A. Potebnya and Kharkov Linguistic School. Scanning Potebnya Alexander Afanasyevich contribution to the Russian language
| Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya | |
| 267x400px | |
| Date of Birth: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
|---|---|
| Place of Birth: | |
| Date of death: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| A place of death: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| A country: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Scientific field: | |
| Academic degree: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Academic title: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Alma mater: | |
| Scientific adviser: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Notable students: | |
| Known as: |
the first major theorist of linguistics in Russia |
| Known as: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Awards and prizes: | Lomonosov Prize, two gold Uvarov medals |
| Website: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| Signature: |
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |
| [[Lua error in Module:Wikidata/Interproject on line 17: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). |Works]] in Wikisource | |
| Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value). | |
Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya(September 10, Manev farmstead near the village of Gavrilovka, Romensky district, Poltava province, Russian Empire - November 29 [December 11], Kharkov, Russian Empire) - Russian linguist, literary critic, philosopher. Corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the first major theorist of linguistics in Russia. It bears his name.
Biography
Alexander Potebnya was born in 1835 on the Manev farm, near the village of Gavrilovka, Romensky district, Poltava province, into a noble family. He received his primary education at the Polish gymnasium in the city of Radom. In 1851, he entered the Faculty of Law at Kharkov University, from which a year later he transferred to the Faculty of History and Philology. His teachers were the brothers Pyotr and Nikolai Lavrovsky and professor Ambrose Metlinsky. Under the influence of Metlinsky and student Negovsky, a song collector, Potebnya became interested in ethnography, began to study the “Little Russian dialect” and collect folk songs. He graduated from the University in 1856, worked for a short time as a literature teacher at the Kharkov gymnasium, and then, in 1861, defended his master’s thesis “On some symbols in Slavic folk poetry” and began lecturing at Kharkov University. In 1862, Potebnya published the work “Thought and Language”. And although he was only 26 years old at the time of the publication of this book, he showed himself to be a thinking and mature philosopher of language; he not only showed amazing erudition in specialized research, but also formulated a number of original and deep theoretical positions. That same year he went on a business trip abroad. He attended lectures at the University of Berlin, studied Sanskrit, and visited several Slavic countries. In 1874 he defended his doctoral dissertation “From Notes on Russian Grammar”, and in 1875 he became a professor at Kharkov University.
Scientific activity
Grammar theory
Potebnya was strongly influenced by the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt, but reinterpreted them in a psychological spirit. He did a lot of studying the relationship between thinking and language, including in the historical aspect, identifying, primarily on Russian and Slavic material, historical changes in the thinking of the people. Dealing with issues of lexicology and morphology, he introduced a number of terms and conceptual oppositions into the Russian grammatical tradition. In particular, he proposed to distinguish between “further” (associated, on the one hand, with encyclopedic knowledge, and on the other, with personal psychological associations, and in both cases individual) and “proximal” (common to all native speakers, “folk”, or, as they now more often say in Russian linguistics, the “naive”) meaning of the word. In languages with developed morphology, the immediate meaning is divided into real and grammatical. A. A. Potebnya was deeply interested in the history of the formation of the categories of noun and adjective, the opposition of noun and verb in Slavic languages.
During the time of A. A. Potebnya, some linguistic phenomena were often considered in isolation from others and from the general course of linguistic development. And his idea was truly innovative that there is an immutable system in languages and their development, and that events in the history of a language must be studied, focusing on its various connections and relationships.
Internal form of a word
Potebnya is also known for his theory of the internal form of the word, in which he concretized the ideas of V. von Humboldt. The internal form of a word is its “closest etymological meaning” recognized by native speakers (for example, the word table the figurative connection with lay); thanks to its internal form, a word can acquire new meanings through metaphor. It was in Potebnya’s interpretation that “internal form” became a commonly used term in the Russian grammatical tradition. He wrote about the organic unity of matter and the form of the word, while at the same time insisting on a fundamental distinction between the external, sound, form of the word and the internal. Only many years later this position was formalized in linguistics in the form of a contrast between the plane of expression and the plane of content.
Poetics
Potebnya was one of the first in Russia to study the problems of poetic language in connection with thinking, and raised the question of art as a special way of understanding the world.
Ukrainian Studies
Potebnya studied Ukrainian dialects (united at that time in linguistics into the “Little Russian dialect”) and folklore, and became the author of a number of fundamental works on this topic.
Ethnocultural views and “Pan-Russianism” of Potebnya
Potebnya was an ardent patriot of his homeland - Little Russia, but was skeptical about the idea of the independence of the Ukrainian language and its development as a literary language. He viewed the Russian language as a single whole - a set of Great Russian and Little Russian dialects, and considered the all-Russian literary language to be the property of not only Great Russians, but also Belarusians and Little Russians equally; this corresponded to his views on the political and cultural unity of the Eastern Slavs - “Pan-Russism”. His student, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky recalled:His commitment to all-Russian literature was a private expression of his general commitment to Russia as a political and cultural whole. A connoisseur of all the Slavs, he did not, however, become either a Slavophile or a pan-Slavist, despite all his sympathy for the development of the Slavic peoples. But on the other hand, he was undoubtedly - both in conviction and in feeling - a “pan-Russian”, that is, he recognized the unification of Russian nationalities (Great Russian, Little Russian and Belarusian) not only as a historical fact, but also as something that should be, something progressive and natural, as a great political and cultural idea. I personally have not heard this term - “Pan-Russianism” - from his lips, but a reliable witness, Professor Mikhail Georgievich Khalansky, his student, told me that Alexander Afanasyevich expressed himself this way, counting himself among the staunch supporters of all-Russian unity.
Kharkov school
Created a scientific school known as the “Kharkov linguistic school”; Dmitry Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (-) and a number of other scientists belonged to it. Potebnya's ideas had a great influence on many Russian linguists of the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
Main works
-
- (link unavailable since 05/20/2013 (2406 days))
- . “Philological notes”, Voronezh, ().
- About full consent. “Philological notes”, Voronezh, ().
- ()
- About the Kupala fires and related ideas / A. A. Potebnya // Antiquities: Archaeol. Bulletin, ed. Moscow archaeol. about-vom. - M., . - May June. - pp. 97-106.
- Notes on the Little Russian dialect ()
- From notes on Russian grammar ( doctoral dissertation, - , vol. 3 - posthumously, , vol. 4 - posthumously, )
-
- Reissued: Potebnya A. A. From lectures on the theory of literature: Fable. Proverb. Proverb. - Ed. 5th. - M.: URSS, KRASAND, 2012. - 168 p. - (Linguistic heritage of the 19th century). - ISBN 978-5-396-00444-3.(region)
- About the external and internal form of the word.
- on the Runiverse website
Reissues
- Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar: Volume I-II / General. ed., preface and entry article by prof. Dr. Philol. Sciences V.I. Borkovsky; Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Department of Literature and Language. - M.: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR (Uchpedgiz), 1958. - 536, p. - 8000 copies.(in translation)
- Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar: Volume III: On changing the meaning and replacing a noun / General. ed., preface and entry article by corresponding member USSR Academy of Sciences V.I. Borkovsky. - M.: Education, 1968. - XVI, 552, p. - 9000 copies.(in translation)
- Potebnya A. A./ General ed., will enter. Art. Corresponding member USSR Academy of Sciences, Dr. Philol. science prof. F. P. Filina; preparation of publication, comp., art. on the principles of preparing the 4th volume, bibliogr. works of A. A. Potebni cand. Philol. Sciences V. Yu. Franchuk. - M.: Education, 1985. - XXXII, 286, p. - Bibliography works of A. A. Potebnya: p. XX-XXXII.
- Potebnya A. A. Aesthetics and poetics. - M.: Art, 1976. - 616 p. - (History of aesthetics in monuments and documents). - 20,000 copies.(in translation)
- Potebnya A. A. Word and myth. M.: Pravda, 1989.
- Potebnya A. A. Thought and language. - Kyiv: SINTO, 1993. - 192 p. - ISBN 5-7768-0256-3.(in translation)
- Potebnya A. A. Symbol and myth in folk culture. M., 2000. The same: M., 2007.
