Best Russian Short Stories.pdf

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Best Russian Short Stories, by Various

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: Best Russian Short Stories

Author: Various

Release Date: September 11, 2004 [EBook #13437]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BEST RUSSIAN SHORT

STORIES ***

Produced by David Starner, Keith M. Eckrich, and the Project Gutenberg

Online Distributed Proofreaders Team

[Illustration: ANTON P. CHEKHOV, RUSSIA'S GREATEST SHORT-STORY

WRITER]

BEST RUSSIAN SHORT STORIES

Compiled and Edited by THOMAS SELTZER

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THE QUEEN OF SPADES _A.S. Pushkin_

THE CLOAK _N.V. Gogol_

THE DISTRICT DOCTOR _I.S. Turgenev_

THE CHRISTMAS TREE AND THE WEDDING _F.M. Dostoyevsky_

GOD SEES THE TRUTH, BUT WAITS _L.N. Tolstoy_

HOW A MUZHIK FED TWO OFFICIALS _M.Y. Saltykov_

THE SHADES, A PHANTASY _V.G. Korolenko_

THE SIGNAL _V.N. Garshin_

THE DARLING _A.P. Chekhov_

THE BET _A.P. Chekhov_

VANKA _A.P. Chekhov_

HIDE AND SEEK _F.K. Sologub_

DETHRONED _I.N. Potapenko_

THE SERVANT _S.T. Semyonov_

ONE AUTUMN NIGHT _M. Gorky_

HER LOVER _M. Gorky_

LAZARUS _L.N. Andreyev_

THE REVOLUTIONIST _M.P. Artzybashev_

THE OUTRAGE _A.I. Kuprin_

INTRODUCTION

Conceive the joy of a lover of nature who, leaving the art galleries,

wanders out among the trees and wild flowers and birds that the

pictures of the galleries have sentimentalised. It is some such joy

that the man who truly loves the noblest in letters feels when tasting

for the first time the simple delights of Russian literature. French

and English and German authors, too, occasionally, offer works of

lofty, simple naturalness; but the very keynote to the whole of

Russian literature is simplicity, naturalness, veraciousness.

Another essentially Russian trait is the quite unaffected conception

that the lowly are on a plane of equality with the so-called upper

classes. When the Englishman Dickens wrote with his profound pity and

understanding of the poor, there was yet a bit; of remoteness,

perhaps, even, a bit of caricature, in his treatment of them. He

showed their sufferings to the rest of the world with a "Behold how

the other half lives!" The Russian writes of the poor, as it were,

from within, as one of them, with no eye to theatrical effect upon the

well-to-do. There is no insistence upon peculiar virtues or vices. The

poor are portrayed just as they are, as human beings like the rest of

us. A democratic spirit is reflected, breathing a broad humanity, a

true universality, an unstudied generosity that proceed not from the

intellectual conviction that to understand all is to forgive all, but

from an instinctive feeling that no man has the right to set himself

up as a judge over another, that one can only observe and record.

In 1834 two short stories appeared, _The Queen of Spades_, by Pushkin,

and _The Cloak_, by Gogol. The first was a finishing-off of the old,

outgoing style of romanticism, the other was the beginning of the new,

the characteristically Russian style. We read Pushkin's _Queen of

Spades_, the first story in the volume, and the likelihood is we shall

enjoy it greatly. "But why is it Russian?" we ask. The answer is, "It

is not Russian." It might have been printed in an American magazine

over the name of John Brown. But, now, take the very next story in the

volume, _The Cloak_. "Ah," you exclaim, "a genuine Russian story,

Surely. You cannot palm it off on me over the name of Jones or Smith."

Why? Because _The Cloak_ for the first time strikes that truly Russian

note of deep sympathy with the disinherited. It is not yet wholly free

from artificiality, and so is not yet typical of the purely realistic

fiction that reached its perfected development in Turgenev and

Tolstoy.

Though Pushkin heads the list of those writers who made the literature

of their country world-famous, he was still a romanticist, in the

universal literary fashion of his day. However, he already gave strong

indication of the peculiarly Russian genius for naturalness or

realism, and was a true Russian in his simplicity of style. In no

sense an innovator, but taking the cue for his poetry from Byron and

for his prose from the romanticism current at that period, he was not

in advance of his age. He had a revolutionary streak in his nature, as

his _Ode to Liberty_ and other bits of verse and his intimacy with the

Decembrist rebels show. But his youthful fire soon died down, and he

found it possible to accommodate himself to the life of a Russian high

functionary and courtier under the severe despot Nicholas I, though,

to be sure, he always hated that life. For all his flirting with

revolutionarism, he never displayed great originality or depth of

thought. He was simply an extraordinarily gifted author, a perfect

versifier, a wondrous lyrist, and a delicious raconteur, endowed with

a grace, ease and power of expression that delighted even the exacting

artistic sense of Turgenev. To him aptly applies the dictum of

Socrates: "Not by wisdom do the poets write poetry, but by a sort of

genius and inspiration." I do not mean to convey that as a thinker

Pushkin is to be despised. Nevertheless, it is true that he would

occupy a lower position in literature did his reputation depend upon

his contributions to thought and not upon his value as an artist.

