Bogatyrev,įunktsional’no-struktrual’noe izuchenie fol’klora (Maloizvestnye i neopublikovannye raboty) (Moscow: Sorokina, “Funktional’no-strutural’nyi metod P. Ivanova, Istoriia russkoi fol’kloristiki XX veka: 1900 - pervaia polovina 1941 g. Importantly, Prague was a place where some of these currents interOn Bogatyrev’s functionalist structuralism and his Prague period, see T. Rubanov) to embrace Eurasianism as an interpretative prism through which to follow the Soviet literary scene of the 1920s-1930s26. Savitsky acknowledged his failure in this task, but he did succeed in persuading a number of followers in Prague (Konstantin Chkheidze, Leontii Kopetskii, G. To this one should add the Prague wing of Eurasianism led by Petr Savitsky who had set himself the task of producing “Eurasian literary studies” (evraziiskoe literaturovedenie) in which Russian literary history, both before and after 1917, was to be re-examined from the point of view of its potential to assert Russia’s special geopolitical and cultural status. Along with Jakobson’s post-formalism and Bogatyrev’s early functionalist structuralism (developed, recent Russian research would claim, independently of Malinovsky’s)23, we can also see the unfolding of fruitful historicophilological research centred around the Dostoevsky Seminar (1925-33) founded by Alfred Bem24, and of psychoanalytic literary scholarship, the main exponent of which was Nikolai Osipov (1877-1934) who had made Freud’s acquaintance in Vienna in 1910 and had propagated his ideas in Russia, before emigrating in 1919 and arriving in Czechoslovakia in 192125. In Prague, in particular, one could observe in a nutshell the stupendous diversity of approaches marking migr literary scholarship between the World Wars. To have been a factor of paramount significance not just in the evolution of Russian Formalism and its continuation and modification in the structuralist functionalism of the Prague Circle, but - more importantly - for the emergence of modern literary theory in the interwar period as a whole.Īppropriating literature theoretically meant after all being able to transcend its (and one’s own) national embeddedness by electing to position oneself as an outsider contemplating the vailidty of it laws beyond a merely national framework. Henkle (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1994), 264. The Relationship of Fiction and Life, ed. Said, “Travelling Theory Reconsidered,” in Critical Reconstructions. Valdes (New York and Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002), 61).Į. Greenblatt, “Racial Memory and Literary History,” in Rethinking Literary History. In a different context and with different tasks in mind, Stephen Greenblatt forcefully asserts that in order to write cultural history we must “understand colonization, exile, emigration, wandering, contamination, for it is these disruptive forces that principally shape the history and diffusion of languages, and not a rooted sense of cultural legitimacy’ (S. O’Toole and Ann Shukman (Colchester: University of Essex, 1977), 49-51, here 49 written in December 1928 and first published in Russian in Novyi Lef 12 (1928) - actually in early 1929. Quoted here from the English translation in Russian Poetics in Translation, Vol. Tynianov, The Problem of Verse Language, ed.Īnd trans. Jakobson, “Yuri Tynianov in Prague”, in Iu.
0 kommentar(er)
