news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

czeslaw milosz was born in 1911 in siettejnie, a polish poet. he left poland in 1951 and lived in france, and moved to the united states in 1960. he won the nobel prize in literature in 1980. in the 1990s, he returned to poland to settle down. he died in krakow in 2004 and rests in wawel cathedral, poland's national temple.

joseph brodsky was born in leningrad in 1940, exiled in 1964, deported in 1972, and settled in the united states with the help of poet auden and other supporters. he won the nobel prize for literature in 1987. he died in the united states in 1996 and was buried in venice.

the book "miłosz and brodsky: the friendship of poets" focuses on these two most famous exiled poets of the 20th century, starting with the first letter brodsky received from milosz in exile in the united states, and deeply exploring their lives and works, all the way to their eventual deaths. this article is excerpted from the book, and the paper is authorized to publish by the publisher.

what does the friendship between milosz and brodsky involve? are they not divided by age, nationality, language, emotions and destiny, and therefore very different? in the introduction to his translation of the book of job, milosz describes himself like this: "there is a burden that is particularly difficult to bear, that is an overly acute consciousness. no one who has received a polish literary education can escape the image of the poet as a prophet or a wanderer. i do try to get rid of it, because i am ashamed. however, i noticed very early that in some special way i had been marked in this way, and if anyone suspects me of arrogance, i can tell him clearly that such a mark is not pleasant and is often considered a serious disability. there are moments in my mind when flashes of consciousness are so bright that they can be called abnormal insights. they seem to come from outside, not from inside. so it is not a natural talent, but a kind of keen sensory perception, not a sensitivity to language. , but a struggle, a struggle with some power that seizes us and destroys our lives like a terminal illness." "miłosz thinks of himself as a bard, and the value and weight of his work cannot be summed up in a few words. he is a rare genius, but he also has superb skills, multi-faceted talents, diligence, high productivity, wide curiosity, firm standards, constant transcendence, the ability to master multiple genres, and the unshakable dignity of his sense of humor. repetition is a feature of his work, like a musical theme, which goes back and forth, familiar and fresh, but always new. yes, we have a special guest. (translator's note: "we have a special guest", this is what milosz said about the polish poet anna svir, the author uses this to comment on milosz.)

"he was a lithuanian from before the war, from the german occupation, who had stayed in paris, emigrated; he was an american, a nobel prize winner, and then lived in krakow," wrote jerzy pilch. and long before that, in 1975, slawomir mrozek considered milosz to be the only real writer among the poles. "what i admired in milosz was a real writer, not an accident, a disturbing sensation, a mistake of the cultural administration, but something magnificent and certain, the fruit of the polish, lithuanian, european and world tradition, whose soul had an innate nobility, with traces of outstanding genes, without the spiritual and psychological obstacles that i think i have, which prevent me from working, learning, reading, remembering, and really creating." the standard set by milosz's work in polish culture is very, very high.

milosz was a poet of existence, a poet of yes, of "praise, renewal, healing"—"grateful because the sun rises for you and will rise for others" (cnp, p. 697). brodsky was completely different. negation and argument were his basic components. he was brilliant, studious, proud of his craft, stubbornly independent and productive, and he considered himself an antibard. here is his own account, from a speech he gave in 1988:

[the author] belongs to that class (alas, i can no longer use the word "generation", which implies a certain mass and totality) for whom literature has always been something with a hundred names; to those whose social manners would make robinson crusoe or even tarzan grimac; to those who are embarrassed at large gatherings, who do not dance at evening parties, who are inclined to find metaphysical excuses for adultery, who are overly particular about political matters; to those who hate themselves far more than their detractors do; to those who always insist that alcohol and tobacco are better than heroin or marijuana - to use the words of wh auden: "you will not find them on the barricades, they never shoot themselves or their lovers." if such people are occasionally found lying in a cell bleeding with their own blood, or standing on a podium to give speeches, it is not because they are rebelling against (or, more accurately, against) some specific injustice but against the world order as a whole. (ogr, pp. 99-100)

how to categorize brodsky? the best attempt, i think, is to be found in what susan sontag said after the poet’s death. like auden, she said, at a poetry reading at columbia university’s miller theater on october 29, 1996, he might not be american, but he was definitely a new yorker. and the best definition of “what is a new yorker,” i found, appears in an essay about william kapell, a pianist who died in a plane crash at the age of thirty-one: “he was the archetypal native new yorker: smart, impatient, unsophisticated, competitive, funny, overconfident, thin-skinned. he could be very generous, but he could also be rude. he was a nervous, paranoid man, and meticulous.” even the title of the essay, “the undefeated,” fits brodsky very well. he is considered a “dialogue poet,” but dialogue is more of a contest. in his constant struggle with time and mediocrity, he always maintained a reverse-thinking perspective, running forward, escaping into the future, leaving behind a body of work that is difficult to embrace even if one understands the two languages ​​in which he worked. his career will leave more obstacles than that of milosz, whose path is at least very clear to polish readers. both were gifted poets, and both led their followers into some unknown territory of world poetry. there, they will feast on the shadows they please.

their friendship goes beyond the solidarity of ordinary colleagues and the fraternal love. they are united by their similar life situations - poets in exile, with double, janus-like faces, looking at the past and the future, the motherland and the foreign land. they are also united by the awareness of the greatness of their gifts and the responsibilities associated with this gift. and because of their similar attitude towards the challenges of poetry: life is a debt that must be repaid through work and friendship. and friendship includes careful acceptance of everyone, including helping those who are nameless and lonely, so that they will not spend their lives in silence and aphasia.

"miłosz and brodsky: the friendship of poets", written by irena gruzinska gross [usa], translated by li yiliang, liaoning people's publishing house, august 2024.