Włodzimierz Bolecki
"Gombrowicz i krytycy", oprac.
Zdzisław Łapiński, Kraków 1984 :
[recenzja]
Literary Studies in Poland 17, 133-137
nian period, collected p h o to g rap h s and details a b o u t his successive places o f residence, as well as m iscellaneous m aterials concerning G om brow icz an d his ties with A rgentina.
As a result we o b tain ed a fascinating docum en t n o t only on G om b ro w icz’s stay in A rgentina b u t also one which supplies a new and im p o rtan t com m entary on his literary works. O n the one hand, we get acquain ted with G o m b ro w icz’s friends who speak a b o u t the Polish w riter, an d on the other, we learn a lot a b o u t different passages from his D iary from w hat they have to say. B ut K a lick i’s book is no t scholarly in its intent. It is som ething like an attem p t to m ake the personality o f an unusual m an an d w riter m ore fam iliar to his readers by show ing his ties with others an d their m utual fascination.
A nother m o tif in the bo o k concerns th e ties o f G om brow icz the w riter with cu ltu ral life in A rgentina. T hose ties were accidental but relations on G om b ro w icz’s views concerning the place o f the w riter and o f a rt in society provide new insights into G om b ro w icz’s philosophy o f cu lture. K alick i’s book also provides num erous p re viously unknow n docum ents on his early writings —above all on his novel Ferdydurke, which G om brow icz him self recom m ended for tran slatio n into Spanish d u rin g his stay in A rgentina. T he im p o rtan ce o f K alick i’s b o o k follows from the fact th a t it covers th at period in his life in which he w rote his to p w orks, nam ely The
Wedding, the Diary, Pornography, O peretta and the first version
o f his Cosmos.
W ło d zim ie rz B o le c k i
T ran sl. by Z y g m u n t N ie ra d a
Gombrowicz i krytycy (Gombrowicz and the Critics). Selected and
ed. by Zdzisław Ł ap iń ski, W ydaw nictw o Literackie, K rak ó w 1984, 847 pp. T he series: P isarz i K rytycy, ed. Ja n Błoński.
T his is an an tholo gy o f m ost im p o rtan t texts on G o m b ro w icz’s w orks. T he first texts refer to G o m b ro w icz’s d eb u t as a w riter, th a t is, his D iary o f Pubescence (1933), the last ones to a conference the L iterary R esearch Institute o f W arsaw organized in A pril 1975. Som e o f those texts, says Ł apiński,
134 B o o k R e view s
are n o w n o m ore than d o c u m e n ts o f their tim es, oth ers lay fo u n d a tio n s for a future syn th esis, w h ile still o th e rs have su rvived as se lf-co n ta in ed artistic w ork s. But so m e o f these texts are p erh ap s the b est in tr o d u c tio n we n o w h ave in to G o m b r o w ic z 's w ork (p. 22).
The con ten t o f this bulky volum e c a n n o t possibly be discussed at length. Let us therefore m ention the au th o rs o f the texts and the p articu lar topics o f their interest.
T he anthology opens with m ost typical rem arks concerning G om brow icz’s first boo ks, by T. Breza (1933), J. K aden B androw ski (1933), T. D ol?ga-M ostow icz (1937), I. Fik (1938), S. Kisielewski (1938), B. Schulz (1938), L. Fryde (1939) and A. S and auer (1939). T hose com m ents p roduce a picture o f the reception o f G o m b ro wicz’s w orks before W orld W ar II. H is originality was noticed im m ediately, but critics found it very difficult to interp ret his works.
N ext com e texts w ritten after the war. T he first, by J. W ittlin, was w ritten in 1951 in an attem p t to defend G om brow icz against critics castigating him for the novel Trans-Atlantic. W ittlin ’s apology soon becam e unnecessary because G o m b ro w ic z’s artistic originality was acknow ledged m ore and m ore widely. So, texts w ritten later refer to particu lar aspects o f w orks by G om brow icz who by then had becom e a recognized an d appreciated au th o r.
