Wislawa Szymborska's "Conversation With A Stone": An Interpretation

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Wislawa Szymborska was born in Kornik in Western Poland on 2 July 1923.

Since 1931 she has


been living in Krakow, where during 1945-1948 she studied Polish Literature and Sociology at
the Jagiellonian University. Szymborska made her début in March 1945 with a poem "Szukam
slowa" (I am Looking for a Word) in the daily "Dziennik Polski".

During 1953-1981 she worked as poetry editor and columnist in the Kraków literary weekly
"Zycie Literackie" where the series of her essays "Lektury nadobowiazkowe" appeared (the
series has been renewed lately in the addition to "Gazeta Wyborcza"-"Gazeta o Ksiazkach"). The
collection "Lektury nadobowiazkowe" was published in the form of a book four times.

Szymborska has published 16 collections of poetry: Dlatego zyjemy (1952), Pytania zadawane
sobie (1954), Wolanie do Yeti (1957), Sól (1962), Wiersze wybrane (1964), Poezje wybrane
(1967), Sto pociech (1967), Poezje (1970), Wszelki wypadek (1972), Wybór wierszy (1973),
Tarsjusz i inne wiersze (1976), Wielka liczba (1976), Poezje wybrane II (1983), Ludzie na
moscie (1986). Koniec i poczatek (1993, 1996), Widok z ziarnkiem piasku. 102 wiersze (1996) .
Wislawa Szymborska has also translated French poetry.

Her poems have been translated (and published in book form) in English, German, Swedish,
Italian, Danish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Serbo-Croatian, Romanian, Bulgarian
and other languages. They have also been published in many foreign anthologies of Polish
poetry.

Wislawa Szymborska is the Goethe Prize winner (1991) and Herder Prize winner (1995). She
has a degree of Honorary Doctor of Letters of Poznan University (1995). In 1996 she received
the Polish PEN Club prize.

Biography from: nobelprize.org

Wislawa Szymborska's "Conversation with a


Stone": an interpretation
Sarmatian Review, Jan, 2006 by Mary Ann Furno
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next

"Throughout the Middle Ages ... the stone remained the main symbol of folly--hard,
impenetrable, stolid.... It was above all a metaphor which demonstrated well-nigh mythologically
the intrinsically foolish nature of human beings." (1) References are found to the surgical
removal of stones as a method of curing someone of his folly.

In "Conversation With A Stone," Wislawa Szymborska gives "her" stone a voice; further, she
allows a dialogue with an unidentified speaker who remains quite insistent throughout that this
stone should allow entrance to its "insides" so as to "have a look around." Quite a bit of folly
takes place here as the ensuing exchange develops. But then, Szymborska is a poet, and she
considers it her business to rekindle Memory with its original Understanding that reality is not
what it appears to be. Let us also remember that until the sixteenth century, Folly was often the
voice of Wisdom.

We come in on this "conversation" not knowing what led up to it. It does seem that a familiarity
between speaker and the stone has already been established, immediately placing us in this novel
situation and relationship:

I knock at the stone's front door


"It's only me, let me come in"

Szymborska lets us know that the speaker has somehow come to “know” about-imagines-this
“other side” of the stone, its “insides.” This poem will function as metaphor insofar as metaphor
is understood as a radical-at its roots-mode of conceiving and experiencing reality. The ongoing
conversation between stone and speaker captures this fundamental alteration of consciousness
with irony as its driving force. Szymborska’s “Conversation With A Stone” becomes a
“pleasurable corrective to the ordinary single-visioned world.”(2)

A radical transformation of the stone’s reality is forcefully presented to the speaker, as we can
infer from the speaker’s wish to “breathe my fill of you.” The stone is “more” than what is
ordinarily seen or presented in reality, as the speaker has already sensed, albeit “out of pure
curiosity”: “I mean to stroll through your palace.”

