ქართული კრიტიკა რეცეფციული ესთეტიკის სათავეებთან

აბსტრაქტი

სტატიიდან აღებული ავტორის ინგლისურენოვანი რეზიუმე:

Scientific research conducted into the Georgian criticism of the post Stalin period is mainly of fragmentary character. It is just because of this that contradictory evaluations are frequently done in connection with the mentioned problem. In recent years, there has appeared the viewpoint that the critical thinking at that time was totally absent, and what was termed the analysis of literary process only represented pointless panegyrics. In reality the study of the mentioned period, particularly critical reflection of the 1970-1980-ies, has given quite different picture. Besides the fact that part of the literary critics (G.Asatiani, O.Pachkoria, G.Kankava, R.Tvaradze, T.Chkhenkeli, T.Doiashvili, G.Gachechiladze, L.Bregadze, Ir.Kenchoshvili, S.Sigua) deliberately deny the out-dated criteria of artistic and aesthetic evaluations and mainly attempt to approximate the criticism to literature, there are also the so-called innovator critics who try to establish new western literary trends and theories.

It is from that group that we have singled out a well-known specialist in Germanic studies, expert in literature and literary critic - Revaz Qaralahvili who issued (1977) the volume containing thematic material presented at scientific conferences at different times in the course of years which was devoted to an aesthetic of reception The purpose of the presented paper is to represent literary atmosphere of the 1970-ies in which along with poetic innovations there was emerged a space for free reception of artistic text. The paper also explains the reasons as to why there was not deep response to R.Qaralashvili’s composition “A Book and Reader” (the above mentioned collection was published just under this title).

It is due to the fact that according to the reception criticism the widening of the writer’s function as that of “supplier” and the reader’s as that of “receptor” in terms of an open system of a text itself was considered to be anti-Soviet. R.Qaralashvili’s high informativeness as an expert in Germanistics, immediate contact with the source material, the accurateness of the interpretation made it possible for the reader interested in literary processes to perceive the meaning of new western values not only “practically” but “also “theoretically”, for such closed cultural space as it was the Soviet Union. There is emphasized one rather important fact which, as it turns out, has not been overcome till now.

It is the contradiction between the existed tradition of reading and new possibilities of concretization of the content of literary fiction. R.Qaralashvili makes stress on the automatism of perception and standard reception of the text which, in his view, must be surmounted by the aspiration for interpretation and one’s own elaborated individual vision. Otherwise it is impossible to manage the process of reception, critic or first-rate reader, bringing out the content from the subconscious into the conscious, and with this to stimulate one’s spiritual life. We consider that the author’s emphasis is valid and easily explained. The fact that the perception of literary work is a historical process and that “each epoch and social formation makes interpretation of literary works anew and subordinate to it own purposes and objectives”, remains unacceptable even today.

In this paper, special attention is paid to R.Qaralashvili’s understanding of the ego or selbst i.e. individualization, which logically brought him to research of Hesse’s analytical prose. Critical treatment of Hermann Hesse’s literary heritage which acquires the most important meaning in R.Qaralashvili’s creative life represents the notable specimen of receptive perception of literary text. “Peculiarities of the structural organization of the epic text” (in connection with Hesse’s novels), “A reader as structural element of Hesse’s world”; “Permissible limits of interpretation”, “The dynamics of “collaboration of reader with the author” – that is only a small list of those issues which are considered by R.Qaralashvili in the light of structuralism, reception aesthetics and hermeneutics.

On the example of Hesse, the literary scholar constructs such figure of the writer who “makes reproduction of life not using the life forms” or only by “sensitive and concrete individual marks”, but against the background of “rather lessened intensity of Mimesis”, penetration into one’s own subconscious and opening of its “inner image”, with Jungian “anima” as with a pure function by means of coincidence. The highlighting of these issues as Bart would say means statement of a question about the essence of literature. These issues are easily solved by R.Qaralashvili. Therefore, within the former USSR he was recognized the first-rate expert in Hesse’s study along with the Russian scholar S.Averintsev.

Finally R.Qaralashvili is represented as a high-class expert of Georgian literary text (in our case, literary works created within the totalitarian space). Here we mean the article which was dedicated to the unhealthy sensation around L.Kiacheli’s novel “Gvadi Bigvava”. He used his potential in full as modern intelligent critic and literary expert. The multilayer novel Gvadi Bigvava constructed by the “principle of dual mirror” was deeply comprehended by R.Qaralashvili. In critic’s view, the main point for the writer was to show that opposition which existed between new social relations and archaic almost mythological values originated centuries ago.

He continues his opinion: “It is impossible to eliminate this archaic psychological content as it composes the essence of a man. Man’s nature responses to the elimination of such kind of content by disastrous explosion of the inner forces”. At the initial stage of decommunization, R.Qaralashvili’s activity played an important role. He demonstrated that, in spite of restrictions, the process of cultural disorientation in the Soviet literature of the 1970-ies became irreversible.

გამოქვეყნებულია ჟურნალში „სჯანი“, ტ. 10 (2009), გვ. 123–133. ნაშრომის გახსნა