Razred za filološke in literarne vede SAZU,Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU,

Oddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani,Slovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost

Section for Philological and Literary Studies of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts,Institute for Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies of the SASA Scientific Research Centre,

Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, Slovenian Comparative Literature Association

Primerjalna književnostV 20. StoletjuSimpozij ob 100-letnici rojstva Antona OcvirkaPovzetki referatov

Comparative literature in the 20th centuryA Symposium Marking the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Anton OcvirkSummaries of the papers

Dvorana SAZU, Novi trg 3/I, 20.–21. september 2007Hall of SAZU, Novi trg 3/I, Ljubljana, September 20–21, 2007

Uredila: Darko Dolinar in Luka VidmarPrevodi: Deks in Luka VidmarOblikovanje: Narvika BovconStavek in prelom: Alenka MačekIzdajatelj: Inštitut za slovensko literaturo, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZUZa izdajatelja: Darko DolinarTisk: VZA, Logatec© 2007, Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, ZRC SAZU

Organizacijo simpozija je podprla Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost RS.

CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikacijiNarodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana

82.091(082)82.0(497.4)(082)82.0Ocvirk A.(082)

SIMPOZIJ ob 100-letnici rojstva Antona Ocvirka (2007 ; Ljubljana) Primerjalna književnost v 20. stoletju : povzetki referatov = Comparative literature in the 20th century : summaries of the papers / Simpozij ob 100-letnici rojstva Antona Ocvirka = A Symposium Marking the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Anton Ocvirk ; [uredila Darko Dolinar in Luka Vidmar ; prevodi Deks in Luka Vidmar]. - Ljubljana : Inštitut za slovensko literaturo, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2007

ISBN 978-961-254-021-01. Gl. stv. nasl. 2. Vzp. stv. nasl. 3. Dolinar, Darko, 1942-

234914304

V s e b i n a

France Bernik:5 Zbrana dela – temelj slovenske literarne vede6 Collected Works: The Foundations of Slovenian Literary Studies

Jean Bessi re:7 Primerjalna književnost in etika: reinterpretacija dihotomije univerzalizem/relativizem8 Comparative Literature and Ethics: Reinterpreting the Universalism/Relativism Dichotomy

Vladimir Biti:9 Od literature do kulture – in nazaj?11 From Literature to Culture – and Back?

Darko Dolinar:13 Ocvirkovo pojmovanje literarnega dela15 Ocvirk’s Concept of the Literary Work

Eugene Eoyang:17 Sinergije in sinestezije: znotrajsvetovna primerjalna književnost18 Synergies and Synaesthesias: An Intraworldly Comparative Literature

Vita Fortunati:19 Literarni tekst kot kompleksni sistem v planetarni perspektivi20 The Literary Text as a Complex System in a Planetary Perspective

Péter Hajdu:21 Neoheliconove lokalne tradicije in sedanje strategije22 Neohelicon’s Local Traditions and Present Strategies

Marko Juvan:23 Ideologije primerjalne književnosti: metropole in periferije (hipoteze za možno raziskavo)26 Ideologies of Comparative Literature: Metropolises and Peripheries (Hypotheses for Possible

Research)

Evald Koren:29 Dama, ki izgine ali Je literatura v novi primerjalni književnosti in novih zgodovinah

nacionalnih literatur še sploh zaželeni osrednji predmet zanimanja?31 The Lady Vanishes, or Does Literature Still Hold Appeal as a Central Subject of Interest in

the New Comparative Literature and the New Histories of National Literatures?

Janko Kos:33 Filozofski, nacionalni in ideološki temelji slovenske primerjalne književnosti34 Philosophical, National, and Ideological Bases of Slovenian Comparative Literature

Zvonko Kovač:35 Primerjalna književnost po Hergešiću in Ocvirku (Aleksandar Flaker, Zoran Konstantinović)36 Comparative Literature According to Hergešić and Ocvirk (Aleksandar Flaker, Zoran

Konstantinović)

Vanesa Matajc:38 Soočenost s trendom: primerjalna literarna veda in kulturna zgodovina39 Facing a Trend: Comparative Literary Studies and Cultural History

Zoran Milutinović:40 Ali je zgodovina svetovne književnosti mogoča?42 Is a History of World Literature Possible?

Dušan Moravec:44 Estetska merila Ocvirkove gledališke kritike45 Esthetic Criteria of Ocvirk’s Theater Criticism

John Neubauer:46 Kaj so ingresivne literarne zgodovine in zakaj jih potrebujemo?47 What Are Ingressive Literary Histories and Why Do We Need Them?

Boris A. Novak:49 Ocvirkova teorija verza50 Ocvirk’s Theory of Verse

Vlasta Pacheiner Klander:52 Orientalske literature v programu profesorja Ocvirka za študij svetovne književnosti54 Oriental Literatures in Ocvirk’s World Literature Studies Program

Tone Smolej:58 Lucien Tesni re in slovenska primerjalna književnost59 Lucien Tesni re and Slovenian Comparative Literature

Monica Spiridon: 60 Nova zavezništva61 The New Alliances

Majda Stanovnik:62 Ocvirkov koncept primerjalne književnosti in zbirka Sto romanov63 Ocvirk’s Concept of Comparative Literature and the Collection Sto romanov (One Hundred

Novels)

Sonja Stojmenska-Elzeser:65 Kaj pomeni biti raziskovalec v primerjalni književnosti v Makedoniji?67 What Does it Mean to Study Comparative Literature in Macedonia?

Jola Škulj:69 Temeljne koncepcije slovenske komparativistike in aktualni komparativistični vidiki70 Founding Concepts in Slovenian Comparative Literature and Current Comparative

Initiatives

Galin Tihanov:72 Prihodnost literarne zgodovine: troje izzivov v 21. stoletju73 The Future of Literary History: Three Challenges in the 21st Century

Tomo Virk:74 Univerzalna ali nacionalna, globalna ali lokalna – ali pluralna primerjalna književnost?75 Universal or National, Global or Local: Or a Plural Comparative Literature?

Janez Vrečko:76 Ocvirkov pogled na Kosovela77 Ocvirk’s Perspective on Kosovel

Miloš Zelenka:78 K teoretičnemu pojmovanju t. i. obče literature v medvojnem obdobju (Frank Wollman in

Anton Ocvirk in njuno razumevanje Paula Van Tieghema)80 On the Theoretical Concept of General Literature in the Interwar Period (Frank Wollman

and Anton Ocvirk, and Their Reflections on Paul Van Tieghem)

83 U d e l e ž e n c i

Zgodovina nacionalne zbirke slovenske estetske književnosti, ki izhaja že več kot šestdeset let, se na prvi pogled zdi preprosta in nezapletena. V resnici se v njej izključujoče prepletata do nastanka samostojne sloven-ske države dva dejavnika: strokovni in ideološko politični. Strokovni vidik je prevladal pri nastanku zbirke 1946, v izboru Antona Ocvirka za njene-ga glavnega urednika, ne nazadnje tudi v široki, svetovnonazorsko različni skupini sodelavcev urednikov v začetku izhajanja. Pravi vdor marksistične ideologije v koncept zbirke, v problematiko monografij k Zbranim delom, pa se je zgodil 1959/60, ko sta Državna založba Slovenije in glavni urednik zbir-ke zavrnila Koblarjevo monografijo o Gregorčiču in za več desetletij zavrla izdajanje monografij. Da je bil celo izbor slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev v prvih desetletjih enostranski, dokazujejo tudi izbrana oziroma zbrana dela tradicionalnih katoliških pisateljev, ki jih je v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih izdajala Mohorjeva družba v Celju, kar je nedvomno kazalo na kritiko in dopolnilo nacionalne zbirke. Vendar so dosežki Zbranih del mnogo večji od njihovih šibkosti. Vrhunec Ocvirkovega glavnega uredništva predstavlja vse-kakor Cankarjevo zbrano delo s pomlajeno skupino sodelavcev, v kateri se že nakazuje nova podoba zbirke. Ocvirkov naslednik France Bernik, glavni urednik Zbranih del od 1981, je uspel preseči ideološka in druga nasprotja, podedovana iz zgodnjega obdobja. Nasploh je postal nadaljnji razvoj Zbra-nih del vedno manj odvisen od politike in vedno bolj od kapitala. Tako se je Državna založba Slovenije leta 2000 odpovedala zbirki iz komercialnih razlogov, novoustanovljena študentska založba Litera pa je zbirko prevzela gotovo tudi iz težnje po lastni uveljavitvi. Bernikovo vodenje zbirke, ki sodi večidel v demokratično obdobje nacionalne zgodovine, v čas samostojne slovenske države, kaže razumeti prav v tem okviru. Pri izboru klasikov kot pri angažiranju urednikov se je uveljavilo načelo pluralizma in estetska ka-kovost je obveljala kot najstrožje merilo pri kanonizaciji in sprejemanju lite-rarnih ustvarjalcev v slovenski panteon. Sprostilo se je pisanje monografij k Zbranim delom. Od 1990 je izšlo šest sintetičnih obravnav slovenskih klasi-kov, med njimi monografija o Ivanu Cankarju. Končni dosežek največjega literarnozgodovinskega in založniškega projekta na Slovenskem, pri kate-rem je do danes sodelovalo več kot petindvajset preučevalcev naše besedne umetnosti vseh generacij, je izjemen: sedemindvajset najpomembnejših pesnikov in pisateljev ima zaključeno zbrano delo, izdajanje sedmih klasi-kov se nadaljuje. Vsega skupaj je doslej izšlo 220 knjig besedil, opremljenih z znanstvenokritičnim aparatom, in 7 monografij v dvanajstih zvezkih.

FranceBernik

Zbrana dela – temelj slovenske literarne vede

5

At first glance, the history of the Slovenian national collection of art lit-erature, which has been issued for more than sixty years now, seems simple and uncomplicated. In truth, two irreconcilable factors influenced the col-lection until the creation of the independent Slovenian state: professional-ism vs. ideology and politics. When the collection was created in 1946, the professional perspective predominated both in the selection of Anton Ocvirk as its chief editor, and in the large group of editors with various world views. The true invasion of Marxist ideology into the collection’s concept occurred in 1959/60, and concerned the publication of monographs accompanying the series Zbrana dela (Collected Works); the publisher (Državna založba Slo-venije, DZS) and the collection’s chief editor rejected France Koblar’s mono-graph on Simon Gregorčič and hindered the publication of monographs for several decades. In the first decades, even the selection of Slovenian poets and writers was biased, which is proven by the selected or collected works of Catholic writers published in the 1950s and 1960s by the Hermagoras Society in Celje; these publications definitely indicated that the national collection should be criticized and supplemented. However, the achievements of Col-lected Works are much greater than their deficiencies. The apex of Ocvirk’s editorship is, without doubt, Cankar’s collected works, accomplished with a group of young associates, in which the collection’s new image can already be observed. Ocvirk’s successor France Bernik, the chief editor of Collected Works since 1981, succeeded in reaching beyond the ideological and other oppositions inherited from the collection’s early period. In general, the fur-ther development of Collected Works became less dependent on politics and increasingly more on economics. Thus in 2000, DZS stopped publishing the collection for financial reasons, and the newly established student publishing house Litera likely also took over the collection because of its own need to establish itself. Bernik’s editorship, which for the most part belonged to the democratic period of Slovenian history – that is, the independent Slovenian state – should also be understood as part of this framework. In the selection of classic authors as well as hiring editors, the principle of pluralism was es-tablished, and esthetic quality was the strictest criterion in canonizing and ac-cepting writers into the Slovenian pantheon. Monographs to Collected Works started to be issued again. Since 1990, six synthetic works on Slovenian clas-sic authors have been published, including the monograph on Ivan Cankar. The final achievement of the largest Slovenian literary history and publishing project, in which more than twenty-five Slovenian literary scholars from all generations have participated to date, is outstanding: the collected works of the twenty-seven most important poets and writers have been published in their entirety, and works by seven classic authors are continuing to be pub-lished. So far, 220 editions of texts accompanied by critical commentary have been published in addition to seven monographs in twelve volumes.

Collected Works: The Foundations of Slovenian Literary Studies

�

7

JeanBessi re

Primerjalna književnost in etika: reinterpretacija: reinterpretacija dihotomije univerzalizem/relativizem

V primerjalni književnosti se vse premalokrat obravnava tema: raznolikost upravičevanj primerjanja literatur, ki pripadajo različnim kulturam, narodom in jezikom. Poudarjam besedo �raznolikost�, ker segajo ta upravičevanja odPoudarjam besedo �raznolikost�, ker segajo ta upravičevanja od sklicevanja na pojem literature, identificiran z neke vrste univerzalnim kon-ceptom, do trditve, da so literature navezane na omejene skupnosti in da se njihove povezave ne morejo nanašati na nikakršno univerzalno stališče. Ta opažanja lahko formuliramo popolnoma odkrito: primerjalna književnost je danes dokončno določena z opozicijo med �univerzalizmom� in �komu-nitarizmom�. Zadnja beseda se nanaša na narode, kulturne skupnosti in velike družbene skupine, ki prepoznavajo v literarni ustvarjalnosti svoj po-sebni in pravi izraz.

Ta dvojnost ali dihotomija določa ozadje za večino diskusij o postkolo-nializmu, postmodernizmu ter za ločevanje med literaturami, vezanimi na periferijo, in literaturami, vezanimi na center. Nedavne razprave o sedanji geografiji in geopolitiki literatur potrjujejo ta opažanja.

Moj namen je zagovarjati trditev, da se ta dvojnost in te diskusije na-našajo na etično upravičevanje primerjalne književnosti. To sklicevanje je najpogosteje implicitno, vendar odločilno. Enako je postavljanju odkritega vprašanja: kaj dovoljuje kritiku, da primerja literature s statusi, ki med seboj niso primerljivi – �staro� in �porajajočo se� literaturo; literaturo, ki ima v procesu literarne izmenjave (prevod, izdaja itn.) centralen položaj, in lite-raturo, ki tega položaja nima. Besede �primerjati� ne bi smeli interpretirati preveč dobesedno; nanaša se na vse vrste ved.

Pravim �etično�, ker bi se moralo edino upravičevanje primerjalne knji-ževnosti, ki bi se ga smelo izraziti, glasiti: vse literature imajo iste pravice do obstoja in priznanja ter so lahko glede na različne in včasih nezdružljive metode prav zaradi teh istih pravic sočasno predmet branja in študija. Po-polnoma pa se zavedam, da bi se moral izogniti istovetenju tega etičnega upravičevanja z nekakšnim ahistoričnim, akulturnim, arhimedsko nepre-mičnim stališčem. Da ne bi zašli v takšno slepo ulico, moramo etično per-spektivo, implicitno prisotno v primerjalni književnosti, razumeti kot tisto perspektivo, ki omogoča bralcem in kritikom, da obravnavajo literature kot izražanje celotnega razpona medsebojno nasprotnih si dobrin, od katerih lahko živimo in moramo živeti, kakor pač vemo in znamo. Povedano z dru-gimi besedami: primerjalno književnost lahko identificiramo z neke vrste etičnim pogajanjem med literaturami. To pogajanje na literature ne aplicira etičnih meril, temveč jim omogoča, da se definirajo kot specifične replike na etične dileme, ki si jih lahko delijo mnogi narodi, kulture in skupnosti.

8

In Comparative Literature studies, one issue is to scarcely addressed: the varieties of justifications for comparing literatures, which belong to various cultures, nations and languages. I stress the word “varieties” because these justifications range from references to the notion of literature, identified to a kind of universal concept, to the assertion that literatures are linked to circumscribed communities and their links may not be referred to any kind of universal standpoint. These remarks can be reformulated quite bluntly: Comparative Literature studies are finally determined today by the opposi-tion between “universalism” and “communitarism” — this last word refers to nations, cultural communities, large social groups, which do recognize literary productions as their specific and proper expressions.

This duality or dichotomy provides the background for most of the dis-cussions about postcolonialism, postmodernism, and for the division be-tween literatures identified to the periphery and literatures identified to the centre. Recent essays about geography and geopolitics of literatures today confirm these remarks.

My argument intends to assert that this duality and these debates refer to the ethical justification of Comparative Literature. This reference is most often implicit; it is however determinant. It equates with asking a blunt question: what does allow the critic to compare literatures with statuses that are not comparable — an “old” literature and an “emerging” one; a literature that is central in literary exchanges (translation, publication, etc.) and one which is not. The word “to compare” should not be interpreted too literally; it refers to all kinds of studies.

I say “ethical” because the only justification for Comparative Literature, which is to be expressed, should read as follows: all literatures hold the same rights to existence and recognition, and may be read and studied si-multaneously according to various and sometimes contradictory methods, because they hold these same rights. But, I am quite aware that I should avoid identifying this ethical justification to some ahistorical, acultural Archimedian foothold. In order to avoid this kind of impasse, the ethical perspective which Comparative Literature studies imply, should be viewed as the one which enables readers and critics to treat literatures as express-ing that full range of mutually conflicting goods we can live by, and need to live by in order to live as well as we can. Put in other words, Comparative Literature studies can be identified to a kind of ethical negotiation between literatures; this negotiation does not apply an ethical scale to literatures, but allow them to be defined as specific replies to ethical issues, which can be shared, by many nations, cultures, communities.

Comparative Literature and Ethics: Reinterpreting the Universalism/Relativism Dichotomy

9

VladimirBiti

Od literature do kulture – in nazaj?

Z napredujočo globalizacijo literature proti koncu 19. stoletja je naci-onalne literarne zgodovine postsopno nadomestila evropska perspektiva kot njihov domnevno vseobsegajoči okvir. Toda po Ferdinandu Brunetie ru (Evropska literatura, 1904), katerega delo zaznamuje pojav ideje primerjalne književnosti, si je evropska literatura tistega časa – daleč od tega, da bi bila avtonomna in neodvisna – svojo značilno identiteto pridobila šele na ozad-ju raznih azijskih literatur. Čeprav so te �sosedne literature� v preteklosti več stoletij uživale prednost pred evropsko literaturo, jih v �sodobnem času� niso več imeli za njene estetske �vrstnice�. Zaradi tega zakoreninjenega pre-pričanja se je najprej na prvi stopnji vzpostavila zgodovinska asimetrija med evropsko in neevropsko literaturo, da se je lahko nato na drugi stopnji ista asimetrija – skoraj samoumevno – prenesla na odnose med posameznimi evropskimi literaturami. Te so bile vse pazljivo razvrščene glede na svojo �naprednost�. Glede na to, da je bila nepremagljiva sila takšne zgodovinske perspektive odvisna od pripovedne koherentnosti, je bilo vse, kar je kakor-koli ogrožalo to zasnovo – mnogoterost, heterogenost, naključnost – odri-njeno na rob ali povsem izločeno iz nje.

Toda po več desetletjih izvajanja in razvijanja se je osnovni diskrimina-cijski vzorec te politike predstavljanja izkazal za sramotnega za evropsko �progresivno� idejo zgodovine. Z namenom, da se povzdigne, kar je bilo izobčeno, tj. ne le neevropske, marveč tudi podrejene in marginalizirane evropske kulture, so v šestdesetih letih sprožili projekt kulturnih študij. S te perspektive izpodbijanje delitve na posamezne nacionalne literature na način, kakor ga je izvajala primerjalna književnost, ni zadostovalo. Ne le to delitev, ampak idejo literature sámo je bilo treba preoblikovati tako, da bi vključila svoje neizmerljive konceptualizacije v drugače strukturirane in na drug način podprte kulturne okvire. Zato je projekt kulturnih študij prerasel interdisciplinarne programe, ki so zgolj prevzeli vseobsegajoči pristop, ne da bi se ukvarjali z razmislekom o politiki predstavljanja in znanja kot njene osnove. Obstaja več razlogov, zakaj so bile kulturne študije v nekem po-gledu izbrane, da postavijo vprašanje politike znanstvene vednosti. Prvič: nastale so iz izobraževalnih programov za odrasle iz obdobja med tride-setimi in petdesetimi leti 20. stoletja, ki so se morali prilagoditi posebni življenjski izkušnji zrelih in politično angažiranih študentov, nanovačenih iz nižjih slojev. Videti je, da so centri za nadaljnje izobraževanje odraslih prav s pomočjo te nenavadne pedagoške prakse omajali ideološko in institucio-nalno učinkovitost prevladujoče ideje literature. Prva posledica te subver-zije je bila ideja o neločljivosti estetskih, kulturnih, ideoloških, socioloških in političnih ozirov, ki je tekmovala s čistostjo literarnih študij, posvečenih

10

t. i. visoki literaturi. Druga posledica, ki je izšla neposredno iz prve, je bila spoznanje, da je na prvi pogled nepristranska estetika, ki oklepa svoje prei-skovanje lepote v strogo določene znanstvene izraze, neizogibno povezana s predirljivim odnosom dominacije in eksploatacije. Kakor hitro se začne pojavljati vase zaverovana znanstvena vednost, začne delovati tudi igno-ranca celostne resnice.

Zato so, na primer, t. i. vsakdanje življenje, ki ga je Henri Lefebvre ironično opisal kot �tisto, kar ostane po tem, ko je analiza izločila vse posebne, višje, specializirane in strukturirane dejavnosti�, razumeli kot nevredno znanstvene pozornosti. Po Michelu de Certeauju kulturne študije prebavljajo te �ostale� elemente znanstvene ekspertize na podoben način, kakor je bilo to približno pred enim stoletjem običajno za heterogeno formo romana. Ta forma se je s svojo naklonjenostjo marginalnim in senčnim običajem meščanske družbe postopno spremenila, kakor se je izrazil de Certau, v �živalski vrt vsakdanjih praks od vzpostavitve moderne znanosti�. Za natančno takšne – obenem ne-disciplinirane in transdisciplinarne – se imajo običajno kulturne študije. Če de Certeau prestavlja literaturo v želen okvir kulturnih študij, počne to zaradi njene konstitutivne nesposobnosti, da bi predstavila katerikoli samostojen predmet z ozirom na popolno predanost njegovim izključenim in spektralnim ostankom. Ti ostanki se ne izražajo v nobeni učinkoviti ustvarjalnosti, temveč samo v subverzivni potrošnji, v ponovni prisvojitvi orodij in njihovi uporabi proti vnaprejšnji določitvi svoje uporabe. Kulturne študije izvajajo v gibanju med znanostmi podobno �razlastitveno operacijo�. Kakor se je izrazil neki razlagalec, temelji celoten britanski projekt kulturnih študij na �sposobnosti plenjenja pri bolj uveljavljenih znanostih, medtem ko ostaja ločen od njih�.

Toda za usmeritev kulturnih študij v podrejene in marginalizirane kul-ture se lahko na koncu izkaže, da jo navdihuje stara kantovska nostalgija po vseobsegajoči človeški izobrazbi. Kljub različnim namenom se prav tako ne da spregledati njihovega ujemanja z Leavisovim načrtom vseobsegajo-čih literarnih študij, saj v obeh primerih �kvaziveda� na koncu energično zaobjame in nadomesti vede. Kakor v primeru romana, ki ga je de Certau vzel kot prehodni model za prihodnje transdisciplinarno raziskovanje, to ne-izogibno vključuje institucionalno samopooblastitev kulturnih študij in vodi do podobno diskriminatornih posledic. Konec koncev se velja spomniti, da zaznamuje prilastitev �znanstvenih ostankov� moderno univerzo vse od nje-nih začetkov. Prav z uporabo te močno uveljavljene tehnike zahodne identi-tetne politike, ki dodeljuje �pošastnemu� drugemu v vnaprej dogovorjenih odnosih mesto �družinskega člana�, so bile kulturne študije na hiter in laheh način sprejete na zahodnih univerzah. Toda cena te nagle institucionalizacije je bila ponovna utrditev, ne pa odprava marginalnosti prisvojenega druge-ga. Pred kratkim smo bili zato priča �protikulturološkemu obratu�, ki ga je sprožil odpor proti takšni pomiritvi ali skupni usodi, ki naj bi jo ponazarjala neugotovljiva posebnost literature (Attridge 2004; Clark 2005). Zadnji del mojega predavanja se bo ukvarjal s tem obratom kakor tudi z nekoliko pro-blematičnimi posledicami ideje literature, ki jo je postavil v ospredje.

11

From Literature to Culture – and Back?

With the rising globalization of literature toward the end of 19th century national literary histories got gradually replaced by European perspective as their putative all-embracing framework. However, according to Ferdi-nand Brunetie re (The European Literature, 1904) whose work marks the emergence of the idea of Comparative Literature, European literature of that time, far from having been autonomous and sovereign, acquired its distinctive identity only against the background of various Asian literatures. Though these “fellow literatures” had enjoyed priority over European litera-ture for many previous centuries, “in modern times” they were no longer regarded to be aesthetic “equals” of the latter. Due to this enrooted con-viction, a historical asymmetry between the European and non-European literature was established in the first step in order to be then, in the second step, almost as a matter of course transferred onto the relations between particular European literatures. They have been equally carefully gradated as to their “progressiveness”. Inasmuch as the compelling force of such historical perspective depended on the narrative coherence of its events, whatever was threatening this plot by multiplicity, heterogeneity and con-tingency was marginalized or completely ruled out from it.

