LITERARY CRITICISM AS A SCIENCE

Subject and method of literary criticism

Literary criticism — the science of literature and development of literary process; an extensive network of scientific disciplines, each of which covers (analyzes) a certain facet of verbal creativity. 

Literary criticism, in particular, only explores the modern literary process, history of literature — his past, and theory — the specificity of literary creativity itself. Narrower scientific scope e supporting industries literature — bibliography, archaeography, textual criticism, methods of teaching literature, and within literary theory stands out for this specific industry, as poetics, which is interested in the mystery of the structure of a literary work, the type of artistic thinking of the writer, the style of a literary work, the style of the era, etc. All this together is called literary criticism, the objective of the proposed training course is to understand it as a system, as the philosophy of spiritual activity of man, embodied in the artistic word. 

So, the subject of literary studies is a set of critical observations, historical and literary conceptions and theoretical generalizations, which form the basis of the respective branches of science of literature. A method of literary criticism is determined by the way of thinking of the scientist, who comprehends a particular literary material. By its nature, this method may be ideologically biased (just like scientists-classicists or the representatives of Soviet literature), chauvinistic painted (how in different times in Russian or Polish scholars, which denied Ukrainian and Belarusian literature in identity and considered them part of their) or aesthetically and morally diminished (when deliberately removed from scientific observation “disadvantageous” the literary phenomenon of or made generalizations based on a single, partial facts) and through that — flawed, defective. Research really should be considered this way of thinking, which is based on’s objective laws of development of human existence and functioning of creative, analytical beginning. 

Of course, the concept of’s objectivity in such a delicate matter, how creativity and her research, e very shaky, because the stand’linked with the experiences and activities of the sub’object. Pam’with this in mind, should be considered o’s objective, only such judgments or reasoning, deprived sub’Chiva and bias (the above ideological and chauvinistic bias, etc). With this problem directly stand’is the problem “precision” literary judgments. More than a century in scientific circles there is an ongoing debate about, can you believe these judgments are really accurate (as, say, judgments in the natural Sciences). The accuracy of the last, they say, can be confirmed by experiment or numerical calculation, and in art (literary) creativity and its research, nor experiments, no calculations are impossible. In the Soviet literature this problem was tried to solve it’bind-willed “just”: they say, in bourgeois countries the inaccuracy of public ‘ Sciences (in particular literary studies) it is quite obvious, because it is bourgeois, but they are accurate, because our scientists “possess a real scientific method — the Marxist-Leninist method”. Known thing, it was a tribute not science, and pseudogout. Actually accuracy (and therefore the scientific character) literary studies lies in the same plane, that’objectivity. Accurate is the judgment, which is a result of scientific experience, that is, arguments about literary fact, not the sub’s objective (biased) assessment of its. In the argument there is always a desire to determine, say, the nature of generalizations in a literary work, its Genesis, SV’Association with folklore or written tradition, and it will be undeniable (except with elements of falsity) the truth, and the so-called assessment is inevitable’autisa with difficult and biased, which are very far from the truth. In. Peretz was fully human, when recalled in SV’in connection with this proverb’I “How many goals, so many minds” and thought primary responsibility’communication of a literary critic is not to replace mrluvaluva, research experience sub’subjective, biased rating.

The accuracy of literary judgment has nothing to do with dogmatism. Literary work is a living organism, which develops in time and space, consequently, judgments about it are “time”, historical character. We are talking about, they can be specified, be enriched and deepened depending on the shifts in aesthetic and analytical consciousness of humanity. If it were otherwise, the science of literature would become a canonized set of definitions, not a plastic surge thoughts, constantly open for communication with another opinion. One of the big issues, for example, stayed a long time question samostatnost (self-sufficiency) Ukrainian literature, which in the XIX century. addressed virtually every researcher. M. Petrov, say, was convinced, that it is the offshoot of Russian and Polish literatures, M. Dashkevich proved, she created the distinctive genius of the Ukrainians, but noticed (true — publicist), the value of it over the years will still be reduced even in the Ukrainian lands, because the main place it will take raspinatsa literature Russian, to which Ukraine should gradually converge and unite. To refute this opinion was not only the liberation of scientists from the NAV’connected them great on, but the extension of their aesthetic worldview.

New worldview in the twentieth in. showed such historians and theorists of literature, as C. Efremov, M. Hrushevsky, M. Zerov, D. Chizhevsky, etc. Follow the principles of different scientific schools, they, however, one showed complete unanimity: Ukrainian literature, in the words of the same G. Dashkevich, was a natural product of local development, and progressive growth occurs purely by his imagery, based on only its inherent aesthetic genetic sign.