Primerjalna književnost

RAZPRAVE

Peter V. Zima: PRIMERJALNA KNJIŽEVNOST IN DRUŽBOSLOVNE VEDE  

Avtor primerja različne primerjalne znanosti – primerjalno književnost, sociologijo, politiko – da bi pokazal, da lahko interdisciplinarni dialog o problemih primerjanja prinese nove uvide. Izhodišče razprave je poseben značaj primerjalne književnosti, povezan z multikulturnimi in večjezičnimi konteksti, ki so jih – doslej – komparativni družboslovni znanstveniki manj raziskovali. Drugi del članka se ukvarja z različnimi tipi primerjanja v literaturi, politiki in sociologiji. Avtor domneva, da bi se literarni teoretiki lahko več naučili o kompleksnosti primerjanja, če bi upoštevali horizon-talne in vertikalne, analoške in kontrastivne pristope, razvite v družbo-slovnih vedah. V zadnjem delu očrta primerjalno književnost, utemeljeno na sociologiji teksta ali socio-semiotiki.

Comparative Literature and Social Sciences. The author relates diffe-rent comparative sciences – Comparative Literature, Sociology, Politics – to one another in order to show that an interdisciplinary dialogue con-cerning problems of comparison may yield new insights. The starting point is the specific character of Comparative Literature geared towards multicultural and multilingual contexts which – so far – have been less explored by comparative social scientists. The second part of the article deals with different types of comparison in literature, politics and socio-logy. The author suggests that literary theorists may learn more about the complexity of comparison by taking into account the horizontal and vertical, the analogic and contrastive approaches developed in the social sciences. In the last part, he maps out a Comparative Literature founded on a sociology of texts or a socio-semiotic.

Although the object of Comparative Literature has been defined in many different ways so as to include “literature and the other arts”, “postcolonial literatures” and even “culture” as a whole, the relationship between the different comparative sciences (law, sociology, politics, etc.) has so far been omitted. This regrettable gap is probably due to the fact that comparative literary critics have never been really interested in methodological questions. For them it seems to be more important to draw the boundaries of their discipline as gene-rously as possible.

However, a sustained dialogue between Comparative Literature and com-parative social sciences seems inevitable, if the methodological basis of comparison is to be broadened and strengthened at the same time.

1. The first section of this article deals with the methodological contribu-tions of Comparative Literature to the dialogue mentioned above. The basic idea is that the literary discipline deals with multicultural and multilingual contexts and could therefore be of some help whenever intercultural problems and problems of translation occur. Political scientists, sociologists and lawyers are, after all, sporadically confronted with culturally specific meanings, diver-gent semantics and translation problems. They cannot afford to ignore Comparative Literature and translation studies altogether.

2. The second section brings about an inversion of perspectives. Instead of asking what the social sciences could learn from Comparative Literature, it asks how the latter could improve its methodology by observing sociological, political or legal comparisons. In this context, especially the analogic and contrastive, the vertical and the horizontal dimensions of comparisons in the social sciences seem to be relevant since they contribute to a better under-standing of typological and genetic comparisons in Comparative Literature.

3. The third and last section examines the sociological underpinnings of a new type of Comparative Literature which defines itself as socio-semiotic. It takes seriously the formalist and structuralist idea that literature and society ought to be linked by language and language analysis.

Vid Snoj: »SLEPI NEMIR ČLOVEŠTVA«: KOCBEKOVO PESNJENJE ZGODOVINE

Tekst izhaja iz trditve, da je Edvard Kocbek pesnik zgodovine. To trditev utemeljuje z razločevanjem pesnjenja o vélikih dejanjih oziroma o zgodovini od pesnjenja zgodovine same in jo razvija ob treh Kocbekovih pesmih: Zgodovina (iz zbirke Žerjavica), Trije modri (Groza) in Molitev (Žerjavica).

“Blind unrest of humanity”: Kocbek's Poetic Vision of History. The text is derived from a claim that Edvard Kocbek is a poet of history. It argues this claim by making the distinction between poetic depiction of history or its great deeds, and poetic verbalisation of history itself. This is illustrated on three poems by Kocbek: Zgodovina (History) from the collection Žerja-vica (Embers), Trije modri (The Three Magi) from the collection Groza (Horror), and Molitev (Prayer) from the collection Žerjavica (Embers).

History, generally one of poetry’s rare themes, is the subject of the late poem by Edvard Kocbek, Zgodovina (History). In it, the Christian revolutionary Kocbek depicts history from that which came before the deeds, which as res gestae according to traditional thought constitute history. He depicts history out of unrest, a constant motive of human action, the origin of human inten-tions and directions. From here onwards, the course of history presents itself as a blind force, and at the same time as the creation of man, since these inten-tions are not directed by God's providence, by no intention above all intentions.

The place of the core Christian event in a history depicted in such a way, the event of Christ or God’s incarnation, is beautifully presented in an earlier poem, Trije modri (The Three Magi): the birth of Christ, the first of the events in God’s incarnation, is merely one of the secrets, which seem to have no end. In the New Testament kairós, the time of God’s incarnation, is the central, unique and decisive historic time, but Kocbek transposes it to a different kairós, the time of man’s rather than God’s incarnation, the time of the Slovenian revolution.

In his poem Molitev (Prayer), the address of God absent in history, he finally depicts history as a human activity originating in God’s withdrawal. In this final vision, history is man’s creation that will be endorsed by God, even though God’s intention does not direct human intentions. God will approve it with the index finger which, quite contrary to Michelangelo’s depiction of the Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, says to man at the end of history, at the end of human (self)creation, “So Be It” instead of “Be”.

Péter Hajdu: RETORIKA ISKRENOSTI

Vtis o iskrenosti pesmi predpostavlja, da se namera ujema s pomenom besedila, ironijo pa so običajno opisovali kot napetost med namero in dobesednim pomenom. Čeprav je pojem iskrenosti literarna teorija v 20. stoletju diskreditirala, še vedno igra dokaj pomembno vlogo v klasični filologiji. Članek analizira razprave o iskrenosti ali ironičnosti Katulove in Horacijeve poezije. Raziskuje značilne retorične formacije, ki besedilu omogočajo, da je prebrano kot iskreno. Iskrenost pa tako kot ironija potrebuje tudi bralčevo sodelovanje.

The Rhetoric of Sincerity. The impression that a poem is sincere pre-supposes an intention that coincides with the meaning of the text, while irony is traditionally described as a tension between intention and literal meaning. Although the concept of sincerity has been discredited by the 20^th century theory of literature, it still plays a rather important role in classical scholarship. The paper analyses scholarly discussions about the sincere or ironic nature of Catullus’ and Horace’s poetry. It investigates characteristic rhetorical formations that make a text able to be read as sincere. Sincerity as well as irony requires the reader’s co-operation.

This paper regards sincerity as the opposite of irony. The impression that a poem is sincere needs the supposition of an intention that coincides with the meaning of the text, while irony is traditionally described as a tension between intention and literal meaning. Although the concept of sincerity, which is very probably the heritage of Romanticism, has been discredited by the 20^th century theory of literature, it still plays a rather important role in classical scholarship. After analyses of scholarly texts discussing the sincere or ironic nature of Catullus’ and Horace’s poetry, the paper goes on to investigate whether characteristic rhetorical formations exist that make a text able to be read as sincere. Although some such features can be described, sincerity as well as irony requires the reader’s co-operation.

Matjaž Zaplotnik: MOTIVI KRSTA PRI TASSU IN PREŠERNU

Razprava najprej poda kratek historiat študij o Tassovih vplivih na Pre-šerna. Nato se posveti obravnavi motivike krsta v Tassovem Osvobojenem Jeruzalemu ter Prešernovih pesnitvah Turjaška Rozamunda in Krst pri Savici. Prek primerjave vseh spreobrnitev poskuša avtor zagovarjati tezo, da okoliščine Črtomirovega krsta odkrito spominjajo na okoliščine zna-menite Klorindine spreobrnitve iz Tassovega epa.

Motives of Baptism in Tasso’s and Prešeren’s Poems. The treatise starts with a short overview of studies dealing with Tasso’s influence on Pre-šeren. The main part of the treatise deals with the motives of baptism in Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata and Prešeren’s Turjaška Rozamunda and Krst pri Savici. Through the discussion of all conversions, the original thesis is given that the circumstances of Črtomir’s baptism in Prešeren’s poem, and Clorinda’s conversion in Tasso’s epic, show evident similarities.

Clorinda’s baptism is one of the main scenes of Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata. Her conversion has nothing to do with conversions described in chivalric poems. Baptisms described there are briefly mentioned and scarcely make any impact on the character at all. On the other hand Clo-rinda’s conversion has independent status in the epic, its description is solemn and profound. This important move towards pietism in Tasso’s epic is important for the distinction between chivalrous/superficial conversion and pietistic/profound conversion. Chivalrous conversion includes strong opposition between “false” faith and “true” faith, while pietistic conversion treats abandoned faith with certain sympathy.

