is Rudin, typical of the unrest
of the idealist; there is Nezhdanov ("Virgin Soil"), typical of the
self-torture of the anarchist. There is Shubin ("On the Eve"), hiding
his misery in laughter, and Lavretsky ("A House of Gentlefolk"), hiding
his misery in silence. It is not necessary to search for further
examples. Turgenev put his hand upon the dark things. He perceived
character, struggling in the "clutch of circumstances," the tragic
moments, the horrible conflicts of personality. His figures have that
capability of suffering which (as someone has said) is the true sign of
life. They seem like real people, dazed and uncertain. No action of
theirs ever surprises you, because in each of them he has made you hear
an inward soliloquy.--From "Turgenev and the Life-Illusion," in "The
Fortnightly Review" (April, 1910).

V
BY MAURICE BARING

Turgenev did for Russian literature what Byron did for English
literature; he led the genius of Russia on a pilgrimage throughout all
Europe. And in Europe his work reaped a glorious harvest of praise.
Flaubert was astounded by him, George Sand looked up to him as to a
master, Taine spoke of his work as being the finest artistic production
since Sophocles. In Turgenev's work, Europe not only discovered
Turgenev, but it discovered Russia, the simplicity and the naturalness
of the Russian character; and this came as a revelation. For the first
time Europe came across the Russian woman whom Pushkin was the first to
paint; for the first time Europe came into contact with the Russian
soul; and it was the sharpness of this revelation which accounts for
the fact of Turgenev having received in the west an even greater meed
of praise than he was perhaps entitled to.

In Russia Turgenev attained almost instant popularity. His "Sportsman's
Sketches" and his "Nest of Gentlefolk" made him not only famous but
universally popular. In 1862 the publication of his masterpiece
"Fathers and Children" dealt his reputation a blow. The revolutionary
elements in Russia regarded his hero, Bazarov, as a calumny and a
libel; whereas the reactionary elements in Russia looked upon "Fathers
and Children" as a glorification of Nihilism. Thus he satisfied nobody.
He fell between two stools. This, perhaps, could only happen in Russia
to this extent; and for that same reason as that which made Russian
criticism didactic. The conflicting elements of Russian society were so
terribly in earnest in fighting thei