PKn, letnik 24, št. 2, Ljubljana, december 2001
Jean Bessiere: Nekaj opažanj o primerjalni književnosti 1
Tomo Virk: Primerjalna književnost danes – in jutri? 9
Maja Šabec: Komedija a noticia in komedija a fantasía 33
Zoltan Jan: Glasovi o Francetu Prešernu pri Italijanih 53
Matevž Kos: Nietzsche in programatika nemškega literarnega ekspresionizma 79
Katia Pizzi: 'Silentes Loquimur': 'Fojbe' in tesnoba meje v povojni tržaški književnosti 93
George A. Kennedy: Klasična retorika ter
njena krščanska in posvetna tradicija od antike
Wolfganf Iser: The Range of Interpretation (Darko Dolinar) 111
Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek: Comparative
Literature: Theory, Method, Application
Jean Bessiere: Nekaj opažanj o primerjalni književnosti
Članek opredeljuje stanje v primerjalni književnosti. Na kratko opozori na nevarnost postvarelosti dosedanjih kritičnih modelov in pojmov in na nekatere napačne posplošitve. Predlaga nov model preučevanja literature kot reprezentacije obče vednosti, tesno povezane s konteksti, ki se oblikujejo v vmesnih prostorih med mejami posameznih literatur, kultur, identitet, jezikov itn. Ta spremenljivi prostor na eni strani določa globalizacija, na drugi pa pripoznavanje zmeraj novih identitet. Ob opozorilu na krizo v sodobni primerjalni književnosti in ob bežni polemiki z dekonstrukcijo avtor nakaže novo umestitev in nove naloge te discipline.
Some observations on comparative literature: comparative literature within literary studies and human sciences. The article denotes the situation in the field of comparative literature. It briefly cautions against the danger of objectifying critical models and conceptions and against certain mistaken generalisations. Indicating the crisis in contemporary comparative literature and arguing briefly against deconstruction, the author points to the new status and new tasks of the discipline.
Quelques notes sur la littérature comparée: la littérature comparée au sein des etudes litteraires et des sciences humaines. L'auteur esquisse une définition de l'état présent de recherches dans le domaine de la littérature comparée. Attirant l'attenion ŕ certaines fausses généralisations et au risque de réification que courent les notions et modčles critiques actuels, il avance un modčle nouveau de recherches dans le domaine littéraire, considérant la littérature comme une représentation du savoir commun relatif aux contextes formés par le jeu des limites des littératures, cultures, identités et langues. Ce jeu dynamique est défini, d'un côté, par la mondialisation et, de l'autre, par la reconnaissance de multiples nouvelles identités. Soulignant l'etat de crise dans la littérature comparée contemporaine et polémisant bričvement avec le déconstructivisme, l'auteur essaie d'assigner
Tomo Virk: Primerjalna književnost danes – in jutri?
Razprava uvodoma na kratko predstavi polemiko o vlogi, bistvu in prihodnosti primerjalne književnosti, kot se je razvila sredi devetdesetih let na severnoameriški celini ob Bernheimerjevem poročilu med tako imenovanimi “kontekstualisti” in “nekontekstualisti”. Zavzema se za takšno primerjalno književnost, ki ohranja tradicionalno osredotočenost discipline na specifično literarna vprašanja, a to dopolnjuje s spoznanji novih teorij. V drugem delu na konkretnem primeru predstavi za disciplino usodne posledice prizadevanja dela stroke, ki želi primerjalno književnost približati kulturnim študijam, obenem pa opozori na možnosti razvoja primerjalne književnosti tudi v prihodnje.
Comparative literature today – and tomorrow? The paper begins with a short description of the polemics on the role, essence and future of comparative literature as it developed around the Bernheimer Report in the mid-nineties on the North American continent between the so-called “contextualists” and “non-contextualists”. It argues for a comparative literature which follows the tradition of focusing on expressly literary issues, while complementing them with the findings of new theories. In the second part, it uses an actual example to demonstrate the fatal consequences the discipline suffers in view of the efforts by those members of the profession, who would like to take comparative literature closer to cultural studies, and points out the prospects for the development of comparative literature in the future.
