Mariusz Dobkowski

In the paper, the author presents Jerzy Prokopiuk’s (1931–2021) outlook on gnosis and Gnosticism. Prokopiuk was a Polish esotericist, translator, and non-academic specialist in religious studies. His views on this subject can be divided into four areas: (1) definition of gnosis; (2) the essence and de- scription of Gnosticism as a historical religious formation; (3) description and understanding of the post-Gnostic tradition; (4) gnosis and Gnosticism as a hermeneutic tool. As to (1) definition of gno- sis, the Prokopiuk presents three forms of this special kind of knowledge: escapist gnosis (know- ledge liberates the human spirit from material body and the physical world); transformational gnosis (knowledge transforms the human soul, body and earthly nature); lateral gnosis (idea of alternative worlds). Regarding (2) Gnosticism, Prokopiuk says that its source was ancient mysteries and a par- ticular type of religious experience. He sees (3) the post-Gnostic tradition as an unbroken chain of esoteric groups and figures from late antiquity to the present day. Finally, gnosis and Gnosticism are (4) a hermeneutic tool for Prokopiuk because they allow him to interpret phenomena and texts of culture (in the field of literature, cinema, psychology, and others). The paper also reflects on the usefulness of some of Prokopiuk’s ideas for contemporary humanities.

Recenzja książki: Piotr Czarnecki, Kataryzm włoski, Historia i doktryna, Kraków 2013, 418 stron

The author examines the scope and sources of St Augustine’s knowledge of Manichaeism. He mostly follows the thesis of J.K. Coyle, that as a Christian and anti-Manichaean polemicist, Augustine obtained additional information about the “Religion of Light”. To illustrate Augustine-the-Manichaean and Augustine-the-polemicist’s knowledge of the religion of Mani, the author includes two lengthy excerpts from his writings: from the 7th book of Confessiones and the treatise De natura boni, which features a quotation from the Manichaean work Treasure. The author provides a special comment on this extract.

Many specialists in Manichaeism wrote after World War II about the religious Manichaean narrative as a myth or a mythology. In this paper I examine whether the Manichaean narrative actually meets the criteria of definition of myth. This question is also worth asking because some scholars emphasise the monosemic character of the mentioned narrative. The definition of myth which I use is that of Andrzej Wierciński (1930–2003), a Polish anthropologist of religion. Among my reasons for choosing this is because it includes as many as nine features of myth and also refers to scientific narrative, which by its nature has one level of meaning. I refer this definition, above all, to Manichaean evidence in the Coptic language, but when the need arises I also invoke other sources, both polemical and apologetic.