Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "The January Uprising" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
Tytuł:
Jak objąć poetów nakazem pracy. Eliza Orzeszkowa i Piotr Chmielowski wobec Działu pieśni Leonarda Sowińskiego
How to impose compulsory work scheme on poets? Eliza Orzeszkowa and Piotr Chmielowski and “Dział pieśni” by Leonard Sowiński
Autorzy:
Okulicz-Kozaryn, Radosław
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1534372.pdf
Data publikacji:
2012-01-01
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Tematy:
Leonard Sowiński
poetry written after the January uprising
Positivist literary criticism
journalism of Eliza Orzeszkowa
Piotr Chmielowski’s history of literature
campaign against poetry
tendentious literature
utilitarianism
counter-utilitarianism
Opis:
Condemning the hostile attitude of modern poets towards both the manifestations and the very idea of civilizational progress, Eliza Orzeszkowa, in her extensive article Listy o literaturze. Wiek XIX i tegocześni poeci written in 1873, and then Piotr Chmielowski in his Zarys literatury polskiej ostatnich lat szesnastu, illustrated their arguments with a number of poems, including the sonnet Dział pieśni by Leohnard Sowiński. R. Okulicz-Kozaryn starts with reminding his readers that the controversies over the right of poets to put themselves over society, formulate opinions and judgments of civilization and their attempts to promote such values as scientism or utilitarianism, had had a long tradition at the time. By embarking on it, however, Orzeszkowa and Chmielowski appealed to practices of a particular kind, namely to disregard completely the message of a poem and to focus on exploiting it only to support their own arguments. The author of the article analyses the mechanism behind this manipulation and claims that Orzeszkowa, followed by Chmielowski, had even removed some words from the poem that could have been interpreted by the then reader as a sign of affiliation to the  acrificed part of his life for these values being sentenced to exile and the following social degradation for his participation in the freedom movement at the turn of the 1850s and 1860s. In the heat of the ideological struggle, Orzeszkowa and Chmielowski did not argue for their own belief and did not even enter into polemics with the most important message in the poem. The truth is that L. Sowiński did not question the civilizational march forward of the mankind but rather showed that, contrary to what the positivists claimed, utilitarianism was just an appetite for enjoying the achievements of progress and maximizing pleasure and was not its diving force, being more like a parasitic residue and a baggage.
Źródło:
Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka; 2012, 19; 85-96
1233-8680
2450-4947
Pojawia się w:
Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Znikający punkt zwrotny. Piotra Chmielowskiego kłopoty z periodyzacją „najnowszej literatury polskiej”
Vanishing turning point. Piotr Chmielowski’s difficulties with periodization of the “recent Polish literature”
Autorzy:
Wedeman, Marek
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1534418.pdf
Data publikacji:
2012-01-01
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Tematy:
positivist breakthrough
abolition of serfdom
January uprising
strife of the old and the young press
Scientism
revival of Enlightenment thinking
Opis:
[An outline of the literature of the last sixteen years] written by Piotr Chmielowski was designed in the author’s intention as a sketch of “rather journalistic than historical features”. The above is clearly indicated by the forewords written by the author to its successive four editions published between 1881 and 1898. Still, despite its lack of pretentions, the book acquired with time the status of a fully-fledged instructive approach to Polish literature of the Positivist period. A closer look at the text with regard to the proposed periodization reveals, however, a number of flaws and aporias committed by Chmielowski, particularly in establishing boundary dates of the proposed literary period. The present article attempts to prove that the source for the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the solutions proposed in Zarys is not so much in their makeshift or the pro tem nature, but rather in the aggressively promoted ideology, represented by Chmielowski, that completely disregarded the nature of literary phenomena.
Źródło:
Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka; 2012, 19; 47-59
1233-8680
2450-4947
Pojawia się w:
Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies