Turgenev

With respect to the LEC Fathers and Sons, in both the ML and in the introduction within the book, I read something I found fascinating. As a student in the University of Moscow, Turgenev became so well known for his love for America that he had been given the sobriquet of 'The American'. Does anyone here know of what it was about American culture or history that had so attracted Turgenev's admiration? Also, can someone please refer me to a good biography of Turgenev.

>1 blue.eyes:
I am not well-informed on Turgenev's views on American culture and can only surmise it must have been America's more open society and opportunities for advancement than were possible in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. A clue might be found in the book (which I have not read, Turgenev in England and America by Royal Gettman.

As for biographies, I would recommend the one by David Magarshack, Turgenev: a Life, which I have also not read, but I know him to be an expert on Russian culture and literature and a capable translator of the classic Russian works; he in fact is the translator of my Folio Society edition of Turgenev's The Torrents of Spring.

>2 Django6924: in addition to your surmise another reason could have been Turgenev's admiration for the founders of modern America (Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others). Thanks for the Magarshack and Gettman references.

This is an extract of a conversation of Turgenev with the Norwegian-American writer Hjalmar Hjorth Boyesen. It features in the article 'A visit to Tourgueneff' written by Boyesen and published in the American literary magazine 'The Galaxy' in the year 1874:

>4 blue.eyes: The “curious fact” doesn’t seem to ever go away and, in fact, becomes curiouser and curiouser. I’ve often wondered what it is that attracts me to great 19th century literature and for me it is how relevant it is to be a clear thinker in my own age.

>4 blue.eyes: Great find!

Indeed, Turgenev was remarkably prescient in seeing what it was that disenchanted Moore, Dickens and others: we have seen too often that gross abuses are bruited about so pervasively that it's easy to believe it's the norm, and not the exception. And that democracies often cast an envious eye on totalitarian governments because they can get things done so much quicker and more efficiently. One only has to read the Greek historians and how the Athenians thought Sparta was the better system of government.

>6 Django6924: >5 BionicJim: The entire Boyesen article is over 10 pages long; on almost every page there is some new insight or revelation. Among other things we learn about how in his younger days Turgenev had been placed under some kind of house arrest for some time for some of his writings, how he deals with writer's block, and his assessment of the American writers Hawthorne (his favorite American writer), Longfellow, Lowell, Walt Whitman, and Bret Hart. Boyesen does not tell us explicitly whether his entire conversation with Turgenev took place in English, but towards the end of the article he writes that Turgenev had "mastered" the German language, that he speaks French "like a native", and that his English pronunciation is "faultless" even though "his foreign accent is just slightly perceptible in his use of rising and falling inflections." (I suspect that, like Turgenev, Boyesen too may have been a polyglot.)

I am giving one other extract from the Boyesen article in which Turgenev gives us some insight into his method of constructing a story, with special reference to 'Fathers and Sons' and 'On the Eve'. For most writers, I think, the story begins with the plot. For Turgenev, it begins with the characters. And his preparation seems to me to be quite idiosyncratic and elaborate in some instances what with preparing diaries written as if the character had written them.

1. In his 'Writer's Handbook', in which Somerset Maugham gives extracts from a diary he had maintained for many years, Maugham gives an original extract from his diary according to which Turgenev is an overrated writer. But after giving this extract Maugham adds a note to the effect that he has changed his mind about Turgenev and now believes future generations would consider Turgenev a greater writer, in some respects, than Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

2. In his 'Green Hills of Africa', Ernest Hemingway writes (in one of the literary interludes in this book):

𝑰 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 “𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔” 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅. 𝑰𝒏 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑻𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒄𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒅, 𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏.

𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑪𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍 𝑾𝒂𝒓 𝒘𝒂𝒔, 𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆, 𝒂𝒔 𝑴𝒊𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒂𝒏, 𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒐𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒔’𝒔 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒓𝒎, 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒐𝒘, 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒇, 𝑰 𝒌𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆…

3. Earlier, on December 15 1925, while in Paris, Hemingway wrote the following to F. Scott Fitzgerald (quoted in 'Selected Letters' edited by Carlos Baker):

𝑯𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑭𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒏 𝒃𝒚 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 1𝒔𝒕 𝑽𝒐𝒍. 𝑶𝒇 𝑩𝒖𝒅𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒔 𝒃𝒚 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒔 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏. 𝑭𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒉-𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒔𝒏’𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒇𝒇 𝒃𝒚 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒂𝒚. 𝑺𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒔𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒇𝒇 𝒊𝒏 𝒊𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒂 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌.

