New-York tribune., 1910-05-25
A Clever Interpreter of Russian
Letters.

LANDMARKS ,-ss n EussIAN ss-.nS LanaHAe Enc pp.
xvii nce The Macmillan Company
A wear or two ago, in the excellent
"1abrary Of Literary History" published
here bv the Scribnsrs. there appeared
"A Literary History of Russia" by Pro-
fessor Rruckner. IT is sterling piece
Of thoroughgoing scholarship, indispeh-
sable TO che student who wishes 10 get
st something ike the length and hreaoth
IF q difficult subject. 1t is we'll writ
.sn too. SO that the reader makes his
NAV couaforta bly, enough through masses
of information (which are not precisely
saturated in charm. As an Introduction
TO that exhaustive study. or as pooh
10 be read with il. we would speciais
ooIarn,rd MIR. Barings Landmarks IN
Russian Literature" In this collection
of some six or seven essays he contriVes
ia stimulate a zest for the Russians and
their authors. to make both the people
snd their books little more sympa-
sbetfc 10 bring them little nearer 10
ourselves.
His point Of attack is fresh and inter
esting. In the first place he takes pains
"a eYplain the Russian character, AND In
c,,-ionslv convincing fashion shows us
,ne. while II contains strains of weak
ness il is steaGier and, above all, more
cheerful than is commonly supposed,
At some points we cannot help feeliiis
that the picture he draws OF Russlah
life is q little too free from shadows to
t,e quite true 10 nature. but on the Whoie
we are inclined to accept his assertion
rbs, society under the Car is not alto
,z,he- thing Of intense horror. Even
more directly persuasive-and delleht-
fully illuminating into the bargains
his ANALYSIS of Russian realism, with It's
clear exposition of the simplicity chaf-
acteristic Of Russian poets ana mover
lists The translations which he moo
esrlv offers vividly illustrate the argu-
rnent. His chapter on Gogol serves the
same useful purpose Of initiating the
reader into a brighter, happier Worlo
than that in which he is wont to place
the neople Of Russia. Coming TO Toi-
stoy and Tourgenieff, the critic pays
cordial tribute TO both. and has some
good things TO say about their TRAITS
things that aid us to better under
standing. hut at this point he gets lit
tie into difficulties, owing TO the neeo
that he seems TO feel for a KIND ol
pieeonholing of the writers in question
He is sure that Tolstoy is srea'
writer, and he believes that Tourgenlen
has also done some immortal Nork, pu'
n. il unnecessarily anxious TO demon
s-rste that if some author is TO bt
brscketed with Tolstoy on equal terms
II should not be Tourgenien; ne wants
the second place for DostoieVsky- IL
hard IN see why one should worry owe
4he matter. and We dare say that MI
Barring himself would be less sollciton'
over his task Of classification II he wer'
more keenly conscious Of Tourgenleh
.,harar+nristics as an artist pure ant
eirnple. There, We fear. he is somewha
tnsensitive. However. we readily Tor
give him. for when he has once put M
rather irrelevant problem behind MN
he gives himself up to long STUDY o
Dosfoievskv which we cannot praise 10
hiet,lv. It embodies an admlra pl
sketch of the Russian writer's life an
character and q survey of ms WORK
once so enthusiastic and so critical thd
!, should GO far to win readers to Nj
Earrings way of thinking. The las
chapter is given to the plays OF Anlo
Tchekov. whose merits are set forO
again with warm feeling and cool Judg
ment This is capital little boo
which no one interested in lireratur
should miss