Paul Radin in his classic book dedicated to the trickster in Native American cultures pointed out that this mythical figure appears in cultures all over the world. This “jester’s ancestor,” as Monika Sznajderman named him in her monograph Jester. Masks and Metaphors, is called conjurer, “divine rascal”, and cheater. The trickster is known in various mythologies, so he might be present also in the private mythology of Schulz. The first part of the article is an attempt to compare the father from Schulz’s stories with the trickster. My purpose is not to insist that Jakub = trickster, but to show some similarities between these two figures. In the second part, I describe two analogous scenes of selfcastration (from the Winnebago Trickster Cycle and from the letter of Bruno Schulz to Stefan Szuman). Using Lewis Hyde’s book Trickster Makes This World: How Disruptive Imagination Creates Culture, in which he included interpretations of the works of some modern artists in the context of the trickster myth, I make an effort to look at Schulz as an artist-trickster. The metaphor of trickster refers to those artists who know that the “creative spirit” must abandon concepts that are “exact and predictable.” Schulz implements that model in his critique of European culture, but not only at that point. If we look at the reception of his work in the interwar period, we can see that he was perceived as inconvenient for those who accused him of not fulfilling the postulates that the critic of the 1930s expected. There were objections to his work as apolitical, amoral, propagating anti-humanism, perpetuating chaos and the lack of hierarchy, socially useless. “If art was only to confirm what already had been saved, it would be unnecessary,” he wrote. In that idea of art which is naturally amoral, “a probe sunk into the nameless”, looms the impenetrable face of the trickster, the jester who is an eternal change.
The article describes the arrival of Heinrich Traber’s Panopticum in Drogobych in the spring of 1913. The author attempts to reconstruct this event relying on the information found in the preserved catalog (Guide to the Heinrich Traber’s Anatomical Museum and Panopticum). An additional context mentioned in the essay is work practice of Traber, especially years 1898-1904, when he was running the „Kosmos” Panopticum in Prague where he arranged popular freaks shows. Probably after he had to close down his business, he set out on a tour with his collection, resigning from the display of „human peculiarities.” The main question is what Schulz could see in Traber’s traveling museum, if he had seen it at all. Basing on the catalog, we know that in the museum there were anatomical preparations and wax figures. It is interesting that in one of Schulz’s short stories, “The Spring,” there is a wax figures cabinet and two surnames of historical figures that might have been taken from Traber’s exhibition: Alfred Dreyfus and Luigi Luccheni (they are also mentioned in the guide). On the other hand, there is no reason to insist that Schulz was inspired by Traber’s panopticum when he was writing his story, because the tradition of wax figures cabinet was commonly known in his times and in the art and literature of modernism the motifs of puppet, wax figure, and marionette were very popular.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.