THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF CZESLAW MILOSZ AND JOSIF BRODSKY IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COT.flRIES by BOZENA KARWOWSKA M.A., University of Warsaw, 1977 M.A., University of British Columbia, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Slavonic Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1995 © Bozena Karwowska, 1995 ________________________ In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature) 4 Department of SO\J13i, SoL’.e The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada ‘ 5- Date /(q DE-6 (2)88) ii ABSTRACT The study describes and analyses the process of critical reception of Czeslaw Milosz and Joseph Brodsky in English-speaking countries. The approach of the first five chapters, while theoretically informed, is primarily narrative and descriptive. The first two chapters present the reception processes in their chronological development, focusing on the evolution of critical interest, categories of description and contextual factors and show that the reception of the two poets has been substantial and of considerable intrinsic interest. While contextual elements played a crucial role in the early stages of the reception, the text gradually became the main focus of critical interest. This development was, however, complicated by the problem of translation described in the fourth chapter. The study also shows that using a variety of techniques, examined in the third chapter, Mllosz and Brodsky influenced the reception of their works. Outlined in the fifth chapter growing interest in the East European poetry, and connected with it descriptive formulas based on the experience of the poet, provided a significant literary context for the reception of Milosz and Brodsky and allowed to examine the rising interest in the text of their literary works. The analytical part examines the mediating role of translators and critics, treating them as an interpretive community. The analysis shows that the aesthetic response to literary works was based for years on the contexts. However, in the later stages artistic features of the text came more frequently to the critical iii attention and the literary text began to play a controlling role over the critical descriptions. Finally, in the conclusion, Fish’s concept of interpretive community and Jauss’s concept of horizon of expectations, the notions of the reader-response and reception theories used in the course of the study, are examined from the point of view of their heuristic value for the description and analysis of the actual process of reception. The conclusion also outlines some indication of combining them with the notions of aesthetics object (Mukarovsky), common memory (Lotman), semiotics of culture (Lotman and Uspensky) and Tomashevsky’ s view of the role of “the legend of the author”. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 1. THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF CZESLAW MILOSZ 9 Chapter 2. THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF JOSIF BRODSKY 87 Chapter 3. METHODS OF SELF-PRESENTATION 147 Chapter 4. TRANSLATION AND THE RECEPTION PROCESS 187 Chapter 5. MILOSZ AND BRODSKY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECEPTION OF EAST EUROPEAN POETRY 234 Chapter 6. ANALYSIS OF THE RECEPTION OF MILOSZ AND BRODSKY 263 CONCLUSION 320 WORKS CITED AND CONSULTED 335 V Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Professors Bogdan Czaykowski and Eva-Marie ICrOller, my research supervisors, for their professional advice and guidance which fostered independence and growth during the writing of my thesis. I am particularly grateful to Professor Czaykowski for his unwavering support during all the stages of my studies, for sharing with me personal letters and critical materials concerning Czeslaw Milosz, and for his patient help with my attempts to overcome the problems posed by writing this work in my second language. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Peter Petro and Dr. C.J.G. Turner for their interest in my work, encouragement and comments leading to the improvement of thesis. my I am especially thankful to Mrs Jadwiga Czaykowska whose warm friendship and loving care helped me to carry on with my work despite numerous personal difficulties. And to Adam -- for bearing with me for several very long years. Finally, I extend my deep gratitude to those members of the faculty and staff, including members of the former Department of Slavonic Studies at UBC as well as Professor Marketa Goetz Stankiewicz and Irma Florov, who despite the difficult situation posed by the dissolution of the Department, helped me to focus on my academic studies. 1 INTRODUCTION The post World War II division of the world along political, ideological and economic lines resulted in a considerable politicization of Western responses to cultural developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, including developments in the sphere of literature. Interest in Russian and East European writers was often (at least initially) the result of political factors, especially in the case of writers who had incurred the displeasure of their governments and suffered persecution for their political activity or views (such as imprisonment or exile) . Political factors and circumstances often obscured the intrinsic literary and philosophical interest of a writer’s work, resulting in a one-sided, superficial, or distorted reception. At the same time the political motivation did help to stimulate interest in East European literature to a degree unprecedented in the history of cultural relations between the Western world and its East European periphery. By analyzing the reception of the works of Czeslaw Milosz and Josif Brodsky this study deals, in effect, with the general problematics of the Western reception of East European and Russian writers in the postwar period. Recent political changes in Eastern Europe provide an especially suitable context for this kind of analytical study and underline its importance. Milosz and Brodsky have been chosen for several reasons. Both have been political exiles from their homelands; both are 2 major poets; both have received the Nobel Prize for literature; both have been extensively translated into English; and both have reflected acutely on the problems facing the writer in exile. There are, however, significant differences between them, which make the comparative study of their reception particularly fruitful. Of significance are differences in their poetics, in their major thematic preoccupations, in their understanding of the role of the poet in the contemporary world and in their treatment of mass media. Furthermore, they entered the West at different points in time (1951 and 1972 respectively) and their work was presented in different ways to English-speaking readers. Finally, one should mention the incomparably greater degree of knowledge in the English-speaking world of Russian, as compared with Polish literature. Among the penalties incurred by the two poets at the hands of their respective governements, one of the most painful was the banning of their works in their homelands. The banishment, obviously, extended also to critical works devoted to their writings and in effect made Anglo-American criticism dealing with their writings not only of special significance but also quite challenging. The role Anglo-American criticism played in the development of each of the two poets constitutes another important difference between Milosz and Brodsky. Since Milosz had gained recognition in Poland as a major poet before his defection to the West, there was a continuing interest among Polish critics in his writings, not only abroad, but also in Poland where, even 3 after 1951, critical works devoted to him appeared in print during periods of relaxation of censorship or, later, in the publications not controlled by the state. Moreover, at the time of his defection Milosz was already a mature poet of considerable achievement. Brodsky, at the time of his expulsion from the Soviet Union was at the beginning of his poetic career, and although he was already recognized as a promising young poet, his poetic achievements were not yet substantial. No collection of Brodsky’s poems appeared in print in the Soviet Union before his exile (in fact, not until the late 1980s), and his work did not evoke an active interest among Russian critics for a considerable period of time. Western (primarily Anglo-American) criticism played a somewhat different role for Brodsky than it did for Mi.osz. In the late 1970s a number of critical works by Polish critics appeared in translation in English-speaking countries; also articles by critics of Polish origin living in the West, which were published occasionally in 1970s and l980s in English- language periodicals, had an impact on the Western reception of Milosz’s works. Brodsky’s works, in contrast, were promoted in the West almost exclusively by non-Russian critics and until the early 1990s the Western reception of his works developed independently of the reception by Russian readers. Thus it was Western criticism that brought Brodsky the high international recognition and prestigious literary prizes; it was also Western 4 criticism that contributed significantly to Milosz’s success, including the Nobel Prize. These prizes, in turn, had an impact on the subsequent interest in their writings among readers and critics in their homelands. Since most English-speaking readers could not read Mllosz and Brodsky’s poetry in the original (except for the few texts they wrote in English), translation played a most crucial role in the reception process of both poets.