190

p All these views of Belinsky’s are pure Hegelianism, taken from its dialectical aspect, and, frankly, one would need to be extremely ignorant of the history of modern philosophy not to see this. Of course, the transition from the absolute viewpoint to the dialectical one was bound to influence certain of Belinsky’s aesthet- 191 ic judgments. But in general these judgments remained almost unchanged. Take Wit Works Woe, for example. In a letter to. Botkin of December 10-11,’1840, Belinsky ardently regrets having expressed such a poor opinion of this comedy, which he " condemned from the artistic point of view" and about which he spoke disparagingly, not realising that it was a most noble, humane work, an energetic (the first, moreover) protest against base Russian reality, against bribe-taking officials, and profligate lords, against ... high society, against ignorance, voluntary servility and so on, and so forth.  [191•*  This sharp and honest selfcriticism does Belinsky great credit. But it does not guarantee that he has given a proper assessment of his own judgment of Griboyedov’s comedy. So let us recall what he said about it in the long article written during the period of his truce with reality.

p He said that Wit Works Woe is an unusual phenomenon, the work of a striking, lively, fresh, strong and powerful talent; that it is excellent in its details; that Natalia Dmitriyevna and her husband and their mutual relations with each other, Prince Tugoukhovsky and the Princess with six daughters, the Khryumina countesses, grandmother and granddaughter, Zagoretsky—are all types created by the hand of a true artist, and their speeches, words, exchanges and manners, and the mode of thought that shows through them, are brilliantly drawn and amaze one by their accuracy and true, creative objectivity; that Griboyedov’s comedy is an ediiice built of precious Parian marble, with gold decoration, wondrous carving and elegant columns; but that for all this it lacks artistic integrity, because there is no objectivity, as a result of which the magnificent edifice turns out to be insignificant in terms of its purpose, like some sort of barn, and the critic should recognise that Wit Works Woe is actually not a comedy, but merely a satire. Belinsky supports his idea about the lack of artistic integrity in Griboyedov’s famous work with a fairly detailed analysis of the play on the basis "of the laws of the beautiful". From this analysis it emerges that the characters of the main personages are not consistent and that these inconsistent characters do not form a comedy by their mutual relations. The personages talk a great deal and do very little. Character is revealed in conversation, of course. But conversations should not be an aim in themselves. In a truly artistic work the personages talk not because the reader or spectator must get an idea of their characters, but because they cannot help talking by virtue of their actual position and the course of the action. This is how they talk in The Inspector-General,^^61^^ for example, but not in Wit Works Woe where the personages utter speeches which are 192 very strange in their mouths and which wo can understand only if we remember thai it is actually not they who are speaking, but Griboyedov himself. Belinsky believes that the defects of Griboyedov’s comedy are caused by the lack of objectivity in it. In another passage in his article he expresses himself even more definitely: "The comedy lacks wholeness, because it lacks an idea.” •Chatsky’s clash with the society around him could not provide the foundation for a truly artistic work. It is one of two things: either there were no circles in Russian society that were superior to the circle of the Famusovs, Tugoukhovskys, Zagoretskys and so on, or such circles did exist. In the former case society was right to banish a man alien to it: "Society is always more right and higher than the individual person, and individuality is reality and not illusion only in so far as it expresses society.” In the latter case one can only wonder why Chatsky tried to get in to the Famusovs’ circle and not to enter other circles that were closer and more akin to him. This is why Chatsky’s clash with society seems accidental to Belinsky, and not real. "It is obvious that Griboyedov’s idea was inconsistent and unclear to him himself, and this is why it took on such an immature form.” The question now arises as to how Belinsky regarded Griboyedov when his enthusiasm for Hegel had passed and the German thinker’s " philosophical cap" had even begun to arouse his distaste. In the article "Russian Literature in 1841" he says the following:

p “The content of this comedy is taken from Russian life; its spirit is anger at reality which bears the seal of the past. The authenticity of the characters in it often gives way to the satirical element. The fullness of its artistry has been impaired by the vagueness of the idea which had not yet fully matured in the author’s mind; rightly taking up arms against senseless aping to imitate everything foreign, he urges society to take the other extreme—a Chinese ignorance of foreigners. Having failed to realise that the emptiness and triviality of the society portrayed by him proceeds from the absence in it of any convictions, any rational content, he puts the blame entirely on ridiculous, shaven chins, on coats with a tail at the back and cut away in the front and enthuses about the majestic long robes of the old days. But this shows only the immaturity and youth of Griboyedov’s talent: Wit Works Woe in spite of all its shortcomings is brimming with the brilliant forces of inspiration and creativity. Griboyedov was not yet in a condition to command such gigantic forces. If he had had time to write another comedy, it would have left Wit Works Woe far behind. This is clear from Wit Works Woe itself: it contains so much promise of vast poetic development."

p What Belinsky says here about Griboyedov’s idea is quite unlike what he said earlier. In this respect there is a vast difference. But it does not concern his assessment of the artistic merits of 193 Wit Works Woe.  The assessment of these merits is just the same as the one he made in his reconciliatory period. Yet the review of Russian literature in 1841 was probably written about a year after Belinsky regretted his unfair attitude to Griboyedov in the letter to Botkin. But in 1841 Belinsky’s new literary views were not yet fully established, and therefore the opinions expressed by him at that time about this or that literary work cannot be regarded as final opinions. Therefore we would point to the article "Thoughts and Remarks on Russian Literature" which Belinsky wrote for the Peterburgsky Sbornik published in 1846. In this article he calls Griboyedov’s comedy a splendid example of intellect, talent, wit, genius, and angry, bilious inspiration, but at the same time only half recognises it.  [193•* 

p No radical change can be seen in Belinsky’s views on Schiller’s poetry either, although undoubtedly at first glance things should appear quite differently here too. Let us recall the history of his attitudes to Schiller’s dramatic works. At first he admired them greatly and was totally under their influence.

p Then he writes: "Perhaps I am mistaken, but really the locksmith’s wife Poshlyopkina^^62^^ (as a literary creation) is for me far superior to Thecla, that tenth, last, improved, revised and amended edition of Schiller’s one and the same woman. And as for the Orleans girl—what can I say!—the Orleans girl, with the exception of a few purely lyrical passages, which have a special significance of their own, is for me nothing but sheer rubbish!" At this period he felt almost hatred, at least great irritation, for the "strange semi-artist, semi-philosopher”. After his break with the “cap” he proclaimed Schiller the Tiberius Gracchus of our time and exclaimed rapturously: "Long live the great Schiller, mankind’s noble advocate, the bright star of salvation, the emancipator of society from the bloody prejudices of tradition!" It would seem impossible to change more drastically in one’s attitude to a writer.

