Slovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost

Slovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost
Slovenian Comparative Literature Association

Oddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo Univerze v Ljubljani
ZRC SAZU / Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts

21. Mednarodni literarni festival Vilenica
21^st Vilenica International Literary Festival

Lipica, Slovenija, 7.-8. september 2006

Vodji kolokvija / Directors of the Colloquium

Vanesa Matajc, Gašper Troha

Lucia Boldrini (profesorica primerjalne književnosti / Professor of Comparative Literature, University of London)

Marijan Dović (raziskovalec / Researcher, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU)

Bart Keunen (profesor primerjalne književnosti / Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Ghent)

John Neubauer (profesor emeritus primerjalne književnosti / Professor emeritus of Comparative Literature, University of Amsterdam)

Egon Pelikan (profesor sodobne zgodovine / Professor of Contemporary History, Univerza na primorskem / University of Primorska, Koper)

Gregor Pompe (asistent za muzikologijo / Assistant Professor of Musicology, Univerza v Ljubljani / University of Ljubljana)

Karl Stuhlpfarrer (profesor sodobne zgodovine / Professor of Contemporary History, Univerza v Celovcu / University of Klagenfurt)

Igor Škamperle (profesor sociologije / Professor of Sociology, Univerza v Ljubljani / University of Ljubljana)

Beata Thomka (profesorica primerjalne književnosti / Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Pécs)

Gašper Troha (mladi raziskovalec / Junior Research Fellow, Univerza v Ljubljani / University of Ljubljana)

JOHN NEUBAUER (Amsterdam): Zgodovinopisje literarne zgodovine / The Historiography of Literary History.

IGOR ŠKAMPERLE (Ljubljana): Družba, zgodovina in literarni pogled / Society, History and Literary Perspective.

LUCIA BOLDRINI (London): Na meji novega izma / On the Threshold of a New ism.

EGON PELIKAN (Koper): Zgodovinski roman med nacionalno identiteto, ideologijami in “zgodovinskimi žanri” / Historical Novel between National Identity, Ideologies and “Literary Genres”.

BEATA THOMKA (Pécs): Dekonstrukcija zgodovine in narativna identiteta / Deconstruction of History and Its Narrative Identity.

BART KEUNEN (Ghent): Pojav meta-žanra: modernizacija romana / The Emergence of a Meta-genre: the Modernization of the Novel.

MARIJAN DOVIĆ (Ljubljana): Zgodnje literarne artikulacije slovenske nacionalne zgodovine in »slovenski kulturni sindrom« / Early Literary Articulations of Slovenian National History and »Slovenian Cultural Syndrome«.

GAŠPER TROHA (Ljubljana): Zgodovinska drama in njena družbena vloga na Slovenskem pod komunizmom / Historical Drama and Its Social Role in Slovenia under Communism.

KARL STUHLPFARRER (Celovec/ Klagenfurt): »1. april 2000«: avstrijski film, ki je gradil narod / »1. April 2000«: A Nation Building Austrian Film.

GREGOR POMPE (Ljubljana): Zgodovina opere in zgodovinska opera / The History of Opera and Historical Opera.

Zgodovina in njeni literarni žanri

Slovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost (SDPK) v sodelovanju z Društvom slovenskih pisateljev in Oddelkom za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo Univerze v Ljubljani prireja 4. Mednarodni komparativistični kolokvij, vključen v program 21. Mednarodnega literarnega festivala Vilenica (2005). Kolokvij bo potekal v sejni sobi hotela Maestoso v Lipici, in sicer v četrtek in petek, 7. in 8. septembra 2006, s pričetkom v četrtek ob 15. uri. Kolokvij letos pripravljata in vodita dr. Vanesa Matajc(Oddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani) in mladi raziskovalec Gašper Troha (Oddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani).

Sledi predstavitev koncepta, ciljev in tem kolokvija, za njim pa še vabilo k priglasitvi referatov in najnujnejša obvestila.

Zgodovina in njeni literarni žanri

V obdobju vzpostavljanja zgodovinske zavesti in kulturno-političnih konceptov emancipacije narodov so romantična literarna teorija, literarna zgodovina, filzofija zgodovine in literarna praksa v Evropi uveljavile nove, zgodovinske literarne žanre, zlasti zgodovinski roman in zgodovinsko dramatiko. Zgodovinski literarni žanri so po eni strani izražali novo razumevanje umetnosti kot nosilke estetskega doživljaja in preko estetskega doživljaja sta romantična literarna teorija in literarna praksa lahko presegali novo uzaveščeno različnost preteklosti in sedanjosti, zgodovine in modernosti ter s tem (po G. Lukacsu) uveljavili zavest o zgodovinskem relativizmu. Po drugi strani so zgodovinski literarni žanri s tematizacijami nacionalne zgodovine in s konstruiranjem nacionalne mitologije v obdobju kulturno-politične emancipacije narodov že od samih začetkov (W. Scott) krepili zavest o posebni nacionalni identiteti med čedalje obsežnejšo bralsko publiko – mnogi romantični in poromantični avtorji zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov so se hkrati angažirali v uveljavljanju posamezne nacionalne emancipacije (H. Sienkiewicz) in s tematizacijo reprezentativnih dogodkov nacionalne preteklosti ustvarjali nacionalno mitologijo (slovenski primer: čez sto tematizacij domnevno slovenskega plemstva Celjskih grofov, posebej učinkovitih v zvrsti zgodovinske drame), odvisno od vsakokratnih političnozgodovinskih okoliščin pa so reprezentativne zgodovinske dogodke tematizirali tudi v skladu z aktualnimi političnimi ideologijami, ki so angažirano uporabljale poudarjeno referencialnost zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov (v okviru politične ideologije socializma M. Šolohov, v slovenski literaturi T. Svetina). Izhodiščna, romantična zgodovinska zavest je nastajala v progresivnem konceptu zgodovine; z zlomom metafizičnih sistemov v obdobju moderne in s pojavom modernizmov na različnih področjih človekovega delovanja pa se je spremenil tudi koncept zgodovinopisja v literarnih žanrih. Tako je duhovnozgodovinska šola z vzornikom v filozofu W. Diltheyu obudila koncept ciklične zgodovine in izjemnega, zgodovinotvornega posameznika, ki naj bi ga najustrezneje predstavljal prav zgodovinski literarni žanr, zlasti biografsko-zgodovinski roman (S. Zweig). Dosledno izpeljavo tega koncepta zgodovine predstavlja modernistični zgodovinski roman, ki posodablja zgodovinskega posameznika s tehniko toka zavesti (H. Broch, M. Yourcenar) ali razcepi zgodovinsko resničnost na soobstoječe, različne subjektivne predstave zgodovinske resničnosti (A. Szczypiorski, A. Makine; dramatika D. Jovanović, R. Šeligo). Dosledno izpeljavo zloma metafizičnih sistemov in zgodovinskega relativizma pa izraža postmodernistični roman (J. Fowles, U. Eco, A. Bitov) s svojim, tretjim konceptom zgodovine, ki estetsko razkriva konstruiranost zgodovine kot zgodovinopisja in tako učinkovito vzpostavlja ontološko negotovost prav z »dokumentarno« zgodovinsko snovjo. Sočasna teoretska refleksija je z analizo konstrukcije diskurzivnih sistemov (M. Foucault) relativizirala tudi konstrukcije zgodovinske zavesti in s tem ponudila izhodišča za pluralizem zgodovinopisnih diskurzov, torej za soobstoj različnih konceptualizacij zgodovinopisja (H. Lindenberger) v literarnih žanrih sodobnosti (slovenski primer: različni koncepti zgodovine pri sodobnih romanopiscih A. Rebuli, N. Pirjevec, I. Škamperletu in D. Jančarju). S tem je poudarila interakcijo literarnih in neliterarnih, vselej pa »zgodovinotvornih« diskurzov v posameznih zgodovinskih obdobjih (metodološka usmeritev »novi historizem«, S. Greenblatt, H. White).

Mednarodni simpozij bo v dialogu, ki se ga bodo udeležili literarni znanstveniki in pisatelji iz Slovenije in tujine, premislil o sodobnem stanju zgodovinskega relativizma v literarnih žanrih z vidika teoretskih konceptov zgodovine in avtopoetik ustvarjalcev zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov v okviru naslednjih tem:

- vsebinsko-strukturne spremembe zgodovinskih žanrov glede na različne koncepte zgodovine od romantike do sodobnosti,

- razmerje med zgodovinskimi literarnimi žanri in: a) političnimi ideologijami; b) nacionalnimi mitologijami

- ohranjanje tradicionalnejših konceptov zgodovine v trivialnih zgodovinopisnih literarnih žanrih

- poetike in avtopoetike zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov in njihovih ustvarjalcev

Koncept kolokvija pripravili as. dr. Vanesa Matajc, Filozofska fakulteta, izr. prof. dr. Marko Juvan, predsednik SDPK, doc. Dr. Vid Snoj, Filozofska fakulteta; organizatorja Vanesa Matajc, Gašper Troha.

4^th International Colloquium / Mednarodni kolokvij, Lipica, 7^th-8 th september 2006

The Slovene Comparative Literature Association organises, in co-operation with Slovenian Writers' Association and Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the 4th International Comparative Literature Colloquium, which is to be included in the programme of the 21st International Writers' Festival Vilenica (2006). The colloquium will take place in the conference room of the Maestoso hotel, Lipica (near Sežana, close to the Slovene-Italian border), on Thursday, September 7^th (beginning at 3 p. m.), and Friday, September 8^th, 2006. The event will be chaired by Assistant Vanesa Matajc (Department for Comparative Literature and Literary Theory, Faculty of Art, University of Ljubljana) and Mr Gašper Troha, junior research fellow (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana).

Below please find the concept and scope of the colloquium, as well as the call for papers and other information of importance.

History and its literary genres

In the period when historical consciousness and culturally-political concepts of the emancipation of nations were formed, romantic literary theory, literary history, philosophy of history and literary praxis in Europe established new, historical literary genres, especially the historical novel and the historical drama play. These genres expressed a new conception of art as a means of aesthetic experience; through this aesthetic experience the romantic literary theory and literary praxis tried to transcend the new consciousness about the difference between the past and the present, as well as the difference between history and modernity. In this way it became possible (following G. Lukacs) to establish the historical relativism.

Historical literary genres, on the other hand, have – by writing on themes covering different periods of national history as well as by constructing national mythology in the period of cultural and political emancipation of nations – from the very beginning (W. Scott) strenghtened the consciousness of national identity among the increasing number of readers. Many romantic and postromantic authors of historical literary genres were at the same time engaged in establishing national emancipation (H. Sienkiewicz); by writing about the representative events of national history they helped to construct national mythology (in Slovene case, more than one hundred works on the supposedly authentical Slovene aristocracy, the Counts of Celje)

These important historical events were represented according to current political ideologies which – on the other hand – exploited the reference of the historical literary genres for their purposes (Russian case: M. Šolohov in the frame of the socialist ideology; Slovene case: T. Svetina).

The origines of the romantic historical consciousness lie in the progressive concept of history; the break of metaphysical systems in the period of the Moderne and the appearance of modernism in different areas of human activity changed also the concept of historiography in the literary genres. The so called Geistesgeschichtliche school with its iniciator W. Dilthey thus awoke the concept of the cyclical history as well as of the extraordinary, history-making individual who could be most appropriately represented precisely in the historical genre of the biographical novel (S. Zweig).

A consistent presentation of this concept can be found in the modernistic historical novel which, by using the technique of stream of consciousness, makes its historical individual figure continually present (H. Broch, M. Yourcenar) or splits the historical reality into coexisting, but different subjective fragmentary representations of this reality (A. Szcipiorsky, A. Makine, D. Jovanović, R. Šeligo).

The most consistent presentation of the breakdown of metaphysical systems and historical relativism is expressed by the postmodernist novel (J. Fowles, U. Eco, A. Bitov) and contemporary historical drama (R. Ballek); its conception of history presents an aesthetic revelation of the ways in which history is being constructed. The postmodernist novel and drama with their historiographycal metafiction thus effectively constitute the ontological uncertanity precisely by using »documentary« historical material.

Contemporary theoretical reflection has – by analysing the construction of discoursive systems (M. Foucault) – made also the construction of historical consciousness more relative and thus enabled the pluralisation of the historiographic discourses; i.e. the coexistance of different conceptualizations of historiography (H. Lindenberger) in the literary genres nowadays (Slovene case: different conceptions of history in the opus of contemporary Slovene novelists A. Rebula, N. Pirjevec, I. Škamperle, and D. Jančar).The new historical relativism thus emphasized the interaction between literary and non-literary discourses (which are always history-making) in singular historical periods (method of so called New Historicism with S. Greenblatt and H. White).

The aim of the colloquium is to reflect the contemporary situation of historical relativism in the literary genres regarding the different conceptions of history in literature.

2. Structural changes in the historiographical literary genres according to different conceptions of the history from romanticism till nowadays,

3. Relation between historiographical literary genres and: a) political ideologies; b) national mythologies,

5. Insistance on the traditional concept of history in popular (trivial) historiographical literary genres in order to strenghten the consciousness of a national identity or political ideology,

6. Poetics and authopoetics of the writers of historiographical literary genres.

V knjigi The Idea of History (prvič objavljena posthumno l. 1946) je R.G. Collingwood zavrnil teorijo zgodovine, po kateri naj bi zgodovinar objektivno beležil zgodovinska dejstva. Če izhajamo iz spoznanja, da zgodovinar pri (re)konstrukciji zgodovinskih dogodkov uporablja svojo domišljijo in je sam svoja končna avtoriteta, »je mogoče izvesti nekaj, kar bi lahko imenovali kopernikanski obrat v teoriji zgodovine.«[1] Colligwoodov obrat lahko imenujemo tudi paradigmatski obrat, ki je termin Thomasa Kuhna iz knjige Struktura znanstvenih revolucij.[2] Krizni momenti, ko »normalna znanost« (tisto, kar Collingwood imenuje »zdravorazumska zgodovina«) ne more razložiti dejstev, ki jih dobimo z obstoječimi znanstvenimi teorijami, in se torej pojavi zahteva po novih teoretičnih okvirjih, ustvarjajo po Kuhnu možnost za vznik nove paradigme, kar pelje v boj za njeno sprejetje. Čeprav Kuhnovo zanimanje v prvi vrsti velja znanosti, osvetli tudi posledice teh kriz v družbi, kjer povzročijo dvom in nostalgijo za gotovostmi.

Takšno zgodovinsko, kulturno in intelektualno krizo opisuje John Banville v romanu Doktor Kopernik (1976)[3], prvem iz trilogije revolucij (vključuje še romana Kepler (1981) in Newtonovo pismo (1982)). V Doktorju Koperniku avtor simultano uporablja diskurze znanosti, politike, filozofije, biografije in avtobiografije, fikcije, zgodovinopisja in ekonomije, s čimer kaže njihovo prepletenost in postavlja Kopernika v središče prehoda med srednjim in novim vekom, v središče sodobnih paradigmatskih kriz ter obnove vseh omenjenih diskurzov.

Izhajajoč iz poznega srednjega veka je Kopernik – človek med srednjim vekom in renesanso, kot ga imenuje Kuhn v The Copernican Revolution, ki jo kot vir navaja tudi Banville – napovedoval novi vek. V Banvillovem romanu srečamo povsem očitne anahronizme (citate Plancka in Einsteina) in postmodernistično mešanico stilističnih in narativnih postopkov, ki bi jih pripisali drugim literarnim žanrom (biografiji in avtobiografiji; razvojnemu romanu; pripovedi z vsevednim pripovedovalcem ali negotovim prvoosebnim pripovedovalcem; romanu v pismih itd.). Banvillova uporaba teh tehnik (če uporabim besede še enega zgodovinarja Hansa Kellnerja, lahko rečem, da zgodbo, namesto da bi jo pojasnjevale, še dodatno zapletajo[4]) nas pelje k spoznanju, do smo dandanes v podobni krizi, kot jo je doživljala Kopernikova družba pred petimi stoletji; da bodo torej našo prevladujočo paradigmo zamenjale nove, zaenkrat še neznane in zato skrb vzbujajoče paradigme. Lahko rečemo, da Kopernikanski obrat in postmodernizem predstavljata uvod in epilog moderne paradigme. Zdi se, da Banville s hibridizacijo in povezovanjem diskurzov razširi Kuhnovo analizo zgodovine znanosti v bolj zaokroženo podobo, ki bi jo lahko s Foucaultevim pojmom imenovali episteme obdobja.

V predavanju o t.i. smrti romana pred 25-imi leti nas je Banville pozval, naj ohranimo mirno kri in izjavil: »Modernizem je prehodil svojo pot in prav tako jo je prehodil tudi postmodernizem. Verjamem, oz. vsaj upam, da smo sedaj na meji novega izma, nove sinteze. Kakšna bo? Tega seveda ne vem.«[5] Banville na tem mestu sicer govori o specifično umetniških oblikah, a njegovo upanje lahko razumemo tudi bolj splošno kot upanje na spremembo intelektualnih in kulturnih (prav tako tudi političnih in ekonomskih) družbenih struktur. Potrebo po tem, da ohranimo mirno kri v času paradigmatskega obrata – in s tem paralelo med Kopernikovim časom in našo sodobnostjo – potrjuje Banvillova izbira izrazov, s katerimi opisuje debato med mladim Kopernikom in enim njegovih učiteljev na univerzi v Krakovu. Kopernik namreč v učiteljevi obrambi Ptolomejevega nauka zazna pomanjkanje poguma (v angleščini gre za besedno igro, saj nas Banville opozarja naj »keep our nerve«, medtem ko Kopernik zazna »failure of nerve«), zaradi katerega učitelj ostaja ves čas zvest starim reakcionarnim dogmam, čeprav se zaveda, da ne funkcionirajo več (da namreč rezultati opazovanj ne ustrezajo več obstoječim teorijam in da bo moralo zaradi tega priti do spremembe paradigme, ki bo v temelju spremenila naše dojemanje sveta in reda v njem). Glede na obseg zgodovinskih, kulturnih in religioznih prevratov, ki smo jim priča dandanašnji, se moramo vsekakor strinjati z Banvillom, da moramo obdržati mirno kri ob zadnjem kopernikanskem obratu in da raziskovanje oblik, vzrokov in možnih posledic teh prevratnih dogodkov ne zadeva le literarno znanost, temveč je bistveno za oblikovanje naše celotne zgodovinske zavesti.

In his now classic The Idea of History (first published posthumously in 1946), R. G. Collingwood rejects what he calls the “common-sense theory” of history, according to which the historian objectively records facts as they have happened. Collingwood argues that by recognising that the historian uses his imagination in the (re)construction of historical events, and that therefore the historian himself – rather than (presumed) objective facts – is his own ultimate authority, “it is possible to effect what one might call a Copernican revolution in the theory of history”.[6] In the terms of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, what Collingwood describes would be seen as a paradigm shift.[7] Moments of crisis, when “normal science” (in a sense, the correlative of Collingwood’s “common-sense theory of history”) fails to confirm the data that can be accommodated within the existing scientific theories and thus new theoretical frameworks are required, constitute for Kuhn opportunities for the emergence of a new paradigm, and a battle will ensue over its acceptance. While Kuhn’s focus is especially on science, he also highlights how these crises are felt within the structure of society, engendering doubt and the nostalgia for certainties.

Such moments of historical, cultural and intellectual crisis are explored in John Banville’s Doctor Copernicus (1976),[8] the first of his “Revolutions Trilogy” (which also includes Kepler (1981) and The Newton Letter (1982)). Doctor Copernicus simultaneously engages the discourses of science, politics, philosophy, biography and autobiography, fiction, historiography and economics, showing their interrelatedness and placing the figure of Copernicus at the centre of early modern and contemporary paradigmatic crises and of the renewal of all these discourses.

Emerging from the late medieval period, Copernicus – the man suspended between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as Kuhn defines him in The Copernican Revolution, cited by Banville as one of his sources – heralds in modernity. In his novel, Banville uses obvious anachronisms (such as quotations from Planck or Einstein), and a “postmodern” mix of stylistic and narrative devices that one would normally ascribe to different genres (biography and autobiography; Bildungsroman; traditional third person omniscient narration; unreliable first person narrative; epistolary novel; etc.). Banville’s use of these techniques (which, to use the words of another historian, Hans Kellner, seem to aim not “to get the story straight” but “to get the story ‘crooked’”[9]) suggests that we are at a comparable moment of as deep a crisis as affected Copernicus’s society five centuries ago, and that our prevalent paradigm is being replaced with new, as yet unknown (and therefore often deeply worrying) ones. The Copernican revolution and postmodernism are configured, in other words, as the bookends of the paradigm of modernity. Through his hybridization and interrelation of discourses, Banville can thus be seen to extend Kuhn’s analysis of the history of science into the more encompassing Foucauldian notion of epochal episteme.

In a talk given 25 years ago, discussing the so-called “death of the novel”, Banville invited us to “keep our nerve” and stated: “Modernism has run its course. So also, for that matter, has post-modernism. I believe, at least I hope, that we are on the threshold of a new ism, a new synthesis. What will it be? I do not know.”[10] Banville is specifically talking about artistic forms here, but his “hope” can be taken to refer, more generally, to the changing intellectual and cultural (as well as political and economic) structures of our society. The need to “keep our nerve” at times of paradigmatic revolution – and thus the parallel between Copernicus’ times and ours – is confirmed by the language used by Banville to describe young Copernicus’ debate with one of his teachers at the University of Cracow, when the young scholar identifies in the old professor’s defence of Ptolemy “a failure of nerve” that stubbornly continues to remain faithful to “the old reactionary dogmas” despite the awareness that they no longer function adequately (in other words, that the results of observations no longer fits the existing theories and that therefore a paradigm shift is about to occur that will change our perception of the world and of world order forever). Seeing the magnitude of the historical, political, cultural, religious upheavals that our world is experiencing today, we must certainly agree with Banville that we need to keep our nerve through this latest “Copernican revolution”, and that exploring the forms that these revolutions take, their roots, and their possible consequences, is more than a literary game: it is essential to our historical consciousness.

Zgodnje literarne artikulacije slovenske nacionalne zgodovine in »slovenski kulturni sindrom«

Že od začetkov slovenske »umetne« literature je preteklost prisotna v literarnem diskurzu – četudi ne takoj v okviru samostojnih »zgodovinskih« literarnih žanrov, se pogosto fragmentarno vključuje v tekste. Pomen teh fragmentov še posebej z literarnosociološkega vidika nikakor ni zanemarljiv. V starejših obdobjih slovenskega slovstva (reformacija, začetki razsvetljenstva) so v tem pogledu zanimivi predvsem nekateri predgovori (npr. v Bohoričevo in Pohlinovo slovnico), ki pa še niso literarne narave, saj lahko o pravi literaturi (besedili z estetsko oziroma literarno intenco) govorimo šele v zvezi s Pisanicami, predvsem njihovim vodilnim avtorjem – Devom. Kljub temu so nekatere izjave v teh predgovorih simptomatične in se navezujejo na poznejše tematizacije zgodovinskih fragmentov.

