Golo Mann: The History of Germany since 1789 – Part I

Born Angelus Gottfried Thomas Mann, he was the third son of the novelist Thomas Mann and his wife Katia Mann.

One of six children of Thomas Mann, he described the drawbacks of growing up with a famous novelist for a father.

Katia Mann with her six children

“We almost always had to keep quiet — in the morning because our father was working, in the afternoon because he first read, then napped, and toward evening, because he was again occupied with serious matters. And there would be a terrible outburst if we disturbed him, all the more hurtful because we almost never provoked him intentionally.”

(Source: The New York Times )

I got to know him because of his father, one of the giants of world lieterature, and bought his book “The History of Germnay since 1789″ years ago, when I was living in England, and forgotabout it withour reading it. All of a sudden, the book appeared in front of me one afternoon as if it had a voice, and without any further delay I Started reading it. It was an instant love affair, that continues until today, after almost two months of reading it.

Golo Mann

In today’s post I want to start sharing with you some quotes from the book, which I consider one of the best history books on Europe. The original’s title is “Deutsche Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts”, first published in German in 1958. I use the English translation by Marian Jackson, reprinted by Penguin Books in 1990. For ease of reference, in each quote I will use  the page number of the 1990 reprint.

There will be two parts, the first covering the period from Napoleon to the end of Bismarck’s rule.

I am not aiming at reproducing the great intensity of the book, or summarize it. All I want is to present some elements of the work that are representative of its author and his views, which I find stimulating and challenging.

As an introduction to the period from 1789 to 1890, I offer the following timeline.

1813: Battle of the Nations at Leipzig; Napoleon is defeated

1848: a year of European revolutions; the Frankfurt Parliament convenes

1863: the Social Democratic Party of Germany is formed

1866: the kingdom of Prussia defeats the Austrian Empire in the battle of Koeniggaetz

1870: Bismarck emerges victorious from short war against the French

King Wilhelm of Prussia is proclaimed German Emperor

1871, January 18: GERMAN UNIFICATION – King Wilhelm of Prussia is proclaimed “German Emperor” in the Hall of Mirrors at the Chateau des Versailles. The German Empire is a confederation of 25 constituent states

1871: Bismarck becomes the first Chancellor of unified Germany

1875: Thomas Mann is born

1890: Bismarck resigns; Caprivi is sworn in a the next Chancellor

1898: Bismarck dies

Nations have always managed to find some rational necessity, some ideological reason for murdering each other (p. 28)

Nothing in history really starts at one particular moment (p.38)

The people’s of Europe have always learned from each other, and imitation is not necessarily follish (p. 59)

The moments in history in which noble enthusiasm reigns are short and one must be grateful for any lasting achievement from such a period (p. 67)

The mind of the individual is not a textbook, it is full of contradictions (p. 71)

… but eras follow each other without a break and clear divisions exist only in our minds (p. 85)

Ferdinand Lassalle

Our age is confused and devoid of ideas; it does not know what it wants and therefore anything seems possible (p.121)

A man without a home, without roots, cannot be effective, but he can see and speak, and that is what Heine did. (p. 142)

It is characteristic of men who have been disfranchised to take more than their share when they are liberated and to do to others what has been done to them (p. 169)

What anyway did right mean where interests conflicted, where two peoples were imbued with equal determination to survice? (p.171)

Anger unsupported by power can achieve nothing (p.178)

“The great questions of the age”, said Bismarck in 1862, “are not decided by speeches and majority decisions – that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by blood and iron”. (p.204)

Ferdinand Lassalle once said: “Basically constitutional questions are not questions of law but of power; a country’s real constitution exists only in the actual prevailing political conditions. Written constitutions are only of value and permanence if they exactly express the existing distribution of power in sociaty”. (p. 214)

It is wrong entirely to condemn any class of human beings. The world is not a just place and when just men reach the top they are usually not as just as they promised to be while they were oppressed (p. 215)

Some men who are at odds with their age show that they belong to it by the extent of their opposition to it. (p.236)

Nevertheless he (Schopenhauer) was a Christian and distinguished between two basic tendencies in Christianity: an optimistic one promising paradise on earth, which he regarded as Jewish in origin, and an ascetic one proclaiming the misery and treachery of this world, teaching resignation and compassion. Something of this, which he found best expressed in the pantheism of the Indians, is present in his own work, and that is why a man who hated politics and modern society, a Christian commmunist like Leo Tolstoy, looked up to Schopenhauer as his master. (p. 239-240)

Yet he (Schopenhauer) wrote more beautiful and more forceful German than anybody who came after him; from the depths of German tradition, mysticism, romanticism and music came the moods which he skillfully combined into the four movements of his great symphony. (p. 240)

Arthur Schopenhauer

Everything that he (Bismarck) had tried to prevent or to delay, the worst that he feared, happened in the end: world wars, world revolution, the literal desctruction of the state which he idolized, with the result that the younger generation growing up today hardly knows the name of Prussia. Moreover, this happened not so very long after his death. People who knew him well actually experienced it; for example the wife of his son, who poisoned herself in 1945 a few hours before soldiers of the Red Army reached the family castle. A fate which serves to illustrate the futility of all political endeavour. Or should we say the futility of false, unjust and in the in the last resort unnatural political endeavour? Our story must seek to answer this question, although there will not be a clear yes or no. (p. 261-262)

He (Bismarck) denied energetically that Austria in the Balkans was defending German interests against Russia: “The mouth of the Danube is of very little interest to Germany”. Prussia had no reason to help Austria “to procure a few stinking Wallachians”. (p. 271)

His (Bismarcck’s) great achievement was not that he created German unity; that had been longed for and talked about for fifty years. What makes his achievement so very clever, daring and unnatural is the fact that he brought about German unity without the elements associated with it for fifty years: parliamentary rule, democracy, and demagogy. (p.287)

Bismarck saw the possible when it appeared and rejected the impossible. …If all but one player play a half-hearted game, the one who takes his game seriously is likely to win. (p.288)

The superior opponent attacks, and the attacker is almost always superiro; but he must know how to stop while he is still superiro. (p. 294)

Bismarck did not believe in elaborate constitutions. Like Lassalle he believed in the reality which alone would show what the constitution was and could be. (p. 307)

Often we are most eloquent about the virtues we lack…….The nature of politics does not permit a vacuum of power. (p. 312)

Payment for political services must be received in advance, not in retrospect. (p. 315)

But the frontiers between defence and attack are uncertain; and once the monster of war has been born it starts a life of its own not easily controllable by party political strategy. (p. 319)

Fuerst Otto von Bismarck

Too much elaborate theory may harm a cause, as it has probably harmed American constitutional life to the present day. Too much brutal pragmatism has the same effect. The Reich suffered because bits that did not make a whole were hastily and roughly thrown together, the Prussian military monarchy, federation and universal suffrage. (p. 329)

Historical power is never without historical guilt (p. 345)

But the element which Stoecker (Adolf Stoecker was the court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm II, and founded the Christian Social Party in the 1870s) knew how to mobilize and which remained a sinister driving force in German politics was anti-semitism. It was an age-old, evil force which ahd existed in latent form from Christian, even pre-Christian, times onwards, concealed or under control and almost forgotten, only to break out again into brutal misdeeds. (p. 391)

For twenty -five years Bismarck had been Europe’s first statesman, at times its arbiter. His personal qualities entitled him to a place among the ranks of the great rulers of the past, Wallenstein, Cromwell and Napoleon. But whereas in comparable crises they did not hesitate to resort to extremes, to civil war and rebellion, all the Prussian Prime Minister could do was obediently to draft his letter of resignation (Bismarck resigned on 18 March 1890) the moment an undeserving young man asked him to do so. (p. 410-411)

ΠΑΟ ΟΛΕ!!!!!!!!! 2 June 1971 Wembley Stadium: Ajax Amsterdam – PAO Athens 2-0

Η 2 Ιουνιου 1971 αποτελει ημερα οροσημο για τον Παναθηναικο και την φιλαθλη Ελλαδα.

Ειναι η ημερα που για πρωτη (και μεχρι σημερα μοναδικη) φορα, μια ελληνικη (100%) ομαδα ποδοσφαιρου εφτασε στον τελικο του Ευρωπαικου Πρωταθληματος και επαιξε στα ισια την υπερομαδα του Αιαντα Αμστερνταμ. Εκεινη την εποχη ημουνα μαθητης της 5ης Γυμνασιου στο Βενετοκλειο Γυμνασιο Ροδου. Ειχαμε μαζευτει οι συμμαθητες και ακουγαμε τον αγωνα απο το ραδιοφωνο. Η τηλεοραση ητανε σπανια, και μαυροασπρη. (Εξαλλου εγω ακομη και σημερα τους μεγαλους αγωνες τους ακουω απο το ραδιοφωνο, και μαλιστα απο μικρο τρανζιστορακι με μπαταριες.)

Ference Puskas 1927 - 2006

Η ομαδα του 1971  ειχε προπονητη τον αειμνηστο Φερεντς Πουσκας. Ενας καλος φιλος πηγαινε και στις προπονησεις της ομαδας στη Λεωφορο. Θυμαται χαρακτηριστικα το πως εκτελουσε πεναλτυ ο Πουσκας.

“Δεν επαιρνε καθολου φορα. Καθοτανε πανω απο την μπαλλα ηρεμος και κοιταζε κατω. Ξαφνικα με απιστευτη ταχυτητα για ενα ευσωμο αντρα, εριχνε ενα “μυτο” και καρφωνε τη μπαλλα στα διχτυα. Αμεσως μετα ενα χαμογελο ελαμπε για λιγα δευτερολεπτα στο προσωπο του.”

Η τεραστια επιτυχια της ομαδας μας οφειλεται στον Στρατηγο μας τον Πουσκας αλλα και σε ολα τα παιδια που απετελεσαν την χρυση ενδεκαδα του 1971.

Ορθιοι απο αριστερα: ΚΑμαρας, Οικονομοπουλος, Βλαχος, Τομαρας, Σουρπης, Καψης

Καθιστοι απο αριστερα: Γραμμος, Δομαζος, Αντωνιαδης, Φυλακουρης, Ελευθερακης

Ο αγωνας καθεαυτος δεν εχει καμια σημασια. Ητανε μια γιορτη, μια ευωχια για μας, ενα ονειρο που ζησαμε και γιναμε για λιγο κατι ξεχωριστο, πριν επανελθουμε στην καθημερινοτητα μας.

Οι “κωλο-γαυροι” εσταξαν και σταζουν ακομη δηλητηριο.

Με αφορμη μια εκπομπη των “Φακελλων” του Αλεξη Παπαχελα το 2007, οπου η γυναικα του πρωτο-δικτατορα Δεσποινα Παπαδοπουλου βγηκε και ανεφερε οτι ο τοτε Γενικος Γραμματεας Αθλητισμου Ασλανιδης της ανεφερε οτι ειχαμε “αγορασει” τον Ερυθρο Αστερα Βελιγραδιου για να περασουμε στον τελικο, οι ευτελεις και πανικοβλητοι γαυροι προσπαθουν να απομειωσουν τον αθλο της Παναθας και να τον ενταξουν στις αθλιοτητες των Συνταγματαρχων.

Δεν θα το πετυχουνε ποτε.

Δεν χρειαζεται να ειναι κανεις ειδικος πρακτορας για να ανακαλυψει οτι η Χουντα επεδιωξε να αξιοποιησει κατα το μεγιστο βαθμο την επιτυχια του Παναθηναικου, και οτι μαλιστα προβληθηκε απο ολα τα μεσα. Η βομβα μονο βομβα δεν ητανε.

(Μεταξυ μας: αφου η κ. Παπαδοπουλου ηθελε τοσο ολυ να μιλησει και να πει την αληθεια, γιατι περιοριστηκε στον ΠΑΟ; Για τις διωξεις και τα βασανιστηρια γιατι δεν εβγαλε μιλια; Πολυ επιλεκτικη και μιζερη ηταν αυτη η κριση συνειδησεως!)

Τοσα και τοσα γραφτηκαν για τον Ασλανιδη. Αφηνω στην ακρη τον ακρατο αντιχουντικο ζηλο των γαυρων.

(Βρε παιδια, αν ολοι οι γαυροι ηταν αντιχουντικοι, πως και μεχρι το Πολυτεχνειο το 1973 στις διαδηλωσεις κατεβαινανε μονο οι φοιτητες και κατι λιγοι περιεργοι; )

Ειναι χαρακτηριστικη η δηλωση του Βασιλη Κωνσταντινου, που επαιξε τερματοφυλακας στο παιχνιδι με τον Ερυθρο Αστερα και εξι λεπτα πριν απο το τελος απεσοβησε βεβαιο γκολ.

