Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2004 | 13 | 2 | 132-144

Article title



Title variants

Languages of publication



The research on contextualization of a literary work deals primarily with new reading of home and selected world literature, i. e. reading after the year 1989, when the conditions for free thought were favorable. Eventual interpretations put emphasis on inner-meaning structure of literary works and include also their anthropological and psychological aspect. The interdisciplinary view is an important issue in all the process of research. Thus the proposed method of contextualization starts with the literary work itself, moving the attention to the category of author, his individual perception of the world and reality and finally to the milieu or society where the author lives and writes his works. This is connected with the following reception of the work of art or with its absence, as well as with its influence. In the middle of the nineties there was an important work in Slovak Slavistic theory, 'Theory of Interliterary Process' (1995) by D. Durisin, which offers a compact conception of interliterary research, determined by the systematic interliterary studies. Durisin's works, with their open and sophisticated formulations, create conditions for unique, self-reliant and subjective approach to a specific field of research. This is legitimized by the substantial published material and many cited works of secondary literature. From the all Durisin's works the most instructive for our research is the category of typological context, which is viewed by the theorists as the basis of interliterary process. In our approach to the work of art and its contextualization the proposed method consists of the research of particular authors and their works in their particular literatures, meanwile the method of D. Durisin focuses on macro-structures and theoretical interliterary relations. His choice of authors is not coincidental, for him they are part of theoretical paradigm of modernism. His basic unit of analysis is thus the work of art and its creator. This analysis results in meanings, topics, motives, and adaptations on the basis of which the work of art is contextualized and which create the network of relations in the field of possibilities. A good example of this is a particular phenomenon, a writer, painter and businessman Hronský, who represents a complex of relations (the anthropological and psychological aspect), topics (the existential issues from the beginning of the 20th century), and techniques (self-reflection, lyrization). We want to emphasise the possibility to characterize this method, by placing it within the framework of deconstructive comparative methods. This brings it to the opposition to the artificially created, mechanically used and misused scientific terminology and techniques. The relations in literary science have been constructed for years and decades and it is necessary to take a closer look at them from time to time, deconstruct them and then rejoin them again, creating new working hypothesis.








Physical description

Document type



  • M. Batorova, Ústav svetovej literatúry SAV, Konventná 13, 813 64 Bratislava, Slovak Republic


Document Type

Publication order reference


CEJSH db identifier

YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.