Jasienkiewicz1 I was still writing, or with certain interruptions, Bez tytułu (Untitled) – now I am conducting Chwila obecna (The Present Moment), now already in its second year, thus I am called Litwos. – after all, a writer in one who writes books. (Zołzikiewicz in Szkicach węglem [Charcoal Sketches]) I was told, honorable Sir, that my original surname could have been Jasienkiewicz.2 1. The project The Jasienkiewicz project began earlier. The rough idea of it buzzed in the head of the initially nameless feuilleton writer, who fi rst appeared under the Appollonian name Musagetes. Subsequently he took the less beautiful-sounding pseudonym Litwos. Despite appearances, this was not a game of faces and masks, but one of better and worse names. A thoughtfully selected pseudonym functioned as the secret emblem of the unknown author, but, it also served, and perhaps more importantly, to protect the author’s real name, which was reserved for creative endeavors and was not to be tarnished by the journalistic craft. The literary fi gures of this generation discovered that they could live by the pen, and that writing for the newspapers provided them with relative independence. Sienkiewicz’s correspondence from the International Literary Conference in Paris, which was published in Nowiny (The News) on 11 June 1878, quotes extensively from the report made by Alfons Gonzales, the dominant theme of which was the economic question—the growing advantage of the press over books and copyright laws. “Everywhere we see,” Gonzales says, “that journalism is the only permanent and sure vocation for men of letters, and he who seeks craft in the pen has before him only the press and nothing more” [Kongres Międzynarodowy Literacki w Paryżu, D XLIV 113].3 The fl ip side of the pauperization of the writer is the growing 1 The title of the chapter adds the Polish for “I” to Sienkiewicz’s surname. 2 Letter to Jan Aleksander Karłowicz of September 8, 1901 [Li III/1, 81]. 3 As Wacław Szymanowski, editor of Kurier Warszawski, a Polish attendee of the Congress, observed, “le journal a effacé le livre” [Kongres…, D XLIV 110]. 10 Jasienkiewicz social signifi cance of the journalistic and belles-lettres press, which provided writers with a new, formerly unknown, social position: “there are no more false troubadours, or paid poets, or beggars, or slaves” [Kongres… D XLIV 113]. The authors’ compensation for this loss of exceptionality was supposed to be profi t, fame, and ideological infl uence over society. Sienkiewicz viewed with skepticism the proclaimed “fourth power” of literary fi gures. He saw in the Congress debates mainly a defense of the interests of publishers searching for legal means to combat illegal translations and theatrical adaptations. He himself knew well of the none too exalted fate of the lean writer who experiences the impact of the newspaper’s triumph over the book.4 Seven years previously, he suffered the consequences of the failure of the Kraszewski publishing house, which prevented, for a time, the publication of his debut novel Na marne (Wasted) (fi rst printed in Wieniec in 1872; fi rst book edition in 1876). He wrote of this with sarcastic humor to Konrad Dobrski: “Immortality is greater with the book than the newspaper, but immortality is easier than publishing when there are no printing houses. In any case, I have time for immortality … [Li I/1 334]. The sober evaluation of the writer’s new position in a market dominated by the press led to his postponing creative endeavors until that time when the journalist ensured the writer’s independence and a relatively good position with readers. The opportunity for and temptation of independence brought to the modern literary fi gure by the signifi cant split into journalist and writer, with the latter having to wait until the former had fulfi lled his duties. Thus, for Sienkiewicz the pseudonym is a name-mask that he dons during his daily work as a writer so as to not tarnish his own name, which he saves for literature. Jettisoning Musagetes and Litwos, the now famous journalist is separated from Sienkiewicz the author, who retains his ties to the press, but who already writes for himself under his “better” name. The creative entity hidden behind the mask returns to “himself,” to his proper role, exploiting the capital he has accumulated through his journalistic writing. The pseudonym, thus exploited, turns out to be cleverly a delayed subjectivity that is not implemented prematurely, and giving in return (on trial) the phantom of the false name. A similar mechanism of splitting the writer’s role is seen in many literary careers, with Prus in the lead, but with the difference that he never returned to Aleksander Głowacki.5 “Sienkiewicz” decided to challenge “Litwos” and won; 4 The author of Stara i młoda prasa confi rms that Sienkiewicz “was then very poor, very modest, and forever in need of money.” (Stara i młoda prasa. Przyczynek do historii literatury ojczystej 1866–1872. Kartki ze wspomnień Eksdziennikarza, ed. with an afterward by D. Świerczyńska, Warszawa 1998, p. 106). 