1 Amilitou, E., Έισαγωγή’, in Γρηγόριος Ξενόπουλος, Νικόλας Σιγαλός: Αθηναϊκή μοθιστορί«, ed. Amilitou, E. (Athens 2002) 11–93 Google Scholar, 13-18. For a more comprehensive account of the author’s student days in the course of which he took his first steps on the Athenian literary scene, I refer to Xenopoulos’s autobiography H ζωή μοο σαν μοθιστόρημιχ: αυτοβιογραφία , in Απαντα, , I (Athens 1958) 57–363 Google Scholar, 151-241, Trichia-Zoura, M., H αοτοβιογραφία του Γρηγόριοο Ξενόποολοο (φιλολογική μελετη) (Athens 2003) 66–175 Google Scholar, and Farinou-Malamatari, G., ‘Γρηγόριος Ξενόπουλος’, in Vagenas, N., Dallas, G. and Stergiopoulos, K. (ed.), H παλαιόιερη πεζογραφία μας: από τις αρχες ως τον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πóL•μo 9 (Athens 1997) 288–325 Google Scholar.

2 An exemplary case in point is the literary critique by his friend and fellow naturalist writer Michail Mitsakis, who contends, with a slight rhetorical overstatement, that Xenopoulos presents himself in Nikolas Sigalos as an epigone of Zola who is unable to assimilate all the subtleties of the latter’s poetics. Cf.Mitsakis, M., ‘Ev Αθηναϊκόν μυθιστόρημα (Гр. Ξενοπουλου: “Νικόλας Σιγαλός”)’, in Mitsakis, M., To έργο ZOO, ed. Peranthis, M. (Athens 1956) 332-47Google Scholar, 337-8. For a more elaborated discussion of this polemic between Mitsakis and Xenopoulos, I refer to Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 20-4, and Patsiou, V., ‘Νικόλαος Σιγαλός: μια “αληθινή” ιστορία’, Περίκλους 30-1 (1991) 142-4Google Scholar.

3 References to Nikolas Sigalos can be found in Politis, L., A History of Modern Greek Literature (Oxford 1973) 176 Google Scholar (obliquely!); Beaton, R., An Introduction to Modern Greek literature (Oxford 1999 [1994]) 99 Google Scholar; G. Farinou-Malamatari, ‘Γρηγόριος Ξενόπουλος’, 305-6; Ziras, A., Ή συμβιβαστική πρόσληψη του νατουραλισμού. To παράδειγμα της Μαργαρίτας Στέφας του Γρηγόριου Ξενόπουλου’, in Φάις, M. (ed.), H γραφή кои о καθρέφτης: λογοτεχνία кои κριτική (Athens 2002) 111-35Google Scholar; Politis, A., Άναζητώντας ορισμένους σταθμούς στην εξέλιξη της πεζογραφίας του 19ου αιώνα’, Νεα Εστίοι 1777 (2005) 566 Google Scholar. By contrast, Xenopoulos’ urban novel is strikingly absent from a number of authoritative histories of Greek literature such as Dimaras, K.Th., Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας: сто τις πρώτες ρίζες ως την εποχή μας (Athens 2000 [1949])Google Scholar, and Vitti, M., Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχ\ί(*ς (Athens 1991 [1978])Google Scholar, even in the latest, completely rewritten edition (Athens 2003). In this respect, it is worth noting that Sigalos, Nikolas — along with the rest of Xenopoulos’ so-called juvenilia — has not even been included in the Άπαχτα. (Athens 1958-72)Google Scholar.

4 Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 11-93.

5 I would like to emphasize that it is important to read my words in their most literal sense: for it is my claim that Nikolas Sigalos is the first novel (not short story) in the history of Greek naturalism (not realism). For a concise survey of recent insights into the development of realism in nineteenth-century Greek literary history before 1880, as well as for a theoretical explanation of the generally acknowledged late development of Modern Greek naturalism, see Borghart, P., ‘The late appearance of Modern Greek naturalism’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 23.2 (2005) 313-34Google Scholar. In addition, I have argued in my doctoral dissertation that a small number of ethographic short stories prior to 1890 by Papadiamandis (‘H σταχομαζώχτρα’, 1889) and Mitsakis (Όιωνός’, 1887; ‘Ev τω ξενοδοχείω’, 1889; ‘To πανόραμα’, 1889) display sufficient naturalist characteristics to entitle it to be included in this European literary movement, albeit in an idiosyncratic Greek way. See P. Borghart, Ti είνοιι αοτός о Ζώλας; Het Griekse naturalisme vanuit Europees perspectief (1879-1911), which has only been published electronically and is not written in English (www.lib.ugent.be/execl/fulltxt/thesis/801001589140.pdf).

