Mujo Bucapapaj

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ALBANIAN LITERARY CRITICISM, THE ZHDANOVIST SCHOOL OF TIRANA

The beginnings of literary critical thought are found by Albanian scholars in humanistic literature. During the National Renaissance period, critical thinking about literature becomes clearer. Over 40 newspapers published outside the country, especially during the final phase of the Renaissance, leave space for literature and thought. From the beginning, the magazine “Fiamuri i Arbërit” by De Rada and “La nazzione albanese” reported on contemporary literature, the new books of Albanian authors, and those of the homeland, such as Naim, Çajupi, etc.

The most famous “Albania” by Konica, published in 1896, which from its first issue had a section for literature, as Konica says, “a connected critique of the literary works that come out in our language.” Konica would maintain this section even at the beginning of the twentieth century. Konica’s critique published in Albania can be mentioned for Çajupi’s volume “Baba Tomorri” and another for Asdreni’s book “Rreze dielli,” and later for an announcement for the publication of the first song of Fishta’s “Lahuta e Malcis” in 1905, etc.

 Mithat Frashëri (known by the pseudonym Lumo Skëndo) is a well-known literary writer, translator, analyst, and critic. He published the first monograph on Naim Frashëri in 1901. His literary and cultural critiques were published in the “Singing a Book” section of his newspaper “Lirija” (Thessaloniki 1908), which only ran for 108 issues. Later, he also published in “Hylli i Dritës.”

 At the beginning of the twentieth century, as is known, there was no appropriate time for literary criticism or literature itself. But with the formation of the independent Albanian state in the 1920s-1930s, literary criticism underwent considerable development. All publications of the time paid attention to literary criticism. Magazines like “Hylli i dritës,” “Minerva,” “Përpjekja shqiptare,” “Shkëndija,” “Kritika,” etc., left space for review criticism and critical thought in general.

 The literary magazine “Shkëndija” (Tirana, 1940-1943), continuously directed by Ernest Koliqi, is considered the largest and most comprehensive during the wartime period. The magazine “Kritika” (Tirana, March-June 1944) published by Arshi Pipa, was dedicated to literary criticism.

During the wartime period, a number of short-lived periodicals were also published, such as the monthly “Fryma” (Tirana, January 1944), published by Myzafer Pipa, and the biweekly “Revista letrare,” founded by Mitrush Kuteli, Vedat Kokona, Nexhat Hakiu, and Sterio Spase.

In the 1920s-1930s, we have the beginnings of famous translations by Fan Noli, while well-known authors of the time wrote criticism, such as Krist Maloku, Mitrush Kulteli, Eqrem Çabej, Vangjel Koça, Dhimitër Shuteriqi, and during the Second World War, Arshi Pipa, but also Stefan Shundi, Kudret Kokoshi. Writers themselves also engage in criticism during this time, such as Gjergj Fishta, Ernest Koliqi, Kosta Cipo, Z. Kodra, Jolanda Kodra, Mitrush Kulteli, Petro Marko, Nonda Bulka, and A. Xhuvani, etc.

 In the 1940s, new critics also debut, such as Nexhat Hakiu, Pashko Gjeci, Vedat Kokona, Sterio Spase, etc.

 Important for the history of Albanian studies is the work of the Arbëresh Gaetano Petrota “Populli gjuha dhe letërsia shqiptare,” published in 1931, as well as the study by Eqrem Çabej “Për gjenezën e literaturës shqipe” (Tirana, 1939).

 With the establishment of the communist regime in 1945, the Union of Writers of Albania was founded. The literary magazine “Bota e re” (1945), later named “Literatura jonë” and later “Nëntori,” was published, playing an important role in the development of contemporary criticism, as did the newspaper “Drita” of the Writers’ and Artists’ Union in Tirana.

 In the early post-liberation years, writers and critics who had debuted in the 1930s wrote literary criticism, such as Dhimitër Shuteriqi, Andrea Varfi, Aleks Çaçi, etc.

