"Swojskość i cudzoziemszczyzna w dziejach kultury polskiej", red. Zofia Stefanowska, Warszawa 1973 : [recenzja]

Luigi Marinelli

"Swojskość i cudzoziemszczyzna w

dziejach kultury polskiej", red. Zofia

Stefanowska, Warszawa 1973 :

[recenzja]

Literary Studies in Poland 19, 144-160

144 B o o k R e v ie w s

reason), and also as the m o tif o f different times, in w hich Icarus (and also a R enaissance artist) could fulfil his purposes.

P elc’s boo k builds up a synthesis ou t o f a great nu m ber o f m icroanalyses. This m akes his study very useful for h istorians o f literature. The read er is offered the im age o f the epoch in m otion and realized th a t the m ovem ent was a prolific dialoque o f P oland with the rest o f the West.

Sum . by A n to n i C z y z Transl. b y Z o fia L esin sk a

Swojskość i cudzoziemszczyzna w dziejach kultury polskiej (The Native and Foreign Trends in the History o f Polish Culture), ed. by Zofia

S tefanow ska, P W N , W arszaw a 1973, 411 pp.

In this review, the P olish w ords swojskość and cudzoziem szczyzna are generally tran slated as “native and foreign tren d s,” a solution which can no t render the various im plications and co n n o tatio n s o f the two concepts (in cudzoziem szczyzna the elem ents o f fashion and ap proval for any kinds o f im po rt from ab ro ad is very strong). These no tio ns are deeply ro o ted in the linguistic and cultural co n ­ sciousness o f the Poles, which w ould be enough to give im portance to the book un d er discussion. This can be considered a synthesis o f Polish cu ltu ral history from the p o int o f view o f the attach m en t to local traditio ns and yet o f the openness to foreign or, in any case, “alien” elem ents.

Foreign and alien do n o t pose the sam e term inological problem s,

since they rend er quite well the distinction betw een obcy, cudzy on the one han d , and cudzoziem ski on the other, which is reaffirmed m ore than once in o ur book.

H istorically, th a t which is not related to a certain native or local culture is by no m eans said to be foreign because o f its nationality , bu t m erely outside or alien (in Polish, precisely obey,

cudzy), outside the b ound s o f a certain social, political, econom ic,

linguistic, ethnic or religious p red o m in atin g group. This is even m ore obvious in those p erio d s o f history in which a regular consciousness o f peo ples’ n atio n al m em bership was n o t yet shaped

(up to the 15th-16th century), o r was ju st tak ing shape (up to the 19th century). In the m ultinational and polyethnic h istory o f Polish culture, expressed in various socio-religious, politico-econom ic, regional-linguistic contexts, the distinction between foreign and alien appears to be fu nd am ental to an u n d erstan d in g o f the dialectics which are internal to th a t culture and its evolution. T o cite ju st a few o f the “issues” : the L ith u an ian and the R u th en ian , the Slesian, the Jewish, the culture o f nobles and the intellectual p ro ­ letariat, the m edieval L atin literary trad itio n and the Slavonic verna­ cular, the “ru ra lity ” o f the native trad itio n and the propulsive role o f the cities, ect.

In spite of, b u t very m uch th ank s to those, som etim es lacerating, divisions, thanks also to th a t dialectic— which in the gloom y periods transform s itself into the incontestable and dictatorial d o m in atio n o f one p articular group (social, ethnic, religious, econom ic, political, linguistic, etc.) over the o th e rs—exactly thanks to its variety, Polish culture preserved itself in the greater m om ents o f crisis and danger for its own survivl, w hether the causes were native o r foreign.

The boo k we are introducing is com posed o f the m aterials, enlarged and partly m odified, related to the scientific C onference W alka

z cudzoziem szczyzną w kulturze polskiej. Ksenofobia i postaw a otwarta (The struggle with the foreign trend in Polish culture. Xenophobia and open attitude), organized by the group o f scholars d ealing with

psychosociology o f literature in the Institute o f L iterary Studies (IBL) o f the Polish A cadem y o f Sciences (PA N ), held in W arsaw , novem ber 25—27, 1971.1

1 T h ese are, in E nglish tra n sla tio n , the titles o f the p ap ers in clu d ed in the b o o k — B. Z ientara: F oreign ers in P o la n d b etw een the 10th and 15th c e n t.: their role in the m irror o f P o lish m ed ieval o p in io n ; J. K lo c z o w sk i: T h e P o le s and foreign ers in the 15th c e n t.; A . W yczariski: C o n sid e r a tio n s a b o u t x e n o p h o b ia in P o la n d d u rin g the 16th c e n t.; J. T azbir: T he relation with foreign ers d u rin g the B aroqu e A g e; J. M ich a lsk i: S arm atian trend and eu r o p e a n iz a tio n o f P o la n d in the 18th c en t.; M . K lim o w ic z : F oreign and n ative trends. E lem en ts o f P o lis h cu lture d u rin g the E n lig h ten m en t; J. Jed lick i: P o lish id e o lo g ic a l cu rren ts in fron t o f W estern civ iliz a tio n b etw een 1790 and 1863; T. L e p k o w sk i: R em a rk s on m o n o - and p o ly eth n icism o f the P o lish n a tio n in the 1st h a lf o f th e 19th c en t.; Z. S te fa n o w sk a : M ick iew icz “am idst alien e le m e n ts” ; B. S karga: Is P o sitiv is m an a n tin a tio n a l trend?; J. J. L ip ski: T he m yth o f the n a tiv e n e ss o f cu ltu r e (on the e x a m p le o f the recep tion o f K asp row icz).

146 B o o k R e view s

An issue im m ediately connected to o ur tem inological an d sem antic pream ble is the change o f the title in its passing form the “oral fo rm ” o f the scientific conference to the “w ritten fo rm ” o f the book. U ndoubtedly, it is not only a m atter o f style. In fact, if it is true th a t the sem antic space o f the m ore neutral “native and foreign tren d s” implies also the sense o f the struggle, it is n o t true at a ll—and this is the com m on corollary o f all the p ap e rs o f the conference— th a t the struggle with the foreign elem ent h as been the crucial co n dition in the creation o f a national conscience o f Polish culture.

