Scientific schools and their role and the development of folkloristics.

Mythological school(M. sh.) - a scientific direction in folklore and literary criticism that arose in the era of European romanticism. M. sh. should not be identified with the science of mythology, with mythological. theories. Although M. sh. She also dealt with mythology itself, but the latter acquired universal significance in her theoretical constructions as a source of national culture and was used to explain the origin and meaning of folklore phenomena. Philosopher. basis of M. sh. - aesthetics of romanticism by F. Schelling and br. A. and F. Schlegel. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. special studies appear: “Guide to Mythology” (1787-95) by the rationalist H. G. Heine, “Symbolism and Mythology of Ancient Peoples...” (1810-12) by the idealist G. F. Kreutzer and others. Mystical-symbolic interpretation of myths Kreutzer was criticized by scientists (G. Hermann, I. G. Voss, etc.) and the poet G. Heine in the “Romantic School”.

Idealistic tendencies in the study of myths were theoretically generalized by Schelling. According to Schelling, myth was the prototype of poetry, from which philosophy and science then emerged. In “Philosophy of Art” (1802-03) he argued that “mythology is a necessary condition and primary material for all art” (op. cit., M., 1966, p. 105). The theory of mythology as a “natural religion” was most fully presented by Schelling in lectures of 1845-46. Similar thoughts were expressed by F. Schlegel. In “Fragments” 1797-98 he wrote: “The core, the center of poetry should be sought in mythology and in the ancient mysteries” (Literary theory of German romanticism, 1934, p. 182); according to Schlegel, the revival of art is possible only on the basis of myth-making; the source of German national culture should be the mythology of the ancient Germans and the German folk poetry born of it (“History of Ancient and Modern Literature”, 1815). These ideas were also developed by A. Schlegel, they were adopted and developed in relation to folklore by the Heidelberg romantics (L. Arnim, C. Brentano, J. Görres) and the students of the latter - br. V. and Ya. Grimm, whose names are associated with the final design of the M. sh. Br. Grimm combined some folkloristic ideas of the Heidelbergers with the mythology of Schelling and Schlegels. They believed that folk poetry was of "divine origin"; from myth in the process of its evolution arose a fairy tale, epic, legend, etc.; folklore is the unconscious and impersonal creativity of a collective people. souls. Transferring the methodology of comparative linguistics to the study of folklore, the Grimms traced similar phenomena in the field of folklore of different peoples to a common ancient mythology, to a kind of “proto-myth” (by analogy with “proto-language”). In their opinion, the original mythological traditions were especially well preserved in German folk poetry. The Grimms' views were theoretically summarized in their book German Mythology (1835).

Adherents of M. sh. were: A. Kuhn, W. Schwartz, W. Manhardt (Germany), M. Muller, J. Cox (England), A. de Gubernatis (Italy), A. Pictet (Switzerland), M. Breal (France), A. N. Afanasyev, F. I. Buslaev, O. F. Miller (Russia). In M. sh. Two main directions can be distinguished: etymological (linguistic reconstruction of a myth) and analogical (comparison of myths similar in content). A. Kuhn, in his works “The Descent of Fire and the Divine Drink” (1859) and “On the Stages of Myth Formation” (1873), interpreted mythological images by semantically bringing names together with Sanskrit words. He attracted to the comparative study of the Vedas, which was also carried out by M. Muller in “Essays on Comparative Mythology” (1856) and in “Readings on the Science of Language” (1861-64). Müller developed a method of linguopalaeontology, which received its most complete expression in his two-volume Contribution to the Science of Mythology (1897). Kuhn and Muller sought to recreate ancient mythology, establishing similarities in the names of mythological images of different Indo-European peoples, reducing the content of myths to the deification of natural phenomena - luminaries (“solar theory” by Muller), thunderstorms, etc. (“meteorological theory” by Kuhn). The principles of the linguistic study of mythology were originally applied by F. Buslaev in his works of the 1840-50s. (collected in the book “Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature and Art,” vol. 1-2, 1861). Sharing the general theory of M. sh., Buslaev believed that all genres of folklore arose in the “epic period” from myth, and raised, for example, epic images to mythological tales about the emergence of rivers (Danube), about giants living in the mountains (Svyatogor) , etc. The solar-meteorological theory received its extreme expression in the work of O. Miller “Ilya Muromets and the Kiev heroism” (1869). A. A. Potebnya, who partly shared the views of M. sh., considered speech “... the main and primitive tool of mythical thinking” (“From notes on the theory of literature,” X., 1905, p. 589) and looked for in folk poetry traces of this thinking, but denied Müller’s theory of “disease of language” as a source of mythological images.

Based on the “analogical” study of myths, various theories arose. Thus, W. Schwartz and W. Manhardt derived myths not from the deification of celestial phenomena, but from the worship of “lower” demonic beings (demonological, or naturalistic, theory), and therefore they associated folklore with “lower mythology” (see “lower mythology”). The origin of mythology...", 1860, "Poetic views on the nature of the Greeks, Romans and Germans...", 1864-79, V. Schwartz; "Demons of Rye", 1868, "Forest and field crops", 1875-77, "Mythological Research", 1884, V. Manhardt). A unique synthesis of various theories of M. sh. there was the work “Poetic Views of the Slavs on Nature” (vols. 1-3, 1866-69) by A. N. Afanasyev, who, along with Buslaev, was the first in Russia to apply the principles of M. sh. to the study of folklore (“Grandfather Brownie”, 1850, “Sorcerer and Witch”, 1851, etc.). Dan M. sh. given in the early works of A. N. Pypin (“On Russian folk tales,” 1856) and A. N. Veselovsky (“Notes and doubts about the comparative study of medieval epic,” 1868; “Comparative mythology and its method,” 1873), Moreover, the latter introduced the idea of ​​historicism into the understanding of mythology and its relationship with folklore. Subsequently, Buslaev, Pypin and Veselovsky criticized the concepts of M. sh.

The methodology and conclusions of M. art, based on an idealistic understanding of mythology and the exaggeration of its role in the history of art, were not accepted by the subsequent development of science, but at one time M. art. played an important role in promoting the active study of folklore and the justification of folk art. M. sh. laid the foundations for comparative mythology and folkloristics and posed a number of significant theoretical problems.

