66
PARTISAN REVIEW
In 1981, after the introduction of martial law, someone asked in an
underground paper about what happened in Poland on December 13,
when a band of gangsters attacked an insane asylum. In
The CaptilJe Mind,
Milosz describes how in 1945 gangsters, endowed with ideological fanati–
cism, seized power-just as Islamic fundamentalists stormed the American
embassy in Tehran. Aided by Soviet tanks, they took over three Baltic states
in the name of peace. This is a key moment in the book, because it allows
for many dialectical somersaults. Milosz shows how everything can be
rationalized in the name of historical necessi ty, national interest, self inter–
est. But three Baltic countries were overrun. At that point in the book
Milosz basically chokes. This is the bone in your throat, whether you are
pro-communist or anti-communist. Being concerned with the fate of the
Bal ts meant basically giving up any sort of poli tical strategy.
The CaptilJe
Mind
is a subtle description of temptation, the repulsiveness of power, and
the nothingness of Soviet Communism. But it is also a sort of dialogue
with the tempter that ends with the rejection of temptation.
The ending of this book has the power and passion of a great improvisa–
tion of the
Dziady
of Mickiewicz. Mickiewicz came into conflict with God,
Milosz with the
Zeitgeist.
This boils down to whether we can accept sheer
force for its own sake. The book describes the techniques of accepting this
power and of dressing it up in various truths. In this process of enslaving the
human mind, writes Milosz, people behave like the man who wants to scream
in
his
sleep but can't get out a sound-not only because he can't say anything,
but because he doesn't know what to say. Paradoxically, this supports the tes–
timonies that were written at that time and hidden away in drawers. I tried to
put them into a book,
The History
if
Honor in Poland
or the
Re,gistry
if
Honor.
Milosz describes the four silhouettes of writers who succumbed to enslave–
ment. I wrote about four silhouettes of writers who opposed and resisted
enslavement. They confirmed Milosz's observations: there was no consistent
way to construct a consistent historiosophy, opposed to this historical neces–
sity. In other words, you can argue that it's no longer worth crying over the
murdered Incas or Prussians. The civilization of Europe, after all, has been
built on the blood of innocents. Is it hypocrisy to object to those who are
now trying to build a new civilization of communism by defending contem–
porary Prussians or Aztecs, specifically Lithuanians and Latvians, by saying that
human rights are abused? That means opposing everyone. That's what Milosz
clid. Of course, he incurred the wrath of the ruling communists and emigre
national orthodoxy, which he rejected. And he condemned antisemitism,
which
is rare in Polish literature. He found himself without defenders.
Milosz returned to primary values, to the harmed simple man, to ordi–
nary truth and ordinary lies, ordinary good and evil. He often says, "I was on
track to do exactly what Alpha / Andrzejewski did. What saved me was some
