Norwid's Romanticism

Zofia Stefanowska

Norwid’s Romanticism

Literary Studies in Poland 18, 69-89

Zofia S tefanow ska

N o r w id ’s Romanticism*

M ost o f C y prian N o rw id ’s p o rtra its show a m an at an advanced age. P an taleo n Szyndler painted a m ajestically-looking bearded old m an when he p o rtray ed the p o et shortly before N o rw id ’s death. Indeed, N orw id depicted him self in a sim ilar way when he described an incident d uring the 1870 siege o f Paris, “D eaf, ill, despondent, lost in thoughts, I walked, n oteb o o k and pencil in hand, into som e co rn er, and som ebody cried ‘espion p ru ssien ’. ” * W hen thinking o f N orw id one is therefore induced to envision him precisely in this way, th at is, as an old m an lost in a big busy city.

But when he died at St. C asim ir’s H om e in Paris N orw id was not yet 62. T oday, he would not even have reached retirem ent age. W hen he was pu t up in th at poor-h ouse he was only 55. Even considering the longer life expectancy now and prolonged average periods o f professional activity by m odern stan d ard s, it is really striking th at N orw id grew old extraordinarily early, certainly before his time. O ne acquaintance o f his w ho had know n N orw id from W arsaw said ab o u t the poet who was then thirty-odd years old, “ He is a sorry ruin o f w hat he used to b e —his old pride, his self-assurance having crum bled u n d er his m isfortunes and toil.” 2

* T he origin al P o lish version o f this article ap p eared in P a m ię tn ik L ite r a c k i, 1968, fasc. 4.

1 L etter to L. M iero sła w sk i, [ in :] W s zy s tk ie p is m a p o d z iś w c a ło śc i lub fra g m e n ta c h

odszu kan e, ed. by Z. P rzesm yck i, W arszaw a 1 9 3 7 — 1939 (henceforw ard W P), vol. 9,

p. 230.

2 J. B. D z ie k o ń sk i in letter d ated M arch 5, 1855, q u o ted by P. W i l k o ń s k a in her m em oirs, M o je w spom n ien ia o ży c iu to w a r zy s k im w . W a rsza w ie, W arszaw a 1959, p. 319.

“ R u in ” was a w ord which cam e to be used m ore and m ore frequently ab o u t N orw id. N orw id him self used it as early as in 1853, when he w rote in a letter from A m erica, “ I am talking to you from a heap o f ruins o f my own self.” 3 A nd after his retu rn from A m erica his verse and letters aboun d in confessions indicative o f a sense o f frustration, and aw areness o f his own anachronism , o f his failure to find bearings in the new times and am ong the new people, a sense o f belonging to a time which had passed.

But only a short time before N orw id had m ade a b rilliant debut in W arsaw where, praised by critics and p op u lar in society, he seemed to be in for a glam orous literary and artistic career. W hat happened th at his brilliant youth was alm ost im m ediately followed by so early an ageing? Why was his initial success followed by such a tragic d esolation? Why does N o rw id ’s biography con tain no period o f m atu re creativ ity —no t for later generations bu t for his own co ntem po raries? Why did N orw id, the m om ent he stopped being a “p rom ising ” talent, im mediately take on the role o f a “h as-been,” o f som eone who frustrated hopes and is a w reck? Why is his bio­ graphy com posed only o f his youth and his old age? I am asking the question N orw id him self expressed in dram atic brevity: “Y ou th —are you grey-haired?” (“Tym czasem ” — M eanwhile).

Different replies can be supplied to this question. Some facts from his own life may perhaps provide an an sw er—his disastrously m isplaced love, his personal tem peram ental features, the overall political situation. Each possible answer will contain a grain o f tru th . But here I would like to raise a slightly different question —does his biography, com posed as it is o f a youth followed by old age, perhaps reveal a m ore general process?

N o rw id ’s literary youth creates basically no problem s as far as classification is concerned. N ow th at we have M akow iecki’s and S zm ydtow a’s studies and P rzesm ycki’s and G o m ulick i’s com m entaries, his place on the m ap o f Polish poetry presents no problem s at all. In his W arsaw days he was ju st one o f a generation o f young R om antics, a generation for whom m em ories o f the 1830/31 N ovem ber Insurgency were childhood m em ories and who m ade their debuts

' “P ierw szy list, c o m nie d o sz e d ł z E uropy" (The First Letter to R ea ch M e from E u rop e), [in:] D zie la ze h ra n e, ed. J. W. G o m u lic k i, W arszaw a 1966 (henceforw ard D Z ).

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 71 som ew here abou t 1840. N orw id was by all accounts the best of those who m ade their debuts then, but his verse of that time obviously reveals his affiliation with th at generation o f poets.

So, he em barked on his poetic career along with a whole group o f w riters who had their own program as well as a sense o f their literary m ission. I do not m ean groups such as the Boherne or the E nthusiasts, for N orw id can n o t possibly be regarded as their mem ber. I m ean the com m on pro gram and pattern o f poetic creation which bro u g h t together the entire “w riting youth o f W arsaw ” at th at time.

N o rw id ’s earliest works, accordingly, reveal not only flashes o f his original talent b u t also features com m on to all his generation. To recall them briefly — their poetry was unm istakably epigonic in character, a poetry which im itated situational and illustrative clichés o f early pre-N ovem ber (1830) R om anticism . It was from th at early R om anti­ cism th at N o rw id ’s generation borrow ed their m ain m otifs, say a p o e t’s conflict with the world around him or the conflict o f idea with reality. But the young R om antic generation o f poets, although venerating their great predecessors, b e g a n —at first ten tatively —to transform the inherited p attern s to m ake them m ore suitable as expressions o f their own problem s. They did th at by setting up new fram es o f reference, which were wedged between the inherited extrem es as interm ediary com ponents, thereby w eakening the conflict between those extrem es and altering its character. O ne factor p erfo rm ­ ing such an interm ediary function is the call for action, for work, for doing som ething, which was expected to bring the hopelessly rem ote ideal closer. The call for action is endow ed with different m eanings, but it is often accom panied by p atriotic allusions which im parts to th a t call to ham m er the idea into a reality a dim ension o f a political program .

