Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: panteon

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Фарміраванне пантэона дзеячаў эпохі Вялікага Княства Літоўскага ў беларускай палітыцы памяці (1988–2023 гг.)

100%

Marozau S.

Studia Białorutenistyczne

2023

tom 17

45-64

Artykuł poświęcony jest procesowi przezwyciężania depersonalizacji historiografii białoruskiej, która miała miejsce do połowy lat 80. XX wieku. Jego celem jest odpowiedź na pytanie, jak w kontekście kształtowania się białoruskocentrycznego paradygmatu historii wprowadzano do nauki, kultury i pamięci zbiorowej „nowe” lub nowo odkryte postacie historyczne Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (WKL). Tekst podzielony został na 5 części. W pierwszej ukazano fakt, że wyeliminowanie WKL z pamięci Białorusinów wykształciło u nich kompleks niższości historycznej. W drugiej części opisano proces „zasiedlania” historii Białorusi w latach 1988–1995 przez nowych bohaterów, aż do ich utrwalenia w pierwszych wydaniach encyklopedycznych Republiki Białoruś i podręcznikach historii. Część trzecia opowiada o ciosie, jaki w latach 1995–1996 zadali zwolennicy resowietyzacji nauk historycznych białoruskiemu panteonowi narodowemu i liderom jego formowania, którego skutki dały się odczuć na początku XXI wieku. Сzęść czwarta poświęcona została uzupełnianiu panteonu bohaterów WKL przez przedstawicieli arystokracji. W piątej części ujawniono kanały transmisji nazwisk i czynów bohaterów białoruskiego panteonu historycznego do pamięci zbiorowej, które są wykorzystywane od przełomu XX i XXI wieków. Artykuł uzasadnia fakt popularności rekonstrukcji biograficznej we współczesnych dziełach naukowych i literackich. Zaprezentowano „obszary ryzyka” i „konflikty pamięci” w promocji nowego panteonu – z byłymi sojusznikami w WKL, różnymi białoruskimi strategiami interpretacyjnymi i nowymi próbami rewizji panteonu.

Артыкул прысвечаны працэсу пераадолення дэперсаніфікацыі беларускага гісторыяпісання, якая мела месца да сярэдзіны 1980-х гг. Яго мэта – адказаць на пытанне, як у кантэксце фарміравання беларускацэнтрычнай парадыгмы гісторыі адбывалася ўвядзенне ў навуку, культуру і калектыўную памяць „новых” або наноў адкрытых гістарычных асоб з ліку дзеячаў Вялікага Княства Літоўскага (ВКЛ). Тэкст падзелены на пяць частак. У першай з іх паказана, што выключэнне ВКЛ з памяці беларусаў абярнулася для іх комплексам гістарычнай непаўнавартаснасці. У другой - прасочаны працэс „засялення” ў 1988–1995 гг. беларускай гісторыі сваімі героямі аж да замацавання персанальных змен у пантэоне ў першых энцыклапедычных выданнях Рэспублікі Беларусь і падручніках гісторыі. Трэцяя частка распавядае пра ўдар, які ў 1995–1996 гг. нанеслі прыхільнікі рэсаветызацыі гістарычнай навукі па нацыянальным пантэоне і лідарах яго фарміравання, і вынікі якога былі адчувальныя ў пачатку ХХІ ст. Чацвёртая частка прысвечана паказу папаўнення пантэона прадстаўнікамі арыстакратыі. У пятай частцы ўстаноўлены каналы трансляцыі імёнаў і спраў герояў беларускага гістарычнага пантэона ў калектыўную памяць, якія пачалі выкарыстоўвацца на мяжы ХХ–ХХІ ст.ст. У артыкуле абгрунтаваны факт папулярнасці біяграфічнай рэканструкцыі ў навуковай і літаратурнай творчасці сучаснаснага перыяду. Выяўлены „зоны рызыкі” і „канфлікты памяці” ў прасоўванні новага пантэона – з былымі саюзнікамі па ВКЛ, розныя беларускія інтэрпрэтацыйныя стратэгіі і новыя спробы перагляду пантэона.

The article is devoted to the process of overcoming the depersonalization of Belarusian historiography, which took place until the mid-1980s. Its aim is to answer the question of how, in the context of the formation of the Belarusian-centric paradigm of history, «new» or newly discovered historical figures of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) were introduced into science, culture and collective memory. The text is divided into 5 parts. The first one shows the fact that the elimination of the GDL from the memory of Belarusians has formed a complex of historical inferiority. The second part describes the process of «settling» the history of Belarus in 1988–1995 by new heroes, until their fixation in the first encyclopaedic editions of the Republic of Belarus and history textbooks. The third part tells about the blow that in 1995–1996 the supporters of the re-Sovietisation of historical science inflicted on the Belarusian national pantheon and the leaders of its formation, the consequences of which were felt at the beginning of the 21st century. The fourth part is devoted to replenishment of the pantheon of GDL heroes by representatives of the aristocracy. The fifth part reveals the channels for transferring the names and deeds of the heroes of the Belarusian historical pantheon to the collective memory, which have been used since the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. The article justifies the fact of the popularity of biographical reconstruction in modern scientific and literary works. “Risk zones” and “memory conflicts” were presented in the promotion of the new pantheon – with former allies in the GDL, various Belarusian interpretive strategies and new attempts to revise the pantheon.

Básník a/nebo symbol? K proměnám obrazu Vladislava Vančury v jeho posmrtné recepci

51%

Málek P.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

2024

tom 21

nr 45

70-118

TThis study aims to describe the transformations of Vladislav Vančura’s image in his posthumous reception, with regard to contemporary critical and literary-historical works on the writer. This has much to do with the ‘discourse of celebration of the “classics”’ (P. Bourdieu), in the context of which the crucial turning point was the author’s (heroic) death. At this point, an author is ‘born’, one with a legendized biography, and whose work will be received and re-evaluated from the perspective of his tragic victimhood as dominant aspect of the discourse on Vančura — as in Ivan Olbracht’s Zavraždili nejlepš.ho česk.ho spisovatele (‘They murdered the best Czech writer’), for example. Vančura’s authorial name is reduced accordingly, his work unambiguously classified and explained according to a unifying formula, thus acquiring symbolic validity: Vančura died as the most important representative of Czech culture, and as its true symbol (Jan Mukařovský). By 1948, this process, by which the poet was ‘pantheonized’ and his work classicized (and so made part of the Czech literary canon), thus transforming him into a symbol, was complete. Vančura, henceforth known as a martyr embodying the national narrative of martyrdom following the Christological model of resurrection and ascension, was introduced into the symbolic pantheon to serve as the subject of mythification. The author is thus transformed into a monument of Great History, which by its nature excludes any of the complexities posed by historicization and criticism. Starting in the second half of the 1950s, after years of disregard — or rozpaky (‘awkwardness’) — in the official reception due to certain ‘avant-garde’ aspects of Vančura’s artistic personality, the critical-artistic reception and discussion of the poet’s work has been on the rise. Vančura has been re-evaluated and examined, not as a symbol but for the vital value and perennial influence of his aesthetic project, within the context of contemporary artistic creation and its discussion. Various critical studies, including a monograph by Milan Kundera (1960) and articles by Jan Mukařovský, Jiř. Opel.k, Jan Lopatka, Zdeněk Kožm.n, Mojm.r Grygar, and Zdeněk Pešat, were part of a concerted effort to liberate the poet’s work from the simplistic ideological interpretations and sclerotic aesthetic reception that resulted from its political instrumentalization. Numerous adaptations of his work for radio, theatre and musical theatre, television and film (Marketa Lazarov., Rozmarn. l.to), as well as new stage productions, also testified to this effort. With the onset of normalization, the canonical image of the writer, reduced to a static unifying formula for the ‘progressive personality’ and petrified by ideological interpretation (Milan Blahynka), reasserted itself in Vančura’s reception. At the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, a younger generation of researchers (Jiř. Holý, Alena Macurov., Jiř. Pol.ček), finding themselves in a somewhat more open discursive field, gradually freed themselves from ideologically normative interpretations. Although a number of studies were published after 1989 that discuss subthemes of Vančura’s work and analyze specific aspects of the author’s poetics, there are only a few that manage to avoid traditional interpretive schemes to address Vančura’s work as a vital question (Milan Jankovič).