LEADING GUIDELINES OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES TYPOLOGY OF THE PSEUDOMORPHOUS PERSONAGES

Abstract

The article is devoted to the definition of the main theoretical andmethodological principles of research typology of personages. Commondefining feature of them is pseudomorphism. It shows the meaning oftemporary unreal form which is created as a result of infraction the conformitybetween their essence and expression. they give themselves for others andperceived as such.Highlights the main trends of the scientific thoughts development aimed atunderstanding the issue of pseudomorphic personages (pseudos) in literature.This analysis enables conditionally combined the woks into one group aboutthe nature and origin of some pseudos such as monographs of Cornford,Frejdenberg, Bakhtin, Meletinsky.It is claimed that systematization (typological classification) ofpseudomorphic personages can only be based on the achievements ofcomparative literary studies within many cultural and literary context, alsowithin plans of synchrony and diachrony. Moreover it is possible in using thetheoretical and methodological tools of structuralism and semiotics.Typological classification of pseudomorphic personages is proposed torealize through the allocation of structural and positional features. Combine anddifferentiation of varieties based on logical correlation between their essentialityand its formal expression. It can be implemented also through the perception ofassociative binary derivatives antinomies: hierarchical pair of «top – down» in itsdifferent aspects, such as social status, gender roles, system of moral andintellectual values and so on. It appears also in symmetrical opposition own/ alienat the family ethnic levels.It is recognized that the essence of the main subject of our considerationneeds to attract the right direction and, above all, comparative typologicalapproach (its historical, social, and psychological vectors). Some of the mostvaluable and important researches in this field are the woks of Zhirmunski V.,Neupokoyeva I., Hrapchenko M., some other scientific treatise of archetypalcriticism (Jung CG, Bodkin M., Fry N., Campbell J., etc.) and semiotic analysis(Lévi-Strauss C., Ivanov V., Lotman U., Propp V., Barthes R., etc.).Scientific achievements of archetypal criticism, structural and semiotictheories help to understand the archaic and universal nature of pseudos anddifferentiate their typological invariants. It also helps to prove the possibility ofcomparisons at the international level and timeless. The historical andtypological approaches give the possibility to understand the specific trends ofnational transformation of pseudos and the reasons of its popularity. It should be singled out the specific variants of pseudomorphic personages at the certainstages of the comparative literature development, including social, ideologicaland aesthetic factors.The author emphasizes that such a synthesis methodology provides aholistic view of the problem of pseudo‘s typology, which is consistent with theneeds of modern conceptual comparative studies focused on the use of literarytheory achievements in the field of comparative typology.