Home Literary Studies 2. Who has been Reading Masterpieces on Our Behalf? George Seferis, Makriyannis, and the Literary Canon
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

2. Who has been Reading Masterpieces on Our Behalf? George Seferis, Makriyannis, and the Literary Canon

View more publications by Princeton University Press
Literature as National Institution
This chapter is in the book Literature as National Institution
•2· Who has been Reading Masterpieces on Our Behalf? George Seferis, Makriyannis, and the Literary Canon WE SAW IN THE FIRST CHAPTER that literary histories aim to institutionalize a national tradition of native master-pieces. As is usually the case, this new tradition has already been tentatively formed and outlined in a critical discourse which countered and opposed a prevailing orthodoxy by offering a number of strong revisionary approaches and readings. The work of the historian, in its turn, follows as an attempt to consolidate gains made, unify them in a comprehensive totality, and claim institutional status. If successful, his history becomes the epitome of a new orthodoxy and canon and provides the legitimate eval-uative measures of aesthetic appreciation. It would be interesting now to turn our attention to those revisionary readings which pave the way for rewriting literary history by changing the estab-lished rules of reading and appropriating texts on behalf of an emerging new discourse. I have chosen an unusual case where a work, in order to be successfully appropriated, had not just to be reread but actually invented and classified as a literary document because I want to highlight the complexity of the task and the possible range of the strategies employed. The case is not unique, in the sense that many national canons have included a few writers of nonimaginative prose: Gibbon and Carlyle in English literature, Emerson and Thoreau in American, Rousseau and • 44 ·

•2· Who has been Reading Masterpieces on Our Behalf? George Seferis, Makriyannis, and the Literary Canon WE SAW IN THE FIRST CHAPTER that literary histories aim to institutionalize a national tradition of native master-pieces. As is usually the case, this new tradition has already been tentatively formed and outlined in a critical discourse which countered and opposed a prevailing orthodoxy by offering a number of strong revisionary approaches and readings. The work of the historian, in its turn, follows as an attempt to consolidate gains made, unify them in a comprehensive totality, and claim institutional status. If successful, his history becomes the epitome of a new orthodoxy and canon and provides the legitimate eval-uative measures of aesthetic appreciation. It would be interesting now to turn our attention to those revisionary readings which pave the way for rewriting literary history by changing the estab-lished rules of reading and appropriating texts on behalf of an emerging new discourse. I have chosen an unusual case where a work, in order to be successfully appropriated, had not just to be reread but actually invented and classified as a literary document because I want to highlight the complexity of the task and the possible range of the strategies employed. The case is not unique, in the sense that many national canons have included a few writers of nonimaginative prose: Gibbon and Carlyle in English literature, Emerson and Thoreau in American, Rousseau and • 44 ·
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400859351.44/html?srsltid=AfmBOoomzDBmnh9MYz6pXFA-FkzNE-5jLzrfC35k1fRJtmrZEIljJxwh
Scroll to top button