LETTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ROMANTIC MULTIGENRE THEORY
In the paper, «letter» as a genre is studied in connection with romantic theory of multigenre. The author states that during Romantic period letter comes to romanticists’ attention both as a part of practical search for new writing forms and in the course of theoretical reflection. In particular, the epistle was referred to when explaining the theory of multigenre, which was presented by romanticists. It is mentioned that romanticists dismissed standard theory of literary genres. They did not take conventional examples for models, as much as they experimented and preferred genre fusion. Romanticists’genre liberties and experiments were based on the dismissing of classic requirement for «genre purity». Romanticists rejected all the rules and genre regulations; they practiced diffusion and genre blending. Romantic experimenting with genres could be originated from the introduction and practical application of romantic irony principle, which was based on J.G. Fichte’s subjective idealist philosophy. Apart from genre blending, romanticists proclaimed another requirement for the form, it had to be natural and in the spirit, the category of which was absolutized. All of this led to the significance of «letter», which according to its genre characteristics was appropriate to romantic directive for fragmentarity of writing, and to romanticists’ aiming at the reflection of world spiritual dimension. Within the framework of romantic theories epistolary form was extremely appropriate to romanticism with its worship of human individuality, its attention to person’s inner world, its directive for confessing and individual experience perception. Epistolary form was highly suitable for such variety of novelistic genre, created by romanticists, as an artist’s novel peculiar to German romantic literature, and a confessing novel mainly common in French romantic literature. Epistolary forms and genre fusion in Ukrainian literature are represented by Ye. Hrebinka’s novels and novelets.
2. Bovsunivsjka T. Teorija literaturnykh zhanriv: Zhanrova paradyghma suchasnogho zarubizhnogho romanu. Kyjiv : KNU, 2009. 519 s (ukr).
3. Botnikova A. Nemeckij romantizm: dialog hudozhestvennyh form. Voronezh : Voronezhskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, 2003. 341 s (rus).
4. Ghrebinka Je. Tvory v 3-kh tomakh. Tom 2. Kyjiv : Naukova dumka, 1981. 743s (ukr).
5. Nemeckaja romanticheskaja povest’: V 2-h tomah. Tom 2. MoskvaLeningrad, 1935. 538 s (rus).
6. Novalis. Fragmenty. Sankt-Peterburg : Vladimir Dal’, 2014. 319 s (rus).
7. Shalaghinov B. Klasyky i romantyky. Shtudiji z istoriji nimecjkoji literatury KhVIII-KhIKh stolitj. Kyjiv : Vydavnychyj dim «KyjevoMoghyljansjka akademija», 2013. 440 s (ukr).
8. Shalaghinov B. Romantychnyj slovnyk: Do istoriji ponjatj i terminiv rannjogho nimecjkogho romantyzmu. Kyjiv : Vydavnychyj dim «KyjevoMoghyljansjka akademija», 2010. 136 s (ukr).
9. Sheffer Zh.-M. Chto takoe literaturnyj zhanr? Moskva : Editorial URSS, 2010. 192 s (rus).
10. Shlegel’ Jestetika. Filosofija. Kritika: v 2-h t. T.1. Moskva : Iskusstvo, 1983. 479 s (rus).
11. Shlegel’ Jestetika. Filosofija. Kritika: v 2-h t. T.2. Moskva : Iskusstvo, 1983. 448 s (rus).