“«Πρόκειται για ένα αφελές παραμύθι και για μια δήλωση λάσπης! Εμείς, οι παίκτες, αγωνιούσαμε ακόμη και όταν βρισκόμασταν στο ξενοδοχείο, πριν αρχίσει το ματς. Ξέραμε ότι οι Γιουγκοσλάβοι είχαν πολύ καλή ομάδα και λέγαμε ότι θα ήμασταν ευχαριστημένοι ακόμη κι αν κερδίζαμε με 1-0 για να ικανοποιήσουμε τον κόσμο μας που μας είχε συμπαρασταθεί, αλλά και για να αποκλειστούμε με ψηλά το κεφάλι. Αν ο αγώνας ήταν στημένος θα έπρεπε κάποιος να το είχε πει και σε εμάς. Να ερχόταν και να μας έλεγε: παιδιά χαλαρώστε. Είναι όλα κανονισμένα. Κανείς δεν ήρθε και κανείς δεν γνώριζε τίποτα. Ούτε εμείς, ούτε ο Πούσκας».Γιατί με κάλεσε;”

Vassilis Konstantinou

Ο Β. Κωνσταντίνου θυμάται κι ένα άλλο περιστατικό:

«Θέλω να πω ότι η κ. Παπαδοπούλου και ο τότε ΓΓΑ Κώστας Ασλανίδης είχαν στείλει τον Βλαδίμηρο, που επίσης είχε διατελέσει ΓΓΑ, πίσω από την εστία μου για με εμψυχώσει στο τέλος. Είχε έρθει πίσω από το τέρμα μου και με παρότρυνε. Εκείνος είχε κρατήσει ώρα και μου έλεγε συνεχώς: Γερά Βασίλη, τελειώνει. Εφτά λεπτά θέλει. Πέντε λεπτά. Τέσσερα…. Για ποιο λόγο τον έστειλαν; Αφού το ματς όπως λέει- ήταν κανονισμένο. Ντροπή κ. Παπαδοπούλου! Δεν είναι δυνατόν να βγαίνει και να λέει τέτοια πράγματα. Για αυτό έμεινε τόσα χρόνια στην αφάνεια και τώρα βγαίνει ρίχνοντας λάσπη».

(Πηγη: Κωστας Φολλας)

Ο Αριστειδης Καμαρας με βολιδα σημειωνει το τριτο και προκριτηριο γκολ σε βαρος του Ερυθρου Αστερα στο 3-0 της Λεωφορου. “”Ο Καμάρας, γκολ, το γκολ του Καμάρα, το τρίτο γκολ του Αριστείδη του Καμάρα”, σε περιγραφή του Γιάννη Διακογιάννη.

Συλλογος Μεγαλος, δεν υπαρχει Αλλος, δεν υπαρχει Αλλος πιο δυναμικος. Και χιλιαδες φιλοι, μολις δουν τριφυλλι, ΖΗΤΩ λεμε ο Παναθηναικος.

Real Greece, Part III: Odysseus Elytis – Η πραγματικη Ελλαδα, Μερος ΙΙΙ: Οδυσσεας Ελυτης

“Εάν αποσυνδέσεις την Ελλάδα, στο τέλος θα δεις να σου απομένουν μια ελιά, ένα αμπέλι κι ένα καράβι. Που σημαίνει: με άλλα τόσα την ξαναφτιάχνεις.” (Οδυσσεας Ελυτης, Μικρος Ναυτιλος, ΜΥΡΙΣΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝ (ΧΙV)

Πρελουδιο

Εν τω μεσω του ορυμαγδου περι της εκταμιευσεως 5ης δοσεως, της κοκορομαχιας των πολιτικων “αρχηγων”, και των συγκεντρωσεων των “αγανακτισμενων”, αισθανομαι να με καταπνιγει η ακαλαισθησια, η μικροπρεπεια, η ανικανοτητα, η κουτοπονηρια, η βλακεια, η πενια του πνευματος, η ελλειψη ορχεων,  ο στρουθοκαμηλισμος. Καταφευγω λοιπον επειγοντως σε ακομη μια πραγματικη Ελλαδα, που δεν εχει καμμια σχεση με ολα τα ανωτερω, την Ελλαδα του Οδυσσεα Ελυτη.

Η Διαφανεια

“ΟΤΙ ΜΠΟΡΕΣΑ Ν’ ΑΠΟΧΤΗΣΩ μια ζωή από πράξεις ορατές για όλους, επομένως να κερδίσω την ίδια μου διαφάνεια, το χρωστώ σ’ ένα είδος ειδικού θάρρους που μου ‘δωκεν η Ποίηση: να γίνομαι άνεμος για τον χαρταετό και χαρταετός για τον άνεμο, ακόμη και όταν ουρανός δεν υπάρχει..”  (Οδυσσεας Ελυτης, Ο Μικρος Ναυτιλος)

Ο Γ. Μπαμπινιωτης επισημαινει:

“Γενικά, κατόρθωσε να επινοήσει μιαν άλλη μορφή αντισυμβατικής γλώσσας, ώστε να ξυπνάει κάθε φορά τη συγκίνηση, το όνειρο, το συναίσθημα, την εικόνα, τη φαντασία, την ικανότητα να βλέπεις μέσα στα πράγματα, τη διαφάνεια δηλ., και να μεταβάλεις τη φευγαλέα στιγμή σε διάρκεια, μια άλλη βασική έννοια τής ποίησης τού Ελύτη.” (Το Βημα, Ο Ποιητης της Γλωσσας.)

Ο ιδιος ο Ελυτης στην πρωτη παραγραφο της ομιλιας του προς την Ακαδημια Επιστημων της Σουηδιας, αναφερει:

“Ας μου επιτραπεί, παρακαλώ, να μιλήσω στο όνομα της φωτεινότητας και της διαφάνειας. Επειδή οι ιδιότητες αυτές είναι που καθορίσανε τον χώρο μέσα στον οποίο μου ετάχθη να μεγαλώσω και να ζήσω. Και αυτές είναι που ένιωσα, σιγά – σιγά, να ταυτίζονται μέσα μου με την ανάγκη να εκφρασθώ. Είναι σωστό να προσκομίζει κανείς στην τέχνη αυτά που του υπαγορεύουν η προσωπική του εμπειρία και οι αρετές της γλώσσας του. ” (Οδυσσέας Ελύτης:Ομιλία κατά την απονομή του Βραβείου Νόμπελ, Στοκχόλμη, 8/12/1979.)

Αιγαιο και Γλωσσα

Ο ποιητης που λατρεψε το Αιγαιο, και σμιλεψε την ποιηση του με την ελληνικη γλωσσα αποφαινεται:

“Ένα δειλινό στο Αιγαίο περιλαμβάνει τη χαρά και τη λύπη σε τόσο ίσες δόσεις που δεν μένει στο τέλος παρά η αλήθεια.”

“Μια γλώσσα όπως η ελληνική όπου άλλο πράγμα είναι η αγάπη και άλλο πράγμα ο έρωτας. Άλλο η επιθυμία και άλλο η λαχτάρα. Άλλο η πίκρα και άλλο το μαράζι. Άλλο τα σπλάχνα κι άλλο τα σωθικά.”

