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

Results found: 11

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Promethidion
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wobec mozaiki zalet i wad

100%
Abriszewska P.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2013
|
vol. 31
207-215
EN
The article is both an appraisal of Henryk Siewierski’s interpretations contained in the volume Architektura słowa i inne szkice o Norwidzie (Architecture of the Word and Other Sketches on Norwid), and a debate with them. The aim of the text is a detailed analysis of particular studies by Siewierski: pointing to their faults and advantages. Another equally important plan is an attempt at answering the question about topicality, or about a possibility to use the readings of Norwid’s works that Siewierski offers in a modern Norwidian discourse.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

A dispute over the philosophy of clothes. Cyprian Norwid versus Thomas Carlyle

99%
Samsel K.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2020
|
vol. 38 English Version
65-79
EN
Cyprian Norwid’s attitude to the philosophy of clothes developed by Thomas Carlyle in Sartor Resartus may indeed be perceived only as an object of speculation, but undoubtedly the author of Vade-mecum must have been familiar with him (as confirmed in his lectures on Juliusz Słowacki). This article outlines two areas of potential intertextual crossroads between Norwid’s literary motives and the philosophy of life espoused by the legendary Carlyle: one is delimited by the poem Promethidion and a passage from the dialogue Wiesław, which may constitute a polemic with Carlyle’s sartorial philosophy, while another is delineated by Lord Singelworth’s Secret, where the figure and attitude of Singelworth may reveal the eccentricities of Carlyle himself, which is corroborated after Carlyle’s death in 1881, when Norwid began to write his so-called Italian novelettes.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Spór o filozofię szaty. Cyprian Norwid a Thomas Carlyle

98%
Samsel K.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2020
|
vol. 38
71-85
EN
Cyprian Norwid’s attitude to the philosophy of clothes presented by Thomas Carlyle in Sartor Resartus may indeed be perceived only as an object of speculation, but undoubtedly the author of Vade-mecum author must have encountered Carlyle (as confirmed in his lectures on Juliusz Słowacki). In this study I outline two areas of potential intertextual community of Norwid's literary motives with the life’s philosophy and life’s legend of Carlyle: one is delimited by the poem Promethidion and a fragment of the dialogue Wiesław, which may be a kind of polemic with the Carlylean philosophy of clothes; the other area is delineated by Lord Singleworth’s Secret, where the figure and life’s attitude of Singleworth could easily reveal the eccentricities of Carlyle himself (this supposition is corroborated by Carlyle’s death in 1881, thus in the time of Norwid’s writing so-called Italian novelettes).
PL
Stosunek Cypriana Norwida do wyłożonej przez Thomasa Carlyle’a w powieści Sartor Resartus filozofii szaty może co prawda wydawać się wyłącznie przedmiotem spekulacji, jednak nie ulega wątpliwości, że z Carlyle’em autor Vade-mecum zetknąć się musiał (o czym zaświadczają jego wykłady o Juliuszu Słowackim). W niniejszym studium kreślę dwa obszary możliwej intertekstualnej wspólnoty motywów Norwida z filozofią oraz legendą życia Carlyle’a: jedną wyznacza poemat Promethidion oraz fragment dialogu Wiesław mogący stanowić formę polemiki poety z Carlyle’owską filozofią szaty; drugą natomiast określa Tajemnica lorda Singelworth, w której sylwetka i postawa życiowa tytułowego bohatera noweli mogłyby zdradzać ekstrawagancje samego Carlyle’a (domniemanie wzmacnia fakt śmierci Carlyle’a w 1881 r., a więc w czasie pisania tzw. nowel włoskich).
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Brzozowski - Norwid, czyli próby

80%
Chlebowski P.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2013
|
vol. 31
246-256
PL
Eliza Kącka’s book that the present article is devoted to, concerning the reception of Cyprian Norwid in Stanisław Brzozowski’s writings, is a significant publication, a necessary one in historical-literary studies. It is not easy reading, and the methodological strategy chosen by the author, not shunning eclectic approaches, needlessly complicates fairly lucid and comprehensible exposition of the main subject. It is not clearer in this way, and the reader has to put a lot of effort into understanding the author’s particular research activities. This, however, does not influence the fact that the book Stanisław Brzozowski’s Attitude Towards Cyprian Norwid bridges a serious gap in the studies on the reception of the author of Vade-mecum. In the book Brzozowski is presented as an attentive reader of Norwid’s writings, and at the same time a continuator of his way of thinking about man and history. The critic belonging to the Young Poland movement tried to determine a specific mode of reception based on a deep intellectual, ethical and personal communion that should be created between the author and the reader, anchored in the same axiological space.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

MOTYW LIPY CZARNOLESKIEJ W PISMACH CYPRIANA NORWIDA – W KONTEKŚCIE NORWIDOWSKIEGO MYŚLENIA O SZTUCE

71%
Łuczak B.
Colloquia Litteraria
|
2016
|
vol. 20
|
issue 1
91-105
PL
The article offers an interpretation of the linden of Czarnolas motif present in Norwid’s poem Do Nikodema Biernackiego from 1857 and his letter to Józef Bohdan Wagner from 1874. The author touches upon Norwid’s artistic identity in the context of the poet’s rooting in the Renaissance culture. Furthermore, Łuczak attempts to cast some light on the Norwidian category of originality, which was tightly related to his thinking about art. The article points to how Norwid perceived various ways in which artists processed folk culture. Finally, the article underscores the concurrence of references to aesthetic issues which the nineteenth-century poet makes in multiple texts.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Norwid's "tatarski czyn". Between hierarchy and eruption (semantics, contexts, and consequences)

70%
Zehnder C.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2019
|
vol. 37 English Version
17-42
EN
Drawing on a scholarly polemic of the 1930s, this paper differentiates between two ways of understanding and translating Cyprian Norwid’s formula “tatarski czyn,” as ‘Tatar deed’ (from the Polish czyn) or as ‘Tatar rank’ (from the Russian chin according to the Tsarist Table of Ranks). The aim is to show how the eruptive versus the hierarchical readings of “tatarski czyn” have influenced the opinions on Norwid’s dialogic treatise Promethidion (1851) and, more generally, on his criticism of the utopian thought of Polish Romanticism and of Russian po-litics. It was Adam Mickiewicz who in the 1820s and 1830s pointed to the homonymy between czyn and chin and its potential in enacting ambivalences between the seemingly incommensurable imaginaries of eruption and hierarchy. Moreover, Mickiewicz already linked both understandings of czyn with a stereotypical Tatar, or Mongolian, “Asianness.” In this respect, Norwid’s formula is fairly conventional. What is genuinely original, however, is how Norwid turns Mickiewicz’s earlier ideas against those of the later Mickiewicz who, in his Paris Lectures on the Slavs (1840–1844), seems to glorify the “Tatar deed.” In contrast to the “bloody ladder” of Russian bureaucracy and the irrational tendency in Mickiewicz’s activism, Norwid suggests a “gradual labor” culminating in, not erupting with, the deed (Promethidion). This aspect of Norwid’s metaphorical thought is shown in a parallel reading with the philosopher August Cieszkowski who, in his Prolegomena to Historiosophy (1838), conceptualized history as a “texture of deeds” leading to institutions. Similarly, Norwid’s positive notion of the deed, i.e. his revision of Romantic activism, should be situated beyond the alternatives of eruption and hierarchy.
7

„Tatarski czyn” Norwida między hierarchią a erupcją (semantyka, konteksty, konsekwencje)

70%
Zehnder C.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2019
|
vol. 37
17-42
PL
Opierając się na polemice między Stanisławem Cywińskim a Ignacym Fikiem z lat 30. XX w. artykuł rozróżnia dwa sposoby rozumienia norwidowskiego wyrażenia „tatarski czyn”: jako ‘akcja’ lub jako ranga (z rosyjskiego czin według carskiej Tabeli rang). Celem artykułu jest ukazanie, w jaki sposób erupcyjne i hierarchiczne odczytania „tatarskiego czynu” wpłynęły na opinie na temat Promethidiona (1851) i, szerzej, na norwidowską krytykę utopijnej myśli polskiego romantyzmu i rosyjskiej polityki. Adam Mickiewicz w latach dwudziestych i trzydziestych XIX w. wskazywał na homonimię między wyrazami czyn a czin oraz na jej potencjał w tworzeniu ambiwalencji między pozornie nieprzystającymi wyobrażeniami erupcji i hierarchii. Ponadto Mickiewicz powiązał oba rozumienia słowa czyn ze stereotypową tatarską lub mongolską „azjatyckością”. Pod tym względem sformułowanie Norwida jest konwencjonalne. Oryginalne jest jednak to, jak Norwid obraca wcześniejsze idee Mickiewicza przeciwko późniejszym poglądom autora Dziadów, który w swoich prelekcjach paryskich zdaje się gloryfikować „czyn tatarski”. W przeciwieństwie do „krwawej drabiny” rosyjskiej biurokracji i irracjonalnej tendencji w aktywizmie Mickiewicza, Norwid proponuje „stopniową pracę”, której kulminacją, a nie erupcją, jest czyn. Ten aspekt wyobraźni Norwida ukazany jest w równoległej lekturze z myślą filozofa Augusta Cieszkowskiego, który w swoich Prolegomenach do historiozofii określił historię jako „tkaninę czynów” prowadzącą do instytucji. W podobny sposób pozytywne wyobrażenie Norwida o czynie, czyli jego rewizja romantycznego akty-wizmu, powinno sytuować się poza alternatywami erupcji i hierarchii.
EN
Drawing on a scholarly polemic of the 1930s, this paper differentiates between two ways of understanding and translating Cyprian Norwid’s formula “tatarski czyn,” as ‘Tatar deed’ (from the Polish czyn) or as ‘Tatar rank’ (from the Russian chin according to the Tsarist Table of Ranks). The aim is to show how the eruptive versus the hierarchical readings of “tatarski czyn” have influenced the opinions on Norwid’s dialogic treatise Promethidion (1851) and, more generally, on his criticism of the utopian thought of Polish Romanticism and of Russian po-litics. It was Adam Mickiewicz who in the 1820s and 1830s pointed to the homonymy between czyn and chin and its potential in enacting ambivalences between the seemingly incommensurable imaginaries of eruption and hierarchy. Moreover, Mickiewicz already linked both understandings of czyn with a stereotypical Tatar, or Mongolian, “Asianness.” In this respect, Norwid’s formula is fairly conventional. What is genuinely original, however, is how Norwid turns Mickiewicz’s earlier ideas against those of the later Mickiewicz who, in his Paris Lectures on the Slavs (1840–1844), seems to glorify the “Tatar deed.” In contrast to the “bloody ladder” of Russian bureaucracy and the irrational tendency in Mickiewicz’s activism, Norwid suggests a “gradual labor” culminating in, not erupting with, the deed (Promethidion). This aspect of Norwid’s metaphorical thought is shown in a parallel reading with the philosopher August Cieszkowski who, in his Prolegomena to Historiosophy (1838), conceptualized history as a “texture of deeds” leading to institutions. Similarly, Norwid’s positive notion of the deed, i.e. his revision of Romantic activism, should be situated beyond the alternatives of eruption and hierarchy.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Książka opracowana po latach – rozprawy i szkice o Norwidzie sprzed lat kilkudziesięciu

61%
Łuczak B.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2014
|
vol. 32
326-345
EN
The text is a review of the book entitled Poeta i myśliciel. Rozprawy i szkice o Norwidzie (A Poet and a Thinker. Studies and Sketches on Norwid) published in 2013. The book was prepared in the Center for Studies of Cyprian Norwid’s Work of the Catholic University of Lublin as the 17th item in the series “Studia i monografie” (“Studies and monographs”); it contains 13 texts written by Tadeusz Makowiecki who lived in the years 1900-1952, concerning the issues connected with the person of Norwid, with his work and its reception. The studies and sketches contained in the book were published in the years 1926-1952, but until now they were scattered in various publications. The material was collected and edited by Edyta Chlebowska and Włodzimierz Toruń. Among Makowiecki’s works published in the book texts are found with a critical character: a review of Zofia Szmydtowa’s publication Norwid wobec tradycji literackiej; an opinion about reception of the poet’s works – Z batalii o Norwida; short sketches touching the poet’s biography: T.T. Jeż a Norwid, in which the author investigated may be the first case of the poet’s life influencing literature; and Z lat szkolnych Cypriana Norwida; Makowiecki’s doctoral thesis Młodzieńcze poglądy Norwida na sztukę; articles bringing up the questions connected with the poet’s social-political views: Norwid wobec powstania styczniowego, Norwid a rok 1848; a synthetic disquisition Norwid myśliciel; the text Stygmat ruin w twórczości Norwida, referring mainly to some aspects connected with the presence of ancient motifs in the poet’s works; and finally studies containing interpretations of particular poems: “Promethidion Norwida a “Dworzanin” Górnickiego, Promethidion, Za kulisami “Tyrteja” (together with Irena Sławińska) and Fortepian Szopena. Makowiecki’s “Norwidian” works were read and appreciated even earlier, among others by Konrad Górski and Marek Buś. Despite the flow of time a considerable number of the Norwidist’s observation have not become out of date.
9

Książka opracowana po latach – rozprawy i szkice o Norwidzie sprzed lat kilkudziesięciu

