"The Anonymous Work": Individual Versus Society

Lech Sokół

"The Anonymous Work": Individual

Versus Society

Literary Studies in Poland 16, 143-160

Lech Sokół

The A n o n y m o u s Work:

Individual Versus Society

Bezimienne dzieło (The Anonym ous W ork) was finished exactly

on N ovem ber 27th, 1921. W itkiewicz was at th at time the au th o r o f plays which h ad already been perform ed in the theatres, one who h ad alread y gained a significant though m odest theatrical ex­ perience: on Ju n e 30th, 1921 Teofil Trzciński produced in C racow his Tumor M ózgow icz (Tumor Brainiowicz', the perform ance was repeated on July 1st). Soon after The Anonym ous Work had been com pleted, in one o f the theatres in W arsaw there appeared his play Pragm atysci (The P ragm atists; prem ière on D ecem ber 29th, 1921) perform ed 4 tim es. D espite the fact th at the vicissitudes of W itkacy’s plays in the th e a tre o f the m idw ar period ran m uch to the d isad ­ vantage bo th o f their au th o r and o f the Polish theatre as a whole, 12 o f his plays were perform ed in 18 different productions. As Janusz Degler m anaged to d em onstrate in his b o o k 1 they fashioned, along with W itkiew icz’s theories and polem ics then contended, a significant argum ent in the discussion a b o u t new art.

W itkiew icz o f the year 1921 is the au th o r o f a considerable num ber o f plays am ong which can be found quite a few still today considered significant in his total literary o u tp u t. A part from the already m entio ned The Pragm atists (1919) and Tumor Brainiowicz (1920) o th er d ra m a s w orth m entioning here are the follow ing: Nowe

W yzwolenie (N ew Deliverance) and O ni (T h e y; b oth w ritten in 1920),

1 J. D e g l e r , W itk a c y w te a tr z e d w u d zie sto le c ia m ięd zy w o jen n eg o (W itk a c y in

144 L ech S o k ó ł

W małym dworku (In a Sm all C ountry-H ouse), M e ta fizy k a dwugłowego cielęcia (M etaphysics o f a Two-headed Calf), Guyhal Wahazar and K urka Wodna (The W ater Hen ; all o f them w ritten in 1921). M oreover,

he had already published his N owe fo r m y w malarstwie (New Forms

in Painting, 1919) as well as a num ber o f critical essays ab o u t

the theatre which then w ent to m ake up the boo k entitled Teatr

(The Theatre, 1923). Ju st before w riting or com pleting th e play

W itkiewicz, together with T adeusz Langier and T ym on N iesiołow ­ ski, published a satirical special occasional leaflet, L itm us Paper, in which there appeared his d ram atic self-parody entitled The Re-

demptoars. The characters there presented seem to anticip ate The Anonym ous Work. A m ong them there is C ynga (“ a c h o p ste r”),

co unt G iers (“a first-class cheated liverish c h a p ”), R osa van der Blaast (“a beautifullish w om an” ) and dr. P lasm o deo B lódenstank (“a d o c to r”).2 Slight differences in the spelling o f the nam es which appear in this w ork m ay well be the a u th o r’s idea o r m erely a m isprint. T he existence o f The Redemptoars seems to fix the span o f time in which The Anonym ous Work was created betw een Septem ber and N ovem ber 1921.

T he d ra m a takes up the problem o f revolution, o f the m asses versus the individual, o f the fate o f the individual in the times o f crises and political upheavals —all o f them issues th a t had appeared earlier in his w ork and which will recur tim e and again. Suffice it to m ention in this context his M aciej Korbowa and Bellatrix (1918), Gyubal Wahazar and The Water Hen — o f the earlier plays, and Wariat i zakonnica (The M adman and the Nun, 1923), M a tk a

(The M other, 1924) or Szew cy (The Shoem akers, 1927—1934). All

these plays are concerned with the issue o f the individual versus the m asses in times o f a violent crisis and altho ug h it m ay assum e various guises, it invariably p o rten d s an ap p ro ach in g catastrophe. P rio r to attem p tin g a review and a p resen tation o f these problem s in the form they were given in The Anonym ous W ork, it seems w orth-w hile to read the d ra m a from beginning to end in order to get an idea o f the m anner in which the problem appears, evolves and acquires final form in the sequence o f events as well as through

2 S. I. W i t k i e w i c z , D r a m a ty (The D ra m a s), ed. by K . P u zy n a , v ol. 2, W arszaw a 1972, p. 702. A ll c ita tio n s h ave been taken from this e d itio n .

In dividu al Versus S o c ie ty ₁₄₅

the h e ro s’ experiences. Let us then start from the very beginning. T he title o f the d ra m a alludes to Shakespeare. In the first scene o f act IV o f M acbeth, the pro tag o n ist o f the tragedy approaches the three witches with a q u estio n :

H o w n o w , y o u secret, b lack , and m idn igh t h ags! W h at is’t y o u d o ? ,

to which the three w itches reply in ch o ru s: “A deed w ithout a n a m e ” .3 G irtak , W itkiew icz’s p erp etrato r o f the “deed w ithout a n am e” (in his case a peculiar revolution within a revolution, u n d erta k en in the nam e o f a uniform m ass undifferentiated into real individuals), a poet and a revolutionary, prepares his coup

d ’état brew ing it in the kettle o f the social chaos atten d an t upon

the prim ary revolution. T he kettle in which S hakespeare’s three witches brew abom inations o f all kinds calling up ghosts to foretell M a c b e th ’s fu tu re had already m ade its presence in Polish literature in co nnection w ith revolution and revolt. O bviously I have in m ind the In tro d u c tio n to Kordian. It is taken for granted today th at in this scene Słow acki m ust have draw n on M acbeth. Let us only recall here th a t the W itch accom panied by devils pulls out o f her k ettle the future leaders o f the Polish revolution, i.e. the N ovem ber 1830 uprising. W hen W itkacy referred the “deed w ithout a n am e,” the ano ny m o us w ork, to the revolution o f the nameless, the an o nym o us, to the revolt o f the M ass brew ed by G irtak on the sly, he also seems to have referred to Słowacki.

