Aleka reinforces his desperation to acquire the refugees‟ fortune, thus enhancing the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees. After Iordanis suffers a heart attack, Aleka visits the pharmacy where Stathis works and informs him of her father‟s state. When Aleka requests medicine from him, he seizes this opportunity to enhance his position in her life and chooses to deliver the medicine to the Vallidis household himself. However, his ulterior motive and his lack of regard for her and her family soon become evident to the reader. In their conversation, as revealed in reported discourse, Aleka is frantic with worry about her father‟s circumstances, yet Stathis appears unconcerned for her and especially for her father‟s situation: Άπλωσε το χέρι του κι έσφιξε το χέρι της Ώλέκας: - Νι συμπτώσεις έχουν ανώτερη λογική από τη δική μας και μας συμβουλεύουν... ψιθύρισε. Ξώς πέρασες το Ξάσχα; Γγώ έρημος. - Ρο ίδιο κι‟ εγώ... Κένανε σιωπηλοί. Πτο αντίφεγγο, μπρος απ‟ το σπίτι της, ένιωσε ένα σκίρτημα βλέποντας τα ματόφρυδά της λυπημένα. - Λομίζεις πως μπορούμε πια να ιδωθούμε... ρώτησε δειλά. (ii: 90) As can be seen here, Stathis romanticises the coincidence of their meeting and uses it to his advantage. The narrator‟s inclusion of Stathis‟ thoughts about what is happening behind the Vallidis‟ closed doors highlights Stathis‟ actions as sinister and underhanded, reinforcing his ultimate goal to the reader: Σρούριο, που μέρα τη μέρα η άμυνά του αδυνάτιζε, ενώ αυτός με τη σοφή του στρατηγική το κύκλωνε ολοένα και περισσότερο. „Ζα μπω μια μέρα, θα μπω...‟ ψιθύρισε. (ii: 91) The narrator‟s presentation of Stathis‟ thoughts in reported discourse and the repetition of the words „θα μπω‟ highlight Stathis‟ compulsion to acquire her in order to infiltrate the Vallidis home, securing his future with their money.

76 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

Because of the narrator‟s use of zero focalization, readers do not question the reliability of a phone conversation he includes. Apart from having Aleka believe that their relationship is a work of fate, citing on numerous occasions their blood match, Stathis also uses the promise of marriage to bait her. Stathis‟ first mention of marriage to Aleka is disclosed to the reader in a phone conversation. The narrator‟s mention of Aleka‟s concealment of the conversation from her family is a sign that she wishes to protect her relationship with Stathis from them, as she knows they will disapprove. While Kafetzaki (2003: 196-7) suggests that this is a result of the Vallidis‟ reluctance to support Aleka‟s marriage because of Stathis‟ native status, which could one reason, it seems more likely that their disapproval is a result of Stathis‟ treatment of them. Nevertheless, Aleka‟s concealment of their conversation shows the readers that he has partially fulfilled his ultimate goal of infiltrating the Vallidis home. This is confirmed by the narrator‟s explanation of Stathis‟ reaction: „Άφησε το ακουστικό με τη γεύση κιόλας της επιτυχίας στα χείλη‟ (ii: 106). To Aleka, Stathis‟ intentions seem honourable as she clearly believes his every word, but the narrator has ensured that the reader is acutely aware that he is untrustworthy. An internal analepsis inserted into the diegesis also affects the reader‟s opinion of Stathis. Apart from illustrating his domination of Aleka and perseverance in achieving his goals, Stathis‟ disrespect for the Vallidis elders and Aleka is evident in his presence in their home, despite Aleka‟s protests, and the fact that she grants his request to be shown the office containing a safe. An internal analepsis at this point, recounting Stathis‟ thoughts about the issues between himself, Simeon and Iordanis, remind the reader of the origin of Stathis‟ plan. This analepsis reveals Iordanis‟ words to Stathis after handing the bribe to him: „Γγώ θ‟ανοίξω το δρόμο για την τύχη σου...‟ (ii: 119). The presentation of these words in reported discourse, emphasising Iordanis‟ gratitude when he granted the money to Stathis as a reward for saving Aleka‟s life, have a hint of irony. They create a contrast between events occurring on the narrative present and those that occurred as presented in the analepsis. Not only do these words refer to Iordanis‟ money that will improve Stathis‟ future, but also Iordanis‟ request that Stathis donate blood for Aleka was the stepping-stone to his relationship with her that will fulfil his desire to become powerful and wealthy.

77 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

The inclusion of this analepsis just prior to the narrator‟s explanation of Stathis‟ feelings on the recent developments with Aleka, increases the reader‟s antipathy for Stathis: Ώισθάνθηκε ότι είχε κάνει απόψε την πρώτη έφοδο για να το κατακτήσει και πως κάποιος εκεί μέσα προετοίμαζε τη νίκη του. Ταμογέλασε χαϊδεύοντας με ικανοποίηση το μουστάκι. (ii: 120) Viewing his relation with Aleka as a successful attack on the Vallidis household, this description of Stathis stroking his moustache confirms the depiction of him as a self-satisfied opportunist. With regard to the refugees, the reader pities them because they are being exploited via Stathis‟ mistreatment of Aleka. Stathis and Aleka‟s absence from the narrative present during the announcement of their marriage allows the narrator to reveal the thoughts of minor characters to present information about Aleka and her exploitation by Stathis. Firstly, the minor character Thalia, Stathis‟ sister, announces the marriage, describing Aleka as „ένα συμπαθητικό κορίτσι, τη λένε Ώλέκα ΐαλλίδη‟ (ii: 166), without mentioning her family‟s fortune. While Thalia‟s comment demonstrates her ignorance of Stathis‟ scheme, this is raised by Thalia‟s uncle Isidoros. His initial reaction, presented in reported discourse, shows that he recognises Stathis‟ calculated reasons for marrying Aleka: Ζα είναι η οικογένεια που έχει τα εργοστάσια της „Έρικα‟...χάιδεψε το μουστάκι του ο συμβολαιογράφος: Ξάντα εκτιμούσα την εξυπνάδα του. (ii: 166, emphasis added) The narrator‟s inclusion of Isidoros‟ gesture reminds the reader of Stathis‟ sign of self-satisfaction as previously mentioned. It seems in both cases, the men recognise that the marriage between Stathis and Aleka guarantees Stathis‟ access to the Erika factory and improvement of his financial situation. The success of Stathis‟ plan to infiltrate the Vallidis household by marrying Aleka alters the reader‟s feelings for both Stathis and the Vallidis family. Returning to Athens after eloping, the couple avoid the Vallidis‟ for fear of their reaction to the news. While Aleka is oblivious to Stathis‟ schemes and the reason for his anxiety (ii: 176), the reader infers that Stathis probably feared the unknown reaction of the Vallidis brothers to his marriage with Aleka. A hostile response could hamper his plans to get to their fortune since they could have

78 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

disinherited Aleka for marrying, without their knowledge, a man they did not approve of. However, Simeon arrives at their home and suggests they visit Aleka‟s parents to announce their marriage (ii: 172). Contrary to Stathis‟ reservations, Aleka‟s parents support the marriage, as the narrator comments, „...οι ανατολίτες τού είχαν φερθεί με ειλικρίνεια‟ (ii: 177). As a result, the reader‟s perceptions of the refugees are less critical than before because the refugees chose to disregard their ill feelings towards Stathis for Aleka‟s happiness. A contrast between Stathis‟ reported discourse and his thoughts emphasise Stathis‟ ulterior motives, resulting in the reader feeling even more contempt towards him. In a toast to the Vallidis‟, he incorporates his standard mantra of fate playing a role in their meeting and promises what he has already failed to live up to: „Ε γνωριμία μας έγινε τόσο περίεργα. Ζαρρείς πως το ‟θελε η τύχη [...] σας υπόσχομαι να είμαι τίμιος και να... αγαπώ τη γυναίκα μου‟ (ii: 177-8). This, however, is contrasted with the narrator‟s presentation of Stathis‟ thoughts about his role in the Vallidis family. Openly declaring that he views his marriage with Aleka as a step towards taking over her family‟s business, the narrator describes Stathis‟ satisfaction with his achievement: „Ν Πτάθης αισθάνθηκε ξαφνικά κυρίαρχος μέσα στο οχυρό, που πολιορκούσε μήνες... Γίχε σωστά σκοπεύσει‟ (ii: 178). The narrator‟s commentary on the action appears to ridicule Stathis for his manipulation of the refugees. The use of zero focalization (or omniscience) that reveals Stathis‟ altered self-perception to be a direct result of his attainment of wealth and power from Aleka: „Ρώρα αισθανότανε όσο ποτέ στη ζωή του δυνατός: Γίχε την προίκα της μοναχοκόρης των ΐαλλίδηδων στη διάθεσή του‟ (ii: 234). The narrator‟s comment presents Stathis as a cynical, unscrupulous opportunist and it seems to the reader to be sarcastic. It implies that the financial security that made Stathis feel powerful and respected was merely a result of the refugees‟ hard work and the acquisition of his wife‟s dowry that became his, only through underhanded means. Another method of portraying Stathis‟ role in the Vallidis family is through the narrator‟s connection of events that occur in the novel. The narrator associates Stathis‟ new position in the Vallidis household through Aleka‟s pregnancy and Iordanis‟ death, with the torpedoing of the Greek cruiser „Elli‟ in

79 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

1940 on 15 August,13 which is also the day celebrated as the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Besides revealing the setting of the story and giving it an historic appeal, the fact that Aleka‟s pregnancy announcement and Iordanis‟ death occurs at the same time as the attack on the „Elli‟, implies to the reader that, like the Italian attack on the „Elli‟, Aleka‟s pregnancy could also be viewed as an attack on the Vallidis household. While the pregnancy cements Stathis‟ permanent hold on the family as the father of Aleka‟s child, Iordanis‟ death leads to Stathis‟ promotion to partner in Erika as Simeon provides him with one of two keys to the family safe (ii: 282). While this reinforces Stathis‟ grasp on the Vallidis fortune, the narrator, Stathis and other characters note the irony of Stathis‟ circumstances. The narrator satirises Stathis‟ position in the Vallidis household by including an internal analepsis recalling Stathis‟ confrontation with Simeon, who said, „θα τελειώσεις πίσω απ‟ τα κάγκελα‟ (ii: 282). Later, when Simeon dies and Stathis is made the sole proprietor of Erika, he contemplates his past and present relationship with the Vallidis‟. For the reader, the speed with which Stathis attained this position seems unrealistic. Once perceived as the enemy and kicked out of Simeon‟s home, Stathis is now the sole proprietor of their company and the master of their home. The inclusion of Stathis‟ questioning of the forces that brought him to this position (iii, vol. 1: 302) and other characters‟ reported discourse addressing this (iii, vol. 2: 25, 121), seem to pre-empt the reader‟s reservation of the speed with which Stathis‟ goal is achieved. Continual mentions of Stathis‟ infidelities as presented through various techniques enhance the reader‟s antipathy for him and sympathy for Aleka. Stathis‟ actions show that his main objective in pursuing Aleka was strictly for his financial gains, never intending to remain faithful to her. As if his actions were not enough, the narrator‟s inclusion of Stathis‟ reported discourse admitting to his uncle that he needs another woman in his life confirms this: ΐέβαια, την αγαπώ την Ώλέκα, είναι έξοχη, μα μου χρειαζόταν και μια άλλη που να δείχνει κάποια αντίσταση μπρος μου, να γίνεται ο

13 An Italian submarine near the island of carried out this attack on the Greek cruiser „Elli‟. For more information, see Clogg 2002a.

80 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

κυματοθραύστης στην παραφορά μου. … Γσείς ζητάτε στη γυναίκα τη χάρη, εγώ κάποια βαρύτητα. Θαι τη βρήκα, τη λένε Κατούλα. (iii, vol. 2: 126) Despite Stathis‟ unrelenting interest in Aleka, she always seems to be his second choice. Even in their first meeting, Stathis pursued Aleka only after Matoula rejected his proposal of marriage (i: 297) and he continues courting Matoula while pursuing Aleka. It is as though the narrator tries to provide an explanation for this by telling us in narratised discourse that Matoula reminds Stathis of poverty and misery, the two notions she tries to eradicate in her role as a communist supporter and that he tries to escape (i: 344).14 On the other hand, Aleka represents for Stathis „πλούτο, επιτυχία, δύναμη‟ (wealth, success, power) (i: 344), which, despite being a result of her family‟s hard work, Stathis associates with her. Presented in reported discourse for emphasis, Stathis‟ complaint about the situation he created for his own benefit, that is his marriage to Aleka to acquire her fortune, clearly identifies his exploitation of Aleka and shows him to be unapologetic about the situation (iii, vol. 1: 213). In addition, Stathis reiterates the differences between his relationships with Matoula and Aleka, when he claims that the former provides him with security, inferring emotional security, since she is by no means a person who can provide the financial type: „Ρι παράξενη γυναίκα. Θοντά της αισθάνομαι ένα αίσθημα ασφάλειας, κάτι που δεν μου το δίνει η Ώλέκα – το παιδί...‟ (iii, vol. 1: 215). The reader can only infer that the insecurity Stathis feels in his relationship with Aleka is because her family‟s wealth provokes in him feelings of inadequacy, emphasising the superior position of the refugees in the novel. Adding to the of Stathis‟ actions, the narrator uses pivotal moments in the relationship between Stathis and Aleka to confirm that this relationship is merely for her family‟s fortune. Moments after telling a Finnish cabaret dancer about his engagement to Aleka, he accepts the dancer‟s invitation to join her in her room (ii: 155-8). Although his relations with the dancer are deceitful, Stathis ironically complains to her about Aleka‟s family. Presented in

14 In her position as a communist supporter Matoula holds meetings in a refugee settlement called Boyiati, however, no other refugee characters are mentioned.

81 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

reported discourse, perhaps to emphasise the irony of his comment, Stathis claims that the Vallidis‟ do not like him: „Νι δικοί της, όμως, δε με θέλουνε... [...] φοβούνται πως την παίρνω για τα λεφτά της, δεν είναι αλήθεια‟ (ii: 157). While this suggests that Stathis attempts to convince the dancer that he is worthy of Aleka‟s love, for the reader, it shows his recognition that the Vallidis family may also be aware of his plans. It also appears that the inclusion of this statement is an attempt made by the narrator to persuade the reader that Stathis‟ intentions with Aleka are legitimate or to convince the reader of Stathis‟ worthiness of Aleka‟s love. Despite this, readers are aware of his actions, thoughts and true reasons for being with Aleka and the inclusion of this statement in reported discourse does nothing to convince them otherwise. Moreover, during his conversation with the cabaret dancer Stathis shows an inflated sense of self-worth. He becomes irritated at the Vallidis family for not considering his apparently wealthy and worthy family background: Κα κι‟ εγώ δεν είμαι για πέταμα, ο ένας θείος μου είναι υπουργός, ο άλλος έχει μεγάλη βιομηχανία και μ‟ έχει στις δουλειές του. Θάνω και δικές μου δουλειές.... (ii: 157) In this attempt to claim the successes of his family as his own in order to appear worthy of Aleka‟s love, it seems that Stathis is again trying to convince his lover that his intentions with Aleka are honest, while the inclusion of this reported discourse illustrates to the reader another example of his deviousness and self- deception. As with the marriage of Stathis to Aleka, Thalia, Stathis‟ sister, announces the birth of their child. This time however, the narrator recounts the news in transposed speech, indirect style, which shows that the importance is not on how the character presented the announcement but simply that it was revealed by Thalia and not someone of more importance to the child such as his mother or father (iii, vol. 2: 177). Stathis‟ action after he visited Aleka and his child in hospital shocks the reader, but it also shows Stathis‟ strong connection to Matoula. He chooses to celebrate the birth of his child with her, „Κόλις σηκώθηκε, έτρεξε στης Κατούλας. [...] Ώνοίξανε σαμπάνια‟ (iii, vol. 2: 178). The narrator does not comment on this event but he tells the story without sensationalism. The timing of Stathis‟ visit with Matoula, just after the birth of his first-born son, which is envisaged as an

82 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

exciting time for a new parent and the family, could minimise any understanding the reader may have had for the reasons behind Stathis‟ infidelity. It also results in the reader‟s increased emotional response to Aleka who is alone at this time because of Stathis‟ choice to visit Matoula. Interestingly, despite spending the majority of the novel portraying Stathis‟ treatment of the refugees in a negative manner, at the very end of the trilogy the narrator attempts to restore some semblance of respectability to Stathis‟ character. Shamed by his failure to do something for his country, Stathis attempts to repair his own self-respect by enlisting in the army ten days after his son is born. Whilst serving, he writes a letter for Aleka. This intradiegetic- homodiegetic narration has a persuasive function since the content of the letter follows the same theme as events in the diegesis and the information it reveals could have had certain consequences, such as influencing Aleka‟s emotions for Stathis, if she had received it (iii, vol. 2: 230-1). In this letter, he seems to be trying to re-invent himself as a patriot and faithful husband. He reminds his intradiegetic narratee, Aleka, about the dangers he faces for his country and requests that if he were to die she should name the baby after him and seek the assistance of his lover, Matoula. The inclusion of his feelings for Aleka in this letter: „Ξοτέ δεν έπαψα να σε αγαπώ και να σε θεωρώ ιερή, μοναδική μου‟ (iii, vol. 2: 231) appear to be an attempt by the narrator to persuade the reader as to Stathis‟ true feelings for Aleka, since the letter never actually reaches her (iii, vol. 2: 234). Clearly intended for the reader, the letter‟s purpose seems to be a strategy by the narrator to redeem Stathis‟ character. However, considering that Stathis‟ affairs before and during their marriage are known to the reader, as is his unapologetic stance regarding these indiscretions and his general treatment of Aleka, this declaration of his love only seems to further enhance the reader‟s antipathy for Stathis. Despite Stathis‟ mistreatment of Aleka, it appears that through the inclusion of the letter and a dialogue between the couple about having more children (iii, vol. 2: 145), the narrator does not aim to have readers dislike Stathis by the end of the novel. Still, the reader is left with sympathy for the refugees, especially Aleka because of her treatment by Stathis.

83 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

At this point, we have identified how the refugee author Athanasiadis incites the reader‟s sympathies for the refugees by using an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator with zero focalization. The next part of this chapter examines the depiction of refugees in ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, a novel by the Constantinopolitan author Iordanidou, which employs a similar narrative situation to Athanasiadis‟ trilogy. In both novels, the refugee characters play secondary roles and the narrative techniques that are used to reveal aspects of the refugee character are attributed to the non-refugee character. However, as will be seen, the role of refugee characters in Iordanidou‟s story contrasts significantly to Athanasiadis‟ portrayal of them in Οι Πανθέοι.

΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά is organised into two sections. Part One presents the protagonist Anna‟s life prior to her arrival in Greece from 1917 to 1923, with the narrator allocating approximately 77 pages (11-88).15 Like other novels selected in our corpus, such as Venezis‟ Γαλήνη and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν as will be seen later, some elements of the protagonist‟s background in ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά appear to be similar to the author‟s.16 Anna is originally from Constantinople but migrated to various places for her career; she returned to Constantinople from Russia where she studied (15) and then she moved to Alexandria in 1920 because of a work promotion (25). Finally, with her mother Cleo, Anna settles in Greece at the request of her husband. Only ever referred to by the pseudonym „ο Βάσκαλος‟ (the Teacher), he is a prominent figure in the communist movement. Readers familiar with the author‟s background will note the similarities between Iordanidou and her real life husband, Iordanis Iordanidou.17 While the characters in the story know who the Teacher is, it seems that the narrator uses this alias to protect his identity from the reader, giving the narrative a level of historical authenticity. In addition, the use of this alias shows this character‟s importance as the term „ο Βάσκαλος‟ is often used as a sign of great respect. Interestingly, as we

15 From here on references to the novels examined will be by page number in brackets only. 16 See Chapter One of this thesis for Iordanidou‟s background. 17 For more information on his background, see Noutsos 2012: 105-6.

84 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

also saw in Athanasiadis‟ novel, the communist movement with which the Teacher is involved is not an overt issue in Iordanidou‟s work and thus, while some of the participants in this movement are mentioned, they do not play an important role in the story.18 Since Cleo, Anna and the Teacher migrated to Greece directly from Alexandria for the Teacher‟s career, they are not considered as refugees. As previously mentioned, like all people from Constantinople who found refuge in Greece, their return to Constantinople as Greek Orthodox citizens would have been fraught with difficulties.19 Moreover, the manner with which the refugees and their settlement are depicted shows that the protagonist does not include herself or her family as part of this group. Although Part One refers to Russian refugees, for the purposes of this thesis focus will remain on the Asia Minor refugees.20 They are mentioned in passing on two of the total 78 pages in this part, in two separate incidences. The

18 Since Petros Pikros, Ioannis Kordatos, Serafeim Maximos and Alexandros Delmouzos are mentioned in the story, they add to the „history as fiction‟ appeal of the narrative. These men are important in the for a variety of reasons. Petros Pikros was a well-known author who was also involved in the communist movement; Alexandros Delmouzos was an educationist instrumental in the promotion of the demotic language; Ioannis Kordatos was a communist historian also active in the language question; and Serafeim Maximos was involved in the politics of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). The Greek Communist movement, with the establishment of the KKE in 1918, was very active in Greece at the time the story is set and at the time of its first publication. The „Ρο γλωσσικό ζήτημα‟ was a dispute about the question of whether the language of the Greek people, known as demotic, or an imitation of , called , should be the official language of the Greek nation. This was a highly controversial topic in the 19th and 20th centuries and was only resolved in 1976, when the demotic was made the official language in Greece. Thus, with the inclusion of such names, which would be familiar to educated people, it seems that the narrator had a particular readership in mind. 19 More information about this is provided in the historical outline of this thesis. 20 The first section mentions Russian refugees who arrived in Constantinople to escape the Bolshevik uprising during the Russian Revolution in 1917 (11, 15), and then Russian refugees in Egypt (28).

85 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

refugees are not the focus of this section because the main action of the narrative present is set outside of the areas affected by the Disaster. Whilst in Alexandria Cleo receives news of the Disaster, including the evacuation of Smyrna by the Greek army, the fire of Smyrna and the refugees arriving in Greece. Her reaction demonstrates her compassion for the Greeks affected by the uprooting. The extradiegetic narrator presents Cleo blaming an anonymous group, probably the Great Powers, for the situation the refugees are facing: „Θακό-χρόνο-νάχουνε οι αδικιωρισμένοι! Παν τα τρελά πουλιά τον κάνανε το κόσμο ολάκερο.‟ Ε κυρία Θλειώ σκουπίζει τα δάκρυά της. „ΐάχ! ΐάχ! ΐάχ! Ρους ανθρώπους! Ρους ξεσπίτωσαν, τους ξερίζωσαν‟. (75) According to Kafetzaki, the refugees themselves and everyone around them, like Cleo in this instance, are certain of the role played by the Great Powers in the refugees‟ situation (2003: 141). A second reference to the refugees in this section of the novel is presented in an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration by one of the Teacher‟s acquaintances, Giannakakis. He informs Anna of a letter received by the Teacher from Constantinopolitan refugees who have already moved to Greece (81). Details of this letter are not disclosed, but it can be assumed that it outlined distressing news about the communist movement in Greece or about their destitution as refugees, as Giannakakis states, „Ώ, ο Βάσκαλος θα είναι στενοχωρημένος‟ (81). The function of this intradiegetic narration is explanatory since it provides information about the Teacher‟s attitude towards the refugees that may not have otherwise been revealed to the reader. In Part Two of the novel, there is an increase in the focus of refugees since the family relocates from Alexandria to Greece just after the spring of 1923, coinciding with the period of Greek history heavily occupied with the influx and assimilation of the refugees.21 Though the narrator seems to accelerate the story

21 I arrived at this conclusion from the mention of the refugees in Greece by the character Giannakakis, and Cleo‟s emotional response to the Disaster; the fact that Anna lived in Alexandria for three years from 1920 (25-6); and the timing of the Teacher‟s decision to leave Alexandria for Athens, which was not long after the narrative mentions the spring of 1923 (78).

86 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

in this Part, covering 17 years in 88 pages (89-177), refugees are mentioned on approximately 40 (45%) of 88 pages. Overall, the refugees are featured on 42 pages, or 25%, of the total 166 pages of the narrative. In terms of their position in the novel‟s narrative structure, the refugees are featured in the narrative present as part of the diegetic level with only one brief internal analepsis and one implicit ellipsis. Interestingly, despite the mention of the Disaster, the narrator does not reveal the refugees‟ individual stories regarding their arrival in Greece. In view of this, it seems that the refugees‟ past and struggles is insignificant to the story, which largely relegates refugees to supporting roles in Anna‟s life. The narrator however, does make a brief mention of the refugees‟ settlement, though this is an idealised portrayal. Unlike depictions of refugees in Greece who face difficulties in assimilating to Greek society, as found in historical accounts and narratives, such as Theotokas‟ Λεωνής, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, the refugees in this novel are self-sufficient and seem to have integrated into life in Greece with ease. Overall, it appears that the narrator avoids refugees‟ problems, intending her narrative to maintain its focus on their positive attributes. By comparing Athens to the refugee settlements, the narrator makes a positive statement about the refugees. Athens, at the time of Anna‟s arrival, is described by the narrator as being in a frightful state, suffering from infrastructure problems with the influx of refugees after years of war. The home Anna and her family rented in Athens was nothing like their homes in Constantinople and Alexandria, suggesting that Athens was backward and parochial compared to these cosmopolitan cities. Cleo„s opinion of Athens as presented in reported discourse corroborates the narrator‟s point of view, „Ώφήσαμε τον παράδεισο και ήρθαμε στην κόλαση‟ (90). While this comment clearly suggests that given the choice Cleo would not have come to Greece, it not only emphasises the difference between Athens and other cities. However, when Anna visits the refugee settlements this statement adds to the favourable image of the refugee settlements as opposed to the city of Athens. Anna‟s decision to hire a domestic servant provides the reason for her visit to a refugee settlement, which, unlike the rest of Athens, is romanticised by

87 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

both the narrator and the characters in the story. In comparison to the impression of Athens as chaotic, as previously mentioned, Anna‟s perception of the refugee settlements as neat and organised districts provides an interesting contrast. This positive image of refugee housing and the refugees as „νοικοκυραίοι‟ (people of tidy habits and homes), is common in novels featuring the refugees. According to Kafetzaki, it illustrates the following: „υψηλού κριτιρίου αισθητικής και ποιότητας ζωής, εργατικότητας, νοικοκυροσύνης και οργάνωσης της προηγούμενης ζωής τους‟ (2003: 223). Nevertheless, in Iordanidou‟s book, the extradiegetic narrator, who is focalizing through Anna in the diegesis, describes the refugee quarters in such an upbeat manner that one feels suspicious of it; although this is partly due to the problematic nature of the focalizer, Anna, who, as will be seen later, is presented as naïve and protected. The cleanliness of the refugee district and the transformation of small blocks of land into homes with a second floor, flat roofs and gardens, is credited to the hard work of the refugees who take pride in the little they own (97). Focalizing through Anna, the narrator exclaims, „Ώριστούργημα ήταν αυτοί οι προσφυγικοί συνοικισμοί‟, which she compares to the scenery of Italian puppet shows (97). Even though Kafetzaki claims: „διατηρούν λοιπόν οι πρόσφυγες πάντα ένα στοιχειώδες επίπεδο αξιοπρέπειας πολιτισμού‟ (2003: 229), the additional depiction of the area Anna visits in Iordanidou‟s novel as a „παραμυθένια συνοικία‟ (fairytale settlement) (99) seems somewhat overstated and incites in the reader a feeling that the narrator shows a bias toward the refugee settlement. The narrator‟s attitude towards the refugees extends to the culture they brought with them to Greece and their general ability to assimilate into Greece effortlessly. The introduction of foods, such as the yeeros with , is described by the narrator as „Κούρλια! Αλείφεις τα δάχτυλά σου‟ (98). The induction of the refugees‟ culinary expertise also becomes a reason for comparison between the refugee and natives; for instance, the refugees‟ exotic „τυρόπιτα‟ (cheese pie) rivals the locals‟ standard snack of „κουλούρι και το τυρί‟ (bread roll and cheese) (98). In addition, the narrator also makes a statement regarding the refugees‟ enrichment of the Greek language, which she claims, „δέχτηκε και […] εγκολπώθηκε‟ (accepted and embraced) new words introduced

88 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

by the refugees (98). The overall positive image of the refugees illustrated in the novel is summarised by the narrator in narratised discourse: Βε πρέπει να έχει παράπονα η μητέρα Γλλάδα από τα υπόδουλα παιδιά της... Βεν σταύρωσαν τα χέρια τους να περιμένουν απ‟ την πατρίδα να τους ταΎσει. (99) The narrator‟s inclination to present a generalisation that refugees assimilated to Greek society seamlessly, which is a common portrayal of the refugees in Greek fiction (Kafetzaki 2003: 226-7), exposes her admiration for the refugees. It also indicates that she may be trying to convince the reader as to the influences of the refugees on Greece, promoting them as an asset rather than a liability. This type of characterisation is also depicted in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. While the narrator does include other refugee characters in the narrative, with one exception, that being Parthena, their stories are not individualised or revealed to the reader. The lack of discussion about refugees‟ current and past circumstances creates a distance between the character and the reader and thus fails to create an effect on the reader. In particular, the story includes Pontian refugees building Anna‟s house; it provides a description of the refugees who live in this settlement; and the Pontian refugee Elena, who replaces Parthena as a maid/nanny for Anna, makes a brief appearance, although her role is of little concern to the story. It is clear that the refugees are background characters featured only because of their relations with the protagonist. According to Kafetzaki (2003: 198), the role of refugee women as hard workers who remain the head of their households is a common theme in Greek fiction depicting the refugees, and this novel is no exception.22 However, like the depiction of the houses, the narrator‟s portrayal of the refugees also seems idealised. Iordanidou‟s narrator describes refugee women as hard workers with fine talents who work wherever possible (98). Demonstrating her compassion towards them, the narrator raises the issue of refugee women offering themselves as cheap labour and the bitterness this caused the locals:

22 This portrayal of women refugees is also seen in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια.

89 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

Αιατί τις μάχονται οι ντόπιοι; Σταίνε εκείνες που καταστράφηκαν, που βρέθηκαν στους δρόμους, και τώρα πρέπει να ξενοδουλέψουν για να ζήσουν; (98) As for male refugees, they only gain a small amount of attention from the narrator. The only description of them is as, „ξυλουργοί, ταπητουργοί, εργάτες οικοδομών, μικροπωλητές με καταπληκτική εφευρετικότητα‟ (98). This positive depiction of the refugees is continued later in the novel, with the portrayal of other female refugees associated with the protagonist. Refugee workers build Anna‟s home in the refugee settlement, Elliniko, in a short amount of time, with the narrator claiming that the work of the female refugees was equivalent to that of their male counterparts: Πτο γιαπί, μαζί με τους άντρες, ίσα σου και ίσα μου, δούλευαν και γυναίκες. Γργατικά χέρια μπόλικα και ικανά απ‟ τα Πούρμενα κι απ‟ το Τασάνι, το πιο πολύ πρόσφυγες απ‟ τον Ξόντο. (147) The narrator‟s mention that the refugee women would bring their children to the worksite provides a feminine image of them as caring mothers, thus balancing the previous image of them as women who take on traditionally masculine vocations. The portrayal of the stamina and strength of the refugee women is also expressed through the narrator‟s report of them carrying firewood whilst walking home even after working hard all day (147). Furthermore, despite plans for a new airport near their settlement, which suggests that the location will be a target for attack, these refugees continued to improve their properties, illustrating their strong desire to establish themselves: [...] Γξακολουθούν να τελειοποιούν τα σπίτια τους, να περιποιούνται τους κήπους τους και να ξοδεύουν την τελευταία τους δεκάρα μέσα σ‟ αυτή την καινούργια φωλιά που χτίσανε. (166)23 Parthena is a minor character in the novel but she becomes a pivotal figure in the protagonist‟s life. Parthena is part of a family of four generations of women refugees from Adalia (): an elderly 100-year-old lady who remains anonymous, her daughter Antigone, granddaughter Sofia and great-

23 The war approaching was the Second World War. Further, we are told that it was Metaxas‟ policy to build the airport in this area (165-6).

90 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

granddaughter Parthena. Through the narrator‟s depiction of their first meeting, the reader becomes aware that Anna has an instant affinity with the refugee women. Like Anna, these refugees do not have male protectors or relations, yet have managed to establish themselves in a foreign country and to rebuild their lives. To all intents and purposes the narrator is making a statement about the resilience and independence of such women; that they are strong and do not need to be protected.24 The refugee women are the first people Anna confides in about her pregnancy. Accidentally revealing her news, she startles herself because despite having been reluctant to reveal her pregnancy, she did so to complete strangers (100). Unlike her own home, the refugee women appear to have provided a comfortable, trustworthy environment in which Anna was able to inform them of her life-changing news. The women‟s acceptance and delight appears to provide the protagonist with the confidence to tell her own family and the self-assurance to ignore any negative reactions. The narrator emphasises this using narratised and reported discourse to present Anna‟s change in the way she felt about the pregnancy after visiting the refugees: Πτο γυρισμό απ‟ τα Ξροσφυγικά η Άννα είχε την εντύπωση πως τα πόδια της είχαν φυτρώσει φτερά. [...] Θαι μόλις πάτησε στο κατώφλι του σπιτιού, φώναξε θριαμβευτικά: - Γίμαι έγκυος! - Ξα! Έκανε μέσα στην κουζίνα η κυρία Θλειώ. - Ρι; έκανε τρομαγμένος ο άντρας της που πετάχτηκε απ‟ την κάμαρά του στην αυλή. - Ζέλετε „πα‟ πείτε, θέλετε „τι‟, εγώ μια φορά θα το κάνω το παιδί, και θα είναι το πιο όμορφο παιδί του κόσμου. (102) Through the use of reported discourse the narrator seems to perpetuate and emphasise the stereotype of the refugees‟ association with communism. It is

24 The narrator‟s penchant for portraying strong female types is seen in a number of examples. For instance, Parthena suggests Anna‟s emancipation from her husband even though she has a child and another on the way (135). In addition, the pro-woman attitude of the narrator is seen in the minor character of Elpida, who is independent enough to have a driver‟s license and own a car (145).

91 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

interesting that the narrator chose the refugee women as the vehicle through which Anna finds out about her husband‟s involvement in the communist movement. It shows an odd naivety in Anna since she knows that her husband was a communist or at least a leftist (90); and it is supposed that through her direct knowledge of the Russian Revolution she would have heard stories about the communists. It also suggests that the refugee women are more acquainted with contemporary society than Anna, despite her education and experiences, and that their understanding of this world appears to be a direct result of their refugee status. In the reported discourse of the refugee women, they claim to be aware of other refugees in a similar situation to the Teacher: Βεν ξέρετε; Ιένε γελώντας όλες μαζί. Λα σας το πούμε εμείς. Ν άντρας σας θα είναι αριστερός. Ρα ίδια τραβάμε και μείς. Ν γιος της αντικρινής μας κρύβεται να μην τον πιάσουνε. Ρον άντρα της διπλανής τον πιάσανε. Καθημένα τα βουνά από χιόνια. (102) The lack of information about which of the women actually says this gives the reader an impression that all refugees – the old and the young – know this information. Parthena has a much larger share of the diegesis than the other refugee women, influencing Anna and her family, and often acting as a knowledgeable protector or aid to the protagonist. This is evident in the narrator‟s commentary on Parthena‟s role in driving out the communist informer and her general conscientiousness: „Παν την ευλογία του Ζεού μπήκε η Ξαρθένα στο σπίτι τους‟ (103), which endears Parthena to the reader. Furthermore, Parthena has a worldly disposition and she appears to be much smarter and perceptive than Anna and Cleo, who despite their education and cosmopolitan background are not alert to particular things that happen around them, which is often illustrated through the narrator‟s observations. The narrator employs an internal analepsis, which has a purely thematic relationship to the diegesis as it provides a contrast between Parthena‟s intelligence and Cleo‟s. After the narrator claims that Parthena has revolutionised Anna‟s home, she includes an internal analepsis, focusing in particular on Parthena‟s role in the informer‟s disappearance from the home (103-4). As compared to her maid, Cleo‟s naivety is demonstrated in her inability to understand Parthena‟s actions. Apart from Parthena‟s knowledge

92 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

of the Teacher‟s involvement in the communist movement (102), when Anna justifies hiding an icon from her husband to Parthena, the narrator reiterates Parthena‟s understanding of the reason for Anna‟s actions by commenting: „Λαι, ναι, τους ήξερε τους μπολσεβίκους η Ξαρθένα‟ (115). The explanation of the relationship between the Bolsheviks and religion at this point in the narrative is conveyed by the narrator in transposed discourse spoken by Anna to present the story about a priest‟s confusion at a baptism of the historian Ioannis Kordatos‟ son, called by the priest Eleni instead of Lenin (115). The inclusion of this story reinforces the novel‟s references to historical personalities, as previously mentioned, and besides providing some comic relief, it also shows the divide between the Church and the Bolsheviks. The narrator‟s depiction of strong women is enhanced in the issue of the Teacher‟s infidelity. Parthena‟s attempts to discourage Anna from going for a walk in Athens in case she sees her husband with his mistress, illustrates her knowledge of Teacher‟s extramarital affair (133). After Parthena admits to knowing about the infidelity, she consoles Anna and despite knowing about her second pregnancy, advises her not to worry about raising her children without a father: „Γσύ καθόλου μη σκοτίζεσαι. Θανένα δεν έχεις ανάγκη. Αέννησε το παιδάκι σου και μούντζωσ‟ τον εκείνον (134). The presentation of this statement in reported discourse leaves no question as to Parthena‟s notion of independence. Advocating for Anna to become a single mother and raise her children on her own is a liberal view for a woman in the society of the late 20s in Greece. Despite the question of the likelihood of a refugee woman holding such an opinion, the narrator‟s inclusion of this episode illustrates the refugees‟ progressive outlook. Although Parthena is employed as a maid she becomes part of the family, often adopting an influential role. Interestingly, Anna holds a traditionally masculine role as the breadwinner, while Parthena assumes motherly responsibilities (120, 128). The handing over of the newly baptised child to Parthena instead of to his mother Anna, as is the tradition, best highlights the maid‟s motherly role in the child‟s life:25

25 According to the Greek Orthodox tradition, at the end of the sacrament of baptism the priest calls on the mother to receive her child after kissing the hand of the godparent.

93 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

[Ε Άννα] βρήκε το Βελμούζο να στέκεται σαστισμένος στη μέση της κάμαρας με το μωρό στην αγκαλιά, και την Ξαρθένα γονατισμένη μπροστά του να του φιλεί τρυφερά το χέρι. (124) In her role as a maid/nanny, Parthena also has a seemingly unusual level of influence over Cleo. Intervening in an argument between Cleo and Anna about the latter‟s relationship with the Teacher, Parthena tells Cleo not to interfere with the couple‟s relationship (133). Interestingly, Cleo listens to her and does not involve herself in the relationship any further. The narrator‟s use of narratised discourse to present the birth of Anna‟s child emphasises Parthena‟s importance in the family. The inclusion of the narrator‟s comments that instead of having her mother with her during her labour, Anna takes Parthena, who also announces the birth of the child to its grandmother: „Ρην ευχάριστη είδηση την άρπαξε η Ξαρθένα και την έφερε τρέχοντας στην κυρία Θλειώ‟ (143), influences the reader‟s opinion of Parthena‟s role in the household. The novel‟s heterodiegetic narrator uses ellipsis in the portrayal of Parthena to control inconsequential information. At Chapter 22 of the second part of the novel, Elli, Anna‟s youngest daughter, announces the birth of Parthena‟s second child, a daughter. The ellipsis is implicit because although the narrator mentions that Parthena gave birth to her first child, a son, two years ago (168), it leaves the reader to work out the omitted time. Furthermore, details of her marriage to Bontozis and her pregnancies are also omitted. Thus, the ellipsis suggests that the information pertaining to the creation of Parthena‟s family is not an important part of the story. However, with the inclusion of this ellipsis at the end of the novel, the narrator is able to introduce Elena, a refugee from Pontus, who replaces Parthena (168).

*****

This is a sign of respect and gratitude for having assumed the responsibility of assisting in the spiritual development of her child. Anna, however, does not seem to realise that she was needed at this time and so her son was handed to Parthena instead.

94 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

Through the analysis presented in this chapter, we have seen how the refugee author Athanasiadis in Οι Πανθέοι and the Constantinopolitan author Iordanidou in ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, use particular narrative techniques to influence the reader‟s perception of the refugee characters. Pertaining to the narratological analysis of the novels, a number of similarities have been noted. The extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator in each novel uses zero focalization to present refugee characters mostly in the diegesis. Despite this omniscience, the narrator of each narrative does not embellish the stories of the refugees through the use of intradiegetic narrations. No refugee character in either novel assumes a role as a narrator since the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators present all information pertaining to the story, maintaining strict control over the narrative. Interestingly, while the role of refugee character differs in the two books, in both of them refugees‟ roles are limited to their relations with non- refugee characters. In other words, the narrative techniques imparting any information about the refugees are always associated with the non-refugee character. For instance, Athanasiadis‟ narrator influences the reader‟s opinions of the refugees by revealing information via narrative techniques related to Stathis‟ character, which results in the reader‟s increased sympathy for the refugee rather than for Stathis. As for Iordanidou‟s narrator, her intrusions are aimed at ensuring the reader views the refugees in a positive way. While refugee characters assume minor roles in both novels, the amount of space and their function in the stories is diverse. Quantitatively, refugees and their issues occupy a larger space in Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, but the qualitative analysis of refugee characters within each novel‟s narrative situation also shows a marked difference in the way each author presents the refugee. As with the narratological choices of the narrator, the refugees in both novels are mentioned only in relation to the main characters. In ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, refugees are associated with the protagonist Anna, while Athanasiadis‟ refugee characters are presented only in relation to the native Stathis. In terms of the type of refugee presented in each narrative, the refugees‟ socio-economic position in the society differs. The refugees in Iordanidou‟s novel assume supporting roles as members of a lower social class, such as domestic servants, than the main characters. Athanasiadis‟ portrayal of refugees, on the

95 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

other hand, are in a superior position socially and economically than the protagonist they support, emphasising the role of a particular group of Asia Minor Greeks as entrepreneurs. The reason for this disparity in the refugees‟ image could be attributed to the date of publication of each novel. Athanasiadis‟ trilogy is set between 1939 and 1941, the early years of the Second World War, while it was first published between 1948 and 1961. The relative closeness between the temporal setting of the narrative present and the date of publication suggests that he may have been attempting to reflect in his novel the refugees‟ social standing in his contemporary society. Certainly, by 1948 the refugees‟ entrepreneurial and business acumen was recognised. ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά on the other hand, was first published in 1978, many years after the final instalment of Οι Πανθέοι, though the narrative present is set earlier, between 1917 and 1940. For this reason, Iordanidou would have been compelled to reflect the occupation of domestic service, typically assumed by refugees during this period. This could also be the explanation for her focus on women refugees, which reflects the higher number of females who arrived in Greece because of the Disaster. With regard to Athanasiadis‟ novel the date of the first publication may also be the reason for the notable absence of any mention of the Disaster, as opposed to Iordanidou, whose narrator mentions the Smyrna fires of 1922 through the character of Cleo. Regardless of the socio-economic status of the refugee characters in each novel, their respective functions do not follow suit. While Iordanidou‟s refugees are of a lower class, they are in a more dominant position than the protagonist they support, even running the protagonist‟s household. In the case of Athanasiadis‟ portrayal of the refugees, although the exploitation of their socio- economic status by the native protagonist may be viewed in a negative way, it also emphasises the strength of the refugees since they are in a more powerful socio-economic position than the native. As a result, it appears that both authors attempt to present the refugees in a superior position than any other character, native or otherwise. The manner with which each author presents the refugee character to cause a reaction in the reader also differs. A closer look at the information disclosed to the reader in particular narrative techniques shows that Iordanidou‟s

96 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

narrator in ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά does not present a balanced view of the refugees. The reason for this is her idealised depiction of them that lacks detail. Perhaps if another perspective was used this depiction would have been balanced. Nevertheless, the narrator does not focus on the difficulties refugees faced in assimilating to Greek society, but seems to preoccupy the diegesis with the portrayal of the refugees as self-sufficient. Athanasiadis on the other hand makes no mention of the Disaster or of the refugees‟ assimilation to Greece, instead choosing to depict refugees many years after their assimilation. To a certain extent, we could say that he also seems to focus on female refugees since Aleka plays a larger role in the story than her father and uncle. Despite this, his presentation of the refugees in his work is much more balanced than Iordanidou‟s. Athanasiadis shows positive aspects of the refugees, such as their entrepreneurial acumen, and balances this with personal elements, for instance, their reaction to Aleka‟s marriage to the man who tried to exploit them. The reader of Οι Πανθέοι is made to feel sympathy for the refugee characters and it is not because of a detailed inclusion of their past trials, but rather because of their treatment by the native Stathis. By focusing on Stathis‟ actions and thoughts, the narrator manages to incite in the reader sympathy for the refugees. Considering Athanasiadis is a refugee himself, one would have thought he would have focused more on the refugees instead of presenting them as largely one-dimensional characters without any real hold on the story. However, when the temporal setting of the story is accounted for, one could say that Athanasiadis is depicting an image of the refugees years after their assimilation and development in Greece. Athanasiadis has chosen, in this novel, to focus on one refugee family, typical, we know, of a small group of Asia Minor Greek entrepreneurs, but not of refugees as a whole. Working-class refugee settlements still existed in 1940 and long after, but Athanasiadis chooses not to bring them in. For instance, in real life, many of Erika‟s workers would have been refugees. How does one explain their absence from the novel? Perhaps it has to do with Athanasiadis‟ overall focus and concern, which is directed at the Second World War. Overall, the way his narrator uses narrative techniques to present the refugees is fascinating and unusual, for despite the refugees‟ lack of prominence

97 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 1

in the narrative, the reader does feel for them. In Iordanidou‟s book, refugee entrepreneurs do not appear at all. On the other hand, we do get a sense of a working-class refugee community, and it is clear that Iordanidou does want to convey a message about them.

98 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2 THE REFUGEE IN INTERNAL FOCALIZATION

From our corpus, three novels employ extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators who use internal focalization to present refugees in relatively minor roles but with significance to the plot. While it could be argued that the refugee character Leonis in Theotokas‟ novel, Λεωνής, does not play a minor role in the narrative since he is the protagonist, it is included with the other two novels because only a small part of the novel features refugees. In non-academic terms, the narrators in these novels tell stories they are not part of and stand outside of the main plot. Whereas zero focalization, as we saw earlier, allows the narrator to present the refugees from any point of view he or she sees fit, the narrators of the novels in this Chapter use internal focalization or, in simple terms, only tell of events they see from their point of view. In these novels, the perspective used to present the refugees is clearer since the narrator must select a character to focalize through. Therefore, the readers are more likely to adopt the focalizer‟s opinions because these are the only ones presented. The first novel to be examined here is Λεωνής (1988), written by Giorgos Theotokas, who was born in 1906 in Constantinople. After finishing his schooling Theotokas moved to Athens in 1922 and studied Law, graduating in 1927. Despite spending much time outside of Greece, he frequently returned, and in 1966 he died in Athens. Theotokas‟ novel Λεωνής (1988) was first published in 1940 and features an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator who recounts the life of the protagonist, Leonis, whose name forms the title of the book.1 However, this is not the only indicator of the narrator‟s intention to focus on Leonis‟ life. Although the narrator‟s status traditionally allows more freedom, he chooses to restrict his point of view by employing almost exclusively the technique of

1 For this analysis, I used the Γστία 1988 printing, which is the 10th reprint of the 1940 edition. Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, for clarity we will refer to the narrator as he since the author is male and it seems as though the narrator has a male voice as he focuses on the psychology of a young man growing up.

99 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

internal focalization through Leonis. There seems to be some confusion as to the perspective that is used in this novel. While Doulis claims that the narrator, Leonis, tells a story from the perspective of an adult (1977: 106), he later states that the author, Theotokas, chose to tell his story through the point of view of a child (112), which Mackridge seems to agree with (1986: 76). By applying Genette‟s methodology, we can clarify this ambiguity. Since the time of narrating is subsequent, Leonis is an adult at the time of the narrating act; however, Leonis, the focalizer, is the „viewing subject‟ and thus the reader is provided with a story about his life from his „child-like‟ point of view. The novel presents the events that influenced the formation of Leonis‟ identity by incorporating elements of real history into its fiction (Doulis 1977:106-8). Leonis is a young man growing up in Constantinople during a tumultuous period of Greek history, from the Balkan Wars to the Greek-Turkish War, 1919-1922. His experiences of the Disaster provide the reader with the sentiments of a „subject‟ who is a refugee and the struggles he faces as a young man coming of age, whilst dealing with his refugee status. The second novel to be discussed is Αγέλαστη άνοιξη (1972), whose author, Menelaos Lountemis, was born in Constantinople in 1912.2 Because of the Disaster Lountemis‟ family found refuge in Edessa, Greece, where the author lived for most of his young adult life. Lountemis‟ novel was first published in 1970 and features an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator who recounts the adventures of the protagonist, Melios Kadras. Like Theotokas‟ novel, Lountemis‟ is restricted by the use of internal focalization through the character of Melios, whose wanderings around Greece bring him to a refugee settlement called Dasyllion. Using Melios as the „viewing subject‟ of the narrative, the narrator presents a story about and from the point of view of a poor, young, homeless boy who has been thrown out of high school and now with no clear destination seems to be wandering the roads, leading him on various adventures. While both Theotokas‟ and Lountemis‟ protagonists young boys dealing with maturity, these characters‟ social class is disparate and Lountemis‟ narrator attempts to arouse the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees through the presentation of a pseudo-

2 The name Menelaos Lountemis is the pseudonym of Takis (Dimitrios) Valasiadis.

100 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

child‟s view of their plight. It should be emphasised that Theotokas‟ protagonist is a refugee, but Lountemis‟ and, as will be seen, Axioti‟s is not. The final novel examined in this chapter is Εικοστός αιώνας (1966), by the Greek native author Melpo Axioti, who was born in 1905 in Athens, where she died in 1973. After spending most of her childhood and young adult life in Tinos, in 1922 she relocated to . She remained on the island until 1930 when she went to live in Athens. First published in 1946, Axioti‟s novel features an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator who recounts the life of the protagonist, Polixeni. Most of the narrative is conveyed in internal focalization through the protagonist; however, it changes abruptly to external focalization after she is executed, because the story cannot be focalized through a deceased character. The last chapter is set after the protagonist‟s death and uses zero focalization because the narrator discusses the thoughts of other incarcerated persons. Despite revealing Polixeni‟s life against the background of a period of Greek history in which the Asia Minor refugees were arriving in Greece, there is a relatively low direct involvement of the refugees in the narrative, which could suggest that they appear in the novel simply as part of the historical period covered in the story. However, two refugee characters play prominent roles in the protagonist‟s life, which is the focal point of the narrative‟s plot. Despite the authors‟ divergent experiences of the refugees, an evaluation of the way they present refugee characters in their novels shows a commonality between them. Quantitatively, the authors choose not to focus extensively on refugee characters, though an analysis of refugees‟ roles suggests their significance to the story.

Although Theotokas‟ novel Λεωνής (1988) is not formally separated into sections, we could divide it into two distinct parts, each focusing on major periods of Leonis‟ life. The first section, from page 7 to 162 or Chapters 1 to 20, deals in general with the protagonist‟s life before refugeehood and, in particular, the events that shaped his identity during his adolescence in Constantinople, set against the background of war. Leonis‟ intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration, which takes the form of a diary entry on page 162, marks the end of this first section and therefore the story of Leonis‟ life in Constantinople. The diegesis of the second

101 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

section is set in Athens. We can date the narrative present of this section as sometime after 27 August/9 September 1922, as the narrator states: „Βεν ήτανε πολύς καιρός που είχε σπάσει το μέτωπο της Κικρασίας κι είχε πέσει η Πμύρνη κι ένας ολόκληρος πληθυσμός είχε καταφύγει στο ΐασίλειο‟ (165). Despite introducing other refugees, the diegesis focuses predominantly on Leonis‟ experiences after departing from Constantinople as an event that affected the development of his identity. The narrator‟s focus on the refugees takes up only a small part of the narrative, approximately 8% (163-78, or Chapters 21 and 22). While this suggests that the narrator does not want to focus specifically on refugees, they appear to be included because of their part in the historical period of Athens in which the protagonist and focalizer, Leonis, lives. Refugee characters occupy the diegesis of the narrative‟s last 15 pages, which is recounted in chronological time, beginning abruptly with the depiction of Leonis and his father accommodated in a cheap hotel in Omonoia, a square in central Athens, without explaining how they arrived there or why. However, we do know that they have become refugees only as far as they could not return to Constantinople.3 Leonis‟ intradiegetic- homodiegetic narration in the form of a diary entry, has an explanatory function in the diegesis as it provides the necessary hints for the reader to deduce that the period between Leonis‟ diary entry (intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration) dated 1 June and the resumption of the story of Leonis in Athens the following autumn is an indefinite ellipsis. In particular, the ellipsis is implicit since the narrator entrusts the reader to deduce the time omitted. This is alluded to through the inclusion of the date and season: from 2 June to mid September, after the front line in Asia Minor collapsed. An ellipsis allows the narrator to omit events from the story that are not important to the plot. Most importantly, the narrator does not discuss the journey Leonis and his father made to Greece from Constantinople. The omission of this event gives the reader the impression that the narrator is not interested in events for their own sake, but as will be seen, only for their effect on the protagonist‟s sense of identity.

3 This issue has already been discussed. It will also be discussed later in this chapter.

102 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

Despite the exclusion of Leonis‟ journey, the narrator does provide an explanation of the effect of this event on Leonis‟ life. In an analepsis focalized through Leonis, the protagonist‟s and, by default, all refugees‟ uprooting is described: Σο μεγάλο σκίσιμο, την ώρα που είχε φύγει από την πολιτεία του, όχι όπως ήξερε ότι φεύγουν κι έρχονται συνήθως οι άνθρωποι, ακολουθώντας την ατομική τους θέληση ή την ατομική τους ανάγκη, αλλά σερνάμενος μονομιάς από ένα τεράστιο κύμα, ασυγκράτητα πιο δυνατό από τις θελήσεις των ατόμων, που έκοβε στη μέση τις ζωές... άρπαζε έναν ολόκληρο λαό και τον έριχνε απότομα από τη μια όχθη της θάλασσας στην άλλη. (167, emphasis added) Thus, with the exclusion of the details of Leonis‟ unwanted expatriation, the narrator focuses the reader‟s attention on the effect of this event that intercepted Leonis‟ life and separated him from everything that shaped his identity. In addition, the sudden change in the setting of the narration, as previously mentioned, and the use of an ellipsis mimics the abrupt uprooting that Leonis and other refugees experienced at this time. This depiction also serves to reinforce the notion that the novel can be considered to have two parts, separated by this journey. Although there are brief mentions of refugees in general, there are only two main refugee characters in this narrative, Leonis and his friend Giannis Stasinos, who is also from Constantinople. Leonis and Stasinos are not overtly described as refugees and information regarding their refugee status is lacking, but we can categorise them as such because they are displaced persons in Greece at a volatile period for Greeks in Constantinople. After the defeat of the Greek army in Asia Minor and until the signing of the Exchange, which exempted Christians from Constantinople to remain in their home without persecution, Leonis and Stasinos as Christians would have been unable to return for fear of reprisal attacks by the Turks.4 Regarding the experiences of those from Constantinople, Peter Mackridge (1986) states, that „although [Constantinople is not] Asia Minor, the experience is the same (76), as mentioned earlier. While

4 For more information on this issue, see the historical outline of this thesis.

103 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

Leonis experienced an uprooting similar to that of the average refugee at this time (167), he is not a typical refugee since he is able to afford a cheap hotel room in Omonoia Square and has brought a few belongings with him (163). However, he identifies himself with other refugee boys from Constantinople whom the narrator overtly describes as living in „προσφυγιά‟ (refugeehood) (164-5). The author‟s choice to focus on Stasinos‟ refugee status as opposed to Leonis‟ could indicate a preference for ensuring that Leonis‟ character only brings attention to the identity crisis of the displaced, leaving the issue of refugeehood to another character all together. Stasinos arrived in Greece after being discharged from the army and the narrator‟s description of his outward appearance, as viewed by Leonis, is similar to that which is commonly used for refugees in general: Ν Πτασινός είχε τα κακά του τα χάλια. Γίχε αδυνατίσει πολύ, είχε ρουφηχτεί, είχε γίνει ακόμα πιο λελέκι παρά πριν. Λόμιζες πως το κεφάλι του είχε μικρύνει, το δέρμα του είχε γίνει κιτρινόμαυρο. (168) Furthermore, due to Stasinos‟ involvement in the war, he is categorised as a permanent refugee in Greece since his position as an enemy combatant would most certainly have put him in danger of persecution if he were to return to Constantinople. In the last 15 pages of the narrative, the narrative present of the diegesis is interrupted by a series of internal analepses, each of which deal with the theme of Leonis‟ experiences in the first days of his arrival in Athens. It seems that this information is presented in this particular way to produce, through narrative technique, a dramatic effect on the reader. Furthermore, since each analepsis specifically focuses on pivotal events that helped shape Leonis‟ new identity as presented in the narrative present, their interruption of the diegesis illustrates a cause/effect relationship between the analepses and the diegesis. Stasinos is presented in one of these analepses, and although a minor character, he functions as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator. This indicates that the extradiegetic narrator adhered to his chosen narrative situation since he uses Stasinos to reveal content that was beyond the scope of the narrative‟s focalizer, Leonis. The interpretation of the first analepsis uncovers Leonis‟ psychological trauma, which becomes evident in his altered attitude to drawing. The narrator‟s

104 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

inclusion of Leonis‟ reason for enrolling in the drudgery of Law School as a „καταφύγιο‟ (refuge) from his passion for drawing, along with the claim that Leonis explicitly avoided his tools for drawing, suggests to the reader that the protagonist‟s creative expression has become something associated with his old life in Constantinople; his creativity does not fit into his new life (164). The reach of this analepsis takes the reader into the past and begins in the first few days of Leonis‟ arrival in Greece. It is inserted here to inform the reader that Leonis‟ diversion from drawing was something that started from the first days of his arrival and continued to the narrative present. As for the extent regarding his enrolment in Law School, we can assume this did not take long but his avoidance of drawing was probably ongoing until the point in the narrative where Leonis realises that he has completely lost his talent. This increases the reader‟s sympathy for Leonis because his passion for art was well documented in the first part of the narrative and the reader can sense the magnitude of this loss. The unexpected losses that the refugees suffered are common images in novels featuring their plight. In particular, as we see with Leonis in this instance, „το πρώτο μέλημα του πρόσφηγα στην αφήγηση είναι να απαριθμήσει τις απώλειες όλων όσων συνιστούσαν τον κόσμο του‟ (Kafetzaki 2003: 110). This is also evident in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα through the character of Avgoustis. In the next analepsis, Leonis‟ refugee status becomes clearer as it recounts the story of his contact and association with other refugees. The young men from Constantinople, whom Leonis once knew by sight, are now willing to approach him since they share the collective tragic experience of „προσφυγιά‟ (refugeehood) (164), seeking a familiar face in the unknown territory of Greece. The narrator, focalizing through Leonis, describes the young men aimlessly wandering, dreaming of a better future and a way out of their refugee status by leaving for another country or making money on the stock exchange (164-5). Their presence in the novel shows another dimension to the way refugees dealt with their new status and they contrast with Leonis, who decided to spend his time studying rather than working. The reader feels some compassion towards these young people as they realise the burden placed on them by becoming refugees at such a pivotal point in their development. While we can guess that they probably had a similar upbringing to Leonis, the narrator‟s compliance to

105 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

his choice of focalization through Leonis does not allow him to provide the reader with the boys‟ back-story. The extradiegetic narrator continues with another analepsis, which also deals with Leonis‟ identification with the majority of refugees. Focalized through Leonis, this analepsis portrays general images of the refugees‟ poverty as the narrator describes them as „Ν περισσότερος κόσμος χωρίς άλλη περιουσία από τα ρούχα που φορούσε‟ (165). The description of the refugees from Leonis‟ point of view suggests a subject-object relationship between Leonis and the refugees. The narrator‟s choice to focalize this through Leonis, shows that the protagonist is aware that he is one of the more privileged refugees as he appears to be placed in a superior position as the „subject‟ of this gaze, while the refugees are the „objects‟. Another analepsis focalized through Leonis depicts images of the decline of that appear to affect Leonis‟ attitude towards his identity. The narrator presents two events that can be interpreted as a statement about nationalism as both depict mobs of men marching behind dirty and tattered flags (166). Reminiscent of a funeral procession, these scenes suggest the death of the nationalistic ideal, the Great Idea, and of national pride in general, as represented by the dilapidated Greek flags. The heterodiegetic narrator’s comment regarding the focalizer‟s reaction to the sight of weeping soldiers as „το πιο θλιβερό πράμα που είχε δει ποτέ του‟ (166) not only highlights the effect of this scene on a young boy but it also arouses the reader‟s emotions for Leonis as it functions as a measure of how upsetting it would have been. Following the abrupt end of this analepsis, the narrator continues with another, which depicts Leonis‟ disappointment with Greece as represented by the Acropolis. The analepsis reveals a conversation with a friend of his father‟s, in which Leonis informs the man that the columns of the Acropolis are not as white as he thought they would be. This seems to allude to Leonis‟ view of the current state of Greece, in particular, it suggests that for Leonis, the Acropolis as a symbol of Greek civilisation and culture, whose purity and grandeur is represented in the whiteness of its columns, has been marred by the Disaster and the subsequent influx of refugees. The imposing sight of the Acropolis over a fragile Athens with refugees living in the streets seems to him incongruous as the narrator presents

106 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

his thoughts in narratised discourse: „Κα τίποτα δεν ταίριαζε με τίποτα‟ (167). The image of the Acropolis as a symbol of hope that turns to disappointment is also evident in the character of Vasilakis in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες. Kafetzaki (2003) provides an explanation of the refugees‟ altered view of Greece once they arrive in the country as refugees: Πτην πράξη ανακαλύπτουν συνεχώς ότι, όσο και αν έχουν μάθει να θεωρούν την Γλλάδα πατρίδα τους, το βάρος των δεσμών με τον χαμένο τόπο είναι μαγαλύτερο. (155) Leonis‟ disappointment that the Acropolis and, by implication Greece, is not what he thought it would be could perhaps be a reflection of his own disillusionment at his life in Athens, a place where he once believed he could cultivate his art (75). The narrator‟s choice to use reported discourse to reveal Leonis‟ sentiments suggests that, despite focalizing through Leonis, the narrator has decided to allow him to reveal his own thoughts regarding his disenchantment with his situation in order to bring the reader closer to Leonis and thus increase their sympathy for him. Dealing with the sensitive topic of some refugees‟ loss of identity, a final analepsis features Stasinos and the protagonist in their first meeting in Athens since they became refugees. Their varying attitudes towards Leonis‟ loss of identity and the creation of a new one as presented in this analepsis influence the reader‟s feelings towards them. Despite Stasinos‟ dishevelled appearance and his experience of the horrors of war (168), he maintains his optimistic attitude, as demonstrated in his view that Leonis will regain his identity and passion for drawing once he settles into his new home.5 Leonis on the other hand, despite his more comfortable position than most refugees, is pessimistic. He claims that his inability to go back to his old life with all it entails is similar to the way a snake can no longer fit into its original skin once it is shed (169). The use of reported discourse presenting Leonis‟ feelings about his identity influences the reader‟s sympathy for him and brings them closer to him since it is the first time his

5 Refugee characters exuding optimistic attitudes after their suffering because of the Disaster or refugeehood are evident in other novels in our corpus, such as Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας.

107 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

personal views and overt commentary on his changing identity is discussed by the character himself. Adding to the depth of Stasinos‟ character, he also takes up a role as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator, deriding the nationalist ideal of the Great Idea. The narrative situation of his narration is intradiegetic-homodiegetic, with internal focalization as he recounts events that happened to him. It has an explanatory relationship with the diegesis as it provides another opinion on the Great Idea from the point of view of a refugee who directly experienced the war. Even though he does not discuss his experiences of war, as a soldier Stasinos would have witnessed the death and destruction caused by it. While the soldiers marching behind the Greek flag as previously mentioned wept for the loss of Greece‟s national ideal, Stasinos mocks this ideal as well as the war: „Θαι το πιο αστείο απ‟ όλα, οι ιδεολογίες και οι αγώνες‟ (169). The cynicism exuded by this comment alludes to Stasinos‟ realisation that the ideals of war, national ideologies and struggles for which many men lost their lives, were a farce, irrespective of their outcome. The narrator‟s presentation of Stasinos‟ statement in reported discourse reinforces the difference between Stasinos and Leonis; while Leonis merely viewed the soldiers marching, Stasinos is able to comment on this because of his personal experience and growth. The presentation of Stasinos‟ controversial comment about the reason for war being a farce appears to be a safe way for the author to mention this in the novel without implication from his implied readers. Stasinos‟ contentious point of view is further developed in his intradiegetic narration revealing a love triangle, which can be interpreted as a metaphorical statement regarding the hostilities between Greece and Asia Minor because of the Great Idea. Providing the reader with information that was not mentioned through Leonis‟ focalization, perhaps because of the controversy that may have surrounded it, Stasinos continues his disparaging remarks concerning the ideals for which war is waged. Stasinos recounts a story about Leonis‟ best friend Pavlos Proios who prematurely enlisted in the army to escape the pain caused by his inability to be with Eleni Foka. Stasinos makes it clear that nationalistic ideals played no part in Pavlos‟ voluntary conscription as he says, „Έφυγε στον πόλεμο, πριν τον καλέσουνε για να ξεθυμάνει‟ (170). This ridicules the notion that soldiers enlisted in the war

108 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

solely for the ideology of the Great Idea since we learn that a young man fought for his country not to uphold national ideals, but because he could not deal with his emotions. Stasinos‟ intradiegetic narration serves an explanatory function since it is not only used to reveal this controversial opinion, but it also serves to inform Leonis that Pavlos had always loved Eleni, a fact that the protagonist was unaware of. The disclosure of Stasinos‟ information exposes to the reader Leonis‟ indirect involvement in Pavlos‟ death, which had so far been omitted from the narrative because of focalization through Leonis. According to Stasinos, Leonis‟ declaration of his love for Eleni earlier in the novel was the reason Pavlos could not be with her, leading to his premature enlistment in the army, which resulted in his death. The reader feels pity for both young men because of the tragic irony of Pavlos‟ death; it seems pointless since the denial of his love for Eleni, the reason he went to war, did not lead to a relationship between Leonis and Eleni. If one interpreted this love triangle, they may find it to be a representation of Greece‟s battle to attain the Great Idea. To be clear, like Pavlos, who sacrificed himself and went to war in a futile attempt to allow Leonis to be with Eleni, many Greek civilians and soldiers from Asia Minor and Greece sacrificed themselves in a futile attempt to assist Greece achieve the Great Idea. Again, through Stasinos‟ role as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator, prevalent opinions regarding reasons for the national suffering are expressed; this seems a safe way for the author to address such issues without instigating any disturbance in his readers. The narrator‟s inclusion of Stasinos and Leonis‟ dialogue regarding war shows differences between the boys, which the reader concludes is a result of their varying experiences. Leonis was largely a bystander to the war, while Stasinos‟ participation leads him to become more cynical about it. Despite Stasinos‟ harsh, yet assertive assessment of events, the reader finds it odd that he questions the accuracy of his own intradiegetic narration. Stasinos‟ admission that his time in the war could have blurred fact and fiction - „Ίσως πάλι όλα να είναι δημιουργήματα της φαντασίας μου‟ (171) - is probably said to calm Leonis who was becoming increasingly troubled by this conversation. Leonis‟ innocence and his romantic ideals are evident in his inability to deal with Stasinos‟ cynical

109 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

suggestion that Eleni married another man even though she and Pavlos loved each other: „Ν Ιεωνής αισθάνθηκε πως δεν μπορούσε να εξακολουθήσει τη συζήτηση‟ (171). In what can be perceived as a tragicomic remark, Stasinos‟ comparison between love and war could possibly allude to his own motivation for participating in the war: „Κπορεί να παντρεύτηκε κι αυτή όπως ξεκινά κανείς στον πόλεμο – μες στα όλα και ό,τι βγει!„ (171). This also demonstrates his nonchalant view of war, which was most probably influenced by his lack of prior knowledge about it and his youthful inexperience. While he believes that the ideals of war and war itself is a farce, as previously mentioned, his impression of marriage as well as the sorrow that he believes Eleni may have felt upon hearing about Pavlos‟ death is viewed in the same way: „Βε βαριέσαι, καημένο παιδί, όλα είναι αστεία!‟ (171). As can be seen in these statements presented by the narrator in reported discourse, Stasinos‟ experiences have not only instigated his cynical attitude, but they have also forced him to mature quicker than Leonis, which is also evident in Stasinos‟ reference to the protagonist as „παιδί‟ (child). This issue of young refugees being forced to mature quickly as a result of the Disaster and/or refugeehood is also evident in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. Returning to the narrative present of the diegesis, the narrator focuses on Leonis‟ identity crisis, again drawing the reader closer to him. Leonis is unable to draw or to imagine the colours he would need to paint Athens, the symbol of his new reality (172). Through the narrator‟s presentation of Leonis‟ thoughts in the diegesis, the reader concludes that Leonis‟ new life as a refugee has forced him to grow up and his drawing, along with his youth, has become part of his past: „Ένα πράμα που έσβηνε μες στα περασμένα, μες στο πούσι της γαλάζιας θάλασσας, ένα κομμάτι ζωή που γινότανε μνήμη‟ (174). The narrator‟s presentation of Leonis‟ inner thoughts and the thematic portrayal of the protagonist‟s identity crisis heighten the reader‟s sympathy for Leonis. In the diegesis of the final chapter, which is also set in the narrative present, the depiction of Leonis‟ feeling of annihilation and then self-discovery also adds to the reader‟s compassion for him. As focalized through Leonis, the narrator reveals that since becoming a refugee, Leonis feels he has lost everything that shaped his identity and his feeling of annihilation is evident in his sense of being

110 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

one with the inanimate Greek landscape, which he views as having transformed him into a „blank canvas‟ ready to be moulded into anything Greece wishes (176). Consequently, the loss of everything Leonis knows has rendered him unable to form his identity and he struggles between two identities: Leonis a youth in Constantinople and Leonis the refugee. This is conveyed in his inner thoughts as revealed to the reader through narratised discourse: „Γίμαι διπλός, είμαι δυο “εγώ” και δεν ξέρω πια ποιος από τους δυο είναι ο πιο αληθινός‟ (177). While Leonis‟ identity crisis is enough to enhance the reader‟s sympathy for him, his realisation that he is a product of his time and history (177), and his acceptance of his fate (178), endear him to readers, who feel close to Leonis because they have been privy to his growth and can identify with this universal theme. By showing the reader how Leonis deals with his identity crisis through the presentation of his thoughts as the focalizer of the story, the narrator is making a statement about the identity issues of the displaced. One could even argue that perhaps as a refugee himself, the author Theotokas is trying to project to his reader a fictionalised account of refugees‟ reality that he either experienced or witnessed.

In the following section, we analyse the way refugees are presented in the work of another Constantinopolitan author, Lountemis. Although both Theotokas and Lountemis use the same narrative situation, the qualitative analysis of the refugee characters differs. While Theotokas chooses to present his refugee characters as part of his story‟s historical period, as though it were an opportunistic decision to include them because of the protagonist‟s journey, Lountemis‟ narrator intentionally and frequently refers to the refugees throughout the story. Further, as opposed to Theotokas, whose focalizer is a refugee, Lountemis presents his story through the point of view of a non-refugee. Interestingly, despite these differences, both authors choose to present their stories through the eyes of youths whose growth and maturity are influenced by their interactions with refugees.

111 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

The extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator in Lountemis‟ novel Αγέλαστη άνοιξη (1972) recounts the adventures of the protagonist and focalizer, Melios Kadras,6 who tries to improve his life and that of others. Melios‟ background is not overtly mentioned and although the narrator includes some details that imply his refugee status, Melios is not considered a refugee. For instance, when asked by another character if he is a refugee, Melios does not answer (18); references to Melios as a „Ξροσφυγάκι‟ (refugee) and „ματζίρ‟ (refugee or emigrant in Turkish) (255) appear to be mere references to Melios‟ possible refugee status due to the impression created by his homelessness. In addition, Melios‟ open admission regarding his ignorance of the meaning of „Ξροσφυγιά‟ (refugeehood) (30) confirms the impossibility of Melios‟ refugee status. Lountemis‟ earlier work verifies this and it seems that the reader is expected to have read Ένα παιδί μετράει τ’άστρα (1977) in order to learn about Melios. In this earlier novel, his status as a refugee is not substantiated since it does not mention anything about his history. From the outset, the narrator of Αγέλαστη άνοιξη explains that this novel is a sequel to Lountemis‟ earlier work Ένα παιδί μετράει τ’άστρα, which also dealt with Melios‟ life. Its narrative situation is similar to Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, in that an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator using internal focalization again through the protagonist, Melios, recounts it. It deals with the issues Melios faced during his adolescence, in particular the problems he faced with gaining an education despite his poverty and the lessons he learned from lay people, especially the gypsy character of Bithros. From this book, we learn that Melios has finished most of high school but is kicked out before he can graduate due to his use of the demotic language. At the end of this novel Melios and Bithros are separated, which leads to the protagonist‟s wanderings around as depicted in Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, although the actual motivation for this is undefined. Nevertheless, the hints in Αγέλαστη άνοιξη regarding Melios‟ possible refugee status are significant because they imply his lower social status, which would have given him the appropriate knowledge to understand the refugees‟

6 For this analysis, I used the Βωρικός 1972 edition. Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, for clarity we will refer to the narrator as he since the author is male and it seems as though the narrator has a male voice.

112 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

struggles, and show that people assumed that any impoverished or homeless person is probably a refugee. The narrator‟s presentation of the protagonist seems to be opportunistic, for although Melios is a 19- or 20-year-old orphan who has finished most of high school, he sometimes shows an improbable naivety or ignorance. Due to Melios‟ immaturity he is unaware of the pain of others, understanding it as something only associated with school (30). Until meeting Pythagoras, the main refugee character in the novel, and seeing other refugees, Melios did not realise that the word „refugees‟ is not associated with a place but rather to the displaced. Presenting Melios‟ thoughts as the focalizer, the narrator provides a humorous anecdote to Melios‟ naivety about the refugees: Άκουγε που λέγανε „πρόσφυγες‟. Κα νόμιζε πώς ήσαν από μια πόλη που την λέγανε „Ξροσφυγιά‟, όπως λένε „Θερκυραίους‟ αυτούς που ήρθαν απ‟ την Θέρκυρα. (30) Covering just over one year, the narrative is recounted in chronological time with the plot focusing on the adventures of Melios and his encounters with several groups. The first of these groups are Asia Minor refugees in a village called Vloiari, which has been officially renamed Dasyllion (37); the second are uneducated „κεχαϊάδες‟ (village bosses) in a town called Axiokomi where he works as a teacher for a year; and lastly, on his way to Athens to further his education, he meets poor Gypsies who are being attacked by the authorities in an area near Axiokomi. Each of these encounters tests Melios‟ character, teaches him about human nature and serves to show his compassion towards others as he attempts to improve their lives. For instance, he mobilises a group of workers to help the refugees after the authorities abandoned them in an inhospitable area, which is the focus of our discussion; for the second group he uses his personal democratic philosophy to teach the children of the uneducated village bosses, showing them the value of education; and lastly, in the case of the Gypsies, he puts his own life at risk to support them in their fight for survival against the police. The first of these groups, the refugees, will be the focus of this section even though they take up a small proportion of the narrative, mentioned on only 66 pages, or 16%, of 393. Melios is introduced to a poor refugee family from

113 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

Smyrna, consisting of Pythagoras, who was a doctor by profession, and his two daughters, Krinodachtili and Angelokamoti.7 Because of the use of internal focalization through Melios, the refugees are involved in the narrative only as far as their contact with him and the reader is not privy to the refugees‟ internal struggles, except where they are given narratorial privileges as intradiegetic- homodiegetic narrators. Despite their relatively minor appearance in Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, their introduction at the beginning of the story ensures that they are kept constantly in the back of the reader‟s mind. The refugees are provided with land in an area called Dasyllion, meaning a little forest. However, it is actually an ugly, remote and arid place (16), which leads Pythagoras to suggest that the area was chosen for them by the government to ensure their deaths (20), a sentiment echoed by the native Stratis (37). After witnessing their plight, Melios, along with other villagers, makes a decision to assist the refugees by tilling soil, creating wells and other agricultural works. Through the protagonist‟s active involvement in the process of improving the conditions of the refugees, the narrator brings the story of the refugees‟ assistance from the background of the narrative to the foreground according to the level of Melios‟ involvement (37, 48-56, 60-70, 285- 97, 300-1, 336-8, 395-7). In this way, the narrator adheres to his choice of focalization whilst also presenting the plight of the refugees. The narrator‟s fixation on the refugees brings to light the social issues of Greek society at this time, particularly the problems faced by refugees in remote country areas around Macedonia and other parts of Northern Greece where the novel is set. Throughout the novel, the reader infers a contrast between Melios‟ conduct towards the refugees and that of the Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC), whose treatment of the refugees in the novel is presented as abhorrent. The suffering of the refugees because of the lack of organisation by authorities

7 Other novels presenting refugees from Smyrna are Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. As will be seen, all these novels, except for Stavrou‟s, provide a positive depiction of refugees originating from Smyrna. In addition, Lountemis‟ novel is the only one in our corpus to depict the settlement of Smyrnian refugees in a rural area of Greece.

114 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

responsible for their settlement is, according to Kafetzaki, a common theme in Greek novels depicting the refugees (2003: 180-3). This issue is also evident in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, but in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη the difficulties of refugee settlement is a result of the RSC‟s ignorance of the type of people they were settling; refugees who were originally from rural areas of Asia Minor were settled in urban areas of Greece. However, Αγέλαστη άνοιξη is the only novel in our corpus to dwell on the appalling treatment of the refugees. Interaction between the focalizer, Melios, and the native character Giannis Perifanos exposes social repercussions of the RSC‟s conduct towards the refugees. Giannis, the owner of a local café, asks the protagonist to read a letter addressed to his wife, Eftalitsa Zorbala. Although she is referred to fleetingly and never introduced directly to the reader since Melios himself is not introduced to her either, she is the character through which the issue of the refugees‟ compensation claim is mentioned. Melios explains that the letter requests documentation of the property Eftalitsa left in Asia Minor. News of the potential compensation makes most of the other locals envious of Giannis‟ privileged circumstances. They become upset at the injustice of the native Giannis prospering through his marriage to the refugee Eftalitsa, whom they call „ξεβράκωτη‟ (literally, a woman without underpants; metaphorically, a woman without a dowry), while they gained nothing through their marriages to local women. In response to the incredulous reaction of the men, a local man claims that if they felt it was unfair for Giannis to claim this compensation they should have married refugee women (95). By including this statement in reported discourse, the narrator is emphasising that not all locals held this point of view. Eftalitsa‟s potential compensation makes her the envy of the locals and refugees alike as it increases her worth as a wife, whereas prior to this she was viewed as a „ξεβράκωτη‟. The notion that Eftalitsa is valueless without the compensation is also reinforced in Giannis‟ questioning of his choice to marry Eftalitsa when faced with the RSC‟s verdict that the couple owe them money: „Άχ κυρία Ξερήφανου και να τό „ξερα τι θα μου στοίχιζες την ώρα που σ‟ έπαιρνα‟ (277). As can be seen, this situation also shows the RSC‟s control over the refugees‟ social

115 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

standing: they had the power to bestow or remove the refugee‟s importance in society. A case of mistaken identity and the refugees‟ negative perception of the RSC are illustrated in a tragicomic presentation of Pythagoras and Melios‟ first encounter, which encourages the reader‟s immediate sympathy for Pythagoras. Suggesting the significance of the refugees in the narrative, they are introduced to the reader at the beginning of the diegesis, approximately six pages into the story. Believing that Melios is a member of the RSC coming to rob him, Pythagoras throws rocks at him as he tragicomically remarks that his gun is still bringing in the fires at Smyrna. While this illustrates the vulnerability of the refugees, who are left with nothing to protect themselves, this is further emphasised in Pythagoras‟ only other form of protection, spitting at Melios when he asks for water (17). This case of mistaken identity demonstrates Pythagoras‟ hostility towards the RSC, whom he feels have neglected and abandoned the refugees in a remote and inhospitable area (20), and it highlights the refugees‟ isolation since the visit to the refugee settlement of a person not associated with the RSC is an unusual situation. The reiteration of this sentiment later in the novel demonstrates that this was an opinion shared by other refugees and not specific to the character of Pythagoras. Like Pythagoras‟ initial reaction to Melios, the refugees of Dasyllion arm themselves with rocks and attempt to defend themselves against Melios and others whom the refugees think are from the RSC (53-4). Once Melios is recognised, he offers assistance to the refugees. Enhancing the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees, Pythagoras initially rejects this offer because it is merely prolonging their inevitable deaths. This image of the refugees‟ hopelessness is further emphasised by Pythagoras‟ comic take on the abandonment that the refugees felt at the hands of the Greek authorities and Greek society. Finally accepting Melios‟ assistance, Pythagoras tells him that in future he should inform him of matters that are likely to improve their lives instead of surprising him because it is not something he is accustomed to: „΋ταν έχεις κάτι καλόν να κάμεις για μας γράφε το πρώτα. Λα το συνηθίζωμεν. Θαι ύστερον να έρχεσαι‟ (55). This further reinforces the notion of the refugees‟ level of despair as this

116 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

reported discourse suggests that they sit passively waiting to die without any expectations for assistance. Through the narrator‟s directing function, it is clear that the refugees are not the focal point of the narrative, but the reader does sense the narrator‟s inclination to influence the reader‟s sympathy for them, especially Pythagoras and his family. Pythagoras‟ abrupt change in demeanour, from his hostile, though tragicomic, initial treatment of Melios to hospitable and civilised after discovering that Melios is another poor person, illustrates his humility and understanding of Melios‟ situation. Though this behaviour is enough to influence the reader‟s judgement of Pythagoras, his statement, presented in reported discourse for emphasis, shows his recognition of this case of mistaken identity, which adds to the reader‟s feelings of compassion for him: „Έλεος... είπε τραγικά. Πυγχώρεσέ με. Πε αδίκησα. Γίσαι πτωχός. Ήμαρτον. Γμπρός! Πηκωθείτε! Σώναξε στις κόρες του. Έχομεν ξένον‟ (17). Endearing Pythagoras to the reader more so, however, is his attempts to be hospitable despite his poverty. Using humour to convey the loss of even the most basic of necessities, Pythagoras explains his lack of furniture offerings by suggesting they are still burning in Smyrna (18); and when Melios asks for some water, Pythagoras offers his dead wife‟s water (18). However, with regard to food, Pythagoras becomes quite serious as he explains to Melios that his only culinary offer is wild unripe pears (18), which he admits he stole from the neighbourhood trees at night. This suggests that he acknowledges his offence, but he wishes to maintain his dignity by stealing at night when no one can see him. His explanation of this as presented in reported discourse for emphasis shows despite his poverty Pythagoras retains a sense of morals: Ώυτά [αγριαχλάδια] δεν ανήκουν σε κανένα. Νι άλλοι τα κλέβουν την ημέρα. Γγώ ντρέπομαι. Ξοιον; Ώφού δεν ανήκουν σε κανένα ποιον εντρέπομαι; Ώλήθεια είναι. Βεν ανήκουν εις ουδένα. Κόνα τους εφύτρωσαν, ανθίσανε, καρπίσανε (25). While the narrator presents a number of examples of Pythagoras‟ compassionate nature as focalized through Melios, a brief alteration in the internal focalization of the narrative as a whole clearly communicates to the reader the narrator‟s intentions of presenting another character‟s opinion of Pythagoras‟ character.

117 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

Focalizing through the native Stratis and presenting his thoughts in reported discourse, the narrator emphasises Pythagoras‟ generosity and the impact of this on an uneducated native by providing a native‟s point of view of Pythagoras and his fate: „Ώυτός ο άνθρωπος δεν είναι για εδώ!...‟ είπε μέσα του ο Πτρατής. „Ξάει. Κπίτισε. Ώυτός κατιτίς μεγάλο ήταν για να γίνει και γι‟ αυτό τον ζήλεψε ο Ζεός και τον χάλασε‟ (65). Despite Pythagoras‟ circumstances and the way he faces his reality with humour and dignity, all of which endear him to the reader, his attitude to his wife‟s death reinforces the tragedy of his situation and further enhances the reader‟s sympathy for him. The reported discourse presenting Pythagoras‟ offhand mention of his wife‟s death illustrates his way of dealing with such trauma by ignoring it in deference to the basic survival requirement of food: „Κητρικήν θέρμην. ΋μως αλλοίμονον δεν έχομεν. Ε μητέρα των κοριτσιών μου απέθανεν σήμερον το πρωί. Κήπως πεινάς;‟ (18). Though this could be interpreted as Pythagoras‟ disregard of his wife‟s death, the structure of this reported discourse shows the depth of his despair, hopelessness and helplessness at his situation. Furthermore, his sarcastic explanation of the level of assistance provided to the refugees by the Greek government, who settled the refugees in an inhospitable area of Greece, reinforces the notion that the death of the refugees is something no one could do anything about: „Ώς είναι καλά το Θράτος που μας βοηθάει τουλάχιστον να αποθάνομεν‟ (18). Through the issue of death, the narrator strengthens the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees as their apathy towards funeral bells emphasises their despondency. The narrator‟s interruption of the diegesis to comment on the mindset of the refugees in this town influences the reader‟s opinion of the refugees: „Ε καμπάνα χτύπησε λίγο ακόμη και έσβησε. Βέν είχε περισσότερη δύναμη κείνος που την χτυπούσε. Ρο ‟βρισκε και μάταιο. Ήξερε. Βε θα πήγαινε κανένας‟ (26). Even Pythagoras notes the refugees‟ apathy: „Άδικα... λέει ο κ. Ξυθάγορας. Θανείς δεν πάει στην κηδεία. Νύτε και θα ρωτήσουν ποιος πέθανε‟ (26). Later in the novel when Melios visits an ill Krinodachtili, her answer to Melios‟ question, „Ρι κάνεις εκεί μες στο σκοτάδι;‟ also illustrates her indifference as she unemotionally responds „Ξεθαίνω‟ (I am dying) (292). Not only do these

118 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

examples reveal that the refugees have become accustomed to death since it fails to stir their emotions, the loss of one of their own appears to have become a trivial matter in their daily life. The refugees‟ despondency is also evident in the narrator‟s inclusion of other character‟s perceptions. After a glimpse at the refugees‟ situation, Melios is unable to understand the composure of a group whom he observes sitting quietly despite their grim fate. Unable to understand their self-control, Melios‟ questions show his compassionate nature: „Αιατί δεν ξεφωνίζουν αυτοί οι άνθρωποι; Ξώς κάθονται έτσι και περιμένουν ήσυχα το τέλος τους;‟ (24). Melios‟ opinion that they should be screaming for help or actively trying to help themselves is different to that of the refugees who have reacted to their situation with silence, seeming to have lost hope and accepted their fate. Through Melios‟ focalization, a brief external analepsis presented in narratised discourse by the native character Stratis describes the refugees‟ silence, which echoes Melios‟ perception of those in Dasyllion: „Ήταν κάτι άνθρωποι, κάτι άνθρωποι... Πτην αρχή μιλούσαν πολύ. Όστερα πιο λίγο. Πτο τέλος σώπασαν ολότελα‟ (109). This image of the refugees‟ despondency is also evident in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα. The helplessness exhibited by Pythagoras and the refugees towards death also suggests that they are already emotionally deceased, a sentiment reaffirmed in Pythagoras‟ letter to the newspaper. Presented as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration conveyed by Melios in reported discourse to the natives, Pythagoras‟ letter conveys his thoughts about the way he and his fellow refugees have been treated. This intradiegetic narration assumes an explanatory function to the diegesis as it reveals the events that have led to Pythagoras‟ current situation. The reader‟s reaction is influenced by the narrator‟s presentation of the intradiegetic narratees’ reaction to the letter, its form and content. Written in katharevousa, the language Pythagoras uses in dialogue, Melios transmits it since he is the only one able to read katharevousa despite his explicit use and promotion of the demotic language. The reader‟s response to Pythagoras‟ letter is affected by the narrator‟s explanation of the locals‟ emotional reaction as revealed in their reported discourse, which also makes a point about language. Even though the uneducated narratees did not understand this artificial language, the reader understands that it is used

119 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

so eloquently by Pythagoras and read sensitively by Melios that the narratees feel the emotion in the letter: - Αιατί τώρα το καταλάβαμε; Γίπε σαστισμένος ο Ξαναγιώταρος. Λα με πάρει ο διάολος! Ρι μας έκανες εσύ ρε και το καταλάβαμε; - Γγώ δεν κατάλαβα τίποτας... είπε ο Κπαχάρας. Λα στην ψυχή του πατέρα μου. Ρίποτας δεν κατάλαβα. Κα με σακάτεψε το κλάμα. - Ρο ίδιο και εμένα, είπε ένας άλλος. Ξέννα ο ρουφιάνος! Κπράβο Ξυταγόρα (75). Pythagoras‟ letter, directly illustrating his feelings about his fate as a refugee, is the medium he uses to call upon those outside of the refugee settlements to help them improve their lot. Its composition to resemble a grave inscription, since it is addressed to the „Βιαβάτα!‟ (Wayfarer), illustrates Pythagoras‟ choice to write in a genre that represents his belief that he and his fellow refugees are already dead, similarly he describes their place of settlement as „Ε ίδια η Θόλασις‟ (hell itself) (74). While this reinforces the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees, the content of the letter, in particular the reason he gives for their descent into this hell, amplifies it significantly. Demonstrating to the reader the hopelessness of the refugees‟ situation, Pythagoras ironically describes the tragedy of their refugeehood as a punishment for their survival of the Disaster: Ριμωρούμεθα! Ριμωρούμεθα διότι εκάμναμεν την αφροσύνην να επιζήσωμεν της καταστροφής την οποίαν εκείνοι απηργάσαντο! Βιότι διεπράξαμεν το βαρύτατον σφάλμα να μην αποθάνωμεν όταν όλοι απέθνησκον. Βιότι διεπράξαμεν το έγκλημα να μην απανθρακωθώμεν όταν οι άλλοι απηνθρακώνοντο εις την πυρκαϊάν της Πμύρνης (74-5). Pythagoras‟ use of black humour to describe the bareness of the area chosen by the RSC for the refugees‟ settlement adds to the sense of the refugees‟ helplessness. Pythagoras‟ claim that „δεν υπάρχει ούτε εν δένδρον έστω και δια να κρεμαστείς‟ (75), does not only refer to the literal bareness of the area, but also to the extent of the refugees‟ powerlessness in choosing their own death. Despite Pythagoras‟ apparent indifference to death, Krinodachtili‟s death affects him immensely, creating an emotional response in the reader. Particularly telling is Pythagoras‟s admission to Melios that his daughter‟s death is a situation

120 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

far worse than any other because he feels that he has failed: firstly, as a father unable to protect his daughter, and secondly, as a doctor powerless to save his patient: „Ήμαρτον... Νι θάνατοι... αλλά αυτό! ΋χι, δεν είναι θάνατος. Γίναι μια λεηλασία. Ένας σφαγιασμός‟ (296). Pythagoras‟ particular epigrammatic words „λεηλασία‟ (plundering) and „σφαγιασμός‟ (massacre) used in this reported discourse to describe the impact her death would have on him are overladen with emotion. This type of loss, that is, the loss of a daughter and patient, is also evident in the refugee character of Dimitris Venis in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη, as will be seen later. However, our compassion for Dimitris is based purely on his loss, whereas with Pythagoras, it is his choice of words conveying his emotions that appeal to the sympathy of the readers; they sense his helplessness and devastation through his emotive language. Although the refugees presented in the narrative situation of this novel mostly occupy the diegetic level, there are two instances of refugees taking up roles as narrators on an intradiegetic level. While this allows the narrator to keep with his restricted role as a heterodiegetic narrator, it also conforms to the narrator‟s choice of focalization, since the issues raised in these two intradiegetic- homodiegetic narrations are beyond the scope of Melios as focalizer. The first intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration is Pythagoras‟ letter in the newspaper, which has already been discussed. The extradiegetic narrator uses reported discourse through Melios to convey Pythagoras‟ intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration, in which he comments about his refugeehood and the abhorrent conditions of the refugee settlement. The second instance is Krinodachtili‟s intradiegetic- homodiegetic narration, which has an explanatory function to the diegesis, as it describes her family‟s life in Smyrna to Melios, and a thematic function, highlighting their current conditions through a contrast with their previous status. The choice to allow the refugees to tell their own story brings the reader closer to the character and allows the reader an insight into the character‟s direct thoughts and feelings The girl‟s narration, providing Melios with the barest amount of facts conveyed in a question-answer format (22-3), makes it seem as though these details have now become unimportant to her. This appearance of indifference to her history could be a consequence of an attempt to protect herself emotionally

121 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

by not becoming carried away by the memory of her past. The content of her intradiegetic narration itself has little affect on the reader‟s emotions, but it is the manner with which she presents her story that shows the effect of her current situation on the way she recollects her past that adds to the reader‟s sympathy. Krinodachtili‟s narration reveals her family‟s class background, which contrasts with their current conditions as refugees. Explaining to Melios that she was educated at a school „εκεί‟ (there), Krinodachtili refers to Smyrna as though she was talking about a place lost forever (22). It is curious that she reveals her family‟s affluence as a postscript and appears to forget her father‟s occupation or that he was a prominent man, presumably, with inherited wealth or property as implied in her referral of him as a „προύχων‟ (notable) (22-3). Considering Pythagoras would have been the primary caregiver and the reason for their prosperity, Krinodachtili‟s memory lapse could be seen as a way of creating distance from the traumatic experiences of refugeehood; denying memories of their old life, which are overtaken by the pain of the new ones. In order to deal with her father‟s present situation, when Krinodachtili has the question of his current occupation put to her by Melios she resorts to black humour, informing Melios that her father is simply waiting to die (22).8 The contrast created between her family‟s past in Smyrna, their status as refugees and Pythagoras‟ current occupation increases the reader‟s sympathy for the family as it exemplifies and reinforces their decline not only in social class but in a general sense as well.

The final novel to be analysed in this chapter is Εικοστός αιώνας (1966), which was first published in 1946 by the native author, Axioti.9 Like all our other novels in this chapter, Axioti‟s work features an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator who relates the life of the protagonist, Polixeni. Although most of the narrative is

8 Refugees forced to downgrade their occupation in Greece is also evident in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. 9 For this analysis, I used the 2nd edition published by Ζεμέλιο in 1966.

122 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

recounted in internal focalization through the protagonist,10 it changes abruptly to external focalization after Polixeni is executed. As the title signifies, the narration gives an account of the first decades of the twentieth century. However, the close proximity between the novel‟s first publication date, 1946, and the temporal setting of the main action in the narrative present, from around 1935-1944, suggests that the novel is designed to reflect, through fiction, contemporary issues. It achieves this by incorporating real history into its fiction, the story focuses on the native Polixeni, from her birth before the First World War, to her execution at the hands of the German occupiers on 2 May 1944, with refugees in the stereotypical role as communists. Like Iordanidou‟s and Sotiriou‟s protagonists in the novels examined in this thesis, details of Axioti‟s protagonist echoes the author‟s real life, particularly her ties to communism, which resulted in Axioti‟s enforced exile outside of Greece from 1947-1964.11 In Axioti‟s novel, however, the protagonist, Polixeni, becomes involved in the communist movement through the refugees Salome and Aimilios. Subsequently, when police find a communist newspaper in Polixeni‟s possession, she refuses to give up her comrades during her interrogation and she is sentenced to death. The narrator‟s use of prolepsis shows that Polixeni‟s fate was linked with major historical events. Although the actual reason for her incarceration is never overtly mentioned, it is inferred that she was a victim of the German Occupation‟s campaign against „the enemy within the gates‟, which had a no tolerance rule for communists and their sympathisers. Hitler‟s role in her death is implied in a section of the analepsis where the narrative present intrudes with Polixeni‟s thoughts: „Ξόσα χρόνια περάσανε, και δεν υποψιάστηκε πως εκείνος ο άνθρωπος που παρουσιάστηκε και θα ‟φερνε τη συμφορά στον κόσμο, ο άγνωστος, ο μακρινός, μια μέρα θα τη σκότωνε κι αυτήν. Ρην Ξολυξένη‟ (33). This is considered a prolepsis since it predicts not only Polixeni‟s death but also the reasons for it; Hitler‟s battle against communists and their supporters.

10 Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, for clarity we will refer to the narrator as she since it appears that she has a female voice, and the author is female as well. 11 For more information, see Merry 2004: 35.

123 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

Further confirmation is provided later in the novel when the narrator overtly mentions that the occupiers killed Polixeni (115). The other prolepsis linking a historical event to Polixeni‟s death is her father‟s explanation of „the Trial of the Six‟, which is presented in reported discourse by Polixeni‟s father, who eerily predicts his daughter‟s own future: „Ρην πληρώνουν οι δεύτεροι πάντοτε κι όχι οι πρώτοι‟ (15).12 As we see later in the novel, Polixeni ends up on death row even though she was not a primary affiliate of the communist movement but merely a sympathiser. The complexity of this novel‟s narrative situation and its structure results in the reader‟s consistent awareness of the presence of the narrator, in particular, from her overt use of the functions of the narrator. Apart from the narrative function, which is essential to the existence of any narrator, the narrator of this novel makes her use of the directing and testimonial functions obvious. 13 The most noticeable of these is the directing function since the affect of the story depends on the organisation of the narrative. The narrator explains Polixeni‟s first years in Chapter 1, which creates a foundation for the story. Chapter 2 is the diegesis set in the narrative present as the narrator explains that Polixeni is in jail and she is preparing to muse over past events she deems „τα κυριότερα‟ (the most important ones) (18). These are presented in external analepsis beginning in Chapter 3 and continuing to Chapter 5. The fourth chapter reverts to the narrative present of the diegesis continuing from Chapter 2. The fifth chapter disturbs the diegesis of the fourth chapter with another embedded external analepsis. The sixth chapter relapses to the diegesis although it begins with internal focalization but changes briefly to zero focalization after the protagonist, who is the focalizer, is executed. Finally, the diegesis of the seventh chapter presents the

12 For more information, see the historical outline of this thesis. 13 The function of communication and the ideological function do not seem to have a major impact on the affect of the text outside of that which these functions usually produce. With regard to the former, the narrator‟s interventions are not significant to alter the reader‟s perception; as for the latter, the narrator does not seem to make an attempt to contact or create a dialogue with the reader. For the definition of these functions, see pp. 43-5.

124 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

narrative present recounted mostly in external focalization, though this changes to zero focalization when the thoughts of random characters are revealed.14 Due to the amount of time taken up by the diegesis’ narration in the narrative present, that is, a few hours of the night of 2 May 1944, the analepsis covers over 30 years in only a relatively small number of pages, only 138. An explanation for this asymmetry can be inferred by the following extract, in which the extradiegetic narrator asserts the importance of the content included in these sections of analepsis: Ξολλά χρόνια περάσανε. Άρχισε να τα σκέφτεται. […] Έπρεπε να προλάβει, κι άρχισε να θυμάται τα χρόνια που περάσανε, κ‟ ήτανε βιαστική, κ‟ έβλεπε το φεγγίτη, να μην αλλάξει χρώμα, και δεν προλάβει ως την αυγή. Άρχισε από όπου μπόρεσε. Έστω τα κυριότερα, μέχρι τα ξημερώματα οπόταν θα ‟ρθει ο δήμιος, να τις πάρει για εκτέλεση (18, emphasis added; see also pp. 47, 63, 64, 87). While the few hours between the protagonist‟s last meal on the eve of her execution and the moment of her death are presented in the diegesis, the plot is mostly preoccupied with the events that caused Polixeni‟s incarceration. This element of the novel is presented in an external analepsis and is organised to mimic the way in which Polixeni as the focalizer remembers the pivotal events that occurred to her. Consequently, the narrator‟s assertion that the details included in the analepsis are Polixeni‟s direct thoughts, which occurs repeatedly throughout the novel, demonstrates the narrator‟s testimonial function. Since the analepsis featured in this narrative is one continuous story interrupting the diegesis, it is described here as one analepsis. The extent of this analepsis is approximately 27 years from the Russian Revolution in 1917 to Polixeni‟s execution, which is set in the narrative present on 2 May 1944. While the reach begins in 1917, as the story in the analepsis progresses the reach catches up to the narrative present. The analepsis features intrusions of the narrative present but owing to the brevity with which they are mentioned these do not affect the

14 This occurs between pages 136-140, thereafter reverting to external focalization.

125 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

continuity of the story presented in the analepsis.15 These short intrusions are included to continually remind the reader of the narrative present and further accentuate the cause/effect relationship between the analepsis, which depicts the actions that led to her present situation, and Polixeni‟s present situation, her incarceration. As mentioned, the narrative structure mimics the way Polixeni, as the focalizer of her story, remembers these events, with her thoughts in the narrative present often intruding on her reminiscences as a running commentary. While quantitatively the refugees seem to take up very small roles in the narrative, qualitatively their role in the story is much more critical to the plot. Moreover, their importance can also be measured by their positioning in the narrative structure. Although Polixeni‟s life is revealed against the background of a period of Greek history in which the Asia Minor refugees were arriving in Greece, they have a relatively low direct involvement in the narrative, mentioned on only 36 (26%) of the book‟s 128 pages. Despite this, the refugees Salome and Aimilios play a prominent role in the protagonist‟s life. Their prime positioning in the main technique used to present the story, the analepsis, which features on approximately 87 pages whilst there are 34 pages of narrative present and 10 pages of exposition, shows the narrator‟s conscious decision to include them in the important part of the narrative. The extradiegetic narrator presents the first refugees to the reader in the diegesis of the exposition in the first chapter. Its setting is inferred to be 1917, the cusp of the First World War, since the narrator calls the war that resulted in an influx of refugee „τον πόλεμο που ήτανε δίχως τέλος‟ (13); as we know the First World War turned into the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922. Focalizing through Polixeni, the narrator depicts the refugees as having come from nowhere: „Θαι όταν βγήκε μια μέρα, εκείνον τον καιρό, απ‟ το σπίτι της, στην πόλη ήταν φερμένοι οι πρόσφυγες‟ (14). The narrator also conveys the appearance of the refugees as the focalizer Polixeni saw them on the streets of Athens as a group of poor, homeless, lost people: „Αυμνό και ξετραχηλισμένο. ΐρώμικο κι αναμάλλιαρο‟ (14). According to Kafetzaki, with this description the refugees:

15 There are approximately 18 intrusions of the narrative present in the analepsis (22, 28, 31, 47, 48, 56, 60, 63, 64, 69, 78, 85, 93, 97, 99, 104, 109, 110).

126 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

„τονίζουν την απώλεια κάθε προσωπικής και κοινωνικής ταυτότητας‟ (Kafetzaki 2003: 129). The abrupt uprooting and the state of mind of these people is demonstrated in various descriptions (14), which appeal to the reader‟s sympathy and present the serious issues of the fate of the refs in Greece. An implicit ellipsis included at this point in the narration signifies the lapse of time between the arrival of the refugees and their settlement. The narrator‟s statement, which implies this ellipsis: „Ξέρασαν πολλά χρόνια, ώσπου ο κόσμος εκείνος τέλος καταλάγιασε‟ (14), is backed by a description of the refugees as „σκουλήκια‟ (worms/maggots). It is probable that the word has a derogatory meaning, referring to the refugees as parasites. The narrator‟s use of an implicit ellipsis is appropriate for this content for as history has shown, the majority of refugees did take some time to integrate into Greek society but once this occurred, many assisted in its improvement. With regard to the ellipsis, which is also used in the same way in Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, it appears that it is used to signify the indeterminable amount of time the refugees took to assimilate. Through Polixeni‟s focalization, the narrator includes a general description of the refugees‟ social conditions, which appears to be an attempt to explain the reasons for the refugees‟ association with the communist movement. Initially on a mission to observe a communist cell in the Athenian port city of , the protagonist finds a refugee settlement. Recounting Polixeni‟s observations, the following excerpt details the substandard living conditions of the refugees: Ήτανε παράγκες-παράγκες. Γνώνονταν η μια απ‟ την άλλη με το ποτάμι του οχετού. ΐρώμα; Κέχρι λιγοθυμιά. Ρο κάτουρο και τα χοντρά; Ως απάνω. Ρα παιδιά; Παν τη μούμια που της αφαίρεσες τα σωθικά κ‟ σούφρωσε σαν το πλισέ, και της έμειναν μόνο μάτια και μ‟ εκείνα σου δίνει να καταλάβεις τι γίνεται: που πάει να ζήσει, δηλαδή, μα δεν της έμεινε ζωή. Κόνο μια μικρή τρίχα. Θαι μ‟εκείνη παιδεύεται μέχρι τέλος. (56) This image incites feelings of sympathy for the refugee residents in this town and pity and sadness for the starving „mummy-like‟ children. However, it becomes clear that their plight is a consequence of the lack of assistance by the Greek „authorities‟. Adding to the reader‟s sympathy, the narrator includes the reported

127 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

discourse of one refugee who asks Polixeni to inform the authorities about their conditions (59). The impact this information has on Polixeni is evident in her reaction, which adds to the affect of the narrator‟s description of the settlement: „Ρα „χασε ολότελα... έχασε και το δρόμο, γύριζε μύλο-μύλο ώσπου να βγει από κει‟ (60). Additionally, this scene highlights the poverty and destitution of the refugees, which the novel seems to suggest, was an underlying reason for their recruitment into the communist cause. In Kafetzaki‟ discussion of the refugee settlement in this novel, she points out that writers who subscribe to left-wing politics, such as Axioti, often portray refugee settlements as centres for the communist movement (2003: 170). Refugee settlements as the focal point of left- wing activity is also seen in the following novels featured in our corpus: Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, Stavrou‟s Οι πρύτες ρίζες and Sotiriou‟s, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. 16 The poverty of the refugees is evident in Aimilios‟ and Polixeni‟s first meeting as focalized by Polixeni. Aimilios‟ job selling lace created by refugee women becomes the reason for his meeting with Polixeni. When Aimilios arrives at her house to collect payment for the lace her father bought, he states that his reason for asking for the payment was that he and his „family‟ had not eaten for three days.17 While Polixeni‟s shocked reaction to this information reveals her sheltered middle- to upper-class upbringing and emphasises the socio-economic differences between the couple, it also suggests that she had not understood the relationship between food and money. Commenting on Polixeni‟s reaction, Aimilios emphasises the resilience of the refugees: Κη μας λυπάσαι, της λέει ο Ώιμίλιος, γιατί μια φορά εμείς θα ζήσομε. Άλλος θα τηγανίζει ψάρια, άλλος θα πάει χαμάλης, άλλος θα γίνει δάσκαλος μα θα σκορπίσουμε παντού σε στεργιές και σε θάλασσα και

16 Though it is outside the scope of the current study, the coincidence that these authors are women makes an interesting point of departure for further study into novels featuring the refugee. 17 The „family‟ Aimilios refers to are not his blood relations, but a group of young children who Salome gathered on her journey to Greece. Though her travels are vague, it appears that Salome picked up Aimilios from Caesarea and travelling to the west coast of Asia Minor she has picked up other orphaned refugee children from Aydin and Smyrna.

128 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

θα μας συναντήσετε σ‟ όποια πέτρα σηκώσεις. Κη μας λυπάσαι κι αν πεινούμε, θα βρεθεί κάτι μια φορά, το αίμα μας αντέχει. (16) While for Aimilios that „κάτι‟ (something) becomes Polixeni and the resistance movement, his suggestion that refugees in general will prosper and make something of themselves is indicative of the improvements that refugees made to Greek society. Through Polixeni‟s focalization, the narrator is able to present the other refugee character Salome as a less conventional refugee than that probably expected by the intended audience. Salome is Pontian, introduced to us as a snuff-taking,18 strong refugee woman, who „είχε χτίσει τη φωλιά... με το σάλιο της‟ (15) in order to assist refugee orphans survive in Greece. She acts as a mother figure not only to Aimilios and other refugee orphans, but also to the protagonist. As seen in other novels in our corpus, such as Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά, Myrivilis‟ Η παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, the refugee character, Salome, has also kept her faith. The inclusion of Salome making the sign of the cross to protect Aimilios (24) and at a later point for Polixeni (59) shows her belief in Christianity. Although Salome‟s blessings appear to have become a habit, perhaps because she felt that people around her needed the protection of God, this characteristic highlights her role as a mother, who seeks God‟s assistance to keep her children safe. These characteristics would resonate with readers, altering their perceptions of communist supporters, whom they may not have previously viewed as religious people with family units; particularly those who were also refugees. Polixeni‟s involvement in the communist movement is presented in a manner that makes it apparent to the reader that the refugees did not force her into this. Through Salome‟s reported discourse to Polixeni, Aimilios‟ role in the communist movement is hinted at to warn Polixeni away from him: Θορίτσι μου, να πας στο σπίτι σας. Ν Κίλιος δεν είναι για σένα. Λα μην ξαναρθείς κόρη μου εδώ μέσα, δεν κάνει. Θαλό κορίτσι είσαι, δεν μπορώ να πω τίποτας, μα ο Κίλιος είναι...άλλος. Γίναι μεγάλος. Βεν ταιριάζετε. Κη μπερδευτείς σε τίποτα και βρούμε τόοο [sic] ...μπελά

18 Snuff is a smokeless tobacco taken by inhaling it through the nose.

129 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

μας. Κπορεί παιδάκι μου να σ‟ αγαπά, δεν μπορώ να πω τίποτα, μα κείνος είναι... άλλος. Άντε φύγε με την ευκή μου (21-2). Making it apparent that Polixeni begins to support Aimilios‟ cause despite Salome‟s warning, the narrator includes Salome‟s statement in reported discourse for emphasis: „Ξώς ήθελες να σου τα πω, σάματις ήξερα τι ήσουνε, αν ήσουνε εδικιά μας; Πτο „πα γω η δόλια, παράτα μας! Ρο βλέπω τώρα, που δε μ‟άκουσες‟ (58). During the meeting where these words are said, Salome takes up the role of an intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator, the contents of which serve a persuasive function since the information she provides affects Polixeni‟s actions in the diegesis. Salome recounts to Polixeni the correspondence between herself and Aimilios, which reveal Salome‟s revolutionary ideals: „...Λα δεις τι θα κάμεις εσύ αυτού μέσα. Ρο καλύτερο. Κπας και μου „ρθεις προδότης κ‟ η πόρτα μου εμέ δε χαράζει να βάλει μέσα τέτοιον άνθρωπο‟ (57). Salome‟s strong words demonstrate the seriousness with which she supports the communist movement and her staunch protection of it. This is also evident in her description of the people who go to jail for this cause, which is also presented as an intradiegetic- heterodiegetic narration: Πτέκουνε σαν τα θεόρατα βράχια που τους στηρίζουν τα ποδάρια τους και τα χρόνια δεν τα λυγούν. Θι ας είναι κι ολομόναχοι. Θι ας μην τους θυμάται κανείς. Θι ας είναι ν‟αποθάνουνε. Έχουνε μέσα κει δουλειά. Στιάνουνε το καλύτερο, να τα βρουν τα παιδιά τους (58). The reader understands that although Salome does not coerce Polixeni into supporting these ideals, she does ensure that if Polixeni is to pursue a relationship with Aimilios she is fully aware of the consequences: „Κια γυναίκα που διάλεξε άντρα επαναστάτη, δεν είναι πια μόνο γυναίκα. Γίναι συντρόφισσα‟ (58). This statement is pivotal in Polixeni‟s future actions. Her intradiegetic- homodiegetic narration that follows has an explanatory function to the diegesis, since it accounts for Polixeni‟s involvement in the movement, strengthening her resolve to support Aimilios. This is presented in the form of a letter to Aimilios in which she overtly indicates her membership and support of Aimilios and Salome‟s cause: „Ώιμίλιε. Βε θα φύγω. Ζα σταθώ κ‟ εγώ. Παν εσένα. Παν την μητέρα σου. Παν όλους σας‟ (58-9). The inclusion of Polixeni‟s intradiegetic

130 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

narration further reinforces the importance of the refugees in this narrative, as they are clearly the catalyst of the events, which shape the story. Thus, while Aimilios is not the central figure of this novel, he plays a significant role in Polixeni‟s life, altering her fate markedly. Although Polixeni‟s father instilled in her the desire to achieve something in her life that mattered (40-1, 46-7), it was Aimilios‟ cause that she chose to take part in so that this aspiration could be fulfilled. As mentioned, through her relationship with Aimilios, Polixeni became affiliated with the communist movement and changed from a lonely, fearful and suicidal young girl (12) to a strong, idealistic and defiant woman as portrayed in the narrative present (14). According to the exposition depicting Polixeni‟s youth, she always felt alone (9, 22, 31); however, once she became friends with Aimilios, who gives her an ideal she could live for, Polixeni no longer felt alone: Θάθε Βευτέρα πήγαινε σ‟ εκείνους τους ανθρώπους όπου την έστειλε ο Ώιμίλιος. „Λα „χα ένα φίλο, να „χα ένα φίλο!‟ έλεγε σαν ήταν παιδί, και τότε δεν τον έβρισκε. Ρώρα τέλος βρήκε (35). Because of their relationship, Polixeni becomes much more than just his woman; she is influenced by his political ideology and inevitably initiated in the movement, so that she becomes his comrade as well. In the external analepsis of Chapter 3, the narrator recounts the conversation between Aimilios and Polixeni in which he asks her to join his cause. The choice to divulge this verbatim in reported discourse not only emphasises the seriousness of his proposal, but it also leaves the reader with the certainty that Polixeni‟s choice was her own. Despite admitting that she did not understand the concept of fascism (33), her attachment to Aimilios prompts her to take up his cause and she is even willing to give up her life for it: „΋ταν θα „ρθεί η στιγμή. Ζα θέλεις τότε, της λέει, να πας ακόμα και στο θάνατο;‟ Θαι του λέει: „Ζα θέλω‟. „Θι αν δεν καταλαβαίνεις τώρα, όμως αν έρθει η ώρα, το ορκίζεσαι πως θα το κάμεις;‟ της λέει. Ρου λέει „Ρο ορκίζομαι‟ (30). The significance of this is also evident in intrusions in the analepsis that refer to this conversation. The first is presented by the narrator in narratised discourse,

131 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

alluding to Polixeni‟s participation in the communist movement as a „rebirth‟, changing her life and leading to her incarceration and, subsequently, death row: Ήταν μια μέρα εκείνη, που σα να μετάνιωσαν οι μοίρες που μοιράζουνε την τύχη κάθε ανθρώπου την ώρα που γεννιέται, κ‟ ξαναμαζευτήκανε γύρω στην Ξολυξένη να της χαράξουν απ‟αλλού το δρόμο της ζωής (31). The second interruption, which could only be possible by focalization through Polixeni, reveals her own retrospective thoughts as she waits on death row in the narrative present. Disturbing the analepsis that recounts the memory of her meeting with Aimilios three years after he asks her to join his cause, the narrative present reiterates Polixeni‟s original promise to Aimilios: „Ρον κράτησα βέβαια [τον όρκο]‟ σκεφτότανε τώρα η Ξολυξένη. „Θι‟ αν χρειάζεται, τ‟ορκίζεσαι, ακόμα και στο θάνατο;‟ „Ρ‟ ορκίζομαι‟ του είχα πει. Ήταν η πρώτη μέρα, όταν έγινα γυναίκα του (100). The inclusion of her thoughts in the narrative present also serves to reinforce her continued and wilful allegiance to Aimilios but also to the communist cause: „Κα δε μ‟ έφερε ο όρκος, εδώ. Πτη φυλακή. Ήρθα γιατί κατάλαβα. Βεν μπορούσα να φύγω‟ (100). The change in internal focalization to external focalization after Polixeni‟s execution allows the narrator to continue with her focus on Aimilios and his role in Polixeni‟s life. A mole on Polixeni‟s body becomes the point upon which the narrator contrasts the refugee Aimilios and „Τάρος‟ (Charon).19 While Aimilios was the first to touch Polixeni‟s mole in life after consummating their relationship, this union led to her incarceration and now to Charon, to whom Polixeni is conferred since she was an unmarried woman when she died. While the narrative would have been complete without its last chapter, its inclusion becomes an epilogue to the story of Polixeni‟s life and reintroduces Aimilios to the reader. A transition in the time of the narrative occurs with a definite explicit ellipsis of two and a half years. The time omitted is from the day of Polixeni‟s execution on 2 May 1944, which is presented at the end of Chapter 6, to

19 Τάρος (Charon) in modern Greek folklore is a personification of death. It was widely believed that when an unmarried woman dies Charon takes her to be his bride.

132 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

the narrative present of Chapter 7 set on 1 December 1946, as revealed to the reader through a newspaper Aimilios is reading while in jail with Polixeni‟s father (144). The omission of this time is probably because it was insignificant to the plot, which reinforces that the narrative‟s focus is Polixeni‟s incarceration and her retrospection as presented in the analepsis. With the external focalization allowing the narrator to inform the reader of the fate of Polixeni‟s father and Aimilios, this chapter uses repeating narrative to reacquaint the reader with Aimilios: „Πηκώθηκε ο Ώιμίλιος, που „χε έρθει απ‟ την Θαισάρεια με μια γριά Παλώμη κ‟ πούλαγε νταντέλες εκείνο τον παλιό καιρό‟ (142). The mention of his early life at this point of the narrative illustrates and reiterates Aimilios‟ transformation from a poor young refugee boy to a prominent figure in the communist movement. It also serves as a subtle reminder of Aimilios‟ refugee status even though this does not appear to be an important attribute at this time, either in his life or in the narrative.

*****

Regardless of the varied personal experiences of the authors featured in this chapter, their three novels present stories featuring refugee characters through extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators, who employ the technique of internal focalization. This provides the narrators with the ability to describe certain events that are focalized through particular characters, though the narrator maintains control of the narrative at all times. Despite these similarities, each author portrays the refugees in a different manner, though all of them positive. From the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the three novels, from a narratological perspective, we find that refugee characters are not included in the narratives for the explicit purpose of presenting the refugee experience. Instead, they are integrated into the storyline as part of the historical period in which the novel is set. Nevertheless, Axioti‟s novel, Εικοστός αιώνας, gives more emphasis to refugee characters than the other two. Salome and, to a greater extent, Aimilios play a critical role in the novel as catalysts for the protagonist‟s predicament. It appears that the narrator is enhancing the stereotype of the struggling refugees as the promoters of communist ideology. Furthermore, the use of the refugee

133 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

characters in this narrative arouses the reader‟s sympathy not because they are refugees per se, but because they fight for a cause they believe will improve their own situation and those of their compatriots. While the narrator‟s use of external analepsis with intrusions of the narrative present mimics the way the native Polixeni muses upon her story, it also characterises the way her past has informed her present. In Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, Lountemis‟ use of narrative techniques provokes a strong reaction in the reader towards the subject matter, which is perceived through the eyes of Melios. Told in chronological time, it is clear that the focus of the story is on the adventures of the protagonist. The refugees‟ presence in the novel‟s narrative situation is quantitatively infrequent but they are constantly in the back of the reader‟s mind. While the narrator is preoccupied with following the focalizer, Melios, who teaches in the Greek village Axiokomi, we know that at the same time other natives are helping the refugees. Furthermore, the plight of the refugees as presented in the narrative invokes in the reader feelings of sympathy because they are presented mostly as hopeless, unfortunate and powerless to improve their situation without the help of others. Finally, the appearance of the refugees in this story serves a didactic purpose. Using Melios‟ internal focalization to present the refugee characters, the narrator shows their vulnerability and through Melios‟ actions provides the reader with an example, educating his readers on how to be humane and to assist those less fortunate.20 Theotokas‟ Λεωνής is the only novel in this selection whose narrator and focalizer is a refugee and whose name is lent to the title of the narrative. While an informed reader would be aware of the similarities between the lives of the author and the narrator, both are refugees, Theotokas‟ choice to use the technique of heterodiegetic person has the effect of creating distance between himself and the protagonist. Adhering to the narrative situation, the extradiegetic narrator chose Stasinos as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator to present an alternative view of certain issues, revealing a rather controversial opinion. The techniques used to present Leonis foster sympathy for him because his position as the focalizer of the

20 Another novel in the corpus that employs native characters as examples of how one should treat the refugees is Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες.

134 Refugees and Narrators PART ONE: Chapter 2

narrative demonstrates the narrator‟s intention to communicate to the reader the inner turmoil of a young refugee boy, particularly regarding his refugee identity. In so doing, we are able to understand Leonis‟ lost identity in his role as a refugee and because we know his back-story, we are able to recognise his loss and feel compassionate for him. As for Stasinos, he is presented sympathetically also, as his intradiegetic narration portrays a psychology well beyond his years. While we are also inclined to sympathise with Stasinos, this feeling is stronger for Leonis whose thoughts as the focalizer of the story we have been privy to throughout the novel. Through our study of the way the authors use and present refugee characters in these novels, it appears that an author‟s personal experiences of refugeehood does not lead to more prominence given to the refugees in their novels, at least not in this selection of the authors‟ works. While one could assume that the Constantinopolitan authors would dedicate more of their work to the refugees, considering they also experienced persecution by the Turks and were considered for a time refugees themselves, it is the native author Axioti who really emphasises the refugees in her novel. Although it could be a result of the author‟s desire to show positive characteristics of communist supporters, Axioti‟s presentation of the refugees highlights their active participation in Greek politics and their concern for the improvement of Greek society, despite propagating the common stereotype of refugees as communist supporters. In contrast to the refugees in Εικοστός αιώνας, the refugees in Lountemis‟ and Theotokas‟ novels play roles that are more passive in Greek society. While this difference could be explained by the desire for these Constantinopolitan refugee writers to depict the universal theme of identity, it could also be a result of the temporal setting of each novel. For instance, Εικοστός αιώνας focuses on the interwar years in which communist activity was at its height, while both Αγέλαστη άνοιξη and Λεωνής depict a period just after the Disaster, before refugees were able to assimilate into Greek society, when the identity issue of the displaced was still a contemporary issue.

135 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO

PART TWO REFUGEES AS PROTAGONISTS: EXTRADIEGETIC-HETERODIEGETIC NARRATORS AND ZERO FOCALIZATION

The three novels examined in this part are Γαλήνη (1939) by the refugee author Ilias Venezis, Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) by the Constantinopolitan author Tatiana Stavrou and Πρόσφυγες (1994) by the native Greek author Grigorios Xenopoulos. This could be perceived as an odd combination of novels, considering the extent that the first two novels focus on the refugee experience. As Doulis notes, Venezis‟ and Stavrou‟s novels share: [...] much more than a common subject matter. Both novels concentrate exclusively on the economic, psychological, and social problems encountered by the Anatolian refugees trying to establish themselves in Greece (1977: 97). As for Xenopoulos‟ novel, Doulis describes it as a „sentimental romance‟ (1977: 76), which is typical of the Xenopoulos novel. Regardless of the level of sophistication of each novel‟s plot, they are included in this study because they feature the refugee as a character. The narrators in the narrative situations of these novels tell a story that he or she is not part of. Traditionally known as the third-person narrator, the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator sources their information using zero focalization or in other words, from any point of view necessary to reveal the story. Despite sharing the same narrative situation as those novels in Chapter 1, the novels included in this part differ markedly and therefore require a different approach. All three novels in this part were first published in the 1930s when the Disaster and the refugees‟ arrival in Greece were contemporary issues for the novels‟ implied narratees, unlike the novels in Chapter One. Furthermore, where the refugees were presented because of their association with the native characters as seen in the novels in Chapter One, the native characters featured in the novels in this chapter are presented through their association with the refugees. Finally,

136 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO

owing to the extensive coverage of the refugees and their issues in the works examined in this chapter they have been allotted a separate part, with each novel examined in a distinct chapter. For the sake of brevity, analysis of narrative techniques in all three novels has been restricted to instances in the main plot where the narrative techniques produce a specific effect on the reader‟s perception of the refugee. The novel Γαλήνη (1939) by the well-known refugee author Venezis is examined in Chapter 3. Born in 1904 in Aivali, Asia Minor, Venezis fled to Mytilene with his family during the persecution of the Christians in the First World War, returning to Aivali in 1919 as the Greek army took over Smyrna. When Venezis was 18, the Turks captured him in their forced labour battalions. After his release about a year later, he returned to Mytilene where his family had been living. In 1932, he relocated to Athens where he died in 1973. Venezis‟ experience of the Disaster is well documented in numerous scholarly studies, biographies and interviews, and is often the subject of his literary works. It is well documented that Σο Νούμερο 31328 is based on the author‟s personal experiences of the Disaster, as is his novel Γαλήνη (Kafetzaki 2003: 277). This link is also evident in the author‟s request to be buried in Molivos, Lesvos, with his gravestone marked with the word: „Ααλήνη‟ (serenity). Even the range of characters depicted in the narrative shows a close semblance to Venezis‟ own life. For instance, Venezis‟ daughter was named Anna, as is the protagonist‟s1 and the similarity between the author‟s pseudonym, Venezis,2 and the protagonist‟s surname, Venis. According to Kafetzaki, this is not the only similarity between Venis and Venezis as she draws a parallel between them based on the motif of the roses: „Ν γιατρός ΐένης, ως στάση ζωής, είναι ο συγγραφέας και η δική του απάντηση στα γεγονότα‟ (2003: 300). Doulis (1977: 102-3) suggests that the convincing depiction of the character Andreas‟ psychological state could be a result of Venezis‟ own experiences. Finally, we can claim, therefore, that Venezis‟

1 In a conference paper called, „Κύθος και Ξραγματικότητα στη «Ααλήνη» του Ελία ΐενέζη‟ the author, Dalakoglou (2000), shows that the various facets of Venezis‟ Γαλήνη are adaptations of true stories that the author was aware of prior to writing the book. 2 Ilias Venezis is the pseudonym of Ilias Mellos.

137 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO

own refugee experiences and living amongst refugees in Mytilene and Athens did provide him with much knowledge and familiarity with refugee life; perhaps more than any other author in this study. The novel examined in Chapter 4 is Οι πρώτες ρίζες by Tatiana Stavrou who was born in Constantinople in 1899. Stavrou‟s arrival in Athens because of the Disaster would have provided her with much knowledge of the refugee experience. First published in 1936, Οι πρώτες ρίζες is an important text because it is the first novel to concentrate exclusively on stories of refugees who either fled their home prior to the Disaster or arrived in Greece as a direct result of it. The novel includes various refugee characters from Pontus, Smyrna and Kios, but preference is given to people from Constantinople, mainly women.3 The narrator‟s depiction of a microcosm of refugee stories recounted in the diegesis is implied in the novel by the native Greek character Hristoulias, who describing the refugee employees hired in his insurance broker business, fittingly expresses the substance of the entire narrative: „Γδώ μέσα κατάντησε προσφυγική εγκατάσταση... Ώντιπροσωπεύεται όλος ο υπόδουλος ελληνισμός. Βεν πιστεύω να μας λείπει κανένα specimen‟ (57). Xenopoulos, the author of Πρόσφυγες (1994), which is presented in Chapter 5, was born in Constantinople in 1867. Despite this, he is categorised here as a native since he lived in Greece from a very early age. Migrating to in 1868 with his family, Xenopoulos moved to Athens permanently in 1892, where he remained until his death in 1951. Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες (1994) focuses on middle class refugees, in particular young refugee women, with an emphasis on the romantic aspects of their lives.

While all three novels present their story through the same narrative situation and all three authors have substantial experience of the refugee conditions in Greece, by the end of this part we will determined how the authors, through their narrators, employ Genette‟s categories to present refugee characters.

3 For this analysis, I used the 1st edition published by Θύκλος in 1936.

138 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3 A REFUGEE AUTHOR’S NARRATIVE

Ilias Venezis, Γαλήνη

While refugee characters and the theme of the Disaster in this novel have been analysed by Doulis (1977) and more extensively by Kafetzaki (2003), their approach and methodology differs from the one used in this study. Doulis‟ discussion of Venezis‟ novel provides a synopsis of the story, focusing on the general theme of the refugee experience (1977: 102-5). Kafetzaki‟ analysis of Γαλήνη it is much more in depth than Doulis‟ as she concentrates on how particular themes, motifs and metaphors portray the image of the refugee in this novel (2003: 277-301). Although our discussion of this novel does inevitably touch upon the issues raised by Doulis and Kafetzaki, neither scholar considers the narrative techniques employed by the author. In particular, the focus of this chapter remains on the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques to produce a specific affect on the reader‟s perception of the refugees. First published in 1939, Venezis‟ Γαλήνη (1939) features an extradiegetic- heterodiegetic narrator who presents the arrival and assimilation of a group of refugees in Anavissos, a previously uninhabited location in Greece.1 By employing the technique of zero focalization, the narrator provides a spectrum of stories depicting the way refugees from different social classes and backgrounds coped with their new life, in particular, their battle with the elements, themselves and nearby natives to assimilate to this area. This type of focalization allows the narrator to reveal the inner sentiments of the refugees, arousing the reader‟s sympathy for them. The narrative present of Γαλήνη begins in July 1923 and the story is told in chronological time with analepses embellishing the stories of the refugees. Taking complete control of the diegesis, the extradiegetic narrator does not allow any other

1 For this analysis, I used the 1st edition published by Ξυρσός in 1939. Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, we will refer to the narrator as he since the author is male and it seems as though the narrator has a male voice.

139 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

character to assume the role of an intradiegetic narrator. While this ensures that refugees and their assimilation to Greek society remain explicitly the narrative‟s focus, it also prohibits readers from connecting with the characters since no characters are given narratorial privileges. Assessing the novel from a thematic point to view, Doulis states that Venezis presents an unconvincing portrayal of the refugees because: Venezis‟ ambition to design a communal novel, which demanded that he document the establishment of a refugee village, compelled him to control the development of Irene […] and to subordinate [her] character. (1977: 104) Despite Venezis‟ presentation of a number of refugee characters, he does not deal with the intricacies of the refugee psyche as much as he possibly could have. However, Irene is the most complex character of those in the novel, perhaps because she is the only refugee who really struggles with this new identity. Even though Doulis criticises Venezis‟ presentation of a „monochrome of refugee life‟ (105), which is echoed in the analysis to follow, Doulis seems to overlook the possibility that the author may have consciously created his refugee characters without any real depth and without the intricacies of the refugee psyche so as to minimise the trauma in his fiction that was large part of his real life. This could explain the reason his narrator chose to omit lengthy personal intradiegetic narrations and allow the facts revealed by the heterodiegetic narrator to speak for themselves. Despite the pitfalls Doulis views in Γαλήνη, this chapter shows that through various narrative techniques the reader does engage with the refugee characters. The narrator of Γαλήνη organises his material into two sequential parts, which combine to present an intense portrayal of a number of refugee characters.2 The first part details the initial assimilation of the refugees in Anavissos, introducing the main characters of the story. Their reactions to

2 In particular, the reader is introduced to 14 refugee characters; 8 of these are female, five are middle-aged and three are adolescent girls. It also features 3 elderly men; 1 middle- aged man; and 2 younger men, one of whom is a returned prisoner of war.

140 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

refugeehood are supplemented by the second part of the novel, which informs the reader of their daily life and their adjustment to their new home. Within the narrative‟s focus on the refugee experience, two plots occupy the diegesis. The main plot of the novel involves the assimilation to Greece of the Venis family, consisting of the protagonist Dimitris, his wife Irene and their daughter Anna. The story involving these characters deals with Dimitris‟ plan to grow roses, which brings to light the tense relationship between Dimitris and Irene. Although Dimitris is the protagonist, Irene‟s role becomes more prominent because she is the exception in a group of characters who adjust to their new life and improve their situation, as Doulis explains: „Irene lacks the resilience of the others because, without love, she sees no purpose to her life, particularly when she is being pulled into a lower social class by her husband‟s ineffectuality‟ (1977: 104). Other minor refugee characters associated with the Venis family are Irene‟s sister Maria, the family‟s family friend Sofia and her son Andreas who is a returned prisoner of the forced labour battalions. Interrupting the main plot, the novel‟s secondary story line concerns itself with the assimilation of the Glaros family, which includes Fotis, his first wife Eleni, their children Zambeta and Avgi, and Fotis‟ second wife Vaso. While the novel‟s heavy focus on refugees provides ample information that could be analysed from various thematic perspectives, this analysis aims to address the way narrative techniques are used in the treatment of the main plot to produce a specific effect on the reader. From the first description of the refugees, the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques incites the reader‟s sympathy. The narrator chooses to focalize through two native men who understand the difficulties associated with the area the refugees are approaching. Their dialogue foreshadows the complications to be faced by the refugees: - Αια κοίταξε! Γίπε απορημένος στο σύντροφό του. Ρι να ‟ναι; - Θοπάδι γίδια θα „ναι! Ρι άλλο; Κα ο πρώτος δεν συμφωνούσε. - Βε γίνεται να „ναι κοπάδι στο μονοπάτι απάνω, τέτοια ώρα. Άνθρωποι θα ‟ναι! - Άνθρωποι εδώ; Θαι τόσοι; Νι αλυκές είναι γεμάτες χέρια. Ρι θα κάνουν; (11)

141 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

The narrator‟s inclusion in reported discourse of the natives‟ dialogue that attempts to explain the refugees‟ arrival in this unhospitable area affects the reader who is aware that the newcomers‟ situation is more dire and tragic than what the natives initially thought: Ρι γυρεύει τόσος κόσμος, γυναίκες και παιδιά, στην ερημιά της Ώναβύσσου; Κήπως χτύπησε τη γη πουθενά σεισμός και γκρέμισαν τα χωριά κι οι άνθρωποι πήραν στην απελπισία τους, το μονοπάτι για τη θάλασσα; (12) The narrator‟s inclusion of a mixed analepsis at this point in the narrative to present the refugees‟ journey to Anavissos illustrates the refugees‟ strong desire to settle. This analepsis then meets up with the diegesis from where it interrupted, that is, with the meeting between the refugees and the natives. The narrative present, depicting this interaction illustrates the refugees‟ sense of pride with perhaps slight smugness at their unique situation, as they reply to one of the local men‟s derogatory question: „Ρι είσαστε;‟ (15), with „Ξρόσφυγες είμαστε‟ (15). From this moment, there is no doubt that the focal point of the narrative is the refugees, who hold the reader‟s attention throughout the story. Although the locals warn the refugees that their stay could result in death for themselves and their children, the refugees continue to search for an area to settle, provoking the natives to describe them as „απελπισμένοι‟ (desperate) and „παλιοφάρα‟ (nasty mob) (15). The dialogue between the refugees and the local men as presented in reported discourse in the narrative present in combination with the analepsis emphasises the refugees‟ desperation and strong desire to settle as they do so despite the native‟s strong warnings (15). Central to the main plot is the presentation of Dimitris and Irene Venis, whose tense relationship becomes obvious to the reader. Doctor Dimitris Venis is the protagonist of the novel and the title Γαλήνη (Serenity) is associated with his cultivation of roses. There is little practical sense in refugees growing rose bushes, but for Dimitris, „[the roses] help him show the “rooting” of a people so harshly uprooted‟ (Doulis 1977: 103). In particular, they symbolise Dimitris‟ hope for the refugees‟ assimilation to the land; that the refugees will accept, prosper and grow in Greece, as these roses will (Kafetzaki 2003: 300). Even from Dimitris‟ first appearance, the reader gains a pleasant impression of him, and his optimism

142 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

sets the tone for his presentation throughout the narrative. While Dimitris‟ adaptation to refugeehood is peaceful as he is able to cope with the changes forced upon him, this positive and optimistic disposition along with the planting of the roses increase the tension between him and Irene. Clearly unable to understand the importance of hope in their situation, Irene isolates herself from the rest of the refugees and even from her own family. The reader‟s sympathy for Dimitris and pity for Irene is elicited through the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques to present the issue of the roses. Through reported discourse, the reader is privy to numerous occasions where Irene mocks Dimitris‟ optimistic attitude; however, their hostile relationship becomes more pronounced when he reveals to her his goal for their future. The significance of this goal that would shape his family‟s future is evident in the way it is presented by the narrator in the following reported discourse, with a pause for effect: - Θι έπειτα... είπε ο Βημήτρης ΐένης κι η φωνή του έγινε επίσημη. Αύρισε το πρόσωπό της, κινημένη απ‟ την αλλαγή του τόνου. - Θι έπειτα; - Θι έπειτα θα φυτέψω τριαντάφυλλα στον τόπο που θα ξεχερσώσουμε, είπε ο ΐένης κι η φωνή του λίγο έτρεμε. (45) Dimitris‟ trembling voice and his pause are signs of emotion, but they could also be a result of his anticipation of Irene‟s disapproval, showing his hesitation to reveal his objective to her. As Dimitris expected, his goal provides another cause for Irene‟s growing resentment of him, as she says: „Βεν έκανες ποτές σου τίποτα που να μην ήταν ανώφελο και μέτριο‟ (45). Dimitris‟ argument for growing roses identifies two main issues faced by the refugees. A first reason, that roses hold a higher market value than wheat, deals with the obvious issue of survival since the refugees had to use any resource available. The second reason, that growing roses was part of his ancestry, touches on the common practise of refugees and other displaced persons to create a home away from home; in Dimitris‟ case, the cultivation of roses provided this necessary link. While Irene‟s inability to understand this need should arouse readers‟ antipathy, it actually elicits their pity for her. They realise that unlike the rest of

143 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

the refugees, many of whom are in a worse situation, Irene is unable to deal with her new identity, as Doulis claims: Irene‟s „negative and life-hating attitudes are a convincing reflection of what people would have been like after seeing their life wasted and their past uprooted‟ (1977: 103). Appearing to comment on the way a person‟s past can affect their future, the narrator seems to suggest that the differing effects of refugeehood is a result of the refugees‟ social status in Asia Minor. For instance, the way Eleni Glaros copes, as a representative of the lower social class, is contrasted with that of Irene, who derives from a prosperous family, as Eleni implies in the following reported discourse: „καημένη κυρία, λέει πάλι, είναι βαρύ για σένα‟ (26). Later in the narrative, Dimitris also restates the notion that one‟s past can assist in their management of refugeehood. Using Eleni as an example of those less fortunate than his family, but who are able to cope with their situation, he says, „Αιατί λοιπόν, τούτοι οι απλοί άνθρωποι μπορούν να συμβιβάζονται με τη μοίρα τους κι όχι κι εμείς;‟ (62-3). The narrator seems to touch on an answer to this enquiry, implying that people of Eleni‟s class never required anything more than the necessities needed to survive, unlike those of the higher classes (81). The narrator‟s pity for Irene turns to sympathy since she does show some character development, contrary to Doulis‟ claims (1977: 103). By the end of the novel, through the narrator‟s use of various narrative techniques, Irene‟s character softens. Recognising her isolation and hopelessness, she does attempt to change her life, even if it ruins Dimitris‟ plans. The narrator‟s use of reported discourse to present Irene‟s dialogue with Fotis highlights her perception of his ambition as foolish and emphasises her attempt to humiliate Dimitris for his plan. Scornfully informing Fotis about the roses, her repetition of Dimitris‟ aim and the tone with which she tells Fotis of Dimitris‟ plans illustrates her sarcasm and abhorrence of this dream: - Ζα καλλιεργήσουμε και μεις γη, Σώτη, του λέει. Ρο έμαθες; - Βιαλέξατε πού θα πάρετε κλήρο; Οώτησε αυτός. Ξοιος σας διάλεξε τόπο; - Θα καλλιεργήσουμε τις ρίζες του βουνού εδώ, είπε η Γιρήνη ΐένη. Κι ύστερα... Κι ύστερα θα φυτέψουμε τριαντάφυλλα! Θοίταξε τον απλό άνθρωπο επίμονα και αυστηρά, χαιρόμενη την έκπληξη που ζωγραφιζόταν στο πρόσωπό του.

144 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

- Κι ύστερα θα φυτέψουμε τριαντάφυλλα! Μαναείπε μ‟ ένα τόνο θριάμβου και χλευασμού. (46, emphasis added) However, Irene‟s plan to degrade Dimitris seems to backfire as Fotis‟ composed and considered reaction demonstrates his understanding of Irene‟s frustration and his respect for Dimitris‟ choice (47). Analepsis seems to be the narrator‟s prime narrative technique to influence the reader‟s perception of Irene as it is used interchangeably with the narrative present to encourage the reader‟s sympathy. The mention of the arrival of Irene‟s sister Maria provides the narrator with an opportunity to include an external analepsis explaining Maria‟s life. According to Irene, Maria‟s life was much better than hers despite Maria‟s hardships, which include becoming a widow, raising a son alone during the First World War, expulsion from her home twice and her son‟s capture by the Turks to work in their forced labour battalions (61-2). This analepsis seems to reinforce the reader‟s perception of Irene as unappreciative and ignorant of her own fortune. An earlier mixed analepsis that was presented earlier in the novel through Eleni‟s focalization reveals that Irene was much more privileged than her sister was. Eleni‟s analepsis stems from a conversation between Irene and Eleni, who challenges Irene‟s belief that Dimitris is to blame for her misfortune. Eleni‟s analepsis about Irene shows that her attitude has stemmed from a series of unfortunate incidences and not a direct result of Dimitris‟ actions. Irene had an aristocratic upbringing as the privileged daughter of the British Consul in Aivali. The loss of the family‟s fortune, symbolised by the loss of the stone lions at the front of her house, was the first blow to her happy childhood (28).3 Following this, her father vanished whilst on a trip to Smyrna and, when her servant died, she married Dimitris, with whom she had an unhappy marriage (26, see also 31-3). Later in the novel an external analepsis set in Aegina confirms that Dimitris and Irene‟s relationship was difficult before they reached Anavissos (153). This analepsis is important to the reader‟s understanding

3 The symbolic status of stone lions is a theme in Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. In both novels, the stone lions represent the refugee characters‟ prosperity and status in their respective societies.

145 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

of Dimitris and Irene‟s character, for if it were not included the reader would be left with the impression that Dimitris is responsible for Irene‟s feelings of despair. While the distinction between Irene‟s attitude and that of other characters shows another facet to the refugee psyche, the inclusion of Irene‟s back-story and inner turmoil makes her the only multifaceted character in the novel. With an entire chapter devoted to Irene and her desolation, the narrator brings his readers closer to Irene, as they begin to understand her solitary position amongst the village of refugees. The narrator claims that although Irene‟s exterior showed a lack of faith, secretly she hoped, but nothing in Irene‟s life changed (206). An account of the transformations and developments that were occurring to other refugees is a technique used by the narrator to highlight the lack of change in Irene‟s life (206-7).4 The narrator‟s inclusion of an external analepsis at this point in the narrative present explains Irene‟s feelings of isolation. Set in her home in Asia Minor when she was still a girl, the analepsis depicts her interaction with a young naval officer who asks her if she feels isolated in her homeland. Although he was probably referring to Asia Minor‟s isolation in the war, Irene‟s answer shows her personal interpretation of this question: „΋χι, γιατί να αισθάνομαι ερημιά; Ρου αποκρίθηκε. Ραξιδεύω όποτε θέλω. Ν τόπος μας είναι όμορφος. Έχω και ένα άλογο‟ (207). As can be seen, because Irene was in her homeland she had no reason to feel isolated, suggesting that her current feelings of seclusion is a consequence of her indifference to this new home. Irene‟s isolation is also emphasised through her strained relationship with her daughter Anna. While their mother-daughter relationship should be a loving one, it contrasts significantly to Anna‟s relationship with Maria, who takes on a motherly role towards Anna. Apart from the many examples that show their loving relationship, Maria‟s importance to Anna is best noted in Anna‟s final moments. Seeming to indicate the significance of Maria in Anna‟s life, the narrator specifically mentions that although Anna was not accustomed to kissing

4 Such changes include the refugees‟ acceptance of their fate in Greece, the development and enhancement of their lives in general, creation of the next generation by pregnant refugee women and the absence of disease resulting from Dimitris‟ plan of drainage for the region (206-7).

146 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

Maria goodbye, she was compelled to do so on what was to turn out to be her final farewell (219). Ultimately, however, Maria‟s motherly role is evident in the return of Anna‟s body, where she assumes an important role in Greek custom: accepting Anna‟s body and preparing it for burial; a role her mother should have assumed, for even the narrator comments: „Βέχτηκε την Άννα σαν τη φέρανε, αντί για τη μητέρα της, η θεία Καρία‟ (234). The narrator directly portrays Irene‟s apathy by contrasting her attitude with that of other refugees. When Irene shows compassion regarding the lack of rain, the narrator relays the shock that it was not only a woman who calmed the men, but the despondent Irene: „Θαι τώρα γυναίκα ήρθε ν‟ αντιδράσει στον παραλογισμό τους. Θανείς δεν το περίμενε απ‟ την Γιρήνη ΐένη, που έδειχνε τόσο αδιάφορη στη ζωή των καλυβιών‟ (66). Just as the reader‟s opinion of her is about to change since Irene begins to show some form of warmth towards other refugees, the indifference she shows about the drought when Dimitris congratulates her for instilling hope in the men reaffirms her apathetic attitude. While another example of her indifference is evident in her reaction to the returning prisoners of war, this also highlights the intensity of her insensitivity and hopelessness, considering the news involved her own nephew‟s return. The narrator begins by describing the happiness of the refugee village at the prospect of any prisoner returning to his family: Ρα βόδια σταμάτησαν να τραβούν το αλέτρι και γυρίσανε αργά τα πικρά τους μάτια, σε ανατολή και σε δύση. Ρο σίδερο, που έσκαβε τη γη, έπεσε απ‟ τα χέρια του ανθρώπου κι έμεινε εκεί. Ν λάκκος που ανοίγανε έμεινε ανοιχτός, τα πρόβατα ξεσηκώθηκαν απ‟ τη μακάρια ακινησία του μεσημεριού. Θι όλα, οι άνθρωποι, τα σίδερα, τα ζωντανά, χίμηξαν, μαγνητισμένα, προς τα χαμηλά. - Αυρίζουν, λοιπόν! (118) The narrator‟s comparison between this reaction and that inside the Venis household shows that Irene‟s reaction is disparate from any other: Θαι στο σπίτι του γιατρού ΐένη όλα είχαν σφραγηχτεί με την ταραχή της χαράς: Ρο πρόσωπό της μισότυφλης γυναίκας, της θείας-Καρίας, τα χέρια του ΐένη, το αίμα στις φλέβες του κοριτσιού.

147 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

΋λα. Κονάχα στο πρόσωπο της Γιρήνη ΐένη η παγερή ακινησία δεν είχε κινηθεί παρά απροσδιόριστα. Ήταν φανερό πως έπαιρνε μέρος στην αλλαγή μονάχα από χρέος. (118, emphasis added) Irene‟s reaction shows a measure of her inner turmoil, promoting the reader‟s pity for her because her despondency influences her ability to sympathise with her own sister. In addition to this, Irene‟s unwarranted reaction to Anna‟s request to join in the celebrations of the returning men from the forced labour battalions illustrates an absurd apathy to the prisoners‟ return (119). Similarly, Irene‟s unreasonable response to the news that Anna visited their family friend Sofia, whose son is a prisoner of war, also highlights Irene‟s irrational emotional state. The dialogue presenting this illustrates a significant contrast between Irene on the one hand, and Anna and Dimitris on the other: Γίχε αργήσει πολύ [η Άννα], και σαν έφτανε στο σπίτι τους, η μητέρα της τη δέχτηκε θυμωμένα. - Κα τι έγινες τόση ώρα; Ξού ήσουν; - Πκέφτηκα πως η θεία Ποφία θα ήταν μονάχη. Ξήγα να τη συντροφέψω λίγο στη χαρά της, δικαιολογήθηκε. - Θαι το νόμισες τόση ανάγκη να πας; - Mα γιατί το λες αυτό, Γιρήνη; Κπήκε στη μέση ο γιατρός πειραγμένος. Ήταν ωραίο που το σκέφτηκε το παιδί, να πάει σε μια μητέρα έρημη. Θαι γυρίζοντας στην κόρη του: - Ιοιπόν, τι έκανε η Ποφία, Άννα; - Ξροσευχόταν. Ήταν χαρούμενη και περιμένει. - Όλος, λοιπόν, ο κόσμος περιμένει... λέει σκληρά η Γιρήνη ΐένη. - ΋λοι περιμένουν, μητέρα, απαντά στον ίδιο τόνο η Άννα. (122, emphasis added) While Irene‟s attitude could arouse negative emotions towards her since she shows a complete lack of compassion for Sofia and her fellow refugees, readers‟ understanding of Irene‟s past as disclosed in the earlier analepses may soften their perception of her since they are aware of the reasons for her attitude, namely her difficulty adjusting to her new social status.

148 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

The portrayal of Irene‟s reaction to Eleni‟s death as presented in Irene‟s reported discourse also illustrates the complexity of her character as the narrator allows Irene to express her inner turmoil directly to the reader. Though Irene‟s reaction could be viewed as a measure of her disrespect for the dead and ungratefulness to Eleni for her service as her maid, it is also an acknowledgement of Irene‟s own despair: Ε Γιρήνη ΐένη κατέβηκε μια στιγμή, είδε το λείψανο κι ύστερα την έπιασε τόση ταραχή, που τη βοηθήσανε ν‟ ανέβει στην κάμαρά της. Ήταν έξαλλη. - Αιατί δεν την πήγατε κάπου αλλού! Αιατί δεν την πήγατε κάπου αλλού! Θι εσύ πως βαστάς σ‟ αυτή τη φρίκη; Σώναξε στην κόρη της, που θέλησε να την καταπραΰνει. - Κα είναι τόσο δυστυχισμένοι, της αποκρίθηκε συγκρατώντας την αγανάχτησή της. Θι‟αυτή η γυναίκα μας δούλεψε τόσο πιστά. - Γίμαι και γω δυστυχισμένη! Βεν μπορώ πια... Βεν μπορώ!... Ε Άννα τη σκέπασε στο κρεβάτι της και κατέβηκε κάτω. (90) Despite the negative emotions towards Irene that her reported discourse may arouse in some readers, Anna‟s disregard of Irene‟s admission of despair illustrates Irene‟s isolation even from her own daughter. While Anna‟s detachment from her mother could be a normal reaction because of their vast differences in personality, through the presentation of Irene‟s inner turmoil the reader begins to feel negatively towards Anna who does not appear willing to understand her mother‟s anguish. The reader‟s sympathy for Irene is also elicited when Anna disregards Maria‟s request to comfort Irene when she becomes distressed because of the blooming roses. While the narrator‟s emphasis of Irene‟s belief that the roses will not bloom by repeating this in reported discourse four times (169) suggests Irene‟s determination to convince those around her that Dimitris‟ dream is futile, it could also be an attempt to convince herself that she truly has nothing to hope for, despite nature‟s evidence to the contrary. Though Irene‟s reaction to the happiness shown by Dimitris, Anna and Maria could be described as contempt (168-9), the narrator‟s inclusion of Irene‟s thoughts in narratised discourse reiterates her attitude towards her refugeehood and the affirmation of her recognition of her isolation arouses the reader‟s sympathy:

149 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

Ε Γιρήνη ΐένη, βλέπει καθαρά, πόσο εκείνη μονάχα έμεινε ξένη, έμεινε να μην περιμένει και να μην έχει να πιστεύει τίποτα, μέσα σ‟αυτό το τοπίο των ανθρώπων, το βρεμένο με το ίδιο αίμα, που τρέχει στις φλέβες της. (169) While the blooming roses symbolise Dimitris‟ hope for the refugees‟ future, ironically for Irene they become the final indication that she has nothing to hope for and the catalyst that leads her to destroy Dimitris‟ hope through the uprooting of the roses (213-4). Dimitris‟ depiction in the novel is positive, but his disregard of Irene‟s feelings appears to be a catalyst for her complete loss of control, culminating in the destruction of his dreams by the end of the novel. It appears that the arrival of the local road-worker, who is billeted in their home, provides Irene with the motivation to escape her isolation and the „continued life with her husband in the refugee village‟ (Doulis 1977: 104). In the narrative present, Irene is depicted as having returned home to find that Dimitris ignored her request to have the man removed from their home because of his sexual advances towards her. The narrator presents Irene‟s antipathy for the local in an internal analepsis. This explains the first of his advances towards her, her request to Dimitris, and her warning to him about his decision: „Θοίταξε μη μετανιώσεις γι‟ αυτό που κάνεις‟ (208). This warning foreshadows the family‟s downfall that is a result of a number of factors. For instance, their declining social and financial status (202-3), Dimitris‟ decision to allow Anna to visit Aegina with Andreas, which provides the motive for Anna‟s murder, and Dimitris‟ choice to accommodate the native in their home that provided an opportunity for Irene to punish Dimitris. Despite Irene‟s pessimistic attitude, she is more practical than Dimitris since she is able to foresee the outcome of Dimitris‟ decisions, which all lead to ruin. Returning to the narrative present, Irene‟s hatred for Dimitris, the blooming roses and the local‟s advances exacerbate her discontent, leading her to exploit the native‟s attraction to her by compelling him to assist her in destroying the new rose buds that brought joy to the others and cemented their hopes for the future (213-4). Irene‟s actions can be viewed as a punishment for Dimitris‟ unrelenting hope and belief that the roses, like the refugees, will assimilate to Greece and for the life

150 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

that Dimitris created for her in Greece (Doulis 1977: 104); and finally, it is a way for Irene to eliminate Dimitris‟ dream that causes her misery. The narrator‟s use of the directing function enhances the impact of the unfolding tragedy and the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees. Firstly, he does not tell the story of Irene‟s departure and Anna‟s death in linear sequence. Although the narrator does not explain how Irene and the local departed, he ends the chapter with Maria and Anna waking to the noise of what they thought was only the native leaving (216). The following chapter is set a few hours after this; the next morning in fact, detailing Anna‟s meeting with Haritos, before her murder and rape (216-28). The reader‟s sympathy for Dimitris reaches a climax at this stage, as this section also depicts his realisation of the destruction of his roses. His reaction to this provides a preview of his response to a much greater loss that he is yet to learn. Since readers are aware by this stage of the narrative that Anna is dead, their emotions intensify for Dimitris as the narrator mentions that the first person Dimitris remembered at his most difficult time was Anna. As presented in reported discourse, Dimitris‟ impatience for Anna‟s return and his dialogue with her, recognising that only she would share his pain, magnify the impact of Dimitris‟ tragic situation: - Ξου είσαι, κόρη μου, να δεις. Ξώς θα το δεις κι εσύ αυτό... Άννα! Άννα! Ξότε θα γυρίσεις, λοιπόν, μικρή Άννα, όχι γι‟ άλλο τίποτα, μόνο για να δεις „αυτό‟. Ξότε θα γυρίσεις; (229) Secondly, the search for Anna is also organised by the narrator to influence the reader‟s emotional response and to arouse their interest in the events about to unfold. Realising that Anna was missing, the refugees search for her with the narrator making a specific mention that Fotis was not taking part in the search. The readers are disgusted however, with Haritos‟ involvement in the search and her funeral, since they know that he is the murderer. The reason Fotis was absent from the search is revealed in an internal analepsis. This is the medium through which the narrator depicts Irene‟s departure with the native as witnessed by Fotis and heard by Anna and Maria. Fotis‟ search for Irene (230-1) is told in an analepsis that occurs concurrently with the death, discovery and return of Anna‟s body (232) in the narrative present before Irene is brought home (234). The narrator‟s timing in depicting these events enhances the reader‟s

151 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

sympathy for Irene as it highlights her strained relationship with her family; she is the only member not to be present when Anna‟s body arrived home. Therefore, as predicted by Irene, the events leading to the loss of Anna and Irene‟s sabotage of Dimitris‟ roses are a result of his laxity towards his family. However, Irene‟s attempt to escape from her miserable existence that was created by her marriage to Dimitris and the Disaster was quashed by Anna‟s death, which forced her to return home. The issue of the returning prisoners of war is highlighted through the narrator‟s use of reported and narratised discourse. When Andreas is confronted upon his return with refugees‟ requests for information about lost loved ones, he replies uniformly to all of them that he is unsure (124). Perhaps because of his compassion for the refugees, Dimitris disapproves of Andreas‟ generic answer and requests that he answer honestly. The narrator uses this conversation to present the thoughts of a returned prisoner of war, which is contrasted with the matter-of-fact attitude of the refugees: - Ζα φτάξουμε, παιδί μου, θα φτάξουμε έλεγε ο γιατρός. Λα τα καλύβια μας. Κπορείς να λες ένα „ναι‟ ή ένα „όχι‟, αν είδες κανένα δικό τους... Ένα ‘ναι’ ή ένα ‘όχι’ - πόσο απλά, λοιπόν, είναι όλα εδώ... - Ε Άννα ζει; Οώτησε μια στιγμή, μες την αγωνία του, το αγόρι. - Λαι ζει. Γδώ είναι. Γδώ είναι και η μητέρα του Άγγελου. Καζί με κείνον δεν ήσαστε, όταν σας πιάσανε; Ρότε το παλικάρι έκανε ένα βίαιο κίνημα, σα να ξυπνούσε από εφιάλτη. - Ρι είπες; λέει βάναυσα στο γιατρό. - Γίπα για τον ανιψιό μου τον Άγγελο. Ζα ‟ρθεί με το άλλο βαπόρι; Ε φωνή που ρωτά είναι ήσυχη, γαλήνια – πως γίνεται, λοιπόν, να ρωτούνε μ’ αυτόν τον απλό τόνο εδώ οι άνθρωποι κι’ η φωνή τους να είναι τόσο ήσυχη; (125, emphasis added) From this focalization through Andreas, the reader perceives the refugees‟ lack of understanding of the difficulties faced by the captives, which is also evident in Dimitris‟ significant request that Andreas keep the death of Angelos a secret from Maria and Anna so as not to crush their hope of Angelos‟ return (126). This

152 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

is an unusual action for Dimitris, who is generally compassionate, because he asks Andreas to suppress this knowledge, despite the significant psychological ramifications of this action. However, paradoxically, his request for Andreas to suppress this knowledge is to protect Maria and Anna. The narrator‟s use of analepsis verifies the inconsistencies and exaggerations in Andreas‟ stories, which authenticate his portrayal as a returned prisoner of war, who attempts to suppress the truth of his experiences. Andreas complies with Dimitris‟ appeal and his interactions with Sofia and Maria reveal the lies he told about his and Angelos‟ experiences of the forced labour battalions. Validating Maria‟s query of Andreas‟ claim that Angelos slept peacefully without any bad dreams during their imprisonment, the narrator includes an external analepsis in which Angelos informs Andreas of his bad dream (129-30).5 Prior to the story that reveals Andreas‟ lies to Maria and Sofia, Dimitris‟ request is reiterated with the reasons for it: „Κπορεί να περιμένει όλα τα χρόνια που της μένουν ακόμα και να μη λυγίσει. Ώλλά να μην έχει να περιμένει – αυτό δεν το μπορεί‟ (132). The placement of this appeal before the narrator‟s account of Andreas‟ lies seems to lessen the reader‟s judgement of Andreas and Dimitris, who appears uncharacteristically deceptive by suggesting Andreas lie to the women, and to remind the reader that the subsequent information is a false. Andreas‟ story to Maria and Sofia, however, is not completely disclosed by the narrator (132), which suggests that the narrator censors the story, choosing to focus instead on Andreas‟ life after the ordeal. This suggests the author‟s desire to deflect from the trauma of war and to present in this novel a story purely dealing with the refugee experience, albeit a „monochrome‟ one (Doulis 1977: 105). Nevertheless, the reader is left to interpret that the boys‟ true ordeal was in contrast to Andreas‟ pleasurable story as narrated to the women (133-6). Despite Venezis‟ handling of this information, Andreas‟ character contrasts with the returned captive Mihalakis in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες. In particular, the

5 The inclusion of Angelos‟ dream is raised again in the narrative when Andreas correlates it with the dream Anna described to him; as it turns out, Andreas was correct in seeing her dream as an ill omen like Angelos‟; both Anna‟s and Angelos‟ dreams were premonitions about their deaths (221).

153 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

psychological effects of Andreas‟ ordeal seems to be more authentic than Mihalakis‟, who, as will be seen, returns to Greece and continues his life impervious to his ordeal. Sympathy for Andreas is heightened because of the narrator‟s portrayal of his brutal experiences, which although not mentioned can be imagined, and for the difficult position in which he has been placed. Andreas learns to cope consciously with his ordeal and the inconsistencies and exaggerations in his story diminish, but his subconscious actions show he is still suffering from the trauma of his experiences, which raise Sofia‟s suspicions about her son‟s real suffering (138). Despite the potential damage the lies have caused his fragile emotional and psychological state, he is also forced to deal alone with the guilt his deception has caused him: Πκεπάζεται κατακούκουλα, δένει τα χέρια του, το ένα με τ‟ άλλο, τα δάχτυλα που κράτησαν τα χέρια του φίλου του, ως την τελευταία στιγμή. Θαι τώρα, αυτός κάθεται εδώ και λέει πως στήνανε δίχτυα να πιάνουνε πουλιά και πως εκείνος του είπε να της φέρει χαιρετίσματα κι όπου να ‟ναι πως θα ‟ρθει. (139-40) Furthermore, the presentation of Andreas‟ dream in which his dialogue with his deceased friends from the labour battalions is presented by the narrator in reported discourse, also emphasises the guilt he feels for surviving (140-1). A trip organised by Fotis Glaros to Aegina in the diegesis, evokes an external analepsis, which, apart from adding to the representation of the characters associated with the Venis household, leads to Andreas‟ recollection of Angelos and the release of his suppressed feelings. Resulting from the mention of Angelos‟ sister Artemis in this analepsis (153-4), Andreas recalls a very brief conversation that he had with Angelos during their captivity about Artemis‟ response to the killing of a ferret by Angelos (157). Anna‟s psychosomatic reaction to Andreas‟ story is evident in the narrator‟s description of her racing heartbeat. This occurs because it was the first time she heard Andreas speak of his lost friend, which she understands is a sensitive subject: „Βιαισθάνεται πως εκεί βρίσκεται, στο σημείο αυτό, η ανοιγμένη πληγή‟ (157). Although a very small external analepsis in terms of its duration, the significance of Andreas mentioning

154 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

Angelos to Anna is that it provides her with an opportunity for a dialogue with Andreas about his experiences: - Έλα, αγόρι μου, πε μου. Κίλησέ μου να ξαλαφρώσεις. Κίλησέ μου... [...] - Βεν έχω να πω τίποτα. - ΋χι, όχι επέμενε και τα μάτια της γέμισαν από ικεσία. Ξε μου, πε μου τα όλα. Ζα σου κάνει καλό. (158) Despite these attempts, he remains silent until he answers her specific question of whether Angelos is still alive, to which he replies, „΋χι‟ (158). In accordance with the narrator‟s sensitive handling of the information regarding the boys‟ experience, as seen earlier, the conversation that follows Angelos‟ disclosure of the truth to Anna is not recounted in the narrative. All that is revealed to the reader is Anna‟s reaction, showing that the story she heard was heartbreaking: Κείνανε κάτω στο ισόγειο οι δυο και κουβέντιαζαν. [...] - Ζα δεις Ώντρέα, που θα σου κάνει καλό που μου μίλησες, έλεγε η Άννα προσπαθώντας να έχει το φως της λάμπας έτσι, ώστε να μη φαίνεται το πρόσωπό της και τα μάτια της που είχαν κλάψει. (158) Therefore, although the narrator does not directly discuss the boys‟ experiences, he communicates the essence of Andreas‟ story through Anna‟s reaction, which provides the reader with an understanding of this experience. Andreas‟ visit to Aegina instigates a major change in his character and while he finds hope in his love with Anna, Aegina becomes the setting for the destruction of his dreams. An external analepsis inserted into the diegesis that details their time in Aegina recounts the employment of Andreas and Angelos at the bakery for a man called Stathis (182-5). When Andreas and Anna meet Stathis in the narrative present, Andreas announces his engagement to Anna for the first time by describing her as his fiancée to Stathis. While his decision to marry appears to be his way of getting his life back, which was suggested to him by Dimitris, it also invokes a noticeable change in his demeanour. Even the narrator‟s description of Andreas becomes much lighter and happier than earlier in the narrative, which changes the way the readers view Andreas. The narrative assumes a romantic aspect, as the readers feel optimistic that Andreas will be able to overcome his trauma through love. Elated with the news of their

155 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

engagement, Anna leads Andreas to their favourite spot in Aegina. While the significance of this place is explained by the narrator in an external analepsis as the scene of the couple‟s first kiss (190-1), it is modified in the narrative present as the scene of the first time the couple consummate their relationship (192). Although this is the first step in Andreas‟ renewed effort to deal with his ordeal, it tragically leads to catastrophe. The narrator‟s use of focalization and analepses heighten the dramatic effect of Anna and Andrea‟s lovemaking. The narrator‟s focalization of two versions of the couple making love conveys the emotions by which this scene is perceived by the viewing subject. Though the narrator presents the couple‟s lovemaking and Haritos watching them as separate incidences, they occur simultaneously and provide two different ways of viewing the same incident. The description that is focalized through the narrator focuses on both partners in a loving embrace (192). The description of Haritos‟ view of the lovers is focalized from his point of view and concentrates on Anna‟s body, which explains his sexual longing for Anna and her consequent rape. Providing a prelude to Haritos finding the couple making love in the narrative present and the narrator‟s description of Haritos‟ intense sexual reaction to this scene (196), the narrator intrudes with two analepses that appear to pre-empt the event Haritos is about to view. The first analepsis is external, depicting Haritos close to having a sexual experience with a girl. This is followed by a second analepsis, which is internal, portraying Haritos‟ sexual interpretation of Anna and Andreas holding hands whilst she was conversing with Haritos on the boat (194-5). It is interesting to note that the narrator uses reported discourse to present Haritos‟ answers that impart his opinions, showing that they are genuinely his own. It seems that the narrator emphasises factual information through the technique of narratised speech, which is used to express such details as the loss of Haritos‟ father during a hunting trip; and his explanation about his origins and his family‟s experiences of the First World War and the Disaster (174-5). The reader is sympathetic to Haritos at this point as it is revealed that he lost three brothers because of the war and although his mother is still alive, she is alone (175). Apart from Haritos‟ sexual attraction to Anna, the narrator deliberately mentions details of Haritos‟ character that make him seem least likely able to

156 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

commit an attack on Anna. Introduced in the narrative‟s diegesis, Haritos‟ back- story is disclosed in an external analepsis, explaining how he ended up working with Fotis. Although a hint as to Haritos‟ underhandedness is evident from his introduction in the narrative with the mention of his illegal fishing (171), it seems the narrator purposely attempts to lull the reader into a false sense of security through the presentation of an external analepsis of Haritos‟ sexual frigidity. This story also depicts him as a gentle soul, unable to murder someone even if it were to gain treasure: Θαι μονάχα με τη σκέψη αυτή τον περίχυσε κρύος ιδρός. ΋χι, χίλιες φορές όχι, πώς του πέρασε η ιδέα, πως μπορούσε να σκοτώσει έναν άνθρωπο και μάλιστα ένα παιδί! Ώυτός, ο Ταρίτος, δε θα το μπορούσε ποτέ. (223) Because of this analepsis the reader is perplexed and surprised that Haritos was able to rape and murder Anna, even though, as the narrator suggests, it was a result of his earlier sexual perceptions of her: „Ξόσο χρειάζεται να βράσει το κύμα;‟ (225). Leaving no question that his earlier observations of Anna were a catalyst for his assault on her, he recalls the scene of the lovers‟ embrace before he attacks Anna and refers to it directly as the narrator‟s inclusion in reported discourse during the assault illustrates: „Πτάσου! Κούγκρισε γονατισμένος απάνω της. Πτάσου όπως τον άλλον!‟ (226). Seeming to comfort the reader for their naivety in believing that Haritos would not have been able to kill Anna, the narrator also depicts Fotis‟ disbelief. Realising that Haritos could possibly be to blame, he has the same reaction as the reader: „Κα όχι, όχι, δεν μπορεί νά „ναι!... μουρμούριζε μοναχός του. Ένα τέτοιο ήσυχο παλικάρι‟ (235). While we have so far focused on the narrative techniques that produce a specific effect in the main plot of Γαλήνη, the following section examines the narrative techniques used to affect the reader‟s emotions in the secondary plot. This section looks at how the refugee characters associated with Fotis Glaros are presented by the narrator. Featured exclusively in the diegesis, Zambeta and Avgi Glaros are the daughters of Eleni and Fotis and they play minor roles in the narrative but are pivotal to the image of the refugee that the novel portrays. Despite Zambeta‟s brief appearance in the narrative, the description of her as a child forced to take

157 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

on adult responsibilities provokes the reader‟s sympathy. The narrator‟s description of Zambeta creates a juxtaposition of her past and present situation. Her appearance as a beautiful young girl with blue eyes and blonde hair, symbolic of her innocence prior to her arrival in Greece, while the description of her covered in dirt suggests that refugeehood has quite literally sullied her childhood (26). In addition, through the narrator‟s description of Zambeta the reader can see that she takes on characteristics associated with the stresses now placed on her as a result of her refugeehood: „Πτο πρόσωπό της φαινόταν μια σοβαρότητα αφύσικη για την ηλικία της και το μικρό σώμα έγερνε σα να του πίεζε ένα βάρος τις πλάτες‟ (26). Zambeta also represents those young refugees who missed out on their childhood and were forced to recognise their social status at an early age (26, 96, 111, 144). This is a common issue raised in the novels chosen for our corpus as it is also depicted in varying degrees in Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. The youngest daughter of Fotis and Eleni, Avgi is important to this novel about refugee settlement as her role illustrates the way refugees became part of Greece in a spiritual and physical sense. Despite making her first appearance early in the narrative (26), her name is only revealed at the end of the narrative in what appears to be an epilogue taking up the last four pages. The narrator‟s depiction of her appears to draw a conclusion to the events he narrated in the rest of the narrative. That is, her character is used to show the association created between Anavissos and the refugees, who symbolically „resurrected‟ Anavissos since it was an area once used by the locals to bury their dead (240-3). The narrator‟s choice of the name „Ώυγή‟ (Dawn) is symbolic of the young girl‟s role in the process of the refugees‟ assimilation to Greece. As one of the newest residents in Anavissos, Avgi, as her name suggests, represents the first „light‟ of a generation who will spiritually belong to this land (242). Furthermore, the physical bond between Avgi and Greece is created and strengthened through the death of her mother, as Kafetzaki also asserts: „διαθέτει έναν ακόμα δεσμό με το νέο χώμα, τον τάφο της μητέρας της‟ (2003: 158). Presenting the young girl‟s visit to Eleni‟s grave, the narrator explains that while Avgi barely remembered her mother‟s face, the touch of her hands remained a vivid memory. When Avgi tells

158 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

her father that she wanted to dig her mother‟s grave to find her hands, his explanation that a person‟s body returns to earth (243) that leads Avgi to clutch fistfuls of dirt in the belief that by holding the earth in her hands she maintains contact with her mother, enhances the reader‟s sympathy for the young girl. Moreover, the imagery of Eleni‟s body returning to the earth is symbolic of her and Avgi‟s physical link to the soil of Greece. With regard to this, Kafetzaki states: Νι άνθρωποι που θα ταφούν σε έναν άλλο τόπο, σε ενα άλλο χώμα, θα σημάνουν το ίχνος της αρχής, τις ρίζες των απογόνων τους και έτςι θα φτιαχτεί μια νέα πατρίδα γις αυτούς. (2003: 158) As will be seen, a similar image is depicted in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες through the character of the old lady Kazantzi. Apart from the Glaros family‟s role as an example of the assimilation of refugees from the lower class, the major storyline concerning this family is the death of Eleni. This is presented by the narrator in such a way that encourages the reader‟s sympathy for Fotis despite his earlier treatment of Eleni. Building the anticipation, the narrator begins the story of Eleni‟s drowning with a brief prolepsis alluding to her death: „Ρίποτα, την αυγή κείνης της μέρας, δεν προμηνούσε το τέλος της‟ (79). Finding an ancient artefact on their property, Fotis insists that Eleni guard it and she willingly complies, but when she disobeys Fotis, she drowns in a torrent (84). In a twist of tragic irony, while this occurs, the narrator presents Fotis‟ musing that the torrent does not remind him of death and uses an external analepsis to explain the reason for this. Observing the corpse of a shepherd who had drowned in a torrent, it seemed to Fotis that the corpse wanted to start a new life with the water, which leads Fotis to correlate torrents with renewed life rather than death (85). This seems to the issue raised earlier, that Eleni‟s death resulted in her return to the earth, thus becoming the foundation for the establishment of her family and future generations. The narrator‟s inclusion of Fotis‟ thoughts about Eleni as presented in narratised discourse, increases the reader‟s sympathy for Fotis because his discovery of the artefact had only just instigated a positive change in him (85) and had the potential to improve the couple‟s relations:

159 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

„Ρώρα πια, με το Ζεό, θα ξεκουραστεί...‟ Ήταν ένα νέο αίσθημα, αυτή η απρόοπτη τρυφερότητα. [...] „Ρώρα πια θα ξεκουραστεί...‟ [...] Πφυρίζει ένα τραγούδι του τόπου του. (86) Although Fotis is referring to the money he will make from his find, the reader sees the tragic irony of this comment. Knowing that Eleni has drowned, the reader interprets this statement as a reference to her „rest‟ in death. Furthermore, the narrator‟s explanation of Fotis‟ realisation of Eleni‟s value to him after she was lost intensifies the reader‟s sympathy, as they are able to relate to this tragic human quality and simultaneously pity him for realising this too late (88). When Fotis realises that Prasinos has taken the artefact the reader has mixed emotions; on the one hand, they pity him for having lost his wife and the artefact; but on the other, they feel a measure of contempt for him because he refused to listen to Eleni about Prasinos (91-2). The narrator‟s presentation of Fotis‟ remarriage in a non-linear sequence adds excitement to the story. The chapter following the one presenting Eleni‟s death begins with a seemingly out of place description of another group of refugees from the interior of Asia Minor (95). Once the narrator describes these refugees, he mysteriously moves to an internal analepsis explaining Fotis‟ actions the days after Eleni‟s death. Although the narrator‟s direction is puzzling, as he associates these new refugees with Fotis‟ loss, the mystery is solved approximately 50 pages later when he reveals that Fotis‟ new wife is Vaso, a member of this new group of refugees (145). The internal analepsis depicting Fotis‟ reaction to Eleni‟s death is used as a break between his life with Eleni and that without her. The purpose of the analepsis is to explain the logic behind Fotis‟ change in attitude, which leads him to buy a boat and begin a fishing business (98-9). Using analepses, the narrator provides the reader with the reasons Fotis remarried and the back-story about Vaso, which seems to explain Fotis‟ decision to marry her. In an internal analepsis, it is revealed that Fotis missed a woman‟s touch and companionship, while on the work front he needed assistance in running his business and raising his children (145-6). This internal analepsis is interrupted by an external analepsis that provides information about his new wife‟s background. Unable to find a suitable woman from his own group of

160 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 3

refugees, Fotis‟ search amongst the refugees that were introduced earlier in the narrative ends when he finds Vaso. Fittingly for Fotis, Vaso is submissive, as an internal analepsis depicting her first days living with Fotis reveals (147). This moves into an external analepsis about the origins of Vaso‟s fears of the sea, which keeps her awake at night as presented in the narrative present (147-50).6 Depicted in the external analepsis, Vaso‟s fear of the sea kept her at home until the day a man would come to claim her as his own (150). This notion is a traditional one, implying that Vaso would always be under the ownership of a man and never her own person: „Ρότε η ΐάσω θα άλλαζε αφέντη‟ (150). Vaso‟s suppression of her fear of the sea reinforces for the reader her subordinate role in her relationship with Fotis, which is also depicted in the narrative present when he surprises her with an impromptu fishing trip to Aegina. Despite her apprehensions, she does not protest (151), suggesting that her reluctance to show fear or oppose Fotis‟ wishes could be a result of her desire to make him feel that he has made the right choice in marrying her to work alongside him on the boat. It also ensures that he does not regret supporting her and her family that is also seen in her request that she work on the road with the other refugees, which reinforces her servility: „Κε την άδεια σου θα πάω και γω εκεί. Γίμαστε μεγάλη φαμελιά‟ (205).

Despite Venezis‟ own experience as a refugee, he does not present his refugee characters as uniformly admirable. We have seen, though, how he uses a variety of narrative techniques to convey a subtly balanced and nuanced impression of characters such as Irene and Glaros. In particular, the use of analepses in the presentation of Irene gives her character another dimension that enhances her portrayal as a refugee. As a result, the narrator‟s presentation of Irene encourages the readers‟ sympathy for her regardless of her actions in the diegesis, which would, I think, otherwise induce negative feelings towards her.

6 Refugees‟ hatred of the sea is also mentioned in Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. However, unlike Vaso, these refugees fear the sea associate the sea directly with the refugees depicted in the novel

161 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4 A CONSTANTINOPOLITAN AUTHOR ‘S VIEW

Tatiana Stavrou, Οι πρώτες ρίζες

Refugee characters and the theme of the Disaster in this novel have been analysed from a different perspective by Doulis who provides a synopsis of the plot lines and the themes presented (1977: 97-101). Kafetzaki provides a more comprehensive discussion of Stavrou‟s work with a specific thematic analysis regarding the image of the refugee as depicted in the novel (2003: 256-277, amongst others). However, neither Doulis nor Kafetzaki has looked closely at the way narrative techniques are used by Stavrou to present the themes and characters in her novel. Although the analysis in this chapter inevitably touches on the themes and issues raised by Doulis and Kafetzaki, it remains focused on the way the author uses particular narrative techniques to produce a specific effect on the reader. Of course, references will be made to the work of both scholars where relevant. The story depicted in the novel Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) is set in Athens1 and recounted by the extradiegetic narrator in chronological time with few anachronies.2 Covering the first three seasons of the refugees‟ stay in Greece, refugee characters occupy the diegesis, which is organised into three parts, each titled after consecutive seasons: the first deals with „winter‟ of 1922, the second with „spring‟ of 1923 and the third with the „summer‟ of 1923.3 The narrative‟s coverage of the first nine months of the refugees‟ life in Greece is symbolic of a gestational period. The first nine months depicted in the narrative were a vital

1 For further information on the spatial setting of this novel, see Kafetzaki‟s analysis (2003: 260-3). 2 The gender of the narrator is not specified; however, the narrator may be assumed to be female, owing to the high concentration of female characters and the narrator‟s heightened interest in the female psychology. 3 Kafetzaki claims that the novel covers one year, the first year of the refugees‟ arrival in Greece, though she does not explain how she arrived at this conclusion (2003: 256).

162 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

time in the refugees‟ establishment in Greece, just as a nine-month gestation period is vital for a human‟s survival in life. This analogy suggests that the book aims to communicate to its readers that the stories recounted relate to a phase of rebirth for the refugees, forced to adapt to their new environment, as a newborn is prepared in the womb for life outside of it. Further to this, as it is women who give birth, it is fitting that a narrative called Οι πρώτες ρίζες would present a cast of characters consisting mainly of women with the initiative to establish themselves in Greece:4 „Πτο έργο της Πταύρου, θα λέγαμε ότι το βάρος της προσφυγιάς το σηκώνουν οι γυναίκες‟ (Kafetzaki 2003: 267). In particular, the narrative depicts three plot lines that focus on the stories of three female characters, Eva Xenou, Martha Papazoglou and Kallio Hristodoulou. These characters portray the image of young refugee women who attempt to improve their respective situations through hard work and determination. Two male characters, Alexis Lambikis and Angelos Adam, who are acquaintances from Constantinople and form the nucleus of the book‟s microcosm, link these three women and the rest of the refugees in the novel directly or indirectly. For instance, Eva is introduced to Alexis‟ mother-in-law, the old lady Kazantzi, who hires Eva as her grandchildren‟s nanny and introduces her to the children‟s father Alexis. Angelos is Alexis‟ acquaintance and he hires Martha and other refugees in his insurance broker business.

4 Though it is outside the scope of this analysis, Doulis‟ comment on the way women‟s sexuality is presented in the novel seems to be a common theme that links its female characters; he says, „sexuality must lead- to marriage, to disgrace, or to death‟ (1977: 100). As will be seen in this analysis, Eva‟s and Martha‟s sexuality results in each character marrying their respective employer, Flora Hristodoulou‟s sexuality leads to disgrace through an unwanted pregnancy with a native who abandons her, and the refugee Maritsa is killed because of her infidelity. On the contrary, Kafetzaki views sexuality as an expression of the refugee women‟s individuality, as she says: Ν έρωτας είναι ο παραδειγματικός τρόπος ανασύνταξης της προσωπικότητας (2003: 276). As for the topic of relationships, Kafetzaki suggests that the female characters in Stavrou‟s novel „βρίσκουν την ευτυχία, ή τουλάχιστον την προϋποθεσή της, στη σχέση του ζευγαριού, η οποία τους δίνει τη δυνατότητα να καταθέσουν το ψυχικό τους δυναμικό, να προσφέρουν τον εαυτό τους (2003: 276).

163 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

Through her job as a street peddler, Kallio meets Alexis who, although unable to offer her brother Kostas a job, sends her to Angelos‟ office, where she is introduced to Martha. Thus, Alexis is pivotal to the story regarding Eva, while Angelos plays a chief role in Martha and Kallio‟s case. Further, the secondary character Maritsa is presented to the reader through her association with Alexis‟ driver, the native Antonis. For the purpose of this analysis, the mass of refugee characters can be divided into three basic categories defined by the way they approach their refugee situations. The three categories seem to correspond to Pentzopoulos‟ classification of refugees according to three levels of integration.5 Firstly, there are those who, despite a lack of resources, consistently tried to establish themselves in Greece through hard work. The three main female characters Eva, Martha and Kallio belong to this group, as do the refugee characters Vasilis Hristodoulou, Anna and Vasilis Politis, the maids Lithario and Mario, and the anonymous doctor from Kios. Since the majority of these characters originate from Constantinople, with only Martha from Pontus and Kallio, Vasilis and the doctor originating from Kios, it would seem that the narrator is indirectly characterising refugees from Constantinople as more responsible than others are. Another category consists of a minority of refugees possessing capital who established themselves in Greece by putting their wealth to work and becoming entrepreneurs, employing other refugees.6 This group includes characters from Constantinople exclusively: Alexis, his brother Fotis Lambikis and Kazantzi.

5 According to Pentzopoulos, these are: 1. Refugees who chose to migrate before the Disaster, arriving from wealthy areas such as the bourgeoisie of Constantinople and Smyrna who brought some capital with them and/or adapted their employment experiences to Greece. 2. The hard workers and resourceful refugees, who although unable to compete with their wealthier counterparts, managed to live comfortably as wage earners who took on jobs most natives refused. 3. Those refugee who remained unemployed, living day to day and often resorting to petty thievery to survive (Pentzopoulos 2002: 114-15). 6 This depiction of refugees who are able to help their fellow refugees is also evident in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες and Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν.

164 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

The two groups of refugees mentioned to this point are mostly from Constantinople and include the most moral characters in the story, who manage to avoid the pitfalls generally associated with refugeehood. Interestingly, the five characters given narratorial privileges in the novel as intradiegetic narrators (Eva, Anna, the doctor from Kios, the old lady Kazantzi and Lithario) belong to these two categories. Regarding the narrator‟s choice of intradiegetic narrators, it appears that Constantinopolitan characters are again favoured, with only the doctor from Kios originating from outside Constantinople. A third class of refugees presented in the novel includes those who had no resources and seem unable to make their way in Greece through honourable means. Instead, these characters attempt to deal with their circumstances by resorting to desperate solutions. The activities of Flora and Kostas Hristodoulou, Maritsa, Souzanna and Stella demonstrate their reluctance to conform to life as a refugee in the same way as those categorised in the first two groups. As will be seen, because of Martha‟s actions, she could be included in this category, as Doulis states: „Martha provides a chiaroscuro [a contrast between light and shade] in what might otherwise have been too rosy a view of the middle class‟s adjustment to Greek life‟ (1977: 98-9). Interestingly, in accordance with the author‟s perceived partiality for refugees from Constantinople, this third group consists of refugees from Kios (Flora and Kostas) and Smyrna (Maritsa, Souzanna and Stella). Furthermore, refugees from Smyrna in the novel seem to be typecast since all of them can be categorised into this third class. To explain and support this analysis we will look at each category separately, bearing in mind that there are other minor characters belonging to these categories who do not take up pivotal roles in the story. Furthermore, owing to the premise of this study, only those characters whose involvement in narrative techniques that produce a specific effect on the reader will be examined in detail. In terms of the narrative structure and the techniques used to present the refugees, they seem to take on mostly passive roles. This relates to Doulis‟ criticism of Stavrou‟s novel, which is also aimed at Venezis‟ Γαλήνη as mentioned earlier in the thesis. Assuming a thematic approach, Doulis claims that both authors: „concentrate so much on the monochrome of refugee life that they misrepresent the polychromatic complexity of reality‟ (1977: 105). With regard to

165 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

both novels, this is evident in their lack of intradiegetic narrators. Unlike Venezis, Stavrou in Οι πρώτες ρίζες allows five refugees to assume narratorial privileges. The most prominent is Eva whose two letters to her aunt Anna are the means through which the reader learns her thoughts. Another intradiegetic narration, pivotal to the reader‟s understanding of Athens at the time of the refugee influx, is presented through Anna‟s reply letter to Eva. The other minor intradiegetic narrations do not reveal information about refugeehood. The doctor from Kios discusses his own experiences of the Disaster, while the old lady Kazantzi and her maid Lithario reveal information pertaining to Alexis‟ past relationship with his wife. As we stated earlier in defence of Doulis‟ criticism of Venezis‟ „monochromatic‟ presentation of the refugees, it is possible that Stavrou also desired to minimise the trauma of refugeehood and focus on their assimilation.

HONEST LABOUR Eva, Martha and Kallio share a strong will to survive and are examples of virtuous young refugee women who face their refugee status with integrity, improving their situation with respectable employment. However, the difference in the way they approach and improve their refugee status seems to be a result of their origins and diverse experiences of the Disaster and refugeehood. While Eva represents one of the more fortunate refugees who arrived in Greece, Martha and Kallio symbolise the common stereotype of the unfortunate refugees who end up living in a refugee settlement or a shantytown. Through the narrator‟s presentation of the struggles faced by these three characters the reader sympathises with their individual struggles to varying degrees, but more than with the other young female refugee characters who represent those refugees who sought desperate solutions, as will be seen later. Eva is not a typical character presented in narratives dealing with the refugee (Kafetzaki 2003: 270). The first refugees presented in the diegesis, Eva and the Politis family are in a better social and economic position than some of their counterparts. Despite the narrator‟s zero focalization, she does not provide any information about Eva‟s family history or about her experiences of the Disaster, but what is divulged is predominantly due to the story told by the narrator in the narrative present and through Eva‟s own intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration.

166 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

Though it is revealed that her father died when she was four and her mother and grandmother are briefly mentioned in a letter to her aunt Anna (220), it would seem that Eva‟s family history is not as important to the narrative as her relationship with her lover in Constantinople. This appears to be the narrator‟s preoccupation in the analepses relating to her character. The narrative only features anachronies in the form of analepses, most of which show a balanced portrayal of Eva. The first analepsis is external and occurs at the end of the narrator‟s description of Eva‟s first day in her new home in Athens. The analepsis begins just before she left Constantinople for Greece and recounts Eva‟s conversation with her lover, informing him of her departure from Constantinople. Eva‟s reported discourse showing that the Disaster interfered and ended her relationship: „Έπρεπε να γκρεμιστεί η Κικρασία για να γνωρίσω τι μου γίνεται‟ (15), emphasises her powerlessness to end the relationship despite its immoral nature and appears to be a shamefully self-centred comment. However, through the narrator‟s comment about Eva‟s immediate acknowledgment of the nature of this comment: „Έδιωξε ντροπιασμένη τη σκέψη της‟ (15), stops the reader from judging Eva as cruel and heartless. Appearing to be aware of the way Eva would be perceived by the reader because of her earlier comments, the narrator continues with another external analepsis, which appears to make amends for Eva‟s earlier thought. This analepsis involves an English sailor who tells Eva of the Turkish atrocities committed on the Greeks (15). This, along with the inclusion of an external analepsis that depicts Eva‟s arrival at the port of Piraeus and the scene she witnessed as focalized through her (16), saves Eva from being perceived by the reader as completely callous, demonstrating her understanding of the magnitude of the Disaster and the lives it ruined. Ending the analepsis, the narrator ensures that the reader does not view Eva in a negative light by presenting Eva‟s self-critical response to her own thoughts in free indirect discourse: Θ‟ ύστερα απ‟ όλα αυτά είχε τον εγωισμό να συλλογίζεται τον εαυτό της. ΋χι, μόνο το θολό ποτάμι της δυστυχίας που κυλούσε από παντού, έπρεπε να σκέπτεται. Ρίποτε άλλο. Ρίποτε δικό της. (16) This may also be viewed as a statement about the collective tragedy of the Disaster, which can be seen as a justification for the narrator‟s choice to include in

167 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

this novel many different types of refugees and their stories, making it a compilation of personal tragedies presented in a book about the collective refugee consciousness. The largest sections of intradiegetic narration that occurs in the narrative are the letters between Eva and Anna. The narrator‟s choice of intradiegetic narrators in this instance is significant for she chooses female refugees from Constantinople who provide different perspectives on the issues relating to the plight of the refugees, mainly female refugees. Eva‟s and Anna‟s intradiegetic narrations are mostly homodiegetic, and although intended for specific audiences, namely each other, they offer the reader an insight into their thoughts and events that may not have been revealed otherwise. Dated „Christmas‟ and written during her stay in Kifisia, Eva‟s first letter to Anna presents a perspective of refugeehood that has been acquired after only two months in Greece and living in a well-to- do suburb of Athens. Considering this, Eva‟s letter does not deal with the basic issues that the majority of refugees faced. Instead, her letter is concerned with the theme of religion, which is otherwise absent from the narrative present. The relationship between this intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration (the letter) and the narrative present is an explanatory one as it reveals Eva‟s feelings about her refugeehood using as its setting one of the greatest Christian celebrations, Christmas. Eva‟s claim that she does not recognise the people in the church nor the saints or the psalms (111), suggests a change in her perception of religion since the liturgy and saints would have been similar to those in the Greek Orthodox Church she attended in Constantinople. Furthermore, Eva‟s perception of the reasons people attend church has changed as she believes that they attend merely out of respect for the tradition, rather than their faith in God: „Κου φαίνεται πως αν μας συγκινεί κάτι απ‟ τις θρησκείες σήμερα είναι το μεγάλο παρελθόν τους. Ε παλλιάδα τους. Πεβόμαστε παρά πιστεύουμε‟ (111). While she speaks in the plural, suggesting a general change in people, it is more likely that she is referring to her own views, which have changed because of her disappointment that God appeared indifferent to the Disaster:

168 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

Ρίποτα, μα τίποτα απ‟ την αλλαγή, από τ‟ αναποδογύρισμα δεν έφτανε εκεί ψηλά σ‟ αυτόν τον Παβαώθ, ή το Ζεό, να του ταράξει τη μακαριότητα. Λ‟ απλώσει το χέρι του να σταματήσει το κακό. (112) Her altered view of religion is reinforced by her controversial perception of Christmas as an injustice since it is a celebration of the birth of God, who failed to intervene in the Disaster and the unwarranted deaths it caused: „όλα αυτά, όλα γενήκανε κι ακόμα άλλα που δεν τα βαστά ανθρώπου νους... και όμως εμείς, εγώ ήρθα ν‟ ακούσω ύμνους, και να δοξάσω. Ξοιον;‟ (113). Interestingly, the allocation of this view of religion to a character appears to be a prudent way for the author to present such a contentious issue without raising any displeasure from her readers. Through Eva‟s intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration, the story of an anonymous refugee woman from Aivali and her two young daughters is revealed. Adding another dimension to the depiction of refugeehood, this narration shows a contrast between Eva and the refugee woman, who has suffered a greater emotional and financial loss, yet has still kept her faith. Eva tells Anna about the lady‟s story mostly in narratised discourse but uses reported discourse to explain that the lady does not use a name: „΋νομα δεν έχω... είμαι η πρόσφυγα απ‟ τ‟ Ώϊβαλί, με τα δυο κοριτσάκια. Ρ‟ όνομα είναι πράμα περιττό‟ (114). While it is questionable whether this would actually have occurred, and, it can be argued, the author has sacrificed plausibility to stress her point, the emphasis on the fact that the woman wishes to remain anonymous is symbolic. It suggests that she does not recognise herself (Kafetzaki 2003: 266) and that she does not see herself as an individual, but as part of the body of refugees in the same predicament. With regard to the issue of anonymous refugees, it seems that this is common in Stavrou‟s novel, as the reader is introduced to a number of anonymous refugees such as, the doctor from Kios, the lady from Aivali, the old lady that lives with Maritsa, amongst others. Nonetheless, the inclusion of the woman‟s predicament is in stark contrast to that of any other main refugee character in the novel. This is further reinforced through Kazantzi‟s donation of money, clothes and furniture and Eva‟s description of the lady‟s home, which she compares to their shed in Constantinople (115-6). Using her as an example of the

169 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

more unfortunate refugees, Eva overtly acknowledges the difference between the refugee reality of the lady from Aivali and Anna: Ρώρα σαν τολμάς κλάψε πια εσύ. Βεν έχεις θαρρώ, το δικαίωμα να ‟σαι απαρηγόρητη. Κέτρησε σα θέλεις το σπιτικό σου να δεις αν σου είπει κανείς. Θαι σφίξε το στόμα σου μη σου ξεφύγει ποτές παράπονο. (118) Through her contact with the lady from Aivali, Eva recognises her own fortunate situation, relieved that their circumstances were better than others: „Πυλλογιούμαι ότι σ‟ αυτόν τον ανεμορούφουλα που τσάκισε κόσμους αιώνιους εμείς μείναμε ορθοί στα πόδια μας‟ (118). This also indicates to readers that Eva‟s story is not a typical example of the refugee experience. Alexis‟ interruption of the narrative present as Eva writes this part of the letter makes her narration interpolated; it provides her with an opportunity to reveal details about the way Alexis and others dealt with their refugeehood. In her letter to Anna, Eva presents the conversation she has with Alexis during his interruption of her writing about overcoming her initial disappointment with her life. The narrator‟s choice to use Eva as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator in which she explains her own development and feelings of belonging in Greece (119), illustrates Eva‟s personal growth first-hand, which increases the reader‟s sympathy for her. As noted earlier, Eva‟s first intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration presented in the form of a letter to her aunt imparts her views on religion and portrays a sense of hopelessness, as it questioned people‟s faith in religion and God‟s lack of intervention in the suffering of the refugees. In April 1923, six months after their arrival in Greece and approximately four months after her first letter, Eva sends her aunt another letter. This time she discusses the hopes and dreams of refugees, and we notice a change in her from her first letter, appearing to be happier and more optimistic about her own future in Greece. This intradiegetic narration has an explanatory function to the diegesis as it reveals the events that led Eva to her situation in the diegesis. Although Eva claims to have assimilated into Greece with an improved relation with Alexis and his family, in her letter she reveals a new ambition, desiring to become a teacher. The inclusion of Eva‟s assertion of this dream

170 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

throughout her letter appears to be a method of persuading Anna, and the reader, to support Eva‟s independence despite her apprehensions. This is evident in Eva‟s expectations of Anna‟s reaction to her dream, which also appears to be a direct discourse with the intradiegetic reader: „Θ‟ εσύ θα χλομιάζεις απ‟ τη συγκίνηση και τη χαρά‟, as well as in Eva‟s explicit request that her aunt not refuse her dreams: „Κην πεις όχι, θεία Άννα, μην πεις‟ (222). Furthermore, Eva‟s effort to gain her aunt‟s support is also evident in her attempt to flatter her aunt, addressing the letter to: „Ώγαπημένη, πολυαγαπημένη, χρυσή μου θεία Άννα‟ (219). Despite the sincerity with which Eva discusses her dreams, she seems naïve in her attempts to persuade Anna into supporting such a lavish vision when her aunt and other refugees are focusing on survival. Regardless of Eva showing an understanding of refugeehood in her first letter, Anna‟s reply to Eva‟s second letter advises her against seeking independence and she is compelled to reiterate the refugees‟ reality to Eva, who seems to be either unaware or ignorant of the vulnerable position of refugees in Greece. The narrator‟s choice of employing Eva to present the refugee character Kazantzi, adds to the story‟s credibility as the reader recognises Eva‟s close relationship with her. Using reported discourse in her letter, Eva demonstrates her bonds with the Lambikis household. In particular, she explains that her presence in the house has improved Kazantzi‟s feelings about her own death, as she is comfortable with handing over the responsibility for her grandchildren to Eva (223). The discussion about death in Eva‟s letter reveals the disparate views of this topic for young and old refugees. While Eva is unnerved when discussing death, Kazantzi talks about is with ease because she views the positive aspects of her death in Greece. Through Eva‟s narration, an allusion to the novel‟s title is made through Kazantzi‟s reported discourse, acknowledging her death as the „first roots‟ in Greece for her family: „Ζα γίνω το θεμέλιο που θα στεριώσετε εσείς οι άλλοι, οι νέοι, τα παιδιά‟ (224). Although the death of a refugee in Greece is generally seen as the establishment of a family‟s links to the land (Kafetzaki 2003: 158, see also 264), it also a problem because it means that the refugees will not be buried with their ancestors, in their homeland. The common ache evident in Kazantzi‟s character, who is unable to accept that she will be buried in a foreign country away from her daughter, is also evident in Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν

171 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

through the minor character Kostis, who laments his burial in Greece while his wife is buried in Asia Minor (Sotiriou 1976: 143-4). Stavrou‟s narrator incites the reader‟s sympathy for Kazantzi through Eva‟s reported discourse that clearly expresses Kazantzi‟s dream: „Γκεί πλάι στην κόρη μου στους δικούς μου. Λ‟ αναπαυτώ κι όχι έτσι σα μουσαφίρισσα. Γγώ θα το νοιώθω... και ο νεκρός κάτι νοιώθει‟ (224). This statement also outlines the magnitude of the refugee experience; it even has an effect on them after death. Anna‟s intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration offers the reader another voice to the narrative‟s depiction of the refugees‟ experience in Greece. Her critical position and practical approach to her situation is evident in the fact that she only manages to reply to Eva‟s second letter. Anna is preoccupied with her family‟s survival rather than spending her time writing letters, which appears to be a luxury Eva can afford. Nevertheless, Anna‟s letter addresses issues relevant to refugee women who also bear the responsibility of raising children in a foreign country without the security she was once accustomed to. In contrast to the refugee reality presented in Eva‟s letters, Anna reveals one that is divorced from the issues of those refugees who are in a higher social standing, such as those that are expressed in Eva‟s letter: the Lambikis household. Explaining the reality that people in her position face as refugees in Greece, Anna provides numerous examples, which also reinforce the unique situation of Eva and the Lambikis family. The relationship between Anna‟s intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration and the diegesis is difficult to ascertain. On the one hand, it could have a purely thematic relationship with the diegesis since its content contrasts with the events of the diegesis. On the other hand, it could have a predictive function, as Anna seems to foretell the subsequent consequences of Eva‟s actions in the diegesis. Illustrating differences between young and old refugees, Anna provides an account of her and her husband Vasilis‟ opinions of Eva‟s dreams. Contrasting Eva‟s dreamy image with the reality of Athens, Anna includes, in narratised discourse, Vasilis‟ opinion on this matter. Criticising Eva‟s whimsical description of the village in which she hopes to work as a teacher, Vasilis relates it to scenes found in fictional stories (237). He justifies his criticism with a realistic depiction of Athens, which opposes Eva‟s impression of the perfect village: „Γδώ οι δρόμοι

172 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

της πρωτεύουσας πλημμυρούνε στο σκουπίδι και τη λάσπη και θα ‟χει το χωριό της δρομάκια πεντακάθαρα;‟ (237). While initially he finds Eva‟s naivety comical, his laughter quickly turns to sorrow as he realises that Eva‟s dream of a clean and aesthetically beautiful environment was once something that he would have been accustomed to in Constantinople, but is now a distant luxury (238). Anna‟s criticism of Eva‟s ignorance of the refugees‟ reality and her desire to leave a secure job to pursue a life of independence seems to lessen the readers‟ opinion of Eva as they realise that she is only a young girl who still needs guidance: Που έκαμε μεγάλο χατίρι η ζωή, σε τράβηξε μ‟ έναν τρόπο στοργικό από τη φτώχεια και τη γειτονιά της. Θ‟ έρχεσαι τώρα και μου ζητείς χειραφέτηση, δηλαδή μ‟ άλλα λόγια αγώνα και βάσανα. Ρη στιγμή που όλοι μας – χιλιάδες κόσμος – γυρεύουμε αυτό το φρούριο που λες ν‟ ασφαλιστούμε μέσα του, να γλιτώσουμε την πείνα, την κάψα και τον ξεπεσμό, εσύ το βρήκες και θέλεις να το παρατήσεις. Λα πας ζητώντας τι; Ώνεξαρτησία. (239) The various descriptions of refugee life as presented in Anna‟s letter, contrast to her experiences and those of Eva and her acquaintances. Despite Anna‟s compassion for the people in her stories, they make her feel a perverse contentment that she and her family have not reached that stage yet. Although Anna was adamant to never forget her original home (19) and was unable to fathom the refugees‟ sacrifice of their old way of life for a new, albeit uncertain one (20), Anna‟s letter to Eva shows that she has come to terms with her future: Θαι όταν το συλλογιέμαι το κατάντημα που μας μέλλεται, έρχεται ώρα που μακαρίζω αυτούς που την κατρακυλήσανε τη σκάλα και δε θα την κατεβαίνουνε σιγά-σιγά όπως εμείς. (241) On the one hand, this suggests that Anna‟s family had the time to adjust to refugeehood because of the capital they brought with them, but on the other, she recognises that the possessions they brought with them will become reminders of their lost social status. Because of Anna‟s letter, the reader is inclined to sympathise with her and her situation since it is implied that her family‟s descent into poverty will be a gruelling and drawn-out process, more painful than a sudden loss. While Anna‟s intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration also demonstrates that she is acutely aware of her destiny, a direct reference to the title of the book

173 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

reiterates her perception of her family‟s future in Greece and provides a glimmer of hope about her future. Just like Kazantzi, Anna recognises her and her husband‟s role in their children‟s future: Λοιώθω με φόβο και λαχτάρα πως εμείς θα είμαστε οι πρώτες ρίζες! Ώυτά, οι πρώτοι ανθοί, θα λουλουδίσουν ή θα μαραζιάσουνε ανάλογα με τα δικά μας αγκομαχητά. (243) By the end of the novel, after approximately nine months in Greece, the narrator discloses, through an internal analepsis involving Eva, that Anna and her family have reached the poverty line. Eva‟s short visit to her aunt‟s house illustrates the differences between the refugee experience of the Lambikis household, including Eva, and her aunt‟s family (320). As the only mention of Eva‟s visit to her aunt‟s home, it seems to be included to enhance the overall picture of the refugee situation in the narrative, presenting the daily struggles to acquire water (320). This analepsis also serves to explain Eva‟s change, as she appears to finally comprehend the real issues faced by refugees in Greece. She begins to appreciate her privileged situation and abandons her dream of independence for the security of remaining with the Lambikis family (323-5). This analepsis emphasises that even refugees like Anna‟s family, who brought capital with them on their arrival in Greece, were not immune to a life of poverty resulting from unemployment. The intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrations by Eva and Anna provide the reader with alternative views of the refugee situation. Since we are unsure of the extradiegetic narrator’s background, the information revealed by these two refugee women provides a more effective method to highlight the serious issues refugees encountered. Anna‟s intradiegetic narration, however, seems more poignant than Eva‟s does because Anna recounts her own personal situation as a wife and a mother responsible for the next generation of refugees, while Eva‟s appears, at times, to be superficial and self-indulgent. In the second plot line featured in this novel, Martha also represents the refugees who opted to improve their situation through honest labour. Depicted as a respectful, modest refugee woman, her story is narrated by the extradiegetic- heterodiegetic narrator who rarely uses analepsis to present her story.

174 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

The sympathy the reader feels for Martha is derived from her traumatic experience of the Disaster. As told by the narrator, her family were first robbed, then the Turks hanged her father when they attacked Pontus (56) and her brother was taken into the forced labour battalions in the interior of Asia Minor (89). Arriving in Greece without money or assets, Martha is compelled to work to support herself. However, due to Martha‟s education and work experience as a secretary in her father‟s business in Pontus, she is better qualified than the average refugee and finds a job in an office that pays well. She willingly and eagerly finds work at Angelos Adam‟s insurance broker company as a secretary/personal assistant (54-6). The narrator‟s presentation of Martha is reminiscent of one of the more typical refugee images that we have come to know from documentaries and oral histories. That is, a poor refugee girl whose trauma incites her withdrawal from life, but who improves her lot and becomes a respected young lady through her hard work, dedication and marriage to her wealthy boss (181). Through reported discourse, the narrator emphasises the importance of Martha‟s relationship with Angelos. It becomes clear that Martha has accepted the annihilation the Disaster brought to her life: ΋χι... όχι, δεν μπορώ… Γγώ πια ξέχασα νά ‟ρχομαι σε επαφή με τον κόσμο… Ξείτε πως δεν υπάρχω […] Αια μένα η ζωή σταμάτησε εκεί... Γδώ... Γδώ σέρνομαι δίχως να ζω. (101) These sentiments are pivotal in the understanding of Martha‟s psychology, as it seems she has decided that along with the loss of her family and the life she once knew, she has ceased living. Even Martha‟s choice of attire reinforces her lack of will to live (59). Influenced by Angelos, Martha‟s character changes and develops since his treatment of her makes her feel that life is worth living. In response to Martha‟s pleas as presented above, Angelos‟ reply acknowledges Martha‟s suffering but also shows his concern for her psyche: „Ξάμε… Ξρέπει να ξαναγυρίσετε στη ζωή, στους ανθρώπους, στον κόσμο. Ώς είναι και να υποφέρετε‟ (101-2). The narrator illustrates Angelos‟ significant role in Martha‟s life by describing her new connection with the world around her as an awakening: Έσκυψε το κεφάλι, σα να υποτάχτηκε στα λόγια τους. ΋ταν βγήκε στο δρόμο, ανάμεσα στους δυο έριξε ένα βλέμμα γύρω της. ΢α να

175 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

ξυπνούσε από βαθύ και σκοτεινό ύπνο. Αεμάτο κακά όνειρα. (102, emphasis added) In keeping with a balanced portrayal of the refugees, Martha‟s depiction as a moral refugee is countered by her affair with Angelos out of wedlock. However, the affect this causes on her conscience offsets the conservative reader‟s judgement.7 Recognising that her transgression was immoral, Martha seeks a solution by requesting a commitment from Angelos. His initial reluctance to give up his bachelor ways and freedom (255) increases the reader‟s sympathy for Martha, who, without a commitment from Angelos, sees herself to be „damaged goods‟ and attempts suicide (292). This alters the reader‟s opinion of Martha, whose remorsefulness for her immoral action led to the ultimate punishment. Focalization through Angelos concerning his feelings for Martha as presented in the following narratised discourse seems to appease the reader‟s negative sentiments towards him, for his rejection of Martha, and towards Martha: [...] Eίχε βεβαιωθεί πως τα μάτια εκείνα που τον παρακολουθούσαν γεμάτα πόνο και αφοσίωση του είταν απαραίτητα. Βεν το μπορούσε πια να ζήσει δίχως τον ίσκιο τους. Βεν το μπορούσε ούτε μια στιγμούλα. (288) The transformations of both Martha and Angelos because of their love for each other, gives their relationship substance and a deeper significance than mere desire. Martha‟s influence on Angelos stirs a critical change in him, from a self- centred, hedonistic middle-aged man to a caring, loving, and self-sacrificing husband of an intellectually disabled refugee woman. This transformation becomes more pronounced by the narrator‟s inclusion in narratised discourse of the priest‟s thoughts as he marries them. He erroneously concludes that Martha must be wealthy for a distinguished gentleman like Angelos to marry her in her current mental and physical state (310). The reader is well aware that Angelos‟ transformation is not only a result of his love for Martha, but is also attributed to

7 In this section, the reader I am referring to are those of the time this novel was first published, 1936. No doubt, readers at this time would have viewed Martha as a promiscuous woman and frowned upon her actions.

176 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

his desire to avoid becoming like his mother, which was explained through an external analepsis. Disclosing in reported discourse, fears of following his selfish mother‟s footsteps, Angelos decides to be more compassionate to others, a sentiment that is expressed as his „rebirth‟ (100). Furthermore, the marriage of Angelos to Martha, when she is in her most vulnerable and dependent state, marks the legitimacy of this change, as he becomes the primary carer of the woman he loves. In turn, Martha, as mentioned earlier, also undergoes a „rebirth‟ and finally, through her marriage she is provided with emotional, financial and physical support. Thus, Martha‟s actions in attempting to find an extreme solution to her desperation lead to her incapacitation and the solution she had originally hoped for, marriage to, and a prime dependence on a rich man. The refugee Kallio Hristodoulou is the main character in the third plot that is presented in the diegesis by the extradiegetic narrator. As Doulis states: „if the story of Kallio Hristodoulou had not been included, The First Roots would have run the risk of being unrepresentative of the refugee experience‟ (1977: 99). By including Kallio in the novel, the author reinforces the image of the young refugee woman who improved her situation through honest labour; however, her situation is different to Eva‟s and Martha‟s. One could argue that her circumstance is much more difficult because she assumes the responsibility of her entire household and manages to build a home through hard work and perseverance (177, 182, 257, see also Kafetzaki 2003: 268-9). In this way, Kallio is much more successful than Eva and Martha in establishing her family‟s first roots, because, whilst all three women attempt to improve their situations, only Kallio accomplishes this on her own terms. As the eldest child in her family, Kallio is forced to work hard because the rest of her family members are unable or unwilling to work. The narrator includes Kallio‟s thoughts about this in narratised discourse, which acts as a prelude to the story involving her and her siblings: Ε Σλώρα. Ώυτή περιπατεί και βλέπει πιάνα μπρος της. Ξοιος θα την πάρει στη δούλεψή του να τη βλέπει να στέκεται όλη την ώρα και να κοιτά τους τοίχους; Ν Θώστας πάλι δεν έβγαλε, λέει, το γυμνάσιο για να πάει γκαρσόνι ή να πουλάει εφημερίδες. Ζέλει να βρει καθώς πρέπει δουλειά. (139-40)

177 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

The suggestion of Flora‟s daydreaming and Kostas‟ reluctance to find a job that he does not consider to be menial, leads to their downfall. As for Kallio‟s father Vasilis, his trauma has resulted in his inability to practice his trade as a tailor (139). Through the narrator‟s description of Vasilis‟ experience of street peddling and Kallio‟s search for a job in Athens, the reader is reminded of the difficulties the refugees confronted. This encourages the reader‟s sympathy for both characters in two very different ways. While the street peddling business illustrates for Kallio her will to survive that endears the reader to her character, the failure it represents for Vasilis stirs the reader‟s emotions. Firstly, this is a result of the narrator‟s inclusion in reported discourse of Vasilis‟ recognition of his own demise as this job forces him to face the unpleasantness of his refugee status: „Ξενήντα χρονών μουλάρι περπατησιά δε μαθαίνει... εγώ μια ζωή ολάκερη την πέρασα καθιστός και τώρα στα εξηνταπέντε βγήκα στους δρόμους‟ (144). Along with the humiliation of taking this job as suggested by this statement, his mistreatment by the locals (144-5) reinforces his degradation. Furthermore, the contrast between his negative treatment by the locals with the support shown to him by his fellow refugees provides a positive depiction of the refugees that endears them to the reader (146). Other characters who deal with their refugee situation through hard work and honest labour are the Lambikis‟ maid Lithario and the anonymous doctor from Kios, both of whom are given narratorial privileges. Lithario‟s employment in the Lambikis household makes her well placed to reveal information about other members of the Lambikis household. Although a very small part, Lithario‟s intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narration has an explanatory relationship to the diegesis as it informs Eva (and the reader) about the events that have led to Alexis‟ present situation; namely, his relationship with his late wife (168). In regards to the anonymous doctor from Kios, he is also given the privilege of narrating. He informs Kallio about his tragic personal journey to Greece in an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration that stirs the reader‟s emotions (149). From his initial introduction in the novel, the reader sympathises with him because as a doctor he would have once been considered the pillar of his society. Focalizing through Kallio, the narrator confirms this sentiment about the doctor:

178 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

„Ν πιο καλός γαμπρός! Ξου τον είχαν στο μάτι τόσες και τόσες πλούσιες‟ (149). The doctor‟s reported discourse about his current state supports Kallio‟s thoughts as he acknowledges this change in himself: „δεν με γνώρισες λοιπόν, τόσο παράγινα‟ (148). His intradiegetic narration has an explanatory function to the diegesis as he reveals the events that led to his present situation that further enhances the reader‟s sympathy for him. It reveals that his current state could have been avoided since he had the opportunity to relocate his belongings to Greece prior to the Disaster, but the ship in which his belongings were stored was hit by a bomb and sunk. Perhaps in an attempt to preserve his sanity despite his losses, the doctor shows an optimistic demeanour that adds to the reader‟s feelings for him: „Βε βαριέσαι, ο άνθρωπος ζει και χωρίς τίποτα‟ (149). Although his remark about his feelings for the sunk ship, „Κόνο τα λεφτά λυπήθηκα‟ (149), as opposed to the people who perished on the ship could be viewed in a negative manner, it illustrates two issues regarding his psychology. Firstly, that the affect of the refugee experience was horrific enough to force a doctor, trained to be self- less, to become selfish and think only about his own losses. Secondly, his comment can be interpreted as tragicomic, showing that he attempts to maintain his humour in order to preserve his sanity or that he realises the story is so tragic that he finds it humorous. His use of humour is also evident in his facetious reply to Kallio‟s question about his presence in Athens: „Λα, κάνω το σαράφη... Ρι ήθελες‟ (148). Apart from providing another tragic refugee story, the effect of employing the doctor as a narrator of his own story adds a personal touch to the compilation of refugee stories presented in the narrative and increases the reader‟s sympathy for him and the refugees.

PUTTING WEALTH TO WORK The second category in Οι πρώτες ρίζες consists of those benevolent refugees who assisted in other refugees‟ assimilation. Representing this group, Kazantzi is employed in the narrative as an intradiegetic narrator. While her function is to present information about her grandson Toto and her son-in-law Alexis‟ relationship with his deceased wife, she also highlights the anguish of an elderly refugee, living with the burden of losing a child. The first instance of Kazantzi‟s intradiegetic narration is heterodiegetic as it concerns Toto and has an explanatory

179 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

relationship to the diegesis, revealing the events that led to Toto‟s present situation. While the narrator describes Toto‟s attachment to Eva (39), in Kazantzi‟s narration to Eva, she explains the reasons for Toto‟s attachment issues. The narrator‟s use of transposed speech, free indirect style to present Kazantzi‟s narration, gives the narrator freedom to present Kazantzi‟s story as she pleases. While it could lead to the reader questioning the authenticity of the narration, the narrator reassures the reader that the words are Kazantzi‟s, as her use of the word „δηγήθηκε‟ (39) indicates. This may be the narrator‟s way of giving the story credibility even though the reader is already aware of Kazantzi‟s close relation with Toto and his sister Sonia. Kazantzi also assumes a role as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator of a story that is presented in reported discourse. While this provides additional information about Alexis, the depiction of her inner feelings of guilt about her daughter‟s death (160-1), which is reiterated later in the novel through Eva‟s intradiegetic narration as previously mentioned, adds to the reader‟s sympathy for Kazantzi. It is not only the intradiegetic narration’s content, but also the personal nature of the mode of communication that is used. This is the second time the narrator uses this combination of narrative techniques (intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration presented in reported discourse) to present the guilt felt by a refugee who has lost a child. Earlier in the novel, Smaragda, a minor character, also harbours regrets and guilt over the loss of her four daughters: „Νι κοπελούδες μου... δε θα βρεθούνε... πάνε... κ‟εγώ η σκύλα ζω... γλίτωσα η σκύλα!‟ (136). This use of narrative techniques emphasises another terrible aspect of refugeehood that encourages the reader‟s sympathy.

DESPERATE SOLUTIONS The third group of refugees consists of those who resorted to desperate solutions, and therefore contributed to the negative view of refugees in Greek society. Presented in the diegesis, Flora Hristodoulou is one such character. She provides an example of the exploited young and innocent female refugee, seeking a desperate solution to her situation by pursuing a sexual relationship with a native, who she hopes will save her. Martha is the character through which the story is revealed, as she invites Kallio to follow Flora to a meeting with her

180 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

boyfriend, where Flora realises that he has left without telling her (267). Kallio‟s role as the head of her household, as previously mentioned, is illustrated in this scene as she comforts Flora, supports her sister‟s virtue by lying to the curious taxi driver (268-9) and confronts Flora‟s boyfriend for exploiting her sister (273). Kallio‟s physical attack on Flora‟s boyfriend when he shows his indifference to Flora‟s pregnancy reinforces her role as the protector of her family, which the narrator also makes explicitly clear in her description of her assault: Ρο χέρι της από μοναχό του υψώθηκε. Γκείνο το δυνατό, γερό χέρι, που ξεσήκωσε το σπιτικό της και το κουβάλησε απ‟ την Ξροποντίδα. Ξου ατσαλώθηκε να κρατά όλη μέρα τα βάρη της βαλίτσας... Ώυτό το χέρι κατέβηκε αλογάριαστα στο πρόσωπό του. Κια... δυο... τρεις. (273) This seemingly masculine description reminds the reader of Kallio‟s struggles to establish her family in Greece; now with her attack on this young man whose actions threaten to destroy her family, she continues upholding the battle for her family‟s pride and honour. Regarding Kallio‟s depiction, Kafetzaki also states: „Γίναι πλέον αντρικό το χέρι μιάς γυναίκας που αναλαμβάνει τόσους «αντρικούς» ρόλους, ικανό να χειροδικήσει εναντίον ενός άνδρα και να υπερασπίσει την προσβεβλημένη τιμή (2003: 269). The three female refugee characters Stella, Souzanna and Maritsa, who play minor roles in the novel, contrast significantly to Eva, Martha and Kallio. Interestingly, while the former three women represent the poor, struggling and immoral female refugees, they are the only characters in the novel representing refugees from Smyrna. It is hard to believe that Stavrou would want to build or reinforce a stereotype about women from Smyrna. However, it can be argued that because all of the refugee characters from Smyrna are depicted in less flattering roles than those originating from Constantinople, Pontus and Kios, as represented by Eva, Martha and Kallio respectively, the reader can infer a message about these type of women. In addition to this, while Martha could have been part of this group since she did partake in immoral relations with Angelos, she is redeemed because it led to a loving marriage. There is no such redemption for Stella, Souzanna and Maritsa. They use desperate solutions to improve their situation, unlike the other group of ambitious refugee women who seek to create

181 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

foundations in Greece on their own terms through hard work and perseverance. By attempting to use men and secure their support, Stella, Souzanna and Maritsa ironically are not provided with this opportunity, whereas as we saw earlier Eva and Martha are offered this support through their respective relationships with Alexis and Angelos, while Kallio manages this on her own. Employed as a secretary in Angelos‟ office, Stella, or as Angelos calls her „η λαγγεμένη Ώνατολή‟ (sensual orient) (58, 88),8 represents the young female refugee who sought improvement of her life through marriage. According to the narrator, Stella‟s sole aim was to ensnare a man and marry him in order to survive (51). The narrator‟s description of her illustrates that she understood the affect her appearance had on the opposite sex, which she uses to her advantage: „Ξοιος ξέρει αν δεν συναντήσουνε σήμερα “εκείνον”... Αια τούτο και όλο προετοιμάζονται για τη μεγάλη αυτή στιγμή‟ (88-9). Although an inclusion in the story of Stella‟s Athenian colleague, who was equally as vain, suggests that the narrator tries to present a microcosm of various types of female characters seeking an escape from their poverty, this second girl does not become a focus. Stella‟s obsession with the superficial aspects of a person‟s character is evident in her lack of compassion towards her fellow refugee Martha. The narrator explains Stella‟s shock that Martha was hired for her education and ability, despite her shabby appearance: „Αια τη Πτέλλα δυο ήταν τα κριτήρια. Ε γυναίκα έπρεπε νά ‟ναι για όμορφη, το πρώτο, για πλούσια, το δεύτερο‟ (58). Like Stella, Souzanna is also a Smyrnian representing the underprivileged refugee women who sought an escape from their poverty through relationships with men. Presented in the diegesis, Souzanna‟s ostentation probably stems from her occupation as an actor, relying mainly on her external appearance, and she exploits the wealthier characters in the novel, exchanging intimacy for expensive gifts (85). Souzanna lacks a strong moral guide, and when she claims that her father would possibly physically punish her if she was not at home in the morning (79), the reader wonders whether this is her real father or perhaps her

8 While Angelos‟ use of this nickname suggests her Anatolian or „oriental‟ sensuality, it also alludes to the poem by , „Ώνατολή‟, which speaks of the orient as a sensual female.

182 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

pimp. The comments about refugee women like Souzanna by the character Lola, a high-class prostitute from Egypt, underlines the image portrayed of refugee women who seek desperate solutions from their reality. Disgruntled with the arrival of „ξένες‟ (foreigners) like Souzanna, Lola claims that they have ruined her business as her thoughts presented in transposed discourse by the narrator reveal: „Ώυτές οι φτωχές που χύθηκαν αμέτρητες και δίνανε τον εαυτό τους δίχως λογαριασμό και μέθοδο. Κόνο για να νοιώσουν πα στο κεφάλι τους μια στέγη ή να αποχτήσουνε ένα ζευγάρι κάλτσες κακής ποιότητας‟ (79). Due to the narrator‟s directing function, the character of Maritsa is portrayed as the most immoral. The narrator implies her immoral lifestyle from her first introduction in the novel. Presented in an external analepsis describing the first meeting between Maritsa and Antonis, a vital clue about Maritsa‟s character is provided, as she is depicted carrying „δέματα‟ (parcels) (52). As the narrative progresses, the reader questions the origins of these parcels as well as the unexplained luxury items in her household, considering that Maritsa could not afford them. As her fiancé, the Athenian Antonis, becomes suspicious of the origins of various luxury items and he wonders how she spends her time when they are not together, the reader‟s sympathy for Maritsa for her difficult refugee experience diminishes because of her lies to Antonis, who seems to genuinely want to help her improve her situation. Interestingly, the narrator appears to make a distinction between the savviness of the refugees and the gullibility of the native. While Maritsa maintains the façade of a moral and honest young girl to Antonis, the reader is made aware that she continues her relations with wealthy men from whom she has received the luxury items and parcels in return for sex. Regarding the excuses Maritsa gives about her whereabouts to conceal her relations with other men, the narrator seems to be critical of Antonis‟ naivety, emphasising to the reader that Maritsa is lying: „Βεν είχε μάθει πως όταν η γυναίκα λέει ψέματα, τότε είναι που αραδιάζει πολλές, πολλές λεπτομέρειες‟ (192). The narrator even presents Martha‟s explanation of Maritsa‟s debauched lifestyle to Kallio when asked about the company Kostas has been keeping: „Ώυτή έχει εκατό λογιώ αγαπητικούς και μια γριά στρίγγλα που της κάνει πελάτες‟ (264). Intriguingly, perhaps because of his own refugee status, Kostas‟ assumption that Maritsa is from Smyrna because

183 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 4

of her immoral actions, alludes to the narrator‟s apparent stereotyping of refugees from Smyrna. When Antonis confirms his guess, Kostas says „χμ‟, which he explains with the following statement presented in reported discourse for emphasis: „Λα ισκιερή, γλυκιά... κι αυτή πόχουμε στο γραφείο η Πτέλλα, μπουκιά και συχώριο‟ (194). Further highlighting the ignorance of the native and the social awareness of the refugees, Martha also warns Antonis about Maritsa: „Ρο νου σου γιατί είναι άλλος κόσμος αυτός εκεί πάνω, μπερδεμένος. Έχει φόβο να χαθείς... Ξρόσεχε!‟ (200). The repetition of her warning in the same conversation, „Έχεις γνωριμίες βλέπω... καλά σου είπα... ΋μως το νου σου, στο ξαναλέγω... εδώ είναι κόσμος άγνωστος για σένα. Ξρόσεχε‟ (200), demonstrates her strong disapproval of Maritsa‟s conduct even though she is a refugee herself and understands the refugee struggle to survive in Greece. The tragic end of Kostas and Maritsa is a result of the role they play in Antonis‟ humiliation. Arriving at Maritsa‟s house, Antonis finds Maritsa in bed with Kostas and he shoots them with a pistol that ironically was meant to celebrate the wedding of Martha and Angelos (317-8). Maritsa‟s exploitation of Antonis‟ naivety, and Kostas‟ underhandedness because of his affair with Maritsa even though he knew that Antonis was engaged to Maritsa (189), were not the only reasons for his humiliation. Antonis‟ determination to commit to Maritsa despite recognising his family‟s disapproval of his relationship with a refugee caused him even more distress. Maritsa‟s actions validated his family‟s prejudice against refugee women, as the narrator explains: Έπειτα οι αδελφές του κι όλο το συγγενολόι δε θα το χώνευαν που πήγε να πιαστεί με μια γδυμνή, μιαν έρημη. Βίχως προικιό. Βίχως χωράφι. Κια πρόσφυγα μάλιστα. Ώπ‟ „αυτές‟ όπως τις λέγανε. (189) Finally, while Maritsa‟s refugee predicament, and her way of dealing with it has led to her and Kostas‟ death, Antonis‟ humiliation for pursuing a relationship with her despite the warnings from natives and refugees also contributed to it. As Kafetzaki states, this relationship and others included in the novel, such as that between Martha and Angelos as previously mentioned, „στέφουνται από αποτυχία, τη στιγμή που στο έργο της Πταύρου αυτό το συναίσθημα και αυτή η σχέση είναι η λύτρωση από τα δεινά (2003: 272).

184 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5 A NATIVE AUTHOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Grigorios Xenopoulos, Πρόσφυγες

The novel Πρόσφυγες (1994) by the native Greek author Xenopoulos was first published in 1934.1 Most of the novel is set in the Kyriakidis‟ home near Omonoia Square in Athens, with the story covering the first year after the arrival of the refugees in August/September of 1922. From the first line of the narrative the reader is instantly aware that the story focuses on the Asia Minor refugees and that the narrator is sympathetic (7). Because of the refugee issues depicted in this novel, Doulis and Kafetzaki have included it in their work, but their respective approaches differ from this study. Doulis is preoccupied with the Disaster as a theme in Xenopoulos‟ work, commenting on the author‟s choice in presenting this subject and the refugees in a superficial manner (1977: 75-8). Although she provides a brief commentary on Πρόσφυγες, Kafetzaki also observes Xenopoulos‟ shallow treatment of the refugees‟ issues and that Xenopoulos‟ novel displays didactic elements (81), which are discussed in this analysis. According to Maria Zarimis‟ study of Xenopoulos: „In many of his novels Xenopoulos had an “informing the readers approach” on many issues including on women‟ (2007: 311). An extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator, who uses the technique of zero focalization, narrates the story.2 Because of the novel‟s narrative situation, the

1 For this analysis I used the 1994 publication by Ώδελφοί ΐλάσση. 2 Although the extradiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, for clarity we will refer to the narrator as he since the author is male and it seems as though the narrator has a male voice. As an aside, it is worth noting that some Greek critics (Haris 1979, Karantonis 1977a) have considered Xenopoulos as „pro woman‟ and that he understood his female psyche well. However, Vicky Doulaveras (1995) does not agree. As will be seen in this analysis, although Xenopoulos does include women in his novel, they are treated as objects, in stereotypical roles. See also, Hadjitheodorou 2009, although she does not include Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες in her study.

185 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

omniscient narrator retains ultimate control, but he does not provide a sustained focus on individual refugee characters. However, he keeps the story line interesting and creates suspense by holding back information, which could be a result of the narrative‟s first publication in instalments (Kafetzaki 2003: 81). For example, during the narration of Smaragda‟s time in hospital where she is unsure of the whereabouts of her family or even if they are alive or dead (11), the narrator is aware of her family‟s situation but omits this information until we are told about their arrival and settlement in Mytilene (62-70). Moreover, when Smaragda meets Andreas for the first time, the narrator hints about the couple‟s future relationship (44), which is only revealed on the last pages of the novel (250-1). As will be seen, the narrator‟s focus on the social lives of these younger refugees results in an unconvincing and superficial account of their experiences. Initially, the reader‟s attention is focused on the settlement of the Zannoglou family, whose assimilation in Greece highlights the general themes of refugeehood, such as the relations between natives and refugees, employment, and the loss and reunion of relatives. As suggested by Doulis and Kafetzaki in their respective studies, Xenopoulos trivialises these issues and they become secondary themes behind the romantic concerns of youths who happen to be refugees. Specifically, Doulis states: [Xenopoulos] seems to be strongly interested at first in the social and ethical issues of the refugees‟ presence, their poverty and thus their vulnerability, but he skilfully extricates himself from all of these issues and turns the novel into a typical „sentimental romance‟ full of concern about how the characters will pair off. (1977: 76) For instance, while the ongoing trauma of the refugees is noted, it is not presented as an aspect of refugeehood that may have affected their ability to assimilate to Greek society. In particular, Mihalakis, a returned prisoner of war from the forced labour battalions, appears unaffected by his experience, unlike that seen in Andreas‟ presentation in Venezis‟ novel Γαλήνη. Instead, Mihalakis returns to his family and assimilates into Greek society without any issues (231-5, 241-4), and is even able to sleep alone peacefully on the first night of his return after his apparent traumatic experience (237), which is a significant contrast to

186 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

Andreas, who suffered from nightmares. It appears that Xenopoulos‟ narrator is either unaware of the acute trauma of refugees or he chose to ignore it. The decision to depict superficial themes and the refugees as normal functioning young adults with much in common with locals could be due to the author‟s desire to subvert his reader‟s prejudice against the refugees, since at the time of publication the refugees were still problematic for Greek society. It could also be an outcome of his desire to purely entertain his implied readers with a light- hearted story merely referring to the traumatic experiences of refugeehood (Doulis 1977: 77). Nevertheless, Xenopoulos‟ depictions of the refugee characters are not convincing. This is also due in part to the narrator‟s constant assertions about the positive qualities of refugees, which ironically appears to be a method of persuading the reader to sympathise with them. As Kafetzaki also states (2004: 81), the depiction of the Athenian Manos Kyriakidis‟ treatment of the refugee Smaragda Zannoglou and her family, as well as the support shown to other refugee characters by natives, may be perceived by the reader to be paradigms used to instruct them on how to deal with refugees. Further to this, the virtuousness of all the refugee characters in the narrative seems to be another ploy by the author to influence the reader‟s perception of refugees, depicting them to be moral and respectful and, therefore, worthy of the natives‟ compassion. This could also be a method of challenging any negativity against the refugees that was occurring around the time of the narrative‟s first circulation in Athenian newspapers. While the narrative features brief descriptions of the mass of refugees arriving in Greece, it deals individually with 14 refugee characters. Unlike Stavrou‟s novel, Xenopoulos demonstrates a clear preference for refugees from Smyrna, as 11 refugees originating from this area assume prime roles in the narrative, while the other three refugee characters derive from Balya, a town about two hundred kilometres north of Smyrna. The narrator‟s inclination to depict middle class refugees as main characters shows the title, Πρόσφυγες (Refugees), to be misleading since it suggests the portrayal of all types of refugees. About the title, Doulis states: „Xenopoulos [...] would certainly not be the writer to grapple at this time in his career with the more significant and profound issue

187 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

the title implies‟ (1977: 75). The composition of characters reveals a strong focus on young refugee women, with nine of 14 refugees in the story being women. The prominence of the younger generation and, as mentioned, the focus on the romantic aspects of their lives, could be associated with the narrator‟s choice in covering lighter matters of refugeehood. Although the novel‟s narrative present is presented in chronological time, the story also features analepses and intradiegetic narrations, which are used explicitly to explain characters‟ experiences of the Disaster. These accounts could be described as superficial. As will be seen, whilst these add weight to the plot and maintain the reader‟s interest in the story, the way in which they are presented does not encourage the reader to truly sympathise with the refugees. The narrator‟s description of the refugees‟ arrival in Athens provides a sense of the scale of the Disaster. From the first mention of the refugees, the narrator shows his compassion towards them: „Κόλις είχε μπει ο Πεπτέμβρης του 1922. Πτον Ξειραιά έφθαναν ολοένα θύματα της μικρασιατικής καταστροφής‟ (7, emphasis added). With focalization through Manos and other natives assembled at Piraeus, the arrival of the refugees is described as „θλιβερό θέαμα‟ (melancholy sight) and „τραγικότερη σκηνή‟ (most tragic scene) (8). In accordance with the narrator‟s sympathetic portrayal of the refugees, despite the insinuation that the refugees have overrun the city, the narrator presents this in a neutral way, without illustrating the sense of chaos and trauma associated with the integration of the refugees into the Greek landscape: Νι πρόσφυγες έφταναν, η Ώθήνα γέμιζε. Αια να τους τοποθετήσουν, είχαν επιτάξει σπίτια, σχολεία, αποθήκες, υπόστεγα. Γίχαν αρχίσει να στήνουν και σκηνές, να κάνουν και παράγκες. Ώλλά πολλοί κοιμόνταν κάτω απ‟ τ‟ άστρα. (17) By emphasising a change in Manos‟ and his wife Aspasia‟s personality, the narrator accents the impact of the refugees‟ arrival and draws the reader‟s focus from the general to the specific. As Manos views the refugees at the quay, the narrator assumes that Manos would be detached from this sight, guessing that he was probably thinking about how he can take advantage of the refugees (7). On the contrary, when Manos sees Smaragda, his alleged selfishness vanishes as he rescues her and later offers medical assistance. In addition, through

188 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

Aspasia,3 the narrator brings to the reader‟s attention ways in which one can help the refugees. This is evident in the following excerpt, which also acts as a prolepsis since it alludes to the outcome of Manos‟ assistance to Smaragda: Κπορούμε να εξετάζουμε και να μαθαίνουμε. Αίνονται και θαύματα στον κόσμο. ΋λοι αυτοί οι χαμένοι κι οι σκορπισμένοι, μπορεί να βρεθούν και να ξανασμίξουν. Άμα γίνει καλά, άμα συνέλθει, θα μας διηγηθεί τα καθέκαστα και θα κατατοπιστούμε για μια ενέργεια. ΢πάρχει υπηρεσία, γραφείο προσφύγων. Γκεί θα πας πρώτα-πρώτα, Κάνο, να δηλώσεις τ‟ όνομα και τη διαμονή της προστατευομένης σου. (16) By characterising Aspasia as another native ignorant of issues outside of her family (29), as he did with Manos, the narrator shows the significant influence of the refugees, who managed to gain the understanding of a native like her. Interestingly, despite the rare opportunity provided by Smaragda‟s search for her family to present the stories of other refugees, the narrator chooses to exclude them. Despite mentioning that various refugees told Smaragda their own stories of the Disaster, the narrator does not provide the details, which might have encouraged an emotional response in the reader. Instead, he merely summarises them: „Ε Πμαράγδα άκουγε, άκουγε απ‟ το στόμα τους ιστορίες και περιπέτειες όμοιες με τις δικές της, έχυνε δάκρυα για γνωστούς κι άγνωστους...‟ (83). This lack of detail on minor refugee characters suggests that the narrator is only interested in presenting the experiences of a select group and reinforces the narrator‟s choice to exclude traumatic experiences faced by the refugees. The narrator‟s choice to focalize through the apparently unemotional character Manos, provides an unconvincing and superficial portrayal of the refugee experience that is mostly preoccupied with external appearances. The narrator tries to promote the reader‟s compassion for Smaragda through the description of her appearance but his report on the description of her as focalized through Manos is, as Doulis suggests, filled with ‟a wealth of sexual innuendo,

3 Although Smaragda‟s mother is also named Aspasia, the fact that the characters in the novel do not acknowledge this issue suggests that it could be unintentional on the author‟s part, caused possibly by the time-lapse between instalments.

189 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

all of it carefully controlled so it entices but does not entice‟ (Doulis 1977: 76). Not only is this noted in the description of Smaragda and in the inventory of her injuries, which shows her level of suffering (8), but also Manos‟ first impression of her invites readers to speculate about her past and her experience of the Disaster: Ζα είναι από καλή οικογένεια – συλλογίστηκε ο Κάνος. Θαι προλίγου ακόμα θα ‟ταν όμορφο κορίτσι. Κα πόσο θα κακόπαθε, το δυστυχισμένο, ως να φτάσει και να πέσει εδώ!... Ώυτά τα σημάδια, αυτή η λιγνάδα, αυτό το χτυπημένο μάτι.... (9) In addition, the numerous references to her appearance also hold sexual undertones, while the mention of her appearance before the Disaster (9, 18, 23, 32, 33), the temporary loss of this because of her ordeal and the restoration of it upon recovery (17-18, 33) also makes a statement about the benefits of the locals‟ help. As suggested in Manos‟ first impression of Smaragda after her hospitalisation, it is only with his assistance that her appearance is restored: ΋ταν μπήκε ο Κάνος έμεινε έκπληκτος. Ώυτή ήταν το ανθρώπινο κουρέλι, που είχε μαζέψει εκείνο το πρωί απ‟ το δρόμο; Ρώρα έβλεπε μια κοπέλα, χλομή πάντα κι αδύνατη βέβαια, μα τόσο όμορφη, τόσο γλυκιά, με τόσο ευγενική φυσιογνωμία! (17-18) Most telling of the sexual innuendo in this novel is the narrator‟s comparison between Smaragda and Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love: „[...] ψηλή κοπέλα και γεμάτη, με πλούσιο στήθος και γόφια Ώφροδίτης‟ (33). While this also alludes to Smaragda‟s beauty and implies her connection to her Greek heritage, it also refers to Smaragda‟s sexuality, since Aphrodite was by no means a symbol of sexual suppression.4 The imagery of her beauty and sexuality influences the reader‟s emotions as it magnifies the losses she sustained because of the Disaster.

4 As suggested by an anonymous examiner, it is „common practice‟ for Xenopoulos „to describe his young female characters as Aphrodites‟. In addition, in her study on Xenopoulos‟ novels, Zarimis states: „Xenopoulos often wrote about the sexual instinct and sexuality in his novels, and these themes were often focused on women‟ (2007: 290). However, she does not include Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες in this study.

190 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

Considering Smaragda‟s horrific ordeal, the manner with which she is depicted is problematic, raising questions regarding the authenticity of her portrayal. Her characterisation in the novel as a conservative young lady renders her early actions unconvincing. Approaching Smaragda on the quay at Piraeus, Manos engages in a dialogue with her as presented in reported discourse, which shows her openness to speak with a complete stranger and her willingness to follow him (9-13). While this could partly be explained by Manos‟ respectable appearance and her sheer desperation, this is an improbable scenario for Smaragda whose conservative nature is revealed later in the narrative. Interestingly, it seems that the narrator is perhaps aware of such criticism, addressing it through Smaragda‟s explanation of her unusual behaviour toward Manos, as presented in reported discourse for emphasis: „Θι όλοι προσφέρθηκαν να με βοηθήσουν, μα δεν τους εμπιστεύτηκα. Πεις φαίνεστε κύριος καθώς πρέπει‟ (11). It is not only her directness that is problematic. Smaragda‟s reaction to the traumatic experiences recounted by her in an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration, shows a certain lack of emotion that does not seem to fit her profile. When Manos asks Smaragda about her family, the narrator explains that her response was to cover her eyes as though she was trying to rid herself of a bad dream (11). While this is only a brief response, her intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration presented in reported discourse explains her reaction. The dialogue that follows details the horrific experiences of her family, but without strong emotion: Γίδα ένα στρατιώτη να χτυπά τον πατέρα μου με την κάννα του τουφεκιού του κατακέφαλα. Ρον σκότωσε; Έζησε; Βεν ξέρω... Ρον αδερφό μου και τον αρραβωνιαστικό μου τους είχαν πάρει αιχμάλωτους... Ε μητέρα μου κι η μικρή μου αδελφή έμειναν... Ν παππούς άρρωστος, ξεψύχησε την ημέρα της συμφοράς... Άταφο τον αφήσαμε στο σπίτι... Ζα κάηκε νεκρός.... (12) The curious detachment from the events she narrates as sensed through the systematic way she talks about her family members, is compounded with the fact that these events have only just occurred and the people about whom Smaragda speaks may be dead or lost. Although this may be Smaragda‟s way of coping with her trauma, the reader might expect her reported discourse to show a stronger

191 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

emotional response. This would make her presentation as a refugee in this situation more convincing and perhaps amplify the reader‟s sympathy. The narrator seems to deal with this evaluation through the inclusion in narratised discourse of Manos‟ conclusion that Smaragda‟s unresponsive manner resulted from the little time she has had to deal with her grief (12). It is possible that the reader‟s view of Smaragda‟s account as lacking in emotion is a result of it becoming the focal point of her depiction and the superficial way she recovers from her trauma. In contrast to the reaction shown when she discussed her family, Smaragda‟s response to Manos‟ question about her fiancé, Marios, is stronger and more convincing as Manos‟ remark divulged in narratised discourse illustrates: „Ρώρα μάλιστα έδειξε και λύπη‟ (13). On another occasion when Smaragda begins to cry for the first time, Manos‟ thoughts excuse her previous unemotional demeanour, as he claims that she was detached from human emotion because of her trauma: „Θλαίει – συλλογίστηκε ο Κάνος – ξαναγίνεται άνθρωπος...‟ (18). Despite this explanation, Smaragda‟s intradiegetic- homodiegetic narration about her family‟s story, as presented in reported discourse to Fani, continues to show apathy (19). While it is highly probable that Smaragda would be aware of the treatment of Greek prisoners in the forced labour battalions, her external analepsis recounted as an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration that discloses Mihalakis‟ and Marios‟ incarceration is perceived to be as lacking in emotion as her earlier intradiegetic narration (34-5). Although the content of this intradiegetic narration is sorrowful, the implication of Smaragda‟s matter-of-fact tone and her general depiction makes it difficult for the reader to sympathise with her. This contrasts to the interpretation of the same tone used by other refugee characters in the novels selected for our corpus in which their indifference indicates their difficulty in dealing with the situation. While this is partly true for Smaragda, because of the contrived way the story and Smaragda‟s character is presented, it makes it difficult for the reader to sympathise with her. The reader expects her to react more strongly. In an attempt to gain the reader‟s sympathy for Smaragda, an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration revealed in reported discourse includes information that does incite the reader‟s sympathy for her because it reminds them of her loss and reveals her horrific ordeal. Fani becomes the instigator of an

192 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

external analepsis revealing Smaragda‟s journey to Greece and provides a description of her family‟s actions as they fled the fire in Smyrna (48-53). The information that is presented satisfies the reader‟s curiosity, since it resolves the suspense about how Smaragda ended up in Greece, meeting up with the scene at the opening of the narrative where Manos finds her on the quay at Piraeus. The images provided by Smaragda of her ordeal appeal to the reader‟s emotions, but the narrator‟s attempt to convince the reader that her narration is authentic by bestowing narratorial privileges to Smaragda is not entirely successful. Adding to the novel‟s questionable portrayal of the refugee experience, the effect of the forced labour battalions on captives does not correspond to that which is presented by historical evidence. In Marios‟ case, although he does not feature as a character, the reader learns through Mihalakis‟ external analepsis recounted in his reported discourse that Marios was favoured by the Turks and lived comfortably alongside them (232-3). While this is a rare case, this could have been likely, but in Mihalakis‟ case, the narrator seems to disregard the importance of presenting his character in a convincing way. In narratised discourse, the narrator presents a telegram from Mihalakis in that informs his family about his pending arrival in Athens. Reiterating Mihalakis‟ situation, the narrator uses strong emotive language in a bid to gain the reader‟s sympathy for him: „Ρηλεγράφησε ο Κιχαλάκης ο ίδιος, ο αιχμάλωτος, ο χαμένος, πως βρισκόταν εκεί ελεύθερος και σήμερα αύριο θα „ταν στην Ώθήνα‟ (226, emphasis added). Even from the first time Mihalakis is featured in the narrative, the narrator‟s description of him raises questions, since Mihalakis seems more preoccupied with ensuring that his father repays the Adamidis family for their hospitality than with recovering from his ordeal as a captive (231). His effortless adjustment to a normal lifestyle and the narrator‟s exclusion of the stories he told his colleagues about his experiences in the forced labour battalions, illustrates the narrator‟s penchant to ignore the unpleasant aspects of the experience of captivity (243).5 It appears that the treatment of Mihalakis is consistent with the author‟s apparent aim to focus on lighter issues, for example Mihalakis‟ social

5 As mentioned earlier, this in stark contrast to Andreas‟ psychological state as a returned prisoner of war in Venezis‟ Γαλήνη.

193 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

life. Continuing the presentation of the refugees as decent and moral people, the narrator also presents Mihalakis as a gentleman, remaining respectful towards women (243-4). Considering that the refugees at the time of the novel‟s first publication were still vilified, it seems the narrator also uses the refugees to explain to his intended audience that the refugees were the responsibility of the entire nation. In an attempt to influence his compatriots to cease their negativity toward the refugees, Fani‟s nightmares, which resulted from Smaragda‟s story, are said by the narrator to be common amongst the Greeks (58). Suggesting that the natives were united with the refugees in their grief, the narrator‟s overt description of Smaragda as a symbol of Greece‟s national mourning and loss validates this notion: Αενικός ο εφιάλτης – μα κι η θλίψη, κι η αγανάχτηση και το πένθος. Πτην Ώθήνα, όπως σ‟ όλη την Γλλάδα και σ‟ όλο τον ελληνισμό. Ξένθος εθνικό. Ε ελληνική ψυχή μαυροφορούσε. Ε Πμαράγδα, που θα εμφανιζόταν σε λίγο με τα μαύρα που της ετοίμαζαν οι φίλοι της, θα ‟ταν ένα σύμβολο.... (59) The co-operation between natives and refugees as seen here is also alluded to by Manos, whose support of Smaragda appears in the novel as a paradigm. Manos stated that he healed her physical wounds, which in turn freed her to heal her psychological ones, proclaiming this to be the Greek nation‟s duty: „Ώυτή είναι η μοίρα της, κι αυτό είναι το χρέος μας!‟ (13). The manner with which events regarding Smaragda‟s reunion with her family are revealed to the reader, add to the drama of the novel, whilst also promoting compassion for Smaragda. The narrator maintains the reader‟s interest in the story through the anticipation of her family‟s reunion, which seems inevitable. While the first three chapters of the novel reveal to the reader Smaragda‟s experience of the Disaster, the narrator does not mention the fate of her family, apart from Smaragda‟s explanation of the last time she saw them. By the end of the third chapter, the reader, like Smaragda, is intrigued to find out their story. In the fourth chapter, the reader is introduced to a crowd of refugees at a seaside village on Lesvos called Molivos, among whom Smaragda‟s father, mother and sister appear. To maintain the mystery, the narrator does not reveal

194 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

that this is Smaragda‟s family until two pages later. While the reader knows the story of Smaragda‟s family, which is disclosed from page 61 to 88, Smaragda remains oblivious, and the suspense regarding her family reunion is maintained. The method used to divulge the story of Smaragda‟s family introduces other refugee characters into the plot line. A chance encounter with the refugee character Evanthia, who assumes the role of an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator, resolves, in an external analepsis, the reason Smaragda‟s family have not searched for her in Athens. Upon their meeting, Evanthia shows her surprise in seeing Smaragda alive, leading Smaragda to speculate: „Ώμέσως η Πμαράγδα μάντεψε. Πτη Πμύρνη, τις φοβερές ώρες του διωγμού, θα είχε διαδοθεί πως πέθανε. Θαι κάποιος θα το είπε στους δικούς της!‟ (88). Smaragda‟s thoughts are confirmed by Evanthia‟s intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration, which has a persuasive relationship to the diegesis. The content revealed has consequences for the action about to occur in the diegesis as it reveals that Smaragda‟s family was misinformed about her death (90). Evanthia‟s revelation leads Smaragda to seek information about her family, thus leading to the introduction of another refugee character, Lazaris. Although he did not witness the family‟s story first-hand, the content of his report is accurate as it is consistent with the family‟s story in Molivos, Lesvos, which was revealed by the narrator in the narrative present to the reader only. While the introduction of Lazaris could have provided the narrator with an opportunity to present the experiences of minor refugee characters, Lazaris‟ story focuses explicitly on the Zannoglou family, in particular, Ilias‟ generosity that raises the mystery about how he managed to hold onto a large sum of cash throughout his ordeal (96). Besides clarifying the whereabouts of Smaragda‟s family, Evanthia introduces her family to the story. Although the entire Fotiadis family arrived in Greece from Smyrna, the narrator only focuses on Vasilakis and Evanthia. The interaction between Smaragda and Evanthia highlights their families‟ different refugee experiences and the repercussions these had on the families‟ financial status. In the depiction of the Fotiadis‟ experiences through Evanthia‟s intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narration to Smaragda, Evanthia discusses her family‟s current financial situation. With an explanatory relationship to the diegesis, the intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narration depicts Evanthia‟s father Vasilakis as an

195 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

example of those once prosperous refugees whose fortune was lost because of paying bribes to ensure their safe arrival in Greece (90). The narrator‟s repetition of the contrasting images of Vasilakis before the Disaster with his current position (92), suggests that this is an important element in Vasilakis‟ depiction and illustrates a determination to arouse the reader‟s sympathy for him. The inclusion of Evanthia‟s point of view as a daughter who has to endure the sight of her father‟s demise can also be seen as an attempt to increase the reader‟s sympathy: Ρου παραχωρούν ένα μέρος στην είσοδο ενός θεάτρου, να το κάμει μαγαζάκι και να πουλάει τσιγαρέτα, εφημερίδες και... καραμέλες! Σανταστείτε το μπαμπά, που είχε στη Πμύρνη ένα από τα μεγαλύτερα καταστήματα! (93) Interestingly, Evanthia‟s reported discourse is echoed by the thoughts of Smaragda‟s father Ilias as presented in his narratised discourse, further emphasising Vasilakis‟ downfall. Ξόνεσε η ψυχή του Ελία μια μέρα που τον είδε κατά τύχη στην είσοδο κάποιου θερινού θεάτρου, να πουλάει τσιγαρέτα και καραμέλες. Ρο μαγαζάκι του - ύστερα από το μεγάλο κι ωραίο εκείνο που είχε στη Πμύρνη – ήταν ένα μακρινάρι με στέγη μόνο και μια πορτούλα.... (146-7) The Fotiadis‟ impoverishment appears to be a recurring theme in the novel; in particular, it is evident in the constant references to Evanthia, which show that this is a significant factor in her portrayal. There are several mentions of Evanthia‟s aesthetic beauty (148, 182, 245) and her shabby appearance (89, 93, 152, 176). As was the case with Smaragda, even from Evanthia‟s introduction in the narrative, the narrator ensures that the reader knows her circumstances from her appearance: Σαινόταν το κορίτσι από καλή οικογένεια, που η προσφυγιά το είχε καταντήσει να σουλατσάρει, ξεσκούφωτο, με παλιόρουχα, στο πεζοδρόμιο, σαν κορίτσι του λαού σε μια απόκεντρη αυλή. (89) Furthermore, Evanthia relates her current appearance to her family‟s social status: „Ω έκαμε η Γυανθία, κοιτάζοντας τον εαυτό της ως κάτω. Γίμαι εγώ τώρα για σπίτια, με τα χάλια μου;‟ (93). The narrator seems to promote compassion for

196 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

her through the mention of other characters‟ sympathy for her. This is seen in Ilias‟ thoughts, as he seems to converse with the reader directly: „Βεν είναι αμαρτία αυτό το καημένο κορίτσι;... Θι αυτή μια φορά τα είχε όλα σαν τη Πμαράγδα μου. Ρώρα πώς ζει;‟ (151). In another case, the narrator provides a moral lesson about the judgement of refugees‟ appearance through the interaction between Evanthia, who refuses to attend the cinema because of her appearance, and Sofia and Fani. The girls‟ reaction to Evanthia‟s refusal reveals their compassion for Evanthia and appears to be aimed at the reader since the use of rhetorical questions seem to provoke the reader‟s thoughts about how one should perceive the refugees: Ρην αποπήραν, τη μάλωσαν, της απαγόρευσαν να ξαναπεί τέτοιο λόγο. Ώκούς εκεί! Σα ράσο κάνει τον παπά; Δεν φαινόταν το κορίτσι από οικογένεια; Δεν ήξεραν όλοι στην Αθήνα πως προσφυγοπούλες, πλουσιοκόριτσα ως χτες, με μεταξωτά και με διαμάντια, γύριζαν τώρα με κουρέλια; (176, emphasis added) The presentation of Evanthia‟s attitude seems to be another method used by the narrator to encourage the reader‟s sympathy for her. Appearing to make a statement that counters the image of the powerless and vulnerable refugee, Evanthia‟s character projects the image of the young refugee woman who faces her circumstances with fortitude. An example of this is seen in a comment made by Evanthia to Smaragda: „Κόνο ο θάνατος δε διορθώνεται, είπε τελειώνοντας η Γυανθία. ΋λα τ‟ άλλα διορθώνονται. Κπόρα είναι κι αυτή που θα περάσει‟ (91). Furthermore, Evanthia‟s strong character is evident in the jokes she makes at her own expense, as seen in a conversation with the Zannoglou sisters in which she refers to her current accommodation: [...] Γσύ τέλος πάντων από θέατρο έφυγες, σε θέατρο πήγες... - Σο ’χει η μοίρα μου φαίνεται. Μην θα καταντήσω θεατρίνα; - Ζεός φυλάξει! -Μπα! Γιατί τα ’χα; Εγώ και στην ΢μύρνη, όταν έβλεπα θεατρίνες στη σκηνή, στον κινηματογράφο, τις μακάριζα. Δεν είναι καθόλου άσχημο επάγγελμα. (153, emphasis added shows Evanthia‟s reported discourse) Moreover, through the issue of employment, the reader observes Evanthia‟s humility. She ignores her privileged background for a position as a secretary

197 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

(168), and her conservative nature is evident in her initial decline of Ilias‟ offer to work at his office out of fear of becoming like the refugee Erasmia. While the story of the refugee Erasmia illustrates the possibility for a young, refugee women, like Evanthia, to lose her virtuousness (181), in keeping with the narrator‟s choice to present positive depictions of the moral refugee, Erasmia is excluded from the direct narrative. With her story presented in narratised discourse as part of Evanthia‟s thoughts, it contrasts with Evanthia‟s decency, which is further highlighted by the narrator‟s inclusion of her approach to flirtations in the workplace (181-2). The narrator‟s focus on the positive aspects of Evanthia‟s character endear the reader to her and appear to be a strategy used by the author to break down the prejudice against refugees that were rife at the time of the novel‟s first publication. Although the reader is aware that Ilias, Aspasia and Sofia Zannoglou survived the Disaster in a better state than most refugees, the narrator attempts to incite the reader‟s compassion for them, depicting their experiences in an analepsis.6 Despite their distressing experiences, the narrator fails to maximise the reader‟s sympathy because he merely asserts this horrific experience as opposed to showing it to the reader via scenes depicting the actions that would draw these conclusions: Ώναγκάζονταν να στέκονται, να κρύβονται, να χώνονται σε σπηλιές, να ροβολούν σε χαράδρες, σε ρεματιές και να εγκαταλείπουν τα πράγματά τους και τ‟ αμάξια τους [...] Ρο μικρό ταξίδι γινόταν μακρύ, ατέλειωτο. Ρους βασάνιζε ζέστη, πείνα, δίψα, αγωνία. (61) The emphasis on the assistance extended to the Zannoglou family by the natives and refugees, seems to have a didactic purpose, showing the implied reader how to treat the refugees. This is seen in the mystery surrounding the way the family was able to preserve their fortune, thus maintaining their social standing (Kafetzaki 2003: 81). The suspense is created through the narrator‟s directing function. From Ilias‟ first introduction in the narrative, the narrator

6 I have not specified the type because the temporal setting of the event presented in this analepsis is unknown. It is difficult to ascertain whether this occurred before, during or after Smaragda‟s arrival in Piraeus as depicted at the beginning of the narrative.

198 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

brings the readers‟ attention to Ilias‟ higher social class and financial status through a description of him (62-3). Unlike most of the younger women depicted in the novel, Ilias‟ wife Aspasia is described unflatteringly and the narrator‟s attention moves quickly from her appearance to her bag, which becomes a subject of suspense (63, 66). Prior to this, however, the reader knows that Smaragda‟s family was able to transfer much of their assets to Greece because of her father‟s foresight (50). Later, in reported discourse during his conversation with Manos, Ilias explains that he hid some of their assets on his person, while his wife stored their valuables in the bag she was carrying throughout her journey to Greece. Ilias‟ account of their journey with the bag seems to amplify the kindness of strangers, crediting the compassion of the natives and other refugees for the preservation of their valuables: Ρίποτα δεν μας άρπαξαν, τίποτα δεν μας έκλεψαν. Ιείπουν μόνο όσα ξοδέψαμε μείς. Θαι σχετικά λίγα. Πτη Πμύρνη κρυβόμαστε, στο Κόλυβο μας αγαπούσαν τόσο πολύ οι καημένοι! (124) Furthermore, the narrator‟s elaboration about the way natives could assist the refugees is also evident in specific examples showing the personal treatment of the Zannoglou and Fotiadis families by affluent local characters. Ilias‟ refusal of Manos‟ hospitality and his offer to repay Manos for Smaragda‟s debts shows the rare prosperity of a refugee family (125) and influences the reader‟s view of the refugees. Their portrayal as self-sufficient, like the Fotiadis family, subverts the common stereotype of the refugees at the time of the novel‟s publication as a burden on Greece‟s economy. Regarding the Fotiadis family, the narrator‟s comparison of the native Ioannidis who accommodated them in his open-air cinema to Manos distinguishes them from other native characters in the narrative: „Ν θεατρώνης [Ηωαννίδης], ένας άνθρωπος με την καλή καρδιά του Κάνου‟ (147). Their role in the assimilation of these refugee families seems to function as a paradigm to further reinforce the way natives should treat refugees. It is an interesting fact that the natives who render their assistance to the refugees, such as Ioannidis, Manos Kyriakidis, and the Adamidis family, who helped Mihalakis in Thessaloniki, should share the –idis ending in their surname. Though this may be a coincidence, it could suggest a Pontian heritage and the

199 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

possibility that they too or their families may have been foreigners in Greece at one time. Ilias‟ assistance to his fellow refugees not only enhances the reader‟s sympathy for him but it also serves a didactic purpose. In the diegesis, Ilias‟ choice to help the Fotiadis family by inviting Evanthia to his house for lunch (152) and offering her a job (167-8) endears him to the readers perhaps more than if he were to donate money to the family. By refraining from providing a handout to Vasilakis, Ilias demonstrates his understanding of the importance of maintaining Vasilakis‟ pride and his recognition of a handout being only a temporary fix. Ilias‟ compassion is most evident in an analepsis that details the reason he pays for the journey of his fellow refugees to Molivos. The inclusion of this enhances the readers‟ opinion of Ilias and provides them with a rhetorical question that leads them to think about how they would react to this situation: „Κα πώς ήταν δυνατό ν‟αφήσει στην τύχη τους τούς άμοιρους εκείνους, που είχαν μαζευτεί γύρω του και ζητούσαν σωτηρία;‟ (63-4). The external analepsis depicting the back-story of their journey to Molivos adds to the depiction of Ilias as a saviour of his fellow refugees: Κε τα πολλά, τ‟ απομεινάρια των δυστυχισμένων αυτών χωριανών, μαζί τους πάντα κι η Καριτάνα, βρέθηκαν σ‟ένα έρημο ακρογιάλι. Θι ο Ελίας ο Δαννόγλου τους πήρε όλους στο καΎκι που είχε καταφέρει να ναυλώσει για τη Κυτιλήνη. (78) Sharing the same tone and imagery with this analepsis, the intradiegetic- heterodiegetic narration recounted in reported discourse to Smaragda by the refugee character Lazaris has a persuasive relationship to the diegesis as it influences Smaragda‟s actions in the diegesis. Besides this, it also reiterates Ilias‟ selfless deed and emphasises his benevolent nature: Άκουσα κάτι άλλους πρόσφυγες [...] να λένε πως χρωστούσαν τη σωτηρία τους σε κάποιον κυρ-Ελία Δαννόγλου, τον πατέρα σας χωρίς άλλο... [...] Ξου τους πήρε σ‟ ένα καΎκι, που είχε καταφέρει να βρει και να ναυλώσει στη Πμύρνη για τη Κυτιλήνη. Καζί του, ταξίδεψαν καμιά εκατοστή άνθρωποι. Βεν άφησε κανέναν να πληρώσει. Ώυτός είχε πάνω του μπόλικα χρήματα – πώς τα γλίτωσε! –

200 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

κι έδωσε ένα μάτσο μπανκανότες στον καπετάνιο.... (96, emphasis added) Ultimately, Ilias‟ conduct provides a paradigm that shows the type of help the refugees needed at this difficult time because Ilias, as a refugee himself, understood this situation. Ilias‟ vulnerability, which contradicts the earlier depiction of his practical nature, contrasts to that of his wife, creating a role reversal of masculine and feminine attributes. In the case of Ilias‟ generous offer of paying the refugees‟ way, Aspasia becomes the voice of reason as she questions her husband‟s act (64). The repetition of Ilias‟ helplessness and hysteria: „Κα η θύμηση τον έριχνε πάλι στην τρέλα της απελπισίας κι έλεγε στη γυναίκα του πως ήταν περιττό πια να ζουν αφού δεν είχαν πια τα παιδιά τους...‟ (65; see also p. 67), brings to light his fragility that is contrasted to the strength Aspasia shows in the face of her loss and her ability to rationalise her position. The narrator also uses Evanthia‟s intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narration to illustrate Ilias‟ inability to handle the loss of Smaragda and Mihalakis (90). In contrast, Aspasia‟s dominance in the family is evident in the continuation of her role as a mother to her remaining child, despite her devastation at the loss of her other children: „Ε μητέρα όμως, μ‟ όλο το μητρικό σπαραγμό, δεν είχε τρελαθεί. Ρης έμεινε ακόμα η μικρή Ποφία κι αυτή την κρατούσε και στη ζωή και στα λογικά της‟ (65). Additionally, Aspasia‟s fortitude is reinforced through the narrator‟s description of her refusing to submit to Ilias‟ despair and boosting his morale: ΋λη της η στοργή είχε συγκεντρωθεί στο μονάκριβο πια παιδί, κι όσο έκλαιγε τ‟ άλλα, τόσο πρόσεξε, τόσο φυλαγόταν, να μην κυριευτεί κι αυτή από την απελπισία του άνδρα της, να διατηρήσει το θάρρος της, κι ακόμα να δίνει θάρρος στη Ποφία και στον Ελία τον ίδιο. (65) Appearing to add drama to this scenario, the narrator continues to contrast Ilias‟ emotional demeanour to his wife‟s calm approach in dealing with their loss, through the mention of Aspasia‟s recurring reminder to Ilias of Sofia‟s existence: „Θι η γυναίκα του έπρεπε να του θυμίζει κάθε τόσο, να του δείχνει τη Ποφία‟ (67). Finally, the difference in the way Ilias and Aspasia faced their situation is also recognised by the narrator in his description of Aspasia as the driving force in the assimilation of her family to Greece and their general survival (66). While

201 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

Aspasia‟s masculine characteristics of strength and fortitude invoke the reader‟s sympathy for her, it seems that the narrator attempts to counter this by typecasting her as the homemaker (128, 153, 162, 177). The narrator‟s inclusion of this information, despite the fact that it does not alter the story, shows that it is important to the reader‟s understanding of Aspasia‟s role. In addition, Aspasia‟s adherence to traditions of the Greek Orthodox faith conjures an image of the god- fearing woman that would be most attractive to the reader (63, 79, 132). Continuing his quest to inspire in the reader compassion and respect for the refugees, the narrator presents the young female refugee characters with favourable attributes. Revealing the opinions of Smaragda, Sofia, Evanthia and Maritana regarding relations between men and women, the narrator depicts them as moral and decent. However, a closer examination of their ideals, as presented in a range of narrative techniques, exposes varying degrees of this positive representation. Smaragda‟s conservative beliefs contrast with the slightly more liberal views of the other girls. Through Smaragda‟s depiction in the novel it seems that her function is to represent the quintessential refugee girl; virtuous and moral, the type of citizen one would appreciate as part of the community. While we have already seen this in her relations with Manos, it is more apparent in the way she conducts herself in the love triangle in which she is involved with Andreas Kyriakidis and Marios, her fiancé. Her virtue and loyalty to Marios is enhanced by her numerous objections against the advice provided from her family and friends about beginning a relationship with Andreas. She does not heed her brother‟s well-informed advice to forget Marios and assume a relationship with Andreas even though Mihalakis‟ reasoning closely reflects Marios‟ intentions. Mihalakis is aware of these because of his contact in the forced labour battalions with Marios. The reader‟s judgement of Smaragda as a moral young refugee is further reinforced through her disregard of Mihalakis‟ explicit declaration that Marios will not be returning: Ξού είναι τώρα δεν ξέρω. Κου φαίνεται στην Άγκυρα. Ίσως και στην Ξόλη. Ώ, ο Κάριος ήταν τυχερός. Θατέκτησε τους Ρούρκους με την επιστήμη του. Ελεκτρολόγος, βλέπετε, τον χρειάστηκαν και τον

202 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

χρειάζονται ακόμα πολύ [...] Κου φαίνεται πως στο τέλος θα τουρκέψει και... θα πάρει καμιά ωραία τουρκάλα. (232) This does not only affect the reader‟s perception of Smaragda, it also depicts Marios as a traitor to his Greek heritage and to Smaragda (233). Her dismissal of Mihalakis‟ advice, which is also reiterated later in the novel (237), leads the reader to question Smaragda‟s choice in remaining loyal to Marios (241-2). Ultimately, Smaragda‟s conservative nature and her constant refusal to allow her views to be swayed by others may endear her to the reader, but her decision to remain loyal to a man whose faithfulness to her and to Greece has been questioned, may seem to some readers to be unconvincing. The debates surrounding this love triangle become an issue through which attributes of other refugee characters become apparent. The narrator presents Evanthia as a moral young refugee, who maintained a strong ethic despite a perceived desperation to survive. This is also illustrated in Erasmia‟s openness to the possibility of a woman breaking an engagement or marriage if she deems another man suitable for her. Presenting the dialogue in which Erasmia applies this theory to Smaragda‟s situation, the narrator also reinforces Smaragda‟s orthodox attitude as her reaction accentuates the difference between her stance and Evanthia‟s: [...] Ών ήσουν απλώς αρραβωνιασμένη, μπορούσες εξαίρετα να πεις „Ρον πήραν αιχμάλωτο. Μέρω εγώ πότε θα γυρίσει; Αιατί να χάσω τώρα μια τέτοια τύχη;‟ Θαι θα ‟παιρνες τον Θυριακίδη... τρέχοντας! - Ώ, Γυανθία! Βεν στέκεσαι τίμια. Ένα κορίτσι πρέπει να κρατεί το λόγο του....(156) As seen in the treatment of Smaragda‟s unconvincing emotional response to the loss of her family, the narrator also attempts to address the reader‟s doubts about Sofia‟s precociousness through the insertion of other characters‟ opinions of her.7 The inclusion of Smaragda‟s sister Sofia in the discussion about relations between men and women and her general views of such matters, illustrates her progressive, yet precocious, view of relationships. While this is evident in her

7 As suggested by an anonymous examiner, this is a typical characteristic of Xenopoulos‟ female characters.

203 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

opposition to Smaragda‟s loyalty to Marios (156-8), her stance leads to the reader questioning Sofia‟s portrayal as a 14-year-old. In reported discourse, Evanthia responds to Smaragda‟s scornful question, supporting the appropriateness of Sofia‟s stance regarding relationships as she provides an anecdote about a refugee called Agla to demonstrate that Sofia‟s maturity is not out of proportion to her age (157).8 Indirectly supporting Sofia‟s intelligence, Maritana claims, in her discussion with Ilias later in the novel, that girls from Asia Minor marry early, even at 12 years old (190). The narrator‟s use of reported discourse to present Sofia‟s adult observation about Andreas‟ overt displays of affection towards Smaragda, accentuates the differences between Sofia and Smaragda, who conservatively views Andreas‟ love as inappropriate (139). The differences between the sisters, however, are not only evident in Sofia being more astute, but in her viewpoint that Smaragda should forget Marios and pursue Andreas (142- 3). Sofia‟s reasoning for this identifies her unusual maturity as she provides information, as presented in reported discourse, about the early days of Smaragda and Marios‟ relationship in Smyrna: Έχω την ιδέα πως δεν είναι καθόλου [ερωτευμένος ο Κάριος με την Πμαράγδα]! Βε βαριέσαι! Ώπό μικρά παιδιά ήταν μαζί κι έπαιζαν... τους ερωτευμένους. Ξαιδιάτικα πράγματα. Ε Πμαράγδα τρελάθηκε να τον πάρει. (183) However, Sofia‟s information seems unreliable to the reader who recognises that she would probably have been far too young to realise that Marios does not love Smaragda. Nevertheless, by the time the reader can query the feasibility of a 14- year-old girl having this insight, Evanthia questions Sofia‟s maturity: „Ζαυμάζω, καημένη Ποφία, πώς μιλάς σα μεγάλη‟ (183). In response to this, Sofia compares her maturity to Smaragda‟s: „Θι εγώ θαυμάζω πως... η Πμαράγδα σκέπτεται σα μικρό κοριτσάκι‟ (183-4). Sofia‟s rationality is also seen in her response to her sister‟s naivety in according Marios the same status as their brother (221). In this instance, Sofia not only differentiates between the special qualities of love

8 Interestingly, the maturity of the refugee girls seems to be contrasted with natives the same age, such as Lili Kyriakidis, whom Sofia describes as a „κουτάβι‟ (puppy/naive) (177).

204 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

between blood relations, and the love felt for a fiancé, but she also suggests that a fiancé is replaceable, which is reiterated in Aspasia‟s thoughts about her anguish in waiting for Mihalakis as opposed to Marios (133). Sofia‟s sagaciousness is also illustrated in her comparison between Smaragda‟s relationship with Marios and Andreas, to Maritana‟s with Stratis and Pavlis, which Sofia uses as a precedent to argue her case that Smaragda should move on to Andreas, just as Maritana moved on to Pavlis (211). The narrator counters the reader‟s doubts about Sofia‟s unusual maturity by using reported discourse for all instances in which she attributes her precociousness to her experiences of the Disaster. The narrator‟s use of this narrative technique illustrates to the reader that it is not only the characters in the novel or the readers who are aware of her unusual level of maturity, but she too acknowledges this in herself: „Ε δυστυχία μού έμαθε πολλά... Σαντάσου πόσα άκουσα, όταν γυρίζαμε και κρυβόμαστε δω κι εκεί και πόσα είδα με τα μάτια μου!...‟ (136, see also 240-1). Moreover, the use of reported discourse adds to the reader‟s sympathy for Sofia as it closes the gap between them. This is also the case with the presentation of an external analepsis that presents the story of Sofia‟s escape from the hands of the Turks. Nearly caught by a Turkish soldier, Sofia was saved because he changed his mind and chased another girl, whom he raped. Although this is a distressing story, Sofia‟s ability to rationalise it: „Ρην είχε σώσει χωρίς να θέλει, μα πού να βρισκόταν τώρα αυτή;‟ (68), further illustrates her maturity. By revealing Sofia‟s graphic thoughts about the scene she witnessed at the quay, the narrator shows that despite her age, Sofia no longer saw the world through innocent eyes: [...] Ήξερε καλά γιατί άρπαζαν τα κορίτσια οι ξεφρενιασμένοι εκείνοι. Θαι φανταζόταν την ωραία γειτονοπούλα στο μαρτύριο όπου είδε να την σέρνουν. Πε σπίτι, σε κάμαρα θα κλεινόταν μαζί της;... θα της ξέσχισαν τα ρούχα για να την γυμνώσουν, θα την έδεναν αν έκανε ακόμα αντίσταση, θα τη χτυπούσαν. Κπορεί και να λιγοθυμούσε στα χέρια τους, να ‟πεφτε χάμω αναίσθητη, στη διάθεσή τους. Θαι τότε όλοι θα περνούσαν αισχρά από πάνω της. Ζα την άφηναν πτώμα. Ίσως και να τη σκότωναν ύστερα, αν δεν θα ‟ταν σε

205 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

θέση να τους ακολουθήσει, για να την έχουν σκλάβα σε κανένα χαρέμι. (68) By addressing the reader‟s reservation about the credibility of the narrator‟s presentation of a 14-year-old girl the reader‟s sympathy is reinforced for the refugees; in particular for Sofia. Her function in the narrative is to illustrate the early development that was forced upon children who experienced the violence of the Disaster, compelling them to abandon their youth and assume an adult- like disposition. Maritana, like Sofia and Evanthia, has a modern outlook regarding relations between men and women. Though Maritana is the Zannoglou family‟s maid, her story is presented as a fairytale; starting out as a maid, she prospers through marriage. To introduce her to the story, the narrator recounts Maritana‟s experiences of the Disaster in an external analepsis lasting eight pages (71-8). As the longest analepsis in the narrative, it can be argued that it is important in the novel‟s portrayal of refugees. Depicting the brutality of the Turkish army, it reinforces the reader‟s sympathy for Maritana and the refugees in general (76-7). The narrator ensures that, like the other main refugee characters in the novel, this analepsis depicting Maritana‟s story ends positively as she is depicted boarding a ship funded by Ilias, who made her the family‟s maid and „ψυχοπαίδα‟ (adopted daughter) (78). Seeming to disregard the expectation of these compliant roles, Maritana undermines them, providing a scenario that brings to light the idiosyncrasies of Ilias, Aspasia and Sofia. Unhappy with the family‟s decision to marry her to Stratis, Maritana runs away with Pavlis, taking the dowry meant for her and Stratis. According to Hadjitheodorou‟s study, Maritana‟s actions are not typical of Xenopoulos‟ female characters. She notes that: „the majority of his female characters had no say regarding their future husbands, since their parents, and especially the father, decided on their behalf‟ (2009: 35).9 Interestingly, while Ilias is understandably upset, he shows his compassionate nature by seeking to rectify the situation (198). Ilias and Aspasia‟s reaction to Maritana‟s love triangle with Pavlis and Stratis is contrasted to Sofia‟s reaction, as she seems to be greatly

9 As mentioned earlier, this novel is not examined in her study.

206 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

affected by it. Inconsistency in Sofia‟s character is evident in the romantic ideals she seems to adopt as she becomes incensed with Maritana for committing herself to someone else, as the following reported discourse highlights: „Ώλλού;! σε ποιόν;... Ώχ άπιστη! άστατη!... Πε ποιόν;!‟ (164-5, 166). Sofia‟s reaction to Maritana‟s disregard of Stratis shows her to be a hypocrite. Although Sofia was of the opinion that Athenian men, like Pavlis, were superior to those in Molivos as represented by Stratis (138-9) and that she will not fall in love with a man before she marries (157), when Maritana follows these notions, Sofia disapproves. Interestingly, despite Sofia‟s precocious assertiveness, her immaturity is noted when she seeks her mother‟s support to force Maritana‟s return to Stratis after she leaves with Pavlis. Aspasia‟s opposition to Sofia reinforces her practical and rational mind as discussed earlier (199, see also 201, 206). Sofia‟s behaviour towards Maritana could be a result of her higher social status, but it also illustrates her unusual level of maturity since she is two years younger than Maritana. While Ilias and Aspasia forgive Maritana for stealing her dowry and eloping with Pavlis, Sofia assumes an adult role by admonishing Maritana, while Aspasia remained passive: „Ώλήθεια, σ‟όλο αυτό το διάστημα η κυρία Δαννόγλου δεν είχε πει λέξη‟ (206). This role reversal between Aspasia and Sofia is further enhanced with Sofia‟s request that her mother add her own view of Maritana‟s actions (206). Finally, it is Sofia who forgives Maritana on behalf of her family: Θι άρχισε πάλι να τη βρίζει, μα για να τελειώσει γρήγορα με γέλια και να της σκάσει ένα φιλί. - Βε σου αξίζει, κακομοίρα μου, της είπε, μα τι να κάνω;... Ξάω κι εγώ με την παροιμία „άμα θέλει η νύφη κι ο γαμπρός, τύφλα να ‟χει ο πεθερός‟. Ξεθερός βλέπεις, τώρα κι εγώ. Ρέλος πάντων, αυτόν ήθελες; Ώυτόν να πάρεις, χαλάλι σου! (207) In spite of Maritana‟s defiance, the narrator depicts her disobedience as a positive event. Through the reported discourse of Pavlis‟ mother, it is evident that Maritana upholds her honour by adhering to her own moral code: - Ζέλω να πω πως η Καριτάνα... κακό βέβαια είναι αυτό που έκαμε... μα δε φταίει και τόσο... Ώφού επιμένατε να της δώσετε άνθρωπο που δεν τον ήθελε, αναγκάστηκε να φύγει κρυφά. (206)

207 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

Even though Maritana reneged on her moral obligation to the family, the positive outcome of her marriage is indicative of the way the narrator assesses her actions. In transposed speech, free indirect style, Maritana‟s explanation that her decision resulted in the achievement of a loving family, suggests that her rebellion was for a good cause, while the lack of input from the narrator during this narratised discourse implies his agreement with Maritana‟s statement: Θι εκείνη τους μίλησε πολύ για την ευτυχία της. Ρι καλός που ήταν ο καημένος ο Ξαυλής! [...] Ξώς την αγαπούσε! Θι η πεθερά της το ίδιο, στα μάτια την κοίταζε. Ξερνούσαν πολύ καλά. Ν Ξαυλής κέρδιζε - μισθό και πουρμπουάρ - εκατό πενήντα ως διακόσιες δραχμές την ημέρα. Ένας θείος του θα τον δάνειζε τώρα ν‟ ανοίξει „κομμωτήριο‟ δικό του. [...] θα ‟παιρνε και τη Καριτάνα, να την έχει στο ταμείο, να μη φοβάται κατάχρηση από ξένο. Ώ, δεν τη ζήλευε καθόλου. „Ε δουλειά μας να γίνεται, της έλεγε, ειδέ, αν σου πει κανείς και κανένα λόγο, εσύ ξέρεις να τον βάλεις στη θέση του χωρίς ν‟ ανακατευτώ εγώ‟. (213-14) Despite this, some implied readers could still view Maritana‟s actions as immoral, but as though to appease them the narrator reiterates her modesty by using a combination of reported discourse and the ideological function. In reply to Smaragda‟s warning of the dangers for pretty women, Maritana shows a responsible view of relations between men and women: „Ρο ξέρω, είπε, πως κακοί άνθρωποι είναι παντού. Κα εδώ, για να σου κάμουν κακό, πρέπει να θέλεις και συ‟ (135). Later in the novel, the narrator interrupts the diegesis to defend Maritana. Firstly, when the family warns her about speaking with strangers, the narrator demonstrates his view by claiming that their instruction is unnecessary, as he illustrates Maritana‟s moral principles (186). Secondly, at the end of the novel he includes his thoughts along with Maritana‟s reaction to Sofia‟s question about her virtue to persuade the reader about Maritana‟s moral principles: Ε Καριτάνα κατακοκκίνισε. - ΋χι, είπε, δεν κοιμηθήκαμε μαζί... Πώς μπορούσε, αφού δεν έχουμε στεφανωθεί;.... (208, emphasis added) This ideological function is also repeated in the following dialogue, which not only promotes a conservative attitude against the consummation of a

208 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

relationship outside of marriage, but also shows Sofia‟s progressive opinions and her sly character. Sofia‟s confirmation of the couple‟s sleeping arrangement confirms that Maritana remains „untainted‟ and is still able to marry Stratis: - ΍στε δεν έγινες ακόμα δική του; - ΋χι, αποκρίθηκε η Καριτάνα, κοκκινίζοντας. Πώς μπορούσε... χωρίς στεφάνι; - Κου ορκίζεσαι; - Πτα μάτια μου... στην ψυχή των πεθαμένων μου. - Ρότε... έρχεσαι πίσω να σου δώσουμε το Πτρατή; (208, emphasis added)

*****

In this Part, we have analysed three novels by authors with varying degrees of experience of the Disaster who use a similar narrative situation. All three authors chose to present their stories through an extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator using zero focalization, with a focus on refugees. All authors tend to use other narrative techniques conservatively, preferring to present the majority of their information about the refugees through the extradiegetic narrator in chronological time. The effect of this for readers is that they are not provided with enough information from the refugees, only from the narrator. Readers, as we have seen, are held at a distance from the characters, unable to truly empathise with them. While all information is filtered through the narrator, and the reader may question the authenticity of the facts he or she presents, the use of zero focalization does go some way to appease this. This type of focalization assures the readers that the narrators, despite their heterodiegetic roles (third-person), are privy to all the details needed to tell this story. However, as we saw in all three novels, the details selected do serve a particular purpose. Venezis‟ narrator in Γαλήνη provides a depiction of a group of refugees from the same area of Asia Minor and their reactions to life in Greece. While the narrator focuses specifically on two main families, other minor characters are included to provide a microcosm of refugees. The lack of intradiegetic narrators suggests that the author‟s prime objective in the novel is to show the reader,

209 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

through the omniscient narrator, how various refugees coped with refugeehood: from complete despondency to resilience in the face of adversity. The narrator‟s underlying comment is that their reactions are embedded in various facets of human nature. In these terms, the readers can sympathise with most of the characters, but with regard to the narrative techniques used, they are only really used to create an effect on the readers‟ perception of Irene. Although Irene is not considered the protagonist, it appears that the majority of the effects resulting from the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques implicate her character in some way. In Stavrou‟s novel, Οι πρώτες ρίζες, the narrator delivers on her promise to present a wide spectrum of refugees and their experiences to form roots in Greece. This objective is realised through the hard work of those refugees who are able to join the workforce and the death and burial of the older generation, as previously mentioned (Kafetzaki 2003: 263-4). Despite the various types of refugees presented in the novel, the narrator appears to favour women from Constantinople, portraying them as being more honourable than refugees from other areas, in particular Smyrna. While the aim of the narrative is to highlight the various types of refugee experiences, even to the point of almost excluding the native character, it is surprising that only a few refugees become intradiegetic narrators. However, where they have been included they provide credible and detailed narrations. In particular, the letters between Eva and Anna provide the narrator with the opportunity to present various refugee experiences from the point of view of refugees without jeopardising the authenticity of her narrating position. This, along with the portrayal of the refugees‟ story almost strictly in the narrative present makes it clear to the reader that the focal point of this narrative is the portrayal of the refugees‟ experiences in Greece. Like Venezis‟ novel, evident in Stavrou‟s novel is a discernible lack of external analepses informing the reader about the refugees‟ lives in Asia Minor, which suggests the narrator‟s predetermined intention of portraying the struggles faced by the refugees in Greece. This brings to the surface the intricacies of refugee life, ensuring that this remains the reader‟s focus throughout the novel. Finally, in Xenopoulos‟ novel, Πρόσφυγες, middle class refugees easily assimilate into Greek society, while the narrator mainly focuses on the romantic

210 Refugees and Narrators PART TWO: Chapter 5

experiences of youths growing up in Greece. It seems the author‟s aim is to incite the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees by presenting them as morally upright, conservative and, therefore, characters that would appeal to his intended audience. Furthermore, the author‟s aim appears to be not only to entertain his readers but also to influence them into viewing the refugees in their society in a positive way. Published in newspaper instalment in 1934, and later as a romantic novel, Xenopoulos‟ book lacks depth, failing to present a convincing and credible illustration of the refugees. Although this may seem odd, considering the Disaster was still fresh in people‟s minds, he seems to be attempting to subvert any negative feelings toward the refugees in his contemporary society. The only character perceived to be reprehensible in this novel is Marios, who remained in Asia Minor; the refugees are not a threat to Greek nationalism: they fit in. Despite the authors‟ varied experiences of the Disaster, they all published novels with a focus on refugees in the 1930s, a time when the refugees were still a noticeable dilemma for Greece. Despite the wide-ranging techniques used to present the refugees, all three authors depict the majority of their characters in a favourable manner. Venezis attempts to provoke the reader‟s empathy for the refugees more than Stavrou, since he presents themes that are connected to refugeehood but that are also universal. For instance, the death of a loved one and the loss of hope seem to build a closer connection to a wider ranging audience, who can empathise with these themes. Stavrou‟s novel on the other hand closely focuses on themes connected to the refugee experience that most of her readers had not shared, such as the feelings of being displaced. As for Xenopoulos‟ novel, as seen in this analysis, he merely presents a superficial, though positive, representation of the refugees with a didactic purpose. He attempts to educate his readers on how to treat the refugees and to show them that they are not a threat, in particular, that the refugees are one of „us‟.

211 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

PART THREE EXPERIENCING vs. OBSERVING: EXTRADIEGETIC-HOMODIEGETIC NARRATORS

CHAPTER 6 ‘I, REFUGEE’. REFUGEES AS NARRATORS

The two texts featured in this Chapter, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) by the refugee author Dido Sotiriou and Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980) by the native author Ioulia Iatridi, feature an extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrator who employs the standard technique of internal focalization. Doulis groups these novels as „Fiction of History‟ and he claims that both novels were successful because they were able to effectively combine fiction with history, though with different outcomes (1977: 185-6). Of Sotiriou‟s novel Doulis states, her focus is: „to recreate Greek life in Anatolia so that the reader will be made aware of precisely what had been lost in the Disaster‟ (196). As for Iatridi‟s novel, Doulis describes it as an account of Greek life that uses the Disaster as a „starting point‟ and that the success of her work is a result of the distinction between the author and the refugee protagonist who „witness[es] the evolution of Greece through the interwar years to the Civil War and after‟ (1977:186). Kafetzaki agrees with this notion about Iatridi‟s novel, and she adds that both Sotiriou‟s and Iatridi‟s novels use the refugee protagonist as a symbol of contemporary Greek history (2003: 101). The analysis of these novels in this chapter aims to show how the refugee characters are presented in the narrative techniques chosen by the authors and the affect these have on the reader. As will be seen, both authors present convincing narrators who adhere to their particular narrative roles. As to the question of whether each author‟s experiences of the Disaster and refugeehood affect their presentation of this character, Sotiriou does indeed give prominence to these themes through her presentation of a large number of refugees. As will be seen, Doulis‟ claim that Sotiriou does „create a distance between herself and

212 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

her material‟ (1977: 196), is curious. An analysis of the narrative techniques Sotiriou uses in her novel shows a determination for the narrator‟s consistent presence in the narrative. This ensures the reader is continually thinking of the narrator, whose experiences appear to mirror that of the author. Iatridi on the other hand, whilst using a refugee as an autodiegetic narrator, does not make refugeehood a focal point of her story despite the refugee status of her autodiegetic narrator. The author of Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, Sotiriou, was born in Aydin, Asia Minor, in 1909. She and her family were forced to leave because of the Disaster. In 1919, they found temporary refuge in Smyrna until it was sacked in 1922, at which time they were forced to relocate to Greece. Arriving in Athens, Sotiriou remained there until her death in 2004. The second novel in this chapter, Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980), was written by the native Greek writer Ioulia Iatridi. Since she was born in Neo Faliro, Athens, in 1914, Iatridi would have formed an impression of the refugees from their arrival and settlement in Athens. Covering a period of approximately 23 years from 1918 until the German Occupation of 1941, the novel Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) was first published in 1959.1 Featuring an extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrator, named Aliki Magi, who recounts a story in which she is also the protagonist, Sotiriou‟s focus is on the life of the Greeks in Aydin, Asia Minor, before the Disaster. This is evident in a quantitative analysis of the novel‟s content, which corroborates Doulis‟ suggestion that the novel „leaves the impression of being a “diptych,” a long and interesting work that is really two novels‟ (1977: 196). A large proportion of the entire book, approximately 60%, is dedicated to the years between 1918 and 1922. These years correspond to the diegesis of Part One, which acts as a preface to Part Two, focusing on the refugees in Greece and covering a larger number of years than Part One. The diegesis of Part Two covers approximately 19 years, from 1922 to 1941, it takes up a smaller proportion of the entire novel, about 40%. In quantitative terms, this statistic suggests that the protagonist‟s life during this period is perhaps not as important to the overall artistic outcome, as Doulis has suggested. Despite the quantitative asymmetry between the two sections, for our

1 For this analysis, I used the 4th edition published by Θέδρος in 1976.

213 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

purposes Part Two is pivotal to this study as it provides information about refugeehood that is fundamental to our analysis. The novel Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια was first published in 1964 and features an extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrator named Panoraia Fokianou.2 Like Sotiriou‟s narrator, Iatridi‟s autodiegetic narrator recounts her own story, in which she is also the protagonist. Panoraia presents her experiences as a refugee and the events that lead to the narrative present 30 years later. As the title suggests, the protagonist‟s fundamental preoccupation is the attainment of „πέτρινα λιοντάρια‟ (stone lions), like those on the balcony of her home in Smyrna, symbols of her family‟s wealth and affluence. Once Panoraia becomes a refugee, however, the idea of the stone lions becomes a source of aspiration as she dreams of being in a position to reinstate the stone lions for her own home in Greece. However, by the end of the narrative, this goal remains unfulfilled, and the stone lions become a symbol of her fortitude. Although the use of internal focalization in autodiegetic narrations is typical, in this instance it is the most appropriate and convincing because of the narrator‟s isolation, resulting from her hearing difficulty and her comparatively low socio-economic standing. In 202 pages, the story covers approximately 34 years, which suggests that this narrator, unlike Sotiriou‟s, has restricted her focus to those events directly relevant to the diegesis. The story relates the construction of Panoraia‟s home in a suburb called „Ταραυγή‟ (Haravgi). This word, meaning dawn or daybreak, symbolically refers to this construction as a new chapter in her life, although this becomes clear only at the end of the novel. This is similar to the method used by the narrator in the native author Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας. Iatridi‟s narrative also features a female protagonist and begins in the narrative present, with the narrator receiving the permit to build her home, while the technique of external analepses are employed to reveal the events leading up to this moment. The diegesis and analepses of Τα πέτρινα λιοντάρια share the theme of the journey taken by the protagonist to build her own home, though they cover different periods. Despite the 14 chapters of the novel divided evenly between the narrative present and the analepses, a large proportion of the narrative, in fact

2 For this analysis, I used the 2nd edition published by Γξάντας in 1980.

214 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

83% is concerned with analepses. The amount of time covered in the narrative present and the analepses seems to be what one would expect, since the latter covers 32 years and 7 months and the former approximately one year. While in quantitative terms this statistic implies the content in the analepses to be the most important in the novel, a qualitative analysis shows otherwise. This is in contrast to the situation mentioned earlier in this thesis with Axioti‟s novel. Iatridi‟s Chapters containing analepses, play a secondary role in the plot since their contents explain how and why the narrator arrived at the position depicted in the narrative present. Further, since the title refers to the stone lions, it can be argued that the narrative‟s most important element is the narrator‟s deliberation whether to include these into her new home and her final decision. This occurs in the narrative present.

From the beginning of Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν the reader feels that this is not just any story but an authentic one as seen through the author‟s eyes. A combination of the similarities between the author and protagonist, and the narrative techniques used by the narrator, achieve this affect. Like Sotiriou, the protagonist and narrator Aliki has three sisters and a brother, was born in Aydin and moved to Athens after the Disaster. Despite this, it should be noted that Aliki‟s role as the protagonist, the autodiegetic narrator and the focalizer does not make her a mouthpiece for a full account of the author‟s life or opinions. As an autodiegetic narrator, who is also a refugee, one would assume that Aliki would include personal information about the life she faced as a refugee. However, this is not the case as the narrator reveals less information than she knows. While this may suggest that the novel provides a superficial image of refugeehood, it could also be because „the passage of time and the intervening experiences have cleared the writer‟s vision of non-essentials and permitted her to focus on only those aspects of her story she needs‟ (Doulis 1977: 199). With regard to focalization, the narrator adheres strictly to internal focalization, the standard for autodiegetic narration. Throughout the novel, the reader will note the narrator‟s testimonial function or claim to truth, ensuring that the origin of information about other characters and events is clarified. It has the effect of making the narrator appear to pre-empt the readers‟ reservations about how she

215 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

came to know certain information. For instance, the narrator presents the events that were occurring in her mother‟s home, which she would not have been privy to because she was living with her aunt Hermione in another suburb of Athens. Seeming to pre-empt the reader‟s question of how she came to know this information, the narrator explains that her mother told her about the issues occurring in her household after dealing with the suicidal thoughts that resulted from them (156). Furthermore, the narrator explains that she was able to spend enough time with her mother to find out this information because Hermione relaxed her strict rule against Aliki playing outdoors and she thus had ample free time to visit her mother‟s home in Freattida (152). Despite the autodiegetic narrator’s background as a refugee from a middle class background, she does not attempt to influence the reader‟s empathy for one particular type of refugee, nor does she overtly use her role to sway the reader‟s perceptions of the refugees. Although 32 refugee characters are mentioned in the second section of the novel, only 13 of them occupy a recurring role. With the vast majority of these refugee characters mentioned in the first part of the novel as well, it seems that the narrator chooses to update the reader on those people that were part of her circle of family and friends in Asia Minor. Sharing the same narrative situation as Part Two, Part One ends with Aliki leaving Smyrna with her extended family, shortly before the arrival of the Turkish army.3 From her arrival in Greece on 27 August/9 September 1922 until the German Occupation in 1941, Aliki as the narrator presents the refugee experience in chronological time, using various narrative techniques to explain certain events occurring in the diegesis. Depicting the period during which the refugees assimilated, the narrator presents the short- and long-term issues they faced. The narrator presents short-term issues facing the refugees in the diegesis. Set at the very early stages of the influx of refugees, the narrator provides an insight into the way the arrival of the refugees is viewed by refugees themselves and by the locals. The protagonist‟s description of her arrival in Greece indicates

3 This information informs the reader about the temporal setting of the novel 27 August/9 September 1922 (131).

216 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

the unexpectedness of what was to follow for those arriving in Greece: „Κόλις ξεμπαρκάραμε στον Ξειραιά, όλο χαμόγελα και όνειρα για τουριστικές εξερευνήσεις, βρεθήκαμε μπρος σ‟ένα παράξενο θέαμα‟ (131). Expecting a warm welcome, Aliki and her companions are shocked at the hostility of the natives and the use of the word „πρόσφυγες‟ (refugees), to describe them. The negative connotation associated with this term is evident in the words of an old native woman: Γλόγου σας το λοιπόν είστε οι πρόσφυγκοι; Θαι τι κοπιάσετε να κάνετε στα μέρη μας; Ξού ‟ναι τα παιδιά μας; Αιατί φορτώσανε την αφεντιά σας στα βαπόρια κι αφήσανε οπίσω τους φαντάρους; (131) The presentation of this in reported discourse highlights to the reader the common attitude towards the refugees. Another use of reported discourse is included to emphasise the locals‟ perceptions of the refugees. The immediate creation of the stereotype of the refugee as the „other‟ is evident in Aliki‟s interaction with a young native girl who associates the refugees with Turks. While Aliki‟s reaction shows her resentment with the young girl‟s perception of them, the young girl‟s response to Aliki shows that she has been taught to believe that refugees and Turks are the same, all of them wicked people (132). The narrator‟s presentation of these two incidents affects the reader‟s emotional response towards the refugees. The reader is aware of the huge changes faced by the refugees in terms of their social class, which was presented in Part One of the novel. Their high social status is also the reason that the reader finds it odd that Aliki and her companions, especially Hermione and Elvira, were not mindful of the possibility that the Turks would capture Smyrna and only become aware of it after Hermione calls a representative of her husband‟s company in Athens (132). This also shows the narrator‟s lack of knowledge about this situation as she appears young and naive to believe that these women would not have known what happened in Smyrna after their departure. Nonetheless, the reader does sympathise with their situation, particularly when Aliki explains in the diegesis that they reacted with indignation because they were unaware of why they had been named „πρόσφυγες‟ (refugees). Once Aliki and her companions confirm their situation they enter a new phase of trying to understand their predicament. The narrator‟s use of prolepsis to comment on the

217 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

difference between the refugees‟ understanding of their position upon their arrival in Greece and their future affect on Greece emphasises her role in the narrative: Θι ωστόσο, κανείς μας δεν μπορούσε να καταλάβει, πως είμαστε οι πρώτες σταγόνες της καταιγίδας που έφτανε, η πρώτη αχνή γραμμή μιάς φοβερής ατέλειωτης ανθρωποθάλασσας που θα ξεχυνόταν σε λίγο, σ‟εκείνο το άγνωστο λιμάνι. (132) This hindsight commentary on events in the narrative present also provides a pre-emptive explanation of the natives‟ future hostility towards the refugees. This is also evident through the narrator‟s use of iterative frequency as she describes her family‟s search for temporary accommodation. Showing the consistent prejudice faced by the refugees who were refused accommodation, the narrator uses iterative frequency to present the negative reaction of one hotelier, suggesting that this was a response similar to all the others (132). The use of repetition when describing the refugees illustrates the magnitude of their arrival in Greece. The reiteration of the number, „ενάμισι εκατομμύριο‟ (one and a half million), three times in this section seems to justify the reactions of the hoteliers and the natives on the quay.4 The narrator herself mentions that the refugees had overrun the city: „Έπηξαν οι δρόμοι, το λιμάνι, οι εκκλησιές, τα σκολεία, οι δημόσιοι χώροι. Πτα πεζοδρόμια γεννιόνταν παιδιά και πέθαιναν γέροι‟ (133). In quantitative terms, the issues associated with the refugees‟ psychological state immediately upon their arrival in Greece does not seem to be a focus as she deals with this in only about two pages of text. The lack of attention on this type of information is also seen in all the novels in our corpus, except for Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, which mentions nothing about this, and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, whose narrator dwells on the terrible state of the refugees. It could be argued that Sotiriou‟s narrator did not want to overburden her readers with the refugees‟ psychological state or she may have realised that her description of refugees does not need to be presented with an extensive

4 As will be seen later, this number is repeated another three times when the narrator presents the long term issues of the refugees (170).

218 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

discussion. Regarding the issue of the refugees‟ mental health, the narrator depicts this through examples presented in narratised discourse though she switches to reported discourse to present the crux of the story. One of the first refugee characters to be introduced in the novel is a young woman called Eleni. In narratised discourse, the narrator explains that Eleni rocks a pillow and treats it as though it were a child. A reporter approaches Eleni‟s father and asks what happened. Without providing her own commentary, the narrator repeats the father‟s answer provided to the journalist in reported discourse to the reader for impact: „Ρ‟αγοράκι της έσκυψε να πάρει απ‟ την κούνια του κι αντί γι‟αυτό πήρε το μαξιλάρι κι έφυγε!‟ (134). As has been mentioned, this matter-of-fact tone adds to the reader‟s sympathy for these refugees as it indicates their emotional detachment from the trauma they have experienced. A similar use of narrative technique is evident in two other meetings between Aliki and the other newly arrived refugees. The first is Aliki‟s meeting with the refugee Telemachos and his wife, who explains to Aliki that her husband‟s unresponsive state is because he is shocked to realise that instead of taking the jewels from his shop he took his dried okra pods. Presented in reported discourse the inclusion of this and the reason for possessing the okra pods that is for his chronic constipation appears on the outset to be quite comical. However, upon further consideration, one realises that it is quite a sad situation since it shows the haste with which these once well-to-do Greeks evacuated their homeland; resulting in the loss of everything they owned (135). The state of the refugees is also illustrated in the description of Aliki‟s uncle Thanasis, who had suffered a nervous breakdown and seemed amused at the sight of the refugees on the quay (135-6). Despite the tragic circumstances of these three examples, the narrator‟s choice to avoid providing her own commentary allows the reader to judge each case as they see fit. No doubt, she feels the stories are heart breaking as they are. Aliki‟s inclusion of herself in the group of refugees waiting at the quay: „Ε δυσεντερία μάς θέριζε‟ (134), closes the gap between the reader and the refugees. It appears that she is aiming to use the rapport she had created with the reader so far in the novel to increase our sympathy for them. Aliki‟s explanation of the refugees sharing a small space on the quay where sanitation was

219 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

nonexistent and the description of refugees discarding any semblance of their dignity and self-respect by defecating in the streets highlights to the reader what the refugees were reduced to. While this could be an explanation for the natives‟ disgust and hostility towards the refugees, it also has an emotional impact on the reader, who imagines young middle class refugees like Aliki in this situation (134). In keeping with her role as an autodiegetic narrator, the narrator does not reveal the reason for the refugees‟ arrival because the timing of her departure from Smyrna makes her unaware of the reason. However, the narrator finds a way around this by revealing it to the reader through the refugee character Valentini. Her description of the attack on the Greek population in Smyrna by the Turks is summarised by the narrator in an internal heterodiegetic analepsis recounted in transposed, indirect style. This narrative technique provides the narrator with control of the way the events are presented. Again, the narrator does not seem interested in influencing the reader‟s emotions by providing her own comments or reaction to Valentini‟s account. Instead, she merely provides the facts without emotion, allowing the reader to determine their own reaction to this story. The narrator does provide Hermione‟s traumatised reaction, which puts an end to Valentini‟s story (136). The narrator‟s avoidance of intervention to heighten the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees is also evident in the way she moves seamlessly onto the narrative present. Using an analepsis, the narrator presents another example of the brutality of the attack on the Greeks through the character of Captain Mathios. While the narrator tells Mathios‟ story in an analepsis reported in narratised discourse, the change to the narrative present and Mathios‟ opinion of the neutrality of the English presented in reported discourse highlights the fact that the underlying issue of Mathios‟ experience is not political but one of common human decency: „Ώκούς ουδέτεροι οι θεομπαίχτες‟ (136). Yet again, the narrator does not provide her own commentary, but provides that of the sister-in-law of Aliki‟s aunt, Elvira, whose attitude is evident in her commentary as revealed in reported discourse. Telling Mathios in a spiteful tone that he should be relieved that he survived, her attitude towards Mathios and those of his social class is further reinforced in her dialogue with Aliki‟s aunt, Hermione: „Ζε‟ σχώρεσέ με,

220 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

κύττα ποιοι άχρηστοι άνθρωποι γλύτωσαν! Θι οι δικοί μας; Ξού είναι τους;‟ (137). As can be seen, while Elvira acknowledges her comment to be morally wrong, her remark not only shows the effects of the Disaster on once compassionate people, but it also highlights the infighting between refugees of various social classes. The narrator‟s use of sarcasm to present the arrival of Aliki‟s family emphasises the difference between their experiences and those of the less fortunate refugees so far mentioned. The arrival of the rest of Aliki‟s family is presented in a comical tone: „τουρίστες που πήγαιναν σε ταξιδάκι αναψυχής‟ (137), since the reader knows that this is not the case. In addition, the narrator includes a description of her father focusing on his rugs rather than the situation that is unfolding before him. While this may be a sign of the way Vasilakis faced his refugee status and his hope to resume his social class status in Greece, it may also suggest that he was aware that his arrival in Greece was not for a short stay, hoping use these as capital (137). The use of internal analepsis highlights the short-term issue of the sudden decline of the refugees‟ social status. Accommodating a number of refugees in his home, the refugee character Giakos dealt with this by rationing food (141), which was resented by Elvira and Gerasimos, who were unaccustomed to such acts of deprivation. An internal analepsis presented by the narrator of Elvira and Gerasimos‟ prosperous home in Asia Minor highlights their unfortunate current state: „Έτρωγαν κι εκεί ανατολίτικα παχιά φαγιά και μεζέδες και πολλά γλυκά‟ (142). This analepsis also adds to the reader‟s sympathy for Elvira, Gerasimos, Giakos and Hermione whose social status in Asia Minor as portrayed in this internal analepsis is contrasted heavily with their current state as depicted in the diegesis (142). The inclusion of the refugee characters Kostis and his daughter Pinella in the diegesis illustrates the effects of the Disaster on people who were once considered affluent members of their society. The narrator‟s presentation in reported discourse of Kostis‟ feelings emphasises his embarrassment caused by the rationing of food, his loss of social class and homeland: „ΐρε τι ρεζιλίκι ήταν τούτο που πάθαμε! ΐρέ τι παναθεματισμένος τόπος είν‟ τούτος που ήρχαμε! Ρόπος χωρίς νερό!‟ (143). This not only highlights the difference between Asia

221 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

Minor and Greece, it also serves as an introduction to a discussion between Trifonas and Kostis about their hometown Kozagaki in Asia Minor. The presentation of this dialogue is another way for the narrator to provide an objective comparison between Greece as primitive and Asia Minor as paradise: „Γκεί ήταν ευλογία Ζεού!‟ (143). The issue of God‟s role in the refugees‟ situation is also mentioned in the diegesis and it appears that the narrator mentions this deliberately to show the views on this topic of old and young refugees. Unlike her standard practise of explaining how she has come to know certain information, Aliki leaves her role as an autodiegetic-homodiegetic narrator open to question when she describes in reported discourse Kostis‟ prayer to God. This diversion is necessary for her to explain to the reader that Kostis‟ only wish is to return to Asia Minor to be buried alongside his deceased wife. While presenting the issue of refugees‟ burial in a foreign land, Aliki also increases the reader‟s sympathy for the older refugees whose only hope is to be returned to their home to die. The significance of Kostis‟ prayer is evident in its presentation in reported discourse, leaving no uncertainty as to Kostis‟ true feelings (143-4). It is interesting that the issue of refugees dying in Greece and not in their homeland is also addressed in reported discourse in Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες and Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα. The use of this technique is used to enhance the reader‟s sympathy for these characters since reported discourse creates the least distance between the refugee characters and the reader. Opposed to Kostis, whose prayer suggests that he believes God has the ability to intervene and return the refugees to their homeland, Pinella‟s view of God, which follows Kostis‟ prayer, is not as glorified. In her dialogue with the native grocer Alekos, Pinella views God as the cause of refugees‟ situation. In particular, her reply in reported discourse shows that she considered God responsible for the Disaster and the refugees‟ subsequent maltreatment by the natives (144). An argument between the Sitzanoglous‟ landlady and Kostis provides the background for the introduction of various refugees‟ perception of their role in Greece. Kostis‟ tirade about how inhospitable Greece is causes the landlady to use the pejorative term „τουρκόσπορε‟ (Turkish seed) and branding refugee

222 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

women whores (145). Showing the simmering tensions in the community, this argument between Kostis and the landlady escalates into a physical and verbal fight between neighbouring locals and refugees with the police called to intervene in the argument. While the narrator does not comment on the argument, she does present two perceptions of refugees‟ place in Greece from the point of view of two refugees from a higher social class. Criticising Kostis‟ point of view, Giakos took the side of the natives, stating that since the refugees are the guests of Greece they should show respect to their hosts and refrain from causing trouble with them. Gerasimos, however, disagrees, claiming that the refugees are as much Greeks as the locals. His reply to Giakos presented in reported discourse for emphasis, also raises a common perception regarding Greece‟s involvement in the Great Idea: „Βεν είμαστε κι εμείς Έλληνες; Ών δεν είμαστε τι ήθελαν να μας λευτερώσουν και να μας καταστρέψουν;‟ (146). The use of this dialogue at this point in the novel, just after Kostis‟ clash with the landlady, adds to the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees because of their entanglement in the politics that surrounded the Disaster. Elvira‟s interference in this discussion is a comment, also presented in reported discourse for emphasis, that the hatred of the natives for the refugees was worse than that shown to the Greeks of Asia Minor by the Turks: „τέτοιο μίσος δε μας το είχαν μήτε οι Ρούρκοι‟ (146). The comparison of the relationship between the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Turks, and the natives and refugees makes an emphatic statement to the reader about the refugees‟ place in these relations, without the need for the narrator to add her own commentary. The narrator‟s objectivity regarding the relationship between the Greeks and the Turks is also evident later in the novel, where she suggests that the Greeks could be just as cruel as the Turks (151). This theme of the friendly relations between the Christians and Muslims in Asia Minor is common in the Greek novel. Attempting to explain this symbiotic relationship, Kafetzaki claims: „Ε φυσική αρμονία οδηγεί στην κοινωνική αρμονία‟ (2003: 240).5 While this relationship is also evident in other novels in our corpus, such as Myrivilis‟ Η

5 For more information on the image of the Turk in Greek fiction, see Millas 2001: 327-63.

223 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

Παναγιά η Γοργόνα and Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες, it is only presented as a comparison to the relationship between refugees and natives in Stavrou‟s novel. From about page 152, the narrator turns her focus to the long-term problems that plagued the refugees‟ permanent residency in Greece, such as those of settlement and assimilation. Aliki, as the narrator, focuses on the financial and employment problems of the two main families in the novel: her „adopted‟ family, the Sitzanoglous, and her „biological‟ family, the Magis. The contrasting of these two families is apparent even from the beginning of the novel, but in this section their management of their new lifestyle highlights the significant differences in the way they face their refugeehood. Illustrating her awareness of her role as an autodiegetic narrator who uses internal focalization, Aliki continually justifies how she came to know certain information in an effort to ensure her credibility as an autodiegetic narrator. While this is certainly the case with information she imparts about the Magis family, this is not the case when she discusses events witnessed in the Sitzanoglou household since she has already explained that she lived with them. In accordance with her role as an internal focalizer, the narrator explains that she became familiar with details of the Magis family because she spent time in their house just after their arrival (139, 152, 156). With the choices Aliki makes as the narrator of this story it is often what she does not reveal that is of significance. Through her contact with her family, Aliki reveals the way individual members dealt with their loss. Her narration presents a divide between the young and old generations. For instance, Vasilakis and Mary lament the loss of intangible aspects of their old lives, such as the link with their past and everything it entails (140). On the other hand, the younger members seem to be able to deal with their refugeehood, failing to consider their plight as a loss, but rather focusing on what they can gain. For Riri it is a piano; for Ino, boarding at an aristocratic school; and for Stefos, long pants and a bike (140). Despite her attempt to demonstrate the losses felt by various refugees, it is odd that she does not dwell on her own feelings even though she has provided herself with a platform to voice her own opinions. One explanation could be that she does not want to abuse her role as autodiegetic narrator by burdening the reader with her own opinions, or perhaps her choices have to do with the fact

224 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

that she feels her losses are beyond discussing. Another reason could be her desire to illustrate a balanced portrayal of refugeehood. This latter point is also illustrated in her directing function. Revealing that the problems encountered by the Magis family are not strictly related to their status as refugees, the narrator depicts the majority of these as stemming from Vasilakis‟ inability to adapt to his new life. Doulis also states that Vasilakis is „unable to survive in an historical period where survival must be everyone‟s constant preoccupation‟ (1977: 197). Differences between Vasilakis and other characters are evident from the events presented even prior to their arrival in Greece; now however, in the face of their new refugee status, these differences become more pronounced (see also Doulis 1977: 197). Vasilakis has been presented in the first part of the novel as a naïve optimist,6 but during his stay in Greece, he appears unable to deal with his refugeehood in a pragmatic way. This attitude is contrasted heavily with Mary‟s, whom the narrator presents as level headed and strong though she is burdened with her self-doubts concerning her motherly role in the family (139-41, 154-5). However, Mary‟s ability to overcome these thoughts makes her an appealing character in the story and gives her an important role in the family because she counters Vasilakis‟ inability to make or retain any money, which leads his family into a path of poverty that affected all of them. As we saw earlier in Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Sotiriou‟s narrator also includes an indefinite ellipsis to signify the time between the information she presents about the refugees‟ initial settlement in Athens and their permanent establishment in the refugee settlements (152). By leaving the transitional period open both narrators appear to be implying that, the period between the refugees‟ arrival and their awareness that their settlement would be a permanent situation is indeterminable or unknown. This gives both stories credibility. With regard to the Magis family, the narrator‟s use of summary in presenting their issues in which she does not play a part, also suggests that their refugee status was not the sole reason for their difficulties. For Mary Magis her problems has much to do with Vasilakis‟ mistreatment of their finances as this

6 See pp. 12-15, 59-60, 63-4, 68-9, 72, 79, 90, 93, 125 among others.

225 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

results in her inability as a mother to keep her family together (156). Readers sympathise with Mary‟s situation. She has no choice but to send Ino to Italy where she was subsequently mistreated at the hands of her employer (194), she leaves Aliki with the Sitzanoglou‟s and Riri was married to a much older local, Nondas Derlis, who turned out to be controlling and obsessive (161, 166, 196). Finally, Stefos‟ employment as a mechanic, which also shows the family‟s declining social class: „Λτρεπόταν για τα χέρια του, που είχαν αποχτήσει ρόζους και μόνιμες μαυρίλες και πρόδιναν πως ήταν εργάτης‟ (157), is also a result of the family‟s financial status. Stefos understood that his position was a result of Vasilakis‟ actions. Stefos‟ attack on Vasilakis however, merely adds to the family‟s humiliation since the neighbours were able to hear the exchange. The narrator‟s choice of presenting this argument in reported discourse shows the reader exactly what the neighbours would have heard. Their humiliation is compounded with the humiliation of having their arguments publicised. The narrator describes the reaction of Mary, Riri and Niovi to Vasilakis‟ and Stefos‟ fight as her mother reported it to her. By telling the readers how she came to know this information, they are reminded of Aliki‟s absence from the home and emphasises her role in her biological family as an outsider. This adds to the reader‟s opinion that Aliki‟s experience of refugeehood was far less traumatic than most (156). While this argument led to a relatively stable period in the Magis household, through the narrator‟s interaction with Vasilakis, the reader sees that this was short lived. Unemployed and unable to provide for his family, Vasilakis turns to alcohol (166-9). The presentation of Vasilakis‟ downward spiral promotes the reader‟s compassion for the narrator, who reveals that Vasilakis asked her for money that was meant to pay for her tuition. In addition to this, Aliki‟s narration in which she informs the reader that she knew that her father was lying to her about his reasons for needing the money increases the reader‟s sympathy for her. Aliki‟s compassion and strength of character in understanding her father‟s lack of self-respect, results in the reader‟s increased sympathy for her, not only as the protagonist of the story, enduring these difficult interactions with her father, but also in view of the difficulties she has to overcome to reveal this story.

