Michał Głowiński
Angel in the Midst of False Tongues
(On "Blue-Stockings" by Prus)
Literary Studies in Poland 6, 41-56
A ngel in the M idst o f False T ongues
(On B lue-Stockings by Prus)
1. La premiere naive
Since a t least the m iddle o f the 19th century it has been a m atter o f course to believe th a t every m an — not, o f course, the Everym an o f M orality plays —can becom e the hero o f a novel. A ny and every m an —regardless o f his social status and intellectual aptitudes, reg ard less o f the p a tte rn into which his w orks and days have fallen o r o f w hat adventures o r experiences he could to t up in his life’s reckoning. The everyday, in all its glorious banality, could kindle the sam e burning interest as high adventure. W riters were faced with the p roblem o f how to w rite o f the everyday so as to rem ain within it an d refrain from looking dow n up o n it whilst, nevertheless, so shaping the w orld as to convince the reader th a t the banality o f the proffered w orld was not characteristic o f its au th o r. T he great novelists o f the 19th century were fully conscious o f this issue, whose continuing and un ab ated life still gives pause to historians and critics o f narrative prose. The question m ust have presented itself to P rus too, and never m ore so th an during the co m position o f E m ancypantki (Blue-Stockings). F o r he u n d erto o k an unusual task : to describe the w orld by m eans o f the categories available to the first naive w om an. Even the very earliest critics o f the novel described her in term s borrow ed from stage com edy, and the ph rase “the ingenue” suggests itself: how else is one to characterize M iss M agdalene?
Let me stress th a t E m ancypantki is concerned above all, not with the rendition o f the fortunes o f a naive girl, bu t with the p resentation o f the w orld th ro u g h the categories she acknow ledges as her own.
42 M ic h a ł G ło w iń sk i
An ard uo us and unusual task for an a u th o r to attem p t —especially so where th at vision o f the w orld is not only not subject to question but becom es a value in itself: and this we know to be the case in Emancypantki. By its natu re approv al precludes distance. But can the n a rra to r o f a m ulti-tom ed novel, w hom the reader o f necessity treats as the a u th o r’s porte-parole, identify him self with a girl whose immense nobility is m atched by her no less im mense n a ïv e té ? 1 To attem p t to solve this problem in a m anner th at will be both consistent and sufficiently well operable to ensure the novel som e degree at least o f com positional unity: to attem p t this is to strive to square the circle. P rus elected to take this risk and tried to resolve a problem that appears to be insoluble —and th at is the fascinating thing ab o u t this strange novel.
In Em ancypantki the role o f the n a rra to r has been clearly restricted, especially in com parison with the practices o f som ew hat earlier writers. In him self he inform s one w hat w ithin the b o un ds o f the novel’s ontology has the status o f indubitable fact, bu t even in this area the extent o f his ju risdiction is lim ited, for —in accordance with a tendency prevalent thro u g h o u t the novels o f the fin de siècle — he depicts the novelistic w orld by arran ging close-ups into a series o f individual scenes th at are concrete in their non-reproducability. P ru s’ n a rra to r shies aw ay from jud gem ent o f any and every kind and even —with a few exceptions —refrains from generalizations. It seems th a t the writer proceeded th ro u g h o u t with the utm o st self-awareness, as is witnessed by the fact —analyzed by E dw ard Piescikowski in his excellent study o f the n o v el2 — th a t he deleted from the final version all those expressions th at w ould have provided narrative confirm ation o f the events in the novelistic w orld: all such w ords as “essentially,” “obviously,” “really,” and “tru ly .” T han ks to this the novel’s w orld gained a far greater degree o f autonom y, which o f necessity hindered the establishm ent
1 H isto ria n s o f the E nglish n ovel (e.g. K. T illo tso n ) have p o in ted o u t that the p lacin g in the m iddle o f a w ork for a d u lts o f a ch ild —that is, o f a naive hero —w as D ick en s's great literary in n o v a tio n . W ith regard to Prus; relation to D ick en s see J. K u l c z y c k a - S a l o n i ’s, Z d zie jó w D ick en sa w P o lsc e : E m a n c y p a n tk i a B leak H ouse
(From the F ortunes o f D icken s in P o la n d : B lu e-S to ck in g s versus B leak H ou se), “ Prace
P o lo n is ty c z n e ,” 1947, S. V.