Also in som e recent studies o f the evolution o f th e P olish ver­ nacular as a literary lan guage—a field o f study close and sim ilar to o u rs2—there has occurred a correspo nd in g passing from the “aggressive” tone o f the term walka o ję z y k (struggle fo r the language), th a t was greatly in fashion in the 50s, to the m ore n eutral, and m uch m ore historically grounded, “language q u estio n .” 3 It is to be pointed out, how ever, th at m any incitem ents for the co rrection o f these term s cam e from foreign scholars as C. Backvis, R . Picchio, H. G old blatt, and o th e rs .4

2 A p ro o f o f this is, for exam p le, the ex cellen t essay o f B. O t w i n o w s k a , „P rob lem y ję z y k a ja k o w yraz k szta łto w a n ia się św ia d o m o śc i n a ro d o w ej w literaturze r en esa n su ” (P rob lem s o f th e L an gu age as an E xp ression o f the M a k in g o f a N a tio n a l C o n sc io u sn e ss in R en a issa n ce L iterature), [in:] P ro b le m y lite ra tu r y s ta r o p o ls k ie j I, ed. b y J. Pelc. W rocław 1972, and in general her b o o k J ę z y k — n a ró d — k u ltu ra .

A n teceden cje i m o ty w y renesan sow ej m y ś li o ję z y k u (L a n g u a g e— N a tio n — C ulture. A n tece d en ts a n d M o tiv e s o f R enaissan ce T hought on L a n gu age), W rocław 1974.

3 M . R. M a y e n o w a ’s “u n certa in ty ” is interesting. T he title o f her m o st recent essay on this to p ic is “ A sp e cts o f the L an gu age Q u estio n in P o la n d from the M id d le o f the 15th C en t, to the T hird D e c a d e o f the 19th C e n t.” ([in:] A sp e c ts

o f the S la vic L angu age Q u estio n , ed. by R . P ic ch io and H. G o ld b la tt, v ol. 1, N e w

H aven 1984), but she o p en s it w ith th e se w ord s: „It is gen erally accep ted that the ap p earan ce o f the first o rto g ra p h ic treatise for P olish [ ...] m arks the b eg in n in g o f the stru g g le for the e x clu siv e use o f the n a tiv e lan gu age in th e cultural life o f the P o lish la n d s” (my italics, L. M .).

4 Cf. C . B a c k v i s , “Q u elq u es rem arques sur le b ilin g u ism e la tin o -p o lo n a is

d a n s la P o lo g n e du .X V Ie s. “C o m m u n ic a tio n s p résen tée au C o n g r è s d e S la v istiq u e d e M o sc o u , 1— 10 IX 1958; R. P i c c h i o : “ G u id elin es for a C o m p a r a tiv e S tu d y o f the L an gu age Q u estio n a m o n g the S la v a ,” [in:] A sp e c ts o f th e S la v ic L angu age

Q u estio n , vol. 1; “ P rincip les o f C o m p a ra tiv e S la v ic -R o m a n c e Literary H is to r y ,”

[in :] A m erican C o n trib u tio n s to the V III In tern a tio n a l C on gress o f S la v ists ( Z a g re b

The “non-aggressiveness” o f ihe w ords reflects, in both cases, the non-dogm atism o f the assum ptions, and in this sense the co n tri­ butio n o f the foreign elem ent to the cultural (and literary-linguistic) choices o f a n atio n can be now identified with the trad itio n o f tah t nation itself. This is the them atic centre o f the sober afterw ords by S. T re g u tt (here translated), were the w ords xenophobia and xenom ania, inasm uch they are signs o f passivity or m ere aggressi­ veness, give their place in historical studies to the idea o f n atio nal trad itio n , seen as energeia, as an active and unceasing creative process o f the cultural identity o f a p eople/nation.

The b o o k we are dealing w ith, one o f the m ost interesting products o f the Polish cultu ral h istoriography in these last 20 years, clearly show s one fact: the periods when the extrem es were inclined to p red o m in ate (the aggressive position o f a to tal aversion tow ards the foreign influences o t the passive u nconditional acceptance o f them ), have co rresp o n d ed with a cultural decline, which was also political and econom ic. F ortu nately , it has often been a question o f trends, which found o pp ositio n in the vital forces o f the nation, m aybe a m inority, b u t always on the qui vive against the apathy, the cultural levelling, “p rem onitions o f num bness and o f historical d e a th ” (S. T reugutt). A 20th-century case o f an intellectual, exem plary in his isolation, who was in the fro n t line against the fictions and the com m onplaces o f history and culture, is W itold G om brow icz, “S a rm a tia n ” cosm opolitan, very inconsistently consistent in his u n ­ m asking o f the “Polish com plex,” revealer o f often displeasing tru th s a b o u t P oland and Polishness.

But o u r bo o k ends with the. Y oung P oland in Jan Jo zef L ipski’s essay on the „N atio n a l-D em o c ratic” reception o f K asp row icz’s poetry. We therefore ab an d o n the problem atic statem an t we have followed so far, and we shall continue by considering the reports in this b o o k ed ited by Zofia S tefanow ska in their chronological order.

*. * *

B enedykt Z ie n ta ra ’s pap er presents a very com plex, b ut lucid outline o f th e Polish attitu d e tow ards the foreign and alien elem ents

1978; H . G o l d b l a t t , "The L an gu age Q u estio n and the E m ergence o f Slavic N a ­ tio n a l L a n g u a g e s,” [ n :] The E m ergen ce o f N a tio n a l L a n g u a g es, ed. by A . S ca g lio n e, R a v en n a 1984.

B o o k R e v ie w s

from the 10th to the 15th century. In this p h a s e —when the contacts with the m ost developed states and countries o f W estern Europe were n o t so intense— the relations with the neigh bo urin g countries, such as B ohem ia, H ungary, L ithuania, are very im p o rtan t. These re la tio n s —particularly with B o h em ia—w orsen in the p erio d s o f eco­ nom ic crisis (13th century): while in a p eriod o f grow th, the 15th century, an d in spite o f the H ussitic heresy, the tw o cu ltu res are as their clo se st.5 F rom the beginning o f the 14th cen tury, however, the p ro b lem o f the foreigners in P o la n d can be identified, in one way, w ith the great G erm an im m igration. Tw o different m odes o f behav io u r can be noted tow ards G erm an colonists. Z ie n ta ra considers them exem plary for the whole p ario d , also tow ards the o th er n atio ­ nalities: 1) on the one hand, the u tilitaria n atten tio n (with attitu des .which ran g e from the selective exploitation o f the individual skills o f foreign “technicians” to xeno m an ia tout court); 2) on the other hand, chiefly the ruling classes’ suspicion th a t the increased technical com petence and the infiltration o f foreigners in som e spheres o f pow er (clergy, law, courts) could dam age the ethnic com pactness o f the

natio n . These tendencies, m ore or less opposite, can be fo un d in tw o en u n ciations which date back to ab o u t the sam e p erio d : the

Chronica Poloniae M aioris “m oves aw ay, susprisingly, from the atavic

stereotype o f the P olish-G erm an re la tio n s” (p. 19), asserting th at “there are no two countries in the w orld kindly am icable to each o th er as the Slavs and the G e rm a n s” (I.e.). But an ap parently unp rejudiced observer, such as the F rench au th o r o f the D escriptio

Europae Orientalis (of the beginning o f the 14th century), speaks

ab o u t a naturale odium betw een the Poles and the G erm ans, and it is in th a t tim e th at the successful pro v erb “Ja k św iat światem , nie będzie Niem iec P olakow i b ra te m ” (“ Since the world began, a G erm an will never be b ro th er o f a P o le”) has its origin. But

5 W e m u st m e n tio n o n this sub ject A . B r u c k n e r ’s fa m o u s w o rd s: “A s C asim ir the G rea t v iew ed C h arles, thus did C r a c o w v iew ed P ragu e, and o n e c o u n tr y th e o th e r; from there ev ery th in g w as ta k e n , fro m m o n e y to sp e llin g ” (C y w iliz a c ja

i j ę z y k — C iv iliza tio n n a d L angu age, W arszaw a 1901, p. 52), o ften q u o ted b y R . J a ­

k o b s o n in his stu d ies o f C z e c h -P o lish cu ltural re la tio n s in the M id d le A g e s — cf. “P o ls k a literatu ra śr ed n io w ie czn a a C z e s i” (P olish M ed iev a l L iterature an d th e C zec h s), K u ltu ra , 1953, n o 6, and „S zczu p a k p o p o lsk u ” (Pike in the P o lish F a sh io n ), P ra c e P o lo n isty c zn e X X , 1965.

this “an ti-G erm an obsession” th a t “includes large sections o f the clergy and o f the gen try ” (p. 29) com es from a real d an g er: in a p erio d o f political w eakness, the idea o f the ethnical and linguistic unity o f the nation strengthens. In fact a linguistic criterion o f n atio n al belonging takes sh a p e —ję z y k and naród (language and nation) becom e alm ost synonim ous, and this criterion is ab a n d o n ed for th e discerning o f the general belonging to a higher state entity only after the second h alf o f the 14th and in the 15th century, “w ith the sta­ bilization o f the political relations and the reinforcem ent o f the Polish szlachta''' (p. 37). In this period, P o lan d deserves also the epithet o f “p arad isu s Ju d a e o ru m ” (m oreover, in m edieval P o lan d , Jews were considered “G erm an speaking,” therefore a religious v aria­ tion o f th at nationality). This title, in spite o f the in ten tio n s o f its creators, the W est-E uropean C atholic publicits who coined it as a pejorative term , rem ains as evidence th a t in the “golden a u tu m n ” o f the P olish M iddle Ages, “an open attitu d e tow ards the outside w orld d om inates, and this was pro bably one o f th e reason s for the rapid econom ic and cultural developm ent o f P o la n d in this p erio d ” (p. 37).

Jerzy K loczo w ski’s c o n trib u tio n is devoted to the 15th century, m ostly th ro u g h the filter o f Jan D lug osz’s historic w orks an d p artly th ro u g h those o f Jan O stroróg. This essay first o f all refers to the problem o f sources, o f their accessibility, o f their actual lack o f a good edition and o f “an ap p ro p riate u n d ersta n d in g o f their rhetorical and literary side, which is very im p o rtan t for all the texts o f this p e rio d ” (p. 41). B oth the 15th-century synonim ia o f natio and generatio (derivation o f the ethn o -n atio n al grou p from one ancestor) an d the recu rren t identification o f natio and partia are significant. So, too, is th e search for justifications, b o th religious (the local p a tro n sa in ts6) and a n tiq u aria n (D lugosz’s developm ent o f the Lechitic legend), for the unity o f culture and n atio n , which had already fou nd expression in the revived and streng then ed

6 G . L a b u d a , d u ly q u o te d by K ło c z o w sk i, w rote a b o u t W in c e n ty from K ie lc e ’s work o n St. S ta n isla s, o f a “sa c ra liza tio n o f P o lish h isto rica l p r o c e s s .” C f. “T w ó r c z o ść h a g io g ra fic zn a i h isto rio g ra ficzn a W in cen teg o z K ie lc ” (W. from K ie lc e ’s H a g io g ra p h ica l and H isto rio g ra p h ica l W ork s), S tu d ia Ź ró d lo zn a w c ze , 1971, 16.

150 B o o k R eview s

Regnum Poloniae. In this context, the op position betw een naturalis

and extraneus seems to be very im portant. F or D ługosz. P o la n d ’s ‘’n a tu ra l” boundaries are those o f Boleslas the B rave; while both the extinction o f the “n a tu ra l” dynasty and the co m ing to the throne o f “ex tran eo u s” kings have been a m isfortune. B ut D lug osz’s p atrio tism and an ti-L ithuanian attitu d e never becom e x en o p h o b ia; we find, indeed, not a few elem ents o f an open a ttitu d e (parti­ cularly tow ards foreigners who were C atholic) which goes along t\ith an inclination to m oral jud gem ent on men. K ioczow ski’s thesis is th at D lu g o sz’s ideas are fairly representative o f C rac o w ’s intellectual sphere, where bishop Oleśnicki was in the forefront, o f the local U niversity, o f the co u rt and royal chancellery, and o f the greater p a rt o f th a t in ternationally very active city. On the co n trary , Jan O stro ro g ’s xenophobic attitude, violently an ti-G erm an and adverse to the cosm opolitanism o f the intellectual sets, could largely represent the szlachta positions and m aybe the late 15th-century crisis o f the ideas o f a greater openness upheld by C racow U niversity. K ioczow ski’s hypothesis, in its schem aticity, m ust be highly appreciated, because it raises m atters no t yet thoroughly explained and which are also very im p o rtan t for an u n d erstand ing o f the follow ing p eriod o f the historico-politic thought, and o f all Polish cu lture betw een the 16th and the 17th centuries.

A ndrzej W yczahski’s p aper, which was not delivered at the conference in 1971, sets out a very sim ple idea: the effective opening o f Polish society in the 16th century and also the absence o f a hidden inferiority com plex (that often expresses itself throu gh n ation al m egalom ania) th an k s to the econom ic vigour and to the full p articip atio n o f P oland in the p an eu ro p ean cu ltural com m unity o f hum anism , R enaissance and R eform ation. All this caused “the 16th-century Polish society no t to be cut across by x en op ho bia tow ards foreigners, or tow ards ideas, custom s and p ro d u c ts com ing from a b ro a d ” (p. 70). N aturally, W yczanski’s description is ra th e r superficial. But sociologically speaking, th at is to say in b ro ad term s, he can no t be considered incorrect. Yet he forgets som e p h eno m ena which were ra th e r im p o rtan t for cultural life in the 16th century, for exam ple the “ italo p h o b ia” m entioned by H enryk B arycz.7 It is

7 C f. H . B a r y c z , “ Italofile i ita lo fo b i,” [in:] S p o jrze n ia vr p r z e s z ło ś ć p o ls k o -

C o m p te s rendus de livres

151

in this p erio d th a t the “black legends” o f C allim ach and Bona take shape. It was th o u g h t th a t the la tte r’s ascent to the Polish thron e w ould have m eant the in tro d u ctio n o f the insidiae italicae into the political an d governm ental systems. N o t to speak o f the religious context, w h ere—aro u n d the m id -cen tu ry —the o pposition to devotio

italica u nited C ath olic and P ro te sta n t writers, even if from different

poin ts o f view .8 N o r should one u nderstim ate M arcin B ielski’s an ti-Italian attitu d e , which was n o t free from generic elemets o f xenophobia. A fter the C ouncil o f T rent and the polarization o f the religious field, the situation becom es very m uch tense. W yczariski’s essay lacks a d iach ronic view which allows one to u n d erstand better the change fro m the prevaling openness in the 16th century to the suspiciousness and xeno p h o b ia righ t at the beginning o f the 17th ce n tu ry .9

A d iach ro n ic and typological ap p roach do n o t exclude each o th er in the excellent essay by Jan usz T azbir, who in several o f his scientific a n d p o p u lar w ritings has discussed the sam e issu es.10

8 B a r y c z , op. c it., m e n tio n s the c o n tr o v e r sy over the c u sto m o f Italian priests to sp ort beard an d m o u sta ch e, and tw o K r z y c k i’s ep igram s D e b a rb is sacerdotu m

a Paulum I I I and In P aulu m , p o n tific e m b a rb a tu m . Beard, m o u sta ch e, hair, c lo th in g ,

fa sh io n , g en era lly all that to d a y is ca lled “ lo c k ,” are im portan t elem en ts for the u n d e r sta n d in g o f th e d ia lectics b etw een foreign and native trend in th e m a k in g o f a n a tio n a l c u ltu r e. In ou r b o o k a lso , th ey have n o t been m uch co n sid er ed , m aybe b eca u se o f th e u su a l m isu n d ersto o d se n se o f their m inor scien tific “ se r io u sn e ss.” In fact we find a llu sio n s to them o n ly in T a z b ir’s p ap er (fash ion an d “lo o k ” are c o n stitu tiv e e le m e n ts o f the S arm atian th ea trica lity ), w here he, o p p o rtu n ely , refers a lso to an a m u sin g article by J. J e d l i c k i (“ G o lo n o , str z y ż o n o , czy li h istoria k sz ta łc i” —T h ey S h a v ed , C u t off, or H isto r y T e a ch es, T yg o d n ik P o w szech n y, 1971, n o 4 6 ), an d in B. G e r e m e k ’s in te rv en tio n in the d iscu ssio n (he is alw ays very a tten tiv e to th e “ m in o r ” or m ore o ften u n d erv a lu ed a sp ects o f h istory), w hen he m e n tio n s th a t “b e sid e the la n g u a g e, o th e r d istin g u ish in g elem en ts o f ‘n a tiv e n e ss’ ap p ear, and they ca n be traced in c lo th in g , in the extern al ap p earan ces and even in p erso n a l a c q u a in ta n c e s” (p. 327).

9 C f. J. T a z b i r : “ Z e stu d ió w nad k se n o fo b ią w P o lsc e w d o b ie p ó ź n e g o r e n e sa n su ” (S tu d ies o n X e n o p h o b ia in L ate R en a issa n ce P o la n d ), P rz e g lą d H isto ry c zn y , 1957; “ K s e n o fo b ia w P o lsc e w X V I i X V I I w .” (X e n o p h o b ia in P o la n d in the 16th and 17th C e n t.), [in:] A ria n ie i k a to lic y , W arszaw a 1971.

10 A m o n g T a z b i r ’s variou s stu d ies on this subject, after th e fun d am en tal

R z e c z p o s p o lita i św ia t. S tu d ia z d zie jó w k u ltu ry X V I I w. ( The R z. a n d the W orld. S tu d ie s on C u ltu ra l H isto r y o f the 17th C e n t.), W ro cła w 1971, o f w hich see the