Momentum builds with the speaker’s growing insistence to be allowed inside the stone, which
offers only resistance:

"Even if you break me to pieces,


we’ll all still be closed.
You can grind us to sand,
we still won’t let you in."

It is not about “great empty halls” or a beautiful palace-at least, not as far as the stone is
concerned. A stone that speaks. The dialogue has begun, and Szymborska immediately thrusts us
into a “world that loses its footing,”(3) and where irony takes hold. And herein, the significance
of this “conversation” is brought to bear on our senses. The speaker urges that “only life can
quench” this curiosity, further appealing that
"I don’t have much time
My mortality should touch you."

Life is only possible in a voice which, in this “conversation,” is the voice of folly; a stone that in
response, reaffirms that it is

"made of stone . . .
and must therefore keep a straight face."

The irony of this reply reflects the speaker’s impenetrability. The speaker’s concern with
mortality-a search for certainty about reality-is entirely misplaced. The speaker will, in any
event,

"then go calling on a leaf, a drop of water."

missing the stone’s point, as reflected in the speaker’s inexorable refrain of

I knock at the stone’s front door,


“It’s only me, let me come in.”

Only senses predominate for the speaker, whose deluded thinking the stone confronts:

"great and empty halls. . .


beautiful perhaps, but
not to the taste of your poor senses."

The conversation takes a turn with potential for the speaker’s self-understanding through
conversation with a stone-another ironic twist wrought by Szymborska. The stone observes:

“You may get to know me, but you’ll never know me through
My whole surface is turned toward you,
all my insides turned away.”

The speaker maintains a division in its relationship to the stone-as though the stone, as stone, did
not exist:

“You’ll never know me


through” [italics mine, MAF]

Thoughtless insistence rooted in misunderstanding continues as the speaker retreats into self-
doubt, perhaps despair, in the search for self understanding, reassuring the stone instead that

"I'm not unhappy.


I’m not homeless
My world is worth returning to.
I’ll enter and exit empty-handed,
And my proof I was there
will be only words,
which no one will believe.”

The stone responds with its most poignant volley:

“You shall not enter. . .


You lack the sense of taking part.
No other sense can make up for your missing sense of taking part.
Even sight heightened to become all-seeing
will do you no good without a sense of taking part.
You shall not enter, you have only a sense of what that sense
should be,
only its seed, imagination.”

“It’s only me, let me come in” still stands as what has become the speaker’s contrived reply. The
reality of “I haven’t got two thousand centuries” reveals the speaker’s growing angst about
“mortality” uttered at the outset of this conversation; while hyperbole, that intends its opposite,
hints that a denouement with understanding is possibly drawing near. The stone now mentions
believing:

“If you don’t believe me. . .


just ask the leaf, it will tell you the same.
Ask a drop of water, it will say what the leaf has said.
And, finally, ask a hair from your own head.

These words hit close to home. Laughter is even closer:

“I am bursting with laughter, yes laughter, vast laughter,


although I don’t know how to laugh.”

This stone is in a state of ecstasy that only irony can produce, an ecstasy that is recaptured in its
original meaning: “to put out of place,” “to drive a person out of his wits” (Oxford English
Dictionary). The stone’s “insides” are truly not about “great empty halls” or a “palace,” but
about its “inner life”-the place where folly inheres, along with laughter-in each and every bit and
piece, and grain of sand. The speaker’s response:

“I knock at the stone’s front door.


It’s only me, let me come in.”

The stone’s conclusive reply:

“I don’t have a door.”