The distinction mentioned above is evident in Prešeren’s poems too: while the baptism mentioned in Turjaška Rozamunda has all the characte-ristics of chivalrous conversion, Črtomir’s baptism in Krst pri Savici is pietistic. Clorinda’s and Črtomir’s baptism take place at similar locations (a spring of living water and a waterfall). This fact is very important accord-ing to the symbolic meaning of water in Christian liturgy. Furthermore, the angelic vision of Clorinda in Tancredi’s dream could have influence on the “rainbow scene” near Savica waterfall in Prešeren’s Krst pri Savici: both scenes include celestial visions of a female character in heavenly glory, having a placid effect on the male character. Adequate passages from both poems are quoted to confirm this thesis.

The final part of this study is dedicated to Bogomila’s conversion, primarily to the dilemma, whether it should be treated as chivalrous or as pietistic conversion. Though Bogomila’s pro–Christian monologue is one of the most religious parts in the poem, the description of her baptism itself is unconvincing and too plain to be considered pietistic. This fact makes Krst pri Savici a paradoxical text. Bogomila’s speech is profound, yet her baptism remains largely superficial, perhaps even ambiguous; on the contrary, the act of Črtomir’s baptism is persuasive, but he alone remains silent.

Vanesa Matajc: LITERARNOZGODOVINSKI POJMOVNIK ZA LITERATURO MODERNE: REVIZIJA IN NEKAJ PREDLOGOV

Literatura v obdobju moderne estetsko izraža metafizično krizo ali soob-stoj različnih dojemanj subjekta. Tradicionalni, progresistični in poeno-tujoči literarnozgodovinski vidik te raznolikosti ne more ustrezno razložiti. Razprava ga nadomešča s prelomno-mutacijskim vidikom različnih raz-merij, ki nastajajo med literaturo moderne in njenim (foucaultovskim) »premičnim temeljem«, to je romantičnim dojemanjem subjekta in roman-tičnim idejno-strukturnim tokom simbolizacije.

A literary history glossary for the literature of the Moderne: revision and some suggestions. The literature of the Moderne period aesthetically communicates a metaphysical crisis, or a diversity of co-existing con-ceptions of the subject. The traditional, progressivist and unifying literary history view cannot properly account for this diversity. The article replaces it with a discontinuous-mutational view of different relationships that occur between the literature of the Moderne and its (Foucaultist) “shifting foundation” – that is, the romantic conception of the subject and the romantic symbolising current of ideas/structures.

Alongside the realist-naturalist conception of the subject, the artistic texts of the literature of the Moderne aesthetically express another four co-existing conceptions of the subject: if we determine the romantic conception of the subject as being absolute, to be the Foucaultist “shifting foundation” of litera-ture in the Moderne period, then its relation to the post-romantic and neo-romantic conceptions of the subject is that of modification (reduction or intensification of the subject’s absoluteness). The romantic subject’s relation to the decadent and symbolist conceptions of the subject is that of mutation; this is also proven by the changed understanding of the structure and function of a symbol in comparison to the romantic theory of the symbol. This change is substantiated also by a Geistesgeschichte interpretation of Baudelaire’s decadent and Mallarme’s symbolist poetry. The notion of symbolist movement, which is supposed to denote the anti-naturalist literature of the Moderne period, blurs this difference between the two conceptions of the subject and the symbolic structures of expression. Even the progressive notion of the literary trend can no longer explain the inner variety of the literature of the Moderne, because its aesthetic means of expression (symbolisation, allegori-sation, impressionist style) are no longer part of a closed aesthetic system of an individual trend, but rather intertwine simultaneously into open-system combinations of expressions. In order to preserve its awareness of the inner variety of Moderne literature, literary history interpretation should rather view it as a variety of currents of ideas/structures, which compress in not always predictable knots, into aesthetic expressions of various co-existing conceptions of the subject. With its relativism, this pluralism of conceptions of the subject within a literary period (Moderne) communicates a contemporary metaphysical crisis, which is expressed by the symbolist conception of the subject through such a radical use of symbolizing technique that the conception itself becomes a new “shifting foundation” for the disintegration of the subject in modernist literature.

Barbara Zorman: PREDSTAVLJANJE SUBJEKTIVNOSTI LIKA V LITERATURI IN FILMU

Interpretacija dveh različic Peklenske pomaranče raziskuje, kako se žari-ščenje manifestira v jezikovnem izrazu romana oziroma v pripovednem prostoru filma. Analiza periskopičnega pripovedovanja prek subjektivnosti lika nakazuje specifike manipulativnega potenciala filma in literature.

Presentation of character’s subjectivity in literature and film. The reading of Burgess’s and Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange examines how focali-zation is presented in the language of the novel and cinematic narrative space. By analysing a narrative which manifests itself as a reflection of character's subjectivity, it indicates specific manipulative potential of cinema and literature.

The reading of Burgess's and Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange questions the narratological concept of narrative as a deep structure independent of its medium. Conversely, it focuses on the specific artistic material which determines protagonist's role in narration. Examining the relation between the remembered and the remembering level of first-person narrator, it draws on the concept of focalization; a textual structure which by experiencing the narra-tive generates the process of narration. In both novel and film, the protagonist is the only focalizer that suppresses all others sources of narrative information and thus influences reception. The analysis of language in the novel proves that despite the psychological and temporal distance, the narrator’s account of events is conducted in nadsat - protagonist’s idiolect which signifies his youthful rebellion. Narrative objects are thus not only perceived but also verbalized through the consciousness of the focalizer. Nadstat is a humorous mix of Russian and English lexicon which clouds violent narrative events and consequently adjusts the receiver’s interpretation of narration to the protagonist’s. Focalizer’s influence in film is felt mainly in narrative space; a series of mental landscapes, externalisations of the protagonist’s conscious-ness. In violent scenes, attention is drawn to aesthetic elements; the choreo-graphy of rape and fights. The analysis of strategies which impose on the receiver protagonist’s interpretation of the narrative was conducted through parallel readings of novel and film to indicate the specifics of the manipu-lative potential of cinema and literature.

Alenka Koron: TEORIJE/TEORIJA DISKURZA IN LITERARNA VEDA I. del

Po terminološkem razgledu obravnavam teorije diskurza kot heterogen sklop novejših teoretično-metodoloških usmeritev v presečišču družboslovja in humanistike. Sledi pregled v literarni vedi najpogostejših koncepcij diskurza (lingvistične, naratološke, Bahtinove, Kristevine, filozofske in Foucaultove) in njihovih spoznavnoteoretskih predpostavk.

Theories/Theory of Discourse and Literary Studies: Part 1. Following a terminological examination, the present paper looks at the theories of discourse as a heterogeneous complex of recent theoretical and metho-dological approaches at the cross-section between the social sciences and the humanities. What follows is an overview of the most frequent conceptions of discourse within literary studies (those pertaining to lin-guistics, narratology, Bakhtin, Kristeva, philosophy and Foucault), and their epistemological and theoretical suppositions.

The theories of discourse are a heterogeneous complex of newer theoretical and methodological approaches springing from the meeting point of the social sciences and the humanities at the end of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies of the previous century, a time of intense methodological turning points, epistemological clarifications, and ideological self-reflections. What they have in common is their interdisciplinary nature, criticism of structuralist conceptions and understanding of language as verbal communication placed into concrete social and historical contexts, criticism of any essentialism, and the deconstruction of traditional metaphysical categories of subject, history, and meaning. The article retains the established distinction between the two main “schools” of discourse theories, the French post-structuralist approach and the Anglo-American discourse analysis focusing on contemporary linguistic approaches, although the main focus is on the first.

Theories of discourse are not easily discernible. It can be established from the analysed introductions to this discipline, written by Diane Macdonell, Jacob Torfing and Sara Mills, and the collection of essays Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft, edited by Jürgen Fohrmann and Harro Müller, that there is no consensus on the authors and approaches belonging to this discipline. As far as the correlation between theories of discourse with literature and literary studies is concerned, a precise focus can only be found in the Fohrmann/ Müller collection. An overview of the more prominent conceptions of discourse (in linguistics, narratology, Bakhtin and Kristeva, philosophy and Foucault) does also not shed more light on the matter. Setting aside the Anglophonic approaches to discourse analysis focusing on linguistics and the theory of mass media, it would on principle still be possible, due to the overlapping of some key epistemological and theoretical suppositions in the array of theories of discourse introduced to contemporary literary studies, to take numerous disciplines into account: neo- and post-Marxism, colonial and post-colonial studies, new historicism, cultural materialism and cultural studies, feminist theory, various disciplines deriving from post-structuralism, Barthes’ semiotics, psycho-analytical theory and deconstruction, the theory of intertextuality, Foucault’s discourse analysis, and partly also common points within reception aesthetics, the empirical literary science of Siegfried J. Schmidt, Bourdieu’s theory of the literary field and others. However, there is a prevalent approach in literary studies to research these theories separately and to narrow the complex of heterogeneous theoretical and methodological proposals to Foucault’s discourse analysis.