Н. С. Гумилев — критик поэтов-символистов: динамика оценок и эволюция критического языка
Kuupäev
2018-06-26
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Nikolai Gumiljovi nimi oli aastakümneid Nõukogude Liidus keelu all ning tema loomingu uurimine Venemaal sai võimalikuks alles 1980-ndate lõpus, 1990-ndate aastate alguses. Samal ajal on Gumiljovi kirjanduslik ja eriti kriitikaalane tegevus tihedalt seotud vene modernismi arenguloogikaga ning selgitavad hõbeajastu vene kriitika arengut. Väitekirjas uuritakse sümbolistiliku luule (V. Brjussovi, F. Sologubi, A. Belõi, A. Bloki ja Vjatšeslav Ivanovi) hinnangute dünaamikat Gumiljovi kriitikas ning tema kriitikakeele arengu aspekte. Gumiljovi tähtsaim töö „Kirjad vene luulest“ (1908 – 1916) demonstreerib, kuidas toimub üleminek sümbolistlikult kriitikalt akmeistlikule. Gumiljovi retsensioonide sukeldumine sümbolistlikkusse kriitikasse võimaldab näha, et poeedist kriitiku positsioon ei kujutanud endast kogu tema kriitilise tegevuse jooksul kunagi autonoomset suletud süsteemi, mis keskendunuks vaid akmeismieelsete või akmeismijärgsete ülesannete lahendamisele. Gumiljovi kirjanduslik hoiak oli püsivalt evolutsioneerudes alati tihedas ja dünaamilises seoses laia ringi tema jaoks autoriteetsete tekstidega, milleks olid eelkõige V. Brjussovi, I. Annenski, A. Belõi ja A. Bloki kirjanduskriitilised tekstid.
Gumiljovi arvustuste kõrvutamine tema jaoks kõige tähtsamate sümbolistlike kriitikute retsensioonidega näitab, et tema retsenseerimisvõtete lätteks polnud mitte ainult „vanemate“, vaid ka „nooremate“ sümbolistide arvustused. Väitekirjas tehtud vaatlused muudavad traditsioonilist arusaama Gumiljovi kriitilisest keelest, kuna annavad tõendust nooremate sümbolistide (eelkõige A. Belõi) olulisest mõjust literaadi kriitilise meetodi kujunemisele.
As Gumilev’s name remained forbidden in the Soviet Union for several decades, the study of his work in Russia became possible only at the end of the 1980s. Moreover, his literary and critical activity is closely related to the logic of the development of modernism in Russia, and with the formation of Gumilev as a literary critic. This dissertation investigates the dynamics of evaluations of Symbolist poetry in Gumilev’s criticism (reviews of the collections of poems by V. Bryusov, F. Sologub, A. Blok, Andrei Bely and Vyacheslav Ivanov) and explores the issues related to the evolution of his critical language. His main work, Letters on Russian Poetry (1908−1916), is a useful focus, as it highlights the shift from Symbolist to Acmeist criticism. Thus, the immersion of Gumilev’s reviews in the context of Symbolist criticism makes it possible to see that the position of the critic poet has never been an autonomous closed system focused on achieving the same pre- or post-Acmeists tasks throughout the author’s critical activity. Gumilev’s position, invariably evolving, has always been in close and dynamic interaction with a wide range of authoritative texts, such as the critical works of Bryusov, Annensky, Bely and Blok. The comparison of Gumilev’s reviews with the reviews of most important Symbolist critics shows that the origins of his position were either “older” or “younger” Symbolists’ texts. This observation changes the traditional view on Gumilev’s critical language, as it proves the significant influence of the younger Symbolists (especially A. Bely) on the formation of his critical method.
As Gumilev’s name remained forbidden in the Soviet Union for several decades, the study of his work in Russia became possible only at the end of the 1980s. Moreover, his literary and critical activity is closely related to the logic of the development of modernism in Russia, and with the formation of Gumilev as a literary critic. This dissertation investigates the dynamics of evaluations of Symbolist poetry in Gumilev’s criticism (reviews of the collections of poems by V. Bryusov, F. Sologub, A. Blok, Andrei Bely and Vyacheslav Ivanov) and explores the issues related to the evolution of his critical language. His main work, Letters on Russian Poetry (1908−1916), is a useful focus, as it highlights the shift from Symbolist to Acmeist criticism. Thus, the immersion of Gumilev’s reviews in the context of Symbolist criticism makes it possible to see that the position of the critic poet has never been an autonomous closed system focused on achieving the same pre- or post-Acmeists tasks throughout the author’s critical activity. Gumilev’s position, invariably evolving, has always been in close and dynamic interaction with a wide range of authoritative texts, such as the critical works of Bryusov, Annensky, Bely and Blok. The comparison of Gumilev’s reviews with the reviews of most important Symbolist critics shows that the origins of his position were either “older” or “younger” Symbolists’ texts. This observation changes the traditional view on Gumilev’s critical language, as it proves the significant influence of the younger Symbolists (especially A. Bely) on the formation of his critical method.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
Gumiljov, Nikolai, symbolism, poetry, reception, critical reviews, literary criticism, stylistics, literary criticism, poets, history of literature, beginning of the 20th century