T h ere are m any m ore S hakespearean allusions to be found in the play. T he m ost im p o rtan t am ong them are those to H am let since they called to life W itkacy’s gravediggers. O ne o f them turns ou t to be a philosopher, as it happens in Shakespeare, while the o ther dabbles in poetry “off-w ork” as we w ould express today, being secretly involved in politics. O ne o f the characters o f the d ra m a when talking ab o u t colonel G iers, chairm an o f the court- -m artial, u tters these w ords: “The souls o f the condem ned torm ent him as they did R ichard III” (p. 83). G enerally speaking Shakespeare plays a significant role in the work o f W itkacy, the problem going back to the year 1893 when eight-year-old Staś was com posing

3 W . S h a k e s p e a r e , M a c b e th , ed. by K . M uir, L o n d o n , p. 112.

146 L ech S o k ó ł

the d ram as o f his childhood under the im pact, am on g o th ers, o f his im pressions on reading S h akespeare’s plays. His interest in them finds c o rro b o ra tio n in his fa th e r’s letters from th a t tim e as well as from his correspondence o f a later date.

T he peculiarity o f W itkacy’s allusions and references to S hakespeare is th a t he q u o ted and used n o t only the texts o f the plays b u t also the pictures with which they were illustrated. He often had in m ind th e citatio n together with the picture or even he visualized first o f all the pictu re referring to a given scene in the play. D aniel G ero u ld to o k u p this issue and advanced the idea th a t “since earliest ch ild h o o d the dram atic im agination o f W itkacy fed u p o n pictures and underw ent evolution b o th in pictorial as well as in literary categories. This thesis finds c o rro b o ra tio n in a p h en o m en o n th at ap p aren tly concerns solely literature, nam ely W itkacy’s p rofu se app li­ ca tio n o f citation or allu sio n ”. W itkacy becam e fam iliar with the edition o f S hakespeare’s plays illustrated by H en ry Selous already in his childhood. These illustrations, accom panied by subtitles — c itatio n s from the dram as, penetrated “deep into the very sources o f the b o y ’s im agination in the phase o f life when his creative energy was ju st being aroused. Buried for a long tim e to com e, the pictures o f Selous’s S hakespeare issued forth in quite m any o f his w o rk s” . 4 The scene with the three witches can also be found am ong S elous’s engravings.

T h e play bears the subtitle: “ F o u r Acts o f a R ath er N asty N ig h tm are ,” a m o tto : “T he M ieduvalshchiks feem per at the sight o f Black Beatus Buvay the T ru n d ler (from a dream o f 1912)” as well as a dedication to B ronislaw M alinow ski (p. 65). All the three elem ents th at ap pear on the frontispiece o f The Anonym ous Work seem to convey im portant inform ation . T he m eaning o f the subtitle is qu ite obvious: in the pangs o f the revo lutio n as it is first prep ared and then experienced by the p ro tag o n ists o f th e play, a new world is being born, one th at neither W itkacy him self n o r none o f his ch a rac te rs who have preserved but a single m em ory o f values inhering in the individual, in m etaphysical experience, in the M ystery o f

4 D . G e r o u l d , „ C y to w a n ie o b r a z ó w — W itkacy i S h a k esp ea re S e lo u sa ” (W it­ k a cy , S e lo u s ’s Sh ak esp eare and P ictorial C ita tio n ), P a m ię tn ik T ea tra ln y, 1979, n os 3 - 4 , pp. 529, 532.

Individu al Versus S o c ie ty 147 Being, would like to face. It is a world where the M ass has trium p hed over the Individual and social m echanization —over m etaphysics.

The m otto, d atin g back in its origins to a dream W itkiew icz h ad in 1912, was used as late as 1921. It provides a clear hint, n o t at all unique, at the significance he ascribed to the unconscious sources o f creative work. T he problem o f the sim ilarity o f W itk acy ’s theories and artistic practice to those o f surrealism seems to im pose itself at this p o int as has been frequently rem arked upon by critics including K rystyna J a n ic k a 5 who studied it m ore extensively. H ow ­ ever, there is still m uch to be done a b o u t this issue. T he m otive from an old and therefore an especially suggestive dream rem em ­ bered in full detail, is th a t o f Joachim M ieduval and the M iedu- valshchiks and it went into The Anonym ous Work obviously having been thoroughly transfo rm ed and done over. The sentence from the dream , when considered from the stan d p o in t o f W itkacy’s theory o f poetry, has b u t a purely form al value, th a t is, it can be used

in literary activity as an exam ple o f unity in the diversity o f the com ponents which go to m ake up the whole phrase. M oreover, it

is endow ed with a purely sound value containing words which m ostly have no defined m eaning in Polish, thus in a vague m an n er alluding to possible senses an d creating an undefined, m ysterious m ood. The sentence could function as an appendix to W itk acy ’s discussion on m eaningless w ords in poetry to be found in his article “T h e Theory o f P u re F orm in P o e try .” It could even replace the p a rag ra p h with the fam ous w ord kalam arapaksa6 which appears there.