The paper begins with a short description of the polemics on the role, essence and future of comparative literature as it developed around the Bernheimer Report in the mid-nineties on the North American continent between the so-called “contextualists” and “non-contextualists”. The former are of the opinion that under the influence of contemporary methods and theories, comparative literature should cease to see literature as the predominant focus of its research and, above all abandon the critical study of literariness; those who object point to the fact that the specifics of literary discourse still leave room for research, primarily regarding the linguistic composition of the text. The author of the paper argues for a comparative literature which follows the tradition of focusing on expressly literary issues, while complementing them with the findings of new theories; following the definition of Fokkema (and taking into account the research of interliterariness in Marián Galík and literariness as a textual effect in Marko Juvan), he suggests researching liteariness as an invariant, in each case culturally conditioned. In the second part, the paper first of all rejects the notion that the crisis which generated Bernheimer Report and the subsequent polemics is crucial mainly for traditional centres of comparative literature, and goes on to cite the example of Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek and the “comparative cultural studies” he proposes to demonstrate the fatal consequences the discipline suffers in view of the efforts by those members of the profession, who would like to take comparative literature closer to cultural studies. In the changed circumstances, comparative literature certainly needs to be pragmatic; however, the paper attempts to show that the final consequence of such efforts for its social legitimisation, as well as the introduction of “exact” scientific methods as the only adequate and valid methods, will be the cancellation of comparative literature itself. In conclusion, the paper points out the prospects for the development of comparative literature in the future.
Maja Šabec: Komedija a noticia in komedija a fantasía
Članek predstavlja enega pomembnejših dokumentov renesančne dramske teorije, Prohemio (Predgovor), ki ga je k svojim zbranim delom napisal španski komediograf Bartolomé de Torres Naharro. Njegova razprava prinaša izvirno definicijo komedije in razmišljanja o njeni zgradbi, posebej zanimiva pa je delitev glede na stopnjo mimetičnosti (a noticia in a fantasía). Drugi del študije izpostavlja primere avtorjevega nedoslednega spoštovanja pravil, ki jih je sam zasnoval.
The comedy a noticia and the comedy a fantasía. The article presents one of the most important documents of the renaissance theory of drama, Prohemio (Preface), by the Spanish writer of comedies Bartolomé de Torres Naharro as an introduction to his own collected works. His treatise communicates an original definition of comedy, reflects on its composition and offers a particularly interesting classification according to levels of mimeticism (a noticia and a fantasía). The second part of the study offers examples of the author's inconsistencies in following the rules that he himself devised.
The early renaissance Spanish writer of comedies Bartolomé de Torres Naharro (c. 1465–c. 1525), who spent most of his life working for church dignitaries in Rome and Naples, went down in the history of the theatre for his original theoretical reflections on comedy and rules of playwriting rather than for the sake of his comedies, which – with few exceptions – do not exceed the literary value of the works of his contemporaries. The preface (Prohemio) accompanying the first publication of his collected works Propalladia (1517) is regarded as the first independent theory of drama in the Spanish language. While on the surface at least he looks to classical authorities, he goes beyond rigid traditionalist conventions and, almost a century before the triumphant advance of Lope, confidently defines comedy as an independent type of drama, introduces his view of the five-act (jornadas) division, deliberates on the number of performers and the aptness of a production, classifies comedies according to the level of mimeticism into a noticia and a fantasía, and concludes with a somewhat vague internal subdivision of comedy into introíto and argumento. In principal, Naharro the theoretician followed most of the rules in his plays, although he sometimes got “carried away” and adapted them as necessary. He is mainly inconsistent with regard to the division into a noticia and a fantasía. According to Naharro, the former depict events that really happen, and the latter, events that are, while fabricated, still credible. The author had no problems in a noticia comedies, whereas the comedies a fantasía (e.g. Serafini, Himenei and Aquilani) on several occasions relax the second part of the requirement prescribing verism to the point of becoming unconvincing.
Zoltan Jan: Glasovi o Francetu Prešernu pri Italijanih
Prispevek raziskuje usodo slovenskega pesnika Franceta Prešerna pri Italijanih. Največ pozornosti namenja analizi posameznih glasov o njem in skuša rekonstruirati odnos posameznih posrednikov in prevajalcev do pesnikovega umetniškega sporočila. Obravnava tako recepcijo v italijanskem kulturnem prostoru kot tudi slovenske ocene in skuša ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri je pesnik pri Italijanih sprejet kot klasik.
The reception of France Prešeren in Italy. The article examines the fate of France Prešeren among Italian readers. It focuses on an analysis of individual voices and attempts to reconstruct the attitude of individual intermediaries and translators towards the poet's artistic message. It discusses both the reception in Italian culture and corresponding Slovenian reviews, while attempting to establish to what extent the poet is recognised as a classic by the Italians.
The study of Prešeren's reception in Italy reveals that it has come about in four relatively separate stages, divided by breaks of several years, which fragmented the process of reception and to a certain extent hindered the natural growth of interest and unveiling of the multifaceted artistic message of his poetry.
Not taking into account some lesser occasional newspaper publications, now all but lost to our historical memory, one can ascertain that it was in Italian anthologies of Slovenian literature and in some cases in more extensive, even international poetry selections that the Slovenian poet first started to appear. These early voices emerged only a good ten years after the Slovenians themselves had come to the present realisation of the poet's significance and his artistic strength. It was mainly on the initiative of Slovenian intermediaries that these introductions came about; however, it is evident that Italian scholars and editors themselves recognised Prešeren's great poetic value.
In the second stage, Prešeren became the subject of prominent Italian Slavonic scholars; however, they simply adopted the findings of Slovenian literary criticism and more or less echoed them. These interpretations were mainly part of the more general, yet relatively limited outlines of Slovenian literary history and did not pay any special attention to Prešeren. The only attempt to create a new and original portrait of the world of Prešeren was the Calvi monograph, which barely registered in Italy and received an unfavourable response in Slovenia. Slovenian literary criticism is aware of Prešeren's ties to Italian and Latin literature and, accordingly, takes it into consideration; however, the Slovenian critical reviews of the Calvi monograph and subsequent studies of Prešeren have shown certain relatively modest analytical and investigative faculties of the author of this Italian monograph on the greatest Slovenian poet.
After a prolonged silence, in the third stage of recognition, the initiative was taken up by the Slovenians themselves, who keenly saw to the publication of the new translations of Prešeren’s poetry; as a result, it was then almost entirely translated into Italian. His Poetry in Italian was accompanied by Slovenian studies of the poet in translation, which, as a rule, did not sufficiently take into account Italian readers, since they were in fact simply slightly adapted texts intended for the Slovenian readership. A number of these book-form translations met a polite, but reserved reception from the Italian public. The few authors who at least hinted at the unresponsiveness of the Italians obviously did not question the greatness of Prešeren's poetry, and there was almost no mention of the fact that it is difficult to establish poetic communication between a 19th-century Slovenian poet and a modern Italian reader who is not aware of the broader literary-historical context. It was only the analysis of Marija Pirjevec that drew attention to the many unanswered questions posed by Italian translations of Prešeren.
The most recent attempts to bring Prešeren closer to the Italian reader, target a demanding and qualified expert on Slovenian literature. In this case, several major Slovenian projects marking Prešeren's anniversaries (the 200th anniversary of his birth in 2000 and the 150th anniversary of his death in 1999) came together. A careful translation, which took many years and was carried out by Giorgio Depangher with the assistance of Marija Pirjevec, was ripe for publication. The publication of a broader selection of Prešeren's poetry in translation converged with the publication of the translation of Paternu's monograph on Prešeren's poetry and was presented to the Italian public on several occasions and in different arenas; in Italy in 2000 there were two symposiums focusing on Prešeren. Judging by the reception of several other writers more widely recognised in Italy (Ivan Cankar, Srečko Kosovel, Ciril Zlobec), the efforts of such a process should not conclude too soon, so in this area, persistence seems more important than quality.
