rut; at: . : L , Av; kxv. : .x‘ (H.298 UNHIVERSIITYLB AR RIES lllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllzlllll 3 1293 01555 232 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled IVAN TURGENEV IN ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1899-1995): A CRITICAL STUDY presented by Dongkyu Choe has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Ross ian 4 .21 Major professor Date 5' //Z/ 1496 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE ll RETURN 80X to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I Jigjjzimss ‘ MSU loAnN'flmotivvotlonEqud Opportunity Institution W1 ll} CRY IVAN TURGENEV IN ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1855-1995): A CRITICAL STUDY By Dongkyu Choe A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michgan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Language 1996 IVA? lb '1’. § 1" "ml; ‘ L'I‘\ h w it .1 .g‘ Gin w-l ‘ ‘I u I|J~L I. . . ABSTRACT IVAN TURGENEV IN ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1855-1995): A CRITICAL STUDY By Dongkyu Choe This dissertation comprises six parts -- Introduction; Chapter One (“Ivan Turgenev in English Literary Criticism (1855-1995): Trends and Shifts; Chapter Two (Annotated Bibliography of Major English Criticism: (1855-1995); Conclusion (author’s own criticism); Subject Index; and Author Index. The dissertation concludes that criticism has rather effectively studied Turgenev as writer and man: comparing him with other writers and artists, Russian and foreign; seeking out new biographical data; viewing him in various socio-political and philosophical contexts; analyzing countless stylistic and structural aspects of his works; tracing his critical reception; linking him to various literary movements. Studies of Turgenev’s own literary theories and Turgenev criticism have also been examined and credited for their contribution to the study of Turgenev’s artistic world. Recounted are many analytical methodologies, with epistolary studies receiving special attention for its function of opening new fields of Turgenev studies, especially comparative and biographical. An abundance of comparative criticism, which links Turgenev to many other writers, and shows his towering position in world literature, has been analyzed. The dissertation reveals a voluminous body of criticism of Turgenev’s poetics, characterization modes and stylistic and structural devices ranging from narrative devices, imagery, time setting, nature descriptions, to literary parody, and intertextuality. . . «fix-taunt )bLEI-LIH‘ tyrant u. cui The dissertation also concludes that Turgenev criticism has contributed significant, substantive, and lasting scholarship in several established categories, while identifying Notes of a Hunter and Fathers and Sons as Turgenev’s most distinguished works. It is apparent that a firm research foundation in Turgenev studies has been established and that the large amount of documentary data accumulated offers much fertile ground for future development. Cepyright by DONGKYU CHOE 1996 To my father and mother who dedicated their lives to my education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I give thanks to God for He has held my hand until now. I also express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Munir Sendich, for his guidance, suggestion, advice, and encouragement. His encouragement and guidance will be remembered as long as I stay in the academic field. I really appreciated Dr. David Prestel for his sincere and heartfelt suggestion and also express my deep gratitude to Dr. David Prestel, Dr. Felix Raskolnikov, and Dr. Ludmilla Litus for their careful reading and comments. I also express my appreciatation to numerous people who supported me spiritually and financially including my parents, Laurie Church, the graduate secretary of our department, ija Back in Costa Rica, and my brother Wonkyu. Finally, I thank with my whole heart my beloved wife, Eunsook, and son Paul, who have shown their warm belief in me and prayed for me. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: IVAN TURGENEV IN ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1855-1995): TRENDS AND SHIFTS 4 CHAPTER TWO: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MAJOR ENGLISH CRITICISM: (1855-1995) 46 CONCLUSION 257 SUBJECT INDEX 267 AUTHOR INDEX 281 vii Bill” BWB BQR BR 'L'GJ Cass (asp Calf Er‘l AmeM ASEES BA BlaW BNYPB BQR BR BUGJ BucR CASS CanSP ColL ComL ConQ DosS DR ABBREVIATIONS American Literature Atlantic Monthly American Mercury Australian Slavonic and East European Studies Book Ahmad Blackwood’s Magazine Bulletin of New York Public Library British Quarterly Review British Review Boston University Graduate Journal Bucknell Review Canadian-American Slavic Studies Canadian Slavonic Papers Century Magazine Christian Scholar College Literature Comparative Literature Congregational Quarterly Current Literature Dostoevsky Studies Dublin Review viii EclR H88 188 JEGP JES JRS J SP LipM LitW LM LonM LQR MacM MasR Eclectic Review Essays in Literature English Language Note English Literature in Transition . English Review Fortnightly Review French Review German Life and Letters Germano-Slavica History Today Henry J arnes Review Harvard Library Bulletin Hudson Review Harvard Slavic Studies Irish Slavonic Studies Journal of English and German Philosophy Journal of European Studies Journal of Russian Studies Journal of Speculative Philosophy Living Age Lippincott’s Magazine Literary World London Magazine London Mercury London Quarterly Review Macmillan’s Magazine Massachusett’s Review MFS 525 Mill MQ M :31 m . 'BR NZSJ OSP ParR PMLA PMLC PR QR RALS Recs RevL Modern Fiction Studies Modern Language Note Modern Language Review Musical Quarterly Munsey’s Magazine North American Review North British Review Nineteenth Centmy New Englander New England Magazine Notes on Modern American Literature Notes and Queries New Zealand Slavonic Journal Oxford Slavonic Papers Partisan Review Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Papers of the Manchester Library Club Princeton Review Quarterly Review Resources for American Literary Studies Research Studies Revista-Letras Russian Literature Russian Language Journal Russian Language Notes Russin Literature Triquarterly Review of National Literature RusR SAF SAQ SLI SR SSF SSR StuN STCL TexR TraRAS 'I‘RSLUK Ule Russian Review Studies in American Fiction South Atlantic Quarterly South Atlantic Review Saturday Review Scando-Slavica Scribner’s Magazine South Central Review Scribner’s Magazine Slavic and East European Journal Slavonic East European Review Slavic and East European Studies Sewanee Review Studies in Foreign Literature American Slavic and East European Review/Slavic Review Soviet Literature Studies in the Literary Imagination Sewanee Review Studies in Short Fiction Scottish Slavonic Review Studies in the Novel Studies in Twentieth Century Literature Texas Review Transactions of Russian-American Scholars in USA Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom Ulbandus Review L'rIKCR [ER ISAES M]. “BR "r32 W3 YR UniKCR UniR USAES WAL WesR WS University of Kansas Review Universal Review University of South Africa English Studies Western American Literature Westminster Review Western Humanities Review Die Welt der Slaven Yale Review xii INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of Turgenev criticism in English a clear and consistent image of Turgenev has not emerges, even though many interpretations have been made in the course of 140 years. Up to the end of nineteenth century, Turgenev was thought to be a writer of liberal views and even a political reformer. In the twentieth century, criticism of Turgenev has rapidly changed, as many critics tackled numerous aspects of Turgenev. The new approached generated many changes and shifts in Turgenev criticism. Chapter One of this dissertation surveys these interpretations while focusing on trends and shifts occurring in a 140-year period. Chapter Two lists annotated bibliographies of the most important English criticism from 1855 to 1995, with an attempt to annotate all entries objectively. The entries have been numbered in alphabetical order of authors’ names within each year. The conclusion of the dissertation records my evaluation of trends and shifts in Turgenev criticism with emphasis on the role of key critics who have contributed to shifts and changes. An Author’s Index and a Subject Index keyed to Chapter Two list all the titles, authors, and important subjects in Turgenev criticism. In searching, collecting, and compiling the bibliography, I have consulted the following sources: 1. The American Biography of Slavic and East European Studies. 2. American Book Publishing Record. 3. Art and Humanities Citation Index. 4. Austrian Books in Print. 5. Book Review Digest. 6. British Humanities Index. 7. Canadian Periodical Index. 8. Canadian Thesis. 9. Contemporary Literary Criticism. 10. Dissertation Abstract International. 11. East European Language and Literatures: A Subject and Name Index to Articles in English Language Journal. 12. Humanities Index. 13. Index Book Review. 14. International Index to Periodicals. 15 MLA International Bibliography. 16. New York Times Index. 17. Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. 18. Social Science and Humanities Index. 19. Twentieth Century Literary Criticism. I have also consulted Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers in compiling this bibliography, and followed the transliteration method of Thomas Shaw’s Transliteration system III: A“'3 P---r me C---s .. 15 156 Kr imSiS' U1 ties and 31" \le B --- v T --- t F --- g Y --- u 11 --- d (D --- f E --- e X --- x E --- e H --- c )K --- i H --- c 3 --- 2 III mg 14 --- i 111 --- 2% ti j I: “ K --- k LI --- y II --- l b --- r M “' m 3 --- e H --- n 10 --- ju O --- 0 SI --- ja n p This system is used consistently in the discussion with the following exceptions: 1. Titles and authors presented in original source. 2. Geographical names in widely accepted usage in Anglicized spelling. Il'lVTLRGi (I: an ‘L ' {adult m Er: I “r- w- ' .., . -.A.. .Q It ..'Hfi . bunniné n A. v“‘l- "5" §~ -p NV“. Jo p, t \u‘ r . 5‘. 4:. \a 5? 3f '1. ‘ r.- -- s_ . H‘k.‘:* - ~“~‘, 5'»- ' “I?"a O P I “I T: '3: _ War»- 5 r. v \" .I . v: ‘3.- .S 5‘.- Chapter One IVAN TURGENEV IN ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1855-1995): TRENDS AND SHIFTS Criticism in English of Ivan Turgenev has shown remarkable breadth and variety from its beginning right up to the present time. Critics have amply responded to nearly every possible aspect of Turgenev study, including biography, poetry, short stories and novelle, novels, dramas, librettos, his links with other writers, his view of art and philosophy, his poetics, and his reception in the West and Russia. Overall, Turgenev criticism has fallen into three supercategories: comparative studies, internal text studies, and external studies. This Chapter will examine Turgenev criticism within eight categories (comparative studies, Turgenev’s poetics, and six categories of text external studies such as biographical studies, Turgenev as a critic, Turgenev criticisms, socio- political and philosophical studies, Turgenev reception, and Turgenev’s link to literary movement), and critical trends and shifts will be traced within each category. 1. Criticism of Comparative Studies Studies on Turgenev’s links with other writers have been a constant and major stream of English language criticism from the very beginning of Turgenev criticism. Some critics have traced the influence of Russian, British, French, German, American, and other Western and Slavic writers on Turgenev, while others have surveyed the .55.. AK m4 Wit-’9'" “ Lauri. ‘ufi‘Pu‘ Tu.- ". 1 . A51». 3 12.36138 or H , . v 1 m'nofirfi‘ 'h I « 4 ‘L‘uu “‘ ‘ . y r...'.. ' um Akita-‘1 B U‘ R -- l .a-r. 8.12am to. ”- .'. I I I m. 387731 tram "‘ t M E5» .0, ‘N‘ :‘y|r‘l: 'I ‘Lt; ' . ass and use I are Cub bx S ‘ v. V“ L :33?“ 1‘ l ' ‘ - "“ \ri life. 1 Kiwpl‘ “Milk-L‘- G 1339'; s“‘ (if "mt: QC privy “4]" ' ii. .I u" \4. ‘3'“ 5 affinities and differences between Turgenev’s works and other writers’, pointing out Turgenev’s influence on them. Beginning in the 18503, many critics have compared Turgenev with such Western writers as Shakespeare, W. Scott, Byron, Dickens, Maria Edgerworth, G. Eliot, T. Quincey, J. Conrad, G. Moore, J. Joyce, Hardy, Stowe, H. James, W. Howells, Poe, Goethe, Auerbach, Biichner, Fontane, Keyserling, T. Mann, Kafka, Sand, V. Cherbuliez, Flaubert, Maupassant, (E. Goncourt, Musset, Moliére, Strindberg, and Ibsen. In the earliest period, from the fifties to the end of the century, critics focused on broad stylistic and thematic categories. For example, Turgenev’s ability to reproduce human life in all its subtlety and assess its values with great poetic insight was said to have been transcended only by Shakespeare (1896.4). Turgenev was also compared to Shakespeare in his “manysideness” and “impartiality” (1874.2). Turgenev’s specialized portraits, which were marked by striking oddities, vivid landscape, “susceptibility to the sensuous impressions of life,” and concise form were compared with those of W. Scott, Dickens, Sand and G. Eliot. More specifically, his “intimacy with nature” was said to be shared with the female writers Sand and Eliot (1884.1), while his “sad and morbid tone” demonstrated Byronic connections (1882.2). The element of irony and sadness was also used to establish similarities with Flaubert. Some critics of this early period praised Turgenev’s artistic and stylistic achievements, claiming that only Walter Scott and William Dean Howells shared the Russian writer’s consummate sense of form (1889.1) and that in contrast to Flaubert, “the principles of Turgenev’s style do not lie on the surface,” but are deeply irnbedded in the work (1890.3). In terms of thematics, it was stated that like Goethe, Turgenev was an artist “free from prejudice” (1890.3) and that the socially and politically engaged character of his works were probably influenced by the works of Sand and Auerbach who exposed social ills and injustices in their writing. mama of spe . “ti-:5: w tossed. med vii. [his :11“- ‘ t tr‘ . 11$? 3'5: ..- :1 1r. 0: . 321*; $14 compared 1 ' " i :r.’ at: kc and H 1;; Est-:3 t) mitt: q] :‘N-s 3.L'12;7g gm 1 ”’11-‘51?- L‘u: of he 'b- 11" L but ”H241 stiff rs. éi «sh it.“ 4‘11“}: ”1...”. ‘Hlli 6 Comparison of specific works of Turgenev with those of other writers in the early criticism was focused on thematic affinities and differences. Notes of a Hunter was compared with Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1883.5), with the forrner’s “artistic” qualities contrasted to the latter’s “pleading.” Phantoms was compared with T. Quincey’s story Confessions of an Opium-eater (1896.4) in the realm of dream literature. A Nest of the Gentry was compared with French novelist Victor Cherbuliez’s tragic story La Revanche de Joseph Noirel and found more realistic (1873.1). Similarity between Turgenev’s Smoke and Henry Jarnes’s Confidence in character groups and themes was also mentioned by a critic (1880.1), who compared Nezdanov, the nihilist in Virgin Soil, with Hamlet, pointing out irresolution as the chief feature of the latter, “the dreary self- skepticism” that of the former. In the 20th century critics broadened the sphere of comparison, adding new writers to the study and finding new thematic and stylistic affinities and differences, especially with respect to English writers. Comparison of Turgenev to Shakespeare was resumed in 1990 with a study of “intertextual connections and differentiation” between Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Vasilij Vasil’ié in Turgenev’s Hamlet of Séigrov District (1990.5). It was concluded that in both protagonists elements of self-reproach and a feeling of being governed by factors other than their intent were present. The difference between them in that Vasilij “remains paralyzed in self-contempt” while Hamlet finally accepts his fate readily and dies a hero were also found. Dickens was more frequently compared to Turgenev than Shakespeare. A kinship between the early work of Turgenev and that of Dickens was found in their idealism, kind spirit (1900.1) and their mutual “intense understanding of human nature, intense interest in life, and intense hatred for cruelty and humbug” (1927.1). On the other hand, Turgenev was seed to lack the boldness with which Dickens directly confronted social inequity (1978.10). The fantastic in the works of Turgenev, Dickens, and Maupassant was also analyzed, with the m2. of M Law“ if!" “any 34‘ W” JL licréni and 5111 :5: 3:21 511% I“ ;N\ .,,;_ res ”1'55”“ s.- ”an, ‘1‘: kill; “1' .‘ QCnCc r - n N a.“ ‘ . _ ’w' A Q! \l‘ u brunt wt,“ $511 \k‘n ‘1’. ‘l . - a.dék\=~7~“ " ‘ I‘ .11 “(.12 H3: Q21? W5 w\:k , a ~1L Mil) ‘ ‘ Ira-:6 . Lifer}: rpm at :31'5 as Sl'mb-C it: mum): A C ‘r. 1--?«~' er Emma} cc :1»- ‘ arm. dzs: a» ‘ A: r mania] '1 1171.47- - . m ram" u :51» 3b.. “‘1‘?“ I F“ w 1336.1) tr 3;“... wit bets :‘.‘..‘. ‘03:? 1' “Tim [7... 7 dynamism of these writers’ fictional world traced to the degree of “narrative authentication or disauthentication” of the supernatural domain (1989.6). Thematic and stylistic affinities and differences between Turgenev and Thackeray were examined in the early 20th century. Turgenev’s Smoke was compared (1908.1) with Thackeray’s novel The Newcomes, similar in their “impartiality” yet different in style, and contrasting in Turgenev’s self-restraint against Thackeray’s freedom. Also contrasted (1921.2) was Turgenev’s steppe-fed genius with Thackeray’s city-fed genius, with the fundamental difference between them being in that Turgenev broke the wall between men of different social conditions and between nature and humanity. T. Hardy’s “active and fearless pessimism” was contrasted with Turgenev’s “effeminate and passive pessimism” (1925.1), while Hardy’s parallel to Turgenev with his “reluctant agnostic” intellect, aesthetic sensibility, and appreciation of moral virtue was also emphasized (1948.1). Their different approaches to landscape, with Turgenev’s characterized as purely esthetic and Hardy’s as symbolic was also noted. Comparison of Turgenev to J. Conrad showed some controversy. A critic (1979.10) found the basis for Conrad’s attraction to Turgenev more in ideological content than in form and style, while another critic (1983.45) saw it not only in literary form and style but also in the realm of philosophy, with their shared cosmopolitanism, distaste for Dostoevskij ’3 religious philosophy, respect for nature and interest in political issues. Turgenev’s new man, Bazarov, was compared with “the artificial new man” in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein (1994.3), with both seen to arise from the Byronic concept of a personality which is “all alone in the universe without any link to the present and the past.” Another modes of Turgenev’s characterization were contrasted (1956.1) to George Eliot’s in that Eliot’s heroes admit the possibility of a concurrence between public activity and private feeling while Turgenev’s heroes “recoil in weakness” when they try to make contact with public life. MEN ‘35 3150 '3; 1969.10 mi ‘13:.- are: eyes to ll .53 {’13: be £15 5.5:: and Edger or: than. Especial. tr: fined and T; 'n‘elne the treat it :i~ of lie It; 31; ’5 SE 10 be 5m “'4 5311‘ {em “.15, 1,1 . u... Amer \. ""83 i’h.“ Vfutnzl‘v l .- g\_' n V .1", ‘ 5,: ‘4." 9L 1 \d .\. . b r \u D... “13,5 a“ “r- v- 8 Turgenev was also compared to M. Edgeworth, G. Moore, J. Joyce and N. Gunn. A critic (1969.4) took issue with the view that Maria Edgeworth’s stories of Ireland opened Turgenev’s eyes to the possibility of a similar presentation of Russian peasants, suggesting that the Edgeworth-Turgenev link needed more evidence. Criticism followed the suggestion, with a critic (1983.46) discerning parallels between Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter and Edgeworth’s works, mainly Castle Rackrent and The Absentee. The influence of Turgenev, especially his Notes of a Hunter on The Untilled Field of George Moore, was examined and Turgenev’s use of an outsider-narrator, use of the landscape beauty to “underline the wretchedness of the poor,” and his expression of the paradox of death in the midst of life through the juxtaposition of the superstitious mind with the civilized one were said to be shared with Moore (1975.3). Comparing the same two works, another critic (1982.2) found Moore’s primary debt to Turgenev in the “dry style” in which he offers the reader “only factual statements of action and event and snatches of conversation,” leaving the reader to infer the moral meaning. The indebtedness of James Joyce’s story A Painfid Case to Turgenev’s Klara Milié not only for its “mystification and japery” but also for details of plot, characterization, tone, and theme was also asserted in a critique (1974.2). Turgenev’s influence on Scottish writer Neil Gunn’s depiction of the beauty of nature and the strength and mystical appeal of women was demonstrated by juxtaposing Turgenev’s description of landscape in BeZin Meadow with that of Gunn in his novel Silver Bough, and the characterization of Zinaida in First Love with that of Jenny in Wild Geese Overhead (1992.3). Many American writers have been compared to Turgenev. From the early criticism, critics frequently linked Turgenev to Stowe’s Uncle Tom ’s Cabin. While acknowledging the equivalent in moral force of Uncle Tom ’s Cabin and Notes of a Hunter, a critic (1959.3) found the fundamental difference in that Uncle Tom ’s Cabin was a pamphlet written from second-hand information, while Notes of a Hunter was an artistic work . , , is m inter. 1:33. T}: Inner s Size-.233 and W km in (“e r :35. 5:35 of Tat. '5 331E from 7’. , ’ :55?“ ‘27:: $5; “ 3'31 3111 exact ‘1 j. 4 1 a”) Tam- 3:», s... ,.. D Q ‘5‘ I, ~ w‘h ‘1 5"; ”(Hm -i "4‘. .‘i r... . h 5L.\ " ‘Q r A t s \ 9 written from first-hand experience. Another critic (1965.3), comparing Uncle Tom ’s Cabin with Turgenev’s The Inn, contrasted Turgenev’s restraint with the “religious sentimentality” and fevered emotionalism of Stowe’s work. H. James was the most frequently and broadly studied Western writer in comparative studies. Studies of Turgenev’s influences on J ames in subject matter and characterization were continued from the 1950s to 19703. Critics (1941.2, 1962.3, 1966.4) compared Turgenev’s Virgin Soil with James’s The Princess Casamassima, finding similarities in the theme and character, but another critic (1972.2) responded that there was plenty of non-Turgenevan material for The Princess of Casamassima and that the novel inevitably recalled Virgin Soil mainly because both novels were studies of the disintegration of “the same personality in the same way and for the same reasons.” J ames’s emphasis on the “freedom of the individual will and man’s share in determining his own destiny” to mitigate the “depressing effect” of his tragic story Roderick Hudson was said to be influenced by Turgenev, who used the same approach in order to negate the pessimism of Spring Torrents (1952.1). Turgenev’s international theme in A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Smoke was also compared to that of J ames’s in The American, The Portrait of a Lady, and The Ambassador, and it was argued that James’s intemationalism was more “sophisticated and abundant” than Turgenev’s, which is incidental and secondary to the Russian theme (1960.5). Another critic (1970.2) saw Turgenev’s successful portrayals of characters, especially of strong-minded heroines and weak-minded heroes, as the critical reason of J ames’s admiration of Turgenev. Meanwhile, the dissimilarity in the treatment of tragic love in politically incompatible characters between Turgenev’s and J ames’s political novels was perceived (1974.6). A possible link between J ames’s The Beast in the Jungle and Turgenev’s Knock... Knock... Knock consisting chiefly of the similarities in the protagonists’ psychological features was examined (1982.5). It was also stated that James used for his own heroine many salient features of the physical descriptions and tn.” ms of L15 sziri oi inte‘lzg-zn; ngm’s ham-me Liz Fa: Vet}. I}: harem b51215 novels med li mini that 'James 1:1". ms in I '25 i 1 late and more st ti.“ . ' .5 The mesm- ;‘"-\. ‘Kvkyl, ' a to Ti'smex In I . I: iIE") A ‘ ‘ |:~‘J 4“ " mi‘ing "j Q‘a‘mmn‘ep n... »_ iim‘JIRE phi J (7', 10 personality traits of Lisa, Irina, and Klara Milié who embody the ideal Victorian standards of intelligence, charity, and strength of character (1986.2). Comparing Turgenev’s heroines Liza (in A Nest of the Gentry) and Tat’ jana (in Smoke) to James’s Fleda Vetch, the heroine of The Spoils of Poynton, a critic (1989.5) argued that James in his later novels tried to represent the moral severity of Liza and Tat ’ jana. The critic concluded that “J ames’s devotion to Turgenev’s works, for all their differences of method, arises in large part from the depth and fullness of consciousness Turgenev grants his characters.” More and more studies of Turgenev’s influence on James were stemmed from the 18708. The indebtedness of James’s writings by the mid 1870s, especially Roderick Hudson, to Turgenev was thoroughly recounted in a critique (1976.3): the gently melancholic ending in The American was likened to that of A Nest of the Gentry; the device of the narrator acting as an editor for letters written by various people in A Bundle of Letters and The Point of View to A Correspondence; the setting and ambiance of Eugene Pickering to a number of Turgenev’s stories and novels; the contrast of Christina to Mary Garland in Roderick Hudson to that of Irina to Tat’jana in Smoke; and in general a Turgenev-like philosophy, a detached dramatic narrative method, and similar differentiation of sensibility in Roderick Hudson to those in Turgenev’s works. It was also (1983.8) discussed how Turgenev and James blended social and political themes into the aesthetic structure of Fathers and Sons and The Princess Casamassima. The critic named the awakening of individual consciousness and the individual’s tragic involvement in love as important themes common to both novels. Comparing Turgenev’s First Love with J ames’s Daisy Miller, a critic saw the selective, economical use of significant detail in these works as the salient feature of Turgenev and James as opposed to the French naturalists (1983.20). Turgenev’s Asia and J ames’s Daisy Miller were found (1983.23) m [L M M! author rm 13mm 0! Hit {meson of lag: 15.5.3.3: named ' s 3f sang. dame: arms $02191}. as ~I' - i. {am we com,“ Jr; :f Lagrssicmsm' Eran; Ohio of Sh: 3'12. Ca’ie's rim-e1 A L mm {mime ax Efrrfi 4' . w, ms. stmcm 1,’~ . . “it C4218 S mid. leéfi‘lk Sktgke [0 I if.“ N‘~‘£ ‘ ' . - 1 begmmn; H w..- rslluhi: , 9 0f Character 33:573- 1) mwv d‘“‘ c “It 55:55:» 5 T 0778118 m '5' V la -. 9 ul. 51.3"" T‘": . .4423" snfisu to the mair; Chafaaer d T1 2‘13" ' "‘11) “V, f :ism r '5. ”'1‘? 1. x. 4.. refit . 11 similar in that both authors used love as a “metaphor illustrating ambiguities inseparable from the anomalies of life in unfamiliar cultural circumstances.” Comparison of Turgenev to other writers was gradually broadened, especially in the 1980s. Critics examined Turgenev’s influence on William Howells in techniques such as use of setting, characterization, and understanding of moral and social problems in contemporary society, as reflected in Howells’s A Modern Instance (1965.5). Turgenev’s irnpressionism was compared to E. A. Poe’s, inferring that Turgenev “met perfectly Poe’s ideal of Impressionism” (1913.1). The influence of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter on Winesburg, Ohio of Sherwood Anderson (1972.3) as well as Turgenev’s First Love on Willa Cather’s novel A Lost Lady (1989.4) were mentioned with discovery of similarities of narrative technique and philosophic approach between Turgenev as well as Anderson and thematic and structural parallels between Turgenev and Cather. Turgenev’s influence on George Cable’s mid-career works was also discussed (1983.38) with comparison of Turgenev’s Smoke to Cable’s The Grandissimes, more specifically, similarities of technique as beginning the novel scenically, making key details of a scene show the psychology of characters, and giving the novel “cultural significance” by having main characters embody different perspectives on culture were mentioned. Turgenev’s short novel Spring Torrents as a source for Hemingway’s novella of the same title was debated (1989.1), suggesting a strong influence on Hemingway in the relationship of female protagonists to the male protagonists, the theme of infidelity, and various elements of narrative and character development. English criticism recorded strong links between Turgenev and French writers, especially with George Sand, her country stories that influenced Turgenev’s descriptive technique and characterization (1966.1). Sand’s influence on Turgenev in “abundant use of folklore and folk superstition” and “elaborate and poetic nature descriptions” was also we 13 mamas 1 king"; Hitter (.1979. Vela: a'u Chaim? since on Tugenei- .1.“ their similar: grist mgr); use 3:12 1'} hiking 3,», We: "ill“: a them: ”hr“ mea‘iiflg a n vh‘F‘ip v. _ “”" 19‘ and Tarts: K?!“ - , .1': 51”,} ~, . Para! 51:15 In Q? 1.: i U“- -. 1;:- . vr. main? i‘ ‘33:: D, , ‘113'61 IS a d;‘ ”1th. 12 discussed as affinities were unveiled between Sand’s “rustic novels” and Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter (1979.4). Turgenev’s borrowings of features of Sand’s three rustic tales (Veillées du Chanvreur) for Notes of a Hunter and Asja traced (1980.4). Flaubert’s influence on Turgenev’s literary style was also analyzed, with a critic (1983.33) classifying their similarities and differences into the four areas of formal and objective approach, imagery, use of indirect speech, and rhythms. Comparisons of Turgenev’s heroines (Liza in A Nest of the Gentry and Tat’ jana in Smoke) to Flaubert’s Emma Bovary (in Madame Bovary) and Felicite in (A Sirrrole Heart) was made (1989.5). Similarities in the fantastic method of Turgenev and Guy de Maupassant were also proposed, with a thematic comparison (1977.3) of Turgenev’s Phantoms to Maupassant’s Le Horla, revealing a number of common stylistic elements. A link between Moliére’s Misanthrope and Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons was also developed, suggesting (1959.2) the kinship between Bazarov and Alceste. Temperamental differences between Turgenev and Edmond Goncourt in aesthetics and social concerns as well as in attitudes toward women and love were also analyzed, deeming Turgenev “more emotional, humanistic” and Edmond Goncourt “more rational” (1971.2). Nor have German writers been ignored, as Goethe, Biichner, T. Mann, Fontane, Keyserling, and Kafka have been compared to Turgenev. Goethe’s The Sorrow of Young Werther was likened to Turgenev’s Diary of a Superfluous Man, listing common features, such as first-person narrative in epistolary form, high-flown language, heroes falling in love with similar girls in similar circumstances, and the theme of the loner or superfluous man (1969.1). Intertextual bonds between Turgenev’s Faust and Goethe’s Faust were Cited (1987.5), maintaining that while Vera is a genuine embodiment of Goethe’s Gretchen, Pavel is a distinctly un-Faustian figure, one of Turgenev’s typical superfluous men. The influence of socio-political consciousness of the time on Biichner and Turgenev n" in mm interest 'u iii-3.; swing paid: iii ti sham {time in ll iii; here). Pizza’s maxi-on h. Efjm mi 50M and l '3 Lime in ideas a iii} side a story. 31 :32: is emotional 1 "i”: Signed as exit 2‘33 3M) 13 and their mutual interest in the social conditions of the peasant classes was studied, revealing striking parallels (1965.3) in their reactions to problems in peasants’ lives as well as salient features in their works (lack of plot, passive heroes, and philosophical and social themes). Particular attention had focused on Turgenev’s influence on T. Mann. Thus the duels in Fathers and Sons and in The Magic Mountain were said to have been caused primarily by differences in ideas and temperament. Shared literary techniques, such as the device of story inside a story, similar heroines, and the use of seasonal and atmospheric changes to match the emotional states of characters common to First Love and Mann’s Gefallen were suggested as evidence of Turgenev’s stylistic influence on Mann’s early literary career (1964.4). Thematical and stylistic similarities between Turgenev and Fontane were also pointed out, as both writers mark a transition from romanticism to more ideologically relevant realism (1970.1), while the two were seen to differ in their treatment of the theme of personal conflicts between generations. Similarities between Fathers and Sons and Der Stechlin of Fontane were also discussed, with a critic (1973.2) insisting that both novels depict not only political disharmony among generations but also the possibility of an ultimate solution to the generation conflict. Eduard Keyserling’s strong kinship to Turgenev was also discussed (1978.5), with parallels drawn not only in biography and philosophy between the two writers but also between First Love and Keyserling’s Schwule Tage, which was perceived to be similar in narrative form, characterization, main theme, and setting. Critics examined same-titled works The Country Doctor of Turgenev and Kafka. One critic (1962.4) found similarities found in plot and relationships between characters a: fiance in then gets. and fable) an. 1955.": the two were fc is as of it: dOCl. tire {mi and minds; 3‘3 333 533353 E B c' Film and 35,1: rs Ziiirei ii. ltsen's. was. Smiteg's ( :33: (I the Dui: .r,‘ Fain: and tip." | :‘m- 9):] and JESS l ‘\. i w;. IS “um T‘H'J'Eené t] 9 .l . VT: '32.} . 1“. a." AI ‘ . u. ‘U: Ev: Hmws C h. . ‘. .-‘:.- ‘- \. . s'M' N“)! J “ My am- “>9. "11‘."“.' 14 and differences in theme and characterization-- Turgenev’s by external signs (voice, gesture, and habits) and Kaflca’s by internal states of minds or feeling. Elsewhere (1965.7) the two were found to be similar in their general pessimistic tone and theme of the inability of the doctor to help his patients. Other similarities (1973.8) between them were found and included in the first person narrative by a doctor, and many particulars of plot and character as well as fundamental differences in the doctor-patient relationship. Fathers and Sons was compared to Homer’s Odyssey. Turgenev’s impressionism was likened to Ibsen’s. Turgenev’s On the Eve and Rudin were compared with Swedish novelist Strindberg’s Growth of the Soul and By the Open Sea (1922.3). Turgenev’s influence on the Dutch writer Marcellus Emants was also discussed (1983.49), while (1971.1) Fathers and Sons was suggested as a prime source for theme, protagonist, general plot and descriptive techniques of Galdos’s novel Dona Pedecta. Among the Slavic writers Turgenev was compared to the Pole Boleslaw Prus (1951.1) and Slovakian writer Hurban Vajansky’s The Dry Branch and On Basnarov Hill and Other Sketches (1983.16). Even Homer’s Odyssey was compared to Fathers and Sons. Similarities of form, a shared simplicity and economy and a common pathos evoked by the memory of the past were noted (1945.1). Affinity of plot between Turgenev’s Smoke and Spring Torrents and Virgil’s Aeneid was also noted (1991.21) Another critic (1993.3) found a basic kinship of approach between Notes of a Hunter and Virgil’s first Eclogue. Commenting on Three Meetings, An Evening in Sorrento, Klara Milié, and Poems in Prose, a critic (1993.1) concluded that Turgenev took from Apuleius’s Psyche tale the semantic nucleus of the striving for knowledge and understanding. {time's plays it me i19716i the kinda-'11}; were Mae. hotter Target M m of 'Lmricsg H33. in. Die Cour. $34.30*. of George B ‘1‘ 5'1? '5 one of it. hmnmmm; 133?: of Baluc's. re its: deals-amen I ,‘ ‘.M ..h | ““33 .3131. The T6 ”7‘”? fit an D ‘N flu 15 Turgenev’s plays have also undergone extensive comparative studies. Thus it was established (1972.6) that Turgenev’s two plays, Where Is Thin, There It Breaks and A Provincial Lady, were written under the influence of French playwright Alfred de Musset. Another Turgenev play, Carelessness, was thought to be influenced by Mérimée in its theme of “unreciprocated passion” (1983.13). Doctor Sipigelskij in Turgenev’s A Month in the Country was even suggested as the prototype of Professor Higgins in Ibigmalion of George B. Shaw (1984.19). It was also suggested (1985.3) that A Nest of the Gentry is one of the source of T. S. Eliot’s play The Cocktail Party. Comparing Turgenev’s A Month in the Country with Balzac’s La Marfitre, a scholar (1984.8) refuted the claim (made by Grossman in his Teatr Turgeneva) that Turgenev’s play is an imitation of Balzac’s, recording many differences between the two works in the area of character development and narrative technique. Grossman’s view that Turgenev’s unfinished play, The Temptation of Saint Anthony, is “a slavish imitation” of Mérimée’s Une femme est un Diable ou la Tentation de saint Antoine was strongly disproved in another study (1985.2). Criticism has been abundant in its comparisons of Turgenev to other Russian writers. In the 1850s through the end of the 19th century, critics emphasized broad stylistic and thematic affinities, and influence. Gogol’s influence on Turgenev’s early works (in attacking “the abuse of power by portraying its results without uttering an aggressive word of abuse or criticism”) (1887.1) and their common picaresque elements (of Notes of a Hunter and Dead Soul) (1887.2) were discerned. Turgenev was said to equal Tolstoj in “the universality of his sympathies” (1889.1) while Turgenev’s artistic imagination was contrasted to Tolstoj’s “scientific imagination” in depicting nature (1894.3). Turgenev was also deemed more “cosmopolitan” and “Frenchified” than the more Slavic Tolstoj (1891.1). Criticism also compared the writers comprising the so-called “Trio” (Turgenev, Dostoevskij, and Tolstoj) to one another. Turgenev was labeled as an artist and Berni s‘tpliadii' ‘1 mi adit' us whitish Sml'rgeex came 1 “$139451 found Dostuc ms: pita" than Tit:i an item! popuim Tree’s cold restrain: s Creams of ls l 7_'_J in messiah to \r .igzi . Lemmas. News; :7? «mi in: NANKOV. {$13.31!} 115: eme d i .5. .. 4.1. Liaise; an Turgenei we: Romantic “Pet. ’2“. 1.; " .. 1 oz aim-ski} and ESTA" u s-- its verbal it 393431, - " mtd GUgr-fi 16 Dostoevskij as “a pleader” while Turgenev’s “sad and philosophic acquiescence in the existing order” was contrasted to Tolstoj’s “spirit of a reformer and zealot” (1883.5). Sometimes Turgenev came off unfavorably in comparison to the other two writers. A critic (1894.5) found Dostoevskij “more dramatic” and Tolstoj “more original and richer in creative power” than Turgenev. Another study (1899.1) found the cause of Turgenev’s relatively inferior popularity to Dostoevskij’s and Tolstoj’s in Western Europe in Turgenev’s cold restraint and refinement. Comparisons of Turgenev to other Russian writers became more active in the 20th century, particularly to writers beyond the “Trio,” such as Puskin, Griboedov, Zukovskij, Gogol’, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Dostoevskij, Vasilij Slepcov, Tur, Pavlova, Cexov, Bunin, Pasternak and Nabokov. Criticism discerned the influence of Karamzin, Pu§kin, Lermontov, Gogol’, and Dostoevskij on Turgenev, tracing (1932.2) the influence of Lermontov on early Turgenev stories (Romantic “Pecorin-like heroes” and the method of the “intensified anecdote”) and of Dostoevskij and Gogol’ (Dostoevskian “theme of humiliated human dignity’ and Gogol’-like “verbal intensity”) on The Diary of Superfluous Man. Another study (1984.21) noted Gogolian tendency in Notes of a Hunter (depicting the various characters as “deformed to the point of grotesque”), hidden literary parody in The Singers of Kararnzin’s Poor Liza, and literary subtext of Lermontov’s Hero of Our Time in Certopxanov and Nedopjuskin and The Death of Certopxanov. Yet comparison of Turgenev to Dostoevskij and Tolstoj surged on, becoming the most active sphere of studies in the first half of the 20th century. Criticism compared the three writers’ modes of characterizations, contrasting (1902.2) Turgenev’s “character sketch” with Dostoevskij ’s “creation of impressions” and Tolstoj’s “epic quality.” ‘Afi . his: sndy (19.9.3.1 rifle Dissetskij dis iii an equally acute it me. as distinguishin; mg ht though Tu .: «is his ‘seiectix. I I;- ii; so spas. Lucifer a iii tits: and Dostoexs mi; and religion 1 33.11% critique ,3, mt imighi' and Ti II; 31"” 3’33 'e‘on. D ‘7 l s‘ .4 m, l '1‘. 3n;- 17 Another study (1929.3) inferred that Turgenev shows “the surface of his characters only,” while Dostoevskij “describes them chiefly within” and Tolstoj “balances his acute eye with an equally acute analysis.” Many critics singled out Turgenev’s art of language and poetics as distinguishing features in comparisons of the three, with one study (1904.1) arguing that though Turgenev is not as dramatic as Dostoevskij, nor as deliberate as Tolstoj, he has “selective power and insight.” Grouping Russian characters in their works into two types, Lucifer and Ivan Durak, a scholar (1909.1) labeled Tolstoj the incarnation of the f'ust and Dostoevskij the second, with Turgenev exemplifying both types. Common realistic and religious features among the novels of the “Trio” were also discussed (1948.1). The critique pointed out that though Turgenev lacks Dostoevskij ’s “intensity of spiritual insight” and Tolstoj’s “sheer breadth of vision,” he does excel in his aesthetic sense of form and “economic certainty of touch.” From the 508, criticism of the “Trio” became weighted more toward Turgenev and Dostoevskij. Thus a study (1953.1) centered on differences between the two (agnostic vs. Christian approach to experience, rural vs. urban atmosphere, outdoor, sunlit settings vs. dark indoor scenes) and Turgenev’s inability to “penetrate to subliminal levels,” like Dostoevskij. Turgenev was suggested to be the prototype of Ivan Karamazov’s “double,” with one study (1972.7) recounting aspects of Ivan Turgenev’s resemblance to Ivan Karamazov. Another (1973.6) contrasted Turgenev’s “esthetic vision of unity” with Dostoevskij ’s “esthetic vision of turbulence” and traced the resulting differences between them in style and overall impact of their art on the reader. It was also found (1974.6) that both Turgenev’s and Dostoevskij ’s political novels focus on the human rather than ideological aspects of politics while a common concept of politics as “aggregate morality.” Another study saw (1981.2) found Turgenev’s peaceful narrative tone in Fathers and Sons to be in contrast with Dostoevskij ’s narrative tone concentrating “only the dark side of the spirit of the age” in The Possessed. The two works were compared rt. iii imimem 15.25. tie 'm ‘11:”: in 332‘ me use 0 mi intrigue. 0.9. .-.- F. v 45575“ ill/S. LOW I): Trgm's fad: 31: Gib: ox's S IT’PV'i ~ ' "Tu. ' \m m: We“ mic: i 18 with the discernment of affinities in the connection between anti-aestheticism and the radicals, the “misanthropic destructive essence of nihilism,” the tie between nihilism and death, and their use of parodic doubles as well as differences in historical perspective, narrative technique, satire, plot, literary mode, and thematic resolution (1984.5). Turgenev’s First Love and Dostoevskij ’s The Little Hero were also compared. Studies of Turgenev’s links with other Russian writers were published: topics ranged from Turgenev’s failed student protagonists who were seen as descendants of Cackij (from Griboedov’s Sorrow fi'om Wit) (1956.1) to the romantic affinity between Turgenev’s verse and that of Zukovskij and Lermontov (1973.9). Turgenev’s literary apprenticeship under Pu§kin (as evidenced by Turgenev’s realistic pictures of Russian life and emphasis on psychological analysis) was acknowledged (1960.1), while intertextuality with respect to time, space, and philosophical pessimism in Eugene Onegin and Rudin was treated in another study (1978.8). Criticism has likewise linked Turgenev to Gogol’. A common Christian theme was found in Turgenev’s The Wolf (from Notes of a Hunter) and in Gogol’s The Overcoat (1956.2): “the necessity of humility and the meaning of the brotherhood of man.” Criticisms have also discerned the influence of Gogol’s plays on Turgenev’s, particularly in characterization and setting of Turgenev’s two comedies, The Parasite and The Bachelor. Another study (1983.13) saw Turgenev’s play, Lack of Money, as a Gogolian vaudeville. Turgenev’s comedies, The Parasite, The Bachelor, and Breakfast at the Noble Marshall’s were found grotesquely reminiscent of Gogol’s humor. Cexov’s links to Turgenev were revealed mainly in the poetics devices the two writers share. Cexov was seen as Turgenev’s successor (1916.1), notably in their common feature, such as concision, emphasis on narrative characterization rather than m and exquisne dc 137155359!“ were 5 ti is breaking smug in fer. We'd {1939.1 Lexie (act's short 1 re of Trim '5 r orb ism-.43: we also it mi- tit: (farm's its this inter; 1'11 mi times 5‘. ”1:01. .. “¥_ H. I “i‘: ’ H‘ ‘9‘“ “hfl‘ . - “E ‘ is Jr ’ N Vt. rt ‘5 t' "'5" C”!- J..er‘=a.£0n 3:» .4 ‘Q- N to TUVH- , ‘e‘c' 5“ as 4. P . l) a Dr] _ \A «.3. 19 incident, and exquisite description of nature. Turgenev’s BeZin Meadow, and his poem in prose The Nymphs were seen as the literary precedent of the mysterious and distant sound of the breaking string in the middle of the second act and the last act of Cexov’s The Cherry Orchard (1969.1). Strong affinities of theme and structure were found (1984.24) between Cexov’s short story The Betrothed and Turgenev’s novel On the Eve. Cexov’s use of Turgenev’s works as the primary model for the characters in his story The House with an Attic was also examined (1989.2). Turgenev’s drama A Month in the Country was compare with Cexov’s Uncle Vanja, and three parallel scenes with similar stage directions, almost interchangeable “phraseological correspondences,” frequent references to time, and devices such as sudden intrusion and interpolation of songs were found (1994.2). Criticism also turned its eyes to other Russian and Soviet writers and poets. Thus Vasilij Slepcov’s Trudnoe vremja was compared to Fathers and Sons. (1977.1). Strong similarities between Turgenev’s Unhappy Woman and Evgenija Tur’s Plemjannica (in plot, narrative structure and setting) were noted (1991.2). A recent study (1993.2) pursued the similarities between Dvojnaja Zizn ’ by Karolina Pavlova and Faust of Turgenev, finding echoes in them in characterization, general idea on the world, art and love, and a Romantic sense of resignation. BeZin Meadow’s depiction of hardy, benign peasants in a pastoral setting was juxtaposed to the depiction of malign, twisted peasants talking about the murder of innocents in the avant-garde setting of a summer night with icy stars in Night Conversation of Bunin (1985.5). Pastemak’s attitude toward Hamlet was contrasted to Turgenev’s, with one study (1978.4) insisting that Turgenev perceived Hamlet as a philosophical and psychological drama, while Pasternak saw it as a political tragedy. One critic (1981.7) even elucidated “covert Turgenev parodies” in Nabokov’s Lolita. Cit-ism of this i 7.4: “3.331111 Chit ij-ieces toward more 131‘. he: is. from 5‘ Sigma with the 1‘. gram sash as t Kermit); liters} mg then. Mailed skies and Sand \1 51: 1119505 on m 1m retrainei ions. in: “T1185 with. 1233-3 3r- 333551 . - Cor it aim slime]... 1 ‘1’ 313,13! axis of c 1 "1'1 Gégol we .neitlmmm “:5 [is Wit-lied in the '1: amt: . ‘41:!" . 1.6) and 18‘ ?* “Cihlwg. "*3”- of Bi r. L) ' E- a; 5.1- ., " fif‘" t. .lggm Of at l l ethic ‘1"4‘ “332:1;Y1 fig ’V 5 Tu: T‘: 20 Criticism of links with other writers has undergone drastic changes and shifts in this 140 year-period. Criticism shifted not only from discussions of general literary influences toward more focused comparison of specific works, but also from external to internal, that is, from simple thematic comparison to precise analysis of poetical devices. Beginning with the 1960s, criticism brought more diversified array of subjects for comparison, such as characterization, themes, style, structure, narration techniques, intertextuality, literary parody, subtext, plot, estheticism, philosophy, and religion, among others. Marked trends also occurred with writers compared to Turgenev. Authors as Tolstoj and Sand were at one time quite extensively compared to Turgenev (Tolstoj from the 19508 on and Sand from the 19808 on), while others, like Dostoevskij and James, remained consistently studied. Another trend is the diminution in popularity of German writers (actively faded in 19708 and 19808) in favor of French writers as the 19808 progressed. Comparison of Turgenev to American and English writers, however, has shown relatively little change. Among Russian writers, the Russian literary “Trio” was a major axis of comparative studies up to the first half of the 20th century, with Cexov and Gogol were most frequently compared in the 19808. Criticism introduced many new Western and Slavic writers in the 19708 and 19808 while new Russian writers were introduced in the 19808 and 19908. The emergence of Greco-Roman writers (Virgil and Apuleius) and lesser-known Russian writers (Tur and Pavlova) marked also new trend in the 19908. 2. Criticism of Biographical Studies Early criticism of biographical studies on Turgenev chiefly concentrated on recalling meetings with Turgenev and praising his literary and personal features, with one study (1874.1) describing Turgenev’s view of despotism and interest in American writers, and another (1883.1) eulogizing Turgenev and praising his endeavor to introduce Russian mehhe a“ smim' C Tigress moire. ' unit‘s: {1394.1 is 11111;. on e T .15.; at Fer's 1m ’tre -' net 5 argues l .Lwc.” p fia‘ .Q‘.‘ “1‘ . . me R; chh :3": ‘ a~_' (49".— 5.1.6! 1.. D {t ‘Vku ‘51-‘18 and D- e. "’5 "“12; l r- 21 literature to the West. Turgenev was labeled the “ardent hater of every form of injustice and oppression.” Criticism also revealed the eccentricities and violent temper of Turgenev’s mother, with one study noticing its reflection in Turgenev’s work (1885.1), and another (1894.1) dubbing her a female counterpart of Ivan The Terrible. Criticism also shed light on episodes of Turgenev’s life, on the quarrel between Turgenev and Tolstoj at Fet’s house in May 1861 (1890.2) which almost led them to a duel, and on Turgenev’s experience during the shipwreck of the steamboat Nikolaj I in May 1838 (1894.2). Critics also examined Turgenev’s letters to his French friends, finding them to fulfill merely an informational function, with only a few letters shedding light upon his way of life (1898.1). Early criticism also paid attention to translations of Turgenev’s works, commenting on the approaching completion of a 15-volume English version of The Works of Turgenev, translated by Constance Gamett (1899.1). In the 20th century, criticism gradually enlarged the scope of biographical studies. Turgenev’s relationship with his Russian contemporaries was examined, his friendship with Tolstoj from their first meeting to the end of their lives was described in more detailed story (1929.1) emphasized Turgenev’s endeavors to have Tolstoj ’8 works published abroad. Turgenev’s relationship with Dostoevskij became a major theme, particularly from the middle of 18408 to the end of their lives (1929.2). The collapse of their relations due to financial reasons and fundamental differences of opinion over Russia and the Russian God was thoroughly discussed. A critic (1983.5) defended Turgenev against Dostoevskij ’8 charges that Turgenev showed liberal faintheartedness in his article The Execution of Ti'oppmann, while another study (1983.6) pointed to Turgenev’s effort to introduce and translate Dostoevskij. Examining relations between Turgenev and Dostoevskij during Dostoevskij ’8 editorship of the journal GraZdanin, criticism (1983.48) found references to Turgenev in the columns written by Dostoevskij mainly positive and respectful. ii i5: ' ’33..“ 37.2575: .' In} this a“. 4' T. 9‘ ”i .. O. ’1‘ : tread.”~ ‘ 311;; 1L ""H , T ‘3‘ lurgen 0? 1. m‘l’ . . 22 Criticism has also examined Turgenev’s personal relationships with many French writers, especially George Sand. The subject of Turgenev and France was discussed in detail from every angle except the political (1960.3): which his relationship with French pre-naturalists and naturalists; hi8 sharing of artistic ideas with the younger generation of French writers; and his friendship with Flaubert, which was strengthened by common literary ideals and similar emotional characteristics. The discussion of Sand’s relationship with Turgenev was resumed, when one critic (1979.4) elaborated on Turgenev’s meetings with Sand (1845 to 1873) and also discussed their mutual relationship with Viardot and Flaubert. Another study (1981.10) examined unpublished documents, particularly Sand’s diaries and letters, in order to dispute the notion that Turgenev caricatured Sand in his works. Turgenev was stated to share ideas of social reform with French writers of the Société des Cinq (Goncourt, Flaubert, Zola, and Daudet) (1981.5). Turgenev’s international connections was also discussed, with critics (1965.6 and 1884.3) recounting Turgenev’s contacts with Boyesen, Perry, James, Richard W. Gider, Emma Lazarus, Thomas W. Higginson, Xavier Marrnier, Brahms, D. D. Home, George Moore, and Maria Edgeworth. The critic noted Turgenev’s high opinion of the writer Howells; he found him superior to any American writer then living. Turgenev’s relationships with women were also analyzed in criticism of biographical studies. Turgenev was seen as a victim of “feminine fascination” (1910.3) and it was noted that Turgenev more often discussed matters closest to his heart in letters to women (1983.21). Pauline Viardot became the main focus of many critics. A study (1910.1) described Turgenev as Pauline Viardot’s “willing slave” in their forty-year relationship and found various connections between Viardot and Turgenev’s work. Another critic (1946.3) traced in detail the changes in the relationship between Turgenev and Viardot: his one-sided infatuation, their intimate love, separation, and reunion as friends. The critic stirred T: , . .mnq-I . ;p .. hd-b‘itlfl ‘ ‘ A h; - Pass. =3: m arm-i L2 be: Q. '8‘ ‘ 4 A «5.38.36 CUE: . , ' 1’s . . . genes 5 s...‘ u ‘ k. “:I ”‘P. '- . . H.115 ‘E‘L‘H’fih _ b .r‘cn: f'fz‘joo s " m 5.15 "Q h it, ._‘ p“ ‘ IO- .“ 2. s “-1: Ht Wt. x,‘ -. I. I ”a K‘— .V’ w 4 an“. I I set . "‘"Cl ( I. i“ hi: ‘i‘: ‘ A ‘ k "I?" ~i. In ”‘16 Er. A}: s “ ‘3' ‘- ' 1'5! 6“ O... s' U 23 confirmed Turgenev’s fatherhood of Viardot’s second daughter Didi. Turgenev’s relationship with actress Savina who played Veroéka in A Month in the Country in Petersburg in 1879 was recounted, and it was suggested that Turgenev was quickly attracted to her because of his cooling relationship with Viardot (1973.5). Critics also noticed a connection of Turgenev’s relationship with women to his work, and that Turgenev’s suffering relationship with his mother and Viardot bequeathed to him one of his basic themes, the inadequate man and demanding woman (1957.3). Several biographies of Turgenev’s life have been published. The first Turgenev biography (1926.1) in English included detailed biographical data on Turgenev (family background, education, life in Russia and abroad, his lovers, relations with his Russian and foreign writers, and the response to his works from inside and outside Russia). Two more biographies followed, one (1954.3) discussing Turgenev’s life, his relationship with Viardot and his relationships with Russian and foreign writers, and another (1977.6) exploring the interplay of Turgenev’s life and art with biographical data taken from newly released correspondences of Turgenev. Criticism has also traced every step of Turgenev’s life, trying to find a clue for connections to his writings. Epistolary studies became critical for this type of research, as more and more biographical information was gleaned on Turgenev from Turgenev’s published and unpublished letters. Turgenev’s relations with literary figure such as Mme Juliette Adam (the founder and editor of French literary journal La Nouvelle Revue) (1968.2), Buloz (the founder of Revue des Deux Mondes) (1973.11), Richard Miles (the English critic) (1975.5) were discovered and discussed. Turgenev’s meetings from 1851 to 1871 with Richard Milnes were seen as decisive in changing Turgenev’s attitude toward the English and sharpening his concern for his own country’s reform (as reflected in A Nest of the Gentry) (1975.5). A study (1960.2) of Turgenev’s thirty-five business 24 letters to Baron Horace de Gunzburg (a banker) showed that Turgenev was in constant financial difficulty due to the great expense incurred by the Viardot family, mismanagement of his Russian estate, and his financial assistance to Russian revolutionaries. A wealth of biographical data was extracted from Turgenev’s epistolary items shedding light on many episodes in his life: Turgenev’s trip to Russia in 1879 to secure his share in the inheritance of his brother Nikolaj (1971.5); his stay (1973.10) alone in Courtavenel in July and August, 1849, because of the Viardots’ departure for a season at Covent Garden; Turgenev’s only visit to Scotland, from 8th to 16th August 1871 (by invitation to the Scott Centenary Celebration) (1976.7); relations of Viardot and Turgenev with English critic Henry F. Chorley (1981.8); Turgenev’s extravagant devotion to the Viardots, and his relative neglect for Pauline’s daughter, Paulinette (1981.9); Turgenev’s role in the International Literary Congress of 1878 held in Paris (1983.41); Turgenev’s Courtavenel life from June of 1845 to October of 1860, his changing relationship with Viardot, and his creative debt to his Courtanvenel experience (1989.8); and Turgenev’s interest in spiritualism through the influence of Edward-Lytton, an English novelist and D. Hume, an American spirit medium (1992.5). From the 19808 on, criticism began to scrutinize Turgenev’s documents and letters for data on the plan or the process of Turgenev’s writings. Two documents were found (1984.26) of the first sketch of characters for Fathers and Sons, along with the first outline of the novel. These showed little change from the final text of the novel, although many discrepancies were noted and analyzed. Examining the same manuscript, another study (1989.3) found its broad outline and character sketches almost matched to the fair copy of the novel, albeit with significant changes in the love story between Bazarov and Odincova in Chapter 17 and in the dialogue between Arkadij and Kat’ ja in Chapter 24. no. -“'.\)" I 1" l g_ 4...... 0 15125321": 3, $331“ [a in: ‘ ,bs \‘n‘ 3"“.- n M‘ 1e; ‘h‘ - be We :- - - "‘1)‘ h-l: p 1“ 0‘ ‘ r -.i ’— tl .\ CT,“ ‘x~‘ K‘...‘ ‘~.‘ ‘ \‘11'.’ \ M F _ k I)” "Vii? 7., "E? 9 . S. -‘ i K‘ “- . ‘1'? L‘ ‘ N.“ ’L 25 Describing the process of Turgenev’s writing Smoke from its origin to the finished work, a study (1990.6) explained the reason why there are two heroes, Litvinov and Potugin. Marimée’s fourteen letters to Turgenev (written from 1865 to 1868) revealed that Turgenev had planned a novel to depict a sectarian revolt and the education of young Peter the Great (1983.24). Turgenev’s autograph manuscript of an unpublished scenario for an opera libretto, presented to Brahms in 1869, was published and many characteristics of Romantic drama in the scenario were noticed(l982.7). Lost Turgenev’s manuscripts were avidly sought, with one critic (1983.10) searching every possible source to find Turgenev’s missing manuscript novel, A Life for Art, the existence of which was reported by the St. Petersburg paper ReE ’ after the death of Viardot in 1910. In summary, one note that criticism of biographical studies on Turgenev showed noticeable trends and shifts. The criticism covered topics from Turgenev’s relationship with Russian and Western writers and literary people to his relationship with women, and biographical connections to his works. Early criticism dealt mainly with biographical anecdotes and the influence of Turgenev’s mother on his life and his works. In the 20th century, studies began to examine Turgenev’s relationship with other writers, focusing in the first half of the century on Russian writers, especially Dostoevskij, and in the 70s and 80s on French writers, mainly G. Sand. Studies on Turgenev’s connection to Dostoevskij changed beginning in the 19803, as criticism gradually shed a more positive light on the relationship. Two individuals, Dostoevskij and Pauline Viardot, have been treated consistently and frequently from the beginning of biographical criticism. Turgenev’s correspondence and manuscripts were the most actively analyzed sources. Epistolary study became a main axis of biographical studies due to the laborious studies of Patrick Waddington from the 1970s on. Many other categories of Turgenev’s criticism, comparative studies, philosophical studies, and poetical studies have been greatly enriched by the increase of new biographical findings on Turgenev. As documentary and ”A. h - 4'- {bl-Juan? 5rd“. 4» I“ a A - . . ‘ ”"l “(we 1. ' ‘ka—saa V. C';" ‘v§w- L “‘L‘bkiu D . b... . ”“7... ‘~‘:"n-“ T. ‘ W «'23! ~ F .o I' e 1" \ ‘ tiger“ T. 5 'h. « A _I 441 . LA 26 epistolary studies on Turgenev became active, Turgenev’s connection to English writers and literary figures has been much more clearly elucidated from the 19703. Considering the sheer bulk of Turgenev’s epistolary items (which number more than six thousand), epistolary studies will doubtlessly continue to be a catalyst for Turgenev criticism in the future. 3. Criticism of Turgenev as Critic Criticism has also sought out elements of Turgenev’s literary theories expounded in his articles and letters, analyzing Turgenev’s criticism of others. Reviewing Turgenev’s Introduction to his unpublished article on Baratynskij’s verse, a critic (1968.1) noticed that Turgenev complained of too much intellect and a lack of fluidity and musical quality, belying the attitude that great intellectual acuity harms poetry. Another study (1968.3) reviewed Turgenev’s Foreword to a Russian translation of Maxime Du Camp’s Les Forces perdues, finding in Turgenev a contempt for the poets and novelists of the French Romantic school. Critics have exhaustively reviewed Turgenev’s own articles on literature, finding such salient tenets as balance between observation and interpretation (1934.1), as well as “tenuousness of plot, intentional playing—down of fatality, and plurality of themes” (1954.1). Examining Turgenev’s notable essay “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” a critic (1975.4) claimed that Turgenev does not accept the important “ethical question of the morality of vengeance” raised by Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The critic described Turgenev as “an apologist for quixotism,” who believes in “the eventual victory of good over evil.” Giving an in-depth analysis of Turgenev’s “Faust” essay, another critic (1979.2) found Turgenev’s attitude ambivalent not only to Goethe’s drama, but also to Goethe’s personality, world view, and aesthetics. Examining Turgenev’s concepts of drama based m 'r: 3353} 56131 ”to s $13.1 Grimm 's 11334.9? cramped the '3ch million AI 11 32:15.: semen: «19: "n r:.51 a pit-5e of a? tics hi I'm neg-g) I am and to that $18553 in me 19” I U': :Pg‘e , .1‘I .ji.‘ \I-ng ' 0f ngénex «.ZPG.‘ " l S . .055‘ u“ ’ NU» - '“t . ' B an "T1114! L $13.“ - 27 on his essay Neskol ’ko slov o komedii g. Ostrovskogo Bednaja Nevesta and reviews of Faust, S. A. Gedeonov’s Smert’ Ljapunova, N. V. Kukol’nik’s General-poméik, a critic (1984.9) catalogued the ways in which Turgenev’s ideas diverged from the Russian dramatic tradition. At times Turgenev the critic was himself dealt with harshly. One critic’s assessment (1969.6) maintained that “Turgenev’s literary criticism depends on how much a piece of writing is like his own, on how well Turgenev gets along with the authors and how nearly their political views coincide, on how prominent or how obscure the writer is and to what extent Turgenev feels that his reputation is threatened.” In general, studies of Turgenev as critic tended to center on Turgenev’s own literary skill in the 19303 and 19503, Turgenev’s criticism of others in the 19603, and Turgenev’s philosophy in the 19703, with emphasis on Turgenev’s concept of poetics for drama. 4. Criticism of Turgenev Criticisms Critics also examined the work of other critics on Turgenev. Pisarev’s critical view of the nihilists (Fathers and Sons) was analyzed by a critic (1978.2) who explained the reason why Pisarev embraced Bazarov as the representative of the thinking of his own generation. Soviet critical views of Turgenev were also examined. A critique (1962.5) elucidated the Soviet ideological content of Turgenev’s work, especially of Fathers and Sons, and another (1983.44) highly praised Pu3tovoit’s view which focused on Bazarov’s shortcomings and his spiritual bankruptcy. Grossman’s claim that Turgenev’s A Month in the Country is an imitation of Balzac’s La Maratre was refuted by a critic (1984.8) who argued that most points of resemblance pointed to by Grossman are inaccurate. American critics’ views of Turgenev were also examined, with one critic (1971.4) taking issue with Henry J ames’s articles maintaining that Turgenev’s narrative technique was the most attractive one for American realists and that all of J ames’s novels before 1881 were 3.331% or the S PUIbffl S I?h £33 and 'o‘cfz n‘ ma: world ' fl - ~ . zen-2551:1315. 5.303213; kw, -3, _ ‘ £5.33 3 ' Vsh.‘ Ski-s Li 12% i;_ CE‘ 13'. Zi‘nl - - ~30 o: l 4.;1 he) ‘ ‘ .‘,J g '-.-9.- t“. ~.l: ‘ ' 5373?; -5 “$‘A~-' . e‘.‘ ,p. _ 6 ‘Al'.‘ \-< Q: ‘- .:.-" \1_t‘ - 3 VA A. \~‘H~ 4.- ‘ .. ‘. . - ,_ ‘9' -\. ‘; .A v: . u - 28 structurally or thematically derived from Turgenev’s. Another critic (1978.6) reviewed V. s. Pritchett’s The Life and Work of Turgenev. praising the book’s lack of “gossipy details” and “obfuscating tendentiousness” while pointing out the second hand nature of Pritchett’s account and the unbridgeable gap between Pritchett’s and Turgenev’s spiritual and artistic world. 5. Criticism of Socio-political and Philosophical Studies Socio—political and philosophical studies of Turgenev arose from the very beginning of Turgenev criticism, with one critique (1855.1) noting Turgenev’s ability to raise politically subtle questions such as Russian serfdom without explicitly treating it (in his Notes of a Hunter). Questions of moral attitudes were also discerned (1878.2): “the degradation of the serfs” in Notes of a Hunter; “the corrupting tendencies of false civilization” in Smoke; the uselessness of a philosophy not solidifying its aspirations into dwds” in Rudin; “the weakness of the old Russian culture” in Father and Sons; “the suicidal madness” of nihilism in Virgin Soil. Critics also disputed the genuineness of the socio-political reflection of Turgenev’s novels. While one critic (1884.1) regarded Virgin Soil as a disappointing political novel, perceiving Turgenev as a writer who is “remembered less as a novelist of nihilism than a writer of emancipation,” yet another (1890.4) believed that social ills are well reflected in Virgin Soil and other writings of Turgenev, who is resolute in struggling against them in his works. In the 20th century, criticism focused on many socio-political and philosophical subjects. Many critics scrutinized elements which grounded Turgenev’s socio- philosophical works in reality, which for one critic (1911.1) included Virgin Soil’s “fascinating historical background,” “vivid picture of every day life,” and “authenticity of psychological portrayal of the characters.” For other critics (1978.10) those were a L5 1137.3}11 2235.2 3335 m' 23‘2“...) or ‘38 . . . , 5133352152. 3213. . . . 3t ’ I". n 1‘ .3! a . \:4‘ S 3“}:- ~'\-‘ ‘ “it’ll.“ mt 43:4 S 9111’ its? - aw‘ \.‘xvfi 1.;- N ‘ S .. 3'3.- ‘. ““th I": 'T. w 72., . A "r,— 1%-? ~.