Collective Memory Embodied in Poetry as Poison. The Mnemonic Role of Romantic Poets Discussed on the Basis of Adam Mickiewicz’ Konrad Wallenrod and Forefathers (Part III)

This thesis constitutes an interdisciplinary approach to the Polish Romanticism combining literature studies with memory studies, nationalism research and psychoanalysis. This phenomenon-based study attempts to answer the question, how the Polish national poet Adam Mickiewicz (1798–1855) – or more exactly the implied authors in his works – perceived the role of poetry in mnemonic terms and how it changes in course of time. Consequently, ‘memory in literature’ (Astrin Erll and Ansger Nünning) is discussed here. Two pieces of writing by Mickiewicz – Konrad Wallenrod [1828] and the third part of Forefathers [1832], where a bard respectively a poetic genius appears – are seen as meta-texts defining goals of poets in time of the political non-existence of a state. Poetry is supposed to keep memory of the glorious past alive, kindle the love for the motherland, support the collective identity of a group and initiate a liberation movement. Poets function as memory guards, leaders of the nation and prophets. Thus, literature is a medium of collective memory – it stores crucial contents, transmits them and acts as a cue. Nevertheless, shifting the focus from the community towards well-being of individuals, which is consistent with the postmodern thinking, the impact that poetry has on members of a given memory culture (Jan Assmann) can be described in ‘vampiric’ terms (Maria Janion). Poetry embodying collective memory may be compared to ‘poison’, ‘infecting’ people with a nationalistic way of thinking to their disadvantage as far as their personal lives are concerned.

Conflicting Memory in Estonia: How Do Estonian Russian-speakers Understand the Events of 1939-40?

This thesis studies the collective memory of the Russian-speaking minority living in Estonia. The minority is exposed to two national narratives regarding the incorporation of Estonia into the Soviet Union in 1940. According to the Estonian narrative, Estonia was occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union while the Soviet-Russian narrative sees the actions to have been legal and voluntary. This thesis firstly examines thoughts the existence of these two opposing narratives evoke among the Russian-speaking minority and secondly it explores whether the views of the minority compare with the two official yet divergent narratives. The study focuses on the second and third generation minority members. The topic belongs to the field of memory studies. The objective is to understand the views the Russian minority have towards the controversial events of the years 1939-40. To accomplish the objectives set, a web-based survey using open-ended and multiple-choice questions was conducted. The open-ended questions addressed the main research questions while the multiple-choice questions contributed to forming a more comprehensive understanding of the subject in question. In order to interpret the data, qualitative content analysis has been applied. Based on the findings, the Russian-speaking minority respondents’ understanding of the events of 1939-40 could be described as fragmented, inconsistent and including viewpoints that resulted from the merger of different storylines. There is no single cohesive or coherent narrative of the past amongst the minority. In addition to that, their views do not generally comply with the narrative of the Russian Federation as often referred to in literature, even though the minority respondents do not want to see the Soviet involvement as critically as the Estonian narrative does. Many respondents conceive the events of 1939-40 as ambiguous revealing the ability to be tolerant and receptive in their views regarding the past.