p But the same letter from which we have borrowed these lines contains an explanation of the new attitude to Schiller: "For me now the human individual is superior to history, superior to society, superior to mankind.” This is the exact opposite of what Belinsky says about the relation of the individual to society in respect of Wit Works Woe. It goes without saying that this radical change in his view of the individual was bound to bring with it the same radical change in his views on writers who gave poetic expression to the aspirations and suffering of the individual fighting against social prejudice, and, first and foremost, on Schiller. Beliusky is no longer angered by his dramatic works, he justifies them fully and even admires them, but he admires them from a very special point of view. He says that the dominant character- 194 istic of Schiller’s dramas is pure lyricism and that "they have nothing in common with the prototype of drama that portrays reality, with Shakespeare’s drama”. He calls Schiller’s dramas great, everlasting creations "in their own sphere”, but immediately adds that they must not be confused with the real drama of the modern world, and remarks: "One must be too great a lyrical poet to be able to walk freely wearing the buskins of Schiller’s drama: a mere talent putting on its buskin is bound to fall off it right into the mud. That is why all imitators of Schiller are so cloying, philistine and unbearable.” This means that Schiller’s dramas are bad as dramas and good only as lyrical works.  [194•*  In essence this judgment differs but little from the one that was pronounced and so passionately repeated by Belinsky in the “sad” period of his activity. Mr. P. Polevoi says that at the time thanks to his aesthetic concepts of that period Belinsky "was compelled to exclude the whole of subjective lyricism from the sphere of poetry”. But all lyricism is subjective; at least this is what Belinsky thought: "In epic poetry,” he said, "the subject is devoured by the object; in lyrical poetry he not only transfers the object into himself, dissolves it and infuses it with himself, but also extracts from his own inner depths all the sensations which confrontation with the object has aroused in him.” In short, the content of a lyrical work is the subject himself and everything that takes place in him. Therefore to exclude subjective lyricism from the sphere of poetry is to exclude all lyricism from it in general. But in his reconciliatory period Belinsky was extremely fond of Goethe’s lyrical poetry, and the Moskovsky Nablyudatel published several excellent translations of lyrical poems by Goethe. Koltsov’s poetry is also lyrical, and Belinsky always had a high opinion of it. Thus it transpires that he did not exclude lyricism from poetry. During the period of his reconciliation he opposed only lyricism that expressed the poet’s discontent with "rational reality”. Consequently, it was only this lyricism that he had to rehabilitate later. But our critics and historians of literature usually forget or do not know that, by admitting the legitimacy of the element of reflection in poetry, Belinsky was merely assimilating more fully the aesthetic theory of Hegel; he himself knew this full well. In condemning reflective poetry, he realised that he was at variance with the German thinker. When defending it later, he quoted from Hegel’s Aesthetics.  [194•**  And this is not all. Belinsky remained on the ground of Hegel’s Aesthetics to a certain extent even when he was attacking the so-called theory of art for art’s 195 sake. In his review of Russian literature for 1847 he says: "In general the character of modern art is that the importance of content outweighs the importance of form, whereas the character of ancient art is a balance of content and form.” This is taken completely from Hegel.

p Belinsky’s attitude to George Sand is reminiscent of his attitude to Schiller. At first he does not want to even hear about her novels, but then he praises them, one might say, up to the skies.  [195•* 

p But for what does he praise them? First and foremost, for their author’s noble anger at falsehood "legitimised by the violence of ignorance”. Ardently sympathising with the French writer’s noble anger, Belinsky analyses her novels also from the viewpoint of the same "laws of the beautiful’" which formed his own immutable aesthetic code. And he is by no means blind to the artistic shortcomings of these novels. Suffice it to recall his negative attitude to Isidora, Le Meunier d’Angibault, and Le Peche de Monsieur Antoine.

p We do not know whether we need quote further evidence of the remarkable firmness of Belinsky’s aesthetic judgments, which showed itself most clearly in his attitude to Gogol. In any case we shall refer to the articles on Lermontov. True, these articles were written at the time of Belinsky’s transition from the " absolute" viewpoint to the dialectical one. But in the first article the influence of this transitional period is barely noticeable. Belinsky states categorically there that the art of our time is the reproduction of rational reality. According to him Pechorin^^63^^ suffers only because he has not yet become reconciled with this reality. Mr. Pypin would say that this is pure romantic idealism. But romantic idealism did not prevent Belinsky from understanding very well what sort of poet he was dealing with. Later, after he had gone over completely to the dialectical viewpoint, he understood better the social significance of Lermontov’s works, but he continued to regard the artistic aspect of them as before.  [195•** 

196

p “Belinsky’s criticism developed quite consistently and gradually,” says the author of Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian .Literature,^^64^^ “the article on Essays on the Battle of Borodino contrasts with the article on Selected Passages (i.e., Gogol’s Selected Passages from a Correspondence with Friends), because they are two extremes of the path traversed by Belinsky’s criticism, but if we reread his articles in chronological order we do not notice anywhere an abrupt change or break; each succeeding article is very closely connected with the previous one, and for all its immensity the progress takes place gradually and perfectly logically."

This is true; it should merely be added that the article on Essays on the Battle of Borodino contrasts with the article on the "Selected Passages" mainly in the publicistic respect.