The classical drama as contested heritage in modern Greece: theatre productions from private initiatives to state projects in the 1930s

Abstract

Performing classical drama at ancient venues in interwar Greece reflected the socio-cultural context of the time. The development of archaeological tourism and the perception of classical monuments as heterotopic spaces created particular political and ideological needs. Until the mid-1930s, private theatre companies and individual artists reused classical venues such as the Odeon of Herodes Atticus and the theatre of Epidaurus to stage productions that gradually attracted local, national, and international attention. But by 1936, the National Theatre began exploiting the socio-political potential of ancient theatres and classical drama festivals and state-sponsored productions dominated the Greek theatrical stage. During this period, the claims of exclusivity on the part of the National Theatre and the National Conservatoire defined their competition with private companies and shaped the course of the revival of classical drama in twentieth-century Greece.

The reuse of ancient venues and official policy in Greece

Official requests to organize artistic performances at ancient venues in Greece in the 1930s bear witness to the socio-cultural realities of the interwar period, the ideological significance of classical antiquity for the modern Greek state, and the cultural policy of its national institutions. The Greek Ministry of Culture’s Directorate for the Administration of the National Archive of Monuments¹ preserves multiple textual sources related to the reuse of ancient Greek and Roman sites, including official correspondence and formal requests for producing artistic events from the 1910s to the 1960s. These documents contain details about the logistics of the productions, economic reports, discussions on the appropriate use of space, political mandates, censorship reports, and negotiations on the date, audience, and frequency of the staging, among others. The archive is also rich in material related to the protection and conservation of these monuments, such as ministerial decisions, archaeological reports, and acts of the Archaeological Council.² The institutional nature of these historical sources reveals the authorities’ direct involvement with the classical revival in the interwar period, shedding light on the modern use of ancient spaces in Greece. In addition, the national and regional press offers valuable insights into the social dimension of these events that engaged the Greek populace.

In processing this material, I draw on Pantelis Michelakis’ assumption that archives ‘can provide a productive framework for thinking about performance’ (2010a: 96), principally because they constitute material evidence of the afterlife of performances, thus offering fascinating insights into a theatrical production and its socio-cultural context.

Although events at ancient venues had been celebrated since the nineteenth century — like a small-scale unofficial folkloric dance event at the theatre of Epidaurus (Figure 1) or the 1920s’ patriotic exaltation of The Persians at the Odeon of Herodes Atticus celebrating the Greek military campaign in Asia Minor (Van Steen 2010/2011) — their use intensified and generated a semi-official state policy in the interwar period (Georgakaki 2017: 46–7). By the late 1920s, using ancient theatres and other archaeological sites for dance, musical, or theatrical events was a regular activity that led the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education to formulate and implement a strict and protective policy.

The situation gradually changed when hallmark events, such as the Delphic Festivals (1927 and 1930)³ at the theatre of Delphi and Marika Kotopouli’s Hecuba (1927)⁴ at the Panathenaic Stadium, generated national enthusiasm and the prospect of increased economic revenue.⁵

The Delphic Festivals attracted the attention of many Greek and foreign intellectuals and were organized by Eva Palmer and Angelos Sikelianos. Their spiritual vision harmonically fused ‘music, dance, poetry and acting in the theatrical productions’ in Delphi (Balaskas 2021: 79), embodying a new conception of Greekness by focusing on an emotional perception of Greek antiquity (Leontis 2019: 155–6). According to Artemis Leontis, Eva sought to revive a mythical version of the Greek past using archaeological sources and implementing an experiential and embodied approach to antiquity (2019: 156–7). Her perception of the theatre of Delphi as a ‘sacred’ space marked the orientation of the theatrical production that resembled a mystical embodiment of her experiential relationship with ancient culture (Van Steen 2002, 2008).

