Świat Tekstów Rocznik Słupski Nr 18
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 ŚWIAT TEKSTÓW ROCZNIK SŁUPSKI NR 18 2 3 AKADEMIA POMORSKA W SŁUPSKU ŚWIAT TEKSTÓW ROCZNIK SŁUPSKI NR 18 SŁUPSK 2020 4 Komitet Redakcyjny Redaktor naczelny – dr hab. Sławomir Rzepczyński, prof. AP Członkowie: dr Marek Kaszewski, dr hab. Tomasz Tomasik, prof. AP Sekretarz i osoba do kontaktu – dr hab. Bernadetta Żynis, prof. AP, Katedra Filologii Polskiej, ul. Arciszewskiego 22a, 76-200 Słupsk (e-mail: [email protected]) Komitet Naukowy Małgorzata Czermińska (Polska), Andrzej Hejmej (Polska), Arent van Nieukerken (Niderlandy), Tomasz Sobieraj (Polska), Mikołaj Sokołowski (Polska), Feliks Sztejnbuk (Ukraina), Zoia Valiukh (Ukraina) Recenzenci współpracujący dr hab. Paulina Abriszewska, prof. UMK prof. Barbara Gawrońska, Universitetet i Agder, Kristiannsand, Norwegia dr hab. Katarzyna Jerzak, prof. AP Słupsk prof. dr hab. Jarosław Ławski, UwB dr hab. Arent van Nieukerken, Universiteit van Amasterdam, Niderlandy dr hab. Beata Obsulewicz-Niewińska, prof. KUL dr hab. Dariusz Pniewski, prof UMK prof. dr hab. Tomasz Sobieraj, UAM dr hab. Marek Stanisz, prof. URz dr hab. Piotr Śniedziewski, prof. UAM Redaktor językowy Redaktor tematyczny dr Marek Kaszewski dr hab. Bernadetta Żynis, prof. AP Redakcja, korekta i skład Oficyna Wydawnicza Edward Mitek Projekt okładki Małgorzata Rzepczyńska ISSN 2083-4721 Wersja papierowa czasopisma jest wersją pierwotną. Czasopismo w wersji on-line znajduje się na stronie: http://swiattekstow.apsl.edu.pl, www.slupskie-prace-filologiczne.apsl.edu.pl Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pomorskiej w Słupsku ul. K. Arciszewskiego 22a, 76-200 Słupsk, tel. 59 84 05 378 www.wydawnictwo.apsl.edu.pl e-mail: [email protected] Druk i oprawa: volumina.pl Daniel Krzanowski ul. Księcia Witolda 7–9, 71-063 Szczecin, tel. 91 812 09 08 Obj. 21,9 ark. wyd., format B5 5 SPIS TREŚCI Romantyczne spory – przeszłość [Rolf Lessenich], The debate of sceptics and platonists in European romanticism .... 7 Magdalena Kowalska, Pillars of the National Poetry: Gérard de Nerval’s Voice in the Romantic Debate on the Origins of French Literature ............................. 19 Helena Markowska-Fulara, Looking at Romanticism ex cathedra: A Case of Ludwik Osiński Lectures ................................................................................................. 33 Marta Sukiennicka, The argument from authority in the dynamics of the French classic-Romantic quarrel (1821–1831) .............................................................. 41 Monika Coghen, The Construction of the Romantic Byron: Scotch Reviewers and French Critics ............................................................................................................... 53 Mirosława Modrzewska, The Wordsworthian and the Byronic Romantic Canon in the “Supposed Confessions” .............................................................................. 69 Marek Wilczyński, American Romanticism as a Literary-Historical Construction .... 83 Magdalena Bystrzak, Niejednoznaczny fundament. Wokół romantyzmu słowackiego ........................................................................................................ 91 Jora Vaso, The Outsider’s Glimpse: The Slow Return or the Very Beginning of Romanticism in Albania ................................................................................. 105 Kleitia Vaso, Byronic “Rugged Nurse of Savage Men” in the 21st Century: The Perpetually Romantic Albania .................................................................... 121 Andrzej Fabianowski, Romantyczne antynomie idei rewolucji ................................... 133 Romantyczne spory – później i teraz Aleksandra Sekuła, Bloody Lining of High-Minded Ideas. Un-Divine Comedy and its Contemporary Contexts .......................................................................... 147 Magdalena Siwiec, Jeszcze o sporach o romantyzm u progu nowoczesności (Norwid i Baudelaire) ......................................................................................... 161 Christian Zehnder, Lyricism as a Polemical Concept in Norwid, Brzozowski and Art and Nation ............................................................................................. 179 Karol Samsel, Polskoromantyczne widma Josepha Conrada. Prolegomena do badań nad polskim obliczem pisarza ............................................................. 197 Magdalena Baraniak, Mickiewicz Witkacego .............................................................. 211 Dorota Mackenzie, Fryderyk Chopin’s Iconic Biography „tainted” by Gender, Queer and Cosmopolitan notions as a Point of Contention regarding the Modern Outlook on Romanticism ................................................................ 