გალაკტიონის პოეზიის რეცეფცია XX საუკუნის 50-იანი წლების ლიტერატურულ კრიტიკაში

Abstract

The 1950s marked a turning point in the history of Soviet public life and culture. During this decade, the literary process became much more intense, a new generation of writers and critics came to the arena, and after the death of “The Great Leader” came the era of “warming”, which became the beginning of a great change in the field of literature and art. At the end of the 40s, it can be said that a new stage begins in the work of Galaktion Tabidze. It was during this period that Galaktion’s second poetic reform was finally formed. Qualitative novelty becomes visible in the field of both thematic and poetic style; Moral issues are the focus of the poet. An ironic-parody fl ow digs into his poetry; Is changing the poetic intonation; The poetic language of Galaktion achieves amazing controversy. It is interesting to see how much all this has been noticed by Galaktion’s modern literary critique, and in general, by what problems the galaktinology of the 1950s was interested in. Overall, several major areas of galaktiology in the 1950s have been identified: The first stream is created by official Soviet criticism (D. Benashvili, S. Chilaia, G. Jibladze, E. Shushania, G. Merkviladze, etc.), which, based on the method of sociology, discusses Galaktion’s creative evolution, links the poet’s pessimistic views to the defeat of the First Revolution. The second direction is created by the poets who oppose Galaktion and the critics of their circle, who categorically oppose the attempt of the Soviet literary critics to remove Galaktion from the title of “decadent” and “symbolist”. They do not miss the opportunity to remind the poet of “old sins”. The third direction is created by literary historians (M. Ebralidze, Ks. Sikharulidze, Gr. Kiknadze), who according to their competence study the issue of Galaktion’s relationship with the literary tradition (M. Ebralidze − with old Georgian literature, Ks. Sikharulidze − with folklore, and Gr. Kiknadze in relation to the Georgian lyric traditions of the century). In the fourth stream we should consider essayistic criticism (T. Chiladze, G. Asatiani, A. Gatserelia). These articles are written in an essayistic manner and are free from the stereotypes so characteristic of Soviet literature. A common feature of these works is that their authors are interested in Galaktion’s poetry primarily as a literary phenomenon and not as a form of reflection of a certain public consciousness. Another common feature of these publications is that they require not only Galaktion’s poetry but also a description of the poet’s psychotype. In these publications, one can already feel the authors’ distancing from the object of evaluation, which is reflected in the fact that critics consider Galaktion’s work not as one of the tributaries of the current literary process, but as belonging to the history of literature. According to these articles, Galaktion does not even appear as one of the most prominent poets of modern times, but as a distant, inaccessible creator, a classic, who has already become the part of the myth.