At the same time, European theatrical productions, especially from France, Germany, and Italy, also popularized the theatrical tradition in Greece (Michelakis 2010b: 149–52). Theatre companies, cultural societies, and other organizations relished the opportunity to benefit from antiquities’ prestige by producing artistic events at ancient sites (Ioannidou 2010/2011; Plantzos 2014: 255–65). As a result, from 1927 — when the first Delphic Festival was celebrated — until April 1941 — when the Axis forces invaded Greece during the Second World War — hundreds of requests, sent by cultural and artistic societies for reusing the Odeons of Herodes Atticus, and Patras, the ancient theatres of Epidaurus, Corinth, Delphi, Argos, Megalopolis, Amphiareion, Sicyon, and Dionysus, the Panathenaic Stadium, and the archaeological site of Eleusis are preserved.⁶ In the same spirit, local authorities from the Greek countryside began promoting and sometimes financing these productions to exploit the economic benefits of tourism to these classical sites.⁷

The need to construct an archaeological resource that could symbolically represent the nation’s common heritage led to the restoration, standardization, and reuse of many of these venues. National institutions were responsible for controlling and safeguarding the legitimate character of these procedures. The Ministry of Ecclesiastic Affairs and Education was the institution responsible for the concession policy of ancient monuments. In particular, its Directorate of Archaeology, Directorates of Letters and Fine Arts, and Directorate of Restoration were the main decision makers. After receiving a formal request to use an ancient venue, these Directions forwarded the case to the Archaeological Council, which had consultant power.⁸ The Ministry of Education then assumed authority for the final decision. If the Ministry issued a positive decision, the corresponding Ephorates of Antiquities⁹ were responsible for keeping order and safeguarding the site’s security. In addition, the National Theatre Organization (Ὀργανισμὸς Ἐθνικοῦ Θεάτρου)¹⁰ retained the right to officially express an opinion on the concession of ancient venues, according to its foundation law of 1930.¹¹ As the National Theatre eventually became the dominant theatre company that used such spaces and established its artistic tradition,¹² this right gave it the power to intervene in the official concession policy. This often led to unethical interventionism in the decisions of the Ministry, for instance preventing private companies, such as Karzis’ Thymelikos Thiasos, from staging dramas. Such activities provoked disputes between these companies and the national authorities.

These disputes and a growing rivalry between Greek theatrical companies provide the conceptual framework for my research, namely how these agents’ artistic activity dealt with heritage during the period under examination. In particular, I argue that the archaeological heritage of Greece served an important ideological function in the social and cultural formation of the nation. The paramount significance classical heritage held for national cultural expression. At the same time, contemporary developments in tourism demonstrated how classical culture held economic benefits that were increasingly recognized by the Greek state. Through this prism, heritage showcased the financial and artistic opportunities that emerged in Greece as classical antiquity became the foundation stone of the modern Greek state in the interwar period.

Dealing with classical venues as contested heritage encapsulates the multiple social and ideological discourses that informed their symbolic use in the interwar period. Debates regarding their appropriate revival led to a continuous clash that entangled various agents concerning the purpose and interpretation of these spaces (Konstantinou 2021: 194–5) — especially as the significance these spaces assumed for the national narrative and the growing tourist movement intensified public disputes. These disputes also designated the agents that had to be excluded to secure a meaningful and authorized use for these spaces. For instance, the aim of national institutions to consolidate their authoritative version of the Greek past led, at times, to the exclusion of artistic companies and artists that represented different perceptions of classical theatre (Solomon 2021: 8–9). In this way, politics was at the centre of this contested heritage. Therefore, the hierarchy of private and public agents that wished to use classical heritage led to multiple dissonances and the final institutionalization and nationalization of the use of classical venues.

At the same time, tourism added a new layer of conflict as disputes related to the economic development of these spaces provoked long-lasting clashes between companies and national authorities. As the expectation of tourist development converted these monuments into visual images of the modern Greek state (Lalioti 2009: 75–7), their role in constructing Greek modernity was indispensable. I consider these conflicts within the dissonance that heritage often creates due to the multiple counternarratives that different agents attribute to it (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996: 20–7; Solomon 2021: 5–6).

In my analysis, I begin by examining the growing tourist aspect of classical antiquities in Greece that led to the artistic revival of ancient venues. I then draw attention to private artistic productions of the period to emphasize their socio-cultural impact that potentialized regular events in ancient monuments. Focusing on some of these events provides a broader perspective through which to approach the reception of classical antiquity in interwar Greece. After this theatrical overview, I emphasize the transition from private initiatives to the emergence of the artistic expression of the state companies, the National Theatre of Greece and the National Conservatoire.¹³ I suggest that the regime’s engagement with productions at ancient venues played a central role in drawing a symbolic connection with Greek antiquity as a tourist and national resource. This state intervention in private initiatives shaped the limits of the theatrical revival of classical venues until the National Theatre began dominating theatrical production in 1936. Thereafter, classical theatre productions became a national project that the Greek state supported financially and ideologically.

