Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

 

Lunacharsky and the formation of Marxist criticism

 

Chapter II. Lunacharsky and Plekhanov
Not only dispute

If the life and creative path of Lunacharsky was tortuous, marked by deviations from Marxism, then Plekhanov is a more integral person. He gave brilliant examples of Marxist analysis of various phenomena in the spiritual life of society in Russia and in the West. Marxist conviction allowed him to look with legitimate contempt at the various tricks of bourgeois philosophy and decisively rebuff various attempts to construct "positive doctrines" on the basis of idealism. At the same time, Plekhanov was a stranger to caste and one-sidedness, and opposed materialism of the vulgar type. In the philosophical legacy of Feuerbach, Hegel, and the French encyclopedists, he found much that was useful and instructive for Marxism. Brought up on the works of Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky, Herzen, Pisarev, Plekhanov was the first to reveal their historical significance from a Marxist standpoint. And if Plekhanov made mistakes in the field of philosophy (for example, the theory of hieroglyphs), then these were his mistakes, his delusions, and not the result of any extraneous ideological influence.

With Lunacharsky, things were somewhat different. An analysis of his worldview necessarily presupposes an examination of Lunacharsky's attitude to Avenarius, then to Bogdanov, and the whole process of his liberation from the influence of idealist philosophy. However, it would be a serious mistake to consider Lunacharsky only a follower of empirio-criticism, only a carrier of this idealistic system on Russian soil. A comparison of his views with the views of Avenarius and Bogdanov, on the one hand, and Plekhanov, on the other, is important, first of all, not for establishing the fact of influence (it, this influence, there was, but the question is not exhausted by it), but for determining the creative evolution of Lunacharsky. He was more direct and receptive than Plekhanov and Bogdanov, whose orthodoxy, intolerance of other people's opinion, for all the fundamental differences between them, sometimes led both authors to dogmatism. As for Lunacharsky, no matter what significant mistakes he made, no matter what sins he was accused of, dogmatism was organically alien to him. It was Lunacharsky's fundamental anti-dogmatism that was a very convincing guarantee of his "recovery" both politically and philosophically.

By 1902, that is, by the time Lunacharsky's first works appeared in print, Plekhanov had already created his most significant works in the fields of philosophy, scientific socialism, and aesthetics. His authority in the international working-class movement was very great. “For 20 years, 1883–1903,” Lenin wrote about Plekhanov, “he wrote a mass of excellent writings, especially against the opportunists, Machists, and Narodniks.” 1

At the II Congress of the RSDLP (July 1903), Plekhanov supported Lenin and thus contributed to the victory of the Bolsheviks, but soon after the congress he switched to the Menshevik positions. However, it is known that even in the following years of decisive demarcation and tactical struggle against Plekhanov the Menshevik, Lenin continued to highly value his theoretical works, believing that they “remain a solid acquisition of the Social-Democrats. all of Russia" that "it is impossible to become a conscious, real communist without studying—namely, studying —everything written by Plekhanov on philosophy." 2

It is useful to recall these Leninist statements, because the inertia of that dismissive attitude towards G. V. Plekhanov, which took shape in the 1930s and lasted for a long time, until the mid-1950s, has not yet been overcome. 3 Plekhanov's real mistakes were exaggerated, while his merits in the propaganda and development of Marxism, in the struggle against Bernsteinism, "legal" Marxism, Machism and liquidationism were hushed up. The fate of Plekhanov's philosophical heritage in this sense resembles the fate of Lunacharsky: it took many years for the attitude towards two outstanding representatives of Marxist thought to change, for an objective study of their contribution to the treasury of national culture to begin.

The activity of Plekhanov, a theoretician and an outstanding representative of Marxist art criticism, proceeded along three paths. First, he turned to those pre-Marxist thinkers who were most concerned with literature and art. Classical German idealism (Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Kant), French metaphysical materialism of the 18th century (Didro, Helvetius, Holbach), Russian materialism of the revolutionary democrats were for him that fertile material, which he widely introduced into scientific circulation and critically reworked it. Secondly, Plekhanov, in Letters without an Address, on the basis of extensive ethnographic research, was the first to materialistically develop the question of the origin of art in the early stages of the development of human society. Discarding all sorts of mystical and vulgar sociological theories, he showed that the source of art was labor, and the stimulus was the social needs of man. Thirdly, Plekhanov gave examples of a concrete study of individual eras in the creative development of mankind (for example, the art of the French Revolution of the 18th century) and individual significant representatives of literature and art in Russia and the West (L. N. Tolstoy, Henrik Ibsen, populist writers) .

Plekhanov gravitated towards the study of the genesis of art. He usually did not consider the actual artistic side of the work - language, style, plot, etc. - simply because these problems were of little interest to him. However, Lunacharsky did not deal much with questions of artistic mastery in its purest form. But when the need arose, Plekhanov appeared fully armed with knowledge, showed a subtle artistic flair and that wonderful freedom of opinion that immediately captivated Lunacharsky. Plekhanov's aesthetic system does not exclude poetics - in the particular sense of the word - he simply did not develop it in detail in comparison with questions of the sociology of artistic creativity.

The relations between the two prominent representatives of Marxist criticism in Russia can least of all be called good-neighbourly. Mutual understanding and close cooperation, which existed, say, between Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, were not among Plekhanov and Lunacharsky. Of course, party differences predetermined the sharpness of judgments on both sides, but they alone cannot fully explain the differences between critics. The difference in age also made itself felt: Plekhanov was almost twenty years older. Some personal qualities should also be taken into account.

AM Gorky recalls the words of the worker delegates to the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP: "Plekhanov is our teacher, our gentleman..." 4 This is a characteristic touch. Indeed, Plekhanov, proud of his “physical strength of mind,” unconsciously, and sometimes deliberately, liked to emphasize his superiority, to prick his interlocutor, even if he was not an opponent, with his exceptional erudition. Therefore, Plekhanov could seem unpleasant in personal communication. Gorky, for example, after meeting him for the first time, “had no desire to have a heart-to-heart talk.” 5

Lunacharsky was a man of a completely different psychological make-up: a large culture did not make him arrogant, did not put him above people. “I remember,” says K. Chukovsky, “I noticed something that I later noticed many times: that this connoisseur of Botticelli, connoisseur of Richard Wagner, interpreter of Ibsen, Maeterlinck, Marcel Proust, Pirandello feels among ordinary proletarians like a fish in water, that these people are really his own for him, and all his knowledge is for them . 6

The main source of discrepancies between Plekhanov and Lunacharsky were ideological and, above all, philosophical reasons, and everything else—party differences, differences in age, character, etc.—was only a kind of addition to them. Consistent materialist, "orthodox" Plekhanov could not treat empirio-criticism otherwise than sharply negative. True, when the young man Lunacharsky (in his letters to P. B. Axelrod Plekhanov even calls him “beloved youth”)7 visited Plekhanov in Geneva in 1895-1896, he did not lose hope for his re-education. Plekhanov sharply criticized the idealistic constructions of Avenarius and pointed out to his young listener the gaps in his education. In particular, Plekhanov advised Lunacharsky to study classical German philosophy, because, he believed, Kant and Hegel could give immeasurably more to study the theory of knowledge, which Lunacharsky was fond of, than the confused Avenarius. It was Plekhanov who gave Lunacharsky the first lessons in the materialist interpretation of works of literature and art, their connections with social life and the class struggle. Subsequently, Lunacharsky remembered them with respect. “Despite my reverence for Plekhanov,” wrote Lunacharsky, “I shrugged it off and, so to speak, got into a fight, especially on various philosophical questions. Plekhanov liked this, sometimes he joked with me like a big dog with a puppy, with some unexpected blow of his paw he threw me on my back, sometimes he got angry, and sometimes he explained it very seriously.

