Marta Piwińska
Imagination and Memory
Literary Studies in Poland 18, 91-98
M arta Piw ińska
Im agination and M em ory
I am not sure th at w hat we find in Juliusz Slow acki’s mystical poetry can still be regarded as im agination. Let us first consider th at “som ething” which is the object o f im agination. H ow can th at “som ethin g” be defined in space and tim e? C an it at all? It canno t, for it em braces everything: all the universe, all h isto ry —cosm olo gical, n atu ra l, hum an, and, within it, all o f P o la n d ’s n ational history. W hat can be grasped intellectually is less the object o f th at im agination than its co n stitu tio n —the fact th a t it is, o f course, cyclical in its pattern and th a t this cyclicity is so persistent as to becom e m o n o tonous. W hether Słowacki talks abo u t slugs paying hom age or ab o u t blind Ziem ow it or pyram ids or a P ro m ethean R ze-Pycha, it is always p art o f a cycle for which a co u n terp art can be found in an oth er cycle, which m akes it easier to com prehend and interpret. In other w ords, w hatever Słow acki says, ap a rt from having its specific m eaning there and then, is also a recollection o f som ething (or, m ore precisely, its record) as well as a sign o f a future event.
This all-em bracing interconnection o f events in time, which im parts m eaning to all o f them , is a distinctive feature o f th at p art o f S low acki’s poetry which is referred to as m ystical verse. A n other distinctive feature o f th at poetry is his refusal, as a m atter o f principle, to take a detached look at those events as writer. To safeguard him self against tak ing such a detached attitude, he devises unusual m odes o f n a rra tio n : he speaks in the first person singular as the chief actor or witness o f hundreds o f events at different periods o f tim e, he speaks as a non -h um an person, or else he speaks “ to h im se lf’ in letters which recou nt previous lives.
In o th er w ords, Słow acki writes a m ystical history o f the w orld and a m ystical history o f Poland as his own biography. O r, to
92 M a r ta P iw iń ska
put it differently, he writes a biography o f the spirit which too k its tem porary abode in h im —in Juliusz Słowacki. O r, in a different form ulation still, the spirit is reading its m em oirs am idst cosm ological, natural, hum an and national history, and Słowacki is either taking dow n w hat he hears (because he is an inspired poet) or else is translatin g into w ords w hat the spirit has m eanw hile recorded in oth er form s (because he is an initiated “ interpreter o f the w o rd ”). These three possible explanations are by no m eans m utually exclusive. They reflect the same m ysticism from different angles—from inside, from outside, and from the angle o f a p o e t’s function. But can this be called im agination? A t least in the R om antic sense o f the w ord?
In his pre-m ystical period, Słowacki gave different m eanings to im agination. H ere are a few b rief exam ples. In his Kordian im agination is “speaking with the eyes” p ointing ou t hideous and fascinating things. Im agination is hostile tow ards the p ro tag on ist, even though, like F ear (Strach), it is a projection o f his inner p o w e r—an upsetting pow er which “conjures up n ightm ares” in a sleeping m ind. Such a dem onical view o f an aggressive im agination was not uncom m on am o ng the R om antics. N evertheless, their view was generally positive. The R om antics viewed im agination as a genial power, because it furnishes the fullest possible insight into the n atu re o f things and presupposes freedom . For, if an artist stim ulates his fantasy and at the sam e tim e is aw are o f doing this, th at is, when he p uts on his own aw areness to th at process, w hat ensues is a free interplay o f im agination with reason and reality, and the world is being grasped in its entirety, as a unity in duality. This p articu lar idea was close to S łow acki’s own view when he w rote, in his dedication letter to Balladyna,
A n d if all this d o e s h ave an inherent via b ility , if all this is born in a p o e t ’s m ind acco rd in g to d iv in e law s, if in sp iration w as not just a feverish c o n d itio n but a fruit o f that stran ge pow er w hich w hispers in to the ear w ord s you never heard b efore and u n fo ld s before y o u r eyes im ages you never even sa w in y o u r dream s; if p o e tic instinct w as so m e th in g better than c o m m o n sense [ ...] then B allad yn a [...] will be Q ueen o f P olan d .
But in the mystical period everything is different. Słow acki hurries to assure readers he is w riting only what he sees and recalls. He does not give a dam n for th at “strange po w er” which
Im agin ation and M e m o ry 93 conjures up things th a t never existed. Indeed, Słowaci renounces fantasy (maybe even denies it exists at all?) anti, in its stead, he puts m em o ry —a peculiar kind o f m em ory w hich.is inextricably bound up with the universe’s dynam ical m echanism . He also renounces all free play. All th at rem ains from his previous irony is the d u ality —because form is a record o f a sp irit’s pro g ress—b ut freedom disappears. H ow ever, Słowacki not so m uch destroys as transform s his previous style. To be true, everything is essentially am biguous, yet everything can be unequivocally evaluated from the stand po in t o f efficiency in pursuin g a p o e t’s final goal. Free play is replaced by rigid rules o f a system, which is a R om antic variation on the them e “ M an as a m icrocosm em braces a m acroco sm .” But th at system, originally, is illum inated from inside by m em ory (the same m em ory, incidentally, which m irrors the R om antic idea o f correspondence elevated to the value o f a sacrum ). R eality becom es a system o f m nem onic signs to which corresponds an inner book o f reminiscences. Like in hieroglyphs, “genesiac” m em ory (Slow acki’s version o f the R om antic idea o f m etem psychic m em ory unfolded in his Genezis
z ducha— Genesis out o f Spirit) is rooted in form s and facts. It takes
the shape o f m etaphors, m aterial and historical alike. When it articulates itself it does so in visions, dream s, fits o f inspiration, th at is, when w hat is statical and finite is p u t into m otion again, replayed in o n e’s m ind.
W hat consequences does this recognition o f “genesiac” m em ory as the carrier o f creativity have? W hat benefit does it produce, and at w hat co st? The benefit is th at poetic creation then becomes an absolute v alue—if m em ory is no fiction but tru th . The cost is that a po et forfeits “his own self.” Słowacki would probably have said a poet sacrifices his own life, th a t is, his individuality.
“G enesiac” m em ory puts aside all relativity and distance, for there is no one who could take such a distance. Only the tru th rem ains, the record, an echo o f a sp irit’s roam ings, an instance o f inspiration. But, inspiration is im personal. Subjectivity disappears. The “I” is no less than the voice o f the spirit, but it no longer is the voice o f a person. Słow acki, in a sense, cancels his own biography in th a t he interprets it sym bolically m any tim es— also in a letter to his m other. Heidegger calls this process “de-essentialization” for the purpose o f
94 M a r ta P iw iń sk a
displaying existence.1 In Slow acki’s case you can witness such “de-essen- tializatio n ” in the literal sense, for his childish plays as priest, knight or artist ap pear to have had p ro fo u n d m eaning, but ceased to be his own games. C o ntem platio n o f his self is co n tem p lation o f history and vice versa. M an and universe p en etrate each other. The b o u ndary line between w hat is external and internal is obliterated. T he poet ceases to exist au to n o m o u sly — he becom es ju st a m om ent o f a universal and final process. P oulet found a sim ilar experience in V ictor H ugo. He called it a prim ary experience o f the self’s solidarity with the outside w orld: “In a way, all I com prehend is me, and, conversely, all my visions exist outside m e.” 2 In Slow acki’s case, th at experience seems to have been hoisted to a higher level o f aw areness th an in H ugo, and it was carefully ordered and arrang ed into a hierarchy o f Platonic, m ystical and herm etic v alues—and, o f course, in line with the entire R om an tic concept. It involves a great endeavour to rationalize som ething Słowacki is determ ined never to forget, som ething which has eclipsed all other ideas and the claim o f exclusiveness which Słowacki accepted. S om ething th at Słowacki —like N erval the visions in Aurelia, like C h ateau b rian d his
M em oirs fro m B eyond the Grave, like P ro u st la te r— based on m em ory.
Słowacki o fte n — bu t discreetly and as th ou gh shyly— recalls th a t sensual m em ory which leads to an em otional resurrectio n; he writes not ab o u t the m em ory o f the eye, for th a t was know n very well, bu t ab o u t the m em ory o f “in ferior” senses: like P roust, who developed his “time regained” from taste, Słowacki writes abo u t “sm ells.”
W hat was in then th at he rem em bered after the “cu rtain o f the b o d y ” and the “veil o f m a tte r” had m oved aside? We k n o w —it was a revelation. We have to define o u r attitu de tow ards this pheno m eno n if we are to talk ab o u t what is called S low acki’s mystical poetry. We have to answ er for ourselves the question o f w hether Słow acki did experience a revelation or deceived us with th a t excellent idea o f beginning one day to present the p ro d u c ts o f his im agination and readings w ithout any distance, as absolute tru th s (as som e others had d one before him). Basically, this m akes
1 Cf. M . H e i d e g g e r , W ozu D ic h te r? [P olish tran slation in:] B udow ać, m ie sz k a ć ,
ży ć , W arszaw a 1977. I refer to this text as a w h o le; on “d e -e sse n tia liz a tio n ”
see p. 170.
