The article concerns the question of the ghost, which runs through the oeuvre of Stanislaw Wyspianski (1869-1907) from his school translation of G. A. Bürger`s Lenora until the last, unfinished drama Zygmunt August .
The article addresses the well-known problem of the complex relations between the works of Stanisław Przybyszewski and naturalism. However, this problem is not discussed in terms of ideology but poetics. The focus is on description and descriptiveness as components of a literary (or painterly) work of art and their role in representing the world, i.e. relations between aesthetics and epistemology.
PL
Artykuł podejmuje znany problem złożonych relacji między twórczością Stanisława Przybyszewskiego a naturalizmem, przenosząc go jednak z płaszczyzny stricte światopoglądowej na bardziej poetologiczną. W centrum uwagi umieszcza bowiem spór o opis i opisowość jako te składniki dzieła literackiego (lub malarskiego), które konstytuują obraz świata. Rzecz dotyczy więc styku estetyki z epistemologią.
One of the characteristics that make Stanisław Przybyszewski’s novels stand out from other contemporary works is the deliberately limited description of the outside world up to the point of blurring the identity of the location where the plot of a given work takes place. In the case of Dzieci Szatana (Satan’s Children), (German Satans Kinder, 1897; Polish edition 1899), one may even talk about ‘a total destruction of the represented world’ (Gabriela Matuszek). At the same time, the author’s numerous comments apparently allow for translating this ‘destruction’ happening in the course of the creative process into a ‘reconstruction’ that corresponds to it in the process of reading. It is through reviewing in more detail and combining various pieces of information included in Dzieci Szatana that directly or indirectly refer to the place of action, as well as confronting them with the biographical, historical and geographic contexts that one may identify with surprising precision the exact place represented in the text and, as a result, to uncover an entirely new aspect of novel axiology.
The article is a review of an extensive, two-volume collection of Miłosz’s statements entitled Rosja. Widzenia transoceaniczne [Russia: Transoceanic Views]. The reviewer, apart from a standard presentation and evaluation of the published work, attempts to discover a deeper sense of the decision to publish, “here and now”, Miłosz’s statements on Russian issues. The collection, which rounds up previously unknown texts written between 1936 and 2004, makes it possible to understand Miłosz’s writings on Russia as a continuation of Marian Zdziechowski’s essays written between the wars, where uncompromising denunciation of the “Eastern peril” was combined with deep respect and sympathy for a Russia that was not imperial.
The author puts Czesław Miłosz’s reflection of the phenomenon of Dostoyevski’s works in the context of postcolonial studies. He draws the attention to the innovative character and complementarity of the poet’s essays on Russian literature which is different to the its analysis carried out by Ewa M. Thompson in ”Imperial Knowledge. Russian Literature and Colonialism”.
PL
Refleksję Czesława Miłosza nad fenomenem twórczości Fiodora Dostojewskiego umieszcza autor w kontekście studiów postkolonialnych, zwracając uwagę na prekursorski charakter oraz komplementarność szkiców poety o literaturze rosyjskiej wobec analiz Ewy M. Thompson, przeprowadzonych w jej książce Imperial Knowledge. Russian Literature and Colonialism (tłum. pol. Trubadurzy imperium. Literatura rosyjska i kolonializm
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.