This paper attempts to define the basic characteristics of Krleža’s and Ujević’s literary criticism discourse in the context of productive and divers Croatian literary criticism in the period between 1914 and 1952, i.e. between the end of Literary Modernism and appearance of the literary magazine Krugovi (the so-called Second Literary Modernism). Krleža and Ujević share a principled understanding of criticism as a combination of emotions (experience of something artistic) and intellect (knowledge of literary and extra-literary context), a philosophical dimension of subjects observed and questions asked, and the refusal to accept any kind of previously prescribed „objective method“ or poetics. The key difference is in approach and description. In Krleža’s work, along with his characteristic artistic gilt we can also discern a sociologic, historic and ideological level with mostly left prefix along with incorporated consideration of literary phenomenon. However, Ujević’s works are dominated by an „adorable chaotic fair of sensations, and spontaneity of soul“ (M. Vaupotić) with no firm foothold in any kind of superior opinion models. In the development of Croatian literary criticism from Literary Modernism to the literary magazine Krugovi, critical essays of Krleža and Ujević hold a special position due to their associativity, and rhetoric and erudite diversification.
 

This paper attempts to define the basic characteristics of Krleža’s and Ujević’s literary criticism discourse in the context of productive and divers Croatian literary criticism in the period between 1914 and 1952, i.e. between the end of Literary Modernism and appearance of the literary magazine Krugovi (the so-called Second Literary Modernism). Krleža and Ujević share a principled understanding of criticism as a combination of emotions (experience of something artistic) and intellect (knowledge of literary and extra-literary context), a philosophical dimension of subjects observed and questions asked, and the refusal to accept any kind of previously prescribed „objective method“ or poetics. The key difference is in approach and description. In Krleža’s work, along with his characteristic artistic gilt we can also discern a sociologic, historic and ideological level with mostly left prefix along with incorporated consideration of literary phenomenon. However, Ujević’s works are dominated by an „adorable chaotic fair of sensations, and spontaneity of soul“ (M. Vaupotić) with no firm foothold in any kind of superior opinion models. In the development of Croatian literary criticism from Literary Modernism to the literary magazine Krugovi, critical essays of Krleža and Ujević hold a special position due to their associativity, and rhetoric and erudite diversification.