@conference{
author = "Попов, Јован",
year = "2019",
abstract = "Иако је, по сопственом признању, до теоријске концепције књижевноисторијске периодизације дошао тек пошто је написао
Исtорију срpске књижевносtи, Јован Деретић показао је важну способност
теоријског уопштавања својих историчарских искустава, као и усвајања критичких примедаба. Захваљујући томе, накнадно осмишљен систем периодизације извршио је повратни утицај на организацију књижевноисторијске грађе, што је довело до знатног побољшања његове историјске синтезе у издању
последње воље., Per his own recognition, Jovan Deretić made his theoretical concept of
literary-historical periodization only after he wrote History of Serbian Literature (1983), but there is no doubt that his “post-thinking“ represented concretization of ideas which he implicitly followed from the very beginning of
writing of his synthesis. In his 1985 review he presented two previous models
of periodization of Serbian literature – Stojan Novaković’s from 1871 and
Jovan Skerlić’s from 1912 – Deretić showed more affection towards the older
one, because it included “the entire development of Serbian literature“, and
also because Skerlić tried to align Serbian literature at any cost with trends in
West European literature, especially French one, which many historians will
follow later. To Deretić it seemed that in some of the then-popular synthesis
“as if the history of literature is not made by writers and their works, but by
literary trends“, and sometimes there were distortions of natural chronology.
Therefore, he in general accepted Dragiša Živković’s point that modern model
of periodization should be built on the foundations of Novaković’s “anticipation of one concept, built on national foundations and according to national
characteristics“ history of literature, which should be expanded and enriched
by learnings of modern stylistics and poetics. Deretić’s traditionalistic concept
was based on connecting literary-historical periodization with facts from social and cultural history, with awareness that literary periods have their own
inner literary-artistic characteristics which are also their key cohesive factor.
In the already completed realization of this idea, however, it turned out that
this goal was not always easy to achieve, which led to criticism of his History and its periodization system. Dragan M. Jeremić was the harshest critic,
although he was mainly constructive and well-intentioned. Deretić, from his
side, displayed not only his ability of theoretical generalization of historical
experience, but also of adopting critical remarks. Thanks to this, periodization
system which was created later had reverse impact on organization of literary-historical material, which led to significant improvement of its historical
synthesis in the last edition. In its final form, Serbian literature was divided
into: 1) Middle Ages; 2) Age of Turkish rule; 3) Older shtokavian literature;
4) Folk literature; 5) Literature of the 18th century: Baroque and Enlightenment; 6) Classicism and Pre-romanticism; 7) Romanticism; 8) Realism; 9)
Moderna; 10) Avant-garde and New realism and 11) Literature of the second
half of the 20th century.",
publisher = "Београд : Српска академија наука и уметности",
journal = "Периодизација нове српске књижевности : поводом 150. годишњице рођења Павла Поповића (16. IV 1868 - 4. VI 1939)",
title = "На темељима праксе: периодизација српске књижевности Јована Деретића, Jovan Deretić's periodization of Serbian literature",
pages = "261-273",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9368"
}
