Object structure

Title:

Między "Diariuszem" Prokopa Zbigniewskiego a "Chorągwią sauromatcką" Marcina Paszkowskiego - pamiętnikarski wzorzec prozą i?jego wierszowane powielenie propagandowe = Prokop Zbigniewski`s "Diary" and Marcin Paszkowski`s "Chorągiew sauromatcka" - prosed diary original and its poematic duplication

Group publication title:

Scripta Humana, 2

Creator:

Sznajder, Marek

Subject and Keywords:

Zbigniewski, Prokop ; Paszkowski, Marcin - twórczość ; pamiętnikarstwo polskie ; literatura polska - historia - 10-16 w.

Abstract_pl:

Główne założenie studium stanowi analiza porównawcza utworu Paszkowskiego z tzw. "Dziennikiem wyprawy chocimskiej" Zbigniewskiego; badanie w rezultacie pozwoli sformułować kilka istotnych wniosków, wzmacniających uświadamiane od dawna spostrzeżenie, iż twórca Paszkowski posługiwał się w swojej pisarskiej praktyce instrumentami charakterystycznymi dla strategii spod znaku kompilacji, adaptacji, imitacji czy nawet plagiatu.

Abstract:

This study refers to a problem of confusing similarity between two XVII centuary literary worksconcerning the Battle of Khotyn (1621), i.e. "Chorągiew sauromatcka" written by Marcin Paszkowskiand Prokop Zbigniewski`s "Diariusz". The poet of the House of Zadora used to plagiarized in most ofhis early writings which was quickly proven in professional literature. A question arisen whetherPaszkowski did also plagiarize in his latest known work or did he wrote it all by himself? ; A thorough research clearly indicates that we are surely dealing with a prosed diary original (Zbigniewski) and its poematic duplication (Paszkowski). "Chorągiew sauromatcka" brought out a lot of controversies [e.g. the chronology of printings devoted to the Battle of Khotyn or the Paszkowski`s presence (absence?) during warfare], even the monography of the author of "Bitwy znamienite" wasn`t sufficient enough to answer the problematic questions. The proofs for dishonest methodology have been recently pointed out by Radosław Sztyber. ; The newest research also shed some light on that matter. The outline of the state of the studies presents as follows. Paszkowski purposely and for the propaganda reasons gave a misleading description of the type of polish troops. He failed to provide objective information about the end of the Khotyn Battle (e.g. a number of injured or killed soldiers on both sides). He used a distinctive Zbigniewski`s vocabulary to characterize the battleship. The poet was also wrong about several facts related to Grand Hetman Jan Karol Chodkiewicz. ; He copied and incorporated some lines from Jan Kochanowski`s "Szachy". Paszkowski gave an account of the war straight from the Zbigniewski`s work as well. He presented polish propositions for a peace treaty as a final agreement between two enemy sides. Finally, what the deeper comparison shows, he may have also used a third source in his poem to plagiaries from. In that case (what requires a deeper insight) the whole content of "Chorągiew sauromatcka" would turned out to be a mixture from several other works.

Publisher:

Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego

Contributor:

Kulczycka, Dorota - red. ; Sztyber, Radosław - red.

Date:

2014

Resource Type:

artykuł

Format:

application/pdf

Pages:

39-54

Source:

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego: Seria Scripta Humana, tom 2

Language:

pol

Rights:

Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego