The introduction to this study describes the genesis of Vladislav Vančura’s novel The End of the Old Times (1934), which was based on a film script about Baron Munchausen. This is followed by an outline of its critical reception at the time and its historical background. It involves both the phenomenon of emigration from Russia after 1917 and the land reform carried out in Czechoslovakia from 1919 onwards. The core of the study is an analysis of Jan Mukařovský’s study of the novel, published in 1934 in the journal Listy pro umění a kritiku (Art and Criticism) and Mukařovský’s afterword to the fourth edition of The End of the Old Times, published in 1958. The author also considers both analysed texts in the context of the relevant literature.
Příspěvek rekapituluje literárněvědné myšlení dvou významných osobností českého strukturalismu, estetika a literárního teoretika Jana Mukařovského (1891–1975) a slavisty Franka Wollmana (1888–1969) na přelomu 40. a 50. let minulého století. Zatímco Mukařovský již v 30. letech patřil k radikálním propagátorům strukturální estetiky, Wollman prostřednictvím literárněhistorického studia obohacoval strukturální metodu o další přístupy (fenomenologie, sociologie ad.). Tento postoj určoval i jejich "reakci" po druhé světové válce: jestliže Mukařovský se od strukturalismu ostře distancoval a vyzdvihl marxisticko-leninskou teorii odrazu (Stranickost ve vědě a v umění, 1949), Wollman v dosud nepublikovaném textu Uvedení do methodologie literarněvědné a do theorie literatury (pravděpodobně 1949) od svého pojetí strukturalismu ani v období stalinismu nemusel odstoupit. V této publikaci uceleně podal soustavu literární vědy s důrazem na metodologické otázky, komparatistiku a literárněvědnou slavistiku. and The paper summarises the literary thought of two great men of Czech structuralism at the turn of the 1950s – the aesthetician and literary historian Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the Slavonic scholar Frank Wollman (1888–1969). While the former was already in the 1930s a radical supporter of structural aesthetics, the literary historical researches of the latter enriched the structuralist method with novel approaches (phenomenology, sociology, etc.).These attitudes then determined their "reactions" after the second world war: whereas Mukařovský entirely detached himself from structuralism, accentuating the Marx-Lenininst theory of reflection (Stranickost ve vědě a v umění, 1949 [Partisanship in science and art]), Wollman in his hitherto unpublished text Uvedení do methodologie literarněvědné a do theorie literatury (presumably 1949) [An Introduction to the methodology of literary research and to the theory of literature] did not have to abandon his concept of structuralism even in the Stalinist era. In this work he offers a coherent system of literary scholarship with emphasis on methodological issues, comparative studies and Slavonic literary studies.
This article deals with the aesthetic views that Vladislav Vančura formulated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Vančura sympathetically followed the emergence of Prague structuralism and its concepts. The dominant role of the aesthetic function in art met his requirement for “poeticity”, while in Vančura’s works the structuralists found suitable material to support their concepts. Jan Mukařovský wrote about Vančura in a positive light not only in the 1930s and 1940s, but also later on, when Vančura’s works found themselves in potential conflict with the demands of “realism” and “the people”. An example of the reverse case, i.e. a fundamental misunderstanding based on different ideas about literature, can be found in the criticism of Vančura’s novel The Last Judgement by Ferdinand Peroutka.
This paper maps the reception of Russian formalism in Slovak literary studies in the 20th century. It discusses the historical and cultural context of the 1930s when Slovak literary scholars came into contact with the formal method. The interest of Slovak scholars in formalism was connected with their efforts to explore the foundations of structuralism and to contribute to the development of the new structuralist theory. The political situation in the country in the 1940s and the 1950s was not favourable to the formalist/structuralist approach to literature. Slovak literary studies suffered under ideological constraints. Formalism was officially repudiated by the wartime Slovak State as well as the subsequent communist regime. In the 1960s, Slovak structuralism started to flourish anew and interest in formalism was briefly revived until it was once more suppressed by the political establishment. Structuralism was rehabilitated after the Velvet Revolution of 1989. Nevertheless, at that time, the structuralist initiative had already lost the momentum to stimulate the development of literary theory. and Príspevok mapuje recepciu ruského formalizmu v slovenskej literárnej vede 20. storočia. Rozoberá historický a kultúrny kontext 30. rokov, keď slovenskí literárni vedci prišli do styku s formálnou metódou. Záujem slovenských vedcov o formalizmus súvisel s ich úsilím preskúmať základy štrukturalizmu a prispieť k rozvoju novej štrukturalistickej teórie. Politická situácia v krajine nebola v 40. a 50. rokoch priaznivá pre formalistický/štrukturalistický prístup k literatúre. Slovenská literárna veda trpela ideologickými obmedzeniami. Formalizmus bol oficiálne zapudený vojnovým Slovenským štátom, ako aj následným komunistickým režimom. V 60. rokoch začal slovenský štrukturalizmus znova prekvitať a záujem o formalizmus sa krátko na to oživil, až kým ho opäť nepotlačil politický establishment. Po Nežnej revolúcii v roku 1989 bol štrukturalizmus rehabilitovaný. V tom čase však už štrukturalistický prístup stratil hybnú silu stimulovať rozvoj literárnej teórie.
This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.
The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author’s work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities.