Without Dogma: A Novel of Modern Poland (2024)

Enough is enough! With or without Dogma! Hurrah! It’s over and done, the novel I mean. Surprisingly, I found myself in a rush to finish it. Guess I am changed, too! I have enjoyed it, but I don’t see myself reading it for a third time. The chief interest is set upon a single character, a so-called hero, that in the silence of his diary, that became his most intimate friend, carries a great battle - of a man for his soul. Still he produces nothing, that is to say, with his own words he is a “genius without a portfolio”. He is Leon Ploszowski – an aristocrat by birth, whose character is such that reasonably many of us will find just enough of ourselves to make its weaknesses look distasteful to us. He belongs to our own times, too. His doubts and his dilettanteism are our own. Surely the theme is one and the same: old enough to convey that the strongest and most genuine emotion of his life is his love for a woman (eventually a married woman). Reading it firstly some two decades ago, I recall I was deeply moved by the story of the female character, less for the male character. I mean I couldn’t care for him at all. The character of the woman stands out in splendid contrast to the man’s: its simplicity, strength, truth and faith (blind even) are the antidote for his doubt and weakness. Her very weakness becomes her strength and her dogmatism saves him.
The novel takes the form of a diary, basically the main character – feeling himself unworthy to have done anything for his country at thirty-five years of age - is the one who decides one day to leave a legacy behind him in the form of written memories, based on his most sincere thoughts, reflections, impressions and sensations, that affected him, within an interval of one year and half- two years backwards. Eventually he writes his diary not only because it has become his second nature, like a passion, giving him an outlet for his pent-up feeling, but still more because it gives him a clear view and keeps account of all that is passing.
The daily journal keeps a very clear description of his character, of his happenings, of his emotions. Although he studied and lived mostly abroad, he is and remains a cultured and gifted nobleman-dilettante. He even thinks this runs in the family, even if his father, a man of deep feelings, tried to find himself in religious convictions, when he found out that there is utter emptiness in everything he studied during his whole life.
His only misfortune is that he brought with him into the world very sensitive nerves. Sadly, I have to admit that at some point in my reading I was about to outcry: I have myself sensitive nerves, I cannot go on! That is to say that I was becoming more and more embittered, as reading about Leon’s thoughts and rambles was keenly irritating my nerves. Methinks, my reasoning and feelings are surely different than his – but why am I getting so distressed the more I read him? Therefore, enough! Enough and I will continue, ha!
And I did go on reading. But it was quite depressing with each new page. An exceptionally gifted child, with a promising future, brought up in the poetic melancholy of Rome, within an atmosphere and surroundings that failed not to impress his mind, yet despite all influence he is barely a dilettante, carrying within himself the conviction that he could be something infinitely greater than he is (definitely, wishful thinking). He explains the tragedy of his life through the one that he carries within him – “improductivite slave” of the Ploszowskis. Along with this, goes the genius without portfolio.
Truth be told, the human being, like the sea, has his ebb and flood tides. But for Leon his will, energy and very action of life seem mostly at a very low tide, caused chiefly by a mere matter of nerves. He gets himself, on his own accord within a truly enchanted circle, where we can only see him deploying a despairing incapacity for life. He just doesn’t know and because he doesn’t know he escapes from marriage, although he fell in love with the girl.
≪ It is not Aniela who is far from me, it is I who go farther and farther away from the Leon whose heart and thoughts were once so full of her. This does not mean that my feelings for her have vanished. By close analysis I find they have only changed in their active character. Some weeks ago, I loved her and wanted something; I love her still, but want nothing. ≫
Decidedly, love cleanses our hearts, but not Leon’s. There are always two persons within him- the actor, and the spectator. Often one or the other is dissatisfied with the other, very rarely they both agree. His highest pleasure in life is, or at least was, to philosophize about everything: people, abilities, sentiments. What saddened me greatly is that he is yet aware of a cruel fact regarding his philosophizing his thirty-five years of life: “I know it leads to nothing, I know it is wrong, but I do not know how not think”. Instead of giving him anything, philosophy has eaten his heart away.
The novel ends somehow in the same note, “I do not know”, but the hero has stopped his maddening passive activity. He used to be unutterably unhappy because he thought his nature is an unhappy one, because it was poisoned by pessimism and scepticism, ruling his whole life. A longing is planted within him, there is a want and something is missing, in time he blindly follows his instinctive impulses. Chiefly it is the calm, masculine judgment that is wanting. Definitely it is the old story – he who inquiries too deeply into his own mind ends by disagreeing with himself; and who disagrees with himself is incapable of any decision.
Truly this novel leaves deep impression on the reader, it’s terrible to understand by and by how criticism of everything reduces the soul to utter impotence, while there is no faith in life. In the name of freedom of thought and freedom of doubt, how can one reach to an inward spiritual peace?
“I do not know”, it is very contagious 😉 Since he is nothing than Leon Ploszowski, the force of habit is stronger than the force of life, of love. Sadly, but the cornucopia shower of gifts was simply wasted on this hero. He is a hyper-analytical sceptic inclined to hysteria, carries a great nothingness in his soul, and a strong neurosis in his veins, with no mastery over the slightest sensations. Fiddlesticks! Conclusively, I will just quote the sick hero: “Hamlet is the human soul as it was, as it is, and as it will be.” His story is about a disease of the will, a diseased imagination, about a love of a man who is close upon mania! And the oddity of the thing is that it is a mere play of words!
Finishing it I can only say I have a sudden longing for the sun and brighter skies, for places where there is no mist, no rain, no darkness. If I go where there is sun and brightness it will shield me from the unknown danger, well something in the form of Leon – or I am still yoked to his memories, because I feel his diary abused my trust. I am in big need of a change, or better said I should beware, as something is always growing within us! 😉 😊

No Spoilers.

If you were a person, living in Poland, at the end of the nineteenth century or at the beginning of the twentieth, you may have read this Nobel Prize authors’ works. But most probably, you did not read “Without Dogma.” Since its’ publication over one hundred years ago, there are probably seventy-three of us that have, including myself. And, you too can read it, gratis, from an online company.

At different points in this novel, I monitored my reactions, as well as the story unfolding. There were times when I wanted to stop reading it. Times when I was immersed in it. Times when I considered personal defenestration. Times when I wanted to enter the pages, only to shake up the character’s person and behavior. And, as a precaution, I set up a noose by the ceiling lighting fixture, just in case…

This story, written in diary format, and in narrative first person form, is about a young man in love. Sounds nice, yes? Love. He meditates on it for as long as the book is, probably four hundred pages. Four hundred incessant pages about ‘amour.’ And for our Spanish speaking audience, ‘amor.’

‘Love’ is a tricky sentiment and a nuanced word. ‘Nice,’ ‘Lucky,’ ‘Pretty’ are also amorphous words that are quite subjective. We all have our own ideas of what they mean and how the word, the sensation of ‘love’ may have changed its’ complexion over the years for us. When I was eighteen ‘love’ was a vastly different wonder than it is to me now that I am twenty-one (kidding). But you understand the vicissitudes of it in your own lives.

The author was definitely brilliant. He was able to write with the best of them. But this is a dense, trying, demanding and troublesome work. It requires your full attention, if your goal is to reap the essence of what he is attempting to impart. No dawdling here. I would not call it a ‘lite hearted romance novel,’ just as I would not deem a wine and crème fraiche reduced beurre blanc sauce, healthy. Both, or either, will affect change.

I could sense that one could easily rate this piece one or three or five stars and all would be worthy ratings. But what are ratings? It is too simplistic, many times, to issue a viewpoint simply by pressing the correct number of buttons. I wavered throughout and finally reconciled it to five stars for Goodreads modality.

If you are up to a rigorous, philosophical, and an emotional challenge, I suggest to you “Without Dogma.”

It's a love story.
It's an unhappy love story.
It's an unhappy love story involving an exasperatingly self-aware protagonist reduced to inaction by the scepticism and scientific rationalism of his era.
What more could I ask for?

When I started reading this book, I hated it. The narrative is in the form of a diary written by the self-aware protagonist, Leon Ploszowski, and by the first few pages I was so irritated with his attitude toward life and love I wanted to rip the book up, but I couldn't because it was an ebook. I stuck with it because I'd been warned by the editor's preface that no matter how despicable the character, he was really all of us (in Leon's words: "hyper-analytical sceptics inclined to hysteria, with a great nothingness in their souls, and a strong neurosis in their veins") and I would find that out for myself if I gave him a chance to speak. So I did - but it wasn't before he fell in love with a woman who proceeded to marry a guy he detested that I became sympathetic enough to actually hear his voice. And what a voice it is. The observations he records are so minute, subtle and universal that I could neither skim-read the book nor tear myself away from it. ("Women have a special weakness for those who suffer for love's sake.")
It also made me laugh a lot after I got over my initial dislike for him because everything he said was so spot-on. To create a detestable character and then to gain for him the reader's sympathies so completely - that is good writing.

Love's a weird enough thing, but self-aware love's just bizarre. If you've ever tried it, you know it turns every moment and every action into an irreconcilable paradox. Do you desire your own happiness or the beloved's? Are you maybe using reverse reverse reverse psychology on yourself when you think you want to keep your love pure and spiritual? WTH is pure and spiritual love anyway? f*ck science, ruining everything since 1 billion BC. That's Leon Ploszowski all over, and that's why you end up shaking your head and grudgingly accepting that he is, in fact, all of us.

What makes the book unique among all the romances I've read is that it neither idealizes love nor denigrates and mocks it. (If there was one thing I didn't like, it was the "poetic justice" of the plot. Totally marred its credibility.) From a scientific perspective, love's a means of making two selves work as one in aid of genetic propagation. And we can draw all the impermeable boundaries we want, and pretend that we can classify love into types by writing separate Wikipedia articles on Platonic love and friendly love and romantic love, but the-desire-to-make-two-selves-work-as-one-in-aid-of-genetic-propagation can't be reduced to some linear combination of all those types. A creature in love has a goal to achieve, and evolution doesn't friggin' care if that goal comes across to its co-creatures as creepy and inappropriate, or full of beauty and pathos, or divine and mystical, or a waste of time and plain meh. All the drives of the organism, from the noblest to the most vulgar, are recruited for the purpose - because evolution doesn't know which of them might get the job done - and that can become a case of too many cooks, because every single one of the drives wants to help out and contribute its share with absolutely no regard for whether or not it is qualified to do so, or whether that contribution is required. This necessarily leads to a terrible internal struggle in even the most dimly self-aware and self-respecting of creatures, to intercede on behalf of the "nobler passions" and create a kind of "meritocracy" of desire. Leon Ploszowski throws himself so entirely into this struggle and lays bare the petty, calculating part of himself, and his shame and self-hatred at recognizing it as a part of himself, so mercilessly that one cannot help but respect him, and if one can be honest enough, say - 'I know that love is as despicable a thing as it is awe-inspiring, even if I cannot believe it. In this man's position I could not have endured this terrible self-knowledge, and I would have held on to any delusion, any dogma that allowed me to escape it.'

This, if nothing else, is Leon's salvation - in my eyes at least. He is a latter-day Werther, far less anchored in his convictions, incapable of belief in love or anything else until, and even after that belief is forced upon him biologically. He is not a great lover, he is not even a likeable lover, but he is a realistic lover.

One thing that rather amuses me is how Leon keeps referring to himself as 'feminine' (due to his disposition toward nervous inaction). The book is an excellent commentary on society and human relations, not only in fin-de-siecle Poland but everywhere, always, and this includes gender relations (Aniela's reaction to Leon's professions of love is so typically feminine - though Aniela herself is rather a wooden character with hardly any agency). Anyway point is, I don't have time to analyze right now whether or not Leon is justified in thinking himself womanly, but I would like to return to the question someday after I have studied a lot of psychology, sociology and critical theory.

Bez dogme, načela i uverenja, bez ičega sam živog uma i skepse koja razjeda svaki oslonac, i zbog toga: bez zanimanja i aspiracija, Leon svoje znatne životne snage preobražava u njima proporcijalnu naklonost prema ženi. U osećanju pronalazi smisao tek kada postane izazov i izgubljena bitka od koje nije u stanju da odustane. Žudnja, i od nje nerazdvojna tragika, rastaču taedium vitae u svojim gorkim otrovima ali se nažalost na tome ne završava.

Leonova razmatranja, sporadično provučena kroz dnevničke beleške koje opisuju razvitke i krahove jednog odnosa, tako su bliska i poznata iako su atipična, ili bar, retkog tipa, a individua sličnih stavova, ne samo da je moralo biti, već one, siguran sam, i danas postoje, te opseg primene “dijagnoze” ovog dela, koje nazivaju “dijagnozom jedne generacije”, po mom mišljenju, premašuje “jednu generaciju”. Bave se temama kao što su: implikacije razvijene samosvesti, odnosi: smrti i ljubavi, estetike i morala, skepticizma i misticizma, zatim: pojavom koju naziva l’improductivite slave (slovenska neproduktivnost), a ove digresije i filozofski dezerti, pored toga što produbljuju lik, mogu biti zasebno posmatrani i ispitivani.

Ukratko: izvanredan roman.

Unlike any of Sienkiewicz's other half dozen or so novels read to date, this is neither a historical fiction nor a story of separated love; instead, it is a memoir by a far-too-well-to-do Polish aristocrat - Leon Ploszowski - who spends all of his time in Rome, Berlin, Warsaw, Switzerland or at the country estates of his aunt. He is quite intelligent,and quite modern: he looks at art and philosophy from a critical, sceptical, disinterested distance, never really engaging in any firm belief or passionate commitment.

That is, until he falls in love with Aniela, a beautiful young Polish cousin whom his aunt, in one of her many attempts to marry him off, manages to orchestrate a lot of time for them together. Then, Leon's father falls ill in Rome and he leaves. Then, Aniela is pursued by a relatively shady business type, Kromitzki. Leon meets a truly beautiful woman in Rome, one Laura Davis, who is married but whose husband suffers from insanity. Ill-advisedly, Leon sends a note of dismissal to his aunt, hoping that Aniela 'find happiness with Kromitzki'. Learning that they are to be married,Leon dispatches a mutual friend to dissuade her from taking this step.

These efforts fail and Leon spends the last 200 or so of the book's 350 pp. bemoaning his love for Aniela, which she refuses to acknowledge, except as that of a brother for a sister. It's all rather pathetic, but there is no doubt he really loves her and that his love is doomed. Even the love he receives from a talented musician, Clara Hiltz, fails to displace his infatuation and the omnipresent pressure he feels to realize his unrequited love for Aniela. When he proposes to Clara, she wisely refuses, stating that though she loves him, she can tell that he does not love her.

The eventual bankuptcy and suicide of Kromitzki and death of the by then pregnant Aniela fail to lift the burden of depression and despair at the pointlessness of his existence from the shattered Leon, whose last musings seem somewhat suicidal.

A strange work, strangely titled and strangely developed with virtually nothing happening other than the main character's musings on his current often tragic plight.

PL: recenzja dwujęzyczna (wersja angielska pod wersją polską)
ENG: bilingual review (English version under Polish version)

Na dzień dobry było zaskoczenie formą. Nie tyle tym, że Sienkiewicz zdecydował się napisać powieść psychologiczną, a akcję osadzić w czasach sobie współczesnych, ile tym, że powieść ma formę pamiętnika głównego bohatera, będącego zarazem narratorem. Drugie zaskoczenie było związane z tym, jak łatwo było mi wejść w tę powieść. Moje dotychczasowe doświadczenia z Sienkiewiczem nauczyły mnie, że trzeba dać mu czas się rozwinąć. Pierwsze 100 stron każdej powieści historycznej jego autorstwa ciągną się, jak stara guma przyklejona do podeszwy. Potem zaś akcja sama rusza z kopyta. W przypadku "Bez dogmatu" było zupełnie inaczej. Od razu zostałem pochłonięty przez powieść - może to wynik dobrze napisanego wstępu, który momentalnie chwyta uwagę czytelnika. Książkę tę można rozpatrywać na kilku płaszczyznach. Skupię się na tych, które wydają mi się najważniejsze.

