syuzhet, fabula, etc.) [Hopensztand, 1938]. In less than 30 years, the contamination of phonology with Phenomenology will trigger deconstruction and the deconstruction of both the structuralist and the phenomenological project – for good or for ill [Derrida, 1967]. Against the background of the disturbing obviousness with witch the Polish products of the morphic field tempt us to retrieve them from oblivion, the Russian and European tensions, transfers, and quarrels ought to become more lucid.
Betti A. Kazimierz Twardowski // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/twardowski/.
Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz T. Ewolucje teorii: Biologizm w modernistycznym literaturoznawstwie rosyjskim. Toruń, 2012.
Brzozowski S. Współczesna powieść polska. Stanisławów, 1906.
Budzyk K. Zarys dziejów stylistyki teoretycznej w Polsce // Stylistyka teoretyczna w Polsce. Łódź, 1946. S. 5–79.
Cavallin J. Content and Object: Husserl, Twardowski and Psychologism. Dordrecht; Boston; London, 1997.
Chwistek L. Wybór pism estetycznych. Kraków, 2004.
Croce B. Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale: Teoria e storia. Bari, 1908.
Dilthey W. Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften. Göttingen, 1979.
Dutka C. P. Formalizm rosyjski – trud recepcji i przyswojenia // Dutka C. P. Mistrzowie i szkoły: Szkice o tradycji literaturoznawstwa. Zielona Góra, 1998. S. 104–118.
Feferman A. B., Feferman S. Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic. Cambridge, 2004.
Gervinus G. G. Handbuch der Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur der Deutschen. Leipzig, 1842.
Goethe J. W. Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt // Goethe J. W. Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe. München, 1981(a). Bd. 13. S. 10–20.
Goethe J. W. Zur Farbenlehre. Didaktischer Teil // Ibid. 1981(b). Bd. 13. S. 314–523.
Goethe J. W. Geschichte der Farbenlehre // Ibid. 1981(c). Bd. 14. S. 7–269.
Gundolf F. Goethe. Berlin, 1916.
Christiansen B. Philosophie der Kunst. Hanau, 1909.
Christiansen B. Das ästhetische Urphänomen // Logos. 1911/1912. Bd. 2. S. 303–315.
Derrida J. La voix et le phénomène: Introduction au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Husserl, Paris, 1967.
Hansen-Löve A. A. Der russische Formalismus: Methodologische Rekonstruktion seiner Entwicklung aus dem Prinzip der Verfremdung. Wien, 1978.
Hopensztand J. D. Filozofia literatury formalistów wobec poetyki futuryzmu // Życie Literackie. 1938. Zesz. 5. S. 182–192.
Ingarden R. Jeszcze “Atuli mirohłady” // Wiadomości Literackie. 1934. № 43 (570). S. 4.
Ingarden R. [Rev. of Kridl 1936(a)] // R. Ingarden. Studia z estetyki. Warszawa, 1970. T. 3. S. 405–412.
Jakobson R., Siedlecki F. List badacza polskiego [1941] // Literatura, komparatystyka, folklor. Księga poświęcona Julianowi Krzyżanowskiemu. Warszawa, 1968. S. 664–674.
Kapust A. Phänomenologische Bildpositionen // Bildtheorien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn. Frankfurt am Main, 2009. S. 255–283.
Karcz A. Manfred Kridl: The Struggle for the Reform of Polish Literary Scholarship // The Polish Review. 2000. Vol. 45. № 2. P. 171–182.
Kridl M. Przełom w metodyce badań literackich // Przegląd Współczesny. 1933. Rocz. 12. T. 44. № 130. S. 145–162.
Kridl M. Wstęp do badań nad dziełem literackim. Wilno, 1936(a).
Kridl M. Podstawy nauki o literaturze // Pamiętnik Literacki. 1936(b). Rocz. 33. S. 291–298.
Markiewicz H. Recepcja formalizmu rosyjskiego w Polsce // Problemy wiedzy o kulturze: Prace ofiarowane Stefanowi Żółkiewskiemu. Wrocław, 1986. S. 491–508.
Markiewicz H. Manfreda Kridla boje o nową naukę o literaturze // Markiewicz H. Od Tarnowskiego do Kotta. Kraków, 2010.
Mayenowa M. R. Rosyjskie propozycje teoretyczne w zakresie form poetyckich (1916–1930) // Rosyjska szkoła stylistyki. Warszawa, 1970. S. 14–54.
Meyerson E. De l’explication dans les sciences. Paris, 1921.
Prace ofiarowane Kazimierzowi Wóycickiemu. Wilno, 1937.
Siedlecki F. Roman Jakobson i nowa lingwistyka // Wiadomości Literackie. 1934. № 43 (570). S. 4.