A nother com m on feature o f that poetry is its dem onstrative fascination with folk and lore, an echo o f early R om antic love o f the countryside. It usually finds expression in an opposition between tow n and countryside, the latter being presented as a dom ain o f authentic values—honest work, sincerity o f heart, com m union with N atu re and with G o d —and also, o f course, as an abod e o f national traditio n and inspirations. This reveals a desire to rehabilitate the existing reality, the day-to-day life o f com m on people. In the poetic techniques they

apply, poets o f th at generation reveal a latent desire to boost the significance o f ordinary detail, which finds expression in what initially are low-profile attem pts to enrich the tradition al stock o f literary symbols. The alien heartless world those R om antic individualists are standing up against is usually associated with urban life, in particular with the salons, which are excellent illustrations o f all th at is but illusion, m ystification, or insincerity. Needless to say, the censorship at the tim e only helped that stylistic convention to tak e deep ro o ts and checked the described process o f transform ing the young g en eratio n ’s poetic identity.

Some o f the m otifs briefly outlined above later cam e to recur frequently in N o rw id ’s verse. F or example, N orw id rem ained a lifelong adm irer o f A ntoni M alczewski, who, as a poet his contem poraries failed to appreciate, played the role o f p atro n saint for the latter generation o f R om antics. Briefly, then, in his youth N orw id is far from being a unique and solitary figure; indeed, he fits neatly into a definite stage o f developm ent o f Polish R om antic poetry.

His first significant rebellion against the older g en eratio n ’s a u th o ­ rity cam e with his clash in R om e with A dam Mickiewicz, the then leader o f w hat was called the Italian Legion o f Poles. N orw id cam e forw ard with a declaration o f his own ideological independence. “I have no choice but to tell a few words o f tru th to this great natio nal celebrity despite his grey h a ir.” 4 However N orw id him self m ay have interpreted it, th a t particu lar episode can clearly be construed as evidence o f a conflict between tw o contem p orary political orien­ ta tio n s —an internal conflict o f R om antics, so to say. In his attitud e N orw id was not standing alone, indeed his reaction can largely be explained by his being influenced by the “ R esurrectionists” (zm artw ych­

wstańcy, the Polish m issionary order founded in R om e in 1842), and by

ideological inspirations he drew from Z ygm unt K rasiński and A ugust Cieszkowski. The same holds for N o rw id ’s critical rem arks abo ut M ickiew icz’s messianic faith in N o rw id ’s letters, political pam phlets and in his Zwolon.

N o rw id ’s interp retatio n o f T ow ianski’s ideology as a kind o f “m ystical rad icalism ,” “C o m m u n ism ”, “Panslavism ”, or a “ Synago­

N o rw id 's R om an ticism 73 g ue” is essentially in line with K rasifiski’s and C ieszkow ski’s views.5 C o m m en tato rs have d em onstrated beyond d o u b t links with Ciesz­ ko w sk i’s philosophy and K rasm sk i’s influence not only in style but even in rhym e p attern s in N o rw id ’s political colum ns o f th at time („W igilia” —C hristm as Eve, „Jeszcze słow o” —One M ore W ord, „Pieśń społeczna” —Social Song o f 1849, or in „N iew ola” —Slavery which was published only in 1864). T h at was the kind o f p atro nage under which N orw id began his ém igré life. His statem ents then include calls echoing C ieszkow ski’s to launch a critique o f H egel’s doctrine. A bove all, there was the call for action (but not for mindless “T a ta r ” actions), for restoring the dignity o f m an (“to hum anize p h ilo so p h y ” 6), for a turn to reality, to d o w n-to -earth life, to everyday practice. However, all those calls, which were virtually identical with th ose characterizing Polish natio nal philosophy, in N o rw id ’s own writings becom e self-sustaining and begin to be connected with o th er m atters and to perform new functions. W hile Cieszkowski took Hegel as his point o f departu re, N orw id started with a rebellion against Polish R om anticism , M ickiewicz’s R om anticism —and this partic u la r process only strengthened as time went by. C h aracte­ ristically, his critique o f th at b ran d o f R om anticism was launched regardless o f N o rw id ’s high esteem o f M ickiewicz as a person and even o f the great historical significance o f M ickiew icz’s writings. T he keyw ords o f N o rw id ’s critique, nam ely “ac tio n ,” “reality” and “m a n ” are extrem ely am biguous. In Polish m inds they m ay evoke different contexts signalling opposition both to Hegel and to R o m an ­ ticism in his own interpretatio n.

R em arkably enough, N orw id him self was to som e extent aw are o f the inherent dual critical function o f these keywords. In his “ L etters on E m ig ratio n ” o f 1849 he em braced both G erm an philosophy an d “P o la n d ’s m ystical in terp re tatio n ” (that is, M essianism ) to subm it them to the charge o f historical fatalism saying,

G erm an p h ilo so p h y , h a v in g arranged the p ast in a logical sequ en ce o n the strength o f its ex cessiv ely critical spirit, sto p p ed w here it d id, o b lig in g the reader to d o n o th in g save c lo s in g th e b o o k — “T h at is, it co n ten d s, h o w it all had

5 T h ese ex p ressio n s are used in the a b o v e -m e n tio n e d letter to S k rzyn eck i and also in a letter to J. B. Z a lew sk i o f A pril 24, 1 8 4 8 — W P, vol. 8, pp. 4 2 —44.

necessarily to be, and that is, to o , h o w it n ecessarily cam e a b o u t.” T he m ystical interpretation o f P olan d (in the m istaken a p p ro a ch ), althou gh it is fiercely o p p o sed to rational criticism , n o n eth ele ss arrives at the sam e co n clu sio n s. That is w hy I keep sa y in g it is erro n eo u sly or u n sou n d ly c o n c e iv e d — and hence it o b lig es n o on e to anyth in g. It is also ou t o f date, as well as futile (PP, p. 25).

The b ra n d o f R om anticism N orw id opposes is not identical with w hat we today regard as M ickiew icz’s idea and M ickiewicz’s practice. N orw id lashes out at a R om anticism which is com posed o f M essianism along with a call for m arty rd om (am ounting to a vio­ lation o f Providence), o f nation al egocentricity and ignorance o f universal hum an concern s,7 o f co ntem pt o f individual hu m an lives

7 Letter to W. Z a m o y sk i o f F ebruary 1864, W P, vol. 8, pp. 481 f f .: "All P oles have all a lo n g regarded, and still d o . M ick iew icz as a nation al w riter— the sam e M ick iew icz w h o w as ju st an ex clu siv e writer, but n ot a n a tio n a l o n e ! B eing a n a tio n a l writer d o es not m ake you an e x clu siv e writer, it on ly in d icates your ab ility to assim ila te all that is n ecessary and in d isp en sa b le for a p rogressive e x p a n sio n o f the n a tio n ’s in d ig en o u s fo r c e s .” At a b o u t the sam e tim e N o rw id defined n a tio n in the fo llo w in g w ay (in a letter to M . S o k o ło w sk i, W P, vol. 8, p. 480): “A n a tio n is c o m p o se d n o t on ly o f a spirit, w hich is different from th o se o f other n a tio n s, but a lso o f w hat u nites it w ith other n a tio n s .” If y o u co m p a re these tw o d efin itio n s, it is clear N o rw id had in the m ean tim e sh ifted the m ain em p h a sis so m ew h a t from what d istin g u ish es n a tio n s from o n e an oth er to w hat they have in c o m m o n . Indeed, in his w ritings d u rin g the R e v o lu tio n o f 1848 N o rw id defen ded the a u to n o m y o f the n ation as the proper subject o f h isto ry , p ittin g his co n cep t both against H eglism and u top ian socialism on the o n e hand and against M ick iew icz’s M essian ism on the other. N o rw id accu sed H eglism (as did rep resen tatives o f n a tio n a list p h ilo so p h y ) that n a tio n s that “ live, suffer, feel” are superseded in that d o ctrin e by an abstract idea o f m ankind ("R asa, n aród , lu d z k o ść i ż y c ie ” — R ace, N a tio n , M ankind and Life, [in:] P ism a p o lity c zn e i filo zo ficzn e r eferred to as PP>, c o m p ile d by Z. Przesm ycki (M iriam ), ed. by Z. Z a n iew sk i, L on d on 1957, pp. 35 and 39). “A nd that is w hy ign orin g tim e — that is, d ism issin g the n ation in favor o f p lu n g in g o n e se lf into M an k in d's u ltim ate d estiny — is tan tam ou n t to preaching G erm an p h ilo so p h y or d o ctrin a irism , or perhaps a m adn ess b eco m in g F renchm en a lo n e .” In terestin gly, N o rw id d eem ed this particular h isto rio so p h ica l p rinciple as fit to apply to as an argum ent again st M essia n ism . T o w ia n sk i’s fo llo w in g , a cco rd in g to N o rw id (letter to S k rzyn eck i, W P, vol. 8, p. 42), “ m istake the n a tio n for the trib e,” but, as he w rote in the treatise on race, n ation and m ankind (PP, pp. 39 ff.), “ the tribe (from the m oral poin t o f view ) is a rejection, a se p a r a tio n , a n e g a tio n — ]...] it is because it differs from others, but it ca n n o t carry an u n ify in g force under a threat o f capital p u n ish m en t." In later years, his charge against M iciew icz o f " ex clu siv en ess” In later years, his ch arge again st M ick iew icz o f “ e x c lu siv e n e ss” grad u ally lo st its h isto rio so p h ica l ju stifica tio n in favor o f a social and c iv iliza tio n a l one.

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 75

and refu tatio n o f the co ntinuity o f existence o f an enslaved nation, o f a rem oteness from reality and from the present, o f a one-sided spiritualism along with contem pt for the hum an body, for shapes, for m atter. W hatever one may think a b o u t these particular charges against R om anticism , they no d o u b t m ust have ru n g a bell in re ad ers’ m inds at th at time.

O p p o sitio n to M ickiewicz is a startin g-po in t for unfolding a positive prog ram b oth ideological and literary. It is rem arkable th at N orw id tended to regard Polish R om anticism as a closed and finished epoch, and therefore placed his own person and his program outside the do m ain o f R om anticism . This feeling o f being alien to R om anticism can be clearly seen in his 1848 description o f the state o f Polish lite ratu re in his forew ord to “Slavery,” when N orw id said.

S in ce the n o to r io u s clash betw een so -ca lled R o m a n tics and so -ca lled C lassicists, or, m o re properly perhaps at that tim e, b etw een in sp iration and form alism , P olish literatu re at h o m e m o v ed closer to the c o m m o n p eo p le, p ro d u cin g c o llecto rs o f legen d s, p roverb s and c u sto m s; o n e w o u ld think it n o ticed so m e th in g like a living P om p ei b eneath the feet o f freely r o a m in g p eo p le. But abroad, the sam e literature fo cu sed its atten tio n on the h um an spirit, scru tin izin g its strange interior, thus en g en d erin g a p h ilo so p h y ; but su rroun d ed by so c ieties w h ich , sh ak en in their very fo u n d a tio n s were a sk in g the m ost vital q u e stio n s, it w ithdrew into m ysticism and b ecam e silen t, like its sister at h o m e, w hich had picked all pearls it c o u ld find a m o n g the c o m m o n p eo p le. But n o w , after that sp iritu al, a n tifo rm a listic exp erien ce, I am sure this literature will em bark on an active cou rse o f c o n d u c t.8

He further said,

S o , if P olish literature is to go on forw ard and n o t to grind to a halt due to a surfeit o f its inherited o n e-sid ed n ess b efore d eg en era tin g in to m annerism , [...] if it is to enter stage tw o (on the brink o f w hich it is sta n d in g today), nam ely th e sta g e o f litera tu re-a s-a ctio n , it m ust im m ed ia tely revise the overall sh ap e o f the o b lig a to r y h eritage (PZ, vol. A , p. 225).

N orw id is even m ore outspok en in his program in his note to

Promethidion where he says, “ I have com e to the conclusion th a t

a sense o f h arm ony o f substance and form o f life will be the foun d atio n o f art in o ur n a tio n ,” adding that Classicism stands for form and R om anticism for substance (PZ, vol. A, p. 168).

T his suggests som ething like a triadic view o f literary

develop-8 P ism a w y b ra n e, ed. Z. P rzesm yck i, W arszaw a 1911 (henceforw ard PZ), vol. A , pp. 2 2 3 — 224.

m e n t—from a thesis, in this case Classicism , or form , via negation, or R om anticism , or substance, to a “h arm ony o f substance and fo rm ,” o r synthesis. Synthesis, o f course, was ano th er fund am en tal keyw ord o f p rog ram s developed at th a t time.

This p artic u la r view o f Polish R om anticism , which in 1851 was seen as the struggle o f Classicists with R om antics, seems ra th e r ou tdated. A long tim e before th a t M ickiewicz wrote to Kajsiewicz.

A t any rate, let m e warn y o u to can cel in you r forew ord w h atever sm a ck s o f th e stru ggle o f C la ssicists w ith R o m a n tic s, O siń ski etc., for all su ch th in g s are trifles and p ast their tim e —dead and b u ried .9

But it m ust be pointed ou t th at M ickiewicz, o f all people, had a scope which enabled him to take such a historical distance tow ards events in which he acted as a p ro tag on ist. W hen N orw id took up the m o tif o f C lassicists vs. R om antics as the determ ining feature o f the situation in which his own generation fo u n d itself, he acted the way all his generation would have acted, fo r th at particular direction o f seeking their own identity appeared perfectly natu ral to them .

It is th u s no coincidence th at the concept o f R o m anticism as a reaction to Classicism is voiced by N orw id. This con cept reflects the p o e t’s desire to view R om anticism as som ething alien to him —an appro ach to R om anticism which places it not in the p resent b u t in the past. It is rem arkable th a t this endeavour to go beyond R o m a n ­ ticism is accom panied by an attem p t to reach over the heads of the great R o m an tic fathers to the heritage o f C lassicist g ra n d ­ fathers. T his particu lar call, even if it had no significant effect on N o rw id ’s own poetry, was all the sam e significant for his literary program . But I think (although this is not the place to show that) it did have an effect on N o rw id ’s own poetry.

A next m ajor m o tif in the above-m entioned forew ord to “Slavery” is the belief th at som ething had irrevocably com e to an end in Polish literature, which, unless it wanted to slip into futility, m an n e­ risms or epigonism , had to take a new road. But th a t th o u g h t was accom panied by an aw areness o f how difficult it was to say exactly which road should be taken to rejuvenate Polish lite ra tu re —if

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 77 a m arriag e o f Classicism with R om anticism was expected to produce such an effect.

But the forew ord to “Slavery” is not the only p resentation o f a new poetic program or the only m anifesto o f a new school. Indeed, N orw id can be said to have published such m anifestoes several tim es in his career. Promethidion (1851), the treatise “O sztuce (dla P o lak ó w )” (On A rt for Poles, 1858), his lectures “On Juliusz S łow acki” (1861), as well as an avow edly program -settin g text which did n o t reach his con tem poraries, nam ely his forew ord to Vade-mecum (1865), can all be viewed as m anifestoes o f his program . T he last-nam ed o f these titles is a m anifesto in the forew ord and in the book alike, intended as it is to induce “a tu rn a b o u t the Polish literature so badly needs,” 10 ap a rt from the call m ade in the very title, which m eans “G o with m e” reader, go with me, Polish poetry.

All those m anifestoes are in one way or anoth er critiques o f R om anticism , all o f them insist on overcom ing its intrinsic an ti­ nom ies. In Promethidion, N orw id entrusts this role to the fine arts. T he fine arts, N orw id argues, represent shapes, em bodim ents, concrete details, and this is why they should bring about a synthesis o f ideas (which are “ph antom -like thoughts abo u t th inking” —P Z , vol. A, p. 146) with real life. Setting up a link between creative arts and h u m an labor, and im p arting a creative dim ension to labor itself, is to overcom e the R om antic o pp osition between artist and audience, because thereby the artist would assum e the role o f the audience while the audience would take on the a rtis t’s role (“hence a listener and a spectator is an artist, bu t one o f them is the p rotagonist, while the oth er is ju st a chorus-singer; but th at chorus-singer will be a pro tag o n ist in an o th er op era “ —PZ, vol. A, p. 141). The arts are to perform various m ediating fu n c tio n s—between m a n ’s earthly existence and his D ivine calling, between intellectual endeavor and m anual labor, between a specific national culture (as m anifest in folklore) and a universal culture o f m ankind. The arts are to be an elem ent integrating whole civilization, which “now adays is [...] a rift betw een soul and body, th a t is, d e a th ” (PZ, vol. A, p. 178).

So, in con trast to R om antic aesthetic theories, the arts are being b roug ht dow n to earth and linked up with artisanship and

industrial m anufacture. But the arts in th at concept are sim ultaneously elevated—in a typically R om antic fa sh io n —as an absolute suprem e value independent o f everything else and free o f any obligation to teach or delight (“ neither en tertainm ent nor in stru ctio n ” —PZ, vol. A, p. 150). But the urgent call for practical action in Promethidion m akes only sense in an eschatologically interpreted h u m an history and am ounts in fact to a program for restoring to h u m an lab o r its expiatory function.

A lthough these rem arks refer to Promethidion, this question has a bro ad er validity. It is actually the m ost fundam ental feature o f N o rw id ’s philosophical reflections —the tension between th e practical real-w orld o rien tation o f his views on the arts, on society, on civilization, and the symbolic significance im parted to practical action in the R om antic system o f historiosophy. N orw id continually tried to go beyond R om anticism but never actually did. Here are a few examples.

N orw id depicted his heroes in deliberate opposition to the m odel o f R om antic individualism ; he m ade them deliberately nam eless, each o f them ju st one am ong m any, an everym an, a quidam, an X. But N orw id unfolded his hero es’ stories in a fashion which moved him inexorably tow ards w hat was typically a R om an tic conflict with society.

N o rw id ’s insistence on sober thinking, on practical action, on m odernizing Polish life-styles, was in its form ulations often convergent with Positivist program s for engagem ent in public life. But at the same tim e he su bordinated this call to an eschatologically-interpreted history, which rendered this call liable to in terp retatio n b oth as a program for reform and as an injunction to seek a total renewal o f m a n ."

11 T his particular a ttitu d e o f N o rw id is ty p ica lly reflected in his p o em “P r a c a ” (L abor, 1864), in which N o r w id jo in s in a p o lem ic again st L. P o w id a j’s article “ P o les and In d ia n s,” w h ich w on so m e renow n as o n e o f the first m a n ifesto es (1864) o f “ w ork at fo u n d a tio n s.” N o rw id iron ically rem arks, “Y o u are tellin g a n a tio n put d ow n c o m p letely h o w it can grow rich very q u ic k ly .” H e c o n tra sts th at p articular vision o f lab or with a paraphrase o f a verse from G en esis 3, 10, “in the sw eat o f thy face sh alt th o u t o il.” T he essen tial m ea n in g o f w ork is its effect o f e x p ia tio n : “ A v o ice is tellin g y o u in y o u r heart, 'I fo rfeited E d e n !” E choes P o w id a j’s article ca u se d , a m o n g them N o r w id ’s p o e m , are d iscu ssed in detail by S. S a n d l e r ,

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 79

N orw id had a sensitive ear to current events, always anxious to keep in touch with w hat was going on aro u n d him at the m om ent. At the sam e time, however, he inevitably deprived the present o f its cu rre n t dim ension by p uttin g it in a typically R om antic “p erp etu al”

historicophilosophical perspective.

N orw id was strongly oriented tow ards com m onness, tow ards everyday life. But at the sam e time he presented everyday life in a way which show ed th a t “there is a lot o f out o f the ord in ary things am ong the o rd in ary ” “D o m ego b ra ta L u d w ik a” —T o My B rother Ludw ik). He had a knack for w hat can be called a “cult o f co n creten ess,” a “care for details,” while at the same tim e constantly cancelling the concreteness o f concrete things, the essence o f individual details, by discerning in them som e m o re suprem e m eanings, by engaging in sym bolizing and generalizing reflections.