However, after several decades of its implementation and development, the underlying discriminative pattern of this politics of representation came to the fore compromising the European “progressive” idea of history. In or-der to take up what was excommunicated by it, i.e. not only non-European but also European subordinated and marginalized cultures, the project of Cultural Studies was launched in 1960s. From its perspective challenging the divisions between particular national literatures in the way as the idea of Comparative Literature did was insufficient. Not just these divisions, the very idea of literature had to be reshaped in order to include its incommen-surable conceptualizations within the differently structured and unequally supported cultural frames. The project of Cultural Studies, therefore, grew out of the suspicion of interdisciplinary programs that merely adopt an all-inclusive approach without engaging with concerns about the politics of representation and knowledge that underlies it. There are several reasons why Cultural Studies was in a certain sense elected to raise the question of the politics of disciplinary knowledge. First of all, it emerged out of adult education programs between 1930s and the 1950s who were obliged to deal with the particular life experience of mature and politically engaged students recruited from subaltern classes. Precisely through such an unu-sual teaching praxis, centers for continuing adult education appear to have subverted the ideological and institutional efficacy of the ruling idea of lit-erature. First consequence of this subversion was the idea of inseparability of aesthetic, cultural, ideological, social and political concerns, which con-tested the purity of literary studies devoted to the so called high literature.

12

Second consequence, derived directly from the first, was the insight that the apparently disinterested aesthetics that enclosed its pursuit of beauty into strict disciplinary terms was necessarily involved with the pervasive relations of domination and exploitation. As soon as the self-oriented disciplinary knowledge is put in use, ignorance toward the whole truth is set to work.

This is why, for example, the so called everyday life, ironically described by Henri Lefebvre as “what is left over after all distinct, superior, specialized, structured activities have been singled out by analysis”, was considered as unworthy of scientific attention. According to Michel de Certeau Cultural Studies digests these “leftover” elements of disciplinary expertise in a very similar way as, a century or so ago, the heterogeneous form of the novel used to do. This form with its inclination towards marginal and shadowy customs of bourgeois society gradually turned, as de Certeau puts it, into “the zoo of everyday practices since the establishment of modern science”. It is exactly in this simultaneously undisciplined and transdisciplinary way that Cultural Studies use to regard themselves. If de Certeau promotes liter-ature into the desired model of Cultural Studies, it is because of its constitu-tive inability to represent any sovereign subject due to a complete devotion to its excluded and spectral leftovers. These remnants do not express their selves through any efficient production but just through a subversive con-sumption, re-appropriation of instruments and turning them against their pre-designated implementation. Cultural Studies use a similar expropriating operation in moving between the disciplines. As one commentator put it, the whole British project of Cultural Studies relies on the “ability to plunder the more established disciplines while remaining separate from them”.

However, this alignment of Cultural Studies with subordinated and mar-ginalized cultures outside academia may ultimately turn out to be animated by old Kantian nostalgia for an all-inclusive humane education. Despite op-posite intentions, one cannot oversee its concordance with Leavis’ project of all-encompassing literary studies as well, as in both cases the “quasi-disci-pline” in the end powerfully embraces and supersedes the disciplines. Like in the case of the novel, taken by de Certeau to be the transgressing model for the forthcoming transdisciplinary research, this inevitably includes the institutional self-empowerment of Cultural Studies and amounts to similarly discriminating consequences. It is after all worth reminding that an appro-priation of a “disciplinary remnant” characterizes the modern university from its beginnings. Precisely by using this well established technique of Western identity politics which assigns the “monstrous” other on pre-agreed terms a site of a “family member”, Cultural Studies experienced fast and easy acceptance by the Western universities. But the price of this swift institution-alization was that it reinforced instead of ameliorated the marginality of the appropriated other. We therefore recently witness the “counter-culturalist turn” induced by the resistance to such an appeasement or communal desti-ny exemplified in literature’s unidentifiable singularity (Attridge 2004; Clark 2005). The last part of my paper will deal with this turn as well as somewhat problematic consequences of the idea of literature put forth by it.

13

DarkoDolinar

Ocvirkovo pojmovanje literarnega dela

V Ocvirkovem aktivnem življenjskem razdobju, približno od 1930 do 1980, so se v literarni vedi evropsko-ameriškega kroga dogajale bistvene teoretične in metodološke spremembe. Podobni procesi, le ne tako obsežni in razvejeni, so ob istem času potekali tudi v slovenski literarni vedi. Na začetku je v njej še prevladoval modificirani pozitivizem oziroma empirič-ni historizem, povezan s posameznimi elementi in širšimi sklopi novejših smeri, predvsem duhovne zgodovine; ob koncu teh petih desetletij so bili v njej dodobra uveljavljeni fenomenološki pogledi na literaturo, vanjo je pro-drl tudi že strukturalizem, pomešan s prvinami poststrukturalizma (četudi takrat še ne nedvoumno prepoznanega). Ob tem se je v žarišče pozornosti čedalje bolj premikala problematika literarnega dela.

Ta referat izhaja od prepričanja, da je Ocvirk gotovo imel pomemben delež v tem procesu, in si prizadeva osvetliti njegov prispevek. Da bi lah-ko ustrezno umestil osrednje vprašanje o literarnem delu v širši kontekst, rekonstruira glavne poteze Ocvirkove sistematike literarne vede. Pri tem je treba upoštevati, da je Ocvirk gojil skepso do abstraktnih, zgolj teoretič-nih ali filozofskih miselnih konstrukcij in jih je venomer znova preverjal ob konkretnih, empirično ugotovljivih literarnih pojavih. Takšno povezovanje se kaže na vseh ravneh njegovega diskurza, ena njegovih pojavnih oblik je obojesmerno medsebojno prežemanje literarne teorije in zgodovine. Sámo literarno teorijo deli Ocvirk na občo in posebno. V občo sodijo sistematika predmeta, metodologija literarne vede, hermenevtika, filozofski, psihološki in sociološki pogledi na literaturo in še posebej teorija ustvarjanja; v poseb-no pa teorija snovi ali tematologija, raziskovanje literarnih izraznih sredstev oziroma stila, teorija in zgodovina verza ter vprašanja literarnih vrst, zvrsti in oblik. Očitno je torej, da so problematiki literarnega dela blizu zlasti special-ni literarnoteoretični vidiki. Za obravnavo te problematike pa je pomembna tudi opredelitev predmetnih oziroma raziskovalnih območij literarne vede: to so po Ocvirku doba, pesniška oziroma ustvarjalna osebnost in literarno delo. Vsa tri območja so med seboj vzročno povezana, zato ni mogoče no-benega izločiti ne iz literarne zgodovine ne iz literarne teorije, čeprav imajo v eni ali drugi različno specifično težo. Tako je doba predmet pogostejše in bolj poglobljene zgodovinske obravnave in je v teoretičnem sistematskem pregledu deležna le nekaj kratkih opažanj, medtem ko je ustvarjalni oseb-nosti in literarnemu delu tam posvečene dosti več pozornosti. Disciplina, ki najtesneje povezuje ti dve območji, je teorija ustvarjanja; relevantna je tako za specifiko avtorske osebnosti kakor tudi za pojmovanje literarnega dela, saj tega ni mogoče ustrezno spoznati, ne da bi raziskovali sile, ki posegajo v proces njegovega nastajanja.

14

Ocvirk se sooča z različnimi starejšimi in sodobnimi načelnimi pogledi na literarno delo ter jih razporeja v tri skupine, ki jih poimenuje tako: biolo-ško-psihološko pojmovanje, strukturalistično pojmovanje, pojmovanje lite-rarnega dela kot duhovnega organizma. S kritičnim pretresom upoštevanih literarnovednih šol ali smeri in njihovih reprezentativnih del ugotavlja, ka-kšni so njihovi idejni temelji in kaj je na njihovih pogledih morda še spreje-mljivo, kaj pa je treba zavreči. V tej konfrontaciji si postopno izoblikuje svoje pojmovanje, katerega zrelo fazo je mogoče na kratko povzeti tako: literarno delo je estetski organizem, specifičen spoj ideje, snovi in oblike; to komple-ksno celoto, ustvarjeno z jezikovnim gradivom, opredeljuje sinteza njenih različnih funkcij, med katerimi prevladuje estetska funkcija; in prav prek sin-teze funkcij je mogoče raziskovati bistvene lastnosti literarnega dela.

Orisani načelni pogled izkazuje nekaj pomembnih značilnosti. S tem ko priznava relevantnost geneze literarnega dela in legitimnost genetičnih raziskav, povezuje literarno delo z avtorjem in prek njega z dobo, torej z večrazsežnostnimi zgodovinskimi procesi. Toda ob tem uveljavlja relativno avtonomnost literarne umetnosti, utemeljeno v njeni estetski funkciji, in nanjo navezuje možnost raziskovanja v mnogo različnih smeri. Takšno poj-movanje, četudi marsikdaj implicitno in v zgodnji dobi seveda še ne docela razvito, je usmerjalo tudi Ocvirkove dolgoletne raziskave geneze literarnih del, stila oziroma jezikovnih izraznih sredstev, oblike, zlasti verzne, s teorijo in zgodovino verza vred, kompozicije in zakonitosti literarnih vrst in zvrsti. (Opazno je, da se je sam veliko ukvarjal s tistimi raziskovalnimi področji in problemi, ki jih je uvrščal v t. i. specialno literarno teorijo.)

Ocvirkovo kompleksno pojmovanje literarnega dela kot osrednjega literarnoteoretičnega območja seveda ni brez notranje problematike in s perspektive poznejšega razvoja stroke je zlahka mogoče uzreti njegove meje. Vprašljiv je npr. njegov opis strukturalizma; tudi njegovo ignoriranje recepcijskih procesov se lahko zdi moteče. Toda ti pomisleki obledijo, če si predočimo čas in razmere, v kakršnih se je Ocvirk formiral in v njih deloval. Opisani spoj njegovih načelnih pogledov in konkretne raziskovalne prakse je omogočil, da se je literarna teorija, kakršno je gojil Ocvirk, postavila ob bok literarni zgodovini kot enakovredna sestavina kompleksne literarne vede, medtem ko je dotlej veljala samo za njeno podrejeno ali pomožno di-sciplino. Utemeljitev literarne teorije s takšnim statusom je – poleg uteme-ljitve primerjalne književnosti – drugi bistveni Ocvirkov prispevek k razvoju in modernizaciji slovenske literarne vede.

15

Ocvirk’s Concept of the Literary Work

During Ocvirk’s active career – that is, from approximately 1930 to 1980, fundamental theoretical and methodological changes took place in Euro-pean and American literary studies. At the same time, similar processes, only not as extensive and variegated, were also underway in Slovenian literary studies. Initially, modified positivism or empirical historicism complemented individual elements, and wider sets of new directions, especially intellec-tual history, still prevailed in them. At the end of these fifty years, phenom-enological views of literature were well established in literary studies, and structuralism mixed with post-structuralist elements (although at that time not yet unambiguously recognizable) had already entered them as well. In addition, the concept of the literary work was gaining increasingly more attention.

This paper proceeds from the belief that Ocvirk clearly had an impor-tant role in this process, and it seeks to shed light on his contribution. To place the central issue of the literary work in a wider context, the paper reconstructs the main features of Ocvirk’s systematics of literary scholar-ship. It must be taken into account that Ocvirk was skeptical regarding abstract, merely theoretical, or philosophical constructions, and he contin-ued to check them against concrete and empirically ascertainable literary phenomena. This kind of correlation can be observed at all levels of his dis-course; one of its manifestations is the mutual permeation of literary theory and history. Ocvirk divides literary theory into general and special literary theory. General literary theory includes the following: the systematics of the object; the methodology of literary studies; hermeneutics; philosophi-cal, psychological and sociological views of literature; and especially theo-ry of artistic creation. Special literary theory includes the theory of themes (or thematology), the study of literary means of expression or style, the theory and history of verse, and issues connected with literary types, gen-res, and forms. It is thus obvious that the aspects of special literary theory are particularly close to the concept of the literary work. In order to discuss this issue it is, however, important to define the research areas of literary studies. Ocvirk distinguishes between the period, the poet’s (i.e., creative) personality, and the literary work. All three areas are causally connected, which is why it is impossible to exclude any of them from either literary history or literary theory despite their various specific weight in one or the other. Thus the period is subject to more frequent and detailed histori-cal treatment. However, within the theoretical systematic overview, only a few brief observations have been dedicated to it, whereas the creative personality and the literary work have received far more attention in this area. The theory of artistic creation connects these two areas most closely; it is relevant for both the specific features of the author’s personality as well as the understanding of the literary work because the latter cannot be

1�

appropriately understood without studying the forces participating in the process of its creation.

Ocvirk deals with various older and modern concepts of the literary work and classifies them into three groups, for which he uses the follow-ing names: the biological-psychological concept, the structuralist concept, and the concept of the literary work as an intellectual organism. Through critical analysis of these schools or directions of literary studies and their representative works, he establishes their ideological foundations, point-ing out what might be still acceptable in their views, and what should be rejected. In this confrontation, he gradually forms his own understanding, the mature phase of which can be summarized as follows: the literary work is an esthetic organism, a specific combination of an idea, material, and form. This complex whole created with linguistic material is constituted by the synthesis of its various functions, among which the esthetic function predominates; this synthesis of functions enables the study of the literary work’s basic features.

Ocvirk’s theoretical framework demonstrates several important charac-teristics. By admitting the relevance of the literary work’s genesis and the legitimacy of genetic research, it links the literary work with the author and through him with the period – that is, with multi-dimensional historical processes. However, it nevertheless establishes a relative autonomy of liter-ature based on its esthetic function, which opens the possibility of research in various directions. Such a concept, although frequently implicit and not fully developed in its early stage, also directed Ocvirk’s genetic studies of literary works, their style or linguistic means of expression, their verse forms (including the theory and history of verse), and the compositional forms and rules of genology. (It is evident that he invested much time in dealing with the research areas and issues that he classified under special literary theory.)

Ocvirk’s complex understanding of the literary work as the central area of literary theory is not without internal issues and, from the perspective of the discipline’s later development, it is not difficult to see its boundaries. For example, his description of structuralism is disputable; even the fact that he disregards the reception processes can seem disturbing. However, these doubts fade away if we take into account the time and conditions in which Ocirk worked and established himself. The combination of his theo-retical framework and concrete research practice enabled literary theory as cultivated by Ocvirk to take its place beside literary history as an equal com-ponent of the complex field of literary studies; until then, it had been con-sidered a subordinate or auxiliary discipline. In addition to the foundation of comparative literature, the establishment of literary theory with such a status is Ocvirk’s second important contribution to the development and modernization of Slovenian literary scholarship.

17

EugeneEoyang

Sinergije in sinestezije: znotrajsvetovna primerjalna književnost

Primerjalna književnost je vedno poudarjala svoje epistemološke ome-jitve in spodbujala potrebo vsakega raziskovalca oziroma raziskovalke po pogledu, ki bi segel prek njegovega oziroma njenega kulturnega obzorja: astronomsko zrtje vede se osredotoča skoraj bolj na zvezde, ki jih ne vidimo, kakor pa na tiste, ki jih vidimo. S tem raziskovanjem neznanega, ki se precej razlikuje od t. i. nerešenega in nerazloženega v znanosti, izpolnjuje primer-jalna književnost pogoj Maxa Webra za novo �znanost�: �Ne „aktualna“ medsebojna povezava „stvari“, temveč konceptualna medsebojna poveza-va problemov določa območje delovanja raznih znanosti. Nova „znanost“ se pojavi tam, kjer se lotijo novega problema z novo metodo.� (Citirano po Moretti 2000: 55; Arac 2000: 36.) V tem pogledu primerjalna književnost ni ustvarila le novih medsebojnih povezav, marveč povsem nove �znano-sti�, tj. nove oblike védenja in nove načine razumevanja, ki jih poznamo pod imenom filmske študije, postkolonialne študije, prevodne študije, glo-balizacijske študije, vzhodno-zahodne študije. Prav tako je svoja spoznanja posredovala kulturnim študijam, študijam spola, kritiški teoriji, antropološki lingvistiki in navzkrižnokulturnim študijam.

Napada Susan Bassnett in Gayatri Spivak na primerjalno književnost sta sama sebi namen: eden s trditvijo o vsestranskosti prevoda, drugi z zavrni-tvijo zgodnejše, evropocentrične verzije primerjalne književnosti kot vede. Obe kritiki ne vzdržita presoje, ker nobena od njiju ne upošteva specifične-ga značaja primerjalne književnosti, ki je, kakor sem definiral na drugem mestu, �nedisciplinirana disciplina�. Natančno ta neprebojnost za omejitve in definicije, ki nikakor ni šibkost, predstavlja posebno moč primerjalne knji-ževnosti – vede, ki proizvaja nove vede.

Primerjalna književnost uspeva tako v Aziji kakor na Zahodu, s čimer spodbija trditev Spivakove, da je mrtva. Nenavadno je, da se lahko nekdo, ki je tako strastno pisal o hegemonskem Zahodu, ne zmeni za upoštevanja vredno dejavnost na Vzhodu. Zahteva Susan Bassnett, naj bo primerjalna književnost podrejena prevodnim študijam, pa je v smislu taksonomije ab-surdna, saj je prevod zgolj besedilni aspekt večjih navzkrižnokulturnih sklo-pov, s katerimi se ukvarja primerjalna književnost.

18

Comparative literature has always emphasized its epistemological limi-tations, and stressed the need for each researcher to see beyond his or her cultural horizons: its astronomical gaze focuses more on the stars we do not see as much, if not more than, on the stars we do see. In this exploration of the unknown, so different from the unsolved and unexplained in science, comparative literature fulfills Max Weber’s condition of a new “science”: “It is not the ‘actual’ interconnection of ‘things’... but the conceptual intercon-nection of problems which define the scope of the various sciences. A new ‘science’ emerges where a new problem is pursued by a new method.” (Quoted by Moretti 2000: 55; Arac 2000: 36.) By this measure, compara-tive literature has spawned not only new interconnections, but entire new “sciences”, i.e., new modes of knowing and new ways of understanding, and these go by the name of Film Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Translation Studies, Globalization Studies, East-West Studies. It has also contributed in-sights to Cultural Studies, Gender Studies, Critical Theory, Anthropological Linguistics, Cross-Cultural Studies.

The attacks on comparative literature by Susan Bassnett and Gayatri Spivak are both self-serving: one in asserting the comprehensiveness of translation, the other rejecting an earlier version – the Eurocentric version – of comparative literature as a discipline. Both critiques founder because neither takes into account the particular nature of comparative literature, which, as I have defined it elsewhere, is the “undisciplined discipline”. It is precisely this imperviousness to limits and definitions that, far from being a weakness, is the particular strength of comparative literature, a discipline that spawns other disciplines.

Comparative literature thrives as much in Asia as in the West, thus re-futing Spivak’s claim that comparative literature is dead. It’s curious that someone who has written so passionately about the hegemonic West, should herself ignore the considerable activity in comparative literature in the East. And Bassnett’s claim that comparative literature should be a sub-set of Translation Studies is taxonomically preposterous, since translation is but the textual aspect of larger cross-cultural concerns that are addressed in comparative literature.

Synergies and Synaesthesias: An Intraworldly Comparative Literature

19

VitaFortunati

Literarni tekst kot kompleksni sistem v planetarni perspektivi

V svojem predavanju bi rada osvetlila tri glavne probleme:1. V komparativistiki je potrebna nova transevropska perspektiva (G. C.

Spivak, Death of a Discipline, 2002; F. Moretti, Graphs, Maps, Trees, 2005). Treba je reinterpretirati in kritizirati goethejevski pojem �svetovne literatu-re�. Pojavila se je ideja panevropske, svetovne komparativistike: multi-pola-rizacija proti bi-polarizaciji implicira pluralistično primerjalno književnost, dinamično vedo, ki se po določenem času spremeni, ki vzpostavlja razne odnose z drugimi oblikami literarnih spraševanj. Spivakova se skupaj z dru-gimi komparativisti zaveda, da so zgodovinska naključja globoko spreme-nila obliko vede, ki mora posledično ponovno razmisliti o svojih načelih, ne da bi pozabila na svojo dolgo tradicijo in na tiste svoje značilnosti, ki predstavljajo temelj njene moči.

2. Nove kritične paradigme, kakor je pojem literarnega teksta kot kom-pleksnega sistema ali pojem teorije polja, implicirajo interdisciplinarni pri-stop. Koncept teorije polja ali koncept polja (Katherine Hayles, The Cosmic Web, Scientific Models and Literary Strategies in the Twentieth Century, 1984; Edward O. Wilson, Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge, 1999) nakazuje, da sta obe sferi znanja, humanistična in znanstvena, začeli predlagati podob-ne načine raziskovanja, ki so vse manj navezani na atomistično (kartezijan-sko) idejo znanja in vse bolj povezani s holistično idejo. Ta ideja izomorfiz-ma ni več povezana s tradicionalno idejo �vzroka� in �posledice�. Namesto tega implicira sočasnost, ne pa posledičnost. Ni vedno eno od dveh polj, ki vpliva na ali določa drugega: izomorfizem implicira sestavljena odkritja, saj nameravata obe področji istočasno razvijati nove raziskovalne modele, ki postajajo analogna ogledala sveta v stalnem razvoju.

3. Novi evropski projekt Medsebojno prekrivanje znanost/humanistika: nova perspektiva v literarnih študijah si prizadeva povezati teoretsko predpo-stavko o enotnosti znanja in empirične raziskave v iskanje novih modelov za študij kompleksnih sistemov, kakršna je literatura. Operativni model je mo-del �spletanja mreže�, hevristična predpostavka pa je izražena z metaforo medsebojno prekrivanje.

20

In my paper I would like to highlight three main points:1. A new trans-European perspective in comparative studies is neces-

sary (G.C. Spivak, Death of a Discipline, 2002; F. Moretti, Graphs, Maps, Trees, 2005). The goethian notion of “World Literature” needs to be re-in-terpreted and challenged. The idea of a pan-European, worldwide com-paratism has emerged: multi-polarisation versus bi-polarisation implies a pluralistic comparative literature, a dynamic discipline that is modified over time, establishing different relations with other forms of literary interroga-tions. Spivak together with other comparatists realises that historical contin-gencies have profoundly changed the shape of the discipline, which must consequently rethink its tenets, without forgetting its long tradition and those features that constitute its strength.

2. New critical paradigms, such as the notion of literary texts as a com-plex system or the notion of field theory, imply an interdisciplinary ap-proach. The concept of field theory, or field concept (Katherine Hayles, The Cosmic Web, Scientific Models and Literary Strategies in the Twentieth Century 1984; Edward O. Wilson, Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge, 1999) implies that the two spheres of knowledge, humanistic and scientific, both started proposing similar modes of investigation, less and less attached to an ato-mistic (Cartesian) idea of knowledge and increasingly linked to a holistic idea. This idea of isomorphism is no longer linked to the traditional idea of “cause” and “effect”, but instead implies simultaneity and not consequen-tiality. It is not always one of the two fields that influences or conditions the other one: isomorphism implies joint discoveries, as both domains tend to develop, at the same time, new investigative models which become, in turn analogical mirrors of a world in constant progress.

3. A new European project “Interfacing science/humanities: a new perspective in literary studies” endeavours to conjugate the theoretical as-sumption of the unity of knowledge with empirical research in the effort to find new models for the study of a complex system such as literature. The operative model is that of “networking”, the heuristic assumption is expressed by the metaphor of the interface.

The Literary Text as a Complex System in a Planetary Perspective

21

PéterHajdu

Neoheliconove lokalne tradicije in sedanje strategije

Ko je bila leta 1973 ustanovljena revija Neohelicon, so prvi glavni ure-dniki z njenim imenom oziroma imeni poudarjali nekatere lokalne tradici-je primerjalne in svetovne literarne vede. Ime Neohelicon se je navezovalo na revijo Helicon, katere pet zvezkov je izšlo v letih 1938–1943. Med kon-gresom mednarodne zveze zgodovinskih znanosti leta 1928 v Oslu je bila ustanovljena Commission Internationale d’Histoire littéraire moderne. To prvo mednarodno združenje za literarno vedo je priredilo v obdobju med obe-ma vojnama tri kongrese – prvega v Budimpešti leta 1931. Isto združenje je ustanovilo tudi revijo, pod katero se je sicer podpisala nizozemska zalo-žniška hiša Pantheon iz Amsterdama, vendar so jo v resnici urejali in tiskali na Madžarskem v Debrecenu, kjer je živel njen direktor János Hankiss (ali Jean Hankiss, kakor se je podpisoval v svojih mednarodnih publikacijah). V Heliconu, ki je bil �Revue internationale des probl mes généraux de la littérature�, so objavljali članke v nemškem, angleškem, španskem, franco-skem in italijanskem jeziku. Za revijo je bilo značilno veliko zanimanje za teorijo. Vedno je imela posebno rubriko za literarne zvrsti in za raziskovalne metode. To je bila ena od lokalnih tradicij, ki se jim je želel pridružiti Neohe-licon: mednarodna revija, osredotočena na splošne probleme, ustanovljena pod pokroviteljstvom največje mednarodne organizacije za literarno vedo, ki so jo bili urejali na Madžarskem. V polju politike je bila v mračnih letih II. svetovne vojne podpirala miroljubna načela svetovne književnosti.

Latinski podnaslov Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum se skli-cuje na drugo lokalno tradicijo. To je bil naslov prve revije za primerjalno književnost, ki je izhajala v Kolozsváru na Madžarskem v letih 1877–1888. Njena urednika Sámuel Brassai in Hugó Meltzl sta bila prva znanstveni-ka literarne vede, ki sta skušala primerjalno metodo uskladiti s splošnim interesom. To prizadevanje je bilo posledica poliglotske kulture v Srednji Evropi in evropskega literarnega horizonta obeh urednikov. Čeprav je bila večina člankov napisana v nemščini in madžarščini, so bila Acta Comparati-onis Litterarum Universarum resnično poliglotska revija ali, kakor je povedal njihov oglas: �Unbeschränkt polyglotte, kritisch-aesthetische Fachschrift für Folklore, Weltliteratur, Übersetzungskunst, vergleichende Volkliederkunde und ähnliche vergleichende anthropologisch-ethnographischen Diszipli-nen.� Številka, ki je vsebovala krajše članke ali krajša nadaljevanja člankov, je izšla vsakih štirinajst dni. Naslov na platnicah je bil natisnjen v enajstih jezikih. Prvi zvezek leta 1879, na primer, je vseboval prispevke v latinščini, madžarščini, nemščini, francoščini, angleščini, italijanščini, provansalščini, romunščini in kitajščini.

22

When the journal Neohelicon was established in 1973, the first editors in chief emphasised some local traditions of comparative and universal lit-erature studies through the name or names of the journal. The name Neo-helicon was designed to refer to a journal called Helicon, which published five volumes between 1938–43. During the 1928 Oslo congress of the in-ternational association of historical sciences a Commission Internationale d’Histoire littéraire moderne was established. This first international associa-tion for literary studies held three congresses in the entre deux guerres peri-od, the first one in Budapest, Hungary 1931. The association also launched a journal, which was signed by the publishing house Pantheon, Amster-dam, The Netherlands, but which was actually edited and printed in Debre-cen, Hungary, where its director János Hankiss (or as he called himself in his international publications, Jean Hankiss) was living. Helicon was a “Revue internationale des problemes généraux de la littérature”, and it publishede mes généraux de la littérature”, and it publishedmes généraux de la littérature”, and it published papers in German, English, Spanish, French and Italian. It had a deep theo-retical interest; it always had a separate column for literary genres and for the methods of research. It is one of the local traditions Neohelicon wanted to join to: an international journal focusing on general problems, which was launched under the auspices of the biggest international organisation for literary studies, and which was edited in Hungary. As a political deed it advertised the peaceful principles of world literature during the gloomy years of World War II.

The Latin subtitle Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum refers to another local tradition. It was the title of the first journal on comparative literature studies, published in Kolozsvár, Hungary between 1877–88. Its editors, Sámuel Brassai and Hugó Meltzl were the first literary scholars who tried to harmonise the method of comparison with universal interest. It was a consequence of the polyglot culture in Central-Europe and their European literary horizon. Although the majority of its publication were written inAlthough the majority of its publication were written in German or in Hungarian, Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum was a really polyglot journal, or as its advertisement said: “Unbeschränkt po-lyglotte, kritisch-aesthetische Fachschrift für Folklore, Weltliteratur, Über-setzungskunst, vergleichende Volkliederkunde und ähnliche vergleichende anthropologisch-ethnographischen Disziplinen.” One issue appeared inOne issue appeared in every fortnight, and it contained rather short papers or short sections of serially published papers. The title was printed in eleven languages on the cover, and for example the first volume of the year 1879 contained items in the following languages: Latin, Hungarian, German, French, English, Ital-ian, Provencal, Romanian and Chinese.

Neohelicon’s Local Traditions and Present Strategies

23

MarkoJuvan

Ideologije primerjalne književnosti: metropole in periferije (hipoteze za možno raziskavo)

Ideologijo opredeljujem kot sklop predpostavk, ki motivirajo in osmi-šljajo označevalno prakso ter ji podeljujejo družbeno moč. Nacionalna lite-rarna zgodovina se eksplicitno ali implicitno opira na kulturni nacionalizem, ki je v Evropi izšel iz �Herderjevega efekta� (Casanova). Kaj pa primerjalna književnost, ki s svojo metodo presega meje posameznega narodnega oze-mlja ali jezika? Niso celo v njeni kozmopolitski podobi navzoče sence naci-onalizmov, in sicer hegemonističnih ali kolonialnih v metropolah in defen-zivnih ali osvobodilnih na periferijah? Odgovore na ta vprašanja bo lahko dala šele obsežnejša preiskava. Tu podajam zgolj nekaj hipotez, oprtih na pregled novejše komparativistične samorefleksije.

Pri konceptualizaciji enot za primerjanje so se v zgodovini primerjalne književnosti doslej uveljavljale tri ideologije: kozmopolitizem, kulturni naci-onalizem in multikulturalizem. Diskurz nacionalnih literarnih zgodovin je bil v 19. stoletju ideološko zasidran v narodna gibanja; v njih so s pisatelji sodelovali tudi literarni zgodovinarji, ki so pravico do samostojnega obsto-ja naroda dokazovali s kontinuiteto njegove jezikovno-kulturne zmožnosti (Leerssen). Motivacija kulturnega nacionalizma se je v žanrskem spominu nacionalnih literarnih zgodovin ohranila še v 20. stoletju. Primerjalna knji-ževnost pa se je formirala v navzkrižjih z �nacionaliziranimi� literarnimi zgo-dovinami; z njimi se je morala boriti za prestiž in pravico do samostojnega obstoja. Od začetka se je metodološko, z opredelitvijo predmetnega po-dročja (svetovna književnost in/ali mednarodni literarni odnosi) in razisko-valnih postopkov (�relacionalno mišljenje�, Hall), kakor tudi eksplicitno, s sklicevanjem na univerzalistične humanistične ideje, zavzemala za presega-nje ozkosti in izključevalne tekmovalnosti nacionalnih literarnih zgodovin. S tega vidika je ideologija primerjalne književnosti kozmopolitizem.

Kozmopolitizem je razsvetljensko antropološko prepričanje, da so ljudje �v svojem bistvu� (kot razumna, čuteča in etično odgovorna bitja) enaki, ne glede na različne državne, jezikovne, verske, razredne ali kulturne pri-padnosti. Kozmopolitizem je proti koncu 18. stoletja veljal za izstopajočo življenjsko držo (odprtost, urbanost, svetovljanstvo), konceptualno pa je vse do danes napajal etiko in pravo (človekove pravice), ekonomske teori-je (prosti trg), politologijo (zveza narodov), a tudi humanistične znanosti, med njimi zlasti primerjalno književnost. Ta si je raziskovalno obzorje začr-tala v duhu Goethejevih, pa tudi Marxovih in Engelsovih misli o �svetovni književnosti�, ki naj s širino idejnih menjav, z interakcijo jezikov in literatur preseže omejenost nacionalnih književnih tradicij. Toda že Goethejeva fra-gmentarna zasnova pojma �svetovna književnost� ni samo kozmopolitska,

24

ampak tudi evropocentrična in celo nacionalistična, saj evocira kanon, ki ga v medsebojnem dialogu gradijo kulturni narodi, med katerimi se odlikujejo Nemci. Kozmopolitizem se tu in še večkrat izkaže za drugi obraz kulturnega nacionalizma. Obe ideologiji, proizvoda razsvetljenskega meščanskega in-dividualizma, spremljata razmah kapitalizma. Moderna nacionalna gibanja so podpirala oblikovanje vsedržavnega ekonomskega prostora; Goethejeva vpeljava �svetovne književnosti� pa s pomočjo ekonomskih metafor opo-zarja na analogijo med širitvijo kapitalističnega gospodarstva v �svetovni sistem� (Wallerstein) in postopnim oblikovanjem �svetovne književne re-publike� (Casanova) kot prostora difuzije in obtoka literarnih tekstov, ki so prestopili jezikovne meje svojega domačega literarnega polja (Damrosch), oziroma kot medliterarnega �polisistema� (Even-Zohar, Ďurišin), ki je, po-dobno kot svetovno gospodarstvo, strukturiran neenakopravno – iz vplivnih središč in pretežno sprejemajočih periferij (Moretti).

Pisatelj, ki vstopa v svetovni literarni prostor, je odvisen od �kulturnega kapitala� in mednarodnega ugleda svojega jezika (Casanova). Tudi literarni zgodovinarji so v sistemski vlogi obdelovalcev tekstov vezani na domače li-terarno polje (Ocvirk in slovenski komparativisti so delovali tudi kot literarni kritiki, uredniki ipd.). Poleg tega so bili zaposleni praviloma v �nacionalnih� znanstveno-kulturnih institucijah in bili s tem izpostavljeni strukturni prisili k difuziji nacionalističnih ideologemov. Zato je razumljivo, da so tudi mnogi komparativisti svoje znanstveno delo, ki sicer po definiciji presega nacio-nalno obzorje, vpisovali v nacionalistične agende: z mednarodnimi primer-javami so iskali argumente za kulturni in politični prestiž lastnega naroda in/ali države ter tako dejansko ali na papirju (če niso delovali mednarodno) umeščali domačo književnost na svetovni zemljevid.

Vektorji in profili nacionalizma pri komparativistih iz središčnih, t. i. veli-kih svetovnih literatur so drugačni od tistih, ki izhajajo iz vmesnih con, obro-bij oziroma t. i. malih literatur. Domnevam, da so komparativisti V-literatur z lastnimi deli, pa tudi s šolanjem strokovnjakov iz M-literatur ali z metodo-loškim vplivom nanje utrjevali mednarodno dominantnost svojih matičnih literatur na več načinov, predvsem z evidentiranjem planetarne �slave� in vplivov svojih pisateljev ter z dokumentiranjem odprtosti in absorpcijske zmožnosti domačega prostora za importe, ki s totalnostjo posvojenega re-pertoarja presegata konkurenčne literature. S primerjavami domače V-lite-rature z drugimi evropskimi V-literaturami so zasnovali nekakšne kartele, ki so kulturno obvladovali prehodne in periferne cone.

Izjavne pozicije in ideologije komparativistov, ki izhajajo iz M-okolij, so drugačne. Slovenska komparativistika, ki mi rabi kot primer, je v praksi zve-čine primerjala domačo književnost s posameznimi tujimi literaturami; pri tem je morala zavzemati defenzivno držo (s poudarki, da je tudi pisanje pod tujimi vplivi lahko enakovredno svetovnim vzorom in da zunanje �spodbu-de� prispevajo k izoblikovanju narodne identitete). Druga strategija nacio-nalnih komparativistik, kakršna je slovenska, je pojmovno in interpretativno umeščanje svoje, mednarodno manj znane literarne produkcije v sistem

25

svetovne književnosti: vsaj posredno so dokazovale vključenost M-literatur v �Evropo�, �Zahodno civilizacijo� oziroma njihovo sledenje tokovom, ki so jih metropole postavile za obče merilo razvitosti in modernosti. Na evrop-skih obrobjih je primerjalna književnost na ta način uveljavljala predstavo, da so tudi M-narodi repertoarno �popolni� in da pripadajo nekemu močne-mu, uglednemu kulturnemu arealu. Toda izpostavljeno primerjanje z veliki-mi in zanemarjanje periferij je bilo dvorezen meč. Stroka je podkrepljevala moč metropole in v domače okolje prenašala njeno imperialno perspektivo, s katere je center videti kot �greenwiški poldnevnik� za določanje literar-ne sodobnosti in inovativnosti, periferija pa obsojena na �zamudništvo� in oponašanje (prim. Casanova). Iz tega so se v javnem diskurzu porajali manjvrednostni kompleksi in tolažilne fikcije (o krivični zapostavljenosti pi-sateljev, ki jih le njihov mali jezik loči od zaslužene svetovne slave), vendar tudi upori – kritično zavračanje logik kulturnega imperija in dejavno med-narodno afirmiranje ustvarjalnih potencialov obrobnih, mejnih con.

Osciliranje med ideologemi kozmopolitstva in kulturnega nacionalizma je razvidno v komparativistični metodologiji. Osnovna kategorialna enota, ki je predmet primerjanja, je namreč ideološki konstrukt �nacionalne lite-rature� (Boldrini, Hutcheon), ne pa regija, mesto ipd.; tudi kozmopolitska predstava �svetovne književnosti� izvorno sestoji iz �narodov�.

Obe tradicionalni komparativistični ideologiji zadnje čase izpodriva nov sistem osmišljanja in legitimiranja znanstvenega diskurza – ideologija multi- in transkulturalizma. Ta se je predvsem v zahodnih urbanih središčih oblikoval kot refleks globalizacije (zlasti njenih migracij, deteritorializacij, hibridizacij in unifikacij) in omejevanja suverenosti nacionalnih držav. Teo-retska in ideološka prepričljivost herderjevske triade narod–jezik–literatura se je omajala, z njo pa tudi identitetni model, ki so ga predpostavljale nacio-nalne in primerjalne literarne zgodovine. V času kriznega samospraševanja stroke znotraj �postnacionalne paradigme� pa njeni tradicionalni ideologiji nista zamrli. Nacionalizem je dobil nov zagon v humanistiki etnij, ki se v svetu šele uveljavljajo. Kozmopolitizem pa v spremenjenih oblikah posta-ja aktualen kot alternativa multikulturnemu relativizmu in zahodnjaškemu hegemonizmu; prek njega se artikulira odgovornost za usodo planeta in človeštva.

2�

I define ideology as a series of suppositions that motivate and assign meaning to signifying practice and provide it with social power. National literary history is based, explicitly or implicitly, on the cultural nationalism that developed in Europe from the “Herder effect” (Casanova). What about comparative literature, which transcends the borders of individual national territory or language with its method? Are there not shadows of national-isms present even in its cosmopolitan image, namely the hegemonic or co-lonial shadows in the metropolises, and the defensive or liberating ones on the peripheries? Only extensive research can answer these questions. Here, I present only a few hypotheses based on an overview of recent self-reflec-tion in comparatist studies.

In conceptualizing units for comparison, three ideologies have estab-lished themselves in the history of comparative literature: cosmopolitism, cultural nationalism, and multiculturalism. In the 19th century, the discourse of national literary histories was ideologically rooted in national movements; within these, literary historians cooperated with writers and demonstrated the nation’s right to independence with the continuity of its linguistic and cultural ability (Leerssen). In the generic memory of national literary histo-ries, the motivation of cultural nationalism was preserved even in the 20th century. In contrast, comparative literature was formed at cross purposes with “nationalized” literary histories; it had to struggle with them for prestige and the right to independence. From the start – both methodologically, by defining the subject field (world literature or international literary relations) and research procedures (“relational thinking,” Hall), as well as explicitly, by referring to universalistic humanistic ideas – it has stood for transcending the narrowness and exclusive competitiveness of national literary histories. From this perspective, the ideology of comparative literature is cosmopolitism.

Cosmopolitism is an Enlightenment-era anthropological belief that “in their essence” (as rational, feeling, and ethically responsible beings) people are equal, regardless of affiliations to various states, languages, religions, classes, or cultures. Towards the end of the 18th century, cosmopolitism was considered an outstanding approach to life (implying openness, urbanity, and cosmopolitanism), and conceptually it has continued to inspire ethics and law (human rights), economic theories (the free market), political science (union of nations), and also the humanities, especially comparative literature. Comparative literature outlined its research horizon in the spirit of Goethe’s, as well as Marx’s and Engels’, ideas of “world literature,” which was expected to transcend limited national literary traditions through the breadth of con-ceptual exchange, and in the interaction of languages and literatures. Howev-er, even Goethe’s fragmentary concept of “world literature” is not merely cos-mopolitan, but also Eurocentric and even nationalist because it evokes a can-

Ideologies of Comparative Literature: Metropolises and Peripheries (Hypotheses for Possible Research)

27

non that cultural nations build in their mutual dialogue; among these nations, the Germans excel the most. Here and also in other places, cosmopolitism turns out to be cultural nationalism in disguise. Both ideologies, which are the product of the bourgeois individualism of the Enlightenment, are accompa-nied by the expansion of capitalism. Modern national movements supported the formation of a statewide economic environment; however, Goethe’s in-troduction of “world literature” using economic metaphors draws attention to the analogy between the expansion of capitalist economy into the “world system” (Wallerstein) and the gradual formation of a “world literary repub-lic” (Casanova) as a place of diffusion and circulation of literary texts that exceeded the linguistic boundaries of their literary fields (Damrosch), or as an inter-literary “semi-system” (Even-Zohar, Ďurišin) that, similar to the world economy, is unequally structured – that is, it consists of influential productive centers and primarily receptive peripheries (Moretti).

Writers that enter the world literary arena are dependent on the “cul-tural capital” and international status of their language (Casanova). In their systemic role as text processors, literary historians are also dependent on the domestic literary field (Ocvirk and Slovenian comparatists also worked as literary reviewers, editors, etc.). In addition, they were usually employed at “national” scholarly and cultural institutions, and were thus forced to diffuse nationalist ideologemes. It is thus understandable that many com-paratists incorporated their scholarly work, which generally transcends the national horizon, into nationalist agendas: by making international com-parisons, they sought arguments for the cultural and political prestige of their own nation or country, and thus, de facto or on paper (if they did not work internationally), placed their national literature on the world map.

The vectors and profiles of nationalism among comparatists from the central or great world literatures differ from those coming from transition zones, peripheries, or small literatures. I presume that through their own works, or by training experts from small literatures or exerting methodo-logical influence on them, the comparatists of great literatures consolidated the international dominance of their native literatures in various ways, but mainly by recording the planetary “glory” and influences of their own writ-ers, and by recording the national environment’s openness to and its abil-ity to absorb imports, which with the totality of their adopted repertoire exceed competitive literatures. By comparing their national great literature with other European great literatures, they designed some sort of cartels that controlled the transition and peripheral zones in terms of culture.

The statements and ideologies of comparatists from small-literature en-vironments are different. For example, in practice, Slovenian comparatists mostly compared the national literature with individual foreign literatures; in this, they had to assume a defensive stance (by emphasizing that writ-ing under foreign influences can match world models and that external “stimuli” contribute to the formation of national identity). Another strategy used by national comparative studies, such as the Slovenian discipline, is

28

to conceptually and interpretationally place their own, internationally less known literary production in the system of world literature; at least indirect-ly, they proved the inclusion of small literatures in “Europe” and “Western Civilization”, or their conformity with the trends that the metropolises set as general criteria of development and modernity. In this way, the compara-tive literatures on European peripheries established the notion that even nations with small literatures are “perfect” in terms of repertoire and that they belong to a strong and prominent cultural area. However, the com-parison with the great, and neglecting the peripheries mentioned above, was a double-edged sword. The discipline strengthened the power of the metropolis and transferred its imperial perspective to the home environ-ment, from which the center is seen as the prime meridian for defining lit-erary modernism and innovation, whereas the periphery is condemned to backwardness and imitation (cf. Casanova). Based on this, inferiority com-plexes and consolation fiction (about the unjust neglect of writers whom only their small language keeps from the world glory they deserve) arose in public discourse, as well as resistance – that is, critical rejection of cultural imperialist logic and active international affirmation of the creative poten-tials of marginal and border zones.

The oscillation between the ideologemes of cosmopolitism and cultural nationalism is also evident in comparative methodology. The basic categorical unit that is the subject of comparison is the ideological construct of “national literature” (Boldrini, Hutcheon), and not region, town, and so on; the cosmo-politan notion of “world literature” also originally consists of “nations.”

Recently, both traditional ideologies of comparative studies have been superseded by a new system of justifying and legitimizing scholarly dis-course – that is, the ideology of multi- and transculturalism. Especially in Western urban centers, this has been formed as a reflex of globalization (especially their migrations, deterritorializations, hybridizations, and uni-fications) and of restricting the independence of national states. The theo-retical and ideological persuasiveness of Herder’s triad of nation, language, and literature has been shaken, and with it also the identity model presup-posed by national and comparative literary histories. However, at a time of the discipline’s critical self-examination within the “post-national para-digm,” their traditional ideologies have not died away. Nationalism has re-ceived new impetus in the humanities of ethnicities that are only starting to become established internationally. On the other hand, in its changed forms, cosmopolitism is attracting attention as an alternative to multicul-tural relativism and Western hegemony; through it, the responsibility for the destiny of the planet and mankind is being articulated.

29

EvaldKoren

Dama, ki izgine ali Je literatura v novi primerjalni književnosti in novih zgodovinah nacionalnih literatur še sploh zaželeni osrednji predmet zanimanja?

Po definiciji bi morala biti literatura poglavitni, če ne celo edini predmet raziskovanja tako zgodovine nacionalne literature kakor tudi primerjalne književnosti. Glede na njune specifične okolnosti nastanka in razvoja ter tako rekoč diametralno nasprotne cilje, ki pa se konec koncev dopolnjuje-jo, je bila stopnja raziskovalne pozornosti, ki sta jo namenili sami literaturi, seveda drugačna. Literarnemu delu, opusu kakega avtorja, literaturi kake dobe ali naroda se je tako minuciozno kakor tudi sintetično intenzivneje posvečala zgodovina posamezne literature, medtem ko se je primerjalna književnost, stremeča k širokim zamahom in razsežnim pregledom, usmer-jena v razkrivanje raznovrstnih nadnarodnih povezav, občasno tudi zazrta v zunajliterarna poslanstva, za svoje početje pogosto posluževala prav izsled-kov nacionalnih literarnih zgodovin. Vendar se je najpozneje s t. i. novima zgodovinama literature, francoske (A New History of French Literature, 1989) in nemške (A New History of German Literature, 2004), v delu nacionalnega literarnega zgodovinopisja spremenil odnos do literature. Obe obsežni knji-gi nista namreč niti zgodovina literature niti zgodovina, ampak neke vrste kulturna kronologija, po časovnem zaporedju urejeni sestavki stotnije av-torjev o različnih pomembnih kulturnih in drugih dogodkih iz življenja teh dveh narodov. O ne dovolj trdnem mestu literature v teh publikacijah zgo-vorno priča – resda nekoliko pretirana – oznaka enega izmed ocenjevalcev, ki je zapisal, da A New History of German Literature ne prikazuje le velikih mož, kakršni so npr. Hegel, Kant, Goethe, Beethoven in Freud, ampak poleg zgodovinskih dogodkov, skladb in drugega, oriše tudi [!] literarna dela in teme. Sicer je res, da so različne tradicionalne literarne zgodovine, navaja-joč kulturne, politične in ekonomske dogodke, prav tako segale preko lite-rature v druga področja, vendar so z njimi le uokvirjale literaturo v kakem obdobju, medtem ko je ta ostala nesporno osrednja tema.

Opazneje kot nacionalno literarno vedo je neugodni odnos do literatu-re očitno zaznamoval primerjalno literarno vedo, o čemer priča dogajanje zadnjega desetletja, zlasti v severni Ameriki. Ni bilo dovolj, da so spremenili prednostno raziskovalno področje te vede, hiteli so jo ustrezno preimeno-vati, in nekateri so šli tako daleč, da so jo hoteli – pri živem telesu – celo po-kopati. Kakor da denimo primerjalne kulturne študije ne bi mogle obstajati ob tradicionalni primerjalni književnosti, ki se tako ali tako že dolgo ukvarja tudi s transliterarnimi vprašanji; povrhu pa se lahko kulturne študije oskrbu-jejo z dognanji primerjalne književnosti, tako kakor primerjalna književnost

30

uporablja ugotovitve nacionalne literarne vede. Novo ravnanje z literaturo, katere ugled in pomen sta se pri širšem občinstvu sicer v resnici zmanjšala, pa se ne utegne nikjer usodneje pokazati kakor pri najintimnejšem početju z literaturo, torej tistem empiričnem raziskovanju, ki je osredinjeno na raz-lične oblike t. i. literarnosti, se pravi tistih posebnosti, lastnosti in funkcij, po katerih se odlikujejo literarna dela v nasprotju z neumetnostnimi besedili.

Vsakršno obravnavanje literarnosti seveda ni že kratko malo kompara-tivistična dejavnost, saj je zanimanje zanje brez slehernega dvoma lastno raziskovalcem katere koli nacionalne literature. Eminentno primerjalni lite-rarnozgodovinski postopek pa postane taka analiza v trenutku, ko zasleduje drugojezične poti izvirnega teksta, ko ga proučuje v njegovih tujih podo-bah. Tedaj se raziskovalec ukvarja z vrsto vprašanj, ki se odpirajo ob primer-javi različnih tujejezičnih verzij. Zanima ga npr., h kakšnim postopkom in pripomočkom so se zatekli posamezni prevajalci, kako prevodi uresničujejo semantične in nesemantične, formalne lastnosti, koliko so različne rešitve prevajalcev odvisne od značaja njihovega jezika, njihove literarne in jezi-kovne razgledanosti, umetniške senzibilnosti in ustvarjalne volje ter njihove metode prestavljanja; in končno: kaj izkazuje bilanca analiziranih prevodov? Tem nalogam bo seveda najlažje kos ravno komparativist, tak, kakor ga je opredelil Etiemble: da ima enciklopedično znanje, pozna mnoge jezike in je osebno globoko izkusil lepoto literature.

