Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By Charitini Christodoulou
Nikos Kazantzakis’ life proves that travelling had always been a vital necessity
for him. The period of travel writing officially started around 1907, when as a
doctoral student he recorded his impressions of Paris, and ended in 1957, the year
he died, when he contemplated elaborating on his book on China, written years
beforehand. Acting as a correspondent for several newspapers and periodicals in
Athens (namely Νέον Άστυ, Ελεύθερος Λόγος, Ελεύθερος Τύπος, Αναγέννηση, Η
Πρωία, Η Καθημερινή, Η Ακρόπολις, Νεοελληνικά Γράμματα, Η Νεολαία),
Kazantzakis conveyed through his articles his view of the world. The importance of
his travel literature as well as the strong influence travelling had on his personal
formation can be seen in his fictional autobiography, Αναφορά στον Γκρέκο (2009),
where major parts are structured with recourse to his travel narratives.
I chose to focus on his travels to the Soviet Union and Spain, due to the huge
socio-political, historical changes taking place at the time of his stay, as well as the
fact that Russia had been a huge chapter in Kazantzakis’ life and ideological journey,
while his Ταξιδεύοντας Ισπανία determined his popularity as a travel writer.
Travel/writing as exile
Based on Edward Said’s reflection on the notion of exile (2000), the position
of exile is, I perceive, an internal and external space as well as a point of view that
remained with Kazantzakis throughout his travels. This can be seen in his
corresponding literature, and it is what enabled him to walk in and out of cultures,
countries and ideologies, whenever his heart dictated the need to flee. Also, I would
like to suggest that travel/writing nurtured the first part of the dyadic
cosmopolitanism versus patriotism, a political frame within which Kazantzakis placed
himselfi in general (although it’s a very a very tempting topic, there is no time to deal
with it in this paper). Within this thought-frame, cosmopolitanism is viewed as the
ideal of becoming a citizen of the world, seen as a kind of exile from the nestling
feeling of attachment to one’s country or nation (M. Nussbaum, ‘Patriotism or
Cosmopolitanism’, Boston Review XIX/5 (1994), part I). Assuming the position of the
xenos, the visitor, but at the same time, the citizen of the world, he could engage
himself in a narrative that seemingly flirted with novelistic as well as political
discourse, thus creating for himself a space for interventions, sometimes direct and
at other times camouflaged, in the political-intellectual sphere. In other words, in
this space he had created for himself, he could be an intellectual activist, since he
could not become an actual one. In this way, travel/writing compensated for his
inability to get physically engaged in the evils of his own times.
Hence, all the above factors enabled Said to form his theory of exile. It refers
to the idea of a sacred spaceiii created in language that alludes to Kazantzakis’
idea of ιερή παραφροσύνη, while he claims that travel narrative is central to the
exile’s identity, which is a noteworthy correlation for obvious reasons. Moreover,
Said often used exile as a metaphor to describe his vision of the role of the
modern intellectual, who needs a critical, detached perspective from which to
examine his/her surroundings. This reminds us of Kazantzakis’ convictions of how
the intellectual should approach current reality and transfer it to the masses. As
John Barbour points out,
Said holds that exile can foster a scrupulous subjectivity, independence of mind, critical
perspective and originality of vision. Being attuned to more than one culture can give the
exile ‘contrapuntal’ awareness of simultaneous dimensions of reality. Because an exile’s life
is nomadic, decentred and lived on the periphery of the established order, he must create his
own structures of meaning (2007: 295).
It seems to me that the experience of exile itself, the childhood memory of the initial
displacement as an involuntary travel that Said describes in his work, claiming that
these formed an exilic worldview and an account of how one ought to live in
response to the condition of exile, can enlighten our analysis of Kazantzakis’
travel/lit.
Κι άξαφνα, για πρώτη φορά στη ζωή μου, αηδία ανέβηκε στο σπλάχνο μου, αγανάχτηση για
τα χαρτιά τούτα, τα βιβλία και τα μελάνια όπου χάνουμουν, για τον αγώνα μου το ανόσιο να
κλείσω μέσα σε καλούπια ωραιότητας την ψυχή μου. […]
- Άλλος γίνεται ήρωας από Θεού∙ άλλος με τον εδικό του αγώνα. Μάχουμαι!
