Uto­pia języka dosko­na­łego w euro­pej­skim kręgu kul­tu­ro­wym

Homo sapiens, gatu­nek nie­mal pod każ­dym wzglę­dem jed­no­rodny fizjo­lo­gicz­nie, pod­dany pra­wie jed­na­ko­wym pro­ce­som bio­lo­gicz­nym i spo­łecz­nym, o podob­nej ewo­lu­cyj­nej prze­szło­ści; gatu­nek, który poro­zu­miewa się tysią­cami róż­nych języ­ków. Ludzie są iden­tycz­nie zbu­do­wani, ale nie posłu­gują się jedną, uni­wer­salną mową. Korzy­ści, jakie wyni­ka­łyby ze wspól­nego, zro­zu­mia­łego dla każ­dego czło­wieka języka, są oczywiste. Tęsk­nota za takim języ­kiem jest obecna we wszyst­kich cywi­li­za­cjach. Wątek pomie­sza­nia języ­ków (The Con­fu­sion of Ton­gues), rekon­struk­cja i kon­struk­cja języka dosko­na­łego snuje się przez wszyst­kie kul­tury. W mito­lo­gii wie­lość języ­ków to nie­szczę­ście i sła­bość ludz­ko­ści. Sta­ro­żytni Per­so­wie wie­rzyli, iż wie­lo­ję­zyczny ród czło­wie­czy doczeka się w końcu wspól­nego języka w kró­le­stwie Ormuz­do­wym.

Rondom de Ander in "Na die geliefde land" van Karel Schoeman

The aim of this article is to analyse the novel "Na die geliefde land" (1972) by Karel Schoeman, by interpreting the function of 'hulle' ('they') as a category of alienation/distancing. Schoeman presented a future vision of South Africa controlled by an unidentified group of 'them' and showed Afrikaners as a marginalized group, forced to live on farms. A narrow political interpretation dominated in the reception of this book, which was treated as a simulation of the development of the political situation in South Africa. The key argument of this article is that the indeterminate representation of the situation after the revolution is not a weakness of this novel, but a conscious strategy of the author. The article argues that problems concerning political revolution ('Who', 'Why', 'When') are not that relevant in a reading of the novel because "Na die geliefde land" deals mainly with an Afrikaner community’s reactions to a changed situation.

Luctus est istic tuus,/ crimen novercae. Boskie i ludzkie szaleństwo Heraklesa na podstawie tragedii Eurypidesa i Seneki

One of the main, initial thesis of the article is that in the tragedies `Hρακλής μαινόμενος by Euripides and Hercules Furens by Seneca the main character falls into the madness twice. The first madness is sent by Hera/ Juno and is here defined, because of its origin, as a divine madness. The second one is so called human madness and Heracles/ Hercules is most probably overcome by it, after he has recognised, that he, driven by the involuntary fury, killed his own wife and sons. This state of the psyche of the hero is already independent from the deity and originates in such deeply human feelings like despair, anger, pain, shame. The strongly stirred hero plans to commit a suicide. According to the contemporary psychology this situation can be, because of some reasons analysed in the article, recognised as a symptom of irrationality. In the drama by Seneca Amfithryon, the father of the hero also defines the state of Hercules, who has become aware of the truth about his deeds, outright as furor. There is in the drama by Euripides, however, no reference to this second madness, which is connected with the somewhat different mentality that the drama originated in (the still kept in memory Homeric ethos and the attitudes towards the issues of honour, suicide etc. determined by it). Seneca as a stoic noticed and emphasized – although he generally also accepted the suicide – that Hercules, because of the anger, acts irrationally and, as a result, is in fact mentally unable to decide about his life and death. In the article is also presented in what an interesting way the above mentioned differences in the mentality of Euripides and Seneca manifest themselves in the case of the divine madness (among other things, the difference between Greek Lyssa and Roman Furor).