Za primerjalno književnost je prevod s svojimi posebnimi kvalitetami metodološko že od nekdaj privlačen. Eno je, če ga obravnavamo kot po-membno funkcionalno sredstvo posredništva med različnimi literaturami, drugo pa, ko je s pomočjo primerjave različnih prevedenih verzij kakega literarnega dela vsa pozornost usmerjena na njihove umetniške značilnosti. Tedaj je pač govor o literaturi in literarnosti, in zanesljivo se lahko pri tem sklicujemo prav na primerjalno književnost. Nobene potrebe namreč ni, da bi to vedo prekrstili v prevajalske študije ali pa denimo, razkosali na primer-jalne kulturne študije in prevajalske študije, ali še huje, da bi jo preprosto ukinili.

31

The Lady Vanishes, or Does Literature Still Hold Appeal as a Central Subject of Interest in the New Comparative Literature and the New Histories of National Literatures?

By definition, literature should be the main (if not the sole) subject of study for both the history of national literature and comparative literature. With regard to the specific circumstances of their creation and develop-ment, and the (so to speak) diametrically opposed goals that nonetheless complement one another, the level of research attention that they dedicat-ed to literature was of course different. The history of individual literature focused more intensely, in detail or synthetically, on the study of literary works themselves, a specific author’s oeuvre, or the literature of a specif-ic period or nation, whereas comparative literature, which sought major movements and extensive overviews, aimed to reveal various supranational connections, and occasionally focused on extra-literary missions, often made use of the findings of national literary histories. However, it was not until the appearance of “new” histories of literature – that is, the French (A New History of French Literature, 1989) and the German (A New History of German Literature, 2004) – that the national literary historiography re-lationship towards literature changed. Namely, neither of these extensive volumes is a history of literature or history, but rather some sort of cultural chronology, or chronologically organized compilations of a company of authors on various important cultural and other events from the lives of these two nations. That literature does not have a sufficiently solid place in these two publications is clearly demonstrated by a remark by one of the reviewers (albeit somewhat exaggerated), who wrote that A New History of German Literature not only features the great men like Hegel, Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, and Freud, but also (!) outlines literary works and themes in addition to historical events, compositions, and so on. It is generally true that various traditional literatures, when referring to cultural, political, and economic events, reached beyond literature into other areas as well, but they only used these to frame literature in a specific period, while literature remained the undisputed central theme.

This unfavorable attitude towards literature has marked comparative literary studies more evidently than national literary studies, which can be seen in the events that have taken place in the past decade, especially in North America. It was not enough that the priority research field of this discipline had changed, but they sought to rename it accordingly; some even went so far as to want it buried alive, as though comparative cultural studies could not exist alongside traditional comparative literature, which has also long dealt with transliterary questions in one way or another. In addition, cultural studies can use the findings of comparative literature just as comparative literature uses the findings of national literary studies. The new treatment of literature, whose reputation and importance have indeed

32

decreased in the eyes of the general public, cannot reveal itself more fatally than in the most intimate activity concerning literature – that is, the empiri-cal research that is focused on various forms of literary character or, in other words, those special features, characteristics, and functions by which liter-ary works are distinguished in contrast to nonartistic texts.

Any kind of treatment of literary character does not simply imply a comparative activity because the interest in it is doubtlessly inherent in researchers of any national literature. Such analysis becomes eminently a comparative literary history procedure at the moment that it traces the for-eign-language paths of the original text, or when it studies it in its foreign manifestations. In this case, researchers deal with a series of questions that open up when comparing various foreign-language versions. For example, they are interested in which procedures and tools were used by individual translators, how the translations realize semantic and non-semantic formal characteristics, to what extent various translators’ solutions depend on the character of their language, their literary and linguistic knowledge, artistic sensitivity, creative will, and their translation method, and, finally, what the balance of the analyzed translations demonstrates. Naturally, these tasks will most easily be dealt with by a comparatist as defined by René Etiemble: one that possesses encyclopedic knowledge, knows many languages, and has personally and deeply experienced the beauty of literature.

In terms of methodology, translation and its special qualities have al-ways been of interest to comparative literature. However, it is one thing to treat it as an important functional means of mediation between vari-ous literatures, and a totally different thing if, by comparing various trans-lated versions of a literary work, all the attention is focused on their artistic features. In this case, one speaks of literature and literary character, and here one can definitely refer to comparative literature. There is no need to rename this discipline translation studies or, for example, divide it into comparative cultural studies and translation studies, or – even worse – to simply abolish it.

33

JankoKos

Filozofski, nacionalni in ideološki temelji slovenske primerjalne književnosti

Referat bo navezoval na delo Antona Ocvirka v primerjavi z današnjim stanjem v slovenski primerjalni literarni vedi, in sicer na treh ravneh:

– Na filozofski ravni bo glavno vprašanje, iz katerih filozofskih izhodišč je izhajal Ocvirk, z njimi utemeljeval znanstvenost naše vede in njeno meto-dologijo, nato pa, kako se je po njem ta zasnova spreminjala, da bi prešla v sodobni filozofsko-metodološki pluralizem.

– Na nacionalni ravni bo treba ugotoviti, kako je Ocvirk povezoval slo-vensko literaturo z evropsko oziroma svetovno in kako je združeval domačo literarnozgodovinsko tradicijo s spodbudami evropske literarne vede – obo-je v primerjavi z literarno orientacijo današnje primerjalne književnosti na Slovenskem in z njenim razmerjem do literarnozgodovinskih in literarnote-oretskih modelov primerjalne književnosti v svetu.

– Na ideološki ravni bo mogoče odpreti vprašanje, katera ideologija, razumljena kot sistem zgodovinsko določenih stališč, vrednot in norm, je usmerjala Ocvirkovo vrednotenje, selekcioniranje in kodificiranje slovenskih in svetovnih literarnih del, nato pa raziskati, ali je ideološko zaledje sloven-ske primerjalne književnosti ostalo isto ali pa se je spremenilo, morda celo tako, da je iz naše vede docela izginilo in se umaknilo čisti znanstvenosti.

34

This paper compares Anton Ocvirk’s work with the current situation in Slovenian comparative literary studies at three levels:

– At the philosophical level, the main question is from which philosoph-ical points of departure Ocvirk proceeded, which he used for substantiating the scholarly nature of the discipline and its methodology, and how this basis changed after him to transform itself into modern philosophical and methodological pluralism;

– At the national level, the author establishes how Ocvirk combined Slovenian literature with European or international literature, and how he combined the Slovenian literary history tradition with the incentives of Eu-ropean literary studies – and both of these in comparison with the literary orientation of today’s Slovenian comparative literature and its relationship towards literary history and literary theoretical models of comparative lit-erature around the world;

– At the ideological level, this paper addresses the question of which ideology, understood as a system of historically determined viewpoints, val-ues, and norms, directed Ocvirk’s evaluation, selection, and codification of Slovenian and world literary works. In addition, it investigates whether the ideological background of Slovenian comparative literature has remained the same or has changed, perhaps even to the extent of completely disap-pearing from the discipline and giving way to pure scholarship.

Philosophical, National, and Ideological Bases of Slovenian Comparative Literature

35

ZvonkoKovač

Primerjalna književnost po Hergešiću in Ocvirku (Aleksandar Flaker, Zoran Konstantinović)

V prispevku bo avtor skušal primerjati teoretske rezultate najpomem-bnejših utemeljiteljev hrvaške in slovenske teorije primerjalne literarne zgo-dovine (I. Hergešića in A. Ocvirka) z njihovimi zaslužnimi nasledniki, pred-stavniki srednjeevropske literarne komparativistike v slavistiki (F. Wollman, A. Flaker, D. Ďurišin) oziroma v primerjalni literarni vedi (Z. Konstantinović, M. Beker). Posebna pozornost bo posvečena metodološkim vprašanjem utemeljitve študija primerjalne književnosti, problemom t. i. interslovanske in regionalne komparativistike ter vprašanjem sodobne teoretske obnove in/ali spodbijanja literarne komparativistike (s teorijo interliterarnega pro-cesa, intertekstualnostjo in intertekstualno komparativistiko, interkulturno zgodovino književnosti, kulturnimi študijami, ekokulturnimi koncepcijami sodobnega raziskovanja književnosti itn.).

Ob osredotočanju na avtorju najbližji par komparativistov in učiteljev – Zorana Konstantinovića in Aleksandra Flakerja – bo prispevek skušal podati kratek pregled njunih nosilnih teoretskih stališč oziroma prikazati glavne rezultate njunih komparativističnih študij. Zoran Konstantinović, dolgoletni ugledni profesor primerjalne književnosti na univerzi v Innsbrucku, vidi li-terarno komparativistiko, ki ji je posvetil največji del svojega znanstvenega dela, kot glavno vedo med teorijo književnosti in svetovno književnostjo. Posebnost Konstantinovićevega literarnoznanstvenega pristopa je – poleg osredotočenosti na zgodovinska obdobja književnosti (npr. na ekspresio-nizem) – poudarjeno povezovanje primerjalnega preučevanja književnosti z aktualnim metodološkim stanjem v znanosti o književnosti. Po Zoranu Konstantinoviću odkriva paradigma literarne zgodovine, ki preučuje zgo-dovinske okoliščine literarne produkcije, hierarhijo funkcij in pristopa k sis-tematizaciji svojih spoznanj s pomočjo periodizacije, medtem ko zajamejo komparativisti to vednost s pomočjo preučevanja genetskih zvez, tipoloških analogij in interdisciplinarne povezanosti (Konstantinović 1984: 42–61).

Na drugi strani je Aleksandar Flaker, hrvaški slavist in eden od utemelji-teljev zagrebške literarnoznanstvene šole, zgodaj formuliral svojo tezo, po kateri pojavov iz nacionalnih literatur ni mogoče iztrgati iz nadnacionalnih, �evropskih ali celo svetovnih tokov in obdelati zgodovino književnosti brez upoštevanja odvisnosti od teh tokov�. Pri tem je treba koncept �stilske for-macije� v oblikovanju zgodovine literature kot zgodovine literarnih tekstov razumeti kot zgodovinske slogovne enote, ki sestavljajo splošni model, po katerem se primerjajo specifične ali posamezne strukture v zgodovinski in-terpretaciji literarnega dela (Flaker 1968: 9; Flaker 1976: 27–28). Posebno zanimiva je Flakerjeva kronika komparativističnih skupin v Umjetnosti rijec i,,

3�

njegova stalna pozornost v odnosu do primerjalne metodologije, ki jo je sam bolj obogatil s primerjalnimi študijami kakor pa z zasebnim teoretskim konceptom. Nasprotno si je Zoran Konstantinović očitno prizadeval obli-kovati celovito teorijo primerjalne znanosti o literaturi, od predstavljanja teoretskih šol komparativistike do vključevanja metod sodobne znanosti o literaturi oziroma do zagovarjanja lastnih konceptov svojevrstne inter-tekstualne komparativistike. Skupna značilnost obeh literarnih zgodovinar-jev je utemeljitev njune historične razlage literarnih besedil (�z imanentnim pristopom�) v nekoliko različno razumljenem, konstruiranem širšem kom-parativističnem konceptu (v sestavu tekstov, povezanih s teksti iz drugih literatur, pa tudi s teksti iz drugih �transverbalnih znakovnih sistemov�).

Zanimiv je tudi Flakerjev oziroma Konstantinovićev odnos do regi-onalnega tipa komparativistike: medtem ko želi Flaker odločno zavrniti medslovansko literarno komparativistiko kot posebno vedo v korist kom-parativistike kot celote, ne da bi se bal vzhodnoevropskih periodizacij, želi Konstantinović literaturo uvrstiti v razne sisteme, od katerih ne bi bil nemo-goč niti pogosto spodbijani sistem primerjalne zgodovine južnoslovanskih književnosti. Zato to preiskovanje zaključujem s krajšo teoretsko razpravo o odnosu med komparativistiko in novimi teorijami literarne zgodovine, prila-gojenimi regionalnim okoliščinam (ne nazadnje tudi glede na razumevanje tega problema v Teoriji primerjalne literarne zgodovine Antona Ocvirka in pri sodobni slovenski primerjalni književnosti).

Comparative Literature According to Hergešić and Ocvirk (Aleksandar Flaker, Zoran Konstantinović)

This paper compares the theoretical findings of two of the most impor-tant founders of Croatian and Slovenian comparative literature (i.e., Ivo Hergešić and Anton Ocvirk) with their worthy successors, the representatives of Central European comparative literature within Slavic studies (i.e., Frank Wollman, Aleksandar Flaker, and Dionyz Ďurišin) and comparative literary studies (i.e., Zoran Konstantinović and Miroslav Beker). Special attention is dedicated to the methodological issues of the foundation of comparative lit-erature studies, the problems of inter-Slavic and regional comparative stud-ies, and the issues of modern theoretical renewal of or opposition to com-parative literature (with the theory of the interliterary process, intertextuality and intertextual comparative studies, intercultural history of literature, cul-tural studies, eco-cultural concepts of modern literary studies, etc.).

By focusing on the pair of comparatists and teachers closest to the author of this paper – on Zoran Konstantinović and Aleksandar Flaker), this article provides a brief overview of their leading theoretical standpoints and presents the main findings of their comparative studies. Konstantinović, a prominent professor of comparative literature for many years at the University of Inns-

37

bruck, sees comparative literature, to which he has devoted the bulk of his scholarly efforts, as the main discipline between the theory of literature and world literature. A special feature of Konstantinović’s approach to literary his-tory is – in addition to focusing on historical literary periods (e.g., expression-ism) – his emphatic connection of comparative research on literature with the current methodological state in literary studies. According to Konstantinović, the paradigm of literary history, which studies the historical circumstances of literary production, reveals a hierarchy of functions and the approach to the systematization of its findings by using periodization, whereas comparatists generalize this knowledge by studying genetic connections, typological anal-ogies, and interdisciplinary connectedness (Konstantinović 1984: 42–61).

On the other hand, Flaker, a Croatian Slavist and one of the founders of the Zagreb school of literary studies, formulated his thesis early. According to him, it is not possible to remove the phenomena of national literatures from the context of supranational, “European or even global currents, and process the history of literature without taking into account the depend-ence on these currents.” Here, the concept of “stylistic formation” within the formation of the history of literature as the history of literary texts must be understood as historical stylistic units comprising a general model ac-cording to which specific or individual structures are compared in the his-torical interpretation of a literary work (Flaker 1968: 9; Flaker 1976: 27–28). Particularly interesting is Flaker’s chronicle of comparatist groups in Umjet-nost rijec i,, (The Art of Words), and his constant attention to comparative methodology, which he himself enriched more with comparative studies than his personal theoretical concept. In contrast, Konstantinović obviously sought to form a comprehensive theory of comparative studies on literature that would present theoretical schools of comparative studies, include the modern methodology and defend his own concepts of special intertextual comparative studies. A common feature of both literary historians is the foundation of their historical explanation of literary texts (“with an imma-nent approach”) within a somewhat differently conceptualized broader comparativist concept (within an system of texts connected with texts from other literatures and from other “transverbal semiotic systems”).

Moreover, Flaker’s and Konstantinović’s relationships with “regional” comparative studies are also interesting: Flaker clearly objected to defining inter-Slavic comparative literary studies as a special discipline to the benefit of comparative studies as a whole, without fearing Eastern European perio-dizations, whereas Konstantinović sought to place literature within various systems, among which even the frequently frowned-upon system of the com-parative history of South Slavic literatures would not be an impossibility. I therefore conclude this study with a short theoretical discussion on the re-lationship between comparative studies and new theories of literary history, adapted to regional circumstances (also with regard to the concepts of this issue in Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine (Theory of Comparative Literary History) by Anton Ocvirk and modern Slovenian comparative literature).

38

Vprašanje, ki se zastavlja od l. 1993 (The Bernheimer Report; to sicer go-vori le o stiku primerjalne književnosti s kulturnimi študijami), je: ali so-dobna epistemologija upravičuje podreditev primerjalne literarne vede (in drugih humanističnih in družboslovnih disciplin) trendu �generalizirajoče� discipline kulturne zgodovine, v kateri se vsaka človeška praksa razkriva, prvič, kot artikulacija kulture, in, drugič, v dinamični zgodovinskosti kultu-re, s teorijami reprezentacije in konstrukcije. Te teorije so nadvse uporabne tudi v primerjalni literarni vedi, ki si s kulturno zgodovino deli raziskovalni objekt literatura.

Odgovor o avtonomiji primerjalne književnosti je podal že M. Riffaterre s tezo o literaturi kot osrednjem diskurzu kulture. Kulturni zgodovinar P. Burke namreč jasno pove, da je kulturna zgodovina �brez bistva, a ima la-stno zgodovino� – ta se artikulira kot zgodovinopisje, ki s svojimi komu-nikacijskimi strategijami (danes zavestno) uporablja modele literarnega diskurza (Greenblattova oznaka je poetika kulture, Lotmanova pa poetika vsakdanjega vedenja); tega preučuje literarna teorija v njegovi zgodovinski raznolikosti, torej primerjalna literarna veda. Po H. Whitu se tega zaveda Burke v vzporednicah, ki jih vleče med modernimi romani in zgodovino-pisjem. S tega vidika bi bila generalizirajoča disciplina literarna veda. A ni: Greenblattov novi historizem (po Burkeu del kulturne zgodovine), vztraja pri tekstualnosti zgodovine, četudi je (H. Veeser) vpeta v mrežo materialnih praks kulture. Soočenje obojega raziskujeta literarna veda in kulturna zgo-dovina na skupnih objektih.

Značilen slovenski primer je lirika F. Balantiča. Kulturna zgodovina sko-zi vidik (tekstualizirane) materialne prakse sledi politični ideologiji Balan-tičevega vstopa v �domobranski� kanon, socialistični izmet iz kanona in stabilizacijo v liberalnem estetskem kanonu. Vendar to omogoča literarna veda, ki Balantičevo liriko kodira kot literaturo, teoretsko-strukturno in lite-rarnozgodovinsko, pri čemer je podvržena materialnim praksam, enako kot literatura.

Zato se med kuturno zgodovino in literarno vedo ne more vzpostaviti odnos predominacije, pač pa interakcija dveh avtonomnih disciplin.

VanesaMatajc

Soočenost s trendom: primerjalna literarna veda in kulturna zgodovina

39

Facing a Trend: Comparative Literary Studies and Cultural History

An issue that has been posed since 1993 (The Bernheimer Report, which only discusses the contact between comparative literature and cultural studies) is whether contemporary epistemology justifies the subordination of comparative literary studies (and other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences) to the trend of the “generalizing” discipline of cultural his-tory, in which each human practice is revealed, first of all, as an articula-tion of culture and, second, in the dynamic historicity of culture, with the theories of representation and construction. These theories are particularly applicable in comparative literary studies as well, which shares literature as an object of study with cultural history.

A response regarding the autonomy of comparative literature was provided by Michael Riffaterre with his thesis on literature as the central discourse of culture. The cultural historian Peter Burke clearly states that cultural history “has no essence. It can only be defined in terms of its own history;” this is articulated as historiography, which with its communica-tion strategies (today consciously) uses models of literary discourse (Green-blatt’s label is the “poetics of culture,” and Lotman’s the “poetics of every-day behavior”). Literary discourse is studied by literary theory in its histori-cal diversity, that is by comparative literary studies. According to Hayden White, Burke is aware of this in the parallels that he draws between modern novels and historiography. From this perspective, literary studies would be a generalizing discipline. But it is not: Greenblatt’s new historicism (accord-ing to Burke, part of cultural history) persists in the textuality of history, although (according to H. Aram Veeser) it is embedded in the network of the material practices of culture. The confrontation between both of them is examined on shared objects by literary studies and cultural history.

A characteristic Slovenian example is the lyric verse of France Balantič. Through the aspect of (textualized) material practice, cultural history fol-lows the political ideology of Balantič’s appearance in the “Home Guard” (Sln. domobranski) canon, his expulsion from the canon under commu-nism, and stabilization in the liberal esthetic canon. However, this is made possible by literary studies, which classifies Balantič’s lyric poetry as litera-ture – with regard to theoretical structure and literary history – in which it is subjected to material practices, just like literature.

It is therefore not possible to establish a relationship of predominance between cultural history and literary studies, but rather the interaction of two autonomous disciplines.

40

To vprašanje obvladuje raziskovalne načrte znanstvenikov primerjalne knji-ževnosti po vsem svetu, čeprav smo danes manj samozavestni pri odgovarjanju na druga vprašanja, ki jih implicira: kaj je književnost, kaj je svetovno v svetovni književnosti in kako naj bo napisana katerakoli zgodovina. Pred več kakor pet-desetimi leti je Erich Auerbach na kratko povzel težave, povezane s svetovno književnostjo, na takšen način: literarni zgodovinar mora biti sposoben pre-gledati celotno gradivo sam, kar pa ni mogoče. Ta pesimistični pogled je upra-vičen v primeru, da razumemo svetovno književnost kot skupek nacionalnih književnosti. V zadnjem desetletju sta bila izpeljana dva sistematična poskusa, posvečena oživitvi ideje takšne sinteze. Toda glavna težava je precej podobna kakor v Auerbachovem času: kako povzeti v sintezo tako neizmerno veliko koli-čino gradiva in kako najti nit, ki jo bo pomagala urediti v smiselno celoto.

Avtorica prvega projekta je Pascale Casanova, ki je v svoji knjigi La Répu-blique mondiale des lettres vpeljala idejo svetovnega literarnega prostora. Ta knjiga zagovarja menjavo stare paradigme svetovne književnosti, ki je pre-žeta z Auerbachovim filološkim pesimizmom, z novo paradigmo literarnega sveta, ki – čeprav z ogromnim delovnim področjem – ni nujno nepredsta-vljiva. Konceptualni okvir, ki ga je Pascale Casanova prevzela od Braudela in Bourdieua, daje njeni analizi literarnega sveta nekakšno sposobnost zazna-vanja, ki je bolj značilna za ekonomske zgodovine. Toda obstaja točka, na kateri začne ta razširjena ekonomska metafora – čeprav koristna – vplivati na pojem literarne vrednosti. Avtorica, ki se dosledno drži svojega splo-šnega okvira trga za izmenjavo netržnih vrednosti oziroma neekonomske ekonomije, opisuje literarno vrednost kot tisto, kar velja za vredno. Toda v tem spretnem opisu, ki ga lahko vsak prepozna za resničnega do točke, ko postane splošno sprejet, se skriva protislovje. Lahko bi se vprašali: Po či-gavem mnenju? Po mnenju posvečujočih avtoritet iz centrov svetovnega literarnega prostora ali po mnenju širšega mednarodnega bralstva? Bralcu je dovoljena domneva, da so v konceptualnem okviru trga za izmenjavo ne-tržnih vrednosti oziroma neekonomske ekonomije potrošniki tisti, ki morajo imeti upoštevanja vredno vlogo in ki glasujejo za popolnoma komercialno stran svetovne literarne produkcije, kar pa meče na svetovni literarni prostor posledično zelo dvomljivo luč. Še več: Casanova izrecno pravi, da obstajajo vrednosti, ki jih trg še ni prepoznal. Literarna vrednost je določena obenem kot tisto, kar velja za vredno pri posvečenih avtoritetah, in tisto, kar pri njih še ne velja za takšno, pa bi lahko v primeru, če bi zadevno literarno delo prebrali. Z ozirom na težave pri definiranju pojma literarne vrednosti torej metafora neekonomske ekonomije, ki je temelj avtoričine knjige, ni prime-ren okvir za zgodovino svetovne književnosti.

ZoranMilutinović

Ali je zgodovina svetovne književnosti mogoča?

41

Avtor drugega predloga za revitalizacijo pisanja zgodovine svetovne knji-ževnosti je Franco Moretti. Moretti se opredeljuje za pogovorni pomen izraza Weltliteratur: to je skupek literarne produkcije v vseh jezikih in v vseh časih. Toda medtem ko je Auerbach vztrajal pri osebni perspektivi in intuiciji enega same-ga raziskovalca, je Moretti predlagal timsko delo. Medtem ko si je Auerbach zamislil zgodovino, ki bi bila bližja umetnini kakor pravi akademski študiji, je Moretti pričakoval izsledke, ki bi jih bilo mogoče zagovarjati, in znanstvene zakone. In končno, vendar ne manj pomembno: medtem ko je Auerbach vsako poglavje v Mimesis začel z analizo segmenta besedila, ki bi lahko predstavljal celotno dobo, ni Moretti načrtoval nobene besedilne analize. Moretti trdi, da nam lahko le z odpovedjo close readingu uspe pokriti celotno področje. Edina točka ujemanja med Auerbachom in Morettijem je zaključek, da ne more en sam bralec pokriti niti najmanjšega dela velikanskega področja.

Pisanje zgodovine svetovne književnosti je nemogoča naloga, če jo ra-zumemo kot serijo interpretacij oziroma kot �close readings�, saj se mora raziskovalec omejiti na majhno število besedil, ki jih zelo resno vzame pod drobnogled. Nova in primerna metoda bi se morala osredotočiti na nekaj, kar bi bilo manjše in hkrati večje od teksta: na �sredstva, teme, trope – ali žanre in sisteme. In če bi med zelo majhnim in zelo velikim tekst sam izginil, no, potem bi bil to eden od tistih primerov, ko bi lahko upravičeno rekli: Manj je več.� To moramo razumeti kot zgodovino, vzporedno zgodovini li-terarnih besedil (ukvarjanje s pojavom, ki je zaznaven zgolj na mikroskopski stopnji, ki se kaže v velikem številu besedil, nedostopnih enemu samemu raziskovalcu), in kot konstrukcijo sistema razlik, ki na koncu pomaga opisati nekaj večjega kakor posamezen tekst, na primer opis razvoja žanra.