Prispevek se zatem osredotoča na analizo artikulacij drobcev slovenske nacionalne zgodovine pri začetnikih slovenske literature, predvsem pri Valentinu Vodniku v obeh »ilirskih« odah ter v poeziji Franceta Prešerna, posebej v njegovem Krstu pri Savici, v zvezi z njihovimi ideološkimi implikacijami. Problematiko mitologiziranih zgodovinskih artikulacij v literarnih besedilih avtor naveže na vprašanje »slovenskega kulturnega sindroma«, popularne teze o posebni vlogi literature pri zgodovinskem konstituiranju slovenskega naroda in državnosti, pri čemer polemično prevprašuje različne trditve, ki so jih o tem problemu v dvajsetem stoletju postavljali znani teoretiki, kot so Dimitrij Rupel, Dušan Pirjevec in Rastko Močnik. Uveljavljena teza, katere nastavki so se večinoma izoblikovali že v drugi polovici devetnajstega stoletja, se bo pokazala kot pomanjkljiva ali celo do neke mere problematična. Z vidika teorije literarnega sistema bo zato prispevek na koncu skušal sintetizirati in dopolniti dosedanja spoznanja na tem področju.

Early Literary Articulations of Slovenian National History and the “Slovenian Cultural Syndrome”

The notion of history in discourse has existed from the very beginning of Slovenian “artistic” literature. Although this did not immediately result in the development of historical literary genres, we cannot overlook the fragmentary presence of history in discourse. During the Reformation and early Enlightenment, such historical fragments are found in certain prologues (e.g., to the grammars of Bohorič and Pohlin). However these cannot yet be considered literary texts (texts with a certain artistic value) because such texts are found no earlier than Pisanice (Writings; the first Slovenian poetry almanac), especially in the work of Janez Damascen Dev. Nevertheless, these prologues contain certain symptomatic statements that can be traced in later articulations of the subject.

I analyze these historical fragments and their ideological implications in the work of the founders of Slovenian literature – above all in Valentin Vodnik’s “Illyrian” odes and in the poetry of France Prešeren, especially in Krst pri Savici (Baptism at the Savica). I use the results of my analysis to reconsider the “Slovenian cultural syndrome” thesis, which was developed by certain 20th-century literary theoreticians (Dušan Pirjevec, Dimitrij Rupel, and Rastko Močnik). They all assigned a special role to Slovenian literature in the emancipation of the Slovenian nation and the constitution of Slovenia as an independent state. I attempt to question these theories and propose my own view of the relations between historical literary genres and national mythologies based on a theory of a literary system.

V svojem prispevku se bom ukvarjal s povezavami med modernostjo, zgodbo modernega romana in njegovimi žanrskimi podvrstami. Tema je relevantna za splošno zgodovino literature, a jo lahko uporabimo tudi za to, da na nov način osvetlimo problematiko zgodovinskega romana.

Ob povezovanju romana s sodobnostjo se ne bom ukvarjal z že večkrat obdelanim pojavom vsakdanjega življenja (in realistične poetike) v delih najvidnejših avtorjev novoveškega romana (Cervantes, Richardson, Fielding itd.), ampak bo center mojega zanimanja vedno večja kompleksnost dinamike zapleta v modernem romanu. Preprosto povedano, skušal bom razmejiti predmoderno (zgodnje moderno) od moderne (visoko moderne) dinamike zapleta z zasledovanjem dveh tipov zgodbe. Na eni strani predmoderno dinamiko zapleta zaznamuje njena eshatološka narava. Romaneskni žanri, kakršna sta viteški in pikareskni roman (skladno z idejami Todorova in Greimasa) imajo zgodbo zgrajeno na sklenjenem pripovednem loku, njihov zaplet vodi avanturistično dogajanje h končni razrešitvi v ravnotežju. To ravnotežje ima obliko eshatološkega telosa, ki naddoloča vse konflikte v zgodbi. Na drugi strani ima visoko moderna dinamika zapleta mešano naravo. Moderni roman pogosto uporablja eshatološke vzorce, a obenem daje veliko prostora konfliktom, ki so vezani na karakterje. Na podlagi sodobnih naratoloških študij (npr. poznega dela Todorova, misli Rolanda Barthesa in postklasične naratologije Jamesa Phelana ter Mary-Laure Ryan) lahko gledamo na dinamiko zapleta kot na vzajemno igro med karakterji, med psihološkimi silami in protagonistom ali pa med družbenimi silami in protagonistom. Ta tip zapleta bom imenoval dialoški tip, saj določa narativno dinamiko s pomočjo dialogov (med karakterji oz. nasprotujočimi si silami) in konfliktov, ki jih poraja dialoška igra med narativnimi elementi. Z vpeljavo dialoške dinamike zapleta moderni roman deluje kot meta-žanr, kot tip teksta, ki implicitno in včasih tudi eksplicitno reflektira ostale žanrske forme ter jih preoblikuje v del svoje odprte narativne strukture. Takšno diagnozo lahko najdemo že pri Bahtinu (Ep in roman) in Fridericu Jamesonu (The Political Unconscious), vendar naratološka teorija meta-žanrske narave romana še ni bila napisana. Z opisom romana kot kombinacije eshatološke in dialoške dinamike zapleta bom skušal pojasniti, zakaj je roman sposoben v svoji zgradbi združiti številne tipe tekstov: avanturistične zgodbe, tragične pripovedne linije, melodramatske konflikte, lirične meditacije in dokumentarna poročila. S to analizo bom lahko kasneje razložil tudi usodo romana v njegovem zgodovinskem razvoju. Modernistični in postmodernistični roman 20. stoletja sta radikalizirala meta-žanrske tendence, ki so se pojavile v 18. in 19. stoletju. Poleg tega je s pomočjo razlikovanja med tipi zapletov mogoče jasneje določiti razlike med vrstami zgodovinskih romanov. Sam bom predstavil le eno bistveno razliko. Nekatere zgodovinske romane lahko razumemo kot tekste, ki uporabljajo eshatološke tipe zapletov, da bi rekonstruirali starejše tipe zapleta znotraj moderne poetike; ostale pa lahko razumemo kot meta-žanrske tekste, ki reflektirajo splošne mehanizme pripovedovanja zgodb.

In my contribution I will study the link between modernity, the plot of the modern novel and the generic subdivisions of the novel. This topic has a general historiographical relevance, but it can also be used to shed a peculiar light on the issue of the historical novel.

In linking the novel and modernity, I will not deal with the already abundantly described emergence of the “everyday” (and of a “realist” poetics) in the work of the major authors in early modern times (Cervantes, Richardson, Fielding, etc…). The focus will be on the increasing complexity of the plot dynamics in the modern novel. In a somewhat simplifying manner I would like to distinguish between premodern (or early modern) and modern (or high modern) plot dynamics by referring to two distinct plot types. On the one hand, the premodern plot dynamics are characterized by their eschatological nature. Novelistic genres like the chivalric romance or the picaresque novel can be described (in the line of Todorov and Greimas) as having a rather rigorous story arc, a plot structure that directs adventurous actions towards a state of equilibrium. The equilibrium takes the form of an eschatological “telos” that overdetermines all conflicts within the narrative. On the other hand, the high modern plot dynamics have a mixed nature. A modern novel very often works with eschatological patterns, but in the meantime it gives ample space to conflicts that are character-bound. By means of recent narratological studies (e.g. the later work of Todorov, the work of Roland Barthes and the postclassical narratology of James Phelan and Mary-Laure Ryan) the plot dynamics of a novel can be described as interplay between characters, between psychological forces and a protagonist, or between sociological forces and a protagonist. This kind of plot I would like to call a “dialogical” plot type, because it determines the narrative dynamics by means of dialogues (between the characters, between opposed forces) and by means of conflicts that are generated by a dialogical interplay between the narrative elements.

By introducing dialogical plot dynamics, the modern novel appears as a meta-genre, as a text type that reflects implicitly and sometimes explicitly on other generic forms and transforms them into aspects of an essentially open narrative structure. This diagnosis is also found in the work of Bachtin (Epic and Novel) and Fredric Jameson (The Political Unconscious), but a narratological theory of the meta-generic nature of the novel is not written yet. By describing the novel as a combination of eschatological and dialogical plot dynamics I will try to explain why the novel is able to combine in its plot structure a variety of other text types: adventure stories, tragic plot lines, melodramatic conflicts, lyrical meditations and documentary reports. Following this argument, we can also understand the fate of the novel in later times. The modernist or postmodernist novel of the 20^th century radicalises the meta-generic tendencies that emerged during the 18^th and 19^th century. Moreover, by means of the distinction between plot types, it is possible to have a better insight in the differences between kinds of historical novels. I will introduce only one basic distinction. Some historical novels can be seen as texts using eschatological plot types (in order to reconstruct the older plot types within a modern poetics); others can be considered as meta-generic texts reflecting on the mechanisms of story telling in general.

Zanimajo me odnosi med modernim zgodovinopisjem, zgodovinskimi literarnimi žanri in literarno zgodovino. Natančneje, kako so njihove izvirne oblike vplivale ena na drugo? Podoba teh medsebojnih razmerij nas namreč postavlja pred paradoks. Ko se je zgodovinopisje pojavilo in je v začetku 19. stoletja postopoma preraslo v znanstveno disciplino, je bila njegova najpomembnejša naloga ta, da se z vpeljavo pozitivističnega diskurza osvobodi vseh ostankov fikcije. Vendar pa je to emancipacijo zaviral konkurenčni pojav fikcijskega literarnega diskurza, zgodovinskega romana in drame, ki sta nastala približno v istem obdobju in sta bila med bralci veliko bolj popularna kot suhoparen znanstveni diskurz zgodovinopisja.

Novejše študije so pokazale, kako so Walter Scott in ostali avtorji zgodovinskih žanrov tekmovali z zgodovinskim pisanjem, sam pa ne poznam študije, ki bi se ukvarjala s tretjim zgodovinskim žanrom, literarno zgodovino, ki je prav tako nastala v začetku 19. stoletja in se je usidrala med oba prej omenjena. Čeprav ni mogla tekmovati s slednjima v popularnosti in znanstveni veličini, je odločilno oblikovala identiteto nacionalnih skupin 19. stoletja s kanonizacijo nacionalnih avtorjev in njihovih del, saj so bile literarne zgodovine del programov v šolah in na univerzah.

Literarna zgodovina je podvrsta zgodovinopisja, katere status je že od vsega začetka predmet polemik. Glavni problem ni v tem, da je bolj kot druge vrste pisanja o zgodovini odvisna od tekstov – v tem pogledu se ne razlikuje dosti od določenih oblik duhovne zgodovine –, ampak se skriva v dejstvu, da literarna dela niso enoznačna, kar problematizira njihov status zgodovinskih dokumentov. Še več, ker imajo številna literarna dela dolgotrajnejši vpliv kot večina tekstov duhovne zgodovine, so podvržena vedno novim kritičnim pretresom. Kot je pokazala zgodovina recepcije, njihova relevantnost, ki močno presega meje zgodovinskega konteksta njihovega nastanka, predstavlja skorajda nerešljiv problem za pisanje njihove zgodovine. To je tudi eden od razlogov, da je dandanes literarna zgodovina v globoki krizi. Premik od literarne h kulturni zgodovini je zaenkrat poskus, ob katerem še ne moremo dokončno reči, ali bo uspel rešiti omenjene probleme. Čeprav sem sam naklonjen temu, da proučujemo literaturo v družbenem kontekstu, se mi zdi, da ta obrat postavlja pred raziskovalca še več metodoloških vprašanj kot klasična literarna zgodovina.

Hayden White in drugi so v zadnjih desetletjih pokazali, da vsako pisanje o zgodovini večinoma nereflektirano uporablja žanrske obrazce in pripovedne postopke. In kakšne narativne postopke so uporabljale prve literarne zgodovine? Po mojem mnenju so bili ti nabrani z zelo različnih področij: 1) s področja zgodovine živih organizmov, ki jo je biologija razvila v drugi polovici 18. stoletja in 2) s področja zgodovinske fikcije, ki je bila obenem eden od predmetov literarne zgodovine.

Kot sem že pokazal v nekaterih svojih študijah, je literarna zgodovina od biologije prevzela predvsem koncept »organskosti«, kompleksni termin, ki zaznamuje vsaj dve nasprotujoči si tendenci. V prvem in bolj običajnem pomenu so literarne (tudi muzikološke in umetnostno zgodovinske) študije aplicirale biološki krog rojstva, rasti, propada in smrti ne samo na razvoj literarnih obdobij in gibanj, ampak tudi na življenje umetnikov in na številna ostala časovna dogajanja v umetnosti. Nadalje ima organskost poleg tega diahronega tudi sinhroni oz. strukturni pomen: predvideva, da so elementi organsko povezani v celoto, da torej vsi, čeprav v različnih oblikah, predstavljajo isto jedro oz. bistvo totalitete. Vsi poznamo »organsko povezanost« z življenjem in delom umetnika ter takšnimi koncepti obdobij kot so barok, romantika in realizem, ki so jo literarni zgodovinarji do nedavnega pripisovali vsakemu uspešnemu umetniškemu delu. Takšne uporabe organskosti so bile v zadnjem času močno kritizirane, vendar pa nekateri najbolj grobi napadi tudi sami vsebujejo sledi te iste ideologije. Biologija pa je vplivala na razvijajočo se literarno zgodovino še v enem, tehničnem, a nič manj pomembnem pogledu. Zavrgla je namreč model vrojenosti (vsi potomci naj bi bili prisotni že v izvornem predstavniku vrste) in ga nadomestila z epigenezo (v vsaki organskosti je njej lastna življenjska in razvojna moč). Kot bom pokazal na primerih iz slavnih predavanj Augusta Wilhelma Schlegla o evropski literarni zgodovini, je to med drugim pripomoglo k ločitvi modernih od starih in vsakega novega obdobja od prejšnjih. Tako npr. Shakespeara ni bilo treba več presojati z dramskimi merili predhodnih obdobij.

Drugi poglavitni vir pripovednih postopkov v zgodnji literarni zgodovini so predstavljale zgodovinske pripovedi in drame, od katerih so bile nekatere obenem tudi njen predmet raziskovanja. To je seveda povzročalo nove probleme. Povsem na kratko gre za to, da so zgodovinske pripovedi in drame vedno opisovale individualne človeške usode, tudi ko so hotele naslikati širše zgodovinsko dogajanje. Uporaba teh individualnih usod v literarni zgodovini je bila očiten antropomorfizem. In nacionalne literarne zgodovine 19. stoletja so bile antropomorfne prav v tem smislu, saj naj bi popisovale narodovo dušo. Tako zgodovinski literarni žanri kot literarna zgodovina so izšli iz temeljne potrebe po ustvarjanju nacionalnih mitov, s katerimi naj bi vzpostavili zavest o lastnem sebstvu. Literarna zgodovina je s tem, ko je uporabljala modele fikcije in služila vzpostavljanju nacionalnih mitov, kompromitirala svoj znanstveni ugled. Čeprav je tudi pozitivistično zgodovinopisje sodelovalo pri konstrukciji nacionalnih mitov, je svojo vlogo lahko delno opravičilo s tem, da je izhajalo iz dejstev, medtem ko je bila literarna zgodovina na več načinov povezana s fikcijo.

I am interested in the relationship between modern history writing, the historical literary genres, and literary history. More specifically, how did their first forms interact with each other? Their mutual interdependence is paradoxical. When history writing emerged and became gradually professionalized in the early nineteenth century, one of its major tasks was to liberate itself from fiction by developing a positivistic discourse. However, this emancipatory move was slowed down and frustrated by a strong competition from the new fictional literary discourses developing almost parallel with it, namely the historical novels and dramas that enjoyed greater popularity than the stern factual discourse of the new historiography itself.

Several recent studies have shown how Walter Scott and his followers competed with history writing. I am not aware, however, of studies that would take into account a third early-nineteenth-century historical genre that nestled itself, so to speak, between history writing and historical fiction, namely literary history. Though it could not compete with the other two in terms of popularity and scholarly stature, it powerfully shaped the identity of nineteenth-century national groups by canonizing national writers and their works; literary histories were widely used in schools and at universities.

Literary history is a sub-species of history writing, whose status has been contested from its very beginnings. The problem is not that it relies more than most other forms of history writing on texts; in this it may not be that different from certain forms of Geistesgeschichte. More to the point is that literary texts tend to have elusive meanings, which makes their use as historical documents questionable. Moreover, since many literary texts have a more lasting historical appeal than most texts of Geistesgeschichte, they continually undergo critical revaluations. As reception history has shown, their life beyond the context of their historical origin infinitely complicates the writing of their history. This is one reason why the writing of literary histories finds itself in a deep crisis. Whether a shift from literary history to cultural history resolves this problem is yet to be seen. Though I am very much in favor of placing literature in a cultural context, I believe that this raises, rather than reduces, the number of methodological problems in writing literary histories.

Hayden White and others have shown in recent decades that all historical writing employs generic patterns and narrative forms, usually without reflection. What narrative forms have the first literary histories adopted? I suggest that they were eclectically taken from two very different fields: 1) the history of living organisms that the new biology developed in the second half of the eighteenth century, and 2) the historical fictions that were actually subject matters of literary history.

As I have shown in earlier publications, literary history’s main dept to biology was “organicism,” a rather complex term that covers at least two conflicting tendencies. In the first, more familiar and important sense, literary (as well as musicological and art historical) studies have adopted the biological cycle of birth, growth, decline, and death not only to the life of literary periods and movements, but also to the life of artists, and many other temporal processes in the arts. Furthermore, organicism has, next to this diachronic dimension, also a structural meaning: it implies that the parts of the totality are “organically” interrelated, that all of them manifest, though in various forms, the core or essence of that totality. We are all familiar with the “organic cohesion” that literary historians have attributed until recently to each successful work of art, to the life and the oeuvre of an artist, and to such period concepts of literary history as Baroque, Romanticism, and Realism. Such uses of organicism have been severely criticized recently, but some of the most radical attacks on it contain themselves vestiges of an organicist ideology. Biology made also another, more technical but no less important contribution to the emerging literary histories, by discarding the mechanistic preformation model (which claimed that all descendents are already present in the originator of a species) in favor of epigenesis (which attributed to each organicism an inner life force of its own). As I shall show with concrete examples from August Wilhelm Schlegel’s famous lectures on European literary history, this allowed a certain emancipation of the moderns from the ancients and of each epoch from the previous ones. Shakespeare, for instance, would no longer be subject to dramatic principles held by the ancients.

The second major source of the narrative patterns in early literary histories consisted of the historical narratives and dramas that constituted some their very subject matter. Inevitably, this created new problems. Briefly, historical narratives and dramas portrayed individual human lives, even if they were meant to exemplify important historical events. To project such individual lives unto literary history was blatant anthropomorphism. Indeed, the national literary histories of the nineteenth century were mostly anthropomorphic in this sense, for they alleged to chronicle the nation’s soul. Furthermore, historical fiction as well as literary history emerged as responses to a deeply felt need to construct national “myths” of the past in order to establish a sense of contemporary self. By adopting fictional models and serving the construction of national myths literary history compromised its scholarly standing. Though positivistic history writing also participated in the construction of national myths, it could claim it relied on facts whereas literary history was multiply guilty of relying on fiction.

Zgodovinski roman med nacionalno identiteto, ideologijami in »zgodovinskimi žanri«

Posvet v Vilenici poteka (slučajno) na dan kapitulacije Italije v drugi svetovni vojni in avtor je v svojem prispevku za primerjalno analizo literarizacije novejše slovenske zgodovine izbral dva odporniška zgodovinska romana, ki opisujeta tedanje zgodovinske dogodke: roman Alojza Rebule Nokturno za Primorsko (Mohorjeva družba, Celje 2004) ter roman Borisa Pahorja Zatemnitev (Slovenska Matica, Ljubljana 1987).

V obeh delih izstopa vrsta skupnih vsebinskih sklopov, ki se nanašajo na ključna vprašanja slovenske novejše zgodovine in po njih se oba avtorja v koncentričnih krogih, na različnih ravneh večplastne zgodovinske spirale, postopoma spuščata, od najbolj univerzalnih vprašanj, vse do ravni političnih in nazadnje osebno izkustvenih vprašanj, ki nato povratno (in v nasprotni smeri do najvišje ravni), ponovno legitimirajo in opravičujejo subjektivne sodbe, razmišljanja in posameznikovo delovanje – spet v imenu najvišjega, univerzalnega idejnega izhodišča. V obeh primerih imamo tako na enem mestu dolgo zbirko vsebin, ki pogojuje relacijo med literaturo in zgodovino: univerzalne kontekste evropske in svetovne zgodovine (od univerzalizma evropskega razsvetljenstva in katolicizma, do vprašanj evropskega odporništva, itd.); nacionalni zgodovinski kontekst (nasilje nad slovensko manjšino v Julijski krajini v času med obema vojnama); upor v Julijski krajini po prvi vojni (katoliški na eni strani in komunistični na drugi); vprašanja odporništva in kolaboracije v času druge svetovne vojne; koordinate avtobiografskega zgodovinskega romana (Boris Pahor je neposredno »avtobiografski«, a tudi sicer oba avtorja utemeljujeta univerzalna idejna izhodišča in vrednostne sodbe iz osebno precej angažiranih stališč); oba avtorja (hote ali nehote) stojita tudi v literariziranem ideološkem kontekstu interpretacije novejše slovenske zgodovine; oba se zato (hote ali nehote) takoj znajdeta v politični rabi zgodovinske snovi v obliki literariziranih parcialnih zgodb; poseben kontekst, ki druži oba avtorja je »zgodovinski kontekst zamejskosti« (pogled na zgodovino skupnega slovenskega etničnega prostora iz zornega kota dogajanja zgodovine v njegovem zahodnem delu pod fašistično Italijo); za oba avtorja pa je značilen tudi »aktualni kontekst zamejskosti« (tj. današnji pogled na kolektivni nacionalni spomin z »roba« etničnega prostora).

Izbor omenjenih nivojev in problematik, ki ju zgodovinska romana obravnavata, spominja na učnih programov študija zgodovine na kateri od univerz v Srednji Evropi, saj srečamo na enem mestu celoten »predmetnik« - od obče svetovne in evropske zgodovine (razsvetljenstvo, socialne revolucije, ideologije, odporništvo, kolaboracija, komunizem, politični katolicizem), vprašanj evropskih nacionalnih ideologij in »rojstva narodov«, analiz velikih totalitarnih ideologij, kronologij politične zgodovine, zgodovino evropskih nacionalnih manjšin, do zgodovine vsakdana, analize spominskih virov in še bi lahko naštevali.

Na končni ravni se avtorja soočata z osebnimi izkušnjami in usodami primorskih upornikov (katoličanov in komunistov) ter v velikem miselnem naporu poskušata argumentirati usodne določitve posameznikov in nazadnje (in posledično) tudi njihove osebne usode. V teh »presežkih«, ki so zgodovinski stroki prepovedani (spekulacija, domneve, sum, intuicija, predpostavka, itd.), avtorja segata iz področja zgodovinopisja na področja literarnega.