A bro ad er analysis o f the role o f the dream and the unconscious in W itkacy’s plays seems to be out o f place in an article devoted to The Anonym ous Work. T herefore I only wish to em phasize th a t while m oulding his solitary surrealism , the surrealism avant la

lettre — a m otive o f such im p ortan ce in his artistic work —W itkiewicz

clearly referred back to a significant trad itio n whose m ost im p o rtan t co m ponents seem to have been the Polish R om anticism , the plays

5 K . J a n i c k a , „ S ta n isła w Ign acy W itk iew icz a su rr ea lizm .” [ in :] S tu d ia o S ta ­

n isła w ie Ignacym W itk iew iczu , ed. by M . G ło w iń sk i and J. S ław iń sk i, W rocław 1972.

6 S. I. W i t k i e w i c z , „ T eoria C zystej F orm y w p o e z ji,” [in:] C z y s ta F orm a w te a tr z e , ed. by J. D eg ler, W arszaw a 1977, p. 94.

148 Lech S o k ó ł

o f Strindberg, especially The Dream Play (though it is im possible to ascertain w hether he knew it), and finally the work o f Freud with which he becam e acqu ain ted either directly from psychoanalytic practice (it is a well-know n fact that W itkacy un derw ent psycho­ analysis with D r. K aro l de B eaurain in 1912, the year o f the dream from which the m o tto was taken) or indirectly as second-hand knowledge (except the Introduction into Psychoanalysis he read la te r).7 The im p o rtan t issue concerning the W itkiew icz—F reud relation still rem ains open to investigation.

The dedication o f The Anonym ous Work to B ronislaw M alinow ski seems to indicate the significance o f the problem s co n tain ed in the play despite the farcical guise or its en tertain ing and sensational rendition. It m ust be adm itted, how ever, th a t W itkiew icz’s polem ics with M alinow ski’s conceptions o f culture, so frequently recu rring in his articles, theoretical treatises and plays, does n o t m ake its presence in The Anonym ous Work, at least no t in a m ore artic u la te d form . Since I have forestalled the chronological sequence o f my con sid era­ tions I assum ed at the outset, let m e only add th a t The Anonym ous

Work is endow ed with an exceedingly com plicated plot. T here are

16 fully individualized characters n o t to m ention 8 M ieduvalshchiks, a crow d o f prisoners, soldiers o f the guard, gendarm es and an enorm ous street rabble. Included in the play are evidently sensational m otives developed and m anaged by W itkacy with great expertise. W hat we seem to deal with are spies and agents, a d isintegrating state and a daw ning revolution alongside o f a second revolution conceived in the w om b o f the first one. T he characters experience passions involved in m oney, danger, love and desire; even the m otive o f a grow n-up son discovering his true father —for centuries used in E uropean play w ritin g —is no t missing.

It is easy to discern in this list p attern s o f various types o f d ra m a we have becom e well fam iliar with in the history o f the genre. Yet in ord er to discover the p attern m ost suited to the com plicated and sensational character o f the p lo t o f The Anonym ous W ork, it would seem m ost ap p ro p riate to refer to Eugene Scribe and out o f his num erous plays point ou t the one which cam e to play a signi­ ficant role in the history o f the th eatre and d ra m a serving as often

7 C f. S. I. W i t k i e w i c z , N a r k o ty k i — N ie m y te d u sze (N a r c o tic s — U n w ash ed S ouls), ed. by A. M iciń sk a, W arszaw a 1975, pp. 191 — 194, 212.

In dividu al Versus S o c ie ty 149 as not as a model for b o th applied playw riting as well as for its m ore am bitious variety. I have in m ind S cribe’s Un Verre d ’eau

(A Glass o f Water). S hould we however decide to define the them e

o f the play in term s o f a p arable o f the fate o f the artist in times o f subsequent revolutions with social m echanization as their u tter goal, W itkacy’s “four acts o f a ra th e r nasty n ig htm are” could m ost aptly be divided into tw o m ain p arts. The first o f them com ­ prises the span o f three acts and introduces the audience into the problem s o f the m etaphysical individual, gradually cum ulating som e­ thing which is no longer a “ra th e r” nasty nightm are b ut has becom e “q u ite” a nasty one. The o ther p art (the fo urth , “epilo- guish” act) brings ab o u t the resolution o f the conflict between the individual and the M ass, leaving slightly ajar the d o o r o nto a terrifying future.

T he first scene o f the play introduces us to colonel M anfred, co u n t Giers, chairm an o f co u rt-m artial on the one hand and to the tw o gravediggers —on the other. The colonel, a representative o f the ruling pow er which m ost p robably keeps people in a tight grip (court-m artial, the ghosts o f the condem ned who com e to to rm en t the colonel —already m entioned above) literally incarnates the saying “to stand with one foot in the grave.” Q uite logically, then, he sim ply has to have a grave to keep his foot in and m editate upon death. O f the two gravediggers one is a philosopher in the Ham le- tean vein, th e other a poet and a peculiar one at that. He creates th ro u g h rom an tic or perhap s surrealistic inspiration {écriture auto­

m atique) : “ I write poetry. A ctually, it writes itself. [...] I c a n 't

possibly realize where poem s com e to my m ind fro m ” (p. 70). G irta k , the gravedigger-poet seems to be com m unicating a signi­ ficant tru th ab o u t the process o f creation, ab o u t it being rooted in the unconscious. The problem recurs m any a tim e in W itkacy’s w orks b u t is given possibly the fullest articulatio n in Beelzebub

Sonata (1925), a play whose m ain them e is precisely th at o f creative

en d eav o u r in its relation to evil. D aniel G erould perceives in G irtak the “u n d erta k er o f the old world and the midwife o f an em erging o n e” 8 and he is undou btedly right. The poetry G irtak pursues

8 D . C . G e r o u l d , S ta n isła w Ign acy W itk ie w ic z as an Im agin ative W riter,

150 L ech S o k ó ł

is b u t a prelude to his greatest, anonym ous, w ork p re p are d in total secrecy and bro u g h t a b o u t thro ug h the agency o f m asses, specially prepared to fit the purpose.