Za Morettijevo metodo prava naloga ni tekstualna interpretacija posa-meznih del, marveč konstrukcija abstraktnih modelov (grafov, načrtov in vzorcev), ki se jih lahko interpretira šele pozneje. Toda kako naj vemo, kaj iščemo, kar naj bi bilo predstavljeno v grafih, načrtih in vzorcih, če ne na podlagi predhodne interpretacije tega, kaj bi morali najti? Najbolj previden način bi bil, da bi začeli s tako veliko množico izhodišč, kakor je le mogoče. Pri tem bi upali, da bo mreža tako tesna, da se ne bo skoznjo moglo izmu-zniti prav nič. Tako se problem branja neizmernega števila tekstov, vržen skozi okno, priplazi nazaj skozi dimnik kot problem neizmernega števila nujno obravnavanih izhodišč. Konec koncev ostaja zgodovina književnosti melanholična veda: tako kakor ni mogoče prebrati vsega, tako tudi ni mo-goče nikoli trditi, da so bila predvidena vsa načrtovana izhodišča, s katerih bi lahko povedali zgodovino književnosti.

Morettijev načrt spominja na dva zgodnejša projekta, namreč na pozitivi-stično zgodovino književnosti in na strukturalizem. Treba se je spomniti, da sta bila oba opuščena, še preden se je izoblikovala kakršnakoli predstava o celoti.

42

This question dominates the research agenda of comparative literature scholars the world over, even if we are now less confident when answer-ing the other questions it implies: what literature is, what is worldly about world literature, and how any history should be written. More than fifty years ago Erich Auerbach summed up the difficulties associated with world literature in the following manner: a literary historian must be able to sur-vey the entire material himself, which is not possible. This pessimistic out-look is justified as long as we understand world literature as being the sum of national literatures. Over the last decade two systematic attempts were made to revive the idea of such a synthesis. The main problem is, how-ever, much the same as in Auerbach’s time: how to synthesize such a vast amount of material, and how to find a thread which may help compose it as a meaningful whole.

The author of the first project is Pascale Casanova, who in her book La République mondiale des lettres introduces the idea of the world liter-ary space. This book advocates a shift from the older paradigm of world literature, impregnated by Auerbach’s philological pessimism, to the new paradigm of a literary world, which, although huge in scope, does not nec-essarily need to be unrepresentable. The conceptual framework which Casanova takes over from Braudel and Bourdieu gives her analysis of the lit-erary world a certain flair more commonly found in histories of economies. However, there is a moment when this extended economist metaphor, use-ful as it may be, begins to influence the notion of literary value. Consistent with her general framework of a market for exchanging non-marketable values, and of a non-economic economy, Casanova describes literary value as that which is considered valuable. There is, however, a contradiction in this apt description, which everyone can recognize as true to the point of being a truism. One may ask, considered by whom? By the consecrating authorities in the centres of the world literary space, or by the wider inter-national readership? The reader is allowed to presume that, in the concep-tual framework of the market for exchanging non-marketable values, and of the non-economic economy, it is the consumers who should carry out the considering part, and give their votes to the purely commercial part of the world literary production, which then presents the world literary space in an increasingly questionable light. Moreover, Casanova explicitly says that there are values which the market has not yet recognized. Literary value is defined at the same time as that which is considered valuable by the con-secrated authorities, and that which they not yet consider as such, but they might if given a chance to read it. Given the difficulties in defining the no-tion of literary value, the metaphor of the non-economic economy, which is the fundament of Casanova’s book, is not a suitable framework for a history of world literature.

Is a History of World Literature Possible?

43

The author of the second proposal for revitalising the writing of history of world literature is Franco Moretti. Moretti sides with the colloquial mean-ing of Weltliteratur: it is the sum of literary production in all languages and at all times. However, while Auerbach insisted on a personal perspective and the intuition of a sole researcher, Moretti proposes teamwork; while Auerbach imagined a history which would be closer to a work of art than to a proper academic study, Moretti expects justifiable results and scientific laws. And, last but not least, while Auerbach began every chapter in Mimesis with the analysis of a textual segment which might stand for a whole epoch, Moretti does not envisage any textual analysis and claims that only by giving up on close reading can we manage to cover the whole field. The only point of agreement between Auerbach and Moretti is the conclusion that not even the smallest part of the vast field can be covered by a single reader.

Writing a history of world literature is an impossible task if it is to be understood as a series of interpretations or “close readings”, because the researcher must limit himself to a small number of texts which are taken very seriously. The new and appropriate method should focus on what is smaller and larger than texts: on “devices, themes, tropes – or genres and systems. And if, between the very small and the very large, the text itself disappears, well, it is one of those cases when one can justifiably say, Less is more.” This is to be understood as a history parallel to the history of literary texts: following a phenomenon, perceptible only at the microscopic level, through a huge number of texts, which are inaccessible to a single research-er, and as a construction of a system of differences which eventually helps to describe something larger than an individual text, such as a description of the development of a genre.

The real task for Moretti’s method is not textual interpretation of indi-vidual works, but construction of abstract models (graphs, maps and trees), which might be interpreted themselves only later. However, how are we to know what we are looking for to be represented in graphs, maps and trees, if not on the basis of a previous interpretation of what is to be found? The most cautious way would be to start from as many points as possible, hop-ing that the net would be so tight that nothing could slip through it. This is how the problem of the enormous number of texts to be read, thrown out of the window, creeps back through the chimney as the problem of the enormous number of starting points to follow. History of literature, after all, remains a melancholic discipline: as one can never read everything, so one can never claim to have predicted all envisaged starting points from which to tell the story of literature.

Moretti’s project resembles the two earlier ones: namely the positivistic history of literature, and structuralism. It is worth remembering that both projects were abandoned before any vision of the whole was reached.

44

Že v prvi kritiki (Mladina, 1926) je opazna Ocvirkova ost proti vodstvu Narodnega gledališča, zaostril pa je svoje poglede zlasti v esejistično zasno-vanem �Premišljevanju o slovenskem gledališču� (Ljubljanski zvon, 1930). Očital je celo vračanje k zloglasni �Krpanovi kobili�, vztrajal pri zvestobi avtorjevemu besedilu – dopuščal je le krajšave, upiral pa se je samovoljnim posegom v literarno umetnino. Zagovarjal je poglobljeno, intimno gleda-lišče (na primer uprizoritve režiserja Cirila Debevca) in si nakopal zamere s tem, da je odklanjal kreacije dotlej nedotakljivega prvaka Ivana Levarja, zlasti njegovega Fausta. Tudi pri Šestovih interpretacijah Shakespeara (na primer Sna kresne noc i) je zavračal vnanje poudarke, kričavost, pretirane kretnje, karikiranje. Terjal je večjo poglobljenost. Mnoge Ocvirkove pripom-be spominjajo na dogajanje v sodobnem gledališču, zato so njegova razmi-šljanja še toliko bolj aktualna. Kot urednik Ljubljanskega zvona je zasnoval tudi anketo, ki naj bi razkrila vzroke takratne gledališke krize pri nas – te po kritikovem mnenju niso povzročale samo gmotne stiske. Med igralci je cenil bolj kakor uradno priznane veličine intimnejše interprete, na primer Emila Kralja, ki mu je že takrat prerokoval lepo prihodnost. Po prvih obiskih Pariza in dokončni preusmeritvi k problemom primerjalne literarne vede kritik ni več utegnil strnjeno spremljati odrskega dogajanja, vendar je ostajal gle-dališču zvest. Še po drugi svetovni vojni je rad sprejel povabilo takratnega osrednjega dnevnika Slovenski poroc evalec. Na njegovih straneh je objavil bolj reviji kot dnevnemu časniku namenjeno esejistično razmišljanje o prvih povojnih uprizoritvah, zlasti tistih, ki jih je pripravil režiser Bojan Stupica. Ta mu je bil izviren, samostojen ustvarjalec, četudi drugače usmerjen kakor nekdaj priznani Ciril Debevec.

DušanMoravec

Estetska merila Ocvirkove gledališke kritike

45

Esthetic Criteria of Ocvirk’s Theater Criticism

Ocvirk’s first critique (published in Mladina, 1926) was already clearly directed against the management of the Slovenian National Theater. He sharpened his views in his essay “Premišljevanje o slovenskem gledališču” (Thoughts on the Slovenian Theater, Ljubljanski zvon, 1930). He was against returning to the infamous Krpanova kobila (Krpan’s Mare) and insisted on loyalty to the author’s text; he tolerated only abridgement, but opposed any arbitrary alterations to literary works of art. He advocated psychologi-cally profound, intimate theater (e.g., the productions directed by Ciril Debevec) and was blamed for rejecting the interpretations of the hitherto impeccable Ivan Levar, especially his performance of Faust. In director Osip Šest’s interpretation of Shakespeare’s works (e.g., A Midsummer Night’s Dream), he also rejected internal emphases, stridency, excessive gesticula-tion, and caricaturing, and he demanded greater depth. Many of Ocvirk’s remarks resemble events in today’s theater, which makes his views even more topical. As the editor of the literary journal Ljubljanski zvon (1934), he also designed a survey to reveal the reasons for the Slovenian theater crisis at that time – in Ocvirk’s opinion, this crisis was not caused merely by finan-cial limitations. Among the actors, he respected intimate performers more than officially established actors; for example, Emil Kralj, for whom he had predicted a promising future even at that time. After his first visits to Paris and his final focus on the issues of comparative literary studies, he was no longer able to follow events in the theater, although he remained faithful to it. Even after the Second World War he gladly accepted invitations from the main Slovenian daily paper at that time, Slovenski porocevalecporoc evalec (The Slo-venian Reporter). On its pages, he published his essays – which were more appropriate for an academic journal than a daily newspaper – on the first postwar performances, especially those directed by Bojan Stupica. Ocvirk saw Stupica as an original and independent creator, although he had a dif-ferent orientation than the once renowned Ciril Debevec.

4�

Predlagam vzpostavitev tipologije literarnih zgodovin, utemeljenih na stopnji, na kateri prehajajo meje. �Ingresivne literarne zgodovine�, kakor si jih predstavljam, lahko prestopajo narativne, disciplinarne in lingvistične meje, vendar ostajajo znotraj sedanjih političnih in geografskih meja.

Vse literarne zgodovine so transgresivne, saj vse segajo prek svoje pri-marne teme, tj. literarnega besedila. Redefinicije besedilnega konteksta sestavljajo sámo srce zgodovine literarne zgodovine: vsaka doba in vsak li-terarni ali kulturni tok ima svoje lastne konvencije za umestitev teksta; vsak trend, tok ali obdobje se skuša razlikovati od prejšnjega s prekositvijo prej-šnjih konvencij.

Novejše literarne zgodovine so prestopile 1) narativne konvencije, 2) konvencije vede in 3) politične meje. Transgresije narativnih konvencij na-vadno ne upoštevajo aristotelskih kriterijev začetka, jedra in zaključka, kon-tinuitete, teleologije in kavzalnosti. Pogosto opustijo tudi konvencije, zna-čilne za zgodovino ali literarno zgodovino, ki jih lahko označimo za �grand récit� ali organicizem. Organicistična pripoved je zahtevala poenotene, do-sledne in zanesljive pripovedovalce – glasove, ki so se po tradiciji, vendar netočno imenovali �vsevedni�. Veliko literarnih zgodovin 20. stoletja je po-stalo večglasnih s tem, ko so sprejele perspektivo literarnega modernizma, delno pa zaradi tega, ker so plod skupinskega dela. Dobro znana francoska literarna zgodovina Dennisa Hollierja odpravlja vseobsegajočo pripoved in jo nadomešča z veliko kratkimi razpravami, od katerih se vsaka nanaša na datum posameznega dogodka. To organizacijsko strukturo sta na primer prevzela David Wellbery v nemški literarni zgodovini (2004) and Mihály Szegedy-Maszák v madžarski literarni zgodovini (2007). Transgresije meja posameznih ved v novejših literarnih zgodovinah vključujejo tematske lite-rarne zgodovine, foucauldovske zgodovine in recepcijske zgodovine. Tran-snacionalne literarne zgodovine prestopajo nacionalne meje, vendar se jim ni treba omejevati na tradicionalne pojme primerjalne književnosti. Med novejše primere spadata tudi: latinskoameriška literarna zgodovina Maria Valdésa in Djelala Kadirja v treh zvezkih in njen sestrski project History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe v štirih zvezkih, ki ga urejava Marcel Cornis-Pope in jaz.

Ingresivne literarne zgodovine lahko prestopajo narativne in/ali di-sciplinarne meje, vendar bodo ostale znotraj političnih meja današnjega zemljevida. Literarne zgodovine mesta ali regije so – tako kakor arheolo-ška izkopavanja – zgodovine kraja, ki kopljejo skozi plasti preteklosti, da bi odkrile usedline zgodovine. Toda arheologi in zgodovinarji lahko odkrijejo

JohnNeubauer

Kaj so ingresivne literarne zgodovine in zakaj jih potrebujemo?

47

izgubljene, prikrite ali izginule kulture – prejšnje prebivalke kraja. Njihovo specifično delo, vezano na kraj, je kulturno transgresivno, ker pogosto iz-kopljejo drobce kultur, ki ne pripadajo tisti, ki vlada na površju sedaj. Naše obstoječe literarne zgodovine, vezane na kraj, se nagibajo k temu, da osta-jajo enojezične in enokulturne, saj ne skušajo rekonstruirati mnogovrstnih literarnih kultur kraja, čeprav so vsi kraji v stoletni zgodovini sprejeli različne ustne in pisne literarne tradicije.

Sodobni prerod regionalne, evropske in celo svetovne literature je do-brodošel pojav, vendar sproža skoraj nepremagljiva metodološka vprašanja in prispeva vse premalo k rešitvi najnujnejših problemov politične in kultur-ne uskladitve. Ingresivne literarne zgodovine bi lahko ponudile teoretično in praktično koristne alternative.

What Are Ingressive Literary Histories and Why Do We Need Them?

I propose to establish a typology of literary histories based on the degree to which they transgress borders. The “ingressive literary histories” that I envisage could transgress narrative, disciplinary, and linguistic boundaries but stay within present-day political and geographical borders.

All literary histories are transgressive, because they all go beyond their primary subject matter, the literary text. Redefinitions of the textual context constitute the very heart of literary history’s history: every age and every lit-erary or cultural current has its own conventions to embed texts, and every new trend, current, and age seeks to distinguish itself from the previous one by transcending the previous conventions.

Recent literary histories have transgressed 1) narrative conventions, 2) disciplinary boundaries, and 3) political borders. Transgressions of narra-tive conventions usually disregard the Aristotelian criteria of beginning, middle, and end, continuity, teleology, and causality; they often abandon also the conventions specific to history and literary history, which we may label “grand récit” or organicism. The organicist narrative asked for uni-fied, consistent, and reliable narrators – voices that have been tradition-ally but imprecisely been called “omniscient.” Adopting the perspectivism of literary Modernism, many twentieth-century histories of literature have become plurivocal, partly because they are team written. Dennis Hollier’s well-known French literary history does away with the overarching narra-tive and substitutes for it many short essays, each of them attached to the date of a particular event. This organizational structure has been adopted, for instance, in David Wellbery’s German literary history (2004) and Mihá-ly Szegedy-Maszák’s Hungarian one (2007). Transgressions of disciplinary boundaries in recent literary histories include thematic literary histories, Foucauldian histories, and reception histories. Transnational literary histo-

48

ries transgress national borders, but need not limit themselves to traditional notions of comparative literature. Recent examples include Mario Valdés’s and Djelal Kadir’s 3-volume Latin-American literary history, and its sister project, the 4-volume History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe that Marcel Cornis-Pope and myself have been editing.

Ingressive literary histories may cross narrative and/or disciplinary bor-ders, but they will remain within the political borders of today’s map. Liter-ary histories of a city or a region are, like archeological undertakings, site histories that dig down to layers of the past in order to recover historical sediments. But archeologists and historians may recover lost, suppressed, or vanished cultures – former occupants of the geographical site. Their site-specific work is culturally transgressive because they often unearth shards of cultures that do not belong to the one now dominating the surface. Our existing site-specific literary histories tend to remain monolingual and mo-nocultural, for they do not attempt to reconstruct a site’s multiple literary cultures, though all geographical sites have accommodated over the centu-ries different oral and written literary traditions.

The contemporary revival of regional, European, and even world litera-ture is a welcome phenomenon but it raises almost unsurmountable meth-odological questions and it contributes all too little to some of the most pressing problems of political and cultural rapprochement. Ingressive liter-ary histories may offer theoretically and practically useful alternatives.

49

BorisA.Novak

Ocvirkova teorija verza

Ukvarjanje z metriko ima na Slovenskem dolgo tradicijo, saj je pionirske korake v skladu z duhom časa mogoče zaslediti že pri Blažu Kumerdeju, Marku Pohlinu in Zoisu. Resnejše obrise je teorija verza dobila šele na za-četku 20. stoletja z Ivanom Grafenauerjem (Iz zgodovine slovenske metrike, 1916), Otonom Župančičem (Ritem in metrum, 1917) in Nikolajem Omerso (Stihoslovje, 1925).

Šele Anton Ocvirk in Aleksander Isačenko (Slovenski verz, 1939) pa sta na Slovenskem utemeljila teorijo verza kot znanstveno disciplino: med-tem ko je Isačenko uveljavljal statistične metode, značilne za tisti poga-njek ruskega formalizma, ki je peljal v zgodnji strukturalizem, je Ocvirk izhodišča ruskega formalizma kombiniral z literarnozgodovinskimi raz-gledi pri analizi jezikovnih izraznih sredstev ter evropskih verzifikacijskih sistemov. V okviru svojega pedagoškega dela na Oddelku za primerjalno književnost ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete je Ocvirk posvečal posebno pozornost prav predmetu Teorija verza. Čeprav so bile njegove analize pesniškega jezika v sintetični obliki objavljene šele pozno v okviru zbir-ke Literarni leksikon (Evropski verzni sistemi in slovenski verz, I–II, 1980, ter Literarno delo in jezikovna izrazna sredstva, 1981), je Ocvirkovo razu-mevanje verza globoko zaznamovalo generacije slušateljev primerjalne književnosti in slavistike, iz katerih so se rekrutirali ne le visokošolski in srednješolski pedagogi, temveč tudi mnogi publicisti ter vodilni slovenski pesniki teh desetletij. Ne le po svoji zgodovinski vlogi, tudi po značaju je bil Ocvirk pionir – utiralec novih poti, znanstvenik velikega zamaha, ki je spričo preobilice dela in bornega stanja porajajoče se slovenske literarne vede marsikaj pustil v fazi osnutkov. Kar zadeva verzologijo, je Ocvirkove osnutke na Oddelku za primerjalno književnost s polihistorskim znanjem dopolnil in sistematiziral Evald Koren, ki je po Ocvirku prevzel predmet Teorija verza.

Ocvirkove analize verza so bile razpete med dva diametralno nasprotna, a komplementarna pola:

Po eni strani se je – najbrž tudi zaradi pedagoških potreb – intenzivno ukvarjal s problematiko verzifikacijskih sistemov (temeljnih metričnih zako-nitosti kvantitativne, silabične, akcentuacijske in silabotonične verzifikacije) ter se na ta način približal zasnutkom primerjalne verzologije, ki se je kot posebna disciplina razvila šele v zadnjih desetletjih, po Ocvirkovi smrti. Ta vidik njegovega raziskovalnega interesa je �pokrival� tradicionalno vlogo metra v pesniškem jeziku od antike do konca 19. stoletja ter je sovpadal tudi z njegovo lastno, mladostno pesniško izkušnjo. Ocvirkovo vztrajanje, da je

50

specifika pesniškega jezika njegova zvočnost, je torej sad njegove naveza-nosti na kulturni spomin.

Po drugi strani pa je bil Ocvirk nenavadno odprt tudi za inovativne po-bude simbolistične prenove verzifikacije in celo za radikalne eksperimente avantgardističnih poetik. Na sledi ruskih formalistov ter Župančičevega raz-likovanja med ritmom in metrom je izdelal teorijo pesniškega jezika, ki se ni končala na preozkih in dogmatičnih okopih tradicionalne metrike, temveč je omogočala tudi razumevanje fenomenov moderne lirike in duha. Po vsej verjetnosti ga je k taki odprtosti gnala tudi prijateljska in uredniška izkušnja s poezijo Srečka Kosovela.

Skratka: Anton Ocvirk je posrečeno združeval navezanost na tradicijo in odprtost za iskanje in raziskovanje, tako na ravni estetskega �okusa� kot na ravni metodologije literarne vede.

Tudi z današnjega stališča zasluži Ocvirkov prispevek nadvse pozitivno oceno. Upravičeno ga imamo za utemeljitelja slovenske verzologije. A ne le to: po metodologiji je teorijo verza približal zahtevam in relevantnim do-sežkom svojega časa, s tem pa je omogočil trdno in dragoceno osnovo za verzološke raziskave naslednjih rodov komparativistov in slovenistov. Tudi v vsebinskem smislu večina njegovih analiz še zmeraj �stoji�, točnost nje-govih sklepov pa ni le posledica znanstvene sistematičnosti, temveč tudi izrazitega posluha za pesniški jezik.

Ocvirk’s Theory of Verse

The study of metrics has a long tradition in Slovenia because pioneer-ing steps in harmony with the spirit of the time can be traced all the way back to Blaž Kumerdej, Marko Pohlin, and Žiga Zios. The theory of verse did not acquire more rigorous form until the beginning of the 20th century, with Ivan Grafenauer’s Iz zgodovine slovenske metrike (On the History of Slovenian Metrics, 1916), Oton Župančič’s Ritem in metrum (Rhythm and Meter, 1917), and Nikolaj Omersa’s Stihoslovje (Versology, 1925).

It was not until Anton Ocvirk and Aleksander Isačenko’s Slovenski verz (Slovenian Verse, 1939) that the theory of verse was established as a schol-arly discipline in Slovenia; Isačenko established statistical methods typical of the offshoot of the Russian formalism leading to early structuralism, whereas Ocvirk combined the starting points of Russian formalism with literary historical perspectives in analyzing linguistic means of expression and European versification systems. As part of his teaching at the Depart-ment of Comparative Literature of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts, Ocvirk dedi-cated special attention to the course Theory of Verse. Although his analy-ses of poetic language were published in a synthesized form relatively late within the collection Literarni leksikon: Evropski verzni sistemi in slovenski verz (Literary Lexicon: European Verse Systems and Slovenian Verse, I –II, 1980), and Literarno delo in jezikovna izrazna sredstva (Literary Work and

51

Linguistic Means of Expression, 1981), Ocvirk’s conception of verse deeply marked several generations of comparative literature and Slavic studies students, from whom not only university and secondary-school teachers were recruited, but also many journalists and leading Slovenian poets of these decades. Ocvirk was a pioneer not only with regard to his histori-cal role, but also his character; he discovered new paths and engaged in large-scale research that left much at the draft level because of an excess of work and the meager conditions in emergent Slovenian literary studies. With regard to versology, Evald Koren, who took over the classes in the theory of verse from Ocvirk at the Department of Comparative Literature, added to and systemized Ocvirk’s drafts with his expert knowledge in many areas.

Ocvirk’s verse analyses were caught between two diametrically op-posed, but complementary, poles:

On the one hand – probably also because of teaching needs – he in-tensely dealt with the issues of versification systems (i.e., the basic metri-cal rules of quantitative, syllabic, accentual, and syllabotonic versification) and thus approached basic comparative versology, which developed as a special discipline only in recent decades – that is, after Ocvirk’s death. This aspect of his research interest covered the traditional role of meter in poetic language from Antiquity to the end of the 19th century, and coincided with his own experience as a young poet. Ocvirk’s insistence that the specific feature of poetic language is its sonorousness is thus the fruit of his attach-ment to cultural memory.

On the other hand, Ocvirk was unusually open to innovative initiatives concerning the symbolist renovation of versification and even to the radical experiments of avant-garde poetics. Following the Russian formalists and Župančič’s differentiation between rhythm and meter, he created a theo-ry of poetic language that ended not in the overly narrow and dogmatic trenches of traditional metrics, but also made it possible to understand the phenomena of modern lyric poetry and spirit. Most likely, such openness was also the result of his friendship with Srečko Kosovel and experience with editing his poetry.

Overall, Anton Ocvirk skillfully combined his attachment to tradition and openness to “search and research” at the levels of both esthetic taste and the methodology of literary studies.

Even from today’s perspective, Ocvirk’s contribution deserves an ex-tremely positive evaluation. He is properly considered the founder of Slov-enian versology. Even more than this, in terms of methodology, he moved the theory of verse closer to the demands and relevant achievements of his time, making possible a solid and valuable basis for versological studies by future comparatists and experts in Slovenian studies. In addition, even in terms of content, the majority of his analyses still “stand” and the accuracy of his conclusions is not merely the result of scholarly systematicity, but also a distinct ear for poetic language.