D espite his declared anti-R om an tic com m itm ent to overcom e the o p p o sitio n between ideals and real life, he actually lapsed into what was a sp iritualization o f real life. Indeed, th at was a foregone conclusion for N orw id, since the very starting -p oin t for his planned synthesis—nam ely his acceptance o f R om antic an tin o m ie s—was in itself R om antic. A fter all, his attem p t to overcom e these antinom ies im plied a belief in their validity; it was ta n tam o u n t to recognizing R om an tic m otifs as authentic questions. N orw id kept asking him self R om an tic questions and tried to find new and better answ ers to those questions. However, his answers could never really be new answ ers, for the R om antic set o f questions itself channelled his intellectual quest in this particu lar d ire c tio n .12

It is not true, as one m ight surmise, that N o rw id ’s dilem m a boiled dow n to the fact that, as a religious person, he was p reco n ­ d itioned to construe the world and hum an history as a series o f signs draw n in the hand o f the Everlasting. M any Positivist Polish w riters were religious persons in their private lives. But

12 W P vol. 8, pp. 203 f f .: “ In a w ord, p rotest m akes sense on ly w hen you are sta n d in g on the sam e ground as y o u r a d v ersa ry — that's a c o m m o n p la c e truth. E lev a te y o u r se lf higher than you r adversary, and then you w o n ’t need to p r o te s t— but e le v a tin g y o u r se lf a b o v e him m ean s p recisely sa y in g ‘Y es', and n o t ‘N o ',” N o rw id w rote in 1856. In reference to that p r o fo u n d o b ser v a tio n , o n e can say that N o rw id w as sta n d in g on the sam e ground as the R o m a n tics, and that is why he said “ N o ” .

N o rw id ’s religiousness was different from theirs, it was R om antic in character. R om antic religiousness could n o t be suppressed to exist only in private life; expansive and possessive, it claim ed all areas o f reflection on the world —ranging from politics to ra ilro ad develop­ m ent, from the arts to fa its divers colum ns in new spapers. T hat p articu lar type o f religiousness, which sought a totally divinized vision o f the w orld, was perhaps the m ost deeply R om antic feature o f N o rw id ’s, although it should be m ade clear here that he rem ained within the bounds o f orthodoxy and his own religious beliefs changed little or not at all. His religiousness is m ore statical, so to say, than th at o f the great R om antics o f the previous generation, who constantly leaned tow ards heterodoxy.

Just what kind o f m an was N orw id, if he so outspokenly stood up against what he considered to be the essence o f Polish R om anticism but w hat was actually his own in terp retatio n o f the works o f the three greatest R om antics (M ickiewicz, Słow acki, K rasiń ­ ski), above all o f M ickiewicz? To ju d g e by the fram e o f his m ind, he was, in a way, a n ti-R o m an tic—a co n tin u ato r th ro u g h rejection. But his rejection always stopped sh ort at som e point or another, while his opposition to R om anticism inexorably drifted tow ards a R om antic view o f the world.

So, ju st who was N orw id? W hat place should he be accorded in 19th-century literature?

He was a R om antic, but o f a different m ake than his great predecessors. If he does not easily slip into the com m on model o f Polish R om antic poetry, it is not because he is a bad R om antic but because the model o f Polish R om anticism is bad. Instead o f classing N orw id outside any o f the adopted epochs o f literary developm ent, we should expand o ur view of R om anticism so as to em brace N orw id too. A literary context m ust be found in which he will cease being a solitary phenom enon and will prove to have been a spokesm an o f some m ore com prehensive tendency. For the case o f N orw id, I think the m ost suitable such context is provided by the second generation o f Polish R om antics, the same generation who m ade their debuts sim ultaneously with him and with whom he shared a com m on p rog ram during his W arsaw years.

It was to th at generation th at N orw id addressed his m anifestoes, it was to them th at he called out “G o with m e.” It was for th at

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 81

generation th at he spoke to ém igrés, it was as a spokesm an o f th at generation th at he initiated “a new art in P o la n d .” N orw id, who penned articles ab o u t “the latest generation o f ém igrés,” developed a strong sense o f com m unity with his own g en e ratio n .13

If so, then why did N o rw id ’s pro g ram for a new p oetry fail to becom e the pro gram o f his generation?

First it should be pointed out th a t N o rw id ’s generation was treated extrem ely cruelly by history. A rrests, bannings into exile, p rem atu re deaths, frustration follow ing the Spring o f N ations, m iser­ able life in exile, terro r at h o m e —all these contrib u ted to the physical d estruction o f th a t p otential “new wave” o f Polish R om anticism .

Just im a g in e — o f m y friends, p als, m ates and w hat y o u call them from m y W arsaw p eriod tw en ty or so have d ied since then. I c o u ld easily m en tio n tw enty n am es in a breath o f p eo p le w h o are buried, live in rem otest corners o f the w orld, live as exiles in Siberia. A s to those w h o survived that sw eep in g flood — g ood Lord, m aybe it w o u ld have been b etter for them to have died,

wrote B ogdan Dziekoriski shortly before his own death in 1855.14 B ut although th a t g en eratio n ’s fate explains a lot, it does not explain all. If there were possibilities for Polish R om anticism to develop freely—and N orw id him self is best evidence o f such a p o ­ te n ti a l- t h e n why did those o f his peers who continued to write fail to live up to their possibilities? Why did they lapse into secondariness, why did they em ulate w orn-out pattern s, why did they waste their talents in futile epigonism ?

T h at was a singular m om ent in history. T he ideas Polish R om antic poetry used to draw its strength from uxhausted them selves during the R evolution o f 1848. It is true th at years later the Jan u ary In ­ surgency o f 1863 restored the topical character o f those ideas, b u t th at was no m ore th an a rem ote echo o f the once brilliant heritage. The great topics o f poetry o f the three great poets lost their rationale after 1848. But at the sam e tim e, the auth o rity o f th at poetry, its significance in the enslaved n a tio n ’s life were incom parably m ore

13 T his m atter w as p o in ted ou t and su p p o rted w ith ev id en ce by Z. T r o j a - n o w i c z , R z e c z o m ło d o śc i N o rw id a (On the N . ’s Youth), P ozn ań 1968, w ho also p o in ted ou t certain sim ilarities betw een N o r w id ’s earliest verse and that o f his co n tem p o ra r y p o ets.