- Ήρωας; Μα ήρωας θα πει πειθαρχία σε ανώτερο από το άτομο ρυθμό. Κι εσύ ‘σαι
ακόμα όλος ανησυχία και ρεμπελιό. […] Θα με ακούς πάντα σε κάθε σου φυγήiv.
- Ποτέ δεν έφυγα. Πάντα προχωρώ, παρατώντας ό, τι αγάπησα, ξεσκίζοντας την καρδιά
μου.
- Ως πότε;
- Δεν ξέρω.
Through an inner monologue, the writer expresses his inner battle between the
desire for action and the almost unavoidable channelling of this desire into intellect
and writing. Seen in relation to the general context of this work, it is as if he admits
to his feeling of disgrace when realising the absence of any other means available to
take a stand in the socio-political context of each destination. Finally, in this inner Commented [AP2]: I’m not sure what you want to say here.
monologue, there seems to be a dichotomy between the self and the other, where
the other clearly accuses the self of fleeing away (i.e. φυγή) whenever necessary,
while the self tries to justify this repetition in behaviour, by interpreting φυγή as
ascent and creative deconstruction, through the destruction of everything he had
been attached to, at the time of speaking.
The word φυγή is also used in Αναφορά στον Γκρέκο (2009: 76-86), in the
chapter titled «Λαχτάρα φυγής», where the writer describes his longing to flee far
away from the city where he was growing up, as he was getting older. In the chapter
titled Νάξος (ibid, p. 94-95), he refers to the first honest confessions of his desire to
travel:
Πλάταινε ο νους, πλάταινε μαζί του κι ο κόσμος. Γέμιζε η φαντασιά μου με θεόρατα δέντρα,
με αλλόκοτα θεριά, με μαύρους και κίτρινους ανθρώπους, και μερικά λόγια που διάβαζα
αναστάτωναν την καρδιά μου. Σ’ ένα από τα κιτρινισμένα ετούτα βιβλία διάβασα: ‘Χαρά
στον άνθρωπο που δει τις περισσότερες θάλασσες και τις περισσότερες στεριές’. […] Έκανα
υπομονή, ετοίμαζα μέσα μου κρυφά, χωρίς να το υποψιάζουμαι, τη μέρα που θα κάμω
φτερά και θα φύγω.
It’s quite obvious from his words, that there was a longing to travel early on in his
life, which might also be connected with the acceptance that he could not contribute
to his country’s battle in the way that was normally expected from the young
Cretans, of the time. Thus, at a later stage in his life, departing his country, and
choosing to visit as a correspondent countries that were under geopolitical and
social changes (including dictatorships, civil wars, colonisation etc) does not seem to
be at all a random choice. It is my convection that this served him in two ways,
nourishing his desire to flee (from the homeland, the nation, the self as a set of
imposed upon characteristics) and his urge for action through the intellect, making
thus a difference in the making or rather recording of history/society. Even though
the fact that he could express his agony and battles only through writing caused his
distress, as we’ve already seen, at the same time offered him a creative escape from
a feeling of entrapment due to his inability for action per se. Hence, travel/writing,
perceived as a vital combination of action and stillness, was crucial. Action being
equated with travelling and stillness being equated with thought, as the basic
presupposition for recording on paper his impressions from travelling provided a
way of balancing out that which tore him apart: action/matter versus inaction/spirit.
Besides, it’s no wonder that the theory with which Kazantzakis flirted throughout his
life and work, is Bergson’s élan vitalv, the eternal flow of energy, that is, the
transubstantiation of matter into spirit!
Travel to Russia:
The Cretan travels to the Soviet Union in 1925, a year after Lenin’s death, as a
correspondent of the Athenian paper Ελεύθερος Λόγος, which published his
impressions in a series of articles. Two years later, in 1927, he visits the Soviet Union
again, this time as a guest of the Soviet government to celebrate the 10th anniversary
of the Russian Revolution (Politics of the Spirit, p. xxiii). We need to bear in mind that
1927 was the year when Joseph Stalin managed to consolidate power, following the
1924 death of Lenin, through suppressing Lenin’s criticism and by eliminating any
opposition. Having proclaimed that the bourgeois had outlived its usefulness (Bien,
2007: ix) and that the communists were the ones bearing the flame of élan vital,
Kazantzakis at the same time persisted that he was not a Marxist, for he was too
much of a mystic and too dedicated a theist. Hence, his ample contact with the
Soviet Union only confirmed the necessity of materialism being transformed into
spirit otherwise he believed that they would suffer the doom of all previous cultures.
