Восприятие Ф. И. Тютчева и А. А. Фета в русской литературной критике 1870-х – 1900-х гг.
Kuupäev
2016-06-29
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Töö eesmärgiks on vene poeetide A. Feti ja F. Tjuttševi 1870.–1900. aastate kirjanduskriitilise kanonisatsiooniprotsessi uurimine. See ajaperiood on tähelepanuväärne seetõttu, et 1870.–1880. aastatel on täheldatav huvi tõus kahe poeedi loomingu vastu, mis on tingitud mitmetest ajaloolis-kultuurilistest põhjustest. Olulisim neist on vene sümbolismi kujunemine ja areng aastatel 1890.–1900. Just tänu sümbolismile kinnistub Feti ja Tjuttševi lüürika lõplikult vene kirjanduskaanonis.
Väitekiri koosneb neljast peatükist.
Esimene peatükk оn pühendatud Tjuttševi kirjandusliku maine kujunemisele tema surma- järgses kirjanduskriitikas (1870.–1890. aastad). Tähelepanu keskmes on siin kaks olulist teost, mis mõjutasid Tjuttševi loomingu edasist vastuvõttu: I. Aksakovi kirjutatud biograafia “Fjodor Ivanovitš Tjuttšev” (1874) ja Vl. Solovjovi artikkel “F. I. Tjuttševi luule” (1895).
Tjuttševi kirjanduslik maine võis muutuda Aksakovi koostatud biograafia mõjul. Tegelikkuses aga toimus muutus tänu Vl. Solovjovi artiklitele, millele on pühendatud eraldi alapeatükk. Filosoof pakkus neis välja mitte ainult oma nägemuse Tjuttševist, vaid mõtestas ümber ka Aksakovi ideed.
Teine peatükk uurib Feti luule retseptsiooni ning luuletaja kirjandusliku maine kujunemist 1880.–1890. aastate kirjanduskriitikas. Peatükis räägitakse “Õhtuste tulede” kriitikast ja selle suhestumisest Feti enda esteetilise positsiooniga. 1880. a-tel sai tema looming erinevate koolkondade kriitikute tähelepanuobjektiks. Ühelt poolt heideti talle ette ühetaolisust, arengu puudumist, ühiskondlikest teemadest hoidumist (nt sellised perioodilised väljaanded nagu «Отечественныe записки», «Дело», «Русская мысль», «Вестник Европы»). Teisalt hindasid need kriitikud, kes jagasid Feti esteetilisi vaateid (N. Strahhov, A. Goleništšev-Kutuzov, V. Burenin), positiivselt just teemade ja poeetilise meetodi muutumatust.
Kolmandas peatükis analüüsitakse Tjuttševi ja Feti loomingu kajastamist “vanemate” sümbolistide kriitikas “uue kunsti” kontseptsiooni vormumise kontekstis. Näidatakse, et konstrueerides vene luule ajalugu, vaatlesid “vanemad” sümbolistid Merežkovski, Brjussov, Volõnski, Konevskoi seda kui ettevalmistavat etappi “uue kunsti” tekkimisel. Eriti ilmekad on selles osas Brjussovi värsiteoreetilised uurimused, mida ta viis läbi Tjutševi luule materjalil.
“Vanemad” sümbolistid püüdsid tõlgendada Tjuttševi ja Feti poeetilist keelt sümbolismi keelena. Just nemad valmistasid ette Tjuttševi ja Feti vastuvõtu noorsümbolistide poolt.
Neljandas peatükis on uurimisobjektiks noorsümbolistide kriitiline proosa, mis eksisteeris 1900ndatel paralleelselt “vanema” sümbolismi kriitikaga ja oli osaliselt selle järeltulija, kuid arendas teistlaadi kirjanduskriitilist meetodit. Tjuttševi ja Feti looming ehitub siin noorsümbolistide müstilisteurgilistesse müütidesse. Peatükis näidatakse, mil moel Tjuttševi ja Feti vastuvõtt ning hinnang mõjutasid A. Bloki, Andrei Belõi ja Vjatš. Ivanovi kriitilise proosa keelt.
Tjuttševi ja Feti luule oli aktuaalne kogu vene sümbolismi jaoks. “Vanemad” sümbolistid tegid Tjuttševist ja Fetist sümbolistlikud poeedid, kelle luulekeel ja üksikud tsitaadid võeti üle, mõtestati ümber ja arendati edasi juba “uues kunstis”. Noorsümbolistid võtavad omakorda üle selle retseptsiooni ja kirjeldavad oma artiklites retrospektiivselt vene luule ajalugu, sümbolismi teket ning Tjuttševi ja Feti rolli selles kirjandussuunas.
The main purpose of the thesis is to investigate the process of canonization of two Russian poets — F. Tyutchev and A. Fet — in Russian literary criticism of the 1870s–1900s. Initially, the interest to the poetry of Tyutchev and Fet was increasing for two reasons: the death of Tyutchev in 1873, and the publication of Fet’s Evening Lights (1883; 1885; 1888; 1891). But the most important period in the history of Tyutchev’s and Fet’s literary canonization was the time of the development of Russian Symbolism (1890s–1900s). The thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One studies the reception of Tyutchev’s works in posthumous literary criticism (from the 1870s to the 1890s). The author focuses her attention on two works that strongly influenced the reception of Tyutchev during that period: the Biography of Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev by I. S. Aksakov (1874) and Vladimir Solovyov’s article The Poetry of Tyutchev (1895). In fact, Aksakov’s book did not have a significant impact on further literary criticism. However, the reception of Tyutchev in Russian Symbolism was closely connected with the literary criticism and philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. V. Solovyov not only proposed some new ideas about the poet but also reinterpreted Aksakov’s conception of Tyutchev’s poetry. Chapter Two is devoted to the reception of Fet’s poetry in literary criticism of the 1880s–1890s. The author of the thesis compares the reception of Fet’s Evening Lights to the poet’s aesthetic views expressed by the poet himself, which can be found in the poems of this collection. On the one side, literary critics from Otechestvennye Zapiski, Delo, Russkaya Mysl, Vestnik Evropy wrote that Fet had not evolved and improved during his lifetime in poetry, and that he had not developed fresh poetic themes and not paid attention to contemporary social issues. On the other side, the critics who shared the aesthetic views of Fet (N. N. Strakhov, A. A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, V. P. Burenin) admired him for the faithfulness to his aesthetic principles and his consistency in themes and poetic method. Chapter Three analyzes the responses to Fet’s and Tyutchev’s poetry in the literary criticism of Elder Symbolists. The critics and poets of early Symbolism, such as Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Valery Bryusov, Akim Volynsky, and Ivan Konevskoy, created their conception of Russian poetry and developed the aesthetics of New Art. In this context, they reassessed Fet’s and Tyutchev’s poetry. Bryusov’s study of versification, based on the poetry of Tyutchev, is the most representative in this respect. The main subject of Chapter Four is the reception of Tyutchev and Fet in the critical heritage of the Symbolists of the second generation. The younger Symbolism was developing at the same time when did the earlier one, and yet it was its successor. However, the younger Symbolists created a completely different method of literary criticism. Analyzing the poetry of Tyutchev and Fet, the younger Symbolists were interested in its connections with mysticism and theurgic myths. The chapter demonstrates the correlation between the reception of Tyutchev’s and Fet’s poetry and the evolution of views of such poets as A. A. Blok, Andrey Bely, and V. Ivanov. Tyutchev’s and Fet’s poetry had a profound influence on Russian Symbolism. Elder Symbolists used the poetic languages of the two poets to develop the New Art. Thus, they considered Tyutchev and Fet as their own predecessors. Younger symbolists developed the views of elder Symbolists. They published articles in which they reconstructed the history of Russian poetry and demonstrated the roots of Symbolist movement, as well as the important role of Tyutchev and Fet in its formation.
The main purpose of the thesis is to investigate the process of canonization of two Russian poets — F. Tyutchev and A. Fet — in Russian literary criticism of the 1870s–1900s. Initially, the interest to the poetry of Tyutchev and Fet was increasing for two reasons: the death of Tyutchev in 1873, and the publication of Fet’s Evening Lights (1883; 1885; 1888; 1891). But the most important period in the history of Tyutchev’s and Fet’s literary canonization was the time of the development of Russian Symbolism (1890s–1900s). The thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One studies the reception of Tyutchev’s works in posthumous literary criticism (from the 1870s to the 1890s). The author focuses her attention on two works that strongly influenced the reception of Tyutchev during that period: the Biography of Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev by I. S. Aksakov (1874) and Vladimir Solovyov’s article The Poetry of Tyutchev (1895). In fact, Aksakov’s book did not have a significant impact on further literary criticism. However, the reception of Tyutchev in Russian Symbolism was closely connected with the literary criticism and philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. V. Solovyov not only proposed some new ideas about the poet but also reinterpreted Aksakov’s conception of Tyutchev’s poetry. Chapter Two is devoted to the reception of Fet’s poetry in literary criticism of the 1880s–1890s. The author of the thesis compares the reception of Fet’s Evening Lights to the poet’s aesthetic views expressed by the poet himself, which can be found in the poems of this collection. On the one side, literary critics from Otechestvennye Zapiski, Delo, Russkaya Mysl, Vestnik Evropy wrote that Fet had not evolved and improved during his lifetime in poetry, and that he had not developed fresh poetic themes and not paid attention to contemporary social issues. On the other side, the critics who shared the aesthetic views of Fet (N. N. Strakhov, A. A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, V. P. Burenin) admired him for the faithfulness to his aesthetic principles and his consistency in themes and poetic method. Chapter Three analyzes the responses to Fet’s and Tyutchev’s poetry in the literary criticism of Elder Symbolists. The critics and poets of early Symbolism, such as Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Valery Bryusov, Akim Volynsky, and Ivan Konevskoy, created their conception of Russian poetry and developed the aesthetics of New Art. In this context, they reassessed Fet’s and Tyutchev’s poetry. Bryusov’s study of versification, based on the poetry of Tyutchev, is the most representative in this respect. The main subject of Chapter Four is the reception of Tyutchev and Fet in the critical heritage of the Symbolists of the second generation. The younger Symbolism was developing at the same time when did the earlier one, and yet it was its successor. However, the younger Symbolists created a completely different method of literary criticism. Analyzing the poetry of Tyutchev and Fet, the younger Symbolists were interested in its connections with mysticism and theurgic myths. The chapter demonstrates the correlation between the reception of Tyutchev’s and Fet’s poetry and the evolution of views of such poets as A. A. Blok, Andrey Bely, and V. Ivanov. Tyutchev’s and Fet’s poetry had a profound influence on Russian Symbolism. Elder Symbolists used the poetic languages of the two poets to develop the New Art. Thus, they considered Tyutchev and Fet as their own predecessors. Younger symbolists developed the views of elder Symbolists. They published articles in which they reconstructed the history of Russian poetry and demonstrated the roots of Symbolist movement, as well as the important role of Tyutchev and Fet in its formation.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
vene, luule, retseptsioon, kirjandusteadus, kirjanduskriitika, 19. saj. lõpp, 1900-ndad, Russian, poetry, reception, literary science, literary criticism, end of the 19th century, 1900s