Na pierwszej płaszczyźnie mamy to, o czym literalnie jest ta powieść - czyli o perypetiach, głównie sercowych, głównego bohatera, Leona Płoszowskiego. Straciwszy matkę podczas swych narodzin, wychowany przez ojca za granicą, Leon powraca do Polski na wezwanie swej ciotki, administrującej majątkiem rodowym, która chce wyswatać swego bratanka z jego daleką, zubożałą kuzynką Anielą. Leon jest oczarowany urodą kuzynki, a i dziewczęciu jej kuzyn wydaje się nie być obojętnym. Wspólne chwile mocno splatają młodych w miłosnym uścisku. Gdy Leon pospiesznie wyjeżdża do Rzymu do konającego ojca, myśli o rychłym ożenku z kuzyneczką. W Rzymie jednak, z dala od Anielki, dopadają go wątpliwości w stylu "czy to jest przyjaźń, czy to jest kochanie". Rozterki te wzmaga jedynie obecność w towarzystwie Leona pewnej urodziwej mężatki, z którą Leon flirtuje na oczach jej męża. Gdy ciotka posyła mu list, w którym prosi go o kilka ciepłych słów dla kuzynki, donosząc mu zarazem, że w jej towarzystwie kręci się potencjalny absztyfikant, urażona męska duma Leona produkuje list, w którym życzy on szczęścia kuzynce i absztyfikantowi. Po zamążpójściu Anieli, Leon uświadamia sobie, jak wielki popełnił błąd i stara się odzyskać kuzynkę. Jego starania zaś idealnie wkomponowują się w to, co dzisiaj zowie się "kulturą gwałtu". Jego nachalność, nadskakiwanie kuzynce, wyznania miłości i wszelkie gesty uwielbienia spotykają się z jej stanowczym "nie". Dla Leona zaś kobiece "nie" znaczy ni mniej ni więcej, tylko "spraw, bym zmieniła zdanie". Przez większą część powieści główny bohater kombinuje, jak sprawić, by obiekt jego uczuć zechciał odejść od swego męża. Wielokrotne reakcje Anieli, świadczące o tym, że umizgi jej kuzyna są jej przykre, to jak głos wołającego na puszczy. Każde jej krzywe spojrzenie na męża to dla Leona znak "ona go nie kocha". Każdy jej uśmiech w stronę Leona niechybnie znaczy "nie jestem jej obojętny". Niczym Pigmalion, chce wyrzeźbić intelekt Anieli na swoją modłę, podsuwając jej odpowiednie lektury mówiące o tym, że rozwód to żadna tragedia i skandal. Traktuje kuzynkę niczym dziewusię, którą trzeba natchnąć odpowiednią myślą, bo nie jest zdolna do samodzielnego myślenia.

W powieści główny bohater kilkukrotnie napomyka, że chce posiąść duszę Anieli i w gruncie rzeczy o to cały czas mu chodzi - o męskie posiadanie. W sprawach damsko-męskich jest kolekcjonerem, a kuzynka to kolejne trofeum, którym mógłby chwalić się niczym cennymi dziełami sztuki, które odziedziczył po ojcu. Trofeum to byłoby tym bardziej cenne, że zostałoby odbite innemu mężczyźnie. To, że Leon miał swoją szansę i wzgardził uczuciami dziewczyny, kompletnie się nie liczy. Liczy się to, że to Leon ma chcicę i ma ją właśnie w tym momencie. Zresztą oddajmy głos samemu Leonowi, który uskarża się, że "tym mi straszniej pomyśleć, że Anielka jest jego własnością, jego po prostu rzeczą". Kiedy więc musiałem brnąć przez kolejne gorzkie żale głównego bohatera, użalającego się nad sobą i łkającego, jak to jego życie jest paskudne i parszywe, to miałem ochotę rzygnąć, bo ile można w kółko czytać o jednym i tym samym?

Gdyby poprzestać na dosłownym odczytaniu "Bez dogmatu", to byłaby ona ciężka do strawienia. Drugą płaszczyzną, na jakiej można jednak interpretować powieść Sienkiewicza, to krytyka panujących stosunków społecznych, zwłaszcza zaś bierności szlachty i ziemiaństwa w działalności na rzecz odbudowy państwa polskiego. Główny bohater jest bardzo majętnym szlachcicem, który nie musi troszczyć się o zarabianie pieniędzy, bo ma ich aż nadto. Majątek nieruchomy znajduje się w dobrych rękach i jest doskonale zarządzany. Dzięki temu Leon dysponuje całą masą wolnego czasu, którą zamiast przeznaczyć na pożyteczną działalność, przepędza na rozmyślaniu, analizowaniu siebie i swoich uczuć. Owszem, uzyskuje on w ten sposób bardzo dobry wgląd w swoją motywację, ale cóż z tego, skoro nie wyciąga z tego żadnych wniosków. Jednego dnia notuje w pamiętniku, że musi wreszcie zająć się czymś pożytecznym, zwłaszcza że nie brak mu talentów, by następnego dnia gnusnieć, leniuchować i rozpisywać się o tym, jak to wszystko nie ma sensu. Sienkiewicz pochodził z ubogiej szlachty i musiał samemu do wszystkiego dojść - nie miał ani majątku ani koneksji ani odziedziczonej fortuny. Widział zaś doskonale, że ta grupa społeczna, która powinna pełnić wiodącą rolę w staraniach na rzecz odzyskania niepodległości, woli się zająć administrowaniem rodowych dóbr, do czego nie ma ani talentu ani predyspozycji. Leon Płoszowski jest dziecięciem swego wieku. Niczym najznakomitsi Polacy, jest prawdziwym Europejczykiem, kształconym za granicą, znającym języki, orientującym się w dyplomacji i grach politycznych. Cóż z tego, skoro woli przepędzać czas na rozmyślaniach o tym, jak mu ciężko, bo nie widzi celu w życiu... Sienkiewicz znany był z krytycznego stosunku do polskich romantyków i być może ten sceptycyzm i nihilizm końca epoki "fin de siecle" mocno przypominał mu ten polski romantyczny pesymizm. Leon Płoszowski to połączenie Hamleta z Werterem, krzyczącego słowami Przerwy - Tetmajera "i chociaż życie nasze nic nie warte, evviva l'arte"!

