Panait
Istrati, Seen by Michalis Patsis
– Brief
Notes opening “Panait Istrati” Monograph, 2019 -
Dear
friends from Greece, dear friends of Panait Istrati, dear friends of
European culture!
I
have met about one month ago the author of the book you discuss
today, in a pleasant afternoon in Athens, in the Kallithea area. We
have been in touch by email and probably both of us were curious to
find out about the other: I have relatively recently started working
on Panait Istrati (in 2017), while I knew that Michalis Patsis has
worked for many years now.
Our
conversation took place after the presentation of his monograph in
Bucharest on 13 April 2019, when a diverse group of participants –
passionate about Istrati’s works – have travelled from Austria,
France and Italy and reunited in Bucharest and Braila, participating
in discussions about the writer’s life and works. At that moment,
we heard that a new book has just been published, and in the written
article written for the cultural magazine “Public Observer”
[“Observator Cultural” in Romanian] on 26 April 2019
(https://www.observatorcultural.ro/articol/prietenii-lui-panait-istrati-sint-tot-mai-multi/)
we have informed the Romanian audience about this recent study.
The
conversation with Mr Patsis was definitely pleasant. But it revealed
to me a researcher working for many years along various sources and
institutions. He has documented his study in the State Lenin Library,
and the Moscow Library of Letters. His research was not easy, one
needs huge patience to find, read and store the opinions in
documents, many of them being part of historical archives. In fact,
from this point of view, Dr Patsis is a path-opener, because
Istrati’s works are nowadays virtually unknown in Russia, although
his trilogy stirred a substantial wave in many countries, starting
with France (I refer here to the well-known Vers
l’autre flame
trilogy, the three books coming out as being written by Istrati,
although we know that he only authored the first one). How did Dr
Patsis manage in this enterprise? For me, the answer appears as
rising from our friendly conversation in September: with huge
patience and calm! Dr Patsis has engaged in the same way from the
very start of his book: he points out the fact that Istrati could
have benefited from more studies done in Greek in the last couple of
years, given not only his emotional, but also family and biographical
affiliation with Greece. Most people do know that he had a long time
relationship with Nikos Kazantkakis, including Eleni Samiou. But the
question is: how did such relationships work, what can we find out
about these great cultural personalities today? Dr Patsis has
examined with attention those complex lines of thought, going back to
documents, and trying to understand the reality provided by the text,
but also correlating the information with other sources he had
studied earlier.
In
fact, what I have enjoyed when reading this volume is the way he
opens his intention to the audience: Dr Patsis takes it as a cultural
duty! Can we all learn from such a perspective, and use a similar one
in our efforts? I think so, but we need to complement reading with
being in touch with many people, with travel to complete research.
With writing, and re-writing, until ideas get a coherent shape. Being
able to learn from the Russian archives complex details about the
opinions of other journalists, politicians and writers on Istrati, Dr
Patsis has minutely correlated this vast series of sources with his
earlier research on Kazantzakis. We can thus place “his duty”
along a systematic research path, because Dr Patsis has already
completed another substantial volume in 2013, dedicated to
Kazantzakis and his relationships with Russia.
What
does this new volume provide then? Dr Patsis engages in a minute
enterprise, with the methodical and efficient instruments of a
historian, making reference, whenever needed, to the relationships
between various countries where Istrati has worked, traveled to or
stayed for longer and shorter intervals. Dr Patsis suggestively
declares that the Balkans are a highly composite area, including
events associated with history and culture. The first part of the
volume brings Istrati to our attention as a universal writer. Dr
Patsis provides a necessary background to his life, going back to the
area he came from, (Istrati’s father being from Cephalonia), and
early childhood.
What
is interesting about Istrati is that, similarly to his works, his own
biography raises numerous questions. This leads to certain
uncertainties, for instance the father appears only as a witness in
Istrati’s birth certificate. Yet these strong connections in his
life also raises numerous controversies and for many years even a
strong opposition. Why? Because the fatherhood is not fully clear;
because Istrati has written so many works first in French first.
Because he was in friendly relationships with member of the Jewish
intelligentsia, but this didn’t actually help after Vers
l’autre
flame was published! Because he knew what he was capable of! And
because he sometimes contributed to certain difficulties among those
who were closed to him: Kazantzakis, Bilili (Marie-Louise Baud-Bovy
from Geneva, the fourth companion to his trip in the Soviet Union),
and other older or newer friends: the Russian refugee Mikhail
Kazanski, or even Romain Rolland. But Istrati was always proud of his
modest origin, and of his hometown, the cosmopolitan Braila –
unique in Europe, perhaps, for the mixture of different communities:
Greeks, Romanians, Armenians, Jews, Turks, Russians and others. And
Dr Pasis brings a suggestive etymological proof when he discusses the
likely origin of “Istrate” for his maternal relatives, as “the
person coming from Istros, the River [=the Danube]”. Indeed, as Dr
Patsis notes, Zoitza, Istrati’s mother, was not only living and
caring about Georgios Valsamis, but even after her partner’s death,
she could find out news about the relatives of Georgios in distant
parts of the world, such as a rich uncle in Egypt, whom Panait meets.
And she encourages young Panait to establish good terms with this
uncle. Because of his friendship with Mikhail Kazanski, young Panait
refuses the uncle’s proposal to settle and build his own stable,
upper-class life. Which does not mean that he rejects the Greek
community, but prefers to find his own way, very much like a modern
yet poor Ulysses (without a Penelope)!
In
fact, the communities were still conservative at that time in many
Balkan areas, as Dr Patsis very clearly observes. The bourgeoisie was
not receptive to communist ideals, these were popular in France,
given the historical heritage of the revolution, but in other parts
of Europe, such ideas were simply taken as agitating spirits and
inflaming the masses! Dr Patsis follows young Istrati’s trips, and
his firm commitment to support the poor, the modest classes his
family belonged to. This goes hand in hand with his affinity for the
Greek communities, and his own roots. As the case in his trips in
other countries (such as Egypt or Syria, for instance), Istrati is
interested in Greece to stay in contact with the working class,
ordinary people to whom he feels close. He shares their problems and
their joys, and thinks that his political ideas, put into writing,
can only support the education of other modest citizens, to get
access to a better life. In doing this, in my opinion, Istrati
demonstates his strong and lasting adherence to the very concept of
democracy, inherited and cherished nowadays by the whole Europe!
Istrati’s effort to support socialist ideals is thus closely
connected to the ideal of democracy coming from ancient Greece: a
society where citizens have rights and can contribute to the general
welfare. Istrati thinks, as it comes from his political works, that
all citizens need the platform for a decent income, education and
decent living standards. Dr Patsis examines Istrati’s connections
with many other Greek members: writers, journalists, actors, but also
ordinary people. Dr Patsis states that his relationships with Greece
was continuous. Yet he places Istrati’s life as being connected
with other European intellectuals: Romain Rolland, A. M. Jong, Nikos
Kanzantzakis and many others. As Dr Patsis reads it, Istrati’s
relationship with France was not easy: there were numerous supporters
of socialist ideas, but also lots of opportunists, willing to
criticize whoever dared to contest public, favourable positions.
Istrati did not hesitate in expressing his thoughts when the
socialist vision could not but contrast the reality, as he correctly
observed during his visit in the Soviet Union.
I
would like to stop here at this moment, for the simple reason that I
think that all readers of good fiction, all intellectuals interested
in Greek culture, all those present today do need to read it slowly,
and feel both the taste of Dr Patsis’ energy, as well as his
minuteness to examine the Greek-Romanian connections in Panait
Istrati’s life and fictional world!
I
salute all those presents, regretting that it is not possible for me
to join you today! Thank you, dear Michalis, for this result of many
years of research!
Dana
Radler
Bucharest
22
Oct.2019