Historical Novel Between National Identity, Ideologies and “Literary Genres”

The fact that this year’s Vilenica Conference falls precisely on the day of the Italian capitulation in WWII has prompted the author to compare two historical novels dealing with these events. In order to conduct a comparative analysis of the literalization of contemporary Slovene history the author chose two history novels treating of the Resistance movement: Alojz Rebula’s Nokturno za Primorsko (Mohorjeva družba, Celje 2004) and Boris Pahor’s Zatemnitev (Slovenska Matica, Ljubljana 1987).

Both works manifest a series of common topics, which in concentric circles, on the various levels of the stratified historical helix, gradually descend from the highest to the lowest points, all the way to the level of political issues and, eventually, issues concerning personal experience, which are supposed to, in reverse (along the same helix but in the opposite direction, back to the highest degree), legitimate and justify anew the subjective opinions and activities of an individual – again, in the name of the highest, universal conceptual starting point. In both cases we are thus dealing with a collection of contents defining the literature – history relation:

- universal contexts of European and world history (from the universalism of European Enlightenment to the universal context of Catholicism, issues concerning European Resistance etc.);

- national historical context (violence exerted over the Slovene minority in Venezia Giulia during the Interwar period);

- emphasis on the role of the Resistance within the national framework of the Venezia Giulia region following WWI (Catholic Resistance on the one side and its Communist counterpart on the other);

- coordinates of an autobiographical historical novel (while Boris Pahor is also directly “autobiographic,” both authors substantiate their universal conceptual starting points and judgments with personal political opinions);

- both authors (intentionally or unintentionally) take their places in the literarized ideological context of the interpretation of contemporary Slovene history;

- both authors thus (intentionally or unintentionally) wind up in the frame of political use of historical matter in the form of literarized partial stories;

- a special context linking the two authors is the “historical context of crossborder area” (viewing the common Slovene cultural area from the standpoint of historical events taking place in the western part of Slovene ethnic space under Italian rule);

- a quality present in both authors is also the “current crossborder area context” (i.e., today’s view of the collective national memory from the “margin” of the ethnic space).

The selection of the mentioned levels and problems treated by the two historical novels appears most redolent of a history course curriculum of some central European university, as all “study subjects” are here gathered in one place – from general world and European history (Enlightenment, social revolutions, ideologies, Resistance, collaborationism, Communism, political Catholicism), issues concerning European national ideologies and “Ethnogenesis”, analyses of great totalitarian ideologies, chronology of political history, history of European national minorities, everyday history, analysis of memory sources, and much more.

On the final level the two authors confront their personal experiences and the fates of the members of the Primorska Resistance (Catholics and Communists) and through an extreme mental effort explicate and justify their own substantiations, understanding and reflections. But it is only with their efforts combined that the authors encompass the whole internal logic of events described on their personal levels through a long series of reflections, temptations and dilemmas that are complicated and defined by the contours of the national context. The latter is sharply ideological and as such “typically Slovene”, i.e., designated by the experience of a nation being contested for by two great ideologies that fatefully marked contemporary Slovene history and which, as such, also separate the authors and their thoughts by clear ideological perimeters. Myths, speculations, seemingly illogical links which in historiography “have no right to exist” enable in the literarization of history great overabundance in the perception of a multi-layered history processes on the one hand and great deficits on the other hand – to which fact the two historical novels undoubtedly stand as proof.

Namen referata je povezan s poizkusom definiranja žanra zgodovinske opere, predvsem v luči njenega razmerja do zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov. Literarna zgodovina v večini primerov postavlja na začetek razvoja zgodovinskega romana Walterja Scotta. Prav v času mode Walterja Scotta se je tudi pri opernih ustvarjalcih pojavil bistveno povečan interes za zgodovinske snovi. Zgodovinske snovi je sicer mogoče najti tudi v operah, ki so nastale v času pred 19. stoletjem, vendar pa je bil v baročni in klasicistični operi delež historičnih sižejev glede na prevladujoče mitološke teme, obdelave bibličnih legend in ljubezenske spletke obroben. Še pomembneje pa je, da se te redke opere z zgodovinsko snovjo v svojem ustroju in značilnostih niso prav nič razlikovale od oper, zasnovanih na nezgodovinskih temah, zaradi česar sploh ne moremo govoriti o posebnem žanru. Ob premišljevanju, kaj je to zgodovinska opera, moramo biti posebej pozorni, saj se kot osrednje vprašanje zastavlja, ali lahko v žanr zgodovinske opere uvrstimo res vsako glasbeno-gledališko delo, katerega libreto prinaša zgodovinsko snov.

V 19. stoletju postanejo opere z zgodovinsko snovjo prevladujoče, tak močan porast pa je gotovo povezan tudi z eno izmed osrednjih značilnosti romantike – z idejo karakterističnega. Nek posebej izbran zgodovinski dogodek je tako lahko zagotavljal specifično zgodovinsko barvo – »couleur du temps« –, po kateri se je opera ločila od vseh drugih. Tak postopek pa v operi ni predstavljal nekaj povsem novega, saj je podobno vlogo igrala že lokalna barva – »couleur locale«: skladatelj je svojo opero postavil na neko oddaljeno prizorišče, ki ga je naznačil z značilnim glasbenim eksotizmom ali folklorizmom.

Natančno preučevanje fenomena »couleur locale« nas utrdi v spoznanju, da takšni postopki največkrat prinašajo le videz karakterističnega, ne pa tudi prave individualnosti in razločljivosti. Problem lokalnih barv je namreč povezan z njihovo izmenljivostjo – pogosto se namreč zgodi, da eksotizem ali folklorizem lahko prepoznamo, saj se po svoji glasbeni ustrojenosti razlikujeta od preostalega konteksta, vendar pa jima je praktično nemogoče določiti izvor. Skladatelji pri naznačevanju lokalne barve uporabljajo vedno ene in iste kompozicijske tehnike. Podobno velja tudi za zgodovinske barve, ki pa niso izmenljive samo same med seboj, temveč pogosto tudi z lokalnimi barvami.

Specifik zgodovinske opere torej ne moremo iskati v glasbeni materialnosti, temveč v operni dramaturgiji. Le-ta pa je ozko povezana z vlogo, ki jo izbrana zgodovinska snov opravlja v operi. Pri tem lahko ločimo štiri značilne situacije:

Kljub množični uporabi zgodovinskih snovi so v 19. stoletju sorazmerno redki primeri, ko postane izbran zgodovinski dogodek osrednji nosilni element opere. Tako odločilno vlogo igra zgodovinski milje vsaj v velikih operah Giacoma Meyerbeerja in historijah Modesta Musorgskega. V skladu z načinom obravnave zgodovinske snovi, se v teh operah spreminja tudi dramaturgija: v središču so množične scene, ki preraščajo v velike statične slike, v katerih je močno povečan pomen vizualnega in pantomimičnega, bistveno se skrči delež intimnega dogajanja in s tem tudi število solističnih točk. Bolj kot te zunanje značilnosti »pravih« zgodovinskih oper, pa je pomembno spoznanje, da v teh operah zgodovinska snov pridobi idejno potenco in je njena vloga tako povzdignjena iz gole dekorativnosti.

Dodatno vprašanje se postavlja, kaj se zgodi v tistih primerih, ko ideja neke zgodovinske opere prevzame tudi ideološke poteze. Praktično vse nacionalne opere so zamišljene kot zgodovinske opere. Formalno so zopet odvisne od tujih zgledov in zato je v njih v resnici le malo nacionalno specifičnega. Vzorec za nacionalno opero je povzet po tujem modelu in sredstvih, nacionalna tipika pa je dodana prek prav tako že utečenega postopka lokalne barve. V nacionalnih operah pa je problematična tudi vrednost zgodovinske snovi kot idejnega potenciala, saj je praviloma v vsaki nacionalni operi izkoriščena za isti cilj: prebujanje nacionalnih čutov. Idejnost nacionalnih oper je tako reducirana na plakativno politično ali nacionalistično propagando.

Prostor zgodovinske opere je tako v primerjavi z literarnimi zgodovinskimi žanri, posebej z zgodovinskim romanom, bistveno zožan. To je mogoče potrditi na primeru Hladnikove tipologije zgodovinskega romana. Ko skušamo njegovo tipologijo aplicirati na žanr zgodovinske opere, se izkaže, da je mogoče z žanrom zgodovinske opere povezati le dva tipa. Kot odločilna se izkaže »preureditev« zgodovinske snovi v idejno vodilo, kar povzroča spremembe na dramaturškem in formalnem nivoju. Glede na Hladnikovo tipologijo zgodovina pridobiva takšno idejno vrednost, kadar izpostavlja splošnočloveške probleme ali pa ima zgodovinska metafora spoznavno razsežnost – le v primerih, ko zgodovina v operi opravlja podobno idejno funkcijo, lahko govorimo o samostojnem žanru zgodovinske opere.

The main goal of this article is to define the genre of historical opera, especially in its relation to literary historical genres. Literary history places Walter Scott at the beginning of the development of the historical novel. Scott’s contribution is also important for the evolution of operas dealing with historical subjects. These subjects can also be found in operas written before the 19th century, but their share is relatively small in comparison to the predominant mythological subjects, Biblical themes, or love affairs. Even more important: there is no difference in the structure and characteristics of operas dealing with historical and non-historical subjects. This is why one cannot speak of historical opera as an autonomous genre. The nature of historical opera should be very carefully considered. Is historical opera simply every musical-dramatic work that deals with a historical subject?

Operas based on historical subjects became dominant in the 19th century. This fever for historicity is partly connected to the central Romantic idea of character. A well-chosen historical event vouched for the specific historical flavor – couleur du temps – that distinguished this opera from others and fulfilled the claim of character. This was not a completely new idea. Composers had already made use of special local color, or couleur locale. Composers and librettists set their operas in remote sites and displayed local color with the help of musical exoticism or folklorism.

Detailed studies of couleur locale indicate that such procedures generally do not provide true individuality and distinctness, but only the fictitious shade of character. The problem of local color is connected with its interchangeability: exoticism and folklorism are recognizable within the surrounding context because of their musical construction, but it is often difficult to define their origins. This shows that composers always use the same compositional techniques to indicate local color. The same can also be claimed for various forms of historical color, which are interchangeable not only among themselves but also with local color.

The issues linked to local and historical color demand a search for the specifics of the historical opera, not only in musical material but especially in dramaturgy. The latter is closely linked to the role that a chosen historical subject plays in an opera. Four specific situations can thus be distinguished:

Despite the mass exploitation of historical subjects, only a few 19th-century operas feature a chosen historical subject as their central element (situation 3 above). At the very least, the historical milieu plays such an extensive role in Meyerbeer’s grand opéras Les Huguenots and Le prophete, and in Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov and his unfinished Khovanshchina. The special role of history in these operas affects changes at the level of dramaturgy: the centers of these operas include mass scenes, which grow in huge static pictures (tableaux) in which the functions of the visual and pantomimic are increased. Correspondingly, private actions and thus solo numbers become less important. More important than these external characteristics is that the historical subject gains ideal potency in such operas, and is thus elevated from a mere decorative function.

However, there is another question: What happens when the idea of historical opera is applied to ideological goals? Almost all national operas were conceived as historical operas. In their formal construction, however, they were dependent on foreign examples. This is why national operas in fact contain very few true national characteristics. The national operas were modeled on foreign schemata and the national characteristics were only added with the help of the well-known technique of local color. National operas also present problems regarding the ideal potential of the chosen historical subject, which is almost always used for the same goal: awakening of national feelings. The ideal potential of national operas is thus reduced to placatory politic or nationalistic propaganda.