In this respect G irtak turn s out to be a close relative o f an o th er poet and a revolutionary, Say etan Tem pe from Pożegnanie

jesieni (A Farewell to Autum n). Tem pe first writes po etry and then

em barks upon revolutionary activity. G irtak follows a sim ilar p attern . W ith b oth o f them poetry proves to function as a prelu de to action and when the p ro p itio u s m om ent com es for action to be started , b oth poets discard com pletely creatio n tout court becom ing totally im mersed in “creation through life” : it is there they place their energy and all their am bition.

T he brilliant scene o f digging the grave for G iers affords an o p p o rtu n ity to present all the m ost im p o rtan t ch aracters o f the play. They find excuses o f all kinds to seek ou t the co g itatin g colonel in his retreat and sim ultaneously present various m otives enabling the playw right to k nit up a m uch com plicated an d sensational plot. “A field in the vicinity o f C entu ria, the capital city ” (p. 67) as W itkacy defined the place in stage directions to the first act has a function identical to th a t o f the conventional “th eatre c o u rt” in fro n t o f a palace or a hall inside it, b o th well know n if only from the d ram a o f French classicism .

T he first ch aracter to ap p ear in the pageantry in front o f G iers is Plasm onick B lódestaug, a pain ter, form er officer o f the guard, dismissed from the arm y because o f con sum ption and sus­ pected o f spying. Both his C hristian and his surnam e prove to be o f significance foretelling som e traits o f his personality and hinting at w hat could be expected o f him. His nam e suggests plasm , fo rm ­ less o r im possible to be m oulded. A p art o f his nam e, blode m eans in G erm an “w eak” b u t also “silly” and “shy” . T he d etri­ m ental co n no tation s, with p articu lar em phasis placed on weakness and irresoluteness, are underlined again by prince G rifuellhes in act I V : “this Plasm onick o f yours, m adam , is actually a plasm , n o t a m an. Y our R osa, m other, has m ade a com plete psycho­ physical pulp o u t o f him ” (p. 123). It is notew orthy th a t in the case o f Plasm onick his tum bledow n is brought ab o u t by a vam p who is quite capable to tram p le dow n men of even the strongest psychophysical stature. His m alady, however, the fact o f his being

Individual Versus S o c ie ty 151 an artist, seems to stand in co n trad ictio n to the suggestion implied by his nam e and surnam e. P lasm o n ick ’s intellectual dependence and weakness seems to be bro u g h t o u t by the fact th a t in his p ainting he attem pts to pu t into practice theories close to th a t o f P ure Form , o f which he is by no m eans the au th o r. They were created by his father while the son m erely tries to actualize them in his art. T he values o f these theories are open to im peachm ent in the first place since they were o f an o th er B lódestaug’s autho rship, were it not for the clearly underlined sim ilarity to the theories o f W itkacy himself. The nam e o f P lasm onick’s father could be interpreted as the “god o f plasm ” (P lasm o -deus); m oreover, he possesses the degree o f doctor. The revolutionary governm ent grants him the portfo lio o f m inister o f health and culture. H e m ight therefore be a d o cto r o f m edicine and an am ateur theoretician o f art. His nam e and scholary degree m ight well fashion the ground for draw ing the conclusion ab o u t the fa th e r’s intellectual superiority over his son. This would be in line with W itkacy’s idea: with the steady decom position o f the w orld and the individual each successive generation is usually found to be inferior to the preceding one.

T he next ch aracter to appear on stage, the w om an-painter C lau- destina de M outreuil, introduces som e quite im portan t issues, namely the dispute concerning the true (i.e. art in P ure F orm ), untrue and sentim ental art. She arrives at colonel G iers’ retreat inform ed by G irtak ab o u t the supposed beauty o f the scenery aro un d. She would like to pain t “dew upon cobw ebs” which she ever so slightly “stylizes m etaphysically” . H er artistic credo, simple as it is, turns out to stan d in dire opposition to the views o f P lasm onick:

I seek to p ain t the w on d ers o f nature from the p oin t o f view o f insects, frogs an d other little creatures. Y et I never pain t them a s they are but in the light o f m y m etaphysical spiritual vision . For m e f o r m , in the sense you r father gave to it [i.e. Pure Form ] sim p ly d o e s not ex ist (p. 75).

P lasm onick, on the o ther hand, airs his views in W itkacy’s v e in :

T h e p o in t is to exp ress the m etap h ysical stran gen ess o f E xistence in purely form al c o n str u c tio n s, directly, through the very h arm on y o f c o lo u r s w hich are put in to certain c o m p o sitio n s (I.e.).

A tentative conclusion seems to im pose itself: Plasm onick func­ tions as the a u th o r’s m outhpiece who represents true values all his

152 L ech S o k ó ł

weaknesses notw ithstanding, even despite W itk acy ’s ironic treatm en t o f him. In this respect he closely resem bles W itk acy ’s o th er p erso n a­ lities, to m ention Leo from The M other, a p ro p h e t, swine, spy and pim p, who likewise seems to advance views sim ilar to those o f his au thor. T he ch a ra c te rs’ m eanness stem s from the decadence o f the w orld as well as from the steady decline o f the individuals. T hough the values they represent prove to be genuine, they do not accom plish to realize them because it is to o late. W itkacy believed no one achieved to realize them any m ore and this is precisely w hat his catastroph ism essentially consisted in.

