This book represents an attempt to capture different links between modern literature and music. The author examines strict intertextual correlations, the phenomena of musicality and musicality of literary works, the musical structure in literature, so-called musical literary texts. He focuses on the novel Le Cœur absolu by Philippe Sollers, the poem Todesfuge by Paul Celan, the Preludio e Fughe by Umberto Saba and the drama Judasz z Kariothu [Judas Iscariot] by Karol Hubert Rostworowski. The analysis also includes Stanisław Barańczak’s cycle of poems Podróż zimowa: Wiersze do muzyki Franza Schuberta [Winter Journey: Poems to the Music of Franz Schubert] and a fragment of Scène from Hérodiade by Stéphane Mallarmé in Paul Hindemith’s composition «Hérodiade» de Stéphane Mallarmé.
2 Musicality – musicality of a literary work
The characteristics and the concept of musicality
The first remarks about the musicality of a literary work should be limited to terminological issues and refer to the strict understanding of the concepts; meanwhile, the only definition of “musicality” which can be formulated at the outset presents itself extremely imprecisely – there is no single “musicality”139. In fact, to start any sensible theoretical-literary considerations, it is necessary to accept the existence of at least two of its antonymic and complementary sources in music, namely one from the circle of nature, the other from the circle of culture. Subsequently, the key problem arises of distinguishing between two parallel interdisciplinary meanings, proper and metaphorical, whose ranges relate to fundamentally separate ontological spaces, irreducible with respect to each other: musical work (the etymological meaning of the term) and literary work (etymological and rhetorical meaning)140. Understandably, from the perspective of literary research, the interest must primarily be in the meaning of “musicality” not as a feature immanently defining a piece of music (frequently very much like literariness – literary work), but, so to say, the meaning of the term transplanted to another field of the arts141. In such situations, this is always about taking ←45 | 46→terminology in a way that does not completely deprive it of the original notion of referentiality, that is, does not condemn it to non-referentiality or self-referentiality (characteristic of literary criticism). In literary studies, “musicality” is intended to suggest a certain but not more clearly determined source relationship between literature and music142, between a given author and composer, between some literary aesthetics and musical aesthetics, between certain aspects of a literary work and aspects of musical composition, etc. It is enough to recall these few elementary relations to formulate the conclusion that without proper clarification the term in general form only reveals the order of a multi-stage metaphorised discourse, combined each time with a different problem sphere.
Nevertheless, even in developed form the term – captured by an important specification in the formula “musicality of a literary work” – remains far insufficient to locate many issues, and at most explains the interdisciplinary shift (hence, in a sense, this allows us to avoid writing in quotes). It still lacks sufficient focus in the narrow context of a literary work on account of the multiplicity of connotations: firstly, it implies a huge sphere (it would be better to say – spheres) of diverse and divergent phenomena, related to the literary interpretation of not only of the music of culture but also of the music of nature; secondly, it appears in research viewpoints distant to each other or fundamentally incompatible. In other words, “musicality” beyond certain nuances of a literary work, beyond defining features of the text and an indeterminate type of textuality in relation to the certain degree of the musical character of the author’s aesthetics, also characterises the researcher’s position, his interpretative strategy. Jan Błoński, in considering the manifestations of “musicality” in literature, not without reason chose the trope of reflection about the reception of a poetic work and analytical contexts in which he discussed the whole phenomena143. In essence, it is impossible to avoid the problem of immanent interference between “musicality” as a feature of a literary work and as a literary theoretical concept144. If Danièle Wieckowski imposes the “idea of musicality”145 on Mallarmé’s Hérodiade, this ←46 | 47→determines the property of the literary text and at the same time the strategy of constructing the interpretation field, conditioned by aesthetic consciousness. One could accept the assumption based on the quoted example, most typical in literary studies, that the term allows various uses only on its own account. The specific operation of nominalisation of the argument is otherwise bordering this second-order effect, only just within the scope of theoretical discourse. In the commentary to Verlaine’s146 Romances sans paroles Jacques Borel does not use the concept of “musicality” expressis verbis, although Michał Głowiński147 uses it as a mental shortcut in reference to his analysis; Tadeusz Makowiecki resigns from the term (undoubtedly under the influence of Szulc’s monograph), which, however, does not prevent Krystyna Jakowska from using it in the context of Muzyka w twórczości Wyspiańskiego [Music in Wyspiański’s Work]148; the word does not appear in Le grain de la voix149, but it helped Eva Kushner summarise Barthes’ essay considerations on several occasions150.
All such cases of the functioning of terminology greatly complicate historical conditions, not so much modeling the frequency of the term depending on literary tendencies (the multitude of attempts to realise the ideal of musicality151), as much as particularly shifting accents between its different connotations and their subjective understanding152. It is curious that apart from ontological ←47 | 48→criterion the most powerful argument to undermine the operational value of the concept (both by dictionary and contextual imprecision) has not been sufficiently exposed by today’s opponents of the use of similar terminology in literary studies153. Meanwhile, the most cursory reflection reveals a fundamental paradox: there is nothing simpler than to claim “musicality” of one or another work on account of some of its language features or construction, and at the same time nothing more difficult than to select in general and explain its potential manifestations, to speak – as Mieczysław Tomaszewski proposes – about the “musicality of literature”154. This paradox, serving as material for polarly opposite interpretations, above all else shows the non-existence of convention, which would lead to the creation of specific phenomena commonly associated with the term in the case of a literary work155. At the same time, he explains both the singularity of the theoretical application, the source of particular analytical-interpretative difficulty, followed through with the most wan effect at the moment of taking over the convention of generalising from criticism, and metaphorical assignment of hidden features to a literary work concealed under an enigmatic name. Briefly concluding, in the light of the introductory reflection, a basic objection arises on the one hand, that despite quite widespread use, the term “musicality” as potentially useful in literary research, and in today’s practice is almost completely worthless156, semantically self-disqualifying, must be subjected to fundamental and severe criticism; on the other hand, the conviction persists, that all expressed doubts about the lack of precision in definition in reference to the details of textual reality (and even a minimal ability to organise ←48 | 49→them) do not concern the existence of complicated problematics of the musicality of a literary work.
The paradigms of “musicality” (an attempt at a survey)
A general treatment of the meaning of “musicality” in the context of research in literature is neither safe nor effective, since it leads either to doubtful theoretical generalisations157 or gives primacy to excessive skepticism, which to some extent is difficult to call into question158, or leads to an insufficiently critical (often naive) point of view. Hence the necessity to consider the issue in the optics suggested at the beginning, which makes it possible to finally bring out detailed arguments and consider how feasible it is to establish the frequency and range of particular “musicalities”. At the initial stage of reflection the analytical approach with such assumptions reveals not just subsequent paradigms of the term159, and, above all, the question of their consistency (the existence of or lack of coherence); in other words, the degree of derivation of individual meanings provokes the consideration of whether these individual paradigms serve (and to what extent) to define them in the same way. There is therefore a need for selective separation and ordering of various planes and points of intersection of contexts of “musicalities” through schematic attempts to apportion these. In any theoretical position taken as a result, the basic difficulty of the problem of diagnosis comes down to the formula of categorising many “musicalities” and refining the dependencies between them. In order to find out the clear referentiality of the term (without taking into consideration historical modifications), the theoretical approach proposed here in the form of the simplest or most trivial distinctions in no way constitutes a closed whole and does not exhaust all manifestations. The construct, on account of the very nature of the issue, must take the form of an open typology, which only reveals some traces ad hoc in the labyrinth of the dictionary of “musicality”, traces leading to localisation of the symptoms of the musicality of a literary work.
The moment we centre attention in both literature and literary research, the first task is to introduce an overarching and elementary division, a kind of subject typology. As a consequence, a constellation of perspectives on the view is outlined, which determines the divergences in the argumentation: “musicality” presents itself somewhat differently in music160 (even when the conclusions through the prism of musical composition refer to a literary work161 or to poetry in general162), somewhat differently in literature, and differently again in philosophy163. Therefore, in the area of musical-literary research, the functioning of the concept would also have to be considered simultaneously in four selected zones. These are: direct connections between literature and music (songs, opera), general aesthetics (description of the relationship between arts), literary inspirations in music and, analogically, musical inspirations164 in literature. This area blurs the semantic differences between paradigms of “musicality” and clearly makes effective selection more difficult to carry out. Taking on the last sphere of issues in the context of a literary work coincides with the indicated complications that ←50 | 51→determine all literary theoretical arrangements. So, on account of the fusion of the “ideal of musicality”165 (or the “idea of musicality of literature”166) with certain phenomena in the literary work, a fundamental difficulty arises in distinguishing the subject of research. This directly implies a universal typology, that in the passing we can call communicative, which shows that two “musicalities” always coexist (whether consciously or not), in the understanding of sender and receiver; somewhat similar – to paraphrase Barthes – as two kinds of music: for playing and for listening to167. Remaining within the boundaries of literature and speaking accurately, in the rhetorical sense literary text as a potential medium for many “musicalities” presents itself differently to the reader than to the author, and their convictions about its musical character can turn out to be very divergent. Often a literary work contains certain genological symptoms; much more frequently, however, the feature of “musicality” is imposed on it secondarily through different takes on interpretation (also by the author), which perfectly explains the case of Thomas Stearns Eliot. Burnt Norton read even through the prism of the final name of the cycle, Four Quartets (where the title connotation provokes suspicion), raises musical problematics to a negligible degree, the whole cycle also read through the essay “The Music of Poetry”168 perhaps reveals its “musicality” as argued, amongst others, by Marcello Pagnini in “La musicalità dei ‘Four Quartets’ di T. S. Eliot”169. Thus, a huge problem arises in the research field about “the manner of expressing musicality in the title”170 and the manner of interpreting paratextual information in identifying intersemiotic and intermedial filiations.
If we recognise that one “musicality” is constructed according to a defined, conventionalised procedure at the stage of artistic creation (literary interpretation), in turn, the other is perceived integrally at the stage of analysis of a given text and in the situation of knowing the applied convention, the division caused by communication strategies would be deprived of primary significance. But the existence of features of “musicality” once, despite text signals, is generally not noticed at all, other times – turns out just to be writer’s mystification (through commentary, foreword, etc.) or a very doubtful, unverifiable interpretation hypothesis. It is necessary to pay closer attention to this aspect of the issue, namely the lack of artistic conventions in connection with the phenomenon in literature and, consequently, the extremely non-procedural interpretation of its manifestation. This is probably the place of reflection prejudging all positive and negative conclusions, the starting point for the fundamental ordering of various questions of musicality of a literary work. The unconventionality of the artistic activity here only decides directly about the existence of individual realisations, depending on certain basic limitations derived from the model of literary genres. Just how important generic typology171 turns out to be, distinguishing, in particular, phenomena occurring in the realm of drama from those appearing in poetry and prose, can be seen at the moment of attempts to realise “musicality” at various levels of a literary work. As far as the example of “musicality based on consonants”172, considered by Paul Vernois in the context of Jean Tardieu’s language experiments in dramatic arts, does not yet show the fundamental discrepancies, so “musicality based on rhythm”173 clearly indicates the demarcation line. A borderline exemplification of this, as will be seen later, is the construction of one of the scenes Judasz z Kariothu [Judas Iscariot] by Karol Hubert Rostworowski, created on the basis of simultaneous leading of many voices and ←52 | 53→the effect of polyphony, which does not find a poetic equivalent on such a scale (the type of simultaneity implied in prose seems to be different in principle174).
So far, the communication-generic specification presents the range of problems of “musicality” in literature in a general manner, while a more detailed perspective reveals a typology which is extremely difficult to characterise briefly, and which is most important for final proposals, which we can agree to call text levels. It schematically separates the three open problem areas in which phenomena commonly associated with the musicality of a literary work occur, or in which they are situated. These areas of research, subject first of all to the rules of poetics, for the preservation of the terminological source will be defined successively in a uniform manner as: musicality I, II and III175. In this light Musicality I defines all manifestations related to the field of sound instrumentation and prosody, consciously shaped both in relation to music of nature and to a lesser extent to music of culture in general, although incomparably more precisely than the term in its elementary form. Musicality II is limited to the level of thematisation of music, ways of presenting (particularly descriptive ones) aspects of a musical piece in a literary work, but also – accidentally – presenting music in its natural state. Musicality III concerns the interpretation of musical forms and techniques in a literary work, and is characterised by its strongly specific formal referentiality176, which refers to the construction of the musical composition and is associated ex definitione exclusively with the music of culture. Remaining with the general ←53 | 54→initial term and modifying its ranges of meaning through a schematic division (with mathematical notes included), I will try to show that a close relationship often appears between similarly labeled text levels (in the context of a specific literary work). A review of the frequency of “musicalities”, numerous applications, amongst others, even in the interpretations of Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz’s creative work, should in passing bring an answer about the question of what the terminological problem is in detail and how big it is in modern literary studies. As part of this undertaking, it is not enough to perform a theoretical-literary narrowing to the “musicality of a literary work” – the whole procedure of basic ordering of various literary realisations should be integrally complemented with further distinctions.
Three musicalities of a literary work
The transition to considering the next levels of literary phenomena, which have just been defined as musicality I, II and III, does not indicate a definitive solution. Within their range, undoubtedly, it is necessary to introduce many detailing specifications, to break the stereotype of “musicality” as an undefined phenomenon in literature177. If, however, it becomes necessary to speak about three types of musicality of a literary work in the sense of a theoretical construction, which eliminates the unconscious or unintentional identification of particular issue areas, at the same time, something completely opposite about the functioning of the term itself should be said: metaphorically characterised textual elements can in most cases be successfully examined with the aid of commonly accepted and more precise academic terminology, i.e. traditional poetic tools178. In other words, this is not about creating synonyms for concepts that already exist, because none of the three musicalities has a terminological counterpart in the field of poetics, but about flagging up problem areas. Discrepancies between these lead to the first task – each of these fields has its own specificity, which must be identified and characterised in isolation. At first glance, it can ←54 | 55→be seen that the status of the phenomena of musicality II does not cause much doubt, that musicality III as for the subject of the study requires, in comparison with the other two, decidedly the broadest argumentation and evidence exemplification, that musicality I (indisputably dominant in terms of the number of aspects) brings much more serious metatheoretical than analytical (rhetorical) difficulty and hence best presents the terminological problem in connection with the paradigms of “musicality” in literature.
The manifestations of musicality I, regardless of the intensity with which they appear in the literary text and as far as they are exposed at the analytical stage, are treated as the most basic – in the sense of universality, not the degree of complexity – amongst the issues of musicality of a literary work179. In fact, agreement about the nature of the problem turns out to be only superficial and, for this reason, amongst others, requires a very thorough explanation. It would be easiest to maintain that musicality I does not categorise non-literary phenomena, that it does not directly concern language in and of itself, and if it refers to research about itself, it is only in relation to the aspects formed in a given literary text180. The focus of our interest should be on the updated aspects of artistic language, since the proposed understanding of the concept is unambiguously linked with literature and the musicality of a literary work. However, even the simplest combination of literary or theoretical literary commentaries is enough, for which it is necessary to indicate a place here due to the functioning of the term and the type of problem; this results in a different picture, complicated by the border inconsistency of research perspectives. It is easy to see that cursory reflection on the nature of poetic language, indicated already by Boris Eikhenbaum in the field of Russian formalism181 is not necessarily of secondary importance. Otherwise, the ←55 | 56→question remains open today on account of the term’s linguistic connotations, even if we avoid the distant facts, especially those preceding Szulc’s criticism, for example, Karol Wiktor Zawodziński’s proposal to define “musicality”, who is trying to characterise the immanent feature of language (“song heritage”182) in this way. Today, it is applied, amongst others, as a very specific criterion of language in general: it is with this intention that Bohdan Pociej proposes the term “situated musicality”183, which in another place he also defines as “potential musicality”184, in order to argue the metaphysical aspect of every language. Adam Kulawik in turn, operating with the meaning of the term in the linguistic plane, links “musicality” on the margins of Konstanty Ildefons Gałczyński with the natural frequency of vowels (“the musicality of our speech”185).
I combine the initial difficulties with musicality with the separation or reduction of issues to the sphere of a given artistic language, further – by bringing out the individual character of analytical-interpretative concepts and, as a consequence, by examining the terminological problematics. In first seeking theoretical optics, the main point of reference should be directed first and foremost at the strategy proposed by Czesław Zgorzelski, the strategy of problematic demystification186, around which it would be possible to organise various reflections in the sense of central or peripheral localisation. In a few close-ups, concerning in turn: sound instrumentation, rhythm, rests, tempo and intonation, it is shown with great subtlety that all of the listed elements of “musicality” have a purely literary character; moreover, the fact that they possess individual names indicates their acceptance within poetics. Zgorzelski introduces valuable and necessary ordering, but at the same time he attempts to find strict analogies between the construction of a musical work and the construction of a literary work through ←56 | 57→the prism of “musicality”, and this makes it impossible to formulate conclusions which reach further. They arise spontaneously in the context of the previous discussion – the cases of musicality I do not appear as conventional figures, definable in the sphere of poetics, but as one-off phenomena within the boundaries of a particular work. As a result, the first of the three musicalities of a literary work is not equivalent to either one or all of the previously mentioned elements. Study of this focuses on the effect of their secondary semanticising, added situational functionalisation, which – as a result of the existence of musical inspiration – shows the source of the unconventionality of the presentation.
In these circumstances, the term “musicality” appears marginally in a directly evaluative sense, in the form of a criterion of the quality of poetry, revealing the multiplicity of such paradigms not only in the field of musicality I which are ennobled in the common feeling of researchers by using terminology. Bohdan Pociej makes a selection based on the type of sound formation of “average poetry”, starting from the assumption that it: “stops in its poetic flight just at the level of this rhythmic-euphonic music”187. But at the same time it is indisputable that the paradigms of musicality of a literary work – whether they are trying a priori to define the specificity of some versification systems188, or the particulars of an artist’s idiom, or the specific use of language in a given literary work – above all else become a criterion of poetic language. The multiple uses of the term are provoked indeed by the nature of the poetic language: either too difficult for the researcher to define precisely, or – after analysing the rules of configuration – placed by him under the title of conclusions in the most concise and lexically effective form. In the first situation “musicality” functions as a word-key (in fact, rather as a word-skeleton key189), exhibits a kind of dispersed referentiality; in the second, referring to a specific work, presents focused referentiality and appears on the basis of contextual synonym. The meaning of the concept in the formula, “Zygmunt Mycielski […] connected the musicality of Iwaszkiewicz’s last works with superb leading of a phrase, avoiding external, primitive effects, and above all with the skill of choosing words honed to perfection […]”190, is created by the mode of dispersed referentiality; just like in the case of Joanna Dembińska-Pawelec’s observations that: “broadly understood musicality lying deep inside the structure (as some people want: of all) of Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz’s literary works”191, or Jerzy Skarbowski’s conclusions on the theme of “musicality of rhymes”192 in Mickiewicz. Commentaries around specific literary texts are situated in opposition, I think, to this type of theoretical discourse, which as a result (often desirable) turns out to be an unverifiable generalisation and the highest degree of metaphorisation of the language of description. The rigour of analytical confrontation of hypotheses, expectations on the part of the interpreter for their legitimisation in the light of the text, leads to a slightly different, verifiable use of the term. Naturally, in the context of a literary work, the notion of “musicality” does not acquire final legitimacy – we know then what becomes the reason for its application and what it tries to define. “Musicality” in reference to Eliot’s Eyes that last I saw in tears characterises, in Jan Błoński’s opinion, is the effect of sound instrumentation, in reference to Uwertura [Overture] to Niobe – as proposed by Adam Kulawik – the “phonic layer”193. Such a paradigm of the term, in accordance with earlier findings, does not function as a synonym for instrumentation and the sound sphere in general, but as a synonym for shaping sound layer within a particular literary text194.
Briefly concluding, fundamental complication in the plane of musicality I leads to a point of view once oriented to the study of language in general, and at ←58 | 59→another time – to the study of artistic language. To expose differences and hidden dangers in their explanation a juxtaposition of examples of parallel meanings of “musicality” reveals two fundamentally divergent strategies for using the term, from which in the chosen perspective only one can be considered as methodologically validated. To refine the scope and hierarchy of the issue once again, in consideration of musicality I this is not about the immanent phonetic formation of a language, but about the order given in an individual way in the sound layer of a given literary text, not about onomatopoeia, for example, which “makes the most noise in language”195, but about the specific situation of its artistic acquisition, about the type of process of its literary recontextualisation. Musicality I always reveals itself through the technique of individual notation and it is more strongly argued, the more additional text signals are found, especially in the dimension of musicality II. As a result, its research is not only about looking for stricte elements of “musical organisation”196 in lyrical expression, or exclusively about language exploration in general; paradoxically, it is an indirect action, explaining the musical source of the sound quality of one and not another literary text.
Musicality II seems to be the least controversial with regard to the nature of the phenomena involved in the literary work in comparison to the other two and presents itself rather differently in relation to them for two interrelated reasons. Firstly, the relations of literature to music in this sphere often take on a very artistically clear expression; secondly – with almost no place here, in extreme contrast to musicality I, the necessity of terminologically cleaning the terrain. As a consequence of the appearance of literary presentations of musical work (more broadly: music) in the strongest possible form, expressis verbis, they cannot be speculatively excluded from the scope of the study of a literary work. The directness of the musical context, which manifests itself through various types of thematisation of music, also determines the terminologically highly characteristic form of conceptualisations. In certain situations, there is no need to metaphorise theoretical discourse: the term “musicality” becomes unnecessary when the analysis is reduced to a specific description of music or a relatively transparent functionalisation of the musical composition in a literary work.
1) [MUSICALITY]. The issue of the phenomena of musicality II in general terms turns out to be fairly indisputable, so that even Szulc, finding no negative argument197, merely methodologically eliminates the whole problem of thematisation of music from the issues of “musicality”. In the conclusion of Muzyka w dziele literackim [Music in a Literary Work] it is acknowledged that music can be: “only just an object falling within the realm of the reality of the literary work, which creates its own literary material and directives for itself”198. It is worth signaling the result of pre-war criticism mainly because it is possible to later perceive its clear consequences in the Polish theoretical-literary tradition. This is why Tadeusz Makowiecki and Konrad Górski (undoubtedly remaining under the influence of Szulc’s proposals) formulate all observations about the relationships between a literary work and music without referring to the term “musicality”199. Today, however, the problem of terminology seems to be much more complicated and only reveals itself when getting to know the range of theorising. Górski’s type of discourse becomes possible in the case of analysing musicality II in isolation from the other two musicalities of a literary work, that is, by limiting the sphere of study to, for example “music in literary description”. But at the moment of locating both manifestations of musicality I and musicality III in the plane of view (signalised via musicality II) a specific need for use of the term arises. In the context of this kind of modification of the theoretical language, Michał Głowiński’s solutions are particularly interesting: while the term does not appear in the field of a hermetic review of the issues of literary thematisation of music (“Muzyka w powieści” [“Music in the Novel”]200), at the same time, it is key in the field of a wide study of the musicality of a literary work (“Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury” [“Literariness of Music – Musicality of Literature”]201).
2) MUSICALITY. It would be a truism to claim that the range of musicality II has nothing to do with the issue of musicality of a literary work and that it is not presented in literary studies in this way202. Also in this plane there is an ←60 | 61→immanent two-channelled reflection, which places “musicality” both as a feature of a literary work and as a theoretical notion in the centre of interest. However, without an appropriate definition of the research perspective and the acceptance of a specific discourse, it is difficult however to recognise the Stanisław Żak’s methodological postulate that: “The musicality of a literary work can be considered in various aspects and it is necessary to look for it in the linguistic-stylistic layer as well as in the content-plot layer”203. Apart from analytical-interpretative solutions connected to the form of a literary work, there are metatheoretical proposals which would be difficult to consider as being of secondary importance; while explaining Iwaszkiewicz’s idea Maria Jędrychowska unambiguously puts Górski’s terminologically careful considerations in the plane of “musicality”204. However, the fundamental problem of musicality II appears at the moment of methodologically oriented ordering of coexisting elements within a given literary text, in other words, in the most common situation of internal textual, intra-textual interpretation. In this respect, Alina Matracka-Kościelny goes a long way in establishing the hierarchy of theoretical solutions, formulating an opinion concerning the role of “music-thematicism” in the function of a metatextual signal: “The next kind of paradox in the sphere of poetry and music in Iwaszkiewicz’s works is the fact that music-thematicism as one of the most obvious and directly influential criteria of musicality of poetry in general in Iwaszkiewicz’s later collections is a feature which occurs much less frequently, even disappearing when compared with earlier works”205. So to avoid imprecise definition this would be about cases such as: the “musicality of poetry in general”, when musicality II signals specific phenomena of musicality I or musicality III (and not some abstract property) due to the value of its readability. In addition to the intra-textual interpretation understood in this way, there is also another complementary possibility to examining the manifestations of musicality II, which through analogy is most easily described as extra-textual, intertextual interpretation206. The specificity and purposefulness of this study is indicated by Bohdan Pociej in one of the selected types of “musicality”, and ←61 | 62→namely when the music becomes: “the subject presented in works of narrative prose, and it is presented in two ways: as fictional music, invented, the creation of literary imagination (Sława i chwała [Fame and Glory], Czwarta Symfonia [Fourth Symphony]), just as Mann did (in Doktor Faustus) or Proust, and – as a specific existing work (Sny [Dreams], Mefisto-Walc [Mephisto-Waltz])”207. The difference between two conventionally signed interpretations, intra-textual and extra-textual, does not rely on the possibility of optional choice (which analysis of the functioning of the description of music in the novel by Philippe Sollers Le Coeur absolu [The Unlimited Heart] indicates), but is reduced to the nature of a review. Musicality II in the case of intra-textual interpretation (oriented to textual conditions) presents itself only in the form of the literary subject of the study, while in the case of extra-textual interpretation (intertextually or intersemiotically oriented) opens an interdisciplinary space of reflection.
