RUSSIAN LITERATURE.*
WITH this book Mr. Turner has supplied a want which has long been keenly felt by the majority of the English-reading public. For this good deed he deserves thanks. Now, at any rate, the Englishman who knows nothing of the Russian language may obtain at least a partial insight into the Russian character, and may acquire some real knowledge of Russian literature. Inas- much, however, as the book is the only one on the subject, it becomes a duty to draw attention to its faults,—faults due, for the most part, to what might be called the author's imperfect sense of perspective. Mr. Turner has not considered sufficiently the readers for whom he writes ; or, it may be more just to say, that in his selection of Russian authors he follows Russian critics with a too unhesitating confidence. To exemplify our meaning by a parallel case, we would say that Klopstock occu- pies a far larger place in German histories of German literature than it would be well to give him in a history meant for English readers. Yet, as Mr. Turner has read widely and attentively, seemingly, too, without bias, and has given the reasons which determined his choice of authors, his position must be considered.
• Studies in Rustrian.Litsrature. By Charles Edward Turner. London : Samp- son Low and Co.
Inasmuch as Peter the Great was " the first to destroy the barriers that had an long isolated Russia from the rest of Europe," Mr. Turner begins his work by tracing the influence upon the Russian nation of Peter's civilising reign, -and, accordingly, his first " study " is furnished by Lomonosoff (1711-1765). Further, from the time of Peter to that of the late Czar, the great Slav people has been engaged in assimilating the fruits of the civilisation of Western Europe. Cities have been built, canals dug, railways laid, trade extended; the legislative reform which Peter inaugurated by repealing the laws which condemned woman to a position of Asiatic inferiority to man, was crowned by the law which in 1861 gave freedom to the serf: Accordingly, Mr. Turner intended to close this volume with the name of Lermontoff (1814-1851)." This is in outline a fair statement of Mr. Turner's conception, and when we add that he intends to devote a second volume to the Russian novel-writers of the present day, to Dostoevsky, Tolstoi, Tourgenieff, and the others, the plan he formed may be discussed in its entirety.
In the premiss itself, we are compelled to disagree with him. Although it seems correct to say that with the reign of Peter the Great, and with the leaving-off of the caftan, Russia severed her connection with Asia, and began her career as a European nation ; yet, as a matter of fact, the civilising influence was felt only by the nobility, and showed itself, even in the highest circles, only in a servile imitation of foreign habits, chiefly those of France. The nobles spoke French better than they spoke Russian, and some of them made it their boast that they did not even under- stand their mother-tongue. When this is considered together with the state of edacatiou and the conditions of life of all the other classes of the people, it is manifest that no literature worthy of the name could have come into being under 'such circum- stances.
Now, this conviction of ours of the unimportance of Russian literature in the last century was only strengthened by reading Mr. Turner's book. It would have been a mistake, we think, in any case to have criticised writers who, at their best, merely reproduce the ideas of Western Europe, and who, at their worst, loudly proclaim themselves superior to their teachers ; but to do this in a book meant for the general public—and that public one of a different nationality—is to commit a serious error of judgment. For this error in the plan necessitates a similar disproportion in the treatment of the indi- vidual writers. For instance, we cannot agree with Alsa- koff, whom Mr. Turner quotes approvingly, when he writes that "Lomonosoff is the one true source of Russian literary activity." Even Poushkin, the greatest Russian authority, acknowledges that " in the poetry of Lomonosoff there is neither feeling nor imagination ;" and an Englishman may therefore be pardoned for saying that a bombastical expression of common- place morality is anything one may choose to call it, but is not poetry. Again, Mr. Turner speaks of Derzhavin's Ode to God as world-famous. Now, this adjective would be out of place were it applied to Wordsworth's Ode on Immortality, but when verses are said to be world-famous which are hardly better than those of Mr. Robert Montgomery, the truth of the saying," Qui dit trop, ne dit rien," is exemplified. In short, the first hundred-and-thirty pages of this book might have been compressed into ten with advantage.