Trzeci sposób odczytania "Bez dogmatu" być może jest przekombinowany. Jeżeli potraktować "Bez dogmatu" jak matematyczne równanie, Leona Płoszowskiego jako zmienną "narodu polskiego", a Anielę jako zmienną "ojczyzny", postępowanie Leona względem Anieli można łatwo zrozumieć, znając polską historię. Kiedy ukochana ojczyzna była wolna i w zasięgu ręki, polska szlachta wolała debatować na sejmikach nad sposobami poprawy Rzeczypospolitej, analizować, jak tego dokonać dopóty, dopóki jakiś idiota nie zerwał sejmiku, drąc się "liberum veto". Tak jak Leon nie palił się do żeniaczki, tak polska szlachta nie rwała się do ograniczenia swej złotej wolności i przywilejów kosztem wzmocnienia władzy monarszej. A gdy przyszły rozbiory i ojczyzna została utracona, począł się szloch niczym płacz Leona nad zaprzepaszczoną szansą na szczęście u boku ukochanej kobiety.

At the beginning there was a surprise with the form. Not so much that Sienkiewicz decided to write a psychological novel and set the action in times, when he lived, but because the novel has the form of a diary of the main character, who is also the narrator. The second surprise was related to how easy it was for me to get into this novel. My previous experience with Sienkiewicz taught me that it is necessary to give him time to develop. The first 100 pages of each historical novel he wrote stretches like old rubber stuck to the soles. Then the action starts off its own hoof. In the case of "Without Dogma" it was completely different. I was immediately absorbed by the novel - maybe it is the result of a well-written introduction that immediately catches the reader's attention. This book can be considered on several levels. I will focus on those that seem to me the most important.

On the first level we have what this novel is literally about - that is, about the vicissitudes, mainly amorous, of the main character, Leon Płoszowski. Having lost his mother during his birth, brought up by his father abroad, Leon returns to Poland at the call of his aunt, who administers the family estate and at the same time wants to pimp out his nephew with his distant, impoverished cousin Angela. Leon is enchanted by the beauty of his cousin, and the cousin does not seem indifferent to the boy. Common moments intertwine the young tightly in a loving embrace. When Leon hurries to Rome to see his dying father, he thinks of marrying his cousin soon. In Rome, however, far from Angela, he is doubted like "is this friendship or is it sweetheart". These dilemmas are only intensified by the presence of a handsome married woman in the company of Leon, with whom Leon flirts in front of her husband. When his aunt sends him a letter in which he asks him to write a few warm words for his cousin, informing him that a potential suitor is spinning in her company, Leon's offended male pride produces a letter in which he wishes his cousin and suitor a good luck. After Angela's marriage, Leon realizes how great mistake he made and tries to get his cousin back. His efforts, however, perfectly blend in with what is now called the "culture of rape." His pushiness, jumping over her cousin, confessions of love and all gestures of worship meet her firm "no". For Leon, however, feminine "no" means nothing more than "make me change my mind." For most of the novel, the main character combines how to make the object of his feelings want to leave her husband. Angela's repeated reactions, indicating that her cousin's abilities are unpleasant, are like the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Every her crooked look at her husband is a sign for Leon that "she doesn't love him". Each of her smiles towards Leon inevitably means "I'm not indifferent to her". Like Pygmalion, he wants to sculpt Angela's intellect in his fashion, giving her the appropriate readings saying that divorce is no tragedy or scandal. He treats his cousin like a girl who needs to be inspired by the right thought, because she is unable to think independently.