14 In a letter q u o ted by W i l k o ń s k a , op. c it., p. 319.

pow erful th an the possible im pact any literary school could have had. T o live up to th at auth o rity m eant living up to the code o f conduct o f Polish patriotism , to the very fou nd atio n o f P o la n d ’s existence as a nation. T h at was no good time for fighting th a t p articular tradition.

To be a p a trio t w ithout following in M ickiew icz’s footsteps was a form idable challenge indeed. It m eant taking a different angle to look at the nation, to becom e aw are o f facets o f the Polish question M ickiewicz failed to notice. Even m ore, th at m eant overcom ing that

propensity to absolutize the nation which had form ed M ickiew icz’s vision o f the world. It was only the fall o f the J a n u a ry Insurgency th at gave an im pulse for such a fundam ental painful revision. The period between 1848 and the Jan u ary Insurgency—from this vantage p o in t— was a b lan k spot in P olish history. P o la n d ’s history d u ring those years itself was epigonic in character and n ourished an epigonic kind o f poetry.

So, why did N orw id, a spokesm an o f a non-existent generation o f Polish R om antics, m an ag e—occasionally—to prevail in his struggle against a danger o f epigonism , against the ever-present im pact o f the great trad itio n (a fact, incidentally, he was perfectly aw are of)?

There is o f course no answ er to this qu estion , for w hatever you m ight say ab o u t genius or talent, ab o u t originality or u n co n ­ ventional intellect, you are b ound to end up asking one question in the stead o f another. N o rw id ’s success was n o d o u b t a partial one, and his desire for poetic autonom y always carried the risk o f

lapsing into eccentric idiom. It looks as if he con stan tly feared to lapse into epigonism , and realizing th a t he had to be original at any price he now and then fell into eccentricity.

If there is no answ er to the question o f why N orw id m anaged to be a different b rand o f R om antic th an his great predecessors, then perhaps th ere is an answ er to the question o f how did N o rw id ’s own R om anticism differ from the R om anticism o f M ickiewicz? A great deal has been w ritten and established ab o u t this. Let me point ou t several differences. F rom w hat has been said above it follows th a t those were no differences in poetic idiom . W hat I have in m ind is a novel ap p ro ach adopted by N o rw id which accounts for his view o f the Polish question, o f his co n tem p o rary history,

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 83

o f the P olish p o e t’s true role, differing from those im plied by M ickiew icz’s R om anticism .

N orw id was th a t Polish R om antic who m anaged to shed the h au n tin g szlachta (gentry) problem , all the dilem m as the preceding generation o f po ets found so difficult to answer. W hat p a rt did the

szlachta have to play in the struggle for national lib eratio n ? W hat

m ission does it have in P o la n d ’s national life? W hat place does it hold in a fu ture in dependent P o la n d ? N one o f these questions ever appear in N o rw id ’s texts. (Later I will p oint ou t som e d epartu res from th a t p artic u la r attitu d e and som e consequences o f it.)

N orw id regards the szlachta as som ething anachronistic and exotic, an d the only p roblem was no longer w hat place it could have in the future b ut w hat hold the szlachta m entality still had o f Polish m inds a t th a t time. N orw id proved to be an acute critic o f the szlachta m entality as a m odel o f backw ardness, o f an out-of-date m ode o f thinking. In his fight against Polish parochialism he displays a dem ocratic fram e o f m ind n o t in the political b u t in the socio- -historical sense o f the term .

Let me cite one example. In a letter to Zofia R ad w ano w a w ritten

in 1868, N orw id recounts the story o f two n o b lem en ’s “sacred

b ro th e rh o o d .” This is w hat he said,

W hen I w as in N o rth ern A m erica, I m et tw o n o b lem e n , form erly arm y cap tains, ea ch w earing large m o u sta ch es. T h ey m a d e a d em o cra tic deal to live togeth er in a sacred b r o th e r h o o d , so that w h ile o n e w ou ld be w ork in g d o w n to w n the o ther w o u ld c o o k him his lunch. B o th k n ew a lo t a b o u t c o o k in g but b o th — the w h iff o f A m e r ic a ’s d em o cra tic air n o tw ith sta n d in g — w ere szla c h ta at heart, after all. S o after they m a d e their b rotherly deal and to o k c o rd ia lly lea v e o f each other, o n e c a p ta in w en t o u t to to w n , w hile the oth er to o k to c o o k in g lunch, r ejo icin g at the th o u g h t o f their m utu al h o u seh o ld allian ce b e c o m in g fact so o n . [ ...] S o at a p rop er h o u r th e other c o m e s h o m e and sees the ta b le ready. H e

sits d o w n , w hile his b rother, the other ca p ta in , serves the s o u p ... T h e o n e behind the plate no so o n er to u c h e s the so u p w ith his sp o o n and tastes it then he

turns to his pal sa y in g “ W h a t’s that? Isn ’t it burned a b it? ” U p o n w hich the c a p ta in -c o o k sla p s the other in the c h e e k ... and that w as h o w the first and last c o m m o n lunch o f th o se tw o gen tlem en en d ed . L iving at the other end o f the w o rld , they w ere u n a b le to forget each o f them the o n c e had a c o o k o f his ow n . T h is is difficult to render in w ords, it w ould be easier to sh o w it o n stage. H ere is h o w q u ick ly it all w as d o n e , h o w ex cellen tly prepared an d with great m u tu al sen tim en t:

burnt? the other slap s his h e a d — and th a t’s h o w their m utual b ro th e rh o o d ca m e to an end (W P, v o l. 9, pp. 113— 114).

Suppose M ickiewicz would have w ritten this anecdote, as he by all m eans could. The story ab o u t the two ém igrés’ quarrel could be included, for example, in the article on “Q uarrels am ong O ur Em igrés,” where M ickiewicz recounted an o th er anecdote. It could have been included in th at article, b u t its form and message would have been different. M ickiewicz had a sharp eye for szlachta custom s, but he watched szlachta men and criticized them from inside as a m an who regarded him self as one o f the szlachta and sharing the ideas and habits o f his social group, which, while it no longer had anything in com m on with the gentry’s style o f life, still cherished a strong sense o f affiliation to P o la n d ’s szlachta traditions. T h at found expression not only in abiding by a szlachta attitu d e but also, and p erh aps m ore vocally, in the struggle for transform ing, for redeem ing the Polish szlachta. A nd I do not ‘ m ean ju st outw ard m anifestations o f this desire, such as polem ics against the S arm atian trad itio n or the com m itm ent to the abolition o f serfdom .