From this it is clear that, in comparison with historical literary genres, especially the historical novel, the field of historical opera is essentially narrowed. This is confirmed by Hladnik’s typology of the historical novel. Applying his typology to the genre of historical opera, it turns out that only two of his types can be linked to this genre. The decisive transformation of the historical subject into an ideal focus creates changes at the dramatic and formal level, and this is why the specific characteristic of a historical opera can be found in these operas. According to Hladnik’s typology, history gains such an ideal value when it presents general human problems or when the historical metaphor acquires a cognitive dimension. Only when history acquires an ideal function in opera can one speak about an autonomous genre of historical opera.

V 19. stoletju sta gledališče in opera odigrala pomembno vlogo pri ohranjanju in vzpostavljanju narodov in njihovih mitov v Srednji Evropi. Pomislimo lahko na Verdija, katerega dela so podpirala politične in ideološke cilje italijanskega meščanstva, kateremu so s tem omogočila, da je vsaj ob večerih v opernih hišah samega sebe videlo v zaželeni luči. Nič čudnega torej, da so Verdijevo ime uporabljali celo kot splošno znani poziv k združitvi Italije pod kraljem Viktorjem Emanuelom II. (slogan »Viva VERDI« naj bi pomenil »Živel Vittorio Emanuele Re D'Italia – Viktor Emanuel II., ki je l. 1861 tudi zares postal prvi kralj združene Italije).

Za razliko od ostalih srednjeevropskih držav je Avstrija nastala kot posledica razpada države. Poleg tega se je morala po II. svetovni vojni spopasti še z neljubo dediščino sodelovanja z nacizmom, zaradi česar si je obnovljena avstrijska republika nenehno prizadevala zgraditi nove identitete, ki ne bi temeljile na do tedaj razširjeni germanski mitologiji.

»1. april 2000« je izjemen in v nekem smislu nenavaden film. Nastal je kot projekt avstrijske vlade v zgodnjih petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja in predstavlja povsem propagandni film v času, ko je bila Avstrija že podrejena vplivu zmagovalk v II. svetovni vojni.

V njem naj bi se Avstrija dokončno osvobodila tujega vpliva s samoodločbo l. 2000. Čeprav so avtorji scenarija, ki so napisali tekst po navodilih vladne komisije, izbrali žanr znanstvene fantastike, je film poln aluzij na realno avstrijsko zgodovino in deluje kot nekakšen učbenik patriotizma. Avstrija je torej na novo napisala svojo zgodovino, da bi se osvobodila tujega vpliva. In ravno takšna zgodba, polna vrzeli in legend, nam omogoča ne le analizo mišljenja in tendenc avstrijskih oblasti v petdesetih letih, ampak tudi razpoznavanje strategij, ki naj bi in so tudi bile uporabljene pri graditvi družbe, ki se dandanes razume kot novi avstrijski narod.

During the 19th century, theater and opera played an important role in sustaining or even developing national consciousness in Central Europe. This is exemplified by Verdi: the performance of his works unified the Italian bourgeoisie, who celebrated themselves and their political and ideological aims in the evenings (at least in the opera house), and who even used Verdi’s name as an acronym to call for Italian unification under one king (Vittorio Emanuele Re d’Italia).

Austria was created not through unification, but through division. After the Second World War, the restored Republic of Austria endeavored to suppress the memory of participation in Nazism and to shape new Austrian identities to replace the German mindset formerly prevalent in Austria.

1. April 2000 is a film that is both exceptional as well as quite unusual. The Austrian government itself produced the film in the early 1950s with the explicit aim of propaganda, when Austria was still occupied by the four powers. Austria was to be liberated through a decision of its own in 2000. Although the scriptwriters chose science fiction and wrote the script following the instructions of an intergovernmental committee, the plot of the movie is filled with references to Austrian history, at a patriotic school-book level. Thus the new Austria invented its history in order to be free of all foreign intervention, and it is this special kind of narrative, filled with gaps and legends, that allows us to analyze not only the historical mindset of Austrian officialdom in the 1950s but also the strategies to be used to develop a society that would recognize itself as the new Austrian nation.

Muza Klio je navdihovalka pisanja zgodovine, ki ga v zahodni civilizaciji od njenega začetka pri Herodotu spremlja forma, ki je sorodna literarnemu izražanju in se zdi za obe področji, literarno in historiografsko, pomembna ali celo bistvena oblika zapopadanja realnosti in tudi spoznavanja resnice, ne glede, ali je ta resnica fiktivna ali dogodkovno empirična: to je forma naracije. Vprašanje historiografske naracije in nasploh pojem ali koncept dogodka (histoire évémentielle) sta v zadnjih desetletjih postala predmet kritike in resnih analiz, kar se je najmočneje pokazalo v novejšem francoskem zgodovinopisju, ki je od prvih mojstrov zgodovine pri reviji Annales, predvsem Marca Blocha in Luciena Febvreja, pa do sodobnih avtorjev, kot so Le Goff, Duby in Le Roy Ladurie, temeljito prenovilo pisanje zgodovine in nasploh vzpostavilo novo epistemološko polje razumevanja njene realnosti in resnice.[11] V tem kontekstu pa se tako ali drugače vedno znova vračamo k, zdi se temeljnemu, vozlu, to pa je narativna dogodkovnost ali tudi navzkrižna referenca, kot jo je imenoval Paul Ricoeur, med željo po resničnosti v zgodovini in fikciji, to je literarizirani naraciji.

T.i. navzkrižna referenca, ki jo vzdržuje pripovedna forma, se je najbrž najizraziteje manifestirala v 19. st., ko je zgodovinopisje odigralo pomembno vlogo pri oblikovanju modernih nacij v Evropi. Konec 19. st. je takšna historiografija zašla v krizo. V težnji, da bi svojo naracijo približala znanosti, je historiografija zaostrila selektivne kriterije in se začela omejevati na preverljive arhivske vire in politično zgodovino. S tem je zgodovinopisje rankejevskega kova dodatno zožilo svoje polje in posredno prispevalo, da sta se okrepila pomen in vloga zgodovinskega žanra v čisti literaturi. V poznejšem razvoju sta tako zgodovinopisje kot literatura ubirali vzporedni in avtonomni poti. Zgodovina, ki je kot preteklost ostajala eden od priljubljenih predmetov čiste literature, se je na svojem polju osvobajala od narativne forme. Namesto pripovedi je v ospredje stopil problemski pristop. Ob njem so študijsko relevantnost pridobivale mnogovrstne človeške dejavnosti, kolektivna psihologija, oblike verovanja in načini občutenja tudi tistih stvari, ki niso objektivno snovne, kot npr. sanje, strah, percepcija časa, zaznavanje lepote, religiozna občutenja ipd. Namesto shematične kronologije si je utrla pot globinska forma dolgega trajanja, pa ugotovitev, da se v slehernem zgodovinskem trenutku čas dejansko giblje z različnimi hitrostmi – pri tem se rad spomnim stare mame, ki je včasih, ko je bila pri nas na obisku, potožila, kako čas v mestu hitreje mineva kot pri njej na vasi! – s čimer se približamo tudi dvema segmentoma, ki imata veliko težo v literarnem zgodovinskem žanru: to pa sta forma časa, ki jo ustvari literarni tekst, bodisi kot diahrono dogodkovno naracijo in hkrati njeno transcendiranje z vstopi v sinhroni »zdaj«, tako trenutni zdaj bralčeve recepcije kot v integrirani zgodovinski trenutek opisanega dogodka ali predmeta. In drugo – obrtno ali pisateljsko morda najtežji podvig – priklic glasu junaka ali več junakov, ki nastopajo v pripovedi. Ko gre za zgodovinski žanr in pisanje o neki zgodovinski situaciji iz oddaljene preteklosti, je to zelo občutljiv problem, pisateljsko zahteven, hkrati pa literarno izjemno izzivalen, ustvarjalen in upal bi si reči za bralno publiko in kolektivno identifikacijo dolgoročno pertinenten. V tem je tudi prednost literature pred zgodovinopisjem. Literarno besedilo nam posreduje glas zgodoviskega junaka, ki s tem v naši zavesti postane živ. Miselno ustvari prostore, ki kavzalno povezujejo dogodke in jih sama zgodovina nima oz. niso bili zabeleženi. Pomislimo, koliko takšnih glasov poznamo in kakšno težo imajo v kolektivni, denimo nacionalni identifikaciji. Glas Črtomira in Bogomile lahko slišimo, če je treba sredi noči. Tudi Odiseja, Antigono in Hamleta slišimo v svojem jeziku. Prav tako Marka Avrelija, s pomočjo Rebulovega romana V Sibilinem vetru, ali Hadrijana Marguerite Yourcenar. Zmoremo podobno slišati Primoža Trubarja?

V prvih desetletjih 20. st. sta tako čista literatura, ob njej pa vsa umetnost, kot tudi zgodovinopisje subvertirala narativno formo, z željo, da bi zajeli ali ustvarili tiste globlje strukture, ki latentno, a temeljno zaznamujejo ali celo usmerjajo človeško individualno in kolektivno eksistenco. Toda v zadnjem času smo priče svojevrstnemu obratu, ki ga lahko razumemo tudi kot refleksijo opravljene poti. Po eni strani se čista literatura še naprej ozira k preteklosti, da bi jo s svojo formo zajela, poustvarila in preko njenih segmentov govorila o človeku, njegovi izkušnji, resnici in možnih svetovih. Po drugi strani se novi zgodovinarji poudarjeno obračajo k t.i. simbolnemu kapitalu, kot ga je imenoval Bourdieu, pa h kulturni antropologiji, simbolni realnosti in zarisovanju zgodovinskih in družbenih habitusov, ki so prostorski in časovni. In, kar je najbolj zanimivo, po iztrošenih strukturalnih pristopih, opustitvi lingvističnih ambicij, izpeti psihoanalizi, ki se je spremenila v šablonsko retoriko, včasih že nekoliko osmešeno, in po velikem razočaranju nad ekonomskimi determinizmi historičnega materializma, ki jih je vztrajno gradil marksizem, se del sodobnega zgodovinopisja vrača k naraciji. Historična pripoved ali celo historična biografija imata seveda drugačno obliko in namen, kot sta ga imeli pred sto leti. V ospredju danes ni suhoparna kronologija, ampak poskus zarisovanja že imenovanih habitusov, evidentiranje mentalitetne realnosti, polifonija časov in identitet. Ob tem se z oživitvijo naracije vrača tudi dobra stara dogodkovnost, naj gre za osebno eksistenco ali za realnost kolektiva, civilizacije ali celo vesolja. Skratka, čeprav nam gre za odkritje, ali za estetsko podoživetje realnosti in resnice, smo ju vsaj do neke mere še vedno, ali pa spet, pripravljeni razumeti v formi pripovedi in zgodbe.

From its very beginning with Herodotus, the writing of history, inspired by the muse Clio, was accompanied by a form of narration, a feature common to both literature and historiography that determines the manner of grasping reality and ascertaining the truth. The question of narration in historiography – and, at a more general level, the concept of an event (histoire évémentielle) – have recently become the subject of criticism and serious analysis. This has radically changed writing about history and established a new epistemological field of grasping and comprehending reality. I have in mind authors such as Marc Bloch, Lucien Febvre, Le Goff, Duby, and Le Roy Ladurie.[12] In this context we tend to encounter the same problem, which is the narrative event or cross-reference (as Paul Ricoeur puts it) between the tendency towards the truth and literary narration or fiction.

