Savas svetimas dainius. Adamas Mickiewiczius lietuvių literatūros kanone (1883-1940)

LTŠi knyga skirta apmąstyti nevienareikšmiam Adamo Mickiewicziaus (1798-1855) statusui XIX a. pabaigoje - XX a. pirmoje pusėje besiformavusiame lietuvių literatūros kanone. Nors lenkakalbių Lietuvos romantikų grožiniai tekstai, Juozo Tumo žodžiais tariant, išmokė pirmuosius lietuvių inteligentus „gerbti savo praeitį ir mylėti dabartį", vėliau pastariesiems tekęs uždavinys apibrėžti lietuvių nacionalinę kultūrą lėmė dilemą: ar minėtus kūrinius traktuoti kaip savą, ar kaip svetimą kultūrinį paveldą? Kadangi Mickiewicziaus kūryba meninės vertės ir žinomumo aspektu yra reprezentatyviausia lenkakalbio istorinės Lietuvos paveldo dalis, todėl ir ginčai dėl to, kas vadintina ar priskirtina lietuvių literatūrai, neretai įsiplieksdavo vertinant būtent šio poeto kūrybą. Šiuo tyrimu kaip tik ir siekiu nustatyti, kokiais argumentais, prielaidomis ir kultūrinėmis praktikomis buvo paremtas Mickiewicziaus kūrybos (ne)priskyrimas lietuvių literatūrai. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENThe focus of this book is on the ambiguous status of Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) in the Lithuanian literary canon at the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. The works of the Polish Romantic, who hailed from the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, shaped the patriotic attitudes and aesthetic values of Lithuanian intellectuals of the end of the nineteenth century. During the period of national revival, these intellectuals were entrusted with the task of defining Lithuanian national culture. Here, they faced the dilemma of whether the works by Mickiewicz and other Polish writers born in Lithuania should be treated as own cultural heritage or that of the 'other'. The aim of this study was to determine the arguments, assumptions, and cultural practices that were invoked by Lithuanian literati, literary historians and critics, designers of school and university syllabi, and authors of textbooks to justify the inclusion of Mickiewicz's works in Lithuanian literature or exclusion from it. As the Lithuanian intelligentsia discussed this issue intensively from the appearance of the Lithuanian language newspaper Auszra (1883; The Dawn) through the entire period of the First Republic of Lithuania's existence (1918-1940), this study covers the chronological boundaries from the end of the nineteenth century until the first Soviet occupation (1940). This threshold of historical geopolitical cataclysms marked a new approach to Lithuanian national culture (and thus of Mickiewicz's work). The attitude of Lithuanian society to Mickiewicz's work can be studied from two perspectives: as part of a more general issue of the concept of national literature and as part of the reception of this poet and his work in modern Lithuania. In this study, I attempted to cover both aspects, moreover so that they are intertwined and difficult to separate in the sources analysed.The variety of source types is quite representative: it includes literary historiography, school and university syllabi of Lithuanian literature, textbooks, chrestomathies, analytical, commemorative, and other kinds of publications about Mickiewicz or his works in Lithuanian periodicals, translations of the poet's texts into Lithuanian, literary dedications and staging of the poet's works, projects of his memorialisation, and others. Applying the method of descriptive canon research, which is closely related to the theoretical field of cultural sociology, I will analyse the status of Mickiewicz and his work in the modern Lithuanian literary canon. The literary canon is not a collection of individual authors and texts: the structure of the canon is based on a system of aesthetic, ethical, ideological values, and a model of collective self-awareness established by the cultural elite and adopted by the community. The formation of the Lithuanian literary canon at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century was one of the most important means for the young nation to define its collective identity. Therefore, throughout this period, disputes about Mickie-wicz's (non)belonging to the national literature and its canon were closely linked to the emerging collective identity. At the end of the nineteenth century, Lithuanians, like other non-dominant ethnic groups of the Central European empires, sought to establish their legitimacy as an independent national group. In this region, language was considered the key marker of ethnic identity. It was language and ethnic culture that the ideologues of the Lithuanian national movement chose as the basis for modern Lithuanian identity. From the ethnolinguistic point of view, Mickiewicz was foreign to modern Lithuanians.However, in any community undergoing transition from pre-modern to modern nationhood, there are specific variants of the continuation, transformation, and adaptation of the previous identity. The name of Lithuania, which at the end of the eighteenth century disappeared from the political map of Europe, survived in the Polish literature of the region's nobility and thus continued the historical narrative of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of the Two Nations. At the turn of the twentieth century, however, the Lithuanian national movement rejected the idea of a common political nation of Lithuanians and Poles and proclaimed its ambition to create a national Lithuanian state. As this was unacceptable to the majority of the Polish-speaking Lithuanian nobility, they opted for Polish nationalism (the Second Polish Republic), which declared itself the successor of the Republic of the Two Nations. However, some of the Lithuanian nobility, as well as the Catholic clergy and intellectuals strongly influenced by Polish culture joined the Lithuanian national movement. This group of the intelligentsia was looking for ways to connect modern Lithuania with the region's multilingual cultural tradition of the earlier centuries. [...]. [From the publication]