Philosophy of silence in Mickiewicz’s and Norwid’s works

The text compares Mickiewicz's and Norwid's views of silence. The author states unambiguously that Mickiewicz pointed to and emphasized negative aspects of this phenomenon. Maybe it was so because his mission had a prophetic character. A prophet is one who speaks for somebody else, in somebody else's name. And Mickiewicz was, after all, a leader of the pilgrimage movement, posing (for example in Księgi narodu – Books of the Nation) as a prophet. He was strongly convinced that he has to realize God's order expressed by Isaiah: “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet” (Isa 58), which is reflected for example in Ghost's words in Forefathers' Eve: “albeit I can remain silent, / I spoke furiously”. In contrast with Mickiewicz, Norwid values silence. He is convinced that it can be “meaningful”, that it can express anything. His view of it is broader than that of the author of Pan Tadeusz. The author of Vade-mecum is sure that in silence one can notice a certain deep system and meaning. He presents the issue both in a positive and negative way; he defines the essence of silence that, in his opinion can become speech or acting. In relation to speech silence can be: an equivalent means of expression, a part of speech, or something more than speech, a kind of “over-speech”. Silence in a negative meaning is non-communicativeness of speech, and hence he formulates an apparently paradoxical statement that speech can be silence. Antinomies of Mickiewicz's and Norwid's attitudes are clearly seen. Norwid remains faithful to Montesquieu, whose view of silence he quotes, and to Pythagoras, promoting the principle “remain silent until you find that what you will say has more value than silence”