2 E. P i e s c i k o w s k i , " E m a n cyp a n tk i” B olesław a P rusa ( B olesław P ru s' "Blue
o f distance. But such distance is nevertheless —at least to some extent —a prerequisite o f the novel, so the w riter is driven to establish it by o th er m eans. A bove all there are two m ethods w orth consideration. Firstly, there is a stylistic coloration o f the narrative th at prevents the reader from identifying him self with the figure u nder consideration at any given m om ent. This prim arily fosters the irony to which the novel frequently has re so rt; yet it is less crucial from o u r p oint o f view, for M iss M agdalene herself is never treated ironically, so it is no t thus th a t distance is to arise. F ar m ore decisive is the second m ethod, which rests u p o n the registration o f the disparities between the facts the scenes p u t before the reader (who is thus an eye-witness sui generis) and their in terp retatio n by the heroine. The p ro b le m : fact and its in terp retatio n (an interp retatio n carried o u t b y ... the heroes, no t by the n a rra to r) is fu nd am ental to the novel’s com position and global sense, and m anifests itself in various set-ups and entanglem ents. In the m eantim e I w ould like to draw atten tio n to one side o f the question: the explanations and judgem ents o f events, facts and p u r poses fo rm ulated by M agdalene differ quite considerably from the know ledge o f things and their values garnered by the reader, who is witness to the scenes. (In this case it is he who is the cu stod ian o f “objective tru th .”) The hiatus betw een the w orld o f the im aginings o f the first am ong the naive an d the actuality within which she has to live —which is, the o rd e r o f the novel, the real w orld —creates its ow n p artic u la r dim ension in Em ancypantki.
T h at is, it serves to indicate the h ero in e’s naivety, and thus to some degree suggests distance, bu t it never acts totally to disqualify her. R ath er the reverse: naivety n o t only lends the young person charm bu t is also a positive force on the scale o f values with which the novel is bou nd . It is true th at naivety is a sym ptom o f false consciousness, b u t in this case th at consciousness —which is no drain on the a u th o r’s acco un t —expresses a noble soul th at is not only free o f the w o rld ’s depravity but also incapable o f even com prehending it. T h a t is one o f the novel’s chief peculiarities.
T he illusions o f the hero have been a favourite them e o f the novel ever since the age o f C ervantes. But these illusions are not naive ones: D o n Q uixote was not naive when he im agined him self a knight erran t, nor was Em m a Bovary when she dream ed o f a w orld th at w ould be som ething m ore than a provincial tow n, nor were countless
44 M ichaI G ło w iń sk i
o th er novelistic heroes naive when they lived o u t dream s o f adventure and power. All aspired to assum e a role forbidden them by the practice o f everyday social life. The great novels, however, tu rn ed these dream s into problem s, subjected them to analysis, an d thus in a sense unm asked them . To recall G ira rd ’s renow ned book —the novel op po sed tru th to the R om antic lie .3 A tru th th a t lay in the d em o n stratio n o f the falsity o f consciousness, in the piercing o f illusion-filled balloons. Lim iting oneself to the classic exam ples th a t researchers into the novel have frequently exploited —the false consciousness o f D on Q uixote o r M adam e Bovary derived from the q uarrel with the w orld th at determ ined their experiences, and if it was no t always a revolt, it was in any case a vote o f no-confidence.
In Em ancypantki all this is tu rn ed aro u n d . Its heroine assents to the surrounding w orld, does not wish to be anyone b u t herself, and her thoughts —unlike those o f the chem ist’s wife in T uw im ’s verse —are not “in the bed o f the ten or-kin g.” O ur first naive lady has little in com m on with F la u b e rt’s d o c to r’s wife. She adheres to the set o f values her environm ent holds to be binding, and she does not perm it herself to think th a t there can be any discrepancy between the m oral laws instituted as obligatory an d the practices o f the m em bers o f this environm ent. This is the source o f her naivety, but it is also the very thing th a t precipitates her into incessant conflict with the environm ent and eventual defeat. Let me repeat th at the conflicts do not arise o u t o f any desire to transgress against the rules; they are the consequences o f the hero ine’s wish consistently to apply them . The situation in Em ancypantki is parado xical; when taken seriously, conform ism becom es a non-conform ist stance.