(Note: The Constance Garnett translation of 'Fathers and Sons', as originally published, was titled 'Fathers and Children'.)

A few days after writing his December 1925 letter to Fitzgerald, Hemingway wrote the following to Archibald Macleish:

𝑰’𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆. 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒇 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒂𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒔, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒂 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒆𝒍𝒔? 𝑰𝒕’𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 2𝒏𝒅 𝒗𝒐𝒍. 𝑶𝒇 𝑨 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏’𝒔 𝑺𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒔. 𝑾𝒂𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝑰 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒂 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒇 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒇 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒕. 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒌𝒐𝒗 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 6 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒔. 𝑩𝒖𝒕 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒖𝒓 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓. 𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒊 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒕. 𝑴𝒂𝒖𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓, 𝑩𝒂𝒍𝒛𝒂𝒄 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓. 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒇 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕.

(Note that Hemingway had apparently changed his mind about Chekov since in his interview with George Plimpton for the Paris Review, he mentions Chekov in his list of literary forebears; and in 'A Moveable Feast' he talks highly of Chekov:

𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝑰 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒚𝒍𝒗𝒊𝒂 𝑩𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉’𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗, 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑮𝒐𝒈𝒐𝒍, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑮𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒕 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒌𝒐𝒗. 𝑰𝒏 𝑻𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒐, 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒔, 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒅 𝑲𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒅 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕-𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓, 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒂 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕-𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒓𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒌𝒐𝒗 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒍𝒅-𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒉𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓…
)

4. Turgenev features quite often in Sherwood Anderson's letters. Below I give some pertinent extracts from 'Letters of Sherwood Anderson selected and edited by Howard Mumford Jones in association with Walter B. Rideout':

𝑰 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕. 𝑵𝒐 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝑰 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒆. 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒔, 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒈𝒐 𝒂𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒂𝒅. 𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒔 35 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒍𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔. 𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝑰 𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒑 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗’𝒔 𝑨𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏. 𝑰 𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒎𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝑰 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌. 𝑰 𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒂 𝒅𝒓𝒖𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒏 𝒎𝒂𝒏.

𝑨𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚, 𝑫𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒔𝒌𝒊 𝑰 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑰 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒏. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝒊𝒔 𝑰 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆, 𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔, 𝒂 𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒕-𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒔𝒐 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝑾𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒏𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒕, 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕.

𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒏; 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒏𝒐 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓𝒔. 𝑰𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒕. ....

𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓, 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒆 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒚, 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒚, 𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒕. 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒌𝒉𝒐𝒗, 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗’𝒔 𝑨𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅....

𝑨𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚, 𝑰 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒓 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒂 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚. 𝑰 𝒅𝒐 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒚 𝑷𝒐𝒆, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑰 𝒅𝒐 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍, 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓-𝒄𝒖𝒕 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒂 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝑶. 𝑯𝒆𝒏𝒓𝒚, 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒅𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒖𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒕. 𝑩𝒐𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒌𝒉𝒐𝒗 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒚 𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔....

And the following extract is from another collection of Sherwood Anderson's letters:

Letters to Bab: Sherwood Anderson to Marietta D. Finley 1916-33
Edited by William A Sutton

𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆, 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗—𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏’𝒔 𝑺𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒔. 𝑰𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆—𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒚, 𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒆𝒕, 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅. 𝑰𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒓, 𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒔𝒎𝒐𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔. 𝑰𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒘.

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏, 𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒎, 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆. 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗 𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒔. 𝑯𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆, 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔. 𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉, 𝒈𝒖𝒏 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒉𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆. 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒐𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔, 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒚𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒏.

𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒊𝒆𝒄𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 ‘𝑩𝒚𝒆𝒛𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝑷𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒆’—𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒆𝒔, 𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒅𝒔, 𝒏𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒏𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒚𝒔—𝒔𝒐 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕—𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒂𝒚. 𝑰𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒓𝒂𝒓𝒆, 𝒂 𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈.

-----
The book referred to as 'Sportsman's Sketches' by Hemingway, and as 'Sportsman's Sketches' in some letters and 'Annals of a Sportsman' in other letters by Sherwood Anderson is the same book. Actually, this book has been published under various other titles: A Sportsman's notebook, A Hunter's Notebook, A Hunter's sketches, Memoirs of a Sportsman, and a few others. It is unusual to have so many different titles for a book but it seems different translators or publishers just gave this book their own title for some reason that I do not know.

A Sportsman's Sketches is a collection of short stories based on some autobiographical experiences of Turgenev. According to Edward Garnett (Constance Garnett's husband) the stories in this collection rank among the finest short stories ever written. Another admirer of this story collection was Henry James who highlighted the stories 'Byezhin Prairie' and 'The Singers' in particular.

I read all the stories in this book of Turgenev, and like Anderson, found them to be something of a revelation. Unlike Anderson I read the stories very slowly, one story per day usually, and not more than two stories per day.

In an email to someone I wrote the following:

𝑴𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒗𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝒔𝒐 𝒇𝒂𝒓 𝒊𝒔 '𝑨 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏'𝒔 𝑺𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒔' 𝒃𝒚 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗. 𝑰 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑮𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒕 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒂𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒑𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒚𝒂𝒍, 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂 𝒃𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂 (𝒂𝒍𝒘𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅, 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒕𝒍𝒆, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕). 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗'𝒔 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒃𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔. 𝑯𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆. 𝑰𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑻𝒔𝒂𝒓 𝑨𝒍𝒆𝒙𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑨 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏'𝒔 𝑺𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒔 (𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍).

𝑮𝒐𝒈𝒐𝒍 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝑯𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒏 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒆𝒅. 𝑯𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒋𝒐𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒋𝒐𝒃. 𝑩𝒖𝒕 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗. 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒗 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒂 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒏 𝑮𝒐𝒈𝒐𝒍'𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒚 𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆.

What I did not clarify was that the Gogol obituary, which I have not read but which might have contained the same kind of ideas for which Dostoevsky was sent to Siberia, was according to Turgenev himself (as per his letters) just a pretext for the arrest. The actual reason was that the authorities were upset with the contents of The Sportsman's Sketches, and even though the published version had been censored, the man entrusted with censorship lost his job for allowing this book to get published at all.

And if one is puzzled about how this book is alleged to have played a role in the Tsar abolishing serfdom, the clarification is to be found in the ML for Dostoevsky's 'House of the Dead' where it is mentioned that the Tsar was reported to have wept on reading this book which had been authored by someone who had been sent to Siberia by his father. That is, the Tsar who is believed to have been influenced by Turgenev's book, and under whose rule serfdom was abolished, was not the same person as the Tsar under whose reign Turgenev had been arrested.

After reading The Sportsman's Sketches, I was quite keen to lay my hands on some illustrated edition of the text, in the LEC or Heritage Press mould. After looking around a bit, I found such a book. In another post, I will post some pictures of the illustrations in the hope that it would appeal to some of the members here.

(I will add that this is one of those books which the LEC ought to have published given that illustrations go very well with the stories in this book. )

Finally, has anyone here read this book? If yes, what was your favorite story(ies)?

I don't know if this was a limited edition (i suspect it was), and if yes, what was the limitation number. It would also be interesting to know the kind of people who were able to own these type of books at that time and place.

I don't know the language, and the only reason I purchased this was because I could see that the images were complementing the stories beautifully. Since these are short stories, and since the order of the stories remains the same (from what I could tell), you can tell exactly which illustration corresponds to which story. The first photo is of the book in question placed alongside the LEC Symposium for the sake of comparing the size of the book.



The front end papers of the book:

The image below is not of the narrator (as per my understanding), its of his manservant Yermolai and the narrator's dog, both of whom accompany the narrator in many of his travels across the countryside surrounding his estate. The narrator also carries a gun with him, and occasionally does some hunting (always birds), yet in one of the stories a peasant he encounters tells him that it is a sin to kill wild game. Like Hammett's Continental Op, the narrator remains nameless.



The image below is from one of the frame stories in which a doctor the narrator meets in his travels tells the narrator about a curious incident. The doctor had fallen in love with a young and beautiful woman who was living in that village with her mother. It was love at first sight and it happened when he was called to their house in the evening when the girl fell ill. He was obliged to stay overnight because the weather conditions were not good for the return trip, and additionally the girl's health seemed to be worsening. That's the doctor that you see in this image, and the girl, and the mother is also seen (sleeping).



The following image depicts a scene from 'Byezhin Prairie', in which the narrator loses his way in the darkness and is obliged to spend the night in the company of some boys who have lit up a fire over which they are making some soup or some kind of broth, and which they share with the narrator:

The image below is from a story involving a 'peasant proprietor' who happens to be a good and upright man, who preserves peace among his neighbors, who is good to those who work for him, and who is an atypical character:



The image below is from a story where the narrator is obliged to get some rest at a 'Counting House' belonging to one of the large landlords. The narrator is listening to the conversation taking place in the main room by placing his ears near the keyhole of his room.



The image below depicts a fair where one goes to buy or sell horses:

A few more (in the first one, the narrator is i think sitting on the right):

In this one the narrator is (I believe) sitting with his back facing the 'camera':


In the one below, the narrator is sitting on the extreme left with his dog:



In the one below, the narrator is sitting with his dog. The other two are a peasant he encounters and the peasant's daughter. This is the peasant who tells the narrator that shooting wild game for pleasure is a sin.

A few more:

The language is Russian.

And the illustrations are super!

>15 Glacierman: "The language is Russian."

I realized that. When I said I don't know the language, I meant I don't know Russian.

>15 Glacierman: "And the illustrations are super!"
Yes, indeed. I wonder if similarly illustrated books are available for War and Peace, Brothers Karamazov, etc or whether this was a one-off production.

>15 Glacierman: Incidentally, would you care to comment on how these compare with the illustrations of fritz kredel, eichenberg or sauvage used by the LEC? I am not a particularly visual person, and not a good judge of illustrations, and although these look quite good to me, I am not sure how they compare to the best illustrations in the LEC's.

>17 blue.eyes2: Never been much of an art critic beyond "I like it," or "I hate it." However, while I do like these illustrations, I would say I like Kredel & Eichenberg better and about the same as Sauvage, although the latter can get ugly on occasion. That's all you're gonna get out of me! *grin*

>18 Glacierman: One specific problem in these illustrations, i thought, was that the technology being used to transfer the illustrations to the paper used in these books seems to be inferior to that used in LEC books resulting in the illustrations not being as sharp as they would otherwise have been.

>19 blue.eyes2: Thanks for sharing your journey of discovering Turgenev via guideposts of the LEC editions. I find it fascinating and appreciate your time. As for the quality of illustrations and printing, the LEC would likely always be at the forefront of technology, while the art itself is always a matter of opinion. From my research, the LEC charged about $200 in today’s dollars per volume (a bit less as the years went on), so they had the resources to search out and pay for the best available techniques. It was in the mission statement of the LEC to utilize the best technologies to bring fine books to their subscribers at a price that was relatively good compared to competition using the classic printer’s methods. I believe this was a continuation of the ideas originally implemented by Francis Meynell with Nonesuch Press, which Macy eventually acquired. My experience is the LEC’s use of new technologies was done with restraint, attempting to provide the best edition possible rather than just force the use of the latest developments. Several times, in his comments I’ve read in the Quarto-Millenary, Macy has described his deference to a designer, artist, or editor that sometimes resulted in his disappointment, but just as often in supreme satisfaction. In our current era, illustrations can be reproduced at such high standards for minimal cost that it seems to have devalued illustrated editions and certainly makes the old techniques that were amazing at the time seem quaint.

>20 BionicJim: I am glad you enjoyed these posts. Thanks for sharing your knowledge from your own reading and research.

>20 BionicJim: $200 a month. Interesting, very interesting when compared to what you can receive today from presses and the like. Thornwillow does a Centaur level membership at a monthly cost of $300 as part of their Monthly Dispatch. Although I haven’t seen the binding or could comment on their production of said volume, I’ve seen pictures on the Facebook and they look lovely. I’ve been happy with my cheaper chapbook at $50 incl. international shipping (a steal for US customer at $30 a month) I have recently received the Inaugural Address of President Barack Obama from them in with Japanese handmade paste paper that is more akin to their Patron level and signed by the proprietor Luke Pontifell (I don’t remember if this volume was a part of the monthly dispatch).

Another example would be No reply Press as their earlier volumes have been around that price point, except for the recent publications.

In any case I have to research Turgenev and Torrents of Spring is the only LEC I have on the reading shelf

>9 blue.eyes2: I don't know if this was a limited edition (i suspect it was), and if yes, what was the limitation number. It would also be interesting to know the kind of people who were able to own these type of books at that time and place.

So this is a 1949 Soviet edition - looks quite nice for a book printed in the aftermath of WWII! Practically all Soviet and modern Russian books, with only rare exceptions, have printing numbers conveniently specified. Look for a colophon page with printing info that should be at the back of the book. The Russian word for a print run is 'тираж'. If you're not sure, you can post a picture of the colophon page here.

Btw, the illustrations are by Petr Petrovich Sokolov who, as quick googling shows, was Turgenev's contemporary, so should be very authentic. I don't know for which edition the illustrations were done originally, but they obviously predate this edition by many decades as Sokolov died half a century before in 1899. So perhaps the fact that the 1949 edition was reproducing illustrations from a much earlier 19th century edition helps explaining that they're not as sharp as what you see in the LECs. Although as mentioned above LEC illustration quality was generally very high, and, for example, more modern reproductions of the LEC illustrations by the Easton Press are markedly inferior.