F or ém igrés who left P o lan d after the N ovem ber Insurgency, the szla chta’s historical role, its share o f responsibility for the fall o f the Polish statehood and o f the insurgency itself, its place in a future new P oland and in a new E u rop e were all pivotal questions. This problem united left-wing and right-w ing ém igrés in their fierce polem ics with each other. All émigrés were experiencing this as their own personal problem , as the question ab o u t their own place in a future Poland. In this sense, not only cham pions o f the trad itio n or liberals from the H otel L am bert group belonged in the szlachta, bu t also dem ocratically-m inded émigrés, who rem ained so even in their m ost ferocious attacks against the szlachta. The same is true, in a sense, o f m em bers o f P olish P eop le’s G ro u p s (G rom ady L udu Polskiego), for they were entirely absorbed in the same questions and envisaged a future P oland in the aspect o f the sam e conflicts, so th a t the question o f patrio tic forces and liberation possibilities am ou nted in their view to the sam e p e a sa n t— szlachta dilem m a.

I suppose th a t had M ickiewicz described the quarrel between the two szlachta m en, he would have linked the story to the szlachta’s own self-image as being cantan k ero u s bu t able to unite in the face

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism 85

o f enemies. T h at p articu lar self-awareness was very im p o rtan t for a generation which experienced dram atically the sin o f its own

szlachta ch aracter and was unable to aban d o n its hope for an inner

tran sfo rm atio n , for a p atriotic redem ption o f the szlachta % sins.

A quarrel lends itself easily to h um orous descriptions, but was the u to p ian idea o f a “sacred b ro th e rh o o d ” and its quick fall really liable to a detached ironical trea tm e n t? This story ab o u t two szlachta m en in em igration, who are already rem ote from the g entry ’s life style and filled with ideas ab o u t equality, bu t carry with them their old habits to the N ew W orld and destroy their union as they ca n n o t forget they once h ad their own co o k s— this story is ju s t too acute a p resen tation o f the p articu lar szlachta m entality to be rendered by som eone who was him self free o f such habits or hopes.

N o rw id ’s anecdote ab o u t the two szlachta m en is n o t the only such story in his writings. Suffice it to m ention an o th er sim ilar story ab o u t “one szlachta m an, a very respectable citizen and good neighbor, as well as good p a trio t,” who said, “h an d me a book, any

boo k in your reach, for I ’m retiring to tak e a nap in the

g ard en .” In the sam e passage o f his „Pam iętnik p o d ró żn ego ”

(T raveller’s D iary, 1857), N orw id tells his encounter in Paris with one “ descendant o f th at citizen” in the follow ing m an n er:

I d o like m usic (he tells m e). I like m usic, so w hen I’m b ack from the fields and a servant p u lls o ff my b o o ts, I lik e sittin g b ack m u sin gly and keep m y feet in w ater listen in g to m y w ife p la y in g C h o p in on the p i a n o ...! I a lso used to like p ain tin g, before I g ot m arried (W P, v ol. 5, pp. 69-70).

His letters are the m ost a b u n d a n t source o f inform ation on his attitu d e tow ards the szlachta q u estio n —ranging from m alicious rem arks ab o u t “a com m unity resting on their sabers and deeply asleep in this p o sitio n ,” 15 th rough th a t “com ical sa u e rk 'au t-b a sed p atrio ­ tism ,” 16 to his cam paign for a m odernization o f Polish society

he launched in his correspondence at the tim e o f the Jan uary

Insurgency.

N o rw id ’s critical rem arks a b o u t the szlachta are no t necessarily political in character. It is prim arily a critique o f a specific cultural form ation in which deeply entrenched serfdom -determ ined patterns

15 In a letter to J. B. Z alesk i d ated M ay 10, 1851, W P, v o l. 8, p. 88. 16 In a letter to W. B e n tk o w sk i o f M ay 1857, W P, v ol. 8, p. 252.

o f thinking tu rn ou t to prevail eventually over the “p ea san t q uestio n ” (about which N orw id wrote in 1865 th at it was “in a sense, resolved now ” 17), and keep weighing heavily on different areas o f public life.

N o rw id ’s rem arks betray a certain ironical distance, som ething only a person who has shed the specific m ode o f th in king ab o u t the szlachta-and-p easan t nation can afford, a person w ho is neither defending him self n o r repenting for sins o f his own social class, a person who is no t involved in the conflict and only stands by w atching it from outside. Em igrés o f the preceding g eneration som etim es to o k entirely different views o f the szlachta’’s role and o f its place in the future liberated nation, yet both those on the left and those on the right rem ained deeply ro o ted in the sam e social form ation, being incapable o f m oving outside it and take a b y sta n d e r’s look at it. Y ou can say th at for post-N ovem ber R om antics the szlachta was prim arily a historicophilosophical and political category, while for N orw id it was no m ore than a sociological category.

But this is n o t true o f the period o f the 1848 R evolution, when N orw id, involved in political disputes am o ng Polish ém igrés, defended the historical role o f “Polish clan s” and szlachta's ow ner­ ship o f land in his “Social S ong” and “Slavery.” As late as in 1852, after his relations with H otel L am bert group cooled dow n a bit, he addressed W ładysław Zam oyski in w ords o f hom age and confidence in the szlachta’s historical mission (“This is how I envisage the future o f all Polish szlachta” 18). T hat faith o f N orw id also flares up later, when in his “S ariusz” (1862) he proclaim s the a p p e a ra n c e —in person o f A ndrzej Z am o y sk i—o f a Polish szlachta representative whose existence was denied by Słowacki in his Odpowiedź na psalm y

przyszłości (Reply to F uture’s Psalms). Two years later, when he

published his early “Slavery,” N orw id was assum ing the role o f defender o f the szlachta tradition.

So N orw id used to be (and perhaps was now and then) a p artic i­ p a n t in the R o m an tic s’ debate over the szlachta dilem m a. His writings are also pervaded by this p artic u la r line o f thinking. It looks as

17 In the forew ord to V ade-m ecum , D Z , vol. 1, p. 538.

18 C. N o r w i d , “ S a le m ,” [in:] R e szta w ie rszy o d szu k a n ych p o d ziś, a d o tą d nie

N o r w id ’s R om an ticism ₈₇

though the two a ttitu d e s—th a t o f the defender o f the szlachta's trad itio n and o f its outside critic —coexisted or com peted with each o ther in his writings. As early as at the time o f the 1848 R evolution — in the “ Social Song,” “ Slavery,” as well as in his “ M em oriał o m łodej em igracji” (M em orial on the Latest W ave o f E m igration)

— N orw id tended to present the szlachta as a class o f landow ners. T h at tendency to regard the szlachta from a sociological point o f view grew stronger in later years, and the szlachta dilem m a actually turned ou t to have played no m ajor role in his philosophy o f history.

