Bohdan Tomasik
"Wymiary dzieła literackiego",
Henryk Markiewicz,
Kraków-Wrocław 1984 ;
"Świadomość literatury. Rozprawy i
szkice", Henryk Markiewicz,
Warszawa 1984 : [recenzja]
Literary Studies in Poland 17, 115-126
Book Reviews
Comptes rendus de livres
H e n r y k M a r k i e w i c z : Wymiary dzieła literackiego (The Dimensions
of Literary Work), W ydaw nictw o Literackie, K rak ó w 1984, 242 p p .; Świadomość literatury. Rozprawy i szkice (The Awareness o f Literatu re. Dissertations and Studies), Państw ow y In sty tu t W ydawniczy,
W arszaw a 1984, 386 pp.
T he tw o latest b o ok s by H enryk M arkiew icz deal with the problem s already suggested by the titles o f th a t w riter’s form er w orks: Główne problem y wiedzy o literaturze (The M ain Problems o f the Science o f Literature), P olska nauka o literaturze (The Polish Science o f Literature).
So W ym iary dzieła literackiego (further W dl) and Św iadom ość literatury (further SI) are representative w orks o f M arkiew icz’s scholarly pursu its in the fields o f 1) the theory o f literature, 2) the history o f science o f literature. T he form er had earlier b rou gh t the dissertatio n s: O m arksistow skiej teorii literatury (About the M arxian Theory o f Literature, 1952, 2nd ed. 1953), Tradycje 1 rewizje (Traditions and Revisions, 1957), Główne problem y wiedzy o literaturze (The M ain Problems o f the Science o f Literature, 1965, 5th ed. 1980), Przekroje i zbliżenia dawne i nowe (Profiles and Close Ups, P ast and Present, 1976). The latter enriched the Polish science o f literatu re with im p o rtan t anthologies : Teoria badań literackich w Polsce (The Theory o f Literary Research in Poland, 2 vol., 1960), Współczesna teoria badań literackich za granicą (The Present Theory o f L iterary Studies Abroad, 3 vol., 1970— 1973, 3rd ed. 1976), Problem y literatury w Polsce m iędzywojennej (The Prob lems o f Literature in Poland Between the Wars, 1982), and a synthetic work P olska nauka o literaturze (Polish Science o f Literature, 1981). The tw o lines o f research are expressed in the anthologies: Problem y teorii literatury (Problems o f the Theory o f Literature, Series I: 1967, Series II: 1976).
T he division into these w orks is, o f course, only approxim ative, since an interest in the th eo ry o f literatu re can be seen also in the b oo ks o f the second g ro up, while an interest in the h istory o f the science o f literatu re m anifests itself in the theoretical writings on literature as well. W hat integrates the two spheres o f M arkiew icz’s study is the m ethodology o f literary research. Indeed a p a rt from the afore-m entioned b o o k s M arkiew icz has w ritten a tw o-volum e anthology S ztu k a interpretacji (The A r t o f Interpretation, 1971 — 1973), o n the problem s o f m ethodology. In giving this list o f his works one m ust also m ention M arkiew icz’s investigations into the history o f literature which are expressed in the follow ing b o o k s: Realizm k ry ty c zn y w twórczości Bolesława Prusa (The Critical Realism in B. P ru s' W ork, 1950), Prus i Ż e ro m sk i (Prus and Ż erom ski, 1954, 2nd ed. 1964), W kręgu Ż erom skiego ( Within the Range o f Ż .,
1977), P ozytyw izm (P ositivism , 1973, 2nd ed. 1980).
T he very list o f the titles o f these books suggests an interesting feature o f M arkiew icz’s studies, the recu rrin g them es, various a p p ro a ches to the sam e them es, applying different discourses. They result from the realization th a t p artic u la r studies ca n n o t be m ade into a sum and on som e occasions they ca n n o t even lead to com parisons, being at th e sam e tim e alw ays unsatisfactory. But ju s t in th is — ac cord in g to M arkiew icz—resides the specific ch a rac te r o f the science
o f literatu re which “ is called u p o n to tak e on a task beyond its pow er, to return to the problem s th a t will never be solved finally and n o t even satisfactorily in the sho rt ru n ” (W dl, 214). This stan d accords with the m odel o f the science o f literature as it has been outlined in M arkiew icz’s w orks, o f the science th a t has been trying to trace the b ound aries o f its study, define its task, establish its m ethod o f research an d o f description. The fact th a t from tim e to tim e questions are being asked ab o u t the n atu re o f the science o f literature, a b o u t the very style o f its discourse, does indicate th a t they were n o t p u t only a t th a t science’s em ergence but are repeated in the periods o f its crises, th a t is at the m om ents when the researchers feel they sho uld revise their m etho ds an d renew their scientific language.
T he m odel o f literature, presented in the tw o books under discussion, m ay be called a p arad ig m atic one should we m ake use o f the
term applied by T. K u h n in his fam ous b o o k .1 T he science o f literatu re does n o t evolve in a cum ulative way. Its o u tp u t ca n n o t be added u p since it is m ade up o f a variety o f stands on the question w hat actually is the science o f literature and w hat is not. T he science o f lite ratu re is based on som e p attern s o f research w hich determ ine w hat ca n be regarded in this area as scientific, define the q uestion s and indicate the m ethod o f answ ering them , and finally establish the language in which they should be fo rm u la ted. O nce such p a tte rn s have been rejected new bo u n d aries m ust be traced for th a t science’s p enetrations, the questions to be asked have to be altered, as well as their acceptable answ ers, all o f which leads to the ad o p tio n o f a new language in this branch.
M ost clearly M arkiew icz presents the parad ig m atic m odel o f the science o f lite ratu re in the follow ing excerpt:
O n e co u ld a ttem p t th e g en era liza tio n that w h ile in th e p o sitiv istic p eriod literary research aim ed first o f all at th e ex p la n a tio n o f th e origin an d its m ain “ hero" w as the a u th o r and w h ile in th e su b seq u en t p erio d the stress w as laid o n th e stru ctu re, th at is th e literary w ork , n o w w e h a v e en tered th e p h ase in w hich in terest is c o n cen tra ted o n th e fu n ctio n o f the literary w ork an d on its reader (W dl, 216).
These generalizations include no evaluation and th a t is why we can speak o f the research er’s paradigm atic ap p ro ach to the history o f the branch he studies. M arkiew icz does n o t evaluate the p articu lar tasks these three periods used to set before th a t b ranch . H e treats them as equal, u n com parab le, existing side by side as it were. T he term “ p arad ig m ” does n o t ap pear in M arkiew icz’s w orks b u t it can be related to his consideration s, the m ore so th a t he uses such synonym s as “ alg o rith m ,” “c a n o n ,” “to p o s” (of aesthetics, science o f literature).
M arkiew icz w rote on the positivistic p arad igm o f literary studies
1 T. K u h n , S tru k tu ra re w o lu c ji n a u k o w ych ( The S tru c tu re o f S cien tific R e vo lu tio n s), transi. H . O stro m ęck a , W arszaw a 1968. T h e K u h n ia n term “ p a ra d ig m ” w as used by M . G ł o w i ń s k i , w h ile d esc rib in g th e m e th o d o lo g ic a l e v o lu tio n in the sc ien ce o f literatu re, in his w ork “O d m etod zew n ętrzn y ch i w ew n ętrzn ych d o k o m u n ik a cji litera ck iej” (F ro m External and Internal M e th o d s to Literary C o m m u n ic a tio n )—se e this v o lu m e , p . 27. S ee a lso W . K . P e r c i v a l , “T h e A p p lic a b ili ty o f K u h n ’s P aradigm to th e H isto ry o f L in g u istic s,” L angu age, June 1976, n o . 2.