It is difficult to justify the sense of applying an identical term to describe completely different textual phenomena, when we consider the radical individualities of manifestations of musicality II and even just musicality I. If, therefore, one would like to insist on studying the musicality of a literary work in order to typify the sphere of musicality II, this is especially for the reason that its manifestations, as unequivocally presenting themselves in the artistic discourse, indirectly argue the formations of the other two planes of musicality and potentially constitute a metatextual signal for their disclosure208. From this point of view, musicality II has, above all, intrinsic relational meaning – thematisation of music in a literary work is very often functionalised in just such a manner, to fulfil at the metatextual level the function of an important commentary, without which the phenomena of both musicality I and musicality III would remain unnoticed.
Situated in the last, least-elaborated problem area of the musicality of a literary work are rhetorical strategies introducing the context of the structure of a musical composition within the scope of a piece of literature209. This level of theoretical-literary reflection among the three distinguished presents, in principle, the greatest degree of complexity, mainly due to the subtle material being ←62 | 63→studied, but also the lack of terminological instruments and as a result of casual interdisciplinary borrowings. The problem of the illegibility of musical filiations is decisive with regards to the visible isolation of the sphere of issues, which Bohdan Pociej in his own characteristic way defines as “latent musicality”210, and about the specific circumstances of analytical-interpretative undertakings. In connection with the non-perception of the phenomena of musicality III certain suspicions concerning their appearance arise particularly for an inexperienced reader211, as Éric Prieto indicates in a specific literary case. Hence as far as indicating elements of the first two levels, musicality I and II, does not cause extreme difficulties, this is compensated for with a sizeable excess of multiple complications when considering the symptoms of musicality III.
When theoretically considering the third aspect of the musicality of a literary work, “latent musicality”, it should be clearly indicated that this is about looking at purely verbal operations in a given work. It is through such operations, however, that the dimension of a musical work is brought into its existence, or through which intersemiotic structural reference is created in an individual way212. Due to the singularity of the realisation formal reference is never clear enough in itself (that is in the field of musicality III), hence at the stage of analysis the search for supplementary argumentation in the sphere of musicality I and musicality II within the text is also provoked. Maria Woźniakiewicz-Dziadosz’s point of view about Iwaszkiewicz’s Opowiadania muzyczne [Musical Short Stories], is that “the plot motivates the musical structure of the work [Mefisto-Walc [Mephisto-Waltz], Czwarta symfonia [Fourth Symphony]]. In three stories: Przyjaciele [Friends], Notre-Dame-la-Grande, Psyche, ‘musicality’ is inscribed in the deep structure of the text, constitutes – broadly speaking – their composition model”213, should be treated in both a narrow (individual works), and a broad context (volume of stories) as an intention to interpret musicality III through the prism ←63 | 64→of musicality II. In turn, the interpretation strategy of Barbara Stelmaszczyk in the case of Gałczyński’s Niobe (“Is an example of a work which, mainly through its construction, and also through rhythm, the sound layer – gains undoubted musicality that stands out in the foreground”214) cannot be understood in any way other than as attempts to locate additional arguments in favour of musicality III in the field of musicality I. In both cases an elementary complication, as can be seen, creates perception of textual signals, which testifies to literary interpretation of musical scheme and which indirectly implies interdisciplinary procedure.
Among all the manifestations of the musicality of a literary work, the unconventionality of artistic activity probably gains the fullest reflection in the open interdisciplinary character of research. The conditions for examining musical entanglements are defined in a specific literary work, with the matter that this is only once, by direct, legible reference (for example a musical quotation), another time in a barely traceable manner through highly ambivalent metatextual impulses. Accepting the interdisciplinary perspective turns out to be indisputable in the case of Stanisław Barańczak’s Podróż zimowa [Winter Journey], and is argued a priori and pre-interpretatively by the shape of a literary work, which irrespective of the research strategy provokes the entrance: “to the highly risky area so-called musicality of literature”215. But already in the case of Paul Celan’s Todesfuge [Death Fugue] or Umberto Saba’s Preludio e Fughe [Prelude and Fugues] the question of discussing the existence of the musical context becomes the subject of theoretical investigations, may appear facultatively at the stage of interpretation, fortified from outside with certain hypotheses. Thus, the fundamental nature of the research changes (and consequently its purpose) depending on whether this musical context is sufficiently exposed internally in the text, or whether it only reveals itself at the time of extra-textual verification. In the last situation, analytical-interpretative activities usually stop at the level of the potentiality of a given text, and in the most marginal circumstances, barely go beyond hypothetical space216. As a model example of hypothetical considerations we can show the interpretive undertaking of Bohdan Pociej, who attempts to read ←64 | 65→Iwaszkiewicz’s Panny z Wilka [The Maids of Wilko] through the prism of musical structure and discern latent “musicality”217 in the construction of the work.
Basic findings concerning musicality III undoubtedly depend on the understanding of the indicated rhetorical strategies, which show, at the time of their recognition, the manner of literary adaptation of elements of a musical work or, in other words, the effects of consciously taken “stylisation-‘transcription’ practice”218. The existence of the structural dimension of a musical work in a literary work comes from the author’s acceptance of more or less sophisticated rhetorical tactics219 and reveals itself through conventional allusiveness220 or – to use Jean-Jacques Nattiez’s formula – through “syntax of allusion”221. This is not about formal transposition of a musical composition within a given literary work, which is impossible to realise, nor about the global transfer of rules of structure222 from music to the terrain of literature. The scope of possibilities to signal intersemiotic (intermedial) references, as is known, is extremely limited on account of its ontological conditioning – there is no direct transition between the material of music and the material of literature, solutions are one-off solutions, individual literary interpretations of a musical scheme.
Of all the problematics of numerous paradigms of “musicality” I am basically most interested in this particular case, defined so far in connection with the musicality of a literary work as musicality III, which for purely methodological reasons will be separated and defined as musical literary text. In the context of earlier discussions, it can be clearly seen that it situates itself unambiguously in the problem area of musicality of a literary work (it occupies a very peripheral position amongst a wide variety of issues); moreover – and above all – that under this name which is not burdened with literary tradition, it presents itself as a question for separate consideration. Finally, very different artistic projects are involved which are difficult to generally classify, but require similar analytical ←65 | 66→procedures. This is because interpretative activities lead first to the perception of the artistic concept of construction (of) construction223, recognition of a rhetorically forced meta-construction, and then to explain how the palimpsest mechanism functions.
139In such a defined perspective, it is impossible to study the universality of the phenomenon “‘musicality’ in general”, as Jerzy Skarbowski postulates in the context of Iwaszkiewicz’s creative work (“Muzyka w poezji Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza,” in: Poezja, 4 (1978): p. 99), or the “category of ‘musicality’” (idem, “Serdeczne związki poezji z muzyką,” in: Poezja, 3 (1980): p. 8).
140The essence of parallelism, i.e. two fields of interdisciplinary meaning, is perfectly reproduced by a concise dictionary definition: “MUSICALITY, the quality of that which is musical; a property of art that drives people towards the art of sounds” (Science de la Musique: Technique, Formes, Instruments, vol. 2, ed. M. Honegger, Paris: Bordas, 1990, p. 640). An interesting matter in the margin is that the term “musicality” has generally not been included in the widely known today and the most appreciated amongst musicologists The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie, London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980.
141As a result, “musicality” functions in relation to literature on the same principles as the term “literariness” transferred to the realm of music. Compare M. Głowiński, “Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury,” in: Pogranicza i korespondencje sztuk, “Z dziejów form artystycznych w literaturze polskiej”, vol. 56, ed. T. Cieślikowska, J. Sławiński, Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980, pp. 65–81.
142Compare W. Brydak, “O muzyczności,” in: Dialog, 1 (1978): p. 86.
143See J. Błoński, “Ut musica poësis?,” in: Twórczość, 9 (1980): p. 111.
144Compare E. Wiegandt, “Problem tzw. muzyczności prozy powieściowej XX wieku,” in: Pogranicza i korespondencje sztuk, “Z dziejów form artystycznych w literaturze polskiej”, vol. 56, ed. T. Cieślikowska, J. Sławiński, Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980, p. 103.
145D. Wieckowski, La poétique de Mallarmé, Paris: Sedes, 1998, p. 163. Nota bene the question of “musicality”, as indicated by Henri Mitterand, opens up one of the interpretative possibilities of Mallarmé’s works in general. H. Mitterand, “Pour une sémantique textuelle de Mallarmé,” in: Poétique, 120 (1999): p. 405.
146See P. Verlaine, Oeuvres poétiques complètes, Paris: Gallimard, 1992, pp. 171–190 (see P. Verlaine, Songs without Words, trans. D. Revell, Richmond: Omnidawn, 2013).
147M. Głowiński, “Słowo i pieśń (Leśmiana poezja o poezji),” in: Studia o Leśmianie, ed. M. Głowiński, J. Sławiński, Warsaw: PIW, 1971, p. 194.
148K. Jakowska, Powrót autora: Renesans narracji auktorialnej w polskiej powieści międzywojennej, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1983, pp. 171, 172.
149See R. Barthes, “Le grain de la voix,” in: Musique en jeu, 9 (1972): pp. 57–63 (see R. Barthes, “The Grain of the Voice,” in: idem, Image, Music, Text, trans. S. Heath, London: Fontana Press, 1977, pp. 179–189).
150E. Kushner, “‘Le don du luthier’ et autres fictions canadiennes,” in: Musique du texte et de l’image, ed. J. Perrot, Paris: Centre National de Documentation Pédagogique, 1997, pp. 43–44. See also A. Locatelli, La lyre, la plume et le temps: Figures de musiciens dans le “Bildungsroman”, Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1998, p. 292.
151See J.-L. Backès, “La musique comme principe directeur dans la poésie symboliste,” in: Revue de Littérature Comparée, 3 (1987): p. 311. See also idem, Musique et littérature: Essai de poétique comparée, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994, pp. 193–197.
152As a result, it is equally possible to use the term to characterise the genre specificity of “chanson de geste” (see E. A. Heinemann, L’art métrique de la chanson de geste: Essai sur la musicalité du récit, Genève: Droz, 1993), as well as the type of language in Beaumarchais (see S. Lecarpentier, Le langage dramatique dans la trilogie de Beaumarchais: Efficacité, gaieté, musicalité, Saint-Genouph: Librairie Nizet, 1998).
153In Polish scholarship, Szulc was probably the last to pay attention to the unacceptable multitude of meanings of the term, despite the fact that his criticism of “musicality” took the form of qualitative criticism, relating to ontology, and not quantitative (see T. Szulc, Muzyka w dziele literackim, “Studia z zakresu historii literatury polskiej”, No. 14, Warsaw: Skład Główny w Kasie im. Mianowskiego, 1937, p. 35). The recently appearing negative arguments usually concern ontological differences (see A. Dziadek, “Słuchanie i rytm: Trzy fragmenty większej całości,” in: Opcje, 3 (1997): p. 23; idem, “Rytm i podmiot w ‘Oktostychach’ i ‘Muzyce wieczorem’ Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza,” in: Pamiętnik Literacki, 2 (1999): p. 43).
154M. Tomaszewski, “Muzyka i literatura,” in: Słownik literatury polskiej XIX wieku, ed. J. Bachórz, A. Kowalczykowa, Wrocław–Warsaw–Kraków: Ossolineum, 1991, p. 581.
155See E. Wiegandt, op. cit., pp. 109, 113.
156Compare amongst others R. Wellek, A. Warren, “Euphony, Rhythm, and Meter,” in: eidem, Theory of Literature, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949, p. 160.
157This is how in Jean-Louis Cupers the idea of “double musicality”, the effect of isolating “basic musicality” (the rhythmicism of prose in general) and “secondary musicality” (musical architectural analogies in prose) undoubtedly look. J.-L. Cupers, “Approches musicales de Charles Dickens: Études comparatives et comparatisme musico-littéraire,” in: Littérature et musique, ed. R. Célis, Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, 1982, p. 17. Otherwise, the literature researcher defines the division into “musicality” and “non-musicality” elsewhere as the issue of cacophony. See J.-L. Cupers, Aldous Huxley et la musique: À la manière de Jean-Sébastien, Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, 1985, p. 30.
158See S. P. Scher, “How Meaningful is ‘Musical’ in Literary Criticism?,” in: Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, 21 (1972): pp. 53, 55, 56. See also W. Brydak, op. cit., pp. 86–95.
159The term “paradigms of ‘musicality’” (or “paradigms of the term”) refers to single use constructed meanings of “musicality” not only within or on the borderline of various fields of art, but also within the closed problem area, for example literary research.
160“Musicality” is connected in this case, among other things, with the basic characteristics of the musician (see V. Zuckerkandl, Sound and Symbol, vol. 2: Man the Musician, translated from the German N. Guterman, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976, pp. 50–51), with the immanent characteristics of music in general (ibidem, p. 78), and with the nature of musical interpretation (see G. J. Balzano, “Exécution de commandes, commandes d’exécution,” in: La musique et les sciences cognitives, ed. S. McAdams, I. Deliège, Liège–Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga, 1989, pp. 622, 624).
161An example is Bohdan Pociej’s position, shown in discussion with Witold Lutosławski. See B. Pociej, “O roli słowa, teatralności i tradycji w muzyce mówi Witold Lutosławski,” in: Poezja, 10 (1973): p. 78.
162See L. Polony, Polski kształt sporu o istotę muzyki: Główne tendencje w polskiej myśli muzyczno-estetycznej od Oświecenia po współczesność, Kraków: Akademia Muzyczna, 1991, pp. 28, 144.
163See R. Wood, “Language as Will and Representation: Schopenhauer, Austin, and Musicality,” in: Comparative Literature, 4, Vol. 48 (1996): pp. 302–325.
164Compare J.-L. Cupers, Euterpe et Harpocrate ou le défi littéraire de la musique: Aspects méthodologiques de l’approche musico-littéraire, Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, 1988, p. 35.
165M. Głowiński, “Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury,” p. 77.
166M. Głowiński, “Literatura a muzyka,” in: Słownik literatury polskiej XX wieku, ed. A. Brodzka, M. Puchalska, M. Semczuk, A. Sobolewska, E. Szary-Matywiecka, Wrocław–Warsaw–Kraków: Ossolineum, 1992, p. 549.
167R. Barthes, “Musica Practica,” in: idem, L’obvie et l’obtus: Essais critiques III, Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1982, p. 231 (see R. Barthes, “Musica Practica,” in: idem, Image, Music, Text, trans. S. Heath, London: Fontana Press, 1977, p. 149).
168See Thomas Stearns Eliot’s commentary about “a ‘musical poem’” and “the music of verse”, and the potential links between literature and music. T. S. Eliot, “The Music of Poetry,” in: idem, On Poetry and Poets, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009, pp. 26, 30 (see T. S. Eliot, The Music of Poetry, Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Company, 1942).
169M. Pagnini, “La musicalità dei ‘Four Quartets’ di T. S. Eliot,” in: Belfagor, 4 (1958): pp. 421–440.
170N. Giraldi Dei Cas, Felisberto Hernández: Musique et littérature, Paris: Indigo et Côté-femmes éditions, 1998, p. 36 (see chapter 2: Les frontières du discours hernandien. La musique dans les titres, l’effet de leur intertextualité, pp. 27–50).
171In fact, its embryonic form is often accentuated indirectly, by a priori limitation of the study area: Czesław Zgorzelski considers the problem in poetry (see Cz. Zgorzelski, “Elementy ‘muzyczności’ w poezji lirycznej,” in: Prace ofiarowane Henrykowi Markiewiczowi, ed. T. Weiss, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1984, pp. 7–23), Ewa Wiegandt – in prose (E. Wiegandt, op. cit., pp. 103–114). This kind of typology of “musicality” can be seen in the dictionary concept of Michał Głowiński, who separates the range of the problem “in the sphere of drama” from the problem of “poetic communication”. See M. Głowiński, “Literatura a muzyka,” p. 549.
172P. Vernois, La dramaturgie poétique de Jean Tardieu, Paris: Klincksieck, 1981, pp. 247–252.
173Ibidem, pp. 241–247.
174See D. Viart, “Jules Romains, l’unanimisme et la simultanéité narrative,” in: Jules Romains et les écritures de la simultanéité, ed. D. Viart, Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1996, pp. 9–17.
175Distinguishing between three musicalities of a literary work is, in fact, nothing new – in the sense of the problem, Ewa Wiegandt chooses an identical strategy, using a slightly different terminology (for the selected musical planes of a literary work there are three categories in succession – “music in literature”, “music of literature” and “musicality of literature”). See E. Wiegandt, op. cit., p. 104. At the same time, in the terminological sense the closest point of view seems to be Bohdan Pociej, who sketches with the help of a descriptive specification “particular degrees and levels of musicality”. See B. Pociej, “Muzyka w poezji,” in: Ruch Muzyczny, 4 (1993): p. 3.
176Taking into account the circumstance of suggesting structural filiations in the situation of non-existence of analogy, it is possible to indicate the parallel between “formal referentiality” and the category of “formal mimetism” in Michał Głowiński (“O powieści w pierwszej osobie,” in: idem, Gry powieściowe: Szkice z teorii i historii form narracyjnych, Warsaw: PWN, 1973, pp. 63–65). Compare E. Wiegandt, op. cit., pp. 106–107, 109. Compare also S. Dąbrowski, “‘Muzyka w literaturze’: (Próba przeglądu zagadnień),” in: Poezja, 3 (1980): p. 30.
177In the version for example proposed by Marie-Clotilde Roose, where “musicality” defines the expressive-associative dimension of meaning, revealed by poetic language. See M.-C. Roose, “Le sens du poétique: Approche phénoménologique,” in: Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 4 (1996): pp. 654, 656.
178It is surprising that in many situations, the concept of “musicality” models or precisely clarifies a term from the field of poetics; for example Michel Leiris uses it to define – as noted by Éric Prieto – “a certain type of prosodic profile”. See É. Prieto, “La musique et la mimésis du moi: Leiris lyrique,” in: Poétique, 104 (1995): p. 488.
179See S. Dąbrowski, “Muzyka w literaturze,” p. 28. See also W. Stróżewski, “Doskonałe – wypełnienie: O ‘Fortepianie Szopena’ Cypriana Norwida,” in: Pamiętnik Literacki, 4 (1979): p. 68; compare idem, “Wstęp,” in: Cyprian Norwid: O muzyce, ed. W. Stróżewski, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1997, pp. 76–77.
180The negative criticism given by Henri Meschonnic of all links between poetic language and music (in his opinion incorrectly motivated in the historical plane), situates itself at a different level of reflection and becomes neutral in such a light. See H. Meschonnic, “Le langage sans la musique,” in: idem, Critique du rythme: Anthropologie historique du langage, Lagrasse: Éditions Verdier, 1982, pp. 117–140.
181See B. Eikhenbaum, Меlodika russkogo liričeskogo sticha [Melody of Russian Lyric Poetry], Petersburg: Оpojaz, 1922, pp. 9–10.
182K. W. Zawodziński, “Pegaz, to nie samochód bezkołowy,” in: Skamander, 57 (1935): p. 13.
183B. Pociej, “Muzyczność i metafizyka muzyki w prozie Iwaszkiewicza,” in: Miejsce Iwaszkiewicza – w setną rocznicę urodzin, ed. M. Bojanowska, Z. Jarosiński, H. Podgórska, Podkowa Leśna: Muzeum im. Anny i Jarosława Iwaszkiewiczów w Stawisku, 1994, p. 194.
184See B. Pociej, “O roli słowa, teatralności i tradycji w muzyce mówi Witold Lutosławski,” p. 78.
185A. Kulawik, “‘Uwertura’ Gałczyńskiego do poematu ‘Niobe’,” in: Ruch Literacki, 1 (1968): p. 40. However, in another place “musicality” is understood by Adam Kulawik somewhat differently. See A. Kulawik, Poetyka: Wstęp do teorii dzieła literackiego, 3rd edition, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Antykwa, 1997, p. 142.
186See Cz. Zgorzelski, op. cit., pp. 7–23.
187B. Pociej, “Istota pieśni,” in: Zeszyty Naukowe, vol. 2, Poznań: Akademia Muzyczna, 1982, p. 32.
188See: P. Mączewski, “Wyspiański a Wagner,” in: Myśl Narodowa, 43 (1929): p. 217; M. Podraza-Kwiatkowska, “O muzycznej i niemuzycznej koncepcji poezji,” in: Teksty, 2 (1980): p. 90. See also Mieczysław Tomaszewski’s remark on the subject of “melic verse”. M. Tomaszewski, “Muzyka i literatura,” p. 581.
189See J. Błoński, op. cit., p. 110.
190A. Matracka-Kościelny, “Komponowanie dźwiękiem i słowem w twórczości Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza,” in: Twórczość, 2 (1990): p. 95.
191J. Dembińska-Pawelec, “Jak słuchać prozy Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza? O muzyczności ‘Nieba’,” in: Skamander, vol. 9: Twórczość Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza: Interpretacje, ed. I. Opacki, A. Nawarecki, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1993, p. 7.
192J. Skarbowski, “Serdeczne związki poezji z muzyką,” p. 4.
193A. Kulawik, “‘Uwertura’ Gałczyńskiego do poematu ‘Niobe’,” p. 39. Compare B. Stelmaszczyk, “O muzyczności ‘Niobe’ K. I. Gałczyńskiego: Zagadnienie łączności między rodzajami sztuk pięknych,” in: Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Naukowych, 4 (1970): p. 5.
194In the opposite case – for example, identification of “musicality” with sound instrumentation – the term becomes useless and dangerous. Compare A. M. Nowak, “La musicalité dans la poésie de George Bacovia,” in: Approches méthodologiques de la recherche littéraire, ed. A. Abłamowicz, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1985, p. 52. Compare also J.-L. Pautrot, “Introduction,” in: idem, La musique oubliée: “La Nausée”, “L’Écume des jours”, “À la Recherche du temps perdu”, “Moderato Cantabile”, Genève: Librairie Droz S.A., 1994, p. 27.
195H. Meschonnic, “Tirer la langue,” in: idem, La Rime et la vie, Lagrasse: Éditions Verdier, 1989, p. 18.
196Cz. Zgorzelski, op. cit., p. 7.
197Otherwise, its existence was emphasised in polemics by Stanisław Furmanik with Szulc in the context of literary description. See S. Furmanik, “Dzieło literackie a muzyka,” in: Pion, 37 (1935): p. 5.
198T. Szulc, op. cit., p. 87.
199See T. Makowiecki, Muzyka w twórczości Wyspiańskiego, Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 1955, pp. 1–29; K. Górski, “Muzyka w opisie literackim,” in: Życie i Myśl, 1–6 (1952): pp. 91–109.
200M. Głowiński, “Muzyka w powieści,” in: Teksty, 2 (1980): pp. 98–114.
201M. Głowiński, “Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury,” pp. 65–81.
202Compare J.-L. Pautrot, op. cit., p. 28.
203S. Żak, “O kompozycji ‘Cudzoziemki’ Marii Kuncewiczowej,” in: Ruch Literacki, 1 (1970): p. 51.
204See M. Jędrychowska, Wczesna proza Jarosława Iwaszkiewicza, Wrocław–Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1977, p. 76.
205A. Matracka-Kościelny, op. cit., p. 95.
206Proust’s work is given a superb interpretation in just this optic by Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Proust musicien, Paris: Christian Bourgois Editeur, 1984 (see J.-J. Nattiez, Proust as Musician, trans. D. Puffett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
207B. Pociej, “Muzyczność i metafizyka muzyki w prozie Iwaszkiewicza,” pp. 193–194.
208Compare M. Głowiński, “Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury,” p. 80.
209Interestingly, Ewa Wiegandt exclusively for him reserved the formula: “musicality of literature”. See E. Wiegandt, op. cit., p. 104.
210B. Pociej, “Muzyczność i metafizyka muzyki w prozie Iwaszkiewicza,” p. 194.
211See É. Prieto, “Recherches pour un roman musical: L’exemple de ‘Passacaille’ de Robert Pinget,” in: Poétique, 94 (1993): p. 157.
212See C. S. Brown, “Theme and Variations as a Literary Form,” in: Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, 27 (1978): pp. 35–43. Compare F. Claudon, “Théophile Gautier: ‘Variations sur le Carnaval de Venise’. Le sens d’une transposition. Les exigences d’une méthode,” in: Transpositions, ed. A. Mansau, G. Ponnau, Toulouse: Publications de l’Université de Toulouse-Le-Mirail, 1986, pp. 23–28.
213M. Woźniakiewicz-Dziadosz, “Kategorie muzyczne w strukturze tekstu narracyjnego (na przykładzie ‘Kotłów Beethovenowskich’ Choromańskiego i ‘Martwej Pasieki’ Iwaszkiewicza),” in: Pamiętnik Literacki, 4 (1979): pp. 191–192.
214B. Stelmaszczyk, op. cit., p. 2.
215A. Poprawa, “Wiersze na głos i fortepian: O nowym tomie Stanisława Barańczaka,” in: NaGłos, 21 (1995): p. 163. See Z. Bauer, “‘Podróż zimowa’ Stanisława Barańczaka: Kilka sugestii interpretacyjnych,” in: Ruch Literacki, 1 (1999): pp. 69, 70.
216See S. Dąbrowski, “Wobec ‘Koncertów brandenburskich’ Stanisława Swena Czachorowskiego (z rozważań wprowadzających),” in: Ruch Literacki, 6 (1979): pp. 457–474.
217B. Pociej, “Muzyczność i metafizyka muzyki w prozie Iwaszkiewicza,” pp. 193–200.
218S. Dąbrowski, “Muzyka w literaturze”, p. 21.
219Hence Witold Wirpsza speaks in this context about “calculating behaviour”: “It is necessary to find a formula that defines a given work, create a certain schema, and if not a schema, it’s a kind of idealisation […]” (W. Wirpsza, “Poezja a muzyka,” in: Ruchome granice: Szkice i studia, ed. M. Grześczak, Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie, 1968, p. 184).
220See A. Hejmej, “U jednej z granic literatury: (Uwagi o ‘muzycznych’ uwikłaniach),” in: Ruch Literacki, 2 (1998): p. 226.
221J.-J. Nattiez, Proust as Musician, p. 76 (see J.-J. Nattiez, Proust musicien, p. 141).
222Compare M. Głowiński, “Literackość muzyki – muzyczność literatury,” p. 78.
223In this situation, however, it would be difficult to speak like Józef Opalski about a “constructional calque”. See J. Opalski, “O sposobach istnienia utworu muzycznego w dziele literackim,” in: Pogranicza i korespondencje sztuk, p. 60.