Projekty

Comenius and Memory

Description

Memory Reader

J. A. Comenius as a site of memory. Polyvalent Mnemonic Imagination and the (Re)Constructions of the Canon

 

I. Introduction and the Objective

The Project aids to situate the figure of Jan Amos Comenius within the framework of the contemporary research on memory; and to define the role that he has played in the culture of remembering since the late 18^th century till the present. The figure of Comenius is conceptualised as a site of memory and approached from interdisciplinary perspective. Three axes of enquiry are dominant in this research design: (1) the relationship between memory and the (collective) identities; (2) narrative nature of memory and its relation to the scientific discourse of Comenius´ studies; (3) the performative nature of memory and of its media representations. Addressing these research questions, the project hopes to reveal the ways and forms in which the historical figure of Comenius has been operationalised for the constitution of collective identities. Furthermore, it is to delineate the ideological conceptualisations of history that deploys the historical figure of Comenius; to mark out the historical narratives of which Comenius became a part and – lastly – to highlight the symbolical role he played within these narratives.

 

II. Key Concept and the Rationale

J. A. Comenius is and has certainly been a historical figure that in the context of Czech as well as European intellectual history of early Modern Age attracted an immense attention. Alongside to the scholarly discourse on Comenius, an unscientific form of reflection and response emerged related to his historical persona. While mostly making use of functionally simplified and to the respective context attuned interpretations of Comenius’ life and oeuvre, the latter form of response reached wide ranks of society. Thus, within the last two centuries, the persona of Comenius has been turned into one of the key identity constitutive topoi of the Czech historical memory, while – simultaneously – manifesting strong transnational as well as non-national semantic valences.

Since the turn of the 18^th century, Comenius is introduced into the various lineages of canonical historical figures. Most intimately linked becomes the figure of J. A. Comenius to the narratives of Czech history, or more precisely to historical narratives of the Czech lands. Comenius’ firm position within the imaginary canon of significant figures of Czech history was confirmed in the recent public inquiry; this searched for the most notable Czechs and was carried out by the Czech television in 2005. Comenius placed on position four, following Charles IV, T. G. Masaryk and Václav Havel.¹ Despite dubious intellectual credit of such opinion polls, they obviously produce the framework in which the processes we now term as ‘collective memory’ take place. The frontal placement of Comenius is a clear and undeniable sign that he plays (has played) a central role in these processes.

It is the ambition of this project to explore the ways and processes in which Comenius became a constitutive element in the formation of collective memory; further questions: under what discursive conditionings and in what forms the collective memory was constituted, and how did it metamorphose depending on the changes in historical and cultural contexts? The project raises also the question of historical continuity of memory: is it possible to speak of the continual duration of memory, or – contrarily – is the development of Comenius as a symbolic site marked with discontinuity? What segments of Comenius’ life and work have been subjected to processes of "forgetting", while other segments were accentuated in the respective contexts of identity constitution? To address these questions, the concept of "sites of memory" is used. Comenius will be contextualized as a symbolic site of memory (Pierre Nora); as a symbolic centre (Miloš Havelka), in which the processes of historically connotated remembering and processes of collective identifications concentrate and/or around which they circulate, and which bears the collectively shared semantic significations.

The following three perspectives are key ones for the exploration of the processes in which the site of memory constitutes and transforms:

1. Relationship between memory and collective identity;

2. The relationship between memory and scientific discourse of Comenius´ studies;

3. Media inscenation of memory (techniques, models, ways of media inscenation).

1. The example of J. A. Comenius brings light on the relationship between the culture of remembering and the social frameworks (cadres sociaux, Maurice Halbwachs), in which the culture of remembering develops, takes place and to which it refers. The established terminology coins this axis of relation – with some simplification – as the relationship between memory and identity. This project adheres to this terminology. However, none of these two terms is approached as a priori given, stable and homogeneous category. On the contrary, it is the ambition of this research project to reveal both, i.e. memory as well as identity, as heterogeneous categories; categories not only subject to historical transformations, but also subject to transformations brought about by ideological contexts and affected by concrete discursive situations.² Most importantly, the project hopes to unmask the polysemic nature of remembering the figure and work of J. A. Comenius, and thus to transcend the still predominant tendency in the research to reduce the analysis of memory and processes of remembering onto the national framework or frameworks of national history.

In this respect, Moritz Csáky’s innovative critique of Nora’s conceptualisation of the (French) sites of national memory has been a formative inspiration for this project. Csáky, for his part, has accentuated multicultural and polysemic (Mehrdeutigkeit, Vielfachcodierung) nature of memory and of processes of remembering; these were paradigmatically realised, as he argues, in the multinational and multicultural contexts of the (Habsburg) Central Europe.³ Hence, the figure of J.A. Comenius serves a model example of both the multinational and transnational site of memory. The transnational aspect follows from the fact that Comenius has spent significant parts of his life on various locations in Europe (Leszno, Elbląg, Sárospatak, London, Amsterdam, etc.), where he has left specific "mnemonic traces" constitutive to the (local) Comenian mythology. For instance, to Leszno relates the mythological construction of Comenius as the traitor of Poland.

Hence, the transnational dimension of Comenius as a site of memory is firstly related to the fact that Comenius has become part of historical narratives of different national communities (predominantly Czech, German and Polish), and further to the fact that Comenius himself was ‘found’ and ‘fashioned’ as a symbol and personification of transnational values (both spiritual and intellectual), and as a personality, whose significance transcends any single national framework.

Despite all this, for instance, the Czech-German interactions over the interpretation of Comenius’ life and work remain so far unexplored. As to the German response to Comenius, there is a threat running from J. G. Herder’s interpretations of Comenius as an organic part of German culture4 to the mid 20^th century, when – against the background of reconfigured Czech-German relations after the foundation of the Czechoslovak Republic (ČSR) or later during the WWII German Protectorate – the discussions became newly topical.

Alongside of those transnational overlaps, Comenius, as a site of memory, manifests relations to further forms of collective identifications beyond national categories. Most important are the following "readings" of Comenius:

a) Icon of modern pedagogy, which emerged in the context of educational reforms and professionalization of pedagogy;

b) Icon of the Unity of the Brethren; “reading” brought out in the context of secularisation during the 19^th and 20^th centuries and related to both the dissolution or – conversely – actualisation of denominational identity/ies;

c) Icon of concrete local/region; this is especially relevant to the contentions and disputes over Comenius place of birth;

d) Pioneer in the strife for emancipation and education of the subordinated social classes, which – given the context – were identified as the working classes and/or women.

The plurality of readings outlined above makes it evident that Comenius has been integrated into various narratives obtaining specific meaning in each of them. Hence, the figure of Comenius can be seen to reference various dimensions of collective identifications, such as: (a) the professional, (b) denominational (c) local and the regional; as well as further multivalent discourses of difference, on intersections of which, identity is construed, i.e. gender, class, and possibly race. Thence, the figure of Comenius, the project proposes, has functioned as a polysemantic centre manifesting the multilayered coding of cultural and historical memory (Mehrfachkodierung des Gedächtnisses, M. Csáky) and its perspectival character (Aleida Assmann). In this sense, the fact that Comenius – as a site of memory –operates in various ways, buttresses the critical potential of the concepts that challenge the singular notion of the culture of remembering (Gedächtniskultur); instead, the necessary plural form of the term, i.e. "cultures of remembering" (Kulturen der Erinnerung, A. Erll) transpires clearly.

2. As to the relationship between memory and the scientific discourse of Comeniology: the concept of site of memory, as coined in the 1970s by Pierre Nora, drew a very clear distinction between memory and history. Simultaneously, Nora (following M. Halbwachs) perceives memory and historiography as two distinct and contradictory analytical approaches to historical phenomena, and to history as such. Other scholars have not followed Nora’s lead in so clear and definite dichotomisation. In contrast, taking up the influence of narratology, which persuasively (as well as systematically) challenged the legitimacy of such a hierarchical view of text genres at present researchers, point to the mutual permeability of history and memory. Bringing together scientific and institutionally anchored discourse(s) with various popular and popularising reflections, and allowing thus for a comparative analysis of the level of transmittance and complementariness, or conversely differences between these discursive threats, also in this respect J. A. Comenius represents a model example. Importantly, the traditional history of Comenius´studies as a discipline is not of research interest here. In contrast, the project aims to uncover the genealogy of the scientific discourse of Comeniology as it emerges when analysed from the perspective of culture of remembering.⁵

It is important to note, that the construction of Comenius as a site of memory does not correspond to the usual scheme observed in other cases, where fiction (Belles-lettres) plays the prime role. Whereas other canonical figures such as Hus, Žižka were simultaneously objects of fictitious as well as scientific renditions; Comenius, at the turn of the 19^th century, was nearly exclusively an object of scholarly interest. As late as in the 1930s, Miroslav Hýsek has noted that there is no significant novel, nor a drama based on Comenius. If, even before Palacký, both Jan Hus and Jan Žižka were commemorated by works of fiction, this was not the case with Comenius. Hence, the emergence of Comenius as a site of memory is marked by a specific media genealogy and a specific role of scientific discourse, both of which will be explored.

3. Building upon the previous section, this thematic section researches the various aspects of media formation, affirmation, transformation or dissolution of memory and the inter-media communicability of memory and its meanings/significations. This part of the project is to provide the broadest possible spectrum of media that participated on the production of memory, its transmission, transformation, conservation, affirmation, etc. Recently, media have become widely discussed in the context of memory research. On the one hand media typology is evidently of secondary importance to the processes in which sites of memory are attributed with their contents and meanings; on the other hand it becomes undeniable that distinct artefacts (kinds of media) transmit memory in different ways. Likewise, they differ in their potential to “survive” and their capacity to bear and transmit meanings. Inter-media relations need to be also addressed in this respect.⁶

Looking at a wide range of media, the project explores their similarities as well as differences in relation to the above outlined respects. Various forms of festivities and commemoration events are of prime significance. In particular, it is festivities commemorating Comenius in 1871, 1892, 1956, 1970, and 1992. These celebrations initiated further media “events”; a great number of poems, editions, as well as scholarly studies or visual materials were produced in the larger context of these festivities. This is, for instance, the case of Zdeněk Fibich´s ouverture Komenský. Festivities, however, represent a medium of particular type and as such it is distinguished from other media explored in the project, i.e. media of literalised memory (poetry and fiction based on Comenius), drama performances of memory (drama pieces based on Comenius), media of iconic memory (paintings, sculptures, memorials and monuments) and, of course, film.

Last but not least, the outlined research ambition requires an interdisciplinary approach and a close cooperation of specialists from several disciplinary fields. Each medium needs to be analysed under the field-specific terms to unravel the performative processes of the memory constitution. Preliminary, the thematic sections have been outlined as follows:

1. Concepts of Memory (L. Řezníková)

2. Memory and Identity: Social Frameworks of Mnemonic Imagination (L. Řezníková)

a) Comenius in the Discourse of Enlightenment (L. Storchová)

b) Nationalization and Transnational Character of Memories: Czech-German-Polish Relationships (J. Ira)

c) Comenius in the Service of School: The Function of Memory in the Context of Modernisation of Education and Formation of the Professional Identity of Teachers (M. Voříšek)

d) Memory as a Category of Political Culture: Comenius and the Strategies of  Legitimisation of the Socialist School (M. Kopeček)

e) Peripetia and Overlaps of Confessional Identity: Reformation Narratives in the Predominantly Catholic Society (L. Řezníková)

f) Comenius and the Discourse of Difference(s): Narrativisation of Gender and Class in Comparative Perspective (L. Storchová)

3. Memory or history? Institutionalised Narratives and their Relationships to Memory  (V. Urbánek)

4. Memory and Media: Performativity of Memory and the Models of its Inscenation  (L. Řezníková)

a) Rituals of memory: Comenian Festivities as Medium of Memory (K. Šima)

b) Topography of memory: The Real and the Imaginary Sites of Memory (J. Ira)

c) Visual Memory Performatives: Comenius in Visual Arts and Culture (K. Horníčková)

d) Poetics of Memory: Inscenations of Comenius in Poetry and Fiction (L. Řezníková)

e) Drama(tic) Performatives of Memory: Comenius in Drama (K. Činátl)

f) Performativity of Memory in Film (K. Činátl)

 

III. Research Review

The presented project aims to speak to the international and interdisciplinary research of collective, cultural and historical memory. While on the European scale, studies of cultural and historical memory have proven themselves as progressive models of research,⁷ realised often within the framework of extensive long-range projects, ⁸ in the Czech academia as up to the present moment, the concepts of memory have not been discovered as analytical tools. So far merely the original (French) models of conceptualisation of memory (P. Nora, Jacques Le Goff) have found their way into the Czech historiography (mainly thanks to the Centre français de recherche en science socials in Prague).⁹ The contemporary discussions engaging in much more subtle and complex conceptualisations of memory remain without adequate scholarly response; if ever applied in research projects historical memory is thought of nearly exclusively in national frameworks, while other modes of identifications are further on disregarded. Research projects carried out in the context of gender studies may be the one and only exception to this trend. These projects, however, work mostly with the methodology of oral history and hence focus predominantly on the period of the second half of 20^th century.¹⁰  

In this overview, work of Vladimír Macura Znamení zrodu (Signs of Birth)¹¹ needs to be mentioned; his older semiotic studies manifest a distinct move towards conceptualisation of memory. Among the few studies that work with the concepts of memory belong Jiří Pokorný and Zdeněk Hojda’s monograph Pomníky a zapomníky (Monuments and Forgetting),¹² which explores Czech national emblems and iconic memory, and Eduard Maur’s monograph Paměť hor (Memory of Mountains), which studies the role of chosen mountains and mountains regions in the Czech historical consciousness. In addition to these rather solitary studies, the concept of so-called symbolical centres has brought an original contribution to conceptualising sites of memory. It has been developed by Miloš Havelka¹³ in dialogue with concepts of “historical centre” and “symbolic formation” as coined by Heinrich Rickert and Ernst Cassirer respectively.

Nevertheless, no systematic interdisciplinary research on the culture of remembering and memory have been carried out in the Czech context, neither it is possible to speak of scholarly work that would have attempted to transgress the referential framework of national identity and would address the permeable and polysemic nature of memory as the function of polyvalent catalogue of heterogeneous identities. In this situation, the high mnemonic capital of J. A. Comenius remains unexplored. The applying institution – the Institute of Philosophy and its Department for the Studies and Editing of Comenius’ Work – has a long tradition in studying Comenius’ life and oeuvre and its specialised library offers an extraordinary collection of printed source material which is of primary relevance for memory studies. Despite the high placement within the imaginary chart of canonical figures of the Czech (as well as European) history, Comenius has not been introduced into the theoretical discourse of memory studies. Surprisingly, he has not found his way into the above-mentioned monographs by Macura, Hojda, Pokorný nor Maur. Therefore, it is only a number of few partial studies that the project can make the account of. It is, for instance, studies by Miloslav Hýsek¹⁴ based on the analysis of representations of Comenius in literary fiction, and work of Dagmar Čapková-Votrubová and Jiří Kyrášek discussing Comenius in fine arts.¹⁵ Those works, however, are somewhat dated and descriptive, spending their energies mostly on listing and describing the available material and sources. None of them makes use of the concepts of collective identity or collective memory. This said, theoretical and methodological support of the project is found in the conceptual work of foreign provenience. Hence, the reader of theoretical works that will be put together and presented on the Workshop I (see the time schedule of the project) is essential to fuse the conceptual tools and theoretical background of the individual researchers involved in this project.

 

IV. Project Outcomes

First, the project research is planned to result in a collective monograph with the working title "Comenius as a site of memory". Its individual chapters will be composed by individual researches as outlined in the overview of the research themes. The preliminary outline of the chapters shows a balanced and conceptually coherent unity. To achieve this, the preliminary findings of each and every individual researcher will be presented for critical discussion at the workshops of the research team.

Secondly, the monograph will be preceded by a series of 10 studies related to the research theme.

Further, for an internal usage of the research team, an extensive "reader" will be prepared presenting the researchers with 15–20 texts representative of the recent theoretical debates and of the innovative potential.

 

V. Time schedule

The project is planned for 4 years with the following time schedule:

• Spring 2011: Workshop I: coming together as the research team, clarifying the concepts, critical apparatus and terminology, preparing the „reader“;
• Summer 2011 – Autumn 2011: individual research, working on the first studies;
• Autumn 2011: Workshop II: Discussing the texts from the reader (see Workshop I);
• Winter 2011 – Spring 2012: Further research phase, individual work on the studies;
• Summer 2012: Workshop III: presentations of the preliminary outcomes of the research; discussing the concepts for individual chapters of the monograph;
• Summer 2012 – Spring 2013: further individual research work, publication of individual studies;
• Spring 2013: Workshop IV: first reviews of the monograph chapters;
• Summer – Autumn 2013: individual research work and publishing of further studies;
• Autumn 2013: submitting the texts for the monograph; Workshop V: final reviews of the book chapters.
• Spring – Autumn 2014: Editing the collective monograph and submitting the monograph to the publishing house;
• Winter 2014: Publishing the collective monograph.

 

The research stays are planned for the first two years of the project depending on the individual needs of the researchers, stages of the research work as well as on the conceptual/methodological design of the research questions. Therefore, there is no detailed schedule of the individual stays. However, each of the involved researchers is planned to be entitled to a 1-2 weeks stay abroad. Alongside of this, we calculate expenses for short research trips, conferences etc. related to the project.

 

VI. Bibliography:

Assmann, Aleida, Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, München 1999.

Assmann, Jan, Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität. In: Jan Assmann – Tonio Hölscher (eds.), Kultur und Gedächtnis. Frankfurt a. M. 1988, S. 9-19.

Bečková, Marta – Bieńkowski, Tadeusz – Čapková, Dagmar, Znajomość dieł Jana Amosa Komeńskiego na ziemiach czeskich, słowackich i polskich od połowy XVII w. do czasów obecnych, Warszawa 1991.

Csáky, Moritz – Le Rider, Jacques – Monika Sommer (eds.), Transnationale Gedächtnisorte in Zentraleuropa. Innsbruck 2002.

Csáky, Moritz – Zeyringer, Klaus (ed.), Ambivalenz des kulturellen Erbes – Vielfachcodierung des historischen Gedächtnisses. Paradigma: Zentraleuropa. Innsbruck 2000.

Csáky, Moritz – Zeyringer, Klaus (eds.), Inszenierung des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Eigenbilder – Fremdbilder. Insbruck 2002.

Csáky, Moritz (ed.), Die Verortung von Gedächtnis, Wien 2001.

Čapková-Votrubová, Dagmar – Kyrášek, Jiří, Jan Amos Komenský. Život a dílo v dokumentech a v českém výtvarném umění, Praha 1963.

Erll, Astrid– Nünning, Ansgar – Gymnich, Marion (eds.), Literatur – Erinnerung – Identität. Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien. Trier 2003.

Erll, Astrid– Wodianka, Stephanie (eds.), Film und kulturelle Erinnerung. Berlin – New York 2008.

Erll, Astrid – Nünning, Ansgar (eds.), Medien des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Konstruktivität – Historizität – Kulturspezifität. Berlin – New York 2004.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika – Wulf, Christoph (eds.), Theorien des Performativen, Paragrana – Internationale Zeitschrift für historische Anthropologie 10, Heft 1, 2001.

Francois, Etienne – Schulze, Hagen (eds.), Deutsche Erinnerungräume, I–III, München 2001–2003.

