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

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  William Szekspir
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The oeuvre of a Jewish-Polish painter, Maurycy Gottlieb has been considered so far as strictly related with his biography and the questions of a national and religious identity. This perspective, much as it applies to extraordinarily significant issues, results in overlooking a picture as a picture, meaning the relation between a representation and a pictorial medium, i.e. surface. The relation of the both elements makes up a possibility to reveal a specific speech of painting, absent in other kinds of art. The question whether it comes to this revelation is an indispensable one. Especially in terms of the pictures whose contents derive from texts, as in the case of Gottlieb’s painting, Shylock and Jessica, which depicts characters of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In this case the question must be also posed if the painting’s features, perceived as the painter’s original achievement – namely iconography, the scene of handing in the keys, and its composition, as well as depicting Shylock as a tender, painful father – should be perceived as a typical solution in view of various manifestations of reception of this work by Shakespeare. Originality and artistic significance of Gottlieb’s painting is revealed instead in the fact that the artist – with the aim of provoking an optical play between the representation and the pictorial surface – managed to come up with a visual equivalent of important and general, namely reaching beyond a narrative dimension of the scene, traits of relations between the drama characters. Referring to the question of identity, in consequence we can state that Gottlieb by means of his painting does not speak to us neither as a Jew, nor as a Pole, but as a painter.
PL
Artykuł jest mimetyczną interpretacją Ślubu Witolda Gombrowicza. Zastosowanie teorii René Girarda w funkcji metajęzyka pozwala na zauważenie częściowej dekonstrukcji, jakiej polski pisarz dokonuje względem koncepcji mordu pierwotnego (i buntu syna przeciwko ojcu) stworzonej przez Zygmunta Freuda. „Poprawka” Gombrowicza (zapożyczona od Szekspira) polega na prezentacji przekonania, zgodnie z którym rywalizacja (oraz jej efekt – morderstwo) jest specyficznym, naśladowczym modusem międzyludzkich relacji, a jej aspekt przedmiotowy (m.in. erotyczny) pozostaje kwestią drugorzędną.
EN
The article offers a discussion and comparative analysis of two interpretive approaches to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Namely, Phyllis Gorfain’s approach, formulated with reference to interpretive anthropology (to a large degree inspired by Victor Turner’s anthropology of experience), and René Girard’s approach, formulated with reference to his concept of mimetic anthropology. Those two different readings of Shakespeare’s play as an expressive text (that is expressing the problems of our culture), bring also the question of how Hamlet as a reflexive text can provoke anthropological self‑consciousness, both in theory and practice. According to Gorfain, the main character’s cognitive situation proves paradigmatic above all to anthropologists’ self‑knowledge concerning maintaining the balance between experiencing and interpreting another culture, between reaching for truth about a given culture and falling into interpretive illusions. For Girard, the main character’s cognitive situation becomes first and foremost the mirror of contemporary culture, particularly with regard to the unresolved problem of violence and acting in revenge, or refraining from both. The thematic frame of the article is defined by the Shakespeare’s evocation of the theatrum mundi topos and a reflection on the functionalization of the topos in the description of culture through the prism of two anthropologies: interpretive and mimetic.
RU
The article presents the origins of Hamlet directed by Roman Zawistowski at the Stary Theatre in Krakow (1956) and is an attempt at answering the question: to what extent the famous Jan Kott’s review influenced its reception. The author analyzes the translation of the tragedy, the script of the play, acting, scenography and the historical context. By comparing the reviews with Kott’s interpretation, it is possible to indicate the areas where critics disagree, and at which point Kott’s review becomes opinion-oriented and establishes the reception of Zawistowski’s Hamlet – actually to this day.