(Οδυσσεας Ελυτης, Μικρος Ναυτιλος, ΜΥΡΙΣΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝ (ΧΙV, ΧV)

Αναστασία Δούκα - Μερόπη Σούλη (Δ.Σ. Απολλωνίας Σίφνου)

Ελληνισμος

Η συρρικνωση του ελληνισμου μετα την επικρατηση των εθνικισμων – δεν το συνειδητοποιησαμε ποτε οσο επρεπε – μας αποστερησε απο τον τροπο να βλεπουμε τα πραγματα με την ανοιχτοσυνη εκεινη και την ισχυ που διεθετε το ιδιο μας το γλωσσικο οργανο σε μια μεγαλη εκταση του πολιτισμενου κοσμου. Απ’ αυτη την αποψη, οσο περιεργο και αν φαινεται, ο πριν απο τους δυο παγκοσμιους πολεμους υπηκοος του μικροσκοπικου τουτου κρατους ανασαινε τον αερα μιας περιπου αυτοκρατοριας. Οι δυνατοτητες του να κινηθει χωρις διαβατηριο γλωσσας καλυπτανε μεγαλα μερη της Ιταλιας και της Αυστριας, ολοκληρη την Αιγυπτο, τη νοτιο Βουλγαρια, τη Ρουμανια, τη Ρωσια του Καυκασου και, φυσικα, την Κωνσταντινουπολη με την ενδοχωρα της, ως κατω, κατα μηκος του Αιγαιου, τη λεγομενη στις μερες μας νοτιοδυτικη Τουρκια.  (Οδυσσεας Ελυτης, Εν Λευκω, Αναφορα στον Ανδρεα Εμπειρικο)

Γιατι γραφετε;

…ρωτανε συχνα τον ποιητη στις συνεντευξεις. Κι εκεινος βιαζεται ν’ απαντησει: “δεν ξερω”. Ειναι αληθεια οτι, απο μιαν αποψη, κι εγω ο ιδιος δεν ξερω. Απο μιαν αλλη ομως αισθανομαι οτι το απολυτως ατομικο μερος του εαυτου μου τοτε μονον θα το δω να επαληθευεται, οταν το αποστερησω απο την ιδιοτητα της προσωπικης περιπτωσης – οταν με αλλα λογια, το καταστησω κοινον.   (Οδυσσεας Ελυτης, Εν Λευκω, Τα μικρα εψιλον)

Christos Giannaras: fragments – Χ. Γιανναρας: κομματια κι αποσπασματα

Σημερα παρουσιαζω κομματια κι αποσπασματα πο μια προσφατη συνεντευξη του Χρηστου Γιανναρα με τον δημοσιογράφο κ. Γεώργιο Σαχίνη στην εκπομπή “Αντιθέσεις”. Η συζήτηση έλαβε χώρα την Πέμπτη  3  Δεκεμβρίου του 2010 στο κανάλι Kρήτη ΤV.

Σε μια εποχη τοσο δυσκολη και τοσο προκλητικη ο Γιανναρας αρθρωνει λογο που συναρπαζει και μπορει να λυτρωσει. Ο Γιανναρας προκαλει και προσκαλει.

…αυτο που ζουμε σημερα ειναι μια συντελεσμενη καταστροφη, δεν ειναι ενα απλο αδιεξοδο…

…εδω και χρονια παρακολουθουμε καθε μερα την κηδεια μας…

…εχουμε παραδοθει στη ληθη και την αγνοια της πραγματικοτητας…

…η διανοηση και η εκκλησια απουσιαζουν απο τα δρωμενα…

…τα κομματα που εγκληματισαν κατα του ελληνικου λαου ψηφιστηκαν και παλι στις προσφατες εκλογες…

…μοναδικο ενδιαφερον στοιχειο ο η αποχη του 70%, αλλα κανεις δεν μιλαει για την αποχη…

…το μιμητικο μεταπρατικο κρατος που δημιουργηθηκε μετα το 1821 ειναι εκ γενετης και κατασκευης αντιπαλο του πολιτη και δεν ανταποκρινεται στις αναγκες των πολιτων…

…χασαμε τον μπουσουλα με την ψευτικη δυτικοτροπη ιδεολογια οτι για να ξαναγινουμε ελληνες πρεπει να στραφουμε στη Δυση…

…το κρατος ειναι υποταγμενο σε συμμοριες πολιτικων…

…οι πολιτικοι εκμαυλισαν το λαο με παροχες και εξαγορες ψηφων…

….το πολιτικο συστημα εχει καταρρευσει σημερα…

…με το συνταγμα του 1985 στην ελλαδα εχομε πρωθυπουργοκεντρικη μοναρχια, και κομματοκρατια, δεν εχομε πλεον δημοκρατια, το συνταγμα ειναι ιδιοκτησια των δυο μεγαλων κομματων…

…ανθρωπος χωρις γλωσσα ειναι ανθρωπος χωρις σκεψη…

…χουλιγκανς και κομματα εχουν χασει την ικανοτητα της σκεψης…

…δεν ξερουμε τι σημαινει το να εισαι ελληνας…

… η ελληνικοτητα σημερα εξαντλειται σε τυπικοτητες…

….ο ελληνισμος δεν παραγει πλεον πολιτισμο, ετεροτητα, δεν εχει δικο του προσωπο, απλα μιμειται …

…εχομε χασει την αθρωπια μας, ειμαστε κοινωνια της ζουγκλας και της χρησιμοθηριας…

…χρειαζεται να πραγματοποιησουμε αλμα απο την κοινωνια της χρειας στην κοινωνια του αληθους…

…πρεπει να ξεφυγουμε απο την εγωκεντρικη κτηνωδια…

… το να εισαι δημοκρατικος, δεν κρινεται απο το τι ψηφιζεις, αλλα απο την κριτικη σου ικανοτητα να επιλεγεις το μη χειρον…

… παρουσιαζεται αμβλυνση του ελληνικου φρονηματος – ποιος θα παει σημερα να θυσιαστει για το κρατος των συμμοριων;

…πατριδα θα επι να σε δενουνε καποια πραγματα με τον τοπο σου, χωρις τα οποια δεν εχει νοημα η ζωη…

…η αναγεννηση απο τη σταχτη θα ειναι εφικτη μονο αν σωσουμε μια μαγια  ηθους και τροπου συνυπαρξης … για να αναβιωσει η κοινωνια των σχεσεων…

… ηπολιτικη εχει νοημα μονο στο πλαισιο της κοινωνιας σχεσεων…

…η πραγματικη αριστερα που φαινεται να εχει εκλειψει θετει την κοινωνια στην πρωτη γραμμη…

….εδω η λεγομενη αριστερα εχει εκχωρησει τα παντα στα συνδικατα….

…η “εκπληξη” της γενιας του 30 μπορει να μας δωσει αισιοδοξια για το εφικτο της αναγεννησης απο τη σταχτη…

6th – 7th September 1955, Istanbul: Pogrom against the Greeks

This is a black anniversary.

But we must not forget.

The trigger for the horrific events was the explosion of a bomb during the night of the 5th September in the building where Kemal Ataturk was born in Thessaloniki.

The next day, 6th September, the newspapers in Istanbul were full of of the story. And the crowds started gathering. By the evening the whole thing got out of control. the human river flooded the Pera area, coming from Taxim square, and started looting, burning, destroying, killing.