The socio-political context in the USSR during Kazantzakis’ travels goes as follows:
Bearing all that in mind, it comes as no surprise that the Cretan has his heroes in
Toda Raba, a literary synopsis of his impressions from travelling in the Soviet
Union, reminding themselves of the need for action as a means of survival, as
opposed to philosophising: «Σας ακούω να συζητάτε πάνω στην τέχνη και την
ομορφιά και πάνω στα φθινοπωριάτικα φύλλα. Φτωχοί φιλόσοφοι! Μα δεν
υπάρχει σήμερα στην ΕΣΣΔ (Ένωση Σοβιετικών Σοσιαλιστικών Δημοκρατιών)
παρά μονάχα ένα πρόβλημα: να ζήσουμε!» (1975: 102). It is as if he uses his
heroes to remind him of the necessity for action, as opposed to the dedication to
intellect, or to be more precise in Kazantzakis’ case, his dedication to ideas.
His on-going internal battle between action and thought can be seen quite
clearly when, while in Russia in 1928, in the midst of huge socio-political turmoil, he
writes to Eleni (Νίκος Καζαντζάκης, Ο Ασυμβίβαστος, 1975: 229): «Εδώ, ζώντας
κανείς, μόνο έργα κίνησης dynamiques (δυναμικά) μπορεί να κάνει∙ η ατμόσφαιρα
au-dessus de l’ ephemere (πάνω από το εφήμερο), που χρειάζεται η ‘Οδύσσεια’,
εδώ δεν υπάρχει», reminding the reader that Kazantzakis’ priority and natural
inclination was his literary production, as opposed to other types of discourse (i.e.
political, journalistic, anthropological) and active involvement in the socio-political
process in the making.
Δεν είμαι homme d’ action και δε μπορώ να ενδιαφέρουμαι επ’ άπειρον για την
καλυτέρεψη ενούς κοινωνικού καθεστώτος∙ μου αρέσει η πρώτη επιφοίτηση, η σφοδρή, η
πυρφόρος∙ τα επίλοιπα, πώς η φοβερή στιγμή καναλιζάρεται στη φρόνιμη καθημερινήν
ανάγκη, δε μ’ ενδιαφέρουν υπερβολικά.
Η άποψη του Καζαντζάκη, πως, καθώς διαβάζομε στο ‘Ταξιδεύοντας – Ρουσία’, «οι μάζες
για να κινηθούν και να κιντυνέψουν και να δημιουργήσουν μεγάλες εποχές, έχουν ανάγκη
κάθε τόσο από μιαν ιερή παραφροσύνη» είναι παρατραβηγμένη και μ’ αυτή την
υπερβολική διατύπωση επικίνδυνη. Η άποψη αυτή ανταποκρινόταν στη δική του
ιδιοσυγκρασία και στάση ζωής. Μα σε τελική θεώρηση αποδυναμώνει την κριτική του
επιχειρηματολογία στο θέμα του ιστορικού υλισμού (2010: 277-78).
In other words, Tzermias argues that the Cretan’s perception of destruction and
insanity as a necessary pre-condition of creation and grandeur is a point that
undermines his efforts to engage himself in political discourse/analysis that would
contribute eventually to socio-political change.
Overall, we can say that although there are attempts to engage in political
discourse, through what seems to be socio-political, even historical, analysis, he fails
to do so. It is my opinion that, no matter what his intentions might have been, there
is always a distance from the facts/events he is describing. Kazantzakis’ narrative
gives the impression that the process of artistic creation is not part of history in the
making, that’s why he often detours to what he loves most, abstractions and vague
conclusions on ideology, art and the spirit. Also, the reader is quite unable to discern
truth from fiction, when faced with Kazantzakis’ text, for the elements of lyricism,
romanticism and fantasy are intensely present.
