Search

The article discusses Juliusz Osterwa’s functioning in the socio-political space. The focus is shifted from the Reduta founder’s theatre activity to his methods of operating within the sphere of public life and to his relations with decision-makers who could determine whether particular artistic undertakings would be carried out or not. Attention is paid to the network of his connections with Freemasonry, which in the interwar period had a significant impact not only on the social or political reality, but also on artistic life. Interested in esotericism, anthroposophy and romantic spiritualism, Osterwa was a member of the first Masonic lodge established in independent Poland; he had extensive contacts in the Freemasonry circles, and he used them to pursue his theatre plans. The article also offers a reflection on Osterwa’s activity as an artist-cum-social activist and a citizen artist, often connected with the ideals of Freemasonry. By linking selected episodes from Osterwa’s biography with their historical and institutional contexts and religious-esoteric inspirations, the article demonstrates various aspects of the artist’s personality and his complicated relations with the authorities in the interwar period and in the first years after the war.

Based on epistolary material and diaries, the article attempts a reconstruction of the history of Juliusz Osterwa’s (1885–1947) friendship with the famous philosopher Wincenty Lutosławski (1863–1954). Following chronological order, the author presents the circumstances of their meeting in Vilnius in 1925 and the trajectory of their travels and encounters up until Osterwa’s death. With this reconstruction, there emerges a circle of important places, events, and people that influenced both men, e.g. Krakow and the very first productions of Wyspiański’s plays, or Kosów Huculski and Apolinary Tarnawski’s natural therapy facility. The article focuses on the nature of Lutosławski’s and Osterwa’s mutual influence: through their works (writings, acting), direct, personal contact, and the formation of their views, and joint initiatives (particularly important during the occupation, when they both lived in or around Kraków). The text also discusses little-known examples of Lutosławski’s promoting the Reduta theatre abroad. Published as an appendix to the article are Osterwa’s twenty letters and postcards to Lutosławski, dated 1925–1943, from the philosopher collection in the Archive of Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences (PAU) in Kraków.

Conceived as a symbolic gift to honor Teatr Reduta on the 100th anniversary of its inception and dedicated to the memory of recently passed theatre historian, Zbigniew Osinski, this extensive volume does more than commemorate and celebrate. It advances the studies of one of the most original and deeply influential undertakings in Polish theatre, which, despite securing its emblematic place in histry, deserves a closer analysis from the contemporary perspective, and further dissemination among scholars and practitioners. Reading the book from across the Atlantic Ocean, I will add, that this need for continued rethinking of theatre in dialogue with Osterwa and Limanowski in current Polish cultural and political context seems to be as important as challenging. On the one hand, religious and spiritual underpinnings of Reduta may be particularly susceptive to “committed” interpretations, to use Adorno’s term. On the other hand, memories bring the threat of nostalgia and sentimentalism which help to mythologize rather than analyze unique phenomena. Has Reducie na stulecie managed to stay free from these historiographic traps? What value do these history lessons bring to us today?

The article discusses Juliusz Osterwa’s activity between 1944 and 1947. The author describes Osterwa’s social and artistic stance towards the new reality and his role in rebuilding Polish theatre after the war. It also addresses his complicated relations with the communist authorities; it is argued that they escape any clear-cut categorisation or evaluation. The article focuses mainly on Osterwa’s stage productions from this period: Stefan Żeromski’s Uciekła mi przepióreczka [My Quail Has Fled] (1945) in Kraków, Juliusz Słowacki's Fantazy in Łódź (1945), Słowacki’s Lilla Weneda (1946) and Kazimierz Korcelli’s Papuga [Parrot] (1946) in Warsaw, and finally Fantazy in Kraków (1946), Osterwa’s last stage performance. Based on the critical reception of these productions in the Polish press, the author reconstructs the picture of the hopes and tensions accompanying the post-war activity of the outstanding actor, director and educator in his final years. Osterwa’s plans that remained unrealised due to his terminal illness are also mentioned.

The article presents the history and principles of theatre education at Reduta in its successive forms: from Koło Adeptów [The Apprentice Circle], established in 1921, through the Reduta Institute, to Okop [The Trench], which was the last pre-war incarnation of the school. Based on documents and memoirs, the article discusses Reduta’s comprehensive and holistic model of education, in which regular theoretical classes were accompanied by practical and physical exercises. A crucial part of the education process was student participation in the theatre’s daily operations: rehearsals, preparation of stage productions, and tours. The aim of the school was to offer future artists comprehensive preparation for various theatre functions, as well as to produce ideologically engaged social activists, who consider serving the society through art as their primary task and mission. A comparison between Reduta’s schools and other educational initiatives confirms that in terms of scope, curriculum, work methods, practices, as well as atmosphere, the former were indeed pioneering and stood out from traditional pre-war drama teaching. Published as an appendix to the article is its source material: Juliusz Osterwa, Okop, edited and with an introduction by the author of the article.

The article concerns the years 1919 and 1920, the time of Poland’s newly regained independence and the Polish-Bolshevik war. Due to censorship, this period used to be mentioned only briefly in literature on Juliusz Osterwa and the Reduta theatre even though the director and his ensemble were involved in this war. The author attempts to reconstruct the socio-political conditions in which the founder of Reduta opened his theatre in 1919. She focuses on how Poland’s being at war with all its neighbours had an influence on the discussions about the tasks of the theatre. She also describes Osterwa’s intellectual engagements with Stefan Żeromski and Wincenty Lutosławski, who at the time were close to the philosophy of Roman Dmowski, the ideologist of National Democracy. Based on these facts, she argues that between 1919 and 1920 Osterwa’s thinking about national theatre and the duties of the “modern Pole” was akin to ND ideals, and that in the first months of Reduta’s activity, right-wing circles saw it as a chance for the renewal of Polish theatre.

The electronic publication Czy tylko Reduta? Wspólnota – zespół – spółdzielnia twórcza – kolektyw [Only Reduta? Community – Ensemble – Creative Cooperative – Collective] brings together selected papers from a conference organised as part of the 4th Congress of the Polish Society for Theatre Research in Spała (20–22 Sept. 2019). The article is not so much a review of the edited volume as a record of the author’s reflections inspired by the reading of particular essays. The book constitutes a polyphonic attempt at describing the phenomenon of the theatre collective. Fundamental as it is for theatre life, it has only recently drawn the attention of researchers. In this publication, the phenomenon of Reduta is a starting point for much broader research and analysis that address both general principles of the functioning of theatre ensembles and particular cases of Polish and foreign theatres. The author of the article comments on the analyses contained in the volume, describing various mythologisations of collectivity.

During the Second World War, which he saw as a time of cleansing and penance, Juliusz Osterwa planned to establish two acting fraternities: Genezja (Genesia) and Dal (Distance). Dal was envisaged as a secular brotherhood, Genezja as a religious one, specifically Catholic. In his wartime diaries and notebooks, Osterwa elaborated plans for how these associations should operate, envisaging them as a vehicle for a complete transformation of theatre. The article presents the practical solutions Osterwa had in mind for Genezja. Based on unpublished manuscripts from 1941–1944 – a diary, a prayer book for Genezja, and several notebooks analysing the structure of the holy mass – the author argues that Genezja was to be the culmination of Osterwa’s path towards theatre understood as a religious mystery, and practical exercises based on liturgical texts and prayers were to serve as a means of transporting theatre to the spiritual level. The documents also feature concrete solutions concerning stage and workshop space: Genezja’s “temple” was to be the Church of Holy Cross in Kraków, and the site of the laboratory work was to be the “Genezjanum” at the Pieskowa Skała castle, north of the city. However, after the war, with the change of the political system, the fraternities were ultimately not established, and Osterwa continued his work in repertory theatres.

The author distinguishes three phases in Osterwa’s artistic development: the production of Uciekła mi przepióreczka (My Little Quail Has Run Away) by Stefan Żeromski where the individuality of the creator and his creative idea coupled with the idea presented in the play, the activity of the touring Reduta (1924–1939), and the wartime conceptions of “Social Theatre.” What Osterwa found so compelling in Żeromski’s work was the idea of regionalism and work at grass roots, and the character of Docent Przełęcki, played by the actor for years, became Osterwa’s spiritual patron. Osterwa treated tours with the Reduta, initiated in 1924, as a social mission. The aim was to promote and popularise Polish dramaturgy, to revive the intellectual life of the provinces, to educate and provide high-quality artistic entertainment for communities that did not have any local theatre. Osterwa founded an exemplary touring theatre, which had no precedent in the history of the Polish stage as far as its proportions, ambitions and the regularity of touring were concerned. Statistics cited in the article make one realise the sheer magnitude of the enterprise that stands out in the history of interwar-period theatre in Poland. During the Second World War, Osterwa worked on the conception of Social Theatre, a set ideas on how to organise provincial spectacles in a way that would enable Osterwa to establish a modern theatre for mass audiences. The project has never been realised, but it can be reconstructed based on Osterwa’s surviving notebooks and wartime diaries.

Felicja Kruszewska was born in Podolia in 1897; she studied literature on her own and taught herself French and English. Then she studied Polish and English philology at the University of Warsaw and journalism at the School of Political Sciences (Szkoła Nauk Politycznych). She was a humanist by education and an active patriot who served as a medical technician near the end of the First World War and was part of the Home Army underground during the Second World War. She died in unknown circumstances in 1943. She debuted in the press as a poet in 1921 and soon afterwards published two volumes of poetry, Przedwiośnie [“First Spring”] (1923) and Stąd – dotąd [“From There to Here”] (1925). She wrote Sen in 1925 (it appeared in print in 1927). In the following years, she published subsequent books of her poetry as well as autobiographical short stories. Her novel for young adults, Bolesław Chrobry, and drama Pożar teatru [“Theater on Fire”] burned during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The last part of the publication contains letters written by the playwright to the Edmund Wierciński in 1927–1928. Seven of them have survived, and they are currently held in the Special Collections of the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. In letter from February 1927 Kruszewska discusses what she would want to see on the stage, but her remarks do not go beyond her stage directions in the play. In the first letters, she is both bashful and overjoyed; she is first happy that the theater has taken interest in her play and then satisfied with the effect achieved on stage. In her latest letters she writes about the scene where the Black Army enters the town to take hold of it. She stresses that the crowd should be enthusiastic and not desolate. At the same time, she makes it clear that her comment is limited to interpretation, and where the form is concerned the director is free to do as he pleases.

The premiere of Sen [“A Dream”] by Felicja Kruszewska put on by the Reduta took place on 27 March 1927 in the Na Pohulance Theater. It was Edmund Wierciński’s directorial debut. The artist had been a member of the Reduta company, ran by Osterwa and Limanowski, since 1921. It was where he studied acting and directing. In 1925 the Reduta moved to Vilnius. The company ceased to be a laboratory theater it had been; as the only theater in town it had to attract audiences; the methods of work changed, the number of premiere shows increased while the number of rehearsals and the amounts of time spent on thorough analysis of the dramas decreased; and the repertory now included best selling shows. The level of artistic quality lowered; and the search for novel means of artistic expression was replaced with naturalism. Wierciński would not accept it. His production of Sen was, as he put it, “a tempestuous and radical protest against the naturalism of the Reduta.” Wierciński wrung out the whole emotionally charged meaning of the play, thus putting on an expressionist show that relied heavily on deformation, caricature, mechanic movements, and repetitive gestures and sounds. Nothing looked onstage as it did in reality. Wierciński himself took on the part of Green Clown [Zielony Pajac], the most grotesque character of all. Most of the theater reviewers criticised the drama, but they all agreed in their high appraisal of the theatrical production. Osterwa, however, deemed the show to be contrary to the Reduta values, which led to a split within the company. Wierciński with a group of other artists left the Reduta. Wierciński was known to analyse his works thoroughly and eagerly. He considered Sen to be a necessary step for the development of theater, yet he saw the pitfalls of venturing further in this direction, which might lead to the primacy of director and form over the creative potential of actors that would then be lost and unappreciated.