Skip to main content

Jaroslav Seifert ‘Prague’ (1929)


The presence of castle and cathedral on the hill above the Vltava in Prague is a constant imaginative prompt. Franz Kafka understood instinctively how the castle, despite its magnificent outward appearance, was the unanswerable site and source of control over human life. The castle in ‘The Castle’ is that which manages people’s business and permanently tracks, like today’s online agencies, their individual thoughts and actions. There is no escape, there are only ways of living with its imposing reality. Jaroslav Seifert writes a poem, in the same decade as the publication of Kafka’s novel, with a very different take on Hradcany.

Above the elephantine blankets of flower-beds
a Gothic cactus blooms with royal skulls
and in the cavities of melancholy organs
            in the clusters of tin pipes,
old melodies are rotting.

Prague Castle is the largest ancient castle in the world. Elephantine is apt in the context, whether describing the renowned decorative flowerbeds of the city, or Prague itself, arranged and spread out in all its ornate beauty, its roofs and golden towers. Yet awareness of a lost past is quickly asserted. The kings of Bohemia no longer reside in their palace and in 1929 the Habsburg Empire has just recently collapsed, indefinitely. The Czechs, strong in their nationalist inclinations, knew now that royalty had had its day. Even the music of the cathedral is part of a disintegrating past. Then Seifert shifts the tense.    

Cannonballs like seeds of wars
were scattered by the wind.

Is he talking about the war to end wars, just ended? Or, about other wars in Bohemian history? When Seifert returns to the present tense in the next verse we find ourselves not in the 20th but the early 17th century, as though they are interchangeable. We find that even higher and greater than the castle, towering over all, is the night.

Night towers over all
and through the box-trees of evergreen cupolas
the foolish emperor tiptoes away
into the magic gardens of his alembics
and through the halcyon air of rose-red evenings
rings out the tinkle of the glass foliage
as it is touched by the alchemists’ fingers
as if by wind.

King James VI and I was once described by an opponent as “the wisest fool in Christendom”, something one could say of other Renaissance princes who placed the advancement of learning, every kind of learning, on a par or even above statecraft. The foolish emperor in the poem is James’s contemporary Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, amongst other titles, a figure who haunts and hallows the history of Prague. Like James, Rudolf’s administration of his kingdom has been judged as setting the scene for conflict, in Rudolf’s case the Thirty Years’ War, hence cannonballs like seeds of wars. Like James, Rudolf was a keen promoter of the arts, though while Rudolf collected some of the great Mannerist art of the period, James had to live in Shakespearean London. Like James, Rudolf had an interest in the occult, as well as with astrology, alchemy and other signs of nascent science. Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Giordano Bruno and John Dee flourished in Prague. It is Rudolf’s encouragement of alchemy, the progenitor of chemistry and other science, that becomes the second subject of Seifert’s poem. Floral analogy extends beyond the natural world outside the walls of Rudolf’s castle into his magic gardens of artificial invention, the same kinds of inventions that now govern our world and even, robotically, threaten to destroy it.

The telescopes have gone blind from the horror of the universe
and the fantastic eyes of spacemen
have been sucked out by death.

Who or what are these spacemen? The translator Ewald Osers has turned the Czech noun into the anachronism ‘spaceman’, a word that only came into English about ten years after Seifert’s poem was composed. This instrumental verse, the signal for mortality, clearly has more multiple meanings in the original than English can deliver. Osers has stretched the word ‘spacemen’ to include those living in any era, not least our own. Even spacemen will die. And while our gaze turns from the 17th century habitation and play of Rudolf and his court to the 20th century condition of rockets and black holes, so it turns from the safe haven of the garden to the alien places beyond our own planet. Typically for Czech poetry of this period, he stacks up an impressive set of original images.

And while the moon was laying eggs in clouds,
new stars were hatching feverishly like birds
migrating from blacker regions,
singing the songs of human fate –
but there is no one
who can understand them.

Seifert, at times a peculiarly sentimental poet of romantic commonplaces, produces also poems like these that utilize romantic imagery in ways that overturn their apparent first intentions. While the universe may sing songs of human fate that we can hear, no one can really understand the songs themselves. The science initiated at the emperor’s court has given later generations an ambiguous and disturbing present. The poem is not anti-science, but neither does it offer undiminished praise of its achievements. This careful interlock of verses, linking the past and the present in one pattern of human desire, such that past and present are inseparably the same, turns formally to its conclusion, like the ending of a Renaissance artwork.

