Letter from Irena Krońska written in 16.08.1963

Author Irena Krońska

Category incoming correspondence, Polish researchers in Roman Ingarden's correspondence

Archive Archive of Science PAN in Cracow

Date of creation 16.08.1963

Reference code in archive K_III-26_D_52

Resource type letter

Subject matter organizational issues, publication issues, scientfic issues, translations

Field philosophy

Tags #ancient philosophy, #Czesław Znamierowski, #daimonion, #delay, #edition, #Editorial Committee of the Library of Classics of Philosophy, #editorial problems, #financial issues, #Henri Bergson, #holidays, #Ingarden's rage, #international trips, #Irena Krońska, #Krońska about Ingarden, #legal issues, #Library of Classics of Philosophy, #passport, #philosophical polemics, #philosophy and politics, #politics, #problems with translation, #PWN, #remuneration, #running headline, #scientific publications, #Socrates, #Sokcrates and politics, #State Scientific Publishers, #translations, #typescript

Warsaw, 8/16/1963

Dear Professor,

I confirm the reception of the typescript and thank you for your comments. I regret that Professor did not manage to read it until the end – I was most interested in your opinion on the chapter devoted to the daimonion case. – As for Socrates’s attitude to politics, based on everything I have read and considered so far, I have to defend this position for now. If the politicians were fools in matters of philosophy, then Socrates was silly and naive in matters of politics – and the thing is he wanted to deal with politics and that led to conflict. A politician must be focused on hic et nunc, and a philosopher, if they want to do politics, cannot ignore it either, they cannot free themselves from it. – But this is a matter for a long dissertation that I promise myself I will produce.
c As I did not receive my passport on time, I am postponing Austria to a later date, maybe Christmas, and for now we are taking Myzia to Kazimierz – until the end of the school break. Maybe I will also drop by Nałęczów and Sandomierz.
c I am sorry that Professor wrote a rather violent letter to director XXX. The last volume of the Writings was in accounting – a matter of legal nature emerged, whether the royalties for Bergson’s translator should be deducted from the author’s royalties, and consideration of this issue by a legal advisor slightly delayed the payment order (the case has not been resolved yet, it will happen today or tomorrow). As for the running headline, etc., the author always receives a remuneration if it had been arranged beforehand. – And it seems to me that during Professor’s long cooperation with our editorial office we never gave you any reason to complain about improper handling of financial matters on our part. – If there were any doubt or delay, would it not have been better to write to Mr. XXX or to me rather than to the director, who, in the end, does not deal with these matters personally anyway, but only passes the tasks on to the editorial office. Why is it like that, Professor, that in direct conversations at our editorial office you are always friendly and charming, and I do not only hold Professor in high regard, but also am very fond of you XXX, and in Krakow, when Professor sits down at the typewriter, then the letter is usually unpleasant , full of irritations and claims that I do not believe to have any objective justification for, whether in this or other cases. Why? Is the writer not den Wesel nach identical with our kind guest in Warsaw?
c Even today and tomorrow I will be struggling with editorial griefs (I have this whole issue with one translator you do not know, it is such a huge row, that all other problems fade in comparison, even my old battles with Prof. Znamierowski), and the day after tomorrow I will be hitting the road.

c My deepest respect and warm greetings; may you stay in good health and have the strength to fulfill all your tasks

I Kronska