But it was so only at the beginning... "Often we encountered Plekhanov with hostility," continues Lunacharsky, "his printed reviews of me in most cases were negative and angry." 9 This is putting it mildly. In fact, Plekhanov always spoke in the press of Lunacharsky evil and negative. As a result, Lunacharsky remained for him only a miserable confusion in philosophy, only a god-builder worthy of contempt - a revisionist. Is it necessary to prove that this opinion was extremely one-sided, and therefore incorrect? Is it necessary to explain that behind the curious figure of "Blessed Anatoly", the "Prophet of the Fifth Religion", Plekhanov overlooked Lunacharsky, a serious literary critic?

Lunacharsky's attitude towards Plekhanov was also rather complex. There was everything here: enthusiastic admiration at the beginning, and tactical struggle, especially during the revolution of 1905-1907, and some jealousy, a desire to emphasize one's independence, and thorough study, and a serious analysis of Plekhanov's literary-critical and aesthetic views.

Article "G. V. Plekhanov as a Literary Critic” (1929–1930) sums up Lunacharsky’s numerous statements and reflections about his older contemporary, often dictated by the “topics of the day”, polemically pointed and therefore not claiming to be comprehensive. The author gives a detailed and systematic exposition of such problems of Plekhanov's aesthetics as the origin of art, content and form, the role of a creatively gifted person, "art for art's sake", literature and class struggle, etc. Much space is devoted to the analysis of Plekhanov's works on Chernyshevsky, Belinsky, Shaft. Maikov, Dobrolyubov, Ibsen and Hamsun, Tolstoy and Gorky. Simultaneously with his critical exposition, Lunacharsky makes general judgments about Plekhanov, determines his place in the history of Russian criticism, and his significance for the development of Soviet culture.8 , p. 223) and against the underestimation of his legacy, because “the main thing in Plekhanov’s teaching will remain a solid asset of Marxist thought, and any deviation from the principles established by Plekhanov is a fairly large risk and requires very strong evidence from the proposer of such a deviation” (vol. 8 , p. 223).

It was Lunacharsky who gave the first and successful example of a Marxist-Leninist comprehension of everything that Plekhanov had done in the field of aesthetics, literary criticism, and art history. He argued that we need to keep reverence for Plekhanov, learn to look at works of art through his eyes. Lunacharsky admires the dialectic of thought, the enormous culture and tact of Plekhanov-criticism, the elegance of style, the talent for presenting the most complex issues, the clarity and general accessibility of his works - qualities that put him on a level with Belinsky and Herzen. Of course, all these fair judgments belong to the mature Lunacharsky. It took years for him to come to them. However, they flowed organically from the entire spiritual evolution of Lunacharsky and were prepared by his previous works, when he was a junior contemporary of Plekhanov, he directly communicated with him.

The differences between Plekhanov and Lunacharsky should not be exaggerated, they should not be regarded as some kind of barricade that finally and irrevocably divides them into hostile camps. Both Plekhanov and Lunacharsky were Marxist critics, and this means their closeness and even similarity in solving many fundamental questions. In the field of philosophy, and above all the theory of knowledge, Lunacharsky converged with A. Bogdanov in a number of points, but diverged from him in aesthetics. With Plekhanov it was the opposite: his philosophical views seemed to Lunacharsky dating back to the French encyclopedists, and therefore outdated, while in aesthetics, in relation to realism, bourgeois, decadent art, literary heritage, proletarian literature, Plekhanov and Lunacharsky had much in common. The task, therefore, is to show how Plekhanov and Lunacharsky, following different paths, came to the same final conclusions, how both, despite all the differences and sharp polemics, developed Marxist aesthetics.

Roll call of ideas
The first direct exchange between Plekhanov and Lunacharsky took place in their articles on the work of Henrik Ibsen. Interest in the great Norwegian playwright, very popular in Russia, arose in Lunacharsky back in the 90s, independently of Plekhanov. On April 29, 1900, Lunacharsky delivered a report "Henrik Ibsen as a moralist" at a small meeting of the Kyiv intelligentsia. After the work on Ibsen "was repeatedly read in crowded circles in Russia and abroad, and everywhere aroused considerable interest, expressed, among other things, in dozens of oral and written inquiries about whether this work would be published and when exactly" (vol. five, with. 85). Ibsen's death on May 23, 1906 and the appearance in the press of G. V. Plekhanov's article "Henrik Ibsen" (1906) prompted Lunacharsky to return to this topic again and revise his previous assessments. This is how his work Ibsen and Philistinism (1907) appeared.

Plekhanov's article about the great Norwegian writer is one of the examples of Marxist criticism. Here Plekhanov demonstrated the merits and advantages of the new methodology for the study of literary phenomena with great persuasiveness. The victory of the Marxist critic was also especially significant because the object in this case was the figure of one of the most complex and controversial writers of the second half of the 19th century. Bourgeois criticism (G. Brandes, R. Dumik, M. Nordau) has shown complete bankruptcy on this issue. "Professor of the Revolt of the Human Spirit", "Moses", "Shakespeare of the New Age" - these meaningless phrases could not explain either the nature of Ibsen's work or his place in world literature.

"Ibsen is attractive for his 'moral anxiety', his interest in questions of conscience, the moral character of his sermon," 10 writes G. V. Plekhanov. The problems of individualism, moral duty, individual freedom, fidelity, public opinion constitute the inner pathos of such plays as Peer Gynt, Brand, Rosmersholm, Ghosts. Ibsen poses these problems with exceptional sharpness, not embarrassed by fantasy, resorting to symbolism, romantic elation, to subtle and penetrating psychological analysis. And since Ibsen's revolt is directed against bourgeois half-heartedness and petty-bourgeois opportunism, Plekhanov recognizes it as revolutionary.

The critic, however, does not limit himself to this characterization, otherwise his article would not have gone beyond the bourgeois interpretations of Ibsen. On the examples of Brand, Stockman, Consul Bernick ("Pillars of Society"), he shows the abstractness of Ibsen's morality. This happens because Ibsen's morality is sterilized from politics, which he always abhorred. The moral improvement of Ibsen's heroes is an end in itself for them and is devoid of social content. “And this means,” remarks Plekhanov, “that morality then destroys itself.” 11

Symbolism is in all respects the weak side in Ibsen's work. The artist, Plekhanov argues, can foresee the future in two ways: either by means of symbols leading to the realm of abstractions, or by the way that reality itself goes. The first path is chosen by artists who do not understand the meaning of this reality, the second - by realist artists. Ibsen goes the first way. The result is inconsistency, vagueness of ideas. That is why Plekhanov, while paying tribute to the talent of the Norwegian playwright, refuses to put him on a par with Shakespeare.

Why is a passionate fighter against the hypocrisy and hypocrisy of bourgeois society, a talented and intelligent seeker of truth, entangled in contradictions? Why "the mountain gave birth to a mouse"? G. V. Plekhanov sees the reason in the influence on Ibsen's worldview of the social environment in which he was born and raised. But Ibsen hated this same milieu all his life, fled from it to Italy and Germany, scourged it in his dramas? Plekhanov takes this circumstance into account as well. “When a given personality protests against the surrounding vulgarity and untruth,” he writes, “her mental and moral features will certainly come into play: her insight, her sensitivity, her responsiveness, etc. Each personality, with its own special gait, follows the road of protest. But where this road leads depends on the social environment surrounding the protesting personality. The nature of the negation is determined by the nature of what is negated.”12

The social environment of philistine petty-bourgeois Norway was definite enough to arouse in the writer a hostile attitude towards it, but too undeveloped to give rise to a desire for social reorganization - such is Plekhanov's sociological conclusion. So, the methodology of Plekhanov's article is as follows: from an analysis of the writer's creative contradictions to an analysis of his worldview, and from an analysis of his worldview to the social contradictions of the era that gave birth to him.

A comparison of Lunacharsky's and Plekhanov's articles clearly shows both the shortcomings of the young critic, and his studies with Plekhanov, and the originality that already marked his first appearances in the press.

Some of Lunacharsky's early writings were descriptive, vague, or even lacking in social analysis. Fascinated by the artist and his works, Lunacharsky, as it were, forgot about the duties of a critic and replaced the analysis of the work with a presentation of its content. This shortcoming, which was recognized by the author himself, is sinned, in particular, by the large article “N. Lenau and his philosophical poems”, 13 written in 1903-1904 in Totma. In the essay on Ibsen (1900), as far as can be judged from the brief notes of the synopsis, the speaker outlines several types of Ibsen's dramaturgy and confines himself to characterizing their moral and ethical properties: “Per-Gint is a representative of free individualism. Brand is a representative of morality, duty. The problem of freedom. Rosmershelm. positive type. A few words about Solveig.14 Plekhanov's article forced Lunacharsky to correct his previous views.

Lunacharsky agrees with Plekhanov that Ibsen's ideal is meaningless, that the playwright's morality never found an outlet in politics, that Ibsen was a stranger to the socialist teachings of his time. But Plekhanov's sociological conclusions, the "law of contrast" he applied—thesis—antithesis, did not fully satisfy Lunacharsky. Is it necessary that the protest against the petty-bourgeois milieu must necessarily be enclosed in petty-bourgeois frameworks? And Lunacharsky wittily recalls the biography of Plekhanov himself, a native of the class of Tambov landlords, who, however, did not become a landlord ideologist. “In contrast to Catholicism,” he notes, “one can become a Protestant, a deist, an atheist. In contrast to the petty philistinism - Don Quixote, a large predator, a bully. Life is not mathematics, there are no simple pluses in it, and the “sociological explanation”, i.e.,5 , p. 93).

Plekhanov, of course, could have objected to this to Lunacharsky that Russian reality in the second half of the 19th century bore little resemblance to Norway, and therefore the "law of contrast" operated differently here. Starting from the prevailing legal order in Russia, its advanced people could choose, unlike Norway, a revolutionary path. But then one should not have given this law such absolute significance. This means that Lunacharsky's reproach has a real basis: Plekhanov's arguments, for all their logical persuasiveness, sometimes suffered from speculation, isolation from concrete reality. This shortcoming was noted in the works of Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin.

However, in arguing with Plekhanov about methodology, objecting to excessively rigid schemes, Lunacharsky, in essence, repeats Plekhanov's final conclusions. For a critic, Ibsen is a “prophet of the bourgeoisie” (vol. 5 , p. 101). Pessimism, the dominance of striving over achievement, and mysticism are, according to Lunacharsky, the main features of Ibsen's worldview. “Ibsen could protest against Norwegian philistinism with socialism, revolutionary politics, a bright, clear, definite ideal, in sharp contrast precisely with the indefinite ideals of philistinism. But Ibsen was an individualist, a symbolist and a pessimist. All because he did not find a way out into politics ”(vol. 5 , p. 94).

These conclusions do not contradict Plekhanov's analysis and are a further development of it. Complementing the main provisions of Plekhanov is a comparison of Ibsen with Bernstein, Lessing and L. Tolstoy, as well as detailed characteristics of Brand, Peer-Gynt, Solveig. This is the best part of Lunacharsky's long article.

Of course, by now the assessment of the merits and demerits of both one and the other interpreter of Ibsen has changed. V. R. Shcherbina, for example, highly appreciating the article "Henrik Ibsen", believes that the "bizarre" actions of Stockman and Brand cannot be explained only by petty-bourgeoisism, as Plekhanov does. Their initiative, striving for truth and independence have their roots in the originality of the historical life of Norway. 15 Apparently, the same reproach can be addressed to Lunacharsky as well. The article is spoiled, in addition, by the sermon of god-building, however, in no way connected with either the topic or the content of the work. 16 In this case, however, it is not the assessments of this or that literary phenomenon that are important (they, these assessments, can change and be refined), but the very path of research chosen by the critics.

It is precisely Marxist criticism that refuses to consider a literary work as a kind of phenomenon closed in itself, which must be evaluated from the point of view of "good taste". Plekhanov repeatedly criticized the idealistic enlightenment view, according to which ideas and opinions rule the world. Ideas, Plekhanov shows, themselves arise "in the world"—in social relationships.

“A literary work,” wrote Lunacharsky, “always reflects, consciously or unconsciously, the psychology of the class that the given writer is the spokesman for, or, as often happens, some mixture in which the influences on the writer of various classes affect, which should be subjected to careful analysis” (vol. 8 , p. 9). Lunacharsky called this fundamental proposition "Plekhanov's principle" and followed it in his critical activity. However, in the embodiment of this principle, Lunacharsky introduced an originality that quite significantly distinguished him from Plekhanov.

Fiction for Lunacharsky is one of the most complex types of the spiritual life of society. Lunacharsky repeatedly spoke about the importance of talent, artistic genius for creating the values ​​of literature and art. He - a playwright, poet, thinker and revolutionary - was always interested in the unique creative individuality of the artist - the creator of novels, poems, plays. The history of literature for Lunacharsky is a huge portrait gallery. Behind each portrait, no matter how unusual it may seem, the critic sees the era reflected in it. And in his articles Lunacharsky was very fond of recreating a personality through an epoch, and an epoch through a personality. Lunacharsky's favorite critical genres are the artist's portrait, sketch, essay, "silhouette".

Plekhanov is also interested in the personality of the writer, but above all insofar as his work is a fact of the social life of society. He explores the personality of the writer and his work in order to solve general aesthetic and sociological problems. The immediacy of perception, the various feelings that an artistic individuality evokes, the emotionality of evaluation - these qualities, without which it is impossible to imagine Lunacharsky, are either completely absent in Plekhanov's strictly logical, dryly convincing treatises, or they sound somehow muffled. Plekhanov in criticism was first and foremost a scientist, thinker, and sociologist.

A remarkable feature of Plekhanov's aesthetic views is the breadth in posing and solving various problems of the theory of literature and art. Before Plekhanov's eyes was the world, or rather, the all-European literary process, and the critic discovers the laws that govern it. One of these problems, brilliantly resolved by Plekhanov, was the problem of "art for art's sake": when writers develop anti-social mentality, why do they seek solace in "pure art"?

"The inclination of the artist and people who are keenly interested in artistic creation to 'art for art's sake'," Plekhanov believes, "arises on the basis of their hopeless discord with their social environment." 17 Plekhanov illustrates this position on the extensive material of Russian and Western literature of the 19th century and contemporary literature, the scope of his action seemed to the thinker to be quite wide. Taking a dialectical approach to literary phenomena, Plekhanov believed that at different times the slogan "art for art's sake" was filled with different content, that there are times when this slogan has a socially progressive meaning. Such, for example, was the era of Pushkin: the opposition in the work of the great poet of the sublime artist to the low and stupid mob, the “cold and arrogant” crowd had its own historical meaning. “In order to understand him,” writes Plekhanov, “one only needs to take into account that the epithets “cold” and “haughty” were completely inapplicable to the then Russian serf farmer.18

Conservatives and reactionaries in certain epochs of social development are inclined towards utilitarianism in art and in every possible way resist the desire of the artist to act under the banner of "pure art". Plekhanov excellently showed that for Nicholas I and his creatures from the "Third Division" only that art was of value, which fit into the well-known formula "autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality." Nicholas I, as you know, taught Pushkin the "laws" of art. What is worth one of his advice: to remake "Boris Godunov" in "a historical novel like Walter Scott." In the history of Russian literature, this recommendation is perhaps one of the most striking examples of gross interference in the process of artistic creation. The interests of a true artist sooner or later come into conflict with absolutism, no matter what it is: enlightened, French under Louis XIV, when Moliere lived and worked, or despotic under Nicholas I, when everything that went beyond the narrow confines of his "soldier" was suppressed with manic consistency » outlook.

However, the opposition of the inspired poet to the stupid mob, the crowd, led to a historical error and confusion in literary criticism of the mid-19th century. The opponents of revolutionary democracy, A. V. Druzhinin and S. S. Dudyshkin, saw in the Pushkin formula they abstractly understood the basic law of art and used the authority of the poet in the fight against the emancipatory ideas of their time. N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, and especially D. I. Pisarev, for their part, severely condemned Pushkin for his aristocracy. The unhistorical approach to the work of the great poet led to the fact that for them Pushkin, at best, remained an outstanding master of art form. G. V. Plekhanov was the first to reveal the socio-political orientation of the poet's speeches against the unenlightened and despicable "rabble", that is, high society. It should be noted that A. M. Gorky simultaneously came to the same conclusions in the Capri cycle of lectures on Russian literature (1909).

Plekhanov had reason to object to revolutionary democratic critics who, in polemics with their opponents from the camp of noble literature, really talked about “pure art” in an abstract, enlightened way and did not take into account the fact that there is a big difference between the practice and theory of “art for art’s sake” . There has never been, and cannot be, practically “pure art” that has nothing to do with public interests. "Pure art" is a fiction, deceit or self-deception of the artist. A writer may openly proclaim himself a conductor of the views of one class or another, may hide his class sympathies behind a mask of non-class objectivity, etc., he may not be fully aware of his belonging to one social group or another. There are various forms of the writer's attitude to the reality surrounding him and thereby expressing his interests. But the attitude itself and artistic expression are necessary conditions for the existence of literature. Plekhanov splendidly showed this in his article "Art and Public Life".

Slogans, theories of "art for art's sake" are another matter, which in different epochs, depending on the alignment of social forces, were filled with either progressive or reactionary content. Progressive in Pushkin, they lose this quality in the French romantics and Parnassians of the middle of the 19th century - T. Gauthier, L. de Lisle, T. before Banville, whose protest against the prose of bourgeois society was "a bourgeois denial of bourgeois vulgarity." 19 These theories and slogans became reactionary among the decadent poets and prose writers of the 20th century. Plekhanov devoted much space to the exposure of their views on art and social life in the above article, as well as in many of his other speeches.

As is known, Plekhanov's struggle against decadence is one of his most significant merits. Plekhanov was absolutely right when he connected the decline of bourgeois art with the further disintegration of the capitalist system. If "the ruling class is now in such a position that to go forward means for it to go down", 20 then such is the fate of bourgeois art. Decadent art, Plekhanov shows, is hostile to social progress because of its individualism, anti-people nature and reactionary nature. Therefore, the works of Merezhkovsky, Filosofov, Gippius for Plekhanov are “mystical anarchism”, cubism is “nonsense cubed”, and he called all decadence “pale infirmity”. 21

By interpreting the slogan "art for art's sake" as an example, Plekhanov showed what an abyss separates decadent literature from classical literature. He rightly stated: “The beginning of wisdom should be distrust of modernism in art. If you get carried away with anything, then the works of that era when the gods were more like people, and people like gods. 22 Bourgeois criticism of those years sought to bring classical literature closer to decadent literature. Pushkin turned into the predecessor of K. Balmont, Vyach. Ivanova; A. Volynsky found similarities between Gogol and F. Sologub; God-seekers claimed that L. Tolstoy was the "teacher" of D. Merezhkovsky, and in Turgenev's Bazarov they found kinship with Artsybashevsky's Sanin - this "voluptuous and upright goat in trousers." 23 The meaning of such operations is quite clear: in order to give greater authority to decadent art, the classics were turned into decadents, and the decadents were dressed up in the clothes of the classics. These warnings are still valid today. Similar blasphemous operations are being undertaken in the West today. So, for example, the American literary critic S. Karlinsky, after quite arbitrary interpretations of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky, finds an analogue for him in the person of Z. Gippius. Without a shadow of embarrassment, he declares: "Gippius occupies a place in Russian poetry almost analogous to that which Dostoevsky occupied in Russian prose." 24

To understand the aesthetic views of the young Lunacharsky, let us turn to the Dialogue on Art (1905), which is rightly considered one of the pinnacles of his work. It was these works, written in a free semi-artistic manner, that turned out to be the most characteristic of his entire literary activity. The "Dialogue on Art" is extremely topical, polemical. Lunacharsky here critically reviews all the main points of view on art and offers his own, which, being new and original, takes into account the previous achievements of aesthetic thought.

In the "Dialogue" before us are successively representatives of various aesthetic views that were widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. This series is opened by the populist utilitarian Akinf. The second speaker, Boris Borisovich, sees and appreciates in art only preaching, only agitation - this is an educational point of view that denies or considers the specifics of art insignificant. Skobelev speaks in defense of the artist's right to be "free" and "independent". Down with ideology and citizenship - these shackles of art! What matters is beauty and inspiration, which create “an eternal dawn on the eternal sea and an eternal youth, forever admiring them” (v. 7, with. 116). Skobelev is "deepened" by the "mourning" young man Erlich. His chaotic speech is a panegyric of death, decay, "sadness" and non-existence. Erlich's point of view is decadent; it is not difficult to discover the connection between his "revelations" and the mystical theories of Vl. Solovyov, who formed the philosophical basis of Russian symbolism, with the search for the God-man by N. Berdyaev and S. Bulgakov.

Lunacharsky is not satisfied with these four aesthetic positions (Akinf's anti-aestheticism is also a kind of aesthetics) because of their one-sidedness and limitations. If they contain part of the truth about art, it is still not the whole truth. None of the participants in the dispute can define the entire object of art - this task is only within the power of Marxism.

It is very characteristic and indicative of Lunacharsky's views that the Marxist point of view is represented in the Dialogue on Art by two speakers. The first, Naum Viktorovich Portuguez, criticizes views that are alien to him from a materialist standpoint, explains the origin of art and its role in class society. This hero of the Dialogue could say that he had read Plekhanov's works, such as the famous Letters Without an Address (1899-1900). It is not difficult to find the coincidence of their views. Plekhanov saw the origin of art in the social needs of people. He argued that a person initially looks at objects and phenomena from a utilitarian point of view and only later "becomes in his attitude towards them to an aesthetic point of view." Hence the most important materialistic conclusion: "labor is older than art." 25 And Portugal, referring to later times, discovers the connection of art - painting, sculpture, architecture - with the development of crafts. “Art rises and falls, naturally, with the rise and fall of craft in general. Every great art is a child of no less great craft” (vol. 7 , p. 123).

The speaker sketches out the main features of professional art when it lost its connection with the craft and turned into an instrument of struggle for various social groups. Art is harmonious when the ruling class “historically-legally leads its people along the path of progress, it is confident in itself and in its rule, and, pursuing its own interests above all, it is in these interests that, to a certain extent, it also watches over the interests of the people” (vol. 7 , pp. 125–126). The decay of art, or archaization, or sensual exaggeration, or naturalism in the depiction of suffering, etc. - all this is a consequence of social crises, a sharp aggravation of class contradictions. “Everything is calculated either to tickle the individual soul of a nobleman, or to stun an alien and hostile crowd” (vol. 7, with. 126). And these assertions fully correspond to Plekhanov's views.

We are far from thinking that in the face of Portugues Lunacharsky certainly depicted Plekhanov or himself, that the "mourning" Mr. Erlich is Berdyaev or one of the Symbolists. And Akinf, and Boris Borisovich, and Skobelev, and Erlich, and Marxist orators are types, carriers of various aesthetic views, and not portraits of specific historical figures. Lunacharsky's intention was to show the failure of idealistic and vulgar materialistic views on art and the advantages of Marxism over all other views. Lunacharsky wrote about this in the preface to the publication of Dialogue on Art in 1919 and regretted that not all types of aesthetic views were reflected in it. Depicting his ideological opponents, Lunacharsky is far from simplistic, he perfectly understands that in an exploitative society such theories are not the subjective arbitrariness of the artist. Lunacharsky blames, first of all, society, which hinders the development of all artistic inclinations in a person, limiting his possibilities. This idea is clearly heard in the speeches of Portugues, and, of course, the author of the Dialogue fully agrees with it.

However, with all its merits, the explaining and criticizing Portugales cannot fully represent the Marxist worldview, Marxist aesthetics, as Lunacharsky understood it. Portugues does not have a positive program. And Lunacharsky himself, reflecting in Totma on what "cannot be" real art that meets Marxist ideas, was able to express only the most general considerations. He had extensive material for criticism and polemics and had nothing, almost nothing, for a positive program. The figure of the second orator, the Marxist Polina Alexandrovna, is all the more important.

The heroine of "Dialogue" tried to find positive moments in the speeches of her predecessors. She agrees with Akinf in his criticism of bourgeois art, but calls not to be limited to it and to look into the future. Boris Borisovich's idea about the beneficial influence of emancipatory ideas seems to her correct, and at the same time, "the artist in the artist must be first and stronger than the preacher" (vol. 7 , pp. 129–130). She is against the decadent ideas of Erlich, but for the connection of art with philosophy.

So, already in this early work, a feature very characteristic of Lunacharsky appeared: an attentive attitude towards his ideological opponents, the desire to find in their views that rational grain that could be useful for building a new, proletarian aesthetics. This, of course, is not omnivorous, not eclecticism, for which Lunacharsky was often reproached, for he clearly saw the shortcomings of those with whom he entered into polemics. But this is not a bare, wasted denial. It is a denial with the discovery and development of a valuable moment.

However, Polina Alexandrovna is not limited to theorizing, outlining a broad program of new art. Her bright emotional speech is a passionate call addressed to artists to be teachers of life, to take an active part in the great movement of the revolutionary transformation of society. The culturally destitute proletariat is now beginning to realize the significance of culture and art. And therefore, Marxist critics, Marxist theoreticians must come to his aid and open the way to the world of art for the working masses. The new reader has the right to expect the appearance of new critics, new "proletarian Belinskys". “And going to the piano, with a force unexpected for this weak woman, she began to play the queen of marches, the divine Marseillaise. And the cold ran down the backs, the blood caught fire; it seemed that the hair was moving ”(v. 7, with. 133).

Thus, born in the midst of revolutionary struggle, art itself becomes a weapon of revolution. Thus advanced theory illuminates the way for revolutionary art.

Two Venuses

In November 1912, Plekhanov delivered an essay in Paris entitled "Art and Public Life". His opponent was A. V. Lunacharsky. Plekhanov's abstract developed into a large article under the same title (1912–1913). This is one of Plekhanov's last extended speeches on questions of literature and art. In the third part of the article, Plekhanov answered Lunacharsky's objections. The subject of controversy was the criteria of beauty and, in particular... Venus de Milo.

"AND. S. Turgenev, who strongly disliked the preachers of a utilitarian view of art, writes Plekhanov, once said: Venus de Milo is beyond doubt the principles of 1789. He was absolutely right. But what follows from this? Not at all what I. S. Turgenev wanted to prove. 26Yes, agrees Plekhanov, the Venus de Milo belongs to many epochs of aesthetic development, while the principles of bourgeois democracy, proclaimed by the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, belong only to a certain phase of social development. But this does not happen at all because art is “undoubted” than politics. It's just that the principles, ideas and legal provisions of the bourgeoisie could not appear and triumph earlier, in the era of feudalism. And they also reveal their inconsistency and limitations in the era of the emergence and development of socialist ideas. Social principles are determined by the social being of people.

Despite their relative independence and stability, aesthetic ideals, Plekhanov shows, are also generated by certain social relations.

The ideal of female beauty, represented by Venus, becomes "undoubted" for an enlightened viewer, not in spite of the "principles of the eighty-ninth year", but thanks to them. It turns out that the higher a person climbs the ladder of social progress, the closer, clearer and dearer to him is the harmonious and clear beauty of the ancient goddess. And in the Middle Ages, when the Christian ascetic morality of churchmen dominated, Venus could be considered a devil and destroyed, as many works of ancient culture were destroyed. “The whole meaning of the history of art in the Renaissance,” writes Plekhanov, “considered from the point of view of the concept of beauty, lies in the fact that the Christian-monastic ideal of human appearance is gradually pushed into the background by that earthly ideal, the emergence of which was determined by the liberation movement of cities, and working out was facilitated by the recollection of ancient devils.27

These considerations are a very valuable part of Plekhanov's work. They are directed against idealistic ideas about the absolute nature of aesthetic ideals, about their independence from human social activity. And although Plekhanov did not name N. G. Chernyshevsky here, he undoubtedly relied on the provisions of his famous dissertation, developing and concretizing them in new historical conditions. For Plekhanov, to recognize the eternity, absoluteness, and immutability of the concepts of beauty means falling into anti-historicism, repeating the propositions of idealistic aesthetics, refuted by the revolutionary democratic critics of the 19th century.

But Plekhanov considers the concepts of absolute and relative only in opposition and does not see their transitions and mutual connections. This circumstance is correctly noted by P. A. Nikolaev: “It must be admitted that Plekhanov in his theoretical definitions of relative and absolute aesthetic criteria did not achieve either depth or clarity. This happened because, focusing his main attention on the problems of historical materialism, he studied questions of epistemology with less intensity. 28

Indeed, while denying the absoluteness of the ideal of beauty, acceptable for all times, Plekhanov does not show that there is a movement towards the ideal, there are various steps that more or less bring us closer to its comprehension. And Venus de Milo, and Mona Lisa, and Nefertiti, and Raphael's Madonnas occupy very high places on this endless ladder along which humanity moves to the heights of artistic and moral perfection.

Plekhanov's reasoning about the objectivity of the criterion of beauty also needs to be corrected. He sees this objectivity in accordance with the idea of ​​execution. “The more the execution corresponds to the idea,” he says, “or, to use a more general expression, the more the form of the work of art corresponds to its idea, the more successful it is. Here is an objective measure for you.” 29 If an artist, Plekhanov continues, wants to paint a "woman in blue" and the canvas will indeed have a "woman in blue" and not crudely painted geometric figures, then we already have a good picture. And that is precisely why, Plekhanov concludes his reasoning, Leonardo da Vinci, as a painter, is superior to Gogol's Themistoclus, who amused himself by soiling paper.

Paying tribute to the wit of the critic, however, it should be said that the example he cited is too elementary, that the difference between an artist of genius and a character from Dead Souls is too obvious, and that as soon as we turn to more complex cases in art, Plekhanov's argumentation becomes insufficient. . After all, form and content have a certain independence and can be perceived not only in unity. What if the very idea of ​​the work is incorrect or, which happens more often, the very idea of ​​the work is not entirely correct, and the artistic performance is distinguished by great skill?

Plekhanov's following statement is too categorical: "When a work of art distorts reality, then it is unsuccessful." 30 After all, "distortions" can be of different nature, and they do not always lead to "failures."

In polemics with ideological opponents, Plekhanov, by his own admission, liked to go too far. He does this even when he limits the criterion of beauty not only to historical limits, but also tries to introduce racial characteristics into it, when he claims that Venus is the ideal of beauty of a certain historical stage .only for European peoples, and for the peoples of Asia or Africa, it cannot be such. And here he gets on the shaky ground of assumptions. Plekhanov could not oppose the Venus de Milo with the ideals of other races, or at least compare anything equal with her in the art of non-European peoples. True, he cites a single example of the Hottentots, who, as he claims, have their own ideal, "the images of which are often found in anthropological writings under the name of the Hottentot Venus", 31 but this example speaks against him.

Indeed, in the Paris Anthropological Museum (Musee de l'Homme) there is a life-size wax cast and skeleton of a woman who once lived and died in Paris, nicknamed the "Hottentot Venus". 32 The Venus of the Louvre and the "Venus" of the Musee de l'Homme are simply incomparable, for one is a work of art, while the other is a "wax figure," a museum piece completely devoid of any aesthetic content.

But suppose that the Hottentot would consider the wax cast from the Paris Museum as a model and prefer it to the Venus de Milo (we have no data on this subject), then, naturally, the question arises: which of these ideals is more perfect, whose point of view is higher - the European Or a Hottentot? To Plekhanov, such a formulation of the question seems enlightening and therefore subjectivist. He is interested in the origin of aesthetic ideals, their conditioning by social factors, and not their comparative value.

The speech of Plekhanov's opponent and, in general, Lunacharsky's position on questions of aesthetics in 1912 was usually judged by the presentation of his views by Plekhanov in the article "Art and Public Life". From this presentation it is clear that Lunacharsky committed the "sin of extreme subjectivism", which "many bourgeois ideologists, including the Cubists" commit, 33 that Lunacharsky allegedly denied the existence of objective criteria of beauty, reducing everything to the dictates of taste. This is the first point in Plekhanov's polemic with Lunacharsky. In Plekhanov's interpretation, Lunacharsky appears as a subjective idealist who has not mastered even the basics of Marxist philosophy and only flaunts Marxist terminology. These formulations, although in a softened form, appear in a number of Soviet researchers writing about the 1912 dispute: A. Lebedev in the second edition of his book A. V. Lunacharsky’s Aesthetic Views, V. I. Kuleshov 34 , etc.

Here we should recall Lunacharsky's statement in the already mentioned concluding article of 1929-1930 on Plekhanov that he "never even dreamed of denying such objectivity" (vol. 8 , p. 257), his intention - never realized - to return to the history of the 1912 dispute year and describe in detail the whole course of it. “I asserted only one thing in my then dispute with Plekhanov,” Lunacharsky wrote, “that one can compare not only individual works of art of the same era, that is, arising from the same principle, but also the very aesthetic principles of individual eras” ( vol. 8 , pp. 257–258).

The newspaper presentation of Lunacharsky's speech at the debate is very brief, but still gives an idea of ​​the position of the critic, although the correspondent was more interested in Lunacharsky's reaction to the polemic with Plekhanov. Omitting this part of the correspondence, let us turn to the essence of the opponent's speech. Lunacharsky began "with gratitude for the lessons he had learned in his time from Plekhanov's writings." But in the future he objects to Plekhanov's categoricalness and his claims to "indisputability of judgments": "If there is no incontestability in logic itself, then aesthetics sins all the more with this." 35

“The truth of the idea and the correspondence of the form to the content,” Lunacharsky said further, “do not yet guarantee beauty, which is understood by everyone in their own way.” It seems, however, that this statement by Lunacharsky did not yet give grounds for sharp Plekhanovian characterizations - the speaker did not agree with Plekhanov, and with "everyone", he wanted to find a yardstick for evaluation. “The referent,” continued Lunacharsky, “replaced the idea in the sense of a creative concept with an idea in the sense of art. Every work of art has its own artistic idea. The absence of a social idea does not yet signify a bias towards reactionism.

Lunacharsky agrees with Plekhanov in his assessment of bourgeois art, but for a critic it is not enough to state the decline and decay of such art; a concrete analysis and a concrete assessment are necessary. And if now it is difficult to determine what is good and what is bad in art, then this situation is not eternal. “We have to fight for our understanding of beauty, and with the development of proletarian culture, new healthy aesthetic ideas and assessments will prevail ... The opponent himself also came with empty pockets, but only promised proletarian culture in the future. Its main (i.e., G.V. Plekhanov. - I.K.) the idea that contemporary art is condemned from the point of view of the bourgeois class itself, the opponent did not refute. As for the criterion, art does not separate, but unites people. And what separates them so far proves its real value in the best possible way.

As we can see, these judgments, for all their brevity and inevitable distortions in such cases (and Lunacharsky often complained about distortions in the newspaper presentations of his speeches), do not in any way qualify his views as subjective idealistic.

Somewhat earlier, in February 1912, Lunacharsky delivered a lecture entitled "The idea of ​​beauty in its evolution from ancient times to the present day." This essay expands our understanding of Lunacharsky's views in this discussion. Animals already have aesthetic emotions, but only in humans do they take a conscious form; According to Lunacharsky, “the transition from purely physiological emotions to the conscious perception of beauty as such is, according to Lunacharsky, primitive man, who is not yet trying to develop ideals of beauty, but is already creating jewelry for himself.” 36 In the light of this statement, Lunacharsky's attitude to attempts to "equate" the Venus of the Louvre with the "Venus" from the anthropological museum becomes clearer.

Turning to Hellenic antiquity, Lunacharsky argues that "in this era, the highest ideal of beauty was put forward, which has not yet been surpassed by the ideal of human beauty." Venus de Milo, Zeus Olympus, Apollo Belvedere for Lunacharsky are "fossils of the Greek ideal." 37 Restoring it in full is impossible, imitation of it is useless, but some of its elements continue to live in the work of various artists of subsequent times.

K. Marx, as you know, argued that Prometheus is "the most noble saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar." And his proud confession: “In truth, I hate all the gods,” is, Marx believed, the recognition of advanced philosophy, “directed against all heavenly and earthly gods.” 38 Prometheus appears as a symbol of selflessness and intransigence, as the embodiment of loyalty to the ideals of the liberation of mankind.

And Lunacharsky had a happy and rare ability to find incorruptible values ​​in the past. Having visited art museums in Italy for the first time, “thanks to the strong wine of history brewed in Russia,” Lunacharsky experienced a feeling of joyful amazement: “Stones speak to the mind and heart, cold marble received a language, granite columns and vaults sang solemn songs.” 39

Speaking in "Philosophical Poems in Colors and Marble" about the heroes of ancient Greek mythology, about the canvases of Titian, Signorelli, Raphael, Botticelli 40 , etc., he seeks to bring them closer to the consciousness of the advanced person of our time, to introduce the uninitiated or poorly initiated into the treasury of world art . This is not a superficial modernization, but a conscious and successful attempt to use the great achievements of the past culture in the ideological struggle of the proletariat. 41

“Philosophical poems in colors and marble” are polemical through and through. Each essay is a parallel and contrasting interpretation of artists and their heroes, epochs and the creative ideas that define them. Lunacharsky compares the Christian Madonna and the ancient Venus, the fresco "The Triumph of Death" by Orcagna (however, the authorship of this famous fresco is still an unresolved issue) and the painting by Benozzo Gozzoli about the Babylonian pandemonium, Hercules with the "Thinker" by Rodin, and both of them with portraits of Pope Paul III works by Titian. These are "heroes of action in thought."

