Speaking of Marxist literary criticism methods, at present, the expression of Marxist literary criticism methods in literary and art circles is quite random and chaotic. Some show the criticism method of "historical aesthetics", such as "the method of Marxist literary criticism can be attributed to the unity of historical view and aesthetic view" and "these two paragraphs of Engels put forward that historical view and aesthetic view are the most scientific literary criticism methods, thus constructing the basic framework of Marxist methodology." Some of them show the criticism method of "aesthetic history", such as "the aesthetic view of history is like a bright lamp, which shines on the whole literary criticism career of Marxist classic writers." "Since then, aesthetic viewpoint, historical viewpoint and their dialectical unity have always been the universal principles of Marxist literary methodology, which have been followed and believed by generations of Marxist writers and artists." However, some scholars sometimes describe it as "aesthetic historical" and "historical aesthetic", such as Tong Qingbing. In two textbooks of literary theory edited by him, one of them states that "in Marxist literary criticism methods, historical viewpoints and aesthetic viewpoints are interrelated and dialectically unified. It is not only a criticism of the ideological content of the work, but also a criticism of the artistic form of the work, a criticism of social history and a criticism of literary aesthetics. " Another book points out that "criticism from the aesthetic and historical perspectives is the essence of Marxist literary criticism, which not only reflects the universal law of literature as an ideology, but also embodies the special law of literature as an aesthetic ideology, which conforms to the law of art and beauty." Some scholars even have different expressions in an article. For example, an article written by Li Jiandong entitled "Re-evaluation of Historical View and Aesthetic View" is expressed as "aesthetic historical view" in the writing.
As an important principle of literary criticism, how should it be expressed? Are these two expressions the same?
Even if these two expressions have the same connotation, as the essence of Marxist literary thought, literary theorists should have a unified expression. Take the simplest example, such as Confucius' theory of "Xing, Guan, Qun and Complain". You can't say "Xing, Guan, Qun and Complain" for a while and "Guan, Xing, Qun and Complain" for a while. When you think about it, the connotations of these two expressions are completely different. Putting "historical" criticism ahead shows that when we create and criticize literary works, we first consider the historical significance, the significance of the times and the political and ideological significance of literary works; Putting "aesthetic" criticism ahead shows that when we create and criticize literary works, we first consider the artistic value and aesthetic significance of literary works. Therefore, it is not only to sort out different problems, but also to embody two different aesthetic views and critical views. Therefore, it is necessary for us to clarify and clean up this issue here.
Second, Engels' statement
Looking through the original works of Engels' criticism, we find that Engels' expression of this criticism method in literary criticism texts is very clear and consistent.
1847, in the article German Socialism in Poetry and Prose, Engels criticized Gruehn's On Goethe from the perspective of human nature and pointed out: "We never blame Goethe from the perspective of morality and party, but only from the perspective of aesthetics and history." 12 years later, 1859, Engels commented on his play Flantz? Feng? Ji Jingen wrote: "You see, I use a very high, that is, the highest standard to measure your works, from an aesthetic point of view, from a historical point of view ... Therefore, the accurate expression of Marxist literary criticism methods should be" aesthetic and historical "criticism methods.
Why did Engels describe this critical method as "aesthetic and historical" rather than "historical and aesthetic"? The author thinks that, as a thinker who is proficient in literature and art, Engels must have seriously thought when expressing his thoughts.
Throughout the history of western aesthetics, we know that the concept of "historical aesthetics" was first put forward by Hegel. When talking about how literary and artistic works should deal with historical (or exotic) themes, Hegel said: "We should criticize the French from the perspective of history and aesthetics. They portrayed the heroes of Greece and Rome, as well as China and Peru, as princes and princesses of France, and passed on the thoughts and feelings of Louis XIV and Louis XV to these ancient people and foreigners. " Here, Hegel criticized the purely subjective attitude of the French when dealing with historical (or exotic) themes, and thought that such treatment damaged the authenticity of artistic works, that is, literary works should respect historical facts. Hegel also made a similar criticism to the French in Aesthetics 1: "In French works of art, China, Americans, Greek and Roman heroes all speak and act like figures in the French court." Of course, Hegel also opposes the purely objective treatment, that is, the treatment of "purely objective and faithful, without considering the content and its substantive significance, and without considering the modern culture and ideological and emotional implications", and thinks that the correct attitude towards historical (or exotic) themes should be like what Goethe said: "When describing people and scenes in the East, we should always maintain the basic colors of the East, which fully conforms to our modern consciousness and his own personality requirements." From this, we can see that the purpose of Hegel's Aesthetics of History is to criticize the wrong way of French people dealing with historical (or foreign) themes, which is a concrete criticism of specific issues. Therefore, in Hegel's view, we still can't see his clear intention of "aesthetic criticism of history" as a critical method. In Hegel's view, the formulation of "aesthetic criticism of history" is only this time.
When Engels explicitly put forward "aesthetic and historical" criticism as a critical method, he may have been inspired by Hegel. However, as a great thinker who is proficient in literature and art, Engels obviously thought carefully whether to put the "historical" criticism ahead or the "aesthetic" criticism ahead. What is art? What is more important for works of art? I think Engels knows better than we do. Before Engels, belinsky once said: "There is no doubt that art should be art first, and then it can be the expression of social spirit and tendency in a certain period. No matter how beautiful a poem is, full of thoughts and how strongly it reflects contemporary problems, if there is no poem in it, then it can't express beautiful thoughts and any problems. What we can see is just a wonderful attempt that is not well reflected. " When talking about how to carry out literary criticism, belinsky said: "Historical criticism that does not involve aesthetics, on the contrary, aesthetic criticism that does not involve history will be one-sided and therefore wrong." "Determining the aesthetic advantage of a work should be the first priority of criticism. When a work can't stand aesthetic criticism, it is no longer worthy of historical criticism. " Therefore, Engels' putting aesthetic criticism in the first place must be the result of his careful consideration.
On which is more important, aesthetic criticism or historical criticism, we think that Marx and Engels have the same views. In his letter to La Salle, Marx warned La Salle: If you want to write The Root of Bauhinia more deeply, "you have to be more Shakespeare, and I think your greatest shortcoming is that Xi Schleswig successfully turned the individual into a simple mouthpiece of the spirit of the times." The so-called Shakespeare pays more attention to the aesthetic value of his works. When will it be? When Lugar tried to flatter Schiller and belittle Shakespeare in his article, Marx even swore at Ah Lugar in his letter to Engels: "Lugar, the beast, proved in Prutz that Shakespeare was not a poet because he didn't have any philosophical system. Schiller is a real "drama poet" because he is a follower of Kant. To this end, Prussian wrote "Restoring Shakespeare's Reputation"! " Because in Marx's view, Schiller's greatest defect is the abstraction and conceptualization of artistic description, while Shakespeare's greatest advantage is the vividness, vividness and sensibility of artistic description.
People. This shows Marx's emphasis on aesthetic criticism! Beauty also occupies an important position in Marxist philosophy. He regards the creation of beauty as the expression of man's essential strength, and thinks that one of the important signs that distinguishes man from animals is that he knows beauty and can "shape objects according to the laws of beauty".
In the practice of literary criticism, Marx and Engels have always paid more attention to the aesthetic value of literary works.
Marx wrote to Pei in 1859? La Salle's letter, evaluating La Salle's Flantz? Feng? Bauhinia root said, "I want to talk about Flantz? Feng? Qi Jingen ". First of all, I want to praise the structure and plot. In this respect, it is better than any modern German script. Secondly, if I completely put aside the purely critical attitude towards this script, it strongly touched me when I first read it, so for readers who are more excited than me, it will have this effect to a greater extent. This is the second very important aspect. Now let's talk about the disadvantages. First, it is purely a matter of form. Since you wrote in verse, you could have arranged your rhythm more artistically. "
Engels in 1859 letter to la salle, also for his "Flantz? Feng? Ji was evaluated, and the artistic value of his works was preliminarily discussed. He wrote: "When I said that any modern official German poet is far from writing such a play, I know I didn't flatter you too much. At the same time, this is only a fact, which is very prominent in our literature and cannot be ignored. If we talk about form first, then I am amazed at the ingenious arrangement of the plot and the drama of the script from beginning to end. You do give yourself some freedom in rhythm, which brings more trouble to reading than to performing. I really want to see the play script; Judging from the current script, it will definitely not be staged. ..... In terms of historical content, you described the two movements that you were most concerned about at that time: the aristocratic national movement represented by discipline and the humanitarian theory movement, and their further development in the theological and ecclesiastical fields, namely the religious reform. "
1885, Engels is allergic? When evaluating Kaucki's Old and New in Kaucki's letter, he first talked about the artistic value of the work. He said, "Your description of the life of saltworks workers in this book is as wonderful as Stefan's farmers. Most of the descriptions of Vienna society are also very good. ..... For the characters in these two environments, I think you have portrayed them with the usual distinctive character description techniques; Everyone is typical, but at the same time he is an individual. As the old Hegel said, he is a' this' and should be. "
1888 Engels in Ma Zhi? Harkness commented on harkness's "City Girl" in his letter. Engels first talked about the artistic form of his works: "Apart from its realistic authenticity, what attracted my attention most was its handling of the Salvation Army when you dared to offend an arrogant and respectable person ... but it was also mainly because you used simplicity and simplicity when you took the ancient and ancient story of a proletarian girl seduced by a bourgeois man as the center of the book. ..... If I want to make any criticism, it is that your novel may not be completely realistic. In my opinion, realism means not only the truth of details, but also the need to truly reproduce typical characters in typical environments. Your character, in itself, is typical enough; But the environment surrounding these roles and prompting them to act may not be so typical. "
Is this just a coincidence?
