The Interconnections between the Czech Methodological Platform and the Ideas of Modern Ukrainian Literature Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31861/pytlit2020.102.195Keywords:
comparative methodology, Brno Literary School, Ivo Pospíšil, areal philology, areal literary studies, Central Europe, historical poetics, literary processAbstract
The article under studies identifies the methodological ties between modern Czech and Ukrainian literary studies on the example of Ivo Pospišil’s monograph “Methodology and Theory of Literary Slavic Studies and Central Europe” (2015). The methodological platform of the scientist is shown in dynamics: comparative studies, phenomenology, historical poetics, genre studies and areal studies. Areal (spatial) philology becomes the methodological framework and “cognitive tool” in the above work. Within the specific features of the hermeneutic circle, I. Pospišil outlines the methodological principles of Brno areal studies, as well as substantiates the powers of areal methodology. Hence, by means of deduction, he narrows the areas of its application and eventually connects spatial poetics to the analysis of specific texts of modern Czech literature. In this respect, areal studies are consonant with the methodology of the N. Kopystyanska’s scientific school. From the standpoint of literary axiology, I. Pospišil characterizes the literary process of 1960–1970 in the way that coincides with the ideas of D. Zatonsky and T. Hundorova. The interpretation of the tropical nature of allegory and symbol, within the areal issues, resonates with a number of Ukrainian investigations. I. Pospišil’s speculations on the problem of auto-reflection and auto-axiology of creativity is based mainly on the concepts of O. Potebnja, on whose methodological reputation rely the works of most Ukrainian researchers. The phenomenon of Central Europe is regarded in the context of “Central European centrism” and multiculturalism, which conceptually brings the scientific research closer to the American studies by N. Vysotska and T. Denisova. I. Pospišil emphasizes the influence of Central European university traditions of the first half of the XX century on the formation of the Prague Linguistic Circle, as well as on the scientific growth of F. Wallman, S. Vilinsky, R Jacobson and R. Wellek. The concept of the history of Russian literature, proposed by I. Pospišil, leads to the profound analysis of the scientific figure of D. Chyzhevsky, which is being widely studied in Ukraine. It is concluded that the “methodological balance” of Czech and Ukrainian literary criticism is ensured by common “pendulum movements” in the history of the literary process, common theoretical and literary basis (works by O. Potebnja, M. Bakhtin, D. Chyzhevsky, D. Ďurišin), parallel influences of Western European literary criticism, as well as collective conference events and consensual research optics.
References
Bakhtin, M. (1986). K metodologii gumanitarnykh nauk [Towards the methodology of the humanities]. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. Moscow : Iskusstvo, pp. 381–393. (in Russian).
Blashkiv, O. (2012). Dmytro Chyzhevs′kyi i naukova Chekhoslovachchyna 1930-kh rr. [Dmitry Chizhevsky and scientific Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.]. Problemy istoriï Ukraïny: fakty, sudzhennia, poshuky, no. 21, pp. 303–311. (in Ukrainian).
Budagova, L. (2012). Iubilei zamechatel'nogo uchenogo: Ivo Pospishil [Anniversary of a remarkable scientist: Ivo Pospíšil]. Slavianskii mir v tret'em tysiacheletii. Obraz Rossii v slavianskikh stranakh. Moscow : Institut slavianovedeniia RAN, pp. 181–187. (in Russian).
Budnyi, V. abd Ilnytskyi, M. (2008). Porivnial′ne literaturoznavstvo [Comparative literature]. Kyiv : Vyd. dim “Kyievo-Mohylians′ka akademiia”, 430 p. (in Ukrainian).
Vysotska, N. (2010). Iednist′ mnozhynnoho. Amerykans′ka literatura kintsia XX – pochatku XXI stolit′ u konteksti kul′turnoho pliuralizmu [The unity of the plural. American literature of the late XX – early XXI centuries in the context of cultural pluralism]. Kyiv : Vyd. tsentr KNLU, 456 p. (in Ukrainian).
Volkov, A. and Solovei, E. (1971). Dve slavianskie tragedii ob Atlantide [Two Slavic tragedies about Atlantis]. Chekhoslovatsko-russkie literaturnye sviazi v tipologicheskom osveshchenii. Moscow : Nauka, pp. 194–223. (in Russian).