One o f the phenom ena m ost essential to this novel is —I repeat —the discrepancy between the facts o f which the reader is already conscious and the in terp retations th ereo f proposed by the heroes. In the m ajority o f cases these in terpretations are fallacious, and their falsity is enlisted into the novelistic play. M addie herself is frequently the creatrix o f false interpretations, prim arily as a result o f her —fitting for the first lady in n aiv ety — co ntinual quest for honest intentions behind every deed. A nd whenever sober rem arks em erge into her consciousness they are im m ediately disavow ed:
Mr. R o m a n o w ic z lo o k e d at her from an an gle, b o w ed p o litely , alb eit d ista n tly , and sigh ed as he left. In M a d d ie ’s breast there arose su sp icio n s regarding the ca u se o f his sigh: w as it for H elen a or over the 10-zloty lesso n s at M rs. L atter’s? But she im m e d ia te ly told h erself that she w as stupid and perverse to c o n d e m n M r. R o m a n o w ic z —and this q u ieted her (I, 1 1 1 ).4
F o r the heroine —a t least up to a certain m om ent —the w orld is w ithout flaw, an d all the inadequacies she rem arks within it she ascribes to herself, to her suspiciousness, stupidity and inability to behave correctly. Hence her endless self-accusations: “ I am very d ep ra ved” (I, 441); “the th o ught occurred to her th at the L ord G od might not hear the prayer o f so great a sinner as herself” (II, 133); “ I, a stupid, weak and wicked girl” (II, 306). A sim ple-m inded reader, failing to notice the barrier between the w orld o f novelistic fiction and reality, m ight call o u t to this great sinner: ego te absolvo. Im aginary sins are the province o f straightforw ard virtue. But the conviction o f their presence continually nourished by the heroine creates suitable con d i tions for po inting o u t her erro rs —noble erro rs which thus cannot rebo u n d to her discredit. A lthough they cannot do so, they nevertheless require counter-arg um ents o f a different type. F o r M addie continually “botties” everyone, “b otties” herself and the w orld it has befallen her to inhabit, perhap s even “b o ttie s” the w ork o f which she is the ch ief p ro tag o n ist.* H er very existence, like th at o f G om b ro w icz’s Y vonne, unleashes new conflicts and constricts the world. C onstricts it in a dual sense. Firstly, the heroine’s presence introduces the elem ent o f naivety, which to her com panions on the novelistic stage often seems to be a peculiar variety o f perfidy. A nd, secondly, M addie takes the avow ed m oral rules o f the environm ent for legal tender,
* (T ran slator's note] U pupic (to b o tty ) is a n eo lo g ism o f G o m b r o w ic z 's w hich ap p ears in F erdydu rke and Yvonne and refers to the w ay parents use the stereotyp e o f h elp less so ft c h ild h o o d to drow n their children in d o w n in ess. Pupa is the bab y-w ord for “ b otty."
4 A ll q u o ta tio n s from E m a n c y p a n tk i are draw n from the ed itio n W yhor p ism
(S e le c te d W ritin gs), W arszaw a 1966. T h is is a tw o -v o lu m e ed itio n : V o lu m e I co n ta in s
v o ls. I and II o f the n o v el; an d V o lu m e II, the n o v e l’s third and fourth vo lu m es. T h is ed itio n ig n o res the d iv isio n s b etw een V ol. I and V ol. II and b etw een V ol. Ill an d V ol. IV , w hich is in ex cu sa b le, for it erases the structure o f Prus' w ork. In m y q u o ta tio n s the R o m a n num eral d esig n a tes the v o lu m e ; the A rabic o n e , the page. W hilst a n a ly zin g the n o v el I h ave —o f co u rse —respected the fact that it is a w ork in four v o lu m es.
46 M ic h a ł G ło w iń sk i
she does not conceive o f conflicts between w ords and deeds, rules and actual practices. M orality requires th at one succour the needy, so one is ho no u r-b o u n d to visit a pair o f travelling artists, an d even to enter M rs. N ikodem a T urkaw iec’s du bious establishm ent. But yet an o th er rule states th at a young lady o f respectable fam ily does not visit sanctuaries o f this kind and th at when she does so she becom es suspect herself. T heoretically the im peratives o f C hristian m orality are far m ore im p o rtan t, bu t the judgem ents people m ake are never theless influenced above all by o n e’s stan d p o in t with regard to conventional injunctions and prohibitions. The form er is to a large extent a m atter o f theory; the latter, one o f everyday practice. The heroine, who is by no m eans in revolt against this w orld, m ust inevitably com e into conflict with these injunctions an d proh ib itio n s the m om ent she seeks to follow the generally binding principles; she m ust becom e a non-conform ist, and against her ow n will, for no plus sign stands next to non-conform ism in her system o f values — m oreover, she can n o t even envisage it. In this situ atio n M ad d ie’s very presence necessarily arouses confusion. D raw n so as n o t to conflict with the poetics o f the realistic novel o f m anners, her fortunes could furnish m aterial for a p arable entitled: “O n the A m bivalence o f G o o d .” P rus does not introduce any hints o f p arab le: this type o f discourse could find no place in a realistic novel, and such a reading could only be a response elicited from the reader by the con tin ual repetition, in various fram ew orks and entanglem ents, o f a single situ atio n: one in which the h eroine’s good deeds are m isjudged by her environm ent and expose her to various collisions, unpleasantnesses and snubs. The angel swims against the cu rren t o f conventionalized social opinion: conflict becom es unavoidable.