The a rtists’ argum ent is in terrup ted by th e arrival o f the prince, heir to the thron e, who had ju s t learned he was the son o f the old gravedigger Virieux and had been b egotten upon the grave o f his alleged father, right after his funeral. Follow ing in his footsteps there arrives his m other, duchess B arbara, w orried ab o u t her only son who had been m ade to face the revelation throu gh the indiscretion o f baroness Lydia R agnock, the duchess’ lady-in-w ait- in g —who arrives with her. Finally the p ageantry o f characters ends with the arrival o f the M ieduvalshchiks to gether with their leader, the m ysterious C ynga who introduces him self as B aron de Buffadero. C ynga expounds the doctrine o f Joachim M ieduval and wins over Giers for the M ieduvalshchiks’ revolution. Yet M ieduval him self has long been dead while C ynga d isto rts his doctrine along the lines o f the ideal o f social m echanization. His political cred o is as follows:

O ur g o a l is the rep lacem en t o f tem p oral p ow er by e c clesia stica l p ow er. W e ’ll be the p riests, in k eep in g w ith the sy stem o f b eliefs d evised by Jo a ch im M ied u val, our p rop h et. T h e o n ly differen ce is th at he b elieved in so m e kind o f cry p to p a n th eism , w hereas we d o n ’t b elieve in an yth in g. A certain form o f m e a ly -m o u th ed d e ­ m ocracy under the gu ise o f w orsh ip . S o m e th in g a lo n g th e line o f the E gyptian priests. T he p e o p le h ow l for a n ew relig io n — the fact that th e o so p h y sic a l [sic! certa in ly : th e o so p h ica l] n o n sen se has so m an y fo llo w e r s p roves it. W e ’ve got to get it all under our co n tro l and spread th r o u g h o u t so c ie ty (p. 84 — 85; em p h a sis m in e — L .S .).

Briefly saying, the sense o f the above q u o tatio n is obvious eno ugh : in co ntradistinction to M ieduval him self the M ieduvalshchiks o r at least their leaders replace faith with a lie, a lie for social (political, th a t is) purposes. In the fragm ent presented here the sense o f the w ord “socialization” com es very close to th at o f “in cap acitatio n ” o f the individual by the collective, incapacitation suitably p erpetrated

In dividu al Versus S o c ie ty 153

by d istorted faith th at the leaders seek to inculcate in the individual. This is n o t at all unlike the situation presented in o th er plays, also in W itkacy’s novels, e.g. N ienasycenie (Insatiability), where the believers in M urti Bingo advance their faith fortified by the use o f d ru g s ... H aving taken the pills o f the w onderful d ru g davam esc B2, properly trained “ form er p eo p le” subm it to social m echanization and the C hinese rule.

W hen G iers is w orried ab o u t the political system o f the future state, C ynga leaves no ro o m for d o u b t, rightly irritated by his b luntness:

A p seu d o d em o cra tic system yet w ith n o parliam entary bluff. T h e syn d icates o u g h t to b e given a true, f ic titio u s relig io n , and n o t a su b stitu te like the m yth o f the general strike. [ ...] the p eo p le to d a y are m uch m ore p ron e to religion than the to tem ie tribes o f N e w G u in ea. E ven if they w ere to u se sp iritism and turning tables —there m ust be a religion (p. 85; em p h a sis m ine — L .S .).

It becom es clear at the end o f act I th a t it does n o t only introduce alm ost all the characters in their inter-relatedness bu t also their ideology, if they have any. W hole groups o f characters are delineated, especially two which stand in op position to one another. T hose belonging to the first still have to be considered as m etaphysical individuals alth ough in p o in t o f fact they have becom e “form er people” whose m etaphysical feelings ap p e ar as b u t a beautiful m em ory. N atu rally , the m atter concerns artists, m ainly Plasm onick who, all the reservations n otw ith stan ding, rem ains the only artist devoted to art in the proper sense o f the word, i.e. to P ure A rt. The spokesm en o f m echanization, the people o f the future, m ake up the o th er group o f characters. H ere belong G irtak , C ynga, the M ieduvalshchiks as well as the newly converted G iers. The third g roup, ideologically indeterm inate, is com posed o f characters such as duke P adoval, a bo red -to -d eath aristo crat ready to do anything to escape b oredo m ; his m other together with the B aroness R angnock and finally the old Virieux, the id eology-proof p hilosopher o f grave- digging, the true father o f d u k e Padoval.

A ct II enriches the already delineated picture, m ultiplies or develops the sensational m otives o f the play. T hus C ynga turns out to be the lover o f R osa van der B laast, a w om an com poser hopelessly loved by P lasm onick. He confesses to his beloved he had been m aking m oney for “higher pu rp o ses” by spying on b eh alf

154 L ech S o k ó ł

o f a neighbouring country. The house is searched, C y n g a’s spy docum ents taken over while unexpectedly P lasm onick confesses a guilt he never com m itted driven by the desire to go to prison where he could devote his life to art and to his love for R osa w hom he expects to win. He does it all on co ndition —g uaranteed by G iers — th a t the two alleged spies could share their prison cell. H ow ever, act II is not all ab o u t espionage, searches, love and m oney. P lasm onick resumes here his reflections, in terrupted in act I, upon art an d the artist com plem enting and ro u n d in g off his cred o : “the life o f an artist is bu t a coincidence” —he avers.