The image of Potebnya in art
Philately
see also
Write a review about the article "Potebnya, Alexander Afanasyevich"
Notes
Literature
- Franchuk V. Yu. A. A. Potebnya: A book for students / Reviewers: L. I. Skvortsov, E. M. Kalugina. - M.: Education, 1986. - 144 p. - (People of science). - 46,000 copies.(region)
- Toporkov A. L.. M.: Indrik, 1997. 456 p.
Links
- on the official website of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- on "Rodovode". Tree of ancestors and descendants
An excerpt characterizing Potebnya, Alexander Afanasyevich
- Tell me, Sever, of those who went into the caves, did anyone live to see the day when it was possible to go to the surface without fear? Did anyone manage to save their life?– Unfortunately, no, Isidora. The Montsegur Cathars did not survive... Although, as I just told you, there were other Cathars who existed in Occitania for quite a long time. Only a century later the last Qatar was destroyed there. But their life was completely different, much more secretive and dangerous. People frightened by the Inquisition betrayed them, wanting to save their lives. Therefore, some of the remaining Katar moved to the caves. Someone settled in the forests. But that was later, and they were much more prepared for such a life. Those whose relatives and friends died in Montsegur did not want to live long with their pain... Deeply grieving for the deceased, tired of hatred and persecution, they finally decided to reunite with them in that other, much kinder and purer life . There were about five hundred of them, including several old people and children. And with them were four Perfect Ones, who came to the rescue from a neighboring town.
On the night of their voluntary “departure” from the unjust and evil material world, all the Cathars went outside to breathe the wonderful spring air for the last time, to once again look at the familiar radiance of the distant stars they loved so much... where their tired, a tormented Qatari soul.
The night was gentle, quiet and warm. The earth was fragrant with the smells of acacias, blossoming cherries and thyme... People inhaled the intoxicating aroma, experiencing real childhood pleasure!.. For almost three long months they did not see the clear night sky, did not breathe real air. After all, in spite of everything, no matter what happened on it, it was their land!.. Their native and beloved Occitania. Only now it was filled with hordes of the Devil, from which there was no escape.
Without saying a word, the Cathars turned to Montsegur. They wanted to take one last look at their HOME. To the Temple of the Sun, sacred to each of them. A strange, long procession of thin, emaciated people unexpectedly easily ascended to the highest of the Qatari castles. It was as if nature itself was helping them!.. Or perhaps these were the souls of those with whom they were going to meet very soon?
At the foot of Montsegur a small part of the Crusader army was located. Apparently, the holy fathers were still afraid that the crazy Cathars might return. And they were guarding... The sad column passed like quiet ghosts next to the sleeping guards - no one even moved...
– They used “blackout”, right? – I asked in surprise. – Did all the Cathars know how to do this?..
- No, Isidora. “You forgot that the Perfect Ones were with them,” answered the North and calmly continued.
Having reached the top, the people stopped. In the light of the moon, the ruins of Montsegur looked ominous and unusual. It was as if every stone, soaked in the blood and pain of the dead Qatar, called for revenge on those who had come again... And although there was dead silence around, it seemed to people that they could still hear the dying cries of their relatives and friends, burning in the flames of the terrifying “cleansing” papal bonfire . Montsegur towered over them, menacing and... unnecessary to anyone, like a wounded animal left to die alone...
The walls of the castle still remembered Svetodar and Magdalena, the children's laughter of Beloyar and golden-haired Vesta... The castle remembered the wonderful years of Qatar, filled with joy and love. I remembered the kind and bright people who came here under his protection. Now this was no longer the case. The walls stood bare and alien, as if Kathar and the big, kind soul of Montsegur had flown away along with the souls of those burned...
The Cathars looked at the familiar stars - from here they seemed so big and close!.. And they knew that very soon these stars would become their new Home. And the stars looked down on their lost children and smiled tenderly, preparing to receive their lonely souls.
The next morning, all the Cathars gathered in a huge, low cave, which was located directly above their beloved - “cathedral”... There, once upon a time, Golden Maria taught KNOWLEDGE... New Perfects gathered there... There the Light and Good World Qatar.
And now, when they returned here only as “shards” of this wonderful world, they wanted to be closer to the past, which was no longer possible to return... The Perfect Ones quietly gave Purification (consolementum) to each of those present, affectionately laying their magic hands on their tired ones , drooping heads. Until all those “leaving” were finally ready.
In complete silence, people took turns lying down directly on the stone floor, crossing their thin arms over their chests, and completely calmly closing their eyes, as if they were just getting ready for bed... Mothers hugged their children to themselves, not wanting to part with them. A moment later, the entire huge hall turned into a quiet tomb of five hundred good people who had fallen asleep forever... Qatar. Faithful and Bright followers of Radomir and Magdalena.
Their souls flew away together to where their proud, brave “brothers” were waiting. Where the world was gentle and kind. Where you no longer had to be afraid that, by someone’s evil, bloodthirsty will, your throat would be cut or simply thrown into the “cleansing” papal fire.
A sharp pain squeezed my heart... Tears flowed in hot streams down my cheeks, but I didn’t even notice them. Bright, beautiful and pure people passed away... of their own free will. They left so as not to surrender to the killers. To leave the way they themselves wanted it. So as not to drag out a miserable, wandering life in his own proud and native land - Occitania.
– Why did they do this, Sever? Why didn't they fight?..
– We fought – with what, Isidora? Their battle was completely lost. They simply chose HOW they wanted to leave.
– But they committed suicide!.. Isn’t this punishable by karma? Didn’t this make them suffer the same way there, in that other world?
– No, Isidora... They simply “left”, removing their souls from the physical body. And this is the most natural process. They did not use violence. They just "gone away."
With deep sadness I looked at this terrible tomb, in the cold, perfect silence of which the falling drops rang from time to time. It was nature that began to slowly create its eternal shroud - a tribute to the dead... So, over the years, drop by drop, each body will gradually turn into a stone tomb, not allowing anyone to mock the dead...
– Did the church ever find this tomb? – I asked quietly.
- Yes, Isidora. The Devil's servants, with the help of dogs, found this cave. But even they did not dare to touch what nature had so hospitably embraced. They did not dare to light their “purifying”, “sacred” fire there, since, apparently, they felt that this work had long been done for them by someone else... Since then, this place has been called the Cave of the Dead. Much later, in different years, the Cathars and Knights of the Temple came there to die; their followers, persecuted by the church, hid there. Even now you can still see old inscriptions left there by the hands of people who once took refuge... A variety of names are intertwined there with the mysterious signs of the Perfect... There is the glorious House of Foix, the persecuted proud Trencaveli... There, sadness and hopelessness come into contact with desperate hope...
And one more thing... Nature has been creating its own stone “memory” there for centuries of sad events and people who deeply touched its big loving heart... At the very entrance to the Cave of the Dead there is a statue of a wise owl, who has been protecting the peace of the departed for centuries...
– Tell me, Sever, the Cathars believed in Christ, didn’t they? – I asked sadly.
The North was truly surprised.
- No, Isidora, that’s not true. The Cathars did not “believe” in Christ, they turned to him, spoke to him. He was their Teacher. But not by God. You can only believe blindly in God. Although I still don’t understand how a person can need blind faith? This church once again distorted the meaning of someone else's teachings... The Cathars believed in KNOWLEDGE. In honesty and helping other, less fortunate people. They believed in Good and Love. But they never believed in one person. They loved and respected Radomir. And they adored the Golden Mary who taught them. But they never made a God or a Goddess out of them. They were for them symbols of Mind and Honor, Knowledge and Love. But they were still PEOPLE, albeit ones who gave themselves completely to others.
Look, Isidora, how stupidly the churchmen distorted even their own theories... They argued that the Cathars did not believe in Christ the man. That the Cathars supposedly believed in his cosmic Divine essence, which was not material. And at the same time, says the church, the Cathars recognized Mary Magdalene as the wife of Christ, and accepted her children. Then, how could children be born to an immaterial being?.. Without taking into account, of course, the nonsense about the “immaculate” conception of Mary?.. No, Isidora, there is nothing truthful left about the teachings of the Cathars, unfortunately... Everything what people know has been completely perverted by the "holy" church to make this teaching seem stupid and worthless. But the Cathars taught what our ancestors taught. What do we teach? But for the clergy this was precisely what was most dangerous. They couldn't let people know the truth. The Church was obliged to destroy even the slightest memories of the Cathars, otherwise, how could it explain what it did to them?.. After the brutal and complete destruction of an entire people, HOW would it explain to its believers why and who needed such a terrible crime? That is why nothing remains of the Qatari teachings... And centuries later, I think it will be even worse.
– What about John? I read somewhere that the Cathars supposedly “believed” in John? And even his manuscripts were kept as a shrine... Is any of this true?
- Only that they really deeply revered John, despite the fact that they had never met him. – North smiled. – Well, one more thing is that, after the death of Radomir and Magdalena, the Cathars actually had the real “Revelations” of Christ and the diaries of John, which the Roman Church tried to find and destroy at all costs. The Pope's servants tried their best to find out where the damned Cathars hid their most dangerous treasure?! For if all this had appeared openly, the history of the Catholic Church would have suffered a complete defeat. But, no matter how hard the church bloodhounds tried, luck never smiled on them... Nothing was found except a few manuscripts of eyewitnesses.
That is why the only way for the church to somehow save its reputation in the case of the Cathars was only to distort their faith and teaching so much that no one in the world could distinguish truth from lies... As they easily did with the lives of Radomir and Magdalena.
The church also claimed that the Cathars worshiped John even more than Jesus Radomir himself. Only by John they meant “their” John, with his false Christian gospels and the same false manuscripts... The Cathars, indeed, revered the real John, but he, as you know, had nothing in common with the church John-“ baptist."
– You know, North, I have the impression that the church distorted and destroyed ENTIRE world history. Why was this necessary?
– In order not to allow a person to think, Isidora. To make obedient and insignificant slaves out of people, who were “forgiven” or punished by the “holiest” at their discretion. For if a person knew the truth about his past, he would be a PROUD person for himself and his Ancestors and would never put on a slave collar. Without the TRUTH, from being free and strong, people became “slaves of God”, and no longer tried to remember who they really were. This is the present, Isidora... And, frankly, it does not leave too bright hopes for change.
The north was very quiet and sad. Apparently, having observed human weakness and cruelty for so many centuries, and seeing how the strongest perished, his heart was poisoned with bitterness and disbelief in the imminent victory of Knowledge and Light... And I so wanted to shout to him that I still believe that people will wake up soon !.. Despite the anger and pain, despite the betrayal and weakness, I believe that the Earth will finally not be able to withstand what is being done to its children. And he would wake up... But I understood that I could not convince him, since I myself would soon have to die, fighting for this same awakening.
But I didn’t regret... My life was just a grain of sand in an endless sea of suffering. And I just had to fight to the end, no matter how terrible it was. Since even drops of water, constantly falling, are capable of someday breaking through the strongest stone. So is EVIL: if people crushed it even grain by grain, it would someday collapse, even if not during this lifetime. But they would return again to their Earth and see - it was THEY who helped her survive!.. It was THEY who helped her become Light and Faithful. I know that the North would say that man does not yet know how to live for the future... And I know that so far this has been true. But this is precisely what, in my understanding, stopped many from making their own decisions. Because people are too accustomed to thinking and acting “like everyone else,” without standing out or interfering, just to live in peace.
“I’m sorry I put you through so much pain, my friend.” – The voice of the North interrupted my thoughts. “But I think it will help you meet your destiny easier.” Will help you survive...
I didn’t want to think about it... At least a little more!.. After all, I still had plenty of time left for my sad fate. Therefore, in order to change the painful topic, I started asking questions again.
– Tell me, Sever, why did I see the sign of the royal “lily” on Magdalene and Radomir, and on many Magi? Does this mean that they were all Franks? Can you explain it to me?
“Let’s start with the fact that this is a misunderstanding of the sign itself,” Sever answered, smiling. “It was not a lily when it was brought to Frankia Meravingli.”
Trefoil - the battle sign of the Slavic-Aryans
– ?!.
“Didn’t you know that it was they who brought the “Threfoil” sign to Europe at that time?..,” Sever was sincerely surprised.
- No, I've never heard of it. And you surprised me again!
– The three-leaf clover once, a long time ago, was the battle sign of the Slavic-Aryans, Isidora. It was a magical herb that helped wonderfully in battle - it gave warriors incredible strength, it healed wounds and made it easier for those leaving for another life. This wonderful herb grew far in the North, and only magicians and sorcerers could get it. It was always given to warriors who went to defend their homeland. Going into battle, each warrior uttered the usual spell: “For Honor! For Conscience! For Faith! While also making a magical movement, he touched the left and right shoulders with two fingers and the middle of the forehead with the last. This is what the Three Leaf Tree truly meant.
Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya - a wonderful linguist, literary scholar
A. A. Potebnya: works and biography
Published in 1862 book by A. Potebnya “Thought and Language”, which brought its author, then still a young man, universal fame and recognition. This book was the first to provide a deep analysis of the problem of the connection between language and thinking. A. Potebnya convincingly showed that not only thinking, but the entire psyche as a whole is somehow connected with language, that a person’s feelings and volitional impulses are also revealed with the help of language. This was a great scientific revelation - a new word in the development of linguistics.
Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya was born 180 years ago, in September 1835, in the Poltava province, into the family of a small Ukrainian nobleman. After graduating from high school and then university, A. Potebnya was a gymnasium teacher for some time, and then for three decades until his death (1891) he lectured to students at Kharkov University.
A. Potebnya was an advanced person. His articles and lectures reflected the ideas of the great Russian revolutionary democrats. As a philologist, Professor A. Potebnya was a scientist of diverse interests. His scientific legacy is distinguished by the variety of problems studied: from the formation of gerunds to the artistic analysis of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” He deeply studied the culture of the ancient Slavs, Slavic languages, the language and culture of his native Ukrainian people.
But today, in our everyday work, we especially appreciate the works of A. Potebnya in the field of grammar. From the first grades of school we become acquainted with grammar as a system that is distinguished by the harmony and completeness of its forms. This harmony is the result of the hard work of many generations of literary scholars, such as Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya.
Scientific works of A. Potebnya:
A. A. Potebnya: “Thought and Language” download
A. A. Potebnya: "Theoretical Poetics" download
A. A. Potebnya: “Aesthetics and Poetics” download
A. A. Potebnya: “Word and Myth” read online
From notes on Russian grammar.
From notes on the theory of literature.
About some symbols in Slavic folk poetry.
From lectures on the theory of literature.
On the origin of the names of some Slavic pagan deities.
Potebnya A.A. Psychology of poetic and prosaic thinking // Potebnya A.A. Word and myth.
Potebnya A.A. From lectures on the theory of literature: Fable. Proverb. Proverb // Potebnya A.A. Theoretical poetics.
Potebnya A.A. From notes on the theory of literature. Fragments // Potebnya A.A. Word and myth: Theoretical poetics.
Potebnya A.A. On the mythical meaning of some beliefs and rituals // Readings in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University.
Potebnya A.A. Little Russian folk song, according to the list of the 16th century: Text and notes.
Potebnya A.A. Review of the work of A. Sobolevsky // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.