Antiquities, natural landscape, and tourism

Greek governments of the period incorporated the artistic revival of ancient venues into their political agenda and participated in the decisions that determined the course of classical theatre. This activity was connected to the increasing tourist opportunities presented by Greek archaeological sites, alongside the endeavours of travel agencies and tourist organizations.¹⁴ In the early 1930s, when political instability prevailed, archaeological tourism became a major topic of public debate, and ancient venues began to be systematically used for cultural events. National and private institutions shaped tourist initiatives and generated disputes over the concession of classical heritage. The Greek state attempted to control the growth of tourism by founding the Greek National Tourism Organization (GNTO) in 1929 (Vlachos 2015: 22–5, 2016: 165–77). However, despite the state’s interest and parallel private ambition, many development initiatives of the period proved insufficient to cope with the emerging tourist phenomenon and meet the demands of the national agenda (Vlachos 2016: 191–204).

Productions staged at classical venues received particular attention and aroused public enthusiasm. These sites commanded a powerful authority that symbolically connected Greek antiquity with the modern Greek nation. They acted as heterotopias, in the sense that classical venues in the twentieth century were spatial mediators that mirrored discourses and procedures deployed there, which attributed them a new spiritual value in Greek and Western imagination (Leontis 1995: 40–5; Ioannidou 2010/2011: 387–90). As public discourse about these spaces generated new meanings, classical venues in Greece transformed into cultural hubs where the remnants of the past engaged with the aspirations of the national sovereign state and the Greek populace (Anagnostopoulos 2021: 222–4). The productions staged at these spaces attracted the interest of agents otherwise seemingly without connection to the classical tradition, such as medical congresses or charity events, which sought to include acts at ancient venues as part of their proceedings. What all these initiatives had in common was a symbolic engagement with the Greek natural landscape and the still-standing material traces of the past, which became testimonies to an imagined ancestral component of the Greeks (Plantzos 2008: 264–6).

The association between antiquities and Greek nature determined the perception of the Greek landscape as a national heritage and tourist asset. It became an excellent financial opportunity that could permit the modern Greek state to exploit the material past and natural resources to create a unique tourist experience for Western visitors (Vlachos 2015: 29–30). This convergence shaped many of the cultural activities of the period, whether organized by Greek or foreign institutions. Accordingly, a few organizations related to the touring, naturalist, and tourist sectors considered ancient venues ideal locales to display this relationship. They began claiming a national particularity that fused classical antiquities, natural landscapes, and the national populace.

One of the principal representatives of this movement was the Hellenic Touring Club (HTC),¹⁵ which actively promoted the connection of the Greek countryside with the big urban centres (Siatopoulos 1991: Ch. 2). By organizing touring events in Athens and the Greek periphery, the HTC decentralized cultural production and artistic activity (Vlachos 2015). During this period, it requested and was granted permission to organize musical events at various ancient venues, including the theatres of Amphiareion, Corinth, Sicyon, Delphi, and the Odeon of Patras. The close relationship of the HTC directors with the renowned conductor and composer Dimitri Mitropoulos,¹⁶ who conducted many of these concerts, usually stood them in good stead when dealing with the authorities. The interest in archaeological tourism shown by a founding member of the HTC and later director of the tourist administration of the Sub-Ministry of Press and Tourism (1939–40), Stelios Hiliadakis, encapsulates the ongoing political and social debate quite neatly. This is made crystal clear in a letter he dispatched to the Direction of Archaeology, in which he claimed that the artistic quality of HTC events was ensured by Mitropoulos’ involvement and the participation of the Symphonic Orchestra of Athens ‘at theatres that provide exceptional archaeological and tourist interest’.¹⁷ As it was already evident that performances at ancient spaces were becoming crucial for tourism development, the HTC proposed that the Ministry of Education begin advertising these productions abroad: ‘[T]hese concerts will constitute a national event that will assist and promote Tourism’s [the GNTO] attempts in many ways if they are appropriately advertised abroad to guarantee many foreigners’ attendance’.¹⁸

The Ministry’s policy in granting permission for using theatres became gradually more flexible, especially when events involved the attendance of foreign visitors. The concession policy also revealed the attempts to exercise power and influence; internal disputes transformed the procedure into dynamic policy-making at the Ministry. Contested heritage in Greece thus represented diverse socio-political realities and reflected how the institutional perception of the archaeological archive evolved in the 1930s.

