Advertisement

Artistic give and take

  • Patrick Waddington

Abstract

The credit for Turgenev’s presence at the banquet of the Royal Literary Fund was Milnes’s; so too, in fact, was that of Palmerston himself. But Turgenev could not, and Palmerston would not, recompense him with a just reward. As his half-century approached, Milnes himself no longer cared: life was its own remuneration. To this extent, Turgenev was right to call him ‘good’. Milnes was also useful to Turgenev in his own current mood of premature decay and isolation, and for his part was attracted to the novelist by that warm yet level-headed humanity which endeared him to a long line of admirers. But Turgenev’s modest façade still masked his inner strengths. Milnes appreciated these, as did also the Shaw Lefevres. How did he now stand, though, with more national figures like Carlyle and Thackeray?

Keywords

Household Word False Modesty Russian Life Oliver Twist British Critic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pis’ma, III, 138; Sochineniya, XIV, 147–71, 243, XV, 99; Wemyss Reid, Lord Houghton, II, 28; Ray, I, 454, IV, 82, 392; Ritchie, Blackstick Papers, 234–8, 241, 244, Letters, 59, 153; Hutton, 303–4; Polonsky, 90–1; Fuller and Hammersley, 84; Stonehouse; Hudson, 126.Google Scholar
  2. Pis’ma, I, 298, IV, 210, 353, v, 88, VIII, 145, IX