Some scholars who had made a name for themselves before the war continued to write and publish, such as Ziaudin Kodra and Dhimitër Shuteriqi, as well as others such as Vehbi Bala, Mahir Domi, Koço Bihiku, Drago Siliqi, etc.

In Kosovo, the first writings with literary criticism, whether informative or as reviews, would be published with the founding of the newspaper “Rilindja” and subsequently during the 1950s mainly by critics such as Vehap Shita, Hasan Mekuli, Hilmi Agani, Gani Bobi, Ramiz Kelmendi, etc.

 At a time when Albanian literature was functioning in the form of isolation and lack of communication, divided in Albania, Kosovo, and in the Diaspora, so was literary criticism. Ernest Koliqi’s magazine “Shêjzat” (1903-1975), founded in Rome in 1957, was the only one to look at this literature from a unified national perspective.

For 18 years, Koliqi directed this literary and cultural magazine, with dedication, informing its pages about new literary contributions from all Albanian territories, continuously publishing professional critiques based on aesthetic and literary criteria. Besides Koliqi, writers like Camaj, Pipa, and other literary exponents as well as critics in the Diaspora wrote there.

“Shêjzat” served as a platform and window of information on Albanological scientific activities worldwide. They also recorded in their chronicle social events that would be somewhat valuable in the future as historical and cultural documentation for a ninety-year period.

In the 1960s, a group of new critics entered Tirana, such as Dalan Shapllo, Kundret Velça, Razi Brahimi, followed by Jorgo Bulo, Alfred Uçi, Gjergj Zheji, Josif Papagjoni, Trim Gjata, Miho Gjini, Adriatik Kallulli, Fisnik Sina, Mexhit Prençi, etc.

In the 1960s, literary criticism in Kosovo reached greater maturity. Now not only preliminary criticism or reviews appeared but also full-fledged literary criticism, including two monographs. Thus, Rexhep Qosja writes a monograph on Naim Frashëri, Ali Aliu deals with journalistic criticism, while Ali Jasiqi publishes a monograph on Josip Rreli.

Meanwhile, in 1959, the university text “History of Albanian Literature” I, II was published in Tirana, from the beginnings until the end of the Renaissance, and in 1983, “History of Albanian Literature from the beginnings until the National Liberation War.” And finally, “History of Socialist Realism” in 1978.

In the 1970s, many writers and poets in Tirana also engaged in criticism, such as Dritëro Agolli, Ismail Kadare, Fatos Arapi, Klara Kodra, Muzafer Xhaxhiu, Skënder Buçpapaj, Rudolf Marku, etc., but also critics like Xhezair Abazi, Bujar Skëndo, Floresha Dado, Çapajev Gjokutaj, Foto Malo, Bashkim Kuçuku, Nasho Jorgaqi, Nexhip Gami, Ilia Lëngu, Ymer Çiraku, Shaban Murati, Ismail Hoxha, etc.

In Pristina, well-known writers and poets also publish writings of the nature of notes and reviews for new books in local media, such as Ali Podrimja, etc.

The short liberal period that Albanian literature and arts experienced in Tirana in the years 1970-1973 included some literary criticism. There were debates about the positive hero and the rigid schemes of socialist realism, while in the visual arts, there was, despite more caution, a tendency towards openness to modern forms of Western art and benefiting from some of their technical aspects.

The Fourth Plenum of the PPSH (Party of Labour of Albania) put an end to this “liberal” period, ideological criticism regained ground over the moderate one, turning into what Ismail Kadare had called the “Literary Police,” and the party took complete control of literature.

In the 1970s, Albanian criticism in Kosovo opened up to contemporary modern criticism, and we can say that it consolidated as literary criticism. Mensur Raifi applies psychoanalytic criticism, while the distinguished scholar Ibrahim Rugova… This passage delves into the successful and original literary criticism based on Western schools, primarily French and American. Sabri Hamiti engages in criticism with a new formalist perspective, etc.

In the 1980s and beyond, a new generation of critics emerged in Prishtina, including Ramadan Musliu, Milazim Krasniqi, Basri Çapriqi, and later Vehbi Myftari, among others.