Theatre companies and private initiatives at classical venues

The Odeon of Herodes Atticus and peripheral classical venues

During the interwar period, a handful of companies managed to remain active and to regularly perform at ancient sites. Following the increasing interest in classical drama, as in the cases of Sikelianos and Kotopouli, a few Greek intellectuals established private theatre companies. The companies that emerged during this time and professionally staged ancient drama, partly influenced by international artistic developments, were Fotos Politis’ Hellenic Theater Company (Etaireia Ellinikou Theatrou, founded in 1918), Spyros Melas’ Art Theatre (Theatro Technis, founded in 1925), Linos Karzis’ Ancient Drama and Thymelic Company (Archaio Drama, founded in 1926 and Thymelikos Thiasos, founded in 1939), and Alexandros Philadelpheus’ Euripides Dramatic Society (Dramatikos Syllogos Euripidis, founded in 1925) (Georgakaki 2017). When Fotos Politis and Spyros Melas were chosen to staff the newly founded National Theatre in the early 1930s (Stamatoyannaki 2013), the private companies that systematically produced open air performances were mainly the Thymelic Company and the Euripides Dramatic Society. These two companies introduced a new experiential and native style that focused on the ritual aspect of classical drama.

The most popular venue of the period was the Odeon of Herodes Atticus, which hosted a diverse array of productions. The Odeon epitomized symbolic prestige and national pride, serving as a representation of ‘the best Greece has to offer’ in the eyes of most organizers.¹⁹ In addition, its convenient location at the centre of Athens made it easily accessible to a broad audience (Ι Proia 20 May 1932: 1–2). Frequently used for large-scale performances and formal events,²⁰ the Odeon underwent technological modernization, such as the use of microphones, radios, and stage effects, due to tourism development.²¹

In 1930, the dancer Vassos Kanellos requested permission to stage classical dance performances at the Odeon and the theatre of Epidaurus. In the preceding years, Vassos Kanellos and his wife, Tanagra Kanellos, had already performed classical dances at ancient venues, participated in the Delphic Festivals, and developed a close relationship with Eva Palmer and Angelos Sikelianos. Their performances across multiple venues in the USA and Greece reflected an artistic style closely aligned with Isadora Duncan’s experiential approach to classical dance (Fessa-Emmanouel 2004: 218–21; Albright 2010). They focused on recreating the ‘ancient Greek spirit’ (Kanellos 1964: 39–43) by accompanying their productions with reconstructed ancient instruments and poetic recitations. In 1930, Kanellos’ requests for using the Odeon were rejected because the application was issued too late,²² and the Ministry considered that the production could cause damage to the monument.²³ However, they performed a small-scale dance spectacle at the ancient theatre of Megalopolis, with noted local impact, and another at the theatre of Epidaurus (Figure 2).²⁴

The couple organized another dance event at the archaeological site of Eleusis for the members of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA),²⁵ who were visiting Greece to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence. The event aimed to artistically revive the Eleusinian Mysteries, the initiations for the cult of Demeter and Persephone celebrated in ancient Greece (Patris 5 April 1930: 2). Kanellos’ event comprised a mime and a dance adaptation of the myth of Demeter and Persephone, performed by 200 young males and females in tunics, accompanied by music à l’antique (I Proia 5 April 1930: 2).

The same year, the Euripides Dramatic Society (Figure 3) produced two theatrical events at the Odeon,²⁶ Sophocles’ Electra and Racine’s Andromache, the first non-Greek drama performed there. Electra was staged in April 1930, also for the AHEPANS (Acropolis 6 April 1930: 8; I Proia 6 April 1930: 2; Georgopoulou 2008: 228–9; Diamantakou-Agathou 2014: 68), and aligned with public interest and mood due to its solemn character.²⁷ Some months later, the performance of Andromache was formally announced in the national press, but no further information is preserved (Acropolis 9 August 1930: 2; Ethnos 9 August 1930: 3; I Vradyni 9 August 1930: 5).

In contrast to the acceptance of Andromache, the company’s proposal to perform Kosmas Politis’ drama Corinthian Women (Korinthies, Κορίνθιες) in 1931 was rejected following the National Theatre’s declaration that ‘the ancient theatres shall be granted only for performances of ancient authors’ tragedies’.²⁸ During another trip of the AHEPANS to Greece in 1932, the Euripides Dramatic Society staged Euripides’ Medea at the Odeon (Figure 4). The event attracted the attention of Greek socialites and was acclaimed by the press (I Vradyni 24 April 1932: 2; Ethnikos Keryx New York 25 April 1932: 1).

In addition, the local representative of the GNTO in Patras proposed staging Antigone by the Euripides Dramatic Society at the Roman Odeon of Patras.²⁹ Being in an unstable condition, the venue was initially to be restored with the locals meeting the expenses, but after the intervention of the provincial governor, an additional amount of 2,000 drachmas was contributed to the restoration funds.³⁰

In 1933, the theatre company Archaio Drama organized a performance at the Odeon. Director Linos Karzis’ inaugural production at an authentic ancient venue marked the beginning of a personal theatrical tradition with a limited yet significant impact. This first production at the Odeon included musical and dance performances inspired by Homeric rhapsodies and hymns. Influenced by Palmer’s approach to Greek drama, Karzis recreated a mystified and ritualistic interpretation of the classics, rejecting the Western European model of staging ancient drama.³¹ Despite his efforts to reproduce the ideals of the Delphic Festivals, however, Palmer criticized him for assuming ownership of her directorial choices (Leontis 2019: 174). Nevertheless, although he endeavoured to stage his production during various days in September 1933, ongoing restorations of the monument prevented its use at that time.³²

Focusing on an ‘archaeological approach’ to Greek tragedy, Karzis managed to create a homegrown style for the Greek theatrical stage (Tsatsoulis 2015: 325–6). In his productions of Euripides’ Phoenician Women and Sophocles’ Electra at the reconstructed Panathenaic Stadium in August 1934, he aimed to revive ancient Attic drama, drawing inspiration from the archaeological evidence (Figure 5). His belief in the unity of music, dance, and speech (Zachou 2007: 141–6) and his persistence in employing features such as masks and buskins led to stiffly austere performances and a low level of interest and take-up by the general and uninitiated public.

Phoenician Women had six performances at the Stadium,³³ which provoked mixed criticism and lacked public enthusiasm (Ethnos 12 August 1934: 1). While the lighting and costumes must have created an impressive atmosphere, the acting, direction, and music disappointed the critics and the public alike (I Vradyni 11 August 1934: 2; I Vradyni 12 August 1934: 2; I Vradyni 13 August 1934: 2). Karzis also directed Electra, staged on 21 August 1934, and although it adopted a similar style to Phoenician Women (Acropolis 20 August 1934: 2), it enjoyed a more positive public response (I Vradyni 22 August 1934: 2).

Karzis would take up Palmer and Sikelianos’ idea and would attempt to revive ancient theatre in a new manner with an indigenous, popular, and more experiential approach.³⁴ His proposal — far more pragmatic than Sikelianos’ dream — involved state finance for the performances of ancient drama spectacles at classical theatres addressing tourist, cultural, and patriotic issues. Karzis’ identification with the drama tradition that Sikelianos and Palmer had initiated would inspire his performances and his request to perform Electra at Delphi in the autumn of 1938.³⁵

Indicative of Karzis’ ambition was his preparation for a performance at the theatre of Epidaurus in 1940. However, despite receiving permission from the Ministry to stage the production, it was ultimately cancelled, for reasons unknown.³⁶ Karzis’ advocacy for introducing a policy of low-priced tickets, his conviction that Greek drama had strong popular roots, and his nationalistic (and anti-Western) claims positioned him as an advocate for an experiential approach to tragedy with a modern Greek character. This approach aligned closely with the Byzantine elements introduced by Palmer and enabled his company to remain active on the theatrical stage long after the Greek Civil War, albeit as a peripheral theatre company. Addressing the frequent confrontations between Karzis and the National Theatre, Tsatsoulis correctly describes his contribution and theatrical career as another example of the struggle for authority to determine artistic legitimacy in Greece (Tsatsoulis 2015: 325–6, 2017: 108–17).