In the novel, the main character repeatedly mentions that he wants to possess the soul of Angela and, in essence, this is what he is all about - about men's possession. In matters of men and women, he is a collector, and his cousin is another trophy he could boast about like valuable works of art he inherited from his father. This trophy would be all the more valuable because it would be reflected to another man. The fact that Leon had his chance and despised the feelings of the girl does not matter at all. What matters is that it is Leon who wants and has it right now. Anyway, let's give voice to Leon himself, who complains that "the more terrible I think that Angie is his property, just his thing". So when I had to wade through the next bitter grievances of the main character, self-pitying and sobbing, how his life is nasty and filthy, I wanted to puke, because how many times you can read about one and the same?

If we were to read literally "Without Dogma", it would be hard to digest. The second plane on which Sienkiewicz's novel can be interpreted, however, is a critique of the prevailing social relations, especially the passivity of the nobility and landowners in their efforts to rebuild the Polish state. The main character is a very wealthy nobleman who does not have to worry about making money, because he has too much of it. Real estate is in good hands and is perfectly managed. As a result, Leon has a lot of free time, which instead of spending on useful activities, he spends on thinking, analyzing himself and his feelings. Yes, he gains a very good insight into his motivation, but so what if he doesn't draw any conclusions from it. One day, he notes in his diary that he must finally do something useful, especially since he has no shortage of talent, next day he writes about how it all doesn't make sense. Sienkiewicz came from poor nobility and had to do everything himself - he had neither property nor connections nor an inherited fortune. He knew perfectly well that this social group, which should play a leading role in the efforts to regain independence, prefers to administer ancestral goods, for which there is neither talent nor predisposition. Leon Płoszowski is a child of his age. Like most distinguished Poles, he is a true European, educated abroad, knowing languages, knowledgeable in diplomacy and political games. So what if he prefers to spend time thinking about how hard it is because he sees no purpose in life ... Sienkiewicz was known for his critical attitude towards Polish romantics and perhaps this skepticism and nihilism of the end of the "fin de siecle" era reminded him of this Polish romantic pessimism. Leon Płoszowski is a combination of Hamlet and Werter, screaming with the words of Polsih poet Przerwa - Tetmajer "and although our life is worth nothing, evviva l'arte "!

The third way of reading "Without Dogma" may be overconfined. If we treat "Without Dogma" as a mathematical equation of Leon Płoszowski as a variable of the "Polish nation" and Angela as a variable of the "homeland", Leon's attitude towards Angela can be easily understood by knowing Polish history. When the beloved homeland was free and within reach, the Polish nobility preferred to debate in regional councils on ways to improve the Commonwealth, analyze how to do it until some idiot broke up the council, tearing up "liberum veto". Just as Leon hesitated to marry, so the Polish nobility did not eager to limit their golden freedom and privileges at the expense of strengthening the royal power. And when the homeland was lost, a sob began, like a cry of Leon over a missed chance for happiness alongside a beloved woman.

Scris ca un jurnal, romanul il are in prim plan pe Leon, un aristocrat de 35 de ani ce respinge ideea de casatorie. Aniela este femeia de care se indragosteste Leon pentru prima data in viata lui si la prima vedere.
Incapabil de a lupta pentru iubire si de a-si urma sentimentele, fara capacitatea de a actiona, o pierde pe Aniela, aceasta casatorindu-se intre timp cu un om de afaceri. Sotul ei se sinucide din cauza esecului in afaceri, ea se imbolnaveste, pierde sarcina si moare, iar Leon decide sa isi puna capat zilelor.