2. Tittle-Tattle
C o ntem p o rary social o p inion is, as it were, one o f the m ain heroes o f the book. It is treated in such a m anner as to deprive it o f binding force: the text does not reproduce it uncritically, quite the reverse, for conflicts with it are one o f the prim ary generators o f the dram atic tensions. It assum es a ra th e r unusual shape, for it by no m eans com prises a set o f opinions form ulated in a system atic
fashion an d does not appeal directly to any professed m orality —it situates itself on the level o f gossip. G ossip, being an expression o f everyday views, becomes a variety o f authority sui generis, it interacts w ith the ch aracters’ enterprises, and they have to take note o f w hat is said o f them , o f how they are judged. Its rôle by no m eans ends here: equally im p o rtan t is the gulf separating the facts as experienced by the reader in his rôle o f an eye-witness from the form s they take on after they have been processed by the m echanism o f g o ssip .5 G ossip is where surfaces trium ph over reality: reduced to friendly chatter, social opinion becom es the dom ain o f erro r, o f “fo rm ,” which em erges victorious over “reality.” Any event can be squeezed into the straitjacket o f this form and thereby m ystified: M addie is an angel beset aro u n d by false tongues. The great literary discovery m ade by P rus in Em ancypantki is this very grasping o f the m echanism o f gossip so the novel’s subject becom es m ore th an ju st the set o f facts th a t constitute the n arrativ e: to a far greater degree th an is com m on in the realistic novel o f m anners, its subject is the reception accorded these facts by social consciousness, the process th at tran sm u tes th a t which represents tru th in the novelistic o rd er into the stuff o f gossip. It is as if facts h ad no independent existence, the rule being ra th e r th a t they becom e significant only thro ug h their second in carn a tion in the unverified accounts o f the protagonists. The fate o f the m ain heroine also unfolds upo n two planes: it follows its actual course bu t is also played o u t sim ultaneously o n the level o f gossip, which glosses her actions with false m eanings. As we know , M addie m isinterpreted events as a result o f her naïve nobility; b u t gossip is the dom ain o f fallacious in terpretation s, a supra-individual plane devoid o f h o n ou rable intentions —in short, it is one o f the form s o f social false consciousness.6
G ossip is no t only a typical novelistic fact, it is also a m ode o f u tteran ce which can — though it does not have to — influence narrative
5 C f. P i e ś c i k o w s k i ’s rem arks o n this subject, op. c it., p. 42.
6 A s far as I k n o w , the role g o ssip p la y s in the n o v elistic w orld o f E m a n cy
p a n tk i h as n o t been d escrib ed at len gth. O n e can find rem arks o n the subject in
the fo llo w in g stu d ies: K. W . Z a w o d z i ń s k i , N a m a rg in esie E m a n cyp a n tek (In the
M argin o f B lu e-S to ck in g s), [in:] O p o w ie ści o p o w ie ś c i (A cco u n ts o f the N o vel), ed.
C. Z g o r zelsk i, K ra k ó w 1963, p. 2 0 6 ; H . M a r k i e w i c z , “E m a n c y p a n tk i", [in:] Prus
48 M ic h a ł G ło w iń sk i
conceptions and thus situ ate itself w ithin the field o f the novel’s language. This is exactly w hat happens in E m ancypantki. G ossip is variously em bodied during the course o f the narrative process. G ossip can be sum m arized, ju st like any o th er kind o f account. It can app ear in the cited u tteran ces and can eventually find itself within the field o f the n a rra to r’s discourse. In P ru s’ novel it app ears in all these guises.
For instance, it m anifests itself in the narrative (in the narrow sense). The subject o f the n arratio n is not th at which is b u t th at which is spoken of. The form ula “it was said ” ap pears o n the very first page o f the novel:
It is no suprise that M rs. Latter herself, w h o se esta b lish m en t brou gh t such h a p p in ess to its daughters, w as con sid er ed to be a h ap p y p erson. It w as said o f her that a lth ou gh she had b egun w ork w ith m o d e st fun d s she m ust n everth eless o w n a g o o d thirty th o u sa n d or so rou b les in ready ca sh ; o n e w as ign oran t o n ly as to w h ether her cap ital rested in shares or in a b ank (I, 5).
A nd on the subsequent pages is recorded w hat one thinks o f M rs. L atter in W arsaw. One is also inform ed o f the general o pinion co n cerning o th er characters. M iss A da Solska
had co m p leted b o a rd in g -sch o o l a lm o st six m o n th s ag o and co u ld have g o n e o u t into the w orld w hich, as w as rem arked, w as a w a itin g her with lo n g in g , but —d esp ite all that —M iss A d a resides with M rs. Latter (I, 50).
One could locate m any sim ilar form ulae. They fulfil a dual function, serving on the one h an d to introduce inform ation concerning how a given figure in the novelistic w orld is viewed and its position evaluated, and on the o th er hand it saves the novelist from underw riting the transm itted inform ation with his ow n autho rity . In this way the teller draw s closer to the w orld whose history he recou nts; in repeating the currently circulating opinions he practically participates in it (an extra reason why he ca n n o t use his au th o rity to question the gossip). O pposed to the latest cro p o f gossip and im p utatio ns are “the facts,” i.e. the scenes presented in close-up. H ere the gossip is not overturned an d denied: rath er, the reader has to qualify it for him self after com paring it with the scenes. In any case, the o rd e r in which “fa ct” and “gossip” ap p e ar is a variable one. U sually the event is presented first and then there follows the false inform ation a b o u t it exchanged by the p rotagonists. N evertheless, from tim e to
tim e gossip antedates the fact and thus —obviously —the reader is ac q u ain ted with it first. In any case, it is couched in such a m anner th a t there can be no do u b t o f the need to qualify it.
As we have already rem arked, gossip influences the course o f events and represents an essential elem ent in the story. T here is even an active figure whose chief role is to dissem inate gossip (M r. Zgierski). But the m ost im p o rtan t thing to note is the way the gossip th at accum ulates aro u n d M addie affects her biography. She did not perish crushed by crum bling leftovers o f feu d alism : she succum bed before the sw arm s o f insinuations th at had selected her as the object o f their favour. It is alm ost explicitly stated at one p o in t (II, 585) th a t the sole answ er to gossip is the assum ption o f a n u n ’s wimple. H ere gossip becom es the m easure o f all th in g s7. A nd this too is stated in the novel, although —as if for ironic effect —it com es from Zgierski, the very figure whose m ain vocation in the novel is the retailing o f unverified in form ation :
“T h e last straw o f d esp air w as the death o f the brother, o f w h ich I o n c e h ad the h o n o u r to inform y o u , m y lo r d ... But the actu al p rep aration o f the g ro u n d w as the w o rk o f g o s s i p ... o f ca lu m n y , w hich has no respect for ev en the m o st sain ted p e r s o n s ... For tw o m o n th s o n end W arsaw h o w led it n o n - s t o p ... A n d for w hat r e a s o n ? ... B ecause this very an gel in h u m an sh ap e visited a d y in g w o m a n , so u g h t to su c c o u r an orp h an , and m inistered to a sick b r o t h e r ! ...” (II, 582).
T he false tongues have no com p unction with angels, b u t the angels them selves m ust be aw are o f their existence, at least from a certain po in t o n w ard s; are forced to be so, even if they decline to change their behaviour. M iss M agdalene becom es conscious o f the role gossip plays in life despite her unwillingness to take it into account. But she is w arned against her behaviour:
I co n g r a tu la te you —w rote the d o c to r ’s w ife —on the co n se q u e n c e s o f you r in d e p en d en ce. T h e w h o le to w n is rep eatin g that y o u lost you r p o sitio n w ith M iss M a li n o w sk a through bad m a n a g em en t, that you p ro m en a d e w ith unm arried m en, and th a t y o u ev en freq u en t h o te ls! I ca n n o t co m p reh en d w h at c o u ld h ave b een the source o f th is sh am efu l g o ssip but from m y fa th er’s ex p ressio n I gather that he to o has heard so m e th in g , for th r o u g h o u t the last few d ays he h as lo o k e d like a p erson ju st taken d o w n from the cross (II, 573).
7 Z a w o d z i r i s k i w rites o f this, n o t w ith o u t sarcasm : “ in this w orld rum ours sp read w ith the sp eed o f lig h tn in g a cro ss a to w n o f o n e and a h a lf m illio n p eo p le, w h ere e v ery o n e k n o w s and is co n cern ed w ith ev ery o n e e ls e ” (I.e.).
50 M icha! G ło w iń sk i
W hat the whole tow n says (not ju st Dullsville but W arsaw too) becom es the highest test o f m orality. Public o pinion has been placed on the level o f gossip —th at is, it has been dem oted. T his dem otion is one o f P ru s’ boldest m oves: there exists here no o th e r social necessity than the voice o f gossip. W hatever convictions acquire positive value according to the im m anent value-system th at is obliga tory th rou ghout the novel spring from private initiatives an d come into conflict with public- opinion. The novel’s ch o ru s is m ade up o f nothing bu t gossips and the prevailing ideology is th at o f “general ru m o u r” (II, 299). It is contested by w isdom : “w hat do th the wise m an and w hat doth the gossip?” —this distinction, phrased so tellingly in the title o f one o f the chapters, is o f trem endous significance for Emancypantki. In tracing the course along which petty tattle flows, Prus nam es gossip as w hat it is and so prevents the read er from slipping into m isunderstandings, from takin g fantasies and insinuations for factual knowledge. “ R u m o u r” is one o f the w ords th a t appears m ost frequently in the novel. It does not m erely occur whenever an unverified piece o f in form ation intervenes in the s to ry — when it is said, for instance, th a t “a young lady o f your age m ust not m ake a display o f herself, for their tongues will catch her o u t” (I, 422) —o r whenever the effects o f various item s o f news and ru m o u r are portrayed. “ R u m o u r” also has a m etalinguistic character an d qualifies the utterances with which the reader m eets in the course o f reading. T his happens when the n a rra to r m akes no explicit m ention o f it, when it is subsum ed into the speech o f one o r an o th e r o f the characters (as is usually the case in Em ancypantki. The incessantly reiterated w ord “gossip” evolves som ething akin to a safety device, introduces the elem ent o f evaluation and allows one to attach qualifications to utterances. This is possible because —in every one o f its conjunctions —“gossip” is p art o f the novel’s m etalinguistic array. A nd this in its tu rn is an offshoot o f the general qualities o f the genre: the novel not only relates the activities o f its heroes, but also renders their m odes o f speech and utterance.
3. A Gauge o f the Essential
La premiere naive, albeit an angel and a genius o f com passion, can n o t by the n atu re o f things pretend to the role o f an ideologue.
51
False tongues cannot have any ideological asp iratio ns to be treated se rio u sly ... especially when their sole product is gossip. If one bears in m ind th at the n a rra to r o f E m ancypantki, whose wings have been closely clipped, is also no ideologue, then it could seem as if the novel was w ithout am bitions in this area. Nevertheless, such a type o f w riting w ould be unacceptable to Prus, for he has b ro ugh t into the field o f the novel two figures who are indeed ideologues: M iss H ow ard and Professor D ^bicki. The ju x tap o sitio n may seem shocking when one recalls the different m anners in which the novel treats these two figures. But novelistic ideologues need not always m ake pronouncem ents to which value is attach ed —they play a p art ra th e r th an fulfil a mission.
F or it was in connection with the figure o f M iss H ow ard (a fam ous review by Krzywicki term ed her a frum p) th at the first critics o f Em ancypantki expressed their regrets over P ru s’ propensity for exces sive caricature. The brave battle-axe striking blows for the rights o f w om an is a com ic figure, and this expresses itself above all in her m anner o f speech. She speaks the very language th at con tem po rary jou rn alism uses for the them e o f em ancipation, and thus she always selects the set form ula ap p ro p riate to the evaluation o f a given situation. The repertoire o f phrases at her co m m and is m eagre, and their repetition has a com ic, caricaturing effect th at does not deserve to be slighted. H er native m anner o f speech is to lecture, to b roadcast her know ledge regardless o f the situation in which she finds herself:
“ In the co u rse o f a lo n g su ccessio n o f cen tu ries —sp o k e M iss H ow ard w ith an inspired m ien —w o m a n , battered, ch eated an d ex p lo ite d , has w o n from m an an a d m is sion o f her superiority to him as regards external form s —as well as a c o n c e s sio n that she c o m e s first on the street, in the sa lo n and at the table. T h u s it is m y o p in io n that a w o m a n w h o ren o u n ces this privilege b etrays the fem in in e co m m u n ity o f w hich sh e is a p a r t . . . ” (II, 106).
For Miss H ow ard, things becom e interesting only when they are susceptible o f discussion in her schem atized language. The story o f the hapless w andering artiste recounted by M addie becom es a fit object o f her atten tio n only once she has translated it into her own lan g u ag e:
“A a h ! — she cried — w hy w a sn ’t the m atter put like that at the very s ta r t. . . a w om an , a victim , cov ere d w ith d isgrace b eca u se she regenerates h u m an ity, cast o f f by her a cco m p lice, w hich is q u ite norm al, a n d . . . deserted, d iscard ed , lashed at by o th e r
52 M ic h a ł G ło w iń sk i
w om en , w hich is the h eigh t o f d ep ra v ity ! Just use these term s with m e an d I will tell you that for five years n o w I have been ca llin g w om en u p on to do battle —and all in v a in !” (II, 166).
It seems th at Miss H o w a rd ’s num erous and decided p ro no u n ce m ents are not only a parody o f the articles published by the press, but also a parody o f the tend entiou s novel —o f th a t variety o f novel th at was already on the defensive during the period o f the publication o f P ru s’ novel. A ro u n d the close o f the 19th century the parodistic subtext was probably felt to be strongly present, since at th at tim e the form o f the tendentious novel was still a living m em ory even though it had ceased to enjoy any prestige.
It is difficult even to speak o f M iss H ow ard a s a false ideologue, for she stands upon the ground m ost fatal to any en un ciator o f ideas: she has becom e a figure o f m irth. T hus she can n o t represent a well-m atched op p o n en t for the figure in the novel who assum es the role o f a serious and —one could s a y — discreet ideologue. Discreet, for he does not reveal his calling at once: when he first appears in M rs. L atter’s establishm ent it is im possible even to guess what purpose he is later to fulfil in the novel. P rus does not have him m outhing com m onplaces which serve equally well any and every occasion; quite the reverse, for he speaks —and in a pointed fashion — only at the m ost pregn ant o f m om ents. He has at his fingertips various m odes o f expression, ranging from the parable a b o u t cosmic events to the philosophical treatise. Dębicki is a m eans o f introducing real philosophical problem s into the novel; his statem ents are a gauge o f whatever is essential in this entire friable world.
