It is a commonplace that no culture is self-contained. Contacts, exchanges and conflicts between elements and bearers of foreign interests, other forms of expression, and different customs are all essential to the development of cultural identity - to the formulation of the specific presence (style, as we would say today) that makes every achievement of a particular culture unique and immediately recognisable and identifiable as its own creation, as an expression of its own spirit.
Let us recall that culture is a living intellectual and spiritual achievement. It is never static in time but dynamic, constantly enriched by the contribution of foreign factors capable of inspiring in it new orientations, though without altering its fundamental - one might even say unique - character.
KOSTIS MOUDATSOS - AKRITES IN EAST AND WEST
I have, by way of introduction, defined the primary factor in cultural development, irrespective of time and place (I refer to constant intercourse with other cultures) in order to emphasise from the outset what is obvious: that encounters between cultural currents are more likely to occur in border zones, in areas to which rival intellectual camps lay claim openly or surreptitiously, and, of course, particularly at historical junctures that permit, if not continuous peaceful coexistence, then at least frequent exchanges of goods. That is to say, trade, which is an essential condition for the exchange of both material and intellectual goods.
Question: Is United Europe a political structure imposed from above, or is it a genuine world view and way of life that the politicians have been slow to discover?
It should be stated at once that, despite the human, and perhaps even super¬human, efforts of inspired politicians and visionaries, no form of unification of the European continent would be possible, were it not for the existence of the seed of a collective crop, the roots of the tree which, despite its intricate branches and side shoots, always produces the same cognitive fruit. This in order to stress that, whatever the origins of the peoples that now comprise Europe and despite the antagonisms and conflicts that have for years now bathed every corner of its land in blood, intercourse and osmosis, common living conditions, the related response by all to adversity and moments of happiness, to a turbulent historical existence, have created suitable ground for common experiences, for joint exchanges, for mutual dedication to the experiences of others: experiences, indeed, that the bolder innovators have not hesitated to embrace and share. This sharing, like every distribution of cultural experience, invariably enriches those bold enough to venture it. And this boldness, which leads to recognition of the achievements of the Other, to the point where the achievement is assimi¬lated and brought within your own compass (that is, given a form readable by your own group), is a precondition for the creation of culture. Culture defined here as a preeminently dynamic phenomenon, a characteristic, or rather, a fundamental feature of which is to prepare for the future. A future which, though based properly on the certainties of the past, must always expand its horizons and continually conquer new dimensions, new lands, even Utopia. Over and above every form of globalisation experienced by European history (e.g. colonialism), the future invariably aspires, in practice, to the universal exercise of virtue, to the leading of the good life on an ecumenical scale. This future, and this future alone, should be the aim of our culture.
If, given this rationale, one wishes to investigate and trace the experiences which, albeit in latent form, are inscribed historically in this cultural progress, one should undoubtedly dwell on the exchanges and related experiences chara¬cteristic of the everyday life of peoples of different origins, beliefs, faith and language, whose leaders, of course, have different political and military objecti¬ves; peoples and groups which, though separated by real or symbolical bounda¬ries, do not cease (and not only in times of peaceful coexistence) to assimilate aspects of the tradition of the other, the foreigner. Who also behaves in the same way, to the extent that it is possible today to speak of a common progress by different traditions towards the creation of new forms of culture, recogni¬sable by peoples of different origins (what sociologists call acculturation). Or to state, more specifically and directly, that modern scholars frequently find it difficult to recognise the parentage of cultural achievements which, in different forms, belong to peoples who live near or straddle the borders of the nation states of modern Europe.
To give a literary example, it has been said, and seems accurate enough, that European culture is the common acceptance of a series of heroes (real or literary), who characterise common European experiences. The type of the hero horseman, either as Saint George or as Digenis Akrites, or as a medieval knight and "stradioti", is a pan-European figure with different names, who pervades the history of the continent and who, from one end of it to the other, performs his great deeds, always at the service of the good and of the general interest.
Bestriding borders, cultures and art-forms, the heroes bequeathed to us mainly by the European Middle Ages are to this very day the subject of all kinds of artistic reference and output. Particularly poetry and music, as can be seen from the variations and new compositions that appear from time to time based on related themes: Siegfried, and Tristan and Isolde are perhaps the most representative examples. It is certainly symptomatic that heroism (physical, erotic, existential and undoubtedly supernatural) Is the main feature of the model figures of the group: this alone, with its wonderful achievements, is sufficient for the collective creation of the conditions for identity, and for a common identity. The elaboration of identity is certainly connected with the fundamental heroic figures of the group, and so much the .better If these figures are also respected by the neighbour and foreigner who is transformed from treacherous enemy into friend who shares one's experience of life.
