Ambivalent Greece

It matters little whether one begins with the Jesuit missionary Jacques Paul Babin writing about Athens in 1672: “Instead of these superb edifices, these glorious trophies, and these rich temples that were once the ornament of this city, one sees nothing but houses devoid of any magnificence, made from ancient ruins” (cited in Augustinos 1994:98), or Chateaubriand on his travels to Greece in 1806: “I have seen Greece! I visited Sparta, Argos, Mycenae, Corinth, Athens; beautiful names, alas! nothing more. . . . Never see Greece, Monsieur, except in Homer. It is the best way” (cited in Augustinos 1994:178), or John Galt on Greece in 1813: “The famous towns of Greece are, indeed, rather to be considered as places where recollections and trains of thought are excited, than as affording spectacles deserving notice. . . . Antiquity is a wrinkled and aged dame; and it is only by her tales that she interests us” (cited in Eisner 1993:111), or Paul Theroux in 1995: “In a land of preposterous myths, the myth of Greece as a paradise of joy and abundance was surely the most preposterous” (1995:323). Start with any of these or numerous other travelers’ accounts and the point is the same: Greece has an endless capacity to disappoint, to fall short of its reputation.

Indeed the sentiment of ambivalence toward Greece in travel literature has been utterly commonplace. Yet it continues to be reiterated with a conviction of originality. This is unremarkable, given that the travel account is an unself-conscious literary genre, one of the few remaining literary outlets “for the essayistic tendency” (Eisner 1993:263). Travel literature is not a genre that reflects on its own history. Thus it often expresses views that are banal even when they seem erudite. It tends to repeat what others have written before.

This is true even of a recent academic book that studies travel literature, a book one step removed, one would expect, from the unreflective impressionism of the traveler’s account. Robert Eisner’s Travelers to an Antique Land: The History and Literature of Travel to Greece, a “travel book of travel books” (1993:3), provides an eminently readable survey of travel to Greece and travel literature on Greece from Homer to Leigh Fermor. A scholarly work, it is no less a breezy and witty traveler’s account than any of the literature it treats. In sum, it is a pleasure to read. Yet it follows the genre in exhibiting characteristic prejudices and errors: the assumption that there were no Greek poets or scholars educated in Greek history and culture at the time of the revolution; ¹ an inability to understand the investment that Greeks, like other moderns, have made in their history; ² a conviction that Greeks are incompetent guardians of their preserve; and a cavalier dismissal of Byzantium that would be unacceptable even from an undergraduate. ³ While the book anticipates Greek objections to its blunt criticisms by ceremoniously judging all Greeks to “believe the best about themselves, and wax eloquent about it, and dismiss criticisms as blasphemy” (1993:122), it does not absolve itself of its own inaccuracies. Eisner is simply wrong. His gritty asides, tucked away in discussions of other authors’ accounts, grate against any thoughtful, knowledgeable reader. ⁴

Sometimes Travelers to an Antique Land manages to surpass the literature it discusses by touching on the larger issues that Greece’s touristic appeal has raised. The book makes its readers aware that a reflective, informed account of the journey to Greece is nearly impossible. First, the tradition of travel “decrees that the intelligent traveler in search of more than a beach or a bargain shall seek Culture, which typically resides in countries...