Soviet books were actually pretty good in general. I have a few really outstanding ones, but even mass-production books had good buckram, cloth, or quarter cloth/buckram bindings, and were all sewn, of course. Paperbacks were and still are a very small percentage of produced books, and even paperbacks were and still are sewn. The only problem was that most mass-produced books were printed on acidic paper, so yellowed with time. Btw, limited editions were not really a thing in the Soviet Union. There were some "gift" editions of elevated quality printed in smaller runs from time to time, and your book might be one of those. Most regular books had really high print runs - 6 figures were normal, some printings could even be an excess of a million! That's not the case anymore. Perhaps people read less, or it might be just due to the fact that now a lot more different titles are being printed. But it was still possible to obtain a very nice and comprehensive library during the Soviet era. Subscriptions were popular for different series/sets/collections. I have quite a few that my grandfather got through subscription. Subscriptions could be for a small set, for example a buckram-bound collection of Jules Verne in 12 volumes. Or they could be for a large series - like a 200-volume clothbound Library of World Literature. The latter was issued between 1967 and 1977, and each volume had 300,000 copies, most distributed through subscription.

And there was this interesting and unique Soviet program that was running in the 70s and 80s: certain books were available only... in exchange for a certain weight of recycle paper. People would bring paper/cardboard for recycling and get coupons based on weight, and then they could get books with these coupons that were printed specifically for this program and weren't available simply for sale.

>16 blue.eyes2: "I realized that. When I said I don't know the language, I meant I don't know Russian."

Sorry. Of course, I read your statement another way...the wrong way!

>23 elladan0891: Thanks for sharing the very useful information about the illustrator. I give below what seems to be the colophon page of this book. What does it say?

>25 blue.eyes2:
It is interesting that the book is printed by the military publisher of the Soviet Union's army. I have never seen this in a book before.
The print run is not mentioned in the portion that you posted.

>26 booksforreading: It is interesting that the book is printed by the military publisher of the Soviet Union's army. I have never seen this in a book before.
Very interesting.

>26 booksforreading: The print run is not mentioned in the portion that you posted.
Possibly because this was a limited edition (even so, I would guess the limitation number must have been quite large). I did give the entire content of the last page of the book in my previous post.

I finished reading the LEC Fathers and Sons a few days ago. This is a nice book, well produced and well illustrated by Eichenberg. This is one of the few LEC's which first came out in the Heritage edition, but the LEC is not a reprint of the Heritage original. The original wood blocks used for illustrating the first Heritage edition were also used for illustrating the LEC edition as per the ML. Before I give my reaction, let me give a letter Turgenev wrote to Dostoevsky about this book. Apparently Dostoevsky had said several complimentary things about this book as is evident from Turgenev's reply; unfortunately Dostoevsky's comments on this book appear to have been lost to posterity.





(to be continued)

Please note that the following review contains some spoilers:

After finishing Fathers and Sons I experienced not exhilaration such as I had experienced after reading A Sportsman's Sketches but surprise. I was surprised I didn't like this famous book in particular. It's a good book but not an exceptional novel in my opinion. There were two features in this book which spoilt the overall effect for me. First, one of the strong points of Turgenev was his ability to give beautiful descriptions of nature, paintings in words so to speak. He does that a lot in Sportsman's sketches, but there is very little of this in this book. More importantly, the character of Bazarov is an overall failure in my opinion, despite what Turgenev and Dostoevsky might say. I hope I am not alone in bringing up these points. Here are my objections:

1. Bazarov is made to say that he believes in nothing. But how is that reconcilable with the fact that gets up early in the mornings to go to ponds to collect frogs, etc. for his medical dissections. He himself says he is doing these dissections to better understand human anatomy (he is studying to be a doctor). Surely, "I believe in nature" or "I believe in science" would be a better way of articulating his belief system rather than "I believe in nothing" which just sounds very foolish. In ancient philosophy there were two competing non-religious systems, accidentalism and naturalism. While the proponents of accidentalism claimed that nature is unknowable and so it's pointless to believe in anything, the proponents of naturalism expressed belief in nature and the laws of nature. One cannot help wondering if Turgenev has confused naturalism with accidentalism in this instance.

