The Two Winged Truth in The Wild Duck: Plato, Ibsen, and Krleža

Main Article Content

Ana Tomljenović

Abstract

Questioning the commonly held assumption in critical reception that Ibsenʼs symbol of the wild duck was influenced by Darwinʼs theory, I want to argue that the wild duck flew into Ibsenʼs play all the way from Platoʼs aporetic dialogue The Theaetetus. Following Lacanʼs reading of Plato, I want to examine the connection between the Socratic position towards knowledge – especially the rupture between knowledge and truth – and the treatment of dramatic dialogue in Ibsenʼs The Wild Duck and Krležaʼs The Glembays.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Tomljenović, A. (2021). The Two Winged Truth in The Wild Duck: Plato, Ibsen, and Krleža. Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne, (20), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.14746/pss.2021.20.12
Section
Studia animalia: the image of animals in literature
Author Biography

Ana Tomljenović, University of Zagreb

Graduated in Comparative Literature and Anthropology at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities in Zagreb in 2004. After completing the first year of the MA Programme in Gender Studies at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Sarajevo, she enrolled in the Ph.D. course in Literature, Culture, Performing Arts and Film in Zagreb where she received her Ph.D. with the thesis Konstrukcija ženskosti i muškosti kao poetički problem u dramatici Henrika Ibsena, Luigija Pirandella i Milana Begovića (The Construction of Femininity and Masculinity as a Problem of Poetics in the Theater of Henrik Ibsen, Luigi Pirandello, and Milan Begović). She writes academic papers and book reviews on topics concerning literaryhistory and theory, psychoanalytic theory, feminist theory, and anthropology. She is the author of two books: Uvod u feminističku književnu kritiku (Introduction to Feminist Literary Criticism, with Lada Čale Feldman) and Ibsenova Druga Scena (Ibsenʼs Other Scene).

References

  1. Aarseth, A. (2005). Ibsen and Darwin: A Reading of The Wild Duck. „Modern Drama” no. 48 (1), str. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3138/md.48.1.1.
  2. Arbanas, G., Kreho, D. (2019). Leone Glembay – psihijatrijska i forenzička razmatranja književnog lika. „Liječnički vjesnik” vol. 141, br. 1–2, str. 40–44. https://doi. org/10.26800/LV-141-1-2-7.
  3. Auerbach, E. (2004). Mimeza. Prikaz zbilje u zapadnoeuropskoj književnosti. Zagreb: Hena com.
  4. Durbach, E. (2009). Ibsen’s Evangelical Detective: Evidence and Proof in The Wild Duck. „Scandinavian-Canadian Studies/Études Scandinaves au Canada” vol. 18, str. 44–54.
  5. Guthrie, W. K. C. (2006). Povijest grčke filozofije. Sofisti – Sokrat. Prev. J. Bubalo, B. Malić, Z. Posinovec. Zagreb: Naklada Jurčić.
  6. Ibsen, H. (1960). Hedda Gabler. U: Playwrights on Playwriting. The Meaning and Making of Moderm Drama from Ibsen to Ionesco. Ed. T. Cole. London: Macgibbon & Kee, str. 156–170.
  7. Ibsen, H. (1978a). Divlja patka. U: Drame. Prev. Z. Mehmedbašić. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, str. 237–324.
  8. Ibsen, H. (1978b). The Complete Major Prose Plays. Prev. R. Fjelde. New York: New American Library.
  9. Ibsen, H. (1987). Divlja patka. Prev. A. Katušić Balen. [Rukopis].
  10. Klajn, H. (1968). Gospoda Glembajevi u svetlu dubinske psihologije. „Forum: mjesečnik Razreda za književnost Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti” vol. 15, br. 1, str. 103–135.
  11. Krleža, M. (1962). Glembajevi. Drame. Zagreb: Zora.
  12. Lacan, J. (2007). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  13. Moi, T. (2002). „It was as if he meant something different from what he said – all the timeˮ: Language, Metaphysics and the Everyday in The Wild Duck. „New Literary History” vol. 33, br. 4, str. 655–686. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2002.0042.
  14. Matijašević, Ž. (2011/2012). Koja je prava boja nečiste krvi: Gospoda Glembajevi. „Drama – Slovensko narodno gledališče” br. 131. http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/kompk/index.php?show=page.php&idPage=27. 15.12.2020
  15. Pavlić, G. (2019). Glembajevi – dvojno čitanje. Zagreb: Akademija dramske umjetnosti–Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada.
  16. Platon (1979). Teetet ili O znanju: istraživački dijalog; Fileb ili O nasladi: etički dijalog. Prev. M. Sironić, V. Gortan. Zagreb: Naprijed.
  17. Platon (1996). Simpozij. U: Eros i Filija. Prev. Z. Dukat. Zagreb: Demetra, str. 20–163.
  18. Platon (2002). Država. Prev. A. Vilhar. Beograd: Kultura.
  19. Podrug, B. (2016). Platonov Simpozij: Eros kao počelo filozofije. Zagreb: Demetra.
  20. Ronen, R. (2018). Lacan with Philosophers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487516079.
  21. Szlezàk, T. A. (2000). Čitati Platona. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk. Vidan, I. (1975). Ciklus o Glembajevima u svom evropskom kontekstu. U: Tekstovi u kontekstu: odjeci i odnosi u novijoj književnosti. Zagreb: Liber.
  22. Wærp, L. P. (2020). The Struggle for Existence. Ibsen’s The Wild Duck (Vildanden, 1884). „Ibsen Studies” 20 (1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2020.175 7303.
  23. Zupančič, A. (2006) When Surplus Enjoyment Meets Surplus Value. U: Jacques Lacan and the Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Eds J. Clemens, R. Grigg. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, str. 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822387602-009.
  24. Zwart, H. A. E. (2000). The Birth of a Research Animal: Ibsen’s The Wild Duck and the Origin of a New Animal Science. „Environmental Values” 9 (1), str. 91–108. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327100129341994.