The scale of the attack on everything Greek (and by deflection Armenian, or Jewish) was such that the large Greek community of Istanbul will diminish after the events.

This was not  the work of only a bunch of thugs, although the thugs were the main element. Ordinary people were transformed into looters, murderers and thugs. Only to return later to their homes as if nothing had happened.

Everything was thoroughly organized in advance. The bomb explosion in Thessaloniki was arranged by an agent of the Turkish secret services, who later became the Governor of Kesaria.

The police and the army stayed discretely on the side until it was too late, and the destruction was immense.

People were beaten up, and some of them murdered. The property of the all the victims of this horror disappeared before the sun rose in the morning of the 7th September. The Turkish writer Aziz Nesin wrote:

“A man who was fearful of being beaten, lynched or cut into pieces would imply and try to prove that he was both a Turk and a Muslim. “Pull it out and let us see,” they would reply. The poor man would peel off his trousers and show his “Muslimness” and “Turkishness”: And what was the proof? That he had been circumcised. If the man was circumcised, he was saved. If not, he was doomed. Indeed, having lied, he could not be saved from a beating. For one of those aggressive young men would draw his knife and circumcise him in the middle of the street and amid the chaos. A difference of two or three centimetres does not justify such a commotion. That night, many men shouting and screaming were Islamized forcefully by the cruel knife. Among those circumcised there was also a priest.” (Source: Wikipedia)

The morning saw the army units taking their positions, but it was too late.

Petros Markaris, a Greek writer, who was 18 at the time, spoke about the events at Heybeliada Island, where he was on holiday.

“The commander of the Marine School on Heybeliada convinced the police chief not to let demonstrators set foot on the island. The police chief pulled his gun and halted the demonstrators when they arrived. I faced total devastation the following day when I went to the Beyoğlu, Fener and Kurtuluş [neighborhoods of Istanbul]. Wherever Greeks lived, that neighborhood’s school and church had been destroyed. It was impossible to walk in Beyoğlu because of the broken glass from shop windows and the rolls of fabric that had been thrown onto the street,” he said. (Source: Ta Nea)

Pera, the jewel of cosmopolitan culture and commerce, would never be the same.

The political background to the events is really unsettling. The Democratic Party DP, who was in power at the time, with Menderes as the Prime Minister, was the main organizer of the pogrom with the full contribution of the State Machinery. The 1961 Yassıada Trial against Menderes and Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu exposed the proximate planning of the pogrom. Menderes and Zorlu mobilized the formidable machinery of the ruling Demokrat Parti (DP) and party-controlled trade unions of Istanbul. Interior minister Namık Gedik was also involved. According to Zorlu’s lawyer at the Yassiada trial, a mob of 300,000 was marshaled in from a radius of 40 miles (60 km) around the city for the pogrom.

Kemal Atatuk (right) and Ismet Inonu

The ruling of the Democratic Party DP was the first in a dark period of single party rule by he Republican People’s Party, or CHP, which were Ataturk’s party. Menderes was first elected in 1950 with 52 percent of the vote, replacing Ismet Inonu and CHP. He was a politician who wanted to break the viscious circle of a single – party rule,and ruled the country for 10 years, 1950-1960. In 1959 he was the TIME magazin’s man of the year. 

Menderes was arrested in 1960 fter the military took over from the political parties, was summarily tried and condemned to death in the parody of the Yassiada tria. He was  executed by hanging shortly after the trial. In 1990 he was reinstated and received all due honors.

It is ironic that the man who tried to tame Kemalism in the 50′s by applying the same ethnic cleansing policies as his arch enemies, fell prey to the bitter conflict between Kemalists and reformers, and had to pay with his life for his “heresy”.

Adnan Menderes

I do not want to engage in a lengthy analysis of motives and what ifs. The heart of the matter remains that the pogrom was planned and executed by the “alternative” to the single party rule, who wanted to prove that they were more “patriotic” than the CHP in implementing the dogma of ethnic cleansing in Turkey, and fully adopting the ideology of a homogeneous and “clean” Turkish Nation.

In Turkey today “Kemalism” and its dogmas seem to be under attack by Prime Minister Erdogan and his party, while the balance of power between the political parties and the military is on the side of the parties, at least under Erdogan.

Anselm Kiefer salutes Martin Heidegger

For a long time I wanted to publish a sequence of posts for one of my favourite modern artists, Anselm Kiefer. Kiefer was born in Germany after the second world war and studied with Joseph Beuys.

His work is a journey inside German history and culture, a painful and horrific journey at times, establishing dialogues with figures that inhabit the realm of Culture and Tradition, depicting objects and tracing trajectories in space.

Through his multi-layered compositions, Kiefer exposes the tragic elements of life and existence, in all shapes and proportions.

I considered it appropriate to start the journey of experiencing some of his works with two works on paper that he “dedicates” to the Holy Monster of Modern German Philosophy, Martin Heideger.

Essence
“Essenz”
1975. Watercolor, acrylic, and ballpoint pen on paper
11 3/4 x 15 1/2 in. (29.8 x 39.4 cm)
Inscribed lower center in watercolor: ESSENZ
Inscribed on nine areas of white acrylic in ballpoint pen: Ek-sistenz [ex-sistence]
Inscribed lower left in watercolor: für Julia [for Julia]
Purchase, The Barnett Newman Foundation Gift, 1995
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Essence/Ex-sistence
“Essenz /Ek-sistenz”
1975. Watercolor and gouache on paper
Inscribed upper right in gouache: Ek-sistenz
Inscribed lower center in watercolor: Essenz
Inscribed lower left in watercolor: für Julia [for Julia]
11 3/4 x 15 5/8 in. (29.8 x 39.7 cm)
Purchase, The Barnett Newman Foundation Gift, 1995

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

In Essence, the German word “Ex-sistenz” appears on each of several mountains rendered in plan view in thick white acrylic, and the word “ESSENZ” is rendered in black, the letters moving across the surface and weaving in and out of the mountains. Here, as in the accompanying work, Essence/Ex-sistence, Kiefer has used both graphic means and language to symbolize the German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s ideas. Essence, it is suggested, occupies no particular material place, while existence has palpable physical presence.