Listen to the fanfares of silence,
on carpets threadbare like ancient shrouds
we are moving towards an invisible future

Seifert writes, where the fanfares of silence may refer equally to the lost music of the royal court and the silence we ourselves hear gazing at the night above us. Then fuses the lost titles of the emperor with all that seemingly remains of him and his world:

and His Majesty dust
settles lightly on the abandoned throne.

Sources
Peter Demetz. Prague in black and gold: the history of a city. (Penguin Books, 1998)
Peter Marshall. The mercurial emperor: the magic circle of Rudolf II in Renaissance Prague. (Pimlico, 2007)
Jaroslav Seifert. The poetry of Jaroslav Seifert, translated from the Czech by Ewald Osers. Edited by George Gibian. (Catbird Press, 1998)

Prague

Jaroslav Seifert
Translated into English by Ewald Osers

Above the elephantine blankets of flower-beds
a Gothic cactus blooms with royal skulls
and in the cavities of melancholy organs
            in the clusters of tin pipes,
old melodies are rotting.

Cannonballs like seeds of wars
were scattered by the wind.

Night towers over all
and through the box-trees of evergreen cupolas
the foolish emperor tiptoes away
into the magic gardens of this alembics
and through the halcyon air of rose-red evenings
rings out the tinkle of the glass foliage
as it is touched by the alchemists’ fingers
as if by wind.

The telescopes have gone blind from the horror of the universe
and the fantastic eyes of spacemen
have been sucked out by death.

And while the moon was laying eggs in clouds,
new stars were hatching feverishly like birds
migrating from blacker regions,
singing the songs of human fate –
but there is no one
who can understand them.

Listen to the fanfares of silence,
on carpets threadbare like ancient shrouds
we are moving towards an invisible future

and His Majesty dust
settles lightly on the abandoned throne.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why did Dante write The Divine Comedy?

This is one of two short papers given by Philip Harvey at the first Spiritual Reading Group session for 2014 on Tuesday the 18 th of February in the Carmelite Library in Middle Park. He also gave a paper on that occasion, which can be found on the Library blog, entitled ‘A Rationale for Purgatory’ . Nadezhda Mandelstam recalls in one of her books how her husband, the Russian poet Osip Mandelstam, would say that when reading poetry we can spend a great deal of time discussing what it means, but the first and main question about a poem is not what does it mean, but why was it written. That is the place to start. Here are eleven reasons that I offer quietly to help us think about this poem: Why did Dante write The Divine Comedy? You may have other reasons and these are invited. We will spend most of our time today looking at meanings, but also at why. I wrote these out as they occurred to me, so there is no priority order. 1.      He wrote the poem because of Florence. Many o

The Walk (Seamus Heaney)

This poem was read aloud at Janet Campbell’s funeral in Hamilton in Victoria in December 2006. Janet was a great lover of poetry all her life, a great reader of poetry, and she read everything of Seamus Heaney. Indeed, when she worked in Melbourne or London bookshops Janet would grab hold of Faber pre-publication copies of Heaney if they came into the backroom, and disappear for days, copying lines onto postcards for her friends, transferring lines into her lifetime of diaries. Diaries that were also a lifeline. Janet read everything, but Heaney was one of the regulars. Seamus Heaney keeps a tight line. He is rarely though completely opaque and the way into this poem is the word ‘longshot’. We only find in the second of the two poems that we are being asked to look at two photographs. Or, at least, poems that are like photographs. Or, better still, strong memories that have taken on in the mind the nature of longshots. The two poems in one are reminders of close relationships.

The Poetry of Rowan Williams

Rowan Williams delivers the twelfth John Rylands Poetry Reading last year   This is a paper given by Philip Harvey in the Hughes Room at St Peter’s Church, Eastern Hill, Melbourne on Sunday the 6 th of December as one in an Advent series on religious poets. The original title of the paper was ‘The text that maps our losses and longings’. Everything Rowan Williams says and writes reveals a person with a highly developed sensitivity to language, its force, directness, instantaneousness, its subtlety, indirectness, longevity. A person though may speak three languages fluently and read at least nine languages with ease, as he does, and still not engage with language in the way we are looking at here. Because Rowan is unquestionably someone with a poetic gift. By that I don’t just mean he writes poetry, I mean he engages with the life of words, their meanings, ambiguities, colours, their playfulness, invention, sounds. We find this in those writings of his that deliberate