196

p What laws went to make up Belinsky’s immutable aesthetic ’Code?

p There are only a few, five in all, and they are indicated by him in articles written during the reconciliatory period of his activity. Subsequently he merely explained and illustrated them with new examples.

p The first of them, the basic law, so to say, is the one according to which the poet should show, but not seek to prove; "to think in images and pictures, but not in syllogisms and dilemmas”. This law proceeds from the very definition of poetry, which, as we know, is the direct contemplation of truth or thinking in images. Where this law is not observed there is no poetry, only symbolism and allegory. Belinsky never forgot to regard the work which he •was analysing from the viewpoint of this law. He remembers it «even in his last annual review of Russian literature: "The philosopher talks in syllogisms, the poet in images and pictures."

p Since the subject of poetry is truth, the greatest beauty lies precisely in truth and simplicity, and authenticity and naturalness are an essential condition of truly artistic creation. The poet must portray life as it is, without embellishing or distorting it. This is the second law of Belinsky’s artistic code. He insists upon it equally firmly during all the periods of his literary activity. The works of Gogol and the Naturalist school pleased him, inter alia, by their total authenticity and simplicity, which he regarded as a gratifying sign of maturity. "The last period of Russian literature, the prose period, differs sharply from the Romantic one by its virile maturity,” he says in the Review of Russian Literature for 1842. "If you like, it is not rich in the number of works, but, to make up for that, everything mediocre or commonplace that appeared in it either had no success at all or only a momentary one; and the little that went beyond the commonplace 197 bears the imprint of mature and virile power, it remains forever, and in its triumphant victorious course, gradually gaining influence, it has left a deep impression on society and literature. The drawing closer to life, to reality is the direct cause of the virile maturity of the last period of our literature.” A few years later he repeats: "If we were to be asked what is the distinguishing feature of modern Russian literature, we would reply: a more (and more) close drawing together with life, with reality, more and more maturity and manhood."

p The third law of the beautiful says that the idea which forms the basis of a literary work should be a concrete idea embracing the whole of the subject and not merely one of its aspects. This concrete idea should be marked by unity. If, however, it "runs into another, albeit related idea, the unity of the literary work is destroyed, and, consequently, the unity and force of the impression produced on the reader. Reading such a work, one feels disturbed, but not satisfied".

p According to the fourth law the form of a literary work should correspond to its idea, and the idea to the form.

p Finally, unity of form should correspond to unity of thought. In other words, all the parts of a literary work should constitute a single, harmonic whole. This is the fifth and last law of Belinsky’s code. This code is the objective basis on which Belinsky made his critical judgments. Since the poet thinks in images, and not in syllogisms, it is natural that, while seeing the image clearly, he does not always see clearly the idea expressed in it. In this sense his creating may be called unconscious. In the first two periods of his activity (i.e.. before his enthusiasm for Hegel’s absolute philosophy and during it) Belinsky thought that unconsciousness was the main distinguishing feature and essential condition of all poetic creation: later he expressed himself less definitely in this respect, but he never ceased to ascribe great importance to unconsciousness in the activity of true artists.

p “Today (many people) are attracted by the magic word ’trend’,” he wrote in the Review of Literature for 1847, "they think that it is all a matter of this, and do not understand that in the sphere of art, firstly, no trend is worth a brass farthing without talent, and, secondly, the trend itself should be not only in the head, but first and foremost in the heart, in the life-blood of the person writing; first and foremost it should be a feeling, an instinct, and only then, perhaps (sic!), a conscious thought; they do not understand that it, this trend, needs to be born as much as art itself.” In the same review, defending the Naturalist school against the accusation that it had inundated literature with peasants, Belinsky remarks that the writer (i.e., the writer of fiction) is not an artisan and that in choosing subjects for his writing he cannot be guided by anyone else’s will, or even by his own arbitrariness, 198 but should remain true to his talent and his imagination. We considered it necessary to note this view of Belinsky’s here because in the sixties our enlighteners, particularly Pisarev, denied that there was any element of unconsciousness in artistic creation. His revolt against Russian reality changed Belinsky’s basic aesthetic concepts in one respect only, namely, he began to interpret differently the law in his aesthetic code according to which the idea of an artistic work should be concrete, i.e., should embrace the subject in all its aspects. What does embracing the subject in all its aspects mean? In the reconciliatory period it meant for Belinsky that a poetic work should portray the rational nature of the reality surrounding the poet. If it does not achieve this aim, if it only half convinces us that reality is not entirely rational, this means that only one aspect of the subject is portrayed in it, i.e., that it is not artistic.  Such an interpretation is narrow and therefore quite incorrect. The idea of jealousy by no means embraces all the relations that exist between husband and wife in civilised society, but this did not prevent Shakespeare from giving a perfectly artistic portrayal of it. There can be no concrete idea that would embrace absolutely all the aspects of social life: life is too complicated for that. For an idea to be concrete it is enough for it to embrace any one phenomenon fully. If Hugo had decided to write Othello he would probably have given us a far-fetched, inartistic drama. Why? Because he would have understood the idea of jealousy as he understood everything—in an abstract and one-sided way. Critics would have been quite justiiied in reproaching him for this; but they would have been quite wrong if they had blamed him for portraying an unhappy, pathological case of love instead of portraying the love between man and woman in all its aspects. After abandoning the absolute viewpoint, Belinsky realised how wrongly he had interpreted the law in question, but he continued to ascribe the same great importance as before to this law and to the whole of his aesthetic code. But if the revolt against reality brought little change to Belinsky’s aesthetic concepts, it brought about a whole revolution in his social concepts. It is not surprising, therefore, that his view of the role which art should play in social life changed, and also his view of the critic’s task. Formerly he had said that poetry was an aim in itself. Now he disputes the so-called theory of pure art. He tries to prove that the idea of art divorced from life and having nothing in common with its other aspects "is an abstract, dreamer’s idea”, which could only arise in Germany, i.e., among a people that thinks and dreams, but is not given to widespread and lively social activity. Pure art has never existed anywhere. The poet is a citizen of his country, a son of his time. The spirit of this time affects him no less than it does his fellow countrymen. This is why exclusively aesthetic criticism, which seeks to analyse 199 a poet’s work without paying attention to the historical character of his age and the circumstances influencing his work, has become discredited and impossible. "People usually quote Shakespeare and particularly Goethe as representatives of free pure art; but this is a most unconvincing argument,” Belinsky says, " Shakespeare conveys everything through poetry, but what he conveys by no means belongs to poetry alone.” The quoting of Goethe seems even less convincing to Belinsky. People point to Faust as a work of pure art that is subject to its own laws alone. But Faust is a complete reflection of the entire life of German society in his day; it expresses the whole philosophical movement in Germany at the end of the last century. "Where is pure art here?" asks Belinsky. He thinks that Greek art comes closest of all to the ideal of pure art. But it too drew its content from religion and civic life. "Thus, even Greek art (itself) is merely closer than the others to the ideal of absolute art, but it cannot be called absolute, i.e., independent of the other aspects of national life.” Modern art has always been far from this ideal and is moving further and further away from it, for it serves other interests, more important for mankind. And it would be wrong to blame it: to take away from it the right to serve social interests is not to elevate it, but to degrade it, to deprive it of its life force, i.e., thought, and to make it "the object of a kind of sybaritic enjoyment, the plaything of idle sluggards".

_p Earlier Belinsky had liked the idea of Pushkin’s famous poem "The Rabble”, but now it rouses his indignation; now he is convinced that since all true poetry has popular roots, the poet has no grounds, no right to despise the crowd in the sense of the popular masses. Moreover we are justified in demanding that the poet’s work should reflect the great social questions of the day. "He who is a poet for himself and about himself, and looks down upon the mob, runs the risk of being the only reader of his works,” writes Belinsky in his fifth article on Pushkin. In conversation with friends, as we see from Turgenev’s reminiscences, he expressed himself even m

_p in particular:

_p AAVJJ.V/ J.OA VJV^A VI^J. j .—,. „ ————-

p ^

p Prize you far more than any marble
The pots and pans that grace your stove!

“And, of course,” says Belinsky, pacing to and fro, his eyes flashing, "of course, I prize them more. I cook food in them not tor myself alone, but for my family, for some other poor man, and before admiring the beauty of an idol, even if it be the Apollo Belvedere, I have the right, the duty, to feed my family and mysell in spite of all the indignant fops and versifiers.” Belinsky now also regards the idea of Pushkin’s "The Poet" as quite false. The poet should be pure and noble not only when Apollo summons him to 200 the holy sacrifice, but always, throughout his whole life. "Our age genuflects only to the artist whose life is the best commentary on his works, and whose works are the best justification of his life. Goethe did not belong to the base peddlers of ideas, feelings and poetry; but his practical and historical indifferentism would not have allowed him to become a ruler of minds in our day, in spite of all the breadth of his world-embracing genius."