In the 20th century A “neo-mythological” theory arose, based on the teachings of the Swiss. psychologist K. Jung about “archetypes” - products of the “impersonal collective unconscious” of the creativity of primitive humanity, possessing a demonic or magical nature. According to Jung, “the well-known expression of the archetype is myth and fairy tale... here it appears in a specifically minted form” (“Von den Wurzeln des Bewusstseins. Studien über den Archetypus”, Z., 1954, S. 5-6). “Neo-mythologists” bring together folklore images, as well as many others. plots and images of new literature to symbolically rethought “archetypes” of ancient myths, and mythology is considered an explanation of magical rites and is identified with religion. The largest representatives of “neo-mythologism” in folklore studies: the French J. Dumezil and C. Autrand, the Englishman F. Raglan, the Dutchman Jan de Vries, the Americans R. Carpenter and J. Campbell and others. “Neo-mythologism” has become a very broad trend in modern times. bourgeois literary studies (F. Wheelwright, R. Chase, W. Douglas, etc.).

Mythopoetics- an influential scientific direction that emerged in the second half of the 20th century in Western literary criticism.

Mythopoetics is based on the idea of ​​myth as the most important factor for understanding the nature of artistic creativity. Within the framework of mythopoetics, myth is considered not only as a historically conditioned source of artistic creativity, but also as “a transhistorical generator of literature, keeping it within a certain mythocentric framework” (Western literary criticism of the 20th century. - P. 258). The formation of mythopoetics is connected, on the one hand, with the increase since the beginning of the 20th century of interest in myth in various fields of humanities: ethnology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, cultural studies. On the other hand, with the appearance of “mythocentric” works within the framework of modernism (novels by T. Mann, D. Joyce, F. Kafka, A. Bely).

In European science, myth has been a subject of study since the beginning of the 18th century. The Italian scientist G. Vico, author of “Foundations of a new science of the general nature of nations,” created the first serious philosophy of myth. Presenting the history of civilization as a cyclical process, Vico, in particular, raises the question of the connection between early heroic poetry and mythology. Mythology, according to the scientist, is associated with specific forms of thinking, comparable to child psychology. Such thinking is characterized by sensory concreteness, emotionality and richness of imagination in the absence of rationality, the transference of one’s own properties to objects in the surrounding world, personification of generic categories, etc. Vico’s statements about the mythological nature of poetic tropes are of significant interest. Vico believes that “all tropes... hitherto considered the ingenious inventions of writers, were the necessary mode of expression of all the first poetic nations, and that when they first appeared they had their true meaning. But since, along with the development of the human mind, words were found denoting abstract forms or generic concepts, embracing their species or connecting their parts to the whole, then such ways of expressing the first peoples became transferences.”

At the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. a romantic philosophy of myth is emerging. In the works of German romantics (F. Schelling, J. Herder, J. Grimm, the Schlegel brothers), myth is understood not as an absurd fiction, but as an expression of the ability of ancient man to perceive holistically and artistically model the world. An outstanding role here, of course, belongs to F.V. Schelling, who systematically expounded the romantic philosophy of myth in his Philosophy of Art. Schelling views mythology as “a necessary condition and primary material for all art.” “Mythology,” writes the philosopher, “is nothing more than the universe in a more solemn attire, in its absolute appearance, the true universe in itself, a way of life and chaos full of miracles in divine image-creation, which is already poetry in itself and yet for oneself at the same time the material and element of poetry. It (mythology) is the world and, so to speak, the soil on which only works of art can flourish and grow. Only within the confines of such a world are stable and definite images possible, through which only eternal concepts can receive expression.” Schelling pays special attention to the symbolism of myth, contrasting it (symbolism) with schematism and allegory. If schematism is characterized by the representation of the particular through the general, and allegory - the general through the particular, then these two forms of imagination are synthesized in the symbol, and the general and the particular, according to the German philosopher, are indistinguishable in the symbol. Symbolism, thus, acts as a principle for constructing mythology.

In the second half of the 19th century, an anthropological school emerged in England (E. Taylor, E. Lang). The material for studying the anthropological school is archaic tribes in comparison with civilized humanity. In particular, E. Taylor, the author of “Primitive Culture,” connects the emergence of mythology with animism, the idea of ​​the soul that arose as a result of the “savage’s” observations and thoughts about death, illness, and dreams. It is noteworthy that Taylor points out the rational nature of these reflections, i.e. mythology, according to Taylor, is the result of the rational, rational activity of primitive man.

The increase in scientific interest in myth at the beginning of the 20th century was largely predetermined by the transitional nature of the era itself, which began at the turn of the century with the crisis of the philosophy of positivism and the formation of the so-called “philosophy of life” (F. Nietzsche, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, A. Bergson) . The overcoming of the positivist view of myth is already found in the German philosopher Fr. Nietzsche in his work “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music” (1872), which had a significant influence on the entire European culture of the “turn of the century.” Considering Greek mythology and tragedy, Nietzsche identifies two principles in them - “Apollonian” and “Dionysian”. In tragedy, Nietzsche sees a synthesis of Apollonism and Dionysianism, since the musicality of Dionysianism in ancient Greek tragedies is resolved in the plastic, visual images of Apollonism. Nietzsche brings mythology closer to the irrational, chaotic principle.

A significant role in “remythologization” in the culture of the early 20th century belongs to the German composer R. Wagner, the author of the musical tetralogy “The Ring of the Nibelung”. According to Wagner, myth lies at the foundation of art. From myth grew Greek tragedy, which for the composer remained a model for modern drama that synthesizes music and words. Wagner's myth is opposed to history as a substantial beginning to a temporary, conditional beginning.

“Remythologization” in the culture and philosophy of the early 20th century became a kind of impetus for the emergence of various scientific approaches to the study of myth. Among the theories of myth that have developed in the last century in various humanities, ritualism, symbolic theory, analytical psychology, the structuralist approach, and the ritual-mythological direction stand out.

A significant contribution to the study of myth was made by the so-called ritual school, the founder of which is considered to be James George Frazer, who in his studies (Fraser was best known for his monumental work “The Golden Bough”) put forward and substantiated the ritual nature of myths. Of particular interest is the mythology discovered by Fraser of a sorcerer king who is periodically killed and replaced, magically responsible for the harvest and tribal well-being. Fraser, who reconstructed this mythologem with the help of ethnographic facts of various origins, interprets it in the context of rituals of dying and resurrecting gods, sacred weddings and more archaic initiation rituals.

Under the influence of Fraser's ideas, the so-called “Cambridge school” arose, to which Jane Harrison, F.M. Cornford, A.B. Cook, Gilbert Murray and other scientists, who based their research on the priority of ritual over myth and saw in rituals the most important source of development of mythology, religion, philosophy, and art of the ancient world.