Szymborska leaves us to ponder “[a]bsurdity brought to a halt.”(4) One can almost hear the
“door” slam, leaving the speaker shaken, hopefully.
That the speaker continues relating “over and against” the stone is unsustainable. That the stone
is otherwise bursting with laughter, at this point, suggests an unendurableness which will
confound the speaker. Having “only the seed of imagination” inhibits understanding the stone’s
true nature, Szymborska seems to suggest. It is the “sense of taking part” that is critical to any
understanding and through which the stone’s “interior”[5] is recognized. The stone’s “I don’t
have a door” undermines the speaker’s presumption throughout the conversation that the stone
has a door-and with that, the speaker “is thrown back upon [him/her]self and the problem of
[his/her] own reality and truth.” [6] Szymborska quite aptly chooses laughter as the “stuff”
through which the stone shakes itself “out of place,” which we will believe has similarly shaken
the speaker “out of place.” Szymborska’s laughter “bursts”-“breaks forth into a sudden
manifestation of inner force. . . Chiefly said of things possessing considerable capacity for
resistance” (Oxford English Dictionary)-from conceptions founded in the “seed of imagination,”
leading us instead to ponder a “sense of taking part.” We could leave it at that, but Szymborska’s
choice of “burst” truly leads us to ponder further. In its more “obscure origin burst is associated
to umbilicus,” (Oxford English Dictionary) as in “to burst the navel” (Shipley’s Dictionary of
Word Origins[7]).

Life becomes the predominating association with respect to this stone’s image, once the “front
door” disappears. But Szymborska’s choosing a stone in and of itself suggests the natural force
of irony which she humanizes with a voice-a sign of life. The images of the stone as having
inner/outer (demarcated by the “front door”) now “burst” one into the other: what is inner, is
now outer; what is outer, is now inner. The speaker’s perception of reality is shaken.

What was overlooked (the stone in its very appearance) and what was marginally imagined
(palaces and great halls) collapse into each other, giving us an experience of stone as stone. “The
great joke, Hegel wrote in a personal note, is that things are what they are.” [8] The world we
call reality becomes “inverted”[9] once “I’m made of stone and must therefore keep a straight
face” voices “I am bursting with laughter, yes laughter, vast laughter, although I don’t know how
to laugh.” Szymborska’s “voice” acts as a metaphor that captures the irony of inverted reality:
understanding “interior difference” [10], its necessity of stone remaining a stone. Hence,
“conversation”: two voices participating in life force whenever the speaker “must needs” enter
into a “sense of taking part” with the stone’s “insides,” “know[ing]” them “through” as his/her
very self and “exit[ing]” “quenched” in a mutual self-recognition that reaps self-understanding.
Szymborska gives us a “double vision that is only learned by the art of inversion . . . . [and] folly
is the example of this art.” In her poem, we discover inner life through a conversation. Folly is
not a stranger to poets who keep close company with the Muses. In “Conversation With A
Stone” Szymborska, a contemporary poet, acts as interlocutor for the Muses. Her perhaps
unwitting “choice” of a stone, an object sometimes identified with the beginning of time and
which, in its mythological heyday, was “associated with eternal, immutable, divine powers. . .
often understood as an expression of concentrated force . . . and generally . . . as life giving” [11]
seems to make it so. The “conversation” one almost hears, along with the “burst” of laughter and
the closing of the “door,” “dispelling self-delusion”-all “point ironically to a different order of
meaning” [12] that Szymborska simply but dramatically speaks from.

Poets, along with philosophers, who were once in their close company, understand the
significance of memory that only the language of poets now points to. Szymborska reminds us of
the folly of language in its capacity for irony. With that, she is right in line with the Muses,
whose eloquence is voiced through poets’ “double vision” of reality. Irony foils ignorance. If
there is a need or wish to draw some “conclusion,” one might be inclined to say that in
“Conversation With A Stone” Szymborska reminds us that stones of folly lie deep within us, “the
link to our primordial heritage,” and they are at risk in a world growing increasingly “single-
visioned.” The Muses also impart Wisdom. Wisława Szymborska will need to continue to give
us many more “conversations” of folly and illusion, lest we forget. ∆

Wisława Szymborska, “Conversation with a Stone/ Rozmowa z kamieniem,” Nothing Twice:


Selected Poems/Nic dwa razy: Wybór wierszy, translated by Stanisław Barańczak and Clare
Cavanagh, (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1997), 54.

You might also like