Siedlecki F. O rytmie i metrze // Skamander. 1935. Rocz. 9. Zesz. 59. S. 164–177.
Sériot P. The impact of Czech and Russian biology on the linguistic thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle // Prague Linguistic Circle Papers = Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague. N. S. 1999. Vol. 3. P. 15–24.
Simmel G. Rembrant: Ein Kunsthistorischer Versuch. Leipzig, 1916.
Thiel D. Husserls Phänomenographie // Recherches Husserliennes. 2003. № 19. P. 67–108.
Tuwim J. Atuli mirohłady // Wiadomości Literackie. 1934. № 31 (558). S. 3.
Twardowski K. Zur Lehre vom Inhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellungen: Eine psychologische Untersuchung. Wien, 1894.
Ulicka D., Adamiak M. (red.). Tradycje polskiej nauki o literaturze: Warszawskie Koło Polonistów po 70 latach. Warszawa, 2008.
Wellek R. Concepts of Criticism. New Haven, CT, 1963.
Wóycicki K. Jedność stylowa utworu poetyckiego. Warszawa, 1914.
Žirmunskij V. Formprobleme in der russischen Literaturwissenschaft // Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie. 1925. Bd. 1. H. 1. S. 117–152.
Żółkiewski S. Charakter orzeczeń metodologicznych w naukach humanistycznych // Prace ofiarowane Kazimierzowi Wóycickiemu. Wilno, 1937. S. 33–56.
Żółkiewski S. Powrót do Itaki // Życie Literackie. 1938. Rocz. 2. Zesz. 5. S. 192–195.
Żółkiewski S. O Franciszku Siedleckim // Siedlecki F. Pisma. Warszawa, 1989. S. 5–44.
Богданов A. A. Эмпириомонизм: Статьи по философии. М., 1904–1906. Кн. 1–3.
Богданов A. A. Искусство и рабочий класс. М., 1918.
Виноградов В. В. Из истории изучения поэтики (20-е годы) // Известия АН СССР. Серия литературы и языка. 1975. Т. 34. № 3. С. 259–272.
Выготский Л. С. Психология искусства. М., 1986.
Жирмунский В. М. К вопросу о формальном методе // Вальцель О. Проблема формы в поэзии. Пг., 1923. С. 5–23.
Ильин В. [Ульянов (Ленин) В. И.] Материализм и эмпириокритицизм: Критические заметки об одной реакционной философии. М., 1909.
From isolation to concentration:The Archeology of the Relationship between Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism in Polemics and Discussions
Scientific work is to search, describe and classify the material that is given to the science; the most abstract goal of the scientific research includes general laws that govern all events in the study area.
The history of Czech Structuralism is full of various polemics that were often significantly contributed to the development of structural thinking. It is not just about mutual polemical clashes, but about the way in which the various debates were held, or about a particular strategy which can often be reconstructed based on different types of texts. What can we meaningfully imagine when the concept of the strategy of thinking is used? In other words, is it possible to detect and analyze, referring to the quoted Mukařovský’s passage, some general patterns, which govern the area of scientific inquiry? If we ask such questions, we can add one more: it is possible to construct a historical analysis of scientific opinion or a current theoretical research rather than as (i) the development of ideas and knowledge related to the specific areas of human activity or (ii) the historical stage in the development of a certain type of Sciences (humanities, literary), but as the description and analysis of a historical space, within which the ideas, knowledge are still in the making? In this sense, it is not a description of the findings in terms of their development to the objectivity, but the history of the terms of their ability to appear and operate within a particular field of thought. It is clear that the results of such historical analysis, defined as archeology, cannot be integrated into a complex interpretation of Czech Literary Structuralism and its development. Taking into account the issue of the relationship between Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism, that is the way the relationship was interpreted, understood and theoretically grounded in approaches to the tradition of Czech Structuralism, the analysis of archeology may be the appropriate tool to better understand the historical period.
Foucault’s project of the Archeology focused on the description of discursive formations – in conjunction with a partial opposition to the Genealogy of Power – is widely known. There is also a large amount of various discussions[84] and comments related to it. In what may lie practical usefulness of the project in the sense of analyzing something what was part of the discussions in the first place of the origin of Czech Structuralism as well as the originality of its approach to the basic questions of language and art. As a central strategy of the whole project can be seen Foucault’s effort to describe the phenomena as they really are; It sounds rather trivial, but the foundation of this effort includes, we believe, the main attraction that still brings back many researchers to this project. It is because of a specific method, which gives up the idea of “assuming anything else” [Veyne, 2010: 401]. These assumptions can include diverse material causes, objectives, functions or objects that often appear in the context of such considerations. According to Foucault, there is just a practice and its objectification, any effort to explain things as the functions of a purpose is a myth of the traditional history.