An ambiguity-based theory of the linguistic verbal joke in English

Instytut Filologii Angielskiej

Antyk w prozie J. R. R. Tolkiena

Tolkien’s oeuvre and its problematic relationships with classical tradition serve in my paper as an illustration of the diverse approaches, methods, and styles of lecture concerning the nature of literary allusivity. As a point of departure in the paper has been taken the reflection on the common phrase about “antiquity in something” deployed broadly in the reception studies. T he questions raised here are as follows: what does precisely “in” mean in that metaphor? O r, to put it in more general terms, when an allusion to another text can be treated as an inherent part of interpretation? Answer to these questions was possible due to U mberto E co’s statements in the well-known dispute relating to the interpretation and overinterpretation; in conclusion I was trying to show that his criterion of textual economy in interpretation justifies somehow (as I believe) the new look on the essential T olkien’s symbol, i.e. the ring of power, as a symbol of the R oman imperial rule. This means (in the context of the translatio imperii and cultural change from pagan to Christian empire) that The Lord of the Rings can be seen in a way as a novelistic version of Augustine’s The City of God.

Wergiliusz jako twórca labiryntu

Romani antiqui putabant litteras aedificiis similes esse. Nonnulli scriptores Latini tali modo metaphoras suas composuerunt, ut descriptio aedificii una cum descriptione operis poetici esset. Aeneis etiam effigiem suam continet, quae est ecphrasis portae templi Apollinis. In fabulam Aeneae Vergilius fabulam Daedali introduxit, quae diu doctis ad nihil pertinere videbatur. Falsissime quidem, quia non solum coniunctio fabularum exsistit, sed etiam multae sunt causae fabulae Daedali hoc loco imponendae. Imprimis caelamen monstrat multos casus ex vita Daedali et Aeneae similes fuisse, deinde ostendere Daedalum creatorem hibridarum esse videtur. Aeneis etiam hibrida est, quia constat ex duabus partibus, quae sunt, ut ita dicam, „pars Odysseica” et „pars Iliadica”. Utri (Daedalus Vergiliusque scilicet) sunt ergo creatores hibridarum. Maximi momenti est quaestio: quis dicit “miserum!” in hac parte poematis? Auctrix commentationis censet illum clamantem Vergilium esse, quia poeta constructorem „alter ego” suum esse credebat. Auctrix scripsit etiam imaginem illam, in qua caelata est fabula de Minotauro sine Theseo, viam esse pietatis Aeneae minuendae. Scripsit verba illa quoque opinionem Vergilii de natura poesis et vocem Augusti absconditam esse.