med by
the Russians a masterpiece of grace and simplicity, is a poem in
dialogue; the persons being only four in number, and the action a wild
yet simple catastrophe of love, jealousy, and revenge. The _dramatis
personae_ are gipsies; and it is difficult to select what is most
admirable in this exquisite little work--the completeness and
distinctness of the descriptions of external nature--the artful
introduction of various allusions, (particularly in one most charming
passage, indicating Ovid's exile in the beautiful country which is the
scene of the drama,) or the intense interest which the poet has known
how to infuse into what would appear at first sight a subject simple
even to meagreness. Poets of many nations have endeavoured, with various
qualifications, and with no less various degrees of success, to
represent the picturesque and striking features of the nomad life and
wild superstitions of the gipsy race: none however, it may be safely
asserted, have ever produced a picture more true or more poetical than
is to be found in the production of Pushkin. He had ample opportunities
of studying their peculiar manners in the green oceans of the southern
steppes. It is at this period that Pushkin began the composition of his
poem entitled "Evgenii Oniegin," a production which has become, it may
be said, part of the ordinary language of the poet's countrymen. The
first canto appeared in 1825, 1829. This work, in its outline, its plan,
in the general tone of thought pervading it, and in certain other
_external_ circumstances, bears a kind of fallacious resemblance to the
inimitable production of Lord Byron; a circumstance which leads
superficial readers into the error (unjust in the highest degree to
Pushkin's originality) of considering it as an imitation of the Don. It
is a species of satire upon society, (and Russian fashionable society in
particular,) embodied in an easy wandering verse something like that of
Byron; and so far, perhaps, the comparison between the two poems holds
good. Pushkin's _plot_ has the advantage of being (though sufficiently
slight in construction, it must be confessed) considerably more compact
and interesting than the irregular narration which serves Byron to
string together the bitter beads of his satirical rosary; but, at the
same time, the aim and scope of the English satirist is infinitely more
vast and comprehensive. The Russian has also none of the terrible and
deeply-thrilling pictures