His figure has been the centre o f a m arked critical interest from the very outset and it has provoked various reactions. D ębicki’s grand lecture has at tim es been treated as if it represented a self-suffi cient and fully-fledged philosophical te x t.8 C ritics and literary h isto rians have been intrigued by the very presence o f such a m ode o f discourse: intrigued and often inclined to dou bt. Chm ielow ski w rote th at Em ancypantki is a w ork “cooler in conception an d execution, warier, weighed down at points —especially at the close —by an ele 8 See for in sta n ce B. G a w ę c k i , F ilozofia te o r e ty c zn a B olesław a P ru sa (B o
m ent o f didacticism , not even fram ed in an inviting m an n er.” 9 T hat lack o f “an inviting m an n er” —alias the low level o f bellelettristic em bellishm ent in D ^bicki’s lecture, and above all, its w eakly-m oti vated ru p tu re o f the course o f the narrative —has not m et with approv al. It looked as if P rus h ad disregarded the binding rules o f the novelistic game. This question is o f interest for us from an o th er p oint o f view, nam ely, with regard to the particu lar indications o f this reasoning. Ignacy M atuszew ski pointed this o u t: “Since his statem ent em braces a few score pages, P rus was attack ed for over loading his novel with unnecessary ballast. T his reproach w ould have been justified h ad D ?bicki plunged into his dissertation o u t o f the blue, as often happens in —for instance —Balzac. But D ^bicki is addressing a m an at the threshold o f death, an d the discussion is heard by the m ain heroine, in whose soul the ph ilo so p h er’s w ords effect a deep upheaval th at influences her later actions an d fortunes. And so the dissertatio n is no t superfluous filler o r an insert b u t is organically connected with the w hole.” 10
M atuszew ski represented a stan d p o in t th at was far from ch a rac teristic o f his tim e an d is far m ore typical o f m odern criticism : he sought consistently to d em on strate th at every elem ent th a t appears in a w ork has a functional character, th at the w ork as a whole represents a coherent, organic con struction. His treatm en t o f this dis sertation is one o f the ways in which this stance m anifests itself. In this case, however, one ought to m ake a further distinction. If one approaches this fragm ent w ith the co m position o f a classic realist novel in m ind, it seems to be b oth m inim ally functional (or even utterly non-functional) and weakly m otivated: everything th a t happens in the novel w ould take its course even w ithout this episode. D ^bicki’s philosophical tract is nevertheless deeply functional when considered in a different perspective, as an attem p t to form ulate a problem atic which the novelist him self—for various reasons —holds to be indispen
9 P. C h m i e l o w s k i , A lek sa n d er G ło w a c k i (B o lesła w P rus), [in:] P ism a k r y ty c z n o
lite ra c k ie ( W ritin gs in L ite r a ry C ritic ism ), ed. H . M ark iew icz, v ol. 2, W arszaw a 1961,
p. 46.
10 I. M a t u s z e w s k i , A r ty s ta i f i l o z o f (A rtis t a n d P hilosoph er), [in:] O tw ó rc zo ś c i
54 M ich a ł G łow iń ski
sable and which could not enter the novel in any o th e r way; w ithout this episode Em ancypantki would be devoid o f all positivity, even despite the presence o f M addie, who has been so conceived th at she cannot grasp the w orld, is incapable o f interpretin g it, and thus cannot com prehend it within a bro ad er ideological, m oral and philosophical fram ew ork. Prus belonged to an intellectual fo rm atio n th at was not prepared to accept any such undiluted negativity.
In addition, M atuszewski pointed ou t an o th er extrem ely im p o rtan t m atter: D ębicki’s disquisition differs fundam entally from those in the novels o f Balzac. In his case they appear “out o f the b lu e” because the n a rra to r is entitled to them as p art o f his right to in terru p t the n arratio n o f occurrences w ithin the dom ain o f the novel so as to indulge in general rem arks. Such a procedure is no longer available to P rus’ n arrato r. Hence the necessity to introduce a reasoning hero who —and everything points to this —pronounces views o f which the a u th o r approves, but who enters the course o f the novel’s events by m eans o f an insertion (in the opinion o f m any critics a very loose one).
The creation o f a reasoning hero has often been in terpreted as a reversion to tendentiousness, an d D ębicki’s extensive m etaphysical m editations have been seen to be —in Z ygm unt Szw eykow ski’s term — “tendentious in terp o latio n s.” 11 This is certainly true, b u t it requires the qualification th at P ru s’ tendentiousness is essentially different from the m ethods applied in the early Positivist tendentious novel. In these novels the reasoning hero was the novelist’s m o u th p ie c e 12 and, as it were, expressed the ideas he proclaim ed in an o th er m anner. But Dębicki is no m outhpiece and in this respect enjoys com plete independence. The following difference is equally essential: in the roman a these o f early Positivism the tendency —as one know s —was utilitarian and referred to current social affairs. Even if the reasoner was “a p h ilo soph er,” he could develop his philosophical conceptions only to the extent to which they generated prop osition s concerning
11 Z. S z w e y k o w s k i , T w ó rc zo ść B olesław a P rusa (T h e W ork o f B o lesła w Prus), W arszaw a 1972, p. 274.
