COMPARATIVE PARADIGM IN WORKS OF Y. BOYKO-BLOKHYN: APPROACHES “INTERWEAVING AND INTERCROSSING”
The article analyzes Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model as an important integral concept element of Ukrainian emigre scholars comparative literary studies in the 1930s-1980s period (Y. Boyko-Blokhyn, M. Hnatyshak, S. Hordynsky, V. Derzhavyn, I. Kaczurowskyj, D. Chyzhevsky, Y. Sherekh and others)...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Alfred Nobel University Publisher
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Вісник університету ім. А. Нобеля. Серія Філологічні науки |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://phil.duan.edu.ua/images/PDF/2022/2/5.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The article analyzes Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model as an important integral concept element
of Ukrainian emigre scholars comparative literary studies in the 1930s-1980s period (Y. Boyko-Blokhyn,
M. Hnatyshak, S. Hordynsky, V. Derzhavyn, I. Kaczurowskyj, D. Chyzhevsky, Y. Sherekh and others).
Approaches of the emigre scholar to literature comparative exploration are interpreted in the context of
global comparative studies main trends, and placed against the views of the mainland comparative literary
studies representatives. We clarified the distinguishing features of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s model, proved its
multidimensional and multivector character, and ascertained comparatist attitudes relevance towards
modern comparative literary studies, taking into account their development potential. This goes according
to the purpose of the work and its tasks. This research applies advances in comparative historical analysis,
methodology of both historic cultural and receptive aesthetic schools.
Conceptual idea of the scholar shows his attention to contact-genetic relationship as well as
typological similarities and differences. The author interprets functionality problem of inter-literary/
intercultural communication preeminently as a national literature stylistic development factor. The study
reveals the interdisciplinary nature of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s works (with access to the realm of philosophy,
psychology and cultural studies), and demonstrates his integration of contextual, intermedial and
other approaches, which fundamentally enriched methodological tools of comparative literary studies.
Reflections of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn on the problem of Slavic literatures comparative study, while witnessing
the author’s inherent interest in national identity problem, emphasized and deepened research of Slavic,
specifically East Slavic, literatures as a fundamental component of the European cultural space. They also
substantiated the demand for changes in approach to study the East Slavic region, particularly historical
and literary processes in Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian literatures. Scientist’s observations and
conclusions, aimed at understanding Ukrainian literature in the European context, broaden drastically the
idea of its peculiarity, with an emphasis on the features conditioned by its development (T. Shevchenko
– G. Byron, R. Burns, J.W. Goethe, A. Dante, G. Leopardi, A. Mickiewicz, T. Moore, Novalis, S. Petőfi,
W. Shakespeare, F. Schiller; I. Franko – G. Byron, E.T.A. Hoffmann, A. Chamisso; Lesya Ukrainka – G.
Hauptmann, M. Maeterlinck, O. Wilde and others). The researcher traces occurrences of literary reception
by the national literature of other nations artistic and aesthetic experiences at various levels of comparative
poetics (themes, motives, style, etc.)
Conclusion. We proved an important role of Y.Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model, who developed
impactful traditions of national comparative literary studies of the second half of the 19th century
– first third of the 20th century, and at the same time rethought (including through denial) western
methodologies, in development not only of Ukrainian, but also of the global literature science as a whole.
Insights and ideas of the emigre scholar, many of which were often ahead of his foreign colleagues ideas
(A. Balakian, H. Bloom, U. Weisstein, D. Durishin, A. Popovich, H.R. Jauss and others), remain relevant even
nowadays. Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s approaches to comparative study of literatures in the world context with a
special emphasis on the problem of national identity apparently acquired the utmost importance during
the era of globalization. Similar logic of thinking is affine to those modern authors who insist to study
first differences between national creative writings, which according to their deep conviction enrich and
diversify the global cultural universe (A. Balakian, C.Bernheimer, E. Kaspersky, F. Toudoire-Surlapierre and
others). In contrast to “cultural unification scenarios”, Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s reflections which draw attention
to different literatures/cultures polylogue phenomenon, their mutual understanding and enrichment, are
based on the following fundamental thesis: “originality is a runner to commonality” (it is also of fundamental
importance for formation of comparative literary history concept). It’s emblematic that the Ukrainian
scientist back then strongly denied the position of R. Wellek and R.Warren, who absolutized the tendency
to universalization of the global literary process. Instead, Y. Boyko-Blokhyn argued for study of national
version of pan-European style (romanticism, realism, modernism), traditional plots and characters, and he
also scaled out radically the influence range idea as a manifestation of literary reception, with an emphasis
on its creative character (from influence as a repulsion to influence as an “activity stimulus”, “impulse for
self-movement”). In fact, these reflections of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn anticipated approaches of those scholars who justified later the concept of active perception as opposed to passive influence, actualizing the role of
recipient in the process of inter-literary communication (H.R. Jauss), thesis about the decisive role of the
recipient literature (D. Durishin), interpretive theory – “fear of influence” (H.Bloom). Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s
conceptual thoughts about understanding the “reverse influences” problem, as well as related matter of
contribution of each Slavic, in particular East Slavic, literature to the global cultural heritage, are extremely
consonant with arguments that have been in the researchers’ focus even in these recent times (M. Boehmig,
O. Pachlovska). In conclusion we can say that Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model which is characterized
by nation-centric orientation emphasizes fundamentally the prospects for further scientific research in
historical, literary and comparative dimensions, first of all in projection of such methodologies inherent to
modern comparative literary studies as imagology, theory of intertextuality and cultural transfer. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2523-4463 2523-4749 |