Matevž Kos: Nietzsche in programatika nemškega literarnega ekspresionizma
Razprava obravnava recepcijo Nietzschejeve filozofije v nemškem ekspresionizmu, kakor ji lahko sledimo zlasti znotraj programatičnih besedil. Pri tem razlikuje med recepcijo Nietzscheja v prvi, “kritično-ideološki” fazi in med razumevanjem njegove filozofije v poznejšem ekspresionističnem “aktivizmu”.
Nietzsche and the programmatic texts of the German expressionism. The paper discusses the reception of Nietzsche's philosophy in German expressionism, above all as it comes across in programmatic texts. It draws a distinction between the reception of Nietzsche in its first, “critically-ideological” phase, and the understanding of his philosophy in the later expressionist “activism”.
Expressionism is the literary trend in which the “Nietzsche phenomenon” reveals itself in all its complexity. An indication of this is his strong impact on diverse, often conflicting points of view. Expressionism itself, as an incoherent literary movement lacking a strong, uniform “ideology”, contributed greatly to this complexity. By way of certain examples of expressionist programmatic texts, the paper attempts to show how particular great themes of Nietzsche's philosophy were echoed by German expressionists. It is not insignificant that the early reception of his philosophy, which includes expressionist reception, was not strictly philosophical or theoretical, but rather literary and culturally ideological. Nietzsche as an author left a fundamental mark on German expressionists' literary and general cultural efforts, notably on those arising within the earlier “critical”, ”disillusionist“ trend. It is the thought of a “new man“ – an important part of later expressionist “activism“, sometimes, characteristically, resting on Nietzsche's philosophy of “the dawn” – which probably suggests the greatest deviation from Nietzsche’s “initial", “original” thought.
Katia Pizzi: 'Silentes Loquimur': 'Fojbe' in tesnoba meje v povojni tržaški književnosti
Potem ko avtorica predstavi zgodovinsko-ideološki položaj 'fojb', analizira krepitev njihove vloge v literarni kulturi ob severo-vzhodnih mejah Italije. Članek dokazuje, da so 'fojbe' delovale in še vedno delujejo kot literarni simboli, in razmišlja o njihovi literarni uspešnosti. V tem kontekstu analizira različne prozne pripovedi, posebno pozornost pa posveča romanu Il baratro (1964) Enrica Morovicha.
‘Silentes Loquimur’: ‘Foibe’ and Border Anxiety in Post-war Literature from Trieste. After introducing the historical and ideological stance of ‘foibe’, Pizzi analyses the progressive role acquired by the latter in the literary culture of the north-eastern borders of Italy. In arguing that ‘foibe’ acted and continue to act as literary symbols, the present article dwells on their literary fortune. Various prose narratives are analysed.
The present article takes into account geological formations typical of the north-eastern border area of Italy commonly known as ‘foibe’. The latter have acquired, in the course of the past six decades, specific historical and ideological functions, particularly when paired with debates around the collapse of historical structures of power (the Fascist regime in 1943 or the Adriatisches Küstenland in 1945) and revisionism of the last years of the Second World War and the Resistance. Their mythical and archetypal stance also found its way specifically in the literary culture of the region. In many cases literature at the north-eastern borders of Italy incorporated ‘foibe’ as literary symbols, specifically in their capacity as metaphors of border anxiety and of a confrontational dimension with the ‘Slav world’ usually described in pejorative terms (‘balcanicitŕ’, ‘slavismo’). After focusing on a number of narratives in prose, to include Giani Stuparich’s story ‘La grotta’ (1935), Carlo Sgorlon’s novel La foiba grande (1992) and Giuseppe Svalduz’s recent novel Una croce sulla foiba: Il grido delle vittime ritrova la strada della memoria (1996), Pizzi’s article dwells at some length on the literary production of Enrico Morovich and in particular his novel Il baratro (1964). By dealing with ‘foibe’ indirectly, Morovich reinforces, by their absence, all the horrors and fears which are inherent to them. He also signs one of the most chillingly realistic fictional renderings of ‘foibe’ of all times. Far from remaining void ‘outposts on nothingness’, ‘foibe’ speak by virtue of their silence. With his own ostensible silence, Pizzi argues, Morovich is doing exactly the same.