615

p Let us return to "real criticism”. We are already partly familiar with it, but for a full understanding we must link its main premises with Dobrolyubov’s philosophico-historical views.

p Real criticism imposes nothing on the writer. The only demand that it makes of him can be put in a single word: truth. But the truth that is portrayed by a writer in his works can be more or less profound and complete. The better it expresses the natural aspirations of a given time and a given people, the more profound and complete it is. How are we to define these aspirations? In Dobrolyubov’s opinion, the natural aspirations of mankind are basically "that everyone should be happy”. But this basic aspiration of mankind can be realised only under certain conditions, which have up till now been absent in history. And in their absence it has turned out that people aiming at the goal "that everyone should be happy" not only failed to approach it, but moved further away from it, as they were bound to do. Why did they? "Each person wanted to be happy,” answers Dobrolyubov, "and, in securing his own well-being, hindered others; people did not yet 616 know how to organise themselves so as not to hinder one another.” Our author compares mankind that cannot organise its social relations properly to inexperienced dancers who cannot control their movenients properly. Such dancers invariably collide with one another, with the result that even in a largo hall it is impossible for many couples to waltz. Only the most skilled dance; the less skilled wait, and the completely unskilled refuse to dance at all. and play cards instead, for example, thereby running the risk of losing. "So it was in the organisation of life as well: the more skilled continued to seek their well-being, and the others sat about, then engaged in unwise activities and lost; life’s common feast was spoilt right from the start, many were not disposed to merrymaking any longer; many came to the conclusion that merrymaking was only for those who danced well. And the skilled dancers, having organised their well-being, continued to follow their natural inclination and took over more and more space, more and more means of merry-making.” This provoked opposition on the part of those who did not take part in the dancing; they sought to join the circle of merry-makers. But the "original dancers" would not agree to this and tried hard to get rid of the new claimants. "A long and varied struggle began, for the most part unfavourable for the novices: they were ridiculed, pushed aside, and made to pay the expenses of the feast, the gentlemen had their ladies taken away from them, and the ladies their gentlemen, then they were driven away from the feast entirely. But the worse it is for people, the more strongly they feel the need to be happy. Hardship does not stop demands, it merely exacerbates them: only by eating can one satisfy hunger. And this is why the struggle is not finished to this day; natural aspirations sometimes seem to die down, sometimes emerge even more strongly, forever seeking satisfaction. Herein lies the essence of history."  [616•* 

p Thus, up till now in spite of their natural aspiration "that everyone should be happy" people have organised their mutual relations in society badly. And this is because lack of experience, lack of knowledge has prevented them from organising them properly. This is a purely idealist view of history. It is expressed by a devoted follower of Feuerbach and Chernyshevsky, i.e., by a convinced materialist. But this contradiction should not surprise us in the least. Feuerbach and Chernyshevsky were also idealists in history. And much earlier the French materialists—Diderot, Holbach and Helvetius—were also such idealists. Feuerbach, Chernyshevsky and the French materialists of the eighteenth century also thought that people’s views were the most profound, ultimate cause of historical movement. Therefore, when they found a certain social system unsatisfactory, they assumed that its emergence 617 was explained in the last analysis by a lack of knowledge. And, like Dobrolyubov, they all readily appealed to nature, calling the social system which they regarded as unsatisfactory artificial.  The main premise of this type of historical idealism is that " opinion rules the world”.  [617•*  People who take part in the progressive movement of our time do not accept the unconditional correctness of this premise. They understand, of course, that “opinion” has always played an enormous part in historical development; but they are also aware that “opinion” in its turn is determined by other, more profound causes. In a word, they adhere to historical materialism.  However, it is not part of my task to criticise the idealist interpretation of history. I must confine myself to examining how the materialist Dobrolyubov applied historical idealism to an explanation of fundamental literary questions. His critical articles have never been examined from this viewpoint.

p He reasoned thus: people’s original inability to create a rational, i.e., natural, social system leads to the emergence of artificial social combinations, which arouse in them equally artificial aspirations. Literature often serves as the expression of such aspirations and, in so far as it does express them, it is sharply condemned by Dobrolyubov. He writes:

p “All ... bards of illuminations, military celebrations, carnage and rofrbery on the orders of some ambitious person, all composers of flattering eulogies, inscriptions and madrigals, can be of no significance in our eyes, because they are very remote from the natural aspirations and demands of the people."  [617•** 

p Dobrolyubov refuses to acknowledge as "true writers" those who express artificial social aspirations. He says disdainfully that they are to true writers as astrologists to astronomers, as servants of superstition to men of science. This view of literature, which is most closely connected with the understanding of history, also determines for Dobrolyubov the task of literary criticism. This task consists primarily in determining whether a given writer expresses the artificial or the natural aspirations of a given time and a given people. Since those who express artificial aspirations do not merit any sympathy, the critic examines them only in order to expose the more or less harmful lie contained in their works. As for writers who express mankind’s natural aspirations, the critic is obliged to explain to what extent each particular writer has succeeded in understanding them, whether he has grasped the essence of the matter or only the surface, whether he has embraced the whole subject or only certain aspects of it. Countless nuances are possible here.

618

Dobrolyubov rated Ostrovsky highly precisely because he saw lain as a writer who had succeeded in understanding and expressing the natural aspirations of his people and his age in their most profound essence. We shall now examine this view of Ostrovsky in detail. But first we must make yet another digression.