From the present point of view, Russia belongs to Europe since the campaigns of Napoleon. With the national triumph, a pride in all things Russian sprang up ; the despotism of French culture was thrown off, and the Russian language gradually took the place of French even in polite society. Now, for the first time, the stilts are discarded, the Russian trusts himself upon his own feet; the writer dares to be natural. Tree, he does not yet know his peculiar powers, has not yet discovered the real bent of his genins,—which may, indeed must, lead him to quite other tasks than those of artistic or literary production ; but now at least the Slav writer, in revealing frankly his own nature, finds something characteristic to say, and we can afford to listen. In the life of one man we can follow this change. Every- thing written by Kriloff in the eighteenth century is worthless ; the dramas he then wrote he himself after- wards burlesqued in Prince Trumps, and Pletneff showed critical acumen when he wrote, "Kriloff was first born to us in his fortieth year." Kriloff was forty years of age when, in 1809, he published his first volume of fables, and with these fables Russian literature begins. Now, too, several men whose talents cannot be denied, and one or two of whom may be said to possess genius, came to the front as writers. Kriloff, Poushkin, Gogol, Kolzoff, and Lermontoff were contemporaries, and the period of their literary activity lies between 1810 and 1850. As a critic of these authors, Mr. Turner leaves less to be desired ; yet while desiring to give him all credit, we must, against our will, revise some of his verdicts, and place some of the writers in a different light. We have already done this in part as regards Kriloff, and it remains for us to draw attention to the distinguishing feature of his fables ; many of them embody social lessons. One instance of this may be given :— " In ' The General Assembly,' the fox persuades the lion to install his relation the wolf as guardian of the sheep. With this arrangement all the other animals are satisfied, except the sheep, who were not consulted, although their opinion should first of all have been asked." This, Mr. Turner rightly says, is " the happiest of Kriloff's compositions," and from this it can be seen that the worth of these fables is chiefly rela- tive. Yet it is no small merit to have been the first of Russian writers who was neither bombastical nor senti- mental ; it is noteworthy, too, that as soon as national feeling awoke in Russia, literature came to be looked upon as the means to a social reform. After Kriloff, we should wish to con- sider Poushkin, instead of taking Gogol, as Mr. Turner does. For Poushkin, like Kriloff, was an innovator, although a far more powerful and successful one. In Poushkin "the return to nature" is best exemplified. He has been called the Russian Byron, and the comparison has much to say for itself, although the English- man is incomparably the greater. Both were of high birth, and both are memorable chiefly because of their personal initiative. Byron, we know, always praised Pope and Dryden, and his favourites exercised an unhappy influence upon all his earlier writings. So, too, in Poushkin the " return to nature" was not quite complete. As regards the expression, nothing more could be wished,—easy, natural, vigorous, his style is still a model ; but, as regards the spirit, he does not—we say it with all respect for Mr. Turner's different opinion— he does not represent the centre current of Russian feeling and thought as completely as does Gogol. For an analysis of Poushkin's works, versified romances, dramas, &c., we must refer the reader to Mr. Turner's book.
Gogol we take to be the most characteristically Russian writer of this period, the best representative of the Slav genius. Who- ever wishes to see what life in Russia was like before the abolition of serfdom, must go to his works. The best criticism of his novels may be found in an exclamation made by Poushkin after hearing Gogol read the first chapters of his Dead Souls (a serf was called a soul " in Russia). " God, how miserable life is in Russia !" Gogol drew from life, and left portraits not
likely to fade ; the gloom of his pictures is relieved by touches of exquisite tenderness and no less perfect humour. His humour was delicate and tender at the same time ; its value can scarcely be exaggerated ; herein Gogol surpasses Dickens, to whom he has, with some reason, been compared.
There is yet another side of Gogol's character, which, reflected as it is in his writings, makes him, perhaps, the most interesting figure in all Russian literature to the English reader, we mean the nature of his religious enthusiasm, for "belief" were here too weak a word. It is this quality of his nature which is so dis- tinctively and peculiarly Russian. Note how Gogol, when without a dinner for three or four days together, still-denied himself in order to aid the destitute. Nor did riches when they came change his temper ; he always found it " more blessed to give than to receive." Now, this is a strange creed to put into practice, and it is not to be wondered at that Mr. Turner speaks of the Russian's " unhealthy sensitiveness," of his " want of moderation in belief," of " uhreasoning excess in thought and action," &c. The critic here betrays his English origin ; he will not or cannot see in this immoderate and passion- ate longing for self-sacrifice anything good ; yet this is the peculiar power of the Russian mind. The Englishman finds much to approve of in an immoderate and unreasoning love of what he is pleased to call " freedom," but his strong selfishness contemns self-sacrifice. his ideal is ever a Greatheart, who
" takes the kingdom of Heaven by storm," rather than a St. Francis. It may seem strange to say it, yet it mnst be said that the trne expression of the Russian genius will be found either in a new form of society or in a new birth in religion. For the Slav knows no hesitation in converting theory into practice ; the ideal is to him the only reality. From this ecstatic love
of the ideal springs a scarcely less passionate self-contempt. Gogol burns the manuscript of the latter portion of his greatest work, and prays that his writings may be forgotten as ".the products of a pitiable vanity." Now, when this feeling is manifested, as in Gogol's Correspondence with My Friends, Mr. Turner "can only regard the book as the production of a disordered and enfeebledintellect." Well, here are the two poles of feeling ; may not the critic add that the Englishman, if he desire perfection, will jet have to learn of the Russian, or better still, will yet have to assimilate the New Testament as he has already assimilated the Old ?
Want of space forbids us to speak of Kolzoff, who has been called the Russian Barns, and with Mr. Turner, we refer those who wish to know of him to an article in the Fortnightly Review for September, 1866. As for Lermontoff, we can only say that Mr. Turner has on the whole done him justice. With the freeing of the serf in 1861 a new era began, the outcome of which cannot yet be seen. The poetry of Nekrasoff- for an analysis of whose works we must refer the reader to Mr. Turner's book—belongs to both periods, and for this reason he might be compared to Kriloff. The best writers, however, of to-day in Russia are all novelists, as was Gogol, and the works of Dostoevsky, Tolstoi, and Tourgenieff bear witness in every line to the influence of the master. Had Mr. Turner considered this, he would have made Gogol rather than Poushkin his chief study. It would, too, have been better had Mr. Turner handled Russian literature in one volume, beginning it with Kriloff and ending it with Tourgenieff or Tolstoi. Yet his book as it stands is no unimportant contribution to the knowledge of a subject too fre- quently neglected in England, and we can do no less than thank its author. We shall look forward with increased eagerness to the forthcoming of the supplementary volume Mr. Turner has promised us, if he will but bear in mind that saying of Goethe —no doubt, well known to him also—" The extraordinary man alone is of real benefit to mankind." This canon, at any rate, should guide the literary historian.
Previous page