Cateva citate din carte:
"Cine nu stie prin sarguinta sa straluceasca ca soarele, poate macar sa sclipeasca pentru o clipa, ca un meteorit."
"Orice om poarta in el o anumita tragedie."
"Va place mai mult drama iubirii, decat iubirea insasi."
"Nimic nu cucereste, nu atrage mai mult sufletul unui barbat, decat sentimentul ca e iubit."
"-Cat sunteti de orbi! In seceta sociala care domneste acum, in lipsa aceasta generala de fericire prin care se caracterizeaza secolul nostru, in lipsa aceasta de certitudine si speranta sa nu-ti creezi nici macar aceasta fericire, o baza cat de cat! Sa ingheti in forum si nici acasa sa nu aprinzi focul? Mai departe de atat nu poate fi impinsa prostia! Eu iti spun in fata: insoara-te!..."
"Exista-cum spune Dumas-maimute din tara numita Nod, care nu se stiu infrana, dar tu de-aia ai ochi, ca sa nu iei o maimuta din Nod; in genere insa, femeia nu-si insala barbatul si nu-l tradeaza, daca el singur nu-i acela care sa-i strice sau sa-i calce inima in picioare, daca n-o dezgusta ori n-o respinge prin micimea lui, prin egoismul lui, prin ingustimea vederilor, prin natura lui meschina si mizerabila. Deci, trebuie sa iubesti. Ca ea sa nu se simta numai femela ta, ci faptura cea mai scumpa pentru tine, copilul tau, prietenul tau; poart-o la san, ca sa-i fie cald. Si atunci poti fi sigur de ea, atunci, cu fiecare an care trece, se va lipi tot mai mult de tine, pana cand o sa va lipiti de tot, ca gemenii siamezi."
"Esti pretutindeni: deasupra mea, langa mine si in mine"
"Traiesc, precum am mai spus, o existenta vegetala; ma odihnesc, ca un om nespus de ostenit si picotesc mereu de parc-as fi tot timpul cufundat intr-o baie calda. Niciodata nu m-am simtit mai putin capabil de a intreprinde ceva si chiar si gandul de a actiona imi este neplacut. Dac-ar fi sa-mi caut o deviza, as nascoci una care sa sune cam asa: Nu ma treziti!"
"Bunatatea asta imi face impresia luminii de luna: straluceste, dar nu incalzeste."
"...nu i-am mai raspuns deloc; e cel mai putin obositor mijloc de a desface unele legaturi."
"Nostalgia apare tocmai atunci cand ti-e sufletul departe de ceea ce ar trebui sa-l inconjoare in mod firesc."
"Dragostea pentru nevasta altuia, daca e superficiala, e o josnicie, daca este reala, e una din cele mai mari nenorociri care i se pot intampla omului."
"Analiza seamana cu ciugulirea unei flori: cel mai adesea prin analiza strici frumusetea vietii si implicit fericirea - adica singurele lucruri care au vreun sens."
"Omul de azi e constient de tot , dar nu stie sa faca fata la nimic."

Без догма - Хенрик Сјенкјевич

Доколку сакате да прочитате дело со скриено богатство, скриено во секој збор, секоја реченица, секоја страница, а да биде откриено во последната страница, тогаш оваа книга е вистинската за Вас.

Пишувана како дневник од страна на главниот протагонист, водичот на оваа приказна Леон Прошовски. По идеја на неговиот пријател Јусеф Шњатински, тој ја започнува својата потрага по пишаниот збор. На почетокот се труди да сподели што повеќе информации за тоа кој е тој. Неговото аристократско потекло, неговото образование, неговите размислувања, посебно во однос на жените. Но, ни сам не е свесен дека ќе биде искрена исповед. Иако тој неверник, атеист. Скептик, филозоф, самосвесен, епикупеец ( човек што ја наоѓа целта на животот во телесното уживање ), развратник, сладострасник ...
Богат е вокабуларот со зборови за човек како него.

Дневникот е тој што му е потребен.
,, Човек кој остава зад себе дневник, сеедно дали е добро или лошо напишан, само да е искрен, им пренесува и им дава на идните психолози и романсиери не само слика за своето време, туку и единствени вистински човечки документи на кои може да им се верува".

Неговата мајка починува една недела после неговото раѓање, а неговиот татко запаѓа во меланхолија, поради загубата на својата љубена, која никогаш никоја нема да може да ја замени. Вечен е споменот на неа.
Се надева на таква љубов за неговиот син. Тетката е таа која ја има улогата на посредник за пронаоѓање на идната невеста. Леон не верува дека тоа ќе се оствари, но не сака да им ја уништи искрената и заедничка желба кој ја имаат неговите најблиски.

Леон е човек без догма, токму како и насловот на оваа книга. А догма е верско начело што верниците треба да го прифатат без никаква критика апсолутно вистинито.
Како книжевник догма е општество, а како приватен човек е љубена жена.

Се надеваат дека ќе го стишат филозофот во него и нема да го преизфилозофира својот талент, а и 35 те години живот.

Средбата со таа нежна девојка, ќе го ��ромени сфаќањето на љубовта и нејзиното прифаќање. Ањелка ќе го промени, а тој својата љубов ќе ја предаде во рацете на другиот ...