Volkovynskyi, O. (2007). O. Potebnia i O. Veselovs′kyi: teoretychne ta istorychne tlumachennia epiteta [O. Potebnya and O. Veselovsky: theoretical and historical interpretation of the epithet]. Pitannâ lìteraturoznavstva, no. 73, pp. 3–10. (in Ukrainian).
Heopoetychni studiï (2020). [Geopoetical studies]. Vyp. 1. Fenomen mistsia [The Phenomenon of a Place]. Ostroh : Vydavnytstvo Natsional′noho universytetu “Ostroz′ka akademiia”, 45 p. URL: https://journals.oa.edu.ua/geopoetic?fbclid=IwAR3cPHvKDZMtiifcU2KsokJKlQJUgynJczi08fOGAQJOQFcZUq6Uib5Y20Q (accessed: 1 April 2020). (in Ukrainian).
Girshman, M. (1968). Literaturovedcheskii analiz (Metodologicheskie voprosy) [Literary Analysis (Methodological Issues)]. Voprosy filosofii, no. 10, pp. 103–113. (in Russian).
Hille, A., Rychlo, P., Voloshchuk, Y. and Chertenko, O. (eds.) (2019). Perestupy kordoniv u literaturi ta kul′turi XX–XXI st. [Border crossings in the literature and culture of the XX–XXI centuries]. Kyiv : Vyd. dim Dmytra Buraho, 2019, 344 p. (in Ukrainian).
Grechanik, I. (2011). Ivo Pospishil. Smotret' na Rossiiu s liubov'iu. Interv'iu [Ivo Pospíšil. Look at Russia with love. Interview]. Russkoe pole, no. 10. URL: http://parus.ruspole.info/node/242 (accessed: 1 April 2020). (in Russian).
Hromyak, R. (2008). Shche raz pro strukturu i status metodolohiï [Once again about the structure and status of the methodology]. Naukovyi visnyk Volyns′koho natsional′noho universytetu imeni Lesi Ukraïnky. Filolohichni nauky. Literaturoznavstvo. Lutsk : Vezha, no. 8, pp. 13–16. (in Ukrainian).
Hundorova, T. (2013). Pisliachornobyl′s′ka biblioteka. Ukraïns′kyi literaturnyi postmodernizm [The Post-Chornobyl Library. Ukrainian Literary Postmodernism]. Kyiv : Krytyka, 344 p. (in Ukrainian).
Denysova, T. (2012). Istoriia amerykans′koï literatury [History of American literature]. Kyiv : Vyd. dim “Kyievo-Mohylians′ka akademiia”, 487 p. (in Ukrainian).
Dzyk, R. (2010). Oleksandr Potebnia i teoriia intertekstual′nosti [Olexandr Potebnya and the Theory of Intertextuality]. Pitannâ lìteraturoznavstva, no. 81, pp. 37–44. (in Ukrainian).
Zatonsky, D. (2000). Modernizm i postmodernizm : Mysli ob izvechnom kolovrashchenii iziashchnykh i neiziashchnykh iskusstv [Modernism and Postmodernism]. Harkiv : Folio; Moscow : AST, 256 p. (in Russian).
Kozlyk, I. (2011). Metodologicheskie aspekty teorii literaturnogo stilia A. V. Chicherina [Methodological aspects of A. V. Chicherin's theory of literary style]. Ivano-Frankivsk : Symfoniia forte, 48 p.
Kozlyk, I. (2006). Metodolohichnyi stan suchasnoho ukraïns′koho literaturoznavstva: deiaki aspekty problemy [Methodological state of modern Ukrainian literary studies: some aspects of the problem]. Russkaia literatura. Issledovaniia. Kyiv : Logos, no. VIII. pp. 36–61. (in Ukrainian).
Kopystianska, N. (2012). Chas i prostir u mystetstvi slova [Time and space in the art of the word]. Lviv : PAIS, 344 p. (in Ukrainian).
Kopystianska, N. (2014). Zïzdy, konhresy, konferentsiï, seminary iak formy naukovoho spilkuvannia [Congresses, conferences, seminars as forms of scientific communication]. In: Matsenka, S. and Levytska, O. (eds.). Dialohichni obertony: naukovyi zbirnyk na poshanu pamiati profesora Nonny Kopystians′koï. Lviv : Instytut Ivana Franka NANU, pp. 13–24. (in Ukrainian).
Korthaase, W. (2005). Vid Melankhtona do Komens′koho ta Chyzhevs′koho [From Melanchthon to Comenskyi and Chyzhevskyi]. Drohobych, Kyiv : Kolo, 378 p. (in Ukrainian).
Lanovyk, M. and Lanovyk, Z. (2014). Potebni v literaturoznavchomu kontynuumi XX st. [O. Potebnya's theory in the literary continuum of the twentieth century]. “Z rodu nashoho krasnoho…”: persha profesorka Volyni: zb. nauk. pr. na poshanu prof. L. K. Oliander. Lutsk : Skhidnoievropeis′kyi nats. un-t, pp. 98–113. (in Ukrainian).
Levytska, O. (2015). Naukova shkola profesora Nonny Kopystjansjkoji: metodologhichni peredumovy ta naukovi zdobutky [Scientific School of the Professor Nonna Kopystianska: Methodological Preconditions and Scientific Achievements]. Pitannâ lìteraturoznavstva, no. 92, pp. 181–190. (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.31861/pytlit2015.92.181
Moklytsia, M. (2017). Alehorychnyĭ kod literatury, abo Reabilitatsiia alehoriï tryvaie [Allegorical code of literature, or Rehabilitation of allegory continues]. Kyiv : Kondor-Vydavnytstvo, 292 p. (in Ukrainian).
Naienko, M. (2004). Porivnial′na slavistyka v interpretatsiï Dmytra Chyzhevs′koho [Comparative Slavic studies in the interpretation of Dmytro Chyzhevskyi]. Slovo i chas, no. 6, pp. 65–67. (in Ukrainian).
Oliander, L. (2008). Metodolohichna sytuatsiia v suchasnomu ukraïns′komu literaturoznavstvi [Methodological situation in modern Ukrainian literary studies]. Naukovyi visnyk Volyns′koho natsional′noho universytetu imeni Lesi Ukraïnky. Filolohichni nauky. Literaturoznavstvo. Lutsk : Vezha, no. 8, pp. 29–32. (in Ukrainian).
Pavlychko, S. (2002). Teoriia literatury [Theory of literature]. Kyiv : Osnovy, 664 p. (in Ukrainian).
Peretz, V. (1922). Kratkii ocherk metodologii istorii russkoi literatury [A brief outline of the methodology of the history of Russian literature]. Petrograd: Akademiia, 164 p. (in Russian).
Pospišil, I. (2015). Metodologija i teorija literaturovedcheskoj slavistiki i Central'naja Evropa [Methodology and theory of Slavic studies literary and Central Europe]. Siedlce : ELPIL, vol. XXI, 172 p. (in Russian).
Suchasni literaturoznavchi studiï (2020). Vyp. 17. Gheoghrafija, peremishhennja ta identychnosti u khudozhnjomu dyskursi [Geography, displacement and identity in artistic discourse]. Kyiv : KNLU, 2020. no. 17. 104 p. (in Ukrainian).
Tychinina, A. (2018). Suchasni metodolohichni praktyky [Modern methodological practices]. Chernivtsi : Cherniv. nats. un-t, 159 p. (in Ukrainian).
Chervіnska, O. (2010). Pislia Potebni, pislia Bilets′koho, pislia Chyzhevs′koho, pislia Zatons′koho: suchasna ukraïns′ka literaturoznavcha dumka v mezhakh idei hermenevtyky ta retseptyvnoï teoriï [After Potebnya, after Biletsky, after Chyzhevsky, after Zatonsky: modern Ukrainian Literary Conception within the Ideas of Hermeneutics and Receptive Theory]. Pitannâ lìteraturoznavstva, no. 81, pp. 3–23. (in Ukrainian).
Chervinska, O. (eds.) (2014). Imperatyv provincia [The imperative of the province]. Chernivtsi : Chernivets′kyi nats. un-t, 320 p. (in Ukrainian).
Šaur, J. (2016). Dvě nové publikace brněnského slavisty v ruštině. Novaja rusistika, no. 2 (IX), pp. 192–194.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Alyona Tychinina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
