LITERARY CRITICISM

 A. Fadeyev 

Source: Literaturnaya Gazeta, 71, 

1949.

SOVIET literature is on the upsurge, while cnticism is unsatisfactory. The writers and the critics themselves, as well as their readers, are aware of this. 

Perhaps it is because we lack literary critics? No, we have rather too many. There are 203 critics among the 1,000 members and candidates of the Union of Writers in Moscow alone. There are 73 critics among the Leningrad members of the Union, who number over 300. This is a detachment with which critical thought could embrace all aspects of literature. How does it happen then that, with the existence of such a large body of people occupied in critical work, literary criticism is so weak and fails to satisfy either the reader or the writer? The reason is not far to seek. It appears that just over fifty of the 203 critics in the Union in Moscow, and only sixteen of the seventy-three in Leningrad, occupy themselves with real criticism, which is to say, with Soviet literature. It appears that there is a distinction between "literary critics" [literaturovedi in Russ.-EF], who work exclusively on the 1iterature of the past (and they constitute the majority), and the book critics, occupied only with Soviet literature (and they are a handful). 

Is it correct from the standpoint of Leninist teaching on the partisan nature of literature, from the standpoint of the tradition of Russian revolutionary democratic criticism, that the overwhelming majority of people engaged in criticism should be, in the main, occupied with the past and not with the present, and that in a society which is swiftly moving from Socialism to Communism? And is it right that literary criticism should be divided into two categories which arose heavens know when : literaturoved [lit. crit.-EF], that is, learned people, and it might be added that "learned" here means a departure from the contemporary scene into the past ; and critics who occupy themselves with criticism of contemporary literature and, according to the above peculiar terminology, may be unacquainted with the past of literature and be "unlearned" people? 

Is not this separation a hang-over lingering on from the false, harmful conceptions, inimical to us, of what a real literary critic, or, if you like, a litera­turoved (what's in a name?) should be in our country? 

In reality, is it possible in Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Saltykov­Schedrin or Gorky, to separate the literaturoved, dealing exclusively with the history of literature, from the critic occupying himself with problems facing contemporary and developing literature? How is it possible to study the past of literature properly if one is not an active contributor to the literature of communism? And the question spontaneously arises: is not this artificial division between the literaturoved and the "critic" a relic of_ an alien standpoint on the tasks and role of a person occupied in the noble work of literary criticism? It is not difficult to find the source, the people from whom these bourgeois views of the critics' task have come. Suffice it to glance at one of the founders o: bourgeois literaturovedeniya, Alexander Veselovsky, and others of the kind. It was precisely in his works and in the work of others of his like, in contra­distinction to that of the revolutionary democratic, that a departure from contemporary problems was to be observed for the first time in Russian criticism. They sought to turn the critic into a pseudo-scientist allegedly engaged in "pure science", into a man who turned away from the political tasks of literary criticism, separated "literary science" (taking it back into the past and even into the past of the literature of other countries) from contemporary literature and the urgent tasks of the struggle for the happiness and good of the people. 

That we have not freed ourselves from bourgeois relics and prejudices which are putting a brake on the development of Soviet literary criticism, is apparent from some of the work done in contemporary literaturovedeniya. Take publica­tions such as the "Biblioteka Poeta" (Poets Library), published by "Sovetsky Pisatel", an idea proposed by Gorky. These are excellent publications, planned by Gorky to have it as their aim to acquaint young people with the great Russian poetry of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. A long time has passed since the foundation of this "Library", and how Gorky's plan has been distorted I The "Library" has become a focal point of all that is reactionary in literature. One has only to look at its publications to see that all the reactionary poets of the distant and recent past are included in it-from Inno­kenty Annensky to Andrei Bely. Moreover, observe the prefaces and commentaries: many of them contain a collection of views thoroughly antagonistic to the Leninist principle of partisanship in literature. 

This is where the bourgeois liberals, formalists and aesthetes have found themselves a vent. The collection of poetry by Batyushkov, published in 1948, contains a formalist preface by B. Tomashevsky. The question of the influence of the Patriotic War of 1812 in the formation of Batyushkov's poetry is entirely by-passed and consequently his finest patriotic writings are omitted. The preface also elaborates the wholly unscientific concept of Batyushkov as a poet who had his roots in the soil of French poetry and not in the soil of Russian reality. 

Russian poetry is regarded in the "Library", by the critics B. Eichenbaum and M. Azadevsky, as deriving from a "single stream" of world poetry. The forewords of T. Volpe to the poetry of A. Bely, and of N. Stepanov to the poetry of V. Khlebnikov, show signs of the same reactionary treatment. The above poets should not have been included in the "Library". 

Take as an example the book Pushkin, Founder of the new Russian Literature, published in 1941. In the articles therein by A. Tseitlin, S. Bondi, and B. Tomashevsky it "turns out" over and over again that our great Pushkin is a mere imitator of Western European examples. Such bourgeois viewpoints on literaturovedeniya are being extensively instilled into our youth. Is it not time for the Ministry of Higher Education to give some thought to the fact that of all the USSR professors and literature teachers holding the title of Doctor of Sciences there is only one (yes, one!) doctor teaching contemporary Soviet literature! 

We are not against studying the history of literature. Contemporary literature cannot be understood without a knowledge of the history of literature. We have many valuable works on the past of great Russian literature and on the literature of the peoples of the world. But it is time and high time we dispensed with the bourgeois viewpoint in literary criticism, which shows itself even in some valuable work by our critics. 

A fit of "academicism" (in the bad sense of this word) is to be found in B. Meilakh's excellent book, which won a Stalin prize, Lenin and Problems of Russian Literature in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This book is least satisfactory on the question of the partisanship of Eterature. In examining the work of Lenin, of course, Meilakh shows the partisanship present in Lenin's evaluations of literature. It is characteristic, however, that the weakest chapter is that devoted to Lenin's teachings on partisanship in literature. It cannot be a strong chapter, because it is in no way linked with the tasks of the ideological struggle in contemporary Soviet literature. It is difficult to understand which ideological enemies B. Meilakh directed his book against or what contemporary problems were worrying him. It is no accident, either, that there is an inclination to turn to Veselovsky in this book. And who can be more alien than be to the very spirit of Lenin? 

Any book on the past by a contemporary Party literary man must be written as a "militant" book fighting against to-day's ideological enemy. And we shall never have a new generation of young people resolutely oriented towards contemporary tasks as long as the overwhelming majority of litera1y critics are occupied with the past. They have "priorities" in the Chairs of our learned institutions. Their tas􀀬es and likings are inculcated into our young people. It is not in the interests of the present that our young people are being taught to love the past. On the contrary, they are being lured into the past to take them away from the present. And the small number of critics in the provinces learn this from "their elders" in Moscow and Leningrad. 

What I have said does not mean that we should sweep away the finest and best work done by our literaturovedi (if it pleases them to be so called!}. We used merely to distinguish the bad from the good and turn a majority of our literary critics, who are advanced Soviet people, towards contemporary prob­lems. Surely we have critics who engage both in work as "literary critics" and in literary criticism? We have. This is indeed reflected to some advantage in their work. But we have very few such people-perhaps two or three. Why, for example, does not such an experienced literary critic as N. Brodsky, who has written a most valuable book on Lermontov, turn his attention to his contemporaries? It will be said "They are not Lermontovs". True, that may be so. Yet it has fallen to their lot to speak a new word on the artistic development of mankind I 

Why do not D. Blagoy, N. Gudzy and, still more, young men like B. Meilakh, and many others also, write on Soviet literature? If we shook off our bour­geois prejudices and approached the noble task of literary criticism with revolu­tionary boldness, our literature would make speedier progress. How much good could be done to Soviet literature by the many leading figures among to-day's literary critics, with their knowledge of the history of literature and their experience in artistic and ideological analysis of different works and their experience in monograph work I 

To carry out this change-over we must, ignoring all personal feelings, bring out into the fresh air all those who consciously withdraw from reality. Our criticism will lead literature forward along the path to Communism only if it breaks with the prejudices and relics of bourgeois literary criticism and becomes genuine criticism of the Leninist-Stalinist kind. 

A. Fadeyev made this opening speech at a joint meeting of literary critics and book critics called by the USSR Union of Soviet Writers' Commission; a lively discussion followed. 

A. Egolin pointed out that most learned institutions lacked qualified people capable of reading lectures on contemporary literature and that instead of Doctor of Science, or people studying for such a degree, Professors or Lecturers being responsible for Chairs of Soviet Literature, the work was often left to senior teachers. In the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Literature (Pushkin House) it was only in 1948 that the Soviet Literature department was founded. Some literary critics who had turned their attention to con­temporary themes (D. Blagoy had worked on the Soviet historical novel and N. Stepanov on Mayakovsky}, and others, having met with a total lack of interest, had abandoned these subjects.

Professor Meilakh mentioned the harmfulness of the existing narrow specialization. It was not enough for a man to specialise in the 19th century alone: frequently his entire life was devoted to the study of a single writer or even to a single aspect of that writer's work. On the other hand, the experience of many of these specialists could be used in helping to improve the skill of Soviet writers. 

[Source: Literaturnaya Gazeta, 71, 1949. Translated: E.F.].