u/PK_Ultra932

I came across a letter Turgenev wrote to Dostoevsky thanking him for his praise of Fathers & Children, and specifically the character of Bazarov. Unfortunately, Dostoevsky's original letter to Turgenev has not survived, but below is a translation of Turgenev's response. It's really interesting considering the complex relationship between the two.

To F.M. Dostoevsky 18(30) March 1862. Paris

My dearest Fyodor Mikhailovich, I have no need to tell you to what degree your response to “Fathers and Children” delighted me. Here the matter is not in the satisfaction of vanity, but in the assurance that one, therefore, was not mistaken and did not miss the mark completely — and that the labor was not wasted.— This was all the more important for me, since people in whom I have great faith (I am not speaking of Kolbasin), seriously advised me to throw my work into the fire — and only the other day Pisemsky (but this is between us) wrote to me that the figure of Bazarov had entirely failed. How, then, do you order one not to begin doubting and not to lose one’s bearings? It is hard for an author to feel at once to what extent his thought has been embodied — and whether it is true — and whether he has mastered it — and so on. He is, as if in a forest, in his own work.

You have surely experienced this yourself more than once. And therefore once again thank you. You grasped so fully and so subtly what I wanted to express through Bazarov that I only spread my hands in amazement — and pleasure. As though you had entered my soul and felt even what I did not think it necessary to utter. God grant that this showed not only the sensitive penetration of a master, but also the simple understanding of a reader— that is, God grant that everyone should see at least part of what you saw! Now I am at peace regarding the fate of my tale: it has done its work — and I have nothing to repent of.

Here is another proof for you of how much you have made yourself at home with this type: in Arkady’s meeting with Bazarov, in the place where, according to your words, something is lacking, Bazarov, telling about the duel, made fun of knights and Arkady listened to him with secret horror and so on.— I threw this out — and now regret it: in general I crossed out and rewrote a great deal under the influence of unfavorable responses — and from this, perhaps, arose the sootiness which you noticed.

I received a sweet letter from Maikov — and will answer him. They will abuse me severely — but this must be waited out, like a little summer rain.

I would be very sorry if I did not find you in Petersburg.— I leave here at the end of the local April, i. e. in a month. Now I can tell You for certain that I shall bring you my work finished — it has not only advanced greatly, it is approaching its end. In it there will be about 3 printed sheets. A strange thing is coming out. It is precisely those “Phantoms”, because of which several years ago a dispute arose between us and Katkov — I do not know whether you remember this. I had begun another thing — and suddenly seized upon this one and worked for several days with enthusiasm. Now only a few pages remain to be written.

I rejoice at the success of “Time”. It is annoying that you cannot arrange the regular sending of the journal. I say this not so much out of personal interest,— after all, I shall soon return myself — but for your own benefit. “The Russian Herald” is sent here regularly.— (However, I have not yet received the February issue).

Once more I press Your hand firmly, firmly and say thank you to You. Convey my earnest bow to Your wife and be well.

Devoted to You
Iv. Turgenev.

I'm an avid runner and will be in Yerevan for two weeks in August (my first time). I'll be staying near Diana Abgar Park.

Anyone have any suggestions for places to run?

I typically run about 15 km per day.

Any tips would be welcome.

"We have two tsars: Nicholas II and Leo Tolstoy. Which of them is stronger? Nicholas II can do nothing with Tolstoy, cannot shake his throne, whereas Tolstoy undoubtedly shakes the throne of Nicholas and his dynasty. They curse him; the Synod has its own determination against him. Tolstoy answers; the answer circulates in manuscripts and in foreign newspapers. Let someone try to touch Tolstoy. The whole world will cry out, and our administration will tuck in its tail. Sipyagin has nothing left except consolation in the phrase he said to the sovereign: “If Tolstoy’s answer to the Synod is printed, the people will tear him apart.” Console yourselves, friends, console yourselves, feeble-minded rulers. Herzen thundered from London. Tolstoy thunders in London from Yasnaya Polyana and Moscow; he thunders in Russia by means of lithographs, which are sold for 20 kopecks. A new time is coming, and it will show itself. It is already showing itself by the fact that the government is completely tangled up and does not know what to begin. “Whether to lie down to sleep or to get up.” But how long will this disorder last? At least one may die with this conviction: that arbitrary rule has been undermined, and that no storm at all is needed for it to fall. An ordinary wind will knock it down."

I just finished reading The Double (in Russian!) and some of what Dostoevsky later wrote about his second book. In Diary of Writer, 30 years later, he admitted it was a failure (it was widely torn apart in the press), but he always thought its central premise, the idea of the human soul and psyche divided against itself, was one of his greatest contributions to literature.

