About the Concept of "Gnosticism" in Fiction Studies
In his article "About the Concept of 'Gnosticism' in Fiction Studies" Fryderyk Kwiatkowski notices that in the twentieth century humanities the concept of Gnosticism has become a popular term for labelling tendencies in modernity and postmodernity. Kwiatkowski argues that the majority of scholars in fiction studies base their research on outdated methodologies. In consequence, Kwiatkowski presents an overview of contemporary approaches in Gnostic studies and discusses how they can be adapted in studies of literature, film, video games, comic books, etc. By outlining advantages and disadvantages of methodological approaches, Kwiatkowski posits that in studies of fiction with Gnostic components it is advantageous to adhere to precise methods, terminology, and explanation including their limitations and the purposes of application. Fryderyk Kwiatkowski, "About the Concept of 'Gnosticism' in Fiction Studies" page 2 of 8 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 18.3 (2016) Fryderyk KWIATKOWSKI About the Concept of "Gnosticism" in Fiction Studies In the twentieth century the religious phenomenon known as Gnosticism has gained much interest (see, e.g. Brakke; King; Williams) Gnosticism as a category has been used not only by scholars in religious studies, but also by researchers from other fields including cultural studies, political philosophy, literary studies, etc. The problematic nature of the subject affected the research of scholars who have tried to propose several theories of modernity based on the idea of Gnosticism (see, e.g. Blumenberg; Jonas; Voegelin) or to broaden our understanding of various phenomena in Western culture (see, e.g. Bloom; Filoramo; Hanegraaff) Unfortunately, in many cases their research lead to ineffectual outcomes. Ioan P. Culianu summarized these efforts by writing that "Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity I was to learn soon, however, that I was a naif indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the catholic authors were gnostic, the neoplatonic too. Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka, Rilke, Proust, Joyce, Musil, Hesse and Thomas Mann were gnostic. From very authoritative interpreters of Gnosis, I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic; power, counter power and lack of power are gnostic; left is gnostic and right is gnostic; Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; Freud is gnostic and Jung is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic" (290 91) In my view, Culianu exhibits oversimplifications and pitfalls made by scholars who used terms Gnostic and Gnosticism too loosely and not much has changed since he wrote his words. The way I see it, most scholars who are not in the field of Gnostic studies still reproduce many stereotypes on Gnosticism. This problem, however, stems mainly from the fact that scholars in Gnostic studies themselves have not come to the consensus whether the concept of Gnosticism should be abandoned, narrowed only to one group of early Christians, or reformulated. The objective of my study is to discuss contemporary methodological approaches in Gnostic studies which can be applied in fiction studies (especially literary studies, film studies, and video game studies) By outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each method I show their possible use for scholars in fiction studies. This, I hope, should make their prospective examinations of fictional narratives more precise and up to date with new trends in Gnostic studies. Before proceeding to examine whether some ideas expressed in a fictional text can be read as Gnostic, a scholar should clearly expose the methodological perspective from which she/he is willing to provide an interpretation. In contemporary scholarship we can outline at least three possible approaches towards Gnosticism. I do not hold that this list should be seen as perfectly reflecting all the methods available in the contemporary scholarship on Gnosticism, but for the purposes of this article I find it the simplest and most informative: 1) Typological: a) Gnosticism as single religion b) Gnosticism as interpretive or heuristic category 2) Self designation 3) Identity formation. The typological model a) assumes that Gnosticism was a distinct religion, independent from Christianity which manifested itself in various currents and schools, for example in Sethianism or Valentinianism, but nonetheless it comprised a homogenous movement describable by a set of common features. This approach became influential and popular in defining Gnosticism also outside scholarship. It is understandable owing to the clarity of the results that this method yields. Many scholars followed Hans Jonas's work and developed a typological approach he proposed (see, e.g. Pearson; Rudolph) However, after the Nag Hammadi Library had been found scholars have begun to realize that the very concept of Gnosticism should be either abandoned or completely reformulated. Many scholars pointed out that typological approach is ineffective, gives oversimplifying view on the phenomenon and does not capture the diversity of positions among the socalled Gnostics. Karen L. King in her What Is Gnosticism? exposed that twentieth century scholarship on Gnosticism stems from the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy. The term and concept of Gnosticism "was substituted for heresy as the object of the discourse. The functions of this object were transformed, at times working Yet the function of this discourse has remained unchanged: to represent the other" (What Is Gnosticism? 219) King argues that by positing a single religion behind the category of Gnosticism modern scholars have reproduced the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy which was not established in the second and third century. Jonas "contributed to the reification of Gnosticism as an independent religion and a singular monolithic phenomenon" (see King, What Is Gnosticism? 135) King's critique of typological approach that presupposes Gnosticism as the monolithic movement is hard to ignore. Drawing conclusions from such a method might easily lead to distortion of the meaning of examined material and contribute to developing stereotypes. Thus, we might ask how it can be fruitful for a scholar in fiction studies to employ this approach and to argue that several motifs presented in a fictional work refer or resemble certain ideas manifested in Gnosticism. Firstly, by applying this approach a scholar makes it more suitable for a reader, who is unfamiliar with ancient Gnostic thought, to learn some basic knowledge on manifold religious currents which flourished especially in the Middle East in the second and third centuries. Typological approach towards Gnosticism, understood as a single religion, gives a clear understanding of this movement and Jonas's work still comprises "the classic starting point for exploring this topic" (King, What Is Gnosticism? 135) However, a scholar who provides an interpretation of a selected fictional work should clearly depict the limitations of this method and highlight the introductory character of the analysis. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars both in the fields of literary studies and film studies have unwittingly based their Gnostic examination of fictional works on typological approach in its a) version (see e.g. Landess; Mawby; Mackey) In most cases, they indiscriminately referred to works of Hans Jonas (The Gnostic Religion) and Kurt Rudolph (Gnosis) to depict what Gnosticism "is" without discussing problems of the use of this method, persuasively highlighted by King and other scholars. Having said that, it could be interesting if a scholar used this approach to depict Fryderyk Kwiatkowski, "About the Concept of 'Gnosticism' in Fiction Studies" page 3 of 8 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 18.3 (2016) some fictional work as displaying Gnostic motifs in the way that it reproduces the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy. For instance, in one of his interviews Czeslaw Milosz said that his interests in Gnosticism and Manichaeism had begun with studying the textbook on the history of the Church, Roman Archutowski's Historia Kosciola Katolickiego w zarysie "An Overview of the History of The Catholic Church" Archutowski described beliefs of Gnostics and Manichaeists from a theological point of view which inspired Milosz to express his personal experience of dualistic attitude towards the world (Milosz qtd. in Kazmierczyk, Dzielo demiurga 8 9, 15 16) Moreover, Milosz revealed in his interview that he was later inspired by Hans Jonas's The Gnostic Religion: "Frankly, when I was giving lectures at the university about Manichaeism, then as a course book I gave to students the book of Hans Jonas, a German professor, on Gnosticism. He cites in there some texts, for instance the classic of Gnostic literature, that is Hymn of the Pearl" (Milosz qtd. in Gorczynska, Podrozny Swiata 55; unless indicated otherwise, all translations are mine) Therefore, it is no surprise that typological approach, represented by Hans Jonas or Gilles Quispel, was shared by Milosz (Kazmierczyk 43 47) Not only can we find Gnostic motifs in the literary works of Milosz but, according to Zbigniew Kazmierczyk, he also used them to interpret and express his own personal experience (19) For this reason, it is tempting to assume that since Milosz's knowledge on Gnosticism was built on books whose authors reproduced the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy he also could do the same in his literary works. I will not try to examine this issue further. My aim is only to show that there might be few possible ways of adapting typological approach to fiction studies which assume Gnosticism as a religion. However, it is of crucial importance that a