HISTORY OF LITERATURE AND LITERARY CRITICISM

1951 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-247
Author(s):  
Walter Mönch
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Literature

scholarly journals HISTORICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL IDEAS OF A.P. NECHAEV. PART 1: HISTORY OF LITERATURE, LITERARY CRITICISM, HISTORICAL PSYCHOLOGY

2021 ◽  
pp. 252-270
Author(s):  
А.А. Костригин
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Emotional State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Psychological Traits ◽  
Artistic Creativity ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Psychological Tasks ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
The 19Th Century

Статья посвящена Александру Петровичу Нечаеву (1870-1948), выдающемуся отечественному психологу и педагогу первой половины XX в. В данной работе А.П. Нечаев показан как историк психологии. Рассматриваются историко-психологические работы и взгляды ученого по трем направлениям: анализ историко-литературных работ, в которых освещаются идеи, связанные с исторической психологией; анализ работ, освещавших состояние психологии на рубеже XIX-XX вв. и об отдельных персоналиях современной Нечаеву психологии; анализ специальных историко-психологических и историко-философских работ. В первой части представляются историко-литературные и литературно-критические работы: «Об отношении Крылова к науке» (1895) и «Поэзия А.Н. Майкова. Критический очерк» (1898). Отечественный психолог анализирует взгляды И.А. Крылова на ученых и научную деятельность, выраженных в художественных метафорах и отражавших общественные и народные представления о науке. Рассматривая творчество Майкова, Нечаев показывает, что поэзия может выполнять психологические задачи: с одной стороны, она влияет на эмоциональное состояние читателя и на развитие его личности, с другой - выражает внутренние особенности самого поэта, и необходима ему для удовлетворения собственных потребностей и стремлений. Несмотря на то, что напрямую эти работы не касаются проблематики истории психологии, они показывают интерес Нечаева к историко-научным исследованиям, а также могут быть отнесены к области исторической психологии, поскольку в них представлено изучение образов ученого и поэта и их психологические качества, характерные для XIX в., через художественное творчество и литературу. The article is dedicated to Aleksander Petrovich Nechaev (1870-1948), an outstanding Russian psychologist and teacher of the first half of the 20th century. In this work, Nechaev is presented as a historian of psychology. The historical-psychological views and works of the scientist in three directions are considered: analysis of historical and literary works in which ideas related to historical psychology are presented; analysis of works covering the state of psychology at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and dedicated to Nechaev’s contemporaries in psychology; analysis of special historical-psychological and historical-philosophical works. The first part presents the historical-literary and literary-critical works of Nechaev: «On Krylov's attitude to science» (1895) and «Poetry of A.N. Maikov. A critical sketch» (1898). The Russian psychologist analyzes the views of I.A. Krylov on scientists and scientific activities, expressed in artistic metaphors and reflecting public and popular ideas about science. Considering the work of Maikov, Nechaev shows that poetry can perform psychological tasks: on the one hand, it affects the emotional state of the reader and the development of his personality, on the other hand, it expresses the inner characteristics of the poet himself, poetry is necessary for him to satisfy his own needs and intentions. Even though these works do not directly relate to the problems of history of psychology, they show the interest of Nechaev to historical-scientific research, and can also be attributed to the field of historical psychology: through artistic creativity and literature, the author studies the images of a scientist and a poet and their psychological traits specific to the 19th century.

scholarly journals Ryzyko opłacalne. O książce "Możliwość i konieczność w kulturze: idee, narracje, interpretacje", red. B. Pawłowska-Jądrzyk, Warszawa 2017, ss. 248

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 191-197
Author(s):  
Maciej Gorczyński
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Works Of Art ◽  
History Of Art ◽  
History Of ◽  
Worth Reading ◽  
Art Philosophy ◽  
History Of Literature

POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY IN CULTURE: IDEAS, NARRATIVES, AND INTERPRETATIONS, ED. BY B. PAWŁOWSKA-JĘDRZYK, WARSZAWA 2017The paper is review of the collection of the articles edited by Brygida Pawłowska-Jędrzyk. Authors of the paper collected represents many fields: history of literature, literary criticism, theology, history of art, philosophy, and others. The volume is divided in two main parts; authors of the first are focused on the analysis of meaning and significance of the categories named in the title. Papers in the second part treats aformentioned terms as a traits of the particular works of art, literature or philosophy. Enunciation “worthwhile risk” means here, that not every paper included is perfect, but the book considered as a whole is definitely worth reading.

scholarly journals On the scientific heritage of Sergei Ivanovich Kormilov

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 33-43
Author(s):  
Svetlana Matyash ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
History Of ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
History Of Literature

The article defines the main blocks of the scientific heritage of Sergei Ivanovich Kormilov. His contribution to the field of theory and history of literature and literary criticism is presented. Achievements in the theory of verse are described. Methodological principles in all studied areas of philological science are indicated. The research pathos of the scientist is noted, expressed in the realized desire to contribute to the solution of the problem of synthesis in literary criticism. Based on the analysis of Kormilov’s works, his personality of a scientist and a citizen is reconstructed.

scholarly journals The theoretical innovation of V. N. Peretz in the field of methodology for studying the history of literature. To the 150th anniversary of the birth of the researcher

2020 ◽  
pp. 449-472
Author(s):  
Mihail A. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Russian Literature ◽  
Verbal Creativity ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
History Of ◽  
Roman Jakobson ◽  
Cultural Historian ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
Relationship Of

The article analyzes the methodological views of the academician V. N. Peretz, an outstanding Russian researcher and teacher. Refusing to follow the canons of the cultural-historical school of Russian literary criticism, in his works “From Lectures on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Kiev, 1914) and “A Brief Essay on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Petrograd, 1922) the researcher tried to find new approaches to the analysis of literary works. He believed that “the history of literature examines and studies the formal side of the works of verbal creativity, its evolution, leaving the cultural historian to study the content, the ideological side of the monuments of the past as such.” Peretz’s judgments were similar to those adopted by the followers of the OPOYAZ school (The Society for the Study of Poetic Language), and even had a certain influence on the development of formalism at the initial stage. This circumstance was noted by such researchers close to this research community as V. M. Zhirmunsky and its active members like Roman Jakobson. The relationship of Peretz’s theoretical positions with the methods of the Russian formalist school caused criticism from the followers of “Marxist” methodology in the 1920s. In the disputes between the formalists and the “Marxists”, Peretz clearly sympathized with the former believing that they were trying to “resurrect philology.” Peretz himself characterized his “Methodology” as “not Marxist” and had faint hopes for the possibility of its publication, although he continued to work on it. However, he never finished and published the extended version. His “Short Sketch” was reprinted twice abroad before being printed again in his homeland in 2010, 88 years after the first edition.

scholarly journals Kazimiera Iłłakowiczówna mniej więcej znana

2018 ◽  
pp. 75-94
Author(s):  
Lucyna Marzec
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Religious Poetry ◽  
The Past ◽  
Feminist Literary Criticism ◽  
History Of ◽  
The New Woman ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
Government Institution ◽  
Unusual Type

The article is the analysis of the place of Kazimiera Iłłakowiczówna in contemporary literary discourse. The author of the article claims – using Pierre Bayard’s theory – that the poetess is known “more or less”: she is remembered as someone who got prizes and recognition but at the same time she is impossible to read nowadays. There is political ambiguity and antiquity in her texts that keep her in the past. Marzec points at four areas of literary studies, where Iłłakowiczówna is still present: 1. Poetics: Iłłakowiczówna uses an original and unusual type of the Polish tonic verse. The author of this article analyses it using tools of psychoanalysis. 2. Religious discourse: Iłłakowicz.wna is interpreted as the author of religious poetry but Marzec argues with such interpretations. 3. Post-dependence studies: Iłłakowiczówna has not been analysed in terms of post-dependence studies yet but she is mentioned in the Polish borderlines discourse. 4. Feminist literary criticism: Iłłakowiczówna used to be studied as the author of androgynous poetry, but Marzec points out other motifs such as miscarriage, infanticide or problems of the new woman, like work at government institution, contestation of vitalism and bureaucracy. The aimof this article is to show that writing of Kazimiera Iłłakowiczówna needs to be read in terms of the history of literature which is devoid of evaluation and judging. Such analysis means going back in terms of modern literary studies which have undergone multiple turns that changed the tools accessible to contemporary critics.