In m y co n d u c t so far I fo llo w e d th e v o ic e o f m y artistic in tu itio n . There are artists w h o by crea tin g , create p o sitiv e valu es in life, and there are th o se w ho create m o st sign ifican tly by d estro y in g their o w n lives and even th o se o f o thers. [ ...] I’ve been liv in g in a d readful state o f an gu ish but I h a v e n ’t been able to find any artistic ju stifica tio n for it, I c o u ld n ’t ch a n g e it in to significant valu es. N o w the end has c o m e . N o w the theory o f m y father w ill really get incarnated [ ...] If I w ere lo c k e d up c o m p le te ly a lo n e, I ’d go m ad and w o u ld n ’t create an yth in g. W ith her {points to R osa) I’m g o in g to a c c o m p lish sim p ly things infernal. S o is she. I will m eta p h y sic a liz e her m usic. T o d a y I k n o w I h a v e en o u g h strength to d o so (pp. 95 — 96).

Plasm onick credo seems to d em o n strate th at he has by and large m anaged to shake off the weakness he evinced at the beginning o f the play. An idea w orthy o f note appears in his m onologue: as a m atter o f fact he seems to enjoy the prospect o f spending his life in prison and this tim e his decision proves to be both fully conscious and responsible. O ne can create onlv beyond life in an existential void, in asceticism. We have learned the same lesson from

622 upadki Bunga (The 622 Downfalls o f Bungo, 1909— 1911) where

the m ain h e ro ’s guilt was precisely th at he failed to perceive and apply this tru th at the o p p o rtu n e m om ent. Bungo refused to pay the price o f destroying his life in order to create art and he lost everything: love he so m uch strove for, art he w anted to p u rsu e w ithout giving anything up (as if he forgot one could n o t serve G od and M am m on) and finally his life. It w ould have been difficult to punish the condem ned ch aracter m ore severely than W itkacy did in his youthful novel.

Act 1 o f the play closes upon the m anifesto o f M ieduvalism w hereas act II is finished off with the d eclaration o f the m

etaphys-In dividu al Versus S o c ie ty ₁₅₅

ical artist. T hus the opposition between the m etaphysical individuals and the people o f the fu tu re —set up earlier —now becomes clear. One could say it was now expressed in term s o f the opposition between individualism and M ieduvalism , while at the sam e tim e the ideo­ logically vague and indeterm inate characters provide now a merely vague and indeterm inate background. G irta k ’s peculiar statem ents — who always em phasizes he is p la y in g 'h is own gam e —betray that he is engaged in p rep arin g his future coup inside M ieduvalism . This po in t will be defined still m ore unequivocally in act III.

A lm ost a full year elapses between the end o f act II and the beginning o f act III —as can be gauged from a few rem arks in the statem ents o f the characters. Plasm onick spent all this tim e in artistic and erotic agony. C reative endeavour seems to be inseparable from suffering. M oreover, in ord er to ea rn som e m ore food for R osa and him self he paints a naturalistic p o rtra it o f M ieduval based on his p h o to g rap h ! O ne can im agine w hat this could m ean to Plastnonick, the artist o f P ure Form .

P lasm onick’s erotic agony springs as m uch from his disappointed love as from R o s a ’s dem onism . He won her body but never her feelings. In keeping with the habits o f all W itkacy’s dem ons she surrenders to him and at the same time refuses to give herself away to him. She scorns him and gloats over his suffering. The situation is still worsened by their divergent, indeed incom patible, views on art. R osa recognizes only music despising painting as m uch as she despises Plasm onick. She never recognizes his theoretical views even though he did “m etaphysicalize” her m usic as he had vowed to do in his pre-prison m anifesto.

Inherent in the opposition o f their aesthetic views is ano th er opposition, indeed a real struggle, the struggle o f sexes. The problem seems to be quite significant for P lasm on ick’s artistic identity. As a w om an R o sa is above all driven by em otions, even in her art. C onsequently, P ure Form is com pletely inaccessible to her even th o u g h he had done all the intellectual work for her. A ctuated by em otions she ca n n o t wrench herself away from life and enter the paradise o f P ure F orm . H ere Plasm onick faces a defeat identical to the one he experienced in his discussion with C laudestina whom he failed to convince although he spoke to a painter. Both being w om en, no com m unication between them and a m an could be estab ­

156 L ech S o k ó ł

lished. This is the reason why Plasm onick d o u b ts w hether “a w om an can at all be a great artist. F or with a w om an em otions will inevitably prevail over form , P ure F o rm ” (p. 113). In view o f W itkacy’s whole artistic work one can venture a statem en t th a t wom en are essentially uncreative: they create either p seu d o -art or art o f a rath er m ediocre quality. M ost frequently they tend to becom e actresses — then the principle o f their artistic im pact rests with, by and large, arousing em otionality, sentim entalism o r with playing upon the sensuality o f the m ale p a rt o f the au d ien c e.9 C onsequently, P lasm o n ick ’s attem p ts to m ake an artist in P u re Form out o f R o sa are doom ed to be thw arted while his erotic as well as artistic agony in the prison cell —except perh aps his suffering inseparable from existence and especially from artistic e n d e a v o u r— prove to be b u t two sides o f the sam e coin.

T h ere is yet an o th er revelation in store for the wretched P lasm o ­ nick. H e learns from R osa herself th at the only person she loves is C ynga, the real spy who entered espionage “ for purposes o f a higher o rd e r.” B oth this revelation and his agony precipitate his m atu ra tio n to w ard s a full aw areness o f his own con ditio n and fate —the co n ­ dition and the fate o f the last Individualist. He declares to his father who com es to visit him : “ I am in the process o f a great inner transfo rm atio n , papa. For me the world has tu rn ed at least a h u n d re d and eighty degrees” (p. 113). He also m atured as an a rtist: in the stage direction to this particu lar scene —W itkacy o b ­ serves ironically —P lasm onick shows to C laud estina “canvases covered with incredibly pure P ure F o rm ” (I.e.).

P lasm o n ick ’s tran sfo rm atio n has a co u n terp art in the con soli­ d atio n o f the M ieduvalshchiks, when even the duke P adoval gets converted to the new “faith ,” naturally n o t being convinced ab o u t its validity b u t out o f sheer boredom . However, since the new “fa ith ” is based upon the bad faith o f its votaries, it does not m atter in the least why he gets converted.

P lasm odeus Blodestaug, the true originator o f P ure Form theory, also strikes a com prom ise with the new revolution that is just

y C f. L. S o k ó ł : “ M etafizyka płci: S trindberg, W ein in ger i W itkacy" (M eta p h y ­ sics o f S e x : . . . ) , P a m ię tn ik L ite ra c k i, 1985. fasc. 4; “ In trod u ction à la W itk iew iczien n e m éta p h y siq u e du se x e ,” L es C ah iers de V arsovie, 1987 (in print).

Individual Versus S o c ie ty 157

about to tak e its first leap when he accepts the “chair o f health and c u ltu re ” (p. 114) in the future governm ent. N ow the p o lari­ zation o f stand po in ts becom es even m ore p ro n o u n c ed : Plasm onick consolidates his individualism while the M ieduvalshchiks score such a success in prep arin g the co u p th a t they can enjoy the foretaste o f trium ph. G irtak alone m ore and m ore openly foretells a short-lived reign o f M ieduvalism . W hen he com es to see the finished p o rtra it o f M ieduval, he o utright declares to P lasm onick: “H e is sure to reign s o o n —even in th at p o rtra it. Well, well, well! Y ou d o n ’t even realize w h a t’s brew ing. [...] Strange, strange things are going o n ” (p. 112). H aving pro no unced these w ords he directly proceeds to recite his poem which clearly portends a tran sitio n from revolutionary poetry to revolution ary action along the principles discussed above.

In his awful poem G irta k em bodied, in an obscure language typical o f “p o etry ,” his whole plan as well as the utter goal o f revolution —deluding the people in the initial p re p ara tio n for the re­ volution with subsequent social m echanization, m echanization o f the people o f the future, irretrievable splendour o f the p ast before the onset o f m echanization and finally the triu m p h o f the “M ass th a t have never gorged to their fill.” T rue, the M ass did experience injustice o f all kinds and is altogether in the right b oth m orally and historically. Yet it is absolutely unable to replace the ord er o f injustice and evil with a better one. The new order can only be different whereas m eeting the otherw ise rightful dem ands o f the M ass will have to be bought at the price o f the dow nfall o f culture. W itkacy expressed this p o in t tim e and again in his theoretical w ritings, plays, novels and articles. In The Anonym ous Work it finds a full-fledged expression in G irta k ’s address to the street rabble.

T ow ard s the end o f act III, which at the sam e tim e finishes the first o f the two p arts the play was divided into ad usum o f fhe present analysis, the M ieduvalshchiks are stripped o f all the m asks they had been w earing while the cynicism o f their basic principles as well as the deception inherent in their political system show th ro u g h with perfect clarity. It is C ynga who seems to excel in cynicism and G iers who turns out to be the m ost honest o f them all. P lasm onick will never prove anything against Cynga, the tru e spy w hose m ethods o f covering up his tracks are infallible, whose accom plices have long been d ead : “ W hat happened to them —even

158 L ech S o k ó ł

the devil him self will never find out. C ontagious diseases, you kn ow ?” T o P lasm on ick ’s charges he simply replies:

T h e p o sitio n I hold has e n n o b led m e. R igh t at the start N a p o le o n w as m ere bandit. But lea d in g F ran ce to glory m ade him truly great as he w as at W a terlo o . N o w I c o u ld n ’t be a spy any m ore (p. 118).

P lasm onick is indignant a b o u t C y n g a ’s m egalom ania, all th e m ore so since he has n o t officially assum ed any po st and still functions as merely a leader o f a conspiracy —a conspiracy th at is sure to win. G irtak m akes m alicious and derisive com m ents o n some statem ents o f the characters. A t the beginning o f act IV he openly declares: “I am the au th o r o f the A nonym ous W o rk !” (p. 121).

Both the beginning and the end o f the M ieduvalshchik re­ volution occur alm ost sim ultaneously. The end o f their rev olu tion signifies the beginning o f the A nonym ous W ork. Even the leaders o f the M ieduvalshchiks did n o t realize im m ediately they had actually been defeated. F o r the tim e being the revolution releases prisoners — crim inal and political ones alike. In the atm osphere o f unqualified joy Plasm onick behaves in a com pletely different way: “ I d o n ’t enjoy my freedom ” (p. 124), he declares. W hat kind o f freedom m ight this be to him ? H e cherishes no illusions ab o u t the governm ent th at granted him freedom . A ctually he expects the w orst even though he never m entions the w ords “social m echanization ,” a “suicide o f the individual and through him o f a rt and ph ilo so p h y ” which would be ap p ro p riate in this case. T hrough his suffering and the course o f events P lasm onick assum es the dim ensions o f a tragic hero and this process can already be observed in prison. T hus in act IV it w ould be u n fair to apply to him the suggestions carried by his nam e and surnam e. By accepting his views on art, indeed, by p u ttin g his ow n views into the m o u th o f his hero, W itkacy cam e to accept Plasm onick as a character. D espite all his weaknesses, his ridiculous peculiarities, P lasm onick rises to the stature o f a m artyr o f values which are passing aw ay into the irretrievable past.

M eanwhile, creeping behind the back o f th e M ieduvalshchik revolution, the revolt o f the G irtak s scores its victory. It proves to be m uch worse th an its predecessor, com ing closer to the final dow nfall o f the individual and culture. The first prog ram m atic speech to the street rabble leaves no roo m for d o u b t:

In dividu al Versus S o c ie ty 159

F e llo w citiz e n s! M en like this aren ’t our lead ers; th e y ’re garbage w aitin g to be carted off! W e —th e real p e o p le —have m ade u se o f them for our ow n pur­ p o ses. T h ey m ade the first b reach ! W e d o n ’t need a priest-run g overn m en t c a m o u ­ flaged as m e a ly -m o u th e d d em o cra cy . W e ’re g o in g to create our o w n true se lf-g o v ern ­ m en t. W e ’re g o in g to get a lo n g w ith o u t any p arliam ent by o r g a n izin g trade u n ions o f lo a fers. W e’re g o in g to crea te a true p arad ise o n earth w ith o u t any leaders and w ith o u t any w ork ! T h a t’s w hat w e ’re g o in g to d o . W e! T h e u n iform , gray, stick y , stin k in g , m o n stro u s m ass: a n ew S ep arate B ein g, d efy in g all the m atap h ysics based o n the c o n c e p t o f the in d ivid u al and the hierarch y! T here are n o in d iv id u a ls!! D o w n with the p erso n a lity ! L o n g live the u n iform M A S S , o n e and in d iv isib le!!! H u rra h !!! (p. 126).

T he insertion o f W itkacy’s own term inology into G irta k ’s speech tu rn s it into a sui generis deb ate betw een the F u ture, so horrifying to the a u th o r o f the play, and his own views. Obviously, the triu m p h o f the M ass is tan ta m o u n t to the defeat o f the Individual. The qu estion th a t arises now is how P lasm onick, with all the reserva­ tio ns m ade, the m outhpiece o f the au th o r —will react to this speech. He replies im m ediately and with decisiveness:

I c a n n o t live in th e so c ie ty run by Mr G irtak and the m ob from across the track s. I’ve c o m e to like my ro o m in that b u ild in g very m uch. (P o in ts to

the p riso n ) A rt has c o m e to an e n d , and n o o n e is g o in g to p ro d u ce an arti­

ficial relig io n . [ ...] I ’m g o in g b ack to p rison . [Futher o n he adds:] In our tim es there are o n ly tw o p laces for m etap h ysical in d iv id u a ls: p rison or the insane a sylu m (pp. 1 2 8 — 129).

P lasm on ick chose prison whereas an o th er o f W itkacy ’s artists, M ieczysław W alpurg from Wariat i zakonnica (The M adm an and

the N un) finishes his controversy with society in a m adhouse.

P lasm on ick seems to fulfil, even though only partly, W itkacy’s prophecy o f 1917:

T r u e artists [...] will be lo ck ed up in sp ecially created esta b lish m en ts for the in cu ra b ly ill. T h ere, as vestigial fo rm s o f old h u m a n ity , they will serve as subjects for learn ed p sy c h ia tr ists’ research. M u se u m s will be o p en ed to rare v isito rs, sp ecialists in sp e c ia liz e d fields o f h istory — the h isto ry o f art, sim ilar to E g y p to lo g ists or A s sy r io lo g ists or o th ers c o n cern ed w ith the scien ce o f ex tin ct sp ecies. For the sp ecies o f a rtists is b ou n d to d ie o u t as did the an cien t p e o p le s .10

10 S. I. W i t k i e w i c z , “ N o w e form y w m alarstw ie i w yn ik ające stąd n ie p o ­ ro z u m ie n ia ” (N e w F orm s in P a in tin g and th e M isu n d ersta n d in g s R esu ltin g T h erefrom ), [in:] P is m a filo z o fic zn e i e s te ty c zn e , ed . by J. L eszczyń sk i, v ol. 1, W arszaw a 1974, p. 264.

160 Lech S o k ó ł

T h e defeat o f the individual on the one h and and the trium p h o f the m ass on the o ther fall in The Anonym ous Work as well as in other w orks o f W itkacy, into a p a tte rn which has now becom e clear. The individual and the m ass seem to form two orders o f values to rn asunder by an irreconcilable conflict. Since the two constitute two orders o f values and the split betw een them ca n n o t be healed, the conflict assum es a tragic ch aracter while it seems to corresp on d to the highest degree to the concept o f the tragic advanced by M ax Scheler. It is difficult to ascertain w hether W itkacy was fam iliar with his w ork Bem erkungen zum Phanomen des Tragischen o f 1915 (Polish e d itio n — 1922). U ndo u b ted ly how ever he arrived at a tragic conviction within which values o f one o rd e r inevitably an n ih ila­ te those o f a different one —and W itkacy cam e to this conclusion quite independently in the sense th at this conviction lies at the very core o f his catastrophism . Let us recall th a t in the view o f W it­ kiewicz the side o f the individual is represented by values like the m etaphysical experience, religion, a rt and philosophy whereas the side o f the Collective (species, society) em bodies those o f social justice, equality in the eye o f the law. Y et to accom plish the latter m eans to destroy the form er. W itkiew icz refused to pay this price convinced as he was th at the dow nfall o f art and philosophy (he believed religion to have long been dead) could n o t be prevented. The final victory o f the Collective will in p o in t o f fact liquidate all values since they are realized by peo ple o f the G irtak cast. They p o rten d —in W itkacy’s eyes —the onco m in g social m echanization ta n ta m o u n t to an all-em bracing stag n atio n , a social living death (which he presented in the finale to Insatiability). D espite all hesitation his basic view can be expressed in the well fam iliar w ords: “A ban do n all h o p e.” A nd yet he seems to have desired so little. Sayetan in The Shoem akers declares at one p o in t: “if there is a single good thing in the w orld, it is individual existence in m aterially sufficient co n d itio n s” (p. 578). “ Individual existence,” alas! This is precisely w hat, according to W itkiewicz, ca n n o t be accom plished.