The Greek Problem: aphorisms – Αφορισμοι για το Ελληνικο Προβλημα

   

αυτο το αρθρο αφορα την παρουσα κριση που ταλανιζει την Ελλαδα  

προεκυψε οταν εγραψα ενα σχολιο σε ενα αλλο αρθρο, και συνειδητοποιησα οταν εχω καποια πραγματα να πω εστω και ατακτως εριμμενα  

  

η κριση εχει κυριως οικονομικο και πολιτικο χαρακτηρα και διασταση  

δεν θα συμφωνησω με την “εθνικη” διασταση (βλεπε σημειωση 1) που επιχειρειται να αποδοθει στο θεμα  

το “εθνος” δεν εμπλεκεται ως πρωταγωνιστης, αλλα ως απροσωπος παραληπτης σε μια γενικευση που βολευει τους υπαιτιους   

  

τα “εθνικα” τα λογια τα μεγαλα λεγονται στους πολιτες απο “επιτηδειους”, για να ζαχαρωσουνε το χαπι που θα καταπιουν  

οι επιτηδειοι αυτοι εχουν διαφορες γεωγραφικες θεσεις, εντος και εκτος ελλαδος (βλεπε σχετικα το αρθρο του δημητρη δανικα, για ενα τυπο επιτηδειων)  

  

 η χρηση και επικληση της Ελλαδος ως κοιτιδας πολιτισμου ειναι εξ ισου αστοχη και απρεπης, 

 

οσο και εκεινη που αφορα το “εθνος”  

τα γαργαλιστικα η προκλητικα δημοσιευματα διαφορων φυλλαδων της ευρωπης βεβαιως και χρησιμοποιουν οτιδηποτε θα κανει το θεμα πιο “καυτο” για τον αναγνωστη που θελει να βλεπει και δυο ολοστρογγυλα στηθια στην τριτη σελιδα  

  

η οικονομικη κριση της ελλαδος εξισωνεται ετσι με τα ημισφαιρια της ηδονης των κιτρινων φυλλων 

και μεσα στην παραζαλη της ηδονης των ημισφαιριων, ολοι οι ελληνες γινονται συλληβδην κλεφτες, ολοι οι γερμανοι ναζι, και δεν εχει τελος αυτο το κουβαρι

 

ανακεφαλαιωνω: το θεμα ειναι οικονομικο και πολιτικο, αλλα κατα βαση οικονομικο  

(καρλ μαρξ 1 – λοιποι 0)  

  

τα χρεη προεκυψαν απο την ιδιοτυπη χρηση οικονομικων πορων και για αυτο δεν φταινε ουτε οι γερμανοι ουτε οι ξενοι, ουτε οι ελληνες, φταινε συγκεκριμενοι οικονομικοι και πολιτικοι παραγοντες που δεν προσδιοριζονται ουτε εθνικα ουτε πολιτιστικα,  

αλλα εχουν σχεση με το ελληνικο Κρατος  

 τα τεραστια ελλειματα δημιουργηθηκαν απο την ασυστολη κατασπαταληση οικονομικων πορων απο οικονομικο-πολιτικες δυναμεις που ειχαν και εχουν τον ελεγχο του κρατικου μηχανισμου 

στο ΕΠΙΚΕΝΤΡΟ του φαινομενου βρισκεται το φαυλωτατο και σεσηπον ελληνικον ΚΡΑΤΟΣ και οι ηγεμονες του

 

 το ποιος θα πληρωσει την ζημια (που ειναι ταυτοχρονα τεραστιο κερδος για καποιους) πολυ λιγο ενδιαφερει σημερα τις δυναμεις που κινουν την αγορα το μονο που τις ενδιαφερει ειναι πως θα βγαλουν – αν μπορουν – ενα ζουμερο κερδος και απο αυτην την φαση του φαινομενου 

 σημειωνω οτι ουτε εκεινοι που δημιουργησαν το προβλημα ενδιαφερονται για την επιλυση του, παρα μονο για την επιπροσθετη αξιοποιηση των περιστασεων για επιπροσθετα κερδη και αποδοσεις   

  

  

 

 το επικαιρο κοινωνικο θεμα ειναι οτι στη διαδικασια της κατασπαταλισης των οικονομικων πορων του ελληνικου κρατους, οι ηγεμονες συσπειρωσαν και ολοκληρες στρατιες απο μικρομεσαια στρωματα στα οποια εριχναν ψιχουλα απο τα λαφυρα 

 

και αυτοι οι ενθουσιωδεις και θορυβωδεις μικρομεσαιοι ακολουθουσαν, φτιαχνοντας πισινες, αγοραζοντας το καγιεν και τη μερσεντε, πνιγοντας τους καημους τους μεσα στα μπουζουκολουλουδα και την σκυλοκαψουρα  

ειναι καθαρη ειρωνεια οτι οι περισσοτεροι απο αυτους τους ευκαιριακους οπαδους της καθε ατασθαλιας και λεηλασιας πλουτου βρισκονται στον πρωτη γραμμη των “κοινωνικων” αγωνων εναντια στα “μετρα”  

ελεος, ακομη και οι πετρες εχουν κοκκινησει απο ντροπη!

 

   

Σημειωση 1. Περι του εθνους, αξιζει κανεις να διαβασει το αρθρο του Αγγελου Ελεφαντη που ηξερε να γραφει καθαρα και καταληπτα.

The “Real” Greece – Part II: Philosophy and Poetry in Hoelderlin’s Hyperion

“But then she [Gaia] did couple with Ouranos
to bear deep-eddying Okeanos,
Koios and Kreios, Hyperion and Iapetos,
Theia and Rheia, Themis and Mnemosyne,
as well as gold-wreathed Phoebe and lovely Tethys.”
(Hesiod, Theogony, 132-136)

“Hölderlin is one of our greatest, that is, most impending thinkers,” wrote Heidegger, “because he is our greatest poet. The poetic understanding of his poetry is possible only as a philosophical confrontation with the manifestation of being in his work.”

Today I continue with my quest to discover and present the “real” Greece. I strive to unearth the riches of Greece and Hellenism and based on this to determine what constitutes Greece and the Hellenism! It is a circle pointing to itself, and in order for it not to become a vicious circle, I have to break into it!

(η αποπειρα μου ειναι περισσοτερο να αναδειξω τον πλουτο που ενυπαρχει στην ελλαδα, στον ελληνισμο, και με βαση αυτην την αποπειρα να προσδιορισω και το τι ειναι η ελλαδα και ο ελληνισμος! ειναι μια κυκλοειδης διαδικασια, ειναι μια διαδικασια που για να μη γινει “φαυλος κυκλος” θα πρεπει να εισχωρησουμε στον κυκλο!)

I have chosen Hoelderlin’s Hyperion, as it is the perfect ground where poetry and philosophy cross each other, and because it opens the door to some very interesting considerations regarding the path of life. This topic in my view exemplifies what are some of the elements that constitute the “real” Greece. By necessity, I have used long quotes to get the basics of the story across, and then to convey some thinkers’ views and interpretations.  The reader who endures the difficult read will be rewarded.

“The novel Hyperion presents different practical approaches to dealing with the bi-polarity of the “eccentric path.” This novel is a collection of letters, mostly written by the novel’s modern Greek hero, Hyperion, to his German friend, Bellarmin, in which he recounts his adventures, states of mind, and longings. The original unity which Hyperion was, from the outset, keen to recapture, is understood in different ways by Hyperion at different stages of his life. Ultimately, he will realize that none of these is satisfactory, but that they represented ways of approaching that which is the underlying unity, i.e. Being, throughout the course of his life.