‘ ‘ ‘-\ ~- ‘5' '\ . .. __ A. ‘2- ». .. O 29 skillful portrayal of the constraint under which men strive, an ability to translate the political issues into “depictions of men and women engaged in the tasks of daily life” (1980.5) or “creation of concrete images of recurrent social types by means of psychological analysis” (1983.36). A disparity between Turgenev’s political opinions and his aesthetic judgments, lack of real integration of character and political position, and the slight role in politics in his work were also pointed out (1957.2). One of the loftier recurring themes in Turgenev criticism has been that of the finite human being in face of infinite universe. One study (1931.1) found (in Turgenev’s six novels) that pessimism prevails so completely over the destiny of even Turgenev’s strong and noble women characters, and that they never can lead a normal, happy life. Turgenev’s intimation of mortality in Beiin Meadow was also studied (1977.2). It was concluded that Turgenev took the meditative act to the conclusion toward which “spiritual contemplation” tends by nature: knowledge of mortality. Fathers and Sons was also viewed (1988.2) as a book not about reform, revolution, or generation conflict, but about “the universal question of how man reconciles his finite existence with his infinite yeamings.” Another critic (1983.9) discussed the theme of knowledge of man’s “inevitable mortality” in Fathers and Sons, insisting that the crucial transition of Bazarov’s attitude after chapter 15 is not made by his love but by his “obsession with the knowledge of his own, mortality.” Discussing the occultist motif in Turgenev’s swan- song, Klara Mier‘, one critic (1983.17) found in Klara MiliE the understanding of the continuing life of nature as “the pledge of personal immortality” set forth at the conclusion of Fathers and Sons. The theme of love indeed predominated thematic studies, with a critic (1950.1) seeing Turgenev’s view of love, as expressed in First Love as “a solvent of the barriers set up by conscience and habit between the good and evil in men.” “N onlove” and 30 “isolation” in Mumu was discussed, with a critic (1987.4) finding that manifestations of the absence of love in the story outweigh those of mutual love. The theme of failure of a pure and tender love was noted to be a common theme in Turgenev’s society novels. The birth and meaning of nihilism was an important and controversial theme from the beginning, with one critique (1878.1) finding Fathers and Sons one of the best sources of information on Russian nihilism. Another early study (1879.1) traced changes of the meaning of the epithet ‘nihilist’ in Turgenev’s writings and in Russian history. Another perennial theme discussed by critics has been the gallery of “superfluous men” in his novels, with one critique (1956.1) surveying their sexual, social and political frustrations and emphasizing their roots in the tradition of Russian literature and Turgenev’s own indecisiveness. The critic described the politics of Turgenev’s novels as “a politics of hesitation” reflecting “the dilemmas of an educated man” with an instinctual contempt for the very politics his intelligence leads him into. Another critic (1983.2) saw The Diary of a Superfluous Man, as “the crystallization of a preoccupation” that seized Turgenev, Gercen, and their contemporaries, pointing out that Turgenev carefully attributes the cause of the protagonist’s superflousness to inadequate family life, differing from Gercen’s and Belinskij’s views. Democratic ideas in Turgenev’s works have also been examined, with a critic (1932.1) showing how Turgenev represented the spirit of the time and of leading ideas among intellectual classes and describing the early influence on Turgenev of Stankevic, Bakunin, Gercen, Belinskij. Another study (1972.1) seeing Turgenev as an “obstinate reformist and non-revolutionary,” a man of the forties facing the liberal dilemma that “to support the Left in its excesses went against the civilized grain but to abandon it to the forces of reaction seemed even more unthinkable.” 31 From the 603, criticism actively examined Turgenev’s connection to German philosophy. One critic (1963.7) argued that Turgenev’s two images of nature in the late 18503 (the harmonious world of nature in our conception and indifferent nature in its objectivity) are not contradictory but complementary, and both can be found in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Another study (1986.4) debated the subtext of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics of music in A Nest of the Gentry, finding Schopenhauer’s strong influence on Turgenev’s “concept of music as the exaltation and celebration of renunciation.” Yet it was also asserted (1966.2) that even though Turgenev’s pessimistic vision of the world seemed strengthened and supplemented by Schopenhauer’s views, Turgenev did not accept Schopenhauer’s view of “the evil Will,” his epistemological notion of “ the world as my idea,” or his asceticism. Turgenev’s aesthetics have also been analyzed from a Hegelian perspective (art is higher than nature and should not imitate it) (1969.5). Turgenev’s classification of basic personality types as naive, realist, classicist/ sentimental, idealist, Romanticist in On the Eve and in Xor’ and Kalinyé was held to be “an essential part of Turgenev’s German inheritance” (1978.3), which is reflected elsewhere in his work. Other important themes in Turgenev criticism have been those of the individual personality (1985.7), Turgenev’s cosmopolitanism (1972.5), his thoughts and attitude toward youth, aging, and death in his works (1978.9), and his dialectic structures showing that reasonable, liberal men are both right and wrong, due to something unreasonable in the nature of life (particularly Russian life) that makes them fail (1979.1). Turgenev’s attitude to the question of female emancipation was also dealt with. One critic (1983.11) saw the publication of Turgenev’s 0n the Eve as a “landmark in the evolution of Russian woman’s attitudes” and Elena as a pioneer of the “new woman.” The critic found that in Virgin Soil and Ihe Threshold, a poem in prose which could not be published during Q I ' O .rgas s hteume. My. 1.5.3.. {11939.10 2.; _ 3.. 313A 11 "35 hr 3.: 523153: 111 I'm If, -' -.. ““531 35 “21' mil : bezenzisr: '33:}... '1‘.A “I M... "f m Socic”P'Oh: 9,- .5: fit“ 5417111) dta 32 Turgenev’s lifetime, the question of the emancipation of women was treated even more deeply. The “Roman theme” of two deleted passages in the first draft of Virgin Soil was discussed, (1989.10) revealing that the theme had already been in Turgenev’s mind and in his novels. It was held that the Roman denotes an egoist who seeks power in the world (like Sipj agin in Virgin Soil) and that Solomin is an embodiment of Turgenev’s Western Gradualism as well as a synthesis of altruist and Roman egoist. Physiologist Ivan Seéenev’s Scientism, or the notion of a language of facts was discerned in Bazarov’s idiolect (1984.12). The philosophy and aestheticism of the Russian Hamlet and the myth of the Russian people in Notes of a Hunter was also discussed. A study (1991,3) found that Russian Hamlets are aesthetes who extol both the Good and Beautiful and favor the latter, while mythmakers with their belief system focused on narod favor ethics “within the Good-True-Beautiful triad of Prekrasnoe.” Socio-political and philosophical studies on Turgenev have comprised one of the most enduring and voluminous aspects of criticism. Critics have elaborated on a broad range of subjects ranging from Turgenev’s democratic ideas, nihilism, the superfluous man, female emancipation, human destiny in face of infinite and indifferent nature, love, the Roman theme, to Turgenev’s ties to German philosophy and Scientism. In early criticism, socio-political studies prevailed, but from the 19603 philosophical studies were more frequently dealt with German philosophy and Schopenhauer in particular. There was also a change of source materials as attention shifted in the 19803 from Turgenev’s novels and Notes of a Hunter to stories and poems in prose. £22533 01 large?“ lrgm‘s mm. 753 132 53.235 (1‘35 .35. plot ove 2553 m Etgimd 3:23 to lt'genex 35.. 3.29.138 A: gas 5 gmd rep: 3:535 It lmgenex ') . n:- ..; ' 33:53:, W (1C 23. “h 3 Stud: mum. Cr 43 l“ \ '5; ‘ 5:72.136 ' We: L“. 33 6. Criticism of Turgenev reception Turgenev’s critical reception has been frequently examined from the early criticism. Thus one critic (1884.3) argued that the English-speaking reader’s preference for complicated plot over character sketches is one of the reasons why Turgenev is less popular in England than in France and in Germany. Henry James’s role in calling attention to Turgenev in America along with Turgenev’s credit for arousing interest in Russian literature among Europeans and Americans were also discussed (1905.1). Turgenev’s good reputation among the westerners “in the intellectual-artistic milieu” was ascribed to Turgenev’s westemized literary qualities, such as his profound pessimism and Hamletian heroes (1922.2). There also were negative aspects to Turgenev’s reception in the early 20th century. A critic (1910.3) discussed the lack of understanding Turgenev faced among his western compeers. A comprehensive study of the effect Turgenev had on English and American authors and critics was made in 19303 (1937.1), treating in detail Turgenev’s reception in England and America, which suffered a gradual decline after the discovery of Dostoevskij. After World War 11, however, Turgenev enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in the West, with a study (1950.1) finding in his art a “universal and spiritual force to reveal human nature.” Critics also compiled comprehensive studies of Turgenev’s reception in the West in the 19603, tracing the ups and downs of Turgenev’s critical stock by period: 1) to the end of 19th century, he was labeled “ambassador of Russian letters in Europe” and “genuine interpreter of the Russian national scene”; 2) to the 19303, he was seen as an author with “effeminate manner and superficial lyrical qualities”; 3) after the Second World War, he was perceived as a writer of renewed popularity (1961.3). {323593111 reachei 1* ~th monogra; 33:13 :33: 13983.3“ 325.2 med from insets fibres of; 312 5} their 832192.13 551 much main its him}- mad fr; :3.“ "4 t “‘2‘“ Tirgenet s l .9? .- t M2,: } - 5&3“er 23., ,‘H _' '3' 1“MW mte 34 Criticism reached its peak in the 19803, with a critic (1983.10) stipulating that twenty-three monographs on Turgenev had been published since 1979 - within five years. Another critic (1983.39) compiled all bibliographies of criticism on Turgenev in English which appeared from 1969 to 1983. Another study (1983.22) traced interpretations of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter by British and American writers and critics, differentiating them by their emphasis on pure artistry vs. politics. The critic strongly supported the second approach maintaining that the Notes of a Hunter (aimed against serfdom) opened a new literary road from Flaubert’s Madame Bovary to Conrad. Another critic (1983.31) discussed Turgenev’s influence on the history of the novel, recording assessments of him by Flaubert, Maupassant, James, A. Maurois, T. Mann, Hemingway and by critics R. Rolland, J. Galsworthy, J. Reed, V. Pritchett, and S. Lewis. The critic praised Turgenev as an artist with “international breadth of vision.” Early criticism revealed a mixed reception of Turgenev in the West, with Turgenev’s popularity growing and waning along with criticism of his works. The study of Turgenev’s reception in the West had been confined mostly to his reception in England until a new comprehensive study (1937.1) on Turgenev’s reception in America and England appeared. As criticism showed a renewed interest in Turgenev from the 19503, and subjects of study became more diversified (trends and shifts of Turgenev’s reception in the West, the role of translation, and assessment of his role in literary history). In general, there was an increased interest in Turgenev reception during the 19603, which sharpened even further in the 19803. 11512531: of lurgene 32.533 of Turger Yrsss's mode. of 33..”312301} 111.4 .\ 2‘35. line Of 18383 “52:12.33 from I Sui-.33 Mm to fired the superfi #3331313 sup 1‘3. warranted a “31113 hpolc: hm‘fiekxmt 35:135.: mRfinaj ‘13-. Mg ripe: o .53. , _ . Calms 325 38 n0! P'lr .7? .. 35 7. Criticism of Turgenev’s Poetics. Studies of Turgenev’s poetics flourished from early on. Early criticism examined Turgenev’s modes of characterizations, with one critic (1873.1) praising the excellent characterization in A Nest of the Gentry. This line of research deepened and diversified in the 20th century, with a great deal of scrutiny afforded to Turgenev’s character typing and characterization skills. Within this area, character typing received the most attention. Critics turned again and again to Turgenev’s Russian Hamlets and superfluous men, with one critic (1905.2) tracing “Hamletism” from Hamlet of Scigrov District (Notes of a Hunter) and Diary of a Superfluous Man to its full artistic representation in Rudin. Another critic (1984.16) regarded the superfluous man as a paradigm for characters in Turgenev’s fictions, emphasizing the superfluity in Turgenev’s “men of the sixties.” Turgenev’s heroes were often characterized as analytical, egotistical, and lacking in faith, with one critic (1907.2) linking this typology to intellectual movements in Turgenev’s novels. Bazarov and Insarov were described as universal types(1907.l), while Rudin was regarded as a type confined to Russia. Bazarov characterization has spawned a myriad of character typings, as an “incarnation of the spirit of the new world” in which prejudices do not exist (1921.1), or as a tragic hero rather than “an odd character unable to adjust to society” (1985.1). Another critic (1983.28) found two Bazarovs, the skeptical one at the end of the novel and the dynamic one at the beginning, a creative error, yet a harbinger of the two contrasting types of personality set forth in Turgenev’s 1860 essay Hamlet and Don Quixote. Critics also suggested real-life models for the characterization of Rudin, that Rudin was not modeled on Bakunin but on Belinskij ’s characterization of Bakunin (1992.4). Some critics perceived failures in Turgenev’s characterization, holding that 36 Turgenev was forced by the Russian public to create a “full-scale hero” after the publication of A Nest of the Gentry (1954.2). In the 70s and the 80s, character grouping, especially in Fathers and Sons, took up the lion’s share of character studies, with a study (1973.1) mapping a three-tier structuring of character relationships in Fathers and Sons-- relationships between generations, relationships with women, and a third tier where the other two meet and interact. Another study (1977.5) posited four major characters pairs with the most direct thematic relevance to the title of the novel (Nikolaj and Arkadij; Pavel and N ikolaj; Pavel and Bazarov; and Arkadij and Bazarov). Another critic (1982.4) partitioned characters into a first group of “egoists and unbelievers” consisting of Bazarov, Pavel, and Odincova, and a second group of “altruists and believers” comprising Arkadij and Nikolaj. Another critic (1977.4) found in Fathers and Sons “a spectrum of character types” based on characters’ attitudes toward nature, ranging from those in which there is “harmonious fusion between the individual and his surroundings” to others marked by “the mutual exclusivity of self and environment.” Turgenev’s characterization of heroines received criticism’s particular attention. Turgenev’s “profound knowledge of a young girl’s subtle and mysterious heart” was pointed out and it was noted that Turgenev does not endow his heroines with physical perfection (1921.1). A remarkable change was noticed (1983.34) in Turgenev’s description of women after 1860: they become “malevolent seducers” such as Zinaida in First Love, Ellis in Phantoms, Irina in Smoke, and Polozova in Spring Toments and Klara Milié’. Another critic (1983.15) rebuked “sweeping generalizations” which had resulted in a negative picture of Odincova in previous criticism. Turgenev’s portrayal of emancipated women was also discussed (1985.8). Nor have Cl'lllCS fa mil-.3 weak males tazl- ruled heroes of m. and amt-“er c1 mime firgin' for mas. l: was also : 1&3th novels of re! Fuse of neml hag: More iemied my. in. a whim studies. as: on nan-ante c 1.315! tormenting “as work 011 issuing of 8mm 3-» - . “5&2? - mm m F010: 5: the of Chalmers i 37 Nor have critics failed to notice Turgenev’s recurring mode of characterization contrasting weak males with strong females. An early study (1916.1) contrasted the weak- willed heroes of Turgenev (except Bazarov) with the “indomitable” will of his heroines, and another critique (1957.2) refined this dichotomy into the “predatory and passionate virgin” for female characters and Hamlets and Don Quixotes for male characters. It was also noted that the heroines of Turgenev’s society novels resemble those of his novels of rebellious youth by virtue of their reasonableness, cold beauty, and “promise of neutral happiness” (1961.4). More detailed analyses of Turgenev’s characterization devices became important in characterization studies, especially after the 19705. An early study noted Turgenev’s emphasis on narrative characterization rather than incident (1916.1), with another critic (1970.5) commenting on the typical Puskinian device of counterposing type in Turgenev’s work. Other studies (1983.12) emphasized “the absence of over- intellectualizing of emotion” and (1983.7) Turgenev’s use of “vestirnentary markers” for characterization in Fathers and Sons. Turgenev’s subtle use of dress codes, particularly at the time of character’s introduction to reveal the character’s socio—economic status, was also mentioned. Another study (1984.3) examined two devices for the description of characters’ state of mind in Fathers and Sons: “bringing Self and setting together in parallelism” and use of the subconsciousness and dreams. Symbolism in the names of main characters and their living places in A Living Relic was found (1992.2) to denote a dichotomy between spiritual and earthly images. Turgenev’s reputation as a “writer’s writer” and a master craftsman was reflected in criticism from the very beginning; among the many stylistic merits attributed him over the years are simple and unaffected language, “unconstrained humor,” “great descriptive power,” and “purity of feeling” (1867.1); “purity of tone,” and great beauty of style $6.131}; 'remar’tab' aerial spectator" m of he complexl me not molly fr: 3! comment if?“ in the 2C 3:3;‘1 . "’54“ and die 335. . leClSn-l l '3 38 (1869.1); “remarkably concise form” (1874.2); narration as a “mute critics and the perennial spectator” (1880.1); vivid description based on keen observation, “impartial view of the complexities of human life,” an absence of philosophizing, “a sad and morbid tone not wholly free from Byronic world-pain,” and skillful narrative construction (1882.2); “matchless sense of form and harmonious proportion,” “felicitous use of metaphor” (1889.1); “well defined portraiture” and “clear arrangement of the situation” (1890.3); concision, “unity of material and form,” objectivity with rare imagination, and “a constant element of poetry” without loss of reality (1897.1); and the simplicity of style (1899.2). The considerable catalogue of stylistic devices credited to Turgenev vastly lengthened in the 20th century, as critics have continued to review Turgenev’s poetics: “penetrating observation” and “a responsive imagination” (1908.1); “masterful” monologue and dialogue, suggestive description, and “multi-faceted portrayal” of characters’ speech, manner, and physical traits in his shorter fiction (1913.1); “exquisite style,” “interesting and significant dialogue,” and delightful description of nature (1927.1); “poetic Impressionism,” “easy development of narrative,” and “musical language” (1929.3); “condensation of text,” “suggestiveness” through metaphor, imagery and allegories, and “simple and economic construction” with “a perfect sense of form” (1945.1); “economic certainty of touch” and “sense of form” (1948.1) Turgenev’s poetic skills were most intensively and seriously explored from the 1950s on. Criticism noted Turgenev’s ability to delicately impregnate the imagination of readers in many subtle ways, with one critic (1974.4) discussing the quality and ftmction of the image of the garden, the most Romantic and lyrically described of Turgenev’s settings, and with highly specific and effective thematic, narrative and character-related associations. Another study (1976.1) described how the garden motif in Fathers and Sons me the presentatie mm to the garden 5 a? 27215315. for em aesrhmhty in F zrs rt‘ m imagery was m'a metaphorical le' 755m to describe 3956011112 ”Russia". :73 D5213). ‘5 188811: Is...s shame in F1! Tm mes of Mg ice: of ng€ne\"5 a! ates but for man “Imam between airs 11961.1). Nam \- '. 39 enhances the presentation of themes and characters, showing how the relationship of characters to the garden signify overall prospect for happiness. Critics also found a wealth of symbols, for example those used to symbolize the image of Zinaida’s inapproachability in First Love. Turgenev’s use of details, trees and fire as stage-settings and prose imagery was also debated, stipulating (1984.6) that the image-sets in Rudin create “a metaphorical level of meaning.” The “complex network of subtle image” woven by Turgenev to describe Luker’ja (the heroine in A Living Relic) was seen (1992.2) as an example of the “Russian notion of cleansing one’s soul through suffering.” Imagery of day and night was asserted to be as an important element which links the main body and concluding chapter in First Love (1994.4). The poetics of Turgenev’s nature descriptions was singled out repeatedly as a central element of Turgenev’s art. Criticism noted that Turgenev uses nature not merely to paint a scene, but for many thematic purposes, such as foreshadowing the loss of communication between generations and the ultimate rupture of revolution in Fathers and Sons (1961.1). Nature in BeZin Meadow was shown to provide both the symbolic mode of meditation (“the topography of a given landscape”) and the object of contemplation, a duality that counts for “the rich suggestiveness of the extended description” (1977.2). One study (1983.35) showed how nature descriptions “infused” in “inert passages” in Turgenev’s works create a “dynamic staticity,” arouse tension through “paradoxical tropes,” fulfill the need for a dynamic element and “perform the functions of narrative that elsewhere are fulfilled by other means.” The critic also noted that nature is used as a kind of field of action, often becoming an extension of woman. The development of Turgenev’s landscape technique from the gradual introduction of symbolic meanings in Notes of a Hunter to the majestically poetic scenes of Fathers and Sons was also traced (1987.2), concluding that among Turgenev’s poetics devices, his 2152' w Simbolk dc? islt genes-low. Coho: line also e: The .Veeirgs an“ .1 use an integrated er" hie Eve amounted mrhmm Codes note m: “are of Trgenex's rta frame ‘sense kph “I . . s .1 here is in 0““ 133.31 tiers. and am e; senator from m" ; . .. ._ ~¢L0rtldentific 35‘». “351» nl « iskement ( m 40 realistic yet symbolic depiction of nature is “a major contribution to the development of Russian belles-lettres.” Critics have also examined Turgenev’s lyrical perception, stressing (1976.5) that Three Meetings and A Moonless Night comprise a “mosaic of lyrical moments” which achieve an integrated effect, while another critic (1990.2) found that lyrical elements in On the Eve amounted to a specific subtext which served to counter, and ultimately subvert, the plot. Critics wrote much about Turgenev’s narration. Some critics examined general tenets of Turgenev’s narration, with one critic (1975.2) stating that in Turgenev’s stories there is a strong “sense of identification between narrator and protagonists”, while in the novels there is “an omniscient third-person narrator” more detached from a protagonist’s point of view, and another critic (1984.2) maintaining that Turgenev not only shifts the role of narrator from one character to another but also changes the narrative modes (apperception, identification, and autonomy). Criticism also investigated narration in Turgenev’s specific works, focusing most frequently on Note of a Hunter, thus a study (1964.2) described the role of narrator as “means of establishing verisirnilitude necessary to the handling of themes.” Another critic (1984.18) concluded that “the narrative syntax of conjoined antonyms” along with “strategic placement of conjoined narrative” is the dominant compositional principle which gives Notes of a Hunter its “aesthetic and political integrity.” The other study (1988.1) perceived “unhurried mode of narration” as the typical narrative technique in Notes of a Hunter. The system of poetic devices for narrative structure in Fathers and Sons was also examined, with one study (1984.3) stipulating that “in the novel, the act of telling and story told, narrator and characters are part of the narrative fiction.” Another st; Will claimed mmmymm hesiosmenn ero‘iihed by two 8111 amt seven of ever son; and create a i reigned hon eieme: writer's silence. “Mm-1‘ heightene- 273213 313-13815 B ‘ Tr: k Wm 01 \‘ie' 41 study (1990.2) claimed that Turgenev’s narratives in A Nest of the Gentry are characterized by “lyrical meditation,” “pastoral rejuvenation,” and “unspoken emotion.” The level of sophistication reached in the criticism of Turgenev’s poetics by the 19808 is exemplified by two studies of Rudin (one of which [1984.7] showed how narrative elements woven of everyday conversation and the interplay of multiple voices replace rhetoric and create a Romantic “monologic eloquence”). The other study (1990.1) investigated how elements working against the story’s “movement toward closure” (such as narrator’s silence, overflow effect, and the partisan nature of the narrator’s omniscience) heightened narrative tension. Socio-political concerns spiced the stew of narrative analysis as well, as one study (1987.1) analyzed Turgenev’s narration in Asja from the point of view of feminist criticism, regarding the story as a “profoundly androcentric” work told from narrator N. N.’s view of Asja, not from her own, and leaving Asja’s image ultimately confused and contradictory. Along with narrative, plot elements also received their fair share of attention. One study (1980.1) interpreted coincidence as a typical device of Turgenev’s plotting and grouped it into the categories of chance encounter, multiple coincidences, cumulative coincidences, near-coincidences, and non-coincidences. The structure of plot in Fathers and Sons was also analyzed (1974.1) expounding the processes by which the novel’s action is transformed into plot, with particular attention to the travels of Bazarov, the subsequent organic interdependency of the action, and overall time structure. Indeed, critics ardently rummaged through every possible comer of Turgenev’s poetics workshop. Structural devices were mentioned as effective use of epilogues and prologues which not only to frame the picture but also to “suggest the inconclusiveness of life” (1953.2). Structural devices called I-procedure were found typical of Turgenev’s short stories and novellas. Structural analyses in recent years have often been confined to mix-1,331 works. a be. Another stud; .‘re:5 such as We Lime ”the crea: flee insion and re Criticism ha . {924.12 shirt en; Tree‘s later nc 2 h . ‘ ‘ I t assgnere 0t ;.- ‘09-... N $3455 10 T6335 ";?‘"~hs v .-I if tkt. king \ :53“ ”'5' ~24» or emotios k: '1; ‘ ‘ ' 55-. One Cntii r-su - . “a: ' 'e - - Jf \ Pub 6: f. ‘g at Shh new 42 individual works, as in one study (1971.3) focusing on the structural harmony of First Love. Another study (1985.6) surveyed devices of German novelle structure in Spring Torrents such as Wendepunkt, Rahrnen, and Ding-Symbol. Structural devices in Notes of a Hunter (“the creation of unique spatial settings within a large context”), framing, and clear allusion and references to myth and fairy tales were also noticed (1984.21). Criticism has also paid special attention to other stylistic devices, as in a study (1964.1) which enumerated major artistic devices found in Asja also characteristic of Turgenev’s later novels (skillful use of linguistic elements-- diminutive endings to lend an atmosphere of coziness, intimacy, and charm; “use of contrasting colors in descriptive passages to reflect the mood of the narrator; concentration on gesture, facial expressions and speech using Various verbs plus adverbs to add further shades of meaning and reveal thought or emotions; and use of literary allusions to hint at a character’s emotion or destiny). One critic (1967.2) even focused on stylistic problems in connection with the usage of “V plus 6M0” in Turgenev’s works, maintained that acts expressed with “V plus Juno” should be understood as acts which “might have occurred but did not,” and found this device significant in Turgenev’s mode of psychological analysis. Discussing Turgenev’s use of language, dialogue, and gesture in his Rudin and in A Tour in the Forest, one critic (1990.2) suggested that the enigrnas and hiddeness of Turgenev’s early poetry linger in his later works. Criticism also dwelled on Turgenev’s use of time setting. A study (1975.2) found that those of Turgenev’s stories with no specific chronological settings are often a direct expression of Turgenev’s experiences and his world view. Turgenev’s entire poetics was seen (1992.1) as artful “orchestration of space and time” which set “very deliberate physical, metaphysical and moral parameters” within which events can distinctively 43 unfold. Another critic (1976.1) inferred that not only Bazarov’s career, but entire plot of Fathers and Sons is tied to the seasons. Turgenev’s poetics overall received more attention than any aspect of Turgenev’s art from the early criticism to the 1990s, undergoing many shifts and changes. The criticism was examined in Two subcategories: characterization, and compositional studies. Criticism turned more and more to thematic devices in the 1960s. Critics focused on character typing, character grouping, female characterization, and characterization modes. In studies on character typing, the figure of Bazarov became the center of attention, often linked to the theme of nihilism. Compositional studies were fairly unimportant at first, but gradually grew in significance until they became the main axis of criticism after 1970s. Since then the studies have been the most spotlighted and most broad field in criticism of Turgenev’s poetics, ranging from imagery, nature description, lyrical perception, narration, plot, stylistic and Stylistics devices, to time setting. 8. Criticism of Turgenev’s Connection with Literary Movements From the beginning of Turgenev studies, controversy has prevailed in criticism linking Turgenev with one or another literary movement. Critics have placed emphasis on Romanticism, noting (1902.1) the influence of French Romanticism on Turgenev who artftu depicts not only peasant life but also the turbulent life of the higher classes. Another study (1946.1) enumerated Turgenev’s Romantic qualities a “liquid prose style,” “keen feeling for natural beauty,” “deep and genuine love of music,” “nostalgic vividness,” “youthful enthusiasms,” and “feminine characters with intense, single-minded devotion.” Turgenev has also been labeled a realist, in his careful attention to detail, ability to set a scene, and impartiality in treatment (1874.3), as well as in his “minute and objective observation” (1946.2). Turgenev’s theory and practice of aesthetics has been 44 found realistic in their simplicity, clarity of outline, ideals of objectivity along with intense dislike for psychological analysis, moralism in art, individualism and subjectivism (1970.3). At times Turgenev has been seen as a linking or transitional figure between movements rather than a representative of one or another literary camp. One study (1969.5) found in Turgenev’s supernatural fiction his important link in the evolution of Russian literature from the Romanticism and Realism of the nineteenth century to the Symbolism at the turn of the century, citing excerpts from the works of Russian Symbolist theorists (Bal’mont and Brjusov) in which Turgenev’s strong influence on their movement is mentioned. Turgenev was also labeled a “thorough idealist” in contrast to the majority of his contemporary realist novelists, with one critic (1871.1) arguing that Turgenev makes nature the beginning and end of his delineation. One critic (1981.4) endorsed Mereikovskij ’s declaration of Turgenev as an Impressionist, finding an Impressionistic texture not only in Turgenev’s mystical tales, as Merelkovskij did, but also in Realist writings such as Smoke. One critic (1984.4) found difficulty in pinning down Turgenev’s literary mode in that he “participated, actually or implicitly, in many - isms or codes,” noting two different assessments of Turgenev in the circle of Russian symbolists: Mereikovskij, Belyj, and Bal’mont called him “a herald of the new idealistic art,” while Brjusov and Blok saw him as a typical realist. Criticism of Turgenev’s connection with literary movements has indeed been controversial. Some critics placed emphasis on Romanticism based on the vestiges of Turgenev’s poetry in his prose, mainly the theme of love. Some critics saw him as a Realist on the basis of his keen and intuitive understanding of reality and his careful attention to detail. Others pointed out Turgenev’s role as a link from Romanticism and Realism to Symbolism thanks to his supernatural fiction. Still other critics interpreted 45 him as Impressionist. All in all, most critics saw Turgenev as either Realist or Romanticist. "3-... . H ‘ Am“. :- ‘ >1»_ line 1'“ b..l Chapter Two ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MAJOR ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM (1855-1995) 1855 l Anon. Review of Russian Life in the Interior or the Experiences of a Sportsman, the English Version of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter. EclR, n. s., 9 (April): 410- 414. Notes Turgenev’s ability in raising politically subtle questions, such as that of Russian serfdom, without explicitly treating politics in his work Notes of a Hunter. Also highly praises the “native virtue” in Turgenev’s treatment of the suffering Russian people, finding in this Turgenev’s “valuable addition” to Russian literature. 1867 l Anon. Review of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. SatR 24, no. 619 (7 September): 322-323. Lists “the intrinsic merits” of Turgenev’s writings: simple and “unaffected language,” “unconstrained humor,” “genuine and effective pathos,” “great descriptive power,” “purity of feeling,” and “loftiness of thought.” Finds that Turgenev simply “chronicles the sayings and the doings of the characters” without dissecting the subject, thus enhancing the emotional effect. Points out the defects of the translation Fathers and Sons, the first direct English translation of Turgenev’s work from Russian. l 47 1869 Anon. “Turgueniefs Novels.” NBR 50 (March): 12-34. Remarks that Turgenev’s great merits lie in characterization, “sympathy toward his characters,” “purity of tone,” and great beauty of style (“felicity” of expression, “neatness” of dialogue, and “richness” of imagery). Describes the manners and the customs of Turgenev’s characters, concluding that no one has depicted the common people of Russia more correctly than Turgenev. Briefly surveys Turgenev’s major novels and stories, from the collection Notes of a Hunter to Smoke. Holds that while Turgenev prefers to be “a disinterested narrator” rather than a participant in most of his novels, he shows himself as “a considerable participant” in Fathers and Sons and Smoke, leading those works into “the realm of satire.” 2 Anon. “The Reviews of the works of Ivan Serguevitch Turgeneff.” BQR 50 (1 October): 423-445. The first English article to deal with the whole of Turgenev’s fiction up until 1869. Hails Turgenev as “the historian and painter of the moral and philosophical movement” in Russia. Notes that “the poetic atmosphere and artistic condensation in his descriptions of nature” differ markedly from “the rude and coarse coloring” of the majority of realistic writers. Sees Turgenev as essentially a poet who works by “suggestiveness,” evoking his characters and scenes without laborious analysis or detail, and showing nature in her softer and gentler manifestations. Believes Turgenev’s popularity lies in his genius for poetics as well as in the subject matter his writings treat. Surveys the changes of the portrayal of the superfluous men in Turgenev’s novels. Considers Smoke as a satire which departs from the usual tone of Trugenev’s writings. 43 1871 1 Dillmann, A. C. “Ivan Turgenef, the Novelist.” LipM 7 (May): 494-502. Labels Turgenev a “thorough idealist” as opposed to the majority of his contemporary realist novelists, who see their task as “photographic reproductions of what is disgusting and offensive.” Argues that Turgenev makes nature the beginning and the end of his poetical delineation, and that Turgenev’s writings are found to lack “the cheerful serenity and self-complacency” endemic to the tradition of ‘uniform pessimism’ in Russian literature. 1873 l [Howells, W. D.] “Review of A Nobleman’s Nest.” AM 31, no. 84 (February): 239-241. Praises the excellent characterization of A Nest of the Gentry, the second Turgenev novel translated directly from Russian into English, while noting the lack of plot. Compares the novel to French novelist Victor Cherbuliez’s tragic story Joseph Noirel ’s Revenge, which “thrills readers by its masterly management of the strangest facts and situations,” while Turgenev’s work derives its effect from the truth and value of the unmistakably real life. Insists that Turgenev’s “earnestness scarcely permits him the play of humor,” but allows for “pitiless irony or cutting sarcasm.” 1874 l Boyesen, Hjalmar. “A visit to Tourgueneff.” Galaxy 17 (April): 456-466. Recalls meetings with Turgenev in Paris in 1873. Describes Turgenev’s personal characteristics, his view of despotism, his interest in American writers, his popularity in America, his writing methods. Outlines Turgenev’s biography and briefly 49 discusses his major works. Anticipates an “American Turgenev,” who will make a grand, striking and animated picture of his native land. 2 James, Henry Jr. “Iwan Turgeniew.” NAR 118, no. 243 (April): 326-356. Describes Turgenev’s literary merits: specialized portraits marked by striking oddities, vivid landscapes, “susceptibility to the sensuous impressions of life,” and “remarkably concise form.” Compares these features with those of Walter Scott, Dickens, George Sand, and George Eliot. Analyzes the characterizations of Turgenev’s major heroes, finding a consistent implication of something essentially ridiculous in human nature, and vain in human effort. Concludes that Turgenev’s great merit is showing life’s infinite variety, and his great defect is “a tendency to abuse irony.” 3 Perry, Thomas. “Ivan Turgenev.” AM 33, no. 565 (May): 565-575. Discusses Notes of a Hunter, A Correspondence, Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Fathers and Sons. Describes the literary merits of Turgenev the realist: careful attention to detail, light touch, ability to set a scene, impartiality in the scene, etc. Presents a brief biography of Turgenev. Finds in Turgenev two types of tragedies resulting from love: degrading passion and sad loneliness 1877 1 Child, T. E. “Ivan Turgenieff.” Belgravia 33 (August): 212-223. Briefly outlines trends in Russian literature up to Turgenev. Eulogizes Turgenev as an artist with “a more general, impartial, and intelligent view of life” than any other novelist. Argues that Turgenev’s aim, to find a morally interesting subject, results in “lack of inventiveness” (no plot and static heroes). Maintains that Turgenev is excellent in his treatment of characters, including secondary ones, and in his descriptive power. Also maintains that Turgenev’s writings can be thoroughly acknowledged by “cultivated H {J 4." Or. .A e.- 50 minds.” Surveys A Nest of the Gentry, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, and Virgin Soil. Finds that Turgenev’s analysis of woman differs from that of French novelists with its focuse on “traits of woman’s peculiar temperament,” not on “sensual analyses.” 2 Ralston, W. R. “Russian Revolutionary Literature.” NC 6 (May): 397-416. Briefly outlines the history of Russian revolutionary movement, moving to a discussion of Turgenev’s characterization of revolutionary figures in Virgin Soil, and finding real pictures of socialist life in the Russia of the seventies. Stresses that Turgenev appropriately shows how little Russian populists trusted friends and comrades and how little sympathy they were able to elicit from the common people for whom they wanted to sacrifice themselves. 1878 l [Kingsley, William L.] “Nihilism in Russia as it appears in the Novels of Ivan Turgenieff.” NE 37, no. 145 (July): 553-572. Discusses the birth and the meaning of nihilism, finding that Fathers and Sons and Virgin Soil are two of the best sources of information on Russian nihilism. Analyzes discussions between the main characters in Fathers and Sons, outlining the meaning of nihilism as understood by Turgenev. Discusses the various revolutionary figures in Virgin Soil. Concludes that according to Turgenev’s novels, the principle of nihilism does not change even though the attitudes of individual nihilists are in constant flux. 2 Thanet, Octabe. “The Moral Purpose of Tourgueneff.”JSP 12, no. 4 (October): 427-434. Discusses questions of moral attitudes in the writings of Turgenev: “the degradation of the serfs” in Notes of a Hunter; “the corrupting tendencies of false civilization” in Smoke; “the uselessness of a philosophy not solidifying its aspirations 51 into deeds” in Rudin: “the weakness of the old Russian culture” in Fathers and Sons; “the suicidal madness” of nihilism in Virgin Soil. Finds that the moral questions are treated in so purely artistic a manner that the moral is felt more weakly than the author intended. Holds that the heroes of Turgenev are often “weak, but seldom contracted or mean,” which distinguishes them from French heroes. Sees in Turgenev elements of Hegel’s philosophical method (evolution of truth) as well as Schopenhauer (aloofness). Concludes that Turgenev does not just show the perplexity and sadness of life, but hints at “a final triumph” that is Russia itself. 1879 1 Martin, Clara B. “The Greatest Novelist’s Work for Freedom.” AM 44 (December): 761-770. Outlines Turgenev’s biography and literary career, citing his Reminiscences. Shows how literary characteristic (the dispassionate use of simple material from everyday experience) in Notes of a Hunter makes for stronger messages of antagonism against serfdom as well as heighten the artistic value. Describes the reactions of liberals and conservatives to the publication of Fathers and Sons and traces the changes of the meaning of the epithet ‘nihilist’ in Turgenev’s writings and in Russian society. 1880 1 Anon. “Russia and Nihilism in the Novel’s of Tourgenieff.” BlaW 127, no. 775 (May): 623-647. Discusses the lives of the peasantry under serfdom as depicted in Notes of a Hunter. Notes that the most remarkable features of this work lie in the passivity of the depiction of the inhuman lives of peasants by means of “the mute critics and the perennial spectators.” Also discusses the divergence between the younger and the elder 52 generation in Fathers and Sons, finding the novel too tragic for English taste. Mentions the weakness of the male characters and the passion and energy of the female characters in Smoke. Finds the resemblance between Smoke and Henry J ames’s Confidence in character groups and themes. Compares Nezdanov, the nihilist in Virgin Soil, with Hamlet, pointing out that irresolution is the chief feature of the latter, while “dreary self-skepticism” is that of the former. 1882 l Turner, Charles E. “Tourgenieff’s Novels as Interpreting the Political Movement in Russia.” MacM 45, no. 270 (April): 471-486. Concentrates on the major characters’ ideas for reforming Russia in Turgenev’s writings. Sees Turgenev as the first Russian writer who depicts the serf as a man with a human heart. Discusses the features of weak-minded Hamlets, mainly Rudin and Lavreckij, contrasting them with strong-minded Insarov and Bazarov. Argues that Bazarov is not a negative but a positive character in the sense that “his nihilism is confined to criticizing the institutions of Russia.” Concludes that Turgenev’s writings teach that “any attempts at reform would prove barren unless founded on the truth” as embodied in the Russian people, rather than in “the artificial refinement of the upper classes.” 2 Zimmern, Helen and Zimmern, Alice. “Turgenieff.” In Half-Hours with Foreign Novelists: with Short Notices of Their Lives and Writings. 2d ed., Vol. 2. London: Chatto & Windus, Piccadilly, pp. 1-10. Sees Turgenev not only as “an artist of the highest order in world literature,” but also as “a true advanced and liberal thinker.” Briefly outlines Turgenev’s biography and literary career. Singles out salient features in Turgenev’s novels, among them his vivid description based on keen observation, “impartial view of the complexities of human life,” an absence of philosophizing, “a sad and morbid tone not wholly free from 53 Byronic world-pain,” “masterly conciseness,” and skills in narrative construction. Finds that Turgenev makes both nature and animals exist in harmony with men. 1883 l Anon. “Death of Ivan Turgenev.” Scotsman (5 September). Grieves over Turgenev’s death, recalling his literary qualities and distinctive personality. Likens Turgenev’s house confinement due to his obituary for Gogol’ ’ to Lermontov’s exile due to the publication of his poem on the death of Pu‘s'kin. Briefly explains Turgenev’s biography. Acknowledges Turgenev’s endeavor to introduce Russian literature to the West. Reprinted: 1983.1 2 Anon. “Turgenieff.” LitW 14 (22 September): 304-305. Recounts Turgenev’s death at Bougival in France. Labels Turgenev the Victor Hugo of Russia. Briefly Outlines Turgenev’s background. Provides bibliographies with some annotations (Part 1: Works of Turgenev, Part 2: Translations of Turgenev’s work, Part 3: Writings on Turgenev). 3 Daudet, Alphonse. “Tourgucneff in Paris.” Century 27, no. 1 (November): 48- 53. Recalls the first meeting with Turgenev in Paris and at Dinner Magny, where Turgenev, Flaubert, Daudet, Zola and Edmont De Goncourt met monthly and talked of literature and life. Mentions Turgenev’s life in Paris, his view of death, and his struggle against a disease at the end of his life. 4 Ralston, W. R. S. “Ivan Sergueyevitch Tourguenief.” Athenaeurn 82, no. 2916 (15 September): 337-338. Describes Turgenev’s funeral, held on the 7th of September in the Russian church in Paris. Eulogizes Turgenev as “a perfect master of style,” “subtle analyzer of 54 thought and of feeling,” and “ardent hater of every form of injustice and oppression.” Recalls his meetings with Turgenev in England and in Spasskoe, the Turgenev family estate. Tells the plot of a story intended a year before Turgenev’s death as the sequel of Virgin Soil. Calls attention to Turgenev’s kindness toward animals, commenting on two short tales (The Dog, Mumu). Argues that Turgenev’s stories are “not melancholy but pathetic,” showing him to be thoroughly a Slav. 5 'I‘uckerman, Bayard. “Ivan Sergheivitch Tourgeneff.” PR n.s., 12 (November): 247-260. Sees Turgenev as combining “a thoroughly national spirit with exceptional literary power,” making him the first Russian writer with world-wide fame. Outlines Turgenev’s biography briefly. Reviews the varied phases of social life in Russia which Turgenev’s writings present, and examines the literary methods adopted for their portrayal. Praises Turgenev’s literary workmanship, extraordinary concentration of thought and fine characterization, as well as the “exquisitely artistic form” in which his conceptions are provided. Compares Turgenev with Dostoevskij, labeling the former as an artist, the latter as “a pleader.” Labels Notes of a Hunter an artistic work, Uncle Tom’s Cabin “a pleading work.” 1884 l Anon. “Ivan Serguievitch Tourgenieff.” LQR n.s., 3, no. 1 1 (October): 38-55. Outlines Turgenev’s biography and discusses characterizations of protagonists in his major works, particularly Virgin Soil, which is seen as a disappointing political work. Perceives Turgenev as a writer who is “remembered less as a novelist of nihilism than a writer of emancipation.” Finds Notes of a Hunter immeasurably more artistic than Uncle Tom ’s Cabin. Also finds similarity between Turgenev’s intimacy with nature and that of George Sand and George Eliot. Traces Turgenev’s immense popularity in Russia 55 not only to his socio-political sympathies, but to the fact that he is the first writer who keenly and tenderly portrays women. Concludes that Turgenev’s excellence lies not in depicting types, but “actual typical people whom he has met and known.” 2 James, Henry. “Ivan Turgenev.” AM 53, no. 315 (January): 42-55. Recalls his meetings with Turgenev in Paris and in Bougival. Praises Turgenev, not only as “a most generous, tender, and delightful man,” but also as “an imaginative, humorous, ironical literary genius who loves justice.” Notes “the combination of beauty and reality” in Turgenev’s novels. Argues that the foundation of a Turgenev story is not a plot scheme but a representation of certain persons, showing how “Turgenev writes a sort of biography of each of his characters up to the opening of the story.” Mentions Turgenev’s admiration of Dickens and George Eliot, and his strong interest in the young French naturalists. Finds Turgenev’s representations of character “fascinatingly particular” yet also “recogrrizably general.” Finds that while Turgenev’s novels share with those of Flaubert “the element of irony and sadness,” Flaubert does not touch “the chord of pathos,” as Turgenev does in the passion of Elena for Insarov, the purity of Lisa, the anguish of the parents of Bazarov, or the hidden wound of Tat’ jana. Reprinted: 1888.1 , 1948.2 3 Staratsky, G. V. “Ivan Tourguenief.” DR 3rd ser., 12 (July): 46-65. Discusses striking characteristics of Turgenev’s literary works, and outlines his biography, discussing several of his major works. Argues that the English-speaking reader’s preference for complicated plot over character sketches is one of the reasons why he is less popular in England than in France and in Germany. Notes that in depicting Russian serfdom Turgenev does not have “the animosity of a satirist,” but “the placid impartiality of a judge,” which is understood to enhance rather than detract from the over all effect. 56 1885 1 Martin, Clara Barnes. “The Mother of Turgeneff.” AM 55, no. 329 (March): 361-371. Outlines the biography of Varvara Petrovna, Turgenev’s mother, based on the memoirs of Madame Gitov, her adopted daughter. Notes that Varvara Petrovna’s “extravagant eccentricities and violent masterful temper” throws a painful light on Turgenev’s works. Recounts some episodes about her, which appeared in Turgenev’s writings. Pays attention to the generosity of Turgenev to the serfs, who were “tortured by the eccentricities of Varvara Petrovna.” 1887 1 Perry, T. S. “Russian Novels.” Sch 1, no. 2 (February): 252-256. Mentions the influence of Gogol’ as well as of Auerbach and George Sand on the early works of Turgenev. Describes the significance of Turgenev’s novels, comparing them with those of Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Argues that the works of all three have historical value in the sense that they have furthered social progress in Russia. Also emphasizes the momentous advance in the construction of the novel which took place in the hands of these three writers and their contemporaries. 2 Preston, H. W. “The Spell of the Russian Writers.” AM 60 (August): 199-213. Traces the genesis of the somber style and peculiar ethics of Gogol’ and the triumvirate (Turgenev, Dostoevskij, and Tolstoj) who succeed him. Discems the similarity of plan in Dead Souls and in Notes of a Hunter, both of which are centered upon the adventures of a roving hero. Insists that Turgenev and Gogol’ both “tried to confine themselves to a bare statement of fact without interruption,” while noting that of the two, Turgenev is more keenly sensitive to nature. Singles out reasons for Turgenev’s l 57 popularity with the sophisticated French reader: “brief and shapely tales,” “pointed and literary style.” 1888 1 James, Henry. “Ivan Turgenieff.” In Partial Portraits. Macmillan and Co.: London and New York, pp. 291-323. Reprint of 1884.2. 1889 1 Panin, Ivan. “Thrgenef.” In Lectures on Russian Literature: Puskirr, Gogol’, Turgenej; Tolstoy. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, pp. 115-153. Maintains that Turgenev has the “fighting temperament of a warrior in his heart” while maintaining the doubting temperament of a philosopher in his head, making him the most complex figure in all literature except Shakespeare. Explains in detail the following virtues of Turgenev’s art: his “matchless sense of form and harmonious proportion”; “the compactness in description”; his “love of nature and felicitous use of metaphor”; and his “intense power of sympathy.” Insists that “in the universality of his sympathies” Turgenev is equaled only by Tolstoj, also insists that Walter Scott in England, and Howells in America are the only English writers of fictions who “possess the sense of form” which makes Turgenev’s art consummate. Holds that Turgenev falls short of Tolstoj ’s rank because he does not sufficiently apply “the skepticism of his intellect.” 1890 Dole, N. H. “Turgenief as a Poet.” Arena 2 (November): 688-707. 58 Discusses the narrative poems of Turgenev, which show his love for descriptions of nature and characters with a melancholy, pathetic, poetic glamor, finding in this the embryo of lyric elements in his novels. Recounts at length the poem in prose, Parafa, citing its selected stanzas. 2 Johnston, Charles. “ The Quarrel between 'I‘urgeniev and Tolstoi.” Academy 38, no. 965 (1 November): 392-393. Elaborates on the quarrel between Turgenev and Tolstoj at Fet’s house in May 1861. Cites Fet’s own words and the letters of Turgenev to Tolstoj and the letters of Tolstoj to Fet to illuminate objectively the accident which almost led them to a dual. 3 Katscher, Leopold. “Turgenev in his Letters.” UniR 8, no. 32 (December): 577- 596. Describes Turgenev’s character, method of writing, literary tendencies, relations with his contemporary Russian writers, and his illness, citing letters from a book published in Petersburg with 488 of Turgenev’s letters in it. Finds that Turgenev’s artistic excellence lies in “the free, boldly sketched cast, well-def'med portraiture of the characters, and in the clear arrangement of the situation.” Compares the style of Turgenev’s works with those of Flaubert, and also likens Turgenev to Goethe in that both artists are “free from prejudice.” Defends Turgenev, attributing his pessimism to his realistic direction and to the Russian national conception of life. Also describes responses in Russia to Fathers and Sons and to Virgin Soil from the ‘liberals’ and also from ‘Young Russia.’ 4 Zubof, Roman I. “Turgenev and Russian Social Problem.” NEM 7, no. 5 (February): 702-708. Discusses Notes of a Hunter, Rudin, 0n the Eve, and Virgin Soil in the context of evolving social trends in Russia. Notes that the realism founded by their novelists brought to the Russian reading public not only “a truthful reflection of national life” and 59 national character, but also a means for struggle against a retrograde, oppressive regime. Believes that Turgenev is keenly aware of all social ills and resolute in struggling against them in his works. Mentions that Turgenev is well aware of the desperate need of the ‘Don Quixotes’ who actually work and sacrifice themselves for Russia. 1891 1 Moore, George. “Turgueneff.” In Impressions and Opinions. New York: Brentano’s, pp. 44-65. Recalls his conversation with Turgenev on French fiction in their first meeting at the Elysee Montrnartre. Confutes those who assert that Turgenev is “a Frenchified Russian,” likening his genius to Tolstoj ’s and Gogol’s. Praises Turgenev’s skills in “making the slightest events into marvelous stories,” leaving the much unsaid, making the readers conscious of being in the company of the characters, “making an equally physical and mental impression,” etc. Argues that Turgenev is more successful in the use of sound effects than Flaubert, who also uses this device frequently but too obviously. Notes that Fathers and Sons is “a series of scenes held together by the personality of the leading character,” which is not typical of Turgenev’s works. Sees Virgin Soil as Turgenev’s most complete work and “the best synthesis of his talents” with its narrative precision and eternal yet modern theme. 1894 Boyesen, H. H. “The Mother of Ivan Tourgueneff.” Century 48, no. 2 (June): 249-253. Mentions his meeting with Turgenev during the winter of 1873-1874, when Turgenev told him stories of his mother. Describes Turgenev’s mother as a female 60 counterpart of Ivan The Terrible in temperament: domineering and cruel toward her dependents. Gives several anecdotes about her eccentricity, emphasizing how she regarded Turgenev’s literary career as unworthy of her son. 2 Dole, Nathan H. “An Episode in Turgenev’s Life.” Arena 10. no. 57 (August): 401-408. Hails Turgenev as “a whole-souled man” with devotion, generosity and a sense of fraternity. Cites accusations against Turgenev by Madame Golovacova and a Petersburg journal that Turgenev misbehaved during the shipwreck of the steamboat Nikolaj I in May 1838, untangling facts from false accusations in a precise explanation of the accident, drawing frequently upon Turgenev’s own literary Reminiscences. Concludes that Turgenev’s frankness in his confession is convincing. 3 Monkhouse, Allen. “Turgenieff.” In Books and Plays. London: Elkin Mathews & John Lane, pp. 118-154. Finds Turgenev’s popularity to stem from “the charming strangeness of his subject matter.” Notes the historical significance of his novels in the sense that “his novels are the records of the whole social fabric of Russian life.” Describes the themes and the characterizations of Turgenev’s main works. Sees Rudin as Turgenev’s most dramatic work, with Rudin a perfect specimen of a universal type. Describes how Turgenev shows “a great impulse wasted in Rudin,” and “great power wasted in Bazarov.” Makes the distinction between Turgenev and Tolstoj in that the former gives a direct transcript from nature, so that “what it loses in art it gains in reality,” while Turgenev gives a larger share to imagination . Cites precision and lucidity as distinctive elements of Turgenev’s style, and points out that Turgenev’s humor lacks a sympathetic quality.” 61 4 Stepniak, 8. Introduction to A House of Gentlefolk. Vol. 2 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xvn. Comments on the social and historical significance of A Nest of the Gentry, focusing on the characterization of Lavreckij. Sees Lavreckij as a genuine Slavophile and “a man of action” who, in contrast to Rudin, tries to “bridge over the abyss, which divides in Russia the educated classes from the masses.” Compares Lavreckij with another reasonable revolutionist, Solomin in Virgin Soil. The former is a living, concrete figure, while the latter is a nonexistent one serving as Turgenev’s mouthpiece. Notes that the novel, like all Turgenev’s stories, is “melancholy but not depressing in its solemn elevating tone” 5 ----. Introduction to Rudin. Vol. 1 of The Novels of Ivan Thrgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xxix. Analyzes Turgenev’s artistic gifts, calling him an ”architect of imaginative work.” Sees Turgenev as “a better realist than the gifted representatives of orthodox realism in France, England, and America” in that his descriptions are not overloaded with boring details, his action unfolds rapidly, and the reader is kept in constant suspense. Compares him with Tolstoj and Dostoevskij, asserting that Tolstoj is more original and richer in creative power and “Dostoevskij is more intense, fervid and dramatic than Turgenev.” Points out that Turgenev did not write for the masses but for the elite and that he avoided “the black shadows of the most poetical of human feelings.” Discusses the characterizations of Rudin and N atal’ ja. Regards Natal ’ ja as the first poetical portrait of woman who shows “a strength of mind more finely masculine than that of the men of the time.” Regards Rudin as a typical educated Russian of the time. 62 1895 1 Gamett, Edward. Introduction to Fathers and Sons. Vol. 4 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xxi. Recounts the stormy controversy between ‘Young Russia’ and the Reactionists that Fathers and Sons immediately provoked after its publication. Vindicates Bazarov from his accusers, finding him to represent the roots of modern revolutionary movements “in thought as well as politics.” Pays particular attention to the death-scene of the novel in which “the eternal tragedy of man’s impotence and insignificance” in the face of indifferent nature is realized with almost epic force. 2 -------- Introduction to On the Eve. Vol. 3 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xvn. Discusses what 0n the Eve means to the Russian mind. Asserts that in this novel Turgenev appeals to Russians “to overcome their sluggishness, weakness, and their apathy” by making a foreigner, Insarov, as the hero. Considers Turgenev “the personification of Russian aspiration working with the instruments of wide cosmopolitan culture,” while Tolstoj, on the other hand, is seen as “a purer native expression of Russian force.” Pays particular attention to the figure of Uvar Ivanovic in the novel, regarding him not only as the symbol of “the ever-predominant type of Russian,” but as “a creation of Tolstojan force,” that is, of universal national type. Discusses the artistic gifts of Turgenev, focusing on the device of “the effective grouping of contrasts in character and the criss—cross influence of the different individuals.” 3 Howells, W. D. “Mr. Howells on Tourgueneff.” Critic 26, no. 682 (March): 204-205. Confesses that his most significant literary experience was an encounter with Turgenev’s novels in his years at Cambridge. Sees that Turgenev is a master who is not 63 trying to work out plot, or character, but stands aside as the characters work the plot out. Finds sanity in Turgenev’s aesthetics in that he depicts life not only truly, but also conscientiously. Reprinted: 1896.3. 1896 l Gamett, Edward. Introduction to Smoke. Vol. 5 of The Novels of Ivan Thrgenev. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xiii. Considers Smoke to be “the most cosmopolitan novel” among Turgenev’s works in the sense that the prototypes of the characters in the novel were studied by Turgenev with the critical eyes of a foreigner. Explores the meaning of the novel’s message and the reaction of Young Russia to it. Analyzes the characterizations of masculine and feminine characters including the minor ones. Finds this to be evidence of Turgenev’s consummate technical skill in maintains that the political argument glides in and out of the love stories with great ease. And Pays particular attention to Turgenev’s tremendous skill of psychological analysis in the novel: he “throws a ray of light from the outer to the inner man, and the two worlds are revealed in the natural depth of connection.” Asserts that Smoke is an example of the finest literature with its “subjective psychological study of passion rendered clearly and objectively in terms of French art.” 2 ------- Introduction to Virgin Soil. Vol. 6 & Vol. 7 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Macmillan Company, London:William Heinemann, pp. v-xx. Discusses the historical meaning of Virgin Soil. Inspects the characters of the novel, checking “how perfectly representative they are of Russian political life.” Finds NeZdanov a genuine type in the Nihilist party of the seventies in Russia to which Turgenev himself was sympathetic because of his shared feelings on the gulf between the people and the intellectuals in Russia, and his inner life’s similar turn from politics to 64 the refuge of art. Points out Turgenev’s failure in drawing Solomin, arguing that his type is scarce, although much-needed in Russia. Praises Turgenev’s genius in psychology as manifield in his depection of Marianna. 3 Howells, W. D. “Tourguenief, Auerbach.” In My Literary Passions: Criticism & Fiction. New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, pp.l69-l72. Reprint of 1895.3. 4 Todhunter, Maurice. “Ivan Turgenev.” WesR 147, no. 2 (August): 141-149. Lauds Turgenev as an artist who “ranks far higher than Tolstoj” and is “many- sided and impartial, like Shakespeare.” Regards Turgenev as a writer of St. Petersburg, rather than of old-world Moscow; as “a speculative Greco-Germanic writer, rather than a law-abiding Latin-French writer.” Makes short comments on Notes of a Hunter, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, A Nest of the Gentry. Refutes a French novelist Paul Bourget’s comparison of Smoke to Madame Bovary with its absolute bitterness of analysis, suggesting that Turgenev has a much more human tendency than Flaubert. Compares Turgenev’s short story Phantoms with English essayist Thomas De Quincey’s story Confessions of an Opium-eater, calling them “brilliant specimens of dream-literature.” Points out that Phantoms is a reminiscence of what Turgenev had “actually seen and knew,” while De Quincey’s work is “the coloured reflex of a somewhat priggish book- knowledge.” Sees Turgenev’s love of woman and love of nature as central to all his work. Mentions Turgenev’s meeting with his contemporary Western writers, such as George Eliot, George Sand, and Daudet. 1897 1 James, Henry. “Ivan Turgenieff.” In Library of the World’s Best Literature. Edited by Charles Dudley Warner. New York: International Society. 65 A brief appreciation of Ivan Turgenev’s artistic faculties, among them concision, “unity of material and form,” objectivity with rare imagination, and “a constant element of poetry” without the loss of reality. Calls Turgenev “the novelist’s novelist” with valuable and ineradicable influence. Also mentions Turgenev’s lack of plot. Sees 0n the Eve as Turgenev’s best work and Virgin Soil as one of less perfection. Reprinted: 1965.2. 1898 1 Arnold, Ethel M. Preface by translator to Tourguenefl' and His French Circle. Edited by E. Harperrine-Kaminsky. London: T. Fisher Unwin, pp. v-xv. Finds that most of Turgenev’s letters to his French friends fulfill merely an informational function, and only a few contain graphic word pictures of his surroundings and mode of life. Sees Turgenev as a true realist who reveals “the clear, strong, but pitiful face of truth.” Compares Turgenev with Tolstoj, mentioning that although both have the gift of human sympathy in a supreme degree, Turgenev’s “sad and philosophic amluiescence in the existing order” of things is evident in his conviction that “the best men in the revolutionary movement inevitably suffer,” while Tolstoj has “the spirit of a reformer and zealot.” Also mentions the affectionate relations of Turgenev with Flaubert and George Sand. - 2 Gamett, Edward. Introduction to A Lear ofthe Steppes, Etc. Vol. 12 of The NoVels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. v-xv. Finds King Lear of the Steppes a work of exquisite structure and overwhelming effects. noting Turgenev’s method of introducing the story, his analysis of the situation after Harlov’s death, the simple description of the neighborhood’s attitude to Harlov’s farnily, and other felicitous touches. Maintains that “the sense of inevitability and of the myStEIy of life” given in the tale has more perfect charm than that of Asja, Faust or 66 Tolstoj ’s The Death of [van [1 ’ii‘. Underlines Turgenev’s power as a poet who can create a sense of mystery with a commonplace figure, like Kvié'inskij. Finds that Turgenev’s fluent emotional consciousness “opens all the infinite riches of the created world.” Concludes that “the perfect harmony” between Turgenev’s gifts enables Turgenev to understand everything in proportion. 1899 1 Bennett, E. A. “Ivan Turgenev: An Enquiry.” Academy 57, no. 1435 (November): 514-517. Comments on the approaching completion of an English version of The War/5' of Turgenev in fifteen volumes, translated by Constance Gamett, and introduced by Edward Gamett. Highly esteems “Mrs. Gamett’s courage to take risks for art’s sake,” in so far as Turgenev could not grip the European public as Dostoevskij and Tolstoj did, despite strong support by men of letters. This circumstance is ascribed to “his restraint and refinement,” exclusively Russian moral base, and “his oriental melancholy.” Evaluates English and French writings on Turgenev, pointing out the absence of a biogl‘aphy on Turgenev in French or English. Notes the usefulness of the volume of letters. edited by Halperine-Kaminsky under the title of Tourguenefi' and He French Gin-'16. and the critical studies by Paul Bourget and Ernest Dupuy. Describes Turgenev’s life Outside of Russia, focusing on his acquaintance with foreign writers. Concludes that “What Ibsen did for European drama, Turgenev did for European fiction.” 2 Crawford, Virginia M. “The Present Decadence: In France.” In Studies in Foreign Literature. London: Duckworth & Co.. pp. 7-18. Calls Turgenev “a perfect story-teller in all respects,” regardless of his decrease in popularity in the West. Sees Turgenev as “an admirable artist rather than as a political par“Phleteer,” expressing a preference for On the Eve and A Nest of the Gentry over 67 Virgin Soil and Fathers and Sons. Describes the main themes and the characterization in On the Eve andA Nest of the Gentry. Singles out Turgenev’s skill in “bringing the trivial things and events into harmony with his essential purpose.” Also mentions the simplicity of his style and the distinct contrast between male and female characters. Sees Lisa in A Nest of the Gentry and Elena in On the Eve as types of “two opposing ideals of womanhood.” 3 Gamett, Edward. Introduction to A Desperate Character; Etc. Vol. 14 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. vii-xiii. Gives brief observations on six Turgenev’s stories: Petuskov, The Brigadier, A Strange Story, Punin and Baburin, Old Portraits, and A Desperate Character. Mentions characteristics of the Russian mind reflected in Turgenev’s stories and compares them with the those of the Western mind. Sees Baburin and Sof’ja in A Strange Story as “the Nihilists before the time of N ihilism” who go calmly toward their goal with a spirit of self-sacrifice despite all eternal forces . 4 ------. Introduction to The Jew, Etc. Vol. 15 of The Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by Constance Gamett. New York: Macmillan Company, London: William Heinemann, pp. ix-xiv. Hails Turgenev as the supreme artist among the great European modern novelists, claiming that “his art is both wider in its range and more beautiful in its form.” Pays Particular attention to “the breath of poetry” as well as to vivid characterization in Turgenev’s prose. Asserts that his art of “reproducing human life in all its subtlety” is an art transcended only by Shakespeare with his unique creation of great human types. Advises those who wish to study art in its highest form to turn to Turgenev. 1900 Anon. “Ivan Turgenev.” Literature 6, no. 128 (31 March): 256. 68 Describes “the salient features of Turgenev’s artistic genius” as realism, idealism and sadness. Finds that Turgenev, as a realist, “combines the skill of the reporter and the photographer with the genius of the literary artist.” Sees Turgenev’s idealism to reflect his kind spirit. Finds in this idealism a kinship between the early work of Turgenev and those of Dickens. Attributes the sadness in Turgenev’s works to the unfortunate circumstances of Russia and to his own destiny. 1901 l Schuyler, Eugene. “Count Leo Tolstoy.” In Selected Essays: with a Memoir by Evelyn Schuyler Schaefl'er. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 259-274. Describes in detail the breach between Turgenev and Tolstoj, which occurred at Fet’s house in the summer of 1861. Also describes the two writers’ relationship, citing Turgenev’s letters and other testimonies of the acquaintances of the two. Mentions Turgenev’s opinion of War and Peace and Confession and his comments on Levin in Anna Karen'na. Also mentions Tolstoj ’s estimation of Turgenev after the death of Turgenev. 1902 1 Hapgood. Isabel F. “Seventh Period.” In A Survey ofRussian Literature, with Selections. New York: Chautauqua Press, pp. 164-180. Sees Turgenev as a writer who artfully depicts not only peasant life but also the life of the higher Classes in turbulent Russian literature, noting the influence of French Romanticism upon him. Shows how Turgenev’s biographical facts are reflected in his Works. Argues that the key to the comprehension of his works is contained in his Hamlet and Don Quixote. Describes the salient features of his style. Notes the “moral grandeur” 69 of his heroines. Traces an embryonic pessimism in his work of the 18505, presenting the whole text of “The Bear” in Notes of a Hunter as an example. 2 Whibley, Charles. “Ivan Turgenev.” NAR 174, no. 543 (February): 212-221. Describes the contrasting literary faculties of three masters: the processional “epic quality” of Tolstoj, the “creation of impressions” characteristic of Dostoevsky, and the “character sketches” of Turgenev. Regards Turgenev’s salient qualities as “calm restraint, gay tranquillity, reticent joy of life, perfect adaptation of means to ends.” Also insists that the men and women in his writings are not generalized types, but separate and individual creations. Maintains that, in his art, Turgenev remains true to his own land, acknowledging no foreign influence in thought or style . 1903 1 Moore, George. “Avowals: Being the Second of a New Series of Confessions of a Young Man.” LipM 72, no. 16 (October): 481-488. Discusses Turgenev’s inability to understand Balzac as “the natural and inevitable consequence of Turgenev’s genius,” arguing that to understand this mistake is ‘0 unclerstand both writers. Labels Balzac’s poetic genius “astonishing and complete,” and Turgenev’s as “beautiful and perfect.” Agrees with Turgenev that “the artist can only teach by giving the world images of beauty to admire,” and that “there is nothing vainer than preaching.” Compares works of Turgenev with pictures of Corot, a French landsCape painter, arguing that both have “a delicate and gentle gray color” in their Works, which reflects an awareness that the extemalities of nature are ephemeral. Sees A Nest ofthe Gentry as the most excellent tale of love’s delight. 1904 COurtney, W. L. “Turgenieff.” In The Development of Maurice Maeterlinck: and other Sketches of Foreign Writers. London: Grant Richards, pp. 110-118. 1 70 Argues that Turgenev, while not as dramatic as Dostoevskij, nor as deliberate as Tolstoj, is an artist with “selective power and insight.” Finds that Turgenev’s method is “analytic even though he is not ultra-realist.” Discusses the characterization of Elena in On the Eve. Holds that Elena is the analytic, thoughtful, “self-investigating modern heroine,” and “the embodiment of her country’s stern and inarticulate hopes.” 2 Huneker, James. “Literary Men Who Loved Music: the Musical Taste of Turgenieff.” In Overtones: a Book of Tempemmenm. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 142-161. Vindicates Turgenev from accusations of “an ultracosmopolitan” and “indifferent patriot,” regarding him “as an ardent lover of art. Mentions Turgenev’s acquaintance with French writers of at Dinners Magny. Finds that except for Cajkovskij and Rimskij-Korsakov, Turgenev had a rather contemptuous opinion for his contemporary Russian musicians, for he thought that their music expressed “Slavonic Barbarism and undisguised N ihilism.” Likens Turgenev’s work to Chopin’s with “vaporous melancholy” and nostalgia. Reprined: 1922.1. 1905 1 Anon. “A Glance Backward at Ivan Turgenieff and His Work.” Critic 46, no. 5 (May): 444-447. Sees Turgenev as a person of merit, who aroused interest in Russian literature 311d life among Europeans and Americans. Mentions Henry J ames’s role in calling attention to Turgenev in America, and Henry J ames’s comment on Turgenev in his introduction to the latest English version of Turgenev’s works (The Novel and Stories of Ivan Turgenief, trans. by I. F. Hapgood). Points out some clumsiness of language (misuse of prepositions and inept colloquial expressions) in Notes of a Hunter and in Short stories translated by Miss Hapgood. Gives a general view of Turgenev’s novels, poi“ting out that their major characters come from the upper classes. Holds that “Turgenev is much less definite in his purpose as a knight-errant after serfdom was 71 ended than before, while Tolstoj is more definite and more vigorous as he has grown older.” 2 Kropotkin, P. “Turgueneff.” In Russian Literature. New York: McClure, Phillips & C00, 89.109. Sees the chief characteristic of Turgenev’s genius not only in “a sense of artistic beauty” but also in the “highly intellectual contents” of his creations. Sees “the successions of scenes without plot,” “lack of sensational episodes,” and “simplicity of the means for accomplishing far-reaching ends” as the hallmarks of Turgenev’s writings. Discusses Turgenev’s pessimism and his love of mankind. Outlines Turgenev’s main works, focusing on the characterization of main characters. Traces “the Hamletism” from Hamlet of the Séigrov District (in Notes of a Hunter) and Diary of a Superfluous Man to its full artistic representation of Rudin. Sees 0n the Eve with “the depth of its conception and the beauty of its workmanship” as one of the highest works in all literatures. Mentions that Bazarov is a character of Don Quixote type, which Turgenev is not good at depicting. 3 Waliszewski, K. “Tourgueniev.” In A History of Russian Literature. New York: D. Appelton & Co., 278-298. Surveys Turgenev’s literary career in general from his verse in drama Steno to Poems in Prose, discussing the main themes and the characterizations in his works. Notes the similarity of Notes of a Hunter in the subject of popular life and being “Saturated with the same spirit,” to B. Auerbach’s village tales, G. Sand’s peasant Stories, Grigorovié’s tales and Nekrasov’s poems, and also finds the difference in that the Subject of Notes of a Hunter is “transformed by a personal art, and equally individual inspiration.” Argues that Turgenev, in seeing in the Russian peasant “something more “Ian a mere object of pity- a being who could feel and think,” could reveal the soul that Gogol’ never recognized. Argues that Rudin is not a representative of the 18408, 72 holding that Turgenev fails to catch the likeness of Bakunin in the character of Rudin. Sees the character of Irina in Smoke as a masterpiece of analysis. Finds that Turgenev’s work shows the artistic influence of Thackery and Dickens, gets its “humanitarian leaning” from G. Sand and V. Hugo, and its philosophy from Schopenhauer. Holds that Turgenev’s workmanship, attention to detail, and powers of evocation are superior to those of all his Russian colleagues. Shows how Turgenev’s work combines purely subjective reality with a certain amount of fancy, enabling him to sensitively approach the most difficult subject, like the rivalry between the father and son in First Love. 1907 1 Anon. “'l‘urgenieff, ‘The Greatest of All Novelists.’” CurL 43, no. 2(August): 174-178. Mentions the newly growing popularity of Turgenev throughout Europe and America. Agrees that Turgenev may aptly be called “the novelists’ novelist,” as Shelley has been called “the poets’ poet.” Outlines Turgenev’s biography and literary career, arguing that in a sense, his novels are his autobiography. Finds that a “gentle, melancholy, idealistic” temperament saturates his writings. Describes how Turgenev was burdened most of his life by the sense of a gulf between the older and younger generations, and by “the sad and bitter conflict between serfs and land owners.” Introduces estimations of Turgenev by his Parisian writer-friends, and by Tolstoj. Sees the asence of Turgenev’s genius as the power to make readers “look at the common World with new eyes.” Describes Bazarov and Insarov as universal types and Rudin, on the contrary, as a type confined to Russia. Credits Kropotkin, a Russian critic, with defining Turgenev an exponent of noble womanhood with “marvelous intuition in dealing with the heart of woman.” Reiterates Edward Gamett’s comparison of Turgenev With Richardson, Fielding, Balzac, Meredith, Thackeray, Tolstoj, Flaubert, and Ma‘lptlssant. 73 2 Crossfield, H. “'I‘urgueneff’s Novels and Russian Revolution.” WesR 146, no. 5 (August): 523-536. Emphasizes that Turgenev’s portraiture has to do particularly with intellectual movements in Russian life. Maintains that Turgenev’s artistic superiority lies in “the harmony the reader traces between the author’s conception of the person who is described, his opinion of him, and also the impression which is made upon him, as well as upon the reader by that person.” Outlines Turgenev’s biography, mentioning the abomination of Turgenev in the prevailing circles of Russian society. Notes that his major male characters are depicted, with few exceptions, as ineffectual and “incapable of decisive action,” while female characters are “often superior in qualities of resolution and constancy.” Holds that these heroes are analytical, egotistical, and lacking in faith, as described in Turgenev’s essay Hamlet and Don Quixote. Concludes that this Hamlet- type “evidently entered into Turgenev’s own temperament, and is reflected in the deep undertones of sadness pervading his work.” Recounts sub-Hamlets in Rudin, Smoke, Fathers and Sons, and Virgin Soil. 1908 1 Mabie, H. w. Introduction to “Irte Brigadier.” Outlook 88: 223-226. Appreciates Turgenev’s literary salient features. Compares Turgenev’s Smoke to Thackel‘ay’s novel The Newcomes, contrasting Turgenev’s genius for selection of l“Silage and self-restrained style to Thackeray’s “free” style and insisting that in those “(”318 both writers show “the most searching impartiality.” Sees Turgenev as an artist for Whom “the lines of beauty are also the lines of truth.” And also sees him as the voice Of his country and as a prime example, who, on the one hand, has “the wisdom of keeping to his vocation,” and on the other band, who illuminates sympathy between him and his people with “penetrating observation, a warm heart and a responsive 74 finagination.” Discusses Turgenev’s portraiture of women, the landscape of his novels, and his character-sketching. Ritchie, Anne Thackeray. “Concerning Tourguenieff.” LA 257: 214-220. Recalls her meetings with Turgenev in England. Describes Turgenev’s life in England, noting Turgenev’s acquaintance with English literary men. Relates the literary relationship of Turgenev with Henry James, George Sand, Pauline Viardot etc. Mentions the despotic character of Turgenev’s mother and the elegant and icy character of his father and also his gloomy childhood, noting that these were described in his stories of early upbringing . Draws her views of Turgenev from his letters to Viardot, mentioning the situation in which the letters were written. 1909 Baring, Maurice. “Tolstoy and Turgenev.”QR 214, no. 420 (July): 180-202. Discusses Turgenev’s position among Russian novelists at the twenty fifth anniversary of his death, comparing it with Tolstoj’s position. Divides Russian characters into two types, Lucifer and Ivan Durak, insisting that Tolstoj is “the incarnation” of the first, while Dostoevskij is that of the second. Classifies Bazarov as the second type, and most of the other characters as the first, finding that Turgenev exeulplifies both types. Argues that though Turgenev is a great artist and poet who captures the beauty of language and poetry, “his vision of life is weak and narrow” co"upared with that of Tolstoj, and “his understanding of life is cold and shallow,” colTlpared with that of Dostoevskij. Also insists that Turgenev’s characters are CariQatures, which belong only to books, while Tolstoj’s characters belong to life. States that “the abundant and perhaps excessive praises” of Turgenev by European critics are ath‘ibutable to the “simplicity” of Russian literature and the naturalness of the characters 1“ 1Russian fiction. Argues that Turgenev’s masterly landscapes are also “conventional 75 orthodox Russian landscapes” which lack variety. Believes that the most impartial and crucial criticism of Turgenev’s work is to be found in Vogue’s Roman Russe. Concludes that time will show “the elements of banality and conventionality” in Turgenev’s work, which presents a picture of Russia that is not “inaccurate but incomplete.” 1910 1 Anon. “Turgenieff and the Woman He Loved.” CurL 40, no. 2 (August): 213- 2 l 5. Recounts the death of Pauline Viardot at the age of eighty- nine in Paris. Finds her an intimate friend and inspiration to Turgenev for forty years. Sees Turgenev as “a willing slave” who cared more for his friendship to her than for anything else. Mentions that He Song of Triumphant Love was written in concert with her, and that Turgenev’s poem in prose, entitled Halt! , was inspired by her. Also mentions that the heroine of Virgin Soil was named in honor of one of Viardot’s daughters, Marianna. Points out that Viardot is not portrayed anywhere in the novels of Turgenev, and anticipates the Possibility of finding the reason in the autobiography of Viardot, and in the mysterious novel in manuscript form, found among the papers of Viardot, while is said to be Tu"genev’s. 2 Curlc, R. H. P. “Tourgeneff and the Life-Illusion.” Fork n.s., 87: 1082-1089. Lists Turgenev’s literary features showing that he was influenced by “the impersonality” of the naturalists, and also by “a poetical mysticism”: his eyes of “a sceptic” and “a dreamer;” “the union of old force and the new;” and “transparent sanity and lack of didacticism.” Compares Turgenev’s creation of impression to Ibsen’s, finding them similiar in their “ability of suggestiveness” while differing in their understanding of character and conception of love: while Ibsen’s understanding of character is “cynical and bitter,” Turgenev’s is “sad” and “sympathetic,” and while 76 “Ibsen considers love as delusion, Turgenev considers it as illusion.” Also compares the mysticism of Turgenev in Klara MiliE and The Dream with that of Ibsen in his later plays. Notes that Turgenev sees clearly “the weakness and blindness within, the power of fate and death without.” Sees women in Turgenev’s works as “moving in straight tragic lines of purpose,” who, in “cramped and passionate natures,” are similar to Anna Karenina. Compares Turgenev’s concept of nature with those of the optimists Whitman and Meredith, and with that of Flaubert, the pessimist. Notes that Turgenev realizes not only “how susceptible we are to the moods of nature,” but also “how susceptible nature seems to our moods.” Gribble, Francis. “Tourgueneff.” ForR n.s., 87: 1071-1081. Discusses the lack of understanding Turgenev faced among his western compeers. arguing that he is a Slav, rather than a European, and that to westerners he is the man “born in exile.” Recounts how Turgenev and French writers at the Dinner Magny Sometimes failed to understand each other and remained strangers. Demonstrates Turgenev’s inconsistencies in his effort to realize his ideals due to the fact that he began life in barbaric “feudal surroundings,” yet went on to lead “a bohemian life.” Claims that his early love stories are derived from his “feudal surroundings,” and thus seem inc()nsistent with the sentimental ones of his later years. Recounts Turgenev’s amorous exploits, focusing on his love for Pauline Viardot. Sees Turgenev as a victim of “feminine fascination,” suggesting that he thought he had Viardot’s favor, while in fact She made no sacrifices for his sake. Recounts Turgenev’s love affair with J ulija Petrova, al’gmng that it was a short “revolt of Turgenev against his enslavement” to Pauline, and that he had “the characteristic Slav incapacity for effectual revolt.” 77 1911 1 Andreyev, Nikolay. Introduction to Virgin Soil. Translated by Rochelle S. Townsend. Dent: London, pp. v-xiii. Sees the majority of Turgenev’s works, including Virgin Soil as “to some extent consciously sociological in their aims and inspiration.” Recounts the germination of Virgin Soil, the change of the initial central idea, the process of censorship, the reaction to its publication both among ‘radical youth’ and conservatives. Finds the elements which make the novel an immortal classic work: “fascinating historical background”; “vivid picture of every day life”; and “authenticity of the psychological portrayal of the characters.” 1912 Moxom, P. S. “Turgenief: The Man.” NAR 196, no.682 (September): 394-405. Outlines Turgenev’s biography and his literary career, frequently citing from the French biography by biographer Emile Haumant in 1906. Also presents some information about his relationship with his contemporary writers and critics. Reprinted in 1 9 12.2. -----. “Ivan Turgenief: the Man and the Artist.” In M masters: Browning and T‘urgeniefl Boston: Sherman, French & Co., pp. 47-91. Contains 1912.1 in the first part. Praises the translation of Turgenev’s work into English by Miss Isabel Hapgood as the most complete translation of Turgenev’s works. DiScusses salient features of Turgenev’s works. Singles out A Nest of the Gentry as Tul‘genev’s finest work with its excellent depiction of character and temperament, and profound pathos. Contends that Turgenev shows the difference between the rev()lutionists of the West and the nihilists of Russia in the depiction of Bazarov. Feels that most likely Turgenev is embodied in Rudin, the weak intellectual, and Sanin, “the submitter to a baleful feminine influence.” Sees Insarov in On the Eve and Solomin in 78 Virgin Soil as the positive characters in Turgenev’s works. Discems two groups of female characters, those who are fascinating and positively drawn, like Elena in On the Eve and Lisa in A Nest of the Gentry, and those who are devilish and wicked, like Irina in Smoke. Concludes that Turgenev, though less great a man than Tolstoj, is greater in hisart. 1913 Cournos, John. “Turgenev the Emancipator.” LipM 91, no. 9 (February): 233- 238. An introduction to the translation of Turgenev’s The District Doctor by the editor. Emphasizes the point that Turgenev, “the most cosmopolitan Russian writer,” invariably chooses Russian themes. Enumerates the principal themes of Turgenev’s major novels. Outlines Turgenev’s biography. Sees Turgenev as one of the greatest ilnpressionistic novelists, insisting that “Turgenev meets perfectly Poe’s ideal of i1111::01"essionism except in the one quality of unity.” Notes that though plot is “a negligible quantity” in Turgenev’s novel, the final impression is moderately unified, and tremendously effective. Also notes that the details are trivial, and the entire effect is all110st always huge. Finds that Turgenev’s shorter fiction is characterized by “masterful” monologue and dialogue, suggestive description, jerky pause, and “multi- f"‘K‘relied portrayals” of characters’ speech, manner, and physical traits. Describes Tufgenev’s almost invariable method of story telling as follows: 1) “drawing a setting with much attention to detail,” 2) “introducing characters,” 3) “showing phases of the leading character,” 4) “presenting an anecdote, or an incident.” 1916 1 Phelps, W. L. “Turgenev.” In Essays on Russian Novelists. New York: Macmillian Co., 62-129. 79 Discusses the characteristic features of Turgenev’s works, focusing on modes of characterization in his seven novels: Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, Spring Torrents, Virgin Soil. Sees the truth about life as the content of Turgenev’s work, the love of art as his inspiration, and concludies that Turgenev shows “the most perfect union of truth and beauty.” Concentrates on the concision of his work, emphasis on his narrative characterization rather than incident, and his exquisite description of nature, features in which Cexov is seen as Turgenev’s successor. Notes the distinct contrast of Turgenev’s heroes (except Bazarov) with their weakness of will to the indomitable will exhibited by his heroines. Sees Turgenev’s novels as “tales of frustration” brought about “by a character’s own temperament,” “the malign machinations of satanic women, or by a capricious destiny.” Argues that Turgenev’s pessimism lies in his belief that a man of the noblest ambition is treated by nature with “eqw indifference.” Finds in Turgenev’s works “clear and distinct descriptions of characters,” “remarkable combinations of individual and type,” and “inexpressible poetic char-tn.” Tucker, H. “A Russian Novelist’s Estimate of the Russian Intellectual.” SewR 24, no. 1 (January): 61-68. Analyzes the intellectual Russian mind in Turgenev’s novels, which are viewed as seeking an explanation for current political problems. Sees Turgenev as a top novelist as Well as “a political prophet” depicting the superfluous men in the second half of the nineteenth century in the tradition of Pu§kin and Lermontov. Mentions that Turgenev deScI'ibes the intelligent men of that period as Hamlets “on a small scale,” who know what they want, but are impotent to accomplish anything. Describes major characters in Rudin and On the Eve, believing that Turgenev’s knowledge of the intelligent Russian is sunlured up in these novels. Insists that Natal’ja in Rudin and Elena in On the Eve 80 represent Russia in that they are earnestly seeking “men of purpose and power,” who not only talk but also act. 1917 Oliver, D. E. “Russian Literature: Ivan 'hrrgueneff.” PMLC 43: 172-190. Describes Turgenev’s fiction as representative of the true thoughts, feelings and aspirations of the Russian people, pointing out that it was published during years of great change for Russian society. Believes that tardy recognition of Turgenev in England owes to his “strong pessimism, which does not suit English readers.” Describes the characterizing feature of Turgenev’s art as discrimination, clarity, penetration, and perfect balance of thought and feeling. Points out “the lack of stimulus of plot” in Turgenev’s works, and also mentions Turgenev’s mastery of portraying female Character. Finds that his works “make no appeal to the masses,” but are “a treasure to the thoughtful and artistic minority among nations.” Analyzes Turgenev’s novels, published b6tween 1848-1876: Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, and Virgin Soil, focusing on depictions of major characters. Also mentions that, besides his principal novels, Turgenev also shows flawless artistic expression and “a priceless model of short story craftsmanship” in Spring Torrents and King Lear of the Steppes. 1919 Lloyd, J. A. T. “The Charm of Turgenev.” ForR 112 (August): 297-307. Describes Turgenev as the first and last artist to interpret life “in terms of art,” instead of interpreting it, like Tolstoj, “in terms of morality,” or, like Dostoevskij, “in terl'ns of pathology of the human soul.” Argues that in each of his novels, Turgenev “evokes the charm of a particular color” with such power that the reader can almost physically taste “its faint and exquisite savor.” Mentions that Notes of a Hunter as well as First Love and Spring Torrents almost comprise the life story of Turgenev. Describes 81 the characterization and major themes in Turgenev’s main works, emphasizing Turgenev’s merciful analysis of the love story which has in each case its own poignancy. Believes that it will be come known in the future that no man predicted “the inner failure of the Russian Revolution” more accurately than Turgenev. 1921 1 Rowland-Brown, Lilian T. “Turgenev and Girlhood.” NC 90, no. 534: 230-244. Contrasts Turgenev’s poetic vision with H. B. Stowe’s humanitarian preaching. Argues that Turgenev’s novels have purposes, but these purposes are never forced on the reader. Shows how years of suffering under a cruel, arbitrary mother not only contributed to Turgenev’s development into a liberator of serfs and creator of many living sympathetic characters, but also led Turgenev to place woman on so high a Pedestal that his heroines become the very “salt and savor” of his work, a feature he holds in common with. Shakespear’s heroines. Discusses the characterization of heroines in Turgenev’s major work, praising his “profound knowledge of a young girl’s subtle and mysterious heart,” and noting that unlike many modern novelists, Turgenev does not endow his heroines with physical perfection. Praises Turgenev’s genius of offering infinite riches within the space of a short novel. Strongly disputes against the opinion that some of Turgenev’s heroines are half-Germanized. 2 Wmoooks, M. P. “Turgenev.” ER 33, no. 2: 175-189. Acknowledges aspects of modemness in Turgenev’s work, finding that Turgenev breaks the wall between men of different social conditions and “the wall betVveen nature and humanity.” Sees in this a fundamental difference between Turgenev and Thackeray, whose “city-fed genius” is contrasted with Turgenev’s, fed in the steppe. FitIds similarity between Turgenev and Shakespeare in that their personalities remain hiClden, but detected by the effects they produce. Discusses Turgenev’s concept of 82 humanity and human destiny- humanity as “good in quality” but destined to failure. Holds that Turgenev is “the master of modern literature in depicting the invincible soul” of man with simplicity. Finds in Bazarov “the incarnation of the spirit of the new world,” in which prejudices do not exist. Notes that Lisa and Elena embody the active principles “both in the ideal world and in actual life,” stirring the souls and mind of men, and offering a vision of what woman has to bring to the new world. Praises Turgenev’s description of peasants as the most complete picture of the Russian peasant. 1922 1 Huneker, James. “Literary Men Who Loved Music: Musical Taste of Turgenief.” In Over Tones: A Book of Temperament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 142-161. Reprint of 1904.2. 2 Kaun, Alexander. “Turgenev Rerambled.” Bookman 55 (May): 308-31 1. Discusses why Turgenev had a good reputation among the westerners “in the intellectual-artistic milieu,” listing Turgenev’s assets. Maintains that Turgenev is “too much of a westemer to be tolerated by his Russian acquaintances,” giving specific accounts of his bad relations with Russian friends. Discusses Turgenev’s profound Pessimism, and his Hamletian heroes, insisting that “Turgenev incamates the Hamletian Side of the Russian people and does not know the spirit of Quixotic activity.” 3 Radoff, Sarah F. “The Intellectualist in Strindberg and Turgenief.” Task 7, no. 3: 215-235. Discusses the novels of Ivan Turgenev and those of August Strindberg (the SWearlish novelist) on the basis that the chief characters of both novelists are intelioctualists. Inquires into the failure of intellectual heroes in their novels, who are bl‘Oken in the end “by the mysterious force of life in spite of their superiority to their fellowmen,” a failure Turgenev sees as due to “human limitation,” while Strindberg 83 understands it due to “social limitation.” Compares John in Growth of a Soul and Axel Borg in By the Open Sea by Strindberg with N eidanov and Rudin of Turgenev, concluding that the intellectualists of Turgenev “may be said to be Romantic” as compared with those of Strindberg. Shows how the psychological and sociological insight of both Strindberg and Turgenev led both to the conviction that between the aristocrat and masses nothing but “mutual misunderstanding” is possible. 1923 l Gerschenson, M. D. “A Sketch of Turgenev.”LA 318, no. 4132: 513-516. Surveys Turgenev’s conception of perfection. Maintains that Turgenev sees perfection in “self-forgetfulness,” and attainable in religion and in the pursuit of the good, love, and beauty; also mentions that all his positive characters travel this road. Sees a contradiction in that for Turgenev “the key to self-forgetfulness lies in an act of Personal will,” finding that although for Turgenev life is a weariness and an affliction, “his will and his intellect obstinately hold that not everything is weariness and Superfluity.” Also sees a contradiction in the mentality of the positive characters in his Work between “self-forgetfulness in passion” and “self-forgetfulness in duty.” Holds that Tufgenev resolves this contradiction in the image of “a bird winging its way restlessly fOl‘vrard, the incarnation of glowing, vigorous life, of unshakable confidence.” Hails the charm of Turgenev’s narrative art, elegiac tone, and lyric quality. 1924 1 ' Phelps, W. L. Introduction to The Plays of Ivan S. Turgenev. Translated by M. S. Mandell. New York: Macmillan Company, pp. v-vii. Welcomes the publication of the volume which contains the first English Vel‘sion of Turgenev’s plays. Emphasizes that Turgenev’s plays, like other Russian Plays, are “centrifugal” ones in which the author endeavors to depict ordinary people in 34 ordinary conditions in his drama, “forcing the attention of the audience into a contemplation of life in general.” Looks forward to the full volumes of Turgenev’s works translated into English, which contains Turgenev’s plays. 1925 l Mirsky, D. S. “From Turgenev to Leskov.” In Modern Russian Literature. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 22-33. Outlines Turgenev’s biography briefly, and describes Turgenev’s salient literary features. Highly values Notes of a Hunter with its “matchless artistic perfection”and great historical importance as “anti-serfdom propaganda,” hailing The Singers and BeZin Meadow, the stories in Notes of a Hunter, as “the crowning glory of Russian prose.” Interprets Turgenev’s longer novels as more or less ‘novels with a purpose’ which have a direct bearing on the problems of the day, a characteristic which is seen as a response to the demand of critics for novels to present “a creative synthesis” of contemporary events. Mentions that Turgenev is “a far less attractive writer in Russia than in western countries,” pointing out that Turgenev was “more cordial, more sincere, more generous and more simple with foreigners than with Russians, and did not make friends with his Russian compeer.” Also mentions that there is “something unmanly” both “in his dealings with women” and “in his excessive sensitiveness to what the radicals and the young generation thought of him.” Insists that Turgenev “lacks the enormous creative power of Tolstoj and Dostoevskij, their vitality, and earnest intensity,” but “in his poetical and suggestive language” he is better than them, and “comes very near to Cexov.” Bitterly criticizes Turgenev’s humor as unmanly, self-conscious and sneering. Also criticizes Turgenev’s conversations on social and intellectual topics, insisting that those are “quite unassirnilated to the body of the story.” Sees Turgenev’s creation of characters as conventional “in the tradition of Eugene Onegin,” and thus far different from Tolstoj and Dostoevskij. Refutes the comparison of Turgenev’s work with Greek 85 tragedy as “too complimentary,” arguing that “Turgenev’s conception of the human being is the typical decadent nineteenth—century conception.” Contrasts Thomas Hardy’s “active and fearless pessimism” to Turgenev’s “effeminate and passive pessimism.” 1926 l Yarmolinsky, Avrahm. Turgenev: The Man- His Art- and His Age. New York and London: Century Co., 386 pp. The first monograph incorporating a biography of Turgenev in English. Frequently cites the texts of Turgenev’s literary Reminiscences and letters, and gives detailed biographical information on Turgenev’s family background, education, life in Russia and abroad, literary work, the literary and philosophic influences of Belinskij. Stankevié, Bakunin on Turgenev, Turgenev’s thought on Russia and on life and death, his lovers (especially Viardot), relations with his contemporary Russian and foreign writers, the response to his works from inside and outside Russia, and his struggle against illness and his death. Also provides critical analyses of the major works and a general conclusion on the nature and significance of Turgenev’s achievement. 1927 l Galsworthy, John. “Sax Novelists in Profile.” In Castles in Spain and Other Screeds. London: Heinemann, pp. 150-153. Sees Turgenev as the finest natural poet-novelist, noting Turgenev’s great influence upon the West. Maintains that around 1907 it became a literary fashion in England to disparage Turgenev due to the popularity of Dostoevskij among English critics. Likens Turgenev to Dickens in their “intense understanding of human nature, intense interest in life, and intense hatred for cruelty and humbug.” Mentions Turgenev’s “exquisite style in Russian,” “interesting and significant dialogue,” and “delightful description of Nature” as Turgenev’s salient literary features. 86 1929 1 Carr, E. H. “Two Russian.” ForR 132, 823-826. Describes the relationship of Turgenev and Tolstoj from their first meeting to the end of their lives, beginning when Turgenev (then “the rising star of literature”) took Tolstoj under his patronage, continuing through the break between the two as Tolstoj began to develop for the opinions and talent of Turgenev to their reconcilation after the “conversion” of Tolstoj. Maintains that while Turgenev kept patronizing Tolstoj at least disseminating his works abroad, Tolstoj “firmly relegated Turgenev to the status of the second rank writer.” 2 ------ , E. H. “Turgenev and Dostoyevsky.” SEER 8, no. 22: 156-163. Describes in detail the relations between Turgenev and Dostoevskij from the 18403, when both were “lionized” in the circle of Belinskij to the death of Dostoevskij, frequently citing their letters from the collection by Zilberstein. Mentions that they respected each other at first, but after Dostoevskij’s return from Siberia “a feeling of arose inequality between Dostoevskij and Turgenev,” who had become “a recognized figure in Russian literature.” Shows how the failure of Dostoevskij ’s publishing business, Turgenev’s uncooperative attitude, and Dostoevskij ’s delay in paying his debt to Turgenev broadened the gap between them, which led to collapse of relations due to fundamental differences of opinion over Russia and the Russian God. Mentions that even though they reconciled at the unveiling of Puskin memorial in 1880, Turgenev in the end did “not wash off his ill feeling against Dostoevskij, calling him a Russian de Sade.” 87 3 Lavrin, Janka. “Ivan Turgenev.” In Studies in European Literature. London: Constable, pp. 58-79. Sees Turgenev as moving in the course of his literary career from the influence of Puskin and Lermontov to becoming “a precursor” of Cexov. Briefly mentions that Turgenev’s poetic narrative Paras'a was written under the influence of Pu§kin and Lermontov and that some of Turgenev’s early stories lean “toward Lermontov and toward Gogol’s ‘philanthropic’ theme.” Finds “unobtrusive character drawings,” “poetic irnpressionism,” “easy development of narrative,” “sense for shades,” and “musical language” as salient features of Turgenev’s prose. Maintains that Turgenev is “a born realist,” founded upon observation, not imagination. Compares Turgenev with Dostoevskij and Tolstoj, finding that Turgenev shows “the surface of his characters only,” while Dostoevskij “describes them chiefly within,” and Tolstoj “balances his acute eye with an equally acute analysis.” Makes analysis of salient features in major novels, having divided Turgenev’s novel into three groups; “novel dealing with Russian gentry life” (Rudin and A Nest of the Gentry), one novel achieving an “organic blending of form and idea” (Father and Sons), and “novels with less organic blending” (On the Eve, Smoke, and Virgin Soil). Deems Turgenev a writer who “never sacrifices the truth of life to the truth of art, nor the truth of art to that of life.” 1931 1 Manning, Clarence A. “Ivan Sergyeyevich Turgenev.” SAQ 30, no. 4: 366-381. Describes Turgenev as a stylist who tells his stories “in the form that the West is accustomed to follow and to appreciate,” and as a writer who “creates the ideal of the Russian realist, not the coarse and vulgar murderer but the high-minded self-sacrificing young person.” Finds that Turgenev’s pessimism prevails so completely over the destiny of even his strong and noble women characters, that they never can lead a normal, happy life. Sees the embryo of the “ superfluous man” in Hamlet of the Séigrov District from 88 Notes of a Hunter. Stresses that Turgenev expresses his motto in Notes of a Hunter -”the serfs too are human”- without pleading or attacking. Discusses the themes and characterizations of six novels which reflect the political life of the time; Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, On the Eve, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, and Virgin Soil. Holds that in Poems in Prose Turgenev expresses his understanding of the revolutionary changes occurring in Russia and his detestation of the despotism in Russia more clearly than anywhere else. 1932 1 Hershkowitz, Harry. Democratic Ideas in Thrgenev’s Works. New York: Colombia University Press, 131 pp. Attempts to trace democratic ideas in Turgenev’s works, showing how Turgenev represents the spirit of the time and of leading ideas among intellectual classes. Describes the early influence on Turgenev by Stankevih’, Bakunin, Gercen, Belinskij, and by his uncle Nikolaj Turgenev, along with the negative influence by his mother, showing their reflection in his works. Holds that Turgenev, who vowed with his “Hannibal oath” to fight serfdom prefered to stay abroad to be in a better position to fight his enemy. Argues that after Notes of a Hunter, where “Turgenev’s art reaches its peak,” Turgenev created a series of builders of new orders: “the cosmopolitan idealist” Rudin, “the Slavophile nationalist” Lavreckij, ‘the liberator of oppressed people” Insarov, and “the fearless attacker on time-honored values, the nihilist” Bazarov. Finds that in Smoke Turgenev shows “disillusionment in his political dream after the Peasant Reform.” Notes that Turgenev’s women characters play “a more noble part” than the men. Describes how Turgenev’s “artistic treatment” and “the development of psychological subtleties” in his characters brought him strong popularity for more than thirty years. Contains the bibliographies on Turgenev in Russian, English, French, and in German. 89 2 Mirsky, D. S. “Turgenev.” In History of Russian Literature from the Earliest Time to the Death of Dostoyevsky. London: Heinemann, pp. 236-254. Surveys Turgenev’s prose fiction after a brief outline of Turgenev’s biography and literary career. Points out Lermontov’s influence on some of Turgenev’s early stories, such as Andrej Kolosov, The Duelist, The Jew, and Three Portraits (Romantic “Pecorin-like heroes” and the method of “intensified anecdote”), and that of Gogol’ and Dostoevskij on The Diary of a Superfluous Man and in Mumu (Dostoevskian “theme of humiliated human dignity” and “morbid delight in humiliation” and Gogol’-like “verbal intensity” and “intense sensation of pity.”) Sees “absolute matter-of-factness and studious avoidance of everything artificial” as the most prominent characteristics of Notes of a Hunter. Also sees The Singers from Notes of a Hunter, First Love and Fathers and Sons as quintessential Turgenev. Shows how the beauty of the landscape painting in Turgenev’s work is due “chiefly to the choice of descriptive words.” Mentions that Turgenev’s novels aim at social significance and his nouvelles are “pure stories free from civic preoccupation,” and that social significance in his novel is achieved by the representative nature of the characters and also by “the insertion of numerous conversations on topics of social significance.” Describes Fathers and Sons as Turgenev’s most important work, overcoming “the contradiction between the imaginative and the social theme.” Mentions Turgenev’s limitation in unfamiliar fields, mainly in his stories with fantastic element. Finds in A Tour in the Forest Turgenev’s conception of “indifferent and eternal nature opposed to transient man” for the f'ust time. Also discusses Turgenev’s essay on Hamlet and Don Quixote. Sees Turgenev as a Victorian, “a man of compromise,” which makes him so acceptable to Europe. 3 Osborne, E. A. “Russian Literature and Translations: VI- Ivan Sergueevich Turgenev (1818-1883).” Bookman 83: 198-202. 90 Gives Turgenev credit for creating interest in Russian literature in western countries, despite his waning popularity in Europe, noting that French and English versions of Virgin Soil appeared in book form before the novel was published in Russia. Outlines Turgenev’s biography and his literary career briefly. Discusses critical books and articles on Turgenev published in the West. Contains lists of translations of Turgenev into English from 1855 to 1930. 1933 l Kahn, Alexander. “Turgenev the European.”BA 7: 274-277. Sees Turgenev as a European who is neither dead-sure nor takes things too seriously, that is, who has “a sense of measure.” Finds Turgenev more naturally Russian than his contemporaries in the sense that he depicts Russians of various generations and classes, as well as nineteenth-century currents of thought, more comprehensively than them. Mentions Turgenev’s “Hannibal oath” to fight against serfdom and his idealization of peasants, which is far different from Aleksandr Gercen’s “adoration of the muzhik" as embryonic socialist. Finds how Turgenev stood as if “in the position of Balaam,” when “his original intention to ridicule the protagonist of N ihilism” could not be done due to “the voice of artist’s conscience.” Also mentions Turgenev’s Hamlets, insisting that the more Turgenev is fond of his Hamlet-type character the more inevitably is he going to kill them. Contemplates Turgenev’s work Enough! as “a cry of despair over the sameness of life, the indifference of nature,” and “the futility of endeavor.” 1934 1 Woolf, Virginia. “The Novels of Turgenev.” YR 23, no. 2: 276-283. Explores Turgenev’s theory of art, discussing the salient qualities of his novels. Argues that “to be an accurate and dispassionate observer is at the core of Turgenev’s task,” and that Turgenev tries to “see the fact itself with his insatiable eyes,” and at the 91 same time he tries to “interpret its meaning,” making it relevant to the idea or to the character, noting that the ‘balance between these two very different faculties is extremely rare in English fiction.” Mentions that the other quality of Turgenev is “the gift of symmetry in depicting the generalized and balanced picture of life.” Finds that Turgenev “does not see his novels as a succession of events, but as a succession of emotions radiating from certain characters at the center,” thus making his novels “pure and intense.” Discusses the impersonal, standing-aside quality of Turgenev’s I. Insists that because of this “aloofness’ Turgenev’s emotion affects the readers more powerfully. 1936 1 Ford, F. M. “Turgenev, The Beautiful Genius.” AmeM 39: 41-50. Recalls his impressions from a meeting with Turgenev which took place in his grandfather’s studio in London in 1881 when he was eight years old. Criticizes Russian biographers’ image of Turgenev as “miserable expatriate” from Russia who detested his French literary colleagues and France itself, insisting that Turgenev enjoyed his life there with them. Maintains that. perhaps Flaubert was the only man whom Turgenev really and permanently loved. Also claims that Turgenev “carries the rendering of human soul one stage further than any writer” because he has the gift of identifying himself with the passions of his characters. 1937 1 Gettmann, Royal Alfred. “Turgenev in England and America.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana: university), 196 pp. A comprehensive study of the effect of Turgenev on English and American authors and critics. Discusses Turgenev’s reception in England and America in the following periods: 1855-1875, 1877-1885, 1885-1900, and 1900-1937 in England and 1867-1877, 1877-1884, 1885-1900, and 1900-1937 in America. Argues that in the 18708 92 the popularity of Turgenev became very high in America mainly “due to his recognition by a group of writers associated with W. D. Howells,” who noted “the withdrawal of the author, singleness of theme, and restriction of time and place” in Turgenev’s work, while the English applauded Turgenev from the middle of the eighties on for his combination of Flaubert’s care for art with Russian concern for the spirit. Discusses how the English recognized Turgenev as “a conscientious craftsman” and respected his sympathy with his characters, his noble heroines, and his poetry. Also argues that after the discovery of Dostoevskij which followed World War I Turgenev’s popularity gradually declined in both countries. Highly emphasizes Turgenev’s influence on Howells, Henry James, George Moore, Arnold Bennet, Frank Swinnterton, F. Ford, and Virginia Woolf. Reprinted: 1941.1. 2 Pritchett, V. S. “ A Hero of Our Time.” LonM 36: 209-304. Centers on a psychoanalysis of Rudin, who is seen as superfluous, powerless, and out of touch. Holds that there are two models for Rudin; Bakunin, who was on the barricades in Paris as a revolutionary in the year of 1848, and Turgenev himself. Sees “Rudinism” as a universal social type to which most thoughtful men belong in times of social frustration. 1941 1 Gettmann, Royal Alfred. Turgenev in England and America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 196 pp. (Printed in Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 27, no. 2) Reprint of 1937.1. 2 Lerner, Daniel. “The Influence of Turgenev on Henry James.” SEER 10, no. 1:28-54. Centers on the influence of Turgenev on Henry James. Traces their relationship from J ames’s early contact with Turgenev’s works to their residence together in Paris 93 during James’s “French Year.” Discusses the shared ideas in aesthetics which distinguished them from their contemporary writers, especially those of the Paris circle. Discusses specific novels in which James borrows from Turgenev, illustrating concrete similarities of title, technical composition, psychological interest, and even common weaknesses. Indicates that both Turgenev’s Virgin Soil and J ames’s The Princess Casamassima are “ostensibly political novels” but are actually more concerned with the psychology of a hero who finds himself in a false position, and shows that the two heroes shares a similar genealogy and career. Underlines a strikingly similar “female background” in the foreshortened careers of both writers’ heroes. Sees the influence of Turgenev on James mainly in the latter’s “humanist-aesthetic cosmopolitanism” with the following rule of life: “feeling, not doing, not facts, but the liberal appreciation of them. 1942 l Cores, Lucy M. Introduction to Fathers and Sons. Translated by Constance Gamett. Revised and Edited by Lucy M. Cores. Walter J. Black: New York, .Oi. 0.. Contends that Fathers and Sons depicts not only a reality specific to Russia of the 1860’s, but also a situation that belongs to any period: the eternal conflict between eager youth and cautious age. Notes that writing the novel, Turgenev, a typical “man of the forties,” was fascinated by the new type of man embodied in Bazarov, after he had been grieved and puzzled by the gulf between the old Hegelian idealist and new materialistic nihilist. Sees Bazarov as a real, rather than idealized, type. Describes the reception of the novel by Young Russia and Turgenev’s reaction to it. Outlines Turgenev’s biography. 94 1945 l Annan, Noel. “Novelist-Philosophers:'1‘urgenev.” Horizon 11: 152-163. Noting a tendency to relegate Turgenev’s works to the second rank, discusses artistic craft and philosophical meaning in Fathers and Sons. Points out Turgenev’s inability to explore “the intricate processes of the mind.” Emphasizes Turgenev’s ablity to concentrate on his craft, “producing by selection and arrangement the greatest emotional effect,” calling him an impressionist. Enumerates the aspects of the novel’s craft: harmony of character and plots; “condensation of text;” “suggestiveness” through metaphor; imagery and allegories; “aloofness” of narrators; and “simple and economical construction” with “a perfect sense of form.” Compares the potent melancholy of Fathers and Sons with “the longing for home and memories of the past” in Odyssey of Homer. Explains the characterization and philosophy of Bazarov, founded upon the view: “to be true to one’s heart is all that man can hope to be.” States that in the final scene of Fathers and Sons, “Turgenev’s poetic inspiration illuminates with miraculous power the cosmic processes of man's destiny: ‘indifferent nature’ regards men no more than insects.” Finds Turgenev’s comments on life as powerful and revealing as Dostoevskij’s. Concludes that Fathers and Sons is “perhaps the most perfect example of the novel as a form of art.” 1946 1 Chamberlin, William H. “Turgenev: The Eternal Romantic.” RusR 2:10-23. Discusses the Romanticism of Turgenev. Enumerates factors in Turgenev’s Romantic appeal: “liquid prose style,” “keen feeling for natural beauty,” “the deep and genuine love of music,” “nostalgic vividness,” “youthful enthusiasms,” and “feminine characters with intense, single-minded devotion.” Also discusses Turgenev’s major characters in terms of their sociopolitical ideas. Argues that Bazarov has “Communist psychological traits” in his strong convictions and a firm sense of direction. Sees in 95 Turgenev’s politics “a British idealism” marked by freedom from fanatical ideas in both his personality and art. Notes Turgenev’s eagerness to introduce American writers, such as Walt Whitman, N. Hawthorne and Turgenev’s considerable direct influence on American writers, especially on Howells and Henry James. Makes brief comparison of Turgenev to Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Deems Turgenev a writer who remains “on a high plateau of excellence” unlike Tolstoj, who “renounces his art in the name of social and ethical ideas,” and unlike Dostoevskij, who at times “loses the sense for balance and proportion.” 2 Halperin, George. “Ivan Sergeevich Tourgenev.” In Tolstoy, Dostoevskiy, Tourgenev: Three Great Men of Russia ’s World of Literature. Chicago: Chicago Literary Club, pp. 53-73. The first part contains a brief outline of Turgenev’s biography, mentioning his acquaintance and relations with Tolstoj and Dostoevskij, Viardot, and with French writers of “Flaubert dinners.” Describes artistic features of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter and of his other novels. Argues that in style Turgenev is influenced by Puskin and Gogol’, in mode of thinking by Goethe and Shakespeare, and in philosophy by Schopenhauer. Points out that his’philosophy is “tinged with pessimism and sadness” in its awareness of indifferent nature. Sees Turgenev’s salient artistic features as clarity of ideas, skill in sketching types, simplicity of plot, and moderation and evenness of the work as a whole. Sees Turgenev as not only “an uncompromising realist” for his “minute and objective observation” but also a poet for his beauty of language and perfection of style, concluding that “the mental and moral perplexities of the psychology of Russian superfluous men, which are in a sense universal characters, are depicted in highly artistic and poetic fashion in his works.” 96 3 Sergievsky, Nicholas N. “The Tragedy of Great Love: Turgenev and Pauline Viardot.” SlaR 5: 55-71. Briefly outlines the life and family background of Viardot. Traces in detail the changes in the relationship between her and Turgenev from their first meeting to his death: his one-sided infatuation, their intimate love, separation, reunion as friends. Notes the difficulty in tracing their relation more clearly due to “Viardot’s withholding a considerable part of Turgenev’s letters from print” as well as destroying all her own letters written to him. Confirms Turgenev’s fatherhood of Pauline’s second daughter Didi, citing his letter to his friend Louis Pietsch. Mentions the positive and negative effects of their relationship for Turgenev: his character underwent a purification, yet he lost his sense of Russia. Rejects flatly Viardot’s maintenance that she, as “the first reader of Turgenev’s works,” kept Turgenev writing, deeming her acquaintance with Russian literature, life and language to be superficial. 1947 1 Guerney, Bernard G. “Turgenev: A Novel Aspect.” UniKCR 14:75-77. Gives an account of the two prayers which were found in the archives of Polonskij with a notation by Polonskij himself that “they were written by Turgenev in his youth and the writer wanted to destroy them.” Discusses Turgenev’s concept of religion, citing his own statements and letters to his friends. Infers how Turgenev, known as an unbeliever, could have written the prayers which were published in Raduga, Almanac of the Puskin House in 1922. Speculates possible dates of their writing. Suggests that the two Prayers might be either written in a state of weakness due to physical suffering or written by someone else. 97 1948 l Cecil, Lord David. “Turgenev.” ForR 164: 42-29. Finds a similarity between the novels of Turgenev and those of Tolstoj and Dostoevskij in their realistic and religious features, the character of which had exerted an influence on “every fibre of Russian society.” Sees the reason why Turgenev’s reputation has been overshadowed by Dostoevskij and Tolstoj in that Turgenev lacks Dostoevskij’s power to illuminate with “the intensity of spiritual insight, the depth of criminal degradation and height of religious ecstasy” and also in that Turgenev also differs from Tolstoj in condition of mind (“Christian feeling without Christian faith”), his esthetic sensibility, and appreciation of moral virtue. Holds that in this sense Turgenev finds a parallel in English literature with Hardy, with the difference that Turgenev’s approach to landscape is purely esthetic, while Hardy uses landscape as a symbol. Claims that Turgenev distinguishes himself from the professional aesthete of the west in that his beauty includes moral beauty. Sees Turgenev’s “economical certainty of touch” and his sense of form as the prominent features of his artistic method. 2 James, Henry. “Ivan Turgenev.” In First Love: Three Short Novels of Ivan Turgenev. Lear: New York, pp. 9-32. Reprint of 1884.2 3 Strauss, Walter A. “ Turgenev in the Role of Publicity Agent for Flaubert’s La Tentation de Saint Antoine.” HLB 2: 404-410. Mentions Turgenev’s enthusiasm and solicitude for Flaubert’s La Tentation de Saint Antoine, citing Turgenev’s letters to authoritative critics in Germany and in England regarding the work. Informs that many of these critics wrote book reviews in response to Turgenev’s request, but the responses of the critics to the work itself were lukewarm. 98 1950 1 Morgan, Charles. “Turgenev’s Treatment of a Love-Story.”TRSL UK ns. 25: 102-1 19. Notes a renewed interest in Turgenev throughout the Western world insofar as he “holds a universal and spiritual force to reveal human nature.” Maintains that the art of Turgenev, with its “care for beauty of expression,” quest for formal perfection, and “interest in the strange variability of man,” totally differs from that of Tolstoj or Dickens and from that of collective materialists. Discusses Turgenev’s craftsmanship in First Love: beginning the story with “an elaborately confused dialogue to arouse the reader’s attention” and introduce the theme; condensing the depiction of the characters; delicately impregnating the imagination of readers; maintaining the narrator’s aloofness. Mentions the similarity in character between Zinaida in First Love and Natal’ ja in A Month in the Country. Remarks on Turgenev’s view of love: passion of love is “a solvent of the barriers set up by conscience and habit between the good and evil in men.” Concludes that Turgenev is a true writer who “knows not only how to describe a woman and how to analyze her character but also how to evoke her scent, her presence, her being she, as in her own heart she is herself and none other.” 1951 1 Folejewski, Z. “Turgenev and Prus.” SEER 29: 132-139. Ascribes the vast difference between the reception of Turgenev’s works in the West and in Russia to the fact that the problem described by him concerned Russia directly as well as to the fact that “the notion of autonomous literature” which allowed Turgenev to create objective pictures of life had never been accepted in Russia, as it had been in the west. Finds Turgenev and the Pole Boleslaw Prus, despite differences of period and milieu, similar in their attitude to problems of life and literature, in that both consider “astronomer”- like observation as a writer’s first priority. Traces similarities in 99 their works: “the factual and artistic faithfulness of description” in Notes of a Hunter and The Outpost; “the structural significance of the schism between the world views of the older and that of younger generation” in Fathers and Sons and The Doll; “the critical attitude” of authors “towards the revolutionary movements supported by the young” in Virgin Soil and The Dawn; and pessimistic conclusions. 1952 1 Dunbar, Viola A. “The Problem in Roderick Hudson.” RLN 67 :109-1 13. Notes that in order to avoid creating “a depressing effect” in his tragic story, Roderick Hudson, Henry James emphasizes “the freedom of the individual will and man’s share in determining his own destiny” the same approach that Turgenev uses in his Spring Torrents in order to negate the pessimism of the events. 1953 l Spalding, P. A. “A Re-reading of Turgenev.” ConQ 31: 253-263. Holds that in Turgenev’s works the traditional roles of the sexes are reversed, with young, well-disposed, and weak heroes and strong heroines. Notes also “a monotonous sameness” in the themes and the settings of Turgenev’s stories. Describes how in poetry Turgenev’s expressive effects are produced “by instinctive elimination,” rather than patient accumulation, of detail, and by keen and close observation with precision and delicacy. Enumerates differences between Turgenev with Dostoevskij: agnostic vs. Christian approach to experience; rural vs. urban in atmosphere; outdoor, sunlit setting vs. indoor, dark scene. Calls Turgenev a “novelist’s novelist,” noting the affection of diverse novelists for Turgenev for his artistry and “impeccable sense of form.” Points out Turgenev’s inability to “control a crowd,” like Tolstoj, or to “penetrate to subliminal levels,” like Dostoevskij. Notes that Turgenev’s works with their simple plot seldom depend on suspense. Mentions Turgenev’s effective use of epilogues and 100 prologues not only to frame the picture but also to “suggest the inconclusiveness of life,” and his technique of “interposing the epitomized biography of the character before introducing him” to relieve tension or to introduce a change of key. Holds that “though Turgenev was not a Christian, the Christian virtue of humility is the Turgenevian virtue par excellence,” noting that it is the meek who “inherit the earth” in his novel: old Bazarovs in Fathers and Sons; Bassistov in Rudin; Petr Vasil’ic’ and Verocka in The Two Friends. 1954 1 Brodiansky, Nina. “Turgenev’s Short Stories: A Re-evaluation.” SEER 32: 70- 92. Briefly mentions influence on Turgenev of Pus'kin, Lermontov and Gogol’ and Turgenev’s influence on Bal’mont, Ger‘fienzon, and Pritchett. Also briefly surveys criticism on Turgenev by Russian critics. Describes Turgenev’s own literary theory as presented in his critical articles, mentioning that Turgenev emphasizes the essentials of form and characterization and singles out faults such as a lack of balance between various elements, shallow philosophizing, the pathetic fallacy and convenient lapses in time as particularly blameworthy. Discusses Turgenev’s applications of literary theory to practice in his stories, mentioning his “principle of abstention, the tenuousness of plot, the intentional playing-down of fatality, and the plurality of themes.” Sees Turgenev’s lyricism not as lyricism of emotion but as “lyricism of the moment and of a language corresponding to the moment.” Pays particular attention to the salient Turgenev’s characteristic themes of inherent injustice in life contradictory to the moral laws, the fatal subjectivity of human judgment with regard to the other, the relative significance of the word with moral, social and emotional bearings. Also pays particular attention to Turgenev’s remarkable insight into modern psychology and his device of making the “suspense of uncertainty” heightened by parallels and contrasts with interpolated 101 anecdotes. Discusses Turgenev’s philosophy, especially his awareness of “an indifferent driving force in nature, the impotence of the intellect in relation to the passions, and the eternal mystery of the life.” Rejects the criticism that Turgenev’s writings are under the influence of Hegel and Schopenhauer. 2 Brown, Ashley. “Turgenev.” Shenandoah 6: 17-30. Mentions that though Turgenev is “an amiable minor figure in a literature of unquestionable importance” he has always been “a writer’s writer,” admired and reflected by British and American writers such as Henry James, Ford Madox Ford, Ezra Pound, Wyndam Lewis, Ernest Hemingway, and Caroline Gordon and even by the Irish writers Frank O’Connor and Seon O’Faolain. Calls Turgenev “a born observer” dependent on living models as the subjects for his finest works. Insists that Turgenev, by nature anti-heroic, was forced by the Russian public to create “a full-scale hero” after the publication of his second novel, A Nest of the Gentry, and was obliged to “deliberately establish consciously) heroic characters,” which consequently led him to fail in characterization in On the Eve, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, and Virgine Soil. Sees the typical Turgenev’s hero as a “man from nowhere” whose entry is unexpected, and whose mere presence always brings disturbing outcomes. Regards Smoke as a rewriting of A Nest of the Gentry. 3 Magarshack, David. T‘ugenev:A Life. London:Faber and Faber LTD, pp. 328. Discusses Turgenev’s life in detail. Focuses on Turgenev’s relationship with Viardot. Also discusses Turgenev’s works, especially his major novels. Mentions Turgenev’s relationship with his contemporary Russian and European writers, philosophers, and with literary critics, tracing mutual influences between Turgenev and some Western writers. 102 1955 1 Cizevsky, Dmitry. “Manuscripts of Dostoevsky and Turgenev at Harvard.” HLB 9: 410-415. Divulges the acquisition of autographs of thirty- six letters, ranging from 1867 to 1875, from Turgenev to the noted Russian political liberal Nikolaj Miljutin and his wife Mar’ja Ageevna, including seven letters hitherto unknown. Details the most important content of the letters, dealing with Turgenev’s intensely adverse criticism of Dostoevskij as well as his own Weltanschauung, especially his dissension from Russian nationalism and Slavophilism. Points out numerous changes in the texts of already- published letters from Turgenev to Miliutin and his wife: abridgrnents and omissions, misread words, altered punctuation, arbitrary interpolation of the editor, censorship changes, and instances where the letters were undated or misdated. 1956 1 Howe, Irving. “Turgenev: the Virtues of Hesitation.” HR 8: 533-551. Discusses Turgenev’s “superfluous men” in his novels, surveying their sexual, social and political frustrations and emphasizing their roots in the tradition of Russian literature and Turgenev’s own indecisiveness. Describes the politics of Turgenev’s novels as “a politics of hesitation” reflecting “the dilemmas of an educated man” whose instinct lead him to contempt politics but whose intelligence leads him into politics. Sees George Eliot as a representative English writer in the opposite direction of Turgenev in the sense that Eliot considers a concurrence between public activity and private feeling possible, while Turgenev’s heroes “recoil in weakness” when they try to make contact with public life. Takes notice that most of Turgenev’s protagonists are students who have failed to enter society, holding that they are descendants of Cach in Griboedov’s Woe fiom Wit. Insists that Rudin is partly created in Turgenev’s own image, while Bazarov is in opposition to that image. Deems Bazarov a superfluous man who has only 103 revolutionary personality without revolutionary ideas. Claims that Solomin in Virgin Soil is not a character being portrayed, but “a character being anticipated,” and that he is an embryonic Lenin type with his cool patience and rejection of romantic ideas for revolution. 2 Martin, Mildred A. “The Last Shall Be First: a Study of Three Russian Short Stories.” BucR 6: 13-23. Insists that The Bear, a story from Notes of a Hunter, contains, along with Dostoevskij’s The Thief and Gogol”s The Overcoat, the central truth of Christianity: “the necessity of humility and the meaning of the brotherhood of man.” Sees The Bear as the story of a character who gradually gets humanity through realization of the suffering of another. Speculates that the Bear, the forester, releases the peasant who was arrested for cutting down a tree because the peasant’s desperate suffering makes The Bear realize his inhumanity and awakened his sense of shame and humility. 3 Phelps, Gilbert. The Russian Novel in English Fiction. London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 206 pp. Surveys the reception of Russian novels from Turgenev to Gor’kij, in England and to some extent in America, and assesses their impact on some English and American writers, concentrating on earlier phases and in particular on the role of Turgenev. Considers the translation of Turgenev’s works the first step of “Russian fever” in England and in America. Deals with the reception of Turgenev and his impact from Chapter Three to Chapter Seven, discussing following topics: (3) Turgenev’s visits to England, contact with English writers, and relationship with French realists; (4) American reception of Turgenev; (5) his influence in the novels and short stories of Henry James; (6) his influence on some English novelists of the nineteenth century; (7) his influence on some English novelists of the twentieth century. Concludes that Turgenev, along with Cexov, appears to many English and American practicing writers 104 to constitute “the quintessence of Russian realism,” while Tolstoj and Dostoevskij made a general profound impact on the evolution of modern English fiction. 1957 l Matlaw, Ralph E. “Turgenev’s Art in Spring Torrents.” SEER 35: 157-172. An extensive analysis of Spring Torrents, focusing on Turgenev’s use of literature, painting, and music. Mentions the similarity in basic subject and the difference in main characters between Smoke and Spring Torrents. Sees Sanin as an analogue of Turgenev and the conclusion of the novel as the reflection of Turgenev’s own feelings. Holds that the transition of narrative from first to third person is made for three reasons: “the limited scope of the story,” “the advantage of a double perspective,” and “the crudity of the second part of the novel.” Points out excessive sentimentality in the introductory and concluding chapters which tums the novel toward “mawkish.” Argues that the conception of the story consists of “combinations of the fairy tale with early 19th century German imaginative fiction.” Argues that Turgenev refers to artists and their productions in order “to help define character,” “to foreshadow the progress of the novel,” and “to help the communication between characters of different generations, social classes, and nations.” Pays attentions to Gemma’s version of Hoffmann’s story and to Polozova’s mention of Aeneid, arguing that these describe the consequences of Sanin’s relationship with Gemma and Polozova. 