181

p In this respect Belinsky’s unfinished article on Fonvi/in and Zagoskin, published in the Moskovsky Nablyudatel^^57^^ as early as 1838, is most instructive.

p In it Belinsky attacks French criticism. "For the French,” he says, "a writer’s work is not the expression of his spirit, the fruit of his inner life; no, it is a product of the external circumstances of his life.” He contrasts French criticism with German philosophical criticism. What is philosophical criticism? Belinsky replies to this question by expounding the views of Rotscher, whose article on criticism had been published not long before in the iMoskovsky Nablyudatel.

p It must not be forgotten that we are dealing with an idealist, for whom everything that exists, "the whole of God’s wonderful boundless world”, is merely the embodiment of the absolute idea which manifests itself in countless forms, "as a great spectacle of absolute unity in endless variety”. From this idealist’s point of view to understand truth is to understand the absolute idea which forms the essence of all phenomena, and to understand the absolute idea is to discover the laws of its self-development. The discovery of these laws is a matter for reason, which recognises in them its own laws. Philosophy deals with truth an it exists for reason. Yet not only philosophy deals with truth, but also religion 182 and art.  We already know that, according to Belinsky’s definition, poetry is truth in the form of contomplalioii and that its subject is the same as the subject of philosophy, i.e., the absolute idea, which in art appears in the image. But if this is so, it is easy to see what is the task of pl/ilosopJiical crllicism. This criticism translates truth from, the language of art into the language of philosophy, from the language of images into the language of logic.

p The philosopher critic should first of all understand the idea •which is embodied in a given literary work and evaluate it. The idea expressed in a literary work should be concrete.  A concrete idea embraces the subject from all sides and in its entirety. In this it differs from a non-concrete idea, whicii expresses only a part of truth, only a single aspect of the subject. A non-concrete idea cannot be embodied in a truly literary work: an image which expresses a one-sided idea will of necessity itself lack artistic fullness and integrity, i.e., life. Belinsky like Rolscher (and contrary to Mr. Polevoi) says that form should be justified by content, "because just as it is impossible for a non-concrete idea to be embodied in literary form, so it is impossible for a concrete idea to form the basis of a non-literary work".

p Now let us proceed further. When the philosopher critic has found the idea whicii inspired the artist he must ascertain that it has infused all the parts of the work under review. There is nothing superfluous in a literary work; all its parts form a single indissoluble whole, and even those of them which appear to be alien to its basic idea exist only in order to express this idea more fully. Belinsky quotes the example of Othello, in which only the main character expresses the idea of jealousy, and all the others are moved by different passions and interests. Notwithstanding this, all the secondary characters in this drama serve to express the main idea. Thus, "the second act of the process of philosophical criticism consists in showing the idea of an artistic creation in its concrete manifestation, in tracing it in the images and finding the whole and the unity in the details".

p A full and perfect understanding of a literary work is possible only through philosophical criticism, the aim of which is to find a manifestation of the general and infinite in the particular and finite. Of course, such criticism is no easy matter. "In Germany itself such criticism has only just begun, as the result of the latest philosophy of the day.” We still have long to wait for it, but it is useful for us to keep it in view as an ideal.

p Philosophical criticism should be merciless to works which have no artistic merits at all and very attentive to Ihose which lack them in part only. To this second type of works belong, for example, the finest works of Schiller, "that strange semi-artist and semi-philosopher”. Belinsky also includes in them Yuri Miloslavsky which, to quote him, is not lacking in great poetic, if 183 not artistic, merit and is, moreover, of great historical significance.

p The question of the historical significance of a given work of art is most important for philosophical criticism. Sculptures of the ancient Hellenic or hieratic style have no value as artistic works, but they are important in the historical sense as the transition from the symbolic art of the East to Greek art. In Belinsky’s opinion, which, he remarks, in no way contradicts Rotscher’s ’ idea, "there are also works which may be important as features in the development not of art in general, but of the art of a certain people and, in addition, as features of a people’s (historical development and) the development of its public. From this point of view Fonvizin’s The Minor and The Brigadier-General and Kapnist’s Chicaner acquire considerable significance, just as phenomena such as Kantemir, Sumarokov, Kheraskov, Bogdanovich, etc."

It is from this point of view that French historical criticism also acquires its relative merit. Its main defect, which constitutes at the same time its main difference from German criticism, is that it does not recognise the laws of the beautiful and does not pay attention to the artistic merit of a work. "It takes a work, having already agreed, as it were, to consider it a true work of art, and begins to look for the stamp of the age on it not as an historical feature in the absolute development of mankind or even of any one people, but as a civic and political feature.” "It inspects the individual character of the writer, the external circumstances of his life, his social position, the influence upon him of various aspects of the social life around him and on the basis of all this tries to explain why he writes as he does and not differently.” Belinsky says that this is not criticism of a literary work, but commentary on it, which is of greater or lesser value merely depending on its quality as a commentary. He thinks that the details of a poet’s life do not explain his work at all. We know almost nothing about Shakespeare’s life, but this does not prevent us from understanding his work clearly. We do not need to know what the attitude of Aeschylus and Sophocles was to their government and their fellow citizens and what was happening in Greece during their lifetime. "In order to understand their tragedies, we need to know the significance of the Greek people in the absolute life of mankind; we need to know that the Greeks expressed one of the finest periods of the living, concrete awareness of truth in art. Political events and trifles are of no concern to us.” French historical criticism explains nothing whatever in literary works, but it is of value in the case of works which, like Voltaire’s writings, for example, are only of historical, not of artistic, significance. Here, too, of course, it is incapable of exhausting the question thoroughly, but it can be included as a very useful element 184 “in real criticism, which, whatever its character, reveals a constant striving to explain the particular from the general and to confirm the reality of its principles by facts, but not to deduce its principles and proofs from facts".