61%
Łuczak B.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2014
|
vol. 32
326-345
EN
The text is a review of the book entitled Poeta i myśliciel. Rozprawy i szkice o Norwidzie (A Poet and a Thinker. Studies and Sketches on Norwid) published in 2013. The book was prepared in the Center for Studies of Cyprian Norwid’s Work of the Catholic University of Lublin as the 17th item in the series “Studia i monografie” (“Studies and monographs”); it contains 13 texts written by Tadeusz Makowiecki who lived in the years 1900-1952, concerning the issues connected with the person of Norwid, with his work and its reception. The studies and sketches contained in the book were published in the years 1926-1952, but until now they were scattered in various publications. The material was collected and edited by Edyta Chlebowska and Włodzimierz Toruń. Among Makowiecki’s works published in the book texts are found with a critical character: a review of Zofia Szmydtowa’s publication Norwid wobec tradycji literackiej; an opinion about reception of the poet’s works – Z batalii o Norwida; short sketches touching the poet’s biography: T.T. Jeż a Norwid, in which the author investigated may be the first case of the poet’s life influencing literature; and Z lat szkolnych Cypriana Norwida; Makowiecki’s doctoral thesis Młodzieńcze poglądy Norwida na sztukę; articles bringing up the questions connected with the poet’s social-political views: Norwid wobec powstania styczniowego, Norwid a rok 1848; a synthetic disquisition Norwid myśliciel; the text Stygmat ruin w twórczości Norwida, referring mainly to some aspects connected with the presence of ancient motifs in the poet’s works; and finally studies containing interpretations of particular poems: “Promethidion Norwida a “Dworzanin” Górnickiego, Promethidion, Za kulisami “Tyrteja” (together with Irena Sławińska) and Fortepian Szopena. Makowiecki’s “Norwidian” works were read and appreciated even earlier, among others by Konrad Górski and Marek Buś. Despite the flow of time a considerable number of the Norwidist’s observation have not become out of date.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Norwidowska reinterpretacja mitu prometejskiego

51%
Kłobukowski M.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2015
|
vol. 33
77-108
EN
The author’s aim is to reflect on one of the rudimentary myths constituting the European identity, that is the Promethean myth, and on its interpretation present in Norwid’s works. Kłobukowski states that the author of Promethidion interprets the story of the good Titan in a way that is different from that in which most poets of the 19th century Europe interpreted it, that is by referring to ancient sources of the myth in works by Hesiod, and not by Aeschylus; and that this interpretation has a character of a manifesto. At the same time Norwid, interpreting the story of Prometheus, enters a polemic with Western Romantics as well as with Mickiewicz and the poetic anthropology present in the main current of Romanticism, that was first of all based on such features as rebellion, autonomy of an individual, self-determination, or self-deification. The poet suggests a different vision of human subjectivity; he Christianizes the myth, at the same time doing the work of a comparatist and an anthropologist – comparing the figure of the Titan and the Biblical Adam (Promethidion), suggesting that it is not rebellion, but work is man’s true vocation. Norwid also interprets the phenomenon of the language and its history in the context of the Promethean myth, which he perceives as a myth of the fall (On Freedom of Speech). Kłobukowski also analyzes one of the most important mythemes from the story of Prometheus – that of sacrifice, that, according to Western Romantics, was connected with creating an individualist “I”. Norwid interprets the meaning of sacrifice in a different way – namely, as a phenomenon showing the fullness of humanity and acceptance of the imperfection of the human condition.
11

Norwidowska reinterpretacja mitu prometejskiego

51%
Kołbukowski M.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2015
|
vol. 33
77-108
EN
The author’s aim is to reflect on one of the rudimentary myths constituting the European identity, that is the Promethean myth, and on its interpretation present in Norwid’s works. Kłobukowski states that the author of Promethidion interprets the story of the good Titan in a way that is different from that in which most poets of the 19th century Europe interpreted it, that is by referring to ancient sources of the myth in works by Hesiod, and not by Aeschylus; and that this interpretation has a character of a manifesto. At the same time Norwid, interpreting the story of Prometheus, enters a polemic with Western Romantics as well as with Mickiewicz and the poetic anthropology present in the main current of Romanticism, that was first of all based on such features as rebellion, autonomy of an individual, self-determination, or self-deification. The poet suggests a different vision of human subjectivity; he Christianizes the myth, at the same time doing the work of a comparatist and an anthropologist – comparing the figure of the Titan and the Biblical Adam (Promethidion), suggesting that it is not rebellion, but work is man’s true vocation. Norwid also interprets the phenomenon of the language and its history in the context of the Promethean myth, which he perceives as a myth of the fall (On Freedom of Speech). Kłobukowski also analyzes one of the most important mythemes from the story of Prometheus – that of sacrifice, that, according to Western Romantics, was connected with creating an individualist “I”. Norwid interprets the meaning of sacrifice in a different way – namely, as a phenomenon showing the fullness of humanity and acceptance of the imperfection of the human condition.
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.