Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 33 No. 1 (2009) 61–82 © 2009 Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham DOI: 10.1179/174962509X384615 Exploring the generic character of the modern Greek short story (di a gcgma): the case of Palamas and Xenopoulos (c.1880–1930) * Maria Karaiskou University of Crete This article examines how two prominent Greek critics of the period 1880–1930 — Palamas and Xenopoulos — perceived the generic character and the narrative demands of the modern Greek short story (dig a cgma). It explores the degree that two cardinal aspects in the theory of the genre — the relation of the short story with the novel and the division into two separate short-story traditions — influenced both critics in their definition of the dig a cgma and in their evaluation of the work of specific short story writers. The contrast and comparison of Palamas’ and Xenopoulos’ views pinpoints the standards, contradic- tions and restrictions that formed the critical perspectives on the dig a cgma and thus high- lights its neglected critical history during the period 1880–1930, which coincided with its prevalence in mainstream Greek prose fiction. Although the short story thrived in modern Greek literature and became the main channel for the development of prose fiction between 1880 and 1930, very little has been written on its generic formation and poetics as well as on the critical perspectives of the time towards such issues. 1 Palamas and Xenopoulos undoubtedly stand out as the most prominent * An earlier draft of this article was presented in the Byzantine and Modern Greek Seminar organized by the Centre for Hellenic Studies at King’s College London. 1 Y. Valetas (To neoellgnik a o di a gcgma: g hevra ia kai g istora ia tou, 2nd edn [Athens 1983]) focuses mainly on the origins of the di a gcgma and its history during the Romantic period. C. Milionis (To di a gcgma [Athens 2002]) is rather a brief approach to the international and Greek history of the genre. Perspicacious comments on the generic character of the di a gcgma are scattered in P. Moullas’ essays (‘To di a gcgma, autobiocraQa ia tou Papadiam a antg’, in A. Papadiam a antgz autobiocraQoa umenoz (Athens 1974) xv–lxv; ‘To neoellgnik a o di a gcgma kai o C. M. Bifugn a oz’, in C. M. Bifugn a oz, Neoellgnika a digc a gmata (Athens 1980) xxiii–lii; ‘Eisacvc a g’, in G palai a oterg pefocraQa ia maz, ap a o tiz arx a ez tgz vz ton pr a vto pack a osmio p a olemo, I (Athens 1998) 17–223). The conference To di a gcgma stgn ellgnik a g kai tiz j a enez locotexna iez: hevra ia — craQ a g — pr a oslgyg organized by the Greek Comparative Literature Association (December 2005) attempted to explore this neglected critical area.