You are on page 1of 12

Nikos Kazantzakis and travel writing: a form of activism and self-exile

By Charitini Christodoulou

Cambridge Conference, 30 June – 1 July, 2014

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.

In this paper, I argue that travel/writing was a form of self-imposed exile,


originating in his early childhood when he was exiled from Crete and sent to Naxos,
temporarily, to be rescued from the Turks. As a theoretical frame for my argument, I
will draw on Edward Said’s notion of exile and imply that it can be used in
Kazantzakis’ case. In turn, I claim that the Cretan had resorted to travel/writing in an
effort to be engaged in committed writing, which I interpret as a form of intellectual
activism. This would nurture an age-old, subconsciously imposed need for action,
originating in his childhood years and that would compensate for his inability to act,
as opposed to his inclination towards intellectual and spiritual exercise.

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

By sending him to Naxos, Kazantzakis’ father exiled his son, on both a


physical and metaphorical level, since, by differentiating him from the rest of the
young Cretans who were raised and, in effect, destined to be warriors, he was seen
as an other, different. In Αναφορά στον Γκρέκο (2009: 96), the father expresses
bluntly his disappointment about the fact that his son wasn’t meant to be a warrior,
but an intellectual. The father’s decision to send his son to Naxos, with the excuse of
protecting him from the Turks, implies his conviction that young Nikos would not be Commented [AP1]: Nikos or Nicos? Consistency. Beforehand
its with a K.
able to defend himself in case of attack. Moreover, it implies a fate, totally different
from Cretans of the same age: battle with words and ideas in favour of intellectual
freedom, as opposed to fighting against the Turks in favour of Crete’s freedom. This
differentiation, in my opinion, automatically placed young Kazantzakis in the position
of the exiled one, the other, which is both a physical and an emotional space distant
from the reality lived by other Cretans at the time.

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.

Trying to substantiate my almost instinctive perception of Kazantzakis’ turn


to travel/writing as an attempt to create a comforting space for his status as an exile,
I came across Edward Said’s notion of exile, with reference to his 1999 memoir Out
of Place, as well as his Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (2000). As John D.
Barbour claims, “The theme of exile is central in Edward Said’s critical and scholarly
works” (2007: 203).ii I came to find that a close study of Said’s and Kazantzakis’ life
can lead to the conclusion that they were very similar as regards the experience of
estrangement and exile, which unavoidably shaped their thought:
 Said was born in Palestine and due to the unstable situation there, he had to
leave, just like the threat of the Turks in Crete was the major reason why
Kazantzakis’ family left Crete for a while.
 Said had to move away from his birthplace three times, having as his final
destination the USA, where he lived and died, while Kazantzakis lived almost
all over the world, died in Germany, and thereafter was permanently laid to
rest in Crete.
 Just like Kazantzakis was enrolled in a Catholic school in Naxos while his
family went back to Crete, Said too was placed in a boarding school at a very
young age, where he felt as the xenos, in all aspects.
 Like Kazantzakis who turned to books and imaginings, trying to view his stay
in Naxos as a first step to his intellectual freedom, in order to deal with the
pain of being cut off from his family, on a similar note Said discerns how both
geographical ruptures and familial estrangements propelled him to search for
a freely chosen identity, fighting thus the loneliness and unhappiness he
experienced for so long (1999: 294).
 In both cases, countries other than their homelands where the ones that
offered creative refuge for them to both, be and become.

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.

Travelling as a form of intellectual activism:


In the introductory note to Ταξιδεύοντας Ρουσία (2010: 9), Kazantzakis
writes: «Λέω την αλήθεια όπως την είδαν τα μάτια μου. Η στιγμή που περνούμε
είναι τόσο κρίσιμη, που κάθε ψευτιά ή αποσιώπηση της αλήθειας θα ‘ταν πράξη
ατιμωτική». At the same time, in his introduction to the part dedicated to the
Spanish Civil War in Ταξιδεύοντας Ισπανία (2009: 145), he states something very
similar: «Τώρα που επιχειρώ να γράψω, νιώθω όλη την ευθύνη της μαρτυρίας μου.
Θα πω ό, τι είδα, τίμια, καθαρά, χωρίς καμιά μεροληψία». In these instances, the
Cretan clearly states his intention to be impartial in recording his experience from
travelling in the Soviet Union and Spain, during the socio-political turmoil that
characterised the corresponding period of his travels. Impartiality and the task of
truthfully enlightening the readers through the written records about the existing
situation in each country, the conflicts, the opposing parties etc., are, one could
argue, characteristics of committed writing, flirting with journalistic discourse. This,
in my opinion, is related to the Cretan writer’s effort to become involved in the
events that marked that period (1925-27) and react against the evils of his own time,
engaging thus in intellectual activism.

