“Point of View” in Literary Criticism, History and History of Philosophy: Perspective of Dialogue

The problem of the point of view is considered, taking into account the vector of continuity from literary studies through history to the history of philosophy. The traditional approaches of the Anglo-American (G. James, P. Lubbock) and French (G. Genette) literary traditions are analyzed. The main terminology and methodological strategies that can be used in historical and historical-philosophical science are highlighted. It is demonstrated that within the framework of history, the terminology of focalization contributes to the accentuation of the figure of the researcher, who sets the conditions for the perception of historical material. Based on a critical analysis of the models of focalization proposed by A. Munslow in history, the main directions of rethinking the problem of  focalization in historical and historical-philosophical practice are determined. The specificity of posing the problem of point of view and focalization in the history of philosophy is characterized. It is emphasized that turning to it allows us to pose the problem of the relationship between history and modernity, history and philosophy. Such problematization of historical and philosophical practice is much more successful than traditional terminology, contributing to the comprehension of modern development trends. The study of the problem of point of view demonstrates the commonality of the methodological problems of the humanities (literary criticism, history, history of philosophy) and the need for a general humanitarian dialogue.

literary criticism, history, history of philosophy, historian of philosophy, perspective, point of view, focalization, literary criticism of the XX century, New criticism

1. Akroyd, P. (2010). Povest’ o Platone [The tale of Plato]. Moskva: Astrel. 220 p. (In Russ.).

2. Álvarez Amorós, J. A. (1994). Henry James, Percy Lubbock, and beyond: A critique of the Anglo‐American conception of narrative point of view. Studia Neophilologica, 66/1: 47—57.

3. Averintsev, S. S. (1999). Mezhdu srednevekovoy filosofiey i sovremennoy realnostyu [Between medieval philosophy and modern reality]. In: Zhilson, E. Izbrannoye, 1. Tomizm. Vvedeniye v filosofiyu sv. Fomy Akvinskogo [Favorites. 1 Thomism. An introduction to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas]. Moskva; Sankt-Peterburg: Universitetskaya kniga. 471—488. (In Russ.).

4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Avtor i geroy v esteticheskoy deyatelnosti [Author and hero in aesthetic activity]. In: Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moskva: Iskusstvo. 9—191. (In Russ.).

5. Blauberg, I. I. (2008). E Breye i M. Geru: dva podkhoda k istorii filosofii [E Breuet and M. Gueru: two approaches to the history of philosophy]. Istoriya filosofii [History of philosophy], 13. 69—88. (In Russ.).

6. Blauberg, I. I. (2014). O nashey konferentsii [About our conference]. In: Istoriya filosofii: vyzovy XXI veka [History of Philosophy: Challenges of the 21st Century]. Moskva: Kanon+, Reabilitatsiya. 322-325. (In Russ.).

7. Dyakov, A. V. (2016). Postmodernistskaya istoriya filosofii: pro et contra [Postmodern history of philosophy: pro et contra]. Voprosy filosofii [Philosophy questions], 6: 176—184. (In Russ.).

8. Dzhokhadze, I. D. (2012). Richard Rorti kak istorik filosofii [Richard Rorty as a historian of philosophy]. Istoriya filosofii [History of philosophy], 17: 3—24. (In Russ.).

9. Edel, L. (1931). The Prefaces of Henry Jame. Paris: Jouve. 136 p. (In French).

10. Florenskiy, P. A. (1999). Obratnaya perspektiva [Reverse perspective]. In: Sochineniya [Composition]. 4/3. Moskva: Mysl. 46—98. (In Russ.).

11. Gueroult, M. (1979). Dianoématique, Livre 2. Philosophiye de l’histoire de la philosophiye. Paris: Aubier. 275 p. (In French).

12. Hühn, P. Schmid, W., Schönert, J. (eds.). (2009). Point of view, perspective, and focalization: modeling mediation in narrative. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 305 p.

13. Kelley, D. R. (1996). What is happening to the history of ideas? Intellectual News, 1/1: 36—50.

14. Kompanon, A. (201). Demon teorii: literatura i zdravyy smysl [Demon theory: literature and common sense]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo im. Sabashnikovykh. 336 p. (In Russ.).