These different representations of unity are of ancient Greece (also reflected in childhood), of modern Greece liberated from Turkish rule, and of aesthetic beauty. This trilogy is not random but corresponds to different temporal understandings of the idea of the fundamental unity of Being. It is first grasped as belonging to the past (Childhood/Ancient Greece), then the future (liberated Greece), and finally the present (immediacy of aesthetic beauty). Each way of life is exemplified by a character with whom Hyperion is connected, respectively through a master-pupil relationship (Adamas), friendship (Alabanda) and love (Diotima).

Symposium, Tomb of the Diver, Paestum

In each case, Hyperion attempts to fully adopt the corresponding way of being only to find its limitations and be confronted with the need to move on. Thus, with Adamas, Hyperion feels compelled to leave his master and seek another way of life because of man’s lack of contentment and constant desire to go beyond his current condition: “We delight in flinging ourselves into the night of the unknown, into the cold strangeness of any other world, and, if we could, we would leave the realm of the sun and rush headlong beyond the comet’s track” (Hölderlin, 1990, p. 10) [“Wir haben unsre Lust daran, uns in die Nacht des Unbekannten, in die kalte Fremde irgend einer andern Welt zu stürzen, und wär’ es möglich, wir verlieβen der Sonne Gebiet und stürmten über des Irrsterns Grenzen hinaus” (Hölderlin, 1999, p.492)]. After leaving home and learning about the world, his encounter with Alabanda is that of a soul-mate who has fought his way to freedom. Together, they plan noble and heroic deeds, but Hyperion’s world crumbles when he realizes the dark side of such purported moral ambition. Alabanda’s friends are ruthless revolutionaries who seek to overthrow the present powers by violent means: “The cold sword is forged from hot metal” (ibid., p.26) [“Aus heiβem Metalle wird das kalte Schwert geschmieden” (ibid., p. 510)]. Through this experience, Hyperion grasps something of the conflictual nature of human life: “If the life of the world consists in an alteration between opening and closing, between going forth and returning, why is it not even so with the heart of man” (ibid., p.29) [“Bestehet ja das Leben der Welt im Wechsel des Entfaltens und Vershlieβens, in Ausflug und in Rückkehr zu sich selbst, warum nicht auch das Herz des Menschen” (ibid., p.514)]? However, it is by encountering beauty in the person and life of Diotima (Book II of Volume I) that Hyperion believes he has found what he is looking for, i.e. the Unity he is after: “I have seen it once, the one thing that my soul sought, and the perfection that we put somewhere far away above the stars, that we put off until the end of time – I have felt it in its living presence” (ibid., p.41) [“Ich habe es Einmal gesehen, das Einzige, das meine Seele suchte, und die Vollendung die wir über die Sterne hinauf entfernen, die wir hinausscheben bis ans Ende der Zeit, die hab’ ich gegenwärtig gefühlt” (ibid., p.529)]. A period of bliss ensues, but Diotima understands that Hyperion is “born for higher things” (ibid., p.72) [“zu höhern Dingen geboren” (ibid., p.566)], that the simple harmony of her life is not for him. He must go out and bring beauty to those places where it is lacking. Having grasped this (Book I of Volume II), Hyperion answers Alabanda’s call to join him in battle to free Greece.

Hyperion’s departure for battle is followed by several letters addressed to Diotima and a couple of her replies. After initial success in the fight against the Turks, Hyperion’s men are delayed by the long siege of Mistra. Nonetheless, as they finally enter the town, they go on a]rampage, pillaging and killing indiscriminately. Rather than face the enemy, Hyperion’s army disperses once its lust for plunder is satisfied. This leads to the death of forty Russian soldiers who stood alone fighting the common foe. Hyperion takes his army’s dishonour to make him unworthy, in his eyes, for Diotima’s love: “I must advise you to give me up, my Diotima” (ibid., p.98) [“ich muβ dir raten, daβ du mich verlässest, meine Diotima” (ibid., p.597)]. In letters to Bellarmin, we discover more details of the battles fought by Hyperion and Alabanda. Their friendship flourished again, but Alabanda’s lust for battle eventually came to an end, thus pointing once more to the limits of his way of life.

In a letter from Diotima that arrives later, it emerges that she lost her will to live as her lover did not return, and she finally let herself die. In a development which reflects Hölderlin’s understanding of human life, the effortless harmony of Diotima’s world of beauty, once disturbed by the fire of Hyperion’s free aspiration to noble deeds, could not simply return to its original form. Rather, it became something to aim for, something Diotima thought Hyperion could achieve for her: “You drew my life away from the Earth, but you would also have had power to bind me to the Earth” (ibid., p.122) [“Du entzogst main Leben der Erde, du hättest auch Macht gehabt, mich an die Erde zu fesseln” (ibid., p.626)]. It is, thus, through its very destruction, that Diotima’s way of life ceases to represent that which Hyperion could have sought to take refuge in. Diotima’s words illustrate the whole problem of life as an “eccentric path,” but her death, apparently, only leaves Hyperion confused: “as I am now, I have no names for things and all before me is uncertainty” (ibid., p.126) [“wie ich jetzt bin, hab ich keinen Namen für die Dinge, und es ist mir alles ungewiβ” (ibid., p.632)]. At the end of the novel, however, the beauty of Nature once again fills Hyperion with joy, and this poetic sense of oneness reaches beyond separation and death to Alabanda and Diotima. Somehow, he has made some sense of his experiences. Thus, after all these tragedies, an overall feeling of unity prevails: “You springs of earth! you flowers! and you woods and you eagles and you brotherly light! how old and new is our love!- We are free, we are not narrowly alike in outward semblance; how should the Mode of life not vary? yet we love the ether, all of us, and in the inmost of our inmost selves we are alike” (ibid., p.133) [“Ihr Quellen der Erd! Ihr Blumen! Und ihr Wälder und ihr Adler und du brüderliches Licht! Wie alt und neu ist unsere Liebe! – Frei sind wir, gleichen uns nicht ängstig von auβen; wie sollte nicht wechseln die Weise des Lebens? Wir lieben den Äther doch all und innigst im Innersten gleichen wir uns” (ibid., p.639-640)]. However, the last words of the novel suggest an open ending: “So I thought. More soon” (ibid., p.133) [“So dacht’ ich. Nächstens mehr” (ibid., p.640)]. Thus, after all the ordeals that he has worked through in these letters, Hyperion’s life goes on. This seems to point to new experiences and the possibility of revisiting his interpretation of his life thus far.”

(Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“…..The main work of this period is the novel
Hyperion oder Der Eremit in Griechenland (2
volumes, 1797-1799; translated as Hyperion; or, The
Hermit in Greece, 1965). Hölderlin had begun the
novel during his student days in Tübingen and
had revised it continually during his stays in
Waltershausen and Jena. In 1794 a preliminary
version was published under the title “Fragment
von Hyperion” (Fragment of Hyperion) in Friedrich
Schiller’s literary journal Neue Thalia. This version
of the novel is cast in the form of letters from
Hyperion, a young late-eighteenth-century Greek,
to his German friend Bellarmin. The letters depict
his constant struggle to attain the moment of
transcendent experience in which all conflict is
resolved and temporality is suspended: “Was mir
nicht Alles, und ewig Alles ist, ist mir Nichts”
(What for me is not All, and eternally All, is
nothing). In nature, in love, in a visit to Homeric
sites, Hyperion experiences momentary
intimations of his ideal, which constantly eludes
him, so that his aspirations remain unfulfilled.
The image of the “exzentrische Bahn” (eccentric
path), which constantly diverges from the center
of Being that it always seeks but can never
permanently attain, becomes a symbol of the
course of human existence.

Fichte

In Jena Hölderlin had revised this version, partly
in order to take account of his attempt to come to
terms with the philosophy of Fichte. In a metrical
version and a fragment entitled “Hyperions
Jugend” (Hyperion’s Youth), he abandoned the
epistolary format in favor of a retrospective
technique in which the older Hyperion looks back
on his youth. The narrator, relating his story to a
young visitor, acknowledges that the process of
reflection has made him “tyrannisch gegen die
Natur” (tyrannical toward nature), in that he has
reduced nature to the material of selfconsciousness.
This theme echoes Hölderlin’s
criticism of Fichte’s philosophy and its
preoccupation with the autonomy of the “absolute
ego.” Hölderlin’s new orientation finds expression
in the Platonic view of love as the longing of the
imperfect for the ideal, and in a new conception of
beauty, which emerges as the only form in which
the unity of Being, unattainable precisely because
it is the object of striving, is incarnated: “jenes
Sein, im einzigen Sinne des Worts … ist
vorhanden–als Schönheit” (Being, in the unique
sense of the word … is present-as Beauty). With
this subordination of self-consciousness to the
realization of beauty, Hölderlin establishes the
conceptual framework that he follows in
completing the novel.
The final version of the novel, the greater part of
which was completed during the period he was in
Frankfurt am Main, shows Hölderlin’s increasing
stylistic and formal mastery. He returns to the
epistolary form of the first version, but now
endows it with a particularly sophisticated
structure. Hyperion presents a retrospective view
of his life, beginning at the stage at which, after
having lost his beloved and his friends, he returns
bitterly disappointed to his native land, intending
to take up the life of a hermit. The main focus is
not the sequence of events but the act of narration
itself. The seemingly disconnected fragments of
his experience are integrated through the process
of reflective recapitulation and gradually assume
a dialectical structure in which union and
separation, joy and suffering come to be seen as
inseparable parts of a complex unity.

Heraclitus

….

The principle of “das Eine in sich
unterschiedne” (the one that is differentiated
within itself), which Hölderlin adapted from a
formulation of Heraclitus, defines at once the
essence of the Athenian and the nature of beauty–as opposed to the one-sidedness and
fragmentation characteristic of the Egyptians and
the Spartans, and, in Hölderlin’s view, also of
modern times.”

Source: Hoelderlin, Duke University

Gothe

“Like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Schiller, his older contemporaries, Hölderlin was a fervent admirer of ancient Greek culture, but had a very personal understanding of it. Much later, Friedrich Nietzsche and his followers would recognize in him the poet who first acknowledged the orphic and dionysiac Greece of the mysteries, which he would fuse with the Pietism of his native Swabia in a highly original religious experience. For Hölderlin, the Greek gods were not the plaster figures of conventional classicism, but living, actual presences, wonderfully life-giving and, at the same time, terrifying. He understood and sympathized with the Greek idea of the tragic fall, which he expressed movingly in the last stanza of his Hyperions Schicksalslied “Hyperion’s Song of Destiny”. (Source:  icompositions).

Hyperion’s Song of Destiny
by Fr. Hölderlin

Holy spirits, you walk up there
in the light, on soft earth.
Shining god-like breezes
touch upon you gently,
as a woman’s fingers
play music on holy strings.

Like sleeping infants the gods
breathe without any plan;
the spirit flourishes continually
in them, chastely kept,
as in a small bud,
and their holy eyes
look out in still
eternal clearness.

A place to rest
isn’t given to us.
Suffering humans
decline and blindly fall
from one hour to the next,
like water thrown
from cliff to cliff,
year after year,
down into the Unknown

We have no footing anywhere,
No rest, we topple,
Fall and suffer
Blindly from hour
To hour

like water
Pitched from fall
To fall, year in,
Year out, headlong,
Downward for years to the vague abyss

“Philosophy then, is not born out of the nostalgia for an absent unity, nor out of the exile from the All, but out of an accord with that which is in the difference of its multiplicity. For what is thus achieved is a concept of beauty different from that of Platonism and from that of the classicism of Goethe and Winckelmann: no longer the becoming-visible of the idea, but the harmony of opposites, no longer the static concept of an atemporal beauty, but the dynamic one of a living beauty that Plato himself, citing Heraclitus, has not perhaps ignored, as Hoelderlin implies in the preface to Hyperion, when he exclaims, after having alluded to the already realised presence of being as beauty:

Plato

I think that in the end we will all cry out: saint Plato, forgive us! We have gravely sinned against you!
For it is on the basis of such a sensible presence of beauty and of the effective presence of the union of the infinite with the finite that Greece is defined in Hyperion as the homeland of philosophy, in opposition to Egypt and the North:
Do you see now why the Athenians in particular could not but be a philosophical people too? Not so the Egyptian. He who does not live loving Heaven and earth and loved by them in equal measure, he who does not live at one in this sense with the element in which he has his being, is by his very nature not so as one with himself as a Greek, at least he does not expewrience eternal Beauty as easily as a Greek does.
It is, in fact, only Greece that is capable of this harmony with the sensible and with exteriority which procures it the harmony with the intelligible and interiority: neither the Oriental (the Egyptian), subject to an exteriority which appears like a “terrible enigma”, nor the Nordic (the German), enclosed in an interiority without an outside, are capable of such a harmony and can be open to a beauty at the same time “human and divine”. Must Greece, then, be resurrected?” (Source: Francoise Dastur: Hoelderlin and the Orientalisation of Greece)

“Oh! were there a banner … a Thermopylae upon which I could spill my blood with honour, all that solitary love for which I can have no use.”

“Hölderlin’s glory is that he is the poet of Hellenism. Everyone who reads his work senses that his Hellenism is different, more sombre, more tortured by suffering than the radiant Utopia of antiquity envisaged during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But his vision of Hellas has nothing in common either with the tedious, trivial, academic classicism of the nineteenth century or with the hysterical bestiality with which Nietzsche and the imperialist period envisaged Greece. The key to Hölderlin’s view lies then in the understanding of the specifics of this conception of Hellenism.”

Georg Lukacs, Goethe and His Age, 1934