Informacja

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

Wyszukujesz frazę "romantyzm polski" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
Tytuł:
Was Maurycy Mochnacki a messianist? A puzzling declaration of the author of “The Uprising of the Polish Nation in 1830–1831”
Czy Maurycy Mochnacki był mesjanistą? Wokół zagadki pewnej deklaracji autora „Powstania narodu polskiego”
Autorzy:
Kihara, Makiko
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2089989.pdf
Data publikacji:
2018
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Czytelnia Czasopism PAN
Tematy:
19th-century Polish literature and history
Polish Romanticism
the November Uprising (1830–1831)
Poland’s Great Emigration
radical politics
Polish messianism
discourse analysis
Maurycy Mochnacki (1803–1834)
Maurycy Mochnacki
romantyzm polski
mesjanizm
Wielka Emigracja
dyskurs
Opis:
In this article Maurycy Mochnacki’s martyrological and messianic declarations in the Preface to the Uprising of the Polish Nation in 1830–1831 are examined in the context of the martyrological discourse in the literature of the Great Emigration. Such an affi rmation may appear puzzling given Mochnacki’s rejection of martyrological interpretations of Poland’s history or messianic readings of his political philosophy, let alone his reputation of being radically opposed to Adam Mickiewicz’s idea of the sacrifi cial victimhood of the Polish nation. In this study the ideological and rhetorical aspects of their statements are compared and analysed. There can be little doubt that in the Preface Mochnacki’s phrasing is steeped in patriotic pathos which seems to be at odds with the tone of his other writings. This article claims that it was a tactical move on his part: he chose the familiar martyrological loci merely as a means to enlist the readers’ support for his own pragmatic programme of restoring Poland’s independence. A general conclusion to be drawn from this apparent inconsistency is that already at that stage (The Uprising was published in Paris in 1834) the logosphere of the Great Emigration had become so dominated by the martyrological discourse that Mochnacki could not afford to ignore it.
Źródło:
Ruch Literacki; 2018, 4; 355-371
0035-9602
Pojawia się w:
Ruch Literacki
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Norwids "tatarski czyn". Between hierarchy and eruption (semantics, contexts, and consequences)
Autorzy:
Zehnder, Christian
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/17889236.pdf
Data publikacji:
2021-02-24
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
Norwid
Mickiewicz
Cieszkowski
polski romantyzm
Promethidion
aktywizm romantyczny
filozofia czynu
Imperium Rosyjskie
orientalizm
Polish Romanticism
Romantic activism
philosophy of action
Russian Empire
Orientalism
Opis:
Drawing on a scholarly polemic of the 1930s, this paper differentiates between two ways of understanding and translating Cyprian Norwid’s formula “tatarski czyn,” as ‘Tatar deed’ (from the Polish czyn) or as ‘Tatar rank’ (from the Russian chin according to the Tsarist Table of Ranks). The aim is to show how the eruptive versus the hierarchical readings of “tatarski czyn” have influenced the opinions on Norwid’s dialogic treatise Promethidion (1851) and, more generally, on his criticism of the utopian thought of Polish Romanticism and of Russian po-litics. It was Adam Mickiewicz who in the 1820s and 1830s pointed to the homonymy between czyn and chin and its potential in enacting ambivalences between the seemingly incommensurable imaginaries of eruption and hierarchy. Moreover, Mickiewicz already linked both understandings of czyn with a stereotypical Tatar, or Mongolian, “Asianness.” In this respect, Norwid’s formula is fairly conventional. What is genuinely original, however, is how Norwid turns Mickiewicz’s earlier ideas against those of the later Mickiewicz who, in his Paris Lectures on the Slavs (1840–1844), seems to glorify the “Tatar deed.” In contrast to the “bloody ladder” of Russian bureaucracy and the irrational tendency in Mickiewicz’s activism, Norwid suggests a “gradual labor” culminating in, not erupting with, the deed (Promethidion). This aspect of Norwid’s metaphorical thought is shown in a parallel reading with the philosopher August Cieszkowski who, in his Prolegomena to Historiosophy (1838), conceptualized history as a “texture of deeds” leading to institutions. Similarly, Norwid’s positive notion of the deed, i.e. his revision of Romantic activism, should be situated beyond the alternatives of eruption and hierarchy.
Źródło:
Studia Norwidiana; 2019, 37 English Version; 17-42
0860-0562
Pojawia się w:
Studia Norwidiana
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