The study of the heroic figures who are held up as popular models to follow and admire is thus a fertile field for investigating the latent, Involuntary, one might say, establishing of a common political experience, If not course, shared by the peoples of Europe. Figures whose activity (Irrespective of the historicity of their achievements) has become not only a model way of life (Invariably heroic, if not always peaceful and virtuous), but also the condensation, a kind of synopsis, one might say, of events that constitute landmarks in the creation of national consciousness and Identity of a group of people with common concerns and ambitions, irrespective of the borders that divide them. Such as, for example, the war against the Infidels (that Is, against Islam) In the case of all the European populations of the South (the model hero being El Cld), or the quest for complete purity of soul in love and the undefeated victory against evil, this time according to Saxon-German myths, like those of Siegfried, Tristan and Isolde, Graal, Ogler the Terrible, and King Arthur - all of these being works and fabrications concerned with existence or the blameless Christian life. This Initial geographical distinction between the European North and the European South, dictated by the main themes of the Medieval legends and myths, deli¬neates cultural borders that have nothing to do with political borders, and certainly emphasises the distinctive historical features of each region.
The next object of study of researchers, then, apart, of course from problems relating to themes and morphology, Is the geographical dispersal of each heroic and epic figure and narrative that Is found exclusively on European soil, as well as any variations that may be noted from place to place and from time to time, serving as examples of the smooth evolution of a vital mythical, literary and historical formation. These encounters are, reasonably enough, more common and more Intense In regions remote from the centre (political, religious or cultural), regions In which the experiences of the other, who Is also far removed from his own centre, are tangible and understandable, due to proximity, and In which resistance of the centripetal forces Is weaker, or, to put It In another way, In which the prestige and Influence of the establishment (Intellectual or artistic, or, more simply, social) Is blunted by distance and by the special circumstances that are of primary concern In the life of the periphery. The decentralisation of epic and mythological narratives is perhaps the most eloquent example of difference in the life of ethnic groups, despite the fact that all authority wishes these groups to be solid and undivided. Often examples of anti-authoritarian if not revolutionary behaviour, the myths and legends of popular inspiration rapidly become the objects of an unfamiliar almost illegitimate assimilation by the establishment, which, in this attempt, advances from the simple heroic song of popular bards to literary epic, the creation of a centre resi¬sting the centrifugal tendencies of the peripheral, and usually neglected, regions. These are some of the lessons offered by a study of the acritic literary and non-literary phenomena. The ACRINET project has attempted to trace some of the aspects of the complex phenomenon of acritism which has given European literature and thought figures who are reference points in the cultural achieve¬ment of peoples. It is characteristic that the achievements of acritism are set in the Middle Ages, when the ethnic mosaic of Europe was under construction and when all the peoples who form the modern continent, were, without exception, already on stage, in areas that, in time, would acquire the same characteristics: the tesserae, one might say, of a unified European culture, or, better put, of the expression of a common cultural quest. Although the dictum attributed to Jean Monnet, the father of the European Union, "if I were to start again, I would start with culture" is apocryphal (I happen, unwittingly, to be the originator of the saying), it is beyond doubt that Europe, even though it began with the economy, must end with culture, that is, with the recognition of common values. These common values, in the form of practical virtues and gallantry, are expressed by common heroes who were elevated from being acritic, border figures to central points of reference, to sources of pride in their noble deeds and intense emotion at their sufferings on behalf of the Europeans of yesterday and today. The study of the acritans is thus a bridge between peoples, and also a connecting link between the periods of historical time in which they are active. Secret memories of primeval rituals (such as dragon-slaying), survi¬vals of traditions (such as those relating to magic), steadfast devotion to values (such as those relating to the gallantry handed down from father to son) make the medieval acritic epics (both popular and literary) always relevant. Their presence throughout time in the cultural space of Europe is enough to justify the choice and implementation of the ACRINET project, which I have had the pleasure of participating in as academic head.
Helene Ahrweiler
President of the University of Europe