T he first postw ar texts in L ap in sk i’s anthology betoken the triu m p h an t return o f Ferdydurke. L udw ik Flaszen (1956) and Jan Jo ze f Lipski (1957) p o in t at the original ch aracter o f th a t novel against the back d ro p o f inter-w ar lite ratu re as well as at its u p -to - -date character, its topicality and innovative style. A rtu r S and auer (1965) tries his h and at a recapitu lating study o f G o m b ro w icz’s w ork presenting his m ain ideas an d philosophical antinom ies such as superiority vs. inferiority, prim acy vs. secondarity, m aturity vs. im m aturity, age vs. youth and so on. S an dau er draw s a clear distinction between G om brow icz’s early w orks and the novel Porno
graphy, which he describes as “a tasteless piece o f literary trash
in which tw o gentlem en give free rein to their perverse likings under a sky shrouded in sm oke rising from c re m a to ria ” (p. 125). S andauer used a key o f psychological an d biographical details in his analysis. A m uch m ore interesting study was w ritten by F. B ondy (1963), who studied the m o tif o f duel in G o m b ro w icz’s work to
discover m any philosophical m eanings in it. L. G old m an (1967), in turn, discovered in The Wedding a grotesque allegory based on a true story which occurred in C entral E u ro p e in m id-20th century. The Wedding, incidentally, is the subject o f two m ore texts in L ap iñ sk i’s an tholo gy. In one, M. G łow iński discusses th at p lay ’s S hakespearean ro o ts and the m echanism s o f p aro d y an d gam e, while stage d irecto r K . Zaleski discusses problem s this play creates for producers w anting to show it on stage. K. Puzyna (1969) also writes a b o u t G o m b ro w ic z’s plays for the stage p ointin g o u t th at G o m brow icz’s plays are in fact m ore topical th an all theatrical productions in socialist P oland. In the sam e year, W. K arp iń ski w rote th a t “ G o m b ro w icz’s work is a reaction to the crisis o f E uropean c u ltu re ” (p. 173) which began with “the ascent o f all-out scepticism in it” (p. 183). C. M ilosz (1970), in turn, rem arks th a t G om brow icz touched upon the m ost inexplicable problem s o f the 20th century, above all the “m adness which too k possession o f b o th m asses an d individuals” (p. 190). A study by J. Błoński (1970) provides a general sum m ary o f the entire body o f G o m b ro wicz’s w ork, including a p enetratin g analysis o f the w riter’s intellectual attitu d e along w ith its deep im m ersion in P o la n d 's cu ltu ral heritage.
Studies o f individual w orks claim a lot o f space in Ł ap iń sk i’s anthology. Z. M alić (1970), for example, studies the novel Trans-
-Atlantic uncovering its artistic nooks and corners and casting th at
work against the entire b ack d ro p o f G om brow icz’s w ork: Says M alić,
In its d e v e lo p m e n t from th e D ia ry o f P ubescen ce through to the Trans- -A tla n tic G o m b r o w ic z ’s w o rk is m arked by a sign ifican t ch a n g e in the v a n tage-
-p o in t o f action in his in d iv id u a l w orks. W hereas in the sh o rt stories o f the
D ia ry ev en ts are presen ted from a p sy ch o lo g ica l v a n ta g e -p o in t, in F erdydu rke the
v a n ta g e -p o in t sw itch es o v er to the so c io lo g ic a l a n g le, and in The W edding and in T ra n s-A tla n tic n a tio n a l m y th o lo g y p ro v id es th e v a n ta g e -p o in t (pp. 2 5 5 — 256).
Three studies are devoted to the play Operetta. J. Błoński (1971) studies the philosophy o f history implicit in th at w ork and underlines its am biguity. Says Błoński,
A s G o e th e d id in his F a u st, G o m b r o w ic z su p p lied his O p e r e tta with a dual c o n c lu sio n . H u m an race, all y o u r h istory is a fraud, sa y s o n e o f the faces o f Ja n u s; h u m an race, y o u are etern al, says the other (s. 282).
