Schumann as Manfred
The most prominent composers in Germany during the 1850s-Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, and Schumann-all liked to be compared to Byron.1 Berlioz thought he bore a physical resemblance to the poet and, in his youth, sought connections between their lives: he searched out Byron's acquaintances while traveling in Italy, read the "burning verse" in a confessional in St. Peter's, and threatened suicide in melodramatic manner after being rejected by Camille Moke. Both his overture Le corsair and Harold en Italie celebrate the Byronic wanderer, as do the first two books of Liszt's Annees de pelerinage, written in Switzerland and Italy in the company of Marie d'Agoult.2 Liszt's Byronic habit of persuading married women to forsake their husbands was shared by Wagner, whose Dutchman exemplifies the wanderer's threat to female virtue.3 Byron was appealing because he was a man of action as well as words, demonstrated not only by his notorious exploits as a lover, but also through his engagement with politics, consummated in what many frame as his "sacrifice" for the Greek cause at Missolonghi.4 Schumann's similarity to Byron, however, manifested itself in a quite different manner. While Berlioz, Liszt, and Wagner were compared to the poet's own best hero-himself-Schumann's contemporaries aligned him with one of his fictional characters, Manfred. The comparison was significant, not least because presenting Schumann as Manfred served several purposes. It was a veiled means of discussing the composer's character and his failing health, of placing him within a particular historical context, and ultimately of questioning whether he belonged with the musicians "of the future" or with those of an earlier romantic generation. On a more general level, the comparison between Schumann and Manfred is an early example of the assimilation of the composer into the world of fiction-a tendency still very much apparent from his (and his wife Clara's) frequent appearances in films and novels today.
Manfred 1892 na scenie Teatru Wielkiego w Warszawie
Byron twierdził, że Manfred nie był przeznaczony na scenę, ale jego poemat dramatyczny był sporadycznie wystawiany w dziewiętnastowiecznym teatrze. W 1848 roku Robert Schumann zaadaptował poemat do wykonania scenicznego, skomponował uwerturę i muzykę incydentalną. Manfreda w wersji Schumanna wystawiono w warszawskim Teatrze Wielkim z Józefem Kotarbińskim, znanym aktorem, kierownikiem teatru i krytykiem, w roli głównej. Po realizacji rozgorzała gorąca debata w prasie. Główny spór dotyczył tego, czy „dramat metafizyczny” Byrona nadaje się na scenę i czy jest istotny dla polskiej publiczności końca XIX wieku. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zbadanie głównych kwestii podejmowanych w tej debacie poprzez analizę recenzji tej realizacji w prasie warszawskiej. Ponieważ recenzje są z natury subiektywne, ich badanie ujawnia znacznie więcej preferencji literackich i teatralnych ich autorów niż informacji o samym spektaklu i daje wgląd we wczesne etapy rozwoju tzw. Młodej Polski, z naciskiem na indywidualizm i podmiotowość, zainteresowanie metafizyką i dominację liryzmu. Warszawskiego Manfreda z 1892 roku można więc uznać za próbę wprowadzenia do teatru wielkiej poezji romantycznej, torującej drogę teatralnym inscenizacjom polskiego dramatu romantycznego, który Kotarbiński miał wystawić jako dyrektor Teatru Miejskiego w Krakowie. Artykuł wpisuje się także w historię recepcji Byrona w Polsce.

The 1892 Manfred in Warsaw Teatr Wielki

Byron claimed that Manfred had not been intended for the stage, but his dramatic poem was occasionally produced in the nineteenth-century theatre. In 1848 Robert Schumann adapted the poem for stage performance, composing the Overture and incidental music. Schumann’s version of Manfred was staged in Warsaw Teatr Wielki, with Józef Kotarbiński, a well-known actor, theatre manager and critic as the protagonist. The production was followed by a heated debate in the press. The central controversy focused on whether Byron’s “metaphysical drama” was suitable for the stage and relevant for the late nineteenth-century Polish audience. The aim of this paper is to examine central issues in this debate by scrutinizing the press reviews of the Warsaw production. As the reviews are by their very nature subjective, their examination reveals much more about their authors’ literary and theatrical preferences than about the performance itself, and provides an insight in the early stages of the development of the so-called Young Poland movement (Młoda Polska), with its emphasis on individualism and subjectivity, interest in metaphysics, and prevalence of lyricism. The 1892 Manfred in Warsaw may be seen as an attempt at introducing great Romantic poetry in the theatre, paving the way for the theatre productions of Polish Romantic drama, which Kotarbiński was to stage as the manager of Teatr Miejski in Kraków. The article also contributes to the history of Byron’s reception in Poland.
Shoeless Joe: Fantasy and the Humor of Fellow-Feeling
In his essay on Jean Paul Friedrich Richter, Thomas Carlyle writes of a humor that manifests itself in smile rather than laughter. "Richter is a man of mirth," says Carlyle, whose humor is "capricious . . . quaint . . . [and] heartfelt" (15). The three adjectives represent for Carlyle the essence of what he terms "true humor" because they suggest Richter's enormous respect for humanity. "True humor," he goes on to say, "springs not more from the head than from the heart; it is not contempt, its essence is love; it issues not in laughter, but in still smiles, which lie far deeper" (17). These smiles are not Hobbesian smirks of superiority1 but genuine signs of compassion for, sympathy toward, and empathy with the object of the humor. Carlyle further provides a direct link between humor and both pathos and nobility; the link is the smile of the caring man. For Carlyle, this smile is one of "fellow-feeling":