(A) Drohobych. Bruno Schulz replies late to the letter which is Zenon Waśniewski’s “confession”, explaining the delay of the correspondence with his state of mind.
(B) Drohobych. The sixth part of Bruno Schulz’s “E. M. Lilien” draft appears in the double, 78–79 issue of Przegląd Podkarpacia.
(C) Warsaw. In the 31st issue of Apel, an artistic and literary supplement to Kurier Poranny, Witold Gombrowicz’s critical draft entitled “Twórczość Brunona Schulza” is published.
(A) This letter is an overdue response to that “long letter” by Waśniewski*, which Schulz wrote only on April 2 because of his departure to Warsaw*. This time, however, he fails to reach the level of familiarity set by Waśniewski. He begins with an apology and an explanation of his delay in correspondence: “I read your confession with tension and tenderness. If I do not repay you with an equal abundance of confessions, it is because of a strange inhibition that I have been subject to for some time, some lack of joy, a depression of which I do not find a sufficient cause. I must be nervously sick” . This state of mind can hardly be explained by the life situation in which he finds himself. A few months ago, he published Cinnamon Shops*, which made him a well-known and recognisable writer almost overnight. Schulz is aware of this. “I would now have”, he confides to Waśniewski, “a lot of reasons to be satisfied, I could allow myself a little joy, and instead I experience an undefined fear, worry, grief for life. I neglect important correspondence that I care about, I do not write anything; even rewriting something that has already been written causes me an insurmountable disgust”. Even if the last sentences are an indirect justification for not fulfilling the promises made to the editor Waśniewski, the general key had to be the same as Schulz metaphorically expressed it: “I am already on the other side of all springs”. Now he can ask Waśniewski for patience with regard to the piece for Kamena*. He may also refuse to participate in the Mickiewicz issue. He would also not do artworks for this issue. He uses the cliché-verre technique, which he describes as tedious and that “its cost is considerable – so is the work”. For this reason, he adds, he does not implement the offer of Rój*, which has ordered a dozen or so files from him: “I do not do it, although I could earn several hundred zlotys. This technique is not suitable for mass production”.
The letter ends with a declaration: “I understand your impatience and longing for a wider horizon. I was and I am experiencing the same. Finding you was a strange and beautiful event for me. We would probably always stay in touch with each other, but do not expect from me letters as rich in content as you write yourself – for the reasons mentioned above. Do not let this discourage you and I am asking you for further letters, which I read with real pleasure”. (sr) (transl. mw)
See also: March 15, 1934*, March 24, 1934*, April 2, 193[4], April 24, 1934, June 5, 1934, June 23, 1934, August 28, 1934*, September 14, 1934*, September 30, 1934*, October 6, 1934*, October 15, 1934*, November 7, 1934*, November 15, 1934*, December 19, 1934*, January 28, 1935*, March 16, 1935*, [March 25, 1935]*, June 24, 1935*, July 13, 1935*, 3 August 1935*, [August 7, 1935]*, June 2, 1937*, August 4, 1937*.
(B) Schulz develops here the idea that situates the work of Ephraim Moses Lilien* in the context of the Romantic and decadent fin-de-siècle predilections. Recalling a whole galaxy of artists from that period, he concludes that Lilien’s art “does not result directly from contact with contemporary life” and that “his artistic relationship to reality is intricate, indirect and aesthetic”.
See also: publication of the remaining parts of the series – October 31, 1937, November 14, 1937, December 12, 1937, March 6, 1938, March 27, 1938, May – July 1938, July 10, 1938, and the readings on Lilien – December 18, 1937, February 5, 1938, April 8, 1938, July 1, 1938. (mw) (mo) (transl. mw)
(C) The article begins with a sober, rational look at the plot of the story of Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass. For a rational mind, it is a pile of absurdities, a work of a mad mind. Its redeeming qualities are the style, precision and intelligence. But why put so much effort into nonsense? According to Gombrowicz, the answer lies in the fact that all literary creation is a hoax, describing imaginary events as if they were real. The adventures of the heroes are only an excuse to convey the author’s experiences and feelings. This is what Schulz does in his stories.
His work, therefore, is not about the plot or the psychology of characters, but about emotions, ideas of things and creatures hiding under a changeable shape. The forms that surround us are accidental and impermanent, and we accept them as eternal. And it is this randomness and fictional form that has been exposed here. It is almost divine creation of new worlds, giving a large field for inspiration, intuition, imagination, hunches, discoveries and inventions. So why do we find in this work so much fear, anxiety, shame, horror, and humiliation? According to Gombrowicz, it is an effect of the phenomenon of compensation – the more fantastic something is, the more sober, the more fictional, the more authentic, the more free it is in the content and the more defined in style. With his magnificent style, Schulz can associate all opposites, but nothing can oppose the style. He is chained and constrained by it. He can only express himself in one tone, consciously artificial and untrue. However, he must overcome it to regain sovereignty over his own work and freedom of speech. This is how Gombrowicz commented on his article in Dziennik from 1961: “I once wrote an article about him [Schulz] for Kurier Poranny and then, I remember, I was very afraid that they would say that I praise him because he praises me… out of fear, the article was created not directly on Schulz, but on how to read him”. (pls) (transl. mw)
