618

p It is easy to see that in studying the works of a true writer, i.e., a writer whose works express the natural aspirations of the age, the critic can regard them from two aspects. He can concentrate his attention either on how life’s truth is portrayed in them or on precisely what truth is expressed in them. In the first case his analysis will be primarily of an aesthetic nature; in the second it risks turning into publicistics.  Dobrolyubov was fully aware of this danger, but it did not worry him in the slightest. In his article on Turgenev’s novel On the Eve he refuses categorically the role of educator of the public’s aesthetic taste, declaring scornfully that aesthetic criticism has now become the domain of sentimental young ladies. And in the article "A Ray of Light in the Realm of Darkness" he describes his critical devices as follows. In examining a literary work, he considers himself obliged to say:

p “This is what the author has portrayed; this is what, in our opinion, the images reproduced by him signify, this is their origin, this is their meaning; we believe that all this bears a vital relation to your life and customs and explains the following requirements, the satisfaction of which is essential for your wellbeing."  [618•* 

p The aim of criticism is, as we see, to explain to people their true, “natural” requirements. It is not surprising that the literary critic who understands his aim in this way is not afraid of becoming a publicist.  As an epigraph to the article cited by me above "When Will the Real Day Come?" Dobrolyubov chose Heine’s expressive words "Schlage die Trommel und fiirchte dich nicht" (beat the drum and be not afraid).^^106^^ In his critical articles he did indeed "beat the drum”, trying to awaken the sleeping. In his person we have a typical critic-enlightener.

p Dobrolyubov was a pupil of Ghernyshevsky’s in this case, as in all others. His "real criticism" is simply the application of this writer’s aesthetic theory to the analysis of literary works. One of the theses in the famous dissertation—The Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality—says: "Reproduction of life is the general characteristic feature of art and constitutes its essence. Works of art often have another purpose, viz., to explain life; they also fre- 619 quently have the purpose of pronouncing judgment on the phenomena of life."  [619•* 

p Dobrolyubov wanted literary works to give an explanation of life. His critical articles had "the purpose of pronouncing judgment on the phenomena of life" as it is portrayed in literary works. He said: "literature is an auxiliary force, the significance of which is propaganda, and the merit of which is determined by what and iiow it propagates".  [619•** 

p We already know how closely Dobrolyubov’s literary views »vere connected with his philosophico-historical theory. He became a critic-enlightener, inter alia, because he regarded history from the same viewpoint from which the enlightener s had always regarded it, i.e., from the viewpoint of the conviction that " opinion rules the world”. But his enlightened views of history and literature bore the mark of their age. They were closely connected with the philosophy of Feuerbach.

p Speculative German philosophy, which reached its height in Hegel’s system, taught that ideas of objects which are based on sense experience alone do not correspond to the true nature of these objects and should therefore be tested with the help of pure thought, i.e., thought which is not based on sense’experience. Feuerbach fought persistently against this idealistic view. He was convinced that ideas of objects based on sense experience corresponded fully to the true nature of these objects, but were often distorted by fantasy.  The aim of philosophy was to remove from our ideas the fantastic element that distorts them and thereby make them correspond to sense experience. It should make people capable of contemplation of reality that is not distorted by fantasy. In other words, the aim of philosophy and of science in general was, according to Feuerbach, the "rehabilitation of reality". Hence it is clear that the task of aesthetics too, as a branch of science, was also the rehabilitation of reality. But the rehabilitation of reality, the eliminating of the fantastic element from human ideas, is purely the task of the enlightener. Chernyshevsky pointed to this task of the enlightener in his Dissertation, and Dobrolyubov set about solving it in his critical articles. His defence of mankind’s “natural” aspirations was in fact the " rehabilitation of reality".

p It is now, I hope, quite obvious that those who accused Dobrolyubov of sympathising with tendentious literary works were speaking absolute] rubbish. He was and could not help being a bitter enemy of such works. It is easy to see why: the tendentious portrayal of life distorts its truth, opening the door to fantasy.  In order to pronounce a correct "judgment on the phenomena of life" it is 620 essential to have before you a true, not a fantastic portrayal of life.

And those who accused Dobrolyubov of lacking aesthetic needs were also writing absolute rubbish. These needs were very developed in him, and his aesthetic judgments astound one by their aptness. Just as Belinsky provided the best aesthetic analysis of the works of Gogol, so Dobrolyubov wrote the finest aesthetic analysis of the works of Ostrovsky. I confine myself to mentioning Ostrovsky only because I do not wish to go beyond the limits of my subject.