Metacommunism - Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and 'The New Middle Age'

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Metacommunism: Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and "The New Middle Age"

Author(s): Lewis Owens
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 431-450
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3086363
Accessed: 04-11-2015 00:33 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:33:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
METACOMMUNISM:KAZANTZAKIS,BERDYAEV
AND "THENEW MIDDLE AGE"
Lewis Owens, Canterbury Christ Church University College
Only he has been freed from the inferno of his

ego, who feels deep pangsof hungerwhena child
of his racehas nothingto eat, who feels his heart
throbbingwithjoy when a man and a womanof
his race embraceand kiss one another.
All these are limbsof yourlarger,visiblebody.
You suffer and rejoice, scatteredto the ends of
the earth in a thousandbodies, blood of your
blood.
Nikos Kazantzakis(The Saviorsof God 73)
Introduction
Recently, the accusations that Nikos Kazantzakis was a communist have
resurfaced.1 This is an inaccurate perception of a man who throughout his
life remained too idealistic to embrace the materialism and atheism of
communism. Although acknowledging Kazantzakis's clear attraction to the
political left-wing, particularly in the early-mid 1920s, this essay argues that
Kazantzakis's profound interest in the idea of creative evolution, espoused
by his teacher Henri Bergson, accounts for his attraction to, but ultimate
desire to transcend, communism. With this desire, he shares many similari-
ties with the Russian religious philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev.
Kazantzakis first expressed the essence of his philosophical and religious
views in his aphoristic work The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises, which
he headed as the "first cries" of a "metacommunist" credo. This work was
first written in Berlin during 1923, but was revised in Russia in 1928 to
contain the final chapter "Silence," which contains the debated - and for
many commentators the nihilistic--line: "Even this 'One' does not exist"
(131). However, this present essay highlights how Kazantzakis's striving
and suffering "god," following the process of Bergson's elan vital, which
Kazantzakis deifies, seeks to overcome matter that results from spiritual
fatigue so that the pure energy of the elan is freed to manifest itself once
more in the phenomenal realm. Kazantzakis's philosophical priority is
therefore metaphysical: the "One" or "abyss" that lies beyond ("meta")
the material realm and as such lacks any ontological reference point; it thus
cannot be said to "exist." Kazantzakis's Spiritual Exercises are therefore
SEEJ, Vol. 45, No. 3 (2001): p. 431-p. 450 431
432 Slavicand East EuropeanJournal
dominated by a dialectic of destruction and creation: the individual is to aid

the divine theogony by "crucifying" the selfish ego in order to become
"resurrected" into an authentic this-worldly existence of responsibility and
sacrifice towards "god" who strives to "unmake" its descent into matter.
Transcending the selfishness and limitations of the ego, Kazantzakis be-
lieves, enables us to realise that we are all part of a "larger body" that
needs to be saved. It is this realization of the essential identity of all
members of the human race that is the main result fueling Kazantzakis's
attraction to communism.
Kazantzakis's political aspirations, which are dominated by the desire for
ongoing, dynamic, creative evolution, also follow this dialectic of destruc-
tion and creation. Therefore, although Kazantzakis sought the destruction
of a decadent, sterile, capitalist society through the fire of revolutionary
communism, this destruction was necessary in order for a new, creative,
spiritual society to emerge. Communism was therefore never sought as an
end in itself for Kazantzakis- his goal was always what he called "meta-
communism:" the desire for the creative renewal after the destructive fire.
Hence, like the individual, the political must serve the metaphysical. For
Kazantzakis, therefore, communism was paradoxically destructively cre-
ative: Russia must be "crucified" before a new "resurrected," meta-
communist society could emerge. Kazantzakis saw communism only as a
temporary channel of the ascending spirit; loyal to his Bergsonian philoso-
phy, he nevertheless realized that the "energy" of communism must first be
exhausted before the spirit would attach itself to a new, younger, more
dynamic vehicle.
Kazantzakis saw the communist revolutionary approach of the early 1920s
as a means of "redemption" out of a spiritually suffocating and decadent age.
As he was to claim: "Spiritual Exercises was written in Germany in 1923 in
order to express the spiritual agony and the hopes of a communistic circle of
Germans, Poles, and Russians who could not breathe easily within the nar-
row backward materialistic perception of the Communist Idea" (Friar 22).
Kazantzakis's attraction to communism must, however, be seen within the
larger context of his desire for creative evolution: communism was not Ka-
zantzakis's proclaimed goal, but the most effective and dynamic channel
enabling "god" to advance by "unmaking" and overcoming its material
manifestations and restrictions. At first, Kazantzakis saw the Russians as the
most "spiritual" people who enabled the spirit of creative evolution to con-
tinue its ascent freed from material obstruction, but by 1929 he had realized
that communism had reached its peak and become a spent force. As we shall
see, while in Berlin he met with Russian thinkers who were exiled from their
homeland because they had become disillusioned with the materialistic
Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
Nicholas Berdyaev, a resident in Berlin at the same time as Kazantzakis,
Metacommunism:Kazantzakis,Berdyaevand "the New MiddleAge" 433
espoused a similar desire for a new age of creative freedom. Both thinkers
express a belief that their age was a transitional one, one from which a
renewed, spiritual society was to emerge. Peter Bien has already high-
lighted Kazantzakis's partiality to the doctrine of the transitional age. "This
doctrine," Bien writes, "maintains that we are living between myths, hav-
ing lost one faith without having acquired another. Specifically, we find
ourselves in an age of decadent rationalism and we yearn for a second
religiousness" (185). Similar to Kazantzakis's (Bergsonian) belief that the
"abyss" or "One" (despite its lack of an ontological point of reference, such
that it may be claimed not to "exist") is the seed or "womb" of renewed
creativity, Berdyaev argues that the present transitional age is constituted
by a gazing into the "dark night" of the "abyss"-Jacob Boehme's
Ungrund- which is the seed-bed for Divine theogony.
Vienna and Berlin: The Crisis of Culture

Kazantzakis arrived in Vienna on May 19, 1922. He began this sojourn
by enjoying the surrounding culture, which included a viewing of Egyptian
art and a visit to the Museum of Natural History (Helen Kazantzakis 80).
However, the painful witness of social decay and poverty resulting from the
war tempered this joy. Kazantzakis was sensitively aware of the crippling
financial collapse that was stirring people towards revolt. In May 1922 he
wrote his first wife Galatea:
At present,accordingto our new conceptionyou don't know how deeply I'm affectedwhen I
see the hungeranddespairthatthe people here are suffering.My God, whatmisery!And how
long will it last? (Helen Kazantzakis80)
The "new conception" that Kazantzakis refers to bears testimony to his

sympathy for communism, a sympathy that he attempted to articulate within
the Spiritual Exercises, which were sketched out in Vienna but written in
Berlin. The notion of "metacommunism" will be looked at in greater depth
below. It suffices to say at present that Kazantzakis recognised a crisis
surrounding contemporary culture. The recently ended war had eroded
much of the confidence in the idea of human progress - the maxim of ratio-
nalistic Enlightenment thought--whilst romantic idealism, which pro-
claimed an all-embracing theory of history, failed to account sufficiently for
the despair and sense of helplessness experienced by both individuals and
communities in their concrete, contemporary predicaments. With this
emerging crisis we can see the genesis of Western European existentialism.2
Consequently, dialectical theologians such as Gogarten and Barth, who
rejected the marriage of religion and culture advocated by nineteenth cen-
tury liberal theology, began to preach on the incompetence and corruptive
effects of rational thought and yearned for a return to the Word of God
proclaimed by Scripture. Although Kazantzakis rejected this Biblical route,
he shared the view that the crisis of contemporary culture had to be over-
come with a more spiritual, creative input that was not tarnished by extreme
individualism or egocentricity. Like Berdyaev and Tillich, themselves resi-
dent in Berlin in 1923, Kazantzakis saw the remedy for the crisis of contem-
porary culture to be homeopathic-that is, it was to spring forth from the
decisive, creative depths of the masses.
Berdyaev and the Berlin Academy

By the time Kazantzakis arrived in Berlin in August 1922, the city was
already establishing itself as an intellectual haven for Russian emigres
forced to leave their homeland due to their opposition to communism
(Raeff). One such emigre was the Jewish religious philosopher Lev
Shestov, whom Kazantzakis met in Berlin, probably in December 1922,
and whom he refers to as Russia's "greatest contemporary philosopher"
(Friar 23). Whilst in Berlin, Shestov was aiding his compatriot Berdyaev
with the establishment of a Religious-Philosophical Academy, which, ac-
cording to reports, opened on December 1, 1922.3
Berdyaev had been expelled from Russia earlier in 1922 under the orders
of Lenin, who objected to a collection of essays written by, among others,
Berdyaev, Stepun and Frank entitled "Oswald Spengler and the Decline of
Europe" (Volkogonov, Lenin 75). The Bolsheviks, despite their recent
triumph in the civil war, were still highly skeptical regarding the intelligen-
tsia and as many as two hundred were deported on this occasion. Berdyaev
was threatened with execution if he returned. He claims: "I was exiled from
my country not on political grounds, but for ideological reasons ... [The
Revolution] spelled the end of the Russian intelligentsia. In Russian com-
munism the will for power is stronger than the will for liberty" (Vol-
kogonov, Trotsky 225). Despite attempts by the Politburo to use Berdyaev
in the interests of the Soviet regime, Berdyaev would not diminish his
attack: ". . . he criticizes Communism, is a determined enemy of materialis-
tic philosophy and only wants to discuss teleology," remarked a member of
the Cheka, the communist secret police (Volkogonov, Lenin 366).
After his expulsion he settled in Berlin. Berdyaev and his family found
accommodation in two rooms on 31/2 Ranke Strasse owned by one Frau
Dehme. According to Donald Lowrie, "[w]ithin a few months of his
[Berdyaev's] arrival in Berlin, a group of intelligent young men was meet-
ing fairly regularly in his home to discuss religious and philosophical topics"
(162). Towards the end of 1922, the Russian Scientific Institute was
founded by exiles with Berdyaev as its Dean, lecturing on ethics and Rus-
sian philosophy. However, it was the establishment of the Religious-
Philosophical Academy that captured the majority of Berdyaev's efforts.
He saw it as a continuation of the Moscow Soloviev Society and was aided
in its organization by his fellow exiled friend S. L. Frank as well as by
Shestov and the American YMCA. A Berlin magazine, The New Russian
Book, had the following to say on the foundation of the Academy in its
November-December 1922 issue:
The formalopeningof the Religious-Philosophical Academyin Berlin, organisedin connec-
tion with the American Young Men's ChristianAssociation, took place on December 1
(1922).The hallwascrowded.The meetingopenedwithan addressby NicolaiAlexandrovitch
Berdyaev"Onthe spiritualrenaissanceof Russia,andthe aimsof the Religious-Philosophical
Academy."The speaker'sbasic thoughtwas the crisisof humanism.Berdyaevcalled for the
unionof Christianforces of the west and the east. (qtd. in Lowrie165-166)
As well as meeting Shestov in Berlin, Kazantzakis met with the writer

Remizov. It appears that the friendship between Berdyaev, Shestov and
Remizov was particularly strong. Lowrie claims: "Remizoff was the one
friend with whom Berdyaev never quarreled. Shestov, one of the few oth-
ers with whom Berdyaev never broke relations, told Remizoff how, in the
heat of argument, Berdyaev would shriek at him in defense of his own
ideas" (209). If Kazantzakis met with Shestov and Remizov, two of
Berdyaev's closest friends, in Berlin, in all likelihood during December
1922, it appears a fair conjecture that he would have been aware of the
existence of the Academy and may even have attended.4 If so, then we
must allow for any possible influence of Berdyaev on Kazantzakis. Cer-
tainly, as we shall discover below, their views on the doctrine of the transi-
tional age, and its accompanying spiritual revival that transcends the materi-
alism of communism, have a tantalizing similarity. Let us begin with
Berdyaev.
Berdyaev and the TransitionalAge

Berdyaev became a vehement critic of the Soviet regime. His attack on
communism reflects his desire for individual freedom and creativity. He
claims:
The ideologists of communismhave not recognisedthe radicalcontradictionsin the very
foundationsof all theiraspirations.They havesoughtthe liberationof personalities,they have
declareda revoltagainstall belief, all norms,all abstractideas, for the sake of this emancipa-
tion. For the sake of the liberationof personalitythey throwdown religion,philosophy,art,
morals and they denied the existence of spirit and the spirituallife. But in doing so they
oppressedpersonality,deprived it of qualitativecontent, devastatedits inner life, denied
personality'srightto creativeand spiritualenrichment.(ChristianExistentialism 281)
Despite his leanings towards Marxism, Berdyaev came to see it as lacking

spirit and individual freedom - indeed, as "one of the most dogmatic, immo-
bile, congealed doctrines ever invented in the history of human thought"
(281).
Whilst in Berlin, Berdyaev began composing Un Nouveau Moyen Age,
which was to bring him widespread recognition. He begins this short work
by highlighting his belief in the doctrine of the transitional age:
There is a rhythmin historyas there is in nature,a measuredsuccessionof ages and periods,

alternationof diverse types of culture, ebb and flow, rise and fall... It is our lot to live
historically in a period of transition ... A new and unknown world is coming to birth . .. Let
us agree that our epoch is the end of moderntimes and the beginningof a new middleage.
("NewMiddleAges" 69)
This new middle age, Berdyaev argues, desires to shift from the material to
the spiritual, the exterior to the interior, the individual to the universal and
the secular to the sacred. However, Berdyaev is at pains to stress the
negative elements of the past middle ages--its cruelty and violence--
emphasising that history only moves forward, not backwards. Therefore, a
new middle age must be sought and not a romantic idealization of the past.
This "new middle age" that Berdyaev desires is characterized by a return
to the spiritual principles that have become blocked by the manifest ra-
tional and material forces of the present day. Its essence is therefore
"marked by a visible rotting of old societies and an invisible forming of new
ones" (83). Berdyaev remarks:
I look to the thought of a world which is to begin, the world of the new middle ages.
Contemporaryspiritualprinciplesand forces are used up, the rationalistday of a past history
declines:its sun sets and nightis upon us ... Menof intuitionperceive,all the signsshow that
we have passedfrom an era of light to an era of darkness.(70)
However, as we will see further below, this "era of darkness" enables the
abyss, Boehme's Ungrund, to be unveiled and confronted. Such a confron-
tation with the Ungrund provides the individual, the Imago Dei, with access
to the depths of the spirit, and from these depths springs the fount of
creative energy and freedom necessary for a new spiritual dawn to emerge
that can aid the unfolding Divine theogony.
For Berdyaev, the ensuing period of night will not emerge peacefully:
"An historical day can never give place to night without huge upheavals
and ghastly calamities; it does not fade away peacefully" (74). Neverthe-
less, the present epoch is characterized by decay and therefore a new
spiritual order must be ushered in. "Decay precedes a middle age," claims
Berdyaev, "and it is needful to mark the course of those elements that are
dying and those that are coming to birth" (91). The decaying elements of
the present age include both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism desires
earthly gains, subordinating the spiritual to the material; the same "dis-
ease" may also be seen with the socialists who ". .. take over from bour-
geois capitalist society its materialism, its atheism, its cheap prophets, its
hostility against the spirit and all spiritual life, its restless striving for suc-
cess and amusement, its personal selfishness, its incapacity for interior
recollection" (92-93). However, by exhausting all their own corrupt ele-
ments, capitalism and socialism serve to usher in the new age:
Metacommunism: Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and "the New Middle Age" 437
The end of Capitalismis the end of modern historyand the beginningof the new middle
ages... But first of all perhapstechnicalcivilisationwill try the experienceof developing
itself to its utmostlimits, till it becomes a diabolicalsorcery,just as Communismhas done.
(95)
Berdyaev believes that Russia has a unique role to play in the establish-
ment of this new age, this "spiritual revolution" and "complete renewal of
consciousness" (80). Russia, he maintains, has a messianic mission to en-
lighten the world; therefore, its communist struggle may be seen, paradoxi-
cally, as having a religious essence:
Those movementswhoseobjectis to surmountnationalbarriersandunifythe world,abandon
the individualisticspiritof the end of modernhistoryand inauguratethe new middleage. In
that sense, communistinternationalismis a phenomenonof that age, ratherthan of the old
'modernhistory.'(100)
Even communism has a "religious" element, as it attempts to establish a

"sacred" society dominated by the "religion of Satan" and is not neutral
regarding the past secular Humanist society. In this respect, Russia has a
unique destiny: ". . . a very special part will be assigned to Russia in the
passing from modern history to the new middle ages: she is more likely to
give birth to Antichrist than to a humanist democracy and a laicized neutral
culture" (83).
Communism, Berdyaev continues, seeks to subjugate the individual to
the benefit of the whole, a desire driven by a "superhuman and inhuman
force" (88). Such a vibrant, organic supra-individualistic force also drives
Italian fascism:
The force of realityprevailsagainsteverythingelse ... Italianfascismattests the crisisnot
less thandoes Communism... it is an unconstrainedmanifestationof the will to live and to
direct, a manifestation,not of law,but of biologicalenergy.(89-90)
Although the modern age has attempted to assert humanity's freedom

from all dependencies, this has only led to a dominance of individualism,
which, according to Berdyaev, lacks any ontological substance:
Mancannotbe set free in the nameof man'sfreedom,for mancannotbe the last end of man.
We are faced withcompletenothingness.If there is nothingtowardswhichmancan lift up his
eyes he is deprived of substance... It is only when human personalityis rooted in the
universal, in the cosmos, that it finds an ontological ground to give its chief substance.
Personalityexists only where God and the divineare recognised.(85-86)
Dominant individualism is therefore a spent force that no longer satisfies
contemporary spiritual needs. "All these forms [of individualism] lose the
sharpness of their outline, in the twilight of modern history: man's atmo-
sphere is now universal and cosmic, he meets the mysteries of life and finds
himself faced with God" (86). This epoch of universality is reflected in the
lack of ontological authority residing over humanity. As we have seen,
Berdyaev believes that "Italian Fascism attests this crisis not less than
Communism."5 Therefore, the movements of Communism and Fascism,
despite their evils, transcend the prevailing individualistic spirit and thus
serve to inaugurate the new middle age.
The Abyss of "Night"

Berdyaev claims that the "new middle age" constitutes a period of
"night" in which the veils of falsehood are removed and the naked abyss is
uncovered. Uncertainty, homesickness, fear and terror all characterize
night, as illusions that have previously covered the abyss are torn aside. As
twilight falls, and day looses out to night, all the veils of certainty and
stability are uncovered. Berdyaev cites Tiutchev, who describes this twi-
light, when "all sound is silent," as "the hour of wordless longing" (71):
This namelessabyssis coveredwith a golden veil

by the high will of the gods
Day is this shiningveil ...
The nightis coming-she is come:
She stripsthe blessed pall
of the ominousworld
and the abyssis there,
naked, with terrorsand with shades
noughtbetween us and it
So does Night bringus fear. [F. Tiutchev,"Den'i noch"'(1839)]
It is only in the darkness of Night that the "abyss" can be seen. Berdyaev
sees a further expression of this "holy" Night, in another poem of
Tiutchev's:
Behold man, withouthome,

orphaned,alone, impotent,
facingthe darkabyss.
[Tiutchev,"Sviataianoch' na nebosklonvzoshla"(1850)](71)6
For Berdyaev, therefore, night has a deeper ontological and metaphysi-

cal essence than does the daylight of modern history: "Night is closer than
day to the mystery of all beginning. The abyss (Jacob Boehme's Ungrund)
is open only at night: day spreads a veil over it" (71). This period of "night"
has a "feminine" quality that is in touch with the mysteries of life more
intimately than is the logically dominated "eternal masculine."
Creative Freedom
For Berdyaev, as we have seen, the "new middle age" is constituted by a
spiritual and inward regeneration, "a clear view of the abyss of Being"
(72). An experience of this abyss is not a paralyzing, nihilistic fear; it
enables the individualto access the primordialfreedom of the self and is

suggestiveof a spiritualrenewal. Drawingon ideas firstgiven their impulse
by the theosophy of Boehme, Berdyaev prioritizesthe absolute freedom
that is rooted in the Divine Ungrund,the Abyss, the meontic7source of all
Being. Boehme proclaimeda dark center within God, which contains all
possibilitiesfor non-beingand is a necessaryproponentfor the active, inner
Divine life.8This Ungrundis priorto, and the sourceof, all being. Freedom
thereforelies at the basis of all existence: the freedom of the Godhead to
create and self-manifestin the temporalworld, and consequentlythe free-
dom of the human, the Imago Dei, to create. Freedom, and its corollary
Creation, therefore, are fundamentalaspects of both the Divine and the
human.
The creativedevelopmentwithinthe Godhead is thereforealso reflected
within humannature;humansare essentiallycreativebeings. Creativityis
thusa primordialaspectof the humanpersonalityandis rootedin God'sfree
creation.Berdyaevclaims:"Godthe Creator,by an act of His almightyand
omniscientwill, createdman- His own imageandlikeness, a being free and
gifted with creative power, called to be lord of creation"(Meaningof the
CreativeAct 100). Furthermore,"Godcreatedsuchan astoundinglyexalted
image of himself, that in God's very creationthere is justifiedthe limitless
audacityof man's creative act, of man's creative freedom"(138). Indeed,
humansare called to continue the creativeprocess and enhance the divine
theogony;for Berdyaev,humanityis enteringthe "eighthdayof creation,"a
new era of the Spirit, the third epoch of the unfoldingTrinity.As we will
now see, these ideas are very much at home withinthe mystictheogony of
Kazantzakis,who believed that communismmust be taken to its extremes
so as to have its energy exhausted before a creative "new dawn" could
emerge.
Kazantzakis: The TransitionalAge and Metacommunism

We can see Kazantzakis'sbelief in the idea of a "transitionalage"in some
detail within two articles that were later condensed into his travel-book
WhatI saw in Russia,publishedin 1928.These articles,"TheNew Pompeii"
and "CrucifiedRussia,"were publishedin the journalAnayennisi(Renais-
sance) in October1926andJanuary1927respectively,causingmuchopposi-
tion from the Greek OrthodoxChurch,notablyfrom Bishop Athanasiosof
Syros,who condemnedthe journal'spublicationof the SpiritualExercisesin
a memorandumto the Synodin 1928(Bien 104). Kazantzakishadvisitedthe
Soviet Union for the second time in October1925as a newspapercorrespon-
dent and the followingyear, againin his role as correspondent,he traveled
to Palestineand Cyprus.The followingAugust he interviewedthe Spanish
dictatorPrimode Riveraand in Octoberof 1926he was in Rome interview-
ing Mussolini.These trips helped Kazantzakisnurturehis views on "meta-
communism." As Bien notes, these views found expression particularly in

the essay "Crucified Russia:"
An attempt to define metacommunism, it is the piece to which Kazantzakis was referring, I
believe, when he shared the following fears with Eleni Samiou on 13 December 1926: "I've
finished the essay on metacommunism that I wrote you about ... It will be published later--
because it is a decisive step in my life and I have to ponder over it very much. It's a big rupture
with communism -not in a backward direction, of course, but terrifyingly forward. All my
communist friends will be furious; those who agree will misinterpret again." (Bien 110)
Kazantzakis's notion of metacommunism is intimately linked to his belief

in the doctrine of the transitional age. These views on the transitional age
contained within the two mentioned essays on Russia have interesting simi-
larities with those expressed in Berdyaev's Un Nouveau Moyen Age, com-
posed, as we have noted, in Berlin in 1923, as was Kazantzakis's Spiritual
Exercises. This work of Berdyaev's is of importance not only because it was
written at a time and place in the proximity of Kazantzakis, and reflects the
existential Zeitgeist, but also because it is known from a 1929 letter to Eleni
Samiou that Kazantzakis desired a copy of Un Nouveau Moyen Age for his
travel-book on Russia (Helen Kazantzakis 207).
As we now examine Kazantzakis's thought in greater depth we will see
clearly that what dominates his belief in a transitional age is his desire that
decadent materialism should not obstruct the ascending stream of creative
evolution towards spiritual freedom. In order to achieve this renewed as-
cent all material obstruction must be "undone" in order to allow the Spirit
to resume its freely creative path; to use the Christian symbolism that
Kazantzakis himself was so fond of using, "resurrection" can only occur
after "crucifixion."
Kazantzakis: The New Pompeii and Crucified Russia. Crucified Russia

Although "The New Pompeii" was published first, I would like to begin
by looking at "Crucified Russia" as this appears first in the collection of
articles condensed into Kazantzakis's work Russia. The essay begins by
recounting an interview (no doubt touched up for artistic purposes) be-
tween Kazantzakis and a "European friend,"9 both of whom have just
attended a communist meeting. Upon leaving the hall the friend expresses
his disgust with humanity, which he believes serves only to distort the pure
Idea. The only way for the Idea to remain uncontaminated, he continues, is
to remain inside the mind. Kazantzakis castigates his friend: "What could
an Idea achieve if it remained inside a wise head?" he asks. "It would
wither, go stale and die, sterile and malcontent" (Russia 245). For Kazan-
tzakis, the views of his friend are too "delicate" and Christian; he should
become an ascetic or write of a utopia if he believes that humanity corrupts
the pure Idea. Kazantzakis therefore asks: "What are you doing here
among the wretched, restless creatures who have a belly, a phallus or a
womb?" (247). Consistent with the ascending and descending struggle of

Bergson's elan vital, matter and spirit are dialectically intertwined.
Kazantzakis then proceeds to offer his own beliefs. His begins by claiming
that blood has always been the only way to initiate a revolution and enable a
new idea to triumph. Kazantzakis controversially gives the name "God" to
the force that fans this wind of revolution. This God, which reminds us so
much of Bergson's elan vital, "is not a kind of family head . . . He is cruel; he
is not interested in individuals. He kills, gives birth, kills again, gives birth
again ... He descends as He pleases, holds on to anything he likes -the
belly, the heart, the mind - and stirs humans to revolt" (248). The chaos that
ensues from these "dark forces" of blood and tears enables the new "seed,"
or carriers of the elan vital, to emerge and propel humanity up and over the
obstacles of sterile contentment. This surge upward, which constitutes the
greatest thoughts and actions of man, is part of an endless cycle. Although
the mind desires a goal to be reached, the cycle of life is without rest,
"without beginning or end; it always turns on its wheel, the flesh and the
spirit of man. The best minds recognize this law and fall terrified into si-
lence" (249).
Today [that is, 1927], Kazantzakis continues, Russia is the "seed" that
enables the spirit to ascend beyond the entrapments of security, content-
ment and happiness, which lead only to sterility and spiritual stasis, and
force the elan vital to congeal as matter. New hopes, visions, myths must be
created that capture the contemporary needs and cry of the people. Al-
though Russia is the raw material, it is the Spirit (Bergson's elan vital, of
course) fanning Russia that is superior, seeking "a mobilization across the
whole earth" (250). Kazantzakis continues: "The Spirit is greater than the
prophets, greater than leaders, greater than Russia" (250).
Time is the greatest ally of this Spirit. Kazantzakis advocates a trust in
the inevitably cyclical law of history and the necessity for death in order for
rebirth to ensue:
Today the sensible, the comfortable, the scribes and pharisees, look at this crucified nation
and laugh scornfully: "Russia is finished. She's lost!" Because reason believes only what it sees
and cannot discern the invisible forces of the martyrdom. But as Christ said, the seed of wheat,
in order to become new grain, must first descend into the earth and die. Russia is like the seed,
like a great Idea. (251, emphasis added)
In order to appease the mind's unquenchable thirst for labels, Kazantzakis

decides to name his "heretical" view of communism, "post-" or "meta-"
communism (251).
This idea of a "Crucified Russia" suggests the necessity of a purifying fire
that must occur before a subsequent re-creation - the "death" before the
"rebirth." Berdyaev offers a faith in Russia similar to Kazantzakis, and
hence, as Lambert notes, "he is also aware that on this path to a renewal of
life and spiritual rebirth, the Russian people will have to go through the
purifying fire of national repentance and undergo a stern self-discipline of
the spirit" (37).
The New Pompeii

In the essay "The New Pompeii" we are again presented with Kazantza-
kis's call for overcoming decadence with a renewed ascent of the spirit. As
usual, he lays stress on the destructive elements. "To me," he claims, "the
whole earth today appears like Pompeii a little before the eruption" (Rus-
sia 252-253). The Spirit that propels humanity onwards and upwards is
now blocked by materialism: "Whatever strength the spirit once possessed
was spent in the creation of a great civilisation - ideas, religions, paintings,
music, song, action. Now it is tired out. Let us open a new channel for the
spirit!" (252). Once again, he reiterates his belief that his age is one of
transition: ". . . I happen to be born in a crucial age, when one world
staggers towards collapse while another, full of anger and unspent strength,
rises ... The greatest feats of thought and action take place during such
moments of impetuous ascension" (253). As he does in "Crucified Russia,"
Kazantzakis emphasizes the great Spirit that drives the cycles of human
destiny, and the duty the individual has to support the communist cause in
order to aid the Spirit in its upward propulsion of human life beyond the
stagnation of materialism:
For years now an indomitablefaith strengthensand illuminesmy innerbeing: A Combatant
ascends from inorganicmatter to plants, from plants to animals,from animalsto humans,
strugglingfor freedom. In every crucial historicalepoch this Combatantassumes a new
profile;his face today:leaderof the globalproletariat.(254)
This Combatant, desiring freedom but choking under the weight of matter
and the machine, can be liberated only with the aid of humanity passing
through and beyond this desire for mechanization. However, to return to the
simplicity of the past Middle Ages, where the worker was intimately tied to
the finished product and the practicality of his artifact, is naive Romantic
dreaming: "Life does not turn backward; it advances smashing all those who
cannot follow its lead. Let us go with it ... The solution is always ahead,
never behind" (254-255).
The cry issuing from the depths of the masses will in time become a new
channel for the spirit, creating a new civilization and its accompanying
religions, art and music. Once again faithful to his foundational Bergsonian
influence, Kazantzakis asserts that, in order to overcome the obstruction of
matter, the Spirit uses only what aids its ascent:
An eternal surge greaterthan man drives mankindand transformsit as much as it can-as
much as humanscan--and then they are spent, it discardsthem and attachesitself to new
unworkedmaterial.This force propelseverythingthat can rise and bear fruitand crushesall

that is useless.
In differentepochs and in a myriadof forms, this is the eternalthrustthat stirs and moves
life forward.And we have the duty to collaboratewith it, to help it along. In our time this
energyhas mergedwith those who toil and are hungry.Todaythe massesare the rawmaterial
of this historicforce. (258)
Here we can see the stress on individual duty, responsibility and sacrifice
to the ascending Spirit that is prominent within the Spiritual Exercises.
Within communism, "individuality is subsumed to the whole" (257). "Our
duty," Kazantzakis continues, "war against the class that has completed its
task and is now an obstacle to the advance of the spirit; collaboration with
the proletarians without any reservations" (257).
Berdyaev and Kazantzakis: Creative Affinities

The similarities between the ideas of Berdyaev and those of Kazantzakis
are clearly apparent. Both stress their belief in the prevailing transitional age
and a crisis of culture. Berdyaev claims: "It is our lot to live historically in a
period of transition" ("New Middle Ages" 69); Kazantzakis believed he was
"... .born in a crucial age, when one world staggers towards collapse whilst
another, full of anger and unspent strength, rises" (Russia 253). He con-
cludes his comments on Russia in a strikingly Berdyaevian tone:
We live in it and consequentlydo not see our epoch clearly;but centurieslater our time will
surely not be called a Renaissancebut a Middle Ages; that is, an interregnum,a period in
whicha civilizationis collapsingwhile anotheris being born.The formerwill be in the throes
of death for generations;the other in labor pains for generations.Between them, long wars
will rage. From the Russian Revolution onwardwe are going to live throughthe bloody
turmoilof the birthof a new civilisation.(261)
Both Berdyaev and Kazantzakis recognize the important role Russia is to
play in the establishment of this new age. According to Kazantzakis,
"... we must bend our heads in reverence over Russia, because she is the
pioneer in the world today; she opens the way, in the midst of hunger and
blood to bring life higher" (249).10 Kazantzakis and Berdyaev both reject
the wisdom of returning to an "ideal" of the past middle-ages: Berdyaev
claims that "the experience of modern times does not allow us to go back to
the old middle ages, but only forward to a new middle age" ("New Middle
Ages" 80). As Kazantzakis was to express it later: "The solution is always
ahead, never behind" (Russia 255).
Both thinkers end their work with a passionate appeal to the reader,
highlighting the responsibility that comes with the desire and need for
creative freedom. Berdyaev warns: "A very great deal depends on our
liberty, on man's creative efforts. We are men of the [new] middle ages, not
only because that is our destiny, the fatality of history, but also because we
will it. You, you are still men of modern times, because you refuse to
choose" ("New Middle Ages" 119); Kazantzakis offers a similar finale to

his comments on Russia: "Great and crucial is the moment we are going
through. If you are a true human being, my reader, if you feel compassion
for mankind and understand the fiery storm that envelops us, then you
have a duty to think with care and make, if you can, a decision" (Russia
262). Like Tillich's call to embrace the moment of "kairos" within historical
time, the emphasis is on human choice, decision, and subsequent creativity.
Berdyaev asserts that this move from modern history to a new middle age
"... should be considered as a revolution of the spirit, an anticipated
creative activity" ("New Middle Ages" 101). He continues: ". . the impe-
tus of independent secular culture is spent, and a longing is awakened in all
spheres of activity for a religious choice, for real existence, for a transfigura-
tion of life" (104).
As we will now see in more depth, Kazantzakis believed that it was
necessary for communism to reach its acme and become a spent force in
order for this "new dawn" of creative spirituality to emerge. As he makes
clear in "Crucified Russia," he realized the necessity that Russia must
"die." Therefore, there appears continuity rather than a sharp break be-
tween Kazantzakis's "communism" and his desire to concentrate on his
artistic creativity. By 1929 he had come to realize that communism was a
spent force, but that (to use the terminology of Berdyaev) it had led culture
to plummet into an abyss of night, which, gazing into the Ungrund of
Boehme, enables creativity, the central spiritual tenet of both God and
humanity, to issue forth.
Prevelakis, Kazantzakis's close friend and later biographer, notes that
after his disillusionment with communism Kazantzakis's "only remaining
refuge is poetic creativity: Lenin gives way to Odysseus" (qtd. in Bien 143).
Poetry became for Kazantzakis "the soul's one and only salvation" (qtd. in
Bien 157-8). Kazantzakis the idealist now focused on artistic creativity in
order to continue ascending the "uphill path" and in so doing "save God"
from material imprisonment. Kazantzakis now saw his duty to help usher in
a "new dawn;" this is a desire that dominates the rest of his literary career
and highlights his idealistic rather than politically activist priority.1'
Therefore after his disillusionment with communism as the most effec-
tive way of enabling life's elan to continue its ascent, Kazantzakis concen-
trated entirely on his aesthetic creation as a means of embodying the future
cry of humanity. The "future cry of man" was to become captured in art,
beginning with his monumental 33,333 verses of the Odyssey. In a letter to
Michael Anastasiou, written on August 28, 1929, Kazantzakis declares his
intention:
For the next two or threeyears,I will assignone purposeto my life: to createin the Odyssey-
with images, flesh, perfect verse and an impetuouslove for all elementsof earth, water and
air--the futurecry of man.
That is the duty I give to my life. Everythingelse--the salvationof the proletariat,the

cultivationof the mind,the curiosityof the eye to see andhear,the heart'sdesireto love - can
only be for me the painfulmarchtowardthis cry. (Russia271)
After his initial attraction to communism, in which he saw the individual
subsumed under the whole Idea, Kazantzakis thus developed a growing
interest in the cry of the individual in the face of a ruthlessly ascending
Spirit. Nevertheless, despite a more apparent rebellious side to the individ-
ual in his later works (notably Sodom and Gomorrah) his dominant belief
in creative evolution still leads him to assert the priority of the metaphysical
over purely individualistic and egotistical aspirations.
Berdyaev, as we saw, rejected communism as a tyranny that suffocated
human freedom. Despite his belief in the messianic significance of Russia,
he saw communism as the end of a period of decadence that would serve to
usher in the ensuing period of "night:" "[Bolshevism's] tragedy is not en-
acted in the full day of modern history but in the darkness of medieval
night" ("New Middle Ages" 82). Initially, as we noted, Kazantzakis saw
Russian communism as the greatest hope for an exit out of decadence.
However, in the letter to Anastasiou he expresses his dissatisfaction with
the communist movement. Attainment of the goal, he claims, leads to
contentment and stasis. The Russians are becoming content and therefore
the spirit is rapidly being turned back into matter. Kazantzakis now sees
the communist "faith" as having two major characteristics: "materialism,
and worship of the machine. The ideal for the Soviet Union is America"
(Russia 269). Communism no longer works towards the creation of a new
culture, but is "simply the most extreme and logical consequence of bour-
geois civilization . .. Communism is the end, not the beginning. It has all
the symptoms of finality: unadulterated materialism, excessive logic,
deadly analysis of every faith that transcends the senses, deification of
practical goals" (269). As we claimed earlier, for Kazantzakis it is the desire
for creative evolution, not for communism, that is paramount. Neverthe-
less, in order for a new age to be ushered in, communism must be taken to
its extreme limits and exhausted:
Justas a driverwho has entereda burningforestmust, insteadof turningback, move aheadas
quicklyas possibleat double speed to escape the conflagration,so we who have enteredinto
this awesomeage mustintensify,as muchas we can, all the tendenciesof communismto the
utmostso that the hour for salvationwill come more quickly.Whatwill be our deliverance?
The destructionof this world and the beginningof the creationof anotherone on different
foundationsin whichthe worshipof the machine,of logic and of practicalgoalswill appearas
unworthysatisfactions.A new slogan. (270)12
Furthermore, he asserts that "[C]ommunism is the end, but naturally, as
in every end, there are many elements of the new beginning. What are
they? . . . This is the awesome anxiety and the great duty for those among
us today who are creative in the realm of theory" (270).
Although there appears a changing emphasis in Kazantzakis's views from

those expressed in 1922-1923 through to 1926-1927 (attraction to commu-
nism) to those in 1929 (disillusionment with communism), it is important to
remember that his Spiritual Exercises, composed in 1922-1923, were al-
ready an expression of the first cries of his "metacommunist" credo, high-
lighting the destructive fire out of which would emerge a renewal: "Fire will
surely come one day to purify the earth" (Saviors of God 128). Kazantzakis
was well aware that orthodox Marxists would reject his "heretical" views
contained within this idealistic work. Before attending the celebrations of
the tenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution in 1927, he wrote to Eleni
Samiou from Aegina: "... I'll take some English copies [of the Spiritual
Exercises] to give to people I find in Moscow. It's a bit dangerous for me to
make propaganda for Meta-Communism, which the communists hate so
much, but it's necessary" (Helen Kazantzakis 166). We must also remem-
ber his earlier claim that metacommunism was a "big rupture" with commu-
nism, as well as his assertion that his Spiritual Exercises were written "in
order to express the spiritual agony [of those] who could not breathe easily
within the narrow backward materialistic perception of the Communist
Idea" (Friar 22). Thus neither Kazantzakis nor Berdyaev was ever satisfied
with materialistic communism as an end in itself- both wanted spirituality
and creativity to be the dominant forces of a new middle age.
Concluding Remarks
This essay has argued that Bergson's creatively destructive elan vital
(Kazantzakis's deity), coupled with the crisis of culture that he experienced
in Vienna and Berlin, led Kazantzakis to realize that only by confronting
and embracing the abyss of crisis and despair would it be possible for a new
cycle of creativity to manifest itself. Hence communism was a necessary
destructive force integral to his larger "metacommunist" desire which had
the furthering of creative evolution as its priority. At the heart of Kazantza-
kis's thinking is the Bergsonian belief that destruction of all material mani-
festations of the elan vital is necessary in order for the will-to-life to cre-
atively manifest itself again. Kazantzakis's political aspirations, therefore,
like Berdyaev's, have a profoundly spiritual essence. Hence, communism
represents the destructive fire that leads to the abyss out of which creativity
re-manifests itself. Kazantzakis's embrace of communism but ultimate de-
sire for "metacommunism" is very much in accordance with the intimate
dialectic of destruction and creation - creativity is only possible after reach-
ing what may, in Kazantzakis's Bergonsian philosophy, be termed the
"abyss" or the "womb."
Commentators are divided on the question of Kazantzakis's allegiance to
communism. Some are quite clear that he was a communist; others equally
adamant that he was not.13 For instance Bien, admitting that Kazantzakis's
views on communism are ambivalent (168), believes that, "Although sup-
porting the left most of the time, Kazantzakis was never a communist"
(171).
Although he clearly supported the left during the early twenties, we have
seen that Kazantzakis never embraced communism as an end in itself: its
purpose was always to serve something higher than itself, "god." Neverthe-
less, it is clear that Kazantzakis believed that in order for communism to
fulfil its duty and spend all its dynamic energy, it had to be taken to its
extremes and exhausted. Once again, we see the dominance of the Ka-
zantzakian dialectic. Renewed creativity can issue forth only after a loss of
energy and a return to the "abyss." Hence, communism was a prerequisite
for a new creative, "metacommunist" society. The similarities between
Kazantzakis and Berdyaev are strong and significant. For both, the present
age was a transitional period (a creative period of "night") whence a "new
dawn" would emerge. Kazantzakis was never a communist if we mean by
that somebody who believed that the communist Idea was absolute. How-
ever, we cannot doubt his allegiance to the communist cause, not, as I have
stressed, because he saw communism as a final goal to be reached, but
because he realized that communism must be exhausted before a new age
dominated by dynamic creativity could be ushered in. Bien's comment that
Kazantzakis's attraction to communism was only temporary and never per-
manent is correct (Bien 171). Perhaps the most succinct way to indicate
Kazantzakis's aesthetic dissatisfaction with communism is to say that,
whereas Marx believed that the main goal was not to interpret the world
but to change it, Kazantzakis's inherent idealism led him to believe in a
saying from a Byzantine mystic: "Since we cannot change reality, let us
change the eyes which see reality" (Report to Greco 45).
NOTES
I would like to express my thanks to two anonymousreviewersof SEEJ for their helpful
suggestions.This articleis dedicatedto Gijs Berends.
1 I am referringspecificallyto a recentreviewin TheGuardian(18 Apr. 2000)of Martinu's
operabased on Kazantzakis'snovel The GreekPassionthat claimscategorically"Kazan-
tzakiswas a communist"(qtd. in Ashley).
2 Tillich claims: "Whenwith 31 July 1914, the nineteenthcenturycame to an end, the
Existentialistrevoltceased to be a revolt. It becamethe mirrorof an experiencedreality"
(130). George Pattison,commentingon Tillich'sexistentialism,writes:
Overagainstsuchreconciliatorysystems[suchas the Hegelian]existentialismdraws
attentionto the finitudeof the humansituation,our inabilityto graspthe totalityof
Being and our constantanxiety,loneliness,emptinessand fear of meaninglessness.
Existentialismportraysthe humansituationin its alienationand separationfrom
448 Slavic and East European Journal
the deepest ground of its Being -but, paradoxically, at the same time says that it is
precisely this situation of anxious separation which discloses the reality of our
specifically human mode of being. (109)
3 According to Philip Boobbyer, however, the Academy had its opening on November
26, 1922. See Boobbyer, S. L. Frank, 124. To support his claim, Boobbyer draws on the
Rul' edition (November 28/15) which announces that the opening of the Religious-
Philosophical Academy has just taken place.
4 I have suggested elsewhere that Kazantzakis may well indeed have been familiar with
Berdyaev's Academy: "Although there appears no direct evidence that Kazantzakis at-
tended the Academy, which offered lectures by Russians on a variety of subjects concern-
ing religion, philosophy, and art, he does remark . . . that while in Berlin he 'attended
lectures given by the friends of Russia, read their books and pamphlets.' Could this have
been at Berdyaev's Academy?" (Owens 364, note 14).
5 Kazantzakis offered a similar belief, highlighting that communism was not sought as an
end in itself but as a servant of something greater: the struggle for freedom. Writing in
1927, he stated that fascism and Bolshevism may "involuntary and unknowingly be faith-
ful collaborators" (qtd. in Bien 114). Elsewhere he claimed, "The essence of both [fas-
cism and Bolshevism] is faith, i.e. something ... beyond logic" (qtd. in Bien 115). Bien
correctly notes that Kazantzakis discovered in fascism "another 'supra-individualistic
rhythm' that seemed to have great power. Thus he dared to suggest that there were
similarities in the two ideologies, at least similarities of means if not ends, in defiance of
the communist line that considered fascism a bitter rival in every respect" (Bien 112).
6 Berdyaev continues by claiming that the significance of the "new Middle Ages" lies
"contained in this clear view of the abyss of Being . .. That is what going into the night
means" (72). He ends by once again quoting Tiutchev ["Kak okean ob"emlet shar
zemnoi" (1830)]:
The flood waxes and bears on us
to a dark immensity . . .
there where we sail, all around us
the flaming abyss. (Berdyaev 119-120)
7 Meontic means pertaining to non-being. It is the freedom for creation prior to ontological
determination. "Berdyaev ... has developed an ontology of non-being which accounts
for the 'meontic' freedom in God and man" (Tillich 31).
8 For Berdyaev, the creation of the world is the realisation of the inner life of the Divine
Trinity. He claims: "Creation of the world implies movement in God, it is a dramatic
event in the Divine Life" (Destiny of Man 39). According to Berdyaev, this dramatic
event within the Godhead is "what Jacob Boehme calls the theogonic process." Kazantza-
kis himself referred to the Spiritual Exercises as his own "mystic Theogony" (Helen
Kazantzakis 27).
9 Kazantzakis elsewhere stresses (Report to Greco 395) what he believes to be the funda-
mental difference between the Russian and the European soul: the former can hold
contradictions together which the latter finds irrational. See also Kazantzakis Russia, 7,
241. It is no surprise that towards the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twenti-
eth century, Boehme was exerting a marked influence on Russian religious thought (see
Zdenek). A key element behind Kazantzakis's (and Boehme's) thought was his belief
that opposites could be seen as co-workers, for example, evil and good, matter and spirit,
darkness and light.
10 This also highlights that Kazantzakis's belief that Russia was to usher in the new age (a
belief that had been eroded by 1929, possibly after encountering Berdyaev's Un Nouveau
Moyen Age?) was still evident when the article "The New Pompeii" (from which the
above quote comes) was published in 1926 prior to its inclusion in the travel-book.
11 As late as 1948, when he wrote the play Sodom and Gomorrah,Kazantzakiswas still
concernedwiththis "newdawn."For example,SodomandGomorrahare to be burnedat
night, "beforeday breaks"(Two Plays 14); the Angel complainsto the King: "Youask
too many questions.There is no time left; dawn is breaking"(74); Abrahamexclaims:
"Enough!Run quickly and bring Lot here. God can't wait much longer; it's close to
dawn"(83).
12 The same idea is expressed in Kazantzakis's novel Toda-Raba: "... when the vile war
came [WorldWarI], it broughtone great good: it intensifiedthe processof decomposi-
tion"(116). Geranosexclaims:"Yes,yes, let us be communists!Let us go on intensifying
this cult of the machine and of matter ... Let us drive the world to an exaggerated
Americanism!There is no other way to liberateourselvesfromthe machine"(181).
13 For a detailedlook at the attitudeof Greek communiststo Kazantzakis,see Bien, 157-
184. The Greek communistswere themselvesquite adamantthat Kazantzakiswas not a
communist!
WORKS CITED
Ashley,Tim. "A Societywith No Imaginationis a Monster."Guardian18 Apr. 2000:36.

Berdiaev, Nikolai. Christian Existentialism: A Berdyaev Anthology. Trans. and ed. Donald A.
Lowrie.London:G. Allen and Unwin, 1965.
.The Densityof Man. Trans.Natalie Duddington.London:GeoffreyBles, 1937. V.
Gollancz,1955.
TheMeaningof the CreativeAct. Trans.DonaldA. Lowrie.New York:Harper,1955.
. "The New MiddleAges." The End of Our Time.Trans.Donald Atwater.London:
Sheed and Ward,1933. 67-120.
Un Nouveau Moyen Age: Reflexions Sur les Destinies de la Russie et l'Europe. Trans.
A.M.F. Paris:LibrariePlon, 1927.
Bien, Peter. Kazantzakis: Politics of the Spirit. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989.
Boehme, Jacob. TheAurora.Trans.JohnSparrow.London:M. Watkins,1914.
Boobbyer, Philip. S. L. Frank: The Life and Work of a Russian Philosopher 1877-1950.
Athens: Ohio UP, 1995.
Friar, Kimon. Introduction. The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises. By Nikos Kazantzakis.
New York:Simonand Schuster,1960.
Kazantzakis, Helen. Nikos Kazantzakis: A Biography Based on His Letters. Trans. Amy
Mims. Oxford:Simonand Schuster,1968.
Kazantzakis,Nikos. Reportto Greco.Trans.Peter A. Bien. London:FaberandFaber,1965.
Russia: A Chronicle of Three Journeys in the Aftermath of the Revolution. Trans.
MichaelAntonakesand ThanasisMaskaleris.Berkeley,California:CreativeArts, 1989.
The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises. Trans. Kimon Friar. New York: Simon and
Schuster,1960.
. Toda-Raba.Trans.Amy Mims.New York:Simonand Schuster,1964.
. TwoPlays. Trans.KimonFriar.St. Paul, Minneapolis:NorthCentral,1982.
1945.
Lampert, E. Nicholas Berdyaev and the New Middle Ages. London: James,
Lowrie, Donald. Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nicholas Berdyaev. London: V. Gollancz,
1960.
Owens, Lewis. "Does this 'One' exist?The unveiledAbyss of Nikos Kazantzakis."Journalof
Modern Greek Studies 16.2 (1998): 331-348.
Pattison, George. Art, Modernity and Faith. Towards a Theology of Art. Basingstoke: Mac-
millan,1991.
450 Slavic and East European Journal
Raeff, Marc. Russia Abroad: A CulturalHistory of the Russian Emigration,1919-1939.

Oxford:OxfordUP, 1990.
Tillich, Paul. The Courageto Be. London:Nisbet, 1952.
Volkogonov,Dmitri. Lenin:A New Biography.Trans.and ed. Harold Shukma.New York:
Free Press, 1994.
.Trotsky:TheEternalRevolutionary.Trans.anded. HaroldShukma.London:Harper
Collins, 1996.
Zdenek, David, V. "The influenceof JacobBoehme on RussianReligiousThought."Slavic
Review21 (1962):43-64.

Metacommunism - Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and &#39;The New Middle Age&#39;

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metacommunism - Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and &#39;The New Middle Age&#39;

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Metacommunism: Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and "The New Middle Age"

Lewis Owens, Canterbury Christ Church University College

Only he has been freed from the inferno of his

SEEJ, Vol. 45, No. 3 (2001): p. 431-p. 450 431

dominated by a dialectic of destruction and creation: the individual is to aid

Vienna and Berlin: The Crisis of Culture

The "new conception" that Kazantzakis refers to bears testimony to his

Berdyaev and the Berlin Academy

As well as meeting Shestov in Berlin, Kazantzakis met with the writer

Berdyaev and the TransitionalAge

Despite his leanings towards Marxism, Berdyaev came to see it as lacking

There is a rhythmin historyas there is in nature,a measuredsuccessionof ages and periods,

Even communism has a "religious" element, as it attempts to establish a

Although the modern age has attempted to assert humanity's freedom

The Abyss of "Night"

This namelessabyssis coveredwith a golden veil

Behold man, withouthome,

For Berdyaev, therefore, night has a deeper ontological and metaphysi-

enables the individualto access the primordialfreedom of the self and is

Kazantzakis: The TransitionalAge and Metacommunism

communism." As Bien notes, these views found expression particularly in

Kazantzakis's notion of metacommunism is intimately linked to his belief

Kazantzakis: The New Pompeii and Crucified Russia. Crucified Russia

womb?" (247). Consistent with the ascending and descending struggle of

In order to appease the mind's unquenchable thirst for labels, Kazantzakis

The New Pompeii

unworkedmaterial.This force propelseverythingthat can rise and bear fruitand crushesall

Berdyaev and Kazantzakis: Creative Affinities

choose" ("New Middle Ages" 119); Kazantzakis offers a similar finale to

That is the duty I give to my life. Everythingelse--the salvationof the proletariat,the

Although there appears a changing emphasis in Kazantzakis's views from

Ashley,Tim. "A Societywith No Imaginationis a Monster."Guardian18 Apr. 2000:36.

Raeff, Marc. Russia Abroad: A CulturalHistory of the Russian Emigration,1919-1939.

You might also like

Metacommunism - Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and 'The New Middle Age'

Metacommunism - Kazantzakis, Berdyaev and 'The New Middle Age'