5 Prus, recalling years later his printed columns in Opiekun Domowy, writes, “I signed with the pseudonym out of simple shame that I could write such silliness,” cited in Bolesław Prus 1847–1912. Kalendarz życia i twórczości, ed. K. Tokarzówna and P. Fit, general editor 1. The project 11 “Głowacki” conceded that maybe Prus, the journalist, would better support Prus, the artist, and so it happened that in the reception of Lalka (The Doll) an alleged fl aw was noted in, among other matters, employing the mannerisms of the feuilleton in the narration of the novel.6 Prus, the writer, consumed by the name of his column writing Doppelgänger, is a more apt representation of the shifts in modern literary life since he embodies the experience and consciousness of this generation of writer in this new position in the cultural system. While the rapid development in the press did not permit the ambitious man of letters to live by the pen (without a patron or additional employ) well, it did allow relative independence.7 In Poland, this phenomenon did not begin to take shape until the late 1860s and early 1870s, when the generation that recognized the newspapers as a means to implement their ideological artistic and economic goals found their voice. This conjunction is deceptive, as it does not signal the peaceful coexistence of these spheres. One of the signifi cant costs borne by the author-journalist-producer i s participation in the economic game in which creativity becomes a commodity. Positivists discover and exploit this new reality , which brings the realization that words and ideas are equally part of the market as goods and services are. Sienkiewicz quickly appreciated the value of specializing in the literary craft, but, still, his goal, almost from the beginning, becomes that of freeing the Zygmunt Szweykowski, Warszawa 1969, p. 103. A discussion of the multiple places where these two authors come into contact and mirror each other is found in a study by Janina Kulczycka-Saloni “Sienkiewicz i Prus,” in: Henryk Sienkiewicz – twórczość i recepcja światowa, ed. A. Piorunowa and K. Wyka, Kraków 1968. 6 Świętochowski, maintaining that Prus’s composition of Lalka is faulty, suggests that a journalist and writer whose novels are published serially in the press cannot become a true novelist (A. Świętochowski, Aleksander Głowacki (Bolesław Prus), in: Polska krytyka literacka (1800–1918). Materiały. Vol. III, Warszawa 1959, p. 369). The belief that writing for the press spoils talent was widespread, since Chmielowski accused Sienkiewicz of the same: “The novella writer here has yet to transform himself into a perfect novelist” (P. Chmielowski, “Ogniem i mieczem w oświetleniu pozytywistycznym,” in: Trylogia Henryka Sienkiewicza. Studia, szkice, polemiki, selected and edited T. Jodełka, Warszawa 1962, p. 149). 7 This refers to only a small group of writers; the rest write “after hours” as clerks or try to stave off poverty. Janina Kulczycka-Saloni describes the painful birth of the professional man of letters in Życie literackie Warszawy w latach 1864–1892, Warszawa 1970 (in the chapter “Sytuacja materialna”). How varied and interesting this service market is, can be seen in the brilliant sketch by Baudelaire devoted to Balzac. To extract himself from debt, the titular “genius,”purchases two articles from young, talented writers (according to Andrzej Kijowski, who names them in his footnotes, they are Edward Ouriliac and Téophile Gautier), and signs them with his name (Ch. Baudelaire, „Jak płacić długi, gdy się jest geniuszem,” in: Sztuka romantyczna. Dzienniki poufne, trans. with an introduction and annotations by A. Kijowski, Warszawa 1971, pp. 34–37). 12 Jasienkiewicz artist from the journalist, freeing his own name from the pseudonym. Weaker as a writer of the feuilleton, he builds his position on his correspondence from his American travels (1876–1878). The forms of reportage are closer to his writer’s temperament, but they also demand less of his energy, because, as he writes to Julian Horain, they are not as taxing because the material is palpable, while that of the feuilleton is not and “– you have to do the impossible and keep it going as long as you can” [Li I/1, 376]. In truth, it must be clarifi ed that the shift from journalism to literature was not only done in a quest for immortality, but also of a more effective form of engaged discourse, which permitted smuggling ideas outside of the sphere of impermanent journalistic products. Bringing literature into the public sphere, which was made possible by the new medium, also forced undertaking a new theme—that of responding to the experiences and expectations of the newspaper reader.