6 Beaton, R., ‘Realism and folklore in nineteenth-century Greek fiction’, BMGS 8 (1982/83) 103-22Google Scholar; Puchner, W., ‘To Φιντανάκι και η κληρονομιά της ηθογραφίίχς’, Νεα. Εστία 1348 (1983) 1068-76Google Scholar; Vitti, M., Ιδεολογική λειτοοργία της ηθογραφίας (Athens 1991 [1974])Google Scholar; Voutouris, P., Ως εις καθρεπτην...: προτάσεις και υποθεσεις για την ελλψική πεζογραφία τοο 19οο αιώνα (Athens 1995)Google Scholar; Saltapidas, Ch., ‘О Κωνσταντίνος Θεοτόκης και о νατουραλισμός’, Πόρφυρας 80 (1997) 353-62Google Scholar; Arnoux-Farnoux, Lucile, ‘Ambiguïtés et singularités du naturalisme grec’, Les Cahiers naturalistes 77 (2003) 189–204 Google Scholar; Oktapoda-Lu, Efstratia, ‘Le Naturalisme en Grèce: Etude du mouvement, réceptions et traductions’, Les Cahiers naturalistes 77 (2003) 205-18Google Scholar; Oktapoda-Lu, Efstratia, ‘Le Naturalisme Néo-Hellénique: influences et rapports avec le naturalisme français. Esquisses d’un mouvement littéraire’, Neohelicon XXXI (2004) 207-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Even though the theoretical writings by Zola mentioned were all published within a short period of time — both ‘Le Roman expérimental’ and ‘Le Naturalisme au théâtre’ saw their first publication in 1879, while ‘Du roman’ is a collection of essays which separately appeared in the Parisian press between 1878 and 1880 — there is a striking difference between the radical scientifically based approach to literature in the former manifesto (naturalism as a scientific experiment) and the poetic guidelines formulated in his latter, more moderate theoretical writings (naturalism as a medium for obtaining sociological knowledge). Cf.Zola, E., Oeuvres complètes, ed. Mitterand, H., X (Paris 1968), 1175-203Google Scholar, 1231-58 and 1285-332 respectively. For a more elaborate argument for founding the definition of naturalism as a European phenomenon on Zola’s moderate essays, whereby influences from ‘Le Roman expérimental’ are regarded as complementary thematic elements that indicate a direct influence from his radical scientific definition rather than as a sine qua non, see Borghart, P., ‘(Greek) Naturalism in European perspective: a comparative approach’, Excavatio XIX.1-2 (2004) 319-33Google Scholar, and ‘Sailing under false colors: Literary naturalism revised’, Symposium LIX. 4 (2006) (in press).

8 Farinou-Malamatari, G., ‘Oi πρόλογοι των πεζών έργων του Γρ. Ξενόπουλου’, Φιλόλογος 60 (1990) 95–118 Google Scholar, and 61 (1990) 190-200, and Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’.

9 On the basis of a thorough analysis of Xenopoulos’s critical texts, both Amilitou (Έισαγωγή’, 27-46) and Farinou-Malamatari, (Γρηγόριος Ξενόπουλος: επιλογή κριτικών κειμένων (Athens 2002) 11–79 Google Scholar) have estab lished a similar intellectual turn with regard to the author’s conceptualization of literature. For both scholars have convincingly shown that Xenopoulos gradually reduced the absolute distinction that he previously made between the ‘philological novel’ with its ‘scientific’ aspirations and the ‘popular novel’ aiming at merely ‘recreational’ purposes, to a continuum between two radically different ends. A good author, he argued, possesses the capacity to enthral both types of readers through novels that can be read on different interpretative levels. The germs of this remarkable evolution can already be found in the epilogue of his third novel, Maópa μάτια (1891), which was never published as a book: Έν τούτοις τα όρια των δυο ουτωσί διαφόρων ειδών είνε πολλάκις συγκεχυμενα, ωστε να επερχεται μεταξύ των ποιά τις συμφιλίωσις. Αν κανείς των οπωσδήποτε ανεπτυγμένων αποφασίση ποτέ να διεξέλθη μυθιστορίαν δημώδη, δεν είνε δυσκολον ν’ απομείνη μετ’ εκπλήξεως και ενώπιον σελίδων αληθώς καλλιτεχνικών όπως δεν είνε πάλιν απίθανον να ίδη τις πολλούς των απλουσΐέρων παρα,συρομένους ενς την ανάγνωσιν έργου φιλολο/γνκού καν τρυφώντας μάλιστα εν αυτή εξ υποθέσεως γοργής, απροσδοκήτου, φυσικώς πεπλεγμένης και κατά τύχην κινούσηι: το ενδιαφέρον του’ (‘Μαυρα μάτια: о επίλογος’, То Αστυ, 27 June 1891). Whereas Amilitou considers the epilogue of Μαύρα μάτια as an ultimate sign of disapproval towards the ruling climate in the domain of prose fiction, in my view it already constitutes a first strategic move on the part of the author to consolidate his slowly acquired reputation within a larger audience.

