10.30.2018

Favorite Poems, Vol. ll: Just Two Things by Gottfried Benn



This is the second edition of the My Favorite Poems series.  The first poem presented was an ode by Pablo Neruda, the discussion of which can be found on my blog. This time the subject is "Nur Zwei Dinge," a poem by Gottfried Benn. It is followed by a translation into English, after which I have posted a recording of both poems. (No, that is not Gottfried Benn's photo on the recording!--It is that of my son, who processed the recording and e-mailed it to me with his photo on it. I couldn't bear to change it!)

                               Nur Zwei Dinge

                               Durch so viel Formen geschritten,
                               durch Ich und Wir und Du,
                               doch alles blieb erlitten
                               durch die ewige Frage: wozu?

                               Das ist eine Kinderfrage.
                               Dir wurde erst spät bewusst,
                               es gibt nur eines: ertrage
                               --ob Sinn, ob Sucht, ob Sage--
                               dein fern bestimmtes: Du musst.

                               Ob Rosen, ob Schnee, ob Meere,
                               was alles erblühte, verblich,
                               es gibt nur zwei Dinge: die Leere
                               und das gezeichnete Ich.

                                                                  --Gottfried Benn
                                                                     (1886-1956)
                                 Just Two Things

                        Marched through many views of the world,
                        through You and We and I,
                        yet everything's been spoiled
                        by the eternal question: why?

                        Such questions do not survive youth.
                        There's just one thing--you learned late--
                        endure--mind, madness or myth--
                        your 'You must' determined by fate.

                        Whether roses, dahlias, snow--yes,
                         they all washed away in the rain.
                         Two things remain: emptiness
                         and your cursed self, branded like Cain.
                    

                              --Translated by Thomas Dorsett
                                               






Analysis

For me, this is one of the most beautiful poems in the German language. This lovely yet  bitter poem is not extraordinary due its content, but due to its technique, namely, in the way it presents that content. It is difficult, and at the time of its composition in 1953, exceedingly difficult, to compose a rhythmically robust and fresh poem while working within the constraints of four-line stanzas with an ABAB rhyme scheme. Poets, especially German poets, had found this form appealing for centuries; by the time of Benn's composition, it was very much 'old hat,' an almost guarantee to the cultured reader that a modern poem that followed this hackneyed scheme would be quite boring. That it is anything but is a tribute to the technical prowess of this poem. (It reminds me in a way of Mozart's La Clemenza di Tito, an opera seria composed in the last year of Mozart's life. By the time of its composition, 1791, the opera seria, glorious examples of which had been composed in the past, was a thing of the past--The somewhat hastily written score  is, a rarity among Mozart's late works,  a relative "flop," despite some wonderful musical passages).

"Nur Zwei Dinge," perhaps the greatest poem Benn ever wrote, is, to put it mildly, not a flop. That he performed the technical feat that he did while tied up with the constraints of  a very strict, old-fashioned form recalls the magic of a Houdini.

The greatness of this poem is due largely to its fusion of music--even discordant music--with meaning. You get an idea of the content when a non-German speaking person listens to a recording in the original. The author does this with a mastery of juxtapositions of vowels and consonants. The long vowels of "so viel Formen" suggest a Sisyphus burden; the regularity of "Ich und Wir und Du' suggest that Sisyphus-Benn not only has a rock on his back, but is walking through mud. The third and fourth lines are read more rapidly and crash into an all-shattering uselessness, "wozu?" " why?

The first line of the second stanza should be read more rapidly as well, shattering iambic constraints. The "why" is a childish question because it is a question asked when one still believes in individual freedom. The stanza ends with an emphasis on "Du musst", "You must"--signifying that the protagonist's life is not only horrible, but foreordained.

The beautiful long syllables of imagined paradises, "ob Rosen ob Schnee ob Meere", are destroyed by the short vowel , lost among consonants, of "verblich" "withered".  The rhyme of Meere (seas) with Leere (emptiness) is particularly ingenious--Meere should be pronounced in a bright-voweled dreamy fashion, while Leere, its destructive opposite, is pronounced quietly and with a lower pitch. You can almost hear the self-disgust and the inevitability of "das gezeichnete Ich", which refers to the Cain sign, when those three words are read properly.

Benn flirted with the Nazis in 1933; by 1934 his enthusiasm was gone. He was banned by the Nazis in 1938, and due to his flirtation with the devil, banned by the allies, for a while at least, after the war. The poem is an example of utter self-rejection and despair, the result of a life not well lived.

One can argue with the content of the poem; if everything is determined, for instance, how is self-hate still possible? (The Cain's sign, in this instance, comes from within.) 

The most important things in life are, undoubtedly, love and wisdom. This poem can also be seen as a warning as to what happens when one tries to find escape from the  self in ways that lead one astray from a life of love and wisdom. No matter how one interprets the poem, however, it remains what it is, truly unforgettable. 


10.02.2018

Is Dr. Ford Telling the Truth?

Regarding the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, a commentator stated that both Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh were credible. He stated that whom you believe depends on whether you're a conservative or a liberal--to an accuracy of 100%!

I find this depressing as well as probably accurate. My attitude from the beginning was a suspicious one--suspicious of my own views. Anyone who knows me knows that I espouse progressive causes; issues that concern me, universal health care, the solvency of Social Security, distress about increasing inequality, etc., are best addressed, to put it mildly, by the Democratic Party. It was clear to me that I opposed the confirmation of the arch-conservative Judge Kavanaugh, from the beginning.

Although my political convictions are strong, I realize that conservatives have strong opinions as well. I also realize, that, being human, I could be wrong. Therefore, as the hearings began, I told myself to suspend judgement until the investigation had been completed; let us be fair.

After listening to Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony, however, I became utterly convinced that she is telling the truth--maybe not how an external camera would have documented the attack, but as the camera behind her eyes would have indelibly recorded the event, and seared it into memory. Some of the details might be (slightly) wrong, but I'm convinced that her story is basically true. If Dr. Ford is lying, her acting skills dwarf those of Meryl Streep. No amateur actor could be that good!

I had become furious, why? I surprised myself with the intensity of my response. Trump, for instance, has made me alternatively feel mad, sad, or resigned--Why had I taken Dr. Ford's testimony so furiously to heart?

I rationalized my reaction as a response to the obvious farce of the hearings--namely, the attempt by Republicans to railroad through the nomination without an adequate investigation of the charges, thus reducing Dr. Blasey Ford to a woman of no importance. This realization might have caused me to furrow my forehead or perhaps to raise my eyebrows--not however to raise my blood pressure. My heart was thumping wildly. Why?

Anger doesn't last. As it abated, I felt tossed between a throat-lumpy what-fools-these-mortals-be evanescent pity and constant, from inner Eumenides, soundings of shame. Again one might ask: why?

The reason is simple--I too had been abused. In Dr. Ford's case, over three decades have passed since the event; in my case, six decades have passed. But as far as each of our brains are concerned, the incidents happened yesterday. The details of what happened to me will die with me; the impact of that event, however, will remain with me until I am no more. 

In Dr. Ford's case, as in mine, the scars remain. I hide mine; she would have preferred to keep hers hidden as well. I do not doubt for a moment that civic duty convinced her to tell the American people how those scars came about.


My philosophic stance is not to judge another until one has walked a few mile's in that person's moccasins; after attempting a few steps in Judge Kavanaugh's moccasins, however, I hurriedly took them off.  I soon realized that they belonged to a man who had a pattern of being interested in his own gratification at the expense of another. He had viewed his victim as a potential feather to be placed in his privileged  cap, completely indifferent to the fact that the feather in question had been plucked from somebody else's wings.

Let's now return to the comment by a journalist that began this blogpost, namely, that support of or opposition to Judge Kavanaugh goes strictly according to Party affiliation. As already mentioned, I am admittedly a progressive; I've tried, however, to see the other side of this issue. Yet it wasn't my imagination that revealed the judge to be a sniveling, belligerent liar during the course of the hearings. Nor was it my imagination that convinced me that Dr. Ford was telling the truth. His evident character flaws should preclude him from receiving a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Even if he hadn't done what I'm convinced he had done, his temperament is enough to make one sick to one's stomach without having had a spicy meal, or a few glasses of beer.

I might be wrong is an oft-repeated phrase I tell myself; in this case, however, for so many reasons, I am telling myself something different: stand up for what is right.

Whatever happens, of this I am certain: Judge Kavanaugh should not be admitted to the Supreme Court.

                                     --September 28, 2018