 In Albania, due to political circumstances, literary criticism had its characteristics and setbacks, resembling a schematic adaptation of the Russian tradition of socialist realism, especially before the 1960s. These principles, formed in Russia since 1934 at the Congress of Soviet Writers, were dogmatically applied by Tirana’s critics, as Russian schools began opening up to Western tendencies.

Our school adopted the term “Marxist literary criticism,” based on what was called Marxist-Leninist ideology, refusing to acknowledge any other aesthetic diversity until 1990, even Eastern ones, thus becoming a solitary, outdated, and punitive concept for literature.

Criticism in Tirana at that time claimed to be based on a healthy Marxist perspective, as it deemed all revisionist criticism, mainly post-1960s, as unhealthy and deviating from Marxist theory on literature.

Our criticism claimed to adhere to international Marxist thought, represented by various figures. However, according to Dr. Rugova, these references were weak, general, and inconsistent with the theoretical and aesthetic concepts of literary criticism.

Scholar Ibrahim Rugova wrote that the term “Marxist ideology” was too general and lacked specific treatment for literature or criticism by classical Marxists, namely Marx, Engels, Lenin, and later Stalin.

Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, in “Aesthetic Refusal,” distinguishes two types of Marxist criticism: “A. Traditional Marxist Criticism” and “B. Modern Marxist Criticism.”

According to Rugova, “Traditional Marxist Criticism mainly relies on reduced texts of classics and the theory of extreme socialist realism as a declared method of literary writing. The key term of this criticism is reflection in an extreme sense, which seeks a simplification of reality that places and resolves it in the art-society relationship to the disadvantage of art, because it serves the officially declared ideology from which it deviates very little. Other terms of this criticism are: typification, positive hero, class struggle, conflict as a technical solution of class struggle within literary and artistic works, etc.”

Objective reflection of objective and revolutionary reality was a criterion for literature, as literature could only be understood in this historical and social reality.

Thus, criticism left very little space for understanding literature as a creative process, of the writer, who ultimately was an individual, and the creative process itself.

Dr. Rugova rightly emphasizes that “this critical school led to the narrowing of creative, aesthetic, and thematic freedoms,” as this critical theory oriented a literary model that resulted in “the struggle between good and evil, between reactionary and progressive, which he calls ‘traditional Manichaeism.’ This criticism would spread after World War II in all socialist countries, including Albania, which would remain conservative against any kind of reform and in the course of the years.

From the review I have made to the press, after the 1960s and especially after the 1970s, criticism and the people who practiced it, such as scholars, university professors, members of literary or political media editorials, but also translators, were included in a denunciatory campaign against revisionist literature and their most famous theorists.

According to them, the reformist course of this literature and criticism was degenerating socialist realism and developing it in harmony with bourgeois decadent art. These reformist steps of art, literature, and revisionist criticism, according to Tirana’s opposition, were in line with the anti-Marxist policies dominant in the Kremlin and its satellite countries.

Rugova in his studies also comments on modern Marxist criticism, which in Tirana was considered revisionist, decadent, and therefore dangerous.

According to him, modern Marxist criticism: “Let’s call it conditionally, is that criticism that seeks to be based on Marxism as a philosophy and theory open to contemporary issues, following the example of Marx’s work and its relationship with its time. This criticism began to develop especially after the 1960s and beyond.”

“This criticism, according to Rugova, seeks to stand on equal terms with Marxism, or seeks dialectical relationships between literary criticism and Marxism.”

Rugova takes as an example of this criticism the well-known Hungarian theoretician Gergely Lukács, who poses a great dilemma “with the observation and conviction that Marxist aesthetics exists and does not exist.”

Rugova distinguishes in the French religion Lysien Goldanin, who “solves the issues of Marxism based on his genetic structuralism, based on his class consciousness.”

In the German sphere, Rugova singles out Adorno, Ernest Bloch, and Ernest Fisher, etc., “with the demand that first, art and literature should be viewed in their own artistic entirety and then correlations should be established with other fields of life and philosophy.”

While theorists from communist countries were involved in attempts to overcome traditional Marxist criticism, only in Albania did critical concepts of socialist realism remain unchanged, as did the political leadership throughout the 45 years of the regime.

Dr. Rugova, illustrating the example of Marxist criticism, modern brings the case of “Ernest Bloch, who adds to the traditional criticism of reality also “the utopia of the future. Bloch creates his hermeneutics for understanding the present, and this approach is based on Marxist alienation theory.”

A similar concept to Ernest Bloch, according to Rugova, is also found in Roland Barthes.

Rugova notes that “from Walter Benjamin, Goldman, Fisher, Bloch, and Rozhe Garodi onwards,” the concept of modern Marxist criticism has evolved, seeking to address contemporary issues while maintaining dialectical relationships with Marxist thought.

Criticism with Marxist explanation is required to be oriented towards modern art, something traditional Marxist criticism didn’t do. Among the critics and aestheticians in question, especially those from the French region, the issue of alienation in literature is analyzed and sought after with considerable argumentation, particularly in contemporary literature. Several analyses by Goldman and Roland Barthes lead in this direction. Thus, in these analyses and criticisms, writers whom traditional Marxist criticism deemed decadent, such as Kafka, Proust, and Joyce, are present. From this time, we also have the interesting term coined by Garodi, “realism sans rivages,” with which the central concept of traditional Marxist criticism is sought to be expanded.

Analyzing literary criticism in former Yugoslavia, Rugova observes that traditional Marxist criticism existed until the 1950s, but after this period, when the federation separated from the Soviet Union, Marxism began to be creatively applied in literary criticism as well.

Rugova emphasizes that “In Kosovo, in our literature and art, where traditional Marxist criticism has not been felt, because our criticism tends to develop more after this phase, it could be said more about a traditional literary criticism in its beginnings.” But Rugova notes that “in the 1970s-1980s in Kosovo, alongside the traditional criticism called Marxist that opposed the new tendencies of literary criticism, there was also a more formalist criticism, which benefited from contemporary European criticism, developing theoretical debates as well.”

According to Rugova, “these critics seek to examine different aspects of criticism in the spirit of the theoretical plurality that exists in the contemporary world.”

The renowned academic literature theorist Floresha Dado, in defining Marxist literary criticism of socialist realism, emphasizes its extreme poverty. She writes, “After so long, knowing the theories of literary criticism and its modern trends that prevailed throughout the XX century, we understand what poverty, not to say misery, prevailed in the critical thought of socialist realism, over the essence and types of literary criticism. A modern tradition that emerged with the critics of the first 45 years of the twentieth century was erased with the branding of its authors (F. Konica, K. Maloku, M. Kuteli, V. Koca, A. Pipa, V. Kokona, P. Gjeci, E. Koliqi, K. Ashta).”

 The shallowness of stereotypical criticism in Tirana contrasted with the literary criticism flourishing in Pristina. “If we look at the current situation of Albanian literary criticism and studies, we can ascertain that contacts with modern theoretical-literary orientations in terms of acceptance developed more smoothly and forcefully since the early 1970s. Thus, we have had some incorporations of structural linguistics into linguistics, then into semiology, text analysis, reading theory, and psycho-criticism later in the field of criticism.”

Literary criticism in Albania only liberated itself from traditional Stalinist experiences after 1990. With the fall of socialist realism, this practice of literary and artistic assessment ceased to exist. Most of the critics who had dominated the field’s studies over the 50 years adapted their views to the new reality. Generally, they denied Marxist criticism, while the younger generation of critics held a harsher stance towards the questionable values of this criticism, forcibly imposed by extraliterary factors.

The return of banned and excluded writers for ideological reasons, along with them the condemned writers, reshaped our literary studies and literary criticism. Likewise, the translation and publication in Tirana of well-known Western literary critics, scholars, and theorists enriched our literary criticism theoretically as well.

Even criticism transcended geographical and political boundaries by examining national literature as an indivisible unit, regardless of where it is written, surpassing the ideological walls of socialist realism.