2 ------ “’I‘urgenev’s Novels: Civil Responsibility and Literary Predilection.” HSS 4: 249-262. Finds incompatibility between Turgenev’s interest and methods with the social and political ideas. Notices the disparity between his political opinions and his aesthetic judgments. Sees the political arguments and pronouncements in Turgenev’s works, with the exception of Fathers and Sons, as “pseudo prophesy.” Mentions Turgenev’s 105 “inability to weave a plot,” and argues that there is only one action in Turgenev’s novels-- love, which is usually abortive. Determines the dichotomy of Turgenev’s _ characters: “the predatory and the passionate virgin” for female characters; Hamlets and Don Quixotes for male characters. Points out “static characters without personality development,” mentioning that Turgenev does not endeavor to find the motivation behind his characters restricting his portraits to “observable phenomena.” 3 Wilson, Edmund. “Turgenev and the Life-Giving Drop.” New Yorker (19 October): 150-200. Briefly outlines Turgenev’s biography, focusing on his relationship with his mother (V arvara Petrovna) and with Viardot, who caused Turgenev a good deal of suffering and bequeathed him his basic theme, the inadequate man and demanding woman. Notes how the authority of Turgenev was felt by western writers. Also describes his “dramatic and comic” relations with Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Finds Turgenev’s literary Reminiscenes, with their extensive remarks and anecdotes on many distinguished people, one of his best works, “comparable in beauty and interest” to Yeats’. Makes mention of similarity between Stankevié and Andrej Kolosov and between Belinskij and J akov Pasynkov. Traces the principal themes through all Turgenev’s writings. Reprinted: 1958. 4. 1958 1 Gay, E. D. “The Attitude of the Serbs to Turgenev’s Works in the 19th Century.” SEER 36: 123-149. Gives an account of the reception of Turgenev’s works in Serbia in the context of the general development of interest in Russian literature there. Begins with an anonymous translation of The Tryst from Notes of a Hunter, the first translation of Turgenev in the Serbian press (1862), followed in 1863 by the story Tatyana Borisovna and Her Nephew in the Serbian literary periodical Danica, where Turgenev was hailed 106 as the greatest contemporary Russian writer. Recounts Serbian translations of Turgenev’s works, including the translation of his novels during the period 1868-1878. Discusses two different appraisals of Turgenev in the 18708: that of liberal Serbian critics, namely, Vucetié and Arsennijevié, who were inspired by Western critics and focused on the literary value in Turgenev’s works; and that of Socialist critics, under the guidance of Todorovic, who focused on social and moral considerations. Also discusses the aesthetic approach to Turgenev’s works in Serbia in the last two decades of the 19th century, summing up the main points of Maksimovié’s and Odavié’s articles on Turgenev. 2 Magarshack, David. Introduction to Ivan Thrgenev: Literary Reminiscences and Autobiographical fiagrnents. Translated by David Magarshack. New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, pp. 65-99. Determines that Turgenev wrote his literary Reminiscences in order to prove his lifelong adherence to liberal ideas and to reply to his critics in the only effective way possible, by explaining his views on the art of writing, the place of the writer in society, and what the writer’s attitude to the controversial problems of his day should be. Recounts the relationship of Turgenev with writers of the ‘natural’ literary movement, and with Russian critics. Gives some background knowledge of the origin of the eight autobiographical fragments. A 3 Matlaw, Ralph E. “A New Letter of Turgenev.” HLB 12:268-270. Makes public an unpublished letter by Turgenev to Juliette Adam in which Turgenev expresses his chagrin at the prospect of serialization of Apres la mort [original French title of Klara Milib'] in the Nouvelle revue and insists that it must be read at a single sitting. Makes mention of Mme Adam, of the derivation of the idea of Klara Milié', of the publication of the German version of the tale, and of the achievement of his wish, the entire appearance of the tale in the Nouvelle revue for 15 January 1883. 107 4 Wilson, Edmund. “Turgenev and the Life-Giving Drop.” In Ivan Turgenev: Literary Reminiscences and Autobiographical Fragments. Translated with an introduction by David Magarshack. New York: Ferrar, Straus & Cudahy, pp. 3-64. Reprint of 1957. 3. 1959 1 Hindus, Milton. “The Duels in Mann and Turgenev.” ComL 11: 308-312. Compares the duels in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons and in Mann’s The Magic Mountain, noting Mann’s practical use of Turgenev’s inventions in his fiction. Finds that both duels are caused primarily by differences in ideas and temperament. Argues that the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov symbolizes the inevitable duel between the past and future of RusSia, which Turgenev prophesies with horror. Also finds that while Turgenev makes a concession to realism and “covers up the fundamental cause of the conflict” by making jealousy the immediate reason, Mann dispenses with any naturalistic device and “delights in showing the reader that he is aware of his own daring.” 2 Mandel, Oscar. “Moliere and Turgenev: The Literature of No-Judgment.” ComL 11: 233-249. Develops an analogy between Moliére’s enigmatic play Misanthrope and Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons, focusing on the kinship between Bazarov and Alceste. Holds that Bazarov’s “intransigent demand for reality and inability to compromise” makes him a solitary, bitter alien in his own world, as do Aloeste’s. Notes that both have “a horror of the conventional euphemism and a direct way of expressing home truths.” Also notes that even though implacable honesty strongly links Bazarov and Alceste, both fall in the end for exactly the same reason. Maintains that in contrast to Alceste, Bazarov is “a misanthrope with a metaphysic.” Argues that Misanthrope is not 108 enigmatic only when it is “read as a pure analysis of two contradictory point of view, revealing, as in Fathers and Sons, the actual consequence of each, but allowing no moral decision.” 3 Posin, Jack A. “A Sportsman’ s Sketches by Turgenev versus Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Beecher Stowe: A Study' 1n Understatement.” In Comparative Literature: Proceedings of the Second Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association at the University of North Carolina, September 8-12, 1958. Edited by Werner P. Friederich, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 455-462. Compares Uncle Tom ’s Cabin with Notes of a Hunter. Argues that Uncle Tom ’s Cabin and Notes of a Hunter were able to influence the emancipation of slaves and serfs because in both countries “moral force and economic forces were working toward the same goal, and not opposing each other.” Consider the basic differences between the two novels to be that Uncle Tom ’s Cabin is a pamphlet written from “the second-hand information,” while Notes of a Hunter is an artistic work written from “the first-hand information,” which gives the work “objectivity and authenticity” through its vivid description of ‘byt. ’ Finds understatement, along with other artistic features, important in letting readers see the disastrous situation which developed Russia under serfdom. 1960 l Freeborn, Richard. Turgenev: The Novelist’s Novelist, A study. London: Oxford University Press, 201 pp. Reprint. Oxford: Alden Press, 1963, 1970. A study of the salient features of the Turgenevan novel. Recounts Turgenev’s youth, philosophy, and his politics as of “a man of the forties.” Mentions Turgenev’s literary apprenticeship to Puskin on realism presenting a realistic picture of Russian life and emphasizing psychological analysis. Deems Turgenev a writer who turned the Russian novel into a work of art. Sees Turgenev’s transition from short stories to novel as his enlargement of “the depth of understanding of human nature.” Discusses “a monolithic quality” in Turgenev’s novel: “realistic in its picturing of life and social- 109 psychological representation of epoch,” “objective detachment with dispassionate narrator,” “importance of nature,” and “a distinct pattern to internal construction.” Expounds structure, ideas and ideals, heroes and heroines, and the achievement of Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Fathers and Sons. Sees Smoke as the sum of Turgenev’s mood during the sixties as well as his “political pamphlet for the future of Russia.” Ascribes the failure of Virgin Soil (Turgenev’s most complex novel) to “a lack of passion,” a lack of unity in the character and in the novel itself. Eulogizes Turgenev as “an artist in the noblest sense of that word,” as well as “a committed writer” who strove “to make his novels not only a mirror of life, but a mirror of man’s conscience.” 2 Gunzburg, Vries. “Some Letters of Ivan Turgenev to Baron Horace de Gunzburg.” OSP 9: 73-103. Includes the text of Turgenev’s thirty-five business letters, mostly, to Baron Horace de Gunzburg, a well known Jewish banker, who had many acquaintances among the St. Petersburg intelligentsia, and a strong bond with Russian artists in Paris. Mentions Turgenev’s constant financial difficulties resulting from the great expense of maintaining the Viardot family and to the mismanagement of his Russian estates. Notes how Gunzburg helped Turgenev with advice on selling Turgenev’s estate. Notes the carelessness evident in Turgenev’s handwriting. Also mentions Turgenev’s financial assistance to Russian revolutionaries. 3 Kappler, Richard George. “Turgenev and the French.” Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 225 pp. Examines the subject of Turgenev and France from every angle except the political. Gives an account of Turgenev’s relationship with French pre-naturalists and naturalists, made largely through the Viardot family. Notes that Turgenev had closer personal contacts with the younger generation of French writers, with whom he shared similar artistic ideas than with the older ones. Notes the literary excesses of the 110 naturalists which Turgenev criticized privately. Pays particular attention to the friendship of Turgenev and Flaubert, strengthened by common literary ideals and similar emotional characteristics. Describes Turgenev’s efforts for the translation of various works into both Russian and French and for introducing his contemporary Russian writers’ works to French readers. Sees Turgenev as a true “cosmopolitan writer” admired by most French naturalist writers. 4 Magarshack, David. Introduction to Selected Tales of Ivan Turgenev. Translated by David Magarshack. Doubleday & Co., Inc.: Garden City, New York, pp. ix-xvii. Explains the main characteristics of Turgenev’s writing other than his novels, dividing them into the following five distinct periods: romantic poems under the influence of German idealist philosophy: lyric and narrative poems with utmost simplicity; drama; short stories with long descriptive passages written in France between 1848 to 1850; and short stories with compact style. Briefly mentions biographical features in BeZin Meadow, Mumu, Asja, First Love, Knock...Knock...Knock, A Living Relic and Klara Milic, excerpting his letters to his friends and some anecdotes. 5 Mlikotin, Anthony Matthew. “The International Theme in the Novels of Turgenev and Henry James.” Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, 178 pp. Discusses the studies, travels, and ultimate settlement in foreign countries of Turgenev and Henry James, describing the influence of their “international lives” on their works. Compares the international theme in A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Smoke of Turgenev with that in The American, The Portrait of a Lady, and in The Ambassadors of J ames, arguing that the intemationalism in J ames’s works is more “sophisticated and abundant,” while in Turgenev it is incidental and secondary to Russian themes. Finds similarities in the three pairs of novels, acknowledging the influence of Turgenev on James in subject matter and minor techniques. 111 1961 l Justus, James H. “Fathers and Sons: The Novel as Idyll.” WHR 15: 259-265. Discusses the theme of the goodness of nature in Fathers and Sons. Emphasizes that Turgenev uses nature not merely to paint a scene, but to foreshadow the loss of communication between generations and the ultimate rupture in revolution. Maintains that the scenes of families, “dissolved by ideological postulates,” are memorable because of a quiet, undertoned pathos, enhanced by the repetitive use of nature symbols (land, tree, dream etc.). Also argues that the battle lines in Fathers and Sons are not simply drawn between fathers and sons but between the sons themselves, insofar as they already possess too much of their fathers’ world to dismiss it successfully. 2 Lehrman, Edgar H. Preface to T‘urgenev’s Letters, A Selection. Translated and Edited by Edgar H. Lehrman. New York: AlfresAKnopf, vii-xviii. Briefly mentions Turgenev’s biography, comparing him with Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Enumerates the detailed information about Turgenev found in his letters. 3 Slonim, Marc. “Turgenev revisited.” BNYPB 65: 570-576. Traces the shifts in Turgenev’s reputation in the West to the end of 19th century, as “ambassador of Russian letters in Europe” and “the genuine interpreter of the Russian national scene”; to the 1930s, as an author with “an effeminate manner and superficial lyrical qualities” lacking directness and vitality, distorting the revolutionary processes taking place among the educated classes between 1850 and 1880; after World War II, as a writer of renewed popularity. Sees the reasons for Turgenev’s popularity in 19th- century America and Europe as “his conformity to the rules of Victorian art,” and “his lack of irritating and disturbing Russian traits.” Mentions Marxist criticism of Turgenev, which “is inclined to consider Turgenev’s pessimism as an expression of the doom of his own class.” Also treats the criticism of Remizov, an émigré novelist, who “identified Turgenev refinemen national 3 Reprinted 4 Wood L groups: ti novels of that Societ While the ideal. GlV laments. emmional heroines 0 mm b\' v 1 CliVe, t Halal-0 A “intriguing Somewhat . r0mantic {E “9%me 112 Turgenev with the Karamzin-Turgenev-Cexov trend of elegance, restraint, and linguistic refinement” Recounts the reasons for the newly-emerged p0pularity of Turgenev: his national authenticity as well as his universality; his aestheticism; his understatement. Reprinted in 1962.6. 4 Woodcock, George. “The Elusive Ideal: Notes on Turgenev.” SewR 69: 34-47. Lists the characteristic features of Turgenev’s novels, dividing them into two groups: the society novel (A Nest of the Gentry, Smoke, and Spring Torrens) and the novels of rebellious youth (Rudin, Fathers and Sons, 0n the Eve, Virgin Soil). Holds that society novels have in common the theme of failure to fulfill a pure and tender love, while the novels of rebellious youth share the theme of failure to live up to a political ideal. Gives a general analysis of the composition and pattern of action of Spring Torrents. Maintains that the pattern of the weak hero’s “growing complexity and emotional destructiveness” reaches its ultimate form in Spring Torrents. Notes that the heroines of Turgenev’s society novels resemble the heroes in his novels of rebellious youth by virtue of their reasonableness, cold beauty, and “promise of neutral happiness.” 1962 1 Clive, Geoffrey. “Romanticism and Anti-Romanticism in the Nihilism of Bazarov.” ChrS 45: 215-229. Analyzes the romanticism and Anti-romanticism of Bazarov. Finds an “intriguing counterpoint between Turgenev’s irrepressible romanticism” and Bazarov’s somewhat “forced indifference” to it, calling Bazarov a romantic nihilist. Finds the romantic features of Bazarov in his relationship to Arkadij and his “chronic susceptibility to boredom and restlessness.” Also mentions the affinities of Odincova’s character with Bazarov’s: both are intelligent, extremely reserved, outwardly indifferent, and have tempered 2 Dafie. Polish Hague At 1950, can interest; 2 1917, con essential u agairst the 3 Foltjet Amhe E11 idtxJIOgica] AmPOV's a in Russia/a Dove] Fat/2e “reflection C Were baSed 113 and have an instinctive hatred of cant, although Bazarov’s skepticism is seen as mild compared to hers. 2 Davie, Donald. “Turgenev in England, 1850-1950.” In Studies in Russian and Polish Literature: In Honor of Wactaw Lednicki. Edited by Zbigniew Folejewski. Hague: Mouton & Co., pp. 168-184. Accounts the trends present in Turgenev’s reception in England from 1850 to 1950, categorizing it- into the following five periods: 1) 1850-1880, documentary interest; 2) 1880-1900, the novelists’ model; 3) 1900-1912, technical perfection; 4) 1917, controversy; and 5)1920-1946, classical status. Mentions the main points of essential writers and critics who appraised Turgenev in each period. Cautiously warns against the trend of enshrining Turgenev as an “idol of the exquisities.” 3 Folejewski, Zbigniew. “The Recent Storm around Turgenev as a Point in Soviet Aestheties.” SEE] 6, no. 1: 21-27. Elucidates the recently revived discussion in Soviet literary criticism of the ideological content of Turgenev’s work, especially of Fathers and Sons. Analyzes Arxipov’s article 0n the Creative History of I. S. Turgenev ’s Novel “Fathers and Sons ” in Russkaja literatura, emphasizing Arxipov’s assertions that the entire history of the novel Fathers and Sons is political history and that the hero concept in it is primarily a “reflection of class struggle.” Also notes the arguments of Arxipov’s opponents, which were based on the ‘presumed internal autonomy of art” and on the “right of literary critics to treat literary development as an immanent single stream of process.” Concludes that the current controversy over Turgenev “reveals an interesting divergence in Soviet aesthetics by opening up a debate of more general literary and aesthetic issues with a vigor unknown since the introduction of socialist realism.” 4 Hami Turgt F significan The Prim secret so< heroes wi nobleman shortcomi @M’anc meals of has no sin‘ 5 Lainoi Sylnpo D; DOC“? of dOCIOrs are mallomhii diSL’essed mentions u geSIure‘ am differmce i1 114 4 Hamilton. Eunice C. “Henry James’s The Princess Casamassima and Ivan Turgenev’s Virgin Soil.”SAQ 61: 354-364. Finds that Henry James regarded Turgenev’s last novel, Virgin Soil, the most significant novel. Elaborates numerous similarities between Virgin Soil and James’s The Princess Casamassima as the following: description of revolutionary activities of secret societies; major interest in the moral and psychological side of any situation; heroes with similar circumstances of birth (both are illegitimate sons from the union of a nobleman with a girl of low social position) who are exquisitely conscious of their shortcomings and finally commit suicide; description of each hero’s physical appearance; “additional parallels in other male figures and female characters”; and means of introducing heroes. Also emphasizes the importance of Christina Light, who has no single prototype in Virgin Soil. 5 Lainoff, Seymour. “The Country Doctors of Kafka and Turgenev.” Symposium 16: 130- 135. Discusses similarities and differences in two same-titled stories, The Country Doctor of Franz Kafka and Turgenev. Finds the following likenesses in the stories: both doctors are in a nervous hurry to reach a patient; both establish more than professional relationships with their young patients; both are inadequate to the task of healing, and, distressed at their failure, leave an unpleasant scene as rapidly as possible. Also mentions the differences: Turgenev’s characterization by external signs, such as voice, gesture, and habits versus Kaflca’s concentration on internal states of mind or feeling: the difference in themes - failure in love in Turgenev and religious disorders in Kafka. 6 Slonim, Marc. Introduction to Turgenev in English. Compiled by Rissa Yashin and David H. Stam. New York:NewYork Public Library, pp. 9-15. Reprint of 1961.3 115 7 Walicki, A. “Turgenev and Schopenhauer.” OSP 10: 1-17. Investigates Schopenhauer’s influence on Turgenev’s philosophy, restricting analysis to Hamlet and Don Quixote and Senila. Maintains that Turgenev’s two images of nature in the late 18SOs—- the harmonious world of nature in our conception and the indifferent nature in its obj ectivity-- are not contradictory but complementary, and both can be found in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Also shows how Turgenev’s concept of the two images of nature becomes a philosophical basis for his conception of the two primary human types, Hamlet and Don Quixote, and their two corresponding views of the world, which are fully developed in the 1860 essay Hamlet and Don Quixote, written a few months after the publication of the second edition of Die Welt als Wille and Vorstellung of Schopenhauer. Analyses the characters of Turgenev’s Hamlets and Don Quixotes. Traces elements of Turgenev’s Schopenhauerism in Turgenev’s Senila. known as Poems in prose: “ontological identification of human being with every living creature,” and “the death of ego through art and through the euthanasia of will.” Holds that the philosophy of Schopenhauer provides the key to the hidden meaning of the poem. Compares Turgenev’s Schopenhauerism with that of Tolstoj, insisting that Turgenev’s is more genuine in that Turgenev, like Schopenhauer, believes in “inalienable individual rights.” Concludes that the Turgenev’s Schopenhauerism is not only important in the intellectual biography of Turgenev but also constitutes a page in the history of Russian social thought. 8 Yachin, Rissa and Stam, David H and. Turgenev in English: A Checklist of Works by and about Him. With an introduction by Marc Slonim New York: New York public library, 55pp. Contains the English bibliographies of works by and about Tuegenev. 1 Con major at lingu’stit intimacy tension: the narra and adve of literan 2 Dela] no. 1: P 18m by Slmctura] Very Clos. fim‘P'Ersc 2) a 59C0 Pernoved, the role of ofthelites ”Move (1' Pagan“. moods" ir (Wilde, m an inleg 116 1964 1 Conrad, Joseph L. “Turgenev’s Asja: An Analysis.” SEEI 8: 391-400. Analyzes the stylistic features of Turgenev’s Asja, enumerating the following major artistic devices which are characteristic of Turgenev’s later novels: skillful use of linguistic elements, such as diminutive endings to lend an atmosphere of coziness, intimacy, and charm; “inflaming the jealousy” of a protagonist in order to heighten the tension; “skillful use of contrasting colors in descriptive passages” to reflect the mood of the narrator; concentration on gestures, facial expressions and speech using various verbs and adverbs to add further shades of meaning and reveal droughts or emotions; and use of literary allusions to hint at a character’s emotion or destiny. 2 Delaney, Consolata. “Turgenev’s Sportsman: Experiment in Unity.” SEEJ 8, no. 1: 17-25. Finds the experimental quality of Notes of a Hunter in the variety of shapes taken by the sketches and the primary importance of the common narrator to the structural unity of the book. Sees the narrator of Notes of a Hunter as fictional, though very close to the author. Mentions three types of narration in Notes of a Hunter: 1) a f‘ust-person narrator is allowed to “view the past retrospectively” and discourse upon it; 2) a second-person narrator becomes a means of characterization; 3) the narrator is removed from the scene, making the action unfold as dramatically as possible. Describes the role of narrator as “means of establishing the verisirnilitude necessary to the handling of themes.” Maintains that the “sordid side of peasant life” in the book “is viewed at a remove demanded by the person of the narrator,” which is in contrast to Cexov’s Peasants. Also shows how “a deliberate and sometimes incongruous juxtaposition of moods” in Notes of a Hunter contrasts with single unified effect achieved by Poe. Concludes that Turgenev’s “hunter-narrator works on several levels throughout the book as an integrating factor.” Hal-is tl that em like“ Gfififi't'en. DMBses VWalton ¢ Seasonal COHCIUdeg "Water 1 Stylistic im 117 3 Kochan, Lionel. “Russian History in Turgenev’s Novels.” HisT' 14: 25-33. Gives general views of Turgenev’s major novels, from Rudin to Virgin Soil. Holds that it is “the lack of firm commitment to ultimate solutions for the ills of Russia” that enables Turgenev to serve as “the mirror of the time.” Notes that in Smoke and Virgin Soil Turgenev loses the so-called “delicate balance of ambiguities” which enables him to “remain simultaneously detached and committed.” Concludes that it is Turgenev’s determination to show “the quickly-- changing physiognomy” of Russia’s “cultured stratum” that makes Turgenev’s major novels so convincing and impressive. 4 Reed, T. J. “Mann and Turgenev- A First Love.”GerLL 17: 313- 318. Compares Turgenev’s First Love and Spring Torrents with Thomas Mann’s Gefallen, discerning a resemblance of literary technique too close to be coincidental. Discusses the following resemblances: a device of story inside a story; the heroine’s vocation or habit; common details of situation and attributes of character; and the use of seasonal and atmospheric changes to match the emotional states of characters. Concludes that such resemblances, as well as a letter from Mann to Eliasberg (a translator from the Russian and later editor of the Russian anthology) evince Turgenev’s stylistic influence on Mann’s early literary career. 1965 1 Harrison, Royden J. “Turgenev’s Later Political Commitments: Six Letters to Beesly, 1880.” SEEJ 9, no. 4:400-419. Informs of the first publication of Turgenev’s six letters to Edward Spencer Beesly, one of the leaders of organized Positivism in England, insisting that these letters are a part of Turgenev’s involvement in Russian political life in the years 1879-1882. Briefly outlines Russian politics in those years with an eye toward Turgenev’s involvement, especially his aid to the liberal Russian daily newspaper Porjadok and 118 journal Vestnik Evropy. Also provides background information on Turgenev’s foreign correspondents, mainly English Positivists such as Frederic Harrison, Edward Spencer Beesly, and George Robert Gissing. Contains the complete text of six letters from October 18th to December 2nd, 1880, in the French original and in English translation, which show Turgenev’s eagerness for top-quality correspondents, “not only relying on his prestige, but also willing to supply personal collateral as a guarantee for financial arrangement.” 2 James, Henry. “Ivan Turgenief.” In Russian Literature and Modern English Literature. Edited by Donald Davie. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 47-53. Reprint of 1897.1 3 Kaspin, Albert. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin and ‘Uncle’ Akim’s In: More on Harriet Beecher Stowe and Turgenev.” SEEJ 9. no. 1: 47-55. Compares The Inn of Turgenev with Uncle Tom ’s Cabin of Stowe. Finds that both works show the evils of legalized bondage in Russia and America. Holds that Turgenev’s calm and apparent restraint gives his work an air of reality, while Mrs. Stowe’s fevered emotionalism and frequent appeals to the reader give her work a “religious sentimentality.” Also finds that while Mrs. Stowe “generalizes from scanty f‘u'st-hand experience,” Turgenev induces the reader to generalize from individual portraits of his characters.” Contrasts the religious orientations, with the forrner’s Christian faith absolute in nature and the latter’s constituting a non-violent protest against social inequalities. Contrasts the bare explanation of Uncle Tom’s acquisition of faith which Mrs. Stowe uses to drive home her moral lessons, with Turgenev’s detailed, believable account of Akim’s decision to devote his life to pilgrimage. 4 Red 154. French I Describe the press Works: “ “the m in farms TIL’genet and Ieac radically ngenex ContacLs ' fammts. t and Other finding [h pTOfOund 119 4 Keefer, Lubov. “The Operetta Librettos of Ivan Turgenev.” SEEJ 10, no. 2:134- 154. Gives general views of Turgenev’s operetta libretti, which were written in French between 1867 and 1871 for operettas composed by Pauline Viardot-Garcia. Describes the basic themes, plots, and styles of the operetta libretti and the responses by the press to them. Finds in them common attitudes and formulas foreign to the rest of his works: “the triangle of a senile male or mysterious stranger pursuing a devoted couple”; “the triumph of natural man, of youth and of virtue”; “an exotic milieu, reality presented in fantastic and incongruous trappings,” etc. Finds the reason of the change in that Turgenev’s usual despondency was worsened by a crisis in Pauline Viardot’s operatic and teaching career and in that Turgenev felt the need to change his literary style radically after the mixed reception of Fathers and Sons and of Smoke. Claims that Turgenev’s many endeavors for operetta librettos» the translation, publication and contacts with famous musicians-- resulted from his strong resolution to make Viardot famous. Contains Turgenev’s evaluation of the music of the famous “Invincible Five” and other Russian musicians. Assesses the influence of jovial playlets on Turgenev, finding that they paradoxically made Turgenev, the novelist, more self-probing and more profound and made “his taste in art grow more discriminating and more chaste.” 5 Knyzanowski, Jerzy Roman. “Turgenev, Tolstoy and William Dean Howells: Transition in the Development of a Realist.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 220 pp. Studies the development of William Howells as a realist in relation to Ivan Turgenev and Lev Tolstoj. Finds that Howells made certain important changes in his own method of composition, presentation of characters and style, and in approaches to the theoretical problems of creative writing after reading the novels of the two Russian writers. Maintains that many features found in Howells’s A Modern Instance, such as use of setting, characterization, and the understanding of moral and social problems in contemporary society, are refined along the lines of Turgenev. 6 Scyer H. H. writers. ‘5 lanes, A 18705. C. James an Howells' Optimism 7 Strut SEEJ C Kafka's A Of Physic; mOSI gun ( explaining [heme 0i i Kapp] Tr Turgenev 1 acquaimam Turgeflev’s Turgenews the 0d”: a! 120 6 Seyersted, Per E. “Turgenev’s Interest in America, as Seen in his Contacts with H. H. Boyesen, W. D. Howells and other American Authors.”ScaS 11:25-39. Discusses Turgenev’s interest in America’s new civilization and in American writers. Mentions his contacts with American literary people including Boyesen, Perry, James, Aldrich, Richard W. Gider, Emma Lazarus, and Thomas W. Higginson in the 1870s. Contains Turgenev’s comments on the articles and works of Boyesen, Perry, James and of Howells, citing Turgenev’s letters. Mentions that Turgenev speaks of Howells’ writings as superior to those of anybody then living. Notes Turgenev’s guarded Optimism as to the future of the individual man and society when he looked to America. 7 Struc, Roman S. “The Doctor’s Predicament: A Note on Turgenev and Kafka.” SEEJ 9, no. 2:174-180. Gives a general view of the affinity of Turgenev’s The Country Doctor with Kafka’s A Country Doctor, finding it not limited to common themes and the similarities of physical setting, but also present in their general pessimistic tone. Maintains that the most curious parallel in the stories is the relationship of the protagonists to their patients, explaining that neither can cope with the situation thrust on them. Holds that the general theme of both stories lies in the inability of the physician to help his patient. 1966 1 Kappler, Richard G. “Turgenev and George Sand.” ResS 34: 37-45. Treats the influence of George Sand on Turgenev. Details how in 1847 Turgenev met George Sand through the Viardots for the first time, and renewed their acquaintance with the help of Flaubert. Carefully denies Sand’s direct influence on Turgenev’s work, finding it more probable that Sand’s stories of country life influenced Turgenev’s descriptive technique. Notes Turgenev’s praise of Sand’s ability to delineate the odors and noises of fields and woods. Points out the similarities in the characters of both “Ti‘ Sand's .l. Turgenet Lelia ant novel. Pr final pm 2 Maul Fet. a p. "l dL‘Cusses Tolstoj i ngregsj‘ lOUmaIisu even th0t mppleme; of “the ev; a my ide mm'lCllOn 121 both writers’ works: Kas’jan in Turgenev’s Kas ’ian fiam Fair Springs and Patience in Sand’s Mauprat; Rudin and Horace; etc. Also finds lesser hints of Sand’s influence on Turgenev in that Turgenev took the title of his work, Steno, from the hero of Sand’s Lelia and in that Turgenev’s draft of Consuelo was based on the first part of Sand’s novel. Presents Turgenev’s own testimony in a letter to Sand dated October 30, 1872 as final proof of Sand’s influence on Turgenev. 2 Maurer, Sigrid Helga. “Schopenhauer in Russia: His Influence on Turgenev, Fet, and Tolstoy.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 382 p. Treats Schopenhauer’s influence on Russian society in general and also discusses the extent and variety of Schopenhauer’s influence on Turgenev, F et, and Tolstoj in particular. Asserts that Schopenhauer’s views were esteemed not by progressives, but by conservatives, philosophers, theologians, literary critics, and journalists who did not play decisive roles in theRussian political scenes. Maintains that even though Turgenev’s pessimistic vision of the world seemed strengthened and supplemented by Schopenhauer’s views, Turgenev did not accept Schopenhauer’s view of “the evil Will” as metaphysical foundation, his epistemological notion of “ the world as my idea,” or his asceticism. suggesting Turgenev’s ultimately logical dichotomous conviction of the futility of human endeavor and the need of activity for progress. 3 Sly, Gerlinde Hedwig. “The Role of Social Consciousness and Fatalism in the Works, Life, and Letters of Georg Bi’rchner and the Younger Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev. (Two Types of Literary Reactions to Social Conditions).” Ph. D. dissertation, New York University, p. 581. Studies the influence of the socio-political consciousness of the times on Buchner and Turgenev and their mutual interest in the social conditions of the peasant classes. Finds strikingparallels in their similar reactions to problems in peasants’ lives, their involvement in political activities early in their college years, and their endeavors 122 to reduce the the privileges of their own classes. Finds also similarities of approach such as lack of plots, passive heroes, and preoccupation with ideas. Also finds differences in temperament between them: Turgenev associated with revolutionary action covertly, while Buchner did it overtly; Turgenev showed the inhumanity of serfdom with a soft approach in Notes of a Hunter, while Biichner harshly pointed out the inhumanity of Serf-Law in Landbote. Notes the deterrnininistic themes of death and fatalism in the works of both writers. Recounts presentations of social themes in both writers, finding that each of Turgenev’s novels reflects conditions of Russian society during a specific period of its development, while Buchner’s dramas deal with general conditions in society. 4 Vidan, Ivo. “James’s Novel of ‘Looming Possibilities.” In Renaissance and Modern Essays. Edited by G. R. Hibbard. New York: Barns & Noble, pp. 137- 145. Treats the affinity between The Princess Casamassima of Henry J arnes and Virgin Soil of Turgenev: an “apocalyptic note;” the theme of “underground conspiracy;” and characterization. Focuses on the parallel between Paul Muniment in The Princess Casamassima and Solomin in Virgin Soil. Points out the shortage of description of the inner worlds of Solomin and Muniment, mentioning that the hidden aspect of their personality transcends the experience of both writers and of the reader. 1967 1 Mlikotin, Anthony M. “The International Theme in the Novels of Ivan Turgenev.” ResS 35: 1-10. Argues that Turgenev’s expatriation sharply changed not only his thought but also his art as well, focusing on the impact of foreign elements on the composition of his three novels, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Smoke. Points out that although foreign ideas in Turgenev’s novels cluster around the debates between Westerners and Slavophile of pIOL dc‘ Ftntt the commitme the novels Spiritual v allow Tu; suggestior 2 Nilsso II Turgenev lmderStoo. Verbs Witt appear. lh [he Consn pSE'Cholog Of his he: 123 Slavophiles on the character of Russian culture, these debates do not affect the crafting of plot, delineation of characters, or the determination of central issues in his novels. Finds the “source of the internalization” of Turgenev’s novels in ‘the international commitment’ of the protagonists. Points out that the Westernism of his protagonists in the novels falls short, because they feel strongly tied to Russia “as the source of their spiritual vitality.” Maintains that the unknown quantities of an international situation allow Turgenev to “blur the progress of dramatic action” with a screen of hints, suggestions, and double meanings, thus heightening the tension in his novels. 2 Nilsson, Nils Ake. “The Use of Preterite + Gon in Turgenev.” ScaS 8: 39.57. Illuminates stylistic problems in connection with the usage of “V plus Juno” in Turgenev’s works. Maintains that acts expressed with “V plus O‘wto” should be understood as acts which “might have occurred but did not.” Recounts frequently used verbs with 61140 by Turgenev. Discusses the types of sentence in which “V plus Juno” appear, the verbal aspects and the usage and meaning of “V plus Juno.” Maintains that the construction of “V plus June” is a significant device in Turgenev’s mode of psychological analysis suited for illuminating the external behavior and internal emotion of his heroes, those “superfluous” people who often want to do things but do not ultimately have the capacity to do them. 1968 1 Barratt, G. R. “’l‘urgenev’s Article on E. A. Baratynsky.” SEES 13; 62-66. Discusses Turgenev’s interest in Baratynskij’s poems, with reference to Turgenev’s Introduction to his unpublished article on Baratynskij’s verse. Finds that Turgenev complains of too much intellect and a lack of fluidity and musical quality in Baratynskij’s verse, a conclusion stemming from Turgenev’s opinions that thought and 124 emotion can not normally or beneficially interact and that great intellectual acuity harms poetry. 2 Baylen, Joseph O. “Turgenev and Mme Juliette Adam: Some Unpublished Letters.” CASS 2, no. 2: 252-258. Introduces Turgenev’s four unpublished letters to Mme Juliette Adam, the founder and editor of the French literary journal La Nouvelle Revue, and an account of the relationship between them. Briefly mentions the biography of Mme Juliette Adam. Touches on various aspects of Turgenev’s life and work, especially during the last three years of his life. 3 Kappler, Richard Georges. “Ivan S. Turgenev as a Critic of French Literature.” ComL 20: 133-141. Discusses Turgenev’s view on contemporary French literature as expressed in his letters to Viardot and friends, and in his foreword to a Russian translation of Maxirne Du Camp’s Les Forces perdues. Maintains that Turgenev had astonishing contempt for the poets and novelists of the French Romantic school, and accused them of an “inability to describe the truth and simplicity of life successfully in artistic terms.” Mentions that George Sand alone stands high in Turgenev’s estimation among the older French writers before the Franco-Prussian War, with her descriptive power, particularly in passages on nature, and to the social aspects and reforming spirit in her novels. Also mentions that Turgenev feels more akin to the literary ideals and aspirations of the French naturalists due to their doctrine of the “careful study of life as the best line of the novelist.” Briefly indicates Turgenev’s estimations of each French naturalist, contending that Turgenev favors Flaubert, Daudet, and especially the young Maupassant among them. 4 Kor special close n: serfdorr Turgene D. How 513. 01 the se Preceden 537nm. 125 4 Korn, David. “Turgenev in Nineteenth Century America.” RusR 27: 461-467. Find that Turgenev was popular popularity in America in the 19th century, especially in the 1870s, because Russia and America were enjoying unprecedentedly close relations and Americans were interested in Russian literature as it related to serfdom, such as in Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter. Mentions the estimation of Turgenev’s works by American critics and writers such as C. E. Norton, T. S. Perry, W. D. Howells, Joseph Conrad, and Virginia Woolf. 1969 1 Cross, A. G. “The Breaking Strings of Cexov and Turgenev.” SEER 47: 510- 513. Insists that the mysterious and distant sound of the breaking string in the middle of the second act and the last act of Cexov’s play, The Cherry Orchard, has its literary precedent in two of Turgenev’s stories, Befin Meadow, and a poem in prose, The Nymphs. Points out that “the protracted, ringing, almost moaning sound” in Bekin Meadow immediately follows a story told by one of the boys, Kostja, about the love of Rusalka for a mortal, a story with the same basic idea- the clash of the pagan and Christian worlds-- as The Nymphs, in which the poet hears the sound of “an uneven, long sigh, like the vibrating of a breaking string.” Maintains that the sounds in both works symbolize the replacement of the old order by the new, as does the sound in The Cherry Orchard. 2 Dukas, Vytas and Lawson, Richard H. “Werther and Diary of a Superfluous Man.” ComL 21: 146-154. Compares Goethe’s The Sorrow of Young Werther with Turgenev’s The Diary of a Superfluous Man in detail, noting the following similarities: f’u'st-person narratives in epistolary form, high-flown language; heroes who fall in love with similar girls under similar circumstances; introductory scenes in which the protagonists sense their destiny; the cone: the loner superflut‘ retaining Turgene‘ Also poi lacks the look We sentimen even his In duality” ] “Witt”; eroticism in‘3-‘tplicab Charmer], Mama. ‘3 one, ‘ sue h ”Wenbus’ UlldEmAn d 1 Contiinn ( Sm Faust, his game titl ”he“! in H. 126 the concept of death having the supreme advantage of reuniting lovers; and the theme of the loner, or superflous man. Finds also that Goethe’s and Turgenev’s treatments of the superfluous man differ in that “Werther dies without humility and without regret, retaining his pride, while Culkaturin, on the other hand, bemoans his lot,” and in that Turgenev, unlike Goethe, tries “by means of irony to avoid too much sentimentality.” Also points out that even though the Diary of a Superfluous Man has lyric qualities, it lacks the “sustained virtuosity” of The Sorrow of Young Werther. Holds that Turgenev took Werther as a model for his new kind of superfluous man, with Werther’s altruism, sentimentality, inadaptability to society, need to die, and faith in reunion after death and even his attitude toward the unattainable woman. 3 Kagan-Kans, Eva. “Fate and Fantasy: A Study of Turgenev’s Fantastic Studies.” SlaR 28: 543-559. Sees Turgenev’s fantastic stories as an expression of the “essence of Turgenev’s duality” between the rational man of science and the poet of the Romantic tradition, especially the German Romantics. Mentions “the auxiliary themes of profanation,” vivid exoticism evoking a mysterious past, use of “hypnotism or mesmerism to show the inexplicable power of one man over another,” and “the theme of frenzied love” as characteristic reflections of German Romantics in Turgenev’s stories. Recounts Turgenev’s devices for “the transformation of a hitherto peaceful scene into an ominous one,” such as sudden changes of surroundings, and frequent use of hints and epithets like mysterious, strange, unbrown. Finds that for Turgenev, love transcends rational understanding and penetrates into the realm of irrationality. Holds that while Turgenev’s conviction of man’s dependence on fate and the futility of the personal is evident in his story Faust, Goethe does not see man as doomed to obey blindly the dictates of fate in his same titled play. Also finds that Turgenev’s fantastic stories lack the sense of terror present in Hoffrnann, or the atmosphere of horror of Poe. Divides Turgenev’s fantastic stories i out to t based or determir mmwh of Train external Turgene‘ absorbed 4 Kent EL'V 1 Turgenev dismissing needs mor 5 Ledkt P11 D. E human tn.- higher 111; Schopenha Causality} human exit Immune 1 demol'er, 1 the “many 127 stories into four categories: those in which a seemingly supernatural phenomenon turns out to have a simple and rational explanation, such as Knock...Knock...Knock; works based on a “scientific hypothesis that illuminates, at least partially, the secret forces that determine the events,” such as, A Strange Story; “those in which the author gives free rein to his imagination and which fall into the reahn of the fantastic,” such as, The Song of Triumphant Love; and those which “offer no rational explanation yet bear all the external traces of realism,” such as The Dog. Concludes that the mysterious events in Turgenev’s fantastic stories are “another manifestation of the theme that constantly absorbed him» man’s helplessness before the dreadful forces of nature.” 4 Kennedy, Eileen. “Genesis of a Fiction: The Edgeworth-Turgenev relationship” ELN 6: 271-273. Takes issue with the claim that Maria Edgeworth’s stories of Ireland opened Turgenev’s eyes to the possibility of a similar presentation of Russian peasants, discussing the claims of both sides. Carefully suggests that the Edgeworth-Turgenev link needs more evidence. 5 Ledkovsky, Marina. “The Other Turgenev: From Romanticism to Symbolism.” Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 220 pp. Elucidates Turgenev’s effort to show the significance of the supematural in human life. Maintains that Turgenev’s aesthetics is based upon Hegel’s postulates- art is higher than nature and should not imitate it-— strengthened and deepened by Schopenhauer, who considers aesthetic perception transcendent over space, time and causality. Recounts salient themes in Turgenev’s supematural works: tragic collisions of human existence against the immutable foundations of nature; music as an elevating and liberating force from the human tragedy; love as both conqueror over death and as destroyer. Investigates Turgenev’s various techniques in integrating these themes into the narrative structure: using a narrator who “has either lived through the events himself 128 or participated closely in the destiny of the heroes”; “alternating and at times fusing extremely realistic, prosaic events with fantastic elements”; introducing the reader into the supernatural perceptions through telepathic communication, foreboding and through prophetic dreams. Finds in this trend in Turgenev’s fiction an important link in the evolution of Russian literature from the romanticism and realism of the nineteenth century to the symbolism at the turn of the century, paving the way for Russian Symbolism. Cites excerpts from the works of Russian Symbolist theorists, such as Bal’mont and Brjusov, in which Turgenev’s strong influence on their movement are mentioned. Reprinted: 1973.7. 6 Porter, Richard N. “The Criteria of Turgenev’s Literary Criticism.” RusR 28: 441-452. Severely Criticizes the criteria of Turgenev’s literary criticism, maintaining that it depends on how much a piece of writing is like his own, on how well Turgenev gets along with the authors and how nearly their political views coincide, on how prominent or how obscure the writer is and to what extent Turgenev feels that his reputation is threatened.” Notes that Turgenev practiced formal literary criticism for only a decade of his life, from the early 1840s to the early 1850s, which is also a critical time in his creative career, and that his last critical remarks, such as the introduction and apologies for his work, literary reminiscences, articles for foreign consumption, casual critical remarks in letters, are akin to his articles of the 18403 and the early 18503. Also reviews Turgenev’s opinions of his literary predecessors: Puskin as the founder of Russian language and literature and as “his literary alter ego”; lack of attention to Lermontov; Gogol’ as a true national talent and as “the antidote to false rhetoric and pseudo sublirnity.” Notes Turgenev’s reverence toward Russian masters of the past. 7 Schu Char Dost: 221; 1 Turgenet depicted Russia lr. character Dosmet-s 1 Elias 267 p intellecm role in sc ideOIQEica “”0 basic idailOé’Ihtr 1“ ROl'eLg’ on the P€ts P313135, 111 ( P'Olmger ge' Sm“ quo. 129 7 Schulz, Robert Kenneth. “The Changing Portrayal of the German as a Character in the Prose Works of I. A. Goncarov, I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevskij, and L. N. Tolstoj.” Ph. D. dissertation, Florida State university, ‘ 221 pp. Investigates the portrayal of Germans in the prose works of Goncarov, Turgenev, Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Concludes that while Gonéarov and Turgenev depicted the German in a positive manner with the conviction that Germans helped Russia in its development and that Russians could learn from the positive and beneficial characteristics of the German type such as frugality, hard work, honesty, etc., Dostoevskij and Tolstoj showed a contradictory attitude. 1970 1 Eliason, Lynn Russell. “The Problem of the Generations in the Fictions of Turgenev and Theodor Fontane.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 267 pp. Traces controversial debates on Turgenev’s influence on Fontane. Discusses intellectual and emotional similarities in both writers: strong thematic interest in man’s role in society in their works, transition from interest in romantic subjects to a more ideologically relevant realism, and their use of a narrator as an impartial observer. Finds two basic levels in their treatment of the generation theme- the personal and the ideological: Turgenev depicts the former mainly in his short stories and the latter mainly in novels, while Fontane depicts each of them in separate novels. Also finds that while on the personal level, children in Turgenev’s works show “a forced resignation” to their parents, those in Fontane’s works show “open rebellion.” On the ideological level the younger generation in Turgenev is apt to revolt and that of Fontane is apt to accept the status quo. Concludes that both writers suggest the possibility of reconciliation between generations through mutual understanding. .9 Te ca Pi: 1111an French reading Amen'c that da James‘ 130 2 Tedford, Barbara Wilkie. “Henry James’s Admiration of Ivan Turgenev, an early influence ‘ineradicably established.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 178 pp. A study of Turgenev’s early influence on Henry James and of James’s unwavering admiration of him. Traces the dates of publication of Turgenev’s works in French, German, and English through, speculating possible dates for Henry James’s reading of Turgenev. Examines James’s 1874 article on Turgenev’s works in the North American Review, finding that even though James mentioned all of Turgenev’s works to that date, he also cited several works that had been available only in French. Discusses James’s relation to American critics H. Boyesen, W. Howells, and T. Perry, who wrote articles on Turgenev in the 18703. Finds that Turgenev became acquainted with them in 1875. Notes that James thought Turgenev was a superior writer in both morals and writing skill to the French naturalists. Sees Turgenev’s successful portrayals of characters, especially of strong-minded heroines and weak-willed heroes, as the primary reason for J arnes’s admiration of Turgenev. Also pays particular attention to the fact that both writers underline the psychological significance of seemingly supematural happening in their works. 3 Terras, Victor. “Turgenev’s Aesthetic and Western Realism.” ComL 22: 19-35. Discusses Turgenev’s aesthetic ideas, confronting them with those of his Westem contemporaries, the group of realists: Taine, Daudet, Zola. Goncourt, Maupassant, and James. Maintains that like his Western colleagues, especially Flaubert, both Turgenev’s theory and practice of aesthetic are realistic with simplicity, calmness, and the clarity of outline, and also with the ideal of autonomous and objective art, therefore he has an intense dislike for psychological analysis and for moralism in art, while repeatedly pointing out discoveries of social types or social facts made by him in his works. Also maintains that a current of antiromantic sentiment runs through all of the writings of Turgenev, who defines romanticism as individualism and subjectivism. Also 131 discusses some points where Turgenev and his Western colleagues differ: Turgenev is compassionate, while French realists are “cold and systematic;” Turgenev’s aesthetic is inconsistent and pluralistic, while his Western colleagues’ is much more consistent. Points out that similar to Hegelian organist and historicist conception of art, Turgenev sees a novel as “a living organism” which springs “organically from the life of a nation.” Mentions Turgenev’s romantic notion of creative process which underlines the inspiration accompanied by and controlled by clear reason. 4 Waddington, Patrick. The Dodillon Copies of Letters by Turgenev to Pauline & Louis Viardot. Belfast: Department of Slavonic Studies of The Queen’s University, 55 pp. In the first section compares between the published texts of the letters already known in French under the editorship of Halperline-Kaminsky and the copies which Emile Dodillon made of their originals. Points out Karninsky’s effort to improve Turgenev’s style and Kaminsky’s replacement of a few words and also Turgenev’s mistakes in writing dates. In the second section gives the complete French texts of Dodillon’s copies of letters hitherto known only in Russian translation. 5 Winner, Thomas G. Introduction to Mecta imysl’ I. S. Turgeneva. Providence: Brown University Press, vii-xii. Finds Russian writers’ and critics’ attitude toward Turgenev ambivalent: some landed him, while others treated him lightly and even despised him. Ascribes the rarity of serious scholarly studies of Turgenev’s total works to the fact that Turgenev’s works are less philosophical than Dostoevskij ’s and Tolstoj ’s and lack the “existential quests of absurd heroes” of Cexov and Gogol’. Notes that Turgenev’s depiction of characters not counterposing types rather than psychological probing is a typical Pu§kinian device and that Turgenev’s opposition of the weak hero to the strong heroine is a dominant preoccupation of nineteenth century Russian literature. Credits Gers'enzon’s book MeEta i mysl ’ I. S. Turgeneva with demonstrating the inner unity of Turgenev’s works and 132 understanding his work as a link between Russian writers of beginning of nineteen century as well as tracing the philosophical affinities between Turgenev and Tolstoj, and relating Turgenev’s philosophical views with psychological aspects of his personality. 1971 1 Chamberlin, Vernon A. and Weiner, Jack. “Galdos’ Dona Pefi’ecta and Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons: Two Interpretations of the Conflict between Generations.” PMLA 86: 19-24. Suggests Fathers and Sons as a prime source for Dana Perfecta of the Spanish writer Galdos, citing Galdos’s own comment, from an interview with the Russian journalist Pavlovsky, that although he never met Turgenev personally, he knew all of Turgenev’s works and regarded Turgenev as his “great teacher.” Points out rare discussion on the relation of Galdos to Turgenev. Believes that the first contact of Galdos with Turgenev was made by the Russian Orthodox chaplain Father Kustodiev in Madrid. Discusses the similarities between the two novels in theme, protagonist, general plot and descriptive . techniques. Also discusses differences between them in tone, structure, and the protagonist’s image of complete sincerity. 2 Howarth, Nina Pouring. “Edmond De Goncourt and Ivan Turgenev: A Page in Franco-Russian Literary History.” Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1 1 1 pp. Briefly outlines biographies of Turgenev and Edmond Goncourt, tracing their meetings which started in 1862 in Paris and lasted until after Flaubert’s death in 1880, and their affinities and differences, deeming Turgenev “more emotional, humanistic” and Goncourt “more rational.” Shows how these temperamental differences are represented in their aesthetics and social concerns and in their attitudes toward women and love. Examines Turgenev’s Correspondence and Goncourt’s Journal, finding that both writers knew each other’s works well and that Turgenev, although he helped in the 133 publication of Goncourt’s works, in fact had a negative assessment of Goncourt’s literary talent. 3 Mills, Judith Oloskey. “Theme and Symbol in First Love.” SEEJ 15: 433-440. Discusses the structural harmony of First Love resulting from Turgenev’s skillful use of symbols and images. Contends that in First Love, Turgenev supplemented the theme of passion with a study of the psychological causes of the superfluous man, Volodja, commenting that this second victim of first love has not received adequate consideration. Finds in Turgenev’s story Andrej Kolosov a primitive form of the superfluous man originating in “an undeveloped adolescent psyche” based on the fact that both stories “juxtapose an adolescent with a more mature man.” Maintains that Turgenev, showing the symbols and images of pain, put into the story sado-masochistic elements. Cites a small globularflower, the whiplash on Zinaida’s hand, a cat and beetle, a storm, the rifle, the horseman-knight, and the page as images which symbolize the inapproachability of Zinaida, the feminine egoist, whose refusal forces Volodja to remain a child. Also mentions that Turgenev puts Volodja in sharp contrast to his father, “the self-assured and self-possessed man,” who is inclined to treat his son as a child and dominate him in a way which is “inoffensive, yet harmful to him.” 4 Peterson, Dale Earl. “One Much-Embracing Echo: Henry James’s Response to Ivan Turgenev.” Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 225 pp. Examines Henry J ames’s articles on Turgenev, noting Turgenev’s strong formal and aesthetic influence on American writers after the Civil War, including James himself. Maintains that Turgenev’s narrative technique is the most attractive one for American realists. Also maintains that James frequently modified experiential predicaments already imagined by Turgenev. Finds that, at a time when Turgenev’s novelistic forms ceased to be regarded as innovative, James restored the Turgenevian 134 novel to its unique status as a “novel of relations” structured on an amorous story of intrusion and designed to “typify” an analogously unsuccessful cultural romance. Argues that all of James’s novels before 1881 were structurally or thematically derived from Turgenev’s, and that even the works after that persistently produced “one much- embracing echo.” 5 Waddington, Patrick. “An Unpublished Letter of Turgenev to Pauline Viardot.” SEER 49: 272-275. Informs that The Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University possesses an important unpublished letter by Turgenev’s to Pauline Viardot, which was written in March 1879 when Turgenev went to Russia to assure his own share in the inheritance of his brother N ikolaj. Accompanied by brief footnotes. 1972 1 Berlin, Isaiah. Fathers and Sons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64pp. Reprint. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Deals with criticisms of Fathers and Sons aroused mainly by the interpretation of Bazarov and Turgenev’s own political views. In Part One, discusses briefly the ideological systems of social and political thinkers in Russia who, as friends and companions, exercised influence on Turgenev’s life and work: Belinskij, Gercen, and Bakunin. In Part Two, distinguishes the following five circles of reaction to Fathers and Sons: the angry right wing which thought that Bazarov represented “the apotheosis of the new nihilists”; those who congratulated Turgenev on “successfully exposing barbarism and subversion”; those who denounced him for “his wicked travesty of the radicals”; those who thanked him for his honesty and progressiveness; and those who insisted that the author told the truth as he saw it, without “a clear partisan me.” In Part Three, discusses Turgenev’s political views. Sees Turgenev as “a obstinate reformist and non- revolutionary,” a man of the forties facing the liberal dilemma that “to support the Left 135 in its excesses went against the civilized grain but to abandon it to the forces of reaction seemed even more unthinkable.” 2 Briggs, Anthony D. “Someone Else’s Sledge: Further Notes on Turgenev’s Virgin Soil and Henry James’s The Princess Casamassima.” OSP 5: 52-60. Discusses the question of Henry J ames’s extensive and unacknowledged borrowing from Turgenev’s Virgin Soil with reference to Daniel Lemer’s article “The Influence of Turgenev on Henry James” and Eunice Hamilton’s article “Henry J arnes’s The Princess Casamassima and Ivan Turgenev’s Virgin Soil.” Points out that the relationship between Virgin Soil and The Princess Casamassima is inadequately assessed in Lemer’s article and that Hamilton’s article falls short of stating that Virgin Soil is one of the sources of The Princess Casamassima. Finds the basic points of resemblance between the chief male protagonists: their illegitimacy, similar physical descriptions, attitudes toward art and politics, and similar circumstances of their suicides. Maintains that there is plenty of non-Turgenevan material but the novel inevitably recalls Virgin Soil at key points for the reason that both novels are f’ust and foremost studies of the disintegration of “the same personality in the same way and for the same reasons.” Sees in the failure to mention Turgenev in the preface to The Princess Casammasima more than “mere forgetfulness.” 3 Ingram, Forrest. In Modern American Fiction: Insight and Foreign Lights: Proceedings of the Comparative Literature Symposium in Lubbock, Texas, January 27-28, 1972, by Interdepartmental Committee on Comparative Literature. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University, 19-37. Suggests the influence of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter on Winesburg, Ohio of Sherwood Anderson, commenting on the similarities between the narrators of both works: both allow characters to tell their own tales in the first person; both capsulate in summary form the lives of those they encounter along the way; both concentrate on portraits which reveal personal character as well as a general human or cultural 136 condition. Also points out that the major action of both works is “the emergence of a fictive community:” in Notes of a Hunter, the community is Mother Russia’s Children (serfs and landowners) and in Winesburg, Ohio, 3 community of grotesque small-town figures exists in the distorted memory of the narrator. 4 Moser, Charles A. Ivan Turgenev. Columbia Essays on Modern Writers, no. 60. New York & London: Columbia University Press, 48pp. Outlines Turgenev’s biography, poetry, drama, short stories, and major novels. Sees Turgenev as “a master of literary form” and as “a superb stylist” who has not only “unsurpassed skill at painting with words,” especially in nature descriptions, but also a detailed understanding of Russian intellectual and political life of his time. Asserts that Turgenev is “never totally eclipsed,” even though intellectual fashions may be against him at the moment. 5 ...... “Turgenev: The Cosmopolitan Nationalist.” RNL 3, no. 1: 56-88. A study of Turgenev’s cosmopolitanism, stressing civilization, democracy, progress, and enlightenment. Maintains that along with cosmopolitan intemationalism, Turgenev definitely has “a consciousness of national peculiarities” which is represented in his love for Russian language, and his “aesthetic appreciation of its beauty and power.” Notes that although Turgenev’s views on nationalism and intemationalism are relatively constant all during his adult life, the period from 1855 to 1860 is “his most Russophilic” and. that the period from 1865 to 1870 is “his most Russophobic.” Expounds Turgenev’s thoughts as a Westemizer, considering in detail his disputes with the leading Slavophile thinker Aksakov, the radical revolutionary socialist Gercen, and with the novelist Dostoevskij. Also discusses Turgenev’s understanding of typical characters of the French, Germans, Italians, Englishmen, and Russians, as they are reflected in his writings. 137 6 Ozdrovsky, Marina. “The Play of Turgenev in Relation to Nineteenth Century European and Russian Drama.” Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 184 p. Analyzes Turgenev’s relation to Russian and Western dramas of 1840-1880. Discusses Turgenev’s three one-act plays in the genre of “comedy-vaudeville,” Lack of Money, Breakfast at the Noble Marshall’s, and Conversation on the Highroad. Discusses his two plays in the genre of “proverb drama,” Where Is Thin There It Breala' and The Provincial Lady, written under the influence of a French playwright, Alfred de Musset, comparing them with another of Turgenev’s dramas Carelessness, which is a parody of Romantic drama. Also discusses Turgenev’s two longer plays, The Parasite and The Bachelor which belong to the genre of comedy, finding Gogol’s influence in characterization and setting on those plays. Finds the difference between the comedies of Gogol’ and those of Turgenev in that Turgenev blends the comic and tragic mode instead of creating grotesque characters. Discusses Turgenev’s comedy A Month in the Country, comparing it with Cexov’s plays. Notes that techniques Turgenev uses in drama, such as characterization and development of action, are also used in his novels. Concludes that Turgenev played an important role in bringing Western drama to Russia and preparing the road for Cexov’s dramaturgy. 7 Terras, Victor. “Turgenev and the Devil in The Brothers Karamazov.” CASS 6: 265-271. Suggests that Turgenev is the prototype of Ivan Karamazov’s “double,” the Devil in The Brothers Karamazov, recounting the aspects of Ivan Turgenev’s resemblance to Ivan Karamazov: superficial bonhomie and affability; gentility and good manners; a plaintive tone of hurt dignity; hypochondria and a history of rheumatic complaints; sentimentality and an estheticism; cosmopolitanism and weakness for Germany; penchant for the superficial; occasional flippancy and indulgence in frivolous pastimes; resigned surrender to all-powered Nature; professed agnosticism. 138 8 Woodward, James B. “Thrgenev’s Phantoms: A Reassessment.” SEER 50: 530- 545. Takes issue with critical views of Turgenev’s story, Phantoms, and interprets the work as an allegory, turning critical attention from its descriptive section to its dramatic section. Regards the figure of Ellis as the key to the allegory of the work, maintaining that Ellis, whose name is simply derived from “an inverted phonetic rendering of the Russian noun sila,” is “a symbol of the speculative intellect” of Turgenev himself, ranging with “limitless freedom through time and space,” but craving “the comport and security of physical existence.” Considers the narrator to be the symbol of Turgenev’s emotion, which is chained to the earth. Also regards Ellis’s love for the narrator as the symbolic expression of her similar “craving for restoration of harmony,” symbolized by the ring on her finger, by which they were formerly joined. Briefly examines the manner in which the allegory is developed. Concludes that after the publication of the story the majority of Turgenev’s works “reflect the perplexity of an artist without faith in the face of the irrational.” 1973 1 Blair, Joel. “The Architecture of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.” MFS 19:556- 563. Discusses Turgenev’s three-part structuring of character relationships in Fathers and Sons: relationships between the generations in part one; relationships with women in part two; and the effect of love and resolution of the issues arising from the conflict of generations. Sees Nikolaj and Arkadij as the true heroes of the novel in a sense that the love between Arkadij and Katja and between Nikolaj and Feniéika resolves the conflict of generations, holding the promise of new generations. 139 2 Eliason, Lynn R. “A Nineteenth-Century Solution to the Problem of the Generation-Turgenev and Theodor Fontane.” GerS no. 2: 29-34. Discusses the literary relationship between Turgenev and Theodor Fontane, the German realist who regards Turgenev as “his master and model.” Studies the similarity between Fathers and Sons and Der Stechlin, which together represent the culmination of the debate over the generational issue. Maintains that both novels depict not only the political tendentiousness and lack of resolution of both generations but also their warmth, restraint, and the ultimate solution of generational conflict. Concludes that both writers find strength and weakness in both generations and suggest they live together in love and tolerance. 3 Freeborn, Richard. “Turgenev at Ventnor.” SEER 51 :387-412. Carefully examines Turgenev’s three weeks in Ventnor, England, strongly suggesting that Turgenev got some of his ideas for creating Bazarov there, although he had stated in the literary Reminiscences that Fathers and Sons came not from an idea but from a living person whom he had met. Traces the relationship between a draft program for ‘A Society for the Propagation of Literacy and Primary Education,’ written during Turgenev’s stay in Ventnor and Ogarjov’s secret Ideals, written as a proposal for the creation of a society aimed at initiating a social structure based on the communal ownership of land after the Emancipation in Russia. Also suggests that Ogarev’s ‘apostle’ in his Ideals, “a propagator of knowledge and itinerant teacher of revolutionary socialism,” could be a model for Bazarov. 