Tautiškumo problema XX a. I pusės Jurgio Baltrušaičio kūrybos recepcijoje

LTStraipsnyje lyginamos skirtingos XX a. I pusės lietuvių ir rusų kritikų J. Baltrušaičio kūrybos tautiškumo sampratos. Apžvelgiama, kaip remdamiesi vienais argumentais, rusų kritikai įrodo J. Baltrušaičio poezijos artumą rusų kultūrinei tradicijai, o lietuvių kritika, akcentuodama kitus J. Baltrušaičio gyvenimo faktus ir kūrybos ypatumus, perrašo poeto kūrybą į lietuvių tradiciją. J. Aichenveldo, N. Gumiliovo, Ivanovo-Razumniko, V. Ivanovo, A. Jakšto, B. Sruogos, J. Aisčio, straipsniai analizuojami kaip tekstai, sąlygojami tos pačios „tautinės dvasios“ vertybės. Pastaroji gretinama su postmodernistine heterogeniškos kultūros samprata.

ENThis article raises the question how Russian and Lithuanian critics interpreted the issue of nationality in the oeuvre of J. Baltrušaitis. Both interpretative communities were influenced by modernistic understanding of nationality which was believed to be homogeneous and natural or inborn. Heterogeneous nationality was not considered valuable, so critics chose different arguments to uphold their different positions: Russian interpreters were solid to accept texts by J. Baltrušaitis as part of Russian culture of the time. In the texts of this interpretative community, the poet’s national origin is not mentioned, highlighting the language of his poems and his involvement in Russian culture, especially in the movement of Russian symbolism. Lithuanian interpreters chose another way – they inscribed the oeuvre of J. Baltrušaitis to Lithuanian culture and solidly pointed up his national origin, the national spirit found in his poems, without deep and broad interpretations of links between J. Baltrušaitis’ oeuvre and Russian culture.