Nataliya T. Pakhsarian, DSc in Philology, Leading Researcher of the Department of Literary Studies, Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovskii pr., 51/21, 117418, Moscow, Russia. Professor of Philological Department, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1292-9883 E-mail: npakhsarian@gmail.com
The article analyzes the uniqueness of the literary-critical position of Gustave Flaubert, a writer who did not leave large theoretical texts about literature, did not write manifestos or critical articles, but constantly reflects on writing in his correspondence. Through the epistolary reflection of Flaubert about literature, one can clarify his aesthetic position, understand the peculiarities of his relationship to the form and style of narration. The writer’s position was not stable and unambiguous: starting with attempts to create notes in the spirit of “romantic writing”, he comes to rejection of the open manifestation of sympathies and antipathies in art, advocating impersonal creativity, understanding the morality of art as what is contained in its beauty. Nevertheless, Flaubert’s thoughts should not be equated with the idea of “art for art”, he understood this idea in his own way and tried in every possible way to preserve a personal, unlike others attitude to literary creativity in general, and to individual writers and works.
Flaubert; literary criticism; letters; impersonal creativity; beautiful; style; useless art; beauty.
04.05.2021
01.06.2021
Pakhsarian, N.T. “Gustave Flaubert as Literary Critic”. Literaturovedcheskii zhurnal, no. 3(53), 2021, pp. 72–83. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31249/litzhur/2021.53.04
1. Flober, G. O literature, iskusstve, pisatel’skom trude [On Literature, Art and Work of Writer] : in 2 vol. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ., 1984. (In Russ.)
2. Flaubert, G. Carnets de travail. Paris, Balland, 1988. 1000 p. (In French)
3. Flaubert, ethique et esthétique. A. Herszchberg-Pierrot éd. Paris, La Philosophie hors de soi, 2012, 240 p. (In French)
4. Leclerc, Y. «Lieux du discours théorique chez Flaubert». L’oeuvre de l’oeuvre : Etudes sur la correspondence de Flaubert, R. Debray-Genette, J. Neefs (dir.). SaintDenis, Presses Universitaires de Vincenne, 1993, pp. 23–40. (In French)
5. Manchard, Cl. «Flaubert critique». L’oeuvre de l’oeuvre : Etudes sur la correspondence de Flaubert, R. Debray-Genette, J. Neefs (dir.). Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincenne, 1993, pp. 87–160. (In French)
6. Tondeur, C.-L. Gustave Flaubert, critique: thème et structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1984, 119 p. (In French)
7. Wetherill, M. «Flaubert en mal de théorie», L’oeuvre de l’oeuvre : Etudes sur la correspondence de Flaubert. R. Debray-Genette, J. Neefs (dir.). Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincenne, 1993, pp. 41–47. (In French).