10 Xenopoulos, H ζωή μου σαν μυθιστόρημα, 231 (my italics).

11 Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 42-3.

12 Ibid., 46.

13 Valetas, G., ‘О ηθογραφικός νατουραλισμός του Ξενόπουλου’, Νέα Εστία 1309 (1982) 77–83 Google Scholar; Farinou-Malamatari, ‘Οι πρόλογοι των πεζών έργων του Γρ. Ξενόπουλου’, 108; Ziras, ‘H συμβιβαστική πρόσληψη του νατουραλισμου’; Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 46-59.

14 G. Xenopoulos, ‘Ai αληθέστεραι ιστορίαι’, Εφημερίς, 27 June 1890, ‘Σαν όνειρο’, Εικονογραφημενη Εστία (July-Dec. 1890) 17-19, and ‘Ai περί Ζολά προλήψεις’, ibid., 321-4 and 337-40. ‘Ai περί Ζολά προλήψεις’ and ‘Ai αληθέστεραι ιστορίαι’ have recently been reprinted in Farinou-Malamatari, , Γρηγόριος EevónooL•ç: επιλογη κριτικών κειμένων , 83-97 and 98–101 respectivelyGoogle Scholar.

15 The first manifesto of Greek naturalism is undoubtedly the famous introduction to the first complete translation in book form of Zola’s Nana by Ipeirotis, Agisilaos Yannopoulos, entitled Έπιστολιμαία διατριβή αντί προλόγου’ (1880), in Karkavitsas, A., О ζητιάνος, ed. Mastrodimitris, P.D. (Athens 1996) 271-97Google Scholar. Apart from Xenopoulos’ essay, there are two more important texts of a theoretical nature that I would like to call ‘anti-manifestos’: Angelos Vlachos’ ‘H φυσιολογική σχολή του Ζολά: επιστολή προς επαρχιώτην’, Εστία. (July-Dec. 1879) 789-95, and the book-length study by Zervos, Ilias Iakovatos, Κριτική επί των σογχρόνων μοθιστορημάτων (Cephallonia 1889)Google Scholar. For even if those critics deliberately reject the alleged pernicious influence of Zola and his literary movement, they describe in great detail the poetic devices that are accompanied by Zola’s more moderate view on the nature of naturalism.

16 Xenopoulos, ‘Al περί Ζολά προλήψεις’, 324. Note that Farinou-Malamatari (Γρηγόριος EevónooL•ç: επιλογη κριτικών κειμένων, 24) has indicated the unmistakable indebtedness of this text text to ‘Le Naturalisme au théâtre’ too. Discussing Zola’s poetic guidelines and their application in Nikolas Sigalos in the next part of the present article, I cannot quote the equivalent passages in Xenopoulos’ theoretical essay due to spatial limitations. Therefore I refer to Borghart, ‘(Greek) Naturalism in European perspective’ for a brief discussion of Xenopoulos’ ideas with regard to the naturalist story-line, and to my doctoral dissertation Τι είναι οίϋτός о Ζώλας, 155-62 for a more comprehensive account.

17 Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 59. In the course of the subsequent analysis, it will nevertheless become clear that my viewpoint on this subject matter differs to a considerable extent from Amilitou’s stance. Even if some of the data that will be put forward have already been briefly touched upon in her extended introduction — especially with regard to space and the references to Zola that occur throughout the novel — I will discuss these observations in greater detail and use them from a different angle as evidence to sustain my argument. Other parts of Xenopoulos’ oeuvre that may be worth an analysis from the perspective of European naturalism are the novella H μητροιά (1890) and the collection of short stories Στρατιωτικά διηγηματα (1888-92).

18 Xenopoulos, G., ‘Πρόλογος της A’ Εκδόσεως της Μαργαρίτας Στεφας’ , in Λπαντα, I, 367 Google Scholar. Interestingly, Ziras has noted that Xenopoulos as a mature author adopts a similar attitude towards his critical oeuvre too. In an article from 1937 — ‘Τα κριτικά άρθρα μου’ — he situates the advent of his literary criticism in 1892, thus excluding the famous plea for Zola’s poetics that he had written two years earlier. For this reason Ziras hypothesizes that the article under consideration might be regarded as an ultimate attempt on the part of the author to dissociate himself from Όι νεανικές του καταβολές στο νατουραλισμό’ (‘H συμβιβαστική πρόσληψη του νατουραλισμού’, 113). This observation is reinforced by my own finding that, even though Xenopoulos as a rule denied that he conceived his novels according to the poetics of naturalism, prior to 1892 he twice gave himself away, albeit in a rather oblique manner: in ‘Σαν όνειρο’, 17 he designates his own prose fiction as ‘[...] la nature vue à travers un temperament [sic], κατάτον ορισμόν του Ζολά’, whereas in ‘Μαυρα μάτια: о επίλογος’, 2, the following passage is more than revealing: ‘Δεν ανήκομεν αποκλείσπκώς εις καμμίαν σχολήν πλην φρονούμεν ότι διά παν εν γένει καλλιτεχνημα η αλήθεια πρέπει να ήνε η μόνη κρηπίς, η δε καλλιτεχνικωτέρα αυτής παράστασις, η διά της τηρήσεως των κανόνων της Τεχνης, о μόνος σκοπός. Οι κανόνες ούτοι, από των γενικωτέρων μεχρι των μερικωτέρων, ελλψικοί δεν ει’νε• τας εσωτερικάς μας συλλήψεις διά τοοτο, τας ιδίας ημών εντοπώσεις οποτάσσομεν υπό μορφήν κατά πρότοπα ξενα’ (my italics).

19 Zola, ‘Le Naturalisme au théâtre’, 1239-40.

20 Sigalos is Yangos’ barber with whom he maintains a strong bond of friendship; they live, moreover, in the same building in Odos Ippokratous; Takis and Yangos are both law students and best friends; finally, Fani and Sigalos are a middle-aged couple whose relationship quickly goes downhill. Through these four protagonists, a range of minor characters are introduced who often rent a room in the same building too: the journalist and writer Platon Lykidis, Sakidis, a professional rival of Sigalos, Sigalos’ young servant Notis, Fani’s younger sister Roza, best friends Eleni and Eftychia, the latter being the sister of Takis, the alleged prostitute Amalia Argyrou, the bourgeois family Rodalis, and Mr Andonopoulos, Yangos’ father.

21 This goes for chapters 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19 and 21, which does not mean that these should automatically be considered superfluous or without interest.

22 Hamon, Ph., ‘Du savoir dans le texte’, Revue des sciences humaines 4 (1975) 489-99Google Scholar.

23 Xenopoulos, , Νικόλθίς ¿Γιγαλος (henceforth NS), 59–62 Google Scholar.

24 Zola, E., ‘Le Sens du réel’ (1878), in Oeuvres complètes, X, 1286 Google Scholar.

25 Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 64-5.

26 The concept of ‘historical time’ was first established by Bakhtin in his famous essay ‘Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel: Notes towards a historical poetics’, in Holquist, M. (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.Bakhtin, M. (Austin 1981 [1938]) 84–258)Google Scholar. In the concluding remarks which Bakhtin added to his initial essay as late as 1973, the Russian scholar comes up with the following definition: ‘Most important in all this is the weaving of historical and socio-public events together with the personal and even deeply private side of life, with the secrets of the boudoir; the interweaving of petty, private intrigues with political and financial intrigues, the interpenetration of state with boudoir secrets, of historical sequences with the everyday and biographical sequences. Here the graphically visible markers of historical time as well as of biographical and everyday time are concentrated and condensed; at the same time they are intertwined with each other in the tightest possible fashion, fused into unitary markers of the epoch. The epoch becomes not only graphically visible [space], but narratively visible [time]’ (ibid., 247). Apart from the use of numerous spatial markers and all kinds of cultural historical references, naturalism has the tendency to reinforce this sense of historical time by abundantly using precise temporal markers too.

