40

p Such is our raznochinets in general, and such is the raznochinets writer also. In our Narodnik literature and even Narodnik fiction it is easy to find all the merits and defects characteristic of the raznochinets.  In order to convince yourself of this take the works of G. I. Uspensky, for example, and compare them with those of Turgenev. You will see at once that these two writers belong to two different social strata, that they were brought up in completely different conditions and set themselves completely different tasks in their literary activity. Turgenev was no less responsive than Uspensky to everything of vital social interest in his day. But whereas Turgenev wrote about the life of "nests of the gentry”, Uspensky writes about the life of the people. Turgenev approaches phenomena as an artist, and almost exclusively as an artist; even when he is writing about the most topical subjects, he is more interested in aesthetics than “questions”; Uspensky very often approaches them as a publicist. Turgenev, with a few exceptions, has given us literary characters and only characters; Uspensky, in portraying characters, accompanies them with his own interpretations. Herein lies, of course, the weak point of 41 Uspensky, as of almost all the other Narodnik fiction writers, and we might be told that it is strange to contrast the strong points of one writer or one trend with the weak points of another writer or another school. But whence this weak point of Narodnik fiction? It emerged precisely because of the prevalence of social interests over literary interests in the Narodnik writers. From the purely literary, artistic point of view a given story or sketch might have benefited greatly from a more objective attitude by the author to the subject. The author himself probably knows this perfectly well, too. But what makes him take up his pen is not so much the need for artistic creation as the desire to explain to himself and others this or that aspect of our social relations. Therefore in his case artistic portrayal is accompanied by reasoning, and the author is frequently far less of an artist than a publicist. Moreover, take a look at those works of Narodnik fiction in which the artist gains the upper hand over the publicist or even ousts him completely; you will not encounter such clearly delineated, artistically polished characters in them as you find in A Hero of Our Time, Rudin, On The Eve, Fathers and Sons,^^8^^ etc. Nor will you find in them the scenes of passions, the subtly detected emotions which attract you in the works of Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy. Narodnik fiction shows us not individual characters and not the emotions of individuals, but the habits, views and, most important, the social life of the masses.  It looks in the people not for man in general, with his passions and emotions, but for representatives of a certain social class, the bearers of certain social ideals. The mental eye of the Narodnik fiction writers sees not vivid artistic images, but prosaic, albeit topical questions of the national economy. The relation of. the peasant to the land is therefore now the main object of their quasi-artistic descriptions. There are writer-psychologists. With certain reservations the Narodnik fiction writers might perhaps be called writersociologists.

The prevalence of social over purely literary interests also explains the disregard of literary form which makes itself felt strongly in the works of the Narodnik fiction writers. As an example let us take once more the works of Gl. Uspensky. Here we find scenes and even whole chapters which would do honour to the most first-class writer. There are many such scenes in Ruin, for example. But alongside them, also in Ruin, we find scenes of secondary or altogether doubtful merit. At times the most likeable, life-like character in Ruin, Mikhail Ivanovich, becomes simply ridiculous, playing the role of a Chatsky^^9^^ from the factory workers. There are many such dissonances in his other works also. In general they lack a strictly worked-out plan and well-balanced parts that relate properly to the whole. Like certain philosophers of ancient times, Gl. Uspensky "makes no sacrifices to the graces".

42 He is concerned not to give artistic form to his works, but to grasp and convey correctly the social meaning of the phenomena which he depicts. His latest works have nothing in common with fiction.

p It goes without saying that an author who pays little attention to the artistic form of his works will show even less concern for language. In this respect our Narodnik fiction writers cannot be compared not only with Lermontov or Turgenev but even with V. Garshin or Mr. M. Belinsky

p There are critics who consider it their duty to pinpoint all the defects of Narodnik fiction and ridicule it in every possible way. Their attacks are justified to a large extent, but what is bad is, firstly, that they see only the defects in this literature and not its merits, and, secondly, that they do not notice, and thanks to their point of view cannot notice, its chief defect.

p Our Narodnik literature, in general, and our Narodnik fiction, in particular, possesses .some very important merits which are closely linked with its defects, as is always the case incidentally. An enemy of all embellishment and artificiality, the raznochinets was bound to create, and did indeed create, a profoundly truthful literary trend. In this case he remained loyal to the best traditions of Russian literature. Our Narodnik fiction is perfectly realistic, and, moreover, not in the modern French manner: its realism is warmed with feeling, imbued with thought. And this difference is perfectly understandable. French naturalism, or at least Zolaism, is the literary expression of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern French bourgeoisie, which has long since been abandoned by the “spirit” of world history.  [42•*  Russian Narodnik literature, on the contrary, expresses the views and aspirations of the social stratum which for three decades was the most advanced stratum in Russia. Herein lies the main historical service of the trend in question. When Russian social relations change (and they are already changing), when new, more advanced strata or classes appear on the Russian historical scene (and this time is already not far off), Narodnik fiction, and Narodnik literature as a whole, will fade into the background, making way for new trends. But its representatives will always have the right to say that they did not write in vain and that in their time they were able to serve the cause of Russian social development.

p They served it by depicting the life of their people. No special studies can take the place of the pictures of popular life drawn by them. The works of our Narodnik fiction writers must be studied just as carefully as statistical research on the Russian national economy or works on peasant common law. No public figure, whatever trend he belongs to, can say that he is not bound to 43 make such a study. It would seem that on these grounds one can iorgive the Narodnik fiction writers many of their intentional and unintentional sins against aesthetics.

p In general one can say that our aesthetic critics are condemned to total impotence in their struggle against the defects of Narodnik fiction. They set about the matter in the wrong way. To Convince Narodnik fiction writers that they should not take an interest in social questions is impossible, and to try to convince -them of it is ridiculous.  Russia is going through a period now in -which the advanced strata of its population cannot help being interested in such questions. Therefore, no matter how hard "Messieurs aesthetic critics may strive, interest in social questions will of necessity be reflected in fiction also.

p Criticism must at least reconcile itself to this fact. This does not mean, however, that it should close its eyes to the defects in the literary works of our Narodniks. It must simply change its -weapons. It is absurd to approach such works with a schoolmaster’s pointer, "with textbooks on poetics and rhetoric in one’s hands”, as a critic for the Severny Vestnik^w rightly notes. Yet it is not ^at all absurd, but, on the contrary, perfectly proper to ask how well-founded the views of Russian life held by our Narodnik :fiction writers are and whether the main artistic defects in their -works do not depend, in part at least, on the mistaken, one-sided nature of these views. It is very likely that, by shifting the argument to this ground, criticism would succeed in revealing a different, more correct point of view which, without removing the vital issues of the day from fiction, would nevertheless lead to the removal of many of the defects now characteristic of it. Where fiction writers become publicists, even the literary critic can do nothing but arm himself with the weapons of the publicist.

In the present article we wish to examine the works of Gl. I. Uspensky, the most talented Narodnik fiction writer, precisely from .this angle.