226 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

The narrator‟s position in the Sitzanoglou and Magis family makes her privy to the actions of Vasilakis, as mentioned, as well as to the thoughts of other characters about his role in Greece. For instance, the narrator‟s inclusion of the discussion between Giakos and Hermione show that the former did not believe that the employment of Vasilakis in his factory was a viable option and he constantly rejects Hermione‟s requests to hire Vasilakis or to donate money. Hermione, however, appears more compassionate towards her brother Vasilakis as she is seen to want the best for the Magis family despite Vasilakis‟ inadequacies (175). This debate, as presented by the narrator in the diegesis, also highlights the difficulty faced by those refugees who were financially better off. Niovi is the only Magis child who remained in the family home and her involvement in politics gives her character a historical significance. The inclusion of the analysis of Niovi‟s character by other characters in the novel provides the reader with an understanding of how Niovi became embroiled in political clashes between the communists and socialists. Mary‟s confession to Aliki that Niovi did not have a childhood at all because of the family‟s uprooting and refugee status (166) and an early understanding of the link between money and social class (154) seems to be the catalyst for Niovi‟s involvement with the communist cause. While in the majority of the novel Aliki has attempted to remain neutral by avoiding her own commentary on the characters, in Niovi‟s case she addresses the reader directly, making a comparison between her experiences of refugeehood and Niovi‟s. Presented in narratised discourse the narrator‟s comment shows that she does not judge Niovi‟s experiences as a disadvantage, but she considers this a positive characteristic for Niovi and those around her: Ρούτο το παιδί μπλέχτηκε, χειρότερα κι από μένα, στη ζωή των μεγάλων. Βε βρήκε καιρό και άνεση για παιχνίδια και ξεγνοιασιά. Έπεσε μέσα στη φουρτουνιασμένη θάλασσα και πριν μάθει η ίδια να κολυμπάει, πάσχισε να σώσει τους άλλους απ‟ τον πνιγμό. (182) Presenting these thoughts about her sister‟s background, the narrator adds to the reader‟s sympathy for Niovi as a supporter of the communist ideology. Aliki seems to be using her position as an autodiegetic narrator to provide her readers with a positive impression of the reason so many young refugees became

227 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

involved in the communist movement as something that could help improve their lives. The introduction of Zisis Drogas also brings to light the positive aspects of the refugees‟ arrival in Greece and the preoccupations of those who joined the communist cause. Zisis‟ perception of the role of the refugees in Greece, as presented in reported discourse, appears to be a way for the narrator to counter the negative perception of refugees as troublemakers, which was evident in the earlier example of Kostis. Highlighting the positive aspects of their role in Greece, the narrator presents Zisis‟ point of view that the refugees were hard workers who improved Greece in reported discourse: Θαι μήπως είναι μόνο τα χαλιά; […] Θάθε μέρα ξεφυτρώνουν μεγάλες και μικρές βιοτεχνίες και βιομηχανίες. Ώκόμα και την ανατολίτικη καλοφαγία την κάνουν επιχείρηση, είπε γελώντας. (177-8) Despite the narrator‟s opportunity to underline her own political views, she refrains, as Doulis suggests: „because of her political orientation, Mrs. Sotiriou had to be careful in her treatment of the Resistance period lest she excite old animosities and risk legal action‟ (1977: 198). An indication of this could be implied through the narrator‟s less sympathetic treatment of Trifonas and his friends, who mostly represent fascist ideal, than to Niovi and Zisis. Although the narrator does not express her political affiliations clearly, the reader can detect her left-wing political preference in her confession that she enjoyed the company and discussions that ensued when she was with Niovi and Zisis: ΋σες φορές κατέβαινα στην Θοκκινιά κι αντάμωνα τις παρέες της Λιόβης γύριζα στο σπίτι όλο κέφι. […] Γκεί κάτω πίστευαν στον άνθρωπο κι αυτό ήταν όλο το μυστικό της μεταδοτικής χαράς τους. […] Ωστόσο τούτα δώ τα παλικάρια, με τα τριμμένα ρούχα και τις άδειες τσέπες είχαν ένα καινούργιο δυναμισμό. Ξάλευαν με αυτοθυσία χωρίς να προσδοκούν ατομικά οφέλη. (185-6) The effect of the narrator‟s use of narrative technique to present this view ensures that the reader does not view her story as baring didactic elements. This slight ambiguity as to the narrator‟s own opinion gives Aliki an authenticity as she does not commit herself to any one ideology or appear to be enforcing a particular ideology on her readers.

228 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

Perhaps another reason for the ambiguity as to the narrator‟s political affiliations is the biographical element that the characters of Niovi and Zisis bring to the novel. To the aware reader, this relationship appears to be a fictional version of that between the Greek communist and resistance leader Nikos Beloyiannis and his partner/comrade Elli Pappa. This is not only because of the similar ideologies they share with the fictional characters of Zisis and Niovi respectively, but also because just as Niovi was the younger sister of the narrator Aliki, Elli Pappa was the younger sister of the novel‟s author Sotiriou. One could also argue that it is perhaps this very reason that Aliki as the narrator provides the back-story of Zisis and Niovi: to offer her readers an account of the reasons for the Greek communist movement and the refugees‟ involvement. The narrator‟s desire to provide a balanced account of the refugee experience is also illustrated in the information she provides the reader about the refugee as an employer. The narrator reiterates the impact of the refugees‟ arrival and settlement in Greece by again repeating the number of refugees that poured into Greece, „ενάμισι εκατομμύριο‟ (one and a half million). This time however, she uses this to open her discussion about the major long-term issue of employment. Presenting information that she learned from her stay in the Sitzanoglou household, Aliki shows that the only winners of the fights between the refugees and native Greeks were the employers, who were able to treat their employees with little regard, paying minimum wages and hiring those willing to accept such conditions (170). Giakos‟ position as one of these exploitative characters is evident in his reply to the anonymous refugees‟ question on whether they will return: „Ένας εργατικός άνθρωπος, όπου να σταθεί, έστω και προσωρινά, χτίζει, δημιουργεί‟ (146). While the presentation of this in reported discourse leaves no question as to Giakos‟ beliefs about the resilience of the refugees, there is evidence in Aliki‟s presentation of Giakos that his benevolence was probably a façade to garner support from his compatriots. This cynical interpretation is derived from Giakos‟ actions in choosing to hire refugees who had been respectable householders in Asia Minor, believing that they would be the least likely to revolt against him regardless of his demands. The reader‟s negative feelings towards Giakos are also affected by the underhanded techniques he uses to quell any possible rebellion amongst his refugee

229 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

employees. Aliki‟s portrayal of Giakos‟ abuse of the refugees‟ hope of return for his benefit incites the reader‟s antipathy towards him, since the reader has been so far privy to the painful experiences of various refugees who hope that they will be returned to their homes. For instance, he uses their status in Greek society to make them work harder; telling them that their hard work will prove to the natives that they are superior, while another method is to exploit their hopes by claiming that their hard work in Greece would be of benefit to their social status in Asia Minor after their return (171). Finally, Giakos‟ personal ties with his employees through „κουμπαριό‟ (marriage sponsorship), which may have been normal behaviour, also appears to be another expression of Giakos‟ exploitative nature (172). Using an intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator the narrator is able to present an internal analepsis portraying a controversial comparison between the Greek and the Turk. The story of Irma, Gerasimos‟ goddaughter, is revealed to the narrator by the refugee character Hrysi, the Sitzanoglou‟s maid. Her intradiegetic- heterodiegetic narration has an explanatory relationship with the diegesis because it reveals the events that led Irma to her present situation and provides the reason Elvira and Gerasimos spoke badly about her: „Ρώρα εξηγούσαμε γιατί η κυρία Γλβίρα έλεγε όλη ώρα στον άντρα της: “Kαλό κουμάσι μας ήφερες στο σπίτι”‟ (151). Irma‟s tragic experiences show the brutal side of the Disaster, the Turk and the Greek, but it also shows the injustice of Elvira and Gerasimos‟ comment. Hrysi reports to the narrator that Irma‟s escape after the sack of Smyrna led her into a group of Turks who raped her repeatedly. While this is a horrific scene, the narrator‟s inclusion in reported discourse of a soldier‟s explanation for Irma‟s rape as an act of vengeance for the attack on their women by the Greeks (150) raises the issue of the atrocities committed by the Greeks on the Turks. This appears to be a direct attempt on the part of the narrator to provide an even-handed image of the violence perpetrated by both the Greeks and Turks towards each other‟s civilians. Furthermore, while this would have been a controversial issue to raise in a Greek novel aimed at a Greek audience, the narrator‟s strategy of using Hrysi to tell this story seems to be a way of distancing herself from it. The narrator‟s choice to play down the image of the Turk as enemy is also inferred by the rest of Irma‟s story and her experiences at the hands of a refugee

230 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

as told in Hrysi‟s intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narration. Because of her rape, Irma became pregnant. Another refugee, Loxandra, decided to terminate Irma‟s pregnancy, rationalizing abortion as a lesser evil than giving birth to a Turk (150). However, in return, Loxandra employed Irma as a street beggar. Reinforcing the notion that it was not just the Turk who could be barbaric, Loxandra‟s husband, a refugee himself, also mistreated Irma, raping her repeatedly and impregnating her just as the Turk had done: Ρην τράβηξε κοντά του και της έκανε τα ίδια με τους Σούρκους. [...] Κα ο ψυχοπατέρας της ήταν ζόρικος άντρας και δε σήκωνε τις εναντιώσεις. Ρη φώναξε, την τρόμαξε με απειλές, κι ύστερα την καλόπιασε, της είπε πως θα φροντίσει να φέρει τον πατέρα της στον Πειραιά και θα την βάλει και σε σχολείο να σπουδάζει δασκάλα. Θαι σιγά-σιγά, με τη βία και με τα καλοπιάσματα, την έμαθε να νοστιμεύεται την αγκαλιά του. (151, emphasis added) Despite the similarity between her ordeal with the Turks and with Loxandra‟s husband, the transgression committed by the latter seems more disgraceful. Loxandra‟s husband lacked respect not only for Irma and his wife, but also for the church since he committed his violation in front of the most sacred space of the church, the „ιερό‟ (sanctuary) (151). Moreover, the fact that he was a refugee and exploited her vulnerability and trusting nature towards one of her own kind by promising to bring her father to Greece and help them settle, as Hrysi claims in her narration, makes his transgression all the more callous. The inclusion of Irma‟s story appears to be an attempt by the narrator to give a balanced picture of the experiences of the refugees and Sotiriou‟s use of narrative techniques allow her to present controversial topics without implication.

To this point, we have analysed the work of the refugee author Sotiriou, noting in particular the way she presents the refugees in this narrative situation. The remainder of this chapter will be focused on Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980) by the native author, Iatridi, who also employs an extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrator, presenting the story through internal focalization. Like Sotiriou‟s narrator, Iatridi‟s is also a refugee.

231 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

The novel Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια features a narrator, named Panoraia Fokianou, who is also the protagonist. As mentioned, she presents her experiences as a refugee, which is mostly preoccupied with her attainment of „πέτρινα λιοντάρια‟ (stone lions). Unlike Sotiriou‟s narrator, Panoraia is the only refugee character in this novel, though she does briefly mention some minor refugee characters, whose inclusion is to merely show the condition of the refugees. The analepses that depict Panoraia‟s experiences as a maid in various homes are largely focused on her, rather than those she attends to as part of her duties. The lack of information about these people could be a result of the narrator‟s segregation from them, but it is still unusual that not even their names are mentioned. On the contrary, names of children and characters of a low socio- economic standing are revealed. This selective omission makes Panoraia‟s autodiegetic narration seem authentic and factual, since it may reflect a desire to protect the identities of real people. Also, this exclusion of names could suggest that Panoraia does not identify with these characters and tries to create a distance between them and the reader. Unlike Sotiriou‟s novel, which employs a linear narrative, Iatridi‟s novel uses external analepses like Axioti‟s novel, as mentioned earlier. Doulis mentions that Iatridi ‟s novel relates „its story on two levels: the present, during which Panoria [sic] Fokianou oversees the construction of her house, and the past, which is told in alternating chapters that novel the story forward from the horrors of the Fire at Smyrna to the fictional present‟ (1977: 193). However, he does not suggest a reason for this or answer the question of what effect this technique has on the reader‟s understanding of the text. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of Iatridi‟s novel are external analepses interspersed between chapters of narration in the narrative present. Although they follow one theme, they are treated here as separate analepses because the events narrated do not follow one continuous chronological line. As we saw in Chapter Two, the native author Axioti also employs this alteration between past and present in Εικοστός αιώνας, though her analepsis is presented as one continuous story, which does interrupt the diegesis. In Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, each chapter‟s analepses depict the narrator‟s employment in a different house and different

232 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

period. The extent of the collective analepses in Iatridi‟s novel is 32 years and 7 months, as the narrator states on the first page (9). The reach of the first analepsis can be calculated to be 1922, mainly because the narrator mentions the fire in Smyrna. However, as the reach of each analepses progresses, it gets closer to the narrative present, but never overlaps since there is a four-year interval between the end of the analepses and the beginning of the narrative present. While the analepses include brief intrusions of the narrative present, these do not affect the continuity of the story in the analepses. The function of these short intrusions is to remind the reader that Panoraia is the narrator divulging a story in which she is the protagonist. This ensures that the link between the analepses and her present situation is not forgotten and their cause/effect relationship is elucidated. This technique distinguishes between the phase of her life in which she raised the money to build her home, and the actual construction of this home, as seen in the narrative present. Like Axioti‟s novel as mentioned earlier in this thesis, throughout Iatridi‟s novel the reader is privy to the way Panoraia, as the focalizer of her story, remembers these events, since her thoughts in the narrative present often intrude on her reminiscences as a running commentary. Events narrated in the diegesis, in Chapters 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14, do not follow one continuous sequential line since each recommence at a new date. The chronological gaps are filled by the analepses, creating the illusion of time passing in the narrative present, while the analepsis is narrated. With neither the analepses nor the narrative present interrupting each other‟s diegesis, each chapter is an individual story that explicitly serves the purpose of explaining how the narrator became the owner of her own home in the narrative present and how she came to reject the stone lions. The Disaster had a significant impact on Panoraia‟s character as Doulis says: „[the novel] consciously employs the psychological and physical effects of the Disaster on Panoria [sic] as permanent marks on her personality‟ (1977: 193). However, as will be seen, the importance of the narrator‟s refugee status in the novel does not seem to extend beyond being the reason for her poverty and isolation, as Doulis claims: „[Panoraia] has been marked by 1922, not merely because she is partially deaf [a result of an explosion] but because she has been

233 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

declassed and orphaned, stripped of family as well as of personal past‟ (194). While the seclusion of the protagonist from those around her could be attributed to her experience of the Disaster, it is largely a result of her hearing difficulty as the narrator herself substantiates this through the frequent mentions of an imaginary glass wall between herself and others.7 Doulis also classifies Panoraia‟s deafness as a reason for the limited information she receives (1977: 194). The protagonist‟s refugee status seems also to be an aspect of her life used to measure the extent of her progress in Greece. To be precise, by starting the narrative at the beginning of the realization of her dream (building the home she always wanted) and interspersing this story with analepses depicting her journey to this point, the narrator ensures that the reader has a clear idea of Panoraia‟s development and progress; that is, from humble origins as a child refugee with nothing, to a middle-aged woman, who has come to possess her own piece of land. The narrator begins her story by telling us her situation in the diegesis of the narrative present, which is 1951. At the opening of the story, Panoraia is granted a license to build her house in Haravgi, which becomes the theme in the narrative present. This continues through to 1952 when the narrator finally receives the keys to her finished home, although interspersed with analepses, as previously mentioned. From the outset of the narrative present, the narrator reveals her name, her aural disability and that she has been working as a maid for 32 years and 7 months (9). It seems the narrator has no intention to conceal information about herself, including her disappointment with the house she is about to build (11), which increases her credibility as a narrator. The events that culminated in her disillusionment have already occurred at the time of the narrative present, in fact approximately four years before it. However, the narrator maintains the reader‟s suspense by alluding to these events through the narrative present (41, 109, 137, 154), only clarifying them in the final analepsis at the end of the novel (194), set four years before the beginning of the narrative present.

7 See for example pp. 17, 21, 22, 66, 84, 94, 98, 107, 114, 146, 157, 159, 165, 169, 176, 190.

234 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

While the first chapter introduces the autodiegetic narrator and explains her current position as a homeowner, the following chapter is an external analepsis narrating the start of her journey to this point. It seems that the analepsis in Chapter 2 about her experiences of the fire in Smyrna is triggered by the fire-like qualities of the setting sun, as she states, „Θάτι άστραψε στο νου μου‟ (11). The effect of this testimonial function makes Panoraia‟s analepses appear as though they have no predetermined focus, but are stories motivated by various triggers in the narrative present. The testimonial function also incites sympathy in her readers since they feel as though they are engaging in a conversation with the narrator. Despite the narrator appearing to be motivated to recall earlier events through a chance association, the analepses are carefully organised and structured. The second chapter presented in external analepsis is the most pertinent for our study since it focuses exclusively on the Disaster and involves refugees. The information presented by the narrator is limited because of a number of factors. While the narrator‟s age and the temporal distance between her experiences and the time of narration are factors limiting this portrayal, as previously mentioned, Panoraia‟s deafness is another. Describing her initial experience as a refugee in Greece, she says, „Ξολλά δεν άκουγα, και λιγότερα καταλάβαινα, όμως έλεγα πως τώρα πια θα βρισκόμαστε οι χαμένοι‟ (15). This restriction, however, is in keeping with the technique of internal focalization, since the reader can only be convinced of this narration if information is limited to what the narrator has personally experienced or witnessed. While Panoraia states that there were many children like herself on the ship, but does not refer to any individually, her mention of older refugees makes her story convincing. In reality, it seems probable that older people would have been patient enough to help the narrator, while children may have found it difficult to communicate with a deaf person and could not provide her with the appropriate assistance. Ironically, it is the lack of information about the refugee characters that she presents that makes Panoraia‟s story credible, for as a narrator she obeys the restrictions of her aural disability that would have prevented her from knowing the story of others. The external analepsis featuring her journey and arrival in Greece demonstrates the benevolence of the refugees. Panoraia‟s interactions with three

235 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

refugees also show the ability of the refugees to provide the essentials of food, comfort and warmth that any child requires, despite their own misery. During Panoraia‟s journey, an older refugee woman advises the narrator to remain with a nurse who had provided her with food, reasoning that by staying with her she would be provided with food (14). Her interaction with a dying old man increases the reader‟s sympathy for the narrator, as her act of holding his hand as he was dying is a traumatic experience for a child (14). The importance of a third nameless refugee is not only her offer of her blanket to the narrator but the advice she offers Panoraia: to pretend she was older to increase her chances of being chosen by a native who would employ her. This further incites the reader‟s empathy for Panoraia who is forced to forgo her childhood and step into an adult world (16). With the exception of the narrator‟s initial description of her journey from Smyrna to Greece (12-19), there are only a few occasions where the reader is reminded of her refugee status. All of these occur in the chapters featuring external analepses. The first reference is in the third chapter, which features her experiences as a maid in the first house. It is in this section that two brief instances of external analepses mentioning her background in Smyrna are inserted into the main body of external analepses, which discuss her experience in Athens (18, 29). In the first instance, the narrator uses an external analepsis to present the story about the origin of the imaginary wheels that she frequently refers to throughout the novel (105, 137, 198). Set in Smyrna, this analepsis features her mother milling coffee as the narrator imagines a barber on a bicycle. When she reveals this to her mother, the narrator is told that it was a figment of her imagination (18). As a result, the narrator links any experience of victimisation, like that felt when her mother refused to believe her, to the barber‟s bicycle wheels trampling her body. The second external analepsis is also based on this event. When her first boss tells her that she too could one day own her own home, the narrator envisages herself in her mum‟s role as depicted in the earlier external analepsis and owning her own home with the stone lions holding the balcony like those of her home in Smyrna (29). Panoraia‟s background is also mentioned in a conversation with her first boss, who alludes to her own background. Panoraia‟s boss claims to have arrived

236 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

in Greece with capital before the Disaster and to have lost her fiancé in the war. The narrator thus assumes that her boss is a refugee (28). However, there is no evidence to clarify her origins or those of her fiancé. The reader may suspect that the boss‟s story is untrue, concluding that she says this to explain her poverty and to justify her intention to turn her home into a brothel (29-31). Moreover, it could also be suggested that this story is fabricated to create the illusion of a shared heritage and experience with Panoraia in order to secure support for her alleged illegal plan.8 Although Panoraia shows her sympathy for her boss‟s experience and contemplates their shared loneliness as refugees, at the same time she appears to question it: „Ώπό κείνα λοιπόν τα μέρη ήταν κι αυτή; Κονάχη και τούτη σαν και μένα;‟ (28). Since Panoraia‟s isolation prohibits her from gaining further information about her boss, the reason for Panoraia‟s uncertainty about her boss‟s refugee status is not revealed. In the external analepses, there are three more indications of the narrator‟s refugee status, which, as mentioned earlier, are also referred to because of certain triggers in the narrative present. Following the arrest of her first boss because of her chosen occupation, the narrator is sent to another. Describing her treatment of her second boss‟s children in the diegesis, Panoraia explains that she treats them as she did her own brothers who perished in the Disaster. This disclosure regarding her loneliness as a refugee and the effect of the Disaster on her family (44) heightens the reader‟s sympathy for Panoraia. In addition, the traumatic experience of her journey to Greece because of the Disaster adds to the reader‟s emotional attachment to her. On a vacation with the family of her second boss, the narrator is motivated by the sight of the sea to recall her experience of fleeing Smyrna that led to her fear of it: Παν πρωτοαντίκρισα την απεραντοσύνη της θάλασσας τρόμαξα. Ξαλιά ήρθαν στο νου μου, καπνός και φωτιά και χέρια να γυρεύουν βοήθεια, να γαντζώνονται στον αγέρα, να πιάνονται στο νερό… Ρη

8 Κy suggestion that brothels were illegal in Greece at this time is deduced from events in the novel. Panoraia‟s boss is taken into police custody and incarcerated because she was caught trading sex for money (38).

237 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

νύχτα πάλι όλη εκείνη η υγρή μαυρίλα που απλωνόταν βουβή μπροστά μου, γέμιζε από κεφάλια πνιγμένων…. (76) While this seems a serious traumatic phobia, to the reader‟s surprise Panoraia‟s fear is quickly overcome and she claims that she is even able to swim on her own in only a short time (78). In the external analepsis depicting Panoraia‟s experiences in the second house, the narrator takes the opportunity to address her isolation. In a discussion with her second boss‟s husband on the eve of the Second World War, Panoraia seeks answers from him about the implications of this war and whether Greece will recover losses sustained during the Disaster. According to the narrator, her boss‟s husband seems initially not to understand the losses to which she refers. While the reader shares his uncertainty, it is clarified with his reply presented in reported discourse for emphasis that she is alluding to the Greek areas of Anatolia that were given to Turkey (79). The effect of his answer revealed to the reader in reported discourse leaves no uncertainty that the narrator heard these words despite her hearing disability. Moreover, while her question is evidence of the extent of her isolation and lack of interaction with the world, her use of reported discourse to present his answer shows the objectivity with which she reveals it (79). As mentioned earlier, Panoraia makes her story seem as though it has no pre-defined focus as her experiences in the narrative present seem to summon memories of her past. This testimonial function is also evident when she is issued with a hearing aid. The sounds she hears in the narrative present trigger her memory of the creaking door in her home in Smyrna (190), which in turn motivates her memory of her pet cat. This memory heightens the reader‟s sympathy for Panoraia and reminds the reader of Panoraia‟s past as she mentions the Disaster, presuming that Lefki fled from the fire in Smyrna 25 years ago along with other animals and people (190-1). While Panoraia‟s description of this memory as „μικροπράγματα‟ (trivialities) and her matter-of-fact tone could appear insensitive and unconvincing, it should be noted that she is different to other refugees. Her experiences, her age upon arriving in Greece and her disability have all affected her perceptions and understanding of the Disaster. However, whilst Panoraia has suffered by losing her family and home, her story

238 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

as narrated in her external analepses present her as one of the more fortunate refugees, escaping the life of poverty that others endured. Her isolation and ignorance of the consequences of the Disaster go some way to explain the impassive way she talks about herself and her failure to mention her refugee status to others. Throughout the novel the narrator presents herself as an isolated character that appears to yearn for inclusion into society as the glass wall metaphorically suggests. However, through the narrator‟s use of a definite ellipsis at the end of the novel, the reader learns that Panoraia‟s ignorance has always been what has protected her. While the recollection of her cat and the fire of Smyrna provide the setting for this section of the novel, 1946 or 1947, this temporal detail also infers the duration of the ellipsis between the end of this chapter (195) and the beginning of the narrative present (9). This definite ellipsis, the duration of which is about five years as Panoraia reports at the beginning of the novel in the narrative present, marks a period of her life in which she is content with her deafness. The reason for this is specified in a dialogue between Panoraia and her fifth boss revealed in reported discourse by the narrator. His revelation that Mihalis has abandoned her provokes Panoraia to remove the hearing aid and to resume her ignorance: „Στάνουν, περισσεύουν τα όσα άκουσα, τα όσα έμαθα‟ (196). It appears that the imaginary glass wall that would separate her from others is now something that she controlled.

*****

Although the authors of the novels examined in this chapter have different personal experiences of the influx of refugees, each has chosen to focus on a similar period in presenting the refugee characters. The temporal setting of Sotiriou‟s novel, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν, is 1918 to 1941, with refugees appearing from 1922 to 1941. Regarding Iatridi‟s novel, Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, refugee characters are featured from the beginning of the novel, which is set in 1922 until the end of the external analepses containing the plot in 1946-47, and the narrative present in 1951.

239 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

The narrative situation chosen by these authors ensures the narrator‟s complete control over the content presented. While it would seem that such a narrative situation allows the narrators to describe their perceptions and attitudes towards the events recounted, this does not happen in Sotiriou‟s novel. Perhaps this is a result of the close resemblance between the life of the protagonist, Aliki, and the author‟s experiences. Sotiriou may not have wanted to promote her views of certain people and events she personally experienced, and so creates a distance between her own experiences and her fictive work. As for Iatridi‟s narrator, Panoraia does provide the reader with her feelings but does not provide commentary on the events she recalls. It appears in this respect that despite the narrative situation they use to present the story both authors attempt to leave judgement of characters and events up to the reader. While both novels present refugee as main characters, Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν gives more emphasis to refugee characters. Although quantitatively it appears that Iatridi‟s work dedicates more space to the refugees since the narrator is a refugee and the entire novel tells her story, her refugee status does not seem to play a large role in the story, apart from being part of her background. On the other hand, while only 40% of Sotiriou‟s novel focuses on the refugees, the content of this proportion of the novel is entirely dedicated to the refugee experience. In particular, the refugee background of the narrator and protagonist, Aliki, is of prime importance in the plot since this is the reason she is privy to the refugee experiences she illustrates in her narration. Aliki‟s intense focus on the refugees is also noted in her strict use of internal focalization and the testimonial function, justifying how she knows the information she reveals. The main technique used to convey the story of the refugee Panoraia in Iatridi‟s novel is through chapters of external analepses, which alternate with chapters of the narrative present. This fluctuation between analepses and the narrative present characterises the way her past has informed her present. Although she is a maid in both the analepses and the narrative present, Panoraia‟s economic status improves as she moves from house to house. With analepses, her story becomes more appealing and interesting than if it were merely told chronologically through the strict internal focalization she uses.

240 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 6

Because Sotiriou is a refugee, it seems fitting that her novel would be dedicated to the refugees, focusing on their plight in an attempt to incite the reader‟s sympathy for them. However, the novel does not idealise the refugees, but appears to provide a balanced image of them. Similarly, Iatridi‟s novel also portrays a balanced image of the refugees, despite this being a secondary theme in the narrative, behind the improvement of a young woman‟s life despite her disability and financial difficulties.

241 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

CHAPTER 7 OBSERVING THE REFUGEES: A CASE FOR PARALEPSIS

In his critique of Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971) by Stratis Myrivilis, Doulis concludes that it „is not an example of a “refugee novel” in the way Tatiana Stavrou‟s The First Roots [Οι Πρώτες ρίζες] and Ilias Venezis‟ Serenity [Γαλήνη] are‟ because of the novel‟s lack of focus on the refugees (1977: 213). While Kafetzaki agrees that the characters‟ refugee backgrounds are a minor factor in the novel, she provides an extensive discussion of the themes and motifs that relate to the image of the refugee in Myrivilis‟ work (2003: 301-22, and elsewhere). Despite the minor role of refugees and the relative insignificance of refugee issues in the novel‟s plot, refugees are featured in the narrative. The following discussion raises a number of issues expressed in the works of Doulis and Kafetzaki, but it approaches the presentation of the refugees from a narratological perspective, linking the novel‟s content and form. Within this chapter, we will identify the position of the refugee characters in the story and how they are presented within their chosen roles. Myrivilis is the only author in our corpus to present the refugees using an extradiegetic- homodiegetic narrator who employs external focalization. While the narrative situation restricts the information revealed to the reader, paralepsis, as explained below, provides the narrator with some scope to present the information from other characters‟ point of view. Myrivilis‟ biography shows his extensive familiarity with the Disaster and the refugee situation. Born on Lesvos in 1890 in the village of Sykamnia, Myrivilis moved to the town of Mytilene for study purposes in 1905, but moved to Athens in 1911. His studies were cut short, however, because he volunteered to fight in the First Balkan War. After his stint as a soldier in the Greek army, he returned to Lesvos, which was by now free from Turkish rule and united with Greece. Myrivilis fought in the Asia Minor campaign and, after the collapse of the Greek army in 1922, he returned to Lesvos, where he remained until 1930. Eventually Myrivilis settled in Athens, remaining there until his death in 1969.

242 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

First published in 1956, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα features an extradiegetic- homodiegetic narrator, who acts as an observer-witness without participating in the story.1 This novel is unique in our corpus for two reasons. Firstly, since the narrator of this novel employs external focalization, it is the only narrative to avoid the standard type of focalization for homodiegetic narrators, which is usually the restricted internal focalization, where the narrator only reports on action he views.2 Secondly, the narrator appears opportunistic, using paralepsis at his discretion. According to Genette, the homodiegetic narrator is completely accountable for his information and obliged to justify the information he gives about scenes from which he is absent as a character (1988: 78). However, when the homodiegetic narrator claims something that is impossible or illogical for him to tell or know, this is a paralepsis. As will be seen, the narrator of Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα often adjusts his focalization to enhance and control the presentation of his characters without succumbing to the shortfalls of the traditionally restrictive focalization of homodiegetic narration. The narrator‟s use of paralepsis to reveal information that is impossible for him to know, such as characters‟ thoughts, suggests the author‟s strong desire to present a particular message by controlling the depiction of his characters. Moreover, paralepsis provides the narrative with a mythical element as it deters the reader from assuming the story is authentic or that the narrator is basing the story on reality. The obscure temporal setting of the narrative also adds to the novel‟s mythical quality. With regard to this, Doulis merely mentions that: „The initial stages of the novel‟s action, after the leisurely beginning [the midsummer of 1914], concern the arrival of the refugees of the 1922 Disaster‟ (1977: 210). However, the complicated temporal setting of the novel suggests this to be a major aspect of the way the novel is understood by readers. While the main

1 For this analysis, I used the 5th printing by Γστία in 1971, which is a reprint of the 1956 edition. 2 The homodiegetic narrator’s gender cannot be determined, but for clarity, we will refer to the narrator as he since the author is male and it seems as though the narrator has a male voice.

243 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

action of the narrative appears to take place between 1914 and 1930, the narrator does refer to earlier events, such as the building of the chapel upon which Captain Ilias painted the „Mermaid Madonna‟ (Ε Παναγιά η Γοργόνα). This occurred 70 to 80 years before the narrative present. Despite explicitly stating some dates, such as the Battle of the „Elli‟ in 1912 (10) and the arrival of the refugees in 1914 together with Captain Ilias‟ disappearance (14), as the narrative continues, the temporal setting is distorted. Apart from the reference to 1914, the narrator mentions a further influx of refugees in the area; however, this time it occurred as a result of a „μεγάλο κακό‟ (great evil) (24), which one would assume refers to the Disaster. However, this is historically inaccurate since the Disaster occurred later in 1922 and the narrator refers to the 1923 Exchange much later in the narrative (138), therefore, leaving a large gap between the mention of the „μεγάλο κακό‟ and the 1923 Exchange. Following the vague reference to the „μεγάλο κακό‟, the narrator makes another obscure mention of the separation of Lesvos from Anatolia in 1912 (28). If we assume that the narrator is likely to be discussing the ceding of Lesvos to Greece in 1912 as the „μεγάλο κακό‟, then it would make sense that the refugees who arrive in Lesvos did so in 1912, instead of 1914 with the departure of Captain Ilias, as the narrator mentions (14). However, in Abbott Rick‟s (Myrivilis 1981) translation of Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, the reference to the „μεγάλο κακό‟ denotes the „Anatolian disaster‟ in 1914, referring to events following the end of the Balkan War, which coincided with the disappearance of Captain Ilias and the arrival of the refugees in the novel (Myrivilis 1981: 14). While this may be the case, in retrospect, after 1922, it seems odd that the events of 1914 would be referred to as the „μεγάλο κακό‟. However, the discovery of Smaragdi by Antonis Varouhos further complicates the narrative‟s temporal setting. Upon his return to Mouria from Hora, where he met with the Bishop about the refugee housing, Antonis finds a baby and names her Smaragdi (Myrivilis 1971: 96-108). Historically, the refugee housing issue occurred around 1924 and the suggestion that Smaragdi is a newborn at that time makes her six years old in 1930, a date deduced from the mention of the Ankara Convention 1930 (212). However, it is made explicitly clear by the native Fortis, Smaragdi‟s godfather, that she is probably about 15

244 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

years old at this point (208), as it had been approximately 14 years since her baptism, which took place a couple of months after she had been found, estimated to have occurred when Smaragdi is 6 months old (116). Thus, there are three problematic possibilities for the timeline of this novel. Firstly, it could be that Varouhos found Smaragdi in 1914, a decade before the refugee housing issues, which is consistent with her being 15 or 16 years old in 1930. Secondly, if we assume, as Doulis does, that Smaragdi „was probably not born before 1924‟ (Doulis 1977: 212) and Varouhos found Smaragdi in 1924, coinciding with the historical date of the refugee housing issue in Greece, then the novel probably ends on the eve of the Second World War in 1939. This however, does not seem to be the case because of the mention of the issues leading to the Ankara Convention in 1930 near the end of the novel and there is no reference whatsoever to Metaxas‟ dictatorship in 1936, let alone the Second World War. The final possibility is that the narrator has deliberately obscured the temporal setting of the narrative. Nevertheless, the beginning of the narrative is probably 1912, which is deduced from the above information. That is, if Smaragdi is 15 or 16 years old in 1930, it suggests that Antonis found her in 1914, since it is implied that she arrived just before the second anniversary of the death of Zinovia, his daughter (116). Her death probably occurred around 1912 just after the arrival of the Varouhos and Lathios families since it is revealed that at this time they shared a dilapidated house given to them by the „΢πηρεσία Πτεγάσεως‟ (Housing Assistance Service) (58). By all accounts, it appears that along with the use of paralepsis, the ambiguous temporal setting is meant to avert the reader from viewing this work as a historical novel, which, as Doulis claims, is „suspended midway between history and myth‟ (1977: 215). Disguised references to the spatial setting of the narrative also provide it with a mythical quality. Although the narrator clarifies that the narrative is set in the village of Mouria, he neglects to mention the island‟s name. Myrivilis‟ informed readers could easily fix the geography of the novel, as they would be aware that the author‟s birthplace is Lesvos and would have noticed that the pseudonym the author uses, Myrivilis, alludes to his origins since it rhymes with

245 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

the major city in Lesvos, Mytilene.1 However, others need to follow a series of indications showing that the novel is set in Lesvos, such as the mention of Skala, a port settlement near the large village of Sykamnia, a few kilometres inland in Lesvos, where Myrivilis was born. In the book, the equivalent of Sykamnia is the imaginary village named Mouria, which is a synonym of Sykamnia. Furthermore, the place setting is also suggested by the mention of Cape Korakas, a real place in Lesvos,2 together with other indications, such as the famous olive plantations, which are a feature of the island‟s economy, the proximity of the island to Asia Minor, and the mention of the famous mermaid painted on the sidewall of the real chapel of the Mermaid Madonna in Skala Sykamnias on the island of Lesvos. The narrator‟s mention of the Battle of the „Elli‟ in December of 1912 (10), which made possible the liberation of Lesvos and other islands, also alludes to Lesvos as the place setting. Finally, the war that caused the islanders to refer to Anatolia as „Μωτερικό‟ (abroad) (28) is an allusion to the First Balkan War of 1912, which effectively severed ties between Lesvos and Anatolia, since Lesvos was ceded to Greece. As indicated earlier, with regard to the reason for the narrator‟s slight ambiguity about the location, it could be intentional in order to give his story a universal appeal or to disguise it as a fairytale embedded in reality. While reference to the image of a Mermaid Madonna alludes to the narrative‟s place setting, it also indirectly provides information on the narrator. With the description of the events prior to the refugees‟ arrival, especially the discussion about Captain Ilias‟ painting of the Mermaid Madonna, the reader can guess that the narrator is a native (16, 21). This is also deduced from the way the narrator presents the arrival of the refugees from the point of view of a person who seems to be waiting for them. In addition, the narrator‟s discussion of the Mermaid Madonna provides the reader with information about the type of narrator telling the story, as he openly admits to placing the image of the Mermaid Madonna on the front cover of the novel (16), which is an implied acknowledgment of his role as a homodiegetic narrator.

1 Stratis Myrivilis is the pseudonym of Efstratios Stamatopoulos. 2 Thanks to Dr Alfred Vincent for this geographical insight.

246 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

The majority of the main characters are refugees, but as the narrative unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that neither they nor their refugee status is the focal point of the plot. As Kafetzaki states: „Ρο θέμα των προσφύγων το χρησιμοποιεί ο συγγραφέας για την επίτευξη των στόχων του‟, that is, „να μιλήσει για την ελληνική παράδοση, για τον τόπο και τον «τρόπο» του ελληνισμού„ (2003: 302). Nevertheless, the narrator introduces the reader to 15 refugee characters presented as good-natured and respectable people who integrate into Greek society with assistance from the natives and the government. The refugees are presented favourably as the majority of male refugee characters are all hard working fishers, while female refugees assume conservative and traditionally feminine roles, such as mothers and homemakers, submissive to their husbands. The natives‟ understanding of the refugee psyche highlights their compassion for the refugees. Summarising the refugees‟ first days in Greece, the narrator depicts the unusual behaviour of the refugees as the natives observed it:

Κέσα στο μαυράδι των άγριων ματιών τους έκαιγε το πείσμα κι η επιφύλαξη. Θοίταζαν με λοξή ματιά, έσκυβαν το κεφάλι και μιλούσαν σιγά. Ρους ρωτούσες και φυλάγονταν να σου δώσουν πίσω το λόγο. Πε μετρούσαν από την κορφή ως τα νύχια και δεν απαντούσαν ή λέγανε ψέματα χοντροκομμένα, με μιαν παιδιάτικην ασυνειδησία (34). While the narrator makes it clear that the natives were aware that the refugees were embellishing the truth, they did not directly accuse the refugees of lying. Instead, their dishonesty is excused and explained as a consequence of nostalgia (35). In general, their status as refugees only becomes an issue when one or more individual refugees disgrace the rest; as will be seen, when the Gatsalis family are accused by the native Fortis of murdering his son, Lambis, and when Antonis rapes his adopted daughter Smaragdi. Overall, the issue of refugee settlement is merely a backdrop for the plot involving Smaragdi, while refugee characters play a supporting role in the novel‟s primary focus on her life (Doulis 1977: 211). Despite their shared outsider status, the refugees and Smaragdi contrast significantly. Smaragdi‟s subversion of the standard female role assumed by

247 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

refugee women in the novel differentiates her from these women as she takes on the masculine role of captaining her own boat. While this is used to exemplify her strength and extraordinary character, her finesse at sea suggests parallels with that of the refugee men. Differentiating her further from the refugee women, Smaragdi‟s appearance is only comparable to the Mermaid Madonna; her unique demeanour, appearance and attitude causes the refugee Permahoula to suggest that Smaragdi is the child of a mermaid. It would appear therefore, that Smaragdi is the focal point of the novel and that the title of the narrative, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, not only refers to the image of the Mermaid Madonna on the chapel, but also to Smaragdi (Doulis 1977: 209-10). In the book‟s 54 chapters, the narrative present of the diegesis is presented in chronological time. However, the story does feature anachronies mostly in the form of internal analepses, depicting stories involving the refugees. It is evident that the lives of refugees in Asia Minor prior to their arrival is not an important theme in the novel since only three short external analepses mention action that occurred in this period. Nevertheless, the narrator‟s use of narrative techniques to present the refugees, no matter how minor their appearance in the novel, illustrates another perspective on the way an author with first-hand experience of the situation chooses to present it. The narrator‟s choice to elaborate on a general theme by using specific examples assists him in emphasising the issue. Beginning with the depiction of the refugees‟ arrival in Skala, the narrator develops this by specifically focusing on individual refugees. In an internal analepsis, the narrator sets the scene for the refugees‟ arrival. As mentioned earlier, he insinuates a time for their arrival (24) and the location of the novel‟s setting, an unnamed island near Anatolia (17, see also p. 25). Explaining the reason for the refugees‟ arrival on the island (28), the narrator emphasises the magnitude of what was lost by depicting in an external analepsis the peaceful life shared by the Greeks and Turks in Anatolia (26, 28). The narrator‟s depiction of the natives‟ compassion and understanding as they look on in disbelief at the sight of the arriving refugees (30), in conjunction with the explanation of the tragic state of the refugees from the narrator‟s point of view, also incites the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees:

248 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

Έβγαιναν ανάκατοι άντρες, γυναίκες, μωρά. Ρα πρόσωπά τους ήταν άπλυτα, χαλκοπράσινα, τα δόντια σφιχτά κλειδωμένα. Θοιτούσαν γύρω με κόκκινα μάτια πρησμένα από την αγρύπνια. […] Θανένας δεν έκλαιγε πια. (31) The depiction of the refugees‟ unemotional demeanour suggests that they are distancing themselves from their present condition, which is perhaps a result of their exhaustion or a protective mechanism used to deal with their highly traumatic experience. While this initial description of the refugees may incite the reader‟s sympathy, the mention of a sample of refugees seems to be another ploy to achieve this effect. The narrator begins with the description of two corpses, whose mention shows the conditions of the survivors forced to remain on a ship amongst the dead (31). Another refugee is an old blind man called Vastagos, whom the reader assumes is blind because of his old age. However, when it is revealed that his eyeballs were removed from their sockets with a knife, the reader‟s sympathy for him increases (31). The reader would be most affected by the way a young couple who arrive with their baby son are depicted. The young mother holds her child as though it was ill, but, when the natives approach to provide assistance, it is revealed that the baby is deceased. Although this is an emotional scene, showing the physical, emotional and psychological trauma of the refugees, the affect on the reader is enhanced through the information provided by the narrator‟s choice of paralepsis. He reveals the mother‟s denial of her son‟s death, for despite holding the baby as though it were ill, she knew it was deceased (32). This episode leads to another depiction of a refugee, though this time it involves a controversial treatment of religion. When a man, probably the child‟s father, takes a package she held that was wrapped in a towel, he opens it to reveal an icon and immediately breaks it in two and discards the two halves but retains the towel (32). The omission of the reasons for the man‟s actions exonerates the narrator from having to deal with this contentious issue that may have offended his implied readers. For this reader, the two pieces of the icon thrown into the Aegean shore of Lesvos are symbolic of the separation of the refugee man‟s life in two: the old one in Anatolia and this new, strange and unfamiliar one in Greece. As for the man retaining the towel, perhaps he believed

249 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

it to be more practical and valuable than the icon. Nonetheless, the man‟s actions illustrate an intense dissatisfaction with religion and its paraphernalia (32). The narrator treats this negative perception of the role of God and religion in the Disaster in the same way by allocating it to Avgoustis‟ character, as will be seen. The treatment of the potentially contentious issue of religion was also mentioned earlier in the analysis of Eva Xenou in Οι πρώτες ρίζες. In that case, the narrator also attributed such comments to a character, emphasising that these thoughts were specifically Eva‟s by presenting them in an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narration. The narrator moves the temporal setting of his narrative from the refugees arriving on the quay to those who have assimilated. Through the depiction of the assimilated refugees‟ communication with the natives, the narrator illustrates the type of refugees that he presents in the novel. The natives knew that affluent Anatolians did not survive the Turkish eradication policy, but they still listened to the refugees‟ lies about their alleged prosperity in Anatolia. The narrator explicitly states the background of the refugee characters in this novel by informing the reader of the natives‟ knowledge about the type of refugee who survived: Ε λετσαρία της θάλασσας και του κουπιού. Θάτι φτωχοψαράδες. Κεροδούλι-μεροφάι. Θάμποσοι κάμαν εκεί πέρα και κοντραμπάντο, ψάρευαν με δυναμίτη και ζούσαν κυνηγημένοι από τους ζαπτιέδες και τους τούρκους τελωνοφύλακες. (35) To confirm the background of the refugees who survived in Greece, the narrator includes an external analepsis revealing the death of a respected Anatolian called Yenatos Pavlidis (36-7). As we have seen in other novels selected for our corpus, the narrator of Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα also adds to the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees by providing a general description of them distancing themselves from the tragic experiences they faced: Ρο παράξενο ήταν που με τόση μεγαλομανία μιλούσαν για τα καλά που αφήκαν πίσω τους, με άλλη τόση δυσκολία έπαιρνες κουβέντα από το στόμα τους για το κακό που είδαν, για τα φόβια που πέρασαν. (35)

250 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

While this image incites the reader‟s sympathy for the refugees, the narrator‟s change of focus from the general to the particular enhances the reader‟s reaction. A dialogue presented in reported discourse of a refugee who tells a native about the whereabouts of a refugee called Manolis Mitaftsis, demonstrates the way refugees discussed their experiences. The refugee‟s reply is quick, succinct and matter-of-fact, which suggests his tendency to detach himself emotionally from such brutal stories: „Λα. Ρον έπιασαν, τον έδεσαν μαζί με τη γυναίκα του, έβαλαν το γιο του κι άναψε το φούρνο και τους έριξαν μέσα. Κε σύρμα τους έδεσαν‟ (36). In developing the central refugee issue of the Refugee Settlement Commission‟s (RSC) assistance specifically in relation to housing, the narrator presents the general ways male and female refugees adjusted to their new life in Skala. As mentioned, male refugees resumed their occupations as fishers, while women were homemakers, with a focus on child-rearing (38-9). In particular, the narrator acknowledges that female refugees rebuilt their race through the creation of the new generation as he presents a general refugee statement in narratised discourse: „Έτσι, ν‟ αναστήσουμε τους χαμένους, έλεγαν‟ (38). The issue of the refugees‟ increase in population, as the narrator states: Έτσι, μέσα σε λίγα χρόνια, […] όλα βούιζαν από το παιδομάνι‟ (39, see also 40), made the RSC‟s assistance to the refugees with their housing situation more urgent. Through paralepsis and various types of analepses, the narrator presents the Lathios family as a prime example of the refugee family. The narrator‟s focus on Maria Lathios‟ primary role as a wife to Panagis is evident from an introduction of the Lathios family presented in a mixed analepsis (57-60). In this analepsis, Maria is the epitome of the subservient wife and mother, procreating incessantly, as suggested by the image of her going into labour whilst still managing her daily responsibilities (57). With paralepsis, the narrator emphasises Maria‟s function as a mother and the value of each of her children. The narrator reveals Maria‟s dislike of her idea to allow the Varouhos couple to raise one of her many children by presenting her thoughts to the reader. However, when she considers giving the couple her unborn baby instead, this baby kicks her through her womb in disagreement (57). While this is a small paralepsis, it is the only one in Maria‟s presentation, illustrating to the reader the importance of this information in Maria‟s characterisation. The rest of the narrator‟s focalization

251 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

regarding her character is presented as the external type, reminding the reader of the homodiegetic narrator’s role as an observer of the events, rather than a participant. In the mixed analepsis introducing the Lathios family, information about Permahoula, Maria‟s mother, is also included. Permahoula exemplifies the traditional attitudes and opinions of a submissive woman in an external analepsis in which Permahoula admits to accepting punishment by her husband without complaint suggests (199). Like the majority of refugees in this novel, Permahoula‟s refugee status is not a major issue, though her traditional beliefs concerning her refugee status are revealed in an external analepsis. The significance of her belief that God has forsaken the refugees because of their lack of respect for Him (181) is evident in the mention of it later in the narrative in an internal analepsis presented through paralepsis. The narrator reveals Smaragdi‟s contemplation of the moonshine on the water as being the path to God (327), which Permahoula mentioned earlier. The only other mention of Permahoula‟s refugee status occurs in her discussion with Smaragdi about her hatred for the sea that is revealed in the diegesis through Permahoula‟s reported discourse: „΋χι πως αγαπώ τη θάλασσα. Πτα μάτια να μην τη δω την οχιά, καημούς που ‟χει φέρει στο σόι μου‟ (296). Permahoula‟s prime function appears to be the promotion of the myth about mermaids, whose mention in the title shows it to be a significant theme. In another external analepsis presented in reported discourse, Permahoula explains the myth of the mermaid (181-3). The significance of this analepsis is evident in its relation to events occurring in the diegesis, as it is a prelude to Permahoula‟s explanation of Smaragdi‟s background as a mermaid. Interestingly, Permahoula‟s interpretation of a mermaid‟s effect on humans changes when she discusses these creatures with her grandson, Vatis Lathios. In the version of her myth told to Vatis, there are two types of „νεράιδες‟ (). One walks on the land and the other, the „γοργόνες […]. ψαρογοργόνες‟ (mermaids), originate from the sea and, like Smaragdi, are very beautiful seductresses able to lure men only to rob them of their eyes (259-60). To corroborate this story, Permahoula claims that the missing eyeballs of a drowned corpse are evidence of mermaids‟ existence (260). This adds to the mythical quality of the story, as mentioned

252 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

earlier, because of course, in reality, the logical explanation for the missing eyeballs is that eyes are soft and easily accessible for fish. Nevertheless, Permahoula‟s myth seems to be validated in the novel by the finding of Lambis‟ body without his eyeballs after he commits suicide by drowning because of his love of Smaragdi (479). This is not the only validation of Smaragdi‟s mermaid origins, but Permahoula‟s belief that mermaids influence the downfall of good men is also substantiated through Antonis‟ disgrace when he rapes Smaragdi (242). By revealing the association between mermaids and the downfall of anyone who encounters them, Permahoula explains Smaragdi‟s role in the narrative in relation to Antonis and Lambis. Despite the narrator‟s use of paralepsis, he does not present all the events surrounding Lambis‟ death to the reader, but it becomes a murder mystery that provokes discussion about the refugees. Fortis believes that the Gatsalis‟ murdered his son because of their threat when they beat and verbally abused Lambis when he is caught allegedly watching their relative, Gianna Gatsalis (442). The feud between the native Fortis and this refugee family separates the town into two camps: those who support the former, including refugees who had once supported the Gatsalis tavern and a few who remain loyal to the latter. The feud provided the natives with ammunition against the Gatsalis family, whose refugee status is used as an explanation for their actions. It seems the Gatsalis family became representatives of everything bad associated with the refugees, as though this status is the reason for their decision to allegedly murder Lambis. Despite Fortis‟ close relations with refugees, including his „κουμπαριό‟ with Antonis and close friendship with Panagis, his incessant accusations of the Gatsalis are accompanied by his use of the derogatory „τουρκόσποροι‟ (Turkish seed) (447). While the use of reported discourse in presenting this term emphasises its insulting tone and highlights Fortis‟ hatred for this family, its specific use for these particular refugees suggests that only they have retained their „Turkish‟ heritage. Interestingly, despite the Gatsalis‟ belief that Lambis was observing Gianna, the reader is provided with more information than the characters and will consider it more likely that Lambis would have been watching Smaragdi. This conclusion is derived from two clues: firstly, the narrator mentions that the

253 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

tree under which Lambis was caught was strategically positioned between Smaragdi‟s and Gianna‟s houses (368); and secondly, the reader recognises Lambis‟ infatuation with Smaragdi, recalling his rescue of her whilst she was drowning because he was secretly observing her from afar (380). Despite the reader‟s awareness of such information and in keeping with the narrator‟s choice of external focalization, the narrator does not reveal who Lambis was watching until his friend Vatis Lathios makes the admission to Smaragdi much later in the novel (477-9). If the reader concluded that the Gatsalis family did murder Lambis then the presentation of Vatis‟ resolution of the murder mystery seems to be a way of absolving the refugee family of any misconduct. Featured mostly in the diegesis, with only two internal analepses, Panagis Lathios is an example of those refugees who were able to assimilate to Greek society with the minimum of fuss. He established his roots in Greece not only through the incessant procreation with Maria, as previously mentioned, but also through his willingness to help the RSC‟s housing commission when other refugees refuse (81, 112). His proactive stance is presented as an unusual trait for a refugee as the narrator presents the reported discourse of a native engineer who acknowledges Panagis‟ decency and enthusiasm for this project (81). Regarding the internal analepses in which Panagis is involved, these do not seem to influence the reader‟s opinion of him as a refugee (see 149-50, 83). Although she is absent from the majority of the novel, the female refugee character Nerantzi Varouhos plays a substantial role in the plot. She is presented mostly in the diegesis but there are four instances where she takes part in short analepses. Like Aspasia in Xenopoulos‟ Πρόσφυγες, Nerantzi also assumes masculine characteristics in her marriage but she does also assume feminine roles (80, 206, 133, 135). Her religious and superstitious beliefs are presented through the narrator‟s paralepsis in focalization. For instance, when her biological daughter Zinovia is dying, Nerantzi‟s thoughts about guarding the child from Charon are presented (68), as are her thoughts after the girl dies that this was a punishment from God (86). While the four analepses in which Nerantzi is involved provide information about her character, none deals with her refugee status (121, 177, 188). One is of interest, since it includes the reported discourse of her dead child with whom she holds a conversation that affects the reader‟s opinion of Nerantzi.

254 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

This is an interesting way to give a voice to Zinovia since she does not take part in the diegesis, and it has the effect of enhancing the reader‟s sympathy for Nerantzi (71-2). The immoral act of the refugee Antonis Varouhos alters the way his refugee status is viewed by the characters in the novel. Featured mostly in the diegesis, two internal analepses are used to show Antonis‟ moral decline. When Antonis‟ wife, Nerantzi, dies, he realises that he is in control of his own life for the first time and subsequently assumes a lifestyle of excessive alcohol consumption that he had not been accustomed to. The detrimental effect of his alcoholism is evident in two incidents involving Smaragdi. Depicting the early stages of Antonis‟ downfall, the first occurrence is presented as an internal analepsis and the second in the diegesis of the narrative present. Prior to the first internal analepsis, the narrator presents a story about an old man called Anestis who led his old, useless donkey to a cliff and pushed it off (217). Presented as a paralepsis, Antonis‟ thoughts show that he regarded this story as an analogy for his current situation, viewing himself in the likeness of the useless donkey, with Anestis representing the role of alcohol, which was pushing Antonis to the „edge of the cliff‟. The narrator then associates Anestis‟ story as told in the diegesis with an internal analepsis to explain the start of Antonis‟ ruin. In this analepsis, Smaragdi catches Antonis stealing money that was meant for her dowry (219). It is later revealed to the reader that the money was wasted on alcohol and tips to a dancer called Loulou. While this analepsis depicts the early stages of Antonis‟ downfall, his lowest ebb is seen in the following incident that is presented in the diegesis. The narrator‟s use of paralepsis allows him to depict the rape of Smaragdi (242), which leads the refugees to punish Antonis because he defied the moral code of a father‟s treatment of his child. What is interesting about this is that the narrator‟s description of the refugees‟ attack on Antonis shows that the refugees blame the dancer Loulou for the shame and disrepute that Antonis‟ actions brought to their group: Αιατί αυτή ήταν η αφορμή που ντρόπιασε την προσφυγιά μπροστά στους ντόπιους με τούτο το κάμωμα του γέρου. Θ‟ οι ντόπιοι να το ‟χουν να το λένε παραμύθι, και να γελούνε με τα „λάφυρα‟ και τις πομπές τους. (246-7)

255 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

The refugees‟ determination to seek retribution for the shame Antonis brought upon them is only calmed by the native Fortis, who deters them from attacking Antonis by noting that Greece‟s rules regarding this offence is much more severe than that of Anatolia (248-9). Through Antonis‟ visit to the island‟s capital to discuss the refugee housing issue with the Bishop, who is in charge of housing the refugees in Skala, Antonis‟ interaction with the refugee Zafirakis Mermingas shows the lack of importance given to refugee issues in the novel. Although the narrator mentions that the conversation between Antonis and Zafirakis began with the tragic days of the Disaster and then leads to a discussion about the new issues that have arisen from their refugeehood, namely, practical difficulties and humiliation (97), this is not discussed further. The fact that their dialogue is not presented in reported or even narratised discourse, but merely summarised, confirms that the theme of their discussion is insignificant in the narrative. Of all the refugee characters in this novel, refugee issues are a significant factor most strongly in the depiction of Avgoustis. Featured in the diegesis and in internal analepses, Avgoustis‟ profession as a teacher affords him the opportunity to teach refugee children about their homeland, their background and his ideals as an avid supporter of the Great Idea and the return of the refugees to their homeland. As a result, he staunchly opposes the RSC‟s offer to build new homes for the refugees, reasoning that this would diminish their motivation to fight for their return (43-4). His main concern stems from a deeper understanding of the refugee psyche as he believes that they would be reluctant to uproot a second time if return to Anatolia became an option. Avgoustis‟ theory that the refugee housing policy would split the refugees into warring factions like the „Tower of Babel‟ comes to fruition (79): one group of refugees demand prime positions and supports the handout (88-9), while another refuses to help, following Avgoustis‟ urging (113). Despite this latter group and Avgoustis‟ efforts, the RSC proceeds with their plans to create refugee settlements. In contrast to other refugees, whose joy and elation with the refugee settlement and their new life shows their willingness to assimilate (140-1), Avgoustis becomes miserable and begins to drink heavily. While his chanting of Psalm 136 illustrates his level of despair, the increasingly

256 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

defiant tone of his voice as he chants highlights his feelings (143-4). Although traditionally expressing the longing of exiled to return to their homeland after the Babylonians in 586BCE had conquered Jerusalem, the narrator clarifies the psalm‟s relevance as a dirge for the current crisis facing the Greek race (143). Kafetzaki also declares: Αια τον Ώυγουστή, η τύχη του μικρασιατικού ελληνισμού, ο οποίος τώρα γίνεται σύμβολο όλης της ελληνικής φυλής, προσομοιάζει με την τύχη του εξόριστου Ησραήλ από τη γη του. (2003: 203) The narrator‟s use of narrative techniques in the presentation of Avgoustis‟ chanting provides another view of God‟s role in the refugees‟ experience. By interspersing Avgoustis‟ refrain of „Ώλληλούια!‟ (Hallelujah!), which is not part of the original psalm, in reported discourse between each narratised scene, presenting traumatic images of the refugees‟ experience and the lost Anatolian Greeks, the narrator is highlighting Avgoustis‟ sarcasm through narrative technique. Although it is used chiefly in songs of praise or thanksgiving to God, the term „Ώλληλούια!‟, which is used by Avgoustis and is revealed in reported discourse to emphasise that this is his statement, suggests God‟s alleged responsibility for the tragedy of the refugees (143-4). The choice to attribute this idea to Avgoustis is appropriate because it highlights his different attitude from the rest of the refugees, which is also seen in his approach to the refugee housing issue. Through Avgoustis‟ character, a potentially contentious issue of the usefulness of education is mentioned. In a dramatic reversal for his character, by the end of the novel Avgoustis ironically ceases to support education, despite earlier turning the home provided to him from the RSC into a school. In a conversation with Avgoustis, Fortis discusses Lambis‟ education, arguing for the importance of education, while Avgoustis paradoxically disagrees (165). In reported discourse emphasising a distance between the narrator and Avgoustis‟ statement, the narrator presents Avgoustis‟ claim that his greatest lesson about education came because of his personal experience of the Disaster. Through this, he realised the flaw in education: it does not guarantee the ability to make the right decisions. Confronted with Avgoustis‟ losses as an example of what happens when the educated command, the reader‟s sympathy for him increases:

257 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

Βε βλέπεις τους γραμματισμένους! [...] Ώυτοί βρήκαν την άτιμη λέξη „ανταλλαγή‟. [...] Ρι ανταλλάζεις μωρέ; Ρον Ρούρκο με τον Έλληνα αλλάζεις, κεφάλι με κεφάλι, σαν τραγί με τραγί; Ρην ψυχή ανταλλάζεις με τις μετοχές και με τους παράδες; Ρους ανθρώπους μου που τους έσφαξαν, το σπίτι μου με το δέντρο μπροστά, τα βιβλία μου με τα σημάδια, με τις μολυβιές, το στασίδι που γυαλίζει το ξύλο από τους αγκώνες του μακαρίτη του πατέρα μου; Έ; (165) The narrator‟s inclusion of an internal analepsis depicting Avgoustis‟ compensation claim illustrates Avgoustis‟ massive losses resulting from the Exchange policy of the educated. Contrary to the expectations of the RSC, who only consider the refugees‟ listing of tangible items, Avgoustis documented intangible items that were exclusively part of his identity and life in Anatolia since he deemed these the most valuable assets worthy of replacement (166). Although the effect on the reader of Avgoustis‟ itemised list is an immediate feeling of sympathy for him and the refugees in general, the narrator‟s emphasis on the Commission‟s reaction to his claim confirms Avgoustis‟ idea about the educated and their policies. Furthermore, it shows that their notion of items considered lost and worthy of compensation was markedly different to that of the refugees (166). Another internal analepsis involving Avgoustis depicts the gulf between the older and younger generation of refugees. While Avgoustis is disappointed with his pupils, who fail to show interest in the issues that have preoccupied Avgoustis and his generation, their attitude is progressive since they choose to focus on their future and integration into Greece (168). The use of narratised discourse to portray Fortis‟ reply to Avgoustis‟ gives his statement an air of fact and authority, devoid of any emotion that may have altered its meaning: ΋λ‟ αυτά τα παιδιά γεννήθηκαν εδώ στην Γλλάδα. Βεν ξέρανε τίποτα από την Ώνατολή, που ζούσε μέσα στη φαντασία και στην ψυχή των μεγάλων σαν ένα χαμένο αγαθό. (168) Through Avgoustis‟ character, the narrator presents important historical events in relation to the refugees, such as the lead up to the Ankara Convention of 1930. Although earlier excerpts from newspapers have been included in the narrative, the narrator chooses to narratise an article from Προσφυγικός Κόσμος,

258 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

confirming the ceasing of government support for the return of refugees. The article calls for the refugees to put an end to their dream of return, described by the author of the article as „τάς ματαίας ονειροπολήσεις, αι οποίαι απεδείχθησαν απατηλαί ως γοητευτικός αντικατοπτρισμός της ερήμου‟ (212). The inclusion of this in reported discourse when the rest is merely summarised exemplifies the importance of this information to the story. The magnitude of such information is also highlighted by Fortis‟ reaction as the narrator describes: „Ν Σόρτης, που ήταν ωστόσο με το κόμμα των κυβερνητικών, έφριξε από την αδιαντροπιά του στρατηγού αρθρογράφου‟ (212). Furthermore, the significance of the article is seen in Avgoustis‟ inability to read it to Fortis himself (211) and in the deliberate intention of Avgoustis to show this news to Fortis as the narrator asserts that once Fortis returned the newspaper, Avgoustis folded it and departed immediately (213). The narrator‟s use of Fortis‟ discussion with Ramona, his goat, is an unusual way to present Fortis‟ inner feelings about the refugees that also becomes an epilogue to the stories involving both Antonis and Avgoustis. In his talk with Ramona, as presented in reported discourse, Fortis shares his general theory about people having two faiths that keep them grounded: their Christian religion and another faith of their choosing (214). Moving to the particular, he elaborates by providing the two faiths of Antonis and Avgoustis. Regarding the former, his wife Nerantzi was his second faith and upon her death, Antonis lost his stability and began to drink, resulting in his shameful attack on Smaragdi. In Avgoustis‟ case, Fortis believed that the teacher‟s hope of return and his belief in the General was his second faith, the loss of which leads him to alcoholism (215).

*****

With a focus on the refugees through a heterodiegetic narrator who chooses to use paralepsis, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα portrays the refugees in a mostly positive manner. The use of paralepsis enhances the mythical quality of the narrative but it is not used to affect the reader‟s opinion of the refugees. Perhaps because Myrivilis wished to emphasise the refugees‟ assimilation to their new life, their refugeehood does not become a focal point of their story. It is only

259 Refugees and Narrators PART THREE: Chapter 7

when the refugees misbehave that their refugeehood is brought into focus. Finally, considering Myrivilis‟ personal awareness of the plight of refugees it is not unusual that his portrayal of them and the issues they face as depicted in this novel arouse the readers‟ sympathy for them.

260 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

This thesis has taken as its field of enquiry the treatment of the Asia Minor refugees in a corpus of modern Greek novels. However, unlike some previous studies, its approach has not been thematic, but narratological. It has examined the use of particular narrative techniques, relating to narrative situation, focalization and anachronies, by different authors in presenting stories about refugees. This formal analysis was not treated as an end in itself. Ultimately, the aim was to examine how various techniques may contribute to conveying the experiences of the refugees to reader, and may perhaps even affect the reader‟s perceptions of this major group in Greek society. In each chapter, I presented detailed analysis illustrating the narratological choices authors have made to present the refugees and the affect of these choices on the way readers perceive the refugees. By grouping novels in each chapter according to their narrative situations, I have systematically shown the different ways a narrative situation can be used to present the refugees. While I have included a discussion at the end of each chapter that points out comparisons with regard to the way each author presents the refugee within the particular narrative situation, I have left the discussion of general findings to this section. On the whole, the attitude of the authors towards the refugees is highly positive. They promote understanding and empathy for the traumas, the practical problems and the daily struggles of these uprooted people. Only one author, Athanasiadis, appears to be producing a stereotype of the unscrupulous, exploitive entrepreneur from Asia Minor. The refugee as servant is another common stereotype that manifests in the novels, most notably in the works of Athanasiadis, Iordanidou, Stavrou, Xenopoulos, Sotiriou and Iatridi. The stereotype of refugees as left-wing activists is also suggested by their role in the novels by Sotiriou, Axioti and Iordanidou. The attitude of the focalizing narrators in these books is generally positive, though Iordanidou‟s is presented as too naïve and uninformed to understand the political situation. It should be added that this generally positive approach to the refugees and their issues is

261 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

characteristic of the many books studied in preparation for this thesis, but which could not be analysed here in detail through lack of space. One aim of the thesis was to test the notion Kafetzaki and Doulis raise about the differences in the way refugee and native writers use the theme of the Disaster and the refugee, but to test it by analysing their narrative techniques. While Kafetzaki has mentioned that refugee writers use realistic narratorial devices to emphasise their own experiences as refugees, this study has found that there is no major discernible difference between the techniques used by refugee, Constantinopolitan and native writers to present the refugee. The three refugee authors, Venezis, Athanasiadis and Sotiriou, included in our sample use the refugee in vastly different ways. Venezis and Athanasiadis choose to present their stories with the same narrative situation, extradiegetic- heterodiegetic narrators with zero focalization. The novel by Venezis, Γαλήνη (1939), focuses explicitly on the refugee characters attempting to assimilate on Greek soil and all the inherent problems associated with this endeavour. In so doing, his narrator mostly uses reported discourse to present the thoughts of the refugees who play major roles on the diegetic level. Intradiegetic narrations are used sparingly throughout the novel, though where they do appear they create a contrast between the refugees‟ lives as depicted in the narrative present with events that occurred in their past. While the diegesis is recounted mainly chronologically, the narrator also uses all three types of analepses but seems to favour external analepses. In contrast to Venezis‟ novel, our analysis of the dominant narrative techniques related to refugee characters in the trilogy Οι Πανθέοι by Athanasiadis shows that they are minor characters. It is their appearance in particular narrative techniques related to the native characters that influence the reader‟s perception of them. The very fact that two refugee characters are entrepreneurs presented in a less than complimentary fashion as secondary characters may possibly suggest to us a more general stereotype of a certain group of refugees based on social class. In the few instances where the refugees are mentioned in analepses, these are homodiegetic, dealing with their exploitation. The third refugee author analysed in this thesis is Sotiriou, whose novel Οι νεκροί περιμένουν (1976) uses the narrative situation of an extradiegetic-

262 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

autodiegetic narrator using internal focalization. Although this would appear to support the hypothesis that refugee writers would tend to use this type of narrative situation to gain the reader‟s sympathy, a closer examination of the novel does not support this. Since the narrator has chosen to recount the lives of the refugees in chronological time, with only one instance of a minor refugee character becoming an intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator to present an internal analepsis about another minor refugee character, the reader is kept at a distance from the characters. Moreover, the narrator‟s overt testimonial function has the effect of making the narrator appear to anticipate the readers‟ reservations about how she came to know certain information, which continually reminds the reader of the narrator‟s role in the story she tells. However, it does result in the reader feeling as though they are engaging in a conversation with the narrator. Our four Constantinopolitan authors all choose to use extradiegetic- heterodiegetic narrators, but they are split evenly between their use of zero focalization and internal focalization. The content of Stavrou‟s Οι πρώτες ρίζες (1936b) is focused entirely on the refugees‟ arrival and assimilation in Greece. While refugees do feature as intradiegetic narrators, mostly homodiegetic, the narrator shows a preference for Constantinopolitan characters in this position. The narrator also uses analepses sparingly to explain the reasons behind the actions of various refugee characters in the narrative present. Although Iordanidou‟s novel ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά (1978) uses the same narrative situation as Stavrou‟s novel, it features refugees in roles that are minor, but significant to the plot. While the refugees are not individualised or given narratorial privileges, there is one analepsis highlighting the difference between the naive native and the worldly refugee. Both Theotokas‟ Λεωνής (1988) and Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη (1972) employ the technique of internal focalization, but the significance of the refugees in their novels differs. The novel Λεωνής can be described as a „Bildungsroman‟ set against the backdrop of the influx of refugees in Greece. Presenting Leonis‟ arrival in Greece, the narrator presents his story chronologically, with a number of analepses depicting Leonis‟ refugee experiences. Allowing another refugee character to become an intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator, the narrator presents an alternative view of certain issues, revealing information that the narrator would

263 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

not otherwise have been able to present without compromising the narrative situation selected. By focalizing through a refugee character, Theotokas encourages the readers‟ sympathy for the refugee based on the theme of identity. In Lountemis‟ novel, Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, the story recounts the experiences of a young boy whose wanderings lead him to a refugee settlement. The introduction of the refugees early in the narrative and the mentions of them throughout the novel, albeit infrequently, ensure that they remain constantly in the back of the reader‟s mind. In presenting the refugees, the narrator provides narratorial privileges to two of the three main refugee characters featured in this novel, both assuming intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrations that encourage the readers‟ sympathy. While one of these narrations is used to compare the refugees‟ present situation to their past, the other reveals a refugee character‟s displeasure at their current desperate situation, which is recounted by the main, non-refugee character. However, much of the information about the refugees is revealed to the reader through the refugees‟ own reported discourse. The examination of the four native authors included in our corpus shows a divide in the way they use narrative situations to present the refugees. Although two of them use extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators, one has chosen zero focalization and the other internal focalization. Pertaining to the former, the novel by Xenopoulos, Πρόσφυγες (1994), focuses on the romantic experiences of refugee youths, despite focusing on the plight of the refugees early in the novel, in an apparent attempt to show the reader how one should treat the refugees. Even though the narrator frequently uses analepses recounted as intradiegetic narrations and presented in reported discourse by the refugees to explain their experiences, the tone in which these are conveyed leaves the reader with a feeling that the refugees‟ serious traumatic issues are treated superficially and in summary. The refugee experiences presented in the novel seems somewhat marginalised in favour of the romantic experiences of the characters. Using internal focalization, Εικοστός αιώνας (1966) by Axioti presents the refugees against the backdrop of the major historical events in Greece during the first half of the twentieth century. Despite the depiction of refugees in minor roles, they play a significant part in the plot and in the narrative present. Presenting the refugees mostly in analepses, with only one brief instance of a

264 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

refugee character becoming an intradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrator, the narrator demonstrates the influence of the refugees on the protagonist‟s situation in the narrative present. Employing the narrative situation of extradiegetic-homodiegetic narrators, the other two novels by native authors in our sample differ in their use of focalization. The native author Iatridi chose to present the story in Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια (1980) using a refugee narrator. Explicitly employing the narrative technique of analepses, Iatridi‟s narrator uses these in the same way as Axioti‟s narrator. Recounting the story of her life that led to her current situation in the narrative present, the autodiegetic narrator in Iatridi‟s novel, Panoraia Fokianou, explains, through analepses that alternate with the narrative present, how she ended up on the verge of fulfilling her dreams from her beginnings in Greece as a refugee. In the novel by the native Myrivilis, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα (1971), the focalization of paralepsis has been identified. With a prime focus on refugees living in a fisher village, Myrivilis‟ homodiegetic narrator only uses the technique of analepses, mostly to explain events that have occurred to the refugees in Greece. It appears that information about the refugees‟ past life in Asia Minor is not an important element in the plot since there are very few mentions of this in the novel. While there does not seem to be a major difference in the way refugee are employed in the narrative techniques based on the authors‟ backgrounds, a pattern of narrative techniques based on the first publication dates of the selected novels in our corpus is evident. There seems to have been a trend in the 1930s with our authors employing extradiegetic-heterodiegetic narrators who used zero focalization. As presented earlier, in Part Two we saw that three authors in our corpus use this type of narrative situation to present the refugees; however, another three novels that were analysed for this thesis, but were not included, also feature this narrative situation: the native Myrivilis‟ Η δασκάλα με τα χρυσά μάτια (1933), Αργώ (1936) by the Constantinopolitan author Theotokas and Travlantonis‟ Λεηλασία μιας ζωής (1935). While this trend could be attributed to the time of publication, with the Disaster fresh in people‟s minds, the use of such a narrative situation allows the authors to present contemporary topics without appearing to be authoritative or autobiographical in any way. After the 1930s, the authors selected for our corpus began to position the refugees in secondary roles,

265 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

as characters easily associated with a particular time or stereotype, as seen in Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας, Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι, Myrivilis‟ Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα, Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια and Iordanidou‟s ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. In other cases, refugees are presented in only half the novel, as we see in Sotiriou‟s Οι νεκροί περιμένουν and Theotokas‟ Λεωνής. Another pattern of interest involves novels published in the 1960s and the authors‟ use of extradiegetic-autodiegetic narrators with internal focalization. Of the five novels analysed in preparation for this thesis, including those whose analysis is not included in the actual thesis, only one, Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι. Η Κερκόπορτα (vols 1and 2), does not subscribe to this narrative situation. Sotiriou uses refugees as autodiegetic narrations in two of her novels, suggesting her strong desire to give the refugee a „voice‟. Interestingly, two natives also employ this narrative situation: Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια features an autodiegetic refugee narrator, while Themis Kornaros‟ narrator in Σο ξεκίνημα μιας γενιάς (1962) does not. With regard to the novels in our corpus, as we have already mentioned, Iatridi‟s and Sotiriou‟s use of this narrative situation is associated with a revival of the theme of the Disaster in a „historical and social‟ context (Doulis 1977: 185). Therefore, it could be argued that Sotiriou‟s and Iatridi‟s use of autodiegetic narrators is to give their novel an historical or autobiographical account of the refugees. A hypothesis that a refugee would prefer to have a story that is based on an event they experienced narrated by a homodiegetic narrator, in either extradiegetic or intradiegetic levels, for a heightened effect on the reader, is not supported by this thesis. In our selected corpus, only one refugee author uses an extradiegetic-homodiegetic narrator; the other two choose to use heterodiegetic narrators. Regarding person in metadiegetic levels, in the few instances where refugee writers use intradiegetic narrators, there does not seem to be a clear preference for homodiegetic narration. This could be explained by the sensory experience of the different types of narrators. For instance, novels featuring heterodiegetic narrators create less distance between the readers and the narrator. The narrator of a heterodiegetic narrative, as was have seen, is more „absent‟ than a homodiegetic narrator. Specifically, with a homodiegetic narrator, the reader is continually aware that someone else is telling the story, whereas with a

266 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

heterodiegetic narrator the reader identifies with the role of the narrator. Another reason could be based on an individual author‟s desire to create a distance between themselves and the narrator in their novel, as we have seen with Iordanidou and Venezis. In general, one thing that clearly emerges is the vast range of technique exploited by this small selection of authors. Although the number of narrative situations involved is small, within these there is great variation in the treatment of focalization and time. Direct reported discourse is used effectively by Lountemis, Myrivilis, Xenopoulos and Venezis to allow the refugees to speak of past traumas and present difficulties in their own words. Stavrou at one point uses letters to allow two of her refugee characters to be „heard‟. Equally important in conveying attitudes towards the refugees are those narratives focalized through non-refugee characters, or through a narrator, who may not be especially sympathetic to the particular group of displaced Asia Minor Greeks he or she is describing. This is the case, clearly, in Athanasiadis‟ Οι Πανθέοι. In contrast to this view, Iordanidou‟s narrator describes the refugees with admiration, particularly the way many refugees created a modest but functional home for themselves in the refugee settlements around Athens, in which they could live with pride and dignity. This positive treatment of way refugees were able to assimilate to Greece and improve their situation is typical of the novels in our corpus. An exception is Lountemis‟ Αγέλαστη άνοιξη, which dwells on the appalling treatment of the refugees by the authorities. As for the treatment of time, most of the narratives are broadly chronological, with analepses serving, as one might expect, to provide background, including background on characters‟ experiences of the Disaster. However, in Axioti‟s Εικοστός αιώνας and Iatridi‟s Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια, the analepses in both works convey most of the narrative material, while the novels‟ narrative present covers a shorter period of time and is presented in the diegesis. Overall, this study has contributed to an understanding of narratological devices and the influence these have on the ultimate meaning of a narrative. The application of narrative theory to analyse the techniques of character representation has suggested another dimension to the authors‟ treatment of the Asia Minor refugee going beyond thematic analysis. Finally, although this thesis

267 Refugees and Narrators CONCLUSION

may contribute to a better understanding of the refugee in modern Greek fiction, there is ample scope for further study of this character, which appears to have a significant presence in modern Greek literature.

268 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aktar 2004 Ayhan Aktar, „Homogenising the nation, Turkifying the economy: The Turkish experience of Population Exchange reconsidered‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 79-96. New York: Berghahn Books. Alexandris 2004 Alexis Alexandris, „Religion or ethnicity: The identity issue of the and Turkey‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 117-32. New York: Berghahn Books. Alexiou 1978 Έλλη Ώλεξίου, „Ε βρύση του Κπραήμ Κπαμπά‟. In Τπολείμματα επαγγέλματος: 64-73. Athens: Θαστανιώτης. Anagnostopoulou 1998 Πία Ώναγνωστοπούλου, Μικρά Ασία, 19os αι. -1919, οι Ελληνικορθόδοξες κοινότητες από: Σο μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο Ελληνικό έθνος. Athens: Γλληνικά Αράμματα. Angelomatis 2005 Τρήστος Ώγγελομάτης, Φρονικόν μεγάλης τραγωδίας. Σο έπος της Μικράς Ασίας. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1977a Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Οι Πανθέοι. Μάρμω Πανθέου. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1977b Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Οι Πανθέοι. Η Κερκόπορτα, vol. 1. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1978 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Οι Πανθέοι. Η χαρισάμενη εποχή. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1979 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Οι Πανθέοι. Η Κερκόπορτα, vol. 2. Athens: Γστία.

269 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Athanasiadis 1988 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης, vol. 1. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1988 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης, vol. 2. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1995 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης, vol. 4. Athens: Γστία. Athanasiadis 1997 Ράσος Ώθανασιάδης, Σα παιδιά της Νιόβης, vol. 3. Athens: Γστία. Athanasopoulos 1994 ΐαγγέλης Ώθανασόπουλος, „Τρονολόγιο Ελία ΐενέζη (1904-1973)‟, Διαβάζω 337: 38-44. Augustinos 1992 Gerasimos Augustinos, The Greeks of Asia Minor: Confession, community and ethnicity in the nineteenth century. Ohio: Kent State University Press. Avdela 2000 Efi Avdela, „The teaching of history in Greece‟, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18: 239-53. Axioti 1966 Κέλπω Ώξιώτη, Εικοστός αιώνας. Athens: Ζεμέλιο. Bal 1997 Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. University of Toronto Press. Barutciski 2004 Michael Barutciski, „Population exchanges in international law and policy‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 23-38. New York: Berghahn Books. Beaton 1999 Roderick Beaton, An introduction to modern Greek literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boulton 1975 Marjorie Boulton, The anatomy of the novel. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

270 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brewer 2001 David Brewer, The flame of freedom: The Greek War of Independence 1821- 1833. London: John Murray. Chrysochoou 1973 Ηφιγένεια Τρυσοχόου, Πυρπολημένη γη. Athens: Ακόνης. Chrysochoou 1977 Ηφιγένεια Τρυσοχόου, Ξεριζωμένη γενιά: Σο χρονικό της προσφυγιάς στη Θεσσαλονίκη. Athens: Πύγχρονη Γποχή. Chrysochoou 1999 Ηφιγένεια Τρυσοχόου, Μαρτυρική πορεία: Σο χρονικό της ομηρίας (1922-1924). Thessaloniki: Ξαρατηρητής. Clarke 2006 Bruce Clarke, Twice a stranger: How mass expulsion forged modern Greece and Turkey. London: Granta Books. Clogg and Yiannopoulos 1972 Richard Clogg and George Yiannopoulos (eds.), Greece under military rule. New York: Basic Books. Clogg 1976 Richard Clogg (ed. & trans.), The movement for Greek independence 1770- 1821: A collection of documents. London: Macmillan. Clogg 1979 Richard Clogg, A short history of modern Greece. Cambridge University Press. Clogg 1999 Richard Clogg (ed.), The in the twentieth century. New York: St. Martin‟s Press. Clogg 2002a Richard Clogg, A concise history of Greece. Cambridge University Press. Clogg 2002b Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece. London: Hurst. Clogg 2002c Richard Clogg (ed. & trans.), Greece 1940-1949. Occupation, resistance, civil war: a documentary history. New York: Palgrave.

271 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Colakis 1986 Marianthe Colakis, „Images of the Turk in Greek fiction of the Asia Minor Disaster‟, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4: 99-106. Colonas 2004 Vasilis Colonas, „Housing and the architectural expression of Asia Minor Greeks before and after 1923‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 163-78. New York: Berghahn Books. Cosmetatos 1928 S.P.P. Cosmetatos (trans. E.W. and A. Dickes), The tragedy of Greece. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. Dakin 1972 Douglas Dakin, The unification of Greece 1770 – 1923. London: Ernest Benn. Dalakoglou 2000 Ζεόδωρος Β. Βαλακόγλου, „Κύθος και πραγματικότητα στη «Ααλήνη» του Ελία ΐενέζη‟, Θ΄ Eπιστημονική ΢υνάντηση Νοτιανατολικής Αττικής, Λαύρειο, 13-16 Απριλίου 2000. Viewed 2 March 2008, De Murat 1999 Jean De Murat, The great extirpation of Hellenism and Christianity in Asia Minor: The historical and systematic deception of world opinion concerning the hideous Christianity’s uprooting of 1922. Athens: ‘published by a non-profit company of historical research‟. de Villiers 2004 Gezina de Villiers, Understanding Gilgamesh: His world and his story. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria. Demaras 1968 Θωνσταντίνος Βημαράς, Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας: Από της ρίζες ώς την εποχή μας. Athens: Ίκαρος. Dimitrakopoulos 1990 Σώτης Βημητρακόπουλος, Η πρωτοποριακή κίνηση του 30 και το μυθιστόρημα. Athens: Θαστανιώτης.

272 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Doukas 1929 Πτρατής Βούκας, Ιστορία ενός αιχμαλώτου. Athens: Αανιάρη. Doulaveras 1995 Vicky Doulaveras, Gender in urban novels by Gregorios Xenopoulos. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney. Doulis 1977 Thomas Doulis, Disaster and fiction: Modern Greek fiction and the Asia Minor Disaster of 1922. University of California Press. Doulis 2003 Thomas Doulis, Out of the ashes: The emergence of Greek fiction in the nineteenth century. Library of Congress. Doumanis 1997 Nicholas Doumanis, Myth and memory in the Mediterranean: Remembering fascism’s empire. London: Macmillan. Doumanis 2010 Nicholas Doumanis, A history of Greece. London: Macmillan. Eddy 1931 Charles B. Eddy, Greece and the Greek refugees. London: George Allen and Unwin. Eideneier 1999 Niki Eideneier, „Ε εικόνα των Ρούρκων στην Γλληνική λογοτεχνία μετά τη Κικρασιατική Θαταστροφή‟. In A. Argyriou, A. Diamadis and A.D. Lazaridou (eds.), Ο Ελληνικός κόσμος ανάμεσα στην Ανατολή και τη Δύση: 175-85. Athens: Γλληνικά Αράμματα. Efstratiadis 1982 Πτρατής Γυστρατιάδης, Λογοτέχνες του Μικρασιατικού Ελληνισμού. Athens: Ρο Γλληνικό ΐιβλίο. Farinou-Malamatari 1987 Α. Σαρίνου-Καλαματάρη, Αφηγηματικές τεχνικές στον Παπαδιαμάντη 1887- 1910. Athens: Θέδρος. Floros 1934 Ξαύλος Σλώρος, Άποικοι. Athens: Γστία.

273 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Forster 1949 E.M. Forster, Aspects of the novel. London: Edward Arnold. Gallant 2001 Thomas Gallant, Modern Greece. London: Arnold. Gauntlett 2004 Stathis Gauntlett, „Between orientalism and occidentalism: The contribution of Asia Minor refugees to Greek popular song, and its reception‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 247-60. New York: Berghahn Books. Genette 1980 Gérard Genette, Narrative discourse: An assay in method, trans. Jane E. Lewin. , NY: Cornell University Press. Foreword by Jonathan Culler. Genette 1988 Gérard Genette, Narrative discourse revisited, trans. Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gionis 2003 Βημήτρης Ακιώνης, „Ελίας ΐενέζης: 30 χρόνια από το θανατό του, απ' την αιχμαλωσία στη Γαλήνη’, Ελευθεροτυπία 27 September 2003. Viewed 2 March 2008, Gondicas & Issawi 1999 Dimitris Gondicas and Charles Issawi (eds.), in the age of nationalism: Politics, economy, and society in the nineteenth century. Princeton: Darwin Press. Hadjitheodorou 2009 Maria Hadjitheodorou, The representation of women in the novels of Gregorios Xenopoulos. MPhil thesis, University of Birmingham. Halperin 1974 John Halperin, The theory of the novel: New essays. Oxford University Press.

274 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haris 1979 Ξέτρος Τάρης, Έλληνες πεζογράφοι. Athens: Γστία. Hawthorn 1992 Jeremy Hawthorn, A concise glossary of contemporary literary theory. London: Edward Arnold. Hirschon 1998 Renee Hirschon, Heirs of the Greek catastrophe: The social life of Asia Minor refugees in Piraeus. New York: Berghahn Books. Hirschon 2004 Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey. New York: Berghahn Books. Hirschon, in press Renee Hirschon, „Knowledge of diversity: towards a more differentiated set of ”Greek” perceptions of “Turks”‟. In D Theodossopoulos (ed.), Friends and foes: Greek perceptions of Turks in everyday life, memory and imagination. Horton 1926 George Horton, The blight of Asia. London: Sterndale Classics. Horton 1927 George Horton, Recollections grave and gay: The story of a Mediterranean Consul. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Hourmouzios 1940 Ώιμίλιος Τουρμούζιος, „Ε προσφυγική λογοτεχνία‟, Νέα Εστία 27: 106-9. Housepian Dobkin 1988 Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, Smyrna 1922: The destruction of a city. New York: Newmark. Iatrides et al. 1981 John O. Iatrides, Peter Bien, Julia W. Loomis, A. Lily Macrakis (eds.), Greece in the 1940s: A nation in crisis. Hanover: University Press of New England. Iatridi 1980 Ηουλία Ηατρίδη, Σα πέτρινα λιοντάρια. Athens: Γξάντας.

275 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Iordanidou 1965 Καρία Ηορδανίδου, Λωξάντρα. Athens: Βίφρος. Iordanidou 1978 Καρία Ηορδανίδου, ΢αν τα τρελά πουλιά. Athens: Γστία. Iordanidou 1980 Καρία Ηορδανίδου, ΢του κύκλου τα γυρίσματα. Athens: Γστία. Iordanidou 1982 Καρία Ηορδανίδου, Η αυλή μας. Athens: Γστία. Kafetzaki 2003 Ρόνια Θαφετζάκη, Προσφυγιά και λογοτεχνία: εικόνες του Μικρασιάτη πρόσφυγα στη μεσοπολεμική πεζογραφία. Athens: Ξορεία. Kakavoulia 1992 Maria Kakavoulia, Interior monologue and its discursive formation in Melpo Axioti’s Δύσκολες Νύχτες. Munich: Institut für Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der Universität München. Kalliga-Gerasimou 2005 Ξαρασκευή Θαλλιγά - Αερασίμου, Η μυθοπλαστική αφήγηση του Κοσμά Πολίτη ως παλίμψηστο: Μια αφηγηματολογική προσέγγιση. PhD thesis, University of the Aegean. Karantonis 1977 Ώντρέας Θαραντώνης, Πεζογράφοι και πεζογραφήματα της γενιάς του ’30. Athens: Βημήτρης Ξαπαδήμας. Karantonis 1977a Ώντρέας Θαραντώνης, Υισιογνομίες. Athens: Βημήτρης Ξαπαδήμας. Kastrinaki 1999 Ώγγέλα Θαστρινάκη, „Ρο 1922 και οι λογοτεχνικές αναθεωρήσεις‟. In A. Argyriou, A. Diamadis and A.D. Lazaridou (eds.), Ο Ελληνικός κόσμος ανάμεσα στην Ανατολή και τη Δύση: 165-74. Athens: Γλληνικά Αράμματα. Kastrinaki 2005 Ώγγέλα Θαστρινάκη, Η λογοτεχνία στην ταραγμένη δεκαετία 1940-1950. Athens: Ξόλις.

276 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Katsapis 2003 Θώστας Θατσάπης, „Ώντιπαραθέσεις ανάμεσα σε γηγενείς και πρόσφυγες στην Γλλάδα του Κεσοπολέμου‟. In Πέρα από την Καταστροφή: Μικρασιάτες πρόσφυγες στην Ελλάδα του Μεσοπολέμου: 104-126. Athens: Ίδρυμα Κείζονος Γλληνισμού. Kazantzakis 1973 Λίκος Θαζαντζάκης, Ο Φριστός ξανασταυρώνεται. Athens: Γλ. Θαζαντζάκη. Keyder 2004 Çağlar Keyder, „The consequences of the Exchange of Populations for Turkey‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 39-52. New York: Berghahn Books. Kirtsoglou & Theodossopoulos 2001 Elizabeth Kirtsoglou and Dimitrios Theodossopoulos, „Fading memories, flexible identities‟, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 11: 395-415. Koliopoulos 1987 John S. Koliopoulos, Brigands with a cause: Brigandage and irredentism in modern Greece, 1821-1912. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Koliopoulos & Veremis 2002 John S. Koliopoulos and Thanos Veremis, Greece: The modern sequel from 1831 to the present. London: Hurst. Kontogiorgi 2004 Elizabeth Kontogiorgi, „Economic consequences following refugee settlement in Greek Macedonia, 1923-1932‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 63-78. New York: Berghahn Books. Kontoglou 1944 Σώτης Θόντογλου, Ιστορίες και περιστατικά. Athens: Λικολόπουλος. Kornaros 1974 Ζέμος Θορνάρος, Ρο ξεκίνημα μιάς γενεάς (Ώπό τα βαλτονέρια της Κεγάλης Ηδέας). Athens: Τρόνος

277 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kourtovik 1999 Βημοσθένης Θούρτοβικ, Έλληνες μεταπολεμικοί συγγραφείς. Athens: Ξατάκης. Koutsoukalis 1990 Ώλέκος Θουτσουκάλης, Ιστορία της Ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας: Από την αρχαιότητα μέχρι σήμερα, vol. 2. Athens: Ηωλκός. Krippendorf 1980 Klaus Krippendorf, Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Lada 1932 Stephen Lada, The exchange of minorities: Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. New York: Macmillan. Legg 1969 Keith R. Legg, Politics in modern Greece. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Legg & Roberts 1997 Keith R, Legg and John M. Roberts, Modern Greece: A civilisation on the periphery. Colorado: Westview. Liakos 1993 Ώντώνης Ιιάκος, Εργασία και πολιτική στην Ελλάδα του Μεσοπολέμου. Σο Διεθνές Γραφείο Εργασίας και η ανάδυση των κοινωνικών θεσμών. Athens: Ίδρυμα Έρευνας και Ξαιδείας της Γμπορικής Ρράπεζας της Γλλάδος. Llewellyn Smith 1973 Michael Llewellyn Smith, Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor 1919-1922. London: Allen Lane. Lountemis 1948 Κενέλαος Ιουντέμης, ΢υννεφιάζει. Athens: Βωρικός. Lountemis 1972 Κενέλαος Ιουντέμης, Αγέλαστη άνοιξη. Athens: Βωρικός. Lountemis 1977 Κενέλαος Ιουντέμης, Ένα παιδί μετράει τ’ άστρα. Athens: Βωρικός. Lovejoy 1933 Esther Pohl Lovejoy, Certain Samaritans. New York: Macmillan.

278 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lowenthal 1985 David Lowenthal, The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press. Lucey 1984 William Leo Lucey, History: Methods and interpretation. New York: Garland Series. Mackridge 1986 Peter Mackridge, „Ρhe two-fold nostalgia: Lost homeland and lost time in the work of G. Theotokas, E. Venezis and K. Politis‟, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4: 75-83. Mackridge 1992 Peter Mackridge, „Kosmas Politis and the literature of exile‟, Δελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών ΢πουδών 9: 223-39. Mackridge 2004 Peter Mackridge, „The myth of Asia Minor in Greek fiction‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 235-46. New York: Berghahn Books. Mazower 1991 Mark Mazower, Greece and the inter-war economic crisis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mazower 1992 Mark Mazower, „The refugees, the economic crisis and the collapse of Venizelist hegemony‟, Δελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών ΢πουδών 9: 119-34. Mazower 2000 Mark Mazower (ed.), After the war was over: Reconstructing the family, nation, and state in Greece, 1943-1960. Princeton University Press. Mazower 2004 Mark Mazower, Salonica, city of ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews, 1430- 1950. London: HarperCollins. McNeill 1978 William H. McNeill, The metamorphosis of Greece since World War II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

279 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Merry 2004 Bruce Merry, Encyclopedia of modern Greek literature. Westport: Greenwood. Milioris 1967 Λίκος Κηλιώρης, „Ε Κικρασιατική τραγωδία στη λογοτεχνία και την τέχνη‟, Μικρασιατικά Φρονικά 13: 338-400 Millas 2001 Ερακλής Κήλλας, Εικόνες Ελλήνων και Σούρκων. ΢χολικά βιβλία, ιστοριογραφία, λογοτεχνία και εθνικά στερεότυπα. Athens: Ώλεξάνδρεια. Milton 2008 Giles Milton, Paradise lost. Smyrna, 1922: The destruction of Islam’s city of tolerance. New York: Basic Books. Mitsakis 1985 Θαριοφίλης Κητσάκης, Η Ελληνική λογοτεχνία στον εικοστό αιώνα. Athens: Σιλιππότης. Mitsakis 1986 Θαριοφίλης Κητσάκης, „Ξρολεγόμενα στην πεζογραφία της γενιάς του τριάντα‟, Παρνασσός 28: 161-82. Morgenthau 2000 Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s story. London: Taderon Press. Myrivilis 1946 Πτρατής Κυριβήλης, Η ζωή εν τάφω: Σο βιβλίο του πολέμου. Athens: Γστία. Myrivilis 1971 Πτρατής Κυριβήλης, Η Παναγιά η Γοργόνα. Athens: Γστία. Myrivilis 1981 Stratis Myrivilis, The Mermaid Madonna, trans. Abbot Rick. Athens: Efstathiadis group. Myrivilis 1982 Πτρατής Κυριβήλης, Η δασκάλα με τα χρυσά μάτια. Athens: Γστία. Neundorf 2002 Kimberley A. Neuendorf, The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

280 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nikolopoulou 2007 Maria Nikolopoulou, „Space, memory and identity: The memory of the Asia Minor space in Greek novels of the 1960s‟. Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia: Working Paper Series 1: 3-18. Noutsos 2012 Ξαναγιώτης Λούτσος, „Ν Θαβάφης, ο Πκληρός και η κίνηση των σοσιαλιστικών ιδέων στον Ώιγυπτιακό Γλληνισμό της εποχής τους‟. Viewed 15 March 2012, http://www.24grammata.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Noutsos_24grammata.com_.pdf Oran 2004 Baskın Oran, „The story of those who stayed: Lessons from articles 1 and 2 of the 1923 Convention‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 97-116. New York: Berghahn Books. Panagiotarea 1994 Άννα Ξαναγιωταρέα, Όταν οι αστοί έγιναν πρόσφυγες: Κυδωνιάτες αστοί και πρόσφυγες. Thessaloniki: Ξαρατηρητής. Panagiotopoulos 1981 Η.Κ. Ξαναγιωτόπουλος, Αστροφεγγιά: Η ιστορία μιάς εφηβείας. Athens: Ώστήρ. Paroulakis 2000 Peter H. Paroulakis, The Greek War of Independence. Darwin: Hellenic International Press. Pelagidis 2003 Πτάθης Ξελαγίδης, Προσφυγική Ελλάδα (1913-1930): Ο πόνος και η δόξα. Thessaloniki: Ώδελφοί Θυριακίδη. Pentzopoulos 2002 Dimitris Pentzopoulos, The Balkan exchange of minorities and its impact on Greece. London: Hurst and Company. Petsalis-Diomidis 1983 Ζανάσης Ξετσάλης-Βιομήδης, Γερές και αδύναμες γενεές. Μαρία Πάρνη. Athens: Γστία.

281 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Philippides 1990 Dia M.L. Philippides, Census of modern Greek literature (1824-1987). New Haven: Modern Greek Studies Association. Plaskovitis 1955 Ππύρος Ξλασκοβίτης, „Ε κληματόβεργα‟. In Η θύελλα και το φανάρι: 7-69. Athens: Γστία. Politis 1963 Θοσμά Ξολίτη, ΢τού Φατζηφράγκου: Σα σαραντάχρονα μιάς χαμένης πολιτείας. Athens: Ώ. Θαραβια. Politis 1973 Linos Politis, A history of modern Greek literature. London: Oxford Clarendon Press. Politis 1989 Ιίνος Ξολίτης, Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχίας. Athens: Κορφωτικό Ίδρυμα Γθνικής Ρραπέζης. Pollis Koslin 1958 Adamantia Pollis Koslin, The Great Idea – a study of Greek nationalism. PhD thesis, John Hopkins University. Prevelakis 1976 Ξαντελής Ξρεβελάκης, Σο χρονικό μιάς πολιτείας. Athens: Γστία. Rimmon-Kenan 1983 Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative fiction: Contemporary poetics. London: Rutledge Publications. Sachines 1948 Ώπόστολος Παχίνης, Η πεζογραφία της Κατοχής. Athens: Ίκαρος. Sotiriou 1972 Βιδώ Πωτηρίου, Ματωμένα χώματα. Athens: Θέδρος. Sotiriou 1976 Βιδώ Πωτηρίου, Οι νεκροί περιμένουν. Athens: Θέδρος. Soukas 1981 Θώστας Πούκας, Σο ποινικό μητρώο μιάς εποχής. Athens: Γξάντας.

282 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Starr 1984 Louis Starr, „Oral history‟. In D.K. Dunaway and W.K. Baum (eds.), Oral history: An interdisciplinary anthology: 3-26. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History in Cooperation with the Oral History Association. Stavrou 1936a Ρατιάνα Πταύρου, Εκείνοι που έμειναν. Athens: Ξυρσός. Stavrou 1936b Ρατιάνα Πταύρου, Οι πρώτες ρίζες. Athens: Θύκλος. Stavrou 1943 Ρατιάνα Πταύρου, Σο καλοκαίρι πέρασε. Athens: Αλάρος. Stelaku 2004 Vasso Stelaku, „Space, place and identity: Memory and religion in two settlements‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 179-92. New York: Berghahn Books. Snooks & Co. 2007 Snooks and Co., Style Manual for authors, publishers and printers. N.p: John Wiley & Sons Australia. Swallow 1973 Charles Swallow, The sick man of Europe: Ottoman Empire to Turkish republic 1789–1923. London: Ernest Benn & Tonbridge. Theotokas 1936 Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, Αργώ. Athens: Ξυρσός. Theotokas 1937a Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, Ευριπίδης Πεντοζάλης και άλλες ιστορίες. Athens: Γστία. Theotokas 1937b Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, „Γυριπίδης Ξεντοζάλης‟. In Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, Ευριπίδης Πεντοζάλης και άλλες ιστορίες: 9-65. Athens: Γστία. Theotokas 1937c Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, „Τρονικό του 1922‟. In Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, Ευριπίδης Πεντοζάλης και άλλες ιστορίες: 213-27. Athens: Γστία.

283 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Theotokas 1988 Αιώργος Ζεοτοκάς, Λεωνής. Athens: Γστία. Thomte, 2009 T. Calhoun Thomte, Grammatical person in text and narrative. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Travlantonis 1966 Ώντώνης Ρραυλαντώνης, Λεηλασία μιάς ζωής. Athens: Γστία. Tsimouris 2001 Giorghos Tsimouris, „Reconstructing “home” among the “enemy”: The Greeks of Gökçeada (Imvros) after Lausanne‟, Balkanologie 5: 257-272. Tsirkinidis 1999 Harry Tsirkinidis, At last we uprooted them... The genocide of Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor, through the French archives, trans. Stratos Mavrantonis. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis brothers. Venezis 1928 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Μανώλης Λέκας και άλλα διηγήματα. Athens. Venezis 1931 Ελίας ΐενέζης, To νoύμερο 31328: το βιβλίο της σκλαβιάς. Athens: Γστία. Venezis 1944 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Άνεμοι. Athens: Γστία. Venezis 1954 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Οι νικημένοι. Athens: Γστία Venezis 1967 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Αιγαίο. Athens: Γστία. Venezis 1969 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Αιολική γη. Athens: Γστία. Venezis 1939 Ελίας ΐενέζης, Γαλήνη. Athens: Ξυρσός. Veremis 2004 Thanos Veremis, „1922: Political continuations and realignments: the Greek state‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 53-62. New York: Berghahn Books.

284 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vitti 1977 Mario Vitti, Η γενιά του τριάντα: Ιδεολoγία και μορφή. Athens: Γρμής. Vitti 1987 Mario Vitti, Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας. Athens: Νδυσσέας. Vousvounis 1962 Ώντώνης ΐουσβούνης, Σο μεγάλο διάλειμμα. Athens: Θεραμεικός. Voutira 2003 Eftihia Voutira, „Refugees: Whose term is it anyway? Emic and etic constructions of “refugees” in modern Greek‟. In J. van Selm et al (eds.), The refugee convention at fifty: A view from forced migration studies: 65-80. New York: Lexington Books. Voutira 2004 Eftihia Voutira, „When Greeks meet other Greeks: settlement policy issues in the contemporary Greek context‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 145-59. New York: Berghahn Books. Woodhouse 1976 C.M. Woodhouse, The struggle for Greece: 1941-1949. London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon. Woodhouse 1984 C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece: A short history. London: Faber and Faber. Woodhouse 1985 C.M. Woodhouse, Apple of discord: A survey of recent Greek politics in their international setting. Reston, Virginia: W.B. O‟Neill. Xenopoulos 1994 Αρηγόριος Μενόπουλος, Πρόσφυγες. Athens: Ώδελφοί ΐλάσση. Yerolympos 2004 Alexandra Yerolympos, „Inter-war town planning and the refugee problem in Greece‟. In Renee Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 133-44. New York: Berghahn Books.

285 Refugees and Narrators BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zarimis 2007 Maria Zarimis, The influence of Darwinism and evolutionism in modern Greek literature: The case of Grigorios Xenopoulos. PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales. Zürcher 2003 Erik-Jan Zürcher, „Greek and Turkish refugees and deportees 1912-1924‟, Turkology Update: Leiden Project Working Papers Archive. University of Leiden: Department of Turkish Studies.

286