Travel to Spain:
Legion, a Nationalist slogan), refers to the Spanish Civil War and is based on his 1936 Formatted: Font: Italic
Γιατί έτσι [through travelling] μπορείς όχι μονάχα να γνωρίσεις τον εαυτό σου, παρά, πολύ
σπουδαιότερο: να ξεπεράσεις το ζουρλοπερήφανο το εγώ σου, βυθίζοντάς το, αρμονίζοντάς
το μέσα στο αγωνιζόμενο και περιπλανώμενο στράτεμα του ανθρώπου (2009: 7)
Moreover, at the end of his introduction, he tries to marry his own personal struggle
with that of humanity’s, implying that the two of them are interlinked:
Κάθε ταξίδι μου σημάδευε – πότε αίτια, πότε αποτέλεσμα – μιαν εσωτερική μου, γιομάτη
πλάνταγμα και μεσολογγίτικη έξοδο, κρίση. Και λέω, αν μπορέσω να τη στερεώσω με λόγια,
θα βοηθήσω κι άλλες ψυχές που κίνησαν κατά τον ίδιο δρόμο, με αδερφικό μαζί μου
ρυθμό, να συντομέψουν την αγωνία τους.
A close reading can lead us to the observation that in the first part of the
book, Kazantzakis is a traveller whose observations focus on the landscape and its
people, thus having the opportunity to enrich his narrative with hints upon his own
existential questions and wanderings. In the part dedicated to the Spanish Civil War,
while one could argue that the writer’s narrative flirts with journalistic discourse at
times (e.g. diary entries of a soldier named Miguel Gomes Kaskachares from Burgos,
aligned with the fascist partly, p. 167 - 183), however it rather leans toward a
subjective selection of witnesses, with an also subjective line of personal
commentaries. Despite his initial intention to be truthful to what he saw, and be as
objective as possible in his literary report - ‘Θα πω ό, τι είδα, τίμια, καθαρά, χωρίς
καμιά μεροληψία’ (2009: 145) -, his narrative seems to reveal a favouratism towards
the Nationalist party (e.g. p. 159 where we are presented with a sympathetic
justification of Unamuno’s reasons for supporting the Nationalists, and p. 172 - 174),
something that Evi Petropoulou draws upon, in her article Ο Νίκος Καζαντζάκης στον
Ισπανικό Εμφύλιο, which was published on 23 May, 1999, in the Greek newspaper
Το Βήμα.ix
In this article, Petropoulou points out two important points. First, she argues,
correctly in my opinion, that his narrative is similar to the recording of a creative
stream of consciousness that seems to be cut off from the tragic becoming of
history, while he surrendered himself to the tension and the passion of theories,
ideas or artistic marvels. Moreover, she refers to Kazantzakis’ view of a war as a
necessity, since in Ταξιδεύοντας Ισπανία, war is perceived by the author as an
opportunity for a new civilization to be created, a point that alludes to the concept
of creative destruction (Owens, 2003). Specifically, the Cretan writer, when
confronted with the bombed, levelled down Toledo confesses: «Άγρια χαρά με
κυρίεψε. Το Τολέδο αυτό είναι πιο χρήσιμο στον άνθρωπο από το άλλο Τολέδο που
είχα γνωρίσει και που τόσο με είχε απογοητέψει όταν το πρωτοείδα» (2009, p. 164).
This view of destruction’s creative possibilities was also shared by Kazantzakis in an
article published on 1 September, 1940 in the journal Νέα Εστία (issue 329), which
was perceived as revealing of Kazantzakis’ warlike nature, an accusation which he
dismissed in an interview in Antibes, in 1954.
Γι’ αυτό μεγάλη είναι η ευθύνη εκείνου που πηγαίνει σήμερα στην Ισπανία κι αποφασίζει να
μεταδώσει στους ανθρώπους τη φοβερή τραγωδία. […] Η μαρτυρία του πια είναι υπεύθυνη,
έχει αξία ιστορικού ντοκουμέντου κι ανθρώπινης συμβολής (2009: 144).
Μα οι πιο ζωντανές από τις συχρονισμένες τούτες ψυχές είναι εκείνες που περιφρονούν την
τέχνη, τη θεωρούν (εξόν από την προπαγαντιστική) ως περιττή κι ακατανόητη πολυτέλεια.
Οι ζωντανές αυτές ψυχές ρίχνουνται στη δράση. Περιφρονούν το πνέμα, είδαν τη χρεοκοπία
της παλιάς γενεάς, με τις σκηνογραφημένες ελευτερίες της, με τη δολερή ηθική της, με τις
σαλτιμπάγκικες σκοινοβασίες ή τις ανήθικες εφαρμογές του θεωρητικού λεγόμενου νου
(Ταξιδεύοντας Αγγλία, 2000: 217).
with the idea of creative destruction, his inability to stick to historic details,
becoming overwhelmed by his urge for theoretical abstractions, which in any given Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
moment, are expressed through his existential wonderings. We can also witness the Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
same conflicts between participation/action and withdrawal to thought and art. Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
Formatted: English (United States)
“overriding the worldly [ideological] allegiances was always the unworldly allegiance
to “freedom” defined, as “the condition of a creative soul expressing itself in art”
(Bien 1989:188, 2001:237). It seems that in Kazantzakis’ case, the mere aesthetic
pleasure of artistic creation overshadowed, consciously or not, every attempt to
become, at times, a man of action, even though his travel literature attempted to
portray huge socio-political turmoil. Nevertheless, the topic of Kazantzakis’ travel
literature is vast and in need of further research. Its correlation with Said’s theory is,
to me at least, fascinating for it brings to the surface another level of interpretation.
The Cretan himself was a multi-faceted literary personality and in effect, the work
produced has infinite layers of interpretation. I hope that I’ve touched on parts of
that. It also gives rise to a question that has been troubling me for over a decade:
how can intellectuals make an actual difference from their “exilic” point of view,
overriding the triviality of specificities, moving beyond the mere aesthetic pleasure
of creativity? Thank you.
i
See Lena Arampatzidou, “Nikos Kazantzakis and Travel Writing: Innovating in poetics and politics” in
The Historical Review, Institute for Neohellenic Research, Vol. VIII (2011), p. 200
ii
John D. Barbour, “Edward Said and the Space of Exile” in Literature and Theology, Vol. 21, No 3,
September 2007, pp. 203-301
iii
Said’s attempt to find compensations and significant meaning in an experience of exile recalls the
trajectory of Israel’s story in the Hebrew Bible.
iv
My emphasis
v
See Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. A. Mitchell, University Press of America: 1983
vi
See Lewis Owens, Creative Destruction, Mercer University Press: 2003
vii
Giorgos Katsimbalis, Βιβλιογραφία Ν. Καζαντζάκη. Α’ 1906 – 1948, Athens: 1958. The eighty-seven Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
reports I refer to do not include eight reports dating from the year 1933 that were published in
Καθημερινή in 1936 as an introduction to Kazantzakis’ later reports.
viii
As far as Kazantzakis records on the Spanish Civil War as a journal correspondent, Evi Petropoulou,
in an article in the Greek newspaper Το Βήμα, says: «Οι ανταποκρίσεις του Καζαντζάκη στην
‘Καθημερινή’ δεν ήταν συμβατικά δημοσιογραφικές για έναν ακόμη λόγο: δεν επρόκειτο για
δημοσιογραφικά κείμενα με τη φωτογραφική αξία ενός ντοκουμέντου. […] («Ο Νίκος Καζαντζάκης
στον Ισπανικό Εμφύλιο», 1999). Also, Demetris Philippis, in a related article titled «Η Ελλάδα μπροστά
στον ισπανικό εμφύλιο» in the literary journal Αντί, comments on Kazantzakis’ correspondence:
«Τους έλειπαν τα στοιχειώδη: οι από πρώτο χέρι αποκλειστικές ειδήσεις και ο σχολιασμός τους, η
παρουσίαση των αντίπαλων πλευρών και η καταγραφή των δυνάμεών τους, ενώ συνάμα οι πλούσιες
πληροφορίες για τον ισπανικό πολιτισμό δεν συνδέονταν μα το διαμορφούμενο γίγνεσθαι. Δεινός
αφηγητής, ο κρητικός συγγραφέας ήξερε πώς ν’ αποτυπώσει το δράμα ενός εμφυλίου πολέμου,
αλλά αυτό, όμως, είναι λογοτεχνική μαρτυρία» (included in Ανταποκριτές στον Ισπανικό Εμφύλιο
Πόλεμο. Επιμελητής: Δημήτρης Ε. Φιλιππής, Αθήνα 2008).
ix
«Τον ‘αιχμαλώτισε’ ο Φράνκο: Οι ανταποκρίσεις του Καζαντζάκη από την Ισπανία αντικατοπτρίζουν
καταφανώς τις υπαρξιακές κρίσεις και αγωνίες του, όχι όμως τις απόψεις ενός στρατευμένου αλλά
αντικειμενικού παρατηρητή». In the same article, Petropoulou also refers to Kazantzakis’ view of a
war as a necessity, referring us to a concept of creative destruction, according to which war is an
opportunity for a new civilization to be created.
x
See Dimitris Philippis, «Η Ελλάδα μπροστά στον Ισπανικό Εμφύλιο»