The sociological direction in the study of myth is presented in the theories of E. Durkheim and L. Lévy-Bruhl. Lévy-Bruhl raised the question of the qualitative difference between primitive thinking and its prelogical nature. The main concept in the Lévy-Bruhl concept is the concept of “collective representations”, which do not have logical features and properties. The prelogism of mythological thinking, in particular, is manifested in non-compliance with the logical law of the “excluded middle”: objects can simultaneously be themselves and something else; there is no desire to avoid contradiction, and therefore the opposition between unit and set, static and dynamic is of secondary importance. In “collective ideas” the law of participation is revealed: between the totemic group and the land of light, between the land of light and flowers, mythical animals, etc. Space in mythology is understood as heterogeneous, each part of it is involved in what is in it. Time in mythological thinking is also heterogeneous. As for causality, at any given moment only one link is perceived, the other is attributed to the world of invisible forces. According to Lévy-Bruhl, in mythological thinking certain properties are not separated from individual objects, number is not separated from the countable, different numbers can be equated due to their mystical meaning.

C. Lévi-Strauss made a significant contribution to the study of mythological thinking. One of the founders of structuralism, C. Lévi-Strauss, in his research, reveals the structure of mythological thinking. According to the scientist, which he initially outlined in “The Thinking of Savages” (1962), this thinking, with all its concreteness and reliance on immediate sensations, has a logic, which the author defines as the logic of bricolage (from the French bricoler - to play with a rebound). Associated with natural sensory images, elements of mythological thinking are a kind of intermediaries between image and concept. Elements of mythological thinking can act as a sign and coexist with an idea in the sign. It is in the sign, as K. Lévi-Strauss believes, that the opposition between the sensual and the speculative is overcome. At the same time, the sign does not create something completely new; it can be extracted from the wreckage of one system to create another and acts as a reorganization operator (kaleidoscope-type logic). Hence the binary nature of mythological thinking (oppositions such as high/low, sky/earth, day/night, right/left, husband/wife), which consists in the fact that specific classifiers are duplicated at different levels and correlate with more abstract ones (numerical, etc.). ).

K. Lévi-Strauss points out the metaphorical nature of mythological thinking, however, despite the fact that the revelation of meaning in myth has the character of endless transformations, mythical thought brings the metaphor to intelligibility and is capable of revealing unconscious mental structures. In this regard, the arguments of K. Lévi-Strauss in “Mythological” regarding the comparison of myth with art seem interesting. The scientist brings together music and myth, contrasting them with painting. Music and myth, according to K. Lévi-Strauss, are metaphorical, while painting is metonymic. “Using the concepts of “nature” and “culture,” Lévi-Strauss expresses the idea of ​​the reasons for the fundamental figurative nature of painting and that abstract painting changes the specificity of painting as an art form to the same extent that concrete music violates the specificity of music. The fact is that musical sounds are the property of culture (in nature there are only noises), and colors exist in nature. From here follows the obligatory objectivity of painting and the freedom of music from representational connections. Levi-Strauss distinguishes between the “external” content of music (an unlimited series of physically realizable sounds, from which various musical systems isolate their hierarchies of sounds in scales) and the “internal” content, correlated with the physiological “natural lattice” (“internal” content is associated with psychophysiological time listener, with organic rhythms). In music, the relationship between “sender” and “receiver” is inverted in the sense that the latter is signified through the message of the former. The listener, as it were, turns out to be a performer of an orchestra conducted by the musical work itself: the music lives in him, and through music he listens to himself, while approaching the unconscious mental structures, in the knowledge of which Lévi-Strauss sees the ultimate goal of his research.

According to Levi-Strauss, myth stands in the middle between language and music. Myth, like music, comes from double content and two levels of articulation. The musical series of physically realized sounds from which scales are composed corresponds to a mythological series of “historical” events, from among which (in principle unlimited) each mythology makes its choice. Myth is also a “time destruction machine” that overcomes the antinomy of continuous time and discrete structure. Myth organizes the listener's psychological time with the help of changing narrative lengths, repetitions, parallelisms, etc. In myth, there is also a reversal of the “sender-receiver” relationship and the listener acts as the signified... Myths, like music, quite closely reproduce unconscious general mental structures.”

The stated theories of myth, developed in various humanities, influenced the formation of literary approaches to the study of myth in literature, among which, in particular, the ritual-mythological school, which reached its peak in the 1950s, stands out. The theoretical basis of the ritual-mythological school was ritualism and the theory of archetypes by K.G. Cabin boy. The ritual-mythological school, in contrast to the cultural ritualism of Fraser’s students, was not limited to the analysis of archaic monuments, one way or another directly related to the ritual-folklore-mythological tradition, i.e. went beyond the limits in which it was possible to raise the question of direct genesis from ritual and mythological roots. Dante, Milton and Blake attracted much attention from ritual and mythological criticism, due to the fact that their work directly operates with motifs and images of biblical-Christian mythology. In addition to the above authors, representatives of this direction were interested in writers whose work manifests a conscious orientation towards myth-making: T. Mann, F. Kafka, D. Joyce, W. Faulkner, etc. Among the scientists belonging to the ritual-mythological school - M Bodkin, N. Fry, F. Wheelwright, W. Troy, R. Chase.

Maude Bodkin, author of the study Archetypes in Poetry (1934), is interested in the emotional and psychological models of literary genres and images. Comparing the images of the storm, moon, night, sea, sky, etc., in Coleridge’s “The Poem of the Ancient Mariner” with similar images in other poets, in particular, in the Belgian poet Verhaeren and in religious texts, the researcher discovers commonality in them , conditioned, in her opinion, by the subordination of the individual experience of poets to super-personal life, to the universal rhythm. Repeating phases in the life of man and nature, as M. Bodkin believes, can be symbolized by images of heavenly views - mountains, gardens and flowering bushes of the earthly paradise, or, conversely, gloomy caves and abysses. The researcher focuses on the temporal and spatial forms of archetypal images, paying special attention to the symbols of the transition from death to life, associated with initiation rites and corresponding myths.

According to N. Fry, author of “The Anatomy of Criticism” (1957), poetic rhythms are closely related to the natural cycle through the synchronization of the body with natural rhythms, for example, with the solar year: dawn and spring underlie the myths about the birth of the hero, his resurrection and the death of darkness (this is the archetype of dithyrambic poetry). Zenith, summer, marriage, triumph give rise to the myths of apotheosis, sacred wedding, paradise (archetype of comedy, idyll, novel). Sunset, autumn, death lead to myths about the flood, chaos and the end of the world (the archetype of satire). Spring, summer, autumn, winter give rise to comedy, chivalric romance, tragedy and irony, respectively.

Mythopoetics as a direction in literary criticism, using the theoretical principles of a number of schools for the study of myth (the teachings of C. G. Jung, the concepts of Lévy-Bruhl and C. Lévi-Strauss), focuses its efforts on identifying deep layers in texts that go back to the mythological archaic. These layers appear, as it were, independently of the author’s will and take the work beyond the individual, social-typical, and epochal. The existence of such layers is explained, in the words of V.N. Toporov, the existence of a “psychophysiological substrate of man,” which is “deeply connected with the “cosmic” as the sphere of interpretation of the “psychophysiological” (to the connection between the micro- and macrocosmos).” “In relation to this category of cases,” continues V.N. Toporov, “we can talk about the presence of a long-range dependence between the psychophysiological level and the poetics of the text, which realizes this dependence and thereby additionally testifies to it.” Mythopoetic analysis works in this regard involves identifying in the semantic structure of the text not only the implementation of the author’s individual attitudes, but also universal, constantly operating features of human consciousness. This kind of universals should reveal themselves at different levels of the artistic structure of a work, but primarily at those that have a greater world-modeling function. Of particular importance in this regard is the analysis of the chronotope of the work, since the categories of space and time are fundamental in constructing a picture of the world.

direction to burzh. historiography of the original Christianity, which set itself the task of proving that the Gospel. the story of Jesus Christ is a myth. There are 3 periods in the history of the development of this school. The 1st is associated with the names of the French. scientists C. Dupun and C. Volney, who created the astral theory of the origin of myths, according to which myths are personifications of living and inanimate nature, and Christ is an allegory of the sun. The 2nd period includes German. Young Hegelian?. Bauer, representatives from Holland. radical school: A. Goekstra, A. Pearson, A. D. Loman, G. Bolland. Revealing the inconsistency of the gospels, B. Bauer interprets them as fictions, i.e. conscious. fiction dept. persons He did a lot to clarify the ideological premises of Christianity. The 3rd period in the development of the school dates back to the beginning. 20th century and is associated with the names of J.M. Robertson, T. Whittaker, who developed the pre-Christian hypothesis. cult of Jesus (Yeshua), A. Nemoevsky, E. Moutier-Rousset, P. L. Cushu, W. B. Smith, A. Drews. The latter studied Gnosticism as a source of Christianity. They made a great contribution to the study of the origins of Christianity, but, being idealists, did not reveal the socio-economic. reasons for the emergence of Christianity and could not completely debunk the myth of Christ.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MYTHOLOGICAL SCHOOL

scientific direction in folklore and literary studies of the 19th century, which arose in the era of romanticism. The philosophical basis for M.Sh. served the aesthetics of the romantics Schelling and the brothers A. and F. Schlegel. For them, myth was the prototype of poetry, from which science and philosophy then developed, and mythology was the primary material for all art; in it one should look for the “core, center of poetry.” The revival of art is possible, according to the teachings of M.Sh., only on the basis of myth-making. Subsequently, these ideas were developed by the brothers V and Y. Grimm, with whose names in the 20-30s of the 19th century. related to the final design of M.Sh. Mythology, according to the Brothers Grimm, is a form of primitive thinking, an “unconsciously creative spirit,” a means for man to explain the world around him. Supporters of M.Sh. there were A. Kuhn, V. Schwartz - in Germany, M. Muller - in England, M. Breal - in France, A.N. Afanasyev, F.N. Buslaev, O.F. Miller is in Russia. M.Sh. in Europe developed in two directions: etymological (linguistic reconstruction of myth) and analogical (comparison of myths with similar content). Representatives of the first direction (A. Kuhn, M. Müller) explained the origin of myths with the “solar theory” (M. Müller), the essence of which was that the deification of the sun and luminaries was considered a prerequisite for the emergence of myths, and “meteorological theory” (A. Kun), when the root cause of myths was seen in the deified forces of nature: wind, lightning, thunder, storm, whirlwind. A supporter of the “etymological” trend in Russia was F.I. Buslaev, who believed that all genres of folklore arose from myth. The “analytical” concept was adhered to by V. Schwartz and V. Manhardt, who saw the root cause of myths in the worship of “lower” demonic creatures. Views of M.Sh. schools partly shared A.A. Potebnya, A.N. Pypin, synthesis of various theories by M.Sh. observed in A.N. Afanasyeva. The mythological direction in the process of development was enriched by the theory of literary borrowing, the theory of euhemerism (mythological deities arose as a result of man’s deification of great people), and anthropological theory (the theory of the spontaneous generation of mythological subjects). Such a variety of concepts weakened the effectiveness of the mythological approach to works of ancient literature. As a result, the need arose for a certain unifying principle, which became the principle of comparative historical study of works of ancient Russian literature and folklore. Thus, in the process of development M.Sh. a school of comparative mythology is being formed (A.N. Afanasyev, O. F. Miller, A.A. Kotlyarevsky). The merit of the representatives of this branch lies primarily in the fact that they collected and studied the enormous poetic heritage of the Russian people, made it the subject of worldwide study, and laid the foundations for the comparative study of mythology, folklore and literature. A significant disadvantage of M.Sh. there was a desire to find a “mythological” analogue for any, even the most insignificant phenomenon, a hero, therefore a number of theoretical conclusions of the school were rejected by subsequent directions. In the 20th century within the framework of M.Sh. a “neo-mythological” theory was born, based on Jung’s teaching on archetypes. “Neo-mythologists” reduce many plots and images of new literature to symbolically rethought archetypes of ancient myths, while giving priority to ritual over the content of myth. The new direction has become widespread in Anglo-American literary criticism.

MYTHOLOGICAL SCHOOL

- a scientific direction in folklore and literary criticism of the 19th century, which arose in the era of romanticism. The philosophical basis for M.Sh. was inspired by the aesthetics of the romantics Schelling and the brothers A. and F. Schlegel. For them, myth was the prototype of poetry, from which science and philosophy then developed, and mythology was the primary material for all art; in it one should look for the “core, center of poetry.” The revival of art is possible, according to the teachings of M.Sh., only on the basis of myth-making. Subsequently, these ideas were developed by the brothers V and Y. Grimm, with whose names in the 20-30s of the 19th century. related to the final design of M.Sh. Mythology, according to the Brothers Grimm, is a form of primitive thinking, an “unconsciously creative spirit,” a means for man to explain the world around him. Supporters of M.Sh. there were A. Kuhn, V. Schwartz - in Germany, M. Muller - in England, M. Breal - in France, A.N. Afanasyev, F.N. Buslaev, O.F. Miller is in Russia. M.Sh. in Europe developed in two directions: etymological (linguistic reconstruction of myth) and analogical (comparison of myths with similar content). Representatives of the first direction (A. Kuhn, M. Muller) explained the origin of myths with the “solar theory” (M. Muller), the essence of which was that the deification of the sun and luminaries was considered a prerequisite for the emergence of myths, and the “meteorological theory” (A. Kun), when the root cause of myths was seen in the deified forces of nature: wind, lightning, thunder, storm, whirlwind. A supporter of the “etymological” trend in Russia was F.I. Buslaev, who believed that all genres of folklore arose from myth. The “analytical” concept was adhered to by V. Schwartz and V. Manhardt, who saw the root cause of myths in the worship of “lower” demonic creatures. Views of M.Sh. schools partly shared A.A. Potebnya, A.N. Pypin, synthesis of various theories by M.Sh. observed in A.N. Afanasyeva. The mythological direction in the process of development was enriched by the theory of literary borrowing, the theory of euhemerism (mythological deities arose as a result of man’s deification of great people), and anthropological theory (the theory of the spontaneous generation of mythological subjects). Such a variety of concepts weakened the effectiveness of the mythological approach to works of ancient literature. As a result, the need arose for a certain unifying principle, which became the principle of comparative historical study of works of ancient Russian literature and folklore. Thus, in the process of development M.Sh. a school of comparative mythology is being formed (A.N. Afanasyev, O. F. Miller, A.A. Kotlyarevsky). The merit of the representatives of this branch lies primarily in the fact that they collected and studied the enormous poetic heritage of the Russian people, made it the subject of worldwide study, and laid the foundations for the comparative study of mythology, folklore and literature. A significant disadvantage of M.Sh. there was a desire to find a “mythological” analogue for any, even the most insignificant phenomenon, a hero, therefore a number of theoretical conclusions of the school were rejected by subsequent directions. In the 20th century within the framework of M.Sh. a “neo-mythological” theory was born, based on Jung’s teaching on archetypes. “Neo-mythologists” reduce many plots and images of new literature to symbolically reinterpreted archetypes of ancient myths, while giving priority to ritual over the content of myth. The new direction has become widespread in Anglo-American literary criticism.

Until the 40s of the 19th century. There was no folkloristics as a science. XVIII century and the first three decades of the 19th century. can be considered the prehistory of Russian science of folk art - the time of accumulation of folklore material and its initial theoretical understanding. The theory of Russian folkloristics is born as a result of the development of literary, historical, philosophical, and ethnographic research in Russia and the use of the scientific experience of foreign scientists.

The first school of Russian folklore, the so-called mythological school, was established in the middle of the 19th century. It was initially associated with the activities of F.I. Buslaeva. The foundations of this scientific direction abroad were laid by the famous German scientists Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm. Their works played a huge role in the development of folkloristics in Western Europe. Their predecessors were such writers and collectors as James Macpherson (1736-1796), author of the cycle of poems “The Works of Ossian,” which he presented as genuine songs of the bard Ossian; Thomas Percy (1729-1811), researcher and publisher of Relics of Ancient English Poetry (3 vols., 1756); Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), who created the famous collection “Voices of Peoples in Songs” (2 parts; 1778-1779) and widely promoted folk art; Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832), a great poet, thinker, scientist, who turned more than once to folk poetry. Their activities in this area: folklore publications, collections, the use of tales and songs, stylizations of folk art attracted attention in all European countries. In the works of writers of the 18th century. Works of folk art were interpreted romantically and played a significant role in the formation of the national self-awareness of peoples.

The end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. was a period when interest in the values ​​of national culture and art began to develop in a number of European countries. Romantic movements in literature and philosophical understanding of the past and present in the context of rising national feelings, during and after the wars with Napoleon, and in a number of countries, liberation movements, make folk art one of the objects of attention of writers and scientists with different worldviews. At the beginning of the 19th century. Interest in the poetry of the people in Germany is especially intensifying. At this time, books were published there that were in one way or another related to the struggle for national independence. These include the world-famous collection of C. Brentano and A. Arnim “The Boy’s Wonderful Horn” (1805), the work of I. Görres “Old German Books” (1807), the collection of V. and J. Grimm “Children’s and Family Tales” (2 volumes , 1812-1814). In 1807, Arnim founded the first magazine dedicated to folk antiquities and folk poetry (The Hermit).

The philosophical basis of the works of German scientists of the early 19th century. was German classical philosophy, which was characterized by the desire to establish patterns in the history of mankind and states and which developed the idea of ​​the national spirit or national soul as the basis for the material manifestations of real life. Based on idealistic philosophy (the works of Schelling and the young Hegel played a particularly important role), brothers Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm developed the most important provisions of the mythological school. Their interests focused on the history of the people, their language and art; The most significant works of the Grimms are “German Grammar” (1819, 1826-1837), “German Legal Antiquities” (1828), “Reinecke the Fox” (1834), “German Mythology” (1835), “History of the German Language” (1848) , "German Dictionary" (1852).

The Grimms transferred the method of comparing languages, establishing common forms of words and raising them to the “proto-language” of the Indo-European peoples into folklore, making individual tales and images of folk art the object of study. They grouped them by similarity, established common forms, which they considered to be late transformations of the religious primordial myth of nature common to Indo-Europeans. They saw the essence of the epic in the mutual penetration of myth and history. A folk tale is true because it is based on poetic and moral truth. The epic combines divinity and humanity; the first raises him above history, the second brings him closer to it again. The art of the people creates the people's spirit.

The Brothers Grimm thus created a coherent and consistent teaching about the origin of folklore and its development, but this teaching was based on idealistic ideas about world history. The Grimms correctly pointed out the connection between folklore and myth-making, but the myth itself was interpreted incorrectly, from an idealistic position, and they mistakenly believed that myth necessarily precedes folklore.

The Grimms played a big role in the history of folklore. They provided a clear scientific system (but a purely idealistic one); they were the first in European literature to authoritatively declare the need to publish authentic works of oral folk art. The Grimms' talent was obvious. “I know only two authors,” wrote F. Engels, “who have sufficient critical insight and taste in choosing and the ability to use ancient speech - these are the brothers Grimm...” Later in Russia, N. G. Chernyshevsky, criticizing the concept of the mythological school, with I wrote with respect about the talent of Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm.

In their works, the Brothers Grimm used the folklore of various Indo-European peoples. Often they based their remarks on the external random similarity of motives or consonance of words. Their conclusions in such cases were erroneous. At the same time, the broad knowledge and intuition of researchers led them to a number of correct positions (especially in relation to genres that developed on a religious basis). The very erudition of the Grimms impressed their contemporaries. Their teaching attracted the attention of scientists to them, and very soon the Grimms had followers. Among them, Adalbert Kuhn 8, Wilhelm Schwarz, Max Müller, and Wilhelm Mangardt are especially significant. Of the Russian scientists who represented in the middle and second half of the 19th century. mythological school, F.I. Buslaev, A.N. Afanasyev, A.A. Potebnya should be named first.

A. Kuhn and V. Schwartz, developing the concept of brothers. Grimm, derived folklore from myths about thunderstorms (thunderstorm or meteorological theory). In his work “The Origin of Mythology,” V. Schwartz wrote that such elemental phenomena as lightning and thunder, so formidable, so alive, almost always underlie the personification of supernatural beings. Schwartz divided all mythology into higher (an ancient myth that existed from eternity) and lower (belief in goblin, brownies, etc.). Schwartz understood “lower mythology” as a remnant of ancient views. Research in the field of lower mythology was developed by Mangardt, who devoted special research to this issue

Another theory of the mythological origin of folklore was proposed by Max Muller. He said that the source of folklore is the myth of the sun (solar theory). The sun, which gives warmth, light and life to the earth and man, is allegorically depicted in works of folk art - an ancient myth that has collapsed and transformed.

M. Müller set himself the task of tracing the process of myth formation. Myth, according to M. Muller, is formed as a result of a “disease of language,” that is, from attempts to interpret the initially clear and then forgotten meaning of a figurative word. According to this theory, the language of primitive man was clear and artistic. Objects and natural phenomena were named according to their characteristics (for example: dawn - burning; sun - brilliant, etc.). Different objects and phenomena had the same attribute, so they could be called the same (for example, both the dawn and a tree could be called burning). As a result of the forgetting of the original meaning of words, incomprehensible phrases appeared in the language (for example, “brilliant sun” follows “burning tree”). The interpretation of such phrases gave rise to mythological subjects (cf.: “the sun follows the tree” - the myth of Apollo pursuing a nymph who turns into a tree). Mythological tales, therefore, appear in the process of language development. M. Muller divided the history of language into 4 periods: 1) thematic (the formation of roots and grammatical forms of the language), 2) dialectical (from the word “dialect” - the formation of the main families of languages), 3) mythological (the formation of myths), 4) folk ( education of national languages). As can be seen from the above, M. Müller imagined the language of primitive man (and, consequently, thinking) to be clear and simple. Only as confusion arises in the meaning of the original designations, i.e., “disease of the tongue,” are mythological tales created.

Despite the obvious fallacy of the provisions of M. Muller, who presented the history of language not as development, but as a loss of expressiveness, the theory of the disease of language and the solar principle in folklore became widespread and found echoes in Russian folklore (for example, in the work of A. N. Afanasyev “Poetic Slavic views on nature" x).

The development of the mythological school in Russia can be dated back to the 40-50s of the 19th century. The concepts of this school were used in one way or another by scientists of different directions - Slavophiles, Westerners, even researchers who were associated with revolutionary democrats. In its most consistent expression, the theory of the mythologists to some extent opposed the statements of supporters of the official nationality and Slavophiles, since the attitude of the mythological school towards paganism contradicted the latter’s view of pagan beliefs.

Mythologism sharply opposed the views of revolutionary democrats. Revolutionary democrats did not deny the connections between myth and folk art, but viewed myth materialistically and resolutely rebelled against the archaization of folklore, against isolating it from modern life by elevating it to ancient myth.

Representatives of academic science followed their own special path of research. Among them, F. I. Buslaev (1818-1897) especially stood out, heading the Russian mythological school, who had a sharply negative attitude towards Slavophilism and, even more so, towards the revolutionary-democratic trend. F.I. Buslaev did not deny that science is being included in the social struggle of our time. In this regard, the statement of F.I. Buslaev, made by him in the early 60s - during a period of intense class struggle, when the tsarist government was forced to decide to abolish serfdom, is characteristic. “Everything that was taken to us from the West was only a temporary fashion, an idle pastime that left little of any significant benefit. All this glided only on the surface of Russian life, without descending into the depths of its historical and everyday fermentation... The careful collection and theoretical study of folk tales, songs, proverbs, and legends is not a phenomenon isolated from the various political and generally practical ideas of our time (italics my-V.Ch.): this is one of the moments of the same friendly activity that frees slaves from the yoke of serfdom, takes away from the monopoly the right to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor masses, overthrows the old castes, and, spreading literacy everywhere, takes away from them the age-old privileges of exceptional education, originating almost from the mythical priests, who kept their mysterious wisdom under wraps to warn the profane.”

While affirming enlightenment as the basis of the activities of scientists, F. I. Buslaev, at the same time, actually proposed to distance himself from the political struggle of our time. He, in essence, removed the problem of the social and educational significance of folk poetry in modern conditions and focused entirely on the deepest past - on the first stages of human culture and their survivals in later eras. Following the Grimms, whom F.I. Buslaev called his teachers “both in science and in life,” Buslaev and other Russian mythologists considered myth the fundamental basis of folk creativity. Seeing in folklore one of the manifestations of the cultural activity of the people, connecting folklore with the past, Russian mythologists, like foreign ones, believed that the spirit of the people manifests itself in collective art, impersonal and artless. The works of F.I. Buslaev are especially indicative in this regard. F. I. Buslaev saw the value and artistry of folk poetry in its naturalness. “It is natural because, being an expression of the creative spirit of the entire people, it flowed freely from the lips of entire generations. No personal consideration touched her." Periodizing epic works, F. I. Buslaev spoke about the existence of ancient and new layers in folklore. This periodization was carried out especially clearly in relation to epics, which he divided into the most ancient (primitive, mythical) and the latest (historical). The most ancient layers in epics preserve images of mythical heroes (Mikula Selaniovich, Svyatogor, etc.); later ones - historical figures (Dobrynya, Alyosha, etc.). Bylinas, as a type of historical epic, describing younger heroes, i.e. actual figures of history, have a clear historical reference. Buslaev wrote: “Contemporaries sang great names and great events of their time and passed them on to the young, emerging generation, which, sacredly preserving the antiquity bequeathed from their fathers, attached to it the epics of their time, just as the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” attached the epics of this time to Boyanov’s plan, and then he carefully passed on the poetic treasure he had accumulated to his offspring.”

The historical epic, as such, is created outside of mythology and composed “hot on the heels of the event that takes as its subject.” Like any work of folk art, passed from mouth to mouth, it undergoes significant changes. Epic songs recorded at the time or shortly after their creation retain “the original form in which they emerged from the poet’s imagination...”. The initially sketched outline, passing through generations of singers, could be rounded out and receive the fullness and completeness in which many ancient songs have come down to us. Thus, for the historical epic, F. I. Buslaev asserted the existence of the original text and the creative work of the people on it. However, not every person could become the author of a folk historical song. In addition to a great degree of talent, he had to be a member of the team, the people, he had to carry within himself the idea of ​​the people, their spirit. The attempt to reveal the process of folklore creativity, which emerged as a result of careful observations of the life of art, thus received an idealistic and, therefore, false light. The idealistic concept forced Buslaev to argue that in the ancient epic period the spirit of the people was revealed involuntarily and fully in the mouths of the entire mass: “In the epic period, no one was the creator of any myth, legend, or song. Poetic inspiration belonged to one and all... The whole people were poets... Individuals were not poets, but only singers and storytellers; they only knew how to tell or sing more accurately and dexterously, which was known to everyone. If the singer-genius added anything of his own, it was only because that poetic spirit that permeated the entire people was predominantly active in him... An individual poet, trying his hand at a legend that had reached him, like everyone else, According to legend, he only clarified with his story what was already in the depths of the whole people, but unclear and unconscious. It is clear that in his work the poet easily lost his own personality, disappearing in the epic activity of entire generations.” At the same time, the basis for the development of poetry was language, the stimulus that developed poetry was religion. Exalting the impersonality and artlessness of folk art, F. I. Buslaev believed that folk artless literature “stands primarily outside of any personal exclusivity, is primarily the word of an entire people, the voice of the people - as the well-known proverb puts it, it is an epic (i.e., a word) »

The activities of F. I. Buslaev, who headed Russian literary studies for many years, were very contradictory. In his political convictions, he was extremely conservative; in his scientific works he propagated and instilled idealism and sharply condemned the activities and works of revolutionary democrats. At the same time, in the conditions of the Nikolaev reaction of the mid-19th century, when the creativity of the people was contemptuous, he introduced folklore into his works on an equal footing with literature. The conservatism of F. I. Buslaev’s political views was undoubtedly reflected in the scientist’s mythological research, but still was not an insurmountable obstacle to his desire to arouse interest in folk art. Buslaev’s undoubted and great merit was that he made many hitherto unknown monuments of art into the property of science.

Special works by F. I. Buslaev, examining works of literature and folk art, contain many interesting facts and are written in a lively and engaging manner. They drew attention to oral literature from various circles of society. Buslaev's lectures on folk poetry, which he read brilliantly according to the memories of his contemporaries, largely contributed to the emergence of interest and love for folk art among his listeners. Some sections of his lectures and works are of interest even now as the first attempts to consider the poetry of the people in close connection with ancient Russian literature and art.

F. I. Buslaev was the first scientist in Russia who introduced a special course of folk poetry into university teaching (in 1857 F. I. Buslaev began teaching this course at Moscow University). The very fact of announcing such a lecture course was of great importance in the history of folklore and was sympathetically greeted by the progressive intelligentsia.

Another prominent representative of the mythological school in Russia, Alexander Nikolaevich Afanasyev (1826-1871), worked simultaneously with Buslaev. Afanasyev was a lawyer by training, but all his scientific interests were concentrated in the field of myth-making, literature, folklore and language. He owns the first scientific publications of the oral works of the Russian people. His collections of fairy tales and legends still remain the most important publications from which one can fully familiarize themselves with the various works of Russian prose epic. These collections consisted of records from various collectors, mainly from materials sent to the Russian Geographical Society. The collection of fairy tales includes different fairy tale genres. It doesn't just contain satirical tales about priests and bars. Afanasyev could not publish them in Russia in the 60s and 70s. He published satirical anti-clerical tales in Geneva under the title “Treasured Tales” (there is reason to think that the publication of “Treasured Tales” was carried out with the participation of A. I. Herzen)

In addition to the publications with which A. N. Afanasyev primarily entered the history of the science of folklore, he wrote a number of research articles, combined in three volumes under the general title “Poetic views of the Slavs on nature.”

The theoretical works of A. N. Afanasyev reveal that he followed primarily the research of F. I. Buslaev, but at the same time he was very interested in the works of foreign scientists - Kuhn, Pictet, M. Muller and others, whose theories he sought to unite. In folklore he saw a reflection of the struggle between light and darkness, sun and darkness, good and evil. “Poetic views of the Slavs on nature” is a fundamental set of works of folk art (almost exhaustive for its time), which are interpreted as remnants of solar and thunderstorm myths and considered in connection with “lower mythology.”

A. N. Afanasyev himself regarded his work as the implementation of the theoretical principles of his contemporary scientists. In the afterword to the first volume of “Poetic Views,” A. N. Afanasyev himself speaks of the dependence of his research on the works of the largest representatives of the mythological school.

The most prominent representative of the Russian mythological school is also Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya (1834-1891). He was a linguist and folk art researcher. Potebnya's works are characterized by the desire to explore thinking, language, and folk art in their unity, elucidating their historical development. The philosophical basis of A. A. Potebnya’s works was subjective idealism. However, as a result of analyzing specific facts of the history of language and folk art, Potebnya, conflicting with his philosophical views, came to spontaneous materialist statements. In the field of folk art, Potebgtya worked as a collector and researcher. Adhering to the mythological school, A. A. Potebnya diverged from the views of its other representatives in resolving a number of issues. He argued that the word, inseparable from the thinking of people, plays a huge role in the creation of myth and poetic image. With a linguistic approach to the symbols and images of poetry, Potebnya combined the desire to reveal the reflection in them of the history of society (hunting life, the life and work of farmers, etc.). Potebnya argued that a mythological image is created in the process of cognition of nature, has a real basis and, losing its mythological meaning in the process of existence, becomes the property of poetics. In the history of folk poetry, Potebnya saw a constant creative process in which, along with the destruction of previously created images, new ones are created. Potebnya also saw the continuity of the creativity of the people in the variability of the works performed (each new performance of a work is its creation). A. A. Potebnya emphasized that songs should be collected and studied in the unity of words and melody, and the very classification of songs should be based on such study. Not seeing the possibility of doing this in the current state of science, A. A. Potebnya classified songs by size (although he admitted that “size is a form too general”). A. A. Potebnya defended the assertion that the source of folk art is the original culture of the people, and said that borrowing cannot be of decisive importance for its development.

The Russian mythological school united different researchers: its most ardent supporters resolved issues straightforwardly and schematically (A. N. Afanasyev, Or. F. Muller). Other scientists (F.I. Buslaev, A.A. Potebnya) were much more careful in their research and conclusions. The theoretical positions of the school and its individual statements were often accepted by such scientists who cannot be called consistent mythologists. The range of mythological investigations of Russian science was, therefore, large and covered various scientists; But all the works of the DGP school were idealistic. The clearly expressed idealistic essence of this direction of science caused severe criticism from the revolutionary democrats who represented materialist science in the middle of the last century in Russia.

The science of literature has been formed over centuries. Mythological school according to many - pre-scientific. Mythological school still exists today, having emerged in the mid-18th century. Mythological school formed within romanticism , who rejected solid knowledge that fetters freedom and poetry.

