1 Valer'jan Poljanskij, “Georgij Valentinovich Plekhanov,” Novvj mir, No. 5 (May, 1928), p. 229.

2 Trotsky, Leon, Literature and Revolution (New York, International Publishers, 1925), p. 209 Google Scholar.

3 Plekhanov, G. V., Sochinenija, D. Rjazanov, ed. (Moscow-Leningrad, Gosizdat, 1923-1927), X, 13 Google Scholar.

4 Plekhanov, Art and Social Life, Andrew Rothstein, ed. (Lawrence and Wishart Ltd., 1953), pp. 45 ff.

5 Ibid., p. 95.

6 Ibid., p. 164.

7 Plekhanov subscribed to Kant's thesis that in order for an esthetic judgment to be pure it must be non-partisan and free of practical interests. Ibid.

8 Ibid., p. 109. Artistry consists, as it were, in veiling these primitive virtues from the eyes of the spectator. Utility emerges in Plekhanov's esthetic as the concealed substructure of beauty which “in the vast majority of cases … can only be discovered by scientific analysis.” Ibid., p. 165.

9 Ibid., p. 109.

10 Ibid., p. 165.

11 Ibid., p. 182.

12 Plekhanov, Sock, XXIII, 156.

13 Plekhanov, In Defense of Materialism, (London, Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.), p. 220. Plekhanov's contention was that bourgeois art, expressing the ideology of an historically regressive class, was founded upon a “false” idea. “Whoever defends a false idea … is at enmity with reason. And when a work of art is founded upon a false idea, this produces so many internal inconsistencies that its esthetic value inevitably suffers.” Plekhanov, Art and Social Life, p. 196. Implied in this argument is the Marxist conviction that the proletarian class and ideology represents the future development of history, and therefore, objective historical truth.

14 An interesting example of the intimacy that Plekhanov attempted to establish between esthetics and politics is his essay on the Norwegian writer, Ibsen. He claims that clarity and depth of artistic expression is dependent upon social knowledge. Unable to reach a correct sociological point of view (Marxism), Ibsen's revulsion against his petty bourgeois environment could only find expression in a politically vague call for a “revolt of the modern spirit.” Transmuted into his plays, his ideas result in vague, abstract symbols which, in Plekhanov's view, is the glaring imperfection of Ibsen's works. Plekhanov, “Ibsen, Petty Bourgeois Revolutionist,” in Ibsen, Angel Flores, ed., Critics Group Series, No. 6 (1947), p. 36.

15 Plekhanov, Soch., X, 258.

16 Plekhanov, G. V. Plekhanov, iskusstvo i literatura, N. F. Bel'chikov, ed. (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1948), p. 207.

17 Ibid., p. 212. (Italics added).

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., p. 213.

20 Although Plekhanov's position on tendentiousness follows from arguments that are not deducible from historical materialism, it may be noted that Engels shared his distaste for it. In a letter to a novelist friend he expresses his pleasure at not having found an attempt to propagate her socialist views in her novel. “The more the author's views are concealed the better for the work of art.” Engels, letter to Margaret Harkness, April, 1888, in Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, Literature and Art, (New York, International Publishers, 1947), p. 42 Google Scholar.

21 Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1949, p. 228 Google Scholar.

22 Engels, op. cit., p. 4.

23 Merton, op. cit., p. 229.

24 Plekhanov, The Materialist Conception of History (New York, International Publishers, 1940), p. 23.

25 bid., pp. 23-24.

26 Engels, op. cit., p. 4.

27 Plekhanov, The Materialist Conception … . , p. 24.

28 Plekhanov, , Fundamental Problems of Marxism, D. Rjazanov, ed. (New York, International Publishers, 1929), p. 61 Google Scholar.

29 Cf. Sidney Hook, Towards The Understanding of Karl Marx, (New York, The John Day Company, 1933), pp. 155 ff.

30 Plekhanov, Literaturnoe nasledie G. V. Plekhanova, P. F. Judin et al., eds. (Moscow Gosudarstvennoe social'no ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo, 1936), III, 201.

31 Plekhanov, Soch., XXIV, 45.

32 Plekhanov, Soch., XXIII, 157.

33 Plekhanov, Soch., X, 192. The relativism was fortified by the argument that since esthetic tastes as well as artistic productions are engendered by class relations, esthetics, as an objective science, has no “theoretical basis” for prefering the tastes of one class or epoch to another. Soch., XXIII, 177. This position is frequently violated by Plekhanov, especially in his criticism of bourgeois art from the point of view of the “false” idea.

34 A. Voronskij, “G. V. Plekhanov (1918-1920),” Na styke, (Moscow-Petrograd, Gosizdat, . 1923), p. 227. In 1921, V. Vaganjan accounted for a strong revival of interest in the “old man,” Plekhanov, by noting that his anti-Bolshevik position during World War I “was least of all connected with his teachings, with his revolutionary activities, with all the ideas that he preached.” V. Vaganjan, “G. V. Plekhanov; god na rodine,” Krasnaja nov’ No. 3 (September-October, 1921), p. 349.

35 A. Lezhnev, ‘“Plekhanov kak teoretik iskusstva,” Pechat' i revoljucija, No. 2 (March- April, 1925), p. 27.

36 V. M. Friche, “G. V. Plekhanov i ‘nauchnaja estetika,’ “ Problem? iskusstvovedenija, 2nd edition (Moscow-Leningrad, Gosizdat khudozhestvennoj literatury, 1931), p. 5.

37 S. Vol'fson, “G. V. Plekhanov i voprosy iskusstva,” Krasnaja nov', No. 5 (August September, 1923), p. 164.

38 Plekhanov was an issue in one of the great early theoretical battles of Soviet criticism, the question of the Fellow Travellers, with both Voronskij and the On Guardists claiming his sanction. G. Lelevich and S. Rodov, the leaders of the On Guard movement exhorted the editors of the “thick” magazines to apply Plekhanov's criticism to Fellow Traveller contributions. However, they did not merely wish the editors to “elucidate the causes under the influence of which” Fellow Traveller literature arose, but hoped that once its social and class roots were exposed it would be outlawed from Soviet literature. G. Lelevich, “Otkazyvaemsja-li my ot nasledstva?,” Na literaturnom postu (Tver', Partizdat “Oktjabr',” 1924), p. 25. S. Rodov, “Esteticheskaja kritika kak orudie klassovoj samozashchity,” V literaturnvkh bojakh (Moscow, “Zhizn’ i znanie;” 1925), p. 54.

39 The December, 1928, Central Committee resolution on publishing policy which makes no distinction between belles lettres and propaganda brochures is the central document of Party policy during the period. “Ob obsluzhivanii knigoj massovogo chitatelja (postanovlenie Central'nogo komiteta, 28 dek. 1928),” Reshenija partii o pechati, Moscow, Politizdat pri CK VKP (b), p. 119.

40 L. Averbakh, “Doloj Plekhanova,” Na literaturnom postu, No. 20-21 (October-November, 1928), p. 23.

41 Iv. Ostrecov, “Plekhanovskoe nasledstvo v opasnosti,” Na lit. postu, No. 24 (December, 1929), p. 15.

42 Quoted from A. Mikhailov, “Pereverzev,” Literaturnaja Enciklopedija, VIII, 504.

43 V. Ermilov, “Za plekhanovskuju ortodoksiju,” Na lit. postu, No. 19 (October, 1929), p. 7.

44 Ibid.

45 A. Lunacharskij, “N. G. Chernyshevskij kak literaturnyj kritik,” Na lit. postu, No. 20-21 (October-November, 1928), p. 36.

46 Ibid.

47 Lunacharskij, “Etika i estetika Chernyshevskogo pered sudom sovremennosti,” Vestnik kommunisticheskoj akademii, XXV, 1 (1928), xxvi.

48 Lunacharskij, “Plekhanov kak iskusstvoved i literaturnyj kritik,” Literaturnvj kritik, No. 7 (July, 1935), pp. 34-35. This article was written in 1929 and read in manuscript at the time.

49 Lunacharskij, Na lit. postu, p. 36.

50 O. Vqjtinskaja, “Vzgljady Plekhanova na iskusstvo,” Oktjabr’ No. 11 (November, 1933), p. 178.

51 I. Ippolit, “Neizdanye i zabytye literaturovedecheskie raboty G. V. Plekhanova,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, No. 1 (1931), p. 40.

52 Joseph Stalin, “Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U. S. S. R.,” Leninism (London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1940), p. 306.

53 “Postanovlenie CK VKP (b) 26 January, 1931,” Pod znamenem marksizma, No. 10-12 (October-December, 1930), p. 1.

54 M. Mitin, “Ocherednye zadachi raboty na filosofskom fronte v svjazi s itogami diskusii,” Pod znamenem marksizma, No. 3 (March, 1931), p. 19.

55 I. B., “Za leninskuju kritiku vzgljadov Plekhanova na iskusstva,” Literatura i iskusstva, No. 4 (1931), p. 98.

56 Ibid., p. 99.

57 Ibid., p. 102.

58 Ibid., p. 103.

59 O. Vojtinskaja, “Plekhanov-Pereverzev-Shchukin,” Marksistsko-leninskoe iskusstvoznanie, No. 4 (1932), p. 107.

60 Vojtinskaja and other Soviet critics see Plekhanov's statement that he liked Tolstoy as an artist but disliked him as a thinker as another example of undialectical break he makes between imagistic and logical thought. If Tolstoy was a great artist he must also have been a great thinker.

61 Vojtinskaja, “Estetika Plekhanova,” Bol'shaja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija, 64, 674.

621 . Anisimov, “Za leninskuju kritiku vzgljadov Plekhanova,” Na lit. postu, No. 34 (December, 1931), pp. 28-29.

63 L. Averbakh, “Otvet kritikam,” Na lit. postu, No. 12 (April, 1932), p. 8. Edward Brown in his excellent study on RAPP points out that one of the reasons that the organization was dissolved was that its theory of literature involved a basic disagreement with the Party's crude utilitarian approach. “The RAPP leaders insisted that concrete images of the real world rather than publicistic or propagandistic ideas constituted the material of literature.” Brown, Edward J., The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928-1932 (New York, Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Ippolit, op, cit., pp. 45-47.'

65 Since 1934 there have appeared no more than a dozen articles on Plekhanov's literary theories.

66 M. Rozental', “Esteticheskie literaturno-kriticheskie vzgljady G. V. Plekhanova,” introd., G. V, Pletkhanov, iskusstvo i literatura, 1948, p. iii.

67 Ibid., p. iv.

68 What was involved was an attempt to prove that the revolutionary democrats had created a social and intellectual atmosphere in which Marxism would have developed independently, in the person of Plekhanov, in the Soviet Union. The thesis is quite explicitly put forward by Rozental’ in, “Russkaja klassicheskaja estetika i estetika Plekhanova,” Novyj mir, No. 5-6 (1943), pp. 182-85.

69 Plekhanov's emphasis upon idejnost', his distaste for formal experimentation, and his criticisms of bourgeois art are stressed. See V. A. Fomina, “Bor'ba Plekhanova protiv modernizma v iskusstve,” Voprosv filosofii, No. 3 (1951), p. 107.