| Popis: |
Up to the present the figure of French poet René Ghil (1862-1925) remains mainly one-side criticized. Having studied numerous resources (Acquisto, Bobillot, Dubrovkin, etc) one concludes that R. Ghil did not contribute significantly to French symbolism and his intention to develop instrumentalism at the peak of broadspreading literary movement now can not be treated seriously as his personal achievement. Although, whether, from the point of scientific exactness, it is correct to neglect author’s studios, poems, theory of instrumentalism according to which not necessarily a word is a symbol, it can be expressed by either a vowel, or a consonant, or certain sounds, school that the poetfounded, the circle of soulmates who supported his ideas, because they seemed closer to them that those of symbolists is doubted and is being resolved within this research. It is clear that the theory of instrumentalism was not totally innovative for that period, but having opposed it to symbolism, blamed masters and the ‘young’ generation of literary movement for simplifying the original complicated French language, equalizing symbols to whole words R.Ghil could widely introduce himself and his untypical vision of literature, language, functions of poetry and, despite the negative attitude from the majority of literary representatives, with his works the poet definitely influenced oevres by Stuart Merrill (1863-1915), Pierre Quillard (1864- 1912), Emile Verhaeren (1855-1916), Albert Mockel (1866-1945), Valery Bryusov (1873-1924) and others. |