N orw id was also a poet o f cities. This is m eant n o t only to say th a t he often m ade cities a topic o f his poetic reflections, th at he w rote “L arw a” (The Larva), “S tolica” (The C apital), “G rzeczność” (C ourtesy) or described th at cafe chantant in the Prologue to the play Z a kulisam i (Behind the Scene), to m ention but a few examples. W hat is m ore im p o rtan t th an the topic o f his literary p ro du ction s

is that N orw id unfolded a vision o f an urbanized world in his

writings.

F or M ickiewicz, the big cities his vicissitudes b ro u g h t him

t o — P etersburg, M oscow , P a ris— were always places o f exile, a Babylon, a rath er exotic milieu for hum an beings. Provincial village was probably the m ost indigenous n atu ral environm ent for m an in M ickiew icz’s eyes th ro u g h o u t his lifetime.

But with N orw id the situation is different—you live in town,

and you go to the countryside (or else to health resorts). The tow n is a n a tu ra l abode o f hum an activity as well as a backdrop for poetic reflections. The countryside is som ething exotic and external, a recreational m argin o f norm al life, the “realm o f rest” im mune to the course o f history. N orw id dream t o f “one m om ent o f rest on Polish grass,” 19 and th a t is a dream to expect only from som ebody who is deeply rooted in u rb a n life, from a poet whose verse reverberates with the ra ttle o f cobblestones o f m any E uropean cities. N orw id discovered, in a sense,, th at tow ns are simply quite suitable for habitation.

In the Dictionary o f Adam M ick iew ic z’s Vocabulary, the word “m achine” is only once used in its strict sense o f a m anufacturing

tool, nam ely in a letter o f reference for a young ém igré who “w anted to becom e an engineer o f m achines.”

P lease tell m e if it is p o ssib le to find sh elter w ith so m e w e ll-to -d o m anufacturer in L o n d o n , th at is, b o a rd in g , clo th e s and o p p o r tu n itie s to learn, say at so m e mill m a k in g steam en g in es or arm s or so m e th in g like that. I am n o g o o d at definin g an e n g in e e r ’s w a n ts, but perhaps y o u o u t there in that su p er-en g in eerin g and su p er­ m a ch in in g city are ab le to u nderstand them better than I.20

T h at was the only “m achine” o f M ickiew icz’s. It looks as though only an u rgent need on the p a rt o f his ém igré b ro th e r m ade the poet notice he was living am idst an industrial revolution.

H ow very different N o rw id ’s writings ap p ear in this respect! His writings are full o f mills, factory w orkers, steam an d electricity, telegraphs and railw ays. This holds above all for his letters, bu t also in his verse you will com e across a steam engine th at killed a Jan Gajew ski, there is a “rail car on the sta tio n ” (in the poem “Rzecz o wolności słow a” —O n Freedom o f Speech).21

Ind ustrial civilization is an inalienable com p on ent o f N o rw id ’s vision o f the w orld and his historiosophy, and N o rw id ’s attitu d e tow ards it is certainly not as negative as som e people believe it is. W ith p oign ant irony, N orw id w rote a b o u t men o f letters who thoughtlessly “on the one hand, are scoffing at o th er n a tio n s’ industrial idolatry, while on the o th er are em bellishing poetically our sacred tra d itio n s . . . ” 22

As he lived in an industrial age, o f which he was perfectly aw are, N orw id was perh aps the first Polish poet to view an a u th o r’s relation to his audience in term s o f literary produ ctio n and literary m arket. T he social situ ation o f writers becam e a h au n tin g topic for reflections, occasionally even an obsession. Let me briefly p o in t out th a t N o rw id ’s writings reveal a very interesting rivalry between a R om an tic concept o f the poet as harbinger and leader on the one han d, and a quite m odern concept o f the literary profession o f people earnin g their living by w riting. The latter idea involves an antinom y, nam ely while a poet earns his living using his pen, he is not really w riting

20 Letter to H. B ło tn ick i o f M arch 22, 1833, [in:] D z ie /a , vol. 15, p. 63. 21 In: C. N o r w i d , P o e zje w y b ra n e . . . , ed. Z. P rzesm ycki, W arszaw a 1933, pp. 205 if.

N o rw id 's R om an ticism 89 only to earn m oney; to p u t it differently, a w riter is bou nd by his au dience’s expectations and dependent on th a t audience, yet his dignity as a w riter requires th at he should no t bow to th a t pressure b u t rem ain independent. It should be rem arked th at for N orw id readers were indispensable elem ents o f literary w o rk ; literature, in N o rw id ’s understan din g, was no t a one-w ay affair bu t an act being played o u t between a u th o r and reader. T h at p artic u la r view is especially significant in the sense th a t N orw id had no appreciable audiences and his pro d u ctio n s were usually w ritten only for the shelf.23

I indicated several areas N orw id travelled as a solitary explorer. He took up great topics, which could have becom e topics to study for the second generation o f P olish R om antics. But th a t generation did no t follow N o rw id ’s exam ple, and therefore N o rw id ’s literary o u tp u t actually lacked a n atu ral context. Such a context has to som e extent be recon structed by ourselves, by picking from writings o f N o rw id ’s contem poraries ju st occasional sorties into the realm o f new possibilities which N o rw id ’s literary w ork alone disclosed. T rack in g possible influences is no prom ising jo b , since N orw id was practically absent from the cultu ral stage o f his times. W hat does m ake sense is to try to disclose such analogies which m ay help us restore to N orw id the place in history he deserves to occupy.

So, w hat is the m eaning o f N o rw id ’s biog rap h y ,.d ep riv ed as it is o f m iddle age and com posed solely o f his youth and his old age? His biography show s th a t N o rw id shared the fate o f his generation, who after a confident young age virtually disappeared from the Polish scene, ceasing to play any au to n o m o u s p a rt in it, forfeiting its identity as a generation, m elting with the preceding generation, and grow ing old p re m a tu rely —because ém igrés o f the period im mediately follow ing the N ovem ber Insurgency had grow n old by that time.

Tran si. by Z y g m u n t N iera d a

21 N o r w id 's a ttitu d e tow ard s m odern c iv iliz a tio n and his view s o f a man o f letter s’ so c ia l situ a tio n are presen ted in m y article “ N o r w id — p isarz w ieku ku­ p ie c k ie g o i p r z e m y sło w e g o ” (N . as a P o et o f the A ge o f C o m m er ce and Industrialism ), [in:] L ite r a tu ra , k o m p a r a ty s ty k a , f o lk lo r , W arszaw a 1968, w hich p resen ts the n ecessary ev id en ce.