The theatre of Epidaurus

Significant initiatives were also undertaken for the reuse of the theatre of Epidaurus. In 1934, the GNTO forwarded a request from French artists to the Ministry, proposing the performance of Aristophanes’ Clouds at Epidaurus for foreign tourists who were expected to visit Greece as part of a trip organized by the National Steam Navigation Company of Greece (Εθνική Ατμοπλοΐα Ελλάδας). These tourists would arrive the following year around the Easter holidays. By highlighting performances at ancient theatres that ‘will provoke a general interest of intellectuals around the world and will be the reason for considerably increasing the tourist mobility in Greece’,³⁷ the GNTO recognized the crucial role of these events in shaping a Greek identity for the national populace and the international public. Surprisingly, contrary to the typical protective policy regarding Epidaurus, the Ministry issued a positive reply and requested the artists’ names. Unfortunately, no source confirms whether the performance took place. However, reports of French tourists arriving in Nauplio by boat just some days before Easter 1935 could indicate that the play was finally performed (Naupliaki Echo 21 April 1935: 2; Naupliaki Echo 5 May 1935: 1). If this was so, this would mark the first modern performance of ancient drama at the theatre of Epidaurus.

Despite the expectations for a large-scale cultural revival there, the remote location of the theatre of Epidaurus posed major challenges. However, three musical productions were held in 1935 and 1936, inaugurating the regular use of the venue. The first production was a concert of Beethoven on 22 September 1935, under the direction of Dimitri Mitropoulos, organized by the association Ypaithrios Zoi (Ὑπαίθριος Ζωή) that ran excursions.³⁸ This event attracted approximately 500 spectators having, thus, only a limited cultural impact. The curator of Antiquities of Nauplio and the local police were asked to supervise the event and take measures to protect the monument.³⁹ With the International Congress of Comparative Pathology, celebrated the following year in April 1936, we encounter a similar attitude towards Greek antiquity. The president of the congress aimed to connect the medical theme of the event with the healing role that the sanctuary of Epidaurus possessed in antiquity (Naupliaki Echo 19 April 1936: 2). He requested that the last session of the congress be celebrated at the theatre, believing it would transmit the authentic essence of the Greek study of medicine to the international audience.⁴⁰ On 14 May 1936, the Philharmonic of Tripoli held a third concert, which included two pieces of classical music. The audience was comprised of 300 spectators from Tripoli.⁴¹

The beginning of the revival of Epidaurus did not involve any particular theatrical dimension, even though there had been initiatives for ancient drama performances decades before (To Asty 31 January 1900: 2). However, these events from regional, international, and touring organizations were just a foretaste of the international status, tourist appeal, and identification with local and regional pride (Balaskas 2021: 85–8) that Epidaurus would experience two years later and in the postwar period.

A state project: Week of Ancient Drama and national productions

On 4 August 1936, the Greek military officer and prime minister, Ioannis Metaxas, assumed dictatorial powers with the support of King George II of Greece. To support this new socio-political reality, the regime extensively appropriated classical culture. Metaxas implemented an eclectic view of the Greek past that was conceptualized as a national myth (Carabott 2003; Kallis 2017), by asserting the connection of modern Greeks with classical antiquity (Zacharia 2014: 190–6) and promoting classical heritage as an intrinsic part of the regime’s socio-cultural image. In theatrical terms, the regime was greatly influenced by Kostis Bastias⁴² and his views on the systematic reuse of ancient theatres as a national mission. Bastias enjoyed a position of influence under the Metaxas dictatorship on being appointed general director of the National Theatre and director of Letters and Fine Arts for the Ministry of Education. In such an ultra-nationalist regime, ancient Greek drama also served as propaganda, leading to the National Theatre’s conversion into a cultural façade for the dictatorship (Τρία Ἒτη Διακυβερνήσεως τοῦ Κ. Ἰωάννου Μεταξᾶ (1936–1939)1939).⁴³ Bastias’ National Theatre functioned as Metaxas’ instrument of monumental productions that promoted national ideology. Ancient theatre, in particular, was of crucial significance, as it would provide, it was hoped, a new revival of ancient heritage for a glorious future.

In the autumn of 1936, the National Theatre established its authority over the classical revival in Greece by presenting its first state-sponsored production of ancient drama at an ancient venue.⁴⁴ This project, titled Week of Ancient Drama (Ἑβδομάς Ἀρχαίου Δράματος) (Figure 6), implemented the commercial and artistic objectives of the National Theatre at the Odeon of Herodes Atticus. More importantly, it transformed ancient dramatic performances into annual projects of national scope as the event was successfully repeated the following years.