"We are all descended from Gogol's _Cloak_," said a Russian writer.

And Dostoyevsky's novel, _Poor People_, which appeared ten years

later, is, in a way, merely an extension of Gogol's shorter tale. In

Dostoyevsky, indeed, the passion for the common people and the

all-embracing, all-penetrating pity for suffering humanity reach their

climax. He was a profound psychologist and delved deeply into the

human soul, especially in its abnormal and diseased aspects. Between

scenes of heart-rending, abject poverty, injustice, and wrong, and the

torments of mental pathology, he managed almost to exhaust the whole

range of human woe. And he analysed this misery with an intensity of

feeling and a painstaking regard for the most harrowing details that

are quite upsetting to normally constituted nerves. Yet all the

horrors must be forgiven him because of the motive inspiring them--an

overpowering love and the desire to induce an equal love in others. It

is not horror for horror's sake, not a literary _tour de force_, as in

Poe, but horror for a high purpose, for purification through

suffering, which was one of the articles of Dostoyevsky's faith.

Following as a corollary from the love and pity for mankind that make

a leading element in Russian literature, is a passionate search for

the means of improving the lot of humanity, a fervent attachment to

social ideas and ideals. A Russian author is more ardently devoted to

a cause than an American short-story writer to a plot. This, in turn,

is but a reflection of the spirit of the Russian people, especially of

the intellectuals. The Russians take literature perhaps more seriously

than any other nation. To them books are not a mere diversion. They

demand that fiction and poetry be a true mirror of life and be of

service to life. A Russian author, to achieve the highest recognition,

must be a thinker also. He need not necessarily be a finished artist.

Everything is subordinated to two main requirements--humanitarian

ideals and fidelity to life. This is the secret of the marvellous

simplicity of Russian-literary art. Before the supreme function of

literature, the Russian writer stands awed and humbled. He knows he

cannot cover up poverty of thought, poverty of spirit and lack of

sincerity by rhetorical tricks or verbal cleverness. And if he

possesses the two essential requirements, the simplest language will

suffice.

These qualities are exemplified at their best by Turgenev and Tolstoy.

They both had a strong social consciousness; they both grappled with

the problems of human welfare; they were both artists in the larger

sense, that is, in their truthful representation of life, Turgenev was

an artist also in the narrower sense--in a keen appreciation Of form.

Thoroughly Occidental in his tastes, he sought the regeneration of

Russia in radical progress along the lines of European democracy.

Tolstoy, on the other hand, sought the salvation of mankind in a

return to the primitive life and primitive Christian religion.

The very first work of importance by Turgenev, _A Sportsman's

Sketches_, dealt with the question of serfdom, and it wielded

tremendous influence in bringing about its abolition. Almost every

succeeding book of his, from _Rudin_ through _Fathers and Sons_ to

_Virgin Soil_, presented vivid pictures of contemporary Russian

society, with its problems, the clash of ideas between the old and the

new generations, and the struggles, the aspirations and the thoughts

that engrossed the advanced youth of Russia; so that his collected

works form a remarkable literary record of the successive movements of

Russian society in a period of preparation, fraught with epochal

significance, which culminated in the overthrow of Czarism and the

inauguration of a new and true democracy, marking the beginning,

perhaps, of a radical transformation the world over.

"The greatest writer of Russia." That is Turgenev's estimate of

Tolstoy. "A second Shakespeare!" was Flaubert's enthusiastic outburst.

The Frenchman's comparison is not wholly illuminating. The one point

of resemblance between the two authors is simply in the tremendous

magnitude of their genius. Each is a Colossus. Each creates a whole

world of characters, from kings and princes and ladies to servants and

maids and peasants. But how vastly divergent the angle of approach!

Anna Karenina may have all the subtle womanly charm of an Olivia or a

Portia, but how different her trials. Shakespeare could not have

treated Anna's problems at all. Anna could not have appeared in his

pages except as a sinning Gertrude, the mother of Hamlet. Shakespeare

had all the prejudices of his age. He accepted the world as it is with

its absurd moralities, its conventions and institutions and social

classes. A gravedigger is naturally inferior to a lord, and if he is

to be presented at all, he must come on as a clown. The people are

always a mob, the rabble. Tolstoy, is the revolutionist, the

iconoclast. He has the completest independence of mind. He utterly

refuses to accept established opinions just because they are

established. He probes into the right and wrong of things. His is a

broad, generous universal democracy, his is a comprehensive sympathy,

his an absolute incapacity to evaluate human beings according to

station, rank or profession, or any standard but that of spiritual

worth. In all this he was a complete contrast to Shakespeare. Each of

the two men was like a creature of a higher world, possessed of

supernatural endowments. Their omniscience of all things human, their

insight into the hiddenmost springs of men's actions appear

miraculous. But Shakespeare makes the impression of detachment from

his works. The works do not reveal the man; while in Tolstoy the

greatness of the man blends with the greatness of the genius. Tolstoy

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: