КОМПАРАТИВІСТСЬКА ПАРАДИГМА У ПРАЦЯХ Ю. БОЙКА-БЛОХИНА: «ВЗАЄМОДОТИКАННЯ І СХРЕЩЕННЯ» ПІДХОДІВ

Abstract

The article analyzes Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model as an important integral concept element of Ukrainian emigre scholars comparative literary studies in the 1930s-1980s period (Y. Boyko-Blokhyn, M. Hnatyshak, S. Hordynsky, V. Derzhavyn, I. Kaczurowskyj, D. Chyzhevsky, Y. Sherekh and others). Approaches of the emigre scholar to literature comparative exploration are interpreted in the context of global comparative studies main trends, and placed against the views of the mainland comparative literary studies representatives. We clarified the distinguishing features of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s model, proved its multidimensional and multivector character, and ascertained comparatist attitudes relevance towards modern comparative literary studies, taking into account their development potential. This goes according to the purpose of the work and its tasks. This research applies advances in comparative historical analysis, methodology of both historic cultural and receptive aesthetic schools. Conceptual idea of the scholar shows his attention to contact-genetic relationship as well as typological similarities and differences. The author interprets functionality problem of inter-literary/ intercultural communication preeminently as a national literature stylistic development factor. The study reveals the interdisciplinary nature of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s works (with access to the realm of philosophy, psychology and cultural studies), and demonstrates his integration of contextual, intermedial and other approaches, which fundamentally enriched methodological tools of comparative literary studies. Reflections of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn on the problem of Slavic literatures comparative study, while witnessing the author’s inherent interest in national identity problem, emphasized and deepened research of Slavic, specifically East Slavic, literatures as a fundamental component of the European cultural space. They also substantiated the demand for changes in approach to study the East Slavic region, particularly historical and literary processes in Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian literatures. Scientist’s observations and conclusions, aimed at understanding Ukrainian literature in the European context, broaden drastically the idea of its peculiarity, with an emphasis on the features conditioned by its development (T. Shevchenko – G. Byron, R. Burns, J.W. Goethe, A. Dante, G. Leopardi, A. Mickiewicz, T. Moore, Novalis, S. Petőfi, W. Shakespeare, F. Schiller; I. Franko – G. Byron, E.T.A. Hoffmann, A. Chamisso; Lesya Ukrainka – G. Hauptmann, M. Maeterlinck, O. Wilde and others). The researcher traces occurrences of literary reception by the national literature of other nations artistic and aesthetic experiences at various levels of comparative poetics (themes, motives, style, etc.) Conclusion. We proved an important role of Y.Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model, who developed impactful traditions of national comparative literary studies of the second half of the 19th century – first third of the 20th century, and at the same time rethought (including through denial) western methodologies, in development not only of Ukrainian, but also of the global literature science as a whole. Insights and ideas of the emigre scholar, many of which were often ahead of his foreign colleagues ideas (A. Balakian, H. Bloom, U. Weisstein, D. Durishin, A. Popovich, H.R. Jauss and others), remain relevant even nowadays. Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s approaches to comparative study of literatures in the world context with a special emphasis on the problem of national identity apparently acquired the utmost importance during the era of globalization. Similar logic of thinking is affine to those modern authors who insist to study first differences between national creative writings, which according to their deep conviction enrich and diversify the global cultural universe (A. Balakian, C.Bernheimer, E. Kaspersky, F. Toudoire-Surlapierre and others). In contrast to “cultural unification scenarios”, Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s reflections which draw attention to different literatures/cultures polylogue phenomenon, their mutual understanding and enrichment, are based on the following fundamental thesis: “originality is a runner to commonality” (it is also of fundamental importance for formation of comparative literary history concept). It’s emblematic that the Ukrainian scientist back then strongly denied the position of R. Wellek and R.Warren, who absolutized the tendency to universalization of the global literary process. Instead, Y. Boyko-Blokhyn argued for study of national version of pan-European style (romanticism, realism, modernism), traditional plots and characters, and he also scaled out radically the influence range idea as a manifestation of literary reception, with an emphasis on its creative character (from influence as a repulsion to influence as an “activity stimulus”, “impulse for self-movement”). In fact, these reflections of Y. Boyko-Blokhyn anticipated approaches of those scholars who justified later the concept of active perception as opposed to passive influence, actualizing the role of recipient in the process of inter-literary communication (H.R. Jauss), thesis about the decisive role of the recipient literature (D. Durishin), interpretive theory – “fear of influence” (H.Bloom). Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s conceptual thoughts about understanding the “reverse influences” problem, as well as related matter of contribution of each Slavic, in particular East Slavic, literature to the global cultural heritage, are extremely consonant with arguments that have been in the researchers’ focus even in these recent times (M. Boehmig, O. Pachlovska). In conclusion we can say that Y. Boyko-Blokhyn’s comparative model which is characterized by nation-centric orientation emphasizes fundamentally the prospects for further scientific research in historical, literary and comparative dimensions, first of all in projection of such methodologies inherent to modern comparative literary studies as imagology, theory of intertextuality and cultural transfer