N. Sumtsov.
Potebnya, Alexander Afanasyevich
Philologist, born in the Romensky district of the Poltava province, on September 10, 1835, into a noble family. At the age of seven, P. was sent to the Radom Gymnasium and, thanks to this circumstance, learned the Polish language well. In 1851, P. entered the Kharkov University, the Faculty of Law, but the next year, 1852, he switched to the Faculty of History and Philology. At the university, he lived in a boarding house as a government-funded student and subsequently recalled with pleasure this period of his life and found good aspects in the then student dormitory. At the university, P. became close to student M.V. Negovsky; Negovsky had a special Little Russian library, which P. used. The teaching staff at that time at Kharkov University was not brilliant. The Russian language was read by A. L. Metlinsky, according to P. a kind and sympathetic person, but a weak professor. His “Collection of South Russian Folk Songs,” according to P., was the first book that taught him to take a closer look at the phenomena of language, and there is no doubt that Metlinsky’s sympathetic personality and his literary experiences in the Little Russian language influenced P., lulling his love to language and literature; The collection of Little Russian folk songs compiled by Metlinsky had a particularly beneficial effect on P.. At the university, P. listened to two famous Slavists, P. A. and N. A. Lavrovsky, and later recalled them with gratitude as scientific leaders. P. completed a course at the university in 1856 and, on the advice of P. A. Lavrovsky, began to prepare for the master's exam. At one time he occupied the place of a class monitor at the Kharkov 1st gymnasium, but was soon appointed supernumerary senior teacher of Russian literature. According to the instructions of N.A. Lavrovsky, P. became acquainted with the works of Miklosic and Karadzic. After defending his master's thesis "On Some Symbols", P. was appointed an adjunct at Kharkov University, with dismissal from his post as a gymnasium teacher, and in 1861 he was entrusted with theoretical studies in pedagogy; at the same time he was secretary of the Faculty of History and Philology. His master's thesis clearly revealed his inclination towards the philosophical study of language and poetry and towards defining symbolic meanings in words. This composition did not cause imitations; but the author himself later turned to it many times and subsequently developed some of its sections with greater detail and depth of scientific analysis. The inclination towards the philosophical psychological study of the structure of speech and the history of language was especially clearly revealed in the extensive article by P. "Thought and Language", published in 1862 in the "Magazine of the Ministry of People's Prospekt." In 1892, after P.’s death, this work was republished by the widow of the deceased, M. F. Potebnya, with a portrait of the author and a short preface written by prof. M. S. Drinov.
In 1862, P. was sent abroad for two years, but soon missed his homeland and returned a year later. P. visited the Slavic lands, listened to Sanskrit from Weber and personally met Miklosic. At this time, his views on the meaning of nationalism in science and life were already quite clearly and clearly defined, as shown by several large letters from P. to Belikov that have survived from that time (now kept in manuscript by Prof. M.E. Khalansky).
Since 1863, P. was an associate professor at Kharkov University. Around this time, his disagreements with Pyotr A. Lavrovsky date back, the literary remainder of which is provided by Lavrovsky’s harsh criticism of P.’s essay (1865) “On the mythical meaning of certain rituals and beliefs,” published in “Readings of the Moscow General History . and ancient Russian." 1866 P. wrote a response that was not published by the editor of “Readings” O. M. Bodyansky and was preserved in P.’s manuscripts. In 1874, he defended his doctoral dissertation at Kharkov University: “From notes on Russian grammar,” in 2 parts; in 1875 he was approved as an extraordinary professor and in the same fall - as an ordinary professor. The dissertation was preceded by a number of other works on philology and mythology: “On the connection of certain ideas” - in Philol. Notes" 1864, "On full-voice" and "On the sound features of Russian dialects" (in "Philol. Notes" 1866), "Notes on the Little Russian dialect" (ib. 1870), "On Dole and creatures related to it" (in " Antiquities" Moscow. Archaeol. General., vol. I) and "On the Kupala fires" (in the "Archaeological Bulletin" 1867). These articles collected a lot of factual material, many valuable conclusions were made. Especially large ones - from early works P. - for specialist philologists is “Notes on the Little Russian dialect”, and for mythologists and ethnographers - the essay “On the mythical meaning of some rituals and beliefs”. Doctoral dissertation: “From notes on Russian grammar” consists of 2 parts - an introduction (in). 157 pp.) and research on the constituent members of a sentence and their replacements in the Russian language. The second edition of this dissertation, corrected and expanded, was published in 1889. There were very commendable reviews of this work by I. I. Sreznevsky, A. A. Kotlyarevsky, I. B. Yagich, V. I. Lamansky, A. S. Budilovich and I. V. Netushil These reviews are collected in the book “In Memory of A. A. Potebnya,” published in 1892 by the Kharkov Historical and Philological Society. Sreznevsky was surprised at P.’s erudition and his broad intelligence. G. Yagich notes his extensive knowledge, independence of thinking, thoroughness and caution in his conclusions; Budilovich puts P. on his merits next to Jacob Grimm. G. Lamansky considers him superior to Miklosic, calls him “one of the most precious gifts of Russian education,” “deeply knowledgeable,” “highly gifted.”
Of P.'s later philological studies, the following are remarkable: “On the history of the sounds of the Russian language” - in 4 parts (1873-1886) and “Meanings of the plural in the Russian language” (1888). In these studies, along with valuable comments on phonetics, there are very important notes on the lexical composition of the Russian language and, in connection with them, ethnographic observations and studies. If on the phonetics of the Little Russian language, along with the works of P., one can rank the works of Miklosic, Ogonovsky, P. Zhitetsky, then in relation to the study of the lexical composition of the Little Russian language, P. occupies the only place, beyond comparison, with almost no predecessors, except for Maksimovich, and without followers , without successors. P. revealed the secrets of the artistic activity of the people in individual words and in their song combinations. The veil has been lifted from many dark words, hiding their important historical and everyday meaning.
From studying the lexical composition of a language, there is only one step left to studying folk poetry, mainly songs, where the word retains all its artistic power and expressiveness - and A. A. Potebnya most naturally moved from philological work to broader and more vibrant historical and literary work, more precisely, to the study of folk poetic motifs. Already in 1877, in an article about a collection of songs by Mr. Golovatsky, he expressed and developed his opinion on the need for a formal basis for the division of folk songs, and in his subsequent works he everywhere highlights the size of the songs being studied and distributes them according to size into categories and divisions .
With the light hand of M. A. Maksimovich, who, while studying “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” began to determine the historical and poetic connection between southern Rus' of the present time and pre-Mongol southern Russia in individual poetic images, expressions and epithets, this interesting work was produced in large sizes by Potebnya in the notes to the “Tale” about Igor’s Campaign”, published in 1877. Recognizing, like many scientists, the “Lay” is a personal and written work, he finds it incredible that it was composed according to a ready-made Byzantine-Bulgarian or other template and points to the abundance of folk poetic elements in it elements. Determining the similarities between the “Lay” and works of oral literature, P., on the one hand, explains some obscure parts of the “Lay”, on the other hand, he traces some folk poetic motifs to a time no later than the end of the twelfth century and, thus, introduces a certain amount of chronology into the study of such aspects of folk poetry as symbolism and parallelism.
In the 1880s P. published a very large study: “Explanation of Little Russian and related folk songs,” in two volumes. The first volume (1883) included stoneflies, the second (1887) carols. For anyone seriously engaged in the study of folk poetry, these works of P. are extremely important, according to the method of scientific research, according to the collected and examined material and the scientific conclusions made on the basis of this material. In addition to purely scientific works and research, edited by P., an excellent edition of the works of the Little Russian writer G. F. Kvitka was published (Kharkov, 1887 and 1889), observing the accents and local features of the Kharkov dialect, published by him in “Kiev Starina” in 1888 the works of Artemovsky-Gulak, according to the original manuscript of the author, observing his spelling, and in “Kyiv Antiquity” in 1890, Little Russian medical books of the 18th century were published.
A tireless work life, and perhaps some other circumstances, made P. old beyond his years. With almost every mild cold, his bronchitis returned. From the autumn of 1890 and throughout the winter, P. felt very ill and could hardly leave the house; however, not wanting to deprive the students of his lectures, he invited them to his home and read from the 3rd part of his “Notes on Russian Grammar,” although the reading was already noticeably tiring him. This third part of the “Notes” especially concerned P. and he did not stop working on it until the very last opportunity, despite his illness. A trip to Italy, where he spent two summer months in 1891, helped him somewhat and, returning to Kharkov, in September he began to lecture at the university, but died on November 29, 1891.