the follow ing dissertatio n s: “ M iędzy p lo tk ą a m ite m ” (Between G o s sip and M yth), “Ż ycie i o so b a pisarza w polskich b ad an ich lite rack ich ” (The W riter’s Life and Personality in the Polish L iterary R esearch), “Pozytywiści wobec rom antyzm u polsk ieg o” (The P osi tivists’ A ttitude T ow ard s the Polish R om antic M ovem ent), “Polskie przygody estetyki T a in e ’a ” (The Polish A dventures o f T ain e’s A esth e tics) included in the volum e Św iadom ość literatury. In th e first tw o o f them he describes the evolution o f the views on a w rite r’s biography as the subject o f literary study, in the third he discusses the attitu d e o f the positivists tow ards the literary and ideological legacy o f the rom antics, and in the last analyzes the way the Taineian inspiration influenced the Polish science o f literature. Then M arkiew icz shows the post-positivistic p aradigm in the follow ing studies: “Przem iany ergografiki w polskich badaniach literackich d o roku 1939” (The T ra n sfo rm atio n s o f E rgographics in the Polish L iterary Studies till 1939), “ M yśl aksjologiczna w polskiej nauce o literatu rze” (The A xiological T ho u g h t in the Polish Science o f L iterature), “Polskie dyskusje o form ie i treści” (Polish D iscussions on the F orm and C on ten t), “R ecepcja form alizm u rosyjskiego w Polsce” (The R eception o f the R ussian F orm alism in P o lan d — all in SI). Each o f these studies is governed by such conceptions in the study o f literature which focus the stu d e n t’s a tte n tio n on the w ork itself w ithout being concerned with its non-literary situ a tion (the w riter’s biography, historical process). The co n tem p o rary paradigm in literatu re is discussed by M arkiew icz in the study “O d biór i od b io rca w bad an iach literack ich ” (The R eading and R eader in L iterary Studies) linked closely to the study “In ter pretacja sem antyczna dzieł literack ich ” (Sem antic In terp retatio n o f L iterary W orks), b o th included in W dl. T he au th o r deals in them with the re a d e r’s reception o f a literary w ork.
As regards the history o f the science o f literatu re as it app ears in M arkiew icz’s latest books it does differ basically from his ap p roach in the volum e P olska nauka o literaturze (Polish Science o f Literature). It has partly to do with the poetic quality o f an “o u tlin e” which is the latter book. T he history o f the science o f literature presented in the studies m ak ing up the volum e Św iado m ość literatury is, on the o th er hand, a history “ w ithout n am es,” a history o f paradigm s, algorithm s, cano ns o f description. M
arkie-wicz describes the evolution o f no rm s in the study o f literature, leaving o u t the researchers them selves and individual realizations o f those norm s. An exam ple o f such norm s we find in W. D ib eliu s’ m o nograph Englische Rom ankunst (1910) which had lastingly in fluenced the way o f w riting on novels (SI 63, 154— 155). As regards the norm s o f describing lyrical p oetry they were expressed in the positivistic studies by the term s o f “ topos o f indescribility” 2 and “topos o f o bviousness.” B oth suggested a resignation from describing lyrical poetry on the g rounds th a t an analysis in this area m ust be incom plete or th a t it is pointless to describe som ething th at appeals directly to the read er (SI 52). M arkiew icz dem onstrates how very essential it is in literary study to try to w ork out “a general can o n in the description o f literary w orks” (description by Z. Ł em picki, W dl 153) and how such attem pts are d oom ed to achieving only partial solutions (Wdl, 166).
A p a rt from paradigm s, algorithm s and cano ns a d o m in an t role in M arkiew icz’s history o f literary studies are playing the terms. In his view the history o f this b ran ch includes also the history o f th a t b ra n c h ’s language, th a t is a history o f term s and notions. This ap p ro ach could be referred to a statem ent by J. Sławiński according to which “a reflection on term inology becom es as a ru le — and it can n o t be o th erw ise—a reflection on the basic features o f a b ra n c h ’s language; the basic ones because ow ing to them it can effectively deal with its subject.” 3
So M arkiew icz devoted to the vicissitudes o f the tw o essential term s for ergocentric studies an article “Polish D iscussions on the F orm and C o n te n ts” (SI). He is p articularly concerned in them with the process o f “term inologization,” 4 th a t is with th e way
2 T h e term “to p o s o f in d escr ib ility ” c o m e s from J. S ł a w i ń s k i , “O o p isie ” (A b o u t the D e sc r ip tio n ), [in:] S tu d ia o n a rra cji, ed. J. B ło ń sk i, S. Jaw orsk i, J. S ław iń sk i, W rocław 1982, p. 33.
3 J. S ł a w i ń s k i , “P r o b le m y literatu rozn aw czej te r m in o lo g ii” (The P ro b le m s o f T e r m in o lo g y in the S cien ce o f L iterature), [in:] D z ie ło . J ę z y k . T ra d ycja , W arsza wa 1974, p. 203.
4 T h e term ta k en from a w ork by T. N . O m e l y a n e n k o , “T e rm in o lo g iza tsy a o b sh c h e u p o tr e b ite ln o y lek sik i v istorii a n g liy sk o g o y a z ik a ,” [in:] Y a zik i s til nauchno- g o izlo zh en ya . L in g v o m e to d ic h e s k iy e issled o va n iya , ed. M . Y a . C w illin g a .o ., M o sc o w
the w ord “c o n ten ts” and “fo rm ” are used in literary description. This process goes tog eth er with a non-linguistic reflection o f the researchers aim ing to draw a list o f all the m eanings attached to those tw o term s (K. Irzykow ski, J. K leiner, R . Ingarden, K. G órski, W. Tatarkiew icz). But the m o st im p o rtan t p erio d in the history o f these term s in the b ra n ch u nd er discussion was the one d u rin g which they were no t strictly defined and were used as com m on or <7«a57-common w o rd s.5 D uring their tens-of- -years-long history the “fo rm ” and “c o n te n ts” have exhausted their term inological potential. A nd the categ o rizatio n o f literary ph en o m e na which can be achieved by m eans o f them seems now un satis factory.
H a v in g p layed [ ...] a m ajor role in the sh a p in g o f artistic p rogram m es and in the e v o lu tio n o f the th e o ry o f literary w ork the term s “c o n te n ts” and “fo r m ” are n o w b ein g d ro p p ed in scien ce as b ein g a m b ig u o u s and sim p lify in g , [ ...] are regarded so m e tim e s as sy m p to m a tic o f n aive a n d sim p licistic p o sitio n s; we use them at the m o st in ab b reviated a n d p o p u la r sta tem e n ts (SI 127).
Then we find a p en etrating study o f the evolution the idea o f novel has gone throug h in the article “Problem y teoretyczne powieści w krytyce m łodopolskiej i m iędzyw ojennej” (The T h eo reti cal P ro blem s o f the N ovel in the C riticism o f the Y o u ng P oland and in the P eriod Between W ars). M arkiew icz discusses in it two essential aspects o f the critical th o u g h t on the novel in these tw o periods, the norm ative and descriptive one. T he first o f them m anifested itself in the statem ents p o stu latin g a p artic u la r type o f novel, evaluating various solutions o f style and com po sition, or various subjects. T hose p ronouncem ents were o f a publicist o r persuasive ch a rac te r which influenced their term in o lo g y —casual, n o t consequent, and no t very precise. N o t m uch b etter was the descriptive equ ipm ent applied in w orks o f analytical am bitio n. D ib eliu s’ m o n o g rap h d eterm in ed first o f all the range o f problem s and the m eth od o f analysis while being less concerned with description. As a result alm ost every stud ent o f novels was obliged to invent his own term s to call his conclusions (SI 157). O f course this could n o t lead to the em ergence o f a trad itio n in the studies o f the novel, consequently in the p ostw ar period “on m any occasions the theoretical jo u rn ey
121
once m ade by the predecessors h ad now to be re p eated ” (SI 158). In the work “D ra m at a teatr w polskich dyskusjach teoretycz n ych” (D ram a and T heatre in P olish T heoretical D iscussions), included in the volum e under review, M arkiew icz deals with the three lines o f reflection on the relationship between d ra m a and th eatre: the literary, theatrical and utraquistic one. E ach o f them used to define the status o f the d ram atic text in a p articu lar way. T he first o f them opted for its full au tonom y, second regarded it as a so rt o f “theatrical sco re,” third gave equal rights to the literary and th eatrical aspects o f dram a. M arkiew icz pays m uch atten tio n to the language in which all these conceptions were form ulated. It is here precisely, m ore th an in any o th er area, th a t the concep tual u n certain ty and term inological inconsistency o f literary studies are m ost apparent. A sem antic freedom m ars, am ong others, the basic term o f the theatrical conception, one o f “the theatrical score” which, according to M arkiew icz, is m erely a m etap h o rical expression (SI 175).
O f p artic u la r interest is a study concerned b o th with the history o f literatu re and o f social aw areness “ R odow ód i losy m itu trzech wieszczów” (The O rigin and E volution o f the M yth o f P o la n d ’s T hree G re a t N a tio n al Poets). The equal “h eroes” o f th a t study are the m yth, being at once an elem ent o f social aw areness and a m eans o f social com m un ication (“a sort o f genre” 6) and the word w ieszcz (great n atio n al poet). W hile analysing the sem antics o f this w ord M arkiew icz d em o nstrates how it was assum ing new m eanings and how those m eanings were taking shape in literary works. F rom the 17th century the w ord wieszcz m eant “p o e t” (“co n tem p o rary p o e t”), then aro u n d 1831 new m eaning appeared, th at o f a p ro p h e t which a decade later prevailed com pletely over the sem antics o f th a t w ord (SI 181 — 187). In the early 1860s there ap peared the fo rm u la o f the three wieszczs which once m ore changed the sem antics o f the term . The w ord lost then its half-sacral ch a rac te r and began m eaning an exceptional p o sition am ong the w riters (S 207—213).
6 A term used by K . B a r t o s z e w s k i in the d isc u ssio n on E. K u ź m a ’s paper read at a co n fe r e n c e o n th e N e w M e th o d o lo g ic a l P ro b le m s in the S cien ce o f L iterature (A pril 1 4 — 16, 1986, W arsaw ).
122
The evolution in the sem antics o f the w ord wieszcz went to gether with the fo rm atio n in the social aw areness o f a singular literary m yth. The m yth o f the three great n atio n al poets em bodied the m yth o f som ething exceptional which to L. G um plow icz was a m anifestation o f the social d ream s o f p ro g ress.7 T hus the conception o f the three national p oets m et the dem and for a tria d o f great au th o rs (SI 201) and becam e in tim e a special in terp re tatio n o f the literary p ast and a socially accepted m an ner o f regarding th at past. The category o f m yth, as presented by M arkiew icz, enables us to follow the process o f deg rad atio n the co nceptio n o f the three nation al poets h ad underg one d urin g those several decades. So a n otion o f a clearly scholarly origin becam e a m yth which had to provoke a reactio n am o n g the scholars (the fam ous cam paign o f Boy-Żeleński against the devotees, SI 2 9 —31). This reactio n was directed against the m yth as a special literary discourse. But it did n o t affect the vitality o f th a t m yth as a figure in social aw areness.
H ere we can try to arrive at a sum m ary ch aracteristic o f the m odel o f the science o f literature suggested by M arkiew icz in the books under discussion. So above the history od paradigm s, history o f term s he puts the history o f literary aw areness. This in terp retatio n o f the science’s past m akes it possible to cap tu re its self-awareness. M arkiew icz is therefore interested, while describing th a t past, in the statem ents which show the m ethodological aw areness o f the science o f literature, a realization how far can reach knowledge, w hat are the rules o f study and the norm s to be observed in an analysis o f a w ork o f literature.
This kind o f a m odel o f the science o f literatu re im plies the necessity to create a p ro p e r language, or ra th e r m eta-language, since the object o f interest in this m odel are the term s which, within th e given paradigm , help to trace o u t and o rd er the area o f th a t science. W hile w riting ab o u t the “tran sfo rm atio n s o f ergo- graph ics” M arkiew icz justifies the necessity o f using neologism s as fo llo w s:
In order to [ ...] put all the p r o n o u n c e m e n ts on a p articular w o rk o f literature in a term su p erior and neutral in rela tio n to the earlier n o m e n c la tu re a term o f “e r g o g r a p h ic s” has been coin ed (SI 44).
7 See L. G u m p l o w i c z , S y s te m so c jo lo g ii (S y ste m o f S o c io lo g y ), W arszaw a 1886, p. 469.
The w ord “ergo graphics” is thus a lexical elem ent o f “an interm ediary language which m akes it possible —as J. Sławiński has p u t it —to tran slate statem ents from one dialect o f the science o f literature into a n o th e r.” 8
The language-interm ediary enables us to tran slate n o t only from one “dialect” to an o th er b u t also from the “historical k in d ” o f th a t b ra n c h ’s language to ano th er. “E rg ograph ics” is therefore a term relating to a so rt o f esperanto in literary studies and has been created for two reasons. F irst there is a need for co m m unication between the representatives o f various research schools (users o f various “dialects”), and seco n d —a need for a historical synthesis which has to cope with the historical variability o f styles in discussing literature.
The descriptive equ ipm ent suggested by M arkiew icz in his W y m iary dzieła literackiego caters first o f all for the first o f these needs. The creation o f a language-interm ediary, n eu tral in relation to the languages o f p articu lar lines o f research, m akes it possible to refer these lines o f th o u g h t to one an o th er an d thereby to present their o u tp u t system atically and synthetically. W ith o u t a language o f th a t so rt the science o f literatu re o f tod ay looks like a Babel Tow er. Indeed the biblical story a b o u t the co nfusion o f languages can be qu oted as a to po s applicable to the p resen t state o f the b ran ch under discussion (and this co m p ariso n is used by am ong o th ers: E. O lson, R. W ellek, E. D. H irsc h ).9 O ne can consider the plurality o f languages as the sym ptom s o f a science’s crisis (R. Wellek) or as a sign o f its developm ent (E. O lson). Anyway the stylistic m ultiplicity in the arg u m en tatio n s o f th e science o f literature m akes one n atu ra lly think o f th a t b ra n c h ’s language. E. O lson indicated th a t a statem ent is n o t false sim ply because it is incom prehensible, th o u g h it m u st be m ade com prehensible before it can be said to be true. i°
x S ł a w i ń s k i , “ P r o b le m y ...,” p. 213.
9 See M . G ł o w i ń s k i , “ W ieża B a b el? W o k ó ł a n to lo g ii H en ryk a M a rk iew icza ” (The Babel T o w e r? O n the A n th o lo g y o f H. M .), [in:] S ty le odbioru , K ra k ó w 1977.
10 E. O l s o n , “ Zarys teorii p o e z ji” (A n O u tlin e o f th e T h eo r y o f P o etry ), transl. M . K a n io w a , [in:] W sp ó łcze sn a teo ria badań lite ra c k ic h za g ra n icą , ed. H . M a rk iew icz, v ol. 1, K r a k ó w 1976, p. 303.
T he interm ediary lang uag e suggested by M arkiew icz in his w ork has to d o with the basic m orph olo gical categories o f literary c re a tio n : the stylistic o n e s—“ U w agi o sem antyce i budow ie m etafo ry ” (On Sem antics and the S tru ctu re o f a M etap h o re), “ M orfologia d ialo g u ” (The M orph ology o f a D ialogue), com p o sitio n al o n e s —“ A u to r i n a r r a to r” (A uthor an d N a rra to r), “Z aw arto ść n arracy jn a i schem at fa b u la rn y ” (N a rra tio n an d the F ictional Schem e), “C zas i przestrzeń w utw o rach n arrac y jn y c h ” (Time an d Space in N arrativ e W orks), “P o stać literack a” (C h aracter in L iteratu re), “O d b ió r i o d b io rca w b ad an iach literack ich ,” an d the ideological o n e s— “D zieło literackie a id eologia” (L iterary W o rk and Ideology). This language covers also: the figurativeness—“O brazow ość a ikoniczność lite ratu ry ” (The Figurativeness an d Ic o n o g rap h y o f L iteratu re), th e literary p ro c ess— “Proces literacki w świetle stru k tu ralizm u i m ark sizm u ” (The L iterary Process in the Light o f S tructuralism and M arxism ), an d th e litera ry in te rp re ta tio n —“ In te rp re ta c ja sem antyczna dzieł literack ich .”
A n im p o rta n t feature o f the descriptive eq uipm ent p ro p o se d by M arkiew icz is its capacity to consider literary statem ents w ithin the context o f statem ents o f a n o th e r type. T h u s this eq uipm ent m akes it possible to integrate literary research w ith the study o f o th er form s o f social co m m u n icatio n (dialogue, no n-literary n a rra tio n , ideological statem ents). T h e essential co m p o n en t o f the suggested equipm ent is the intellectual ap p a ra tu s included in the co n tem p o rary theory o f the text. A n ap plication o f this p artic u la r a p p a ra tu s can be seen especially in the studies on th e figurativeness and icono graphy, on m etap h o re, n arrativ e co n ten ts an d the plot.
In creatin g the in term ediary language M arkiew icz has been guided by the principle o f “ a ra tio n a l use o f literary term in olo gy ” (SI 126). Because o f this principle he is against the sem antic defo rm atio n o f the term s: “d ialo g u e” (W dl, 61), “space” (Wdl, 142), o r the cate gories relating to the read er (W dl, 224). Being overloaded with m eanings and always ready to abso rb new senses they have becom e useless in research.
T he necessity to separate p h en o m en a th a t only a p p e ar sim ilar calls for term inological invention which cou ld overcom e the sh o rtco m ings o f the existing n o m en clature in the science o f literature. In the conclusion o f his study “O brazow ość a ikoniczność lite ra tu ry ” the a u th o r justifies his linguistic suggestions like this:
T h ese term s [he refers to such term s as “sham m e ta sig n s” , th e reference c o p y in g m e ta s ig n s— W .T .) m ust so u n d c lu m sy and co m p lic a ted — but this is alas the prize to be p a id for te r m in o lo g ic a l accu racy in the h u m a n ities (W dl, 42).
Indeed the d em an d for precision, along with th at o f m eth o d o lo gical n eutrality justifies such strings o f term s as: the evocatory m etaphore, co n fro n ta tio n m étap hore, co n frontation -ev ocatory m é ta p h o re ; th e a u th o r-n a rra to r, th o u g h t-u p n a rra to r, asserting n a rra to r, thinking-up n a rra to r, au to tro p ica l, allotropical, introspective, ex- traspective o rie n ta tio n ; form u latio n , link, section, sequence, course o f n arratio n , fictional co ntents, m otive, fictional line, fictional net w o rk —o r such as: the projected reader, adeq uate reader, virtual reader, poten tial reader. M arkiew icz does no t avoid o f course the long-standing term s in research, such as “subject,” “them e”. H e also m akes use o f term s from outside the science o f literature (“setting” , “ steering system ”). O n each occasion however, he takes the term s th at have already been used, investigates their sense, corrects them som etim es, m akes clearer and always univocal.