This “cross-reference” manifested itself most clearly in the 19th century, when historiography played a crucial role in the emancipation of European nations. At the end of the century, however, such historiography faced a deep crisis. In its aspirations to obtain the status of a science, historiography limited itself to archives and political history, which further narrowed its field of research and indirectly strengthened the role of historical genres in literature. Later on, historiography and literature took parallel and autonomous paths. Historiography liberated itself further from narrative forms. New fields of human activity have gained scientific relevance: collective psychology, religion, dreams, fears, perception of time, beauty, and so on. Chronology was replaced by the more complex concept of prolonged duration, and it was acknowledged that time can be perceived at different speeds. I recall my grandmother staying with us in a city, complaining that time runs faster here than it did in her village.

This presents us with two important segments of historical literary genres. First, with the form of time in literary fiction, linear narration, and its transcendence into a synchronic “here and now,” which may be the time of an actual reader as well as a moment described in real history. Second (and this is the most difficult task for a writer), with the construction of live voices of protagonists. When it comes to historical genres and writing about a distant past, this is definitely a very interesting and pertinent problem, and it is far more easily solved in the realm of fiction. Literary text mediates the voice of a historical hero and in doing so renders him alive in the reader’s reception process. It creates fictional places that fill in the gaps in historical archives. Let us think of some of those voices and their importance in collective, national identification. We can hear the voices of Črtomir and Bogomila in the middle of the night, and the same applies to Odysseus, Antigone, Hamlet, Marcus Aurelius through the novel V Sibilinem vetru (In the Sibyl’s Wind) by Alojz Rebula, or Hadrian through the work of Marguerite Yourcenar. Can we hear the voice of Primož Trubar in the same way?

At the beginning of the 20th century, both literature and historiography subverted their narrative forms in order to focus on the underlying structures that create and direct human existence. However, recently we have witnessed a kind of shift that can be understood as a reflection of past practice. On the one hand, literature still takes its subjects from history in order to create and speak of human beings, their experience, the truth, and possible realities. On the other hand, historiography increasingly emphasizes symbolic capital (as understood by Bourdieau), cultural anthropology, and symbolic reality, and it describes its subject matter in a more vivid manner. The most interesting thing is therefore that historiography, after having rejected structuralism, linguistic ambitions, psychoanalysis, and the economic determinism of historical materialism, returns to narration. Naturally, historical fiction and biography do not have the same form as they did one hundred years ago. Today they are attempting to outline the possible realities already mentioned: mental realities and the polyphony of time and identities. This also recalls the concept of an event no matter whether we speak of the existence of an individual, a collective, a civilization, or even the universe. To conclude, although our aim is to discover or esthetically relive the past, we are still (or once again) willing to do so in the form of a story or a narration.

Na historični relativizem, ki ga omenja program letošnjega kolokvija, naletimo tako v modernih teorijah in filozofiji, kot tudi v literaturi. Lubomir Doležel je v svojem letošnjem referatu v Parizu postavil vprašanje, v kolikšni meri je to učinkovalo na zgodovinsko pisanje (Postmodern Narratives of the Past: Simon Schama). Najpoprej me bodo zanimala skupna teoretična vprašanja zgodovinske in literarne naracije; na koncu pa bom raziskala, kako se zgodovinski relativizem kaže v določenih modernih romanih.

V naši kulturi je zgodovinar komentator znakov, zapisov in dokumentov. Ustvarja tekste in arhive oz. posreduje med diskurzom, ki je pod materialnimi stvarmi, in nami. Zgodovinar je odvisen od knjižnic, katalogov, inventur in arhivov: ne more govoriti o stvareh samih, ampak jih opisuje preko sekundarnih virov. V kulturi, kakršna je naša, se kaže vsak diskurz na ozadju izginjanja dogodkov. V to režo, praznino, časovno distanco silijo v zahodnih kulturah teksti, dokumenti in zapisi. Tu nastaja intertekstualni teren, ki predstavlja diskurzivno področje poetologov novega historizma in kulture. Že Nietzsche in kasneje Derrida sta prihajala do svojih spoznanj o zgodovini iz tekstov in ne iz zgodovinskih dejstev. S pomočjo nekaterih sodobnih evropskih romanov – pri tem mislim na dela avtorjev kot so Umberto Eco, Lawrence Norfolk, Danilo Koš, Péter Esterházy ali László Márton – lahko pridemo do podobnega zaključka. Vsi so raziskovalci, arheologi in interpreti tekstnih sledi zgodovinskega obdobja, na katerem gradijo svojo romaneskno fikcijo – ne glede na to ali gre za srednji vek, novi vek ali pa za sodobnost.

Ricoeur je istovetil reprezentacijo z zgodovinsko zavestjo, ki nastopa na določeni točki preteklosti. S pomočjo ustvarjalne moči imaginarnega preoblikujemo preteklost, zgodovino v lastno izkušnjo. Pri bralčevem oblikovanju pomena in odnosa do zgodovine gre torej za enako imaginativno dejavnost kot pri literaturi, saj nam drugače ne bi bila dostopna. Tudi narativna filozofija zgodovine je s svojimi argumenti podpirala intencionalnost in literarno naravo zgodovine. Richard T. Vann opozarja na Klio, ki je muza zgodovine in epskega pesništva. Tako zgodovina kot literarna proza zahtevata narativno razumevanje in način interpretacije. A.C. Danto, H. White in njuni nasledniki zavračajo možnost razumevanja zgodovinske realnosti, s čimer se zgodovinopisje približuje globlji spoznavnoteoretični skepsi. Zgodovinarjev tekst ni pasivni posrednik resničnosti nekega posameznika, ker ga zaznamujeta netransparentnost oz. neprosojnost. Naloga zgodovinarja tako ni v izdelavi novega opisa preteklosti, temveč v tem, da ustvari nove interpretacije le te, da torej tekst preteklosti preformulira v lastni pripovedni tekst. Zveza med jezikom in resničnostjo v zgodovinopisju je prav tako izredno zanimiva, saj tekst kot metafora vedno prinaša nek nov pomen. Kako naj torej roman z zgodovinskim ozadjem in njegova interpretacija ne bi bila komplicirana?

Izhajajoč iz sodobnih romanov nas današnji čas vsekakor pelje k premisleku te stimulativne izkušnje. Historična in avtobiografska fikcija v njih ne pride do svojega izraza preko dejstev, dokumentov in fragmentov resničnosti. Dejstva, zgodovinski podatki in imena, ki pridejo v romanu v ospredje, so referencialne iluzije (M. Riffaterre). Empirični in zgodovinski elementi so že od vsega začetka interpretirani, kar pomeni, da že vseskozi nosijo v sebi določen vidik oz. vrednostno perspektivo.

V tradiciji 19. stoletja je prikaz preteklosti veljal za odraz zgodovinske realnosti in dejstev. Za razliko od te tradicije so v postmoderni interpreti svoj interes obrnili k reprezentaciji in metaforičnim strukturam.

Esterházy v svojih romanih odgovarja na te dileme na metanarativni ravni in z ironijo. Potomec slavne plemiške družine lahko izkušnjo sodobnosti v drugi polovici 20. stoletja doživlja kot priča, udeleženec in sodobnik. S pomočjo imaginacije lahko predela tudi izkušnjo zgodovinske preteklosti svoje družine, države in regije v svojo lastno. S tem postane nedostopno in oddaljeno dogajanje iz preteklosti s pomočjo interpretacije dejstev in znakov – torej posredno – element njegove fikcije, podobno kot smo to videli ob primeru zgodovinarjev. Družinska zgodovina in tudi njegova lastna preteklost sta le vidni rekonstrukciji. V bistvu sta stvaritev, interpretativni konstrukciji in pripovedi s spreminjajočim se zornim kotom. Sta moderni interpretaciji preteklosti in samointerpretaciji romana, ki konstruirata narativno identiteto pripovedovalca.

Historical relativism, which is mentioned in the conference program, is found not only in theory and philosophy, but also in literature. In his paper this year in Paris, Lubomír Doležel raised the question to what extent this relativism has influenced historic writing (Postmodern Narratives of the Past: Simon Schama). First I would like to focus on the connected theoretical problems of historic and literary narration. In the end, I will investigate how this historical relativism is reflected in a modern novel.

In our culture, historians are interpreters of signs and written documents. They create texts and archives – or, better, they mediate between underlying discourses and us. Historians depend on libraries, catalogues, inventories, and archives, and so they cannot speak of things first-hand, but rather through secondary sources. In a culture like ours, discourse always seems to be perceived against a background of dwindling experience. Texts, documents, and records tend to fill this gap, this void – or, if you like, this time distance in our western culture. This represents an intertextual terrain that becomes the discursive field of new historicism and cultural materialism. Nietzsche and Derrida already showed that historical knowledge was not deduced from the facts, but rather from various texts. An investigation of some modern European novels written by Umberto Eco, Lawrence Norfolk, Danilo Kiš, Péter Esterházy, László Márton, and others brings us to the same conclusion. They are all researchers, archeologists, and interpreters of the texts from the historical epoch from which their fiction stems – no matter whether it be the middle ages, modern times, or the present.

Ricoeur has identified representation with historical awareness that comes about at a certain point in history. Through the creative power of the imagination, one transforms history into one's own experience. Readers' responses, their formation of meaning and views of history, are necessarily the consequences of imaginary processes, or otherwise history could not be comprehended. The narrative philosophy of history also argues for history's intentional and literary nature. Richard T. Vann calls our attention to the fact that Clio was a muse of history as well as epic literature. As has been pointed out, both history and literature demand narrative interpretation. Arthur C. Danto, Hayden White and their followers reject even the possibility of understanding historical reality, which pushes historiography towards a severe epistemological crisis. The historian's text is not a passive mediator of someone's reality because it is inevitably marked by opacity. The task of the historian is therefore not a new description of the past, but rather a new interpretation of it; in other words, a historian transforms it in a specific text. It is therefore very interesting to investigate the relationship between language and reality, because text – like a metaphor – always assumes a new meaning. How then is it possible for the interpretation of the historical novel not to be extremely complicated?

It seems inevitable that these questions must be reconsidered when speaking of contemporary novels. Historical and autobiographical fiction is not a mere reflection of the documents, facts, and fragments of reality. These are referential illusions (e.g., Michael Riffaterre). Empirical and historical elements are interpreted from the very beginning, which means that they carry with them a certain point of view and are to a certain extent prejudiced.

In the 19th century, historical literature was seen as a genuine reflection of reality. However, postmodern authors and interpreters have focused their research on representation and metaphorical structures.

Esterházy solves these dilemmas in his novels at a meta-narrative level and through irony. The descendant of a famous aristocratic family can experience the history of the second half of the 20th century as a witness, participant, and contemporary. Through his imagination he can also transform the history of his family, country, and region into his own. By doing this, the distant and inaccessible past becomes an element of his fiction in the same way as seen in the historians' case. Family history as well as the author's own is mere reconstruction. In fact, it is a creation, an interpretative construction and narrative with an ever-changing point of view. It represents a modern interpretation of the past and self-interpretation of a novel that constructs the narrative identity of the narrator.

Pogosto obravnavan vidik zgodovinskih literarnih žanrov je njihovo razmerje do političnih ideologij in nacionalnih mitologij, saj so avtorji z nekaterimi svojimi teksti odločilno sooblikovali nacionalne in politične mite bodisi tako, da so predvideli nove oblike razvoja, bodisi z utrjevanjem obstoječega stanja.

V svojem prispevku bi rad predstavil družbeno funkcijo zgodovinske drame v nekdanji Jugoslaviji po l. 1955. Šlo je za zanimiv primer, saj je ta dramatika hkrati predstavljala radikalno kritiko družbenega sistema in njegovo potrditev. Opisano situacijo bom skušal ponazoriti s primerjavo dveh dram: Afere Primoža Kozaka in Tople grede Marjana Rožanca.