Electra (1936 and 1937) and Hippolytus (1937), directed by Dimitris Rondiris, were the plays that inaugurated the new endeavour, which aspired to ‘one day find the method of the correct staging of these masterpieces’.⁴⁵ However, they elicited a puzzled response from the public (Acropolis 6 October 1936: 2). While important newspapers acclaimed Mitropoulos’ music (Acropolis 6 October 1936: 2) and the opportunity of a theatrical revival by the National Theatre (Ethniki 20 July 1937), they were reluctant to praise the chorus’ and actors’ performance (Estia 5 October 1936: 1; Ethnos 5 October 1936: 1; I Vradyni 5 October 1936: 2). This first hesitant reaction, however, did not reduce the significance of these national products that inaugurated the systematic and professional use of ancient venues as a compelling representation of national prestige.

To some extent, the National Theatre’s attitude towards the regular use of ancient venues aligned with the commercial theatrical project that the state had already proposed to Sikelianos and Palmer. The National Theatre had to reorganize theatrical activity in venues more accessible than Delphi and to move towards a modern artistic and national goal with tourist objectives (Eleutheron Vima 31 May 1930: 1; Imerisios Keryx 4 October 1936). This is the reason why the Odeon was the first classical venue the National Theatre used in the summer seasons of 1936 and 1937, before producing its first Epidaurus performance in 1938 (Balaskas 2021: 85–8). The National Conservatoire also began regularly using the Odeon in 1936 aiming ‘to provide [in its concerts] a festive character’.⁴⁶

As artistic productions at the Odeon gained popularity, other national institutions began to showcase these events on special occasions. On 21 April 1937, the committee commemorating the 100th anniversary of the University of Athens organized a concert executed by the Symphonic Orchestra of the Athens Conservatoire and the Athens Orchestra (I Proia 21 April 1937: 6).⁴⁷ The event enjoyed the presence of the king, representatives of Greek and European universities, politicians, intellectuals, and members of the royal family (Μηνιαῖον Δελτίον τοῦ Ὑφυπουργείου Τύπου and Τουρισμοῦ 1937: 617–24). It contained a pastiche of pieces and genres spanning from Christoph Gluck’s opera Orfeo ed Euridice, Christian Byzantine poetry, and folklore demotic music (I Proia 22 April 1937: 1 and 6). The concert radiated an illustrious prestige, while the Odeon offered the ideal setting for its high status.

The celebration concluded the following day when an amateur university company staged Sophocles’ Antigone for the distinguished guests under Melas’ direction.⁴⁸ Although the performance was not an artistic success, the enthusiasm of the amateur actors was acclaimed by the national press (I Proia 23 April 1937: 2). For Greek intellectuals of the period, it represented proof of national courage and youthful determination (I Vradyni 23 April 1937: 2).

These events introduced a new way of performing classical drama in Greece, involving state-sponsored productions and the official appropriation of classical heritage as national capital with socio-cultural significance. State productions gradually dominated the theatrical stage in Greece and served a dual purpose: to reaffirm the official national narrative of the exceptionalism of Greek heritage (validating the ancient venues’ heterotopic qualities) and to attract international tourist attention that could eventually benefit the country’s economy.

An extensive restoration project at the Odeon, co-financed by the National Theatre and the National Conservatoire, preceded the 1936 performances.⁴⁹ The restoration included intervention in the cavea (placing wooden seats), the stage, and the monument’s façade.⁵⁰ Theatrical needs prioritized over the archaeological preservation, in the sense that modern use prevailed over the monumental nature of the venue through the installation of permanent lights, equipment, and other mechanical material. The Odeon was used as a theatrical stage with permanent architectural features, which could host performances without additional sets, and the bare minimum of moving parts (Konstantinakou 2014: 16–17).⁵¹

Indicative of the authority of the National Theatre during this period is its demand that the Ministry complete the archaeological intervention in the interior of the venue and move to that of the façade — so that rehearsals could go on. In addition, at the end of the 1936 festival, the National Theatre requested that the wooden seats of the Odeon stay for the following year’s events that would promote the popular character of the festival.⁵² Initially, the seats were designed as provisional installations for the performances programmed for the 1936 summer season. They were eventually left in place for future events until they were replaced by permanent marble seats.⁵³