As some scholars have pointed out, Marx and Engels attach great importance to the characteristics and laws of literature and art in their "literary criticism" ... They always enter the evaluation and analysis of writers' works on the basis of a large number of rich and true aesthetic feelings, first analyze the aesthetic aspects and artistic forms of works, then put forward their own opinions on the ideological content of works, and at the same time show and put forward their own literary theoretical views and literary criticism propositions. ..... because they always believe that literary and artistic works should be art first, art is a unique way for people to master the world, and it is a kind of creation of beauty according to the law of beauty. As an evaluation activity of this kind of beauty creation, literary criticism naturally follows the' law of beauty' and follows the law of art. "
Of course, the literary criticism carried out by Marx and Engels is not formalism and aestheticism. In their literary criticism practice, they always combine them organically and regard them as an organic and inseparable whole. Whether evaluating La Salle's Bauhinia Root, harkness's City Girl, or Kaucki's Old and New, Marx and Engels did not forget to criticize them historically while making aesthetic analysis of them. As many scholars have pointed out: "Marxist literary criticism is neither a single aesthetic criticism nor a pure social and historical criticism, but a literary criticism that combines aesthetic views with historical views and internal analysis with external analysis."
Third, understand and grasp the "aesthetic historicity"
It was plekhanov who revised Marx and Engels' literary criticism thought. In his famous article "Preface to the Third Edition of Collected Works in Twenty Years", he particularly talked about the problem of literary criticism: "The first task of a critic is to translate the ideas of artistic works from artistic language into sociological language in order to find out what can be called the sociological equivalent of literary phenomena." He means that the primary task of literary criticism is to analyze the political thoughts of works. Then he said: "The second action of faithful materialism criticism ... naturally should be the evaluation of the aesthetic value of the evaluated works." That is, artistic evaluation should be secondary. In this way, plekhanov divided literary criticism into two steps. The first step is to analyze the political and ideological content of literary works, and the second step is to analyze the artistic form of literary works. This is obviously not in line with the original intention of Marx and Engels.
Plekhanov, as the first influential Russian Marxist literary theorist, should be said to have a deep study of Marxist literary thought. The reason why he made such a change, the author believes, is mainly related to the cultural background of Russia at that time. From the end of 19 to the beginning of the 20th century, decadence and formalism were all the rage in Russian literature. These works promote mysticism and extreme individualism, and they are full of depression, pessimism, loneliness and world-weariness. They enthusiastically pursue "innovation" in poetic form, create new words and play word games, making their works obscure. In this case, plekhanov emphasized that excellent literary works should first ensure the social, ideological, class and political significance of the works, and then talk about the artistic value and aesthetic significance of the works. As a generation of Marxist literary critics, it should be said that plekhanov's original intention was good, but his revision of Marxist literary criticism methods also had a great negative impact on later proletarian literary criticism. 1932, when "socialist realism" was formally written into the constitution of the Soviet Writers Association, it was like this: "Socialist realism, as the basic method of Soviet literature and Soviet literary criticism, requires artists to describe reality truly and historically from the revolutionary development of reality. At the same time, the authenticity and historical concreteness of artistic description must be combined with the task of transforming and educating working people with the socialist spirit. " This is exactly the same as what plekhanov said before, that is, art is regarded as a tool to convey ideas, as a tool to maintain a certain kind of politics, and is brought into the same political track.
Now that the historical conditions and context have undergone profound changes, we should have a new understanding of the "aesthetic and historical" criticism method. As belinsky said: "Art should be art first, and then it can be the expression of social spirit and tendency in a certain period. No matter how beautiful a poem is, it strongly reflects contemporary problems. If there is no poem in it, it can't express beautiful thoughts and any problems. What we can see is just a wonderful attempt that is not well reflected. " Because of this, the author believes that as a generation of thinkers who are proficient in literature and art, Engels' aesthetic and historical criticism method accurately and profoundly reveals the essence and laws of literature and art. Therefore, in order to prosper socialist literature and art, we should accurately understand and grasp the essence of Marxist literary criticism. Only in this way can our socialist literature and art cause develop healthily.