In place o f a p reface M arkiew icz quotes in his b o o k four citations, one o f w hich characterizes very well his research p ro g ram me. W ładysław T atarkiew icz w rote: “All I w ant is to clearly arrange the n o tio n s I am m aking use o f — this is n o t so little after all. A nd I rejoice when they d o fit in nicely.” In Św iado m ość literatury M arkiew icz recalls a related th o u g h t o f W. T ata rk ie wicz: “A m biguity, once it has been realized, ceases to be d ang er o u s” (SI 125).
M arkiew icz declares him self in his latest b ooks as an advocate o f m ethodological pluralism and o f m any styles when discussing literature. H e shows on m any occasions how studies referring to various assum p tions lead to co m plem entary solutions, correcting one an o th er and becom ing fru itfu l—“O brazow ość a ikoniczność literatu ry ,” “Proces literacki w świetle stru k tu ralizm u i m ark sizm u .” So for instance when he considers the question o f a language for “the personological d escrip tio n o f ch a ra c te rs” he opts for a m ulti plicity o f descriptive procedures, w ishing them only to be used consciously and consistently (Wdl, 162). W hile draw ing up the “alg o rith m s” in a d escription o f v arious com position elem ents (dialogue, n a rra to r, ch a rac te r, reader) h e stresses their undefinibility and restricted range o f application.
T h e interm ediatery language, suggested in M arkiew icz’s book s does n o t a im —let us stress it once m ore —to elim inate o th er ways o f dealing with literature. It does how ever give a chance fo r the science o f literature, for all its m ethodological and stylistic variety, to preserve its identity. M arkiew icz’s language is m ean t fo r an “intern al use,” ra th e r w ithout am b itio n for “external usage.” The latter is served by the stan d ard language, the one o f dictionaries. T o w ork o u t it constitutes also a very im p o rtan t task, only p artly co ncu rren t with M arkiew icz’s research program m e.
T he paradigm atic and m ultistyle m odel o f the science o f litera ture presented by M arkiew icz in his boo ks has been supplem ented by him w ith one m ore feature. The research parad igm s, cano ns o f description, the m ore or less consistent term s form only a general fram ew ork for literary studies. These being also d eterm ined to a large extent by the personality o f the researcher. T h us the science o f literatu re can n o t com pletely give up nam es because “a discussion ab o u t a w ork o f literatu re rem ains always a sort o f a r t” (Wdl, 166).
Bohdan T o m a sik T ransl. by L u d w ik W ie w ió rk o w sk i
J e r z y J a r z ę b s k i , Gra w Gombrowicza (Game Gombrowicz), P a ń stwowy Instytut W ydawniczy, W arszaw a 1982, 515 pp.
In 1981, the W ydaw nictw o Literackie o f C racow published A n drzej Falkiew icz’s collection o f essays called P o lski kosm os. D ziesięć
esejów p rzy Gombrowiczu (A Polish Microcosm. Ten Essays Following Gombrowicz). T h a t was the first book on G o m brow icz to ap pear in socialist P oland . Falkiew icz’s essays, how ever, are extrem ely learned in ch aracter and at places the a u th o r is ram blingly m oving aw ay from the m ain topic. This is why Jerzy Jarzęb sk i’s book, which appeared in W arsaw a year later, should actually be regarded as a first-ever com prehensive study o f G om brow icz. A pparently, the early 1980s proved an auspicious period for the au th o r o f Ferdydurke.
S hortly after cam e o u t o f p rin t Jarzęb sk i’s book skim m ed two prestigious p rizes—th a t aw arded by the Scientific Secretary o f the Polish A cadem y o f Sciences and the literary aw ard o f the K ościelski E ndow m ent o f Switzerland.
