In the paper I try to reconstruct the main theoretical assumptions underlying Paul Veyne’s vision of the ancient world that are to be found in his book L’empire gréco-romain. First of all, recalling the opposition between two ways of making the past intelligible: “explication” versus “explicitation”, I show how the French historian uses that second type of historical analyse to reveal some ancient phenomena (i.e. “democracy”, “imperialism”, “soul”, “faith”) in their original and singular forms. Then, I pass to the question of causality and genesis in history. It seems that in Veyne’s book we can distinguish three different “models” of becoming: 1) “time of a project”, 2) “epigenesis” and 3) “discourse effectiveness”. All these fi ndings lead me to the conclusion that Veyne’s writing of history is essentially “essayistic”.

The most prevalent popular and critical images of Bruno Schulz present a Polish-Jewish writer and artist who turned away from politics and history in his creative work only to be devoured by the most violent political and historical forces in his life. This article attempts to reinsert Schulz’s writings into the social and political history of his day and age, focusing on an interpretation of his novella Spring (Wiosna). It argues that Schulz viewed the meaning and progression of history and politics in mythical terms. Accordingly, his stories contain ironic mythologizations of social, political and historical events. In Spring, Schulz captures, or rather constructs, the mythological essence of the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire, producing his own imaginative and contradictory commentary on the history of his native region during his own lifetime.