4 Gifford, H. “Turgenev.” In Nineteenth Century Russian Literature: Studies of Ten Russian Writers. Edited by John Fennel]. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 143-167. Makes general remarks on Notes of a Hunter, Rudin, On the Eve, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, Virgin Soil, Poems in Prose, mentioning Turgenev’s capability to “extract value from small details,” his “neat and compressed” style, and great “linguistic 140 interest.” Sees Natal ’ ja in Rudin, with her self-reliant and sincere character, as a counterpart of Goncarov’s Ol’ga, the heroine of Oblomov. Compares Turgenev with Dostoevskij and Tolstoj, considering Dostoevskij and Tolstoj more profound. Also gives Turgenev credit for his capacity to observe manners and social currents with prophetic insight, a fine critical intelligence, and “a miraculous gift for language.” 5 Gottlieb, Nora. Introduction to Letters to an Actress: The Story of Ivan Turgenev and Marya Gavrilovna Savina, translated and edited by Nora Gottlieb and Raymond Chapman. London: Allison & Busby, 7-24. Comments on the actress Savina’s relationship with Turgenev over a period of some four years, from the time of their first meeting in 1879, when she was playing Verocka in A Month in the Country in Petersburg, until just before Turgenev’s death at Bougival. Holds that it is clear from Turgenev’s letters to Savina that he wished the affair to develop to complete physical intimacy, while she wanted their friendship consummated only in the world of dreams. States that Turgenev loved her “without losing respect for his dignity” or for Savina’s independence. Cites two reasons why Turgenev was so quickly attracted to Savina: his relationship with Viardot had cooled down by the time he met Savina, and both Turgenev and Savina suffered from a lack of parental love in their youth, which is also the reason why a note of sadness creeps so often into his letters to her. 6 Jackson, Robert Louis. “The Root and the Flower, Dostoevsky and Turgenev: A Comparative Esthetic.” YR 63: 228-250. Compares Turgenev’s art and philosophy with Dostoevskij ’s, paying attention to the deterioration of esteem for Turgenev among general readers and literary cognoscenti. Maintains that Turgenev’s “aesthetic vision of unity” and Dostoevskij ’s “esthetic vision of turbulence” affect the texture and forms of their art, from their manner of representing reality and styles of writing to the impact of their art on the reader. Having cited Turgenev’s statement that “art is a plant,” insists that Turgenev is 141 preoccupied with formal beauty, the flower of art, while the direct focus of Dostoevskij’s psychological realism is on its root. Remarks that while, for Turgenev, beauty is tangible in its harmony, measure and proportion, however evanescent in life or nature, for Dostoevskij, it is linked with suffering and esthetic-spiritual experience. Carefully anticipates the reconciliation of Turgenev and Dostoevskij as an unexpected and possibly even positive development. 7 Ledkovsky, Marina. The Other Turgenev: From Romanticism to Symbolism. Wurzburg: Jal-Verlag, l70pp. Reprint of 1969.5. 8 Loewen, Harry. “Human Involvement in Turgenev’s and Kafka’s Country Doctors.” GerS no. 3:47-54. Compares Turgenev’s The Country Doctor to Kafka’s A Country Doctor, finding similarities such as identical titles, first person narration by doctors; and many particulars of plot and characters. Finds the fundamental difference of two works in the doctor-patient relationship: Turgenev’s patient dies with the knowledge that she is loved by her doctor, while Kafka’s patient dies deceived and betrayed by his doctor, which fits with Kafka’s major theme, the breakdown of inter-personal relationships. 9 Pahomov, George Serge. “Romanticism in Turgenev: Turgenev as the Inheritor of the Themes and Concerns of Russian Romanticism.” Ph. D. dissertation, New York University, 303 pp. Discusses romanticism in Turgenev’s verse and prose of the forties and fifties, finding an affinity between Turgenev’s verse and that of iukovskij and Lermontov in their treatment of love. Analyzes major themes of Turgenev’s verse (love, woman, and nature), as well as the poetic diction and figures employed for the development of those themes. Shows how these major themes figure also in his prose works. Concludes that Turgenev’s verse is greatly influenced by earlier Russian romanticists and that his prose shows strong affinity with his verse. 142 10 Waddington, Patrick. “Two Months in the Country: A Critical Episode in the Life and Career of Turgenev.” NZSJ 11: 29-50. Describes Turgenev’s stay in Courtavenel in July and August, 1849, when he was left alone due to the Viardots’ departure for a season at Covent Garden, reconstructing his daily life in detail from his correspondences to Pauline and his Reminiscences. Traces how his emotions and feelings written in his letters to Pauline are reflected in his writings. Finds that Turgenev and Pauline were very intimate during this period. Concludes that in spite of Pauline’s absence, his own solitude, and economic shortage, this was a period of great happiness for him and a source of strength and inspiration for the works that are still to come. 11 ------- “Two Unpublished Letters from Turgenev to the Buloz Family.” SEER 51: 439-444. Brings two newly released correspondences of Turgenev (written in 11th Oct. 1868 and in 3rd Jan. 1869) to bear on his relationship with Francois Buloz, the owner and founder of French journal, Revue des Dew: Mondes with which Turgenev had a professional association over three decades. Comments on the background of the correspondences: Turgenev’s decision to translate Unhappy Woman into French and his anger at “the obstinacy and dilatoriness” of the Bulozs, especially at the cuts and alternations they imposed on his works. Also gives an account of Turgenev’s relationship with the editors of the journal, and his efforts to help Mérimée, who was being harassed by the Bulozs. 12 Woodward, James B. “Typical Images in the Later Tales of Turgenev.” SEEJ 17, no. 1:18-32. A study of Turgenev’s tales of the period 1868-82. Carefully refutes the contention of the Soviet critic A. N. Dubovikov that Turgenev’s last tales concentrate mainly on the creation of typical images of Russian life. Maintains that except Punin and Baburin and The Watch, they “all hinge in varying degree on experience and states 143 of mind in which a distinct pathological element can often be detected” and to which the epithet “typical,” at least in the social sense, is singularly inapplicable. Points out the mmplete absence of titles consisting of proper names in the tales of this period, noting that in almost every case the titles have to do with the state of mind or condition of the central character. Concludes that it is Turgenev’s intention in this group of works to present “not a gallery of social types” but “illustrations of a particular aspect of the human type.” 1974 1 Burns, Virginia M. “The Structure of the Plot in OtcyI Deti.” RL 6: 33-54. Analyzes the structure of the plot in Fathers and Sons, holding that the concern of the novel is not the simple sum of its characters and their views. Using graphic figures, expounds the processes of transformations of the novel’s action (fabula) into plot by the following factors: the travels of Bazarov; the subsequent organic interdependency of the action; most importantly, the time structure of the. novels. Points out that each scene of the novel is precisely placed in time (the next morning, ten days later, that evening, etc.). and that by expanding and contracting plot time with respect to action time, Turgenev focuses and distances selected episodes. Maintains that Turgenev develops this novel by combining the devices of short stories and of the drama and by adding social-political material. Concludes that the meaning of the novel lies in the juxtaposition of the characters and their time, expressed by plot, by which Turgenev expresses his own belief in the vanity of ambition and even of conviction, for these constitute a resistance against time. 2 Delany, Paul and Young, Dorothy E. “Turgenev and the Genesis of A Painfid Case.” MFS 20: 217-22. 144 Insists that A Painfirl Case of James Joyce is largely indebted, not only for “mystification and japery” but also for its plot and for many incidental details, to Turgenev’s Klara Milié. Recounts some of the most striking parallels between the two stories: circumstantial details; characterizations of protagonists; distinctive tone of their conclusions; same theme; and lyrical treatment of that theme. 3 Frost, Edgar L. “The Function of Music in Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo.” RLJ no. 100: 8-17. Shows how the musical framework of A Nest of the Gentry provides cohesiveness and structural unity, aids in character development while indicating the author’s attitude toward certain characters, and emphasizes important ideas in the novel. Shows how the two man-woman stories in the novel are developed through a series of events which are tied together by musical reference: Lavreckij ’s first meeting with Varvara Pavlovna; Lavreckij ’s discovery of the note from his wife’s lover; Lavreckij ’s declaration of love to Liza; the return of Varvara Pavlovna after she has been reported dead. Concludes that music is associated with happiness and genuineness, suggesting that it would be more apt to refer to the characters as “genuine” and “non genuine” rather than “positive” and “negative.” 4 Ingham, Norman W. “Turgenev in the Garden.” In Mnemozina: Studia Litteraria Russica in Honorem Vsevolod Setchkarev. Edited by Joachim T. Baer and Norman W. Ingham. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 209-228. Discusses the quality and function of the image of the garden in Turgenev’s works, particularly in the narrative poem Paras'a. Finds that the garden, the most romantic and lyrically described of Turgenev’s settings, is not only a place of greenery, shade, bird song and the home of poetry, dreams and longing but also the exclusive realm of young, pure, first love (the flowers and garden itself are the symbols of “maidenhood” of a goung girl in love). Points out that sexual desire and its fulfillment, as well as unhappy meetings, tend to be placed elsewhere than in the gardens. Recounts 145 the function of the garden in ParasZi, Rudin, Faust, A Quiet Spot, A Nest of the Gentry, On the Eve, First Love, Fathers and Sons, Virgin Soil. Points out that First Love provides a reversal of sorts, for it is an adolescent boy whose first love is affected by the garden and poetry. Mentions that with the exception of Spring Torrents Turgenev’s love stories do not employ the garden image, because they are not staged on Russian estates. 5 Waddington, Patrick. “Dickens, Pauline Viardot, Turgenev: A Study in Mutual Admiration.” NZSJ n. s. no. 1: 55-73. Gives an account of the mutual relationships among Dickens, Turgenev, and Pauline Viardot, tracing the records of any contact, personal or written, between them. Mentions that Dickens and Viardot first met in London in 1849 but they became properly acquainted after Dickens’s reading of The Cricket on the Hearth in the studio of Ary Scheffer, the French painter, at the end of November of 1855. Mentions the strong possibility of Dickens’s getting information about Turgenev’s writings from Viardot before he met Turgenev. Suggests the time of Turgenev’s first encounter with Dickens: though they attended the annual dinner of the Royal Literary Dinner in 1858, they were not properly introduced, so Turgenev asked Henry Chorley for a note of introduction to Dickens four years later and they met at the Theater Lyrique in Paris on 19th November of 1862. Insists that Turgenev sincerely prized Dickens’s “power of presenting to the eye a vivid, definite figure” and liked Dickens’s witty generalizations but he was not convinced by his “fondness for caricature.” 6 Williams, Michael Gary. “Polities Without Love: Anarchism in Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and James.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 205 pp. Analyzes the relationship between character and politics in political novels of Turgenev, Dostoevskij, and H. James. Finds that these novels focus on the human rather than ideological aspects of politics and that those three writers have in common the concept of politics as “aggregate morality.” Maintains that Turgenev’s political 146 personalities have difficulty unifying their political opinions with their characters, and that in depicting tragic love between politically incompatible characters in Fathers and Sons and Virgin Soil, Turgenev shows that the political character of man hinders the development of love. Finds a difference between Turgenev’s political novels and Dostoevskij ’s in that the latter raises moral question openly. Finds that Dostoevskij ’s novels depict the moral question in politics showing the destruction of man’s moral life which follows the disappearance of man’s ability to feel love. Sees Hyacinth’s suicide in The Princess of Casamassima as a solution to the dilemma between “the true religion of love” and the false one of revolution. 1975 1 Anon. “Document: Some Unpublished Letters by Turgenev, Addressed to Various Correspondents.” NZSJ, no. 1: 57-76. Informs of the publication of five unpublished letters of Turgenev (four in French and one in German) with brief discussions of the correspondents (Victor de Mars, the editor-in-chief of the Revue des Deux Mondes [alleged]; Swedish singer Charlotte Sophie Valentin, one of Pauline Viardot’s favorite pupils in Baden-Baden; Philippe Burty, the art critic; Brethous-Lafargue, a French writer and ardent admirer of Turgenev; and Frederic Harrison, one of the most influential men of letters in England). Introduces some quotations and extracts from letters not published in the Polnoe Sobranie socnenij (Moscow and Leningrad, 1960-1968), mentioning Parisian dealers in autograph letters, as well as individual firms outside France, who posses Turgenev’s published letters. Discloses on the basic of one of the letters that the f‘ust French translation of The Diary of a Superfluous Man and the one-act play Where It Is Thin, There It Breala' was done by Mademoiselle Desloges, not by Louis Viardot or Turgenev. 147 2 Kagan-Kans, Eva. Hamlet and Don Quixote: T'urgenev’s Ambivalent Vision. Hague: Mouton, 161 p. Attempts to analyze and interpret Turgenev’s fiction in the light of the concept that all his stories are philosophical, to recreate a coherent view of Turgenev’s universe, and to try to demonstrate that Turgenev gives some answers to the “eternal questions.” Expounds the relationship between his philosophy and his art, paying particular interest to Turgenev’s method of conveying his philosophical concepts. Points out that Turgenev proceeds from individual experience and generalizes it into a comprehensive view of life, an approach which leads to the use of aphorisms. Maintains that as their philosophical significance becomes clear in his later years, “the aphorisms develop into allegories.” Believes that the secret of his art lies in creating “a sense of measure and harmony” and that its “irresistible sadness” comes from the “contrast between an illusion and reality.” Maintains that even though Turgenev uses the social activity of his novel’s heroes as determining factors in their existence, his real intention is to focus on the protagonist’s inner life, the problems of love and death vividly illuminated in the short stories. Notes that in Turgenev’s stories there is a strong “sense of identification between narrator and protagonists,” while in the novels there is “an omniscient third-person narrator,” more detached from the protagonist’s point of view. Also finds that stories with no specific chronological setting are often a direct expression of Turgenev’s experiences and his world view. Sees Turgenev as a poet who is “sensitive to the subtle, organic structure of a philosophical edifice” and prefers not to subject it to strict logical analysis. Concluding that his eagerness for a variety of experiences and for opportunities to observe life, his independent behavior, and his free movement among opposing philosophical camps, “enrich his intellectual resources and ultimately enhance his skill as a poet and a psychologist.” 3 Kennedy, Eileen. “Turgenev and George Moore’s The Untilled Field.” ELT 18:145-159. 148 Examines the influence of Turgenev, especially his Notes of a Hunter, on The Untilled Field of George Moore, who moved away from French naturalists to assess Turgenev’s achievement. Traces Moore’s steady devotion to Turgenev. Recounts the similarities between the two collections, Notes of a Hunter and Untilled Field: use of an outsider narrator; using the beauty of the landscape to “underline the wretchedness of the poor”; expression of the paradox of death in the midst of life through juxtaposition of the superstitious mind with the civilized one; showing how an emotional obsession leads to madness; and various thematic affinities. Traces Turgenev’s influence in The Window, a story in The Untilled Field, calling it “an Irish version of Turgenev’s A Living Relic.” Concludes that Turgenev is probably “the literary master who exerts the most continual influence on Moore.” 4 Rinkus, Jerome J. “Reflections on Turgenev’s Hamlet and Don Quixote.” In Perspectives on Hamlet. Edited by William G. Holzberger and Peter B, Waldeck. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, pp. 74-99. Critically examines Turgenev’s essay Hamlet and Don Quixote, relating Turgenev’s ideas concerning Hamlet to major intellectual trends in Russian literature and literary criticism. Compares Turgenev’s ideas with Western European critical interpretation of Hamlet. Insists that Turgenev’s view of Hamlet as a contemplative man so plagued by doubts that he loses his natural power of action has parallels with the romantic interpretation of Hamlet by the English critics Coleridge and Hazlitt. Claims that Turgenev does not accept the important “ethical question of the morality of vengeance” raised by the play. Describes Turgenev as “an apologist for quixotism,” which is a belief in the power of good and “the eventual victory of good over evil,” and a severe critic of Hamlet, whose indecisiveness is a personal dilemma for Turgenev as well as for other members of Russian intelligenmia. Places Turgenev in the humanistic tradition of nineteenth- century Russian literature. 149 5 Waddington, Patrick. “Document: Some Letters from A. I., I. S, and N. I. 'Drrgenev to Richard Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton).” NZSJ, no. 2: 61-83. Studies in detail Turgenev’s meetings from 1851 to 1871 with Richard MoncktOn Milnes, the English critic, poet and politician, citing Milnes’s letters to Turgenev and newspapers of the time. Traces contacts with famous English politicians and literary people Turgenev made through Milnes, which changed his attitude toward the English and sharpened his concern for his own country’s reform. Cites how in A Nest of the Gentry English and English culture are depicted so frequently, and the need for positive change in Russia be presented as so acute. 6 ickulin, Nicholas G. “Two Unpublished Letters of Ivan Turgenev.” SEER 53, no. 133: 558-565. Informs of the publication of two letters of Turgenev which were found in The Beinecke Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University. Assumes the date of the first letter written about the translations of Turgenev’s play Where It Is Thin, There It Break and The Diary of a Superfluous Man as early or mid-November and the addressee as Victor de Mars, the managing editor of La Revue des Deux Mondes. Briefly mentions the dates of Turgenev’s letters to him. Fixes the year of second letter to Philippe Burty as 1878, the year of the Exposition Universalle in Paris. Holds that this letter is one of the earliest indications of Turgenev’s extensive support and advocacy of Russian art and artists in Paris. 1976 l Fischler, Alexander. “The Garden Motif and the Structure of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.” Novel 9: 243-255. Describes how the garden motif in Fathers and Sons enhances the presentation of theme and characters. Maintains that if the novel is read from an apolitical point of view, the concluding “cultivate your garden” passage seems not only an appropriate message, but the only one compatible with Turgenev’s death-transcending cyclical view. 150 Also maintains that Turgenev evidently seeks to ensure the palatability of the message by structuring the novel in large part on a garden motif urbanely, at times even ironically, presented to his reader. Sees Marino, the garden whose cultivation is important throughout the novel, as “a microcosm of nature,” where “the perpetual spring that reigns within does not threaten the full cycle beyond.” And sees N ikolskoe not only as “the enchanted earthly garden of desirability and inaccessibility,” but as an extension of its mistress, Odincova, “a world in which time has not been escaped or forgotten.” Pays particular attention to the fact that not only Bazarov’s career, but the entire plot of the novel is linked with the seasons. Elucidates the main theme of the garden motif: those who, like Katja, “discover a natural garden within the artificial paradise and draw a private circle about themselves” love the place where they live but those who, like Bazarov, cannot “build a garden and do not have a goal beyond” can not be suited for any other place. 2 Freeborn, Richard. “The Hunter’s Eye in Zapiski Okhotnika.” NZSJ, no. 2: 1-9. Studies Turgenev’s view and attitude towards those whom the narrator meets in Notes of a Hunter in order to perceive more fully the inner essence of the work. Maintains that Turgenev assumes two roles in this work: to the peasant he plays the role of ‘a hunter’ who never pretends to have any knowledge of them; to the members of his own class he plays the role of “a guest whose tone is invariably one of familiarity” in his description of gentry life. Points out that as a guest Turgenev is less concerned with the natural scene and more concerned with dialogue, in so far as Turgenev’s drama is concerned with his own class rather than with the peasantry or the natural scene. Points out that as a hunter Turgenev has “the eye of a poet of nature” who makes nature description and characterization seem all of a piece and “individuates his peasants” by highlighting their portraits against the unchanging background of the natural scene. 151 Concludes that regardless of class, whether as guest or hunter, Turgenev is concerned with the frailty of man. 3 Long, Robert Emmet. “J ames’s Roderick Hudson: The End of the Apprenticeship - Hawthorne and Turgenev.” AL 48: 312-326. Discusses the influence of Turgenev and Hawthorne on Henry James by the mid-1870s. Recounts the indebtedness of James’s writings to Turgenev’s: the comparison of the ending in The American to the gently melancholic ending in A Nest of the Gentry; the method of observation in Four Meetings to that of Three Meetings; setting a narrator who acts as an editor for letters written by a number of various people in A Bundle of Letters and The Point of View to that in A Correspondence; the setting and the ambiance in Eugene Pickering to those in some of Turgenev’s stories and novels. Pays attention to Turgenev’s influence on Roderick Hudson: the parallel of the contrast of Irina to Tat’ jana in Smoke to that of Christina to Mary Garland, Hudson’s spoiled fiancee; the apparent derivation of Roderick from the young sculptor Subin in On the Eve; the Turgenev-like philosophy underlying J ames’s characterizations; a detached dramatic narrative method; and similar differentiation of sensibility. Finds the basic difference between Roderick Hudson and Turgenev’s writings in that Turgenev’s characters seem to “live from their souls,” while J arnes’s characters in Roderic Hudson “live from the surfaces of their minds.” 4 Page, Stanley W. “Lenin, Turgenev, and the Russian Landed Gentry.” CASS 18: 442-456. Treats Lenin’s view of Turgenev’s writings, remarking on Nikolai Valentinov’s Encounters with Lenin and Isaac Deutscher’s Lenin ’s Childhood. Maintains that Turgenev, Lenin’s favorite author along with Cemysevskij, was seen by Lenin as chiefly a chronicler of the relations of the nobility to the Russian people, and Turgenev’s Westernism, coupled with his profound concern for the peasantry, was of basic 152 importance in the shaping of Lenin’s Weltanshauung. Refutes Valentinov’s contention that Rudin and others of Turgenev’s works actually “discouraged Lenin from involvement in social questions,” insisting that although on one level Lenin hated the gentry class which ejected his family and was impatient with Hamlets and Don Quixotes, he “was not prevented from grasping the enormous political significance of Turgenev’s writings as a principal catalyst of the revolutionary movement.” 5 Pahomov, George S. “Turgenev’s Lyrical Perception.” Forum 6, no. 1: 83-90. Studies Turgenev’s lyrical perception in a lyrical prose work, Three Meetings, and the lyric verse, A Moonless Night. Maintains that in both works “the mosaic of lyrical moments” is made with the intention of creating a particular emotional atmosphere and the moments chosen serve to “augment, expand or magnify the emotional atmosphere” so that an integrated effect is achieved. Considers the fusion of the external world with the internal world of the poet or first-person narrator as the mark of lyrical perception. Maintains that the tropes of personification, apostrophe, and of simile and associative words are used to describe such perception and to link the animate and inanimate, projecting the feelings of the poet or narrator onto reality. Mentions that in prose the link between the animate and inanimate sometimes is not made through the tropes or through associative words but through direct description. Concludes that the Turgenev’s prose, although somewhat less concentrated in its effect and more diffuse in its impressions, is an expansion of his poetry. 6 Waddington, Patrick. “Turgenev and Gounod: Rival Strangers in the Viardots’ Country Nest (Part 1).” NZSJ, no. 2:11-32. Attempts to categorize Turgenev’s relationship with Gounod, citing their letters to each other and to Pauline Viardot. Maintains that Pauline was as charmed by the apparent modernity of Gounod’s art as she was by the man at that time. Pays particular 153 attention to the fact that Turgenev’s feelings about Gounod are drawn in his current writings, The Diary of a Superfluous Man and in Student (later renamed A Month in the Country). Follows the events of the spring and summer of 1850 at Courtavenel where Turgenev and Gounod stayed together during Pauline’s absence. Maintains that during their stay at Courtavenel Turgenev and Gounod gradually gained a mutual admiration and affection for each other, although later Turgenev like the Viardots themselves, grew disappointed with both the man and his music. Describes Turgenev’s vacillation before deciding to depart for Russia. 7 ickulin, Nicholas G. “Turgenev in Scotland.” SEER 53: 355-370. Examines Turgenev’s only visit to Scotland, from 8th to 16th August 1871, including the circumstances of his invitation, which had been virtually ignored in Turgenev scholarship until 1972, when Alexander Zviguilsky published a letter from Turgenev to Pauline Viardot in which a newspaper cutting containing Turgenev’s speech in Edinburgh had been placed. Maintains that Lord Houghton is most probably the one responsible for Turgenev’s invitation to the Scott Centenary Celebration. Cites the text of Turgenev’s address translated by Ralston from Edinburgh Evening Courant. Mentions that Turgenev’s visit to Scotland is probably the indirect cause of his greatest honor at the hand of the English, his honorary degree from Oxford University in 1879. 1977 l Brumfield, William C. “Bazarov and Rjazanov: the Romantic Archetype in Russian Nihilism.” SEEJ 21, no. 4: 495-505. Attempts to interpret Fathers and Sons, in particular the relation between radicalism and literary archetype, by offering a contrast with Trudnoe vrernja of Slepcov which deals with many of the same issues. Draws similarities between the two works: 154 resemblances between the two protagonists, Bazarov and Rjazanov; principal landowners who “attempt to introduce agricultural improvements and reforms in their dealings with the peasants”; likeness of physical setting; and “heavy reliance on dialogue” to develop a conflict which arises from ideological antagonism. Maintains that a fundamental difference between the novels lies in that “Turgenev is less interested in Bazarov the nihilist than in Bazarov the Romantic rebel,” while Slepcov is interested solely in Rjazanov the radical. Finds Slepcov’s approach to radicalism rather prosaic in comparison with Turgenev’s romanticized view of revolt. Views Bazarov’s nihilism as “one component of a Romantic image,” citing Turgenev’s own statements on the subject and Bazarov’s own terms in the novel. Points out that the model of Romantic hero is delineated in Turgenev’s works well before Fathers and Sons, in Faust and Steno. Suggests that the portrait of Bazarov owes much to the Byronic variant of European romanticism, particularly in “its concept of the alienated but defiant hero.” 2 Carden, Patricia. “Finding the Way to Bezin Meadow: Turgenev’s Intimation of Mortality.” SlaR 36: 455-464. Discusses Turgenev’s intimation of mortality in BeZin Meadow. Pays particular attention to the tie between Pavel’s end and the experience of Turgenev’s hunter-narrator on the darkened plain, holding that the image of the hunter standing on the edge of a precipice is “an emblematic representation of the theme of thanatopsis.” Argues that in BeZin Meadow nature provides both the symbolic mode of meditation (“the topography of a given landscape”) and the object of contemplation, a duality that accounts for “the rich suggestiveness of the extended description.” Contends that each boy in the story is characterized by their stories and is shown in relationship to a fixed point on which the story turns, “the apprehension of the uncanny.” Finds that both the subject and the form of the story follows “the tradition of contemplative self-examination of the 18308 and 155 1840s.” Concludes that BeZin Meadow takes “the meditative act to the conclusion” toward which spiritual contemplation tends by nature: “knowledge of mortality.” 3 Dessaix, Robert. “Turgenev and Maupassant as Fantasia.” RL 5, no. 4: 325- 337. Examines similarities and divergences in fantastic stories of Turgenev and Maupassant, applying Tzvetan Todorov’s terminologies of “fantastic,” “surnaturel explique” and “merveillewc.” Defines fantastic stories as those in which “the narrator, whether as ostensible storyteller or non-personalized function, so weaves the narrative that the fabula can no longer be accurately abstracted as far as the intrusion of supernatural elements into the conventionally real is concerned.” Analyzes as examples of the fantastic as defined by Todorov, Turgenev’s Phantoms and Maupassant’s Le Horla, paying particular attention to the way Maupassant and Turgenev construct fantastic stories around basic narrative elements. Finds both authors’ use of following element which are appropriate to the fantastic genre: f‘ust- person narration and semantically functional motifs such as troubled sleep, dreams, fever, debility, and nightmares which “lessen the objectivity of the narrative by throwing doubt on the storyteller’s reliability.” Also finds in both works the structural devices for “heightening the subjectivity of the point of view and clouding reality rather than clarifying itz” interior monologue; interrogative constructions; constant use of exclamation “increasing the tense or nervous quality of the narrative;” “abundant use of terms changed with uncertainty and obscurity;” and diary form, which “balances the subjectivity with the illusion of some degree of objectivity.” Finds that “at the level of the semantic product of structural elements and devices Maupassant shows far less interest in symbolic meaning than Turgenev.” Also discusses Turgenev’s and Maupassant’s stories in the related genres of supematurel explique, in which “the seemingly supernatural is explained in natural terms,” and merveilleux, which “is characterized by a kind of 156 supernatural empiricism.” Maintains that it is in stories belonging to the latter genre that Turgenev’s and Maupassant’s approaches to the supernatural element are the least similar. 4 Hart, Pierre. “Nature as the Norm in Otcy ideti.” RLJ 31, no. 110: 55-64. Compares characters’ attitudes toward nature in Fathers and Sons, finding that in the novel Turgenev offers “a spectrum of character types,” ranging from those in which there is “harmonious fusion between the individual and his surroundings” to others marked by “the mutual exclusivity of self and environment.” Does not view Bazarov as a man struck down by capricious nature, seeing him rather as “a sentient being, trapped by a philosophy of his own rational design, and destroyed by internal contradiction.” Divides the main characters into two distinct groups: one group, Pavel and Anna Odincova, being closer to Bazarov; and another group including N ikolaj Kirsanov, Arkadij, and Katja. Sees the first group as people who “stand apart from life, observing objects and events with a certain detachment,” and the second group showing “an initial willingness to pause and silently listen to both their inner and outer worlds.” Traces the development of the continuing antagonism between intellectual theory and vital impulse in Bazarov’s mind. Maintains that though most of the characters seem already shaped “by experiences or heredity to attend to the constant flux of vital forces,” for Bazarov process rather than finished product is central and, as a result, he commands great attention. 5 Jahn, Gary R. “Character and Theme in Fathers and Sons.” ColL 4: 80-91. Analyzes the characters and structure of Fathers and Sons to illuminate the thematic development which they reprint. Invests in detail four major character pairs Which have the most direct thematic relevance to the title of the novel: Nikolaj Petrovié and Arkadij; Pavel PetroviE and Nilolaj Petrovilf; Pavel Petrovit‘. and Bazarov; and 157 Arkadij and Bazarov. Points out that the nature of the relationship in the four major pairs reverse in each case by the end of the novel, developing from a position of solidarity within generations to a position of solidarity (for Arkadij and Nikolaij Petrovié), and of similarity (for Pavel Petrovié and Bazarov) between generations. Also mentions “the identical pattern of development” by which each of the relationships is reversed: they begin in clarity; elements of ambiguity are introduced in chapters 1-21, which recount the travels of Arkadij and Bazarov together to the four major settings of the novel; the ambiguity is reversed in chapters 22-26, which recount Arkadij’s and Bazarov’s separate revisit of Nikolskoe and Mar’ino; they end up with new clarification in chapter 27 (Bazarov’s death) and the epilog. Suggests that the meaning of the title Fathers and Sons might be taken broadly to include mankind as a whole. Explains the essential qualities of the characters in the opposing qualities of intellect and will as opposed to emotion and sentiment. 6 Pritchett, V. S. The Gentle Barbarian: The Life and Work of Turgenev. New York: Random House, 243 pp. A biography of Turgenev relying on sources in English and French, including Avrahm Yarmolinsky’s Turgenev and David Magarshack’s Life. Enlarges the understanding of Turgenev’s short stories and novels. Explores the interplay of Turgenev’s life with his art, drawing upon newly released correspondence of Turgenev with Pauline Viardot and his friends. 7 Waddington, Patrick. “Some New Light on Turgenev’s Relations with his French Publisher, Pierre-Jules Hetzel.” SEEJ 55, no. 3: 328-347. Brings to light newly found documents in the Hetzel Papers at the Bibliothéque Nationale concerning Turgenev’s dealings with Pierre-Jules Hetzel, the French publisher, with the essential background information: 1) a letter to Hetzel on 27 August 1865 regarding the foreword which Turgenev wrote for a Russian version of Perrault; 2) 158 a business note to Hetzel on 11 August 1867 about the meeting for the publication of his five stories in French; 3) a letter to Hetzel on 2 November 1867 regarding handing over all is responsibility for decision-making in the publication of the French version of Smoke; 4) a list of his translated works, sent to Hetzel between August 1868 and February 1869; 5) a letter to Hetzel on 31 March 1875 regarding Hetzel’s request that Turgenev check the manuscript of Maroussia against Marija MarkoviE’s translation; 6) a letter to Hetzel on December 1878 accusing Hetzel of adapting an existing translation. 8 ------ “Turgenev and the Translator of Virgin Soil.” NZSJ, no. 1:35-76. Details the process of the translation of Virgin Soil into English by Ashton Dilke with an account of Dilke’s relationship with Turgenev from Dilke’s fust meeting at Cambridge in 1871 as an undergraduate to his final days. Mentions how W. R. S. Ralston and Turgenev helped Dilke with the translation. Examines the political and financial reason for the early commercial failure of the book in England, noting also Dilke’s faults such as his defensive and overly concise introduction to the book. Sees the small number of obvious mistakes of translation as its greatest merit and a shortage of , helpful background notes as its most significant drawback. Recounts reviews of the book in various English journals. Mentions the success in sale of the book in the early eighties and Turgenev’s suggestion to Dilke that he translate Tolstoj’s and Dostoevskij’s works into English. 1978 1 Arndt, Walter. “The Mold and Modernity of Turgenev.” BUGJ 26: 20-31. Considers various aspects of Turgenev’s gift and analyzes some quoted samples of Turgenev’s writing, A Nest of the Gentry and On the Eve, are chosen to exhibit features of diction, implicit viewpoint, and characterization. Compares scenes and characters in those two novels with others in the writings of Turgenev and other writers. 159 Mentions three elements which combined to elicit the unprecedentedly fervent response to A Nest of the Gentry: memorable evocation of a life setting and cast of mind; quality blending of lyricism and restraint; humane shading and softening of the harsh conflicts artificially fostered between Westernism and Russian Traditionalism. Points out that accents of an idealistically conceived nationalism otherwise rare in Turgenev pervade some important passages of On the Eve. 2 Brown, Edward J. “Pisarev and the Transformation of Two Russian Novels.” In Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800-1914. Edited by William Mills Todd III. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 151-172. Analyzes Pisarev’s critical transformation of two works that deal with the problem of the nihilists, Fathers and Sons and Crime and Punishment. Expounds the reason why Pisarev embraced Bazarov as the representative of the thinking of his own generation and accepted Fathers and Sons as a great work of art when other radicals regarded Bazarov as “a negative character and a slander on themselves,” drawing upon Pisarev’s two articles on the novel, Bazarov and The Realists. Maintains that Pisarev transformed the novel into a document favorable to the nihilist cause by. supplying for- the reader what was missing in Turgenev’s picture, including “the psychological details of Bazarov’s relationship to his parents and the unspoken history of his unhappy love affair with Odincova.” Mentions some similarities between Pisarev and Bazarov, both indifferent individualists apart from the organization of a mass revolutionary movement, with a whole-hearted belief in new facts in the natural sciences anda deliberate rejection of art. Sees Pisarev’s transformation of Fathers and Sons as his “intentional fallacy.” 3 Chamberlain, Lesley. “The Opening Chapter of Nakanune: Some Thoughts on Possible German Origins.” JES 8: 93-108. Sketches out the influence of German philosophy on Turgenev’s work, analyzing the dialogues between Bersenev, a philosopher, and Subin, a sculptor, in the opening scene of On the Eve. Mentions the contrast of views on life of the two 160 characters in their discussions of nature and of love, maintaining that Bersenev and Subin are the parodies of Goethe, the originator of classicism and of Schiller, the originator of Romanticism. Insists that Turgenev’s dichotomy of basic personality types as naive, realist, classicist/ sentimental, idealist, romanticist is “an essential part of Turgenev’s German inheritance,” which is reflected elsewhere in his work, as in Xor’ and Kalinyb'. Also traces the contrast of Northern creative spirit to Southern spirit expressed in Turgenev’s essay Hamlet and Don Quixote from the literary criticism of Schlegel. Points out that Subin has French blood and a hankering after Italy and the Classical world, whereas Bersenev’s aspirations are directed toward Germany. 4 Clayton, J. Douglas. “The Hamlets of Turgenev and Pasternak: On the Role of Poetic Myth in Literature.” GerS 2, no. 6:455-461. Cites contrasting attitudes toward Hamlet in the writings of Turgenev and Pasternak. Sees Turgenev’s Hamlet as an egoist whose cynicism and nihilism are the cause of the tragedy, while Pasternak is seen as having reinterpreted Hamlet as a self- sacrificing innocent who truly loves Ophelia but is victimized by evil and political circumstances. Also mentions that Turgenev perceives Hamlet as a philosophical and psychological drama, while Pasternak sees it as a political tragedy. 5 Dalton, Margaret. “Reflections of I. S. Turgenev in Eduard v. Keyserling: An Analysis of Pervaja Ljubov’ and Schwule Tage.” GerS 2, no. 6: 397-410. Argues Keyserling’s strong kinship to Turgenev, finding a strong affinity between First Love of Turgenev and Schwule Tage of Keyserling. Finds two writers similar in biographical and philosophical factors; birth and adherence to the higher strata of their societies; voluntary exile; not being married, though they have their admired women; seeing the basic existential unhappiness of man with great acuity; seeing love as the way out of existential tension and loneliness; and combining a social theme with a love theme. Draws parallels between First Love and Schwule Tage in narrative form, 161 characterization, main theme, and atmosphere: both are written in the fast person by young boys experiencing their own love, and at the same time the love of their respective fathers; both employ the device of pretended ignorance on the part of the narrators of the love affairs of their fathers; the figures of the fathers; and heroines are similar background; the treatment of love as tragic and torturous love with great passion; and they share a similar general atmosphere, with emphasis on description of nature. Also mentions a slight difference in the tonality of the two stories, conditioned by differences between the two narrators. 6 Dessaix, Robert. “The Beautiful Genius.” Quadrant 133: 61-62. A book review of The Life and Work of Turgenev written by V. S. Pritchett. Finds the book uncluttered by gossipy details and obfuscating tendentiousness. Also points out the second hand nature of Pritchett’s account and the unbridgeable gap between Pritchett’s and Turgenev’s spiritual and artistic world. 7 Henry, Peter. “I. S. Turgenev: Fathers and Sons.” In The Monster in the Mirror. Edited by D. A. Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 40-74. After a survey of typical characteristics of Turgenev’s realistic fictions, traces and assesses the realism seen in Fathers and Sons. Recounts Turgenev’s extensive use of dramatic devices “which reaches the outer limits of Realist technique”: dramatic structure of a series of visually effective episodes; structural importance of dialogue, in particular of duologues; stage directions “in the manner of playwright and producer”; devices for heightening dramatic tension to create a mood of expectancy; stress on a character’s strangeness and vagueness about his past; the device of “strophe and antistrophe”; “character pairing by making a number of permutations”;” foreshadowing of events and characters,” and the repetition of situations with new meaning and 162 emotional contents; a number of symbols; “a sleight-of-hand technique to achieve an easy transition from authorial narrative to dramatic action,” changing both tone and direction at the same time. Also mentions the characterization of principal characters, nihilism of Bazarov, and the reaction of the Young Russia to the publication of the novel, including that of Pisarev. Concludes that the novel has its “standing as one of the great works of Realism” with the fact that Turgenev kept his own artistic principles and “his faith with his vision of reality and political outlook” in writing the novel. 8 McLean, Hugh. “Eugene Rudin.” In Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1900-1914. Edited by William Mills Todd HI. Stanford: Stanford University ' Press, pp. 259-266. Makes comparisons of time and space, and philosophical pessimism in Eugene Onegin and Rudin, using Professor Todd’s concept - “the parallels between the literary choices made by author-narrator and the life choices made by his characters,” and Professor Victor Ripp’s term - “synecdochic strategy.” Remarks on the much less complex structure of Rudin in space and time as well as in realities. Gives an account of the parallel of both character and situation between the two works, finding intertextuality with Eugene Onegin in Rudin. Regards Rudin as an atypical example of a Russian gentleman with a “symbolic fusion of social and sexual ineffectiveness,” while regards Onegin as a gentleman “closer to the norm.” 9 Moss, Walter G. “Why the Anxious Fear? Aging and Death in the Works of Turgenev.” In Aging and the Elderly: Humanistic Perspectives in Gerontology. Edited by Stuart F. Spicker, et al. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, pp. 241-260. Interprets Turgenev’s thoughts and attitude toward youth, aging, and death as reflected in his works, providing additional insights into his personality. Believes that the following two factors contribute to the transition of Turgenev’s characters from youth to age: fading or disappointment of hope due to frustrated love, and an indecisive 163 Hamlet-like mind. Examines the attitudes of Turgenev’s characters toward death, maintaining that “their primary concern is not with the dying process itself,” but with the uncertainty of life after death. Suggests that an Oedipal conflict in Turgenev reflected in the triangular mother-father—son relationship of Turgenev—like characters in his numerous stories, as the major reason for Turgenev’s negative view of aging and anxieties about death, inferring that Turgenev seemed to consider youth as the only stage of life in which “he could get the love that would protect him psychologically from his own guilt and the fears of the father which have resulted from Oedipal conflict.” 10 Ripp, Victor. “Turgenev as a Social Novelist: The Problem of the Part and the Whole.” In Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800-1914. Edited by William Mills Todd 1H. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 237-257. States that Turgenev certified his importance as a social novelist by skillfully exhibiting the constraint under which men strove. Finds the difference between Turgenev’s writings about contemporary society and Dickens’ in that Dickens’ works are packed with “the paraphernalia of the legitimated social structure,” such as actions of judges and policemen and lawyers, while Turgenev’s strikingly lack these features. Insists that in comparison with Dickens, Turgenev lacks boldness to “confront the beast of social inequity in its lair.” Notes Turgenev’s ability to present “an explanatory topography for the concept of man as such” in Rudin, maintaining that in the novel the ideal “man as such” is represented by the heroine. Sees the significance of Rudin as showing the rampant suspicion among people of high society. 1 l Shapiro, Leonard. Turgenev: His Life and Times. New York: Random House, 382 pp. A biography of Turgenev which tries to remain an objective portrayal, leaving it to the reader to decide what kind of man he was. Attempts to provide sufficient information on the relevant background in Russia to illuminate Turgenev’s position for the proper explanation of the close connection between his works and political questions. 164 Also discusses Turgenev’s works which have relatively less political relevance, not giving literary analysis. 12 Waddington, Patrick. “Turgenev’s Relation with Henry Fothergill Chorley.” NZSJ, no. 2: 27-39. Gives an account of Turgenev’s friendship with Chorley, a Victorian critic who promoted Pauline Viardot’s fame for several decades with commentary in the London Athenaeum and of the two men’s subsequent literary relations. Presents an unpublished letter of Turgenev to Chorley written on 6th November, 1849 in which Turgenev informs Chorley of Pauline’s activities. Recounts Chorley’s criticism of Turgenev’s writings, presenting citations of Chorley’s book reviews in the Athenaeum: on A Nest of the Gentry in December 1861; on Rudin in August 1862; on On the Eve and First Love in 1863; and on Fathers and Sons in September 1863. Mentions that Chorley attacks Turgenev’s characters, atmosphere, plots and subjects from behind a cloak of anonymity in reviews of On the Eve and First Love, but praises Fathers and Sons as an excellent work of art. 1979 1 Ball, David. “Turgenev’s Dialectic.” MasR 20:145-160. Describes the dialectic structure of Turgenev’s novels, discussing the interplay and tension between public and private domains, between the political and personal, and between moral choice and psychological truth. Asserts that Turgenev gives his novels dialectic structures showing that reasonable, liberal men are politically, morally and humanly right, but at the same time they are also wrong, for there is something unreasonable in the nature of life, particularly Russian life, which make them fail. Expounds the failure of morally interesting people committed to various political positions in Turgenev’s dialectic: the idealistic abstract idealism of Rudin; the “moderate 165 meliorism” of Litvinov and Lavreckij; the radical nihilism of Bazarov; and the populist socialism of Neidanov. 2 Gronicka, Andre. von. “Ivan S. Turgenev’s Faust Essay.” GerS 3, no. 1:17-32. Gives an in-depth analysis of Turgenev’s Faust Essay and attempts to demonstrate its importance as an expression of Turgenev’s ambivalent attitude not only to Goethe’s drama, but also to Goethe’s personality, world view and aesthetics. Maintains that Turgenev, as a Romantic, on the one hand, grants ultimate freedom and praises Goethe’s “self-assertive ego” as the fundamental Source of the poet’s creative achievements, but on the other hand Turgenev, as a socially conscious realist, dislikes Goethe’s “egocentricity” and demands of the poet “self-effacement” in service to society. 3 Hermann, Lesley Singer. “Woman as Hero in Turgenev, Gonchrov, and George Sand’s Mauprat.” Ule 2, no. 1: 128-138. Discusses Sand’s influences on Turgenev and Goncarov in appearing as “a new woman” who has her own “desires and needs and intelligence to express them.” Examines affinities between Edmee Mauprat in Sand’s novel Mauprat and Olga in Goncarov’s Oblomov and Elena in Turgenev’s 0n the Eve. Finds following prominent similarities between Edmee and Elena: active participation in a revolution; the free choice of their destiny in order to serve humanity. Concludes that Sand’s Edmee contributes greatly to the image of Elena. 4 Karp, Carole. “George Sand and Turgenev: A Literary Relationship.” SL1 12:73-81. Offers an account of Turgenev’s relationship with George Sand: in their meetings, at Pauline Viardot’s home during Turgenev’s first trip to France in 1845, then at Sand’s home through the intercession of Flaubert in Nohant in October, 1872, and at 166 Sand’s home in September, 1873. Also discusses Sand’s literary influence on Turgenev, tracing Russian critics’ studies on her influence in his works. Finds affinities between Sand’s “rustic novels” and Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter in “abundant use of folklore and folk superstition” and “elaborate and poetic nature descriptions.” Also points out that most of Turgenev’s peasant stories were written abroad between 1847 and 1851 when Sand’s “rustic novels” “were being serialized in various French journals.” Suggests the possibility of the influence of Sand’s involvement in the 1848 French Revolution in Turgenev’s Rudin. Pays attention to Turgenev’s reaction to Sand’s “negative influence in the society of his time,” reminding that many Sandian “emancipated” women are “deliberately satirized” in his works. Concludes that Sand’s influence on Turgenev mainly lies in “the descriptive and poetic qualities” of her works. 5 Lowe, David A. “Comedy and Tragedy in Fathers and Sons: A Structural Analysis.” CASS 13, no. 3:283-294. Elucidates parallel but contrasting patterns of comedy and of tragedy in Fathers and Sons, the significance of which extend to matters of composition, characterization, and thematics, basing the elucidation on Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism. Sketches out the plot of the novel, seeing Arkadij and his father Nikolaj as the technical heroes of the comedy, whose marriages are blocked by Bazarov and Pavel. Asserts that an analysis of Fathers and Sons as comedy explains in formal terms why many critics read the novel as an affirmative one that celebrates life and nature. Following the concept of Frey, sees Bazarov not only as a tragic hero but also a self-deceiving irnpostor. Concludes that Turgenev seems to embrace two diametrically opposed views of life by combining the comic and tragic modes. 167 6 -------- “Otcy I Deli and Turgenev’s Correspondence: A Study in Reciprocity.” RLJ 33, no. 114:55-62. Links Fathers and Sons and Turgenev’s correspondence from 1860 to 1862, citing excerpts from Turgenev’s letters to Gercen, Fet, Druzinin, E. E. Lambert which, though at first glance may seem to have no bearing on Turgenev’s novel, reveal both the author’s frame of mind and the developments in his personal life that contributed to plot, theme, and characterization in the work. Refutes the notion that the fundamental conflicts in the novel are primarily socio-political, maintaining that the real conflict is temperamental: by their egoism and will Pavel, Bazarov, and Odincova are divorced from music, poetry, nature, and emotion, while N ikolaj, Arkadij, and Katja are profoundly attached to them. Notes that Bazarov’s speech includes a citation from Byron, which could hint at an explanation of Bazarov’s death. Confirms not only the fact that the novel grew out of Turgenev’s observations of life around him, but also that the novel was a source of inspiration for his letters. 7 Ripp, Victor. “Ideology' ln Turgenev’ s Notes of a Hunter: The PM Three Sketches.” SlaR 38:75-88. Sees Notes of a Hunter as employing a self-critical device which continually proposes ideological positions and moves to reveal their inadequacies, with no political element unambiguously present in the work. Illustrates the process in the movement from Xor’ and Kalinyc to Ermolaj and the Miller’s Wife to Raspberry Spring: in the first story Turgenev depicts a world which is “inescapably harsh but variegated and particularized”; in the second one, a world which offers choices of focus and ultimately choices of attitudes; and in the third, a world in which there is no way outside the prevailing social reality, not even in the imagination. Concludes that the implied goal that gives Notes of a Hunter its particular political significance is the effort to find “a rational vantage point” outside the prevailing system of social values. 168 8 Tedford, Barbara W. “Of Libraries and Salmon-Colored Volumes: James‘ Reading of Turgenev through 1873.” RALS 9: 39-49. Suggests approximate dates and specific translations of Turgenev’s works with which Henry James’s 1874 article on Turgenev’s works in North American Review shows him to have been acquainted, mentioning that J ames’s enthusiasm for Turgenev’s works dated from the 18508 mainly through the Revue des Deux Mondes and through German translations. 9 Waddington, Patrick. “Still More Letters of Turgenev.” NZSJ, no. 1:1-27. Chronologically presents thirty-six letters of Turgenev which are not contained in the 1968 Polnoe sobranie sotinenij i pisem v dvadcati vos’rni tomax. Includes the letters which had previously appeared in books and other printed sources. Adds detailed elucidation to each letter. 10 Wheeler, Marcus. “Turgenev and Conrad.” JRS 38: 33-37. Discusses Turgenev’s affinity with Joseph Conrad, maintaining that the basis for Conrad’s attraction to Turgenev is much clearer in literary content and ideology than in literary form and style. Mentions that Conrad considered it a positive merit that Turgenev was the least purely national, the most cosmopolitan and Westemized of the great Russian writers. Comments that Conrad acquired his knowledge of Turgenev from his father who had been a student in St. Petersburg in the 18403. 1980 1 Briggs, Anthony D. “Ivan Turgenev and the Workings of Coincidence.” SEER 58, no. 2:195-211. Analyzes coincidence as a typical device of Turgenev’s plotting, classifying it into the following catagories: chance encounters, multiple coincidences, cumulative coincidences, apposite moment coincidence, near-coincidences, and non-coincidences. 169 Outlines the plot of thee Meetings in detail as an example of chance encounters. Recounts main ways in which chance encounter, “the most widespread of all Turgenev’s fictional coincidences,” functions in his works: there may be a coincidental meeting of main protagonists at the beginning of a story; a protagonist’s meeting with a new character at the introduction of the new character; accidental meetings in mid-plot to advance the plot; the overbearing or witnessing of important conversations or events; and chance meetings after the story proper has finished. Finds Turgenev’s use of coincidence as well as the limited choice of locale for its implementation repetitive, arguing that the reason for this lies in Turgenev’s taste for the theatre, concluding that “Turgenev lacks the centrifugal urge of a really great novelist and possesses the contrary inward-moving instinct of a naturally disciplined dramatist.” 2 Hellgren, Ludmila. “Dialogues in Turgenev’s Novels: Speech Introductory Device.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Describes, with statistical support, that the considerable attention of Turgenev to stage directions in drama, particularly the actor’s tone of voice and delivery, is reflected in the “speech-introduCtory devices” of his novels. Studies Rudin, Fathers and Sons, and Virgin Soil tracing the chronological development of means of speech-introduction in his works, with comparison to elements of dialogue structure in Gogol’ ’3 Dead Souls, Dostoevskij ’s Crime and Punishment and in Tolstoj ’3 Anna Karenina. Shows how speech-introductory sentences are constructed, how verbs of communication and circumstantial words contribute to the characterization of the speaker, and how such characterization is refined through the contrastive use of introductory sentences. Pays particular attention to the nature and frequency of the various verbs of communication and their equivalents, compiling statistics for each of the six novels, including figures on the presence or absence of circumstantial words in introductory sentences containing a verb of communication. Reprinted in 1980. 3. 170 3 ------- Dialogues in Turgenev’s Novels: Speech -Introductory Device. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, l48pp. Reprint of 1980. 2. 4 Herrmann Lesley 8. “George Sand and Ivan Turgenev.” In George Sand Papers: Conference Proceedings Hempstead, New York, 1976. Edited by Natalie Darlof et al. New York: AMS Press, pp. 162-173. Considers George Sand a literary model for Turgenev. Traces Turgenev’s borrowing of George Sand’s three rustic tales entitled Veillees du Chanvreur for his Notes of a Hunter and Asja. Finds that Turgenev chooses an educated landowner as unifying narrator after the model of the peasant hempdresser in Veillees du Chanvreur in order to capture the spirit of peasant life without losing either the flavor of peasant speech or the understanding of his reader. Sees three peasant portraits, Luker’ja, Kas’jan, and Gerasirn, as idealized peasants who, in the manner of George Sand’s, are meant to encourage humanity through example. Also suggests the possibility of Turgenev’s use of Sand’s Fadette as the model for his half-peasant heroine Asja, pointing out that the rough draft of Asja shows a strong similarity between Fadette and Asja. 5 Ripp, Victor. Turgenev’s Russia: From Notes of a Hunter to Fathers and Sons. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 218pp. A study of Turgenev’s progressive politics as reflected in his four novels from 1856 to 1861. Points out that Turgenev’s particular genius lies in his ability to translate the political issues of his era into depictions of men and women engaged in the tasks of daily life. Discusses Turgenev’s belief that the best an author can do is orient himself properly to the world, and how for Turgenev, this task is specifically a transcendence of what exists and a confrontation with the prevailing order, the goal of which is to provide a moral alternative to the government. Notes that Turgenev wrote his novels at a time when the tradition of the superfluous man extending back to Puskin’s Onegin and 171 Lermontov’s Pecorin had taken a decisive turn with myriad changes, including the abolition of serfdom, which took place in Russia after the Crimean War. Maintains that Turgenev’s decision to stop writing short sketches and to try his hand at novels is simultaneously an aesthetic and a political choice made after deciding that he had not projected his personality into Notes of a Hunter. Shows that Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, and On the Eve resolve the problems broached by his early writings, examining how Turgenev exposes the ill effects of obscestvo politics on the capacity of Russians to make judgments, enjoy work, and fall in love. 6 Smyrniw, Walter. Turgenev’s Early Works from Character Sketches to a Novel. Oakville, Ontario: Mosaic Press, 199 pp. Examines Turgenev’s relatively untouched early literary career, finding creative affinities with his Russian predecessors as well as Western writers. Shows how Turgenev’s character typology stems from early literary exercises of character sketches under the influence of his tutor, tracing variations of his conceptions of character typology. Holds that Turgenev derived models for romantic heroines from a German writer Amirn, and models for romantic heroes from Puskin and Lermontov, and derived his treatment of the idealistic vs. realistic dichotomy in human nature from Schiller, as well as Hamlet and Don Quixote types from Shakespeare and Cervantes. Ascribes Turgenev’s failure in adopting an epic technique for Two Generations to his excessively character-oriented approach and “the difficulties in conceiving an original plot.” Notes that Turgenev avoided stereotypes, and could create characters which are distinctly individualized and yet represent symbolically the general characteristics of a certain group of people. Concludes that character typology is an important feature of Turgenev’s early as well as his mature creative period. 7 Tedford, Barbara Wilkie. “The attitude of Henry James and Ivan Turgenev Toward the Russo-Turkish War.” HJR 1 :257-261. 172 Discusses the attitude of James and Turgenev toward the Russo-Turkish War, citing the full text of Henry J ames’s translation (published in the Nation in 1876) of Turgenev’s poem, Croquet at Windsor (written in 1876), in which Turgenev criticizes the English Queen’s policies regarding the Turks in the Balkans. Traces views on the Balkan problem Turgenev and J arnes shared in their correspondence. Concludes that both had a love of freedom and that their shared opinions on the struggles for independence contributed partly to their happy relationship. 8 Waddington, Patrick. “Some Salient Phases of Turgenev’s Critical Reception in Britain, Part I: 1853-1870” NZSJ, no. 2: 17-46. Traces British reactions to Turgenev up to 1870. Sees Gercen as the one who introduced Turgenev’s name to the British reading public through his 1853 book in French on the ideas of Russian revolutionists, and the Crimean War as the main reasons for the British interest in Turgenev at that time. Finds the first mention of Turgenev in a book review on the French edition of Notes of a Hunter in August 1854 in Fraser’s Magazine. Recounts criticisms of Turgenev after the publication of the fust English translation of Notes of a Hunter in December 1854. Finds a revival of interest in Turgenev in the late 1850s and a definite quickening of appreciation for Turgenev’s works in 18608. Describes large roles in propagating Turgenev’s reputation played by H. Chorley, E. Schuyler, and W. Ralston. Discusses Ralston’s personal friendship with Turgenev, a position for which Ralston endeavored through his articles and his translations. 9 ------ Turgenev and England. London: Macmillian Press, 382 pp. Discusses Turgenev’s relations with England in the context of his life and experience. Gives an account of his growing interest in things English; of his direct contact with the British; of his standing in Britain and the effect this had on him; of his 173 visits to England and of his reactions to these. Details Turgenev’s relationship with men of English literary and musical circle: Hermann Muller-Strubing, Charles Halle, Carlyle, Richard M. Milnes, William M. Thackeray, Henry Reeve, Palmerston, Charles Dickens, William Ralston, Sir Charles W. Dilke, George Eliot, W. H. Hall, Rev. Benjamin Jowett, etc. Recounts Turgenev’s movements in detail during his visits in England, based on Turgenev’s letters to Pauline Viardot and to his daughter. Contains a bibliography of critical and biographical information on Turgenev published in Britain up to 1883. 1981 l Fiszman, Samuel. “Ivan Turgenev’s Unknown Letter and His Stay in Russia in 1879.” SlaR 40: 77-83'. Notes that the Lilly Library of Indiana University had recently discovered a letter of Turgenev and discusses the reason why in that letter Turgenev expressed his hope to insert into many newspapers a public correction of inaccurate news printed in the French newspaper Soleil about his expulsion from Russia in April 1879. Describes Turgenev’s triumphal stay in Russia from the end of February to the beginning of April, citing news reports in the French newspaper Temps and recollections of his acquaintances. Holds that Turgenev was not in fact expelled from Russia, as Soleil inaccurately reported, but left Russia after receiving clearance from Alexander 11. Concludes that Turgenev wanted to correct the misleading information by Soleil because he was very careful not to irritate the Russian government. 2 Foxcroft, E. “The Spirit of an Age as Reflected in Fathers and Sons and The Possessed.” USAES 19, no. 2: 11-16. Shows how the spirit of the sixties and seventies of the last century are reflected in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons and Dostoevskij ’s Dre Possessed. Sees the spirit of the age in Russia as a union of the atheistic, positivist character of the French revolution, 174 utopian German philosophy and Russian religous mysticism. Maintains that though the two novels are objective pictures of existing conditions of the sixties (Fathers and Sons) and seventies (The Possessed), dealing with nihilists and generational conflict, Turgenev’s peaceful narrative tone contrasts with Dostoevskij ’s concenturation on “only the dark side of the spirit of the age.” 3 Gregg, F. B. and R. A. “Turgenev and Gide: The Elegiast and the Ironist.” FR 54, no. 3: 420-427. Finds striking similarities and differences between Gide, “the iconoclastic member of the French 20th century avant-garde” and Turgenev, “the exemplary representative of Russian Realism.” Finds “a genetic link” between Turgenev’s Phantoms and Gide’s first novel, Le Voyage d ’Urien in that besides a general resemblance, both works have a restless narrator and a mysterious woman with similar attributes and the same name Ellis. Notes similarities between Turgenev’s A Nest of the Gentry and Gide’s second novel La Porte étroite, focusing on the affinity between the destiny of Turgenev’s Lisa and that of Gide’s Alissa. Also finds differences between them, arguing that in La Porte étroite, the “uncomplicated and entirely natural” Lisa is replaced by “a tense, puritanical, and exalted heroine,” Alissa. Suggests that Alissa is a kind of anti-Liza, or an A-Liza. Ascribes “the displacement of Turgenev’s elegiac pathos by Gidean irony” to their ethical difference, concluding that “the dichotomy between Good and Evil” inA Nest of the Gentry is clearly missing in La Porte ctroite. 4 Heier, Edmund. “Principles of Impressionism in the Aestheties of I. S. Turgenev.” In Poetica Slavica: Studies in Honour of Zbignwski. Edited by J. D. Clayton and S. Schaarshmidt. Ottawa: Ottawa University Press, pp. 53-69. Briefly mentions literary impressionism in Western European countries and Russia in the nineteenth century. Agrees with Mereikovskij ’s declaration of Turgenev as an impressionist, finding an impressionistic texture not only in Turgenev’s mystical tales, as Mereikovskij did, but also in realistic writings such as Smoke. Traces this to the 175 fact that Turgenev’s realism is tinged with a philosophic conviction of man’s mysterious existence, his frequent use of hint and suggestions, and a vague rather than authoritative narrative. Associates several of Turgenev’s devices with impressionism: “non-verbal communication” using external physical changes in a character’s behavior, such as gesture, to suggest a psychological change; rejection of the overt presentation of psychological detail; laconic portrayal of characters; and reflection of human emotion in nature or music. Finds that Turgenev resembles Cexov in his use of impressionistic texture, with which Turgenev was able to “recreate reality or an illusion thereof so skillfully that his illusion becomes credible and complete.” 5 Rosenstreich, Susan Lepawsky. “A Scythian among the French: The Role of Ivan Turgenev in the Sociéte’ Des Cinq.” Ph. D. dissertation, City University of New York, 163 pp. Discusses ideas of social reform which French writers of the Société des Cinq (Goncourt, Flaubert, Zola, and Daudet) had in common with Turgenev. Finds that characters similar to Turgenev’s “Scythian characters” appeared more frequently in the works of the French writers during their association with Turgenev. Maintains that Turgenev had a decisive influence on the French writers’ ideas concerning social reform. 6 Schwoebel, Willi Hans. “The Influence of Turgenev on the Narrative Technique of Fontane.” Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 205 pp. Studies Turgenev’s influence on T. Fontane’s narrative technique. Notes that Fontane’s techniques for making dialogue the most prominent narrative method are similar to Turgenev’s: a natural setting for dialogue, dramatic and vibrant style, clearly yet effortlessly unfolding plot and character. Finds Fontane’s use of nature and art similar to Turgenev’s. Notes the similarity of narrative techniques in Turgenev’s Rudin and Fontane’s Schach von Wuthenow. Concludes that Turgenev deeply influenced the form of Fontane’s works. 176 7 Tammi, Pekka. “Nabokov’s Lolita: The Turgenev Subtext.” Notes on Modern AL 5, no. 2, item 10. Elucidates “covert Turgenev parodies” in N abokov’s Lolita, finding a Turgenevian subtext in a passage in Part Two, Chapter 33 of Lolita that is originally in the Epilogue of A Nest of the Gentry. Draws direct and oblique parallels between the description of Lavreckij returning to his country house after the failure of his romance with Lisa and Humbert enduring a disillusioning romance with Lolita. 8 Waddington, Patrick. “Henry Chorley, Pauline Viardot and Turgenev: A Musical and Literary Friendship.” MQ 67: 165-192. Surveys relations of Pauline Viardot and Turgenev with English critic Henry F. Chorley, citing their correspondence. Finds that Chorley as a music critic for the journal Athenaeum sincerely supported Pauline’s singing performance and her staging of a Viardot-Turgenev operetta until his death in 1872 and that Turgenev appreciated Chorley’s support of Pauline 9 ------ “More Unpublished Documents by and concerning Turgenev.” NZSJ, no. 2:7-26. ' Presents eleven unpublished letters of Turgenev, as well as summaries of and extracts from four documents concerning Turgenev and his family. Gives annotations for the letters, in French, along with information about dates and addressees. Surveys the documents (Turgenev’s permission for his illegitimate daughter in France to bear his surname, her marriage contract, Turgenev’s autograph will and its ratification by the Russian and French authorities) with annotation, finding that Turgenev showed extravagant devotion to the Viardots, but relative neglect for Pauline’s daughter, Paulinette. 10 ------- flagenev and George Sand: An Improbable Entente. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 146 pp. 177 Treats a neglected aspect of Turgenev’s biography, his relation with George Sand, based on the large quantity of unpublished or little-known documents, particularly Sand’s diaries and letters. Holds that without inspiration of people like George Sand Turgenev’s pessimistic, rather conventional philosophy might well have killed the optimistic strain in him and made for dull and sterile novels. Traces shifts in Turgenev’s relationship with Sand, emphasizing its essentially extra-literary nature: in the 18308, as an eager student Turgenev discovers Sand’s impassioned early novels; later he comes to knows her personally and she is identified with his own enthusiastic love for Pauline Viardot; and in the 18708 she becomes an essential adjunct to his makeshift family happiness at the rue de Douai and Bougival, and a link in his friendship with Flaubert. Finds Turgenev’s undoubted passion for George Sand to have been tinged with Byronic irony from the start. Traces Sand’s considerable influence on Turgenev not only in his attempt to change himself from poet to realist prose writer in the early forties, but also specifically in Andrej Kolosov, his first exercise in prose, and in Notes of a Hunter. Finds that both writers consistantly emphasize beauty and permanence. Refutes the allegation that Sof’ja Zadneprovskaja in Two Friends, Evdoca Kuks’ina in Fathers and Sons, and Varvara Pavlovna in A Nest of a Gentry are caricatures of Sand. Notes the special impact on Turgenev of two of Sand’s novels, Jacques and Horace, specifically the hero’s “superfluousness” in Jacques and the dual personality of Horace as actor and genuine self who observes. 1982 1 Andrew, Joe. “Ivan Turgenev.” In Russian Writers and Society in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Atlantic Highland: Humanities. Discusses in detail Turgenev’s biography, literary career, views on art, politics and the role of the artist, and the critics’ assessments of Turgenev’s representation of reality. Also discusses major quarrels with literary contemporaries and critical reactions 178 to Fathers and Sons. Explains Turgenev’s rejection of utilitarian art. Shows how his progressive views caused a breach not only with supporters of utilitarian art, but with conservative writers and poets. Sees Turgenev as the first important political novelist in nineteenth-century Russian literature to combine insight into contemporary political development with artistic achievement. 2 Cave, Richard Allen. “Turgenev and Moore: A Sportsman ’s Sketches and The Untilled Field.” In The Way Back: George Moore’s The Untilled Field & The Lake. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, pp. 45-63. Shows how Moore took Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter as the model for his The Untilled Field. Compares stories from Notes of a Hunter with stories from The Untilled Field: Ermolaj and the Miller’s Wife with The Exile, The Tryst with Alrnsgiving; A Living Relic with Death and The Window, and Kas ’ian fi'orn Fair Springs with A Letter to Rome, pointing out similarities of techniques. Finds Moore’s primary debt to Turgenev in his “dry style” in which he offers the reader “only factual statements of actions and event and snatches of conversation,” leaving reader to infer the moral meaning. Finds differences between them in treatment of plot and narration. 3 Hart, Pierre R. “The Passionate Page: First Love and The Little Hero.” In New Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Russian Prose. Edited by George J. Gutsche and Lauren G. Leighton. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc., pp. 1 l 1 - 1 20. Compares Turgenev’s First Love with Dostoevskij ’s The Little Hero which were published in early 1860 and reflected “the relative mastery of psychological portraiture by each author.” Discusses the relationship of the works to autobiography, finding that First Love is closer to autobiography than The Little Hem. Draws parallels between the works: an adult narrator’s commentary on his own youthful perceptions, boys’ involvement with women, the concept of love as self-sacrifice without expectation of reward, identification of child with page, and horsemanship as a knightly symbol. 179 Also recounts distinct differences between the works: the theme of sexual rivalry between father and son is particular to First Love, and there is psychological portraiture of three central figures inFirst Love, but of only one main character in The Little Hero. Regards as tenuous the argument that First Love is Turgenev’s attempt to trace the psychological origins of the superfluous man to the trauma of early love, since Vladimir is a bachelor of about forty at the time of his narration. Concludes that in The Little Hero the future is “associated with formal proofs of one’s maturity” but in First Love, “the situation admits of no such solution.” 4 Lowe, David A. “Doubling in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.” EL 9:240-250. Discusses characterization in Fathers and Sons, with reference to Fet’s letter to Turgenev noting the parallelisms and contrasts of believing and nonbelieving. Singles out Turgenev’s major? principle for characterization as one of “contrasts and parallels between and among characters and groups of characters.” Contrasts a first group consisting of Bazarov, Pavel, and Odincova with a second group comprising Arkadij and N ikolaj, surveying salient characteristics of temperament in both. Labels the first group “egoists and unbelievers” and the second group “altruists and believers.” Examines in detail temperamental differences and similarities between Pavel and Bazarov and between Arkadij and Nikolaj. Finds the true source of conflict between Pavel and Bazarov not in ideological difference but in “fundamental laws of magnetism: likes repel each other.” Sees the real interest of Arkadij and N ikolaj not in intellectual trends of the day but in music, poetry, nature, and the life of the emotions. Concludes that the truly significant groupings in Fathers and Sons contrast the strong and the meek, the egoists and the altruists, the sterile and the fruitful, refuting groupings based on generation, class, and political ideology. 180 5 Mayer, Charles W. “Turgenev and James: Different Versions of the Beast.” ResS 50, no. 2:69-78. Studies possible links between James’s The Beast in the Jungle (1903) and Turgenev’s Knock...Knock...Knock (1870), finding a link in the protagonists’ obsession with their own destinies and other psychological features of the characters. Briefly discusses the plot of Turgenev’s story. Maintains that in both protagonists, Teglev and Marcher, belief in a special fate comes from “a powerful romantic egotism.” Underlines that while Turgenev accepted the dominant role of contingency over will, James would prefer to confront one’s destiny. Also discusses essential distinctions in J arnes’s work: exclusion of every hint of external causes that might be called fate in its ordinary sense; using the consciousness of the protagonist as narrator; and advancement of plot according to a clear plan. Carefully suggests possible connections between the two works. 6 Pervushin, N. V. “Dostoevsky and Turgenev, A New element in Their Relationship.” DosS 3:191-192. Notes Dostoevskij’s surprising eulogy on Turgenev’s A Nest of the Gentry in Dostoevskij ’s rough draft of The Diary of a Writer found in the 22nd volume of the recently published Collected War/m of Dostoevskij. Briefly mentions the relationship between the two writers. 7 Waddington, Patrick. “Turgenev’s Scenario for Brahms.” NZSJ: 1-16. Makes public Turgenev’s autograph manuscript of an unpublished scenario for an opera libretto, presented to Brahms in 1869. Briefly mentions Turgenev’s relationship with Brahms, struck through a mutual friendship with the Viardots. Discusses Brahms’s reaction to the scenario, suggesting that the different political stances of Turgenev and Brahms led to the scenario’s ultimate abandonment. Points out many characteristics of Romantic drama in the scenario. Suggests possible reasons why Turgenev chose the 181 theme of “the mysterious stranger.” Notes the need for polishing the scenario due to the difficulties of interpretation at the end of the piece. Contains the full text of the scenario. 8 Worrall, Nick. Nikolai Gogol’ and Ivan Turgenev. London and Basingstoke: MacMillan, 207 p. A study of Gogol’ and Turgenev as dramatists. Briefly outlines biographical similarities, finding that both writers were subject to strong maternal influence, were unmarried, were influenced by German philosophy, and spent extensive time abroad. Also finds differences in their political views, with Gogol’ convinced of Russia’s divine mission and supportive of the status quo, while Turgenev eagerly wanted change for Russia. Discusses nature and women as the most salient themes in the work of both writers, with both writers seeing the feminine ideal as the way out of the impasse of the natural pattem. Discusses the theatrical theories and influences of both dramatists, finding that they are influenced by vaudeville and puppet theater and share the desire to reform the Russian stage and create a new drama. Discusses five Turgenev plays written between 1834 and 1848, four realistic plays written between 1848 and,1850, and his most famous play, A Month in the Country. Sees A Month in the Country with its strong “sense of naturalistic determinism” as a predecessor of Cexov’s Uncle Vanja. 9 Yakobson, Sergius. “Unpublished Letters of Ivan Turgenev.” RLT 17:185-196. Makes public two unpublished letters of Turgenev to an American diplomat and translator of Fathers and Sons, Eugene Schuyler, and one unpublished letter to A. Daudet. Recounts how the letters were found. Also details the circumstances under which those letters were written and Turgenev’s reaction to Schuyler’s translation of Fathers and Sons. Discusses Turgenev’s relationship with Daudet. 182 10 Zekulin, G. “Turgenev Renascens.” CanSP 24, no. 3:273-292. Notes a renewed interest in the works of Turgenev, finding twenty-three monographs on Turgenev published since 1979 in ten different nations. Reviews the following monographic studies on Turgenev: Patrick Waddington’s Turgenev and . England and Turgenev and George Sand: An Improbable Entente. Victor Ripp’s Turgenev ’s Russia: From “Notes of a Hunter” to “Fathers and Sons,” Peter Thiergen’s Turgenevs Rudin und Schillers Philosophische Briefe, Rainer Kessler’s Zu Form and Kritik in I. S. Turgenevs “Zapiski ochotnika ”: F iinf Auflsiitze, and Ludmila Hellgren’s Dialogue in Turgenev’s Novels: Speech-Introductory Devices. 1983 1 Ananyev, Anatoli. “Russian Bard.” SL, no. 12: 3-5. Praises Turgenev for his realistic characters, authenticity of landscape, and acute sense to social problems based on historical truth. Anticipates a new wave of interest in his works on the centenary of Turgenev’s death. 2 Armstrong, Judith. “Turgenev’s Novella Dnevnik Lishnego Cheloveka.” NZSJ: l-l9. Discusses superfluousness in The Diary of a Supefiluous Man. Holds that the tale is “the crystallization of a preoccupation” that seized Turgenev, Gercen, and their contemporaries. Mentions how Turgenev’s own experience, especially his relations with his parent and Pauline Viardot is reflected in the work. Discusses in detail the following four important themes of the work: the formation of character of Culkaturin, role of nature, the disease of love, and the enigma of death. Points out that Turgenev carefully attributes the cause of the protagonist’s superfluousness to his inadequate family life, which differs from Gercen’s and Belinskij’s view. Also points out that Turgenev’s approach to superfluousness is inclined more to psychology of characters than to their 183 socio-political background. Sees subjective pessimism as one of the causes of superfluousness which is expressed not only by the protagonists of the tale, but also by the collective Russian consciousness. 3 Brostrom, Kenneth N. “The Heritage of Romantic Depictions of Nature in Turgenev.” In American Contribution to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists Held in Kiev, September 1983. Vol. 2. Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 81-95. Based on Turgenev’s first four novels, discusses Romantic descriptions of nature in Turgenev. Finds Turgenev in the Romantic tradition in which nature, with its “engulfing, indifferent power,” is never subordinate to man. Finds two ancient symbols of lif -- the water and journey-- in Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Fathers and Sons, discussing the context of those symbols. Examines Turgenev’s ambivalent attitude toward the natural order, finding an opposition between rational and supra- rational visions of man’s place in the natural order. Maintains that Turgenev’s understanding of the origin of human powerlessness foreshadows later writers’ awareness of the incompatibility of moral goodness and power, making Turgenev representative of historical changes leading to the modern world. 4 ------- “The Journey as Solitary Confinement in Fathers and Sons.” CASS 17, no. 1:13-38. A study of Bazarov’s psychological evolution along with the development of some philosophical perspectives on Fathers and Sons. Discusses patterns in which Bazarov’s dynamism is gradually supplanted by stasis, focusing on his conscious and subconscious tendencies. Finds the root of Turgenev’s pessimism in the Newtonian mechanical rational model, as well as in the Romantic reading of nature. Classifies the major characters into two groups (the first group comprising Bazarov, Odincova, and Pavel’ and the second Arkadij, Katj a, Bazarov’s parents, Nikolaj and FeneEka) with respect to temperamental, philosophical and narrative-based criteria. Surveys the novel’s 184 action, noting possible causes of Bazarov’s ultimate immobility. Sees the first group of characters as egoists and the second as altruists, the latter being closer to art and nature and seeing life as a state of being in relation to a greater whole, and the former basically indifferent to art and nature and seeing life as a journey toward destiny. Regards the novel as a “triumphant artistic expression of the intellectual and spiritual currents which move post-Romantic Russian literature.” Concludes that Bazarov’s philosophical uncertainty and his confused, divided state of mind undermine his capability for purposeful action, ultimately immobilizing him altogether. 5 Brumfield, William C. “Invitation to a Beheading: Turgenev and Troppman.” CASS 17, no. 1:79-88. Vindicates Turgenev from Dostoevskij ’8 charge that he showed liberal faintheartedness in his article The Execution of Troppmann, arguing that Turgenev did not merely raise the social question of public execution and “potential mass violence” in the modern industrial state, but followed a deep, consistent line of thinking. Discusses construction of the article, finding that Turgenev used similar devices in his fiction, such as a short narrative framed by the narrator’s comment and the opening scene, which resembles that of First Love and King Lear of the Steppes. Maintains that Turgenev’s meditations on death and nothingness in the article were not only consistent with Phantoms, written before the article, but with Spring Torrents and Poems in Prose, which came after. 6 Cadot, Michel. “The Role of I. S. Turgenev and Louis Viardot in the Promulgation of Russian Literature in France.” TMRAS 16: 225-239. Ascribes a pioneering role in the dissemination of Russian literature in France to Turgenev and Louis Viardot. Discusses Turgenev’s effort to introduce and translate Pu§kin, Lermontov, Gogol’, Dostoevskij, and especially Tolstoj. Also notes Louis Viardot’s role in introducing Russian writings to French editors, and as a proof reader of 185 Turgenev’s works. Finds in Louis’s letter to an editor that in the process of translation, Turgenev just dictated a word for word translation and counted on the French translator to finish the process, which resulted in much approximation, inexactitude, and omissions in the final translations, including those of Turgenev’s own works. 7 Christa, Boris. “Vestimentary Markers in Turgenev’s Ottsy I Deti (Fathers and Sons).” NZSJ: 21-36. Elucidates Turgenev’s use of “vestimentary markers” for characterization in Fathers and Sons. Notes how Turgenev subtly uses dress codes particularly at the time of a character’s introduction to reveal the character’s socio-economic status, outlook and tastes. Finds 283 vestimentary markers in total. Details how the characters’ attributes are reflected by their vestimentary markers, which amount to a system of markedly programmed dress codes. Supports the grouping of characters into tragic characters and comedic ones by a critic, D. Lowe, showing that Turgenev uses vestimentary markers of the tragic characters more frequently (Pavel’ 49, Odincova 37, Bazarov 26) than with comedic ones (Arkadij 5, Katja 4, Nikolaj 5, Fenecka l4). Holds that the relatively frequent use of vestimentary markers of Fenecka is meant to “demonstrate graphically her social mobility.” Points out that after Bazarov falls in love, his frequency of vestimentary markers is increased. 8 Debreczeny, Paul. “Ivan Turgenev and Henry James: The Function of Social Themes in Fathers and Sons and The Princess Casamassima.” In American Contribution to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists Held in Kiev, September 1983. Vol. 2. Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 1 13- 123. Discusses how Turgenev and James blend social and political themes into the aesthetic structure of Fathers and Sons and The Princess Casamassima, finding clusters of imagery and defining their meaning. Sees women’s eyes, frogs, and trees as three important images in Fathers and Sons, interpreting woman’s eyes as mirrors of the soul 186 and frogs and trees as anatomical and impersonal images of human beings. Names the awakening of individual consciousness and the individual’s tragic involvement in love as important themes common to both novels. Discusses external and internal pressures which led both authors to present those themes in the framework of political novels. Finds Turgenev’s great achievement in the genre of the novel to be the fact that “be grounds his characters in their respective social milieux.” 9 Feuer, Kathryn. “Fathers and Sons: Fathers and Sons.” In The Russian Novel fi‘orn Puskin to Pasternak. Edited by John Garrard. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 67-80. Maintains that Fathers and Sons does not depict conflict between generations but “love between generations,” based upon two intertwined themes of “affectionate continuity from parent to child and child to parent” and “man’s knowledge of his own morality.” Sees the political details of the generational debate as the temporal setting for those themes. Discusses the intertextualization of “indifferent nature” at the end of the novel, finding the original source from the last stanza of Pu§kin’s poem, Whether I Wander along Noisy Street. Traces the gradual increase of the obsession, (along with the imagery of death in the novel. Sees Cemyshevskij and Dostoevskij as the writers who understood the real import of the novel. 10 FitzLyon, April. “An Published Novel by Ivan Turgenev.” MS 16: 213- 224. Searches every possible source to find Turgenev’s so- called missing manuscript novel A Life for Art, the existence of which was reported by the St. Petersburg paper Rec’ based on a private letter received in St. Petersburg a few days after Pauline Viardot’s death in May 1910. Traces possible senders of the letter and the archives of Pauline Viardot’s descendants. Carefully costs doubt the authenticity of the Reic' ’ article, since there is no reference to that manuscript in Turgenev’s published letters or papers, or in the memoirs or letters of his friends. 187 11 ------ “I. S. Turgenev and ‘Woman’ Question.” NZSJ: 161-173. Discusses Turgenev’s attitude to the question of female emancipation. Outlines briefly the place of woman in Russian history, encountering, as in Turgenev’s novels, the phenomenon of weak man and strong woman. Traces how Turgenev acquired the concept of woman in his childhood under his tyrant mother. Discusses women’s rights advocates with whom he was acquainted. Regards publication of Turgenev’s 0n the Eve as a “landmark in the evolution of Russian woman’s attitudes” and Elena as a pioneer of the “new woman.” Finds that in Virgin Soil and The Threshold, a poem in prose which could not legally be published during Turgenev’s lifetime, the question of the emancipation of woman was dealt with even more deeply. 12 Freeborn, Richard. “Bazarov as a Portrayal of Doomed Revolutionary.” NZSJ: 71-83. Discusses Turgenev’s portrayal of Bazarov as a doomed revolutionary projecting the image of the age. Recounts Turgenev’s stay at Ventor in the Isle of Wright in August 1860, finding that there Turgenev changed the image of Bazarov from that of a tragic, dying man to the image of a teacher and revolutionary with new social attitude and ideas. Speculates why Turgenev made the change during his stay at Ventor. Sees “the absence of over-intellectualizing of emotion” as the great feature of the characterization of Bazarov. Concludes that Bazarov does not act in a radical revolutionary way but in “the manner of practical reformer,” who as a teacher serves the peasants and as a doctor heals the sick and that in his role as teacher and revolutionary. 13 ------- “Turgenev, the Dramatist.” TRsARAS 16: 54-74. Regards his six years (1846-1852) of play writing as a transitional and experimental period for Turgenev’s prose writing. Finds in his first play, Carelessness, a parody of the Romantic concept of drama under the influence of M’erimée containing the 188 Turgenevan theme of “unreciprocated passion.” Sees his second play, Lack of Money, as a Gogolian vaudeville and his third, Where Is Thin, There It Breaks, as the first Turgenev play with “an example of intimate theater.” Finds skilled characterization, theatrical craftsmanship, felicity of dialogue, and intelligent irony in the third play. Suggests the possible influence of French dramatist de Musset’s “theatrical proverbs” on this third play. Sees Turgenev’s next three comedies-- The Parasite, The Bachelor, and Breakfast at the Noble Marshall ’s-- as grotesquely reminiscent of Gogol’s humor. Discusses his seventh play, A Month in the Country, finding its experimental features (blending social theme with psychological analysis, and introducing theatrical form into his novels). Notes the possible influence of Balzac’s La Marr’itre on the play. Finds the play similar to Cexov’s in that the emotional needs of the chief characters remain unfulfilled, yet dissimilar in that Turgenev’s play links the human dilemma to love, nature, and freedom. Also briefly mentions Turgenev’s three other minor plays The Provincial Lady, Conversation on the High Road, and his tenth and last play An Evening in Sorrento. Concludes that although Turgenev’s plays prepare the way. for theoretical form in his novels and for Cexov’s plays, they show an overall lack of “pervasive descriptive power” and “philosophical purposefulness.” 14 ------- “Turgenev and Revolution.” SEER 61, no. 4: 518-527. Examines Turgenev’s reputation as “the first to give fictional lineaments to the revolutionary type in Russian literature.” Believes that Turgenev was famed not for his concern for Russian serfs, but for his moral encouragement of Russian youth in the cause of freedom, which Dostoevskij regarded as Turgenev’s “pandering” to Russian youth’s revolutionary taste. Sees Turgenev’s first-hand experience in the Paris Revolution of 1848 as the crucible in which he formed his concept of revolution, leading him to revolutionize the hero of his first novel and providing the origin of the ideas of contrast between Hamlet and Don Quixote. States that the controversy surrounding the 189 portrait of Bazarov after the publication of Fathers and Sons was, in fact, a controversy about revolution. Concludes that for Turgenev, revolution means pressure “guided by the educated class in the name of greater civilization.” 15 Halliday, James. “Literary Dialogue in Fathers and Sons.” SSR 2: 89-105. Tries to reassess the main female character, Anna Odincova, in Fathers and Sons, maintaining that (mainly Western) critics’ “sweeping generalizations” have resulted in a negative picture of Odincova with “little bearing on the actual text.” Analyzes sentence by sentence the conversational interaction in the dialogue between Bazarov and Odincova in Chapter Sixteen, examining the modal incongruities in their dialogue up to the final moment of their misunderstanding. Finds that it is Odincova who develops the conversation and tries to revive it when it falters and that “Odincova’s contribution regularly contains an empathic element to which Bazarov consistently fails to respond,” while Bazarov’s contribution contains “an epistemic mode instead.” Maintains that Odincova is “a woman in conflict with herself,” whose “action and speech remain within a deontic framework,” strongly refuting criticism that she is “a passive and apathetic” woman and even the agent of Bazarov’s destruction. Recalls that nineteenth-century Russian critics did not share the negative image of Odincova expressed by Western critics and that Soviet critics usually depict her “as a woman of exceptional qualities.” 16 Harkins, William E. “Vajansky and Turgenev.” Slovakia 30: 92-99. Examines Slovakian writer Vajansky’s dependence on Turgenev, discussing Vajansky’s novel The Dry Branch (1884) and the collective work On Basnarov Hill and Other Sketches (1880-1883). Draws similarities between the two authors, including the premise of a stranger returning home to the country and the theme of superfluity. Refutes Vaj ansky’s dependence on Turgenev, finding that his constraint of form and 190 strong interest in the action of social groups evince his originality. Acknowledges two features common to the works of both writers: ambiguity of treatment of ideological heroes and portrayal of the passive human mass. Concludes that Vajansky had his own individuality though in some ways he is congenial to Turgenev. l7 Harvie, J. A. “Turgenev’s Swan-Song, Iaara Milic.” NZSJ: 105-121. Maintains that the occultist motif in Turgenev’s swan-song, Klara Mililf, is a reflection of an aspect of his personality developed from his romantic poetry through his stories in the fifties. Briefly explains the plot of the story, examining the philosophical and spiritual problems depicted in the psychology of Aratov and Klara Milic’. Finds fundamental links between them in their worship of the ideal and asceticism. Regards Aratov’s experience of the discamated Klara as “demon-possession,” seeing Aratov’s frequent mention of his relationship with Klara in terms of power and subordination. Pays attention to “anti-Christian” elements in the story: Klara gets the right to possess Aratov by her voluntary death; and Old Platosa, a good example of the conventional Christian, is “somewhat satirically portrayed by author.” Finds in Klara MiliE the understanding of the continuing life of nature as “the pledge of personal immortality” set forth at the conclusion of Fathers and Sons. 18 Heier, Edmund. “Duty and Inclination in Turgenev’s Faust.” In Crisis and Commitment: Studies in German and Russian Literature in Honour of J. W. Dyck. Edited by John Whiton and Harry Loewen. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, pp. 78-86. Singles out the predominant theme in Turgenev’s Faust as the “inevitable conflict of duty and inclination in life” preventing man from achieving love. Discusses influence of Western philosophy on Turgenev. Holds that Turgenev’s own philosophic pessimism harmonizes with the literary theme in his Faust. Discusses Turgenev’s philosophical state of mind at the time of writing the story, finding in Turgenev’s 1856 191 letter to Mar’ ja Tolstaja, Tolstoj’s sister and the model for Vera, that he was in a spiritual crisis, in which he could not balance reason and feeling. Briefly explains the form and content of the story. Finds similarity between the premonition of Vera’s death and that of Grechen from Goethe’s Faust and compares Pavel’s, who promises Vera great enjoyment in literature to Mephistopheles. Holds that in the story Turgenev’s philosophical state of mind is reflected in Pavel’s inability to combine his personal desire and public obligation and also in the teaching of Vera’s mother of choosing either the useful or the pleasant. Maintains that Turgenev, unable to reconcile duty and obligation, chose the Kantian concept of strict adherence to duty as “the only means of survival.” 19 Henry, Peter. “Death of Ivan Turgenev.” SSR 2:82-87. A reprint of 1883.1, along with a comment on the obituary. Mentions the staggering mistakes and lack of first hand knowledge about Turgenev on the part of the anonymous writer of the obituary, pointing out the failure to mention Turgenev’s visit to Scotland in 1871, misinformation on Turgenev’s forced political exile in Western Europe, and on Turgenev’s fortune in having good translators. 20 Kagan-Kans, Eva. “Ivan Turgenev and Henry James: First Love and Daisy Miller.” In American Contribution to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists Held in Kiev, September 1983. Vol. 2. Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 251-265. Compares Turgenev’s First Love with J arnes’s Daisy Miller. Sees the selective, economical use of significant detail in these works as the salient feature of Turgenev and James as opposed to the French naturalists. Discusses the role of landscape in First Love, which not only “merges with the emotion of protagonists” but also “shades them and thus explains them.” Notes that in both works female protagonists with their great emotional substance take the central position and that they “act out their natures 192 unconsciously.” Regards Zinaida with her “not unequivocally pure and childishly innocent” character as a counterpart of Daisy Miller. Notes the striking similar reception given to both stories in Russia and America. Praises Turgenev’s tremendous ability to “convert a humiliating existence into poeticized perception” in First Love. 21 Knowles, A. V. Preface to T‘urgenev’s Letters. Translated and Edited by A. V. Knowles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. ix-xiii. Discusses Turgenev’s notable output of letters in Russian, French, German, and English, emphasizing the rarity of errors in spelling, grammar, or expression. Ascribes the existence of huge amount of letters to his eagerness “to keep in touch with the Russia he loved.” Recounts the salient features of his correspondence, finding much of it ephemeral, and noting that it was in letters to women that Turgenev more often discussed matters closest to his heart, with his letters to Pauline Viardot similar to a detailed diary. Notes features of Turgenev’s personality found in his letters. 22 Landor, Mikhail. “A Hunter’s Sketches as Read Today.” SL, no. 12: 160-167. Traces interpretations of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter by British and American writers and critics, noting two different perspectives on the works, which focus either on pure artistry or political aim. Strongly supports the second approach maintaining that the work, aimed against serfdom, opened a new literary road from Flaubert’s Madame Bovary to Conrad. Points out that the tradition of the cohesive collection of stories of Notes of a Hunter was followed not only by the collections of stories of foreign writers, but also by those of Russian writers such as Gor’kij (Through Russia) Babel (Red Cavalry), and V. Suksin ( Country Dwellers and Characters). 193 23 Lee, Nicholas. “Exposure to European Culture and Self-Discovery for Russian and Americans in the Fiction of Ivan Turgenev and Henry James.” In American Contribution to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists Held in Kiev, September 1983. Vol. 2. Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 267-283. Studies Turgenev’s and J ames’s treatment of Russians and Americans in Europe in their international fiction, concluding that James, whose approach in creating a fictional situation out of a moral problem was similar to Turgenev’s, was not restricted by a single set of moral prescriptions, but lacked in social conscience, a characteristic indistinguishable from Turgenev’s aestheticism. Analyzes Asja and Daisy Miller, illustrating the basic differences between the way in which the two authors treat the theme of exposure to European culture and self-discovery. Finds in these stories that both authors use love as a “metaphor illustrating ambiguities inseparable from the anomalies of life in unfamiliar cultural circumstances.” Discusses various adulterous relationships set in Europe in A Nest of the Gentry, Smoke, and Spring Torrents, in which a Russian woman’s adultery brings tragedy to Russian male protagonists. Notes a peculiarly Russian aspect of morality in that the male protagonist “renounces passion until he can realize it in love.” 'n/ 24 Levin, IU. D. “Turgenev’s Project for a Historical Novel.” CASS 17, no. 1: 49- 78. Collects and interprets information from Mérimée’s fourteen letters to Turgenev written from 1865 to 1868 about Turgenev’s projected novel on a sectarian leader of the seventeenth century, the Suzdal priest Nikita Dobrynin, called ‘Pustosvjat.’ Finds that in his novel on Pustosvj at, Turgenev attempted to depict a sectarian revolt under the leadership of a fanatical and despotic leader who had had strong passion for the past and did not know how the revolt would threaten the development of the Russian state. Notes that Turgenev also intended to portray the education of the young Peter the Great. Supposes that Turgenev’s intention for the novel might have been to suggest the need of 194 such reform in his time as in that of Peter the Great. Cites possible reasons why Turgenev did not write the projected novel, including his long stay abroad. 25 Lowe, David. Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 165pp. Maintains that the literary importance of Fathers and Sons has been frequently underestimated and misunderstood by critics, who have been inclined to interpret the novel within too limited and too limiting a context, concentrating too much on topical issues, mainly Bazarov’s nihilism. Examines Fathers and Sons within a variety of frameworks: the novel as an “autonomous” imaginative work, as a reflection of the 18608, as a part of Turgenev’s “oeuvre,” and as a work of Russian literature. Discusses structure, characterization and imagery, the novel’s historical background, and its place in the history of Russian literature. Finds that the narrative in Fathers and Sons has formal and thematic similarities with his other work, yet in many ways is a distinct exception within the context of Turgenev’s “oeuvre.” Concludes that Fathers and Sons reflects many literary features of Puskin, Lermontov, and Gogol’ while introducing themes and the methods that foreshadow the future development of the Russian novel. 26 ------- Introduction to Turgenev, Letters. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: Ardis, pp. 9-11. Advises the English-speaking reader who wants to understand Turgenev first- hand to read his letters. Acknowledges his tremendous command of languages and understanding of various cultures. Notes Turgenev’s extensive interests, especially in literature, found in his letters. Remarks that Turgenev’s letters were written “in a philosophical frame of mind.” Explains the criteria for selecting 334 letters in the first volume. 195 27 Marsh, Cynthia. “Turgenev and Corot: An Analysis of the Comparison.” SEER 61, no. 1: 107-117. Gives an account of the artistic interrelationship between Turgenev and Corot, the French landscape painter. Analyzes, as an example, a scene from the narrator- hunter’s meditation in Kas ’jan from Fair Springs from Notes of a Hunter, analyzing Turgenev’s “compositional synaesthesia.” Finds in the text the following devices with which Turgenev achieves painterly effects: estrangement of the text from its surroundings by changing the mode of narration and providing rich visual stimuli for the reader; the use of balance and symmetry; the use of aural appeal to reinforce the visual experience; vowel orchestration with the dominant vowel “u” and the patterning of consonants; and use of color and light. Finds striking similarity between the landscapes of Corot and those depicted in Turgenev’s texts in their balance between the background and figures, wind effects, and direct emotional impact. Concludes, however, that the closest resemblance between them does not lie in techniques but in their strongly-felt “interpretive presence.” 28 Mersereau, Jr., John. “Don Quixote - Bazarov - Hamlet.” In American Contribution to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists Held in Kiev, September 1983. Vol. 2. Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 345-355. Attempts an objective analysis of Turgenev’s delineation of Bazarov in Fathers and Sons, focusing exclusively on the text. Maintains that Bazarov is the fast character in the history of Russian literature who shows a “basic personality change which is fully motivated and explained by the details of his literary context.” Finds the existence of two Bazarovs, the skeptical one at the end of the novel and the dynamic one at the beginning, not a creative error, but rather an achievement anticipated by the two contrasting types of personality set forth in Turgenev’s 1860 essay Hamlet and Don Quixote. 196 29 Moser, Charles A. “Turgenev and the Aesthetics of the Whole Man.” TRaRAS 16: 19-30. Discusses Turgenev’s aesthetics. Regards him as a realist, steering a course between the radical critics and the aesthetic camp, combining the latter’s belief in the central importance of art with the dedication to the idea and intellect of the former. Link’s Turgenev’s aesthetics to his dispute against Fet’s idea on art and the intellect, his clash with Tolstoj’s historical theories, and antipathy toward radical writers. Lists the “constituent elements of artistic creativity” which Turgenev acknowledges: importance of beauty and intellect, artistic style and form, use of image, intuitive understanding of reality, and inner freedom to be able to follow the truth of reality, with the conclusion that “Turgenev embraced the aesthetics of the whole man.” 30 Mostovskaia, N. N. “Soviet Turgenev Scholarship of the Last Decade.” CASS 17, no. 1: 89-108. Traces the following trends and tendencies in Turgenev studies in the contemporary Soviet Union: active studies on Turgenev’s manuscripts and his letters found in Soviet and foreign archives, particularly the publications of the Collected Worlm and Letters of Turgenev and its second expanded and revised edition The Works and Letters of Turgenev; studies on Turgenev’s relation to the Russian revolutionary movement; studies on the artistic specifics of Turgenev’s realistic craft and on his poetic systems mainly done by G. A. Bialyi and G. B. Kurliandskaia; comparative topological studies on Turgenev’s personal and artistic contacts with his contemporary writers, predecessors and successors, including recently intensified studies of the positive links of Turgenev and Dostoevskij; and studies of Turgenev’s literary ties to French, English, American, German, Belgian, Slavic, Scandinavian, and Japanese writers. 197 31 Motyleva, Tamara. “The Novelists’ Novelist: Turgenev as Seen by Foreign Writers.” SL, no. 12: 150-160. Discusses Turgenev’s influence on the history of the novel, tracing assessments of him by writers such as Flaubert, Maupassant, James, A. Maurois, T. Mann, Hemingway and by critics such as R. Rolland, J. Galsworthy, J. Reed, V. S. Pritchett, S. Lewis. Praises Turgenev as an artist with lively social interest who is not only deeply attached to his native land but also has “international breadth of vision.” 32 Muchnic, Helen. “Turgenev: The Music of His Face.” TRaRAS 16: 3-17. Attempts to define Turgenev’s elusive literary physiognomy. Discusses Turgenev’s philosophy, his Westernism and “immortal beauty” derived from German philosophical idealism. Maintains that hostile criticism of Turgenev’s work by publicists was due to their failure to understand the art of Turgenev, who looked at problems in Russia “with a poet’s eye.” Sees all of Turgenev’s protagonists as superfluous— either egoistic Hamlets or self-sacrificing Don Quixotes, calling him “the poet of failure.” Finds Turgenev’s moral, intellectual, and aesthetic core in his understanding of short- lived manifestations of beauty as “life’s only saving grace.” Compares Turgenev with Dostoevskij and Tolstoj, concluding that Turgenev with his objective observation gives the reader “the pleasure of recognition,” while the other two offer “the shock of discovery.” 33 Murphy, A. B. “Turgenev and Flaubert- A Contrast in Styles.” NZSJ: 143-160. Analyzes the degree of Flaubert’s influence on Turgenev’s literary style. Concludes that Flaubert’s stylistic influence is slight and “negligible.” Studies their 3 similarities and differences in the following four areas: formal and objective approach, imagery, use of indirect speech, and rhythms. Maintains that Turgenev’s formal and Objective approach is more focused than that of Flaubert, that his imagery is confined to 198 one detail while Flaubert’s is extended to elaborate length. Contrasts Turgenev’s use of indirect speech, with which he conveys “the mental process of his characters,” with that of Flaubert, who uses it to “help in providing the drearn-like, insubstantial atmosphere.” Also contrasts Turgenev’s “double rhythms,” with Flaubert’s “triple beats” when in the lyrical mode. 34 Pahomov, George. In Earthbound Flight: Romanticism in Turgenev. Rockville, Maryland: Victor Kamkin Book, 224 pp. Analyzes some works of Turgenev with the intent to show that his creativity has its wellspring in Romanticism, since his earliest work, poetry, exhibits Romantic traits with a recurring attention to the theme of love. Examines the influence of the Russian Romantics on Turgenev, paying particular attention to the application of the Romantic conception of love to Turgenev’s own poetry. Surveys Turgenev’s prose work of the forties and fifties, in which the Romantic conception of love, woman and nature are major motifs. Points out that after 1860 there is remarkable change in Turgenev’s description of women: they become “malevolent seducers” such as Zinaida in First Love, Ellis in Phantoms, Irina in Smoke, Polozova in Spring Torrents and Klara Milié. Also finds that Turgenev’s concept of love undergoes a corresponding change; from an ennobling emotion to a ruinous disease. Traces the influence of Turgenev’s poetry on his prose, not only in the importance of the theme of love and woman but also in its manner of expression. Affirms. the central role of women as the object of love and the repository of the ideals for the heroes’ yeamings. Discusses the role of nature as the best means for rendering emotion. 35 ------- “Nature and the Use of Paradox in Turgenev.” TRaRAS 16:47-56. Shows how descriptions of nature “infused” in “inert passages” in Turgenev’s works create a “dynamic staticity,” arouse tension through “paradoxical tropes,” fulfill 199 the need for a dynamic element and “perform the functions of narrative that elsewhere are fulfilled by other means.” Shows examples of dynamic staticity from A Quiet Spot, Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, and The Diary of a Superfluous Man. Finds that the essential paradox in Turgenev’s works is augmented by chiaroscuro, intermediate states, and contrast. Notes that nature is also used as a kind of field of action, often becoming an extension of women, when women are described. 36 Shatalov, Stanislav. “Chronicler of Russian Spiritual Life.” SL, no. 12: 138-144. Deems Turgenev a great artist as well as “an outstanding thinker” who created concrete images of recurrent social types by means of psychological analysis. Maintains that Turgenev created a new kind of moral and political novel in which “a thinking hero,” who demonstrates his ability to understand individual life and “the evolution of whole social strata,” takes centrer stage. Discusses the intellectual progress in the protagonists of Rudin, 0n the Eve, Fathers and Sons, and Smoke, finding that except Rudin, all Turgenev’s novels have symbolic titles pointing to the kernel of the problem. Notes Turgenev’s exceptional ability to foresee the future and to depict vividly what he senses. 37 Smyrniw, Walter. “I. S. Turgenev and Bettina von Amim’s Depictions of Nature: Creative Aff'mities and Divergencies.” CSP 35, no. 1: 13-24. Regards German writer Bettina von Amim as Turgenev’s teacher of nature, discussing the role of nature description in Arnim’s novels and in Turgenev’s writings of the 1840s and examining his draft letter to Amirn written in his student days at the University of Berlin. Traces Amim’s strong influence on Turgenev’s nine “Countryside” poems and Notes of a Hunter, particularly with respect to the following literary techniques and devices: utilizing personal traveling experience in order to describe people from all walks of life; integration of nature description into the general narrative; 200 detailed descriptions of their native region; accounts of changes in nature during a twenty-four hour period; first person narrative; and frequent extensive lyrical digressions. Emphasizes, however, that Turgenev modified Arnim’s nature description’s into his own, and did not Turgenev assimilate Arnim’s pantheistic conception of nature. 38 Stephens, Robert 0. “Cable and Turgenev: Learning How to Write a Modern Novel.” StuN 15: 237-248. Discusses Turgenev’s influence on the American writer George W. Cable’s mid-career works, comparing Turgenev’s Smoke with Cable’s The Grandissimes. Maintains that Cable learned the following techniques from Turgenev: beginning the novel scenically; making key details of a scene show the psychology of characters; giving the novel “cultural significance” by having main characters embody different perspectives on culture. Also points out the influence of Turgenev’s peasant stories on Cable’s mid-career works, such as Bonaventure, and the collections works of Acadian stories. 39 Urbanic, Allen J and Barbara T. “Ivan Turgenev: A Bibliography of Criticism in English, 1960-83.” CASS 17, no. 1: 118-143. Notes a great surge in the study of Turgenev in the West. Contains the bibliographies of criticism on Turgenev in English which are arranged alphabetically and chronologically from 1960 to 1983. 40 Waddington, Patrick. “A Catalogue of Letters by I. S. Turgenev to Pauline and Louis Viardot.” NZSJ: 249-284. Presents a catalogue of all the known Turgenev epistolary items, including some telegrams, and excluding some unpublished correspondence with the Viardot children, which are in Beaulieu archives. Arranges the items by place, date of composition, and opening passage. Mentions that there are many errors of spelling in the French and 201 German made by Turgenev in the letters and that in his correspondence “he regularly called Pauline Viardot ‘Theuerste F reundin[n]. ’” 41 ------- “I. S. Turgenev and the International Literary Congress of 1878.” NZSJ: 37-70. Describes Turgenev’s role in the International Literary Congress of 1878 held in Paris. Recounts his hesitation to attend it because of bad physical and mental condition, his being elected chairman of the congress, his speech, and his relatively poor performance as chairman. Explains in detail the endeavor of Turgenev and other Russian delegates who, aware that it was illegal to reprint foreign works in Russia, tried to soften the French delegations’s prosposal aimed at tighter protection of literary property by restricting reproduction, quotation, and translation of original works. Finds that at the Congress Russian delegates came to realize that thanks to Turgenev, Russian literature had gained in world prominence. 42 ------- “More Turgenev Autograph Letters to Various Recipients.” NZSJ: 223- 247. - Finds an unpublished Turgenev letter to Princess A. A. Trubeckaja dated 28 March 1865 in a Sotheby auction catalogue, as well as a half-page letter added to a letter of Charles Gounod to Pauline Viardot on 2-3 April 1850, citing text of those letters. Finds out from the first letter that Turgenev read only the first 38 chapters of War and Peace up until 1865. Also discovers that the Bibliothéque Nationale has many unpublished Turgenev’s letters to Isaak Pavlovskij. Cites full texts of twelve of Turgenev’s letters to Pauline and Louis Viardot, Ralston, V. Hugo, M. Dudevant-Sand, Louis Leger, and Paul Deroulede, giving annotation with biographical details of Turgenev and also finding some new biographical facts on Turgenev. 43 ------- “Some Gleanings on Turgenev and his International Connections, with Notes on Pauline Viardot and Her Family.” NZSJ: 175-221. 202 Consists of following twelve independent sub-articles: Turgenev and Xavier Marmier; Turgenev and Brahms; Turgenev and D. D. Home; Turgenev and George Moore; Turgenev and Maria Edgeworth: A contribution to the debate; More echoes of Turgenev’s last visit to England; Pauline Viardot (on the Turgenev and her husband final ilhiesses); John Cowper Powys on Turgenev; Pauline Viardot-Garcia: a Frenchwoman or a Spaniard?; The Viardots’ house in the rue de Douai; Pauline Viardot’s organ; and some amendments and additions to the Garcia and Viardot genealogies. Surveys the relationship between Turgenev and the French Russianist Xavier Marrnier, who translated six of Turgenev’s stories, suggesting the possibility that one of the two works of Turgenev translated in 1862 and 1863, The Jew and Fathers and Sons, might have been done by Marrnier. Finds in a book by Anna Schoen-Rene, one of Pauline Viardot’s students, hat Brahms “was greatly impressed and inspired by Turgenev.” Cautiously suggests the possibility of a connection between a notorious Scottish-American medium and Turgenev’s renewed interest in spiritual phenomena around the year 1860. Recounts George Moore’s first and only meeting with Turgenev in Paris on 29 April 1879 and Moore’s assessment of Turgenev. Deems Moore’s literary debt to Turgenev “rather a matter of echoes than of influence.” Claims that Turgenev got his interest in Irish novelist Maria Edgeworth from his elder brother Nikolaj, reinterpreting a disputable obituary of Ivan Turgenev published in the Daily News of 7 September 1883. Traces Turgenev’s last trip to England in the second half of October 1881, citing the correspondence of Turgenev’s acquaintances. Refutes criticism that Pauline Viardot displayed a hostile attitude toward Turgenev during his last days, contending that her letters to her son written in those days showed unceasing care for both Turgenev and her husband. Finds an undated article of John Cowper Powys, known as one of the supporters of the “Dostoevskij cult,” in which Powys criticized Dostoevskij for his “demonic” caricaturing of Turgenev. Also discusses some biographical details on Pauline Viardot. 203 44 Wasiolek, Edward. “Bazarov and Odintsova.” CASS 17, no. 1:39-48. Briefly discusses trends of criticism on Bazarov. Highly praises view of Soviet critic Pustovoit who focuses on Bazarov’s shortcomings and his spiritual bankruptcy caused by Odincova’s rejection of his love. Sees Bazarov as a representative of the radicals of the fifties. Maintains that by demonstrating how quickly Bazarov is toppled by Odincova who is stronger than he, Turgenev “pushes down the fulcrum” of the radicals’ claim that man can take command of his and other’s lives by their will and reason. 45 Wheeler, Marcus. “Turgenev and Joseph Conrad: Literary and Philosophical Links.” SEER 61, no. 1: 118-124. Finds Turgenev’s impact on Conrad not only in literary form and style, but also in the realm of philosophy, tracing Conrad’s own statements about Turgenev and certain of his works. Suggests the possibility that Conrad encountered Turgenev’s works earlier than he did Constance Gamett’s. Assays their philosophical kinship including a shared cosmopolitanism, distaste for Dostoevskij ’8 religious philosophy, respect for nature and interest in political issues. 46 'Eekulin, Nicholas G. “Turgenev and Anglo-Irish Writers: 1. Maria Edgeworth.” CSP 25, no. 1: 25-40. Discusses Turgenev’s debt to Irish novelist Maria Edgeworth. Finds parallels between Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter and Edgeworth’s works, mainly Castle Rackrent and The Absentee, in such devices as a largely plotless structure simply depicting a wide social spectrum, “maintenance of ironic distance,” rare intervention by the author and “consequent reliance on direct speech.” Finds the most salient aff‘mity between Turgenev and Edgeworth in their sympathetic attitude toward peasants, and in the belief in “the peasants’ basic value as individual human beings.” 204 47 ------- “Turgenev’s Kroket v Vindzore (‘Croquet at Windsor’) NZSJ: 85-103. Discusses Turgenev’s poem Croquet at Windsor in which Turgenev clearly depicts his view of British moral responsibility in the atrocities in Bulgaria after the abortive Bulgarian uprising of May 1876. Describes Turgenev’s anxiety about the atrocities, citing his letters to his acquaintances. Notes the literary influence of Lewis Caroll’s The Adventure of Alice in Wonderland and Shakespeare’s Macbeth on imagery in the poem. Cites articles in French papers reporting the poem’s great popularity in Russia. Summarizes the history of the translation of the poem by Anna Baratynskaja, supplementing and correcting the findings of Soviet critic V. N. Stefanovié. 48 Zohrab, Irene. “Turgenev and Dostoyevsky: A Reconsideration and a Suggested Attribution.” NZSJ: 123-141. Attempts to reconsider relations between Turgenev and Dostoevskij, examining how they were reflected in the journal Gratdanin during Dostoevskij ’s editorship from 1 January 1873 to 15 April 1874. Finds that references to Turgenev in the columns written by Dostoevskij are mainly positive and respectful. Maintains that positive comments on Turgenev’s A Living Relic in the journal was actually written by Dostoevkij and that “Dostoevskij polemicised with Turgenev in The Possessed,” considering harmful side- effects of bazarovscina, even though he had initially respected Turgenev’s creation. Denies that Karrnazinov in The Possessed is a parody of Turgenev, finding no specific reference. Suggests similarities between Karrnazinov and Kararnzin. Regrets that some important letters of Dostoevskij to Turgenev “remain unavailable to scholars.” 49 Zweers, A. F. “The Influence of Ivan Turgenev on Marcellus Emants: A Suffering versus a Dogmatic Pessimist” CSP 25, no. 141-53. Discusses the possibility of Turgenev’s influence on the Dutch writer Marcellus Emants, surveying the artistic expression of the world views in works of both writers. 205 Believes that Emants’s novella Mastazza was written under the influence of Turgenev’s Smoke. Finds that Emants’s basic and central theme of “the naive male’s downfall as the result of the manipulation of a calculating woman” is matched well by the relationship between Irina-Litvinov and Mar’ ja N ikolaevna-Sanin. Also finds differences between them in their concept of pessimism, calling Emants’s pessimism dogmatic in the sense that Emants proves with great determination the logical ground for his pessimism, while Turgenev’s pessimism arises from the longing to ameliorate suffering. 1984 1 Allen, Elizabeth Cheresh. “Turgenev’s Narrative Voices.” RL 16: 333-346. Discusses narrative point of view in Turgenev’s prose fiction. Disputes the wide spread opinion that Turgenev’s narrative, whether written in the first or third person, presents “a monological perspective on characters and events,” arguing that Turgenev not only shifts the role of narrator from one character to another but also changes the narrative mode, “the combination of formal and functional features that express narrative point of view.” Explains Turgenev’s use of the three basic narrative modes- apperception, identification, and autonomy-- in his prose fiction, finding them frequently interwoven in a single work, making for very complex patterns of narration. Concludes that although Turgenev’s narrative style is not monological, neither is it “polyphonic” in the Baxtinian sense, but rather in that it has a “plurality of interdependent and complementary voices and consciousnesses” which “reflect an individual’s discovery and the expression of the complex diversity of the human psyche and of human experience.” Maintains that Turgenev’s novel is much closer to the “self—conscious novel” than to the nineteenth-century objective realistic novel. 2 Anderton, Nicholas. “Lord Dufferin and Turgenev.” ISS 5: 163-166. 206 Discusses the relationship between Turgenev and the British Ambassador to Russia Lord Dufferin, analyzing an unpublished letter of Turgenev to Dufferin written on 10 March 1880, in which Turgenev expressed his regret that he could not accept Lady Dufferin’s invitation to the British Embassy in St. Petersburg. Recalls how the two men met at Oxford, where they both received the honorary Doctor of Civil Law degree on 18 June 1879. Infers that their relationship was a positive one. 3 Bortnes, Jostein. “The Poetry of Pros-- the Art of Parallelism in 'lhrgenev’s Omuu u Hemu.” ScaS 30: 30-55. Examines the system of poetic devices in Fathers and Sons, focusing on narrative structure with the understanding that “in the novel, the act of telling and the story told, narrator and characters are part of the narrative fiction.” Also treats two devices for the description of the character’s state of mind: “bringing Self and setting together in a parallelism” and the use of the subconscious and dreams. Pays particular attention to the symbolic meaning of a poetic juxtaposition of the “two units from different planes of the text”: the episode of Bazarov’s death and the Resurrection of Christ depicted in the fresco in the church at Anna Sergeevna’s estate, which is “the symbol of a love which conquers death.” Maintains that by applying the principle of parallelism, Turgenev completely changes the basic relationships between the major characters in the course of the novel,” with the result that the novel’s characters appear either “as symbolic representations of love in its vital, lifegiving aspect,” or as tragic, destructive forces. 4 Brang, Peter. “Turgenev and the -Ism.” RL 16: 305-322. Attributes the difficulty in pinning down Turgenev’s literary mode in that he “participated, actually or implicitly, in many -isms or codes.” Recounts features of romanticism in Turgenev’s work such as Romantic heroes connected by German culture 207 and idealism, and Romantic themes and motifs. Examines criticism on Turgenev’s romanticism in Soviet Union. Also treats realistic aspects of Turgenev, along with his sparing use of the grotesque and satire. Discusses two different assessments of Turgenev in the circle of Russian symbolists: that of Mereikovskij, Belyj, and Bal’mont and others, who considered Turgenev as “a herald of the new idealistic art,” and another group of symbolists, including Brjusov and Blok, who regarded him as a typical realist. Suggests that more work is needed on the interrelationship between content and literary form and style, concordances of Turgenev’s works, and comparisons of Turgenev’s texts with those of Cexov and Tolstoj in order to understand Turgenev’s impressionism. Also calls Western Turgenevists’ attention to Soviet criticism on Turgenev’s symbolism. 5 Busch, R. L. “Turgenev’s Ottsy ideti and Dostoevskii’s Besy.” CSP 36, no. 1: 1- 9. Posits a connection between Fathers and Sons and Dostoevskij ’s The Possessed, both of which deal with conflict between generations. Finds the genuineness of Dostoevskij ’s larnpoon of Turgenev in The Possessed questionable. Finds Fathers and Sons and The Possessed to differ in historical perspective (the former neglecting the rift between generations, the latter emphasizing of the ties of succession between them), narrative technique (extensive information given when introducing major characters vs. gradual disclosure), satire (partial vs. all-encompassing), plot (love story paramount over political, and vice versa), literary mode (psychological realism vs. neo-gothic), and thematic resolution (one barely touching on religion, the other drawing heavily on metaphysics and religion). Finds the works similar in that both concern with the connection between anti-aestheticism and the radicals, “the misanthropic destructive essence of nihilism,” the tie between nihilism and death, and the use of parodic doubles. 6 Clayton, J. Douglas. “Night and Wind: Images and Allusions as the Source of the Poetic in Turgenev’s Rudin.” CSP 26, no. 1: 10-14. 208 Examines the poetic elements of Rudin, focusing on image-sets and literary allusions. Maintains that image-sets found all through the novel create “a metaphorical level of meaning” and that literary allusions, especially to Goethe’s Erlking, “function in an analogous fashion.” Discusses Turgenev’s use of details such as trees and fire as stage-settings and irnageries. Finds that Turgenev’s use of imagery “parallels the use of stage-setting” and that his tree imagery in the novel “oscillates between metonymy and metaphor.” Also discusses how three elements in Erlking (“an ambience of night and wind,” “eloquent, seductive speeches of the Erlking,” and “the death of the son”) relate to Rudin. Concludes that “Turgenev’s world is one in which sunlit fields and storrn- tossed nights co-exist, complementing each other in an eternal dialectic.” 7 Costlow, Jane. “The Death of Rhetoric in Rudin.” RL 16: 375-384. Sees Turgenev as attaining synthesis of poetry and truth in Rudin. Analyzes verbal disparities between word and reality in the novel, focusing on those between Rudin’s words and deed. Denies that Leinev is Turgenev’s mouthpiece. Shows how narrative elements woven of everyday conversation and the interplay of multiple voices replace rhetoric, enabling Turgenev to reach a verbal truth based upon the “monologic eloquence” of Rudin’s Romantic idealism. 8 Culianu-Georgescu, Carmen. “Turgenev’s A Month in the Country and Balzac’s La Maratre.” RL 16: 385-410. Refutes the claim made by Grossman in his Teatr Turgeneva that Turgenev’s A Month in the Country is an imitation of Balzac’s La Maratre. Argues that the points of resemblance pointed out by Grossman, except that of the theme of the rivalry of two women for the love of one man, are inaccurate. Expounds differences between the two works: relations between the main characters, their development, the set of characters, pace of action, and devices. Concludes that A Month in the Country is not an imitation, 209 but rather an original play which opened “new perspectives for further developments of European theater” with the presentation of “its then most unusual dramatic situation.” 9 Donskov, Andrew. “Turgenev and Drama.” RLJ 38, No. 131: 103-112. Examines Turgenev’s concepts of drama based on his essay Neskol’ko slov o komedii g. Ostrovskogo Bednaja Nevesta and reviews as those of Faust, S. A. Gedeonov’s Smert’ Ljapunova, N. V. Kukol’nik’s General-pomcik. Emphasizes Turgenev’s conception of the theater as “the most spontaneous of creations of the entire society, a sum total of life’s experiences and the generalization of those experiences.” Finds that Turgenev’s ideas diverge from the Russian dramatic tradition in that he opposes what he refers to as descriptive monologues, the use of archaisms and the inclusion of foreign words and pays particular attention to “the improvisational tone of communication as well as the speed and the direction of the action.” Also examines salient characteristics of Turgenev’s own achievement in drama, namely “his new approach to characterization, structure, dialogue and setting and the quality of mood.” Regards Turgenev’s humor as “the most life-giving elements of theatrical art.” Discusses how Turgenev uses setting in A Month in the Country “to create mood, explain character, and reveal the inner meaning of the drama.” Maintains that Turgenev’s drama is not only a link between the theater of Ostrovskij and that of Cexov, but also anticipates the latter’s techniques. ‘ 10 Freeborn, Richard. “A Centenary Tribute to Turgenev.” JES 14: 155-171. Assesses Turgenev’s literature in general. Sees Turgenev as the most European of Russian writers, seeking to interpret changes in life through his characters who usually have the two-fold limitation of being rational beings as well as transitory insignificant creatures. Praises his impartiality and desire to seek the truth. Discusses Turgenev’s impartial treatment of revolution and love in his works. Believes that 210 Turgenev matches Tolstoj and surpasses Dostoevskij in objectifying the experience of the past. Notes how Turgenev’s laconic humor, summoning a smile rather than laughter, enriches his truthful observation. Also points out shortcomings, such as his lack of inventiveness and limited philosophy. 