THE PROSE DISCOURSE OF UKRAINIAN LITERATURE OF THE LATE 18TH TO MID-19TH CENTURIES: THE PROBLEM OF CANON FORMATION

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The literary canon is still often interpreted as a definite list of norms that “push” the works that lack certain invariable aesthetic features from the top of the literary process. The list of “eternal” and “ingenious” works, which is inherent in almost all national literatures, is proclaimed inviolable – overcoming this constancy is often helped by the change of ideological or aesthetic paradigms, personal preferences of the researcher or even the literary studies’ or textbooks’ volume that “automatically” cross out certain surnames. In his literary bestseller “The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages” (the 1st ed. – 1994) an American literary critic Harold Bloom, developing his own Western literatures canon scheme, transferred an Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico’s idea about the three main stages of the nation development (theocratic, aristocratic, democratic) on the world literary process 1 . It is clear that Bloom’s mythological scheme of William Shakespeare’s “sacralisation” reflects in some way the subjective aesthetic sympathies of the author, which, if one change their perspective, methodology and central persona, can also be reasonably revised. For example, due to a Ukrainian scholar Borys Shalaginov, Johann W. von Goethe and his “Faust. Eine Tragödie” (“Faust: Tragedy”) replaced Shakespeare’s post-medieval era, and formed the “heart” of the New European canon. The basis for the German writer’s centering is his proclamation of the art’s exceptional importance, the emergence of a modern life understanding, the mythological thinking foundation of the