съвременното

In the last ten years in France, among university literary scholars, there has been a clear interest in the so-called "thematic study" of a given author's work. Moreover, the proportional number of works devoted to thematic analyses is so large that it could be rightly said that they have recently become a fashion in literary studies. This direction in literary criticism was given by Professor Charles Moron, who in his work, Introduction to Psychocriticism (1938) developed the thesis that every artist is a visionary who enchants the reader with his own special, personal world, filled with strange visions, images and pictures, always the same in the different works of the artist, which came unconsciously, but insistently intruding on his consciousness, as well as on the consciousness of the reader. This peculiar personal mythology of the artist can precisely explain the impact of the work, an impact that can hardly be understood if we are satisfied only with the external meaning of the work. The task of the researcher, according to Moron, consists in revealing this personal mythology, the secret structure, the system of symbols that a given author uses involuntarily and unconsciously, or in other words, in determining the constant dominant themes in the work. He believes that by solving this task, one can also arrive at solving one of the main problems in The psychology of art - the problem of the genesis of artistic creativity.

In the concluding part of his study "The Birth of the Poetic Work," Jean-Paul Weber makes the following self-confident and significant declaration: "In our thematic readings there is nothing reminiscent of the rigid generalizations of psychoanalysts or stylists, of their Oedipus complexes, oral, anal, and genital stages, or of their baroque, classical, romantic, and so on styles."1 Self-confident because, as we will see below, Weber's results differ little from the Freudian ones and because the positive aspects of the "stylists'" concepts are also lightly rejected. Significant because a representative of the latest bourgeois literary criticism is attempting to break with, or at least declaring that he wants to break with, the two most characteristic trends in art and literary criticism's non-historicism in the first half of our century. The stylistism of the formalists and "philologists" and psychologism with all its orthodox and schismatic tendencies are the two poles between which the many nuances of this non-historicism move. What polarizes them is the stylists' transcendence of artistic development beyond the will and peculiarities of the creative personality and the psychoanalysts' complete closure of the determining factors of development within the individual or "collective subconscious." And what connects them is the isolation of artistic development from the class-economic and ideological development of society. In this environment, the French literary critic and psychologist Jean-Paul Weber announced that he had achieved an approach that overcomes the limitations of both stylists and psychoanalysts.

The long-standing exceptional interest shown in our country in Soviet literary studies is beyond doubt. For the representatives of Marxism in the previous few decades it has been so obvious that it would be possible to point out to Dali at least one question of a methodological nature that concerned them and which had not previously been discussed in Soviet literary life. This is so easily explained that it is enough to simply recall it.