P.'s posthumous papers contained many (twenty folders) of voluminous and valuable works on the history of the Russian language and the theory of literature. The most processed work is the third volume of “Notes on Russian Grammar” - a work of a philosophical nature, which talks about the tasks of linguistics, nationalism in science, the development of the Russian word in connection with Russian thought, the human-likeness of general concepts, etc. These notes were published in 1899 in the form of the 3rd volume. An overview of the content was given by Mr. Khartsiev in the V edition of the “Proceedings of the Pedagogical Department of the Kharkov Historical and Philological Society” (1899).
Most of the materials left after P. can be divided into three sections: materials for etymology (dictionary), for grammar, and notes of a mixed nature.
In the manuscripts, by the way, there was found a translation of part of the Odyssey into the Little Russian language in the size of the original. Judging by the passages, P. wanted to give a translation in purely popular language, close to the style of Homer; and therefore the beginning of the translation he made represents a work that is very interesting both in literary and scientific terms.
As a teacher, A. A. Potebnya enjoyed great respect. Listeners saw in him a man deeply devoted to science, hardworking, conscientious and talented. Each of his lectures sounded personal conviction and revealed an original attitude to the subject of research, thoughtful and heartfelt.
For 12 years (1877-1890) P. was the chairman of the Historical and Philological Society at Kharkov University and contributed greatly to its development.
After Potebnya’s death, his articles were published: “Language and Nationality” in the “Bulletin of Europe” (1893, September); “From a lecture on the theory of literature: fable, saying, proverb” (1894); analysis of Mr. Sobolevsky's doctoral dissertation (in "Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences", 1896); 3rd volume. "Notes on Russian grammar" (1899).
Potebnya's linguistic research, especially his main work - "Notes", in terms of the abundance of factual content and method of presentation, belongs to those that are difficult to access, even for specialists, and therefore their scientific explanation in publicly accessible forms is of considerable importance. In this regard, the first place is occupied by the works of Prof. : “Potebnya as a linguist and thinker”, “Language and art”, “Towards the psychology of artistic creativity”. A comparatively more simplified popularization of Potebnya’s conclusions is Mr. Vetukhov’s brochure “Language, Poetry, Art.” A review and assessment of Potebnya's ethnographic works was given by prof. N. Sumtsov in 1 volume “Modern Little Russian Ethnography”.
A collection of articles and obituaries about Potebnya was published by Kharkov Historical-Philol. Society in 1892; Bibliographic indexes of Potebnya's articles: Mr. Sumtsov - in 3 volumes. "Collection of History-Phil. General. 1891, Mr. Voltaire - in 3 volumes. Collection of Academic Sciences 1892 and the most detailed Mr. Vetukhov - 1898 g. - in "Rus. Philol. Vestn.", books 3-4. From the articles published following the publication of the book "In Memory of A. A. Potebnya", published by Kharkov. Historical-Philological General., are distinguished by size and thoroughness: pr. D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky in "Kyiv. Old." 1903, N.F. Sumtsov Ave. - in 1 volume. "Notes of the Imperial. Kharkovsk. University" 1903, V.I. Khartsieva - in the V issue of "Proceedings Pedagogical. Department" 1899, A.V. Vetukhov - in "Russian. Philol. Vestnik" 1898, Mr. Kashmensky in "Peaceful Labor" 1902, book I, and V.I. Khartsiev in "Peaceful Labor" 1902 books 2-3.
Prof. N. F. Sumtsov.
Biographical Dictionary (edited by Polovtsov)
Potebnya, Alexander Afanasyevich
- philologist, literary critic, ethnographer. Genus. in the family of a minor nobleman. He studied at a classical gymnasium, then at the Kharkov University at the Faculty of History and Philology. After graduation, he taught literature at the Kharkov gymnasium. In 1860 he defended his master's thesis "On some symbols in Slavic folk poetry..." In 1862 he received a scientific trip abroad, where he stayed for a year. In 1874 he defended his doctoral dissertation “From Notes on Russian Grammar.” In 1875 he received the department of history of Russian language and literature at Kharkov University, which he held until the end of his life. P. was also the chairman of the Kharkov Historical and Philological Society and a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. In 1862, a number of articles by P. appeared in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, which were then combined into the book Thought and Language. In 1864, his work “On the Connection of Certain Representations in Language” was published in Philological Notes. In 1874, the first volume of “From Notes on Russian Grammar” was published. In 1873-1874, the 1st part “On the history of the sounds of the Russian language” was published in “ZhMNP”; in 1880-1886, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th parts. ("Russian Philological Bulletin"), in 1882-1887 - "Explanations of Little Russian and related folk songs" in 2 vols. However, a significant part of P.'s works were published after his death. Were released: 3 h. "From notes on Russian grammar"; “From lectures on the theory of literature” (compiled from student notes); "From notes on the theory of literature"; "Rough notes on L.N. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky" ("Questions in the theory and psychology of creativity", vol. V, 1913).P.'s literary activity covers the 60-80s. Among the literary trends of that era, P. stands apart. Both the bourgeois sociologism of the cultural-historical school (Pypin and others) and the bourgeois positivism of Veselovsky’s comparative-historical method are alien to him. The mythological school had a well-known influence on P. In his works he devotes a fairly prominent place to myth and its relationship with the word. However, P. criticizes the extreme conclusions reached by supporters of the mythological school. In Russian literary criticism and linguistics of that era, P. was the founder of the subjective psychological direction. The philosophical roots of this subjective idealistic theory go back through Humboldt to German idealistic philosophy, ch. arr. to Kant's philosophy, Agnosticism, the rejection of the possibility of knowing the essence of things and depicting the real world in poetic images permeate P.'s entire worldview. The essence of things, from his point of view, is not knowable. Cognition deals with the chaos of sensory sensations, into which a person brings order. The word plays an important role in this process. “Only the concept (and at the same time the word, as its necessary condition) introduces the idea of legality, necessity, order into the world with which a person surrounds himself and which he is destined to accept as real” (Thought and Language, p. 131) .
From agnosticism, P. goes to the main provisions of subjective idealism, declaring that “the world appears to us only as a course of changes occurring within ourselves” (“From Notes on the Theory of Literature,” p. 25). Therefore, approaching the process of cognition, Potebnya limits this process to knowledge of the inner world of the subject.
In his views on language and poetry, this subjective idealism manifested itself as a pronounced psychologism. Raising the basic questions of linguistics, P. seeks solutions to them in psychology. Only by bringing linguistics closer to psychology can, in P.’s opinion, fruitfully develop both sciences. P. considers Herbart’s psychology to be the only scientific psychology. Potebnya bases linguistics on Herbart's theory of representations, considering the formation of each word as a process of apperception, judgment, i.e., explanation of the newly cognizable through the previously cognized. Having recognized the general form of human knowledge as the explanation of what is newly known by what was previously known, P. extends threads from words to poetry and science, considering them as means of understanding the world. However, in the mouth of the subjective idealist P., the position that poetry and science are a form of knowledge of the world has a completely different meaning than in the mouth of a Marxist. The only goal of both scientific and poetic work is, in P.’s views, “a modification of the inner world of man.” For P., poetry is a means of understanding not the objective world, but only the subjective. Art and the word are a means of subjective unification of disparate sensory perceptions. An artistic image does not reflect a world that exists independently of our consciousness; this world, from P.’s point of view, is not knowable; it only designates part of the artist’s subjective world. This subjective world of the artist, in turn, is not cognizable for others and is not expressed, but is only indicated in an artistic image. An image is a symbol - an allegory - and is valuable only because everyone can put their own subjective content into it. Mutual understanding is essentially impossible. Every understanding is at the same time misunderstanding. This subjective idealistic approach to art, the consideration of the image only as a symbol, as a constant predicate to variable subjects, leads P. in the theory of poetry to psychologism, to the study of the psychology of creativity and the psychology of perception.
We will not find a systematic presentation of P.'s views on literature in his works, therefore the presentation of his views on literature presents a certain difficulty. We have to present P.’s system based on his linguistic works, rough notes and lectures recorded by his students and published after P.’s death.
In order to understand the essence of P.'s views on poetry, it is necessary to first become acquainted with his views on the word.
Developing mainly the views of the German linguist Humboldt on language as an activity, P. considers language as an organ for the creation of thought, as a powerful factor in cognition. From the word as the simplest poetic work, P. goes to complex works of art. Analyzing the process of word formation, P. shows that the first stage of word formation is the simple reflection of a feeling in sound, then comes the awareness of the sound, and finally the third stage - awareness of the content of the thought in the sound. From Potebnya’s point of view, every word has two contents. One of them, after the word appears, is gradually forgotten. This is its closest etymological meaning. It contains only one feature out of the whole variety of features of a given object. Thus, the word “table” means only something laid out, the word “window” - from the word “eye” - means where one looks or where the light passes, and does not contain any hint not only of a frame, but even of the concept of an opening. P. calls this etymological meaning of the word internal form. Essentially, it is not the content of the word, but only a sign, a symbol, under which we think of the actual content of the word: it can include a wide variety of attributes of the object. For example: how was the color black called raven or blue blue? From the images of a crow or a dove, which are the focus of a whole series of signs, one was singled out, namely their color, and with this sign the newly cognizable thing was named - color.
We cognize an object unknown to us with the help of apperception, that is, we explain it by our previous experience, by the stock of knowledge we have already acquired. The internal form of a word is a means of apperception precisely because it expresses a common feature characteristic of both the explained and the explaining (previous experience). Expressing this general feature, the internal form acts as an intermediary, as something third between the two phenomena being compared. Analyzing the psychological process of apperception, P. identifies it with the process of judgment. The internal form is the relationship of the content of a thought to consciousness, it shows how his own thought appears to a person... Thus, the thought of a cloud was presented to the people under the form of one of its signs - namely, that it absorbs water or pours it out of itself, where does the word “cloud” come from [(root “tu” - drink, pour), “Thought and language”].
But if the word is a means of apperception, and apperception itself is not. what is other than a judgment, then the word, regardless of its combination with other words, is precisely the expression of the judgment, a two-term value consisting of an image and its representation. Consequently, the internal form of a word, which expresses only one attribute, has meaning not in itself, but only as a form (it is no coincidence that P. called it an internal form), the sensory image of which enters consciousness. The internal form only indicates all the richness of the sensory image contained in the cognizable object and without connection with it, that is, without judgment, has no meaning. The internal form is important only as a symbol, as a sign, as a substitute for the entire diversity of the sensory image. This sensory image is perceived differently by everyone depending on their experience, and therefore the word is only a sign into which everyone puts subjective content. The content that is thought by the same word is different for each person, therefore there is not and cannot be a complete understanding.
The internal form, expressing one of the signs of a cognizable sensory image, not only creates the unity of the image, but also gives knowledge of this unity; “It is not an image of an object, but an image of an image, that is, a representation,” says P. The word, by highlighting one attribute, generalizes sensory perceptions. It acts as a means of creating the unity of the sensory image. But the word, in addition to creating the unity of the image, also gives knowledge of its generality. The child calls different perceptions of the mother with the same word “mother”. Leading a person to the consciousness of the unity of the sensory image, then to the consciousness of its community, the word is a means of cognition of reality.
Analyzing the word, P. is like this. arr. comes to the following conclusions: 1. A word consists of three elements: external form, i.e. sound, internal form and meaning. 2. The internal form expresses one characteristic between the compared, i.e., between the newly cognized and previously cognized objects. 3. The internal form acts as a means of apperception, apperception is the same judgment, therefore the internal form is an expression of the judgment and is not important in itself, but only as a sign, a symbol of the meaning of the word, which is subjective. 4. The internal form, expressing one sign, gives consciousness of the unity and community of the sensory image. 5. The gradual oblivion of the internal form turns the word from a primitive poetic work into a concept. Analyzing the symbols of folk poetry, analyzing their internal form, P. comes to the idea that the need to restore a forgotten internal form was one of the reasons for the formation of symbols. Viburnum became a symbol of the maiden for the same reason that the maiden is called red - by the unity of the basic representation of fire-light in the words “maiden”, “red”, “viburnum”. Studying the symbols of Slavic folk poetry, P. arranges them according to the unity of the basic idea contained in their names. P., through detailed etymological studies, shows how the growth of a tree and the genus, the root and the father, the broad leaf and the mind of the mother came together, finding a correspondence in language.
From the primitive word, the word as the simplest poetic work, P. moves on to tropes, to synecdoche, to epithet and metonymy, to metaphor, to comparison, and then to fable, proverb and saying. Analyzing them, he seeks to show that the three elements inherent in the primitive word as an elementary poetic work constitute the integral essence of poetic works in general. If in a word we have external form, internal form and meaning, then in any poetic work we must also distinguish between form, image and meaning. “The unity of articulate sounds (the external form of a word) corresponds to the external form of a poetic work, by which we should mean not just a sound form, but also a verbal form in general, significant in its component parts” (“Notes on the Theory of Literature,” p. 30). The representation (i.e., internal form) in a word corresponds to an image (or a certain unity of images) in a poetic work. The meaning of the word corresponds to the content of the poetic work. By the content of a work of art, P. means those thoughts that are evoked in the reader by a given image, or those that serve the author as the basis for creating the image. The image of a work of art, just like the internal form in a word, is only a sign of the thoughts that the author had when creating the image, or those that arise in the reader when perceiving it. The image and form of a work of art, as well as the external and internal form in the word, constitute, according to P.’s teaching, an inextricable unity. If the connection between sound and meaning is lost to consciousness, then sound ceases to be an external form in the aesthetic meaning of the word. So eg. To understand the comparison “clean water flows in a clean river, and true love in a true heart,” we lack the legitimacy of the relationship between external form and meaning. A legitimate connection between water and love will be established only when the opportunity is given, without making a leap, to move from one of these thoughts to another, when, for example. in consciousness there will be a connection between light as one of the epithets of water and love. This is precisely the forgotten internal form, that is, the symbolic meaning of the image of water expressed in the first couplet. In order for the comparison of water with love to have aesthetic significance, it is necessary to restore this internal form, the connection between water and love. To explain this idea, Potebnya cites a Ukrainian spring song, where a saffron wheel looks out from under the tyna. If we perceive only the external form of this song, i.e. That is, to take it literally, it will turn out to be nonsense. If we restore the internal form and associate the yellow saffron wheel with the sun, then the song takes on aesthetic significance. So, in a poetic work we have the same elements as in a word, the relationships between them are similar to the relationships between the elements of words. The image indicates the content, is a symbol, a sign, the external form is inextricably linked with the image. When analyzing the word, it was shown that for P. it is a means of apperception, cognition of the unknown through the known, an expression of judgment. The same means of cognition is a complex work of art. First of all, it is necessary for the creator-artist himself to form his thoughts. A work of art is not so much an expression of these thoughts as a means of creating thoughts. P. extends Humboldt's point of view that language is an activity, an organ of thought formation, to any poetic work, showing that an artistic image is not a means of expressing a ready-made thought, but, like the word, plays a huge role in the creation of these thoughts. In his book “From Lectures on the Theory of Literature,” P., sharing Lessing’s views on determining the essence of poetry, criticizes his idea that a moral statement, morality, precedes the creation of a fable in the artist’s mind. “When applied to language, this would mean that a word first means a whole series of things, for example, a table in general, and then this thing in particular. However, humanity has been reaching such generalizations for many millennia,” says P. Then he shows that the artist does not always strive to bring the reader to a moral lesson. The poet's immediate goal is a certain point of view on a real particular case - on the psychological subject (since the image is an expression of a judgment) - by comparing it with another, also special case, told in the fable - with the psychological predicate. This predicate (the image contained in the fable) remains unchanged, but the subject changes, since the fable is applied to different cases.
A poetic image, due to its allegorical nature, due to the fact that it is a constant predicate to many variable subjects, makes it possible to replace a lot of different thoughts with relatively small quantities.
The process of creating any, even the most complex, work of P. falls under the following scheme. Something unclear to the author, existing in the form of a question (x), seeks an answer. The author can find the answer only in previous experience. Let's denote the latter by "A". From “A”, under the influence of x, everything that is not suitable for this x is repelled, what is akin to it is attracted, this latter is combined in the image of “a”, and a judgment occurs, i.e., the creation of a work of art. Analyzing Lermontov's works "Three Palms", "Sail", "Branch of Palestine", "Hero of Our Time", P. shows how the same thing that tormented the poet is embodied in different images. This x, cognized by the poet, is something extremely complex in relation to the image. The image never exhausts this x. “We can say that x in a poet is inexpressible, that what we call expression is only a series of attempts to designate this x, and not to express it,” says P. (From Lectures on the Theory of Literature, p. 161).