Glavna tema Afere je ena temeljnih dilem socialističnega obdobja. Gre za vprašanje, ali lahko končno osvoboditev človeštva dosežemo preko popolne podreditve partiji in s tem s pomočjo sedanjega terorja ali pa jo je mogoče uresničiti le z doslednim spoštovanjem svobode posameznika že od samega začetka revolucije. Čeprav je Kozak dramo postavil v zadnji dve leti II. svetovne vojne in partizansko gibanje v Severni Italiji, sta jo kritika in bržkone tudi publika že ob njeni premieri razumeli kot komentar sodobnih političnih razmer. Vladimir Kralj jo je v svoji kritiki v Sodobnosti imenoval »na zunaj skoraj zgodovinska drama«, pri kateri »gre torej za projekcijo nekega problema sedanjosti v neko bolj ali manj neobvezno preteklost.«[13] Tako publika kot gledališčniki so prepoznali kritično ost igre, kar je pripeljalo do tega, da so igro l. 1961 po premieri na eksperimentalnem Odru 57 uprizorili še v osrednjem slovenskem gledališču, SNG Drama Ljubljana. Uprizoritev Afere v Drami je skupaj s Smoletovo Antigono povzročila močno povečanje zanimanja javnosti za sodobno slovensko dramatiko – na Odru 57 je Afero, ki je bila ena njegovih najuspešnejših predstav sploh, videlo 750 gledalcev, v Drami pa kar 6968.[14] Podpora publike in gledališčnikov kritičnim tendencam v sodobni dramatiki je bila povsem razumljiva, saj se je napovedani družbeni raj v povojnem obdobju vedno znova odmikal v nedoločljivo prihodnost, teže pa je razložiti reakcijo tedanjih oblasti, ki so igro podprle z enakim navdušenjem. Njena postavitev v Drami je bila del programske vizije ravnatelja Bojana Štiha, ki ga je na to mesto postavil takratni predsednik slovenskega Izvršnega sveta Boris Kraigher, v njegovem mandatu (1961-69) pa sta ga podpirala tako Kraigher kot njegov naslednik Stane Kavčič. Še več, premiero Afere v Drami je izredno pozitivno ocenil celo Josip Vidmar, partijski kulturni ideolog, ki je bil postavljen na mesto gledališkega kritika na Delu z namenom, da bi konservativna partijska struja, ki je v začetku 60-ih še nadzorovala ideološko komisijo pri CK ZKS, lahko pazila na smer Štihovih reform.

Rožančeva Topla greda je, čeprav obravnava podobne probleme, doživela diametralno nasproten odziv. Uprizoril jo je Oder 57 v ljubljanskih Križankah 30. aprila 1964, a je bila premiera nasilno prekinjena s strani članov agrokombinata KZ Grosuplje. Očitna razlika med obema igrama je prav gotovo v dejstvu, da je Afera zgodovinska drama, medtem ko Topla greda prikazuje sočasno dogajanje brez časovne in prostorske premestitve. Čeprav sta obe igri obravnavali podobne teme in sta ju napisala dva avtorja istega literarnega kroga okrog revije Perspektive, sta doživeli povsem drugačen odziv oblasti.

To dejstvo lahko razložimo le s pomočjo analize razmerij med tremi družbenimi dejavniki: gledališčem, oblastjo in publiko. Kljub temu, da je bil po splošnem mnenju jugoslovanski režim totalitaren in se lahko strinjamo vsaj s tem, da vsekakor ni bil demokratičen, je postajala oblast v povojnih letih vedno bolj občutljiva na razpoloženje javnega mnenja. Oblast je skušala pridobiti podporo javnosti in enega od načinov, kako to doseči, je v 80-ih opisal Slavoj Žižek.[15] V svoji Logiki antisemitizma je predstavil ideološki model, s katerim je socialistična samoupravna oblast mistificirala svoj odnos do ljudstva. Ljudje so bili upravičeno nezadovoljni s svojim ekonomskim in političnim položajem, a tega nezadovoljstva niso usmerili k resničnemu vzroku (oblasti), ker je ta svoj odnos do baze uspel ideološko prikriti. Oblast je namreč razdelila družbo na t.i. produktivne in neproduktivne sfere, potem pa je slednjim pripisala naravo skupnega sovražnika. S tem je ponudila delavcem oz. bazi neproduktivne družbene sfere kot nadomestni objekt njihovega upravičenega nezadovoljstva in prikrila lastno odgovornost za sočasne družbene razmere. Prav to se je zgodilo ob napadu na Toplo gredo. Zdi pa se, da je imela dramatika še eno možnost in sicer, da je v območju dramske fikcije sama zgradila podobo skupnega sovražnika in s tem odvrnila napade nase. Slednje je storila s premestitvijo dogajanja v oddaljeni prostor in/ali čas, čemur je še posebej ustrezal žanr zgodovinske drame.

Zakaj so to ideološko igro sprejeli vsi prej omenjeni akterji? Iz različnih vzrokov. Oblasti so s tem dobile skupnega sovražnika, ki je bil sicer fantazma, a je vzpostavil realno družbeno vez oz. je utrdil prepričanje ljudi, da živijo v najbolj svobodni državi socializma. Poleg tega je ustvaril distanco sočasne oblasti, t.i. liberalizma (Kraigher in Kavčič), od prejšnjih oblik sistema in njihovih očitnih napak. Javno mnenje je v veliki meri podprlo reforme, saj je oblast uspela nagovoriti tako svoje privržence kot lastno opozicijo.

Dramatiki so dobili priložnost, da svoja dela ažurno uprizorijo na odrih osrednjih institucionalnih gledališč, kar je pomenilo tudi večjo popularnost, odmevnost in relevantnost slovenske dramatike, ki jo je obdajala tudi avreola disidentstva.

Javnost je na eni strani podpirala oblast in njene reforme, na drugi pa je problematizirala svoje podrejanje s sodelovanjem v družbenokritičnem gledališču oz. kulturniški opoziciji.

One of the interesting aspects of historical literary genres is their relation to political ideologies. Authors helped create national and political myths, which either envisaged and stimulated new social orders or consolidated the current social and national hegemony.

This article investigates one of the social roles that Slovenian historical drama played in the former Yugoslavia after 1955. It represented a radical critique of communism and at the same time supported its contemporary configuration. I will try to illustrate this on the basis of two plays: Afera (An Affair) by Primož Kozak and Topla greda (The Cold Frame) by Marjan Rožanc.

Afera deals with the very basic dilemma of communist revolution. Can the future emancipation of humanity be achieved through present-day terror and blind subordination to party leadership, or should it be built upon a rigorous defense of one’s own freedom? Although the play was set in northern Italy after 1943, it was evident from the start that the historical setting was camouflage for social criticism. As Vladimir Kralj noted in his review, this is an “almost historical play” that “represents a projection of certain problems of our time into a less binding past.”[16] The audience as well as theater professionals recognized the critical aspect of the play, which resulted in its restaging at the central and most important theater in Slovenia – the SNG Drama Ljubljana (Drama Slovenian National Theater of Ljubljana) – after its premiere on the small experimental stage Oder 57 (Stage 57). This represented a considerable increase in the popularity of Slovenian contemporary plays: the performances at Oder 57 were seen by 750 people, and the subsequent performances at the SNG were seen by 6,968 people.[17] This support of social criticism by theater professionals and the audience can be easily understood because the social paradise prophesized by the communist regime failed to materialize in the postwar period. However, it is interesting that the event enjoyed full support from the highest level of the Slovenian government, Boris Kraigher and Stane Kavčič, Slovenian prime ministers in the 1960s. Moreover, Afera was highly praised by Josip Vidmar, the most influential theater critic, who was appointed to his position at the newspaper Delo by the party leadership.

Topla greda by Marjan Rožanc, although it tries to address similar questions, had a completely opposite reception. It was staged at Oder 57 on 30 April 1964. Its premiere was interrupted by workers from an agricultural cooperative and it was officially banned by the district court. The most obvious difference between the two plays is the time and place of their action. Afera is a historical drama, whereas Topla greda features contemporary problems in agriculture. Although both plays showed similar critical tendencies and were written by two authors of the same literary movement, they met with an opposite reaction from the authorities.

We can only understand this by analyzing the relations between the theater, authorities, and general public. Although the Yugoslav regime was described as totalitarian (and it was, clearly, a non-democratic one), it became increasingly sensitive to public opinion. The communist government sought to gain public support, and one of the ways to do this, as Slavoj Žižek observed in 1980s,[18] was through the division of society and the detection of a common enemy. At the basis of this lies a general dissatisfaction with the economic and political situation, which generated potential conflict between the authorities and the people. This conflict is ideologically mystified in two steps. First, the authorities divide society into “productive” and “unproductive” spheres, and later offer the unproductive ones as a scapegoat for public dissatisfaction. This happened in the attack on Topla greda. However, it seems that theater had another option: to construct a common enemy in the realm of dramatic fiction. This was done by placing an action in a remote time and place, and one of the forms especially suitable for this task was historical drama.

The question remains: Why was this displacement accepted by all three social actors? The answer lies in completely different reasons. The authorities gained a common enemy – which was of course a phantasm, but it strengthened the public belief that Yugoslavia had the highest degree of freedom among the communist countries. Furthermore, this created a distance between former versions of the system and the “liberal” fraction of the party led by Kraigher and Kavčič, which was trying to promote economic changes but could not allow political changes. Public opinion thus broadly supported the reforms precisely because the party managed to address its supporters as well as its opposition.

Slovenian playwrights gained a chance to have their plays staged in the central theater house, to reach a broader audience, and to achieve great resonance because they represented the “cultural opposition”, a substitute for political opposition.

On the one hand, the public supported the government and its reforms. However, on the other hand it played a role in the opposition through participation as an audience for critical theater works.

Oddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Univerza v Ljubljani / Department for Comparative Literature and Literary Theory, University of Ljubljana

[1] R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History [1946], Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, str. 231-36.

[2] Thomas S. Khun., Struktura znanstvenih revolucij, Ljubljana: Krtina, 1998.

[3] John Banville, Doctor Copernicus [1976], London: Minerva, 1990.

[4] Hans Kellner, “Language and Historical Representation”, v Keith Jenkins ed., The Postmodern History Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), str. 127-38 (str. 127-28).

[5] John Banville, "A Talk", Irish University Review, 11 (1) 1981, str. 13-17 (str. 16-17).

[6] R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History [1946], Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 231-36.

[7] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1962], Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

[8] John Banville, Doctor Copernicus [1976], London: Minerva, 1990.

[9] Hans Kellner, “Language and Historical Representation”, in Keith Jenkins ed., The Postmodern History Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 127-38 (pp. 127-28).

[10] John Banville, "A Talk", Irish University Review, 11 (1) 1981, pp. 13-17 (pp. 16-17).

[11] Peter Burke, Revolucija v francoskem zgodovinopisju, Studia humanitatis, Ljubljana 1993.

[12] Peter Burke. The French Historical Revolution. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.

[13] Kralj, Vladimir. Pogledi na dramo. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1963.

[14] Bibič, Polde. Izgon. Ljubljana: Nova revija in Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2003.

[15] Žižek, Slavoj. Jezik, ideologija, Slovenci. Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost, 1987.

[16] Kralj, Vladimir. Pogledi na dramo (Perspectives on Drama). Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1963.

[17] Bibič, Polde. Izgon (Exile). Ljubljana: Nova revija and Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2003.

[18] Žižek, Slavoj. Jezik, ideologija, Slovenci (Language, Ideology, Slovenians). Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost, 1987.