The six tales now translated for the English reader were written by
Turgenev at various dates between 1847 and 1881. Their chronological
order is:--
_Pyetushkov_, 1847
_The Brigadier_, 1867
_A Strange Story_, 1869
_Punin and Baburin_, 1874
_Old Portraits_, 1881
_A Desperate Character_, 1881
_Pyetushkov_ is the work of a young man of twenty-nine, and its lively,
unstrained realism is so bold, intimate, and delicate as to contradict
the flattering compliment that the French have paid to one another--that
Turgenev had need to dress his art by the aid of French mirrors.
Although _Pyetushkov_ shows us, by a certain open _naïveté_ of style,
that a youthful hand is at work, it is the hand of a young master,
carrying out the realism of the ‘forties’--that of Gogol, Balzac, and
Dickens--straightway, with finer point, to find a perfect equilibrium
free from any bias or caricature. The whole strength and essence of the
realistic method has been developed in _Pyetushkov_ to its just limits.
The Russians are _instinctive_ realists, and carry the warmth of life
into their pages, which warmth the French seem to lose in clarifying
their impressions and crystallising them in art. _Pyetushkov_ is not
exquisite: it is irresistible. Note how the reader is transported bodily
into Pyetushkov’s stuffy room, and how the major fairly boils out of the
two pages he lives in! (pp. 301, 302). That is _realism_ if you like. A
woman will see the point of _Pyetushkov_ very quickly. Onisim and
Vassilissa and the aunt walk and chatter around the stupid Pyetushkov,
and glance at him significantly in a manner that reveals everything
about these people’s world. All the servants who appear in the tales in
this volume are hit off so marvellously that one sees the lower-class
world, which is such a mystery to certain refined minds, has no secrets
for Turgenev.
Of a different, and to our taste more fascinating, _genre_ is _The
Brigadier_. It is greater art because life’s prosaic growth is revealed
not merely realistically, but also poetically, life as a tiny part of
the great universe around it. The tale is a microcosm of Turgenev’s own
nature; his love of Nature, his tender sympathy for all humble, ragged,
eccentric, despised human creatures; his unfaltering keenness of gaze
into character, his fine sense of proportion, mingle in. _The
Brigadier_, to create for us a sense of the pitiableness of man’s tiny
life, of the mere human seed which springs and spreads a while on earth,
and dies under the menacing gaze of the advancing years. ‘Out of the
sweetness came forth strength’ is perhaps the best saying by which one
can define Turgenev’s peculiar merits in _The Brigadier_.
_Punin and Baburin_ presents to us again one of those ragged ones, one
of ‘the poor in spirit,’ the idealist Punin, a character whose portrait
challenges Dostoievsky’s skill on the latter’s own ground. That
delicious Punin! and that terrible grandmother’s scene with Baburin! How
absolutely Slav is the blending of irony and kindness in the treatment
of Punin, Cucumber, and Pyetushkov, few English readers will understand.
All the characters in _Punin and Baburin_ are so strongly drawn, so
intensely alive, that, like Rembrandt’s portraits, they make the living
people, who stand looking at them, absurdly grey and lifeless by
comparison! Baburin is a Nihilist before the times of Nihilism, he is a
type of the strong characters that arose later in the movement of the
‘eighties.’
A pre-Nihilistic type is also the character of Sophie in _A Strange
Story_. But the chief value of this last psychological study is that it
gives the English mind a clue to the fundamental distinction that marks
off the Russian people from the peoples of the West. Sophie’s
words--‘You spoke of the will--that’s what must be broken’ (p.
61)--define most admirably the deepest aspiration of the Russian soul.
To be lowly and suffering, to be despised, sick, to be under the lash of
fate, to be trampled under foot by others, _to be_ unworthy, all this
secret desire of the Russian soul implies that the Russian has little
_will_, that he finds it easier to resign himself than to make the
effort to be powerful, triumphant, worthy. It is from the resignation
and softness of the Russian nature that all its characteristic virtues
spring. Whereas religion with the English mind is largely an anxiety to
be moral, to be _right_ and righteous, to be ‘a chosen vessel of the
Lord,’ religion with the Russian implies a genuine abasement and loss of
self, a bowing before the will of Heaven, and true brotherly love. The
Western mind rises to greatness by concentrating the will-power in
action, by assertion of all its inner force, by shutting out forcibly
whatever might dominate or distract or weaken it. But the Russian mind,
through its lack of character, will-power, and hardness, rises to
greatness in its acceptance of life, and in its sympathy with all the
unfortunate, the wretched, the poor in spirit. Of course in practical
life the Russian lacks many of the useful virtues the Western peoples
possess and has most of their vices; but certainly his pity, charity,
and brotherliness towards men more unfortunate than himself largely
spring from his fatalistic acceptance of his own unworthiness and
weakness. So in Sophie’s case the desire for self-sacrifice, and her
impregnable conviction that to suffer and endure is _right_, is truly
Russian in the sense of letting the individuality go _with_ the stream
of fate, not _against_ it. And hence the formidable spirit of the
youthful generation that sacrificed itself in the Nihilistic movement:
the strenuous action of ‘the youth’ once set in movement, the spirit of
self-sacrifice impelled it calmly towards its goal despite all the
forces and threats of fate. Sophie is indeed an early Nihilist born
before her time.
We have said that the lack of will in the Russian nature is at the root
of Russian virtues and vices, and in this connection it is curious to
remark that a race’s soul seems often to grow out of the race’s
_aspiration towards what it is not in life_. Is not the French
intellect, for example, so cool, clear-headed, so delicately analytic of
its own motives, that through the principle of _counterpoise_ it strives
to lose itself and release itself in continual rhetoric and emotional
positions? Is not the German mind so alive to the material facts of
life, to the necessity of getting hold of concrete advantages in life,
and of not letting them go, that it deliberately slackens the bent bow,
and plunges itself and relaxes itself in floods of abstractions, and
idealisations, and dreams of sentimentality? Assuredly it is because the
Russian is so inwardly discontented with his own actions that he is such
a keen and incisive critic of everything _false_ and exaggerated, that
he despises all French rhetoric and German sentimentalism. And in this
sense it is that the Russian’s lack of will comes in to deepen his soul.
He surrenders himself thereby to the universe, and, as do the Asiatics,
does not let the tiny shadow of his fate, dark though it may be, shut
out the universe so thoroughly from his consciousness, as does the
aggressive struggling will-power of the Western man striving to let his
individuality have full play. The Russian’s attitude may indeed be
compared to a bowl which catches and sustains what life brings it; and
the Western man’s to a bowl inverted to ward off what drops from the
impassive skies. The mental attitude of the Russian peasant indeed
implies that in blood he is nearer akin to the Asiatics than Russian
ethnologists have wished to allow. Certainly in the inner life of
thought, intellectually, morally, and emotionally, he is a half-way
house between the Western and Eastern races, just as geographically he
spreads over the two continents. By natural law his destiny calls him
towards the East. Should he one day spread his rule further and further
among the Asiatics and hold the keys of an immense Asiatic empire, well!
future English philosophers may feel thereat a curious fatalistic
satisfaction.