scholarly journals Semiotization of the past in the Lermontov studies of B.M. Eikhenbaum in the 1930s – early 1940s

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-74
Author(s):  
Kristina V. Sarycheva
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Semiotic System ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Literature History ◽  
Soviet Ideology ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
Historical Past

The research is based on the concept of the historical process as a semiotic system, formulated by B.A. Uspenskii. The article aims to analyse within the framework of this concept the historical and literary works of B.M. Eikhenbaum of the 1930s 1940s, dedicated to the meeting of Lermontov and Belinsky in the prison. Some of the papers discussed here have not been previously studied. The fact that Eikhenbaum frequently referred to that episode and mentioned it in different papers let us assume that it was significant not only from the literary and historical point of view, but it also contained unique significance for the researcher. The article extends the observations made by E.A. Toddes regarding the implicit projection of contemporary events into the historical past that helped Eikhenbaum to overcome prescriptions of the Soviet ideology and literary criticism. The evolution of the history concept in papers of Eikhenbaum was analyzed and the elements of the language, resembling the contemporary epoch, were demonstrated. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the historic past of the Lermontov studies, carried out by Eikheinbaum, is the double coded semiotic system simultaneously, expressing the literary and historical facts, as well as following the official discourse and containing the unofficial or individual discourse regarding the contemporaneity.Key words: Eikheinbaum, Lermontov, Belinsky, formalism, Soviet literary criticism, history of literature, history, modernity, semiotic system.

scholarly journals Benjamin e uma nova formação a partir de uma nova forma de ensino da História da Literatura / Benjamin and a New Formation Through a New Form of Teaching Literary History

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Rafael Guimarães Tavares Silva
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Literary Theory ◽  
Literary History ◽  
Teaching Practices ◽  
Walter Benjamin ◽  
Critical Position ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Intellectual Production ◽  
History Of Literature

Resumo: Buscando situar o contexto alemão do final do séc. XIX e início do séc. XX, no tocante às práticas de ensino e, mais especificamente, do ensino de literatura, o presente artigo oferece considerações sobre a forma como Walter Benjamin se posiciona nesse debate. Depois de abordar de forma mais geral a produção desse arguto pensador da cultura de seu tempo, a importância fundamental de seu texto História da literatura e ciência da literatura [Literaturgeschichte und Literaturwissenschaft], de 1931, assume o primeiro plano da argumentação e oferece o material para que se sugira a radicalidade do projeto benjaminiano. Detectando uma crise cultural profunda em sua época, o estudioso sugere que um posicionamento crítico, apto a articular o passado e o presente, por meio de um estudo envolvendo História da Literatura e Crítica Literária, seria a única forma de potencializar o estudo das Letras, de modo a converter a Literatura em órganon capaz de atuar diretamente sobre a própria História.Palavras-chave: Walter Benjamin; teoria literária; crítica literária; história literária; educação.Abstract: Seeking to situate the teaching practices and especially literary teaching practices in the German context of the end of the XIXth century and beginning of the XXth, this article offers considerations on how Walter Benjamin takes a position in this debate. After a more general approach to the intellectual production of this argute thinker of his own culture and time, the fundamental importance of his text History of literature and science of literature [Literaturgeschichte und Literaturwissenschaft], from 1931, takes the foreground of the argument and offers material to suggest the radicalness of Benjamin’s project. Detecting a deep cultural crisis in his time, he suggests that a critical position, capable of articulating the past and the present, through a study involving History of Literature and Literary Criticism, would be the only way to strengthen the study of Letters, in order to transform Literature into an organon capable of acting directly on History itself.Keywords: Walter Benjamin; literary theory; literary criticism; literary history; education.

scholarly journals Эпистолярия как литературные беседы: Письма Г. В. Адамовича А. В. Бахраху [_Epistolaria_ as Literary Conversations: Letters of Georgy Adamovich to Alexander Bacherac]

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 238-283
Author(s):  
Olga Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Russian Literature ◽  
Close Reading ◽  
The West ◽  
Philosophical Discourse ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
Emigre Writers

This article is an attempt at close reading an extensive ego text (Georgy Adamovich’s letters to Alexander Bacherac of the 1940s – 1972) as a thirty-year-long literary conversation of two Russian émigré writers. Regarding the letters as a single cultural text, and relying on the hermeneutic and semiotic approaches, the article singles out three major layers of the text in question, and analyzes the textual body “inwardly,” i.e. starting from the purely existential-informational upper layer, proceeding to the layer of literary criticism, and finally reaching the layer of literary quotations and cultural allusions used as one of the basic devices forming Adamovich’s epistolary style. Comparing the letters with Adamovich’s famous Literary Conversations (Literaturnye besedy) of the 1920s, the author argues that in his correspondence with Bacherach Adamovich followed the tradition of the Russian friendly literary-philosophical discourse borrowed from the West in the 1800s and developed in the 1820s – 1830s by Alexander Pushkin and his circle. KEYWORDS: 20th-Century Russian Literature, Georgy Adamovich (1892—1972), Alexander Bacherac (1902—1985), Correspondence, History of Literature.

scholarly journals BAKHTIN AND RENE GIRARD ON DOSTOEVSKY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Kirill Rodin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rene Girard ◽  
Critical Comparison ◽  
René Girard ◽  
Literary Heritage ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Literature

The article provides a critical comparison of two independent interpretations of F. M. Dostoevsky: from the side of M. Bakhtin and from the side of Rene Girard. Both authors have created coherent ways of understanding and reading the literary heritage of the writer in the perspective of their own understanding of the history of literature and the intellectual history of mankind as such. Dostoevsky is significant for Bakhtin not simply as an illustration of the applicability of some of his own ideas within the framework of literary criticism. Bakhtin sees Dostoevsky as an innovator in the development of the menippea genre and an unprecedented dialogization of literature. At the same time, without Dostoevsky, the movement of literature postulated by Girard towards the embodiment of the Gospel revelation would be incomplete. The incompleteness of Girard or Bakhtin without Dostoevsky (with all the reservations) is not fundamental. Without Dostoevsky, history as such fundamentally changes for Girard and for Bakhtin. The apparent incomparability of the authors makes it possible to read Dostoevsky differently. From the context of Girard, the meaning of Bakhtin's works and, inevitably, the meaning of laughter and dialogue (polyphony) in history are significantly transformed. On the other hand, the ways of including Dostoevsky in the image of history created by Girard, independently of Bakhtin, also run into difficulties.

scholarly journals DAM ON THE GREAT RUSSIAN SEA (Contribution to the interpretation of the Review of the History of Serbian Literature by A. N. Pipin)

2021 ◽  
Vol XII (35) ◽  
pp. 117-136
Author(s):  
Ana M. Mumovic
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Literary History ◽  
National Development ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
Extensive Study ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Awakening ◽  
The Gift ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Literature

The paper aims is to present and evaluate the Review the History of Serbian Literature A. N. Pipin's as a classical history of Serbian literature that became part of the national culture. The development of the history of literature among Serbs, as an independent discipline and its modest beginnings, can be found in the first decades of the 19th century, in the time of Dositej and Vuk. In its beginnings, the history of literature was a "story" about the literary past of a nation and at its core was - criticism. This main idea as an axiom is a signpost that leads from the history of literature, which has long performed the function of criticism, to the genesis of literary criticism as the youngest branch of literary science and the way it formulated and exercised its functions in conditions when literary history was in a certain measures and history of the people. The Serbs received the first History of Serbian Literature (1865) from the pen of Pavel Jozef Šafarik (1795–1861), a Protestant and German student who served in Novi Sad. The next history of Serbian literature was also written by a foreigner, the Russian Alexander Nikolaevich Pipina (1833–1904). His Review the History of Serbian Literature (1865) has not been fully translated into Serbian. When marking questions from the new Serbian literature, Pipin's approach leads to a synthesis of ideas about cultural and political and national development. Slavery replaced the idea of revival "among Orthodox Serbs who fled to Austria". From that perspective, he views the development of national literature as an important part of culture and identity. Pipin also deals with the issue of national identity and the awakening of the national consciousness of the Slavs in his extensive study "Panslavism in the Past and Present" (1878), in which "the Serbian national question is incorporated into the general critique of Russian official policy and Slavophile orientation in the Balkans during Eastern Europe crisis". In this paper, we value his competence, cultural mission, the gift of the comparator, without which there is no great literary historian, and his practical contribution to classifying Serbian literature and culture in the European context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document