V popředí zájmu těch pokrokových literárních vědců, kteří se zabývají řešením theoretických problémů uměleckého realismu, stojí v současné době zejména problém typičnosti jako jedné z nejdůležitějších zákonitostí pravdivého zobrazení skutečnosti v literárním díle. A. Mjasnikov poukazuje na to, že pro konečné zpracování této otázky jsou podstatně významné "1. práce klasiků marxismu-leninismu; 2. práce vynikajících představitelů estetického myšlení a především ruských revolučních demokratů; 3. výroky velkých umělců slova o těchto otázkách; 4. rozbor samotných uměleckých děl a literárního procesu vcelku". Nebude snad proto neužitečné, budeme li se v tomto článku zabývat poznámkami, jež k uvedenému problému i k jiným theoretickým otázkám uměleckého realismu napsala George Eliotová (1819-1880), význačná představitelka anglického kritického realismu 19. století. Její úvahy o umění a literatuře jsou spíše příležitostného rázu. Eliotová nevypracovala ucelenou theorii realistického románu, věnovala však problémům uměleckého realismu větší pozornost než většina anglických realistů její doby.
The relationship of W. M. Thackeray to his great predecessor Henry Fielding poses a stimulating problem in English literary history which has been in the centre of interest of Thackeray and Fielding scholar since Thackeray's own lifetime. And it is not only the natural interest in the relationship between two great realistic novelists who appeared in two successive centuries in the same country which makes this problem so attractive. In Thackeray's attitude to Fielding lies the following paradox which made the search for solution even more exciting: in the early years of his literary career Thackeray openly claimed Fielding as his model, and teacher, while in his later years his admiration and even his indebtedness to Fielding were considerably weakened and in some of his judgments he was openly unjust to his former master. There have been several attempts on the part of English and American scholars to evaluate Thackeray's relationship to Fielding as a whole and to explain the surprising change which took place in it in the 1850s. These attempts were successively made by Frederic S. Dickson in his article "WilIiam Makepeace Thackeray and Henry Fielding", Prof. Wilbur Cross in his classic work The History of Henry Fielding, Eva Beach Tbuster in her article "The Literary Relationship of Fielding and Thackeray", and Rauph Wilson Rader in his study "Thackeray's Injustice to Fielding." The results of the research of these scholars are noteworthy but we do not find them entirely satisfactory, especially as far as the motives of the change in Thackeray's attitude are concerned. The first Thackerayan scholar who arrived at conclusions, with which we can find ourselves in agreement was the Soviet literary historian Prof. V. V. Ivasheva in her book Thackeray the Satirist. But as she could pay but small attention to this problem while concentrating upon the whole development of Thackeray's personality and art, we are convinced that its fuller and separate treatment is still desirable.
The confrontation and comparison of the literary judgments of two or more contemporary critics on a single literary work is not a method frequently used in literary history, for its scope is necessarily narrow and the results it provides are more often insignificant details than important discoveries. It would be a pity, however, to refuse this method in such a case, when the compared critics are unmistakably great personalities and when the confrontation promises to throw light upon their critical principles from an unusual angle. Such a rare opportunity offers itself in the case of three great representatives of the European culture and thought of the last century, the founder of Marxism, Karl Marx, the Russian revolutionary democratic critic, V. G. Belinsky and the great English critical realist, W. M . Thackeray, who all almost at the same time reviewed or analysed the same novel, namely Eugène Sue's Les Mystères de Paris. In comparing the evaluations of Marx and Belinsky we are not opening up new ground, as this has already formed the subject of Soviet studies; Thackeray's opinions however have never been analysed in this connection. There is no doubt that the comparison would bring more fruitful results, if the literary work in question were an outstanding work of art or at least reached an average literary standard. But even if the low artistic level of Sue's novel detracts somewhat from the value of our research, the greatness of his critics guarantees at least interesting results.