The Cretan believed in responsibility, on both a personal and universal level,


for everything was, according to him, an on-going interplay. Hence, in Askitiki he
urges the reader accordingly, «Ν’ αγαπάς την ευθύνη. Να λες: Εγώ, εγώ μονάχος
μου έχω χρέος να σώσω τη γης. Αν δε σωθεί, εγώ φταίω» (2001: 32). At the same
time, he points out that each person leads a different type of struggle, depending on
where his/her strength lies, and that everyone should be appreciated for their
contribution: «Ν’ αγαπάς τον καθένα ανάλογα με τη συνεισφορά του στον αγώνα»
(ibid). One cannot help but wonder whether, in this instance, Kazantzakis attempts
to justify his intellectual struggle, which reminds us of his father’s words, when he
enrols his son at the Catholic school in Naxos: «Κρίμα μεγάλο που δεν είσαι εσύ για
τ΄ άρματα, είσαι για τα γράμματα. Τι να κάμουμε; Αυτός είναι ο δρόμος σου» (2009:
96). In the same work, he confesses that a writer’s fate is heavy and graceless, for he
has no other option than to use words, which he interprets as the entrapment of his
inner force in stillness (2009: 90).

On a similar note, in his introduction to Ταξιδεύοντας: Ιταλία, Αίγυπτος, Σινά,


Ιερουσαλήμ, Κύπρος, ο Μοριάς (1969: 9-11), Kazantzakis expresses his frustration
for having to express his agony and internal fight through writing:

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.

At times (2009: 54 – 62), Kazantzakis’ thought seems to be clearly structured,


but the moment the reader thinks that s/he realised where the writer stands, the
Cretan resorts to the technique of entering an unknown interlocutor, wearing the
mask of a young European man (p. 251-259) or that of a blonde Russian lady with big
blue eyes (p. 98 – 102), or the mask of a senior student in electrical engineering, as a
means for him to elaborate on existential ideas such as spirit versus matter (p. 103),
God’s many facades (p. 101), élan vital’s omnipresence in all the battles of humanity
(p. 253). Behind this mask, it’s Kazantzakis making love with his existential
wonderings, his theories on life, matter and spirit, seeking aesthetic pleasure
through the supposedly real human contact with everyday people he met
throughout his journeys in Russia.

The socio-political context in the USSR during Kazantzakis’ travels goes as follows:

 collectivisation and resistance


 initial stages of industrialisation before the October revolution in 1917
 Civil War between the Reds, the Whites and the Greens in the early 20s
 the USSR anti-religious persecution of 1928 – 1941, following the anti-
religious campaign of 1921-1928
 the Soviet experiment, that is, whether the Soviet style communism actually
complied with the ideology of socialism and communism
 Stalin taking over power and the extermination of all his opponents while at
the same time, proclaiming the success of his communist regime by bringing
forth the development of heavy industry, at the expense of course of the
people

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.

His inaction is perceived as a conscious decision, when he writes to Eleni,


while still in Kiev in 1928 to inform her about Panait Istrati’s (1884 - 1935, Romanian
writer) conscious decision to officially join the leftist party in the Soviet Union and
become homme d’ action (man of action ). Given the opportunity, Kazantzakis tries
to justify his non-involvement, practically speaking, saying that Istrati had probably
run out of inspiration as a writer, and that is why he turned to action. He then moves
on to say: «Εγώ σταθερά έχω αποφασίσει να κρατηθώ μακριά από κάθε εφήμερη –
όσο πολύτιμη κι αν είναι – action και να μην προδώσω τον ανώτατο αρχηγό μου –
τον Οδυσσέα – Βούδα» (1975: 236). Last but not least, hiding this time behind the
literary character named Ephraim Michalovich in Toda-Raba, he says that because he
is not a man of action, he not only has the right but he is also in a position to view
things more clearly and more broadly than the people committed to action, echoing
Said’s perception of exile. It’s important to point out that there is a clear cut
opposition between thought and action, as well as between the men leaning
towards the one or the other. There is no intermediate stage or condition, that is.
Finally, in a letter to Eleni (1975: 237), during his stay in Russia, he clarifies why he is
not a man of action, but of thought, focusing on the enlightenment of creativity,
which dawns upon him:

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.