15. Krotov, A. A. (2018). Filosofiya istorii filosofii vo Frantsii (problema zakonomernostey v razvitii intellektualnoy kultury) [Philosophy of the history of philosophy in France (the problem of patterns in the development of intellectual culture)]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 480 p. (In Russ.).

16. Kuukkanen, J.-M. (2015). Postnarrativist philosophy of historiography. Houndmills. Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 239 p.

17. Lubbock, P. (1921). The Craft of Fiction. London: Johnathan Cape. 277 p.

18. Munslow, A. (2007). Narrative and History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 190 p.

19. Munslow, A. (2011). The Historian as Author. SPIEL, 30/1: 73—88.

20. Ortega-i-Gasset, Kh. (1991). O tochke zreniya v iskusstve [About the point of view in art]. In: Estetika. Filosofiya kultury [Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture]. Moskva: Iskusstvo. 186—202. (In Russ.).

21. Ortiz-Robles, M. (2018). Point of View’s Points of View. The Henry James Review, 39/3: 218—225.

22. Riker, P. (1992). Povestvovatelnaya identichnost’ [Narrative identity]. In: Germenevtika. Etika. Politika [Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture]. Moskva: Academia. 19—37. (In Russ.).

23. Rorti, R. (2017). Istoriografiya filosofii: chetyre zhanra [Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres]. Moskva: Kanon+, ROOI «Reabilitatsiya». 176 p. (In Russ.).

24. Shmid, V. (2003). Narratologiya [Narratology]. Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury. 312 p. (In Russ.).

25. Tucker, A. (ed.). (2009). A companion to the philosophy of history and historiography. Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 563 p.

26. Turysheva, O. N. (2012). Teoriya i metodologiya zarubezhnogo literaturovedeniya [Theory and methodology of foreign literary criticism]. Moskva: Flinta. 41 p. (In Russ.).

27. Uayt, Kh. (2002). Metaistoriya: istoricheskoye voobrazheniye v Evrope XIX veka [Metahistory: Historical Imagination in 19th Century Europe]. Yekaterinburg: Izdatelstvo Uralskogo universiteta. 528 p. (In Russ.).

28. Ushakova, E. V. (2019). Svoeobraziye problematiki i kompozitsii romana P. Akroyda «Povest’ o Platone» [Problematics and Composition Originality of P. Ackroyd’s Novel “The Plato Papers”]. Nauchnyi dialog [Scientific Dialogue], 3: 192—201. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2019-3-192-201. (In Russ.).

29. Uspenskiy, B. (1995). Poetika kompozitsii [The poetics of composition]. In: Semiotika iskusstva [Semiotics of art]. Moskva: Yazyki russkoy kultury. 360 p. (In Russ.).

30. Vdovina, I. S. (2012). Pol’ Riker: istoriya filosofii kak samoponimanie filosofii [Paul Ricoeur: the history of philosophy as a self-understanding of philosophy]. Istoriya filosofii [History of philosophy], 17: 45—62. (In Russ.).

31. Vlasova, O. A. (2018). «Revolyutsiya otnositelnosti» i samosoznaniye istorii filosofii XX veka [Paul Ricoeur: the history of philosophy as a self-understanding of philosophy]. Filosofskiye nauki [Philosophical Sciences], 1: 114—125. DOI: 10.30727/0235-1188-2018-11-114-125. (In Russ.).

32. Vlasova, O. A. (2019). Perspektivizm v istorii filosofii vtoroy poloviny XX veka: razvitiye samosoznaniya i problematika «pervogo» i «tretyego» litsa [Perspectivism in the history of philosophy of the second half of the 20th century: the development of self-awareness and the problems of the «first» and «third» person]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7: Filosofiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Episode 7: Philosophy], 3: 3—13. (In Russ.).

33. Zhenett, Zh. (1998). Povestvovatelnyy diskurs [Narrative discourse]. In: Figury, 2. [Shapes]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo im. Sabashnikovykh. 60—281. (In Russ.).