Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Romantyzm i poprzednicy. Wokół dyskursów prefundacyjnych

100%

Kasperski E.

|

2012

|

nr 10

5-22

EN

The article considers coming into being European, first of all English and German roman-ticism in the light so called pre-foundational discourses that are not fully romantic but they foreshadow or contain some typical romantic elements and traits. An example of such a pre-foundational discourse may be Edward Young’s Conjectures on Original Composition (1759), also regarded sometimes as the first truly romantic foundational discourse. Other such an example of the pre-foundational discourse is The New Science (La scienza nuova, 1725) written by Italian Giambattista Vico. The article discusses at the same time some different forms of the discourses founding, canonizing or deconstructing European romanticism as well, among them post-foundational i and anti-foundational ones, and gives their description and definition. The author proposes not only genetic or historical analysis of this kind of discourses but functional as well.

2

Pseudo-Norwid, czyli co się komu podoba

100%

Kasperski E.

|

tom 32

290-325

EN

The present text critically discusses Wiesław Rzońca’s book Premodernizm Norwida – na tle symbolizmu literackiego drugiej połowy XIX wieku (Norwid’s Pre-modernism – Against the Background of the Literary Symbolism of the Second Half of the 19th Century) (Warszawa 2013). In the subsequent chapters the present polemics formulates the following charges against the book: 1). The division of Norwid’s work into “the mature period” and “the imma ture one” is unjustified and devoid of factual foundations; especially when in the allegedly “immature” period (until 1857) a lot of the poet’s undoubted masterpieces were written, also, the work after 1857 continued the earlier forms, ideas and motifs, and in this sense it was characterized by a relative – dynamic, flexible and open to changes – continuity. 2). One of Rzońca’s theses – an exceptionally doubtful one – puts Norwid’s allegedly “mature” works after 1857 outside Romanticism, which differs from the truth, both textual and historicalliterary, because Norwid till the end of his life drew on the Romantic tradition and traces of this practice can be discovered in most of his writings and poems, starting from his lectures On Juliusz Słowacki putting Byron (and not Baudelaire!) in the position of “poets’ Socrates”, and ending with Rzecz o wolności słowa (On the Freedom of Speech), perfectly well analyzed in the past by the late Zofia Stefanowska with respect to the Romantic influences retained in the poem, and with Milczenie (Silence), Ad leones!, Stygmat (Stigma) and Tajemnica lorda Singleworth (Lord Singleworth’s Secret). 3). Rzońca’s false diagnoses concerning Norwid’s relation towards Romantics and Romanticism result from a) accepting an extraordinarily narrow, static and basically false conception of Romanticism, reducing it personally to Mickiewicz and Byron, and ignoring the German, English, French, American, or even Polish Romanticism that was intellectually rich and creative (“not-well-enough-read” Krasiński or Słowacki plus the interesting Polish nationalist philosophy), and on which the whole 19th century, not only Norwid drew; b) the false (and grotesque) assumption that since Norwid drew on the European Romantics ample heritage, he necessarily deserves the strict etiquette of a “Romantic”, and the period of 1848-1857 should be absolutely associated with his “immaturity”. 4). Rzońca’s flagship theses about Norwid’s “pre-modernism” does not meet the conditions of sense, for anything you like may be associated with the concepts of “pre-modernism” or “modernism” that are used in the book. 5). The above charge also concerns the thesis about Norwid’s alleged “modernist symbolism”, as this kind of symbolism appeared only after the death of the poet. 6). Hence if it is possible to ascribe some significant historical-literary discovery to Rzońca, it is probably only the one creating Norwid as a posthumous symbolist. 7). Rzońca’s self-appraisal saying that his book presents “an attempt at a synthesis of Norwid’s mature work” (p. 9) should be assessed not only as an attempt – in an arrogant language, which Rzońca does not hesitate to use towards Norwid – decidedly “immature”, but as an unintentional parody of a “synthesis”. This is because Premodernism is a collection of subjective, not thought through impressions that say a lot about their author and his ambitions, but not much about the real, historical Norwid. Hence the title of the review: Pseudo-Norwid.

3

Dyskursy romantyzmologii. Studium (samo)krytyczne

100%

Kasperski E.

|

nr 8

7-23

EN

The article investigates the critical and scientific discourses that have been functioning in the studies of Polish Romanticism for the period of the last 150 years. These discourses locate the center of almost any romantic problem, text or discourse predominantly within the intel-lectual and conceptual logos being constructed or accepted by critics and researchers. The secondary and tertiary literature have become so extensive and thorough that they almost fully cover original Romantic texts. In this way various methods of reading romantic literature and products of that reading are self-sufficient. They form an independent and primary object of the study. It is one of the paradoxes of our postmodern time that the original Romantic lite- rature step by step is losing its own identity and is taking one, which is being created by its readers.