Claims of exclusivity by the two national organizations also provoked escalating disputes; the reuse of ancient spaces by private companies provoked tensions, such as that which erupted in August 1936. The National Theatre strongly opposed the concession of the Odeon to the Euripides Dramatic Society for the musical recitation of Homeric rhapsodies and Greek tragedies.⁵⁴ It objected to the production, maintaining that ‘we require that you prohibit the possible use of the Theatre of Herodes Atticus by companies that the Royal Theatre ignores’.⁵⁵ Until that point, the director of the National Theatre had been officially required to issue an opinion on individual requests of reuse, but had usually rejected performances only if they coincided with the National Theatre’s schedule, rather than getting involved in the evaluation of the requests per se.

The National Conservatoire also felt that its financing of the Odeon’s restoration should offer it preferential treatment in its negotiations with the Ministry, a belief that it vividly expressed in June 1938, claiming that the two national institutions ‘had the right to preferentially use this ancient theatre’.⁵⁶ The National Conservatoire complained about permissions given to private companies that it considered detrimental to the business value of the new theatrical venue. They upheld their belief that their investment in restoring the Odeon should safeguard it from private ‘defamations’. However, the Ministry of Education took full responsibility for the concession policy, with a statement clarifying that the National Theatre and the National Conservatoire were not entitled to intervene in decisions of the Archaeological Council and the exclusivity they had repeatedly alluded to was inadmissible.

The minister explained that artistic companies could perform at the Odeon only if the Ministry granted permission, after receiving the Archaeological Council’s report and considering the National Theatre’s position.⁵⁷ He also demanded that the National Conservatoire file official requests, like every institution, should it wish to perform at an ancient site instead of attempting to circumvent the official procedure. Lastly, he explained that the Ministry would refund the two organizations if the financing of the Odeon restoration had created expectations of preferential treatment.⁵⁸ Despite the official clarifications, the National Conservatoire replied with even more exaggerated requests — requesting the exclusive use of the Odeon from 15 May to 31 August for staging concerts and rehearsals — which the Ministry eventually accepted.⁵⁹ The Ministry was forced to accept the request under the condition that the Odeon be open for visitors.

Conclusions

Following the international acclaim of the Delphic Festivals and other emblematic classical productions, theatre companies and artistic societies in Greece began regularly reusing ancient venues for artistic performances in the 1930s. At the same time, the rising tourist interest in the Greek classical monuments created the institutional components that supported these tendencies, benefiting the National Tourist Organization and shaping the course of the artistic revival of classical venues. Similarly, private initiatives, such as the HTC, promoted artistic productions at ancient venues as a commercial and tourist activity.

The heterotopic qualities of these sites helped to restore the balance that had been impaired by the nostalgic attitude towards their fragmented materiality. Their modern use served Greece’s perception of classical heritage as national capital. Under this prism, contested heritage in Greece emerged as a dynamic ideological force. National institutions, artistic companies, and individual stakeholders claimed and appropriated it in pursuit of their financial, ideological, and socio-political objectives.

That is the reason why initially, private productions included theatrical and musical events that gradually convinced the Greek authorities of the national significance inherent in the reuse of classical venues. Following some years of private initiatives, mainly by Linos Karzis’ companies and the Euripides Theatre Company, state institutions began to dominate the Greek stage by 1936. As a result, the National Theatre and the National Conservatoire established their dominion over the classical venues and prevailed in the public arena by converting this artistic tendency into a state-sponsored project.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Athina Chatzidimitriou and Archontoula Papoulakou from the Directorate for the Administration of the National Archive of Monuments for their invaluable guidance on the archival material used for this work. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback. Finally, I also thank the German Archaeological Institute at Athens, the General State Archives of Greece, the Hellenic Literary and Historical Archive of the National Bank of Greece Cultural Foundation, and the National Theatre of Greece for providing the figures I have used here.

References

A brief note on the author: As a substitute lecturer in Classics at the University of Malaga, I hold a doctorate in Humanities from the University of Malaga and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. In my current research, I use archival material to reconceptualize the modern reuse of ancient theatres in Greece, Spain, and Italy. My main research interests include the reception of Greco–Roman antiquity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, focusing on ancient drama, heritage, and collective identities.

Footnotes