27 On the basis of a number of temporal markers, the covering time scheme can be situated between October or November and the end of May, with 1886 as terminus a quo and 1889 as terminus ad quern.

28 Hirst, A., ‘The missing day: a mistake in the time scheme of Karkavitsas’s The Beggar’, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 12/13 (1996/7) 279-86Google Scholar.

29 Compare, at this point, the following passage by Zola, which describes the usual modus operandi of naturalist writers: ‘Ce serait une curieuse étude que de dire comment travaillent nos grands romanciers contemporains. Ils établissent presque tous leurs oeuvres sur des notes, prises longuement. Quand ils ont étudié avec un soin scrupuleux le terrain où ils doivent marcher, quand ils se sont renseignés à toutes les sources et qu’ils tiennent en main les documents multiples dont ils ont besoin, alors seulement ils se décident à écrire’ (‘Le Sens du réel’, 1286). Other examples contain explicit mentions of the ‘πραγματική σχολή’ (NS, 108) and its poetics (NS, 223-4 and 443).

30 While Mackridge has rightly remarked that a similar ‘documentary function’ is characteristic of Greek prose fiction at the end of the nineteenth century in general, according to the theoretical framework outlined above the naturalist branch of so-called ‘ethography’ can be distinguished on the basis of a radicalization of this descriptive tenet, as is the case in Xenopoulos’ Nikolas Sigalos. Cf.Mackridge, P., ‘The textualization of place in Greek fiction, 1883-1903’, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 2.2 (1992) 148-68Google Scholar.

31 Zola, E., ‘De la description’ (1880), in Oeuvres complètes, X, 1299 Google Scholar. In addition, the descriptions in Nikolas Sigalos sporadically feature two structural details that appear to be especially characteristic of Zola’s descriptive technique and are placed by Hamon under the common denominator pouvoir voir: (1) a point of view situated at an altitude: Ippokratous Street seen from the balcony of Yangos’ room (NS, 191-2) and the district around the University described from within an auditorium (298-9); (2) the explicit presence of a light source: the interior of Sigalos’ barbershop (96-7), the outside of it (386), Yangos’ room (109-10), the restaurant (186), the nightclub (199-200) and the room occupied by Platon Lykidis (229-30). Cf.Hamon, Ph., ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une description’, Poétique 12 (1972) 465-85Google Scholar, 466-9.

32 Cf.Hamon, Ph., Introduction à l’analyse du descriptif (Paris 1981) 207 Google Scholar.

33 The same applies to the extract from the passage narrating the fight between Sigalos, his mistress Kondylo and his wife Fani that will be quoted and discussed later on.

34 Hamon, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une description’, 466-9.

35 Hamon, Ph., ‘Un discours contraint’, in Barthes, R. et al., Littérature et réalité (Paris 1982) 150 Google Scholar.

36 Zola, ‘Le Naturalisme au théâtre’, 1240-1.

37 Genette, G., Figures III (Paris 1972) and Nouveau discours du récit (Paris 1983)Google Scholar.

38 Other passages which openly refer to the theory of heredity and environment, are used to characterize both Eleni (430: 15-17) and Kaiti (129: 19-25; 431: 6-9). The presence of these rather clumsy references can be explained either as resulting from the author’s youthful enthusiam, thus providing an additional argument to characterize Nikolas Sigalos as a piece of juvenilia, or — more likely — as a comic subversion of Zola’s radical theories, which Xenopoulos explicitly calls into question in ‘At περί Ζολά προλήψεις’, 322: Όμολογώότι δεν με είλκυσε πολυ εξ αρχής [■ ■ ■] η βραδεία διαδοχή των νευρικων συμπτωμάτων, όσα αποκαλύπτονται παρά τινι γενεά κατόπιν αρχικής τινος βλάβης οργανικής κτλ. — διαδοχή της οποίας δεν εδυνάμην εξ ενός βιβλίου ν’ αντιληφθώ καθαρώς’.

39 Jahn, M. and Nünning, A., ‘A survey of narratological models’, Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 27 (1994) 291 Google Scholar.

40 Amilitou, Έισαγωγή’, 50.

41 Ibid., 50-1.