O dwóch zakresach działania tabu językowego w Polsce epoki Baroku

The paper discusses the bans on any mention about death and one's own escape from battle field: the former ban stems from the fear of death, and the latter in the shame that one feels because of this fear. Generally, one can say that in the 17th-18th centuries both bans were weaker than it is today. A detailed analysis has shown considerable differences. They are conditioned especially by the emissive-perceptual and the genre of expression. For instance, in the past the future death of the recipient was treated in a different manner than the death of the third person; the expression of an individual sender and of the collective one were shaped in a different way. A single man could speak about his fear, and the collective about its escape, but rather not the other way round (our ancestors would rationalize the collective reiterate from the battle field, treating it as a tactic manoeuvre). Death was spoken about differently in a conversation, and yet in another way in writing, or in a diary (where, for instance, the principle de mortuis nil nisi bene was not respected). The customs in particular milieus were different as well, e.g. the magnate milieu was the earliest to have seen a very delicate manner in which to inform about a close person's death. Generally, the periphrastic style was dominant. The ostentation with which the ancient Poles wrote and spoke about death make us think that they used periphrases not to hide the unpleasant fact or word, but to stress and leaven death.