“Deified labor itself,” Hercules has always been only a labor force for others, therefore, with a disproportionately developed figure, he has a small head. But it is not the physical strength of the hero that is terrible to his temporary overlords, but that painful moment of awakening of consciousness, captured by both Policlet and the “late descendant of Michelangelo” Rodin. The moment of reflection for Hercules and the "Thinker" is the initial moment of the transformation of yesterday's slave into a conscious fighter for his social liberation. Prometheus in the understanding of Marx, Hercules and the "Thinker" in the understanding of Lunacharsky are internally close to each other, they are images-brothers.

At the moment of reflection, he captured Paul III and Titian. However, the indefatigable activity of the Pope does not go beyond personal interests, his energy is turned to petty goals, thereby perverting human nature, says Lunacharsky. The critic highlights the features of degeneration and satiety among those in power in the guise of the last Roman emperors: their portraits are “marble monographs on the psychology and psychopathology of tyrannical power.” 42 Power that is not turned to a useful and humane cause, power that has become an end in itself, degrades and destroys itself—such is Lunacharsky's thought. 43

The question connected with the history of the "Philosophical Poems in Colors and Marble" is still not resolved. Lunacharsky's essays, which compiled this cycle in the Kyiv Thought newspaper, had sequential numbering (proof that the author recognized their internal integrity and unity of the whole idea), only the last two essays, "Antique Portraits" and "Masterpieces of the New Papal Pinakothek" had no numbers. . However, after the essay under No. 6 “Madonna and Venus. Parallels" was followed by No. 8 "Heroes of the deed in thought." Nos. 13 and 14 are also omitted - after No. 12 "Conversation in front of archaic sculptures" comes No. 15 "Magnificat". What's the matter? Forgetfulness of the author, negligence of the editors? Or maybe the seventh, thirteenth and fourteenth essays were received from Italy by the editors of Kievskaya Thought, but for some reason they never saw the light of day? If this is the case, and they are not completely lost, then they are still waiting for their publisher and researcher.

So, it can be argued that Lunacharsky in his aesthetic works not so much refuted Plekhanov as supplemented him. If the Marxist critic is obliged to look for the criteria of beauty in changes in social life, as Plekhanov did, then these criteria can also be compared, preferring one over the other, as Lunacharsky did. Plekhanov and Lunacharsky approached the solution of the cardinal questions of Marxist aesthetics from different angles, and in most cases their conclusions did not oppose each other. True, Lunacharsky, unlike Plekhanov, did not present his views in the form of a detailed treatise on art history. They need to be restored according to numerous abstracts and critical articles.

The second point of the 1912 dispute relates to understanding the essence of the methodology of literary criticism. “Secondly,” writes Plekhanov, “Mr. Lunacharsky reproached me for being too objectivist in my exposition. He seemed to agree that the apple tree should bear apples and the pear tree pears. But he noticed that among the artists who stand on the bourgeois point of view, there are vacillators and that such people need to be convinced, and not left to the elemental force of bourgeois influences. 44

How to make criticism an accurate tool for understanding art? Plekhanov believed that this would happen when the critic explored the genesis of art and its social conditioning, when he discovered the idea of ​​a work, discovered its “sociological equivalent”, and then showed how this idea was embodied in an art form. If the critic has shown how "the social being of the artist determines his social consciousness", then he has fulfilled his duties.

How to ensure that criticism strengthens its influence on the writer and its impact on the reader? For Plekhanov, these questions are a tribute to enlightenment tendencies, which he recognized as inevitable in certain epochs, but for which he had no sympathy. Plekhanov often emphasized his impartiality, lack of personal interest, but these assurances should not be accepted completely and unconditionally, although, perhaps, it seemed to the critic himself that he was capable of "not crying, not laughing, but understanding." 45

In fact, he not only analyzed the phenomena of spiritual life, but also evaluated them. His often emphasized "equanimity", "coldness" are only a polemical device, giving special persuasiveness to the author's thought. In articles about Tolstoy and the populist writers, about Gorky and Hamsun, Plekhanov deviated from the principles of "disinterest" and "objectivity" proclaimed by him, which, of course, only benefited his articles. However, the fundamental division of criticism into educational, judgmental, and scientific, aesthetic, which does not prescribe anything, but only indicates social causes and artistic consequences, was a significant methodological mistake. To understand or to evaluate—this is how Plekhanov put the question and argued that the Marxist critic should deal only with the former. "Scientific aesthetics," he wrote, - does not give art any prescriptions; she does not say to him: you must adhere to such and such rules and practices. It is limited to observinghow the various rules and techniques that prevail in different historical epochs arise . It does not proclaim the eternal laws of art; it tries to study those eternal laws, the action of which determines its historical development. 46

While rightly criticizing the idealist view that "opinions rule the world," Plekhanov left aside the question of the active role of ideas, of the influence of an advanced worldview on the development of social life. Such an idea of ​​the methodology of literary criticism led Plekhanov to a well-known underestimation of the legacy of the revolutionary democrats, whose socio-political, civic and moral-ethical pathos was very pronounced.

It was precisely on this point—about the right of criticism to evaluate—that Lunacharsky decisively parted company with Plekhanov and argued with him all his life, advancing more and more new arguments in defense of his position. Lunacharsky often compared criticism who refuses to evaluate with a botanist who finds out the reasons for the origin and growth of certain plants, but does not want to say whether they are good or bad, and absolutely refuses any work to improve old breeds and breed new ones. . "Coldness" and "equanimity" were the least characteristic of Lunacharsky's nature, for whom the tasks of enlightenment (in the broad sense of the word) meant the meaning of all his activities. In the heat of the controversy, Lunacharsky sometimes saw no merit in Plekhanov's position and, oversimplifying, said that it was a "harmful point of view"47 However, in the final article “G. V. Plekhanov as a Literary Critic” Lunacharsky will give a scientific explanation for Plekhanov's assessments and see the reason for them in the peculiarities of the historical development of Russia and the spread of Marxism in it.

Plekhanov, in his work on bringing the Marxist foundation to the basis of literary criticism, argues Lunacharsky, first of all encountered the epigones of the revolutionary democrats - the subjectivists of the sociological school N. K. Mikhailovsky, A. M. Skabichevsky and others. writer only by the degree of his closeness (or remoteness) in relation to populist ideals. It is clear that such a narrow approach led Skabichevsky and Mikhailovsky to gross errors in assessing Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Chekhov and Gorky, whose work could not be measured by the standards of populist ideas about social progress as the activity of "critically thinking individuals."

Later, as a reaction to the faded subjectivism of populism, comes the eloquent Volynsky (Plekhanov compared him with the hero of Gogol's The Gamblers, Consoling), whose literary criticism loses all social meaning, without ceasing to be extremely subjectivist, but already on a decadent and mystical plane.

Here are Plekhanov's main opponents, and in the struggle against whom his "genetic method" took shape. Let us recall the heroes of the "Dialogue on Art" Akinf, Boris Borisovich and the "mourning" young man Erlich. “In this struggle against such sides, from which a petty-bourgeois worldview that is hostile to us has grown,” Lunacharsky said on June 5, 1930 at a seminar of the Institute of Red Professors, “Plekhanov, of course, had to be extremely sharp. At that time it was almost a crime to make reservations and go towards any subjectivist moments in public affairs, including here, of course, criticism. 48

New tasks arose at the stage of direct preparation for and implementation of the proletarian revolution, and later on, the building of socialist culture. The revolutionary transformation of social relations in the country, of course, could not but affect the sphere of spiritual life, the sphere of art. The proletariat and its vanguard, the Communist Party, had to answer the questions: what is good and what is bad in the art of the past and present? what it can and should be in the future? These questions did not arise before Plekhanov in the 1980s and 1990s, but they did arise before Lunacharsky, before writers from Lenin's entourage V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky and others.

Lunacharsky's attitude towards Plekhanov received a biased assessment from a number of Soviet literary critics. A. Lebedev's statement that Lunacharsky belittled the progressive significance of Plekhanov's views on art, "unreasonably spreading a critical attitude towards objectivist tendencies and elements in Plekhanov's aesthetic views on Plekhanov's aesthetics as a whole," should be recognized as especially unsubstantiated. 49 N. A. Trifonov rightly remarks that “Lunacharsky, arguing with Plekhanov, was sometimes too categorical,” but since “an objectivist bias was evident in a number of Plekhanov’s methodological statements,” 50 Lunacharsky had grounds for criticizing Plekhanov’s point of view.

Plekhanov's position in aesthetics, of course, cannot be called Menshevik and contrasted with Lenin's, for the demand for an objective socio-historical analysis of the phenomena of spiritual life is a great achievement for Marxist thought. Rejection of it leads to all sorts of subjectivist and voluntaristic perversions. It is clear at the same time that Lenin's position was methodologically superior to Plekhanov's. Lenin wrote that “the materialist reveals class contradictions and thereby defines his point of view... On the one hand, the materialist is more consistent than the objectivist and carries out his objectivism more deeply and more fully. It is not limited to pointing out the necessity of the process, but finds out what kind of socio-economic formation gives the content to this process, what kind of classdetermines this necessity ... On the other hand, materialism includes, so to speak, partisanship, obliging, in any assessment of an event, to directly and openly take the point of view of a certain social group. 51 “Lenin’s famous words about the fundamental unity of theory and party spirit for us” Lunacharsky did not accidentally recall in the article “G. V. Plekhanov as a Literary Critic.”

Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 25, p. 222. _
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 42, p. 290. _
So, for example, V. A. Fomina characterizes the views of G. V. Plekhanov as “revisionist dissolution of Marxism in the bourgeois worldview” (see: Fomina V. A. Philosophical views of G. V. Plekhanov. M., 1955, p. 280 ).
Lenin V. I. and Gorky A. M. Letters, memoirs, documents. M., 1958, p. 227. _
Ibid, p. 220. Lunacharsky himself, however, was not embarrassed by Plekhanov's aristocracy and lordly manners, and he was rewarded a hundredfold by a conversation with this "rich in spirit" man.
Chukovsky K. Sobr. soch., vol. 2. M., 1965, p. 408. _
Philosophical and literary heritage of G. V. Plekhanov, vol. 1, p. 334. _
Lunacharsky A. V. Memories and impressions, p. 59. _
Ibid, p. 64. _
Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 5. M., 1958, p. 460. _
Ibid, p. 488. _
Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 5, p. 474–477.
A detailed retelling of the plot of "Savonarola", "Albigenses" and "Don Juan" Lunacharsky explains by the fact that "these poems by Lenau have not found a poetic translation into Russian, and they are unlikely to find it soon" (see: Lunacharsky A.V. Etudes Critical, Moscow–Leningrad, 1925, pp. 11–12).
Literary heritage, vol. 82, p. 280. _
Introductory article by V. R. Shcherbina to the book: Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 5, p. 28. _
In the article "Henrik Ibsen" (published in 1934), Lunacharsky renounces the categorical judgments of the first printed speech. Referring to a previously unknown letter from Engels to P. Ernst, he explains the petty-bourgeois nature of his work by the special conditions for the development of Norway, where the petty bourgeoisie played a historically progressive role (vol. 6 , pp. 243-256).
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 226. _
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 264. _
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 308.
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 209. _
Ibid, p. 257, 287, 262.
Ibid, p. 285. _
Gorky M. Sobr. soch., vol. 27. M., 1953, p. 316. V. Vorovsky in the article "Bazarov and Sanin" (1909) well showed what an abyss separates these heroes and their creators.
The Nation, 1972, August. A worthy rebuke to S. Karlinsky is given in the article by A. Ponomarev “Making up like the greats” (see: “Literaturnaya Gazeta”, 1972, November 5, No. 45 (4383).
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 108. _
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 233. It should be noted that in Turgenev this idea belongs to the hero of the story “Enough” - the artist who committed suicide (see: Turgenev I. S. Sobr. soch., vol. 7. M., 1962, p. 35–36 ). Turgenev himself, with all his concessions to aestheticism, especially in recent years, would not have fully subscribed to it. Plekhanov, therefore, admits an inaccuracy in attributing to the writer the thoughts of his literary heroes.
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 234. _
Nikolaev P. A. Aesthetic and literary theories of G. V. Plekhanov. M., 1968, p. 62. _
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 270. _
Ibid, p. 171. _
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 233. _
A sign below the exhibit reads: “A life-size cast made after death and the skeleton of a Bushman woman Sarah Bartmon, nicknamed the Venus of the Hottentot. She died in Paris on January 1, 1816 at the age of 38.
Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 270. _
Lebedev A. Aesthetic views of A. V. Lunacharsky, ed. 2nd. M., 1970, p. 142–143; Kuleshov V. I. History of Russian criticism. M., 1972, p. 465. VI Kuleshov claims that the dispute took place in Geneva. This is not true. In a footnote to the article “Art and Public Life,” Plekhanov points out that he read the abstract on this topic twice in November 1912 in Liege and Paris, and that Lunacharsky’s objections were made at the second reading (see: Plekhanov G. V. Art and literature, p. 216). The house in Paris where the dispute took place (rue de Grenelle, 84, not far from the Russian embassy) has survived to this day.
Here and below, cit. according to: "Paris Bulletin", 1912, November 16, No. 46.
"Paris Bulletin", 1912, March 2, No. 9. Somewhat earlier, a brief summary of the abstract was published: “Beauty in animals and savages. Beauty in the barbarian civilizations of the East. Art practice and theory of beauty in the ancient world. Medieval doctrine of beauty. Renaissance. The birth of scientific aesthetics. Great philosophers and the problem of beauty. A modern solution to the problem of beauty. The role of beauty in personal and public life ”(“ Paris Bulletin ”, 1912, February 10, No. 6).
Lunacharsky A. V. Autumn Salon in Paris. - Pravda, 1905. February, p. 210. _
Marx K., Engels F. About art, vol. 1. M., 1957, p. 298. _
Lunacharsky A. V. Philosophical poems in paints and marble. - "Kievskaya thought", 1909, March 1, No. 60.
Sandro Botticelli is undoubtedly one of Lunacharsky's most beloved artists. In addition to the penetrating interpretation of his work, the image of Botticelli was embodied in Lunacharsky's story "Night in Venice" from the cycle "Ideas in Masks" (1909).
This fruitful idea of ​​the "Philosophical Poems" is contradicted here and there by sounding God-building motifs (especially in the chapter "God-bearers").
Lunacharsky A. V. Philosophical poems in paints and marble. - "Kievskaya Thought", 1910, January 18, No. 18.
This idea formed the basis of Lunacharsky's first major play, The Royal Barber (1906).
Plekhanov G. I. Art and literature, p. 271. _
Plekhanov often recalls the words of B. Spinoza when characterizing his critical method.
Plekhanov G. V. Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 5,
Literary heritage, vol. 82, p. 129. _
For the concluding remarks of A. V. Lunacharsky at the seminar of the Institute of Red Professors, see: Context-1972. M., 1973, p. 321.
Lebedev A. Aesthetic views of A. V. Lunacharsky, p. 129. In the nervous edition of his book (Moscow, 1962), A. Lebedev did not find any errors in Lunacharsky's criticism of Plekhanov's "orthodoxy".
Trifonov N.A.A.V. Lunacharsky and Soviet literature. M., 1974, p. 534.
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 1, p. 418–419.