Im a g in a tio n and M e m o ry 95 no difference as long as the p ro p h et is consistent, and Słowacki was consistent. But I am not going to dem and a vote o f confidence for Słow acki. I take it for granted th a t som ething was revealed to, him, and I do n o t care if th at happened in a single vision or in m any visions if it happened suddenly or gradually, or if th at was ju st a case o f self-deception. In other words, I do believe in w hat he said, and all psychological and technical circum stances are his personal business. So now I can proceed to the question o f what it w as— the som ething which thenceforw ard began to work in the stead o f his own im agination, th a t revelation and its co n stan t presence in his m em ory? A fideistic answer is possible; to Słow acki was revealed the m otio n o f a spirit which explains the world fully from creation to final destinations, which, incidentally, is perfectly in line with R om antic philosophy o f history. But, we can also try to find an answ er in his texts. It can be argued th at in Genesis Słowacki describes a creative process he recalled because he had been its a u th o r and actor, and in th a t text he recounts to him self—and to the C re a to r—how all was born, th a t is, he reconstructs from m em ory how the things described in the text were being born. This looks like a fair sum m ary o f Genesis and Król D uch— as it w ould be in any case o f a w ork which deals with itself. So, if we strip it o f those m ind-tw isting m etaphors, Genesis appears to be a record o f a creative process. M aybe th a t was what actually was revealed to Słow acki: a creative process which is not som ething th at “does no t exist” bu t som ething which is, som ething he can personally testify to as the a u th o r and actor o f th a t process. M aybe th a t is w hat he rem em bers since th a t m o m e n t— and so he insists th a t this is the tru th , th a t it is no fiction or fantasy, th a t this is how the “work o f creatio n ” is proceeding, nam ely throu gh painful and difficult changes o f form s? Indeed, it should no t be surprising that Słowacki chose to present the non-m aterial and ab stract process o f creation as a creative process “ in general,” th at he followed its greatest m odels from the p a s t—the Book o f Genesis, evolution theory, or catastrop hism .
So, if we su bstitute m em ory for im agination and say th at w hat he rem em bered was p robably the creative process, we land as though back at the beginning. The creative process, it would appear, is the same as im agination. And yet it is som ething different.
96 M a r ta P iw iń ska
(1) It is im agination virtually obsessed with the question o f existence, exerting itself to grasp the true m eaning o f being by recalling the "w ork o f creatio n .” Such an in terp retatio n will perm it to m ove S low acki’s mysticism away from spiritualism and bring it closer to m etaphysics; to look for a key to th at poetry also beyond the limits o f his epoch; in o ther words, to read S low acki’s later poetry not m erely as a literary relic. This is why I refer, by way o f term inology, to H eidegger’s idea (as a general p ointer ra th e r than as a specific interpretive suggestion).
(2) It is an im agination th at is localized one step lower, as it were, th an the R om an tic “im ag in atio n ,” which watched itself in the m aking and tried to discover its own rules o f w ork as well as its own m ovem ent. This perhaps suggests th a t Slow acki’s later w orks should be read in a dual m a n n e r—as a revelation ab o u t Genesis and as a w ork ab o u t a work. A dm ittedly, this is very difficult to do. But perhaps certain benefits for research m ight result from a literal in terpretation o f the sentence: “ We, the spirits o f words, dem and shapes.” W hat exactly does “literal” m ean here?
At one p oint in the “Triple D ialogue” Słowacki explains in detail why and when poets becom e revealers.3 He quotes exam ples o f m etap h o rs: birchtree as peasant w om an, “colum n h ead ,” “palm tree’s hair, “fields gilded with ripe rye” (quotations from M ickiewicz), and tells readers to see in the colum n head the eyes o f a G reek
as indeed o f all antiquity, th a t is, its “essential being” — to
p araphrase Stanisław Ignacy W itkiewicz, who also was a m etaphysical w riter (am ong other things). If m etaphors — and I quote Słowacki — “are evidence o f a p o e t’s m etem psychic cognition which m anifested itself in revelation,” th at is, if m etap h o r testifies to revelation, does then the opposite also hold? A fter all, the spirit, assum ing in its progress different form s and speaking through those form s, m an i fested him self in m etaphors b oth in the m aterial world and in history. It m ay be th at poetic m etaph ors are revelations because they bring together two languages: the non-verbal language o f form s with poetic language, both o f which are esentially m etap ho rical, which in S low acki’s view seems to am o u n t to saying th a t b o th
3 J. S ł o w a c k i , “ D ia lo g tr o isty ,” [in:] D zie ia w szy stk ie , v ol. 14, W arszaw a 1954, p. 302.
Im agin ation and M e m o ry 97
record the m ovem ent o f change. The poet, m aking a cluster o f these tw o images, “reveals” the passage from form to form which has actually taken place. This brings us to the question o f w hether or not it is justified to read Genesis “u p stre a m ,” as a record o f m etaphors in the m aking, m etapho rs in the process o f m etam orphosis, m etaphors as though in “unfinished” form ? Słowacki seems to have had in mind th a t “unfinished” state o f m etap h o rs; even before Brzozowski, Słowacki w rote in a letter to C zarto ry sk i: “A n idea which has m aterialized is dead to m e.” 4 W hat he was after was probably an “unfinished” m ode o f writing.
I think two m ystical acts should be distinguished in Słow acki’s p oetry; read in g non-verbal messages and writing. True, Słowacki in th at period was w riting one work as it were; its fragm entariness, accor dingly, is different in ch aracter from the “stylized” fragm entariness, for exam ple, o f M ickiewicz’s D ziady (Forefathers) or even from that in his own Beniowski. T h at oth er kind o f fragm entariness was presupposed, it had already becom e a literary convention. In his m ystical period, Słowacki writes pieces o f his work, which spills b o u n d lessly in all directions. But unlike o th er students o f this m atter, I do n o t believe it is ju st a single-level work. As the au th o r o f the “ D ialogue,” Słow acki w as—and w anted to b e —ju st an “ interpreter o f w ords.” As the au th o r o f Król Duch, he was also a poet. In the form er case, he was ju st a read er o f “non-verbal m essages.” W hat this m eans can best be seen by answ ering the question abo ut who, and with w hom , usually com m unicates in this fashion. Those who know no words. T hose who are pre-hum an and those who are post-hum an. This is, as it were the case o f a spirit com m unicating with itself across time, a voice heard from one cycle to another. It can be put roughly this way; living and dead nature, which expresses itself th ro u g h form s and bodies, is the dom ain o f m em ory. C ulture, on the o ther hand , is the dom ain o f presentim ent. Here are three examples. Statues, m yths and p ro p h e ts’ parables are presentim ents and auguries. Słow acki gives a genesiac in terp retatio n o f S a tu rn ’s statue which turn s o u t to be the final im age o f the spirit engulfing m atter. Next, there is the m yth abo u t im m aculate conception,
4 J. S ł o w a c k i , “S eco n d Letter to D u k e A d am C z a r to r y sk i,” [in:] D zie ła w s z y s tk ie , v ol. 15, W arszaw a 1955, p. 315.
98 M a r ta P iw iń ska
which had lingered in pagan m ythology for a very long time until it m aterialized in C h rist’s b irth —according to S łow acki—after which it ceased to upset people’s im agination. Lastly, the “w om an clothed with the sun, and the m oon under her feet, and upon her head a crow n o f twelve stars” in the B ook o f R evelation tu rn s out to be Poland, whereas the prophetic picture is an augury in the m aking (C opernicus’ discovery and the 1683 victory in the b attle o f V ienna account for the Sun and the M oon in that picture). Because th e system o f non-verbal com m unication is cyclical, this distinction ca n n o t be draw n very accurately. N atu re is also presentim ent, culture is also m em ory. T h at m uch then ab o u t reading and interpretation. H ow ab o u t w riting?
An inspired po et perform s tem porary revelations in m etaphors. But if the poet is initiated, he can n o t con ten t him self with this. He is to “co p y ” two b o o k s—one external and an other internal —to produce a third, the book o f the W o rd; he is to be no t ju st “in terp reter” bu t also creator. C an he write th at boo k in the sam e language which literature has been using up to now ? N o t likely. A m etaphor-revelation can n o t ap pear ju st as a fo rtu n ate coincidence. It m ust be a rule. It seems Słowacki was looking for a new language which would be an analogue o f the sp irit’s m etaphorical self-creation
via changes o f form s. Słowacki was looking for a m ore p lian t and
fluent language which would send signals to m em ory and to presentim ent in order to touch off an echo in the re a d e r’s heart, a language which would have the sam e effect on readers as “non-verbal co m m un i ca tio n ” has on the poet. In other w ords, reading m ystical w orks “u p stream ” would be a trick sim ilar to the one Słow acki him self is applying to crystals, leaves, o r —in an incom parably m ore intricate fa sh io n —to Polish history. If the o peration o f p u ttin g things into m etaphorical shapes could be grasped, then perhaps som ething like an alphabet o f his new style could be obtained ?
