The novel “First Love” was TurgÉnieff’s favourite work, as he more than once confessed. What the author prized in this purely intimate but beautifully finished story was its fidelity to actuality; that is to say, he prized the personal recollections of early youth. In that respect this story has a prominent interest for readers, since it narrates—according to the testimony of the author—an actual fact in his life, and that without the slightest artificial colouring.[1] To what degree TurgÉnieff’s testimony is credible, remarks one critic, is a question which can be rightly decided only by biographical documents. Famous writers are particularly inclined by nature to romantic coquetry with their own personalities—a characteristic which was, apparently, to some extent, inherent in TurgÉnieff, despite his renowned modesty. Famous writers are fond of leading their contemporaries—and still more posterity—astray with regard to the reflection of intimate details of their lives in their artistic works.... At any rate, Russian artistic productions, in which the authors have endeavoured to set forth biographical details, must be scrutinised with extreme cautiousness. The author, while imagining that he is thoroughly sincere, may involuntarily indulge in inventions concerning himself. But in its literary aspect this story indubitably is one of TurgÉnieff’s masterpieces, and in it the original character of its chief heroine, Princess ZinaÍda ZasyÉkin, is depicted with remarkable clearness and charm.... The artist threw off this light and elegant little intimate study by way of relaxation after “On the Eve,” a romance dealing with a broad social problem, and by way of preparation for a new work, still more serious in intention, “Fathers and Children.”

“First Love” does not contain any social types, does not deal with any social problems. It consists wholly, so to speak, of poetry. The young Princess is one of the author’s most poetical creations. Her character is depicted with marvellous grace and elegance in the little scenes which exert so great an influence over her sixteen-year-old admirer. In this young man’s father TurgÉnieff sketched his own father, who did not love his wife, and whose domestic relations were identical with those here described. His wife was considerably younger than he, and he had married her for her money, One curious detail concerns the Pole, MalÉvsky. This “dubious Count, swindler, and, in general, dirty little gentleman,” as one critic expresses it, “drawn with great artistic vivacity, and with unconcealed scorn, is a very typical figure; and such repulsive Poles were formerly encountered in great numbers in Holy Russia,—and are still to be met with. In this character are concentrated the unpleasant characteristics of the Polish national character: spiritual deceitfulness, double-facedness, insignificance, courtliness, and a tendency to revolting intrigue.”

In “A Correspondence” we again encounter one of TurgÉnieff’s favourite types, the superfluous man. But the author has taken a stride in advance with AlexyÉi PetrÓvitch. In this case the superfluous man does not blame either the insipidity of life, or society, or people alone,—he blames himself. In MÁrya AlexÁndrovna’s friend and correspondent we behold a good and worthy man, cultured in both mind and heart,—but, like many others among TurgÉnieff’s heroes, suffering, so to speak, from a malady of the will. One critic declares that this story is almost identical, on its exterior, with “RÚdin.” One of the Russian representatives of “the loftiest aspirations” enters into correspondence with a young girl who, as people were fond of expressing it at that period, belonged among the “choice natures.” Disillusioned with life, she is ready to submit to the conditions which encompass her. Under the influence of an ill-defined impulse of affection and sympathy toward this young girl, the hero begins to inflate her sense of being an elect person, and to stir up her energy to contend with the humdrum circle in which she dwells. Just at the moment when he has awakened her courage and her hope that he will join her in this conflict, he stumbles and falls himself, in the most pusillanimous manner. His will is ailing.

Another point worth noting is that in the heroine’s third letter the note of the so-called “woman’s question” is sounded with remarkable feeling and force.

The explanation vouchsafed by one critic for the prevalence of weak men in TurgÉnieff’s romances, in connection with “A Correspondence,” is that the author did not depict strong natures simply because he did not find suitable material for that purpose in the circle which surrounded him. He was determined to draw the best men of his time as he found them—that is to say, men addicted to self-conviction, fiery in language, but weak in resolution.

“The Region of Dead Calm” was written while TurgÉnieff was forbidden to leave his estate at SpÁsskoe-LutovÍnovo, after his release from the imprisonment wherewith he was punished for having published in Moscow a eulogy of GÓgol which the St. Petersburg censor had prohibited. His idea that all men are divided into two categories which, respectively, possess more or less of the characteristics of Hamlet and of Don Quixote, is illustrated again in this story by VÉretyeff, who ruins his talents and his life with liquor.

On the other hand, as one critic says, “positively, in the whole of Russian literature, we do not meet elsewhere such a grand, massive, severe, and somewhat coarse woman as MÁrya PÁvlovna.” MÁsha is the first woman in Russian literature to look upon man as a worker, and to treat him with intelligent exaction. Another strange characteristic in a young lady of the remote country districts is MÁsha’s dislike for “sweet” poetry. Her suicide is not a proof that her character was weak. And of the two weak men in the story, AstÁkhoff is the weaker, the more colourless, in every way—as to character, not as to the author’s portraiture.

The pictures of country life among the landed gentry are drawn with great charm and delicate humour.

That TurgÉnieff was affected, and very sensibly so, by the lack of comprehension evinced by both critics and readers toward his great work “Fathers and Children,” is evident, in part, from the characteristic lyrical fragment, “It is Enough.” It is filled with mournful pessimism of a romantic sort, which strongly recalls the pessimism of Leopardi. A certain element of comedy is imparted to this sentimental outpouring by the fact that the author fancied (and, probably, with entire sincerity) that he bore a strong resemblance in his convictions to BazÁroff, his creation. DostoiÉvsky depicted this comic element very caustically, in the most malicious of parodies on TurgÉnieff in general and on “It is Enough” and “Phantoms” in particular. This parody is contained in his romance “Devils,” and constitutes one of the most venomous pages in that decidedly venomous romance. The following is an excerpt: “In the meantime, the mist swirled and swirled, and swirled round and round until it bore more resemblance to a million pillows than to mist. And suddenly everything vanishes, and a great Genius crosses the Volga in winter, during a thaw. Two and a half pages about this transit. But, notwithstanding, he tumbles into a hole in the ice. The Genius goes to the bottom. Do you think he drowns? Not a bit of it! All this is for the sake, after he is completely foundered and is beginning to choke, of making a block of ice, a tiny block, about the size of a pea, but clear and transparent, float past him ‘like a frozen tear’; and on that block of ice Germany, or, to put it more accurately, the sky of Germany, is reflected; and by the rainbow play of that reflection it reminds him of the tear which—dost thou remember?—trickled from thine eyes when we sat under the emerald tree, and thou didst joyfully exclaim: ‘There is no crime!’—‘Yes!’ said I through my tears; ‘but if that is so, then assuredly there are no righteous men either.’ We fell to sobbing and parted forever.”

“The Dog” was first published in the feuilleton of the Petersburg News, No. 85, 1865. It is generally admitted to be one of TurgÉnieff’s weak and unsuccessful works. But one critic describes how enthralling it was when the author narrated it (in advance of publication) to a group of friends in Moscow, and what a deep impression it made upon them. “When I read it afterward in print,” he says, “it seemed to me a pale copy of TurgÉnieff’s verbal narration. One was impressed with the idea that, when he sat down to write it, he was overcome with apprehension lest his readers and critics should suppose that he believed in this mysterious adventure. But conviction on the part of the author—in appearance at least—is precisely what is required in such cases. He told the tale with enthusiasm, and even turned pale, and his face assumed a cast of fear at the dramatic points.” The critic adds that he could not get to sleep for hours afterward.

I. F. H.