52

O vključenosti orientalskih literatur v študijski program svetovne knji-ževnosti priča le en natisnjen vir, Ocvirkov učni načrt iz l. 1950 za študijsko skupino Svetovna književnost in literarna teorija. Na obseg in način obrav-nave tega področja pa lahko sklepamo iz rokopisnih profesorjevih priprav, ohranjenih v zapuščini. V dvakrat ponovljenih predavanjih je predstavil de-vet najvažnejših orientalskih literatur, zaradi nepovezanega razvoja vsako posebej. Kronološkega načela se zaradi specifike področja ni držal, ampak je v prvi vrsti upošteval geografski vidik. Obravnavo je začel z zelo staro ki-tajsko literaturo in nadaljeval z mlajšo japonsko. Daleč največ pozornosti je namenil indijski, nato je prešel k perzijski, nadaljeval z arabsko in bolj bežno prikazal turško literaturo. Končal je spet z zelo starimi literaturami: babi-lonsko-asirsko, egipčansko in hebrejsko. Manjše in bolj odvisne literature je omenil le ob večjih kot njihova vplivna področja.

Ocvirk je v glavnem rabil termin �orientalske literature�; med njegovi-mi drugimi poimenovanji za to področje se zlasti zdi zanimiv naziv �stare izvenevropske literature�, ker je bližji prevladujoči sedanji rabi. Znana so kritična stališča Edwarda Saida do uporabe izraza �orientalski�. Said očita orientalistom, da so vzvišeni do tujih literatur, ki jih imajo za manjvredne, zato so postale nepriljubljene tudi druge izpeljanke iz besede �orient�. Toda Saidova knjiga Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient je bila obja-vljena l. 1978, torej po Ocvirkovi rabi termina �orientalske literature�. Poleg tega se Saidovi očitki ne bi mogli nanašati na Ocvirka, ker njegov odnos do neevropskih literatur ni bil podcenjevalen. Prav Ocvirk si je zelo prizadeval, da bi bila obravnava neevropskih literatur vključena v primerjalno literarno zgodovino. Zato se tudi njegova uporaba termina �orientalske literature� ne zdi sporna.

V uvodu Ocvirkove rokopisne priprave za predstavitev orientalskih lite-ratur je opazna nekakšna dvojnost: po eni strani lahko zasledimo stališče, da bi se moral komparativist oziroma študent svetovne književnosti vsaj v glavnih potezah seznaniti z orientalskimi literaturami zaradi njih samih, torej zaradi umetniške vrednosti njihovih literarnih del, po drugi strani pa profesor napoveduje, da bo v svojih predavanjih poudaril predvsem tista poglavja iz orientalskih literatur, ki so posredno ali neposredno vplivala na razvoj evropske besedne umetnosti in misli.

Dvojno utemeljevanje pomena orientalskih literatur je mogoče razbrati že iz Ocvirkove knjige Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine iz leta 1936. Tu se avtorju zastavlja dilema, ali je pravi okvir za proučevanje literarnih poja-vov Evropa ali svet. Anton Ocvirk se odloča za zahtevnejšo možnost, za sve-

VlastaPacheinerKlander

Orientalske literature v programu profesorja Ocvirka za študij svetovne književnosti

53

tovno razsežnost, čeprav je iz njegovih izvajanj razvidno, da je Evropa tisti teren, na katerem se – tako kakor večina tedanjih vodilnih komparativistov – počuti zares doma. Njegovo prizadevanje, da upošteva svetovno dogaja-nje, ali z drugimi besedami, neevropske literature, kažejo tudi druga mesta v knjigi. T. Smolej je ugotovil, da je – drugače kot Van Tieghem – vključil v obravnavanje mitoloških tem tudi orientalske, prav tako je pri religioznih temah upošteval neevropske religije. Posameznih omemb neevropskih lite-ratur je na drugih mestih v knjigi čez dvajset. Spodbudo za tak pogled na orientalske literature pa je lahko našel pri svojem podiplomskem učitelju Paulu Hazardu, ki ga v omenjenem rokopisu tudi omenja.

Za osvetlitev Ocvirkovih teoretičnih stališč glede tega vprašanja pa je najpomembnejše 5. poglavje razdelka Primerjalna teorija v knjigi Teorija pri-merjalne literarne zgodovine. V prejšnjem poglavju se posveča zlasti evrop-skemu literarnemu razvoju, že v začetku 5. poglavja pa utemeljuje svetovno perspektivo s pomenom hebrejske literature. Sledijo še navedbe drugih lite-rarnih in idejnih vplivov orienta na Evropo, pa tudi evropskega literarnega vpliva na nekatere sodobne azijske literature. S trditvijo, da so posamezna slovstva danes del svetovne literature, preide Ocvirk h kritičnemu pretresu pojma �svetovna literatura�. Po opisu njegove rabe v 16., 17., 18. in začetku 19. stol. se ustavi pri Goetheju, ki je l. 1829 svetovno literaturo opredelil kot občečloveško pomembno umetnost, ki izvira iz �notranje narave� posame-znih narodnih organizmov.

Pri Goetheju je Ocvirk dobil potrditev, da so neevropske literature tudi same po sebi (brez upoštevanja njihovih vplivov) vredne pozornosti. Po Ocvirkovi interpretaciji je namreč Goethe videl v narodnih literaturah težnjo k svetovnemu kulturnemu sozvočju. Ocvirk je v Goethejevem konceptu sve-tovne literature zaznal tudi nadčasovno dimenzijo.

Čeprav je bil Ocvirku Goethejev pojem �svetovna književnost� osebno očitno blizu, pa je kot znanstvenik moral opaziti njegovo literarnozgodovin-sko problematičnost, zato je v zvezi z njim opozoril na nekatera nerešena vprašanja. Zavrnil pa je Petersenovo stališče, da splošna literarnozgodovin-ska sinteza ni možna, češ da zanjo ni nobenih znanstvenih oporišč. Pri tem se je skliceval na tematološke, stilne, oblikovne in idejne raziskave, pri ka-terih se literarni zgodovinar ne more omejiti le na evropske narode, ampak mora seči tudi v Azijo. Upravičeno je odklonil svetovno literaturo kot krono-loško po narodih urejeno zbirko vsega, kar je človeštvo napisalo. Z načelno kritiko dotedanjih obravnav pa je postavil piscem svetovne literarne zgodo-vine zelo visoke zahteve: želel je, da bi podajali književnost v celotni razvoj-ni povezanosti in upoštevali predvsem tiste literature, ki so res vključene v svetovno dogajanje. Ni čudno, da nekateri poskusi zgodovine svetovne literature, ki jih Ocvirk navaja, tako visoko postavljenega cilja ne dosegajo. Zato končuje 5. poglavje z naslednjo ugotovitvijo: �Znanstveno povsem do-gnano proučevanje svetovne literature si bo moralo dograditi nove temelje, če bo hotelo uspešno sestavljati takšne, danes še precej problematične sin-teze, ustvariti pa si bo tudi moralo popolnejši način vrednotenja, če bo to

54

spričo skoraj nepregledne snovi sploh mogoče. Mnogi pomisleki, ki se nam porajajo ob kritičnem razsojanju teh knjig, so danes še vsestransko tehtni in nas prepričujejo, da je to izredno važno poglavje primerjalne literarne vede šele komaj načeto.� (Teorija …, str. 75.)

Šele podrobna raziskava stanja na področju svetovne literarne zgodo-vine bi lahko dala odgovor, ali in koliko so bile izpolnjene visoke zahteve, ki jih je postavil prof. Ocvirk za tako delo, ali pa so ovire, ki jih je prav tako opazil in predvidel, sedemdeset let po teh njegovih trditvah še zmeraj ne-premagane.

Čeprav niti slovenska komparativistika niti slovensko preučevanje nee-vropskih literatur nista mogla sodelovati pri tako zahtevnih nalogah, pa so bili prav po zaslugi prof. Ocvirka uresničeni manjši, vendar zelo konkretni cilji: v učnem načrtu primerjalne književnosti je trdno zasidrano tudi obrav-navanje starih neevropskih literatur, ki ga je ob še aktivnem profesorju pre-vzel najprej prof. Pirjevec, za njim pa še drugi Ocvirkovi učenci.

Z različnim številom tekstov so si te književnosti utrle pot tudi v srednje-šolska berila v uredništvu Ocvirkovih učencev in učencev teh učencev. V Literarnem leksikonu, ki ga je zasnoval Ocvirk in izdajal Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede ZRC SAZU, sta izšla dva zvezka s tega področja (Staroindijska poetika in Staroindijske verzne oblike). V zbirko Sto romanov pod Ocvirkovim uredništvom sta bila vključena en bengalski in en japonski roman. Dva študenta iz Ocvirkovega seminarja, Milan Štante in podpisana, ki sva dobila štipendijo za študij v Indiji, sva vsak na svoj način seznanjala širše občinstvo z indijsko tematiko.

Oriental Literatures in Ocvirk’s World Literature Studies Program

Only one printed source addresses the inclusion of Oriental literatures in Ocvirk’s world literature study program: Ocvirk’s 1950 course outline for the study group in world literature and literary theory. The extent and man-ner of treating this area can be infered from Ocvirk’s handwritten lecture notes, preserved in the papers from his estate. In lectures that he repeated twice, he presented nine of the most important oriental literatures and their separate development due to their unfamiliarity. He did not adhere to a chronological principle because of the specifics of the topic, primarily following a geographical perspective instead. His survey began with ex-tremely ancient Chinese literature and continued with more recent Japa-nese literature. He focused the greatest attention by far on Indic literature, followed by Persian, then Arabic, and a more cursory overview of Turkish literature. He concluded by returning to ancient literature: Babylonian-As-syrian, Egyptian, and Hebrew. He mentioned minor and less independent literatures only alongside major ones as their areas of influence.

55

In general, Ocvirk used the term “Oriental literatures.” Among his other terms for this area, the term “old non-European literatures” is especially interesting because it is closer to current prevailing use. The critical stance of Edward Said toward the use of the term “Oriental” is well known. Said criticizes “Orientalists” because they adopt a superior attitude toward for-eign literatures, which they hold to be less worthy. Consequently, other derivatives from the word orient have also become disfavored. However, Said’s work Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient was published in 1978 – that is, after Ocvirk’s use of the term “Oriental literatures.” Fur-thermore, Said’s criticisms cannot apply to Ocvirk because his relationship to non-European literatures was not demeaning. In fact, Ocvirk made great efforts to include coverage of non-European literature in comparative liter-ary history. Thus his use of the term “Oriental literatures” also does not appear controversial.

In the introduction to Ocvirk’s handwritten lecture notes for presenting Oriental literatures, a certain duality is apparent: on the one hand, we can observe the standpoint that, at least in broad terms, a comparatist or stu-dent of world literatures must become acquainted with Oriental literatures for their own sakes – that is, because of the artistic value of these literary works. On the other hand, Ocvirk states that his lectures will primarily em-phasize those parts of Oriental literatures that have indirectly or directly influenced the development of European literature and thought.

This double argumentation of the concept of Oriental literatures can already be understood from Ocvirk’s book Teorija primerjalne literarne zgo-dovine (Theory of Comparative Literary History, 1936), in which the au-thor presents the dilemma of whether Europe or the world is the proper framework for studying literary phenomena. Ocvirk decides on the more demanding option, for a global breadth, even though it is apparent from his implementation that Europe is the terrain in which he (like the majority of leading comparatists at that time) truly feels at home. His endeavors to take into account global happenings – or, in other words, non-European literature – are also apparent elsewhere in the book. Tone Smolej has deter-mined that, unlike Paul Van Tieghem, Ocvirk also included Oriental themes in his coverage of mythology, and that he included non-European religions in his coverage of religious themes. There are more than twenty individual mentions of non-European literatures in other places throughout the book. The impetus for such a perspective on Oriental literatures can be found in Paul Hazard, who taught him during his graduate studies, and whom he refers to in this manuscript.

To shed light on Ocvirk’s theoretical standpoints regarding this issue, chapter five of the section on comparative theory in Theory of Comparative Literary History is most important. The previous chapter is primarily dedi-cated to European literary process, but at the very beginning of chapter five he justifies a global perspective with the importance of Hebrew literature. This is followed by references to other literatures and the conceptual influ-

5�

ence of the Orient on Europe, as well as European literary influence on some contemporary Asian literatures. With the assertion that individual lit-eratures are part of world literature today, Ocvirk shifts to the critical debate on the concept of “world literature.” After a description of its use in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries, he stops with Goethe, who defined world literature in 1829 as art of general significance to humanity that arises from the “inner nature” of individual national organisms.

In Goethe, Ocvirk received the confirmation that non-European litera-tures are also worthy of attention in and of themselves (regardless of their influences). In Ocvirk’s interpretation, Goethe saw a tendency toward a global cultural harmony in national literatures. Ocvirk also recognized a supratemporal dimension in Goethe’s concept of world literature.

Although Ocvirk obviously personally identified with Goethe’s concept of “world literature,” as a scholar he had to perceive its literary-historical problematicity, and thus he drew attention to certain unresolved issues in connection with this. He rejected Petersen’s stance that a general liter-ary-historical synthesis is not possible, as though there is no scholarly sup-port for this. In doing so, he referred to research on themes, styles, forms, and concepts in which a literary historian is not able to limit himself to the European nations alone, but must also extend his research to Asia. He legitimately rejected world literature as a collection of everything man had written, chronologically arranged by nation. With principled criticism of prior discussions, he set very high demands for those writing world literary history: he wanted them to present literature within a complete develop-mental connectedness and especially to take into account those literatures that are truly included in world events. It is no wonder that certain attempts at a history of world literature that Ocvirk cites do not attain such a lofty goal. He therefore concludes chapter five with the following observation: “A completely scholarly substantiated study of world literature must con-struct new foundations for itself if it wishes to successfully establish such a synthesis, which remains quite problematic today. It must also create for it-self a more complete method of assessment, if this is possible at all because of the abundancy of material. The many doubts that arise for us during criti-cal judgment of these books are all the more generally weighty today, and they convince us that this exceptionally important chapter of comparative literary studies has still hardly been addressed.” (Theory..., p. 75.)

Only a detailed investigation of the state of world literature history can answer whether, and to what extent, the high demands that Ocvirk made for such work have been fulfilled, or whether the obstacles that he also observed and anticipated still remain insurmountable seventy years after his assertions.

Although neither Slovenian comparative studies nor Slovenian studies of non-European literatures have been able to participate in such demanding tasks, thanks to Ocvirk smaller but very concrete goals have been realized: in his course outline for comparative literature, he also firmly anchored the

57

coverage of old non-European literatures – which, alongside the still active Ocvirk, was adopted first of all by Dušan Pirjevec, and after him by Ocvirk’s students.

With various numbers of texts, these literatures also made their way into secondary school readers under the editorship of Ocvirk’s disciples, and the followers of those disciples. The series Literarni leksikon (Literary Lexicon), initiated by Ocvirk and published by the ZRC SAZU Institute for Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, has included two volumes dedicated to this area: Staroindijska poetika (Old Indic Poetry) and Staroindijske verzne oblike (Old Indic Verse Forms). The collection Sto romanov (One Hundred Novels) included one Bengali and one Japanese novel under Ocvirk’s editorship. Two students from a course that Ocvirk taught – Milan Štante and the au-thor of this text – received a scholarship to study in India, and each of us in our own way has acquainted the general public with Indian themes.

58

Prispevek se ukvarja z Lucienom Tesnie rom (1893–1954), ki je sicer da-nes znan kot lingvist (npr. Eléments de syntaxe structurale, 1959) in slavist. V poletnem semestru 1921 je nastopil službo lektorja za francoščino na novi univerzi v Ljubljani, kjer je ostal dve leti. Čeprav je v Sloveniji za potrebe svoje disertacije z naslovom Les formes du duel en slove ne preučeval zlasti dvojino, pa je pomemben tudi kot posrednik francoske književnosti in kul-ture (med njegovimi študenti je bil Srečko Kosovel). Prispevek se osredinja zlasti na komparativistična poglavja v njegovi knjigi Oton Joupantchitch. Poe te slove ne. L’homme et l’oeuvre (1931), v katerih je najti natančne ana-lize tujih vplivov na slovenskega pesnika, ki so še danes relevantni. Kot šo-lani germanist je izvirno opozoril na vplive Richarda Dehmla, bogato pa je dokumentiral tudi vzporednice med Župančičem in francoskimi simbo-listi (Charles Baudelaire, Paul Verlaine). Zadnji del prispevka je posvečen Tesnierovim stikom z Antonom Ocvirkom, poznejšim utemeljiteljem primer-e rovim stikom z Antonom Ocvirkom, poznejšim utemeljiteljem primer- rovim stikom z Antonom Ocvirkom, poznejšim utemeljiteljem primer-ovim stikom z Antonom Ocvirkom, poznejšim utemeljiteljem primer-jalne literarne vede na Slovenskem, ki je kot podiplomski študent v Franciji napisal obširno poročilo o monografiji. Prispevek osvetljuje tudi nekatere manj znane okoliščine, ki so vodile do natisa Tesnie rove recenzije Ocvirko-vega prvenca Razgovori (1933), kjer je najti obširne intervjuje z Andréjem Gidom, Levom Šestovom, Georgesom Duhamelom, Nikolajem Berdjaje-vom, Andréjem Mauroisom, Aleksejem Remizovom in Paulom Hazardom, v Revue de littérature comparée.

ToneSmolej

Lucien Tesnie re in slovenska primerjalna književnost

59

Lucien Tesnie re and Slovenian Comparative Literature

This article discusses the work of Lucien Tesniere (1893–1954), who to-e re (1893–1954), who to-re (1893–1954), who to-day is generally known as a linguist (e.g., Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Elements of Structural Syntax, 1959) and a Slavic expert. During the spring semester of 1921, he started working as a French teacher at the newly es-tablished University of Ljubljana, where he remained for two years. For the purposes of his doctoral dissertation, titled Les formes du duel en slovene slove ne (Dual Forms in Slovenian), he mainly studied the dual in Slovenia, but he is also important for having conveyed French literature and culture (the poet Srečko Kosovel was also one of his students). This paper focuses on the comparatist chapters in his book Oton Joupantchitch. Poete slovene.Poe te slovene. slovene.slove ne.. L’homme et l’oeuvre (Oton Župančič. A Slovenian Poet. The Man and His Works, 1931), which contains detailed analyses of foreign influences on the Slovenian poet that remain important even today. As a trained German-ist, he originally drew attention to the influences of Richard Dehmel, and thoroughly documented the parallels between Župančič and the French symbolists (e.g., Charles Baudelaire and Paul Verlaine). The last part of the paper discusses Tesniere’s contacts with Anton Ocvirk (who later found-e re’s contacts with Anton Ocvirk (who later found-re’s contacts with Anton Ocvirk (who later found-ed comparative literature in Slovenia), who wrote an extensive report on Tesniere ’s monograph as a graduate student in France. In addition, thise re ’s monograph as a graduate student in France. In addition, thisre ’s monograph as a graduate student in France. In addition, this paper explains certain less-known circumstances that led to the publication of Tesniere’s review of Ocvirk’s first booke re’s review of Ocvirk’s first bookre’s review of Ocvirk’s first book Razgovori (Discussions, 1933) in Revue de littérature comparée. Razgovori contain extensive interviews with André Gide, Lev Šestov, Georges Duhamel, Nikolai Berdyaev, André Maur-ois, Aleksey Remizov, and Paul Hazard.

�0

1. Moj prispevek bo poudaril vztrajno dinamiko sodobne primerjalne književnosti – nova zavezništva, spektakularne �obrate�, intenzivno men-javo modelov itn. – s tem, ko bo te procese identificiral kot simptome krize statusa in akademske prepoznavnosti, ki jo je sprožila veda sama. Predvsem se bom osredotočila na dva izrazita vidika tega razvoja: prvič na njegov splošen mednarodni kontekst in drugič na romunski primer.

2. S splošnega, vseobsegajočega vidika ne moremo spregledati stalnega prizadevanja poklicnih komparativistov, da bi zabrisali meje med metali-teraturo in znanostjo, ki ga podpira tudi t. i. estetski obrat v posmoderni znanosti. V današnjem času razrahljane ločnice med različnimi tipi intelek-tualnega diskurza povzročajo zbližanje eksaktnih znanosti in humanistike, s čimer se porajajo �šibke epistemologije�.

3. Lokalen primer: v Romuniji se na ravni teorije razvija zapletena dvo-smerna izmenjava konceptov in metod. Na podlagi nedavne hipoteze o ne-skončnem številu neizmernih paradigem znotraj znanosti je bila ta prena-gljeno uvrščena v isto kategorijo kakor literarni metadiskurz.

Kar zadeva pragmatično raven akademskih kurikulov, pa romunska primerjalna književnost stalno išče partnerstvo s teorijami vizualnega dis-kurza, posebej s teorijami filma in novih digitalnih medijev; predvsem za-radi lastne varnosti na intelektualnem tržišču. Zelo paradoksalno je, da se sodobne teorije filma, ki se razvijajo s pomočjo izposojenih konceptualnih orodij literarne vede, pojavljajo sedaj poleg modnih aplikativnih področij vizualno-tekstualnih študij v primerjalni književnosti kot prvinski viri mode-lov za komparativiste.

MonicaSpiridon

Nova zavezništva

61

The New Alliances

1. My paper will point to the strenuous dynamics of contemporary com-parative literature – new alliances, spectacular “turns”, intensive trade of models etc. – identifying such processes as symptoms of a self-induced cri-sis of status and of academic visibility of this discipline. I will mainly focus on two distinct aspects of these developments: firstly its general interna-tional context and secondly the Romanian case in point.

2. From an all-encompassing perspective, we cannot disregard the steady endeavor of professional comparatists to blur the limits between me-taliterature and science, also boosted by the so-called aesthetic turn in post-modern sciences. Nowadays the fuzzy boundaries between disparate types of intellectual discourse enhance the rapprochement between the exact sci-ences and the humanities giving birth to the “weak epistemologies”.

3. As a local case in point, in Romania on a speculative level, a puzzling two-way traffic of concepts and methods is under way. Starting from recent hypotheses of an infinite number of incommensurable paradigms within science, the latter has been hastily rated in the same category as literary metadiscourses.

As regards the pragmatic level of the academic curricula, Romanian comparative literature constantly seeks partnership with theories of the vi-sual discourses, especially with theories of the film and of the new digital media, mainly for the sake of self-security on the intellectual market. Para-doxically enough modern theories of the movie, that arouse by borrowing conceptual tools from literary studies, emerge now as pristine sources of models for the comparatists alongside the fashionable applicative area of video-textual study in comparative literature.

�2

Zbirka Sto romanov (1964–1976) ni bila zasnovana kot edicija, posebej namenjena stroki in študiju, ampak kot zanimivo branje za širše kroge zahtev-nejših bralcev. Glavni urednik Cankarjeve založbe Cene Vipotnik je za vodjo tega projekta pridobil profesorja primerjalne/svetovne književnosti in literar-ne teorije Antona Ocvirka zato, ker je s svojim znanjem in ugledom jamčil za preverjeno kakovost in privlačnost. Ocvirk je urejanje prevzel ob svojem rednem delu in ob hkratnem urejanju znanstvenokritične izdaje Zbranih del slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev, a tudi v zasnovi Sto romanov je pokazal svoj primerjalnoliterarni nazor: uveljavil je zgodovinsko razvojni pogled na med-narodno literarno dogajanje, nepristransko upoštevanje različnih obdobnih stilov in estetskih usmeritev kakor tudi nehierarhično razumevanje razme-rij med literaturami večjih in manjših narodov ne glede na njihove različno močne prispevke mednarodno odmevnemu romanopisju. Zlasti pomembna pa je zavrnitev dihotomije med �domačim� in �svetovnim� – Ocvirk je slo-vensko literaturo štel v sklop evropskih in s tem svetovnih literatur. Specifi-ko slovenske zbirke reprezentativnih romanov je poudaril tudi z zahtevno zasnovanimi, v celoti izvirnimi spremnimi študijami, ki so jih poleg njega večinoma pisali komparativisti, izšolani v njegovem seminarju.

Razvojna perspektiva se v zbirki ne kaže linearno, ampak mozaično. Izhodiščna točka je vidik bralca, ki ga zanima predvsem novejša, sodobna literatura, rad pa znova ali na novo prebira tudi klasike. Ocvirk je upošte-val slovensko tradicijo in sprva vključeval v zbirko uspele predvojne prevode vzhodno- in zahodnoevropskih realistov ter tedanjih skandinavskih uspe-šnic hkrati s povojnimi prevodi ameriških modernistov, nato pa predstavljal vse več novosti, ki jih je izbiral po posvetih s poznavalci, predvsem avtorji spremnih študij. Med izbrano stoterico je vključil vzorce grškega in latinske-ga antičnega romana (Heliodorus, Petronius), japonskega srednjeveškega (Murasaki Šikibu), španskega renesančnega (Cervantes), nemškega baroč-nega (Grimmelshausen), francoskega klasicističnega (Voltaire), angleškega sentimentalnega (Sterne), nemškega viharniško predromantičnega (Goe-the) in ruskega romantičnega romana (Lermontov), izčrpno pa je predstavil realistični in moderni roman ter njune različice iz druge tretjine dvajsetega stoletja. Glede na nacionalno provenienco so med romani najmočneje za-stopani francoski (22 %), ruski (18 %), angleški (16 %), severnoameriški (12 %) in nemški (11 %), šibkeje italijanski (3 %), poljski in srbski (po 2 %). S po enim romanom (1 %) je Ocvirk predstavil še štirinajst drugih književnosti – japonsko, bengalsko in gvatemalsko (Tagore, Asturias), skandinavsko in islandsko (Hamsun, Lagerlof, Jacobsen, Laxness), med balkanskimi pa poleg madžarske (Jokai), novogrške (Kazantzakis) in že omenjene srbske (Crnjan-

MajdaStanovnik

Ocvirkov koncept primerjalne književnosti in zbirka Sto romanov

63

ski, Andrić) tudi hrvaško (Krleža) in slovensko: med vrhunske romanopisce je Ocvirk demonstrativno uvrstil Ivana Cankarja s Hišo Marije Pomoc nice. V primerjavi s skoraj sočasno hrvaško zbirko Sto najvec ih romana svjetske knji-ževnosti (1971–1982) po izbiri Antuna Šoljana, v kateri je zastopanih 18 na-cionalnih književnosti in ki se začenja z renesančnim romanom, ne vključuje pa niti hrvaške niti drugih jugoslovanskih književnosti, je torej Ocvirkova zbirka časovno razsežnejša in tudi sicer raznovrstnejša, ker je v njej zastopa-nih 22 nacionalnih literatur, poleg tega pa je izčrpneje komentirana.

Spremne študije k Sto romanom so zasnovane studiozno, a berljivo, brez dodatnih seznamov literature in opomb. Izbrane romane predstavljajo v povezavah z avtorji in z njihovim siceršnjim opusom, z okoliščinami nastan-ka in sprejema v domačem in mednarodnem okolju, razčlenjujejo njihov pomen za razvoj zvrsti in literarnih nazorov, zlasti pa njihove individualne značilnosti od konceptualnih do stilnih in kompozicijskih. Z različnimi po-udarki in preudarki torej sledijo Ocvirkovi osnovni programski usmeritvi in kažejo �literarno umetnino med zgodovino in teorijo�.

Ocvirk's Concept of Comparative Literature and Sto romanov (One Hundred Novels)

The collection Sto romanov (One Hundred Novels, 1964–1976) was not founded as an edition specifically intended for experts and study, but as attractive reading for broad circles of demanding readers. Cene Vipotnik, the chief editor at the publishing house Cankarjeva založba, engaged the professor of comparative/world literature and literary theory Anton Ocvirk because his knowledge and reputation would guarantee the quality and attractiveness of the works selected. Ocvirk took on the editorship in addi-tion to his regular work and simultaneous editorship of the critical editions of the series Zbrana dela slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev (Collected Works of Slovenian Writers). He also displayed his comparatist perspective in plan-ning One Hundred Novels: he applied a historical perspective to contem-porary world literature, an unbiased respect for various period styles and esthetic orientations, and well as a nonhierarchical view of the relationships between the literatures of larger and smaller nations regardless of how dif-ferently they had contributed to the composition of novels with an inter-national response. His rejection of the dichotomy between “national” and “world” literatures was especially important; Ocvirk included Slovenian lit-erature in a set of European literatures, and thus world literatures. He also emphasized the specifics of this Slovenian collection of selected novels with highly skilled and original companion studies, primarily written by himself or by comparatists that had been his students.

The historical perspective in the collection does not manifest itself lin-early, but in a mosaic fashion. It is based on the perspective of readers that are primarily interested in newer, modern literature, but would also like to

�4

read the classics again or for the first time. Ocvirk took Slovenian tradition into account, and first included successful prewar translations of Eastern and Western European realists and Scandinavian bestsellers, together with postwar translations of American modernists. He then presented increas-ingly more new works that he selected on recommendations from literary scholars, who were usually the authors of the accompanying studies. Among the hundred novels selected, he included samples of Greek and Latin Clas-sical (Heliodorus, Petronius), Japanese Medieval (Murasaki Shikibu), Span-ish Renaissance (Cervantes), German Baroque (Grimmelshausen), French Classicist (Voltaire), English Sentimental (Sterne), German Pre-Romantic Sturm und Drang (Goethe), and Russian Romantic (Lermontov) literature, and he exhaustively presented realistic and modern novels as well as works from the 1960s onwards. Regarding national provenance, the best repre-sented among the novels are French (22%), Russian (18%), English (16%), North American (12%), and German (11%), followed by Italian (3%), Polish and Serbian (2% each), and one novel apiece (1%) from 14 other nations: Japanese, Bengali, and Guatemalan (Tagore, Asturias), Scandinavian and Icelandic (Hamsun, Lagerlof, Jacobsen, Laxness), and, among the Balkan nations, in addition to Hungarian (Jókai), also Modern Greek (Kazantzakis) and the previously mentioned Serbian works (Crnjanski, Andrić), as well as Croatian (Krleža) and Slovenian: among the top novel writers, Ocvirk clear-ly included Ivan Cankar with his Hiša Marije Pomoc nice (The House of Our Lady, Helper of Christians). In comparison with the almost simultaneous Croatian collection Sto Sto najvec ih djela svjetske književnosti (The Hundred Greatest Novels of World Literature, 1971–1982) selected by Antun Šoljan, which represents 18 national literatures and begins with a Renaissance novel, but does not include Croatian or other Yugoslav novels, Ocvirk’s col-lection covers a greater span of time and is also more diverse because it represents 22 national literatures as well as more thorough commentary.

The companion studies to One Hundred Novels are conceptualized in a studious but readable manner, without additional lists of literature and notes. They present the novels together with their authors and their works, the socio-historical context in which they were created, and their reception at home and abroad; they analyze their significance for the development of the genre and literary views, and especially their individual features, from conceptual to stylistic and compositional ones. With various emphases and considerations, they therefore follow Ocvirk’s basic programmatic orienta-tions and present “literary works of art between history and theory.”

65

SonjaStojmenska-Elzeser

Kaj pomeni biti raziskovalec v primerjalni književnosti v Makedoniji?

V tem predavanju bodo obravnavane vsaj tri stopnje teme primerjalna književnost: status znanosti na splošno, institucionalni pogoji primerjalne književnosti v Makedoniji in osebni pogled na etiko in politiko primerjalne književnosti.

Primerjalna književnost je v zadnjem desetletju v nekaterih predelih sve-ta doživela velik napredek in postala ena od najbolj priljubljenih akadem-skih disciplin v humanistiki. Nasprotno pa tradicionalni centri niso več tako dejavni in produktivni kakor nekoč. Zakaj je tako? Kaj pomeni ta znanost t. i. perifernim kulturam, kakršna je Makedonija? Ali ponuja relevantne reši-tve za afirmacijo in obstoj teh �majhnih� kultur, ki so zelo krhke in šibke? Koncept �planetarizma� G. C. Spivac (v Death of a Discipline, 2003) ponuja namesto globalizacije perspektivo, ki je manj postkolonialna, toda bolj eko-loška, ki preusmerja pozornost od lokalne drugačnosti k odnosu do pla-neta Zemlja. To se ujema s klasično definicijo primerjalne književnosti kot nekakšne �planetarne humanistike� (Yves Chevrel, La littérature comparée, 1997). Prav tako tudi koncept �dekolonizacije� italijanskega komparativista Armanda Gniscija poudarja etično in politično razsežnost primerjalne knji-ževnosti in reflektira mundializem kot primerno razumevanje primerjalne književnosti – dialoga med različnimi s pomočjo univerzalnih primerjav. Te vizije primerjalne književnosti so ustrezne za ideološke potrebe �majh-nih�, �spregledanih�, �marginalnih� kultur kakor makedonske. Morda je to razlog za zelo dejavno institucionalno življenje primerjalne književnosti v okviru makedonske univerze sv. Cirila in Metoda v Skopju.

Naštela bom nekaj dejstev, ki omogočajo predstavo o institucionalnem življenju primerjalne književnosti v Makedoniji dandanes: Inštitut za ma-kedonsko književnost ima v svoji sestavi že od vsega začetka Oddelek za teorijo in primerjalno književnost, ki je le leto mlajši od enakega oddelka na Filološki fakulteti Blaže Koneski. To pomeni, da dela ta oddelek 25 let na komparativističnih projektih, ki jih sprejema in odobrava širša make-donska literarna in znanstvena javnost. Institucionalni razvoj primerjalne književnosti se je v Makedoniji začel s kolokvijem AILC v Ohridu od 20. do 25. avgusta 1981, na katerem so sodelovali vodilni predstavniki vede ka-kor R. Wellek, D. Fokkema, K. Guillén, Y. Chevrel, H. Remak, U. Weisstein itn. Udeleženci iz Makedonije so sodelovali na skoraj vseh kongresih AILC. Oddelek za primerjalno književnost na inštitutu je izdal štiri zbornike kom-parativističnih študij (in pripravlja petega) z naslovom Kniževen kontekst. NaAkademiji znanosti in umetnosti teče več dejavnih projektov, na spletu pa je specializirana elektronska revija za komparativistiko Mirage. Tudi Zveza

��

za primerjalno književnost v Makedoniji premore širok razpon dejavnosti: organiziranje debat, udeležba na komparativističnih simpozijih, prevajanje temeljnih priročnikov za primerjalno književnost itn. Nekaj posebnega je, da je primerjalna književnost v Makedoniji vključena v program za srednje šole kot izbirni predmet v višjih letnikih s posebnim učbenikom. Vsa ta dej-stva nam dovoljujejo govoriti o makedonski šoli primerjalne književnosti. Makedonski komparativisti razvijajo dejavne odnose z drugimi šolami, od-delki in ustanovami primerjalne književnosti. Posebno tesne odnose imajo s francosko in italijansko komparativistiko, z A. Gniscijem, katerega več del je prevedenih v makedonski jezik. Ploden je tudi stik s slovaško šolo primer-jalne književnosti in Dionýzom Ďurišinom ter s komparativisti iz Hrvaške, Srbije in posebej Slovenije. Anton Ocvirk je eden od vélikih učiteljev tudi makedonskih komparativistov.

Čeprav je položaj discipline v Makedoniji zelo močan, obstaja veliko težav na praktični ravni. Diplomiranih komparativistov, na primer, nimajo za primerne za profesorje književnosti v srednjih šolah – niti ne za poseb-ni predmet primerjalna književnost, kar je absurdno. Težave z zaposlitvijo imajo tudi na splošno. Toda mnogo najbolj uspešnih intelektualcev v državi je diplomiranih komparativistov. Administrativna omejenost postavlja pod vprašaj kredibilnost raziskovalcev v komparativistiki za delovanje v visokem šolstvu. Komparativistični projekti dobijo vladno podporo le s težavo; od-visni so od posameznih pobud in podpornikov. Staro rivalstvo med nacio-nalnoliterarnimi in komparativističnimi raziskavami je še vedno zelo močno in škoduje celotnemu izobraževalnemu sistemu. Profesionalna identiteta komparativista je šibka, ker se lahko vsak na področju literarne vede raz-glaša za komparativista in uporablja metodologijo primerjalne književnosti zelo neprimerno in površno. Interdisciplinarnost je na ravni teorije zelo ak-tualna, vendar ni nobenega konkretnega sodelovanja med znanstveniki iz različnih disciplin, umetnosti in medijev. Skupinsko delo na splošno je na nezadovoljivi stopnji.

Če zapustimo akademsko sfero, naletimo še na močnejšo ignoranco primerjalne književnosti. Med ljudmi izven akademskega kroga ni posebej znana. To je del splošne krize humanistike, še posebej literature kot umetno-sti. Branje je skoraj opuščeno, tako da je to resničen problem, s katerim se bodo morali komparativisti spopasti.

Etika primerjalne književnosti se bo izrazila v močnejšem, dobro orga-niziranem in širšem izobraževalnem programu, ki bi moral biti dostopen vsem profilom intelektualcev. Literarno življenje bi moralo biti polje, na ka-terem se pojavljajo konkretni rezultati institucionalno močne primerjalne književnosti.

67

What Does it Mean to Study Comparative Literature in Macedonia?

This paper discusses at least three aspects of comparative literature: the status of the discipline in general, institutional conditions for comparative literature in Macedonia, and the author’s personal view on the ethics and politics of comparative literature.

In some areas of the world, comparative literature has made great pro-gress in the past decade and has become one of the most popular academic disciplines in the humanities. In contrast, traditional centers are no longer as active and productive. Why is this so? What does this imply for “periphe-ral” cultures, such as Macedonia? Does it permit relevant solutions for the affirmation and existence of these “small” cultures, which are very fragile and weak? Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s concept of “planetarism” instead of globalization (in her Death of a Discipline, 2003) offers a perspective that is less postcolonial but more ecological, shifting the main subject from local otherness to the relationship with the planet Earth. This corresponds to the classic definition of comparative literature as a kind of “planetary humani-ty” by Yves Chevrel (La littérature comparée, 1997). In addition, the concept of “decolonization” by the Italian comparatist Armando Gnisci emphasi-zes the ethical and political aspect of comparative literature, and reflects mondialism as an appropriate understanding of comparative literature as a dialog between differences through universal comparisons. These visi-ons of comparative literature are suitable for the ideological needs of small, neglected, and marginal cultures such as Macedonian. Perhaps this is the reason for the very active institutional life of comparative literature at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje.

Below are some facts that offer a picture of the institutional life of com-parative literature in Macedonia today. The structure of the Institute for Macedonian Literature has included a Department of Theory and Com-parative Literature from its very beginning, which is just a year less than the same department at the Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology. This means that the department has spent 25 years working on comparative projects that have been accepted and approved by Macedonian literary specialists and scholars. The institutional development of comparative literature in Mac-edonia began with the ICLA Colloquium held in Ohrid 20–25 August 1981, which was attended by international authorities in the discipline including René Wellek, Douwe Fokkema, Claudio Guillén, Yves Chevrel, Henry Re-mak, and Ulrich Weisstein. In addition, there have been participants from Macedonia at almost all the ICLA congresses. The institute’s Department of Comparative Literature has published four volumes (and is preparing a fifth one) from the unique comparatistic perspective in Macedonia, titled Kniževen kontekst/Literary Context. There are several active projects at the Academy of Sciences and Arts, and there is a specialized online comparative literature review titled Mirage. In addition, the Macedonian Association for

�8

Comparative Literature engages in a wide spectrum of activities: organizing discussions, participating in comparative literature conferences worldwide, translating standard works on comparative literature into Macedonian, and so on. One special feature is that in the secondary school program in Macedonia comparative literature can be selected as a subject in advanced years and there is a textbook for this purpose. All of this permits us to speak about a Macedonian School of comparative literature. Macedonian com-paratists are developing active relations with other schools, departments, and institutions of comparative literature. Especially strong relations have been developed with French comparatists, with Italian comparative litera-ture through Armando Gnisci (several of his works have been translated into Macedonian), with the Slovak school of comparative literature through Dionýz Ďurišin, and with comparatists from Croatia, Serbia, and especially Slovenia. Anton Ocvirk is also one of the great teachers of Macedonian com-paratists.

Although the status of the discipline in Macedonia is very strong, there are many problems at the practical level. For example, students that gradu-ate from the comparative literature program are not recognized as qualified literature instructors at secondary schools – and not even for this special-ized subject, which is absurd. In addition, they have difficulty finding em-ployment in general. However, many of the most successful intellectuals in the country are graduates of the comparative literature program. Adminis-trative stupidity is jeopardizing the credibility of those working in compara-tive literature in higher education. Projects in comparative literature hardly receive any government funding and they rely on individual initiatives and supporters. The old rivalry between national literature studies and com-parative studies is still very robust and is damaging the educational system in general. The professional identity of comparatists is weak because all of those in literary studies declare themselves to be comparatists and they use the methodology of comparative literature inappropriately and super-ficially. At the theoretical level, interdisciplinarity is very topical, but there is no concrete cooperation between scholars from different disciplines, arts, and media. Teamwork in general is at an unsatisfactory level.

Beyond academia, there is an even greater ignorance of comparative literature. The discipline is not well known among non-academics. This re-flects the general crisis of the humanities, especially that of literature as art. Reading is almost an abandoned practice, and this is the real problem that comparatists must address.

The ethics of comparative literature will become apparent in a stronger, well-organized, and broader educational program available to all profiles of intellectuals. Literary life should be the area where concrete results from an institutionally strong comparative literature program are made manifest.

69

JolaŠkulj

Temeljne koncepcije slovenske komparativistike in aktualni komparativistični vidiki

V temeljnem delu Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine (1936) je Ocvirk skrbno predstavil svoj očrt, kako naj razumemo literaturo in kako naj razi-skujemo literarna dejstva v mreži njihove kulturne dejanskosti, v povezano-sti nenehnih stikov in stvarnih odnosov literarnih besedil. Njegov namen je bil razgrniti prikaz metodoloških načel primerjalne literarne vede, izluščiti njene problemske sklope in ustvariti zanesljiva izhodišča za nadaljnji znan-stveni razvoj področja. Ponovno prebiranje Ocvirkove zgodnje knjige po sedemdesetih letih od njenega prvega natisa vztrajno dokazuje, da je niz teh izhodiščnih načel še vedno primeren za razumevanje komparativistike, čeprav je ta v svetu in v matičnem univerzitetnem študiju v Ljubljani šla skozi mnoge spremembe in nadaljnji razvoj svojega predmetnega območja. Ocvirkova kozmopolitska duhovna usmerjenost in njegovo temeljito znanje, ki podpirata to izčrpno razpravljanje o načelih primerjalne vede, razkrivata sistematičen okvir metodoloških vidikov, ki so sveži celo danes v kontekstu aktualnih komparativističnih koncepcij (prim. bahtinovsko pojmovanje di-alogizma ali Lotmanov pojem semiosfere). Njegova konsistentna izhodišča za primerjalno preučevanje so si prizadevala za podrobne raziskave zgo-dovinskih dejstev o literarnih stikih in za analize stvarnih sledi, najdenih v zapisih. Kot zagovornik primerjalne metode, ki po njegovem omogoča dostop do dejanskega historičnega védenja o literaturah, se je zavzemal za temeljit vpogled in raziskovanje poti ustvarjalnih estetskih in umetniških spodbud, ki so v ozadju heteroloških manifestacij v različnih drugojezičnih kulturnih položajih, za razpoložljivost ustreznih podrobnosti o razvojnih to-kovih, o otipljivi evidenci mednacionalnih literarnih vplivov, o delovanju prenavljajočih okoliščin pri literarnih premenah, o stimulativnih ali zavirajo-čih vplivih v bralnih dejanjih, prevedenih knjigah in dramskih delih. Po nje-govem prepričanju komparativistika omogoča nadrobno in temeljito razi-skovanje, skrbno motrenje dejanskih temeljev literatur ter kritični pogled na njihovo veljavnost in razvoj. Ocvirk se je dobro zavedal spregledane vloge manjših literatur in povsem zanemarjenega védenja o pisanju avtorjev v manj znanih jezikih. Razumevajoč literaturo in njene avtohtone lastnosti, vzpostavljene v zapleteni mreži odnosov z drugimi literaturami, je Ocvirk promoviral zamisel primerjalne literarne vede kot pristopa, v katerem naj prepoznavamo neprekinjen dvojni dovod informacij, dvosmerno dejavnost nacionalnega in transnacionalnega širjenja idej, snovi in umetniških prije-mov. Kot izviren komparativist se je Ocvirk prav dobro zavedal asimetrično-sti v prodiranju umetniških idej in posledično tudi nenavzočnosti simetrij v zgodovinah evropskih literatur. Takšno gledanje je bilo vsekakor daljnose-

70

žno, precej pred svojim časom prav po zaslugi njegovega decentriranega pogleda na literarno realnost. Pravzaprav to stališče izrazito razmejuje in karakterizira njegove lastne komparativistične argumente o pravem histo-ričnem pristopu in sintezi.

S svojim monografsko zastavljenim delom in vzpostavljanjem teoretskih vidikov primerjalne literarne zgodovine je Ocvirk utrdil institucionalni okvir primerjalne literarne vede na Slovenskem, ki jo je sicer mogoče slediti že na-zaj v čas pred izidom njegove knjige sredi tridesetih let. Njegova namera, da vzpostavi temelje ustreznega, odprtega in odgovornega komparativističnega pristopa k literaturi na ozemlju, ki je bilo dolgo potopljeno v večjezikovno preteklost, je bilo razumljivo in dobro motivirano. Ambiciozne in dobro za-stavljene prvotne koncepcije Ocvirkove komparativistike so predstavljale ob-vezo za drugo generacijo slovenske komparativistike (Pirjevec, Kos), da je še dopolnjevala in razvijala metodološka izhodišča in na svoji nadaljnji poti od-pirala poglede na literaturo, ki so zanjo kot umetnost bistveni za njen obstoj. – Referat se bo osredotočil na pretres izhodiščnega projekta in na njegove poznejše premene v slovenski komparativistiki ter opozoril na razpoložljive opcije, ki se nakazujejo v aktualnem raziskovanju primerjalne literarne vede.

Founding Concepts in Slovenian Comparative Literature and Current Comparative Initiatives

In his seminal work Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine (Theory of Comparative Literary History, 1936), Anton Ocvirk thoroughly outlined how to understand literature and how to approach literary facts in the web of their cultural reality, in the network of unending contacts and factual relations of literary texts. He sought to indicate the methodological princi-ples of comparative studies of literature, to identify its issues, and to state the proper reason for its further scholarly development. Rereading Ocvirk’s early book seventy years after its original publication shows that his set of guidelines remains quite relevant in its insights, even though the discipline of comparative literature underwent constant changes and further devel-opment throughout the world as well as at the University of Ljubljana. Oc-virk’s cosmopolitan mind and the well-grounded knowledge behind his comprehensive discussion of the discipline reveal a systematic framework of methodological principles that remains refreshing even today in view of cur-rent comparative ideas (cf. Bakhtinian dialogism and Lotman’s idea of the semiosphere). Ocvirk’s solid starting point of comparative research aimed at minute inquiry into historical records of literary contacts and at analyses of factual traces found in writing materials. He advocated the comparative method for providing true historical knowledge of literatures: to scrutinize and map out the paths of creative esthetic and artistic impetuses behind their heterological manifestations in heterolingual cultural situations, and

71

to make available pertinent details about evolutionary trends, tangible evi-dence of transnational literary influences, the effects of impelling forces be-hind literary changes, and the stimulating or inhibitory impacts of reading transactions, translated books, and dramatic works. In his view, compara-tism enables detailed and careful examination, close scrutiny of the factual foundations of literatures, and a critical perspective on their validity and de-velopment. Ocvirk was well aware of the neglected role of minor literatures and ignorance with respect to authors writing in less known languages. Understanding literature and its inherent qualities instituted in a complex set of links with other literatures, he promoted ideas of comparative literary study as an approach to recognizing in it an ongoing double channel for in-formation – the two-way agency of national and transnational transmission of artistic ideas, materials, and strategies. As a genuine comparatist, Ocvirk was acutely aware of asymmetries in disseminating artistic ideas and hence also of the symmetries lacking in the histories of European literatures. Such an observation was rather advanced due to his de-centered view of literary reality. In fact, it strongly delineates Ocvirk’s own comparatist arguments for a true historical approach and synthesis.

By writing his well-informed volume and setting up the theoretical aspects of comparative literary history, Ocvirk reinforced the institutional framework of comparative literary studies in Slovenia, which can be traced to before the mid-1930s. The objectives for launching responsive compara-tive insight into literature in an area that had long been immersed in a multilingual past were obvious and well motivated. The ambitious and well-founded initial concepts in Ocvirk’s comparativistics represented a challenge for the following generation of Slovenian comparatists to sup-plement and advance the methodological issues, and to proceed by ad-dressing the viewpoints on literature as the art essential for its existence. – The paper will discuss the founding schemes and their reinterpretation in Slovenian comparativistics, and will address the available alternatives in actual comparativist initiatives.

72

Prihodnost literarne teorije se zdi negotova, toda morda ne tako mračna kakor bi nekateri radi mislili. Čeprav imajo – ironično – pozivi k opustitvi literarne teorije stoletje dolgo zgodovino, občutka krize in metodološkega predikamenta ni bilo mogoče ostreje začutiti do osemdesetih let 20. stole-tja, ko so poskusi reformiranja veščine literarne historiografije dosegli vrhu-nec v sedaj splošno znani Novi zgodovini francoske literature (1989). Mnogi so v tem projektu videli napad na tradicionalno literarno zgodovino, čeprav so morali istočasno priznati, da je bil njegov urednik Denis Hollier prepo-znal težave, ki so se zgrnile okrog vede ob prihodu postmodernizma in poststrukturalizma, in da je bil odgovoril na inovativen, čeprav neprepričljiv način. V naslednjem desetletju je bilo vprašanje same možnosti literarne zgodovine zastavljeno nekako urgentno, toda v zgodnjem 21. stoletju se zdijo odgovori nanj zaznamovani bolj z zmernostjo in konstruktivnim skep-ticizmom kakor pa z radikalnim zanikanjem. Nedavni mednarodni simpozij, ki sta ga na Inštitutu za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede v Ljubljani or-ganizirala Marko Juvan in Darko Dolinar, na katerem je bilo predstavljenih več zelo zanimivih prispevkov, je bil dober primer takšnega odnosa.