152 B o o k R e view s

T he reciprocal charges o f extraneousness to P olish cu ltu re o f the reform ed and C atholic post-trid en tin e area are the back g ro u n d on which different epilogues em erge: the tragic banish m ent o f th e Polish B rethren and com ic linguistic m egalom ania (both for the franciscan D em bołęcki and for the arian exile N aro now icz-N aroń ski, A dam and Eve spoke Polish). S arm atian and b aro q u e rh eto ric su p p o rt each other in the hyperbole and in the grotesque (oranges, im ported from the coun tries o f the Jesuits, are cinsidered a very harm ful im port for n atio n al custom s). T he b aro q u e-sarm atian hyperbole, the xenophobic m egalom ania o f th e 17th-century Poland, according to Tazbir, stands up, fundam entally, th an k s to three dogm as: 1) the „b a rn o f E u ro p e” d o g m a; 2) the antemurale christianitatis; 3) the superiority o f the “gentry dem ocracy” regim e above others. T he fact th at, as time passed, these three dogm as m ore and m ore revealed them selves to be m yths in the face o f the econom ic, poli- tico-m ilitary and institutional reality o f the Rzeczpospolita, p a rti­ cularly after the “flood,” does n o t reduce, b u t increases the haughty jud gem ent ab o u t foreigners, w ho in their tu rn consider P o lan d as “ an exotic coun try, at least, if n o t a b a rb a ro u s o n e” (p. 97). T he exaggerated sense o f superiority with which foreign countries were regarded above all in th e second h a lf o f the century, raises the problem o f its own sincerity. F o r T azb ir it is a question o f an “o p iu m ” (p. 109), a m ixture o f m eg alo m ania and xen op ho bia adm inistered in incereasing q u antities in o rd er to reduce the anxiety caused by the increasing inferiority com plex an d by the criticism —m u l­ tiplied after the “flood” — o f the “ an arch ic” regim e o f R zeczpospolita

szlachecka. O n the o ther hand , S arm ation cu ltu ral syncretism , its

openness to the E ast (and the consequently very stron g influence o f Polish cultu re from and in th at direction), can be explained by a perception, on the p a rt o f P olish szlachta, o f the politico- -ideological and cultural systems o f M oscovia and the N ear Eeast as non-threatening. F o r them , the real danger was in the West. A t the same time, they trusted in the W est, and th ou gh t that, because

eu ro p ejsk iej” (P olan d in E u rop ean C u ltu re), [in:] S p o tk a n ia z h istorią, W arszaw a 1986; “P o m ięd zy E uropą a W sc h o d e m ” (B etw een E u ro p e and East) and “ W roli p o śr e d n ik ó w ” (A ctin g as G o -b e tw e e n ), [in:] M y ś l p o ls k a tv n o w o ży tn e j k u ltu rze

eu ro p e jsk iej, W arszaw a 1986; K u ltu ra p o ls k ie g o b a ro k u ( The C u ltu re o f P olish B a ­ roque), W arszaw a 1986.

o f those three “d o gm as,” and therefore for its own sake, Europe would d o everything in its pow er to avoid the fall o f the Polish state.

The history o f the fall o f these m yths and o f the final consciousness o f the cultural, institutional, econom ic backw ardness o f the n ation on the p a rt o f the Polish intellectuals, is told in the tw o rep orts th at follow, dedicated to the ideological dialectics o f E nlightenm ent, with particu lar consideration given to th e p roblem o f foreign p attern s in the process o f re-E urop ean ization o f P o lan d d urin g the 18th century. In both cases, one is very favourably struck by the adherence to texts : pam phleteering and political treatises for J. M ichalski; literary pam phleteering and d ra m a for M . Klimowicz.

T hrough S. G arczyhski’s, S. P o n ia to w sk i’s, S. K o n a rsk i’s and Stanislas A ug ustu s’s writings, th ro u g h Głos wolny, the M onitor and

Zabaw y Przyjem ne i Pożyteczne, etc., M ichalski reconstructs the

history o f “d esarm atian isatio n ” o f P olish culture by m eans o f the various degrees o f the reception and the receptivity o f the E uropean novelties. C onsequently the outline is very com plex and therefore difficult to sum m arize in a few lines. U n d er no circum stances can it be reduced to the superficial and stereotyped binary scheme

fra c vs kontusz, seen as progress vs conservativism , often proposed

form erly by Polish historiography. As C laude Backvis e x p la in e d ,11 the criticism o f absolutism o f the late E nlightenm ent finds very fertile g round in the Rzeczpospolita o f aurea libertas: the Sarm atian return, after the first partitio n , thrives u n d er the b an n er o f progressi- vism, n o t only o f patriotism , even if, as M ichalski prop erly rem arks, “ R o u sseau ’s ideas [Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne

et sa réforme projetée], literally and superficially taken, were grist

to the mill o f trad itio n alism ” (p. 156). A nd so for Staszic, who was a very fierce enemy o f despotism , P o land had to pass thorugh the stage o f absolute m onarchy. A t the sam e tim e he opposes the acritical idealization o f the foreign p attern s and violently attacks C zarto ry sk i’s an tisarm atian and reform ing ideas o f the beginning o f Stanislas A u g u stu s’ reign. In these antinom ies, in the (often app aren t) contradictio ns o f the writers o f the “enlightened” and o f the tra d i­ tionalist field q u o ted by M ichalski, one can see a faithful reflection

11 C f. C. B a c k v i s , “ Les C o n tr a d ic tio n s de l ’âge sta n isla v ie n ,” [in:] U to p ie

154 B o o k R e view s

o f the tragedy o f a natio n th at by all m eans tries to stop the rush tow ards its own destruction, and yet is conscious o f being unable so to do.

In the first p art o f his p aper, M ieczysław K lim ow icz is interested in the two m ain institutions (the M onitor pam phleteering and the national theatre), which form 1765 to the C onfederation o f Bar, took upon them selves the task o f “a d a p tin g ” (alm ost in the sense o f the classicist theory o f translation) the ideas o f the Enlightenm ent to Polish reality, which was anom alous for the lack, p articu larly as far as culture is concerned, o f a bourgeoisie and also for its backw ardness in all fields. This period o f stanislavian literatu re (optim istic, anti- sarm atian, xenophilic) was followed by the first changes o f m ind; and, after M ałżeństw o z kalendarza, B ohom olec w rote Staruszkiew icz. K rasicki, by then ou t o f the political fight, tried, successfully, to create a new h ero : Pan Podstoli is the result o f an enlightened synthesis o f trad itio n and in n o v a tio n .12 The youngest generation trained at the school o f E nlightenm ent (Staszic, K ołłątaj, Jezierski, Z abłocki, N iem cewicz and the Jacobins M ejer and Paw likow ski) went even further, with the p roposal o f a new m odel o f a nation-people, than ks to the dem olition o f the feudal privileges o f the aristocracy. The new heroes, “enlightened S arm ats,” o f N iem cewicz’s and Bo­ gusław skie p lay s—with a 180 degrees o vertu rnin g o f the positions .com pared to the old oppositions o f sarm acki and szarm ancki (from

charm ant)— are literary expressions o f the renaissance o f the Bar

trad itio n , o f the synthesis between the struggle for indipendence and progressivism , traditionalism and E nlightenm ent, th a t becam e stronger during K ościuszko’s insurrection. T he Jacobin priests M ejer, Jelski, K arpow icz were also p a rt o f this new tren d : how far from the satirical rep resen tation o f the m onk in the first p eriod o f stanislavian literature! F or K lim owicz, therefore,

in the cu lm in a tin g m om en t o f th e m a k in g o f the P o lish n a tio n , the b alan ce b etw een the foreign and n ative ‘trends ex p ressed itself o n the o n e hand in d raw in g insp iration from E u rop ean p rogressive th o u g h t w ith ou t fears or co m p le x e s, on the o th er hand in the necessary a p p reciation o f n a tio n a l valu es, a ck n o w led g in g them as the m ain factor in the m a k in g o f cu lture (p. 185).

12 C f. S. G r a c i o t t i . “ 11 v ecch io e il n u o v o nel P an P o d s to li di K r a sic k i,”

Jerzy Jedlicki turn s our atten tio n to the problem o f Polish occidentalism from 1790 to 1863, and tries to conciliate econom ic history and the history o f ideas, regarding some events external to the Polish historical and political process (m ost o f all the Industrial R evolution) as very im p o rtan t for the prosecu tion o f the ideal debate on the relations with the W est and on the role o f foreigners in P oland, at least as facts o f obvious dom estic significance such as the loss o f independence. This gives rise to a view th at is, in part, provocative (for this reason the discussion on this paper was very anim ated, b o th during and after the co n fere n ce13). If this view can recall the co n tem p o rary debate between occidentalists and slavophiles in R ussia on the one h and, on the o th er it is o f great value for it does no t restrict the investigation, reducing som e different positions into only two factions, because “the relation with the West seen as m odel o f industrial and cosm opolitan civilization did n ot determ ine in Poland the m ain lines o f the ideological divisions (whereas this happened in R ussia), however it becam e one o f the centres o f crystalli­ zation o f the views o f the w orld” (p. 190). F o r Jedlicki the fact is th a t

in the ideal stru ggle and in w o rk in g for a n a tio n a l e d u ca tio n , the d octrin es se ld o m a cted as co m p reh en siv e and o rg a n ized structures. T h e norm al co u rse o f things c a u se s their in d ivid u al m em b ers, th eories and slo g a n s to part from their bod y and to start an in d ep en d en t n ew life o f id e o lo g ic a l m o lecu les, ready to jo in again in n ew c o m b in a tio n s, often c o m p le te ly different from the origin al (pp. 218 — 219).

T hus certain antiurban istic and anticapitalistic positions o f Polish revo lu tio n ary em igration coincide paradoxically with those o f the trad itio n alist sectors o f Polish agrarianism , th a t is, o f those w h o — in the m iddle o f the 19th c e n tu ry —rem ained devoted to the Sarm atian d o gm a o f the barn. Both the occidentalist and the ethnocentric factions included a range o f political and ideological positions going from the extrem e “rig h t” to the extrem e “left.” T here was a certain stabilization only aro u n d the 1850s, with the reinforcem ent o f the pre-positivistic ideas, chiefly represented by Biblioteka Warszawska.

13 In the b o o k the co n tr ib u tio n s co n c e r n in g J e d lic k i’s paper (m ostly critical and from several p o in ts o f view ) are by: S. K ien iew icz. B. Skarga. M , K urzyna, R . C z e p u lis-R a ste n is, A . W itk ow sk a, M . J an ion , T. Ł e p k o w sk i, W. P etsch , with an e x ten siv e and articu late reply by Jed lick i h im self.

156 B o o k R e v ie w s

T his review which held a liberal, to lerant and open stance tow ards the intellectual and technological novelties com ing from the W e st—is opposed by Jedlicki to th e m axim alism o f the fighting dem ocracy (but see also D em bow ski’s position) th a t “slave to only one progress (the one o b tain ed throu gh dialectics) ignored th e o th er, obtained th ro u g h accu m u latio n ” (p. 228).

Z ofia S tefan o w sk a’s p ap e r on M ickiew icz’s “am b ig u ity ” is u nin ten ­ tionally an d im plicitly in conflict w ith Jedlick i’s theory. She defines th e p o et as the “forem ost codifier o f the P olish n atio n al m egalom ania, herald o f the struggle against the foreign cultu ral elem ent” (p. 225), and, at th e sam e tim e, prow incial lover o f his ow n L ithuanianness, enem y o f the “paving-over” o f all the ca p ita ls’ streets (W arsaw ’s an d P a ris ’ as well), b u t also “Polish, in h ab itan t o f E u ro p e ” for w hom “the sun o f T ru th does n o t know b o th O rien t and O ccident”

(To Joachim Lelewel, here cit. p. 257). F o r S tefanow ska the critical

m o m en t for M ickiew icz’s and his g en eratio n ’s spiritual evolution is the 1831 insurrection. T he subsequent d isapp earance o f every pretence o f institutional g uarantee m ean t th a t “from now onw ards M ickiew icz will think o f his own n a tio n ’s interests according to categ ories o f E u ropean policy” (pp. 261 — 262). N o longer will they be seen in the sense o f the universalistic ideals o f the E nlightenm ent, b u t in th e sense o f the need to reinforce the b o u n daries between E u ro p e a n d Asia, betw een civilization and b arb arity . F o r M ickiewicz this b o u n d a ry passes thro ug h R ussia itself: betw een the tsarist regim e and the R u ssian people, whose great vocation for the red em p tio n o f the n atio n s is the sam e as th a t o f P olan d. M ickiew icz’s rem arks a r e 'th e r e f o r e devoted m ore to the fu ture th an to th e past. The p e o p le/n a tio n for M ickiewicz, the a u th o r o f Pan Tadeusz and especially o f Slavonic Literature, is no t “a com m unity based on an ethnic exclusiveness, b u t on a pow er o f a ttra ctio n which cou ld synthesize different elem ents” (p. 274). His m ark ed broad-m ind ed ness tow ards the “P o lish Israelites” is o f a great significance in this respect. F o r S tefanow ska, M ickiew icz’s “am b ig u o u s” attitu d e to parochialism and E u ro p ean ism at the same tim e depends on the fact th at he is at once heir to the aristocratic odl-Polish trad itio n and yet beyond it: in th e Polish Pilgrim, which can be considered one o f M ickiew icz’s m ost x eno ph obic writings, the firm belief (certainly u top ian ) th a t the

C o m p te s rendus de livres

157

problem o f freedom is a p rob lem concerning all the peoples, w ith o u t boundaries or b arriers w hatsoever, is heavily underlined.