Of course, The Double was written before his arrest and ideological split, so the divided self under social and psychological pressure was portrayed as a social issue brought on by an oppressive government. But you can definitely see the divided self in some of his great characters in his later novels (Raskolnikov, Stavrogin, Ivan Karamazov). These “doubles” were more subtle though, found in hallucinations or in the introduction of separate characters, and they were a byproduct of what Dostoevsky regarded as the radical Western ideologies.

The most obvious example that I can think of is Ivan Karamazov’s devil

“In reviling you, I revile myself!... You are me—my very self—only with a different face. You say precisely what I am already thinking... and you are powerless to tell me anything new!... You are me, you are I and nothing more! You are trash, you are my fantasy!”

I recently came across a brief mention in Rosamund Bartlett’s Tolstoy biography that in 1861, Tolstoy challenged Turgenev to a duel. I knew he had a short fuse as a young man, but I had never heard this story. I started looking into it more, and was really surprised by the complexity of Tolstoy and Turgenev’s relationship. I closely read their letters and Tolstoy’s diary from this period. In short, they had a very off-and-on relationship. They would be the best of friends one day, and the next, they would be badmouthing each other.

In May 1861, the two were having breakfast at Afanasy Fet’s country estate. Fet’s wife, asked Turgenev if he was pleased with his daughter’s English governess. Turgenev responded that he was, adding that she “requires my daughter to take the ragged clothes of the poor in her hands and, having mended them with her own hands, return them to their owners.”

“And you consider this a good thing?” Tolstoy asked.

“Of course; it brings the benefactor closer to the pressing need,” Turgenev responded.

Tolstoy retorted, “But I think that a dressed-up girl, holding dirty and stinking rags on her lap, is playing an insincere, theatrical scene.”

Turgenev then got very angry and threatened to slap Tolstoy in the face. Tolstoy then sent for his weapons from his estate and challenged Turgenev to a duel.

After a series of letters and apologies spanning months that seemed to exacerbate the feud, with Turgenev ultimately challenging Tolstoy to a duel, the two agreed to cease all communications. In a letter to Fet, Tolstoy wrote, “Turgenev is a scoundrel who ought to be thrashed, a message I ask you to convey to him just as scrupulously as you convey his charming remarks to me, despite my repeated requests that you not speak of him.”

The silence, remarkably, lasted nearly 17 years, until Tolstoy penned a letter to Turgenev, asking for his forgiveness.

I wrote an article about it if anyone is interested in reading more

 

You and I love ordinary people; but we are loved because people see in us something extraordinary. I, for example, am invited everywhere as a guest, fed and given drink everywhere like a general at a wedding. My sister is indignant that she is invited everywhere simply because she is the sister of a writer.

No one wants to love the ordinary people in us. It follows from this that if tomorrow, in the eyes of our good acquaintances, we appear to be ordinary mortals, they will stop loving us and will only pity us. And that is vile. It is also vile that they love in us something that we ourselves often neither love nor respect in ourselves.

Tolstoy’s diary entry 31 May 1856:

I was riding to Turgenev’s at five in the morning, through a dewy little hollow. A postilion rode behind me; his saddle creaked, exactly like a fart. I said, “Was that you farting?” He replied, “How could I dare disturb you?”

I’ve had two “sections” for several months, and I love the idea of them, but I’m not really sure if they’ve helped growth or engagement at all. That being said, I don’t think it hurts anything, but I’m curious if anyone has had any success with them.

I came across this and loved it

Fell in love, or imagined that I had; was at a party and lost my head. Bought a horse I have no need of whatsoever.

Rules:

-Do not offer any price for something you do not need.

-When you enter a ball, immediately ask someone to dance and make a turn of a waltz or a polka.

-This evening, think over how to set matters right.

-Stay at home.

I'm revisiting Anna Karenina after several years, and this introduction of Stiva paints such a great picture:

“Stepan Arkadyich took and read a liberal newspaper, not an extreme one, but of that tendency to which the majority adhered. And, despite the fact that neither science, nor art, nor politics particularly interested him, he firmly held those views on all these subjects which the majority and his newspaper held, and changed them only when the majority changed them; or rather, he did not change them, but they themselves changed imperceptibly within him.

Stepan Arkadyich chose neither his direction nor his views; rather, these directions and views came to him of their own accord, just as he did not choose the shape of his hat or coat, but took those that were worn. And for him, living in a certain society, with the need for that mental activity which usually develops in the years of maturity, having views was as necessary as having a hat.”