The book at hand by the late Elli Skopetea (1951-2002) is an emblematic work, not only for Greek standards. It is a reference point and a starting base for any serious discussion (and disagreements) about the course of Greek national consciousness and the way Greeks understood themselves in relation to the new Greek state in 1830. To put it simply, we are talking about the transition from the centuries-old cultural definition of a Greek (language, religion, education) to a (novel for the time) ethno-statist/legal definition. It is a pioneering, for its time, approach to the factors that shaped the Greek national self-awareness during the first fifty years of the new Greek state and the urgent need to find a consensual national axis—a common narrative—about who the Greek is. At first glance, the author narrates a version of the history of Greek nationalism. However, the book embarks on a deep descent into the roots of the new Greek state, inevitably leaving us at certain points in suspense.

Skopetea takes us back to the early 19th century, a time when it was necessary to find an official, state framework that would politically, geographically, socially, economically, and even biologically define this vast—topographically, temporally, culturally, philosophically, and psychologically—field called Hellenism, which encompasses language, thought, art, history, religion, politics, etc., and all their phases and/or versions. It was the period when it was necessary to define the present and future of a continuity. However, the essential problem for the Greeks was never continuity itself, and the documents of the time or today’s archaeogenetics confirm this, although it also had to be proven. The central problem was: continuity from what and towards what? What was or should have been the previous common reference point, given that Greek populations were divided under different regimes even before 1204? The decision went beyond a simple narration of events. The choice, apart from being existential, was political and would direct the course, role, and claims of the new Greek state in a geopolitically significant but also turbulent region, in times of great upheavals.

There were the "modernizers" who desired the "small and poor but honorable Greece"; a "Model Kingdom" that would keep pace with the Western European—classical-worshipping, secular, ethno-statist, democratic—new trend and would have as its symbol Athens of the classical era—the cradle of secular European civilization. On the other hand, there were the "conservatives," supporters of the "liberation of the brothers" and the unredeemed homelands outside the borders of then Greece, embracing what was called the "Great Idea," with the symbol being—Orthodox, ecumenical, despotic—Constantinople of the Medieval Roman ("Byzantine") period—the cradle of Greek Orthodoxy, and for centuries the reigning city of European Christian civilization and beyond. Clearly, we are talking about the era when in the so-called Western world the ideology of the democratic "nation-state" begins to stand up to the absolutist imperial system, and raw and wild capitalism meets the ideas of Engels and Marx. However, in Greece, beneath this general and rather vague dilemma: "Model Kingdom" or "Great Idea" (in its various forms), a series of different social, ideological, and geographical issues were concealed.

The parties involved were not only separated by social class (aristocracy—people), ethnicity (foreigners—Greeks), or party (Russophiles, Francophiles, Anglophiles) criteria. All were characterized by a series of different "identities" and habits, resulting from how the Ottoman Empire was organized, the communal Greek culture, and the international reality. Thus, we have Greeks—Hellenes, natives—non-natives, "inkpot men"—military men, Moreotes—Roumeliotes, Ionian Islanders—Phanariots, Athenians—provincials, new bourgeois—commoners, centrists—communalists, secular classicists—religious Christians, politicians—clergymen, and the list goes on to the extent that the poles of identities and ideologies (and interests) lose their clear boundaries and overlap, while new ones are added and the old ones are replenished or transformed.

Obviously, all this discussion has evolved since the 1980s. However, Elli Skopetea sets the starting point. So what does the late Skopetea do with this particular work, which was her doctoral dissertation and took the form of a book in 1988 from "Polytipo" Publications? She deals historically and philosophically with the dialogue and conflicts of the various identity poles (and the contradictions that appeared within them) during the period 1830-1880, concerning the past of the Greeks as well as the (then) present and future of the new state. At the same time, she reveals the competition among them for the formation (or "construction" or compromise) of a unified national ideology that would highlight one of these poles as the central protagonist.

It is the localist, factional, ideological, social, political, economic—not always conscious or premeditated—claim to Greekness in general and "1821" specifically, with the ultimate goal of primacy in the new Greek state. Central fields of disagreement and conflict were history, language, education, and religion. Which political interpretation and version would prevail or what compromises would be made and for what purpose? And ultimately, how much would the "state," official, choice express the popular sentiment, which by its nature was not something homogeneous? In the end, what role did the "protecting powers" play in all this?

In her work, Skopetea uniquely uses the articles of the daily and periodical press of the 19th century, while she goes beyond Greek boundaries and makes comparisons with the Serbian case. The author, even if we disagree with her, at least makes us suspect why our history could not be a straight line and how the different readings of it, which still cause intense disagreements today, are justified. At the same time, she indirectly sheds light on how the new Athens-centered Greek state was ideologically formed.

The republication of this book by NISOS Publications in a clearly improved form was for a long time a great desire of many. The foreword by Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and Rector of Panteion University, Christina Koulouri, is highly informative and serves both as an introduction and as a "map" for the main text.