Finally, we can also witness the recurring theme of creativity through


destructionvi when he says: «Κάθε επανάσταση λοιπόν είναι χαμένη αν δεν
κατορθώσει […] να δημιουργήσει, μέσα στη φρίκη του εμφύλιου σπαραγμού, το νέο
στρατό» (2010: 63). In addition, in Toda Raba, Geranos states that humans must love
the inhuman flame that devours them and not themselves (2005: 163), implying that
the burning flame is a creative one, that will eventually bring to life the new world
out of the ashes. His stance towards destruction is criticised by Pavlos Tzermias in his
book «Ο ‘πολιτικός’ Νίκος Καζαντζάκης», who says:

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:

Ταξιδεύοντας Ισπανία (first published as a book in 1937) is based on eighty-


seven journalistic reports that were published in the newspapers Ελεύθερος Τύπος
(12 December, 1926 - 7 January, 1927) and Η Καθημερινή (21 May, 1933 - 3 June,
1933 and 24 November, 1936 - 17 January, 1937).vii The Cretan writer travelled to
Spain four different times: August - September 1926, October 1932 - March 1933,
October - November 1936 and September 1950. The experiences included in the
book Ταξιδεύοντας Ισπανία derive from his three first visits to Spain, while the book
is separated in two parts: the first one refers to Spain in general and the second one,
entitled “Viva la Muerte” (i.e. Long Live Death, the battle cry of the Spanish Foreign Formatted: Font: Italic

Legion, a Nationalist slogan), refers to the Spanish Civil War and is based on his 1936 Formatted: Font: Italic

visit as a war correspondent for the Greek newspaper Η Καθημερινή.viii It has to be


pointed out that the book does not include major parts and whole reports that had
been previously published in the newspapers already mentioned.

Kazantzakis, in the introduction of Ταξιδεύοντας στην Ισπανία, implies that


travelling is both a means of self-discovery, and a way to acquire a cosmopolitan
sense of identity that serves humanity’s struggle to become, a process that, in my
opinion, alludes to his perception of committed writing:

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.

Moreover, it’s worth noting a point of contradiction in his writings. In the


introductory comments to the part dedicated to the Spanish Civil War, he values his
intellectual engagement in the fight against the evil unfolding before him, and even
goes so far as to compare it to practical contribution:

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).

Kazantzakis seems to be trying to justify his presence there as a correspondent, by


interpreting his work as some sort of testament and a warning for the generations to
come. However, in England in 1939, during the outbreak of the Second World War,
intellectual concepts and products (i.e. spirituality, art, poetry) are an anathema to
him, for they do not accord with the vibe and the rhythm of the times:

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).

Rounding up my brief commentary of the literary account of his travels to


Spain, I would like to draw your attention to the second point of his conclusions, a
couple of pages before the end. Kazantzakis says that the actual reason for the
Spanish Civil War was not ideology, that is, the violent clash between Communism
and Fascism, but some king of primitive, ever-present urge in the DNA of the Spanish
people to let out steam and find relief (p. 220). No matter how great of a thinker he
was, this approach is far too simplistic, one that normally does not represent a man
of letters and as greatly travelled, as Kazantzakis. It seems that there is a pattern
occurring, whenever faced with actual destruction, human pain, violent clashes
between people: the Cretan escapes into lyricism and romanticises the situation – a
tendency pointed out also by Bien when he says that Kazantzakis often “conforms to
a familiarly romantic pattern” (2007, ix). It is my impression that by doing so, he
avoids coming to terms with specificities, which presupposes taking an actual stand
towards the current situation in each of his travels and arguing convincingly in favour
or against the events unfolding before his eyes. A good example is how he views
Franco, in an interview the General gave on 22 September, 1936. While the other
correspondents left the room, in obvious distress, Kazantzakis says: «Μα εγώ ήμουν
χαρούμενος, γιατί είδα έναν άνθρωπο αποφασισμένο και γαλήνιο, τέλειο όργανο
της εποχής του, πειθαρχημένον εργάτη και συνεργάτη του φοβερού, ανήλεου
καιρού που ζούμε»x. Once again we see recurring patterns, such as his excitement Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)

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)

Conclusion: Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)

I have argued that travel/writing is revealing a subconscious placement of the


self in a condition of exile, through which Kazantzakis attempted to become an
intellectual activist. However, whether the outcome of such an attempt has been
successful or not, one cannot say with certainty since, as Bien well puts it, Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)

“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»

You might also like