Sienkiewicz – interpretacyjne spory (do jubileuszowego roku 1900)

Abstract   

Almost at the beginning of Sienkiewicz’s career he was thought to be a controversial writer. First controversy appeared in connection with a story entitled Charcoal Sketches [Szkice węglem] and their fundamental assumptions. Author himself was sure the reaction would be strong but he did not excpect it from positivist critics. Nevertheless, the attack published in “Weekly Review” [„Przegląd Tygodniowy”] met not only Bolesław Prus’ but also Aleksander Świętochowski’s objections. Such an attitude of the latter towards Sketches encouraged Sienkiewicz to another project – writing a series of a similar pamphlet tone, but he resigned from this idea. Next dispute – much broader – aroused because of issuing the first historical novel With Fire and Sword [Ogniem i mieczem] by Sienkiewicz. The debate revealed distinctly contrary opinions between ideological wings – conservatist and positivist ones. Two great debates came out: by Stanisław Tarnowski and Bolesław Prus. As a matter of fact this dispute expressed the essential differences of views on the Sienkiewcz’s masterpiece and formed a stereotype in a process of his output evaluation, which the later critics first of all refered to. Since that time the extreme poles of the attitude towards Sienkiewicz have fluctuated from worship to anathema. The novelist himself attempted to neutralize any controvercies by specyfying his ideological-artistic position as antidoctrinal one (in a letter to Stanisław Witkiewicz). Another controversy was marked at the beginning of XX century, during the jubilee of Sienkiewicz’s 25 years writing activity celebration and also afterwards. In the “Voice” [“Głos”], the first opinions criticizing the whole of Sienkiewicz’s works appeared. Stanisław Brzozowski’s essays became the most famous. Completely different notes were presented by Sienkiewicz’s admirers with Józefat Nowiński at the head. Why did Sinkiewicz stimulate his adherents? What aroused criticism and, on the other hand, apotheosis? One of the most important problems seems to be Sienkiewicz’s impact on identity precesses. As Józef Chałasiński claimed, Sienkiewicz created a stable nobility ethos of Polish inteligentsia. Therefore, the dispute about the writer is a dispute over the genealogy of Polish intelligentsia and the vision of the national past. However, there is one more question – does it correspond with images beeing evoked by the works of the writer?