2. Towards the end of the book when Bazarov contracts Typhus due to dissecting a corpse of a person who had died of it we are informed by a dying Bazarov that he contracted the disease because he managed to cut himself during the procedure and there was no "caustic" available immediately after he cut himself. So when his father (also a doctor) applies this caustic on the cut, after he is back home and lying in bed with fever, Bazarov says its too late now. But this indicates a poor or careless scientist, not a good one--since a good medical professional would surely have ensured that the caustic was available before he started doing the dissection on someone suffering from a deadly disease (at that time). This contradicts what we are given to understand throughout the novel that Bazarov is a brilliant medical professional who diligently performs medical experiments and is very highly educated--abreast of the latest medical books published in Germany. If Turgenev felt it necessary to kill Bazarov, he could have come up with some thing more convincing.

3. Bazarov's attempt at seducing the companion of his friend and host Arkady's father (who eventually goes on to marry Arkady's father) was in poor taste and reflects poorly on him. He was their guest at that time and he was doing this in their house. It reminded me of Somerset Maugham ridiculing Stendhal's unsuccessful attempt at wooing a woman who was the wife of his benefactor--someone who had helped Stendhal advance in his career. This is what Maugham wrote about Stendhal in that instance: Gratitude was a virtue unknown to him. One wonders whether Turgenev remembered this scene when he wrote that:

𝑰 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒇 𝑰 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑩𝒂𝒛𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒗'𝒔 𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔, 𝑰 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔.

4. In the dialogues some of Bazarov's replies to the questions posed to him to explain his belief system are unsatisfactory. In one instance I recall he answered one of the two questions posed to him, but skipped answering the other (more difficult) question, and there was no follow-up question by the questioner (I forget the questions and I forget who Bazarov was having this conversation with).

I had one other objection but that has been answered satisfactorily by Turgenev in one of his letters. This had to do with why Bazarov accepted to fight a duel with Pavel in the first place. According to Turgenev, if Bazarov would not have accepted the offer of a duel, Pavel would have killed him. This is a reasonable explanation.

>28 blue.eyes2: I believe Dostoyevsky and Turgenev were not on best terms. One was a conservative, the other progressive. The Possessed* is an apt follow-up to compare the similarities and differences between the authors’ ideologies (Stavrogin vs Bazarov).

Thanks for expanding on your read. I haven’t read your second post but will try and do so later tonight.

* The Eichenberg illustrations on this stand out. There’s one that comes to mind, in which a crowd of people complains to the authorities - the expression on each face captures the mob sentiment brilliantly.

>30 bacchus.: The best person to inform us about Dostoevsky's attitude towards Turgenev is surely Dosotevsky himself. Since he has done so in his letters there is no need to go to a third person to enquire about their relationship. The extracts I give below are from Dostoevsky's letters published by Rutgers University Press.

First extract (in which Dostoevsky writes about how when he first met Turgenev, when both were young men, they almost fell in (platonic) love with one another):



Second extract (in which Dostoevsky writes that among contemporary writers "I like Turgenev best" although he adds that he finds Turgenev to be uneven. Dostoevsky also writes that he likes a certain "L.T." very much--this L.T. is Leo Tolstoy):



Third extract (in which Dostoevsky writes that Turgenev's "Nest of Gentlefolk" is extremely good):



Fourth extract (in which Dostoevsky claims he always disliked Turgenev and a major source of his irritation is Turgenev's novel Smoke. Smoke was published immediately after Fathers and Sons, so it seems Dostoevsky and Turgenev had friendly relations until Fathers and Sons but then their friendship soured after Smoke was published. I've read portions of Smoke. It is an attack on nationalism and chauvinism and from what I can gather Dostoevsky considered this book unpatriotic.)

>31 blue.eyes2: Very interesting. I believe the extracts above kind of verify their discord? In the introduction of LEC’s The Possessed it’s been mentioned that Dostoyevsky’s intention was to give “a large picture of Russian society at the end of the sixties in a dramatic form as opposed to the edulcorated and false water colors of Turgenev (…in Fathers and Sons)”. The two books go well together.

>32 bacchus.: I haven't read The Possessed yet. The discord of Turgenev and Dostoevsky seems to have originated in a private discussion they had when both were in Baden Baden, Germany. Only these two were present during this discussion, and they have given different accounts of what actually happened. Both agree, however, that their discord stemmed from the content in Turgenev's novel Smoke--which was the novel he wrote immediately after Fathers and Sons.