The aim of the author of the article is to investigate Miłosz’s relation to Stanisław Brzozowski. Proceeding from the interpretation of Miłosz’s Człowiek wśród skorpionów..., and diagnosing his personal motivation for turning to Brzozowski’s works in 1963, the author investigates the avenues of dialogue between Miłosz and Brzozowski, and their unsystematically expresses common points. The article, thus, presents various stages of influence of Brzozowski’s work and ideas on Miłosz: from the 1930s, when Miłosz was inspired by Brzozowski’s left-wing fanaticism, through the common opposition against anti-intellectualism and the Polish identity understood as a set of Romantic symbols and gestures, up to the fascination with Russian culture and Marxism. The deepest affinity of both authors seems to be the attitude of anthropocentrism, identified and exposed by Miłosz himself, and understood as hostility towards nature and belief in nature’s determinism, but also as a formula that gives coherence to the philosophical themes, found in both authors’ work, which are thought to be polarised and incompatible. In the conclusion, the author of the article states that positioning himself with reference to Brzozowski was, for Miłosz, a tool of self-creation, an attempt to control the reception and interpretation of his own work, and to place Miłosz in a separate and exceptional position, akin to the position of Brzozowski, the extraordinary and unrecognized philosopher and critic of Polish early modernism.
This paper shall discuss Karol Irzykowski’s views on the prose work of Stefan Żeromski. The shifting nature of the former towards the latter – author of Ludzie Bezdomni [The Homeless] 1899 – shall be examined; ones that changed from criticism to approval. In this context Irzykowski’s critical concept developed in his collection of essays, Czyn i słowo [Action and the Word] 1913, shall be taken into account and it shall also be argued that Irzykowski’s polemical discourse in respect to Żeromski was an integral part of his literary manifesto.
This is a review of Marcin Jauksz’s book Critique of 19th-century intellect. Sources and contexts in Karol Irzykowski's “Pałuba”; Universitas, Kraków 2015. The author contrasts Jauksz’s conclusions with those formulated years earlier by Jerzy Franczak when analysing Irzykowski’s novel in his book The quest for reality. The world view of Polish modernist prose (Poszukiwanie realności. Światopogląd polskiej prozy modernistycznej) (Universitas, Kraków 2007)
In this article, the author discusses and reviews Andrzej Lam’s book Portrety i spotkania (Pułtusk–Warszawa 2014) which is a collection of studies of German poets from the Middle Ages until the mid-20th century. The author highlights the coherence of the publication consisting of texts written in the past 30 years. Originally, they were allocated different functions, but in Lam’s book they seem homogenous and mutually complementary. Lam’s homogenous position results from the writer’s attitude: very skilfully, he makes use of structuring tools, heading towards a hermeneutic desire to provide an outline of the writers emerging from the texts and connected with them. The author also presents the literary criticism aspect of the book: in the second part, Lam is predominantly a historian of literary criticism and its active participant.
The article discusses Konstanty Troczyński’s Teoria poetyki (Theory of Poetics) – the Poznań scholar’s first book, with which he earned his doctorate, not published in his lifetime. In presenting Troczyński’s overall scholarly project, Panek presents it as an original response to the challenge of the anti-Positivist turning-point, a polemic both with Tainism and with the reaction to Positivism formulated in terms of the “understanding humanities” of the Baden School and Dilthey.
PL
Artykuł jest omówieniem Teorii poetyki Konstantego Troczyńskiego – niewydanej za życia poznańskiego badacza debiutu książkowego, będącego podstawą jego doktoratu. Autorka, przedstawiając kompletną propozycję Troczyńskiego jako nauki, pokazuje ją jako oryginalną odpowiedź na wyzwania przełomu antypozytywistycznego, polemiczną zarówno wobec tainizmu, jak i reakcji na pozytywizm formułowanych w ramach „humanistyki rozumiejącej” (szkoła badeńska i Dilthey).