Turgenev is one of my favorite Russian writers.
But I wonder: Who reads Turgenev now? My guess is he is one of Russia’s best-kept secrets. Sure, he is dubbed one of the “giants” of nineteenth-century Russian literature, along with Chekhov, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy, but his name doesn’t resonate with the average reader. Type the phrase “Turgenev reviews” on Google and you’ll find a paltry 206,000 results, while “Chekhov reviews” garners 511,000, Tolstoy 453,000, and Dostoevsky 435,000. Does this unscientific survey mean the other three are more than twice as popular!
Well, I read Turgenev’s short, luminous books over and over. No one writes better about love and politics. His characters include fiery nihilists, intellectual women, star-crossed lovers, and aristocrats who are nostalgic for a simpler time. Their fervent discussions of love and politics not only reflect the concerns of 19th century Russia but of our own time. They are as confused about politics as we were during the recent election.
Whatever the year, Turgenev is relevant. I have blogged about Fathers and Sons twice once here, and once at my old blog. In 2012, the year of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I mused on the role of the nihilist anti-hero Bazarov in Fathers and Sons in a post (at my old blog, Frisbee: A Book Journal) titled “Would Turgenev’s Bazarov Occupy? And I wrote here again about Fathers and Sons in 2015.
If you are a fan of elegant prose and originality, you’ve got to read Turgenev. I have read his gorgeous novels innumerable times and am jsut discovering the stories. I recently read and enjoyed his 1850 novella, The Diary of a Superfluous Man. (I read Harry Stevens’ translation in The Borzoi Turgenev, a collection of four novels and three long stories.)
Chulkatirin, the cynical hero of The Diary of a Superfluous Man, considers himself an unimportant man who accomplished nothing in his life. He calls himself “a superfluous man.” Literary critics adopted Turgenev’s phrase to describe a popular character type in 19th-century Russian literature. Two of Chulkatirin’s “superfluous man” predecessors are Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin, and Lermontov’s Pechorin in A Hero of Our Time. All three are courteous, attractive, and well-educated, but are too cynical, bored, and contemptuous of society to define a goal or prove their high opinion of themselves. And they cannot resist fighting pointless duels. (By the way, both Pushkin and Lermontov died in duels.)
As The Diary of a Superfluous Man opens, the dying hero Chulkaturin decides to start a diary . He wants to analyze his life. He claims he accomplished nothing and was unloved and superfluous. He coins the phrase “superfluous man.”
Superfluous, superfluous… I have thought of an excellent word. The farther I penetrate into myself, the more closely I examine all my past life, the more convinced I am of the stern truth of that expression. Superfluous–precisely. To other people that word is not applicable. People are bad, good, intelligent, stupid, pleasant, and unpleasant; but superfluous…no. Yet understand me: even without these people the universe could manage quite well–of course; but uselessness is not their main quality, not their distinctive characteristic, and when you speak of them the word ‘superfluous’ is not the first to come to the tongue. But I–about me it is not possible to say anything else: I am superfluous, and that is all there is to it.
Chulkatirin sketches his early life, but then zeroes in on the events of the few short vivid months he spent in the district town O—-. During his stay, he fell in love with Liza, the pretty daughter of Kirila Matveevich Ozhogin, a wealthy county official. Though he had difficulty expressing himself and was not socially astute, Chulkatirin believed that her politeness indicated she returned his feelings. Then Prince N. arrived, and Liza is radiant when he is in the room. Chulkatirin assumes her vivacity is aimed at him, not the prince. Finally, at a ball, Chulkatirin cannot ignore her radiance as she dances the mazurka with Prince N. and realizes the two are in love. He insults Prince N. and they fight a duel which proves to be ridiculous: the superfluous man’s life is a comedy. What does Chulkatirin gain by his passion? Nothing.
Russian novels are chock-full of superfluous men, including the famous Bazarov in Fathers and Sons. Finally I know the source of the phrase.
mirabile dictu 
What a pretty book! I read Turgenev of course – “Smoke” most recently, which I loved – though I don’t read enough of him. I hope to rectify that this year! 🙂
LikeLike
Smoke is splendid too! Coincidentally I reread it this week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for spreading the word about Turgenev! I think I have only read one of his novels (“Fathers and Sons”), but I think he is well-worth reading.
LikeLike
Fathers and Sons is great. I love his others too. Let’s hope my Google stats mean nothing. I don’t read much about Turgenev on the internet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know what you mean. I don’t hear him discussed much either.
LikeLike
Yup, just Tolstoy and Dostoevsky!
LikeLike
Thanks for post! Is C. Garnett any good??? I’ve always read that she left out any passages she didn’t understand… thanks for feedback. Ouiser.
LikeLike
You know, I really like Constance Garnett. She is such a graceful writer! I read that she skipped passages too, but am not sure of the source of that. I read the Stevens, but have always been happy with Garnett.
LikeLike
Thanks!
Guess i’ll give her try. Can’t afford $1800 for any special editions i read about in Amazon… 🙂
LikeLike
Oops, $1800 would break the bank!
LikeLike
Well I received a copy of Smoke from a friend at Christmas. I read Fathers and Sons twice years ago- and possibly one of his others. You make a great case for reading him.
LikeLike
Well I ‘m so happy to hear everybody has read FAthers and Sons and civilization is alive! Smoke is a great political novel, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you like Turgenev (I read Fathers and Sons when I was in high school), you will love Alexander Herzen. I recommend Tom Stoppard’s “Coast of Utopia” and Herzen’s “My Past and Thoughts.”
LikeLike
Thank you for the recommendations! I have heard of Herzen but only foggily in introductions to Russian novels. And oh my goodness I just googled Stoppard’s plays and Turgenev, Herzen and Belinsky are characters. Very exciting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s something I wrote about Herzen
https://alltoohuman.blog/
LikeLike
Fascinating! I’ll look for Herzen’s book. Actually I can get it for 99 cents as an e-book.
LikeLike
Turgenev has always been one of my favorite writers. As I seem to read nothing but disparaging references to Constance Garnett lately, it’s refreshing to hear that you appreciate her. Years ago her translations of the Russians seemed to be the only ones available to me and I enjoyed them very much.
LikeLike
A few years ago I read a piece in The Guardian saying Garnett was a writer’s hero! I reevaluated her then and realized I didn’t know WHERE i’d heard she made so many mistakes. I read some of her translations on an e-reader (free from Project Gutenberg!) when I was taking long weekend bike rides and I loved them! I can’t read her War and Peace because I need notes (and there doesn’t seem to be an edition with notes!), but I have certainly enjoyed Garnett. And you’re right: they’re available! The NYRB edition of Virgin Soil is Garnett’s, so she must be respected!
LikeLike
I recently bought the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace (soon, I hope, to be read; it’s been much too long since I last read it). I loved their Anna Karenina. I just checked my Turgenev: The Torrents of Spring and Fathers and Sons are both Garnett; On the Eve was translated by Gilbert Gardiner and Sketches from a Hunter’s Album was done by Richard Freeborn.
LikeLike
I love Pevear and Volokhonsky! They’ve done so much for Russian literature. Hey, those Turgenev editions sound familiar. I’ve never read a bad translation of T!
LikeLike
Constance Garnett is the gold standard when it comes to Russian literature in translation. Recently the husband & wife team of Pevear and Volokhonsky have been issuing new translations of the classics but they have their critics.
LikeLike
I think she’s wonderful, too. I appreciate her more now that I am older. Her translations of Turgenev are much more elegant than the one I just read (which was very good too).
LikeLike
My guess is English readers know Turgenev best from his novella, Fathers and Sons, and one of his plays — which can be found done in American repertoire companies in the summer. I’ve seen his A Month in the Country at least twice. I found the two stories I tried weak. It could have been the translation. I am wondering if he looks at women in a way that might lead him to feel for the superfluous woman. Or were they hidden by social conformity in 19th century Russia?
LikeLike
His women characters are very good, too. Some are radicals, others intellectuals, but I don’t remember any “superfluous” women offhand. They’re too emotionally involve.
LikeLike
Kat I have to quibble with you a bit. Bazarov was not and could not have been a “superfluous man” as he was of the younger generation and a nihilist. That prize goes to Pavel Petrovich.
LikeLike
Interesting interpretation and you could argue the point! But Bazarov is in the direct lineage of Eugene Onegin and Pechorin (A Hero of His Time): intelligent, cynical, bored by society, indifferent, rejects traditions, but has nothing to replace them with. Like his predecessors, he flirts inappropriately, in his case with his host’s mistress (Onegin with his best friend’s fiancee, Pechorin with more than one) and all three fight duels. And thus the critics label him a superfluous man!
LikeLike
With all due respect I think you are missing the historical context. Turgenev’s novel highlights the conflict between the generations. Bazarov is not a dissipated aristocrat, he would like to tear it all down. He has more in common with Baku in or even Lenin than Pushing.
LikeLike
The critics have long written about Bazarov as a superfluous man.:) Yes, it is analyzes the 1860s men (the young gen) and the 1840s men (their fathers).
LikeLike
Hmm well that’s nuts but I’ll take your word for it 😀
LikeLike
Thank you for your entry dedicated to Turgenev. I took a course in Turgenev back in my university days and it’s high time to reread him.
LikeLike
Well, everyone who likes Turgenev seems to have turned up here! I am so glad he is being read, because I really thought he was forgotten.
LikeLike
I just love Turgenev and agree that he is totally underestimated, he is such a pleasure to read! But I too have a small scale, not ver scientific, survey: I write about Russian literature on my blog in both English and Dutch, and the statistics tell me that with the Dutch readers Turgenev is the most popular 😊 Happy reading!
LikeLike
Well, I’m glad the Dutch love Turgenev and clearly I underestimated the numbers who read him here too. I think most just read Fathers and Sons, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True!
LikeLike