【摘要】 文学批评是批评主体在特定历史语境中进行意义再生产的创造性实践。米哈伊洛夫斯基对契诃夫创作的批评,集中体现了审美洞察与社会功用的内在张力:既敏锐识别契诃夫的艺术创新,又从民粹立场质疑作家缺乏“中心思想”。这一张力源于其出版人、民粹主义者、主观社会学家等多重身份的碰撞。它不仅折射出19世纪末俄国批评界的复杂生态,亦揭示了批评作为一种主体阐释行为的独特价值:展现多重立场、理论传统与时代语境之间的碰撞与对话,彰显批评在多元话语协商中不断拓展的阐释潜能。该案例既揭示了主体性与历史语境对批评生成的关键作用,也为当代文学批评在自省与对话中突破单一视角、构建开放阐释空间提供了重要参照。更多还原

【Abstract】 Literary criticism is a creative practice of meaning reproduction undertaken by the critical subject within a specific historical context.Mikhailovsky’s criticism of Chekhov’s works exemplifies the inherent tension between aesthetic insight and social function:while keenly recognizing Chekhov’s artistic innovation,he also questions,from a populist standpoint,the author’s lack of a "central idea." This tension arises from the collision of his multiple identities-as a publisher,populist,subjective sociologist,and so on.It not only reflects the complex intellectual landscape of Russian literary criticism in the late 19th century,but also reveals the distinctive value of criticism as a subjective interpretive act;it demonstrates the collision and dialogue among multiple perspectives,theoretical traditions,and historical contexts,and highlights the continuously expanding interpretive potential of criticism through the negotiation of diverse discourses.This case illustrates the crucial role of subjectivity and historical context in the formation of criticism,while also providing an important reference for contemporary literary criticism to transcend singular perspectives and construct an open interpretive space through self-reflection and dialogue.更多还原