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

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  HUIZINGA JOHAN
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

RECEPTION OF JOHAN HUIZINGA IN THE USSR WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON YURI LOTMAN

100%
Sidorova O.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
101 – 109
EN
The article is devoted to Johan Huizinga’s reception in the USSR and in Russia. Though his works were translated into Russian only at the end of the 20th century, his ideas had been known to Soviet scholars and discussed by them before the translations appeared – works by Sergey Averintsev, Leonid Batkin, Gayane Tavrizyan are referred to. Yuri Lotman, a famous philologist and semiotician, studied the West European impact on Russian cultural development. Huizinga’s context of his works is a complex system that includes references, allusions, common topics and characters, as well as some common sources. The most obvious correlations of themes and ideas that are discussed in the article are the play elements of culture and the everyday life phenomenon which are disclosed and studied by the two scholars, though from different methodological standpoints. Different correlations are also mentioned, but not studied in detail.
2
Content available remote

JOHAN HUIZINGA AND MAX DVOŘÁK ON IMAGES: A SHARED INTEREST IN MEDIEVAL IMAGES IN AND AROUND 1919

100%
Gerát I.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
31 – 40
EN
Huizinga’s contribution to the understanding of late medieval artistic cultures can be productively compared with the treatise Idealismus und Naturalismus in der Gotischen Skulptur und Malerei, published in 1918 by the famous Viennese art historian Max Dvořák. The author ś paper will focus on the polarity between naturalism/realism vs. idealism/symbolism clearly present in both texts. His comparison will focus on the following questions: 1. What was the exact meaning of the concepts? 2. How had they been rooted in various philosophical traditions? 3. How do they appear in the light of recent criticism?
3
Content available remote

CSÉ ÜBER E. – VORLESUNGEN VON LÁSZLÓ CS. SZABÓ ÜBER ERASMUS 1946/47

100%
Balogh T.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
60 – 70
EN
In 1946–1947, the Hungarian essayist and poet László Cs. Szabó held lectures on Erasmus at the Department of Cultural History of the Hungarian College of Fine Arts. “Reactionary” even in name, the department had been newly established (we could say it was established specifically for him). Not only is his experience of the world war clearly present in each line of his lectures, written with a great deal of erudition and psychological insight, but it seems as though he had had presentiments of the times that were to come: his texts were imbued with admonition (taking advice from friends, two years later he did not return to Hungary from a scholarship in Italy, and he subsequently emigrated to the UK, where he took a job at the BBC). Of all of Erasmus’s biographers, Cs. Szabó mentions Huizinga alone; his influence on him is clear. He paused several times to read out quotations from Huizinga’s book. The Dutch thinker’s influence also shows in the structure and the emphasis on certain subjects. The part on history of effect as well as the one on Erasmus’s iconography was probably inspired by Huizinga’s book. Nevertheless, Huizinga’s effect is not in the details. If Huizinga distinguished The Small Erasmus and The Great Erasmus, then it is even more true of Cs. Szabó.
4
Content available remote

“EUROPE CAN NEVER BE LOST AS LONG AS THERE ARE MEN LIKE YOU” – HUIZINGA AND EUROPE

100%
Van der Lem A.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
7 – 20
EN
As a professor in Groningen (1908/09, 1912/13) and Leiden (1916/17, 1922/23, 1931/32, 1939/1940) Huizinga chose to lecture on the “Grondslagen van Europa” (the Foundations of Europe). In these lectures he focused on the ancient and early medieval history of Europe. In 1941 he considered writing a book entitled Een gezicht op Europa (A view on Europe), of which the title page and the first page were printed. This book was supposed to start with the Roman Empire. But after 1933, with the rise of the totalitarian systems of communism and fascism, Huizinga became worried about the future of our civilization in general. He dealt most explicitly with the history of Europe in his Patriotisme en nationalisme in de Europeesche geschiedenis tot het einde der 19de eeuw (Haarlem, 1940; translated a. o. into English and German). In 1943 he preferred to write a short survey about the possibilities of a recovery of our civilization: Geschonden wereld (Haarlem, 1946; translated into German three times, 1945: Wenn die Waffen schweigen; 1948: Geschändete Welt; 2014: Verratene Welt). The article combines an analysis of Huizinga’s published works concerning Europe with unpublished sources from his archives.
5
Content available remote

PHILIA AND NEIKOS: HUIZINGA’S “AUSEINANDERSETZUNG” WITH CARL SCHMITT

100%
De Vugt G.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
48 – 59
EN
This article reconstructs the hidden dialogue between Johan Huizinga and Carl Schmitt that emerged throughout the 1930s. Huizinga phrased an early critique on Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction. It appears that throughout the 1930s the Dutch historian had a thorough Auseinandersetzung with Schmitt, running from his In the shadow of tomorrow up to his Homo Ludens. Schmitt, in his turn, responded to Huizinga’s criticism, albeit somewhat implicitly, first, in a small text from 1938 and later in his book on Hamlet. In mapping the emergence of this “dialogue” it appears that their disagreement concerns the relationship between play and war. In particular, they have conflicting ideas on the state of exception, or, to use the German word on which the entire dialogue hinges: Ernstfall. To properly assess the possible relationship between play and war it is first necessary to reconstruct this dialogue and to consider the role of the state of exception within it.
6
Content available remote

JOHAN HUIZINGA IN TSCHECHISCHER ÜBERSETZUNG

100%
Engelbrecht W.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
71 – 85
EN
The paper provides a survey of the reception of the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga in Czech translation. Between 1924 and 1938, Huizinga’s works were read and quoted mostly by historians in German translation. A translation of Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen was planned by the circle of progressive historians Historická skupina but not realized due to the German occupation. In 1938, the chemist Antonín Šimek produced the first Czech translation of In de Schaduwen van Morgen. It enjoyed a good reception in the right-wing press. The second translation, of Homo Ludens, was made in 1971 for the series Ypsilon of Mladá fronta by the sociologist Jaroslav Vácha. According to the custom of that period, the translation was accompanied by a Marxist epilogue. One year earlier, Melantrich re-edited Šimek’s translation Ve stínech zítřka, also with an epilogue. Both works were often quoted by historians and cinematographers. It took until ten years after the Velvet Revolution, in 1999, for the Germanist Gabriela Veselá to translate Huizinga’s internationally best-known work Herftsttij der Middeleeuwen. One year later, re-editions of Ve stínech zítřka and Homo Ludens were published, this time without any epilogue. Herfsttij was re-edited in 2010 by the literary publisher Paseka. The last Czech edition was Huizinga’s Erasmus, translated by the Netherlandist Jiřina Holeňová for the philosophical publisher OIKOYMENH in 2014.
7
Content available remote

DIE LUST AN DER IN SCHWEBE GEHALTENEN ILLUSION: JOHAN HUIZINGA UND GEORG LUKÁCS

100%
Hanssen L.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
41 – 47
EN
Although their names have hardly ever been mentioned in the same breath and the two intellectuals never met face to face, Johan Huizinga (1872–1945), the grave and placid historian from the Netherlands, and Georg Lukács (1885–1971), the radical left-wing thinker from Hungary, have at least two striking features in common. First is their severe cultural critique, with its gloomy judgment of the crucial developments and phenomena in the 19th and the 20th century European culture and society. Second is their resumption of the Schillerian notion that man is complete only when he plays. Both issues, the cultural critique on the one hand, and the utopian vision of man-the-player who transcends modern alienation on the other, are closely interrelated. The paper zeroes in on the peculiar relationship between the concepts of play in Huizinga and in Lukács, following the strategy of playing off the growing uneasiness in culture against the emerging ideal of playfulness in interwar Europe, both in the West and in the East, both among communist and liberal intellectuals. Ultimately, the difference between the two options may not be as drastic as appeared at first sight.
8
Content available remote

JOHAN HUIZINGA AND LEO SPITZER: THE NOTION OF “STIMMUNG” REVISITED

100%
Otterspeer W.
World Literature Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
21 – 30
EN
Huizinga was a readers’ writer, and as such part of a long tradition. As a writer, he was a member of a relatively small philological circle, consisting of the readers in the most important languages of Ancient Europe, and in this way the re-creators of the ancient unity of the Latinitas from which colloquial Latin had originated. These readers were forced to acknowledge that which had once split into different languages was now disintegrating further as a result of specialization. One of the most important branches of this family was Romanic philology in Germany, with Friedrich Christian Dietz and Leopold von Ranke as its founding fathers. It blossomed at the beginning of the 20th century with scholars such as Vossler, Curtius, Spitzer and Auerbach. In the author ś contribution he will concentrate on Leo Spitzer. He will focus on four things he had in common with Huizinga: an assumption, an experience, an analysis and a tool. Their assumption was that culture was defined by harmony, by the unity and inseparability of the hearts and minds of its participants. This unity gave a culture its metaphysical aura; it was a musical harmony of the individual soul with the cosmos. They believed that this harmony once existed and it was their common experience that had been radically disturbed.
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.