Marian Płachecki
"Pozytywizm", Henryk Markiewicz,
Warszawa 1978 : [recenzja]
Literary Studies in Poland 6, 119-121
1980
C o m p tes rendus de livres 119 H e n r y k M a r k i e w i c z , Pozytywizm (Positivism), P W N , W arszaw a 1978, pp. 626. Series: H istoria L iteratury Polskiej (The H istory o f Polish L iterature).
P ozytyw izm by H enryk M arkiewicz is a com prehensive critical study o f the developm ent o f Polish literature in the years 1864— 1890. In some chapters the a u th o r goes beyond the second d ate: he follows up till ab o u t 1910 the literary careers o f the w riters o f the oldest generation who m ade their literary debut soon after 1864 (Asnyk, O rzeszkow a, Świętochowski, Prus, Sienkiewicz, T arnow ski, C hm ie lowski), and the careers o f the second generation who began w riting aro u n d 1880 (K onopnicka, Dygasiński, Sygietyński, W itkiewicz, Z a polska) are followed up till 1905. He also presents the early w orks o f the w riters o f the Y oung P oland m ovem ent, which date from the years 1 8 8 9 -1 8 9 4 .
The m ain category used by M arkiewicz to classify literary texts is th at o f genres. However, the above list o f nam es an d dates is enough to show th at the au th o r was not aim ing a t reconstructing the strictly im m anent evolution o f “The novel and the short sto ry ,” o f “D ra m a ” and “P o etry ” (these are the titles o f the m ain p arts o f the book). He in fact presents three sets o f co-ordinates which intersect one an o th er: the im m anent evolution o f literature is shown against a backg ro und o f collective biographies o f whole generations o f writers, and these form a p art o f the rich, heterogeneous and ever-changing political and social life in p artitio n ed Poland. T his is why M arkiew icz’s book, which contains separate, w ell-docum ented chapters on jo urn alism , p o p u lar literature (for peasants and young people), factual accounts (m em oirs and travels), literary and art criticism and history, as well as arts in general, is so different from the narrow ness o f the trad itio n al approach. The choice o f literary m aterial is a result o f understan d in g culture as a com plex whole in which, according to M arkiewicz, literature plays an active p art. How then can it be considered on its own, irrespective o f the other dom ains o f culture, since they are all intricately related ?
M arkiewicz refers to the principal categories o f historical m ate rialism and supplem ents them with detailed historical, sociological and literary criteria. H istorical facts which belong to different cate gories are never mixed. In his reasoning and in the lay-out o f his
120 B ook R e view s
w ork M arkiewicz distinguishes rem arks concerning changes in the social and econom ic system from the description o f the conditions and the norm s o f the ideological life o f the society, and he sets the latter ap a rt from an analysis o f the inner history o f ideas and from reconstructions in the field o f historical poetics. A strict b u t undogm a- tic delim itation o f diverse dom ain s o f culture m akes way for a new and inventive way o f looking a t the problem s which are particu lar to each o f them . H enryk M arkiew icz con centrates on m atters o f poetics and ideology (together with its social roo ts and repercussions), and this distinguishes P ozytyw izm from the trad itio n al post-w ar studies on this period in literature. F urtherm o re, his way o f looking at culture m akes it possible for him to establish a historically and m ethodologically plausible hierarchy o f dom ains an d to show their interdependence as well as the areas o f intersection and p en e tra tion. As a result o f this, the literary w ork is n o t directly co nfronted with class interests and social needs. It is neither their inert vehicle n or their socio-technical tool. A nd the carefully reconstructed role o f literary trad itio n does n o t stifle its ideological message.
The clear picture o f the developm ent o f literature found in P ozytyw izm is helped along by the fact th at the au th o r does n ot evade aw kw ard questions, which w ould ap pear to be a threat to this clarity. Thus the b oo k is interw oven with the problem s o f the relatively im m anent self-destruction o f Positivism , which in fact results from the collision o f the inner co ntradictio ns o f the trend with the socio-cultural norm s an d processes which have ac com p an ied its developm ent, and it follows an overall change in literature, when the existing trend is replaced with a new one. The antinom ies o f the Positivist literary program m e, whose artistry served the aim s o f social m obilization, and o n the o th er h and the processes o f co n flict but also o f the m utual pen etratio n o f realistic and m odernistic poetics — these two sets o f problem s are discussed here fo r the first tim e in such a consistent an d w ell-docum ented way.
The next feature o f the a u th o r’s critical m ethod may be discerned in the way he deals w ith historical detail. Even though he is careful to create a clear picture o f the evolution o f literature —and this m akes P ozytyw izm a boo k o f great educational value —the a u th o r never allows hypostases to take over. A t no p oin t in the book does the reader have any d o u b t as to the fact th at it is not processes,
C o m p te s rendus de livres 121 tendencies, trends, poetics or ideas, which shape the history and the literature o f a nation, but socially involved individuals.
The same can be said ab o u t the a u th o r’s attitu d e tow ards literary texts. Instead o f describing abstract m odels o f literary works, as is often the case now adays, M arkiew icz adroitly analyzes each o f them separately; however, he always puts them into general categories. By presenting an individual case he unveils the general norm s which structuralize the literary process. But even here M arkiewicz is careful to find the right p ro p o rtio n s between the w riter’s initiative and the literary and social norm s which he m ust follow. By m aking the category o f genre the basis for his considerations, he rejects the traditional model o f a m onographical study, which was in fact nothing m ore th an a bio- and bibliographic dictionary cam ouflaged as a critical study.
Students and anyone interested in the literature o f the Positivist period (and in realistic literature in general) will welcome this stan d ard book o n the subject. P ozytyw izm by H enryk M arkiewicz will be a guide for future studies on Polish literatu re o f the 30-year period between 1864 and 1894.
Sum . by M arian P la c h e ck i T ransi, by A g n ieszk a K u ku lska
E d w a r d P i e ś c i k o w s k i : „Emancypantki” Bolesława Prusa (Les
«E m ancipées» de Bolesław Prus), Państw ow y Instytut W ydawniczy,
W arszawa 1970; Bolesław Prus, Państw ow e W ydawnictwo N aukow e, W arszawa 1977, 210 pp.
La mise en regard de deux études de la m êm e plum e m ais de genres différents: une m onographie d ’un rom an et un p o rtra it littéraire de l’écrivain — une analyse des Em ancypantki (Les Emanci pées) et une synthèse de l’acquis de Bolesław Prus — illustre bien les intérêts d ’E dw ard Pieścikowski, historien de la littérature, spécia liste du positivism e, notam m ent de l’oeuvre de Bolesław Prus.
A vant de p énétrer dans l’univers des con fro n tatio n s factolo- giques et descriptives auxquelles se livre le chercheur, il convient de citer la phrase de Jan Parandow ski avec laquelle Pieścikowski term ine l’étude en question: « C ’est une vérité bien connue que le