229 6 Spis treści Teatr Kyriaki Petraku, The conflict between Romanticism and Classicism in the Greek theatre of the 19th century ................................................................................. 245 Georgopoulou Varvara, The reception of Romanticism in the Greek theatre of Mid-war years ................................................................................................ 259 Ewa Hoffmann-Piotrowska, Mickiewicz jako „przyrząd do grania”. Przypadek Jerzego Grotowskiego ...................................................................... 271 Esej Marta Piwińska, Cyganie, hipisi i dziennikarze (Romantyzm i kontrkultury) ............ 289 Oświadczenie dotyczące etyki ................................................................................... 303 Zasady recenzowania publikacji w „Świecie Tekstów. Roczniku Słupskim” ...... 305 Wymagania edycyjne dotyczące artykułów składanych do czasopisma „Świat Tekstów. Rocznik Słupski” ........................................................................... 305 The debate of sceptics and platonists in European romanticism 7 ŚWIAT TEKSTÓW • ROCZNIK SŁUPSKI Nr 18 ss. 7–17 2020 ISSN 2083-4721 © Katedra Filologii Polskiej Akademii Pomorskiej w Słupsku Oryginalna praca badawcza Przyjęto: 14.01.2020 Zaakceptowano: 10.03.2020 Rolf Lessenich [1940–2019] THE DEBATE OF SCEPTICS AND PLATONISTS IN EUROPEAN ROMANTICISM1 DEBATA SCEPTYKÓW I PLATONISTÓW W EUROPEJSKIM ROMANTYZMIE Słowa kluczowe: debata, romantyzm, sceptycy, platoniści Key words: debate, romanticism, sceptics, platonists On the 1st of December 1812, the well-known caricaturist Charles Williams, a contemporary of James Gillray, made a plate for Town Talk that satirized the Roman- tic Period’s bewildering political and artistic conflicts. Instead of marked front lines, we see a chaos of voices – reminiscent of the chaos of the battlefield, where blind sla- shing replaces orderly warfare. Chaos calls for order and subsumption, invariably to the detriment of detail. The increasing chaos of voices around the time of the French Revolution became a subject for caricature, expressing the age’s call for the formation of clear-cut, though terribly simplified, schools and front lines. Something similar had happened in the conflict of Christians and Pagans in the 4th century. A bad order has ever proved better than no order at all2. In the literature of the Romantic Period of 1780–1830, there were two battlefields: the Classicism-Romanticism debate on the one hand and the Platonism-Scepticism debate on the other. Both had socio-political implications. The Classicism-Romanticism debate was concerned with questions of elitist or general education of the authors and their readership or audience; the exclusiveness or 1 The article was presented at an international conference Romanticism a point of cntention (past and present), organized by the Faculty «Artes Liberales» and the Faculty of Polish Studies of the University of Warsaw on 10–11. October 2017. Tekst artykułu został wygłoszony na międzyna- rodowej konferencji naukowej Spory romantyczne i spory o romantyzm (dawne i nowe), zorga- nizowanej przez Wydział „Artes Liberales” i Wydział Polonistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego w dniach 10–11 X 2017 r. 2 Reprinted in Parodies of the Romantic Age, ed. Graeme Stones – John Strachan, vol. 2, London 1999, n.p. 8 [Rolf Lessenich] inclusiveness of the Classical Tradition of Greece and Rome; the universal or regional validity of standards of taste and rules; the social rank and political loyalty of authors and artists; and support of or enmity toward the allegedly divine institution of the an- cien régime’s feudal order. The frequent border crossing and changes of political and aesthetic loyalty of authors such as Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Byron in England, Victor Hugo and Chateaubriand in France, or the Schlegel brothers and Beethoven in Germany show just how difficult it was for Romantic-Period theorists to come to a clear distinction between Classical and Romantic. Byron was not the only poet that switched his code from Romanticism to Neoclassicism and back again – others to do so included Thomas Campbell, Samuel Rogers, John Gibson Lockhart, John Wilson, and Thomas Love Peacock. It was long after the gunsmoke of battle had subsided in the 1850s to 1860s that the existence of a «Romantic School» became more widely accepted in Britain3. The Platonism-Scepticism debate, by contrast, was an inner-Romantic debate, best known from Byron’s satirical attacks on Wordsworth and Coleridge in Don Juan or Percy Shelley’s arguments against Byron in Julian and Maddalo. Platonism is here understood as all philosophies inspired by Plato – not just Plato’s philosophy proper, as is usual in histories of philosophy4. Enlightenment philosophy famously turned its back on metaphysics, mostly ba- nishing it in France and