„ძველი“ და „ახალი“ პოეზიის გააზრებისათვის XIX საუკუნის დასაწყისის ევროპულ და ქართულ ფილოსოფიურ-ესთეტიკურ დისკურსში
Loading...
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა
Abstract
In terms of analyzing the typological coincidences of European
and Georgian philosophical-aesthetic thought, it is important to
study the translated works that introduce certain tendencies to us
and contribute to the formation of a new worldview paradigm. Among
them – they enrich the established knowledge with new terminology
or a new understanding of this terminology. Thus, it is important to
analyze the literary nature of the monuments translated at the turn
of the 18th and 19th centuries, the motivation of their translation, the
stylistic features of the translations, the translations of the theoretical
works, their problems, to understand how all these contributed
to the formation of new Georgian literature.
In the 19th century, Georgian literature was enriched with translated
works containing philosophical, poetic and aesthetic issues.
From the philosophical-aesthetic point of view, the fact of translating
the following works into Georgian was especially important: “Theoretical
Physics” by K. Wolf, “Metaphysics” by K. Baumeister, “Logic”,
“Ethic”, “Philosophy”, “Logic” by Condillac, “Mythology” by M. Chulkov,
“The Law of Mind” by Montesquieu, “Zadig, or Fate” by Voltaire, “Candid,
or the Optimist”, “For Christmas”, “Oedipus”, etc., “Jean-Jacques
Rousseau’s Thoughts on Different Subjects” and “Discussion, or Treatise
on Culture” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Moral Philosophy” by A.
Ferguson and “Aesthetic Judgments” by J. P. Ansillon. These works
were well known to Georgian writers, who made a major contribution
to the beginning of new Georgian literature.
From the 18th century, a lot of translated literature was brought
to Georgia. Among them were the works of Russian or foreign (mainly
Western European) philosophers. These translations are noteworthy not only in the sense of literary relationsbut also from the viewpoint
of how these relations influenced the beginning of new Georgian literature.
The beginning of the new Georgian literature, which was marked
by the origin of Romanticism, is imprinted with the tendency to
overcome Eastern poetic thinking. This tendency was manifested in
a powerful turning to the classical Christian past. It is in this context
that the choice, according to which this or that work was translated
into Georgian, is interesting.
The translated works greatly contributed to the deepening and
expansion of literary-aesthetic problems, including philosophical literature.
Among the monuments translated during the Renaissance,
from the literary-aesthetic point of view, the most important was the
translation (1818) of Jean-Pierre Frédéric Ansillon’s (1767-1837) “Aesthetic
Judgments”, a French philosopher and member of the Prussian
Academy of Science, by David Batonishvili (1767-1819). This work,
which is the subject of our versatile research, is extremely interesting
for the study of aesthetic problems of the new Georgian literature.
D. Bagrationi’s remarks are attached to the translation, and are
presented as numerous footnotes. These remarks give a clear vision
of the level of development of the history of literature or philosophy
of that period. A number of concepts from the literary-aesthetic field
are explained in the comments that were not previously known to
Georgian thought.
Among them, there are definitions of several terms, from which
we discuss the terms related to poetry and poetics, aesthetics of new
poetry.
It is noteworthy that poetry with Ansillon is one of the genres of
art and artistic creation. This is a novelty. As is well known, there was
no conceptual definition of art as artistic creation until the 18th century.
According to Ansillon, “Poetry is a celebration of the freedom
of spirit”... Ansillon approaches the Aristotelian definition of poetry:
“The historian and the poet differ from each other in that the former
speaks of what happened and the latter speaks of what might have
happened.” (Chelidze, 1984, p. 57). However, Ansillon’s understanding of the basic essence of poetry
agrees more with Plato’s views on poetry than with Aristotle’s. As
is well known, one of Aristotle’s major theses presents art as a field
of philosophy. With Plato, however, it is given a more sensory-emotional
meaning and creates an aesthetic phenomenon.
Ansillon discusses the history of the origin and development of
poetry andindicates that the main function of the poetry at different
stages of development was to be understood differently.
Ansillon considers the function of purification, catharsis to be
the basic essence of art. And purification with it, as in Neoplatonism,
is a condition of human ascension, which has not only epistemological
but also ethical and aesthetic significance.
According to Ansillon, as much as poetry is derived from the
spirit of the epoch, so much of it is changeable over time. Modernity
drastically differs from the past, which causes the difference between
the old and new poetry. Ansilion characterizes the Hellenic
and ancient eras of human development. These two epochs were
similar from the socio-political or socio-economic viewpoints, which
also led to the affinity of their cultural life. According to Ansillon, if
Hellenic mythology and religion had an aesthetic function, the Christian
religion has a mission of human moral catharsis. When contrasted
with such reasoning, the controversy between “the new” and “the
old” poetry unfolds.
According to Ansillon, one of the main distinguishing factors of
“the old” and “the new” poetry lies in its attitude towards women:
the old theatrical performances considered the participation of men
in the role of women. Ansillon gives a critical assessment of Greek
art because of this. However, Ansillon also points out that in Greek
poetry less of an elevated feeling of love was felt, but dominated the
hedonistic-erotic motif.
Ansillon’s sympathies go back to the era of chivalry, he laments
the fact that this wonderful time is the property of the past: development
of public life, the progress of scientific thought or economics
was followed by a decline of the truest human dignity, devaluation
of moral categories. In parallel with this discussion of Ansillon, several important literary
terms are explained in D. Bagrationi’s comments, such as poetry,
poetics, hymn, trope, metaphor, elegy, lyre, fantasy, prose, drama,
synonym, epic, plastic, comic, tragic, stage, role, charm, etc.
The fact of translating Ansillon’s “Aesthetic Judgments” into
Georgian and D. Batonishvili’s comments represent a new stage in the
development of the Georgian literature when even traditional problems
are understood from a new perspective. Although that Georgian
Romanticism did not originate on the basis of pre-developed theoretical
guidelines, the expansion of literary-aesthetic problems was
of some importance for the development of Romantic lyricism. And
the study of these issues allows us to better understand the specific
content of this or that work.
Description
Keywords
ესთეტიკა, პოეტიკა, ლიტერატურა, თარგმანი, Aesthetic, Poetics, Literature, Translation
Citation
აკადემიკოს კონსტანტინე წერეთლის დაბადებიდან მე-100 წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი საერთაშორისო კონფერენცია, თეზისები, 2021, გვ.: 305-313/ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE DEDICATED TO THE CENTENARY OF THE BIRTH OF ACADEMICIAN KONSTANTINE TSERETELI, ABSTRACTS, p.: 305-313