Admiration and Contention
Herbert and Roman Stoicism
Abstract
The primary goal of this article is to get to the specifics of Zbigniew Herbert’s work. The poet had formal philosophical education and cannot be treated merely as a writer raising existential issues. The consequence of his studies in philosophy with the most eminent Polish philosophers of the time (Roman Ingarden, Henryk Elzenberg) was that he took up important philosophical questions rather than used the answers that philosophers of the past had given. This is an important feature of his poetry and distinguishes Herbert from those writers who subscribed to the worldview of their era (which is most often the case). Failure to distinguish between these two stances has led to one-sided readings of his poem To Marcus Aurelius. The interpretations of the last sixty years quoted in the article (by Kazimierz Wyka, Karl Dedecius, Jacek Brzozowski, Julian Kornhauser, Adam Workowski, Piotr Michałowski, and Piotr Urbański) lead to the conclusion that we are dealing with a kind of “contemporary”, or modified, “stoicism”. Later scholars (Przemysław Czapliński, Piotr Śliwiński, Andrzej Franaszek) interpreted the work (and the poet’s attitude) as existential. A comparison of the poem with the work of Marcus Aurelius, and above all, an analysis of the differences between the ancient (specifically Stoic) and modern understanding of such concepts as “nature”, “fate”, “self” (identity), or “suffering”, allowed us to show the internal intellectualemotional tension in Herbert’s poem (and other poems by the poet referring to Stoicism), and above all, the general idea of philosophizing poetry. The poet himself believed that it resembles primary reflection, such as that of the early Ionian thinkers. This is not about philosophizing on the basis of an elaborate conceptual apparatus, but about philosophical intuition and “philosophical experience”, an intellectual and emotional tension, in which – thanks to poetic talent – beauty is born. The dialog in To Marcus Aurelius is precisely a record of such poetic agitation.
Copyright (c) 2020 Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.