11 ------- “Turgenev, Gercen and the West.” In Alexander Gercen and European Culture. Edited by Monica Patridge. Nottingham: Astra Press, pp. 12-42. Discusses Gercen’s polemic with Turgenev over their stance toward the West. Traces their relation in detail, focusing on their shared revolutionary experience in 1848 and again at the time of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia. Regards Turgenev’s role in the revolutionary movement in Russia as diagnostic rather than prescriptive. Analyzes their correspondence, especially Gercen’s Ends and Beginning, which consists of eight open letters to an anonymous correspondent, who it is suggested, may be Turgenev. Maintains that the quarrel between Turgenev’s Romantic optimism for Westernism and Gercen’s opposition to the “bourgeois philistinism” of Western Europe represents “the ultimate crisis of Russian Westernism.” 12 Holquist, Michael. “Bazarov and Secenov: the Role of Scientific Metaphor in Fathers and Sons.” RL 16: 359-374. Discusses Bazarov’s Scientism reflected in his idiolect and the symbolic genealogy between Bazarov and the physiologist Ivan Seéenov. Describes Turgenev not only as an artist, but as a certain type of thinker, explaining his relationship with the major intellectual trends of his time, especially the mind/body duality in connection with nature. Regards Fathers and Sons as a kind of literary laboratory for the teaching of the new scientific psychology that thinking is an illusion based on an erroneous division between mind and body. Briefly mentions the change in the status of nature in literary trends, labeling Turgenev’s literary mode a synthesis avoiding the excesses of a Romantic feature at one extreme and a mechanistic naturalism at the other. Discusses 211 how Seéenev’s Scientism, or the notion of a language of facts, is reflected in Bazarov’s idiolect. Finds Bazarov’s use of scientific metaphors evidence of the inescapability of metaphor, even in science, and shows how a self-contradictory Scientism is the language of Bazarov, who fails to see that his Scientism is only one of the transient ideologies. Calls Bazarov a naturalist who metamorphoses into a Romantic poet. Notes the extrascientific implications of physiology, noting the irony that Sebenov, who was far from actually being a Nihilist, was accused by the authorities of just that under the influence of Bazarov. 13 Jackson, Robert L. “The Turgenev Question.” SewR 93: 300-309. Traces and comments upon trends of Turgenev criticism in Russia and the West and examines Turgenev’s own concept of art and the artist’s task as expressed in his letters to acquaintances. Finds the salient feature of Turgenev’s art in maintaining the “appearance of simplicity and homogeneity” while revealing the “full complexity and variety of individual and social consciousness.” Considers the assumption that the form of Turgenev’s work can be separated from a consideration of its inner content to be the most flawed notion in Turgenev criticism. Believes that there has not been a intensive and at the same time extensive criticism of Turgenev, and anticipates it in the future. 14 ------- “Turgenev’s The Inn: a Philosophical Novella.” RL 16: 411-419. Discusses the salient features of Turgenev’s story The Inn, focusing on the religious and philosophical meaning of the story. Mentions the implications of chance in the title Postojalyj dvor and in the life of protagonist. Notes the story’s simple and mysterious plot in the form of skaz, subtly interwoven text and subtext, artistry of language and imagery in the story. Finds that in the story the problem of social injustice amounts in Russia to a problem of theodicy, as in Dostoevskij’s Notes fi'om the House of the Dead and Brothers Karamazov. Maintains that Turgenev regarded the 212 smirennomudrie of the protagonist Akirn as the tragedy of Russian life and history, citing Turgenev’s letter to Pauline Viardot on December 7, 1847, in which he strongly negated religious resignation. 15 Johanson, Christine. “Turgenev’s Heroines: a Historical Assessment.” CSP 26, no. 1: 15-23. Discusses the historical authenticity of Turgenev’s depiction of mid-nineteenth- century Russian gentry women in Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, 0n the Eve, and Fathers and Sons, focusing on his portrayal of their social position, family life, and marital relationships. Maintains that even though Turgenev describes marital and family relationships of gentry women about the time of reform in Russia, he lacks insight into the early feminist movement and “his heroines do not reflect the attitudes and ambitions of the new woman” of those years. Believes that the tensions in those novels are based not on sex, but on social stratification. 16 Patterson, David. Introduction to the Diary of a Superfluous Man. Translated by David Patterson. W. W. Norton & Company: New York and London, pp. 5-8. Regards the superfluous man as a paradigm for characters in Turgenev’s fictions, as well as in the works of other writers, tracing the characters of that type from PuSkin’s Onegin to the title character of Cexov’s Ivanov in Russian literature, and also from Goethe’s Werther to A. Camus’s Meursault. Explains the meaning of the superfluous man based on the character type of Culkaturin in The Diary of a Superfluous Man. Notes the superfluity in Turgenev’s “men of the sixties.” Points out the resemblance between Culkaturin and Vasilij Vasil’i‘c' of Hamlet of the Sc'igrov District, as well as that between Culkaturin and Turgenev himself. Suggests that Turgenev acquired the concept of the superfluous man from Gercen. 213 17 Peterson, Dale E. “From Russia with Love: Turgenev’s Maidens and Howells’s Heroines.” CSP 36, no. 1:24-34. Gives an account of Turgenev’s influence on the heroines of Howells’s early novels, tracing Howells’s long relationship with Turgenev. Finds similarities between Natal ’ ja in Rudin and Kitty Ellison from Howells’s first novel A Chance Acquaintance (both have the run of an unsupervised family library, a capacity for imaginative extension without formal education, and a sharp and irreverent sense of humor.) Finds that Florida Vervain in Howells’s second novel A Foregone Conclusion has the boldness of Elena in On the Eve and the pious innocence of Liza Kalitina, and also ascribes to Lydia Blood in Howells’s third novel, The Lady of the Aroostook, various characteristics of Turgenev’s heroines. Maintains that this resemblance did not happen by accident, noting that Howells had written reviews on English translations of Turgenev’s works. Concludes that the most salient feature of the resemblance between the two authors lies in the creation of the formidable young girl with “maidenly delicacy and moral fortitude” carrying “the burden of a whole culture’s provincial naivété.” 18 ------- “The Origin and End of Turgenev’s Sportsman ’8 Notebook: the Poetic and Polities of a Precarious Balance.” RL 16: 347-358. Sees Notes of a Hunter as the integration of aesthetic narrative and political discourse. Studies the “actual code of articulation” in the work’s beginning story Xor’ and KalinyE and it’s last story Forest and Steppe and makes “wider macro observations” on the syntax and significance of the work. Notes “unmediated generic shifts” in both stories: from the voice of the “ethnographic typologist” to that of Gogolian skaz, and finally to the voice of reporter in the former, and from poema to narrative in the latter. Also notes a delicate symbiosis of contrastive types in both stories. Concludes that “the narrative syntax of conjoined antonyms” along with “strategic placement of conjunctive narratives” is the dominant compositional principle which gives Notes of a Hunter its “aesthetic and political integrity.” 214 19 Renaux, Sigrid. “Turgenev’s Doctor Shpigelsky: a Prototype for Shaw’s Professor Higgins?” RevL 33: 121-129. Draws parallels between Doctor Spigelskij in Turgenev’s play A Month in the Country and Professor Higgins in Pygmalion of the British dramatist George B. Shaw, suggesting the former as the prototype of the latter. Finds that both characters have similar attitudes of “masculine superiority and contempt for women,” while mitigating their “vain and bossy character” with a capacity for consideration. Sees both characters as the mouthpiece of their writers’ ideas on women. 20 Shapiro, Leonard. “Turgenev, Weak & Strong: a Writer in His Letters.” Encounter 2: 47-49. Suggests that Turgenev’s letters reveal more secrets about his inner personality, especially the relationship with Pauline Viardot, than his works, seeing Turgenev’s confession “my life is my works” as a “limited truth” Briefly mentions current publications of Turgenev’s letters. Maintains that sexual passion played a subordinate part in Turgenev’s life, citing his letters to music critic V. Stasov and his friend Annenkov in which Turgenev alluded to his relation to Pauline Viardot. Reviews Knowles’s anthology, Turgenev ’s Letters, praising its excellent translation and selection. 21 Silbajoris, Rimvydas. “Images and Structures in Turgenev’s Sportsman ’s Notebook.” SEEJ 28, no. 2: 180-191. Maintains that the poetic quality of Notes of a Hunter comes from “the relationship between the force of passion and that of harmoniously balanced artistic language which structures the passion into a literary text.” Discusses structural and stylistic devices such as “the creation of unique spatial settings within a large context,” the structural principle of framing, and clear allusions and references to myth and fairy tales, examining how those devices explicitly and implicitly engender “poetic images” and the “poetic logic of narration” in Notes of a Hunter. Finds a hidden literary parody 215 in The Singers of Karamzin’s Poor Liza, noting that parody i8 juxtaposed with a symbolic implication. Also finds in the inner structures of some stories possible reference to literary subtexts: Certopxanov and Nedopjuskin and The Death of Certopxanov to Lermontov’s Hero of Our Time, and Bezin Meadow to Sleeping Beauty. Briefly points out a Gogolian tendency in Notes of a Hunter (depicting the various characters as “deformed to the point of grotesque”), also finding differences between them in that Turgenev’s tales are “less suggestive of laughter than of tears” and in that Turgenev’s characters are much more realistic than Gogol’s. 22 Struc, Roman S. “Thomas Mann and Turgenev.” CSP 36, no. 1:35-41. Discusses the possible influence of Turgenev on Mann. Provides a critical review of T. J Reed’s article “Mann and Turgenev,” approving Reed’s view of thematic and formal similarities between them. Finds a thematic affinity between Turgenev’s Faust and Mann’s Tonio Kroger and also thematic and ideational affinities between Faust and Mann’s Tristan. Also suggests the influence of Fathers and Sons on Mann’s Magic Mountain written some twenty years after Turgenev’s direct influence came to an end, finding close parallels between the duels and their backgrounds in both works. Cites the superfluous men in Mann’s Der Bajazzo and Buddenbroolts as evidence of Turgenev’s influence. Concludes that Turgenev was not only one of Mann’s literary mentors in his early years but also was admired by Mann to the end of his life. 23 Todd III, William Mills. “‘Artistizm Turgeneva’ as a Structural Principle: Rudin and Cultural Grouping.” RL 16: 323-332. Discusses Turgenev’s mapping of three cultural groups, members of the gentry estate, members of the salon, and the radical student group of the 1830s and 18408 in Rudin, focusing on “the role of those groups in shaping Rudin’s actions and the reader’s perception of them.” Examines the ideology, discourse, and patterns of behavior of those 216 groups. Maintains that the special eloquence of the third group, including Rudin, stands out from “the faded wit” of the salon group and “the affectionate near-silence” of the first. Sees ijenbaum’s essay Artistizm Turgeneva as “a splendid, provocative stylization of the debates” over the past and future of the intelligentsia. Concludes that Rudin played a productive role in defining the terms of the debates largely because “it so artistically played off against each other the discourses, ideologies, and behavior of the cultural groups.” 24 Turner, Christopher. “Cexov’s The Betrothed and Turgenev’s 0n the Eve.” In Poetry, Prose, and Public Opinion: Aspect of Russia, 1850-1970. Edited by W. Harrison and A. Pyman. Letchworth: Avebury, 69-91. Compares Cexov’s short story The Betrothed and Turgenev’s novel 0n the Eve. Finds strong affinities of theme (the heroine’s emancipation from her home and in particular from her mother, the contrast between the stagnation of the old and the vision of the new), structure (emphasis on the depiction of the old), and sound effects (music, storm, and insect sounds) between the works. Also finds the works different in their means of introducing the protagonists, the presence or absence of love-intrigue, and ideological tone. Points out that the difference in the amount of background material and narrator’s point of view comes from a difference in literary norms: realist norms for On the Eve versus and impressionist norms for The Betrothed. 25 Waddington, Patrick. “Turgenev and Pauline Viardot: An Unofficial Marriage.” CanSP 26, no. 142-64. Maintains that Turgenev’s relationship with Pauline Viardot was not merely a friendship but an “unofficial marriage” in which Pauline not only enslaved and governed but encouraged and inspired Turgenev. Considers their affair both spiritual and carnal, examining Turgenev’s relations with other women and holding that Turgenev did not distinguish between the spiritual and the carnal. Traces the uniqueness of Turgenev’s forty-year affair with Pauline Viardot, dividing it into five periods: a fast period of 217 excitement, pursuit, and deepening love from the first meeting until 1850; a second period of six-year separation; a third period of “hopeless striving for a nest” until 1862; a fourth period in which Turgenev constantly stayed with Pauline; and a final period, from the Franco-Prussian war to Turgenev’s death. Assesses four different planes of Pauline’s influence on Turgenev’s writings: direct inspiration, his desire to please her, affecting him by suggestion, and his use of their love as a basis for his characters and plots. Finds more evidence for the validity of the first two planes than the last two. 26 ------- “Turgenev’s Sketches for Ottsy ideti (Fathers and Sons).” NZSJ: 33-76. Having found two documents for the first sketch of characters for Fathers and Sons and the first outline plan of the novel, discusses its growth as a work of art. Points out that these first character summaries are retained with little change in the final text of the novel. Finds in the jottings discrepancies of in the ages of the characters, speculating as to possible reasons. Mentions Turgenev’s attention in the early stage of the novel to characters reflected in the jottings: a long character summary of Nikolaj PetrovilE, a surprisingly short summary of Bazarov, and the enigmatic character of Odincova. Sees the character-summaries for Fathers and Son as a good evidence of Turgenev’s manner of composition, that is, his use of people that he knew. Finds from the document that Bazarov is a distinct creation with elements of Dobroljubov, I. V. Pavlov, and a certain Prevrazenskij. Contains detailed annotation of real-life figures in the draft. Also contains the full texts of the two drafts. 27 Woodward, James B. “Turgenev’s ‘New Manner’: A Reassessment of His Novel Dyrn.” CanSP 26, no. 1: 65-80. Maintains that the love story in Smoke is not only the central key to the politico- social polemic but also its structural center. Sees the love story as “a political allegory of Russia’s Emancipation,” associating Irina’s desperate endeavor to restore her power over 218 Litvinov to the determined campaign of the landowning classes, represented by both Gubarev’s circle and Ratrnirov’s. Infers that Turgenev wanted to personify the Russian people as Litvinov, who would be able to resist the formidable threats to the newly acquired freedom, citing Turgenev’s letter of 11 September 1874 to A. Filosofova. Concludes that Smoke was “written in a new manner” in the sense that “the unity of this unusual novel depends as much as upon the unifying function of the heroine as upon that of the hero.” 28 Zekulin, Nicholas G. “Humour in Turgenev’s Operetta Le Dernier Sorcier.” RL 16: 421-436. Discusses humor in Turgenev’s operetta Le Dernier Sorcier which reflects aspects of Turgenev’s own life, based on manuscripts of both text and music found in the New York Public Library. Points out deviations due to translation from Turgenev’s text, including the failure to convey Turgenev’s lightness of touch. Maintains that the essence of humor comes from the breaking of linguistic norms, singling out the devices of punning, deliberate repetition of syllables, nonsense and macaronics, frequent interspersion of colloquial insults, bathos, and boufle element. Concludes that Le Denier Sorcier reflects not only Turgenev’s intimacy with Pauline Viardot but also “his ability to absorb a contemporary, faddish genre and to adapt it skillfully to his own need.” 1985 1 Briggs, A. D. “Turgenev: Fathers and Sons.” In The Voice of a Giant: Essays on Seven Russian Prose Classics. Edited by Roger Cockrell and David Richards. Exeter: University of Exeter, pp. 41-54. Discusses salient features of Fathers and Sons, finding both typical features of Turgenev’s novels such as the creation of authentic characters, the evocation of atmosphere, and the consideration of moral situations before action, and atypical features such as complex love relationships and sets of antitheses (mainly the generational 219 conflict). Also finds merit in the novel’s presentation of socio-political content, portrayal of natural scenery, characterization of minor characters, sense of humor, and expert manipulation of conversation. Maintains that Bazarov himself, with his compelling presence and original theories, is the greatest ingredient of the novel. Sees Bazarov as “a tragic hero” rather than “an odd character unable to adjust to society,” exploring many sides of Bazarov’s tragedy. Points out that even though Fathers and Sons is a peripatetic work with frequent change of scene, the unity of the novel holds, due to “the constant presence and centripetal force of Bazarov.” Concludes that it is “a remarkably harmonious novel” which succeeds in uniting many antitheses. 2 Donskov, Andrew. “Turgenev’s Iskusheniye sryatogo Antoniya: A Reassessment.” NZSJ: 32-46. Compares Turgenev’s unfinished play The Temptation of Saint Antonii with Mérimée’s play Une fernme est un Diable ou la Tentation de saint Antoine, strongly rejecting Mazon and Grossman’s view that Turgenev produced “a slavish imitation of Merimee’s work.” Asserts that the only similarity between the works lies in the idea of the latent destructive power of feminine charm. Finds the main difference between the two works in the anti-clerical, political nature of Merimee’s play versus the psychological nature of Turgenev’s play. Also finds in Turgenev’s work his clear effort to break conventionalities with his avoidance of climax and the “contrast of outward calm and inner disquiet” which is so characteristic in his later play A Month in the Country. I 3 Hauge, H. “‘Nothing but Death Is Irrevocable’: A Note on Pound’s and Eliot’s Use of Turgenev.” Paideuma 14: 347-350. Contends that when T. S. Eliot began writing his play The Cocktail Party “he was subtly prodded by Turgenev via Ezra Pound,” noting many similarities between the play and Turgenev’s novel A Nest of the Gentry, suggesting the novel as one of the 220 play’s sources. Draws parallels between similar characters of the two works: Lavreckij and Edward, Varvara and Lavinia, Lisa and Celia, and Maria and Julia. Points out that Marfa’s dictum in A Nest of the Gentry, “nothing but death is irrevocable,” is echoed as “nothing but death is irreparable” by Julia in The Cocktail Party. 4 Jakobson, Roman. “Supraconscious Turgenev.” In On Signs. Edited by Marshall Blonsky. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 303-307. Examines seven exclamatory holophrases, consisting of seven Russian nouns “peoxa, muxea, xodwra, pena, Jada, rcauta ” which Turgenev uttered in exasperation at the overwhehning ceremoniousness of a London club. Sees the holophrases as the reflection of Turgenev’s supraconscious mind wishing to eat the food in more unrestricted mood, finding that the feminine gender in Turgenev’s holophrases is contrasted to the masculine, “stuck-up” ambience of the club. Also finds Turgenev’s “extreme shift toward the primitive” in the grotesque little Fairytales, sent in the form of a letter to Claudie, the daughter of Pauline Viardot, regarding it as a surrealistic work. 5 Marullo, Thomas Gaiton. “Besmirching Bean Meadow: Ivan Bunin’s Night Conversation.” STCL 9, no. 2: 301-321. Discusses the difference in treatment of the peasant question in Turgenev and Bunin, contrasting Befin Meadow of Turgenev with Night Conversation of Bunin, who fiercely opposed the Russian intellectual’s idealization of the peasant in his works. Finds three main areas of contrast between the works: portraiture, conversation and setting. Sees that Beiin Meadow’s depiction of peasants with sound mind and body, their conversation on “gothic mischief or pastoral naiveté,” and the pastoral setting of a warm, moonlit summer night is juxtaposed to Night Conversation ’s depiction of peasants with malign, skewed and twisted mind, their conversation on the murder of innocents, and the avant-garde setting of summer night with icy stars. 221 6 Schefski, Harold K. “N ovelle Structure in Turgenev’s Spring Torrents.” SSF 22: 431-435. Maintains that Turgenev repudiates “the indigenous Russian skaz narrative technique” and accepts “German novelle structure” focused on plot development at the expense of the “narrator’s personality quirks.” Finds devices of German novelle structure in Turgenev’s Spring Torrents: Wendepunkt (turning point) which “starts the plot on its initial ascent and contains within itself the kernel of all subsequent action”; Rahmen (frame) which is .“to lessen the subject effect of a personal reminiscence by removing the second enclosed story in time and place from the moment of recall,” thus creating “historical perspective and a psychic distance”; and Ding-Symbol (thing- symbol), “a repeating motif with symbolic qualities.” Explains how two major examples of Ding-Symbol, Gemma’s cross and her rose, fulfill the connective role between the encasement and the second enclosed story in Spring Torrens. Also finds another characteristic of the German novelle tradition, “the important role of fate and chance in resolving the action.” Concludes that Spring Torrents is a typical novelle with German novelle structure. 7 Sherman, David James. “Concepts of Self in Turgenev’s Novels: Rudin, A Nobleman ’s Nest, and Fathers and Sons.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 313 pp. Analyzes Turgenev’s treatment of the problem of individual personality in Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, and Fathers and Sons. Finds that Turgenev departed from the concept of self he held during the 18308 and 18408 under the influence of Stankevic, Belinskij, and especially Bakunin, who saw the self as developing in accord with man and nature. Maintains that Rudin attacks the assumption that language is the “transparent medium of communication” between self and other, and that A Nest of the Gentry deals with the problem of self-development or education, raising the question of whether education is enough to protect the individual from world’s vagarities. Also maintains that Bazarov in Fathers and Sons directly challenges the belief Turgenev held in the 222 18308 that the self has an intellectual structure of which the individual is intuitively aware, changing the self to a mystery. 8 Smyrniew, Walter. “Turgenev’s Emancipated Women.” MLR 80: 97-105. Discusses Turgenev’s portrayal of emancipated women in Two Friends, Fathers and Sons, Smoke, A Correspondence, 0n the Eve, A Strange Story, Virgin Soil, his poem The Threshold, and in the outline of his planned novel titled as Natal ’ia Karpovna, finding that he portrayed not only women identifying themselves explicitly as emancipees but also gentry women trying to deviate from their traditional roles. Notes the resemblance between Sof’ja Zadneprovskaja in Turgenev’s story Two Friends and the Russian militant feminist Elena Gan, maintaining that Turgenev did not intend to portray Sof’ja as a caricature of Elena Gan, but rather portray “Russian emancipees of the 18408 who recognized George Sand as one of their saints but confined their aspirations to passionate arguments about the need for Russian women to attain freedom of thought, feelings and actions.” Refutes the common prOpensity to see Sof’ja as a prototype for Kukshina in Fathers and Sons, indicating the differences in their values and objectives in life. Finds in Marianna of Virgin Soil a cumulative portrait of tendencies manifested by various emancipated women in his previous works. Concludes that Turgenev was certainly conscientious, but not always impartial in dealing with this subject. 9 Waddington, Patrick. “More Material by and Concerning Turgenev.” NZSJ: 47-80. Provides forty-one Turgenev autographs (including twenty-one of Turgenev’s letters to Pauline Viardot) which are previously unknown, not generally known, or inaccurately published, along with biographical annotations. Also brings four newly 223 released letters of Turgenev to the Russian revolutionary publicist P. L. Lavrov, with annotations. 10 Zekulin, Nicholas G. Turgenev: A Bibliography of Books 1843-1982 by and about Ivan Turgenev. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 221pp. Bibliography on Turgenev in Russian, English, French, and German, covering from 1843 to 1982. Also contains lists of Turgenev manuscripts in Canadian libraries, monographic English, German, and French translations, and unpublished Canadian theses on Turgenev. 1986 1 Conrad, Joseph L. “Turgenev’s Asia: Ambiguous Ambivalence.” SEEJ 30, no. 2: 215-229. Discusses Turgenev’s ambiguous presentation of two incipient love relationships in Asja, focusing on narrator the N. N.’s inner struggle. Traces the development of homosexual intimacy between N. N. and Gagin along with the change of N. N .’s attitude toward Asja from hostility to admiration. Notes Turgenev’s masterful use of nature to reflect N. N.’8 inner turmoil. Concludes that Asja is not just a romantic tale of love between an impressionable young man and an enigmatic woman but is also a tale of a hetero- and homosexual love triangle which has no clear resolution “in terms of the narrator’s own development.” 2 Gunter, Susan Elizabeth. “The Influence of Turgenev’s Heroine on the Women of Henry J ames’s 1880’s Novels.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 206 pp. Draws broad parallels between Turgenev’s heroines in A Nest of the Gentry, Smoke, and Klara Milic and James’s heroines in his 1880’s novels The Portrait of a Lady, The Bostonians, The Princess Casamassima, and The Tragic Muse. Finds prototypes of 224 J ames’s heroic women in Turgenev’s heroines, who embody the ideal Victorian standards of intelligence, charity, and strength of character. Finds that James used many salient features of the physical descriptions and personality traits of Lisa, Irina, and Klara Mili‘é for his own heroines. 3 Hippisley, Anthony. “Turgenev, Ralston, and Stirling-Maxwell: Some Unpublished Correspondence.” SSR 7:33-47. Describes the connection between Turgenev, Ralston (the translator of A Nest of the Gentry) and Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, the Scottish literary celebrity, examining their unpublished correspondence including one English letter of Turgenev to Ralston and another to Stirling-Maxwell. Finds that the connection started when Turgenev helped Ralston decipher the writing on Stirling-Maxwell’s antique Russian ladle, and developed with Turgenev’s offer to donate Stirling-Maxwell his fine 1788 edition of Symbols and Emblems. Notes that the book is the one that was mentioned in his letter on 3/13 September 1840 to Bakunin, his Reminiscence, and chapter nine of A Nest of the Gentry. Describes Turgenev’s meetings with Stirling-Maxwell, tracing their correspondence. 4 Masing-Delic, Irene. “Schopenhauer’s Metaphysies of Music and 'hrrgcnev’s Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo.” WS 31, no. 1: 183-196. Studies the subtext of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics of music in A Nest of the Gentry, finding Schopenhauer’s strong influence on Turgenev’s “concept of music as the exaltation and celebration of renunciation.” Outlines the Schopenhauerian premises that music expresses the willling devoid of any motivation. One of the components of melody, rhythm, carrying the dynamics of desire while the other component, harmony momentarily soothes by liberating from the desire and shows how these principles form an active subtext in Turgenev’s novel. Maintains that Schopenhauer’s concepts underlie “the existential attitudes of the morally valid characters,” notably Liza and especially 225 Lemm, who renounces his earthly desire for Lisa and composes the music which represents his triumph over his will. Notes that in Lisa’s view, Panshin and Madame Lavreckaja’s preference for pretty waltz trills to sublime music is a symbol of the pursuit of happiness which “inevitably leads to debasement and vulgarization.” Also finds that Liza, Lemm, and Lavreckij have in common a love for Beethoven whose music “forcefully expresses the power of will yet poignantly carries the melody of renunciation.” 5 Waddington, Patrick. “Nine New Short Turgenev Items.” NJSJ: 25-31. Publicizes nine new short Turgenev items, providing concrete biographical annotations. Contains a note to Pauline Viardot on 3 April, added as a postscript to a letter to Charles Gounod 1850, an undated letter to an unknown addressee showing his intention to travel to Turin, two messages to unnamed correspondents, a letter to princess A. A. Trubeckaja on 28 March 1865, a letter to American publisher Henry Holt in June 1874, an undated letter to Mme Marie Lynen, a letter to an unnamed correspondent on 12 January 1879, his autograph note. Gives inferred dates and addressees to undated and unnamed letters. 1987 1 Andrew, Joe. “The Lady Vanishes: A Feminist Reading of Turgenev’s Asya.” ISS 8: 87-96. Gives an analysis of Turgenev’s Asja from the point of view of feminist criticism, discussing setting, plot, male/male relations, female/female relations, and male/female relations. Holds that the “fairy-tale resonances” of the setting make Asja “a symbol, a polyvalent signifier, rather than an individual.” Finds “two parallel plot-linesz” a quest for self-discovery for Asja, and unraveling Asja’s mystery for N. N. Also finds that in the work “men are presented as the rational norm, the woman is the irrational 226 aberration.” Sees Asja as a “profoundly androcentric” work told from “his,” narrator N. N.’s, view of Asja, not from her own, with the result that the reader can hardly understand her real suffering and confusion, leaving Asja’s image ultimately confused and contradictory. 2 Conrad, Joseph L. “Turgenev’s Landscape: An Overview.” RLJ 41, no. 140: 119-134. Examines the development of Turgenev’s landscape technique from the gradual introduction of symbolic meaning in Notes of a Hunter to the majestically poetic scenes of Fathers and Sons. Recounts the sources of inspiration for Turgenev’s landscape setting in his early writings, especially Notes of a Hunter: “Pu§kin’s sparse nature description” concentrating on characterization; Lerrnontov’s ample use of poetic sirniles “to reflect the mood of a major character or narrator”; and Gogol’s techincal emphasis, detailed identification and personification of natural phenomena “to express the narrator’s enthusiasm for the surrounding natural beauty.” Finds a clear change in Turgenev’s depiction of nature in the period 1856 to 1862 (between the. publication of Rudin and Fathers and Sons) in his “tendency toward generalization instead of identification of separate members of the same species” such as birds and trees. Maintains that in this period Turgenev has primary purposes in his nature description: “to prepare the reader for what is to come; to disclose a protagonist’s state of mind; and to make an independent, authorial statement.” Also finds a conspicuous reduction in nature description in Turgenev’s writings after Fathers and Sons, ascribing this to Turgenev’s exhaustion of the symbolic possibilities of nature. Concludes that among Turgenev’s poetic devices, his “realistic yet symbolic” depiction of nature is “a major contribution to the development of Russian belles-lettres.” 3 Eekman, Thomas. “Turgenev and the Shorter Prose Forms.” In Text and Context. Essays to Honour Nils Ake Nilsson. Edited by Peter Alberg Jensen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, pp. 42-52. 227 Discusses structural devices in Turgenev’s short stories and novellas, singling out I-procedure, which lends “a greater directness and verisirnilitude” to a story, and frame structure, which “removes the author from the reader,” as salient for his shorter prose forms. Examines various ways in which these devices are used. Maintains that Turgenev used frame structure not, as might be expected, for rendering the hero’s own language, since Turgenev’s narrators generally express themselves in Turgenev’s own language, but simply because structure that was “the literary tradition of which he was part.” Also speculates that Turgenev, who was “not a revolutionary in the realm of morals,” used frame structure when he wanted “to avoid a shameful feeling and to keep a certain distance,” reserving I-procedure for stories in which he wanted to describe love and the most intimate human feelings “perhaps partly experienced by himself.” Notes that most of Turgenev’s shorter works, like most of his novels, have an epilogue which offers a broader perspective to the ending. 4 Frost, Edgar L. “Turgenev’s Mumu and Absence of Love.” SEEJ 31, no. 2: 171- 186. Discusses the mutual love between Mumu, the dog, and her master Gerasirn, the dumb peasant in Turgenev’s story Mumu, seeing non-love and “isolation” as the main theme of the story and finding that the “manifestations of the absence of love” in the story outweigh those of mutual love. Compares two objects of Gerasirn’s love, Mumu and Tat’ jana, finding strong affinities between them: both are orphans, have larown hardship, and resemble each other physically and temperamentally. Maintains that “Tat’jana serves as a link between Mumu and Gerasirn, for she is of the dog’s nature and the man’s kind.” Pays attention to Turgenev’s mixed portrayal of Gerasirn as both terrible and wonderful, both freedom-loving and totally dependent on his owner, both heroic and common, an ambivalent symbol of the Russian people with its “terrifying strength” and “inscrutable humility.” Concludes that Mumu is Turgenev’s eloquent 228 statement on the suffering Russian peasant with the “careful removal of love from Gerasirn’s sadly limited little world.” 5 Hoffmeister, Werner. “Ivan Turgenev’s Faust: A Realist Transformation of the Gretchen 'h‘agedy.” In Approaches to Teaching Goethe’s Faust. Edited by Douglas J. McMillan. New York: Modern Language Association of America, pp. 142-146. Compares Turgenev’s epistolary novella Faust with Goethe’s drama Faust. Pays particular attention to two intertextual aspects: Goethe’s Faust becomes the stimulus in the love relationship between Turgenev’s narrator, Pavel, and his neighbor, Vera; and their love story is presented “as a transportation of the Faust-Gretchen story into an altogether different milieu.” Finds a cardinal affinity between Gretchen’s and Vera’s behavior in their “transgression of a maternal code of morality.” Maintains that Turgenev’s novella deals not only with the latent harmful influence of artistic literature, but also of “excessive maternal authority.” Also points out that while Vera is a genuine embodirrrent of Goethe’s Gretchen, Pavel is a distinctly un-Faustian figure, one of Turgenev’s typical superfluous men. 6 Masing-Delic, Irene. “The Metaphysics of Liberation: Insarov as Tristan.” WS 32, no. 1: 59-77. Sees Insarov in Turgenev’s 0n the Eve as both a positive and tragic hero, holding that a deeper understanding is the only way out of the interpretative difficulties raised by many critics, namely, “Insarov’s psychological artificiality and his premature and unmotivated death.” Maintains that Insarov is an archetypal Wagnerian Tristan figure who experiences total transformation, through love, from a positive hero- revolutionary to a tragic hero who comes to regard the heroic virtues as a secondary reality compared to that of love. Finds strong similarities between Insarov and Tristan in the libretto of Wagner’s opera Tristan and Isolde and between Elena and Isolde, suggesting that Turgenev used the opera as the subtext for his novel. Notes that Elena 229 also experiences similar changes of attitude toward the concepts of dream and reality, that lead her to realize the relativity of virtue and wickedness and to experience liberation from hatred. Concludes that Turgenev gives “a broad and many-faceted presentation of the concept of liberation” in his novel. 7 Paul, Alec. “Russian Landscape in Literature: Lermontov and Turgenev.” In Geography and Literature: A Meeting of the Disciplines. Edited by William E. Mallory and Paul Simpson-Housley. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 1 14- 13 1. Studies the land, the villages, the manors of the gentry and the theme of changes in landscape in Turgenev’s works. Maintains that Turgenev was sympathetic to changes in landscape caused by “the change of relationship between the social classes in the rural areas” and that his strong opposition to serfdom was reflected in his portrayal of the village as a miserable place. Finds that in Turgenev’s works, male landowners’ manors tend to be run down due to inefficiency or corruption, while manors owned by women generally tend to be in much better shape. 8 Waddington, Patrick. “An Annotated Bibliography of French Writings on I. S. Turgenev, Published up to 1900.” NZSJ: 1-79. An annotated chronological bibliography of books and articles on, and references to, Turgenev published in French from 1851 to 1900. 1988 1 Astman, Marina. “Turgenev’s Structural Ingenuity: An Analysis of Chertopkhanov and Nedopuskin and Chertopkhanov’s End.” In Studies in Slavic Literature and Culture in Honor of Zoya Yuriefl'. Edited by Munir Sendich. East Lansing: Russian Language Journal, pp. 15-20. Examines Turgenev’s structural methods in the paired stories from Notes of a Hunter: Certopxanov and Nedopjuskin, written in the spring of 1848, and The Death of Certopxanov, written as late as 1871-1872. Stresses that though there is a difference in 230 the narrative form of the works due to the considerable lapse of time, between their publication, they both deviate from the unhurried mode of narration typical to Notes of a Hunter. Discusses narrative forms (first-person narrator of the first work versus anonymous omnipresent narrator of the second one), Gogolian comic effects of names in both works, motifs (relentless fate, cruelly indifferent nature, and love), and radical changes of mood in both works. Concludes that with “his ingenious use of different modes of language” and his “unobtrusive yet firm structural design,” Turgenev gave those two stories “a dynamic quality that leaves a deeper imprint on the readers imagination” than most stories from Notes of a Hunter. 2 Atterberry, Phillip D. “Regenerative and Degenerative Forces in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.” SCR 5: 48-60. Sees Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons not as a book about reform, revolution, or generational conflict, but about “the universal question of how man reconciles his finite existence with his infinitive yeamings.” Finds that Turgenev poses two opposite sets of forces to explore the question: the “spiritually regenerative forces” of family, children, nature, music, and poetry and “the corresponding degenerative forces” of science with its emphasis on empiricism, disputation, and self-absorption. Finds two sets of characters which closely associate with regenerative forces and degenerative ones: N ikolaj, F eneéka, Katja, and Arkadij for the former and Bazarov, Pavel, and Odincova for the latter. Discusses how these forces affect these characters, finding that Turgenev, by consistently developing and imaginatively juxtaposing these forces, clarifies the novel’s central theme: “life’s regenerative forces serve as a buffer between man’s knowledge of death and the pain caused by that knowledge.” Maintains that Arkadij’s discovery of regenerative forces protects him from “Bazarovian afflictions of isolation and despair.” 231 3 Gunter, Susan Elizabeth. “The Russian Connection: Sources for Miriam Rooth of James’s The Tiagic Muse.” SAR 53, no. 2: 77-91. Mentions briefly Henry J ames’s deep interest in Turgenev and maintains that Turgenev’s influence on J ames’s heroines did not end in 1881 with the publication of The Portrait of a Lady but continued until the end of the decade. Discusses J ames’s debt to Turgenev for his novel, The Tragic Muse, especially for its major heroine Miriam Rooth. Finds physical and temperamental similarities between Miriam and Gemma of Spring Torrents, Marianna of Virgin Soil, and especially Klara of Klara Milic'. Also notes that both James’s and Turgenev’s novels contain the marriageable daughter motif. Maintains that “J ames’s use of the rite-of-passage narrative is perhaps one of his most striking alternations of a major Turgenev thematic code.” Concludes that Miriam Rooth shows “marked technical advances over the simpler Russian women” in “her artistry and sophisticated characterization.” 4 Knowles, A. V. Ivan Turgenev. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 144pp. Gives a general overview of Turgenev’s life and works. Also comments on his letters, calling him the most versatile letter writer among Russian writers. Maintains that the central impression of Turgenev obtained from his letters is of a great lack of self- confidence. Mentions the characteristic features of Turgenev’s works: the “superb use of language;” description rather than analysis; “nostalgic atrnosphere;” “dwelling in an idyllic past and regretting lost youth;” lack of interest in psychological analysis; simple plots with “striking musicality,” “gentle irony,” and “moving lyricism;” awareness of man’s helplessness in the face of “indifferent forces of nature;” “unsurpassed description” of nature and the Russian countryside, the “beauty of expression, accuracy of detail, and evocative power;” contrasting characters; focus on characterization rather than ideas; his own “philosophical pessimism;” “weak heroes and idealized heroines;” 232 and “a subtle balance between the poles of human experience” -- love and death, joy and sadness, youth and age, innocence and maturity. 5 Steffensen, Eigil. “Vilhelm Moller as an Interpreter of Turgenev.” In The Slavic World and Scandinavia: Cultural Relations. Edited by K. Bjornager, L. T. Schacke and E. Steffensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 167-173. Evaluates Vilhelm Moller’s translation of Turgenev’s stories into Danish, which played an important role in the breakthrough in Danish literature in the 18708 when Turgenev became “an attractive median between the esoteric abstractions of the dying Romantic school and the elaborate descriptions of setting and characters in the aggressively anti-aesthetic French naturalism.” Maintains that for Moller the main point of the interest in Notes of a Hunter was not its social indignation but its “lyrical, partly philosophical description of nature.” Finds a striking parallel between the definition of Turgenev as “a poetic realist” by Moller, who did not know Russian, and the view of Turgenev held by the Russian critic Druzinin in the mid-18508. Compares the Russian original of Forest and Steppe and Ermolaj and the Miller’s Wife to Moller’s translations, finding in Moller’s interpretation accentuated and reinforced rhythms, (particularly in description of nature; more punctuation marks and five times of the treble full stop compared to 3 times in the original; more extensive use of vivid and expressive paraphrasing and intensifying repetition; more ample use of present participle; and more circumstantial descriptions by means of relative phrases. Concludes that Moller had surprising success considering he could not read Russian original texts. 6 Wachtel, Michael. “Turgenev and Storm: A Critical Reappraisal.” GerS 6, no. 2: 69-81. Reassesses the relationship between Turgenev and the German realist writer Theodor Storm. Disputes the opinion held by Storm admirers that they had high personal and artistic esteem for each other. Finds upon a close examination of Turgenev’s letters, especially those to Pietsch. that even though Turgenev had cordial feelings toward 233 Storm, his attitude toward Stonn’s works became antagonistic. Suggests that the reason for this antagonism might have sterruned from Turgenev’s views on German realism in which he saw a lack of logical coherence in the characters’ behavior. Provides a comparative analysis of Storrn’s novella Immensee and Turgenev’s Spring Torrents, finding resemblance between the two works in their opening frames, style (narrative techniques useing musical allusions) and theme of love triangles. Also finds that critical themes of Immensee are reduced to the secondary statues in Turgenev’s novella and the minor factor (passion) of Immensee becomes the major factor of Spring Torrents. Regards Spring Torrents as “a radical reinterpretation” of Immensee, suggesting that Turgenev alluded to Immensee “in order to dispute the world view that it presents.” 7 Waddington, Patrick. “More Turgenev Gleanings.” NZSJ: 45-111. Publishes previously unpublished letters by Turgenev and little known material by him and about him, along with precise biographical annotations. Contains two letters of Turgenev to the French philosopher and politician Jules Simon, a note on Turgenev’s relations with French poet Lamartine, eleven letters of Turgenev to French scholar Emille Durand, a letter to French artist Joseph Chenavard, a letter to Madame Chekuanova, the wife of Pianist Anton Rubinstein, a letter to his translator A. Golicin, a letter to Frau Herrnine Seegen, a letter to the editor of a French journal Le Glove, a letter to Paul Lindau, the founder and editor of the weekly Die Gegenwart, a note concerning Flaubert, four letters and one note of Flaubert on Turgenev, and three letters to the mysterious Mme Marie Lynen. Contains French snippets on Turgenev and little-known material by and on Turgenev including a letter to Charles Scribner, head of the publishing firm, and Wilkie Collins’ letter and F. M. Ford’s letter on Turgenev. Also contains some corrections and additions to the catalogue of Turgenev’s letters to the Viardots. 234 8 Woodward, James B. “Determinism in the Novels of Turgenev.” ScaS 34: 17-27. Studies how Turgenev’s determinism is evident in his novels. Finds the difference of Turgenev from Tolstoj and Dostoevskij in that the latter two share a vision of a higher purpose of life which contrasts with Turgenev’s “vision of a transcendent amoral principle operating in the universe.” Also regards Turgenev’s plots as dramatizations of the conflicts between the amoral imperative of nature and the imperative based on human logic to commit to altruistic self-sacrifice. Holds that “the coercive universal will,” that is death, and “the rationally inexplicable beauty” are the two sources used for amoral nature in Turgenev’s novels to attack the altruistic heroes who rebel against nature. 1989 1 Coltrane, Robert. “Hemingway and Turgenev: The Torrents of Spring.” In Hemingway’s Neglected Short F iction, New Perspectives. Edited by Susan F. Beegel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Microfilm International Research Press, pp. 149-161. Examines Turgenev’s novel Spring Torrents as a source for Hemingway’s novella of same title, holding that there was a strong influence of the former on the latter in craftsmanship. Maintains that Turgenev’s economy of style, especially the revealing of a character’s inner turmoil through carefully selected landscape and description of action, became a good example for Hemingway, who was disappointed with Sherwood Anderson’s impressionism and the monotonous repetition produced by stream-of- consciousness. Also finds similarities between Turgenev’s and Hemingway’s work: the relationship of female protagonists to the male protagonist; the theme of infidelity; and the protagonist’s apathetic life after his encounter with a prostitute (Hemingway’s work) and Mar’ ja Nikolaevna (Turgenev’s work). 235 2 Conrad, Joseph L. “Cechov’s The House with an Attic: Echoes of Turgenev.” RL 25: 373-396. Examines Cexov’s use of Turgenev’s works as the primary model for the characters in his story The House with an Attic. Finds that the narrator in the story combines elements of Turgenev’s Rudin, N. N. of Asja, and the complex psychology of Lermontov’s Peé’orin. Recounts devices found in Turgenev’s works which Cexov used in composing his stories. Finds details in The House with an Attic which recall Turgenev’s works: descriptions of the faded glory of old estates; stylistic devices for the description of landscape such as personification, simile, and emphasis on sensory perceptions; and intellectual debates and unhappy outcomes of romantic love. 3 Freeborn, Richard. “The Original Manuscript of Ottsy I deti (Fathers and Sons).” SEER 67, no. 2: 244-245. Describes an autograph manuscript which appears to be the original autograph manuscript of Fathers and Sons. Finds that the manuscript’s broad outline and the character sketches are almost matched to the fair copy of the novel, though there are significant changes in the description of love story between Bazarov and Odincova in Chapter 17 and in the dialogue between Arkadij and Katja in Chapter 24. Also finds that the manuscript was written with a manner of writing close to shorthand intended only for his eyes. Stresses the need for further study of the manuscript to get more “insights into Turgenev’s methods and intentions.” 4 Harris, Richard C. “First Loves: Willa Cather’s Neil Herbert and Ivan Turgenev’s Vladimir Petrovich.” SAF 17, no. 1: 81-81. Suggests the important influence of Turgenev’s story First Love on Willa Cather’s novel, A Lost Lady, comparing the two works and enumerating several thematic and structural parallels. Also finds the following traits of Turgenev’s Zinaida in the depiction of Cather’s Marian: “both are seen in terms of the effects they have on various men”; both are accomplished actresses; and the sexuality of both women is “much more 236 fundamental than the largely contrived charm they display.” Also finds differences between the two narratives in that the focus is on the narrator in Turgenev’s story, while on the heroine Marian in Cather’s novel and also in that A Lost Lady has a historical dimension completely absent in First Love. 5 Price, Martin. “Heroines of Consciousness: James, Turgenev and Flaubert.” In Dilemmes Du Roman: Essays in Honor of Georges May. Edited by Catherine Lafarge. Saratoga: Anma Libri. pp. 327-339. . Compares Turgenev’s heroines, Liza in A Nest of the Gentry and Tat’ jana in Smoke to James’s Fleda Vetch, the heroine of The Spoils of Poynton, Flaubert’s Emma Bovary in Madame Bovary and Felicite in A Simple Heart, frequently citing James’s articles on Turgenev’s works. Pays particular attention to the moral severity of Liza and Tat ’ jana which James tried to represent in his later novels. Points out that many of J ames’s later heroines, especially Fleda Vetch, are “the neurotic victims of duty” rather than ardent heroines, again recalling Turgenev’s Liza. Finds the difference in the method of presentation between A Nest of the Gentry and The Spoils of Poynton in that the former is more suggestive while the method of the latter is “essentially, dramatic.” Maintains that Flaubert’s heroines often show an inability to perceive the ironies with which Flaubert surrounds them and achieve a naive moral beauty, which marks an important difference between Turgenev and Flaubert. Concludes that “J ames’s devotion to Turgenev’s works, for all their differences of method, arises in large part from the depth and fullness of consciousness Turgenev grants his characters.” 6 Trail], Nancy. “The Fantastic for the Realist: The Paranormal Fictions of Dickens, Turgenev and Maupassant (Maupassant Guy de, 'hrrgenev Ivan Sergeyevich, France, Russia, England).” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 352 pp. Studies the fantastic in the fictional worlds of both the supernatural and natural domain in the works of ' Turgenev, Dickens, and Maupassant, holding that the dynamism 237 of the fictional world of these writers comes from the degree of “narrative authentication or disauthentication” of the supematural domain. Discusses the poetics for those fantastic fictions. Suggests theoretical typologies of the fantastic mode in the light of world-views prevalent in the second half of the 19th century. Sees most of Turgenev’s fantastic fictions as paranormal. 7 Waddington, Patrick. “Sleazy Digs and Coppers’s Narks: The Fate of Russian Nihilists in Paris a Hundred Years Ago.” NZSJ: 1-66. Describes in detail research done in the archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French Police Archives on materials concerning Turgenev and the activities of Russian revolutionaries who lived in Paris during Turgenev’s residence there (1871-83) with Viardots. Finds the assessment of the Russian revolutionary movement and nihilists of the day by the French government inaccurate. Describes in detail the activities of Russian revolutionaries, such as of Tkacev, Arxipov, and Lavrov, from French police reports. Also mentions some details of Turgenev’s life in Paris newly found in the Archives. Finds that French police maintained that Pauline Viardot was Turgenev’s mistress and also a lesbian and believed that Turgenev was “a convinced revolutionary and absolute partisan of the doctrines of Bakunin.” 8 ------- “The Role of Courtavenel in the Life and Works of Turgenev.” In Issues in Russian Literature before 1917: Selected Papers of the Third World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies. Edited by J. Douglas Clayton. Columbus: Slavica Publishers Inc., pp. 107-132. Expounds Turgenev’s Courtavenel life from June of 1845 to October of 1860, examining Turgenev’s Reminiscences and his correspondence. Traces his changing relationship with Pauline Viardot through stages of pursuit, avoidance, and reconciliation. Also discusses Turgenev’s debt to his Courtavenel experience in creating many stories in Notes of a Hunter, plays (especially A Month in the Country), novellas, and novels, finding that many phrases in his writing are matched with those in his letters 238 containing his the impressions from Courtavenel experiences Mentions the influence of George Sand and Molie’re on Turgenev’s country stories and his skill for comedies during his early stay in Courtavenel. Also finds strong affinities between Turgenev and his heroes, such as Culkaturin in The Diary of a Superfluous Man, who is unable to achieve normal family happiness, Lavreckij in A Nest of a Gentry who returns home after disappointed love, and Pavel in Fathers and Sons who experiences a crippling affair with a manied princess, suggesting that the model for those heroes is Turgenev himself, who had an unattainable love affair with Pauline in Courtavenel. 9 ------- “Turgenev’s Notebooks for Dym.” NZSJ:41-66. A study of the gestation of Smoke, examining Turgenev’s original plot outline and character lists written in Paris during the late winter and early spring of 1863. Finds that the eighteen original chapters were extended to twenty-eight due to overall structural growth and the need to divide long chapters into two. Recounts plot outlines of eighteen chapters one by one. Finds in the character summaries, that some secondary characters, especially characters in the Gubarev circle, were “conceived originally as playing a much greater role” than they did in the final version of the novel printed four years later. Proposes as a reason for the change the softening of Turgenev’s contempt for the philosophy of London circles partly because of the “more placid circumstances” of his life in Baden-Baden and partly because a Russian Senate enquiry into his own relationship with revolutionists came to nothing. Notes further that the principal players in the novel’s original plan-- Tat’ jana, her aunt, Irina, her husband, Litvinov, and Potugin-- “have undergone a perhaps still greater transformation” than the supporting players. Holds that the model for Irina was not only Princess Dolgoruskaja, well known to be an ostensible model for Irina, but also Pauline Viardot. Also maintains that while Turgenev’s “sentimental and moral make-up has gone into Litvinov,” most of his intellectual focus has gone onto Potugin. 239 10 Woodward, James B. “The ‘Roman Theme’ in Turgenev’s Nov. ’” MLR 84:672- 680. Discusses the “Roman theme” of the two deleted passages addressed by Paklin to Masurina in the tribute to Solomin in the first draft of Virgin Soil. Disputes the Soviet critic Budanova’s opinion that “the Roman theme was originated in the debate with Herzen” on European civilization and that those passages were omitted from the final version of the novel because of Turgenev’s fear of misinterpretation by the reading public. Finds that the Roman theme in Virgin Soil is merely the culminating development of a theme which had been in Turgenev’s mind, tracing the theme in his writing from his written answers to questions from his Master of Philosophy examinations at the University of St. Petersburg to his earlier novels. Holds that a Roman denotes an egoist who seeks power in the world, like Sipjagin in Virgin Soil. Also sees Solomin is an embodiment of Turgenev’s Western Gradualism as well as a synthesis of the altruist and Roman egoist who has ability to act. Concludes that in Virgin Soil “for the first and only time in his fiction, Turgenev presents the figure of the gradualist representative of a genuine social force.” 11 ------- “The Triumph of Nature : A Re-Examination of Turgenev’s Nakanune.” RL 25259-265. Argues that the entire complex system of interacting images in On the Eve is fully intelligible in terms of the theme of human nature, tracing the development of the heroine Elena’s psychological experience. Questions the generally held assumption that On the Eve is “a hymn of praise to altruistic idealists.” Finds the conversation between Subin and Bersenev in the opening chapter about the conflict between the egoistic and altruistic forces “a kind of philosophical overture” to the novel expressing Turgenev’s conviction that the centrifugal altruistic force of human nature is “alien to the natural order” and thus doomed to futility. Finds that Elena’s relations with those secondary 240 characters and her parents reflect her developing experience of this conflict. Sees Insarov’s illness as a symbol of the resistance of his altruistic self to Elena’s egoistic force. Suggests that Venice was used as the concluding setting of the novel because of its many symbols of egoistic natural forces which weaken and kill Insarov: its beauty symbolizes Elena, who awakens Insarov’s desire; its artistic wealth is a symbol of egoistic domination; its image of water represents nature’s menace and power; and foreign control of the city represents authoritarian control of Insarov’s egoistic nature. Concludes that in the novel 0n the Eve Turgenev “reaffirms the futility of altruistic ideal” through the changes of psychological experience of his characters. 1990 1 Barta, Peter I. “Closure- or Cracks in the Mirror?: Narrative and Ideology in Turgenev’s Rudin.” SSR 15: 31-41. Disputes the traditional critical assessment that Turgenev is an impartial and universal writer and that his novel Rudin “holds up a mirror” to Russian society of the early 18408. Explains how the meaning contiguously intended by Turgenev in Rudin does not fully match “the meaning inscribed in the text,” investigating elements which work against the story’s “movement toward closure” such as the narrator’s silence, the overflow effect, and the partisan nature of the narrator’s omniscience. Suggests that the search for such will further the understanding of the general ideology of Turgenev and his novel. 2 Costlow, Jane T. Worlds within Worlds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 166pp. Studies Turgenev’s four major novels in literary rather than historical terms. In Chapter 1, discusses the aspects of Turgenev’s use of language, dialogue, and gesture in his first novel Rudin and in his story A Tour in the Forest, suggesting that the enigrnas and hiddenness of early poetry linger in his later work. In Chapter 2, examines the 241 counterpoint of salon discourse and silence in A Nest of the Gentry. In Chapter 3, focuses onA Nest of the Gentry as a narrative polemic with “Slavophile historiography,” finding Turgenev’s narratives characterized by “lyric meditation,” “pastoral rejuvenation,” and in “unspoken emotion.” In Chapter 4, examines the problem of lyrical elements in On the Eve: specific subtexts counter, and ultimately subvert, the plot. In Chapter 5, examines the passionate human existence of Father and Sons, arguing that the novel’s politics are grounded in Turgenev’s perceptions of human sexuality,which inform both his political psychology and his aesthetics. Emphasizes that to assign merely documentary interest to his novel is to remove them from the realm of the literary, and to celebrate his mysterious tales, or his love stories, while discarding his social novels is similarly to diminish him. Concludes that Turgenev’s brilliance lies in his ability to link the historical and the intimate, societal life and his own lyrical perception, the impulses of our reading with those of his writing, in hopes of diverging from the clichés of nineteenth century Turgenev criticism. 3 Knowles, Anthony. “Turgenev’s Virgin Soil and the Chaikovsky Circle.” ASEES 4, Nos. 1/2: 37-53. Describes Turgenev’s preparatory work for Virgin Soil, its publishing history, and the negative reception of the novel after its publication in Russia. Asserts that Turgenev’s aim in writing the novel was to dispel the misunderstanding between him and young radicals in Russia that arose after the publication of Fathers and Sons. Describes the general social situation of Russia in the late sixties and early seventies, particularly the activities of one student Populist group in St. Petersburg called Cajkovskij Circle, finding that Turgenev’s depiction of the Populist movement in the novel was not as far from accurate as has been traditionally suggested. 4 Korsun, Zoia Hraur. “The Young Turgenev: The Development of the Writer.” Ph, D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 450 pp. 242 A close psychological analysis of Turgenev from birth until age thirty-eight when, he left Russia for Western Europe, based on his letters and works. Finds that Turgenev, struggling to develop in a milieu which was not in sympathy with his emotional needs, could not achieve a positive self-image. Holds that due to his pervasive pessimism and self-skepticism, Turgenev acquired the role of martyr, impractical man, and unsuccessful lover, but these images could restrict neither his life nor his works, for Turgenev continuously searched for “self-actualization.” Concludes that Turgenev’s life and his works interacted with and enriched each other. 5 Sheidley, William E. “‘Born in Imitation of Someone Else’: Reading Turgenev’s Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky District as a Version of Hamlet.” SSF 27, no. 3: 391- 398. Discusses “intertextual connections and differentiations” between Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Vasilij Vasil’evit': in Turgenev’s Hamlet of the Scigrov District, finding the similar personality elements of self-reproach. Also explains in detail the difference between them, finding the most significant divergence in the fact that while Hamlet finally accepts his fate readily and dies as a hero, Vasilij “remains paralyzed in self- contempt.” 6 Waddington, Patrick. “No Smoke without Fire: the Genesis of Turgenev’s Dym.” In From Puskin to Palisandriia: Essays on the Russian Novel in Honor of Richard Freeborn. Edited by Arnold McMillin. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 112-127. Describes the process of Turgenev’s writing of Smoke from its earliest origin to the finished work, trying to explain the reason why there are two heroes, Litvinov and Potugin. Maintains that Turgenev’s first character list for Smoke could date from mid- April of 1862 based on the correspondence of that period and that the political and philosophical origin of the novel was to make public the reasons for his disgust with the Russian agrarian socialism espoused by Gercen and young Russian positivists in 243 Heidelberg. Infers the original meaning of the title Smoke intended by Turgenev, which connotes the transitoriness of human life and endeavor, tracing this pessimism to Schopenhauer, Pascal and Turgenev’s Romantic background. Emphasizes that along with the symbol of smoke Turgenev’s concept of omnipotent love plays a great role in the novel, which is seen as “intimately and absolutely connected with Turgenev’s love for Pauline Viardot.” 7 Woodward, James. “Turgenev’s ‘Constancy’ in His Final Novel.” In From Puskin to Palisandriia: Essays on the Russian Novel in Honor of Richard Freeborn. Edited by Arnold McMillin. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 128- 148. Reassesses Turgenev’s aim in Virgin Soil in relation to his five preceding novels. Disputes generally held arguments that Virgin Soil is a novel comprehensible only in political terms and that Turgenev “attempted a task that was simply beyond his power” with his lack of intimate information about the social situation in Russia due to his long stay abroad, maintaining that the novel’s theme is not primarily political but philosophical: “the theme of noble, but futile, rebellion” which had been constant in Turgenev’s five preceding novels. Discusses how in the novel Turgenev’s characters personify the law of nature in which “the amoral, egoistic will” is “the cornerstone of all that exists.” Sees that in Virgin Soil, as in Rudin, Fathers and Sons, and On the Eve, Turgenev depicts the brutal destruction of an idealist, Neidanov, who tries to realize a vision of life in which the law of nature no longer prevails. Notes the difference in the manner in which stern nature imposes its authority on Neidanov: while other idealists, such as Insarov and Bazarov, are done in by the beauty of female characters, Neidanov is thwarted by his own other personality, the aesthete Neidanov. Also finds parallels between secondary characters of Virgin Soil and those in the other five novels in acting as executors of natural law aginst idealists. Concludes that Virgin Soil evinces Turgenev’s “consistency as thinker and artist.” 1991 1 Costlaw, Jane T. “Dido, Turgenev and the Journey toward Bedlam.” RL 24: 395-408. Finds an affinity between Turgenev’s novel Smoke and Spring Torrents with Virgil’s Aeneid in their plots of sensual interpretation, i.e., “the eruption of sexuality and the feminine in the ordered lives of well-intended male travelers.” Discusses a parallel between Litvinov in Smoke and Sanin in Spring Torrents and Aeneas in the Aeneid as heroes who meet in their journey with powerful women and a parallel between Irina in Smoke and Polozova in Spring Torrents and Dido in the Aeneid as heroines who interrupt heroes’ journeys by shrewdly using their sensual power. Argues that the erotic encounter has allegorical political significance in both Turgenev works, which associate sensual femininity with “a regression to chaos and babble.” Notes that Irina’s family background symbolizes the connection between the heroine and politically chaotic Russia and Poloiova’s name itself contains sexual meaning. Also underlines that the sexual power of Irina and Polozova is the only way for them to escape from their dark past. 2 ------- “Speaking the Sorrow of Women: Turgenev’s Neschastrraia and Evgeniia Tur’s Antonina.” SlaR 50, no. 2: 328-335. Compares Turgenev’s story Unhappy Woman, a woman’s narrative framed by male discourse, with Antonina, “a novel-length episode” from the novel Plemjannica by the female Russian writer Tur. Briefly mentions Turgenev’s acquaintance with Tur and analyzes his review of Tur’s novel, finding a complex and ambivalent attitude toward the novel: while praising Tur’s passionate and bold subjective text, he complained of it “irnmoderate length” and “unedited diction.” Maintains that the terms of Turgenev’s review of the novel are “resolutely gender-specific,” and that he maintains the superiority of male irony and control in the review, disparaging the kind of writing from 245 the heart he finds in women writers. Finds strong similarities between Unhappy Woman and Plemjannica in plot, narrative structure and setting, calling Tur “the literary mother” of Turgenev’s story. 