M. K. Čiurlionio tapatybinės apibrėžties problema: senlietuvis ar modernus lietuvis?
LTStraipsnyje, viena vertus, siekiama suprobleminti „savaime suprantamas“ tapatybinės Mikalojaus Konstantino Čiurlionio apibrėžtis ir jį pagimdžiusio konteksto slinktis, tam pasitelkiami lenkakalbio senlietuvio, Didžiosios skirties ir kiti būtini terminai. Kita vertus, bandoma išryškinti tas apibrėžtis atkartojančio nūdienos požiūrio netolygumus ir prieštaras, siejamas pirmiausia su neregimais imperatyvais jas saistančio tapatybinio pasakojimo įtaka. Remiamasi esmine prielaida, kad senlietuvio ir modernaus lietuvio priešprieša grindžiami apibūdinimai naudingi, tačiau nepakankami Čiurlionio etnokultūrinei tapatybei apibrėžti, todėl reikia ieškoti kitų sampynos ir sąveikos logika grįstų apibrėžimų.' Apibrėžimų, kurie plėstų nūdienos požiūrį į to meto lietuviškos tapatybės horizontus, įtraukdami su lenkakalbe dimensija siejamus turinius. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Didžioji skirtis; Lenkakalbis lietuvis; Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis; Moderni lietuvių kultūra; Moderni lietuvybė; Senlietuvis; Tapatybė; Čiurlionis, Mikalojus, Konstantinas; Identity; Modern Lithuanian culture; Modern Lithuanianness; Polish speaking Lithuanian; The Great difference; The old Lithuanian; Čiurlionis; Čiurlionis, Mikalojus, Konstantinas.
ENThe paper is intended to highlight the problem of identity definitions. Today we perceive Čiurlionis and his creative activity through the prism of the aforesaid definitions. Questions will be asked about the concerns which look like self-evident and seemingly unquestionable. The first question concerns the contemporary approach towards Čiurlionis’ ethnic identity. When we talk about Čiurlionis, we seem to imply that ethnically he is a representative of modern Lithunianism; however, it is not true without an additional interpretation. Could it be that bringing up this question in such a way is inaccurate? Maybe we should ask not whether Čiurlionis is a Lithuanian, but, rather, what Lithuanianism he represents. After all, we are talking about the period when the old identities of a Lithuanian are still strong and new identities have not fully evolved yet. Should we be searching for such identical definitions in the situation of shift and changes that would take the processuality of identity into account? The proposed draft of the suggested definition is as follows: in terms of identity, Čiurlionis is on his way from at autochthon Lithuanian to the identity of a modern Lithuanian, or on his way from the Polish-speaking identity to a Lithuanian-speaking one. What would my definition of the issue of modern reception of Čiurlionis be? We accept Čiurlionis a priori as a Lithuanian and we do not even attempt to raise the issue of the dimension of this transformation. We maximize his cultural engagement to work for Lithuania.however, we do not talk about the context that has determined that attitude, and, most importantly, we do not talk about their continuity towards the coverage of modern Lithuanianism. The second question about Čiurlionis’ cultural identity evolves naturally from the first one. Why is Čiurlionis’ creative legacy without reservation and explanations seen today as part of Lithuanian culture? Does the cultural context that raised Čiurlionis and the Polishspeaking environment of that context not contradict such an assumption? This question hides another question of a more general nature: do we agree today that a Polish-speaking author can represent Lithuanian culture? Or is it the other way round - is he part of the old Lithuanian/Polish culture? And there is an old question: does he belong to Lithuania or to the Lithuanians? This is the divide that contradistinguishes the cultural identities of the old Lithuanian and the modern Lithuanian, the one that later crystallized into the identities of the Lithuanian nation and ethnic minorities. The problem is that these questions are based on the logic of confrontation and do not allow the opportunity to reveal the interactions, or even interdependence, of the aforesaid identities. By questioning the Lithuanianness of Čiurlionis I by no means want to say that he should automatically be seen as part of Polish culture. My idea is different: since the descriptions based on antithesis are insufficient for the definition of Čiurlionis’ cultural identity, other definitions based on the logic of tangle and interaction should be found. [From the publication]