5
67%
EN
Giuseppe De Lorenzo (1871-1957) was a geologist, a translator of Buddhist texts and Schopenhauer, a great reader of Shakespeare and senator of the Italian Kingdom since 1913. His multifaceted figure has been discussed and criticised over the years, but it keeps arousing great interest both in respect to the history of European culture in the early twentieth century and the history of Buddhism in Italy. Shakespeare e il dolore del mondo (published in 1921), can be considered De Lorenzo’s first specific attempt to read into the works of major western poets and philosophers an idea of pain that is actualized as a constant dimension. The works of the English poet and playwright are subjected to an innovative and unorthodox analysis which has as objective “di cercare e mostrare come nell’opera di Shakespeare esista, in nuce, quella visione del dolore del mondo, che è alla base della dottrina di Buddho e di Schopenhauer” (“To seek and show how in Shakespeare’s work there exists, in the beginning, that vision of the pain of the world, which was the basis of the doctrine of Buddho and Schopenhauer”, op. cit., p. 14). The research is devoted not only to the identification of a Buddhist seed in Shakespeare’s tragedies, but primarily to the analysis of the idea of pain in the world as well as finding an ethical way to eliminate suffering - a vision that is diametrically opposed to the Greek and Jewish-Christian worldview.
PL
Giuseppe De Lorenzo (1871-1957) był geologiem, tłumaczem tekstów buddyjskich i Schopenhauera, wybitnym znawcą Szekspira i senatorem Królestwa Włoch od 1913 roku. Jego złożona postać przez lata była przedmiotem dyskusji i krytyki, mimo to ciągle wzbudza duże zainteresowanie zarówno w zakresie historii kultury europejskiej początków XX wieku, jak i historii buddyzmu we Włoszech. Shakespeare e il dolore del mondo (książka opublikowana w 1921 roku) może być uznawana za pierwszą szczegółową próbę poszukiwań w dziełach wielkich zachodnich poetów i filozofów idei bólu, który jest urzeczywistniany jako stały wymiar. Dzieła angielskiego poety i dramaturga poddane są nowatorskiej i nieszablonowej analizie, która ma za cel „di cercare e mostrare come nell’opera di Shakespeare esista, in nuce, quella visione del dolore del mondo, che è alla base della dottrina di Buddho e di Schopenhauer” („odszukać i pokazać, w jaki sposób w dziele Szekspira istnieje, na początku, ta wizja bólu świata, która była podstawą doktryny Buddy i Schopenhauera”, op. cit., s. 14). Badanie poświęcone jest nie tyko identyfikacji buddyjskiego pierwiastka w tragediach Szekspira, lecz raczej ukierunkowane jest na analizę idei bólu na świecie, jak również odnalezienie etycznego sposobu eliminacji cierpienia. Wizja, która jest diametralnie różna od greckiego i judeochrześcijańskiego światopoglądu.
PL
Tom Trudny Norwid jest nie tylko próbą stworzenia „monografii niemożliwej”, lecz także ważnym, bo przekrojowym dokumentem ewolucji polskiej norwidologii (być może właśnie ta, a nie inna problematyka książki ów interesujący horyzont szczególnie uprzystępniała). Skutkiem tego – analizowany tu zbiór tekstów domaga się niejako dwóch dróg odczytywania i podlega tak samo dwóm równoległym ścieżkom interpretacyjnym. Jedna została wyznaczona przez temat całości tomu, druga realizowana jest mimowolnie, zwłaszcza w toku omawiania dyskusyjnych kwestii w obrębie dyscypliny. Ta druga wydała się autorowi niniejszego omówienia równie pasjonująca, co pierwsza. Stąd też jego próba syntetycznego połączenia obu interesów tej książki, choćby w ramach podtytułu niniejszego studium – hasła „trudnego Norwida trudnej norwidologii”.
EN
The volume Trudny Norwid [Difficult Norwid] marks not only an attempt to create an “impossible monograph” but also an important, large-scale record of the evolution of Norwid Studies in Poland (perhaps it is exactly this and not the other issues addressed in the book that made this interesting perspective particularly accessible). As a result, the collection of texts examined here requires at least two ways of reading and is subject to the same two parallel interpretive paths. One of these was defined by the subject of the entire volume, while the other one is performed involuntarily, in particular in the course of discussing issues that are disputable in the discipline. The author of this review found the second interpretive path as exciting as the first, hence this attempt to synthesise the two interests of the book, if only under the heading of this study – the headword “difficult Norwid in difficult Norwid Studies”.
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.