12 A broad and su g g estiv e a n a ly sis o f this q u estio n has been carried o u t by J. B a r c z y ń s k i , N arracja i tendencja (N a rra tio n a n d ten den cy), W roclaw 1976. C f. the an alysis in M. Ż m ig ro d zk a ’s b o o k O rze szk o w a . M ło d o ść p o z y ty w iz m u (O rze szk o w a .
P o sitivism in Its Youth), ch. “S trategia p o w ieści ten d en cy jn ej” (T he Strategy o f the
cu rren t affairs. In E m ancypantki all is differently disposed: the old professor is no reform er, presents no rem edial form ulae for the co ntem p o rary w orld, and his fundam ental interest is abso rbed by p hilosophi cal m atters. This type o f problem atic lay outside the range o f the tendentious novel. But the basic difference —let me stress —is th at D ę b ic k fs argum ent represents the novel’s only chance o f outlining fundam ental intellectual problem s th at had found no place in the heroes’ pow der-puff o f a w orld. .
4. The Novel o f an Epoch in Crisis
Em ancypantki is u ndou btedly sym ptom atic o f the crisis in which the classic realist novel found itself at the close o f the 19th century. “C risis” has no evaluative overtones, it m erely registers the collapse o f a certain agreed m anner o f pursuing literature. It expresses itself in P ru s’ w ork prim arily in the cutting o f direct lines between the novelistic narrative an d reigning social opinion, which has been reduced to gossip. T hus the novel has lost a p oint o f reference th a t for a century had seemed to be self-evident. The opinions the reader had to recognize as binding h ad already been tied to a concrete character.
T his crisis is also m anifest in the disturbance o f classical n o velistic com position rem arked upon when the w ork first a p p e a re d .13 Even then it was suggested th at the cause lay in “the m odern m ethod o f w riting,” i.e. from one num ber o f a m agazine to the next. O bviously —as Pieścikowski has excellently d em on strated —the rules for serial writing exerted a great influence upon the com position o f E m ancypantki, b ut it seems th a t one ou g h t also to indicate the presence o f o th er factors. As Szweykowski accurately puts it, the novel is com posed according to “a technique th a t ju xtap oses to ta l ities.” 14 By the close o f the 19th century the history o f th at technique had rendered it, as it were, am biguous. On the one han d it could seem archaic and bring to m ind the 18th-century novel (as Zaw o- dziński noted when he derived P ru s’ work from the trad itio n o f
n F or instance, L. K r z y w i c k i stated : “ Prus' latest w ork is so d isco n n ected that it m akes a very strange im p r essio n ” “P raw d a” , 1894, nr 8, p. 90).
56 M ic h a ł G ło w iń sk i
English prose in th at e r a 15). But on the o th er h an d it can be linked with the type o f novelistic com position th at was to dom inate the period o f Y oung P o lan d : com position in the form o f a linear series o f sce n es.16 The m ore so since the d o m in an t position is occupied by the heroes’ language, a language variously shaped, which also falls into a series o f extensive m onologues th a t have been term ed, and n o t w ithout a certain justice, “in terio r.” 17 But this language, even a t its m ost elevated and d ram atic m om ents, is far-rem oved from the notions th at dom inate the m odernist novel.
Em ancypantki is situated on the b o rder between epochs and styles, in a half-way house between archaism and m odernity. This placing determ ines the dram a peculiar to the novel, as various tendencies intersect; its conception was not realized with com plete consistency. The novelistic w orld th a t anim ates the angelic m aid, the false tongues and the philosophic reasoner proved to be full o f co n tradiction s — contrad iction s th at could n o t be resolved and harm onized w ithin the bounds o f the classic realist novel.
T ransi, by P aul C o a te s
15 Z a w o d z i ń s k i , op. c it., p. 209.
16 W ith regard to this, see m y b o o k P o w ie ść m ło d o p o lsk a (T h e Young Polish
N ovel), W rocław 1969, a b o v e all the ch ap ter: “P rzek ształcen ie p ow ieści realistycznej.
P ow ieść ja k o zesp ó ł sc e n ” (T h e T r a n sm u ta tio n o f the R ealist N o v e l. T h e N o v e l as a G ro u p o f S cen es).
17 S. F u r m a n i k used th is term in his stu d y U w a g i o E m a n cyp a n tk a ch B o
lesław a P rusa ( S om e R e m a rk s upon B. P r u s ’ B lu e-S to ck in g s), [in:] P race o lite ra tu rze i te a trz e ofiarow ane Z y g m u n to w i S zw e y k o w sk ie m u ( S tu dies o f L ite ra tu re a n d T heatre in H onour o f Z y g m u n t S zw e y k o w s k i), W rocław 1966, p. 192 — 195.