136 B ook R e view s
p arts were w ritten, displaying the differences which exist betw een the H istory (in the first draft) and the published text o f the
O peretta. The different versions o f th at work are used by the
critic to scrutinize G o m b ro w icz’s philosophy o f history. D . D an ek , in tu rn , uses the exam ple o f Operetta (as well as other plays such as Iwona Duchess o f Bourgogne and The Wedding) to study the m o tif o f d eath in G om b ro w icz’s w ork. T hree studies are also devoted to the novel Cosmos. A. Libera, K . B artoszyński and A. O kopień-Sław ińska com e forw ard with different interp retatio n s o f th a t w ork as well as with different ways o f analyzing G o m brow icz’s w ork. Pornography, too, is accorded separate space in L ap ifiski’s anthology. M. G łow iński (1973) analyzes the m echanism o f G om bro w icz’s paro d y on the exam ple o f this novel, w hereas M. Janion gives an in terp retatio n o f the novel The Possessed. O f studies devoted to m ore general topics, let m e m ention those by J. Jarzębski (on “g am e” and “fo rm ”), by M . S zpakow ska (1972), and by W. W łodarczyk and H . B abiński w ho analyze G o m b ro wicz’s theory o f art, especially o f painting. A Falkiewicz, in turn, studies the m o tif o f p e rp e tra to r vs. sleuth, while J. Paw łow ski analyzes the “erotic language” which is p art o f all w orks o f G om bro w icz’s.
Ł ap iń sk i’s anthology is an unusual bo o k as it n o t only presents the history o f critical in terp re tatio n o f G om b ro w icz’s w ork but also provides som e very im p o rtan t findings which ca n n o t be om itted in any study o f G om b ro w icz’s w ork.
T he anthology is supplied with an In tro d u ctio n w ritten by the editor him self, in which Ł apiński penetratingly describes the leading m odes o f “the art o f interp retin g ” G om brow icz. Ł apiński also points ou t th a t som e previous interp retatio n s are d ebatable because critics were to o conciliatory tow ards G om b ro w icz’s own com m ents on his works.
A n o th er m ajor advantage o f Ł a p iń sk i’s anthology is the excellent com plete bibliography o f w orks by and a b o u t G om brow icz (till
1980) com piled by Z. B iłek-D ąbrow ska.
Ł ap iń sk i’s anthology is an invaluable book as a first-rate encyclo paedia o f facts a b o u t G om brow icz. A vivid, colorful, fascinating and occasionally flabbergasting b o o k , it has the discouraging ap p e ar
ance o f a b ulky volum e, b u t once you have started read in g it you are bound to get en tranced in th a t subtle dance o f ideas in which following G om b row icz him self and his works, all a u th o rs are engaged.
W ło d zim ie rz B o lec k i
T ransl. by Z y g m u n t N ierada
Zdzisław Ł ap iński, Ja, Ferdydurke. Gombrowicza świat interakcji
(M e, Ferdydurke. Gombrowicz’s World o f Interaction), K atolicki U ni
w ersytet Lubelski, Lublin 1985, 108 pp.
It is nearly 20 years ago th a t Zdzisław Ł ap ińsk i published his article called “ W edding in a H u m an C hurch. O n In teracting C a tegories in G o m b ro w icz’s W orks” (Twórczość, 1966, no. 9), which m arked a tu rn in g -p o in t in studies o f G om brow icz. Ł apiń ski established an entirely new perspective o f ap p ro ach in g G om b ro w icz’s works, invoking up-to -d ate categories from psychology and social com m unica tion theory. Ł ap iń sk i’s article was for m any years to com e one of the stan d ard studies to quo te from by stu d en ts o f G om b ro w icz’s work.
T he book Ł apińsk i has now published consistently unfolds the ideas contained in th a t old study.
In the openin g ch a p te r called “In tro d u c tio n to M eth o d : Lawyer K ray k o w sk i’s D a n c e r,” Ł apiński briefly outlines the early period o f G o m b ro w icz’s w ork, to proceed to analyzing the sh o rt story called “ Law yer K ra y k o w sk i’s D a n cer,” which fo r the sake o f in terp retatio n , Ł apiński presents as “a kind o f re p o rt, an account on a definite segm ent o f real social life” (p. 11). Ł apińsk i uses E. G o ffm an ’s analytical categories (from Relations in Public, 1971) to reco n stru ct th a t segm ent o f reality. Ł apiński says G om b ro w icz’s sh o rt story takes place “ in th at segm ent o f reality which, follow ing E rving G oifm an, we can call ‘social o rd e r’” (p. 15). T he title “d an c er” is presented by Ł apiński as a witness to events which p u t him into relationships with m any ch aracters from the social order. It tu rn s o u t th a t the ch ief figure o f the story, the “d a n c e r”, abuses “com m only app ro v ed ways o f co m m u n icatio n ” (p. 16). As the hero o f the story acting am idst o th er ch aracters, the “d an c er”
