Letter from Władysław Tatarkiewicz written 06.12.1938




Dear Most Honoured Colleague,

First of all, thank you very much for your letter of 31 December and for the favourable news contained therein regarding the offprints. I understand that it wasn’t easy to introduce this innovation, and I’m all the more grateful to you. I’m also glad that I’ll be able to see my dissertation in print soon. Only one thing disturbs me somewhat, especially since I haven’t received an answer to the question regarding this matter in my last letter (though I must state that you’re the most ideal correspondent I’ve ever encountered). Namely: how is it with this erroneously typeset signature, which was supposed to be partly reset, since following this resetting I never received proofs?
Please be so gracious as to send 50 offprints. I’ll cover the costs for 25 of them. As for the next matter: I thank you on behalf of Philosophical Review for your willingness to place its advertisement. I’m now at Mądralin [Dom Pracy Twórczej Polskiej Akademii Nauk; House of Creative Work of the Polish Academy of Sciences], but am coming back to Warsaw soon, and I’ll try to get the Latin text of the advertisement right away.
Furthermore: I’ll presume to remind you of the necessity, for Review, of the Polish text of your French paper. This time we’re not going to print all of the congress papers, not even half, but I’d like your paper to be among those printed.
I also have some hope that after the holidays we’ll get a report on Fr Pastuszka’s book. At any rate, I don’t have the heart to remind you about this matter, because I know from my own experience how short time can be. Poznawanie dzieła literackiego [Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, by Ingarden] has been sitting on my desk for a long time; I still can’t spare the couple of days off needed to write a report. Now I’m forcing myself to finish my paper in the field of ethics for the Brentano anniversary. Although it’s not very extensive, it’s been sitting in my office for so long that it makes me nervous; I want to get rid of it as soon as possible. And over the next few weeks I have another commitment for Zygmunt Łempicki, who’s keeping a strict eye on it.
Now, in closing, one more important question. One of ‘my’ students with a master’s degree whom you may remember from the Cracow Congress, J. Stępniewski, has prepared a doctoral dissertation on Husserl. It’s true that I myself suggested the topic, but after a conversation with him and a first glance at the text, I see that the paper lies not within my competence but completely within yours. For me, reviewing it would be torture and an enormous effort, as it would require special studies, whereas for you it may even be quite interesting, because this doctoral student possesses an extraordinary mind. Thus I want to suggest that he should present the paper to you instead of to me. I hope you’ll agree to this – without any obligation, of course, because the thing may not suit you. But the point is for you, as the only competent individual in this regard, to decide on this. I’d be grateful for your consent, and I hope I’ll get it – thus I’ll be waiting for a response. At the moment, only two chapters have been typed; Stępniewski could send them to you as a sample.
I’ve observed the great influence in Warsaw of your papers among students of the aesthetics of literature. I see this especially in one of the master’s theses I’ve received now. At any rate, as tends to happen with young people, the author exaggerated and stated that every novel, even the most realistic, creates a separate world and constructs separate laws to which this world is subject.

     I enclose expressions of respect and cordial greetings