Kako se bo razvijala literarna teorija, bo v veliki meri odvisno od spre-memb v širšem okviru njene evolucije. Razumevanje teh sprememb se mi zdi bistven prvi korak. V tem prispevku se osredotočam na tri dejavnike (na-cionalna država, mediji, evolucija družbe pod pritiskom demografskih spre-memb) ter si prizadevam pojasniti in pretehtati njihov pomen za literarno zgodovino.

GalinTihanov

Prihodnost literarne zgodovine: troje izzivov v 21. stoletju

73

The Future of Literary History: Three Challenges in the 21st Century

The future of literary theory appears precarious but perhaps not as gloomy as some may wish to think. Even though the appeals to abandon literary theory have, ironically, a century-long history, the sense of crisis and methodological predicament did not begin to be acutely felt until the 1980s when attempts at reforming the craft of literary historiography culminated in the by now well-known A New History of French Literature (1989). Many saw this project as an assault on traditional literary history, while having to admit that its editor, Denis Hollier, had recognized the difficulties besetting the discipline upon the arrival of postmodernism and post-structuralism and had responded in an innovative, if inconclusive, fashion. In the next decade, the question of the very possibility of literary history was posed with some urgency, but early 21st century responses to it seem to have been marked by moderation and constructive skepticism rather than radical denial. A recent international conference organized by Marko Juvan and Darko Dolinar at the Institute for Slovene literature and literary studies in Ljubljana, where a number of very interesting papers were presented, has offered a good example of this attitude.

How literary theory develops will largely depend on the modifications of the wider framework in which its evolution takes place. Understanding these modifications seems to me to be an essential first step. In this paper I concentrate on three factors (the nation state; the media; the evolution of society under the pressures of changing demographics), and seek to eluci-date and weigh their importance for literary history.

74

Primerjalna književnost je že kmalu po svojem nastanku svojo identiteto začela oblikovati v skladu z nacionalnimi specifikami največjih zahodnih na-rodov, ki so se z njo ukvarjali, tako da v dvajsetem stoletju poznamo denimo tipično francosko, nemško, ameriško, rusko, češko idr. �šole� primerjalne knji-ževnosti, ki se sicer vse prištevajo k isti disciplini, a je glede temeljnih meto-doloških, pa tudi vsebinskih predmetih stroke med njimi opaziti pogosto dia-metralno nasprotne poglede. Obenem pa se je predvsem od druge svetovne vojne naprej – v precejšnji meri verjetno v povezavi z vzponom primerjalne književnosti v ZDA, spodbujenim z imigracijo vrhunskih evropskih znanstve-nikov s področja humanistike (Jakobson, Spitzer, Auerbach, Wellek, Adorno itn.) – vedno bolj uveljavljala misel o komparativistiki kot univerzalni huma-nistični disciplini, ki se pri svojem raziskovanju osredotoča predvsem na to, kar je univerzalno človeško. V zadnji četrtini dvajsetega stoletja celotno polje humanistike zajame nova sprememba znanstveno metodološke paradigme; na področju primerjalne književnosti se to med drugim kaže tudi tako, da je – pod vplivom dekonstrukcije, novega historizma, tako imenovanih post-modernih teorij in filozofij, postkolonialne teorije, študijev spolov itn. – ta, humanistični univerzalizem deležen ostrih kritik, ena od posledic pa je tudi na primer zavračanje pojma svetovna književnost. Toda v zadnjem desetletju pospešena globalizacija na vseh področjih primerjalno književnost spodbuja k vnovičnem premisleku svoje drže do �univerzalizma�. To se kaže na primer v precej intenzivnih poskusih delne rehabilitacije (in obenem seveda kon-ceptualne prenove) pojma svetovna književnost (npr. Damrosch), pa tudi v vizijah – ki niso pravzaprav nič manj univerzalistične od kritiziranih starih, �humanističnih� – o globalni ali kar planetarni primerjalni književnosti (npr. Spivak). Tudi ti poskusi so že bili deležni kritik, ki so opozorile na nekatere slabosti tega novega, �postmodernega� univerzalizma; na eni strani se kaže na primer pojem �planetarne� književnosti preveč abstrakten; na drugi strani pa so poskusi nove, do tradicionalne humanistične miselnosti kritične sinteze v nekaterih primerih prignane do take unitaristične skrajnosti, da disciplini, ki se je od samega začetka odlikovala po svoji večjezičnosti in spoštovanju razlik, predlagajo npr. �uzakonjenje� enega samega jezika znanstvenega ko-municiranja, angleščine (prim. Tötösy). Vtis je, da so mnoge od teh zagat po-sledica okoliščine, da nekatere tako imenovane �velike� nacionalne primer-jalne književnosti iz različnih razlogov znova skušajo svoj specifični položaj in svoje specifične poglede na disciplino uveljaviti kot univerzalne, ob tem pa pozabljajo na svojo načelno kritiko univerzalizma. Razprava skuša reflektirati nastali položaj, opozoriti na nekatere premalo upoštevane modele kompara-tivistike in poiskati razloge za drugačno, pluralno primerjalno književnost.

TomoVirk

Univerzalna ali nacionalna, globalna ali lokalna – ali pluralna primerjalna književnost?

75

Universal or National, Global or Local: Or a Plural Comparative Literature?

Soon after it was launched, comparative literature began to shape its identity in line with the national characteristics of the major Western nations that engaged in it. Thus, in the 20th century there are characteristic French, German, American, Russian, Czech, and other “schools” of comparative lit-erature that are nonetheless considered part of the same discipline, despite the fact that one can often observe diametrically opposed points of view among them with regard to the basic methodology and content of the field. At the same time, especially from the end of World War II onwards – to a considerable degree probably in connection with the rise of comparative lit-erature in the United States, spurred by the immigration of leading European scholars in the humanities (Roman Jakobson, Leo Spitzer, Erich Auerbach, René Wellek, Theodor Adorno, etc.) – there was an increasing belief in com-parative studies as a universal discipline in the humanities, in which research primarily focuses on what is universally human. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the entire field of the humanities was caught up in new changes in the paradigm of scholarly methodology. In comparative literature, this is also shown (among other things) by the fact that – under the influence of deconstruction, new historicism, “postmodern” theories and philosophies, postcolonial theory, gender studies, and so on – humanistic universalism is subject to sharp criticism, and one of the consequences of this has been the rejection of the concept of world literature. However, in the past decade in-creasing globalization in all areas has been pushing comparative literature to renewed reflection on its stance toward “universalism.” This is seen, for example, in quite intense attempts at partial rehabilitation (and at the same time, of course, conceptual renewal) of the concept of world literature (e.g., by David Damrosch), and also in visions (really no less universalistic than the criticized old “humanistic” ones) of a global or even planetary comparative literature (e.g., by Gayatri Spivak). These attempts have also been subject to criticism, which drew attention to certain weaknesses of this new “postmod-ern” universalism. On the one hand, the concept of “planetary” literature appears to be too abstract. On the other hand, attempts at a new synthe-sis that is critical toward traditional humanistic thought have been driven to such a unitarian extremity in certain cases that it has been suggested that the discipline (which has distinguished itself since its very beginning by its mul-tilingualism and respect for diversity) “codify” a single language for scholarly communication: namely, English (cf. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek). The im-pression is that many of these quandaries are the result of circumstances that, for various reasons, certain “great” national comparative literatures are again trying to assert their specific position and their specific perspectives on the discipline as universal, and in doing so are forgetting their principled criti-cism of universalism. This paper attempts to reflect on the situation that has arisen, draw attention to some insufficiently considered models of compara-tive studies, and seek grounds for a different, plural comparative literature.

7�

Zanimalo nas bo, kdaj se je Ocvirk začel ukvarjati s Kosovelom, in njego-va prva stališča v uvodu k postumni zbirki Kosovelovih pesmi iz leta 1931, ki jo je uredil. Temu je sledil prvi zvezek Kosovelovega Zbranega dela leta 1946, kar gotovo kaže, kako zelo je Ocvirk v tem času že cenil Kosovela, ko pa je z njim začel to znamenito zbirko. Prav tako so zanimiva stališča, ki jih je dopolnjeval in spreminjal v nadaljevanju Zbranega dela. Še posebej pa pred-stavlja prelomnico v njegovem raziskovanju Kosovela objava zbirke Integrali 26’, ki je dodobra razburila slovensko literarno zgodovino in jo pripravila do polemičnih razpravljanj in opredelitev. S tem v zvezi nas bo posebej zani-malo, s katerimi gibanji in smermi je Ocvirk povezoval Kosovela in kaj se mu je zdelo v zvezi s tem še posebej pomembno, čemu pa se je izognil. Zato so posebej zanimive Ocvirkove opredelitve Kosovelovega impresionizma, dadaizma, ekspresionizma, futurizma, konstruktivizma in celo nadrealizma. Glede na to, da Ocvirk v času raziskovanja še ni mogel poznati nekaterih dejstev, predvsem ne o ruskem literarnem konstruktivizmu, katerega doku-menti so bili takrat še shranjeni v sovjetskih arhivih in zato raziskovalcem nedostopni, so njegova odkritja in povezovanje Kosovela s sočasnim evrop-skim in slovenskim literarnim kontekstom presenetljivo natančna in števil-na med njimi do danes nepresežena. Ocvirkove raziskave so potemtakem Kosovela trdno vpele v evropski literarni kontekst, njegova velika zasluga pa je tudi, da je zbral, uredil in dešifriral izjemno težko berljivo Kosovelovo literarno gradivo.

JanezVrečko

Ocvirkov pogled na Kosovela

77

Ocvirk’s Perspective on Kosovel

This paper examines when Ocvirk began his research on Srečko Ko-sovel and his first perspectives in the introduction to the posthumous collection of Kosovel’s poetry (1931), which Ocvirk edited. This was fol-lowed by the first volume of Kosovel’s Zbrano delo (Collected Works, 1946), which clearly shows that Ocvirk thought a great deal of Kos-ovel when he began this important collection of his works. The stand-points that Ocvirk complemented and changed in further volumes of Collected Works are also interesting. However, the turning point in his research is represented by the collection of Kosovel’s works entitled Integrali ’26 (Integrals ’26), which created waves in Slovenian literary histo-ry and set the stage for polemic debates and definitions. Of special interest are the movements and directions that Ocvirk connected with Kosovel and that seemed especially important in this regard, and those that he avoided. Ocvirk’s definitions of Kosovel’s impressionism, dadaism, expressionism, futurism, constructivism, and even surrealism are therefore especially inter-esting. Although certain facts and issues were unavailable to Ocvirk during his research – for example, documents on Russian literary constructivism that were still stored in Soviet archives – his discovery of Kosovel’s affilia-tions with the contemporary European and Slovenian literary domain are surprisingly precise and many of them remain definitive to this day. Ocvirk’s research accordingly placed Kosovel firmly in the European literary context, and it is also to his great credit that he collected, edited, and decoded Kos-ovel’s literary works, which are exceptionally difficult to read.

78

Prispevek se ukvarja z razširjanjem in razumevanjem metodološkega koncepta Paula Van Tieghema v slovanskem kontekstu v medvojnem obdo-bju, in to zlasti v teoretičnem delu F. Wollmana K methodologii srovnávací slovesnosti slovanské (1936) in Antona Ocvirka Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine (1936). Prispevek opozarja na podobnosti in razlike v sprejema-nju dela francoskega komparativista P. Van Tieghema La littérature com-parée (1931). Oba znanstvenika je inspiriral – tako pozitivno kot negativno – koncept t. i. obče književnosti, razumljen kot literarna struktura določene mednarodne družbe, opredeljene v konkretnem kulturnozgodovinskem prostoru.

F. Wollman (1888–1969) in A. Ocvirk (1907–1980) sta kljub generacijski razliki spadala med glavne osebnosti slovanske literarne komparativistike v prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Oba sta s svojo teoretično in literarnozgodo-vinsko prakso v svojih narodnih kontekstih prispevala k vzpostavitvi pri-merjalne literarne vede kot avtonomne discipline, pri čemer sta natančno opredelila njene povezave z literarno zgodovino in teorijo. Tudi metodolo-ško sta zagovarjala podobna stališča: v svojem delu sta povezala odkritja starejše pozitivistične filološke in kulturnozgodovinske šole s spodbudami novih znanstvenih izmov. F. Wollman je tako izhajal iz fenomenologije in posebnega strukturalno-funkcionalističnega pogleda Praškega lingvistične-ga krožka, katerega član je bil, Ocvirka pa so inspirirali ruski formalizem in moderne humanistične smeri. Na Van Tieghemovo zahtevo po obliko-vanju literarnozgodovinske sinteze novega tipa, ki bi bila predpogoj obče evropske literarne zgodovine na srednjeevropskem in vzhodnoevropskem območju, sta se v slovanskem kontekstu odzvala prav Wollman in Ocvirk. Oba sta z občutkom upoštevala semantično dvoplastnost in navodila Van Tieghemovega načrta: namesto fenomena svetovne literature iskati že ob-stoječe nadnarodne strukture, slediti in interpretirati njihovo komunikacijo na področju tem, snovi, oblik, vrst, idej itn.

Kljub skupnim izhodiščem pa najdemo pri Wollmanu in Ocvirku bistve-ne razlike v recepciji Van Tieghemovega koncepta obče literature. Medtem ko je Ocvirkova publikacija klasičen sistematičen priročnik, ki nudi teoretične osnove za poglobljeno razumevanje slovenske književnosti v evropskem slo-vstvu, je polemičen značaj Wollmanovega spisa izšel iz spodbud Praškega lingvističnega krožka, ki je ostro protestiral proti dvomu o obstoju skupnosti slovanskih literatur s strani nemških slavistov (K. Bittner, J. Pfitzner in drugi)

MilošZelenka

K teoretičnemu pojmovanju t. i. obče literature v medvojnem obdobju (Frank Wollman in Anton Ocvirk in njuno razumevanje Paula Van Tieghema)

79

na II. zasedanju slavistov v Varšavi leta 1934. Ocvirkova monografija sicer zabeleži glavne sinteze slovanskih literatur od Šafaříka in vse do Wollmano-ve knjige Slovesnost Slovanu° (1928), a ne posveča pozornosti polemikam o predmetu slovanske filologije, o kulturni shizmi ali o skupni dediščini slo-vanskih kultur. Ocvirka je Van Tieghemova knjiga, katere jedro najdemo v drugem delu (Metodologija in rezultati literarne komparativistike), navdihnila ne samo pri konceptu, ampak tudi pri kompozicijski razdelitvi: več kot polo-vico Ocvirkovega teksta zajema Metodologija, ki je razdeljena na Primerjalne metodološke probleme in na Mednarodne literarne odnose in vplive. Ključ-ni del Wollmanove knjige pomeni zadnje četrto poglavje Methodologické záve ry literárne ve dné, kjer avtor Van Tieghemovo pojmovanje obče literatu-re uporabi kot dokaz za zgodovinsko utemeljenost medslovanske literarne tradicije kot organskega sistema slovanskega slovstva. Presenetljivo je, da Ocvirk samo s pridržkom sprejema Van Tieghemovo razlikovanje obče in primerjalne literature in da komparativne sinteze velikih literarnih celot, opredeljenih po etničnem ključu (jezikovnem ali geografskem), razume kot preuranjene. Po Wollmanu smisel obstoja obče literature v duhu struktu-ralne estetike izhaja iz primerjanja slovstvenih oblik in struktur, ki posame-zno, s svojimi genetičnimi odvisnostmi, ne kot celota, vstopajo v svetovno literaturo. Po Ocvirku pomenijo pravo jedro literarne komparativistike ana-litična dela s področja mednarodne literarne zgodovine, ki večinoma razi-skuje binarne odnose med dvema literarnima pojavoma. Wollman, ki daje prednost sintetičnim raziskavam, se usmerja v oblikovanje mednarodnih literarnih sistemov, posebno splošne slovanske literature kot dela svetovne literature. Osnovno razliko je mogoče najti v razumevanju metodoloških vprašanj primerjalne literarne vede: Ocvirk poudarja vprašanja vzajemnih odnosov in vplivov, katerih širitev do podrobnosti razdeli na �linearno� in �koncentrično�, Wollman pa nasprotno od genetično-kontaktnega razisko-vanja prehaja k tipologiji. Njegovo pojmovanje eidologije, ki jo je opredelil na prelomu 20. in 30. let, je pomenilo opredelitev raziskav literarnih vrst in zvrsti glede na genetične vplive in predvsem tipološke analogije.

Na koncu moramo ugotoviti, da sta oba znanstvenika zelo različno spre-jemala Van Tieghemovo razumevanje primerjalne literarne vede. Ocvirk kljub neposrednemu stiku s francoskim komparativistom in kljub močni for-malni navezanosti na njegov tekst pojmuje fenomen obče literature kot zelo abstrakten; bolj ga inspirirajo posamezni elementi (teorija vplivov, vpraša-nje posrednika, raziskovanje motivov in podobno) in tako ostaja literarni teoretik in mednarodno razgledan slovenist. Slavistično usmerjeni Wollman pa v raziskavah ne daje prednosti češki književnosti; na osnovi Van Tieghe-movega pojmovanja obče literature poskuša oblikovati lastno teorijo slo-vanske medliterarnosti, kar mu omogoči izoblikovanje strukturnega modela slovanskih literatur, ki izhaja iz eidološkega (morfološkega) načela.

80

This article discusses the distribution and understanding of the meth-odological concept of Paul Van Tieghem within the Slavic context in the interwar period, and especially in the theoretical works K methodologii srovnávací slovesnosti slovanské (On the Methodology of Comparative Slavic Literature, 1936) by Frank Wollman and Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine (Theory of Comparative Literary History, 1936) by Anton Ocvirk. It draws attention to the similarities and differences in accepting the work La littérature comparée (Comparative Literature, 1931) by the French com-paratist Paul Van Tieghem. Both scholars were inspired, both positively and negatively, by the concept of general literature, conceptualized as a literary structure of specific international society defined in a concrete cultural and historical environment.

Despite their age difference, Frank Wollman (1888–1969) and Anton Ocvirk (1907–1980) ranked among the founding authorities in Slavic lit-erary comparative studies in the first half of the 20th century. With their theoretical and literary historical practice within their national contexts, they both contributed to the establishment of comparative literature as an autonomous discipline, in which they clearly defined its affiliations with literary history and theory. In addition, they had similar viewpoints in terms of methodology: in their works they connected the findings of the older positivist philological and cultural-historical school with the impulses of new scholarly isms. Frank Wollman thus founded his work on phenomenol-ogy and especially the structural and functionalist views of the Prague lin-guistic circle, of which he was a member. On the other hand, Ocvirk was inspired by Russian formalism and modern directions in intellectual history. Within the Slavic context, it was Wollman and Ocvirk that responded to Van Tieghem’s request to elaborate a new type of literary history synthesis that would be the precondition for a general European literary history in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe. They both carefully took into account the semantic double layer and instructions of Van Tieghem’s concept: to seek already existing supranational structures instead of the phenomenon of world lit-erature, and to follow and interpret their communication of themes, topics, forms, types, ideas, etc.

Despite common points of departure, there are fundamental differenc-es between Wollman’s and Ocvirk’s reception of Van Tieghem’s concept of general literature. Ocvirk’s publication serves as a traditional systematic manual providing theoretical basics for an in-depth understanding of Slove-nian literature within European literature, whereas the polemic character of Wollman’s essay originated in the initiatives of the Prague linguistic circle, which in 1934, at the Second Congress of Slavists in Warsaw, strongly pro-

On the Theoretical Concept of General Literature in the Interwar Period (Frank Wollman and Anton Ocvirk, and Their Reflections on Paul Van Tieghem)

81

tested against the doubt about the existence of a community of Slavic litera-tures on the part of the German Slavic experts (Konrad Bittner, Josef Pfitzn-er, and others). Ocvirk’s monograph provides the main syntheses of Slavic literatures, from Šafařík all the way to Wollman’s book Slovesnost Slovanuº (Slavic Literature, 1928), but it does not devote any attention to the argu-ments about the subject of Slavic philology, the cultural schism, or the com-mon heritage of Slavic cultures. Ocvirk is inspired by Van Tieghem’s book, the core of which can be found in its second part, Méthodes et résultats de la littérature comparée (The Methodology and Findings of Literary Compara-tive Studies), not only in the concept, but also the compositional division: more than half of Ocvirk’s work is comprised of Metodologija (Methodol-ogy), which is divided into Primerjalni metodološki problemi (Compara-tive Methodological Issues) and Mednarodni literarni odnosi in vplivi (In-ternational Literary Relations and Influences). The key part of Wollman’s book is the fourth (and final) chapter titled Methodologické záv ry literárn - v dné(Methodological Conclusions in Literary Studies), in which he uses Van Tieghem’s conception of general literature as a proof for the historical argumentation of inter-Slavic literary tradition as an organic system of Slavic literature. It is surprising that Ocvirk accepts Van Tieghem’s differentiation of general and comparative literature only with reserve, and that he consid-ers the comparative syntheses of great literary entireties defined according to an ethnic key (linguistic or geographical) to be premature. According to Wollman, the main point of the existence of general literature in the spirit of structural esthetics originates in the comparison of literary forms and structures, which enter world literature individually with their own genetic relationships, and not as a whole. According to Ocvirk, the true core of com-parative literary studies is represented by analytical works in international literary history, which mostly focus on the binary relationships between two literary phenomena. Wollman, who favors synthetic studies, focuses on the formation of international literary systems; especially general Slavic literature as part of world literature. The basic difference can be found in the understanding of methodological issues of comparative literary studies: Ocvirk emphasizes the issues of mutual relationships and influences, the expansion of which he divided in detail into “linear” and “concentric.” In contrast, Wollman moves from genetic and contact research to an emphasis on typology. His concept of eidology, which he defined at the end of the 1920s, represented a definition of the studies of literary types and genres according to genetic influences and, primarily, typological analogies.

In conclusion, it can be ascertained that both scholars accepted Van Tieghem’s concept of comparative literary studies very differently. Despite his direct contact with the French comparatist and strong formal attach-ment to his text, Ocvirk understands the phenomenon of general literature as very abstract; he is more inspired by individual elements (the theory of influences, the issue of the intermediary, studying motifs, etc.) and thus re-mains a literary theoretician and internationally well-versed expert in Slov-

82

enian studies. As an expert in Slavic studies, Wollman does not favor Czech literature in his research; on the basis of Van Tieghem’s understanding of general literature, he seeks to form his own theory of Slavic inter-literary character, which enables him to form a structural model of Slavic literatures based on the eidological (i.e., morphological) principle.

83

U d e l e ž e n c i

Akad. prof. dr. France BernikSlovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti

Prof. dr. Jean Bessie reUFR Littérature générale et comparée, Université de Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle

Prof. dr. Vladimir BitiOdsjek za kroatistiku, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu

Prof. dr. Darko DolinarInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU

Prof. dr. Eugene EoyangLingnan University – The Liberal Arts University in Hong Kong

Prof. dr. Vita FortunatiFacult di Lingue e Letterature Straniere, Universit di Bologna

Prof. dr. Péter HajduInstitute for Literary Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Prof. dr. Marko JuvanInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU

Prof. dr. Evald KorenOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani (v pokoju)

Akad. prof. dr. Janko KosOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani (v pokoju), in Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti

Prof. dr. Zvonko KovačOdsjek za južnoslavenske jezike i književnost, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu

Doc. dr. Vanesa MatajcOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

Prof. dr. Zoran MilutinovićThe School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London

Akad. Dušan MoravecSlovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti

Prof. dr. John NeubauerUniversity of Amsterdam (emeritus)

Prof. dr. Boris A. NovakOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

Vlasta Pacheiner KlanderInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU (v pokoju)

Doc. dr. Tone SmolejOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

Prof. dr. Monica SpiridonFacultatea de Litere, Universitatea din Bucaresti

Majda StanovnikInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU (v pokoju)

Dr. Sonja Stojmenska-ElzeserInstitute of Macedonian Literature, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius

Mag. Jola ŠkuljInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU

Prof. dr. Galin TihanovResearch Institute of Cosmopolitan Cultures, The University of Manchester

Prof. dr. Tomo VirkOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

84

Prof. dr. Janez VrečkoOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

Prof. dr. Miloš ZelenkaKatedra českého jazyka a literatury, Pedagogická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích

P r i r e d i t e l j i

Razred za filološke in literarne vede Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnostiInštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZUOddelek za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v LjubljaniSlovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost

P r o g r a m s k i o d b o r

akad. dr. France Bernik, akad. dr. Janko Kos (SAZU)dr. Darko Dolinar, mag. Jola Škulj (ZRC SAZU)dr. Matevž Kos, dr. Tone Smolej (Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani)dr. Marko Juvan, dr. Darja Pavlič (Slovensko društvo za primerjalno književnost)

O r g a n i z a c i j s k i o d b o r

Darko Dolinar, Marko Juvan, Jola Škulj, Luka Vidmar