The divisions, in fact, are n o t always identified with the g eopo­ litical b o u n daries o f a n ation. It has already been affirm ed here, and T adeusz Lepkow ski d em onstrates it, listing four m odels o f heterogeneity o f the Polish p o p u latio n in the m id-19th ce n tu ry : its ethnic variety, social factors, the L ith u an ian and the Slesian question and increasing regionalization, religious problem s (particularly Jewish). L epkow ski deals with the positions taken up by th e genuinely Polish ethnic and cultural elem ent vis-a-vis the B yelorussian p roblem , the R uthenian question (soon after called U k rainian), the p ro blem s o f the Polish-C zech b o rd e rlan d and the G erm an ethnic p rob lem (particulary on the western and n o rth ern borders) an d th e m ore com plicated Jewish question. H e com es to this co n clu sio n : in the m id-19th century, theoretical position o f openness prevailed, b u t this approval o f polyethnism was m ore frequent in politically left-w ing circles and, geografically, was referred m ore to the ea ste rn th at to the w estern borders o f P oland. Even less did il con cern the centre, because o f the strong presence o f the Jews, w ho were, at best, required to assim ilate to P olish culture. G re a t d am ag e was caused to the “p lu ralistic” theories in the second h a lf o f the cen tury by the streng th ening o f the stereotyped re p resen tatio n o f the P o ­ lish-C atholic and by the change o f the left tow ards federalistic concepts (which are always dangero us for less p rotected m inorities), and o f the right to m ore and m ore exclusively m o n o eth n ic or exterm istically ethnocentric theories.

This is a m atter which relates to B arb a ra S k a rg a ’s question “w hether actually Positivism has been an an tin atio n al tren d o r [...] contained in itself tendencies leading straight to n atio n alism ” (p. 278). B oth the accusations, in fact, were addressed to it by co n tem p o raries, as well as in o ur century. The “dialectic o f Polish P o sitiv ism ” 14 is exam ined by Skarga on the grounds o f pam p h lets (1860— 1890)

14 T h e reference is to an im p o rta n t e ssa y by H . M a rk iew icz “ D ia le k ty k a p o z y ty w iz m u p o lsk ie g o ” (1966), o f w hich an E n glish tra n sla tio n a p p ea red in

L ite r a ry S tu d ie s in P o la n d VI, 1980. B. S k a rg a ’s essa y ca n be c o n sid er ed as a partial

158

and o f the fam ous diatribe between the “o ld ” and " y o u n g ” press up to the entering o n to the politico-ideological stage o f tw o new p ro tag o n ists: the socialists and the nationalists, with th eir m utual accusations o f parochialism and xenom ania, o f co sm op olitan ism and local patrio tism . F o r S karga:

W hat strikes o n e in these argu m en ts is their form o f m u tu al in vective. In them there is m ore d em a g o g y than truth. H ere, it w as n ot a q u e stio n o f c o s m o ­ p o lita n ism or p articu larism , but o f the m utu al attem pt by tw o p o sitio n s, tw o different v iew s o f so c iety and the law s o f its d ev elo p m en t to c o m p r o m ise o n e a n oth er (p. 291).

T hen, when the parties went to war, a sim ilar language and sim ilar m utual accusations were used b o th for and against them. F or exam ple, the accusation “a n tin a tio n a l” was used, now , by the positivists (or expositivists) b o th tow ards the loyalists (like Spa- sowicz) and the socialists. They bo th , in their tu rn , accused Świę­ tochow ski o f nationalism . “T he question w hether positivism is an an tin ational tendency—Skarga co n clu d es—is therefore useless. It de­ pended on the situation, on the political ends o f those w ho followed its theories” (p. 302). In fact both the extrem ists o f nationalism , like Z ygm unt Balicki, and the socialists later referred to certain theories o f Positivism , not before they had conveniently modified them to their advantage (as S karga well d em on strates for Balicki).

A m anner in which extrem ism and strategies o f the politico- -ideological struggle can m odify and m isinterpret statem ents th at have nothing to do with the purposes for which they are used, is well illustrated in Jan Jó ze f L ipski’s pap er on the ruralistic, racist, “an tiq u aria n ” reception o f Jan K asprow icz’s poetry. T his kind o f interp retatio n was started by the N ational-D em o cracy (N D ) theoreti­ cians (Popławski in Glos, then Z. W asilewski and W. Kozicki), and m et outstan d in g success up to the 1930s, th a t is until the m om ent o f its definite dissolution with the end o f the idea o f a possible peasant hegem ony in the integ ration process o f the m odern Polish nation. Lipski points o u t how th a t interp retatio n was no t justified in K asprow icz’s texts (though the poet was personally bound to nationalists), and he p articularly refers to the to tal absence o f antisem itic tones, and em phasizes K asp row icz’s open attitu d e in this sense. The “m yth o f the nativeness o f cu ltu re ” is very u n ­ certain ground when the w riter hoisted as a stan d ard as a result

o f his “racial purity, unaltered by alien and heterogeneous dross, totally Polish, pre-Slavic, pre-A rian, because he is genuinely p ea san t” (K ozicki, p. 312), holds such open views. This m yth is a very shaky concern, even in its “independentistic” side connected with K asprow icz’s supposed anti-G erm anism . In a previous book on the a u th o r o f H ym ny, Lipski had clearly proved the tight links with and K aspro w icz’s fruitful dépendance on late 19th-century G erm an culture and literature. O f the various com pon ents o f the m yth o f the nativeness o f cu lture based on th a t reading o f K asprow icz’s poem s, only the rurality (not fortuitously often stressed also by n o n -N atio n al-D em o cratic critics) rem ains, seen as poetical expression o f a cultural m odel opposed to the u rb a n and technological m odel o f the universalistic syncretism o f m odernity, which gains a footing in the 20th century. W ith th is - Lipski inform s u s - “the trad itio n al o pposition o f n atu re and culture moves inside culture its e lf’ (p. 320).

W ith L ip sk i’s ap p ro p riate rem ark we com e to the heart o f our century in its to rn selfconsciousness15. But the 20th century is excluded from o u r b o o k 16, with all the tragedies (the Jewish q u e s tio n 17, the problem o f the eastern and western borders, pre- and post-w ar em igration, Stalinism as a “native p ro d u c t” or ra th e r violent “ im­ p o rt” 18) and co ntrad ictions (the G ierek period and its “occidentalistic”

• 15 Lipski h im s e lf m en tio n s, as an ex a m p le, the „ m o d e r n o la tr y ” and the ruralism (but in certain w ays we can speak even o f “ tech n o p h o b ia " ) o f the P olish avan t- -garde, as well a s o f all avan t-gard es. C o n c e r n in g literary criticism , we o n ly m en tion here tw o fa m o u s co n trib u tio n s o f th e p eriod b efo re the S eco n d W orld W ar: K. I r z y k o w s k i . Plagiatow y ch a ra k te r p rz e ło m ó w lite ra c k ic h n P o lsce ( The P lagiarian

C h a ra cter o f the P e rio d s o f L ite r a ry T ran sition s in P o la n d ), 1922, and J. S. B y 's tr o n , M e g a lo m a n ia n a ro d o w a (The N a tio n a l M e g a lo m a n ia ), 1935.

16 A lso A . W i e r z b i c k i ' s recent b o o k . W sch ód — Z a c h ó d tv kon cepcjach d zie jó w

P o ls k i (E ast a n d W est in P olish H is to r y C o n ce p tio n s), W arszaw a 1984. d o es not

deal w oth our cen tu ry , and en d s with the “o ccid en ta list a p o lo g e tic s o f the First W orld W ar p e r io d .” It rep resen ts, h ow ev er, n ew ev id en ce o f the vitality, a m o n g P o lish h isto ria n s, o f the su b jects that are sim ilar to th o se d iscu ssed in our b o o k .

17 A m o n g th e m ost im portan t and a u d a cio u s c o n tr ib u tio n s on the P o lish - -Jew ish rela tio n s in pur cen tu ry, we m ust m en tio n J. B l o n s k i ’s “ Biedni P o la cy patrzą na g e t to ” (The P oor P o le s L o o k at the G h e tto ), T ygodn ik P ow szech n y,

1987. no 1959.

18 O n this subject cf. J. T r z n a d e T s H ań ba d o m o w a . R o zm o w y z p is a r za m i

160 B o o k R e v ie w s

openness; „ S arm a tia n ” retu rn , with an inclination for a certain n atio n al m egalom ania in the early 80s).

O u r wish is th at this gap be soon filled, if only in an IB L P A N conference to com e, and th at we could m aybe begin to clear the 20th-century field o f stereotypes, ingenuousnesses or w rong convictions th a t still lie heavy on cultural historiography, literary criticism and p am p hleteering as well as on P olish m entality o f these recent years and on co n tem p o rary rep resen tatio n o f P olan d abro ad .

L u ig i M a rin e lli

T ransl. by F ioren zo F an toccin i

Cultura e nazione m Italia e Polonia dal Rinascimento ail’ illumi- nismo (Culture et Nation en Italie et en Pologne de la Renaissance aux Lumières), ss la dir. de V. B rancà et S. G racio tti, Léo S. Olschki

E ditore, Firenze 1986, 414 p p . + 41 ill.

C onsidérons un q u ad rilatère d o n t les q u atre côtés représentent q u atre concepts abstraits ainsi que des phénom ènes histo riqu em en t concrets (de la R enaissance aux Lum ières) figurés p a r ceux-ci : C ulture, N atio n , Italie, Pologne. Les diagonales, les triangles inscrits, les côtés eux-m êm es, les différents segm ents inscrits dans la superficie, « d éfin issen t» les thèm es des co m m unication s présentées au V IIe sé­ m inaire d ’études italo-polonaises p rom u et organisé p ar la F o n d atio n G iorg io C ini et p ar l ’A cadém ie P olonaise des Sciences (Venise,

15— 17 novem bre 1983)*.

* Les auteurs et les titres (en tra d u c tio n fran çaise) des essa is figurants d a n s le livre so n t les su ivan ts — B. B iliń sk i: A u to u r d e la gen èse d e la M a zu re k de

D ą b r o w sk i, h ym n e n a tio n a l p o lo n a is, né à R e g g io E m ilia en 1797; G . P iz z a m ig lio ,

M . G . P en sa : L ’Idée d e n a tio n d a n s l ’h isto rio g ra p h ie littéraire ita lien n e du X V I I e s .; T. J a ro szew sk i: Le P rince S ta n isla s P o n ia to w sk i et sa dem ure a p p elée « U s t r o n ie » à V a rso v ie; P. P reto: V en ise et les p artages de la P o lo g n e ; M . K a r p o w ic z : Le « P o r tr a it m o r tu a ir e » et les « s c a p u la ir e s » d es tableaux relig ieu x : d eu x e x e m p le s orig in a u x de l ’art p o lo n a is; S. G r a c io tti: L ’Idée de p eu p le et d e n ation d a n s le X V I Ie s. p o lo n a is entre le m y th e n o b ilia ir e et l ’u to p ie d é m o cra tiq u e; D . C a c c a m o : La « R é p u b liq u e n o b ilia ir e » d a n s la p ersp ective de V enise. Intérêts p o litiq u e s et c o n fr o n ta tio n cu ltu r elle ; J. K o w a lc z y k : In tern a tio n a lism e artistiq ue et so c iété p o l o ­ n aise entre le X V I e et X V I I e s .: C . V a so li: S p ero n e S p eron i et la n a issa n c e