Borowy W. Ignacy Chodźko: artyzm i umysłowość. Kraków, 1914.
Budzyk K. Rym – upiór: “Osie – stało się” // Pamiętnik Literacki. 1956. Rocz. 47. S. 261–268.
Budzyk K. Stylistyka; Poetyka; Teoria literatury. Wrocław; Warszawa [etc.], 1966.
Dibelius W. Morfologia powieści. Warszawa, 1937.
Głowiński M., Okopień A., Sławiński J. Wiadomości z teorii literatury. Warszawa, 1957.
Głowiński M., Okopień A., Sławiński J. Zarys teorii literatury. Warszawa, 1962.
Głowiński M., Kostkiewiczowa T., Okopień-Sławińska A., Sławiński J. Słownik terminów literackich. Warszawa, 1976.
Hopensztand D. Mowa pozornie zależna w kontekście “Czarnych skrzydeł” // Prace ofiarowane Kazimierzowi Wóycickiemu. Wilno, 1937. S. 371–406.
Hopensztand D. “Satyry” Krasickiego // Stylistyka teoretyczna w Polsce. Warszawa, 1946. S. 331–396.
Ingarden R. Das literarische Kunstwerk. Halle, 1931.
Kridl M. Wstęp do badań nad dziełem literackim. Wilno, 1936.
Jakobson R. List badacza polskiego // Literatura. Komparatystyka. Folklor: Księga poświęcona Julianowi Krzyżanowskiemu. Warszawa, 1968. S. 664–674.
Jakobson R., Pomorska K. Dialogues. Cambridge, Mass., 1983.
Kleiner J. Studia z zakresu literatury i filozofii. Warszawa, 1925.
Kucharski E. O metodę estetycznego rozbioru dzieł literackich // Pamiętnik Literacki. 1932. Rocz. 20. S. 1–39.
Łempicki Z. W sprawie uzasadnienia poetyki czystej // Przegląd Filozoficzny. 1920. Rocz. 23. S. 171–205.
Mayenowa M. R. Poetyka opisowa. Warszawa, 1949.
Mayenowa M. R. Poetyka teoretyczna. Warszawa, 1974.
Ortwin O. O liryce i wartościach lirycznych // Przegląd Warszawski. 1924. № 28. S. 5–16.
Prace ofiarowane Kazimierzowi Wóycickiemu. Wilno, 1937.
Putrament J. Struktura nowel Prusa, Wilno, 1936.
Siedlecki F. Studia z metryki polskiej. Wilno, 1937. T. 1–2.
Smiles S. Pomoc własna. Warszawa, 1867.
Spitzer L., Vossler K., Winogradow W. Z zagadnień stylistyki. Warszawa, 1937.
Troczyński K. Rozprawa o krytyce literackiej. Poznań, 1931.
Wóycicki K. Forma dźwiękowa prozy polskiej i wiersza polskiego. Warszawa, 1912.
Zawodziński K. W. Zarys wersyfikacji polskiej. Wilno, 1936.
Zieliński T. Tragodumenon libri tres. Cracoviae, 1925.
Zieliński T. Rekonstrukcja zaginionych tragedyj greckich // Zieliński T. Szkice antyczne. Kraków, 1971. S. 557–575.
Żirmunski W. Wstęp do poetyki. Warszawa, 1934.
Żółkiewski S. O podstawy metodologii badań literackich // Życie Literackie. 1937. Rocz. 1. Zesz. 1. S. 6–9; Zesz. 2. S. 49–62.
Żółkiewski S. Powrót do Itaki // Życie Literackie. 1938. Rocz. 2. Zesz. 5. S. 192–195.
Żółkiewski S. O Franciszku Siedleckim // Siedlecki F. Pisma. Warszawa, 1989. S. 5–44.
The polish reception of reception:The Transfer of priem within the Intellectual Morphic Field of Russian and Polish Formalisms[81]
In this paper, I focus on the circumstances in which the theoretical work of the Russian Formalists could have been so enthusiastically and yet critically received by Polish literary scholars of the 1930s, who perceived the Russian inventions in literary studies that had been made a decade ago as pertinent to the then current climate in the cultural discourse in Poland: translation, promotion, and the development of Russian theoretical ideas seemed to be a primary task for Polish literary scholars at the time [Markiewicz, 1986; Dutka, 1998]. In Poland, the young scholars from Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius and Warsaw held a minority position but it was their work on rendering an original Polish school of “aesthetic” studies – in which the legacy of Russian Formalism should take on a prominent position – that shaped literary theory in Poland after WWII. An anthology of Polish translations from the Russian formalists that the young scholars prepared throughout the thirties was planned as a second manifesto of the Polish school, a complement to the first one: To Honor Kazimierz Wóycicki [Prace, 1937] Thus, the legendary Polish forerunner of the formal method Kazimierz Wóycicki, who spread proto-formalistic or proto-structural ideas in Poland as soon as in 1914, was to be reinforced by his Russian younger counterparts in a role of Polish Formalism’s patron saint [cf. Budzyk, 1949: 44]. The prepared anthology was only partly printed and never distributed. Instead, it became a Schicksalsgenosse to the tragic generation of the Polish formalists: the most of the edition burnt in September 1939, the rest vanished together with the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, and the only surviving copy shared the faith of the whole city razed to the ground by Germans in an act of revenge for the Warsaw Uprising 1944 [Żółkiewski, 1989; Mayenowa, 1970; Ulicka, Adamiak, 2008].
In this paper, I specifically shed some light on the intellectual milieu of Central and Eastern Europe at the time when Russian (as well as German and British) ideas served as building blocks for Polish Formalism and position it as a network of possibilities, out of which modern literary theory could have arisen and spread – first as a regional science in Central and Eastern Europe, than as a broader phenomenon reaching beyond its original European context. The Big Bang, if you will, that lead to the emergence of the “mophic field” of Central and Eastern European literary theory took place in Germany at the turn of the 19th century. But the field itself is defined by theoretical exchange between the East and West that takes place within its fuzzy confines. First, I will expand upon the displacements in space and in meaning in regard to the central formalist notion of priem with the purpose of elucidating some general premises of the morphic field of Formalism.
I place into focus the most central problem that concerns Polish Formalism – its tense relationship to Phenomenology and the release of this tension through Manfred Kridl’s “integral method of literary study” – in hopes of creating a context against which the tensions in other parts of the field (especially in Russia) consequently become more lucid. In the context of conceptual travels – described in the first part of the article – it becomes apparent that both the vehement rejection of Phenomenology by the Warsaw Formalists and Kridl’s attempt at a compromise between Formalism and Phenomenology may also be interpreted as an effort to the restitution of the original (Russian) meaning of priem in the context of the other part of the morphologic field. The point is that only the loss and the attempts of the restitution of original connotations – sometimes too obvious to be noticeable in the original context – give a clearer outline of theory’s original arrangement than the attempts that do not account for reception.
In the case of the reception of Russian Formalism in Poland, one deals with the reception of reception, because the positions of Opojaz were, as Hansen-Löve put it, from the onset oriented extremely rezeptionsästhetisch [Hansen-Löve, 1978: 106–107; cf. Жирмунский, 1923; Выготский, 1986: 74 ff.] (As a side, aesthetics after Kant or even after Baumgarten function exclusively rezeptionsästhetisch.) I assume that the etymological origin of priem that comes from priniat’ is on the brink of obviousness for the Russian ear. Undeniably, Russian Formalism was more than just a mere Rezeptionsästhetik; it is exactly the surplus value added to the reception in the theoretical conceptions of Formalism that interests me most.
In Russian, the word priem has thanks to its etymology and connotations a nature of the Urphänomen, as Goethe described it on the example of color that unites not only the opposed forces of darkness and light, but also the subject and the object in a definite situation of experiencing an effect of color. [Goethe, 1981a; 1981b; 1981c; Christiansen, 1909; 1911/1912; Wóycicki, 1914] The priem is one of the central notions of Russian Formalism that, like ustanovka, motivirovka, encompass not only the production and the reception of an artistic entity, but also the inner construction of the work [cf. Hansen-Löve, 1978: 212–213]. All three aspects of the literary process of communication are united in the most important notions of Russian Formalism: priem, ustanovka, motivirovka. They all relate to the subject, the object, and the recipient of the literary work. Priem’s holistic pretentions forced Hansen-Löve to use in his reconstruction of the formalist methodology differentiated symbolizations (priem-I, priem-II, priem-III, motivirovka-I, motivirovka-III etc.) for the facets that in the original context made up a unity of the notion. But a historical reconstruction should not only render the whole range of meanings subscribed to certain Russian words, but also explain the conditions of the possibility of the polyphonic unity carried by a polysemantic word.
The Polish and the Western receptions of the concept of the priem brought about the splitting of its original unity, and the splitting meant usually overlooking the receptive facet of priem. Quite simply, the foreign words that, in translation, began to signify the priem, did not have the same connotations as the Russian original; they usually lacked the receptive component. Despite the fact that Viktor Zhirmunsky in the first ever presentation of the Russian Formal Method in Germany (and probably in the whole West as well [cf. Wellek, 1963: 280]) rendered