3 Masing-Delic, Irene. “Philosophy, Myth, and Art in Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter.” RusR 50, no. 4: 437-450. Discusses the philosophy and aestheticism of Russian Hamlets and the myth of the Russian people in Notes of a Hunter. Points out the opposing attitudes of philosopher and mythmaker Hamlets: the former are “unable to tolerate too wide a gap between the real and the ideal” but one unproductive and filled with “self-laceration,” while the latter are creative but also “fatally passive and noninvolved with earthly reality.” Maintains that Turgenev implies the ideal unity of mythmaker and philosopher in the character of Xor’ in Xor’ and Kalinyt‘, who not only learns abstract philosophy along with practical and useful activities from the West using his “Hamlet-like analysis and critical attention to detail,” but retains a creative and original native heritage. Sees Xor’ as the precursor of Solomin in Virgin Soil. 4 Seeley, Frank F. Turgenev: A Reading of His Fiction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 380. Outlines briefly Turgenev’s biography. Surveys the full range of Turgenev’s individual works. Focuses on the complexity and subtlety of Turgenev’s characterization, insisting that it has drawn less critical attention than it deserves. Makes comparisons to other writers, carefully demonstrating that Turgenev’s prose forms a link between Pu‘s'kin and Cexov. Concludes that the antinomies and paradoxes in his works (poetry vs. civic obligation, personality vs. nature, love vs. freedom, fantasy vs. realism, Don Quixote vs. Hamlet) are matched by those in his critical writings and by the contradictions between his literary professions and practices. 246 5 Viedert, Vladimir and Zekulin, Nicholas G. “The Viedert - Turgenev Correspondence.” NJSZ: 1-50. Presents the unpublished correspondence from December, 1854 to August, 1874 between Turgenev and German translator August Viedert, who was born and educated in Russia. Includes nine Turgenev letters to Viedert and ten letters of Viedert to Turgenev. Notes Viedert’s endeavors to introduce Russian literature into Germany. 6 Waddington, Patrick. “Turgenev Again.” NZSJ: 51-59. Adds four more bi graphical facts on Turgenev, annotating two of Turgenev’s letters, and George Sand’s note in praise of Rudin in 1872. Uncovers the date, place of writing, and recipient (April 1870, in Weirnar, to Swiss-bom composer Joachim Raff) of Turgenev’s letter written in German, further explaining the reason Turgenev wrote the letter. Finds that Turgenev was at Nohant, the country house of George Sand from 3 to 5 October and gave Sand his two books in French containing 0n the Eve, First Love, Rudin, The Diary of a Superfluous Man, and Three Meetings, which caused Sand to add a note in praise of Rudin upon publishing her novel. Presents Lord Lytton’s letter of 2 December, 187 3, written in French to Turgenev, briefly explaining their relation. Also presents Turgenev’s letter of March 14, 1882, in English to English journalist Alfred A. Reade in response to Reade’s inquiry about the influence of tobacco and alcohol on the mind, with some background information on Reade. 1992 1 Allen, Elizabeth Cherish. Beyond Realism: Turgenev’s Poetics of Secular Salvation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 255. A study of Turgenev’s poetics that aims to uncover the “unique literary patterns that cohere in an intricate, imaginative vision of art and human existence.” Criticizes two trends in assessments of Turgenev, which concentrates on the social and historical content of Turgenev’s prose fiction, calls Turgenev a realist and fosters the myth that 247 Turgenev devoted himself solely to the objective recording of the contemporary ways of life; and a second trend which focuses on Turgenev’s mastery of form rather than his historical subject matter, seeing Turgenev primarily as an aesthete. Examines the ethical and aesthetic values of the tradition with which Turgenev’s works are most frequently associated, realism, and then looking beyond realism to discover other characteristic values, particularly ethical ones, that identify and unify Turgenev’s art. Discusses how Turgenev’s poetics, language, the narrative voice, and characterization dramatize his ethical beliefs. Sees Turgenev’s poetics as artful “orchestrations of space and time,” which “set very deliberate physical, metaphysical and moral parameters” within which the event he portrays can distinctively unfold. Maintains that Turgenev falters in Virgin Soil by employing more extensively than in any other of his works images of spatial and temporal continuity, referential language, a single narrative point of view, and characters committed to collective action-- in short, by compromising his ethical and aesthetic principles. Finds, however, that Turgenev once again affirms those principle in his final creations, the prose poems. Concludes that Turgenev’s ethical beliefs are central to an appreciation of Turgenev’s unique accomplishments as an artist and thinker, beliefs which are subsumed under the label “secular salvation,” a salvation through the rational and creative powers of a human being. 2 Frost, Edgar L. “Hidden Trait: The Subtle Imagery of Xueue Mowu.” SEEJ 36, no. 1: 36-56. Discusses how Turgenev weaves “a complex network of subtle images” to describe Luker’ja, the heroine in A Living Relic, as an exemplar of the “Russian notion of cleansing one’s soul through suffering,” tracing this system from the first to the last paragraph of the story. Examines the etymological symbolism in the names of the main characters (Luker’ja, Agrafena, Vasilij), and their living place (Spasskoe and Glinnoe), suggesting a dichotomy between spiritual and earthly images. Maintains that Turgenev 248 uses the name Vasilij, the lover of Luker’ja, as “a symbol of transition in Luker’ja’s existence,” that is, a transition from her love for Vasilij to a higher love for Christ, which is the core of the content of Luker’ja’s three dreams. Sees the title of the story, A Living Relic, as a reference which symbolizes that Luker’ja has not reached a state of official sainthood and that “Christ tells us that it is through Him that we may have life that is eternal.” Compares the imagery of Luker’ja with a sickle in her hand in her second dream with that of the Mother of God. Recounts four images demonstrating the purity of the heroine: a dove, water, the white handkerchief of the narrator, and her singing. Also examines a consistent set of images connected with seven birds, used to evoke nest- weaving, frwdom, and song. Finds the repetition of words with one Slavic root as Turgenev’s way of describing the heroine’s situation in its “protractedness.” Sees songs, voices, and ringing sounds in the closing paragraph of the story as images for “the glory of God,” which “through Christ, shines on Luker’ja.” Concludes that in A Living Relic, Turgenev, using his great powers of observation and image production, subtly shows “what a saint Luker’ja is” 3 Gunn, Dairmid. “Russian Influence on a Scottish Author.” SSR 19: 65-69. Mentions Turgenev’s influence on Scottish writer Neil Gunn in his depiction of the beauty of nature and the strength and mystical appeal of women, juxtaposing Turgenev’s description of landscape in Bezin Meadow with that of Gunn in his novel Silver Bough, the characterization of Zinaida in First Love with that of Jenny in Wild ' Geese Overhead. 4 Shatz, Marshall. “Bakunin, Turgenev and Rudin.” In The Golden Age of Russian Literature and Thought. Edited by Derek Offord. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 103-114. Examines the verification of the common belief that Bakunin was the direct model of Rudin. Explains Turgenev’s close relationship with Bakunin. Notes some 249 affinities of physical appearance and habit between them. Believes that Rudin came from “Belinskij’s characterization of Bakunin,” citing Belinskij’s correspondence to his friends in which he appraised Bakunin as incapable of applying thought to reality and of expressing true feelings in a natural way. Traces Turgenev’s equivocal statements on the relation between Bakunin and Rudin and concludes that Turgenev used Belinskij ’s Bakunin in his novel Rudin in order to pass “judgment on himself as much as on Bakunin and the other philosophical idealists of the period.” 5 Waddington, Patrick. “Two Authors of Strange Stories: Bulwer-Lytton and Turgenev.” NZSJ: 31-54. Suggests that Turgenev was influenced by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, a popular Victorian English novelist. Briefly mentions Bulwer-Lytton’s reputation in Russia in his day. Maintaines that in the 18508, both writers had a strong interest in spiritualism, mainly through the magic performance of American spirit medium D. D. Home. Discusses Turgenev’s seven mystery stories, Phantoms, The Dog, A Strange Story, Knock...Knock...Knock, The Dream, The Song of Triumphant Love, and Klara Milie’, comparing them with Bulwer-Lytton’s A Strange Story and Turgenev’s experiences in Home’s seances. Finds the Turgenev stories consistent in spiritual and philosophical makeup, i.e., there is a scientific and a mysterious interpretation of what is happening, which suggests the literary inspiration of Bulwer-Lytton and Home. 1993 1 Casari, Rosanna. “Turgenev and the Myth of the Psyche.” In Literary Tkadition and Practice in Russian Culture: Papers fiorn an International Conference on the Occasion of the Seventieth Birthday of Yury Mikhailovich Lotrnan Held at keele University, United Kingdom, July 2-6, 1992. Edited by Valentina Polukhina and others. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 304-309. Describes Turgenev’s encounter with the picture of Psyche, based on a novel of the ancient Roman writer Apuleius, on the ceiling of the Villa Farnesina in Rome. 250 Discusses how Turgenev’s own version of Psyche which appears in various dreams in his works, such as Three Meetings, An Evening in Sorrento, Klara Milié', and Poems in Prose. Maintains that Turgenev took from Apuleius’s Psyche tale the semantic nucleus of the striving for knowledge, understanding and harmony but interpreted it in accordance with his own philosophy, that is “the striving for an ideal and harmonious view” is “ceaselessly confronted by an awareness that life is always at the mercy of chaos and absurdity.” Sees the images of light, lamp and candle used frequently to symbolize the theme of “knowledge at any moment subjected to extinguishment.” Suggests that Turgenev may have acquired these images from a famous childhood book Symbols and Emblems, noting that Turgenev took some of them straight from the illustrations of the book. Concludes that Turgenev’s Psyche is as important a theme in his works as is the theme of Hamlet and Don Quixote. 2 Dalton, Margaret. “Common Romantic Motifs: Karolina Pavlova’s Dvojnaja zizn’ and Ivan Turgenev’s Faust.” In Alexander Lipson: In Memoriam. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 50-57. Examines similarities between Dvojnaja Zizn ’ of the nineteenth-century Russian poetess Karolina Pavlova and Faust of Turgenev, noting that both writers had a similar literary and phi1080phical background developed under the influence of German Romanticism. Finds similarities in character presentation and general ideas on art and love (both heroines are introduced by literature to the ideal world of poetry and love), and romantic sense of resignation in the face of harsh and difficult life. Also points out the difference between the works: while in Faust the old Romantic motif of love connected with death is clearly identified, in Dvojnaja lizn ’ the motif is less obviously presented. 251 3 Durkin, Andrew R. “The Generic Context of Rural Prose: Turgenev and the Pastoral Tradition.” In American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists: Bratislava, August-September 1993. Columbus: Slavica, pp. 43-50. Discusses pastoral elements in Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter, seeing the work as Turgenev’s “programmatic attempt” to link the depiction of Russian rural reality to the Greco-Roman traditions of European pastoral literature. Regards Turgenev’s “apparent willingness to extend” Notes of a Hunter and the work’s variety of tonality from comic to hagiographic as consonant with general principles of the pastoral. Elaborates more intimate connections between pastoral and the four stories from Notes of a Hunter, Xor’ and Kalynic’, Forest and Steppe, The Singers, and BeZin Meadow, maintaining that those stories’ structural punctuation reinforces the pastoral implications of the work as a whole. Finds strong similarity between the contrast of Xor’ and Kalynib and Virgil’s juxtaposition of Tityrus and Meliboeus in the first Eclogue and recounts similar details between the story and Theocritean bucolic. Maintains that the perceptual shift caused by “setting heroic themes amid prosaic activities” in Xor’ and Kalynit‘ is typical of the pastoral tradition and underlies the remainder of Notes of a Hunter. Finds the “cyclic reabsorption” of pastoral verse into nature and poetry in Forest and Steppe as a part of the pastoral tradition. Also finds that The Singers and BeZin Meadow combine the characters and conventionalized drama of pastoral. Also draws a distinction between ancient pastoral and Turgenev’s use of pastoral in “the presence of the non-pastoral observer-narrator.” 4 Wasiolek, Edward. Fathers and Sons: Russia at the Cross-roads. New York: Twayne Publishers, 125pp. A study of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Deals with the literary and historical context of the novel in the first section and issues of structure, art and ideology, generational conflict, and characterization in the novel in the second section. Believes that the novel’s importance lies not only in its objective and condensed image of a time 252 when “patriarchal Russia is under siege and in the process of change,” but also its treatment of many universal issues such as complications of social structure, class privilege, and the conflict of Fathers and Sons. Briefly mentions the critical reception of the novel by Turgenev’s contemporary critics and twentieth-century critics, bringing up some disputed points among critics such as the characterization of Odincova and the duel between Pavel and Bazarov. Examines Turgenev’s worldview, comparing it with that of Cemysevskij and Dostoevskij. Also mentions Turgenev’s division of humanity into Hamlets and Don Quixotes and sees Bazarov as a typical Hamlet- type character. Notes that though Turgenev stated many times that he was in almost every respect on Bazarov’s side, “the picture that arises from the novel is a rejection of the radical program.” Finds that Fathers and Sons follows the general structure of Turgenev’s previous novels, which are built on ideological issues and love relationships within a scenic structure. Sees Arkadij as the intermediary between the two generations. Maintains how the novel interweaves personal themes with ideological issues “by meticulous observation and objective rendering.” Treats in detail the characterizations of Pavel, Bazarov, and Odincova. Discusses the reasons for Bazarov’s external and internal change and his death. Maintains that Odincova’s rejection of Bazarov teaches him that “he is not the exempt from the passion” he has considered foolish and which leads to his drastic change in mood and ultimate death. ‘ 1994 1 Allen, Elizabeth Cheresh. Introduction to The Essential Thrgenev. Edited by Elizabeth Cheresh Allen. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, xi-xxxvii. Gives a general view of Turgenev’s novels, novellas, short stories, poems in prose, articles, and reminiscences, maintaining that his acute understanding of the complexities of human life makes him not only the writer of his time but also a writer of 253 the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Discusses Turgenev’s conception of human nature, comparing it with those of Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Maintains that the “delineation of people defending themselves from their vulnerabilities” is a kernel of his works, and finds that his poetics are deeply rooted in his psychology and philosophy of life. Recounts the most conspicuous components of his poetics: the representation of space and time, the use of language, the techniques of narration, and the mode of characterization. Discusses salient features of the novels Rudin, A Nest of the Gentry, Fathers and Sons, novella First Love, some stories from Notes of a Hunter, his late stories, A Strange Story, The Dream, and The Song of Triumphant Love, and his nonfiction works. Points out that his novels show not only distinguishing quality but also ethical vision, and that the salient feature in his prose works, especially in the short stories-- the maintenance of distance and self-constraint-- can also be found in his letters. 2 Briggs, A. D. P. “Two Months in the Country: chov’s Unacknowledged Debt to Turgenev.” NZSJ: 17-32. Finds Cexov’s claim in his letter to his wife Olga on 23 March 1903 that he had not read Turgenev in any detail by that time and he did not like Turgenev’s drama A Month in the Country is “disingenuous.” Maintains that there are more similarities between Cexov’s dramas and A Month in the Country than between A Month in the Country and Balzac’s Stepmother. Gives a close comparison of A Month in the Country with Uncle Vanja, finding not only many overall affinities such as six characters building a complex set of intriguingly symmetrical relationships and similar setting and atmosphere, but also “a whole series of almost identical actions taken and things said.” Examines in detail Act Three in A Month in the Country and the overlap between Acts Two and Three in Uncle Vanja and finds three parallel scenes with similar stage directions, almost interchangeable “phraseological correspondences,” frequent references to time, and devices such as sudden intrusion and interpolation of songs. Also 254 mentions some minor differences in theme and tone between the two dramas. Concludes that though it can not be said that Cexov is “a plagiarist,” it is certain that there were borrowings of Cexov from Turgenev’s drama. 3 Freeborn, Richard. “Frankenstein and Bazarov.” NZSJ: 33-44. Attempts to trace the “English, Byronic concept of a personality” which is “all alone in the universe without any link to the present and the past” with the first manifestation of the “new man” in Russian literature. Maintains that while in English literature, the artificial new man was created by Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s novel, in Russian literature, the new man, “the next generation of superfluous man” was made for the first time by Turgenev in Bazarov who not only has the “limitless conceit” of Frankenstein, but also “the ideas of free personality and of life regarded as sacrifice.” Sees Bazarov as a Byronic hero transformed “by the specific conditions of Russian reality,” with “the issue of education” at the center of the process of the transformation. 4 Lagerberg, Robert. “Images of Night and Day in Turgenev’s Pervaia Liubov. ’” NZSJ: 57-68. Traces criticisms of the conclusion of First Love and calls for closer examination of the last chapter, which is the episode of a dying old woman, and the absent concluding frame. Regards imagery of day and night as an important element which links the main body and concluding chapter of the story “both structurally and thematically,” serving also to establish the connection between love and death in the story. Sees the image of darkness as “a symbol of the deeply unhappy nature of Vladimir’s passing from boyhood into manhood,” and also sees Vladimir as “the embryonic superfluous man.” Maintains that the absence of any comment from the narrator or his two guests on the death of the old woman implies the darkness which follows love and death, and that “night and day therefore fuse into something more 255 mysterious and awesome - silent eternity.” Concludes that the silence in “the absent frame” in the concluding chapter (no comment from narrator or from two characters) is the most natural depiction of Turgenev’s pessimistic world in which “both the ability and inability to love are punished by forms of love.” 5 ickulin, Nicholas G. “Early Translations of 'nrrgentw’s Zapiski okhotnika into German, French and English.” NZSJ: 229-258. Discusses translations and publications of Turgenev’s Notes of a Hunter into German, French and English. Notes that though a good first foreign translation of Notes of a Hunter into German by August Viedert was published in 1852, the translation was “abandoned in favor of a cheaper one for purely commercial reasons.” Points out that the notorious French translation by Charriere, published in 1854 and publicly rejected by Turgenev himself, had huge success up until the last edition of 1912. Enumerates errors such as truncation and distortion of the original text which mark Charriere’s translation. Finds that Charriere’s appreciation for aspects of Turgenev’s artistry such as the absence of excessive didacticism, reliance on showing rather than telling and Charriere’s drawing of parallels between Notes of a Hunter and Harriet Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin became a model for assessments of Turgenev by Merimee and English critics. Determines that Delaveau’s French translation of the work was accurate but dry, which accounts for its failure. Notes Delaveau’s attention to Turgenev’s gift for nature description and his assessment of the work as “an eloquent plea for emancipation.” Notes that f'ust English translation of Notes of a Hunter, entitled a Russian Life in the Interior or the Experiences of a Sportsman and published in December 1854 was from Charriere’s French version and many book reviews on the translation and assessments of Turgenev by English critics were based on those by Chaniere, mentioning that English and American readers had read bad translations from French until the appearance of Constance Gamett’s translation in 1896. Notes national peculiarities in the reception of 256 Turgenev such as the German interest in Turgenev’s mastery of the story genre and the British focus on political context, noting that only in France did Notes of a Hunter achieve real popularity. 1995 1 Greg, Richard. “The Wimp, the Maiden and the Mensch: Turgenev’s Bermuda Triangle.” RL 38: 51-81. Examines a particular relationship between Turgenev’s fictional types which functions as “a compositional device” in his fifteen stories and novels, and elucidates the governing rule of this relationship. Analyzes the “emotional emasculation” in the hero of First Love, finding that this syndrome consists of a single situation (the rivalry of two men for the affections of a woman), seven particulars characterizing that situation and a point of view subsuming the action as a whole. The seven particulars in the story are: the “Wimp,” the sensitive and poetic Vladimir; the Mensch or Big Brother, his older and more experienced father; the Maiden, Zinaida, attracted to the Mensch; Vladimir’s adulation of the Mensch; the emasculation of the Wimp Vladimir by his father; impregnation of Vladimir’s father; and the death of both Maiden and the Mensch. Expounds syndromic elements in fourteen other Turgenev stories and novels, finding that the syndrome defines the structure of the relatively simple stories written in 1844- 1858 such as Andrej Kolosov, The Bear, The Diary of a Superfluous Man, Two Portraits, and Asja. Finds in his novels and the novella, The Watch, written during the middle years (1855-1878), the “great syndromic complex” in which politics plays an important role. Concludes that Turgenev’s retrospective tales and novels have in common the controversial hero, the Mensch, with “a destructive potential directed at the Wimp whom he cows, sometimes at the Maiden whom he seduces, but most often, and most tragically, at himself.” CD CONCLUSION The preceding analysis has revealed the wide variety and scope of Turgenev criticism. Yet certain categories can be identified under which almost all Turgenev criticism can be subsumed: (1) comparative studies; (2) biographical studies; (3) Turgenev as a critic; (4) Turgenev criticism; (5) socio-political and philosophical studies; (6) reception; (7) poetics; (8) and Turgenev’s connection with literary movements. As noted in Chapter One, significant trends and shifts have occurred in all these areas over the past 140 years. ’ Comparative studies began in 1873 when William Howells briefly compared Turgenev’s A Nest of the Gentry with Victor Chervuliez’s tragic story La Revanche de Joseph Noirel, concluding that the former is more realistic than the latter. Although some critics continued in this vein, offering brief comparisons of Turgenev with other writers, comparative studies were already taking a new direction by the early 18808. An anonymous critic’s pioneering study on similarities in character grouping and themes between Smoke and J arnes’s Confidence in 1880 pointed toward a more serious critical involvement in studying the influence of Turgenev on other writers. Another pioneering study also by an anonymous critic came out in 1884. It analyzed similarities in intimacy with nature among Turgenev, George Eliot and George Sand, and displayed other writers’ influence on Turgenev. This trend of assessing Turgenev’s influence on others and others’ influence on Turgenev expanded in the first half of the 20th century, as 257 258 criticism shifted from discussion of general literary influence toward a more focused comparison of specific works. Milton Hindus’s study of Turgenev’s stylistic influence on Mann in 1959 marked another change in this criticism, from simple thematic comparison to precise analysis of poetical devices which Turgenev bequeathed to other writers. Soon after this a more diversified array of subjects for comparison appeared «characterization, themes, style, structure, narrative techniques, intertextuality, literary parody, subtext, plot, aestheticism, philosophy, religion, among others. Vytas Dukas and Richard Lawson’s co-study in 1969 on stylistic comparison of Turgenev’s The Diary of a Superfluous Man to Goethe’s The Sorrow of Young Werther (emphasizing Goethe’s poetical influence on Turgenev) led comparative studies to focus on other’s influence on Turgenev’s poetics from the 19708 on. One more shift in comparative studies, evolving from R. Silvajoris’s study of hidden literary parody in The Singers of Karamzin’s Poor Liza in 1984, should also be noted. Since that study, critics such as Werner Hoffmeister and William Sheifley have added literary parody and intertextuality to the tools of comparison utilized by Turgenev scholars. Another development in comparative studies in the 1990s marked the introduction of Greco-Roman writers (Virgil and Apuleius) and relatively little-known Russian writers (Tur and Pavlova). Throughout the 140 years of comparative studies, two writers-- James and Dostoevskij-- have been most consistently compared to Turgenev and this comparison had been a main axis of the comparative studies. Although the subject matter has changed with the progress of time, these two writers have remained an important nucleus in comparative studies of Turgenev with both Western and Russian writers. 259 Among Western writers James has been most often compared to Turgenev. An anonymous study in 1880 noted on, for example, similarities in character groupings and themes between Smoke and Henry J ames’s Confidence, helped open the field of comparative studies in general, and involving James in particular. Comparison of Turgenev with James reached its peak with a study by Daniel Lerner comparing thematic affinities between Virgin Soil and The Princess Casamassima. Since then comparison of Turgenev with James has mainly focused on thematic and characterization. Robert Long noted J arnes’s broad debt to Turgenev in poetical techniques in 1976, paving a still more fertile ground for comparison. In the 1980s, as Paul Debreczeny compared the two writers with an eye toward their skill of blending social and political themes into the aesthetic structure of Fathers and Sons and The Princess Casamassima, ground work was laid for comparative criticism integrating thematic, poetic and socio-political perspectives, an approach with significant implications for almost all aspects of Turgenev criticism. Bayard Tuckerrnan’s comparison of Turgenev with Dostoevskij in 1883, labeling the former as an artist, the latter “a pleader,” became another important marker for comparative studies. In 1909 Maurice Baring saw a different Turgenev. Despite his well- known ability to capture the beauty of language, Baring considered Turgenev’s understanding of life shallow and cold when compared with that of Dostoevskij ’8. Comparison of Turgenev with Dostoevskij (certainly the predominant axis of comparative studies on Turgenev) further cemented this stereotype. Comparative studies of Turgenev to Dostoevskij, which has for the most part remained fixated on their irreconcilable artistic and temperamental differences, were changed by Robert Jackson in 1973 who traced down these differences in their aesthetic vision and styles. Among Russian writers who have been most frequently compared to Turgenev, a special place is accorded to Cexov, who as most critics have agreed, is Turgenev’s 260 successor. Consequently, comparative studies of Turgenev and Cexov have not undergone many trends and shifts. P. Phelps pioneered this view of Cexov’s link with Turgenev in a 1916 study treating their poetic devices. Since then, many critics such as A. Cross, Nicholas Anderson, and A. Briggs, have followed suit, offering together an exhaustive and convincing support for their views of Cexov as Turgenev’s successor. Biographical studies on Turgenev have also been voluminous and have undergone changes in focus. Since Clara Martin’s article on Turgenev’s mother in 1885, early criticism dealt mainly with biographical anecdotes and the influence of Turgenev’s mother on Turgenev’s life and works. However, with an anonymous study in 1910, the subject of biographical studies began to shift to Turgenev’s lover Pauline Viardot and her connection to his works. Since then, Viardot has remained an important basis for biographical studies of Turgenev. Not until the publication of A. Yarmolinsky’s full-scale biography, did English biographical studies remained in a fragmentary state. Yarmolinsky’s biography covered the whole range of Turgenev’s life, and became a touchstone for the biographical studies which followed. E. H. Carr’s study on Turgenev’s relationship with Dostoevskij in 1929 had great impact in this field, and Dostoevskij became the second most frequently studied figure in biographical studies after Viardot. This trend continued until Richard Kappler’s study of Turgenev’s relationship with French writers appeared in 1960. Since then, critics such as Per Seyersted and Patrick Waddington have produced elaborate studies of Turgenev’s personal relationships with American and English writers. Emphasis on French writers, especially on Sand, was resumed in biographical studies from 1979 on, with Carole Karp’s and Lesley Herrnann’s studies of Turgenev’s relationship with Sand. 261 Criticism also moved in a fruitful new direction when Joseph Baylen studied biographical data from Turgenev’s epistolary documents in 1968. This approach was firmly established as predominant for biographical studies by Patrick Waddington’s extensive epistolary studies made from the 1970 to the 19908. Ever since his first epistolary study on Turgenev’s relationship with Viardot appeared, Waddington has expanded to cover almost every aspect of Turgenev’s life along with biographical connection to Turgenev’s works. Patrick Waddington’s documentary search for Fathers and Sons in 1984 pioneered the exploration of data for biographical connection to Turgenev’s works, and opened new prospects for Turgenev criticism. This type of study has greatly broadened the field of biographical research. As documentary and epistolary studies on Turgenev became active, Turgenev’s connection to English writers and literary figures has been much more clearly elucidated from the 19708. Considering the sheer bulk of Turgenev’s correspondence, which numbering more than six thousand items, epistolary studies will doubtlessly continue to be a catalyst for Turgenev criticism in the future. Criticism of Turgenev as critic was pioneered in 1934 by Virginia Woolf’s exploration of Turgenev’s theory of art, centering on Turgenev’s own literary skills. This trend continued until G. Barratt reviewed Turgenev’s unpublished article on Baratynskij ’8 verse in 1968. Since then other scholars, such as Richard Kappler, Jerome Linkus, and Andrew Donskov, have followed pattern, scrutinizing Turgenev’s writings for his critical view of art, philosophy, and drama. They have all made a significant contribution to our understanding of Turgenev the critic. Criticism of Turgenev criticism has had its own trend setting studies. Zbigniew Folejewskij ’8 study of Soviet criticism of Fathers and Sons in 1962 deserves mention for 262 its influence, chiefly in setting in motion the socio-political spin that has dominated Soviet criticism. Even though in the 19708 such studies as Dale Peterson’s examination of Henry J ames’s articles on Turgenev’s artistic technique stand out, Edward Brown’s 1978 analysis of Pisarev’s critical view of nihilism in Fathers and Sons exemplifies this criticism’s persistent focus on the social meaning of Turgenev’s works. Socio-political and philosophical studies on Turgenev have comprised one of the most enduring and voluminous sectors of criticism. Since the first criticism of socio- political and philosophical approach appeared (1855.1), critics have underlined Turgenev’s ability to raise subtle political questions in his works. This trend reached a climax when H. Hershkowitz’s comprehensive summary of Turgenev’s democratic ideas appeared in 1932. From the emergence of the socio-philosophical theme of the superfluous man, as in Irving Howe’s 1956 study, criticism acquired a more philosophical bent as opposed to a political one, dealing with such topics as human destiny and female emancipation. Another significant trend was set by A. Walicki’s 1963 study on Turgenev’s philosophical connection to German philosophers, especially Schopenhauer. Since then many critics (Sigrid Maurer and Irene Masing-Delic) have followed suit. James Woodward’s study of the Roman theme in 1989 was notable in its endeavor to solve the entangled problem of ambiguity in Turgenev’s philosophy, which had been pointed out from the very start of Turgenev criticism. Hi8 argument that Solomin in Virgin Soil is an embodiment of Turgenev’s Western Gradualism, as well as a synthesis of the altruist and Roman egoist who has ability to act, is convincing. Turgenev’s reception has been frequently examined from early criticism, revealing a mixed reception for Turgenev in the West. Critics like G. Staratsky noted Turgenev’s low 263 popularity while others critics Henry James saw the positive side of Turgenev’s reception in the late 19th century. The waxing and waning popularity of Turgenev in England and America up to the 19308 was recounted by R. Gettrnan in 1937, and similar study up to the 19508 was supplemented by Marc Slonim in 1961. In 1983 there was a change in treatment of Turgenev’s reception as Tamara Motyleva noted Turgenev’s popularity among Western writers, recording their assessment on him. Turgenev’s poetics has overall received more attention than any aspect of his art from the early criticism to the 19908, undergoing many shifts and changes. The criticism has been examined in two categories: modes of characterization, and stylistic and structural devices. Studies of characterization have been one of the most popular fields of Turgenev criticism with the main focus on Turgenev’s characterization of Bazarov, which has been buffeted by winds of social and political changes, ever since M. Willcock labeled him a “new man.” A. Brigg’s understanding of Bazarov as a tragic hero in 1983 exemplified the change in perspective on Bazarov from socio-political to. philosophical. John Mersereau Jr. showed an even more drastic change, a totally different paradigm for the character; While attention has been given to many other aspects of Turgenev’s characterizations, three aspects have been of lasting, persistent interest: character grouping, female characterization, and characterization devices. Character grouping, which became popular in the 19708, began with Joel Blair’s discussion of Turgenev’s three-part structuring of character relationships in Fathers and Sons. Critics such as Gary Jahn, Pierre Hart, and David Lowe followed this pattern in the 19708 and 19808. Very early critics have noted Turgenev’s strong, willful female characters, and discussion about his heroines has often been lively and controversial. While George Pahomov’s article (1983) argued that there was a change in Turgenev’s description of women as vile seducers after 1860, James Halliday rejected Pahomov’s stereotyping of Odincova as a negative figure. As for individual characterization device, a great many scholars have 264 shed light on Turgenev’s gallery of characters from the perspective of the craft rather than political-charged typology. Ever since W. Phelps noted Turgenev’s preference for narrative characterization to characterization through incidents early in the 20th century, critics have remained silent on this topic. But after the 19808 many devices such as Turgenev’s subtle use of dress code and symbolism in the names were discovered by critics such as Boris Crista and Edgar Frost. In the 19th century, criticism barely mentioned general stylistic features of Turgenev. Nor did criticism show real progress during the first half of the 20th century. Yet from the 19608 on Turgenev’s poetics has received more attention than any other aspect of Turgenev’s art. Stylistic and structural elements ranging from imagery, nature description, lyrical perception, narration, plot, stylistic and structural devices, to humor and time setting have all received thorough scrutiny. Active studies on Turgenev’s narrative skills started from 1957. Ralph Matlaw’s study on the reasons of narrative transition in A Nest of the Gentry sparked exploration of Turgenev’s narrative skills. Andrew Joe’s 1987 analysis of narrative in Asja from the point of view of feminist criticism set another trend linking stylistic analysis to socio- political concerns. Plot in Turgenev’s works has largely been neglected by critics. This has changed since the appearance of Virginia Burns study of time structure as plot device in 19708. Other critics such as A Briggs and Robert Jackson have expanded on the analysis of Turgenev’s plot designs. The debate on structural devices typical of Turgenev’s short stories and novellas has been a key issue in poetical studies since P. Spaulding in 1953 identified the device of 265 interposing the “epitomized biography.” Thomas Eekrnan suggested I-structure as typical for a story and frame structure as typical for shorter stories. While Edward Wasiolek saw that Turgenev’s novel was built on ideological issues and love relationships. Criticism of Turgenev’s connection with literary movements has been one of the more controversial areas of criticism. While in 1874, Thomas Perry linked Turgenev to Realism, Isabel Hapgood in 1902 placed him with the Romantics, a view which prevailed until Marina Ledkovksy in 1969 saw Turgenev as a link in the evolution of Russian literature from Romanticism and Realism to Symbolism. Others, such as Peter Brang in 1984, simply admitted experiencing difficulty in pinning down Turgenev’s literary mode. When Thomas Winner wrote his Introduction to Ger§enzon’s Met‘ta i mysl ’ I. S. Turgeneva in 1970, he deplored the rarity of “serious scholarly studies of Turgenev’s total oeuvre that would have been required to explain the uniqueness of his art and to assess his contribution to, and place in, the development of Russian and Western literature.” Besides observing, as has been shown above, that criticism of Turgenev’s works since 1970 have extensively dealt with many of Winner’s objections, I must note that the study of English criticism of Turgenev from 1855 to 1995 has indeed been positive, and most significantly, comprehensive. The critics mentioned in this conclusion have elaborately explored manifold aspects of Turgenev’s literary legacy, examining external and internal salient features of Turgenev’s oeuvre. In this process Turgenev criticism has substantially changed and shifted, with trends arising, gaining strength, waning and seemingly disappearing, but, at the same time, an effective basis for future studies has been established. Among the eight categories of criticism mapped out in this dissertation, the three areas of poetical, comparative, and biographical studies have been the most significant 266 and fruitful categories of Turgenev criticism because of their sheer number, high percentage of significant articles, and the closest consensus among critics. With the advent of epistolary study, activated from the 1970s on, biographical study can be singled out for its dynamic role in uncovering subjects or hinting at new approaches for other studies or sowing the seed for still more development in Turgenev criticism. This trend still carries on, leaving Turgenev criticism with much “Virgin Soil” to explore. SUBJECT INDEX Andrej Kolosov, 1932.2, 1957.3, 1971.3. 1981.10, 1995.1 A Quiet Spot, 1974.4 Asja, 1898.2, 1960.4, 1964.1, 1980.4, 1983.23, 1986.1, 1987.1, 1989.2. 1995.1 Auerbach, B., 1887.1 The Bachelor, 1972.6, 1983.13 Bednaja Nevesta, 1984.9 Belinskij, V. G.. Bibliothéque Nationale, 1977.7 Biographical study, 1874.1. 1883.1,1883.2, 1883.3, 1883.4, 1885.1, 1890.2-3, 1891.1, 1894.1-2, 1895.1, 1898.1, 1899.1, 1901.1, 1902.1, 1904.2, 1908.2, 1910.1, 1910.3, 1912.1-2, 1926.1, 1929.1-2, 1932.1-2, 1946.2-3, 1954.2, 1955.1, 1957.3, 1958.3, 1960.2-4, 1961.2, 1962.8, 1965.1, 1965.6, 1968.2, 267 1970.4, 1971.5, 1973.5, 1973.10-11. 1974.4, 1975.1, 1975-6, 1976.6-7. 1977.6-7, 1978.5, 1978.11-12, 1979.4, 1979.9, 1980.6-7, 1980.9. 1981.1, 1981.4, 1981.7-9, 1982.1, 1982.6-7, 1982.9, 1983.5-6. 1983.10, 1983.19, 1983.21, 1983.24, 1983.26, 1983.40-43, 1983.48, 1984.1, 1984.20, 1984.25- 26, 1985.9-10, 1986.3, 1986.5. 1988.7, 1989.3, 1989.7-9, 1990.3-4. 1990.6, 1991.5-6, 1992.5, 1994.2, 1994.5. Daudet. A., 1883.3 De Goncourt, E., 1883.3 De Mars, V., 1975.1 Dinner Magny, 1883.3 mother, 1885.1, 1894.1 Paulinette, 1981.8 Petrovna, Julija 1910.3 Savina, Marija 1973.6 268 Turgenev, Nikolaj 1932.1 Viardot, Louise 1983.6 Viardot, Pauline 1908.2, 1910.1, 1910.3, 1926.1, 1946.2—3, 1954.3. 1965.4, 1966.1, 1968.3, 1971.5, 1973.10, 1974.5, 1976.6, 1981.8-9, 1982.7, 1983.2, 1983.10, 1983.40, 1983.42, 1983.43, 1984.20. 1984.25-26, 1985.9, 1986.5. 1989.7-9, 1991.5 The Breakfast in the Novel Marshall’ , 1972.6, 1983.13 Brethous-Lafargue, 1975.1 The Brigadier, 1899.3 Burty, P., 1975.1 Carelessness, 1972.6, 1983.13 Chorles, H. F., 1978.7 Collected Works and Letters of Turgenev, 1983.30 Comedy and Tragedy, 1979.1 Comparative studies, 1873.1, 1874.2, 1877.1, 1880.1, 1882.2, 1883.4-5, 1884.1, 1884.2, 1887.1, 1887.2, 1889.1,1890.3, 1891.1, 1894.3, 1894.5, 1895.2, 1896.4, 1898.1. 1899.1, 1899.4, 1900.1, 1902.2, 1903.1, 1904.1-2,1905.5, 1908.1, 1909.1, 1910.2, 1913.1, 1916.1, 1919.1, 1921.1-2, 1922.3, 1925.1, 1927.1, 1929.3, 1932.2, 1937.1. 1941.2, 1945.1, 1946.1, 1946.2, 1948.1, 1950.1, 1951.1, 1952.1, 1953.1, 1954.1-2, 1956.1-3, 1957.3, 1959.1-3, 1960.1, 1960.5. 1962.3-4. 1964.4, 1965.5, 1965.7. 1966.1, 1966.4, 1969.1-2, 1969.4, 1970.1-2, 1971.1-2, 1971.4, 1972.2- 3, 1972.6-7, 1973.2, 1973.4. 1973.6, 1973.8-9, 1974.2, 1974.6, 1975.3, 1976.3, 1977.1, 1977.3, 1978.4-5, 1978.8, 1978.10, 1979.3. 1979.9, 1980.4, 1981.2-6, 1982.2-3, 1982.5, 1982.8, 1983.1, 1983.16, 1983.20, 1983.23, 1983.33, 1983.37-38, 1983.45-46, 1983.49, 1984.5, 1984.8, 1984.17, 1984.19, 1984.21-22, 1985.2-3, 1985.5, 1986.2, 1987.5, 1988.3, 1988.6, 1989.1-2, 1989.4-6, 1990.5, 1991.1- 2, 1992.3, 1992.5, 1993.1-2, 1994.2, 1994.3 A Nest of the Gentry, 1873.1 Anderson, S., 1972.3 Apuleius.L., 1993.1 269 Amirn, B., 1983.37 Auerbach, B., 1887.1, 1905.3 Bal'mont, K., 1954.1 Balzack, H., 1903.1, 1984.8 Bennet, A., 1937.1 Buchner, G., 1965.3 Bulwer-Lytton, E., 1992.5 Bunin, 1., 1985.5 Byron, 6., 1883.4 Cable,G., 1983.38 Cather, W., 1989.4 Cexov, A., 1916.1, 1929.3, 1969.1, 1974.24, 1989.2, 1994.2 Cherbuliez, V., 1873.1 Chopin, F., 1904.2 Conrad, J., 1979.10, 1983.45 Dickens, C., 1874.2, 1900.1, 1927.1, 1950.1, 1978.10, 1989.6 De Quincey, T., 1896.4 Dostoevskij. F.M., 1883.5, 1887.1-2., 1894.5, 1899.1, 1902.2, 1904.1, 1919.1, 1925.1, 1929.3, 1932.2, 1937.1, 1945.1, 1946.1-2, 1948.1, 1953.1, 1955.1, 1956.2-3, 1957.3. 1972.5, 1972.7, 1973.4, 1973.6, 1974.6, 1981.2, 1982.3, 1984.5 Edgeworth, M., 1969.4, 1983.46 Eliot, 6., 1874.2, 1884.1, 1956.1, 1985.3 Emants, M., 1983.49 Flaubert, 6., 1884.2, 1890.3, 1891.1. 1983.33, 1989.5 Fontane, T., 1970.1, 1973.2, 1981.6 Galdos, P., 1971.1 Ger‘éenzon, N., 1954.1, 1970.5 Gide, A., 1981.3 Goethe, J., 1890.3, 1946.2, 1969.2. 1987.5 intertextuality, 1987.5 Gogol’, N., 1887.1-2, 1891.1, 1905.3. 1932.2, 1946.2, 1954.1, 1956.2, 1972.6, 1982.8 1983.13, 1984.21. Dead Souls., 1887.2 Goncourt, E., 1971.2 Griboedov, A., 1956.1 Grigorovic, D., 1905.3 Gunn, N., 1992.3 Hardy, T., 1925.1, 1948.1 Hawthorn, N., 1976.3 Hemingway, E., 1989.1 Homer, 1945.1 Howells, W. D., 1889.1, 1937.1, 1965.5, 1984.17 Ibsen, H., 1899.1. 1910.2 270 James, H., 1874.2, 1880.1, 1908.2, 1937.1, 1941.2, 1952.1, 1954.2, 1960.3, 1960.5, 1962.4, 1966.4, 1970.2, 1971.4, 1972.2, 1974.6, 1976.3, 1979.8, 1980.7, 1982.5, 1983.8, 1983.20, 1983.23, 1986.2, 1988.3, 1989.5 Joyce, J., 1974.2 Kaflca, F., 1962.5, 1965.7, 1973.8 Karamzin, N., 1984.21 Keyserling, E., 1978.5 Lermontov, M., 1929.3, 1932.2, 1954.1, 1973.9, 1984.21 Notes of a Hunter., 1883.5, 1884.1, 1887.2 Mann, T., 1959.1, 1964.4, 1984.22 Mauppasant, , 1976.3, 1977.3, 1989.6 Mérimée, ., 1983.13, 1985.2 Moliére, J., 1959.2 Moore, G., 1937.1, 1975.3, 1982.2 Musset., 1972.6, 1983.13 Navokov., 1981.7 Nekrasov., 1905.3 Pasternak, 1978.4 Pavlova, K., 1993.2 Poe,E., 1913.1 Prus, B., 1951.1 Puskin, A., 1929.3, 1946.2, 1954.1, 1960.1, 1978.8 Sand, G., 1874.2, 1884.1, 1887.1, 1905.3, 1966.1, 1979.3-4, 1980.4 Schopenhauer., 1946.2 Scott, W., 1874.2, 1889.1 Shakespeare, W., 1889.1, 1896.4, 1899.4, 1921.2, 1946.2, 1990.5 Shaw, G., 1984.19 Shelley, M., 1994.3 Sherwood, A., 1972.3 Slepcov,V., 1977.1 SolZenicyr'r, A., 1975.4 Storm, T., 1988.6 Stowe, H., 1921.1, 1959.3, 1965.3, 1883.5 - Strindberg, A., 1922.3 Thackeray., 1908.1, 1921.2 Tolstoj, L., 1887.1, 1887.2, 1889.1, 1890.2, 1891.1, 1894.3, 1894.5, 1895.2, 1896.4, 1898.1, 1898.2, 1902.2, 1904.1, 1909.1, 1919.1, 1925.1, 1929.3, 1946.1-2, 1948.1, 1950.1, 1953.1, 1956.3, 1957.3, 1973.4 The Death of Ivan Il’ic, 1898.2 Tur., 1991.2 Vajansky, H., 1983.16 Virgil., 1991.1-2, 1993.3 Woolf, Virginia Yeats., 1957.3 Zukovskij., 1973.9 Conrad, J., 1979.8 Consuelo, 1966.1 Conversation on the High Road, 1972.6, 1983.13 A Correspondence, 1874.3, 1976.3, 1985.8 Critical reception, 1899.1 Croquet at Windsor, 1980.7, 1983.47 A Desperate Character, 1899.3 The Diary of a Superfluous Man, 1932.2, 1969.2, 1975.1, 1975.6, 1976.6,1983.2,1983.25, 1984.16. 1989.8, 1991.6, 1995.1 Culkaturin, 1984.16, 1989.8 Dickens, C., 1874.2, 1884.2, 1974.5 Dilke, A., 1978.8 The Dog, 1883.4, 1969.3, 1992.5 Don Quixote, 1890.4 Drama, 1924.1, 1972.6, 1983.13, 1984.9 The Dream, 1910.2, 1992.5, 1994.1. 1995.1 The Duelist, 19323.2 Eliot, G., 1874.2, 1884.1, 1884.2 An Evening in Sorrento, 1983.13, 1993.1 Enough.', 1933.] The Execution of Tkopmann, 1983.5 Farytales, 1985.4 Fathers and Sons, 1867.1, 1869.1, 1874.3, 1878.1-2, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1890.3, 1891.1, 1895.1, 1896.4. 1909.1, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1929.3. 1931.1, 1932.1-2, 1942.1, 1945.1. 1951.1, 1953.1, 1954.2, 1957.2, 1959.1-2, 1960.1, 1961.4, 1962.1, 1962.3, 1965.4, 1971.1, 1972.1, 1973.1-4, 1974.1, 1974.4, 1974.6, 1976.1, 1977.1, 1977.4-5, 1978.2. 1978.7, 1978.11, 1979.5-6, 1980.2. 1980.5, 1981.2, 1981.10, 1982.4. 1982.8, 1983.3-4, 1983.7-9, 1983.12, 1983.14-15, 1983.25, 1983.28, 1983.36, 1983.43-44, 1984.3, 1984.5, 1984.12, 1984.15. 1984.22, 1984.26, 1985.1, 1985.7-8, 1987.2, 1988.2, 1989.3, 1989.8. 1990.2-3, 1990.7, 1993.4, 1994.1, 1994.3 allegory in, 1945.1 Arkadij, 1962.1, 1973.1, 1977.4-5, 1979.5-6, 1982.4, 1983.4, 1983.7. 1988.2, 1989.3, 1993.4 Bazarov, 1882.1, 1884.3, 1895.1, 1905.2, 1907.1, 1909.1, 1912.2, 1916.1,1921.2, 1932.1, 1942.1. 1946.1, 1953.1, 1959.1-2, 1962.1. 1972.1, 1973.3,1974.1, 1976.1, 1977.1, 1977.4-5, 1978.2, 1978.7, 1979.5-6, 1982.4, 1983.4, 1983.7, 1983.12, 1983.15, 1983.25. 1983.28, 1983.44, 1984.3, 1984.12, 1985.1, 1985.7, 1988.2, 1989.3, 1993.4, 1994.3 dialogue in, 1980.2, 1983.15 FeneEka, 1973.1, 1983.4, 1988.2 Katja, 1973.1, 1976.1, 1977.4, 1979.6, 1983.4, 1983.7, 1988.2, 1989.3 Kuk§ina, 1981.10 Nikolaj PetrovitY, 1973.1, 1977.4-5, 1979.5-6, 1982.4, 1983.4, 1983.7, 1988.2 Odincova, 1962.1, 1976.1, 1977.4, 1978.2, 1979.6, 1982.4, 1983.4, 1983.7,1983.15, 1983.44, 1984.3. 1988.2, 1989.3, 1993.4 272 Pavel Petrovit‘f., 1959.1, 1977.4-5, 1979.5-6, 1982.4, 1983.4, 1983.7, 1988.2,1989.8, 1993.4 Nihilism, 1878.2, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1882.1 Faust, 1898.2, 1969.2, 1974.4, 1977.1, 1979.21983.18, 1984.22, 1987.5. 1993.2 Pavel, 1983.18, 1987.5 Vera, 1987.18, 1987.5, 1993.2 Fet, A. A., 1890.2 First Love, 1905.3, 1919.1, 1932.2, 1950.1, 1960.4, 1964.4, 1971.3, 1974.4, 1978.5, 1978.11, 1982.3, 1983.5, 1983.20, 1983.34, 1989.4, 1992.3, 1994.1, 1994.3, 1995.1 dialogue in, 1950.1 Vladimir, 1982.3, 1994.3, 1995.1 Zinaida, 1950.1, 1971.3, 1983.20. 1983.34, 1989.4, 1992.3, 1994.3, 1995.1 Flaubert, G., 1883.3, 1884.2, 1890.3, 1891.1 French naturalists, 1884.2 Gamett, Constance and Edward, 1899.1 Gde Tonko, Tarn i leocia 1975.6 Goethe, A., 1890.3 1979.2 Gogol’, N.V., 1883.1, 1887.1, 1891.1 Gounod, C., 1976.6 Harrison, F., 1975.1 Hamlet and Don Quixote, 1902.1, 1932.2, 1962.7, 1975.4, 1978.3. 1983.28 Hegel, G., 1878.2 Howells, W. D., 1889.1, 1895.3 Hugo, V., 1883.2 The Inn, 1965.3, 1984.14 Irony, 1988.4 James, H., 1880.1, 1976.3 1979.7 The Jew, 1932.2, 1983.43 Keyserling, E., 1978.4 King Lear of the Steppes, 1898.2, 1917.1, 1983.5 flara Milit,1910.2, 1958.3, 1960.4, 1974.2, 1983.17, 1986.2, 1988.3, 1992.5, 1993.2 Aratov, 1983.17 Klara, 1983.17, 1983.34, 1986.2, 1988.3 Knock...Knock...Knock, 1960.4, 1969.3, 1982.5. 1992.5 Lack ofMoney, 1972.6, 1983.13 La Revue des Deux Mondes, 1975.6 273 Le Dernier Sorcier, 1984.28 Lenin, V., 1976.4 Lermontov, M., 1883.1 Literary allusion, 1964.1, 1969.3. 1984.6, 1984.21 Literary movement, 1871.1, 1874.3, 1894.5, 1980.1, 1902.1, 1907.1. 1910.2, 1913.1, 1929.3, 1946.1-2. 1962.1, 1969.3, 1969.5, 1970.3. 1973.9, 1983.18, 1983.29, 1983.32. 1983.34, 1984.4 Maupassant 1977.3 Milnes, R., (Lord Houghton) 1975.5, 1976.7 A Month in the Country, 1950.1, 1972.6, 1973.6, 1976.6, 1982.8, 1983.13, 1984.8-9, 1984.19, 1985.2, 1989.8, 1994.2 Natal’ja. 1950.1 A Moonless Night, 1976.5 Mumu, 1883.4, 1932.2, 1960.4, 1987.4 Gerasirn, 1987.4 Tat’jana, 1987.4 Myth, 1898.2, 1910.2, 1932.1-2, 1957.2, 1969.3, 1969.5, 1983.17, 1984.21 Natalfia Karpovna, 1985.8 A Nest ofa Gentry, 1873.1, 1874.3, 1894.4, 1896.4, 1899.2, 1903.1, 1912.2, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1929.3, 1931.1, 1932.1, 1954.2, 1960.1. 1960.5, 1961.4, 1967.1, 1974.34. 1975.5, 1976.3, 1978.1, 1978.11, 1979.1, 1980.5, 1981.3, 1981.7, 1981.10, 1983.3, 1983.23, 1983.35, 1984.15, 1985.3, 1985.7, 1986.2-4, 1989.5, 1989.9, 1990.2, 1994.1 Lavreckij, 1882.1, 1894.4, 1932.1, 1974.3, 1979.1, 1981.7, 1985.3, 1986.4, 1989.9 Lemm, 1986.4 Lisa, 1899.2, 1912.2, 1921.2, 1974.3, 1981.3, 1985.3, 1986.2, 1986.4, 1985.5 Marla, 1985.3 Varvara Pavlovna, 1974.3, 1981.10, 1985.3 Notes of a Hunter, 1855.1, 1869,], 1874.3, 1878.2, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1883.5, 1884.1., 1887.2, 1890.4, 1894.4, 1896.4, 1905.1, 1905.3, 1919.1, 1925.1, 1931.1-2, 1936.1, 1946.2, 1948.3, 1951.1, 1956.2, 1958.1, 1959.3, 1964.2, 1966.3, 274 1968.4, 1972.3, 1976.2, 1979.4, 1979.7, 1980.4-5 , 1980.8, 1981.10, 1982.2, 1983.22, 1983.27, 1983.37, 1983.46, 1984.18, 1984.21, 1987.2, 1988.5. 1989.8, 1991.3, 1993.3, 1994.1, 1994.5 The Bear, 1902.1, 1956.2, 1995.1 Befin Meadow, 1925.1, 1960.4. 1973.4, 1975.3. 1969.1, 1977.2, 1984.215 1985.5, 1992.3, 1993.3 Certopxanov and Nedopjuskin, 1984.21, 1988.1 comic effect in, 1988.1 The Country Doctor, 1913.1, 1962.5, 1965.7, 1973.8 The Death of Certopxanov, 1984.21, 1988.1 comic effect in, 1988.1 Ermolaj and the Miller’s Wife, 1979.7, 1982.2, 1988.5 Forest and Steppe., 1984.18, 1988.5, 1993.3 Hamlet of the SEigrov District, 1905.2, 1931.1, 1984.16, 1990.5 Vacilij Vacil’ic, 1984.16, 1990.5 Kas ’jan fiam Fair Springs, 1966.1, 1980.4, 1982.2, 1983.27 A Living Relic, 1960.4, 1975.3. 1982.2, 1983.48, 1992.2 Agrafena., 1992.2 Luker’ja., 1980.4, 1992.2 Vacilij., 1992.2 Raspberry Spring., 1979.7 The Singers, 1925.1, 1932.2. 1984.21, 1993.3 The Tryst, 1958.1, 1982.2 Xor’ and Kalinyl‘., 1978.3, 1979.7. 1984.18, 1991.3, 1993.3 Comparison with other works, 1884.1 Ermolaij and Miller’s Wife, 1979.6 social trend., 1890.4 Xor’ and Kalynilf., 1978.2, 1979.6 On the Eve, 1874.3, 1890.4, 1895.2, 1897.1, 1899.2, 1904.1,1912.2, 1916.1-2, 1917.1, 1932.1, 1960.1. 1960.5, 1961.4, 1967.1, 1971.1, 1973.4, 1974.4, 1976.3, 1978.1, 1978.3, 1978.11, 1979.3, 1980.5, 1983.3, 1983.11, 1983.36, 1984.15. 1984.17, 1984.24, 1985.8,1989.11, 1990.2, 1990.7, 1991.6 275 Bersenev., 1989.11 Elena, 1899.2, 1912.2, 1916.2, 1921.2, 1979.3, 1984.17, 1987.6. 1989.11 Insarov., 1882.1, 1895.2, 1907.1, 1932.1, 1987.6, 1989.11 social trend., 1890.4 Subin., 1976.3, 1989.11 Old Portraits, 1899.3 Operetta Librettos, 1965.4, 1984.28 Paradox, 1983.35, 1988.4, 1991.4 Parasa, 1890.1, 1929.3, 1974.4 The Parasite, 1972.6, 1983.13 Pasternak, B., 1978.3 Pessimism, 1975.2, 1983.18, 1988.4 PetuKkov, 1899.3 Phantoms, 1972.8, 1977.3, 1981.3, 1983.5, 1983.34, 1992.5 allegory in, 1972.8 Ellis, 1972.8, 1983.34 Poeties, 1889.1 characterization, 1873.1, 1874.2, 1877.2, 1880.1, 1896.1, 1899.2, 1905.2, 1907.1-2, 1910.2, 1912.2, 1913.1, 1916.1-2, 1921.1-2, 1925.1, 1932.1-2, 1933.1, 1950.1, 1953.1, 1957.1, 1961.4, 1969.7, 1970.5. 1971.3, 1973.1, 1977.4- 5, 1980.2, 1980.6, 1982.4, 1983.1, 1983.7, 1983.12, 1983.14, 1983.25. 1983.28, 1983.34, 1983.44, 1984.10, 1984.15-16, 1984.18, 1984.23, 1985.7-8, 1986.2, 1987.7, 1988.4, 1991.4, 1992.4, 1993.4. 1994.1, 1994.4, 1995.1 color device, 1964.1 general remarks/criticism on, 1867.1, 1869.2, 1874.2-3, 1877.1, 1882.2, 1883.5, 1889.1, 1890.3, 1894.5. 1895.3, 1897.1, 1899.2, 1899.4, 1905.2, 1908.1, 1908.1, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1929.1, 1929.3, 1945.1, 1946.2, 1948.1, 1950.1, 1954.1, 1973.4, 1988.4, 1994.1 humor, 1894.3, 1925.1, 1984.10, 1984.28 imagery. 1950.1, 1971.3, 1974.4, 1983.25, 1984.6, 1984.21, 1989.1, 1992.2, 1994.4 intertextuality, 1978.8, 1983.9, 1990.5 landscape setting, 1987.2 language and style, 1897.1 276 lyrical perception, 1976.5, 1988.4, 1990.2 metaphors/similes, 1889.1 motif, 1976.1 narrative technique, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1950.1, 1957.1, 1964.2, 1975.2, 1976.2, 1976.5, 1983.25, 1984.2-3. 1984.18, 1985.6, 1988.1, 1990.1-2, 1992.1 nature descriptions,1869.2, 1871.1, 1916.1, 1932.2, 1933.1, 1945.1. 1969.3, 1977.2, 1977.4, 1983.3. 1983.35, 1987.2, 1988.4, 1993.3 non-verbal communication, 1983. 18, 1990.2 parody, 1984.21 plot, 1895.3, 1897.1, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1945.1, 1974.1, 1980.1, 1984.14, 1988.4, 1990.2 sound device, 1969.1 speech introductory device, 1980.2 structural device, 1960.1, 1971.3, 1974.1, 1974.3, 1977.5, 1983.25. 1984.21, 1985.6, 1987.3, 1988.1. 1993.4, 1994.4 musical frame, 1974.2-3 stylistic device, 1984.21 technique, 1973.4, 1896.1, 1953.1 themes, ‘ international theme, 1967.1 love, 1950.1, 1973.3, 1975.2. 1983.9, 1983.18, 1983.34. 1984.27, 1985.1, 1986.1, 1987.4. 1993.4, 1994.4 time and space, 1974.1, 1975.2, 1976.1, 1994.1 Poetry, 1890.1, 1932.2, 1973.9 Pritchett, V. S., 1978.5 The Provincial Lady, 1972.6, 1983.13 Punin and Baburin, 1899.3, 1973.12 Baburin, 1899.3 Psychological studies, 1896.1-2, 1937.2, 1954.1, 1967.2, 1971.3, 1984.4, 1988.4 A Quite Spot, 1974.4, 1983.35 Religion, 1947.1, 1948.1, 1953.1, 1984.14 Reminiscences, 1879.1, 1894.2, 1926.1, 1957.3, 1973.3, 1989.8 Rudin, 1874.3, 1878.2, 1882.1, 1890.4, 1894.3-5, 1905.2, 1907.2, 1916.1-2, 1917.1, 1929.3, 1953.1, 1960.1, 1961.4, 1964.3, 1973.4, 1974.4, 1976.4, 1978.10, 1980.2, 1980.5, 277 1981.6, 1983.3, 1983.35-36, 1984.6-7, 1984.15, 1984.17, 1984.23, 1985.7, 1987.2, 1989.2, 1990.1, 1991.6, 1992.4, 1994.1 Bassistov, 1953.1 dialogue in, 1980.2, 1990.1-2 intertextuality, 1978.8 LeZnev, 1984.7 Natalija, 1894.5, 1916.2, 1984.17 Rudin, 1882.1, 1894.3-5, 1905.2, 1922.3, 1932.1, 1937.2, 1979.1. 1989.2, 1992.4 Rudinism, 1937.2 social trend, 1890.4 Sand, G., 1874.2, 1884.1,1898.1, 1979.3 Schopenhauer, A., 1878.2 Scott. W., 1874.2 Senila (Poems in Prose). 1931.1, 1962.7, 1973.4, 1983.5, 1993.1 Haltl, 1910.1 The Nymphs, 1969.1 The Threshold, 1983.11, 1985.8 Sentimentality, 1957.1 Slepcov,V., 1977.1 Smoke, 1869.1-2, 1878.2, 1880.1, 1896.1, 1896.4, 1905.3, 1907.2. 278 1912.2, 1916.1,1917.1, 1929.3, 1931.1, 1932.1, 1954.2, 1957.1, 1960.1, 1960.5, 1961.4, 1964.3, 1965.4, 1967.1, 1973.3, 1976.3, 1981.4, 1983.23, 1983.34, 1983.36. 1983.38, 1983.49, 1984.27, 1985.5, 1986.2, 1989.5, 1989.9, 1990.6-7, 1991.1 allegory in, 1984.27 Gubarev, 1984.27, 1989.9 Irina, 1912.2, 1976.3, 1983.24. 1983.49, 1986.2, 1989.9 Litvinov, 1979.1, 1983.49, 1984.27, 1989.9 Potugin, 1989.9 Ratrnirov, 1984.27 Tat’jana. 1976.3, 1989.5, 1989.9 Socio-political and Philosophical studies, 1855.1, 1877.2, 1878.2, 1882.1, 1884.1, 1890.4, 1894.3-4, 1895.1, 1896.2, 1907.2, 1911.1, 1916.2, 1917.1, 1923.1, 1931.1, 1932.1, 1933.1, 1945.1, 1946.1, 1954.1, 1956.1, 1957.2, 1962.5, 1962.7, 1964.3, 1966.2-3, 1969.5, 1972.1, 1972.5, 1975.4, 1978.3, 1978.9, 1978.10, 1979.1,1979.6-7, 1980.5, 1983.2, 1983.11, 1983.18. 1983.32, 1983.36, 1983.47, 1984.11-12, 1986.4, 1987.6. 1988.2, 1988.8, 1990.7, 1991.3 Bakunin, M., 1926.1, 1932.1, 1972.1 Belinskij, V., 1926.1, 1932.1, 1957.3, 1972.1, 1983.2 Biichner., 1966.3 cosmopolitanism, 1972.5 death, 1975.2, 1977.2, 1994.4 Female emancipation, 1983.11 feminism, 1987.1 generation conflict, 1979.6, 1985.1, 1993.4 Gercen, N., 1932.1, 1933.1, 1972.1, 1972.5, 1983.2 Hegel, G., 1878.2 human nature, 1989.11 inheretant injustice, 1954.1 life, 1975.2, 1988.4 mortality (indifferent nature), 1878.2, 1932.2, 1933.1, 1945.1, 1977.1, 1983.9, 1988.1, 1988.4, 1969.3 nihilism, 1878.1-2, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1884.1, 1899.2-3, 1933.1 revolution, 1877.2, 1879.1, 1880.1, 1983.14 Roman theme, 1989.10 Russian Harnletism, 1905.2, 1907.2, 1916.2, 1922.2, 1931.1, 1932.2. 1933.1, 1956.1, 1963.7 Russian mind, 1895.2, 1899.3, 1916.2. 1917.1, 1933.1 Schopenhauer, A., 1878.2, 1962.7, 1966.2 Stankevié, N., 1926.1, 1932.1, 1957.3 Supraconscious mind, 1985.4 The Song of Tiiumphant Love, 1910.1, 1969.3, 1992.5, 1994.1, 1995.1 Spring Torrents, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1919.1, 1951.1, 1957.1, 1961.4, 1964.4, 1974.4, 1983.34, 1985.6, 1988.6, 1989.1, 1991.1 Gemma, 1957.1, 1985.6, 1988.3 Mar’ja Nikolaevna, 1983.34, 1983.49, 1989.1 Sanin, 1957.1, 1983.49 Steno, 1966.1, 1977.1 A Strange Story, 1899.3, 1969.3, 1985.8, 1992.5, 1994.1 Sofi, 1899.3 Style, 1894.3, 1931.1, 1964.1, 1967.2, 1973.4 bathos, 1984.28 279 bouffe element, 1984.28 epithet, 1969.3, 1973.12 interspersion of colloquial insult, 1984.28 language, 1964.1, 1987.3, 1988.1. 1988.4, 1990.2, 1994.1 macaronics, 1984.28 nonsense, 1984.28 [ punning, 1984.28 repetition, 1984.28 Subtext, 1984.21, 1986.4, 1987.6, 1990.2 Symbol, 1961.1, 1971.3, 1974.4. 1977.4, 1992.2 Syntax, 1984.18 _ The Temptation of Saint Antonii, 1985.2 Three Meetings, 1976.3, 1976.5. 1980.1, 1988.1, 1991.6, 1993.1 Todorov, C.,1977.3 A Tour in the Forest, 1932.2 dialogue in, 1990.2 Turgenev as critic, 1946.1, 1954.1, 1955.1, 1958.2, 1962.1, 1968.1, 1973.12, 1975.4, 1976.4, 1983.34. 1986.3, 1969.6, 1971.4, 1972.1, 1978.2, 1978.6, 1979.1-2, 1983.25, 1983.44, 1984.4, 1984.8, 1984.9, 1987.1 Turgenev's critical reception, 1884.3, 1907.1, 1932.3, 1961.3, 1962.2, 1968.4, 1970.5, 1980.8, 1982.10. 1983.14, 1983.20, 1983.22. 1983.28-31, 1983.34, 1983.39. 1903.39,1905.1, 1910.3, 1917.1, 1922.2, 1937.1, 1950.1, 1951.1, 1956.3, 1958.1, 1985.10, 1994.4 Tho Generations, 1980.6 Two Friends, 1953.1, 1981.10, 1985.8 Petr Vasil’ic, 1953.1 Sof’ja Zadneprovskaja, 1981.10, 1985.8 Verocka, 1953.1 Two Portraim, 1995.1 Unhappy Woman, 1973.11, 1991.2 Valentin, Charlotte Sophie 1975.1 Virgin Soil, 1877.2, 1878.1-2, 1880.1, 1883.4, 1884.1, 1890.3-4, 1891.1, 1894.4, 1896.2, 1897.1, 1899.2, 1907.2, 1910.1, 1911.1, 1912.2, 1916.1, 1917.1, 1929.3, 1931.1, 1932.3, 1941.2, 1951.1, 1954.2, 1956.1, 1961.4, 1962.3, 1964.3, 1972.2, 1973.4, 1974.4, 1974.6. 280 1977.8, 1980.2, 1983.11, 1985.8, 1988.3, 1989.10, 1990.3, 1990.7, 1991.3, 1992.1 biographical facts, 1884.1 dialogue in, 1980.2 Marianna, 1896.2, 1910.1, 1988.3 Masurina, 1989.10 Neidanov, 1880.1, 1896.2, 1922.3. 1979.1 nihilism, 1878.2, 1880.1, 1896.2 Paklin, 1989.10 Sipjagin, 1989.10 social trend, 1890.4 Solomin, 1894.4, 1896.2, 1912.2. 1989.10, 1991.3 . The Watch, 1973.12, 1995.1 Where Is Thin, There It Breaks, 1972.6, 1975.1, 1975.6, 1983.13 The Works and Letters of Thrgenev, 1983.30 EBBB. AUTHOR INDEX Allen, Elizabeth C., 1984.1, 1992.1. 1994.1 Anderton, Nicholas, 1984.2 Andreyev, Anatoli., 1983.1 Andreyev, Nikolay., 1911.1 Andrew, Joe., 1982.1, 1987.1 Annan, Noel., 1945.1 Anon., 1855.1, 1867.1, 1869.1, 1880.1. 1883.1, 1883.2, 1883.4, 1884.1, 1900.1, 1905.1, 1907.1, 1910.1, 1975.1 Armstrong, Judith., 1983.2 Arndt, Walter., 1978.1 Arnold, Ethel M., 1898.1 Astman, Marina, 1988.1 Atterberry, Phillip D., 1988.2 Ball, David, 1979.1 Baring, Maurice, 1909.1 Barrat, G. R., 1968.1 Barta, Peter 1., 1990.1 281 Baylen, J. 0., 1968.2 Bennett, E. A., 1899.1 Berlin, Isaiah., 1972.1 Blair, Joel., 1973.1 Bortnes, Jostein., 1984.3 Boyesen, Hjalmar., 1874.1, 1894.1 Brang, Peter., 1984.4 Briggs, Anthony D., 1972.2, 1980.1. 1985.1, 1994.2 Brodiansky, Nina, 1954.1 Brostrom, Kenneth N., 1983.3, 1983.4 Brown, Ashley., 1954.2 Brown, Edward J., 1978.2 ‘ Brumfield, William C., 1977.1, 1983.5 Burns, Virginia M., 1974.1 Bush, R. L., 1984.5 Cadot, Michel., 1983.6 Carden, Patricia, 1977.2 Carr, E. H., 1929.1, 1929.2 Casari, Rosanna, 1993.1 Cave, Richard A., 1982.2 CCC C «C C C C Cc Cc Cr. Cr. Cu Crc Cu} Dal Dal Dan Deb Dela Cecil, Lord David, 1948.1 Chamberlain, Lesley., 1978.3 Chamberlin, V. A., 1971.1 Chamberlin, Willliarn H., 1946.1. Child, T. B., 1877.1 Cizevsky, Dmitry., 1955.1 Clayton, J. Douglas, 1978.4, 1984.6 Clive, Geoffery., 1962.1 Coltrane, Robert, 1989.1 Conrad, Joshep L., 1964.1, 1986.1, 1987.2, 1989.2 Cores, Lucy M., 1942.1 Costlow, Jane T., 1984.7, 1990.2, 1991.1, 1991.2 Coumos, John., 1913.1 Courtney, W. L., 1904.1 Crawford, Virginia M., 1899.2 Crista, Boris., 1983.7 Cross, A. G., 1969.1 Crossfield, H.,1907.2 Culianu-Georgescu, Carmen., 1984.8 Curle, R. H. P., 1910.2 Davie, Donald, 1962.2 Dalton, Margaret, 1978.5, 1993.2 Daudet, Alphonse, 1883.3 Debreczeny, Paul., 1983.8 Delaney, Consolata., 1964.2 282 Delany, Paul., 1974.2 Dessaix, Robert, 1977.3, 1978.6 Dilhnann, A. C., 1871.1 Dole, N. H., 1890.1, 1894.2 Donskov, Andrew., 1984.9, 1985.2 Dukas, Vytas., 1969.2 Dunbar, Viola A., 1952.1 Durkin, Andrew R., 1993.3 Eekman, Thomas, 1987.3 Eliason, Lynn. R., 1970.1, 1973.2 Feuer, Kathryn, 1983.3 Fischler, Alexander., 1976.1 Fiszrnan, Samuel., 1981.1 FitzLion, April., 1983.10, 1983.11 Folejewski, 2., 1951.1, 1962.3 Ford, F. M., 1936.1 Foxcroft, E., 1981.2 Freeborn, Richard, 1960.1, 1973.3, 1976.2, 1983.12-14, 1984.10-11, 1989.3, 1994.3 Frost, Edgar L., 1974.3, 1987.4, 1992.2 Galsworthy, John., 1927.1 Gamett, Edward, 1895.1, 1895.2, 1896.1, 1896.2, 1898.2, 1899.3, 1899.4 Gerschenson, M. D., 1923.1 Gettrnann, Royal Alfred, 1941.1 Gifford, H., 1973.4 Goy, E. D., 1958.1 Gregg, Francoise B., 1981.3 Gregg, Richard A., 1981.3, 1995.1 Gribble, Francis, 1910.3 Gronicka, Andre Von., 1979.2 Guemey, Bemald G., 1947.1 Gunn, Dairmid., 1992.3 Gunter, Susan B., 1986.2, 1988.3 Gunzburg, Vires., 1960.2 Halliday, Jarnes., 1983.15 Halperin, George, 1946.2 Hamilton, Eunice C., 1962.3 Hapgood, Isabel F., 1902.1 Harkins, William E., 1983.16 Harris, Richard C., 1989.4 Harrison, Royden J ., 1965.1 Hart, Pierre E., 1977.4, 1982.3 Harvie, J. A., 1983.17 Hauge, H., 1985.3 Heier, Edmund, 1981.4, 1983.18 Hellgren, Ludmila., 1980.2, 1980.3 Henry, Peter., 1978.7 Hermann, Lesley. S., 1979.3, 1980.4 Hershkowitz, Harry., 1932.1 Hindus, Milton., 1959.1 Hippisley, Anthony., 1986.3 283 Hoffmeister, Wemer., 1987.5 Holquist, Michael., 1984.12 Howarth, N. P., 1971.2 Howe, Irving, 1956.1 Howells, W. D., 1873.1, 1895.3, 1896.3 Huneker, Jarnes., 1904.2, 1922.1 Ingham, Norman W. 1974.4 Ingram, Forrest, 1972.3 Jahn, Gary., 1977.5 Jackson, Robert L., 1973.6, 1984.13-14 J akobson, Roman., 1985.4 James, Henry Jr., 1874.2, 1884.2, 1888.1, 1897.1, 1948.2, 1965.2 Johanson, Christine, 1984.15 Johnston, Charles, 1890.2 Justus, J. H., 1961.1 Kagan-Kans. Eva., 1969.3, 1975.2, 1983.20 Kahn, Alexander., 1933.1 Kappler, Richard G., 1960.3, 1966.1, 1968.3 Karp, Carole, 1979.4 Kaspin, Albert, 1965.3 Katscher, Leopard, 1890.3 Kaun, Alexander., 1922.2 Keefer, Lubov., 1965.4 Kennedy, Eileen., 1969.4, 1975.3 Kingsley, William L., 1878.1 Knowles, Anthony V., 1983.21, 1988.4. 1990.3 Kochan, Lionel., 1964.3 Korn, David, 1968.4 Korsun, Zoia H., 1990.4 Kropotkin, P., 1905.2 Krzyzanowski, J. R., 1965.5 Lagerberg, Robert, 1994.4 Lainhoff, Seymour., 1962.5 Landor, Mikhail., 1983.22 Lavrin, Janko., 1929.3 Lawson, R. H., 1969.2 Ledkovsky, Marina, 1969.5, 1973.7 Lee, Nicholas, 1983.23 Lehrman, Edgar H., 1961.2 Lerner, Daniel., 1941.2 Levin, IU. D., 1983.24 Lloyd, J. A. T., 1919.1 Long, Robert Emmet, 1976.3 Lowe, David A., 1979.5, 1979.6, 1982.4, 1983.25-26 Lowen, Harry., 1973.8 Mabie, H. W., 1908.1 Magarshack, David, 1954.3, 1958.2. 1960.4 Mandel, Oscar., 1959.2 284 Manning, Clarence A., 1931.1 Marsh, Cynthia, 1983.27 Martin, Clara B., 1879.1, 1885.1 Martin, Mildred A., 1956.2 Marullo, Thomas G., 1985.5 Masing-Delic, Irene, 1986.4, 1987.6, 1991.3 Matlaw, Ralph E., 1957.1-2, 1958.3 Maurer, S. H., 1966.2 Mayer, Charles W., 1982.5 McLean, Hugh, 1978.8 Mersereau, Jr., John., 1983.28 Mills, Judith 0., 1971.3 Mlikotin, A. M., 1960.5, 1967.1 Mirsky, D. S., 1925.1, 1932.2 ' Monkhouse, Allen., 1894.3 Moore, George, 1891.1, 1903.1 Morgan, Charles, 1950.1 Moser, Charles A., 1972.4, 1972.5, 1983.29 Moss, Walter G., 1978.9 Mostovskaia, N. N., 1983.30 Motyleva, Tamara, 1983.31 Moxom, P. S., 1912.1, 1912.2 Muchnic, Helen., 1983.32 Murphy, A. V., 1983.33 Nilsson. N. A., 1967.2 Oliver, D. E., 1917.1 Osborne, E. A., 1932.3 Ozdrovsky, Marina, 1972.6 Page, Stanley W., 1976.4 Pahomov, George S., 1973.9, 1976.5, 1983.34-35 Panin, Ivan., 1889.1 Patterson, David, 1984.16 Paul, Alec., 1987.7 Perry, Thomas, 1874.3, 1887.1 Pervushin, N. V., 1982.6 Peterson, Dale E., 1971.4, 1984.17-18 Phelps, Gilbert, 1956.3 Phelps, W. L., 1916.1, 1924.1 Porter, Richard, 1969.6 Posin, Jack A., 1959.3 Preston, H. W., 1887.2 Price, Martin, 1989.5 Pritchett, V. S., 1937.2, 1977.6 Radoff, Sarah E, 1922.3 Ralston, W. R., 1877.2, 1883.4 Reed, T. J., 1964.4 Renaux, Sigrid, 1984.19 Rinkus, Jerome J ., 1975.4. Ripp, Victor., 1978.10, 1979.7, 1980.5 Ritchie, Anne Thackeray., 1908.2 Rosenstreich, Susan L., 1981.5 285 Rowland-Brown, Lilian T., 1921.1 Schefski, Harold K., 1985.6 Schulz, R. K., 1969.7 Schuyler, Eugine., 1901.1 Schwoebel, Willi H., 1981.6 Seeley. Frank E, 1991.4 Sergievsky, Nicholas N., 1946.3 Seyersted, P. E., 1965.6 Shapiro, Leonard, 1978.11, 1984.20 r Shatalov, Stanislav., 1983.36 1 Shatz, Marshall, 1992.4 Sheidley, William B., 199.5 Sherman, David J ., 1985.7 Silbajoris, Rimvydas., 1984.21 Slonim, Marc., 1961.3, 1962.6 Sly, G. H., 1966.3 Smyrniw, Walter., 1980.6, 1983.37, 1985.8 Spalding, P. A., 1953.1 Stam, David H., 1962.8 Steffensen, Eigil., 1988.5 Stephens, Robert 0., 1983.38 Stepniak, S., 1894.4-5 Staratsky, G. V., 1884.3 Strauss, Walter A., 1948.3 Struc, Roman. S., 1965.7, 1984.22 Tammi, Pekka., 1981.7 286 Tedford, Barbara W., 1970.2, 1979.8, Wheeler, Marcus 1979.10, 1983.45 1980.7 Whibley, Charles, 1902.2 Terras, Victor., 1970.3, 1972.7 Willcocks, M. P., 1921.2 Thanet, Octabe., 1878.2 William, Michael G., 1974.6 Todd 111, William Mills., 1984.23 Wilson, Edmund, 1957.3, 1958.4 Todhunter, Maurice, 1896.4 Winnwe, T. G., 1970.5 Traill, Nancy., 1989.6 Woodcock, George., 1961.4 Tucker, H., 1916.2 Woodward, James B., 1972.8, 1973.12, Tuckerman, Bayard, 1883.5 1984.27, 1988.8, 1989.10-11, Turner, Charles E., 1882.1 1990.7 Turner, Christopher., 1984.24 Woolf, Virginia., 1934.1 Urbanic, Allen J ., 1983.39 Worral, Nick, 1982.8 Urbanic, Barbara T., 1983.39 Yachin, Rissa., 11962.8 Vidan, Ivo., 1966.4 Yakobson, Sergius., 1982.9 Viedert, Vladimir., 1991.5 Yarmolinsky, Avrahm., 1926.1 Wachtel, Michael., 1988.6 Young, Dorothy., 1974.2 Waddinton, Patrick, 1970.4, 1971.5, Zekulin, Nicholas G., 1975.6, 1976.7, 1973.10, 1973.11, 1974.5, 1975.5, 1982.10, 1983.46-47, 1984.28. 1976.6, 1977.7-8, 1978.7, 1979.9, 1985.10, 1991.5, 1994.5 1980.8-9, 1981.8-10, 1982.7, Zimmern, Alice., 1882.2 1983.40-43, 1984.25-26, Zimmern, Helen., 1882.2 1985.9, 1986.5, 1987.8, 1988.7, Zohrav, Irene., 1983.48 1989.7-9, 1990.6,1991.6, 1992.5 Zubof, Roman 1., 1890.4 Walicki, A., 1962.7 Zweers, A. F., 1983.49 Waliszewski, K., 1905.3 Wasiolek, Edward, 1983.44, 1993.4 Weiner, Jack, 1971.1 HICHIGRN STQT E UNIV. l Ill llllllll ll llllllllllllllfll 1555 31293fl