Kodėl Čiurlionis žodį "dekadentizmas" parašė kabutėse? Pasiremiant 1902 m. vasario pradžios laišku broliui Povilui

LTŠio etiudo klausimas, suformuluotas pavadinime, yra viena iš sudėtingiausių problemų, su kuria susiduria autorius, kaip Mikalojaus Konstantino Čiurlionio Korespondencijos sudarytojas, taip pat kiekvienas atidus skaitytojas. Neįgyvendinamas rodosi jau pats dekadentizmo sąvokos, anuomet lyg ir nekvestionuojamos, paaiškinimas. Dekadentizmas, kaip XIX a. scientizmo ir skepticizmo elementų darinio enfant terrible, turi pastebimą netikrumo pamušalą, todėl ne kartą abejota jo paties egzistavimu. Čiurlionio laiške kabutės atsiranda tarytum reaguojant į dekadentizmo sąvokos neapibrėžtumą bei nevienareikšmiškumą; tai dar labiau šią sąvoką suproblemina. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Dekadentizmas; Simbolizmas; Zenonas Przesmyckis-Miriamas (Zenon Franciszek Przesmycki; Zenon Przesmycki-Miriam); Poetai; Redaktoriai; Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis; Kompozitoriai; Dailininkai; Kultūros veikėjai; Decadence; Symbolism; Poets; Editors; Painters; Composers; Cultural figures.

ENThe paper offers a philological and contextual analysis of the word decadence as it was employed in Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis’s letter to his brother Povilas dated 6 February 1902. The Lithuanian artist implored his relative not to delve into his inner self because of the risk of falling into depression. Using his brother’s confessions, his own introspection, and intellectual experience, Čiurlionis explores this issue quite extensively. In his approach he refers to the theory of nervousness, uses the concepts of self-analysis and decadence, putting the latter in quotes. The quotes mark sender’s intention to dissociate himself from the phenomenon, as well as his confusion about its ambiguous meaning. In fact, as a result of the 19th-century scientific scepticism, the word decadence discredits every attempt at defining it. A careful study of term’s history and career at the turn of 19th century shows that Čiurlionis’s position mirrors uncertainty surrounding the notion in the Western countries, since it has been associated with the contemporary culture by Charles Baudelaire and Pierre Bourget. Some major controversies over the meaning of the word are recounted in the paper. Authors in Paris and London and especially the Warsaw artistic society, which gathered around Zenon Przesmycki-Miriam and his art magazine “Chimera,” are presented as important in understanding Čiurlionis’s views. [From the publication]

• Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis. Korespondencija. T. 1, 1892-1906 / parengė. Kaunas : Nacionalinis M.K. Čiurlionio dailės muziejus, 2019. 551 p.
• M. K. Čiurlionis: tarp simbolizmo ir modernizmo / Rasa Andriušytė-Žukienė. Vilnius : Versus aureus, 2004. 248 p.