Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  literary historiography
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
From the beginning of professional Dutch Studies (M. Siegenbeek’s inauguration as professor eloquentiae hollandicae extraordinarius, 1797) the 17th century Dutch writers P.C. Hooft and Joost van den Vondel are present in Dutch literary studies and literary historiography. The position of ConstantijnHuygens, whom the contemporary literary scholars also include in the Grote Vijf (Great Five) of the 17th-century Dutch literature (besides Vondel, Hooft, Cats and Bredero), was gradually changing during the 19th century. This article postulates that the reception of Huygens in literary historiography of the first half of the 19th century can be divided into three phases. In the first phase Huygens’ works practically disappeared from the Dutch literary landscape. The second phase encompasses growing interest for Huygens as an important historical figure. In the third phase it is possible to observe a shift in critical reception of Huygens: from Huygens as a historical person to Huygens as a poet.
2
84%
EN
The essay mentions Černý’s hostile relationship to Jan Mukařovský, sums up its causes, and recapitulates the texts in which Černý comments on Mukařovský’s works and on structuralism in general. On the basis of these texts, the author concludes that Černý’s contributions on the topic of “structuralism” betray an a-priori polemic bias and show that his reading of structuralist works was slightly superficial. However, these texts should not be interpreted purely as an expression of personal antipathy. Černý’s critique of structuralism points out its resignation on value judgement. According to Černý, this lack leads to the inability of structuralism to turn to criticism or literary history. The author analyzes Černý’s understanding of these two disciplines, and tries to point out the deeper causes of the polemics. The core of the dispute still seems valid today.
EN
The author tracks the process of Umberto Eco’s works’ reception taking root in the Polish literary culture. Various translations of the writer’s works have been available for over 50 years in the Polish tradition, evolving from the literary-critical reception in the mass and literary media, through neophilological, translation, and comparative studies, to academic literature and history textbooks. It is worth noting that shifting the Italian author’s works to these textbooks depends on a quantitative increase in Eco’s novels’ translations, a process which has allowed him to be considered a novelist whose scientific or philosophical reflections are of secondary importance in the academic books.
PL
Autor pracy obserwuje proces utrwalania się recepcji dzieł włoskiego pisarza w ramach polskiej kultury literackiej. Trwająca ponad pięćdziesiąt lat obecność przekładów różnych prac Umberta Eco w tej kulturze ewoluuje od fazy recepcji krytycznoliterackiej w prasie masowej i literackiej, poprzez studia neofilologiczne, translatologiczne i komparatystyczne, w kierunku akademickich podręczników historycznoliterackich. Przy czym proces przechodzenia dzieł włoskiego autora do tych opracowań wyraźnie uzależniony jest od ilościowego przyrostu tłumaczeń jego powieści, legitymizujących go jako powieściopisarza, którego dzieła naukowe czy filozoficzne schodzą, w tym typie refleksji, na drugi plan.
EN
The article deals with the problem of representation of an author Karel Klostermann (1848–1923) and his novels in Czech literary-historical handbooks, editorial prefaces, and encyclopedias. The article exposes the way in which Czech literary historiography works with the myth of Karel Klostermann as a documentarist of the ‘old Bohemian Forest’ (Šumava in Czech). An analysis of the above three distinct text types reveals that Klostermannʼs central topic — an unprecedented windstorm that had terminated the ‘original Bohemian Forest’ — is mostly seen not as a motive but as the fact (as well as in the recent discourse on Bohemian Forest National Park). However, the concepts of ‘monumental and naturally stable forest’ or ‘sudden epochal break’ were paradoxically known only from the novels of Karel Klostermann, who worked with them inconsistently. The article shows that Czech literary historiography does not deal with Klostermann’s fiction critically but rather replicates common stereotypes and dominant narrative about the past of the Bohemian Forest.
EN
On the occasion of the second edition of Jiří Opelík’s first monograph of Josef Čapek (1980, 2017), this article traces its original context and outlines its significance for Czech literary historiography of the modernist movement: the limits of its contemporary reception contrasting with its massive later impact on literary scholarship, the context of the monograph series published by the Melantrich house (1961–1995), the links with the art historical debates concerning the art nouveau style and the art of the fin de siècle, the situation of literary criticism in the 1970s both in the communist Czechoslovakia and abroad, and, finally, the context of Jiří Opelík’s long term engagement with the works of the Čapek brothers and Josef Čapek in particular.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.