Mythological school originated in Germany. In the 1830s there appeared Brothers Grimm fairy tale book And "German Mythology" , which had a noticeable nationalist bias. By that time it was open fact (at the end of the 18th century) of the similarity of the plots of fairy tales and epics of the peoples of the world (wandering stories), gave rise to several scientific directions. Grimm concluded the existence one people with one mythology– Aryans, Aryan theory. The national myths of different peoples are fragments of the ancient Aryan myth, and it was the Germans who best preserved this myth, and of them the Germans, therefore, their culture is the most holistic => idealization of ancestors. The whole culture was born from myth (Schelling). The idealization of ancestors is romanticized. The more complete the mythology of a people, the closer it is to the source material, to the ancestors - the genius peoples. Each folklorist looked for signs of the creative genius of his people, assessed writers according to the principle of the presence of the people in him. The romantics discovered the fact of the similarity of the myths of the Indo-European peoples; this fact needed to be explained. Stray Plot Theory – one people borrowed stories from another, but this theory was not confirmed when studying the mythology of distant peoples.

IN 40s of the 19th century Slavophile supporters of the mythological theory appear - Moscow school. Representatives:

1. Buslaev F. I . – linguist, specialist in Slavic linguistics. He believed that myth and language are born simultaneously.

2. Afanasiev - folklorist, collector of fairy tales. Work "Poetic views of the Slavs on nature"- equality of poetry and myth. His thought existed within the framework of his contemporary philosophy about the eternity and inviolability of myth. He shared myths about the earth, the sky, and solar myths.

3. Potebnya A. A . - belongs to two schools, including psychological, linguist, studied Slavic linguistics. He developed Afanasyev’s thoughts - the presence of form and content in myth, highlighted the internal and external form in language: sound and etymology, which goes back to myth, it is more stable. He dealt a lot with what Jung called archetypes. Considered the issue of mutual influence of language and myth. Language itself creates myth.

4. Losev A. F. . – name-glorification – every name is a myth. Dialectics ascends step by step to myth. Proceedings "Dialectics of Myth", "Philosophy of a name".

5. Meletinsky - poetry is always a myth.

Mythological school – an approach in which myth is considered the primary source of everything.

There are different types of myth: etiological(about the birth of the world) and eschatological(about the end of the world, including apocalyptic myths).

Symbolists - Russian neo-romantics who tried to restore the myth in its entirety (including Nietzsche). The process of moving away from myth was considered to be the dying of art and the degeneration of poetry. Myth is the soil on which everything grew. The origin of human thinking is associated with myth. By losing imagery, a person loses the universality of his worldview, the loss of his integrity, and myth - his integrity. The logic of science is the death of poetry, therefore mythos and logos are forever at war. Symbolists highlighted the ebbs and flows of worldview, proclaimed the slogan of myth-making. These trends were reflected in science.

In the 1930s, a movement appeared in literary criticism paleontology and archeology of meanings. School Marra, he created a new doctrine of language (stages of linguistic thinking in accordance with the formations of society), created a group of philologists, which published a number of articles and a collection "Tristan and Isolde: from the heroine of the European medieval epic to the matriarchal goddess of Afro-Eurasia". Proclaimed the principle of studying all stages of human development from the most ancient. O. Freudenberg "The Poetics of Plot and Genre" sees the origins of the genre in myth. Genres constitute the destiny of literature and have existed for a very long time, because there is inertia inherent in ancient times, this idea was supported M. M. Bakhtin, he spoke about the existence of the original memory of the genre, preserving its origin. Marra School began with the revelation of a myth. We came to the conclusion that the power of myth over man does not end. Only myth answers questions about the meaning of existence, the origins and end of everything ( Meletinsky E. M. “Poetics of Myth” ).

Mythologism in literature of the 20th century – myth novel. Meletinsky– a supporter of the modernist understanding of myth that it is possible to create a myth. Myths develop very slowly, one myth displaces another.

V. Ya. Propp started in formal school, but then publishes a book with the opposite pathos "Historical roots of a fairy tale". I highlighted two main points: initiation And burial. Subsequently, he joined the ritual-mythological school, which argued that ritual was earlier in relation to myth.

Ritual-mythological school .

Western Science (esp. England) was closely connected with ethnography. European ethnographers came to the attention of the new primitive peoples of Australia, Oceania, and South America, and discovered repetitions of stories of peoples who were not in contact. They proposed a doctrine about human nature(anthropological school). The most archaic people turned out to be the aborigines of Australia (they stopped in the Mesolithic, the magic is of a totemic order, there is still no interest in humans, only in animals). This material allowed us to take a more specific look at the development of human culture. E. Taylor “Primitive Culture”- a work on primitive forms of ritual, ancient organizations and structures of society. He argued about the positive influence of monotheism on the formation of unified states. The origin of cultures from myth. J. Fraser "The Golden Bough"- examines the origin of power, myths about the father-head of the clan, gives examples from the cultures of ancient tribes, the king had to confirm his power. Archaic myths about power are the source of patriarchal mythology, the source of state-patriotic ideology. The final stage is monotheism. Fraser's original thought about invincibility myth, and about the ritual that preceded the myth (monkeys have a ritual), the myth is its explanation.

In Western European psychology, philosophy K. G. Jung began scientific work in Vienna psychological circle under the leadership of Freud (demythologization). As a result, Jung abandoned Freud's negative attitude towards myth and art as some kind of psychological deviation. Jung saw in myth the support of man. He returned to the path of remythologization, arguing that myths helped people survive throughout history. Myth according to Jung – experience and understanding of the world of life, this experience is fixed genetically, a biological state, it is the basis of survival. Developed the doctrine of archetypes. 6 main archetypes(generalized images): mother, maiden, elder, warrior, primordial child, trickster. Literature revolves around these archetypes. Jung, an opponent of extreme avant-garde forms of modernism, believed that this art leads to the destruction of the integrity of the worldview. The main mythical heritage is inviolable. Archetypal memory is indestructible. Jung influenced modernist literature that looked back to the past. He was critical of machine civilization and denied progress, which dooms him to a break from the heritage of his ancestors.

Ethnographer, supporter of structuralism K. Levi-Strauss: Structuralism is fundamentally demythological. He studied the culture of the aborigines of South America, the culture of the most primitive tribes. The most ancient forms of myth do not disappear, but are assimilated. Totemism has its place in modern times. Then structuralism came to skepticism, there are no serious changes in thinking, its most ancient forms are repeated.

N. Fry– literary critic and theorist. Work "Anatomy of Criticism", 1957. He restores the world tree of human culture, a supporter of the anthropological school, restoring the unity of human tribes. Seasons – temperament, pathos, modes of worldview. Spring mode – youth and joy, summer mode – maturity, strength, autumn mode – sadness, readiness to leave, winter - tragedy.

M. Eliade called for the restoration of myth in its rights, literature is not fundamentally different from myth, attached to the soil of mythology, all writers create myth. Has a negative attitude towards myth-making.

The original theses of the mythological school are preserved.