Miloš Havelka, Dějiny a smysl. Obsahy, akcenty a posuny „české otázky“ 1895–1989, Praha 2001.

Hýsek, Miloslav, Komenský v literatuře, Praha 1931.

Karpf, Ernst Kiesel, Doron – Visarius, Karsten (eds.), Once upon a time... Film und Geschichte, Marburg 1998.

Lachmann, Renate, Gedächtnis und Literatur. Intertextualität in der russischen Moderne. Frankfurt a. M. 2001.

Macura, Vladimír, Znamení zrodu. České obrození jako kulturní typ, Praha 1983.

Marsiske, Hans-Arthur (ed.), Zeitmaschine Kino: Darstellungen von Geschichte in Film, Marburg 1992.

 

Footnotes

[1] Cf. http://www.nejvetsicech.cz

[2] Hans-Peter Frey (ed.), Identität. Entwicklungen psychologischer und soziologischer Forschung, Stuttgart 1987, p. 21: "Identität entsteht aus situativer Erfahrung, welche übersituativ verarbeitet und generalisiert wird." Alfred Schobert – Sigfried Jäger (eds.), Mythos Identität. Fiktion mit Folgen, München 2004. Bernd Simon, Identity in Modern Society. A Social Psychological Perspektive, Malden 2004. Herbert Willems – Alois Hahn (eds.), Identität und Moderne, Frankfurt a. M. 1999. Herrmann Veith, Das Selbsverständnis des modernen Menschen. Theorien des vergesellschaften Individuums im 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt a. M. 2001.

[3] Moritz Csáky, Mehdeutigkeit von Gedächtnis und Erinnerung. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur historischen Gedächtnisforschung. In: Digitales Handbuch zur Geschichte und Kultur Russlands und Osteuropas (2004). Cf. http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/603/1/csaky-gedaechtnis.pdf.

[4] Johann Gottfried Herder, Briefe zu Beförderung der Humanität, Riga 1795, pp. 31–52.

[5] Aleida Assmann, Errinnerung als Erregung. Wendepunkte der deutschen Erinnerungsgeschichte. In: Wolf Lepenies (ed.), Wissenschaftskolleg Jahrbuch 1998/99, Berlin 2000, p. 204.

[6] Aleida Assmann, Medien des Gedächtnisses, Stuttgart 1998; Astrid Erll – Nünning, Ansgar (eds.), Medien des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Konstruktivität – Historizität – Kulturspezifität. Berlin – New York 2004.

[7] Pierre Nora, Gedächtniskonjunktur, Transit 22, 2001/2002, pp. 18-31.

[8] Pierre Nora (ed.), Les lieux de mémoire, I-III/1-7, Paris 1984-1998; Etienne Francois – Hagen Schulze (eds.), Deutsche Erinnerungräume, I-III, München 2001-2003; Martin Sabrow (ed.), Erinnerungsorte der DDR, München 2009; see also a German-Polish project: Deutsch-polnische / Polsko niemieckie miejsca pamięci, http://cbh.pan.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&catid=21&Itemid=74&lang=de.

[9] Thanks to the initiative of the CeFReS, an introductory text by P. Nora Entre mémoire et histoire was translated into Czech. The same institution together with the Institute of History (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) organized the conference „Paměť míst, událostí a osobností. Historie jako identita a manipulace“, held in Prague, 5 – 6 November 2009.

[10] For example the Czech participation in the international project  "Women´s Memory", cf: http://feminismus.cz/pametzen/ .

[11] Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu. České obrození jako kulturní typ, Praha 1983.

[12] Jiří Pokorný – Zdeněk Hojda, Pomníky a zapomníky, Praha 1996.

[13] Miloš Havelka, Dějiny a smysl. Obsahy, akcenty a posuny „české otázky“ 1895–1989, Praha 2001.

[14] Miloslav Hýsek, Komenský v beletrii, Praha 1931.

[15] Dagmar Čapková-Votrubová – Jiří Kyrášek, Jan Amos Komenský. Život a dílo v dokumentech a v českém výtvarném umění, Praha 1963.