The perception of a work of art is similar to the creative process, only in reverse order. The reader understands the work to the extent that he participates in its creation. Thus, the image serves only as a means of transforming other independent content located in the thought of the understander. The image is important only as an allegory, as a symbol. “A work of art, like a word, is not so much an expression as a means of creating a thought; its purpose, like the word, is to produce a certain subjective mood both in the speaker and in the understander,” says P. (“Thought and Language,” p. 154) .
This allegorical image can be of two kinds. Firstly, allegory in the narrow sense, i.e. portability, metaphor, when image and meaning refer to phenomena far from each other, such as. external nature and human life. Secondly, artistic typicality, when an image becomes in thought the beginning of a series of similar and homogeneous images. The goal of poetic works of this kind, namely generalization, is achieved when the understander recognizes the familiar in them. “Abundant examples of such knowledge with the help of types created by poetry are represented by the life (i.e., application) of all outstanding works of new Russian literature, from “The Minor” to Saltykov’s satires” (“From Notes on the Theory of Literature,” p. 70).
The internal form in a word gives consciousness of the unity and community of the sensory image, that is, the entire content of the word. In a work of art, this role of a unifier, a collector of various interpretations, various subjective contents is performed by an image. The image is singular and at the same time infinite; its infinity lies precisely in the impossibility of determining how much and what content will be invested in it by the perceiver.
Poetry, according to P., makes up for the imperfections of scientific thought. Science, from the point of view of the agnostic P., cannot provide knowledge of the essence of objects and a complete picture of the world, since every new fact that is not included in the scientific system, in P.’s opinion, destroys it. Poetry reveals the harmony of the world, unattainable for analytical knowledge, it points to this harmony with its specific images, “replacing the unity of concept with the unity of representation, it in some way rewards for the imperfection of scientific thought and satisfies the innate human need to see the whole and perfect everywhere” (“Thought and Language ").
On the other hand, poetry prepares science. The word, originally the simplest poetic work, turns into a concept. Art, from P.’s point of view, “is the process of objectifying the initial data of mental life, while science is the process of objectifying art” (“Thought and Language,” p. 166). Science is more objective, from P.’s point of view, than art, since the basis of art is an image, the understanding of which is subjective each time, while the basis of science is a concept that is made up of image features objectified in words. The very concept of objectivity is interpreted by P. from a subjective idealistic position. Objectivity or truth, according to P., is not our correct reflection of the objective world, but only “a comparison of personal thought with general thought” (“Thought and Language”).
Poetry and science, as various types of later human thinking, were preceded by a stage of mythical thinking. Myth is also an act of cognition, that is, an explanation of x through the totality of what was previously known. But in myth, the newly cognizable is identified with the previously cognized. The image is completely transferred into meaning. So eg. Primitive man equated lightning with snake. In poetry, the lightning-snake formula takes on the character of comparison. In poetic thinking, a person distinguishes what is newly known from what was previously known. “The appearance of metaphor in the sense of consciousness of the heterogeneity of image and meaning is thereby the disappearance of myth” (From Notes on the Theory of Literature, p. 590). Attaching great importance to myth as the first stage of human thinking, from which poetry then grows, P., however, is far from the extreme conclusions reached by representatives of the mythological school represented by the German researcher M. Muller and the Russian scientist Afanasyev. P. criticizes their view that the source of the myth was misunderstood metaphors.
Building his poetics on a psychological-linguistic basis, considering the newly created word as the simplest poetic work and stretching threads from it to complex works of art, P. made enormous efforts to bring all types of tropes and complex works of art under the scheme of judgment, to decompose the cognizable into previously the cognized and the means of cognition - the image. It is no coincidence that P.’s analysis of poetic works did not go further than the analysis of its simplest forms: fables, proverbs and sayings, since it was extremely difficult to fit a complex work into the scheme of words.
The rapprochement of poetics with linguistics based on the consideration of words and works of art as means of knowing the inner world of the subject, and hence the interest in problems of psychology, was what was new that P. introduced into linguistics and literary criticism. However, it was precisely in these central questions of P.’s theory that all the fallacy was reflected and the depravity of his methodology.
The subjective-idealistic theory of literature, aimed at the inner world, interpreting imagery only as allegory and cutting off the approach to literature as an expression of a certain social reality, in the 60-80s. reflected the decadent tendencies of the noble intelligentsia in Russian literary criticism. The progressive strata of both the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia in that era were drawn either to the historical and cultural school or to the positivism of the Veselovsky school. It is characteristic that P. himself felt the kinship of his views with the philosophical foundations of the representative of noble poetry, the predecessor of Russian symbolism, Tyutchev. In the 900s Symbolists - exponents of Russian decadence - brought their theoretical constructions closer to the basic tenets of P.'s poetics. Thus, in 1910, he dedicated an article to P.'s main work, “Thought and Language,” where he makes P. the spiritual father of symbolism.
P.'s ideas were popularized and developed by his students, grouped around the collections “Questions of the Theory and Psychology of Creativity” (published in 1907-1923, edited by Lezin in Kharkov). The most interesting figure among P.'s students was Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, who tried to apply the psychological method to the analysis of the works of Russian classics. Later, Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky largely moved away from the P. system towards bourgeois sociologization. The rest of P.'s students were essentially only epigones of their teacher. Gornfeld focused his main attention on the problems of the psychology of creativity and the psychology of perception (“The Torment of the Word,” “The Future of Art,” “On the Interpretation of a Work of Art”), interpreting these problems from a subjective idealistic position. Raynov popularized Kant's aesthetics. Other students of P. - Lezin, Engelmeyer, Khartsiev - developed P.'s teaching in the direction of the empirio-criticism of Mach and Avenarius. P.'s theory, which considered the word and a poetic work as a means of cognition through the designation of diverse content in one image-symbol, was interpreted by them from the point of view of economy of thinking. Potebnia's students, who viewed science and poetry as forms of thinking in accordance with the principle of least effort, discovered with exceptional clarity the subjective idealistic foundations of Potebnianism and thereby all its hostility to Marxism-Leninism. Having played its historical role in the fight against the old scholastic linguistics, focusing the attention of the science of literature on questions of the psychology of creativity and the psychology of perception, on the problem of the artistic image, connecting poetics with linguistics, Potebnianism, vicious in its methodological basis, then connecting with Machism, revealed itself more and more sharply its reactionivity. All the more unacceptable are the attempts of individual students of P. to combine Potebnianism with Marxism (Levin’s article). In recent years, some of P.'s students have been trying to master the principles of Marxist-Leninist literary criticism (Beletsky, M. Grigoriev).
Bibliography: I. The most important works: Complete collection. works., vol. I. Thought and language, ed. 4, Odessa, 1922 (originally in "ZhMNP", 1862, parts 113, 114; 2, 3, 5 ed. - 1892, 1913, 1926); From notes on the theory of literature, Kharkov, 1905: I. About some symbols in Slavic folk poetry. TI. On the connection of certain representations in language. III. About the Kupala lights and related ideas. IV. About fate and creatures related to it, Kharkov, 1914 (originally published separately in 1860-1867); From lectures on the theory of literature, ch. 1 and 2, Kharkov, 1894 (ed. 2, Kharkov, 1923); From notes on Russian grammar, ch. 1 and 2, ed. 2, Kharkov, 1889 (originally in magazines 1874); The same, part 3, Kharkov, 1899.
II. In memory of A. A. Potebnya, Sat., Kharkov, 1892; , A. A. Potebnya as a linguist, thinker, "Kiev Antiquity", 1893, VII - IX; Vetukhov A., Language, poetry and science, Kharkov, 1894; Sumtsov N.F., A.A. Potebnya, “Russian Biographical Dictionary”, volume Plavilshchikov - Primo, St. Petersburg, 1905, pp. 643-646; Bely A., Thought and language, collection. "Logos", book. II, 1910; Khartsiev V., Fundamentals of poetics A. A. Potebnya, collection. "Issues of the theory and psychology of creativity", vol. II, no. II, St. Petersburg, 1910; Shklovsky V., Potebnya, collection. "Poetics", P., 1919; Gornfeld A., A. A. Potebnya and modern science, “Chronicle of the House of Writers”, 1921, No. 4; Bulletin of the Editorial Committee for the publication of O. Potebni's works, part 1, Kharkiv, 1922; Gornfeld A.G., Potebnya, in the book. author of "Combat Responses to Peaceful Themes", Leningrad, 1924; Rainov T., Potebnya, P., 1924. See collection. "Issues of the theory and psychology of creativity", volumes I - VIII, Kharkov, 1907-1923.
III. Balukhaty S., Theory of Literature, Annotated Bibliography, I, L., 1929, pp. 78-85; Raynov, A. A. Potebnya, P., 1924; Khalansky M. G. and Bagalei D. I. (eds.), Historical and philological. Faculty of Kharkov University for 100 years, 1805-1905, Kharkov, 1908; Yazykov D., Review of the life and works of Russian writers, vol. XI, St. Petersburg, 1909; Piksanov N.K., Two centuries of Russian literature, ed. 2, M., 1924, pp. 248-249; In memory of A. A. Potebnya, Sat., Kharkov, 1892.
E. Drozdovskaya.
Literary encyclopedia: In 11 volumes - M., 1929-1939.
Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya (1835-1891) was a major and original scientist of a synthetic nature, combining a philosopher, linguist, literary historian, researcher of folklore and mythology, belonging equally to Ukrainian and Russian science. He was characterized by a wide range of linguistic interests (philosophy of language, syntax, morphology, phonetics, semasiology of Russian and Slavic languages, dialectology, comparative historical grammar, the problem of the language of works of art, the aesthetic function of language). He studied the theory of literature, poetics, literary history, ethnography, and folklore. A.A. Potebnya knew, in addition to his native Ukrainian and Russian, a number of ancient and new languages (Old Church Slavonic, Latin, Sanskrit, German, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Czech, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian). His main works: “Thought and Language” (1862), “Two Studies on the Sounds of the Russian Language” (1864-1865), “Notes on the Little Russian dialect” (1870), “From notes on Russian grammar” (1874 - parts 1 and 2; posthumously, 1899 - part 3; 1941 - part 4), “On the history of the sounds of the Russian language” (1874-1883), “Explanations of Little Russian and related folk songs” (2 volumes - 1883 and 1887), “Meanings of the plural in Russian language" (1887-1888). “Etymological Notes” (1891). He published “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” with his notes.
Linguistic views of A.A. Potebnya developed under the strong influence of W. von Humboldt and H. Steinthal. It brings together and at the same time differentiates the tasks of linguistics and psychology. For him, comparative and historical approaches are inextricably linked. Comparative historical linguistics is a form of protest against logical grammar. Language is understood as an activity in the process of which the language, originally inherent in a person as creative potential, is continuously renewed. A.A. Potebnya asserts the close connection of language with thinking and emphasizes the specificity of language as a form of thought, but “one that is not found in anything other than language.” Logic is qualified as a hypothetical and formal science, and psychology (and thereby linguistics) as a genetic science. The more “substantial” (compared to logic) nature of the “formality” of linguistics, no greater than that of other sciences, and its closeness to logic are emphasized. Language is interpreted as a means not to express a ready-made thought, but to create it. There are logical and linguistic (grammatical) categories. It is emphasized that there are incomparably more of the latter and that languages differ from each other not only in sound form, but also in the structure of the thoughts expressed in them, their influence on the subsequent development of peoples. Speech is considered one aspect of a larger whole, namely language. A.A. Potebne owns statements about the inseparability of speech and understanding, about the ownership of what is understandable to the speaker not only to himself. Attention is drawn primarily to the dynamic side of language - speech, in which “the real life of the word takes place,” only in which the meaning of the word is possible, and outside of which the word is dead.
According to A.A. Potebne, a word has no more than one meaning, namely the one that is realized in the act of speech. He does not recognize the actual existence of general meanings of words (both formal and material). At the same time, he emphasizes that a word does not express the entire thought taken as its content, but only one sign of it, that a word has two contents - objective (the closest etymological content of the word, containing only one sign; folk meaning) and subjective ( further meaning of a word, in which there can be many signs; personal meaning), that a word as an act of cognition contains, in addition to meaning, a sign indicating the actual meaning and based on the previous meaning, that the sound form of a word is also a sign, but a sign of a sign. . The sign of meaning is interpreted as a feature that is common between the two complex mental units being compared, a kind of substitute, a representative of the corresponding image or concept. The internal form of a word is understood as the relation of the content of thought to consciousness, a person’s representation of his own thought. A word is defined as a sound unity on the outside and as a unity of representation and meaning on the inside. The same three-element structure applies to the grammatical form. The grammatical form is recognized as an element of the meaning of a word, homogeneous with its real meaning. It is recommended to trace the history of the use of words in the process of historical development of the language in order to draw conclusions about the nature of changes in the thinking of a given people and humanity as a whole.
I.P. Susov. History of linguistics - Tver, 1999.
Page:
Potebnya Alexander Afanasyevich - (1835-1891), Russian (according to the interpretation adopted in Ukraine, Ukrainian; the Institute of Linguistics (Language Studies) of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv is named after him) linguist, literary critic, philosopher, the first major theorist of linguistics in Russia. Born on September 10 (22), 1835 in the village of Gavrilovka, Poltava province.
In 1856 he graduated from Kharkov University, later he taught there, and from 1875 he was a professor. Since 1877, corresponding member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Main works: Thought and Language (1862), Notes on the Little Russian dialect (1870), From notes on Russian grammar (doctoral dissertation, 1874), From the history of sounds of the Russian language (1880-1886), Language and nationality (1895, posthumously), From notes on the theory of literature (1905, posthumously). Potebnya died in Kharkov on November 29 (December 11), 1891.
It is known that the truth, obtained by the labor of many generations, is then easily given even to children, which is the essence of progress; but it is less known that man owes this progress to language. Language is a condition for the progress of peoples because it is the organ of thought of an individual. It is easy to be convinced that the broad basis for the activity of descendants, prepared by ancestors, is not in heredity and physiological dispositions of the body and not in the material monuments of previous life. Without words, man would remain a savage...
Potebnya Alexander Afanasyevich
Potebnya was strongly influenced by the ideas of W. von Humboldt, but rethought them in a psychological spirit. He did a lot of studying the relationship between thinking and language, including in the historical aspect, identifying, primarily on Russian and Slavic material, historical changes in the thinking of the people. Dealing with issues of lexicology and morphology, he introduced a number of terms and conceptual oppositions into the Russian grammatical tradition.
In particular, he proposed to distinguish between “further” (associated, on the one hand, with encyclopedic knowledge, and on the other, with personal psychological associations, and in both cases individual) and “proximal” (common to all native speakers, “folk”, or, as they now more often say in Russian linguistics, the “naive”) meaning of the word. In languages with developed morphology, the immediate meaning is divided into real and grammatical. Potebnya is also known for his theory of the internal form of the word, in which he concretized the ideas of V. von Humboldt. The internal form of a word is its “closest etymological meaning”, recognized by native speakers (for example, the word table retains a figurative connection with lay); Thanks to its internal form, a word can acquire new meanings through metaphor. It was in Potebnya’s interpretation that “internal form” became a commonly used term in the Russian grammatical tradition.
Potebnya was one of the first in Russia to study the problems of poetic language in connection with thinking, and raised the question of art as a special way of understanding the world. He studied the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian folklore, commented on the Tale of Igor's Campaign. Created a scientific school known as the Kharkov Linguistic School; D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (1853-1920) and a number of other scientists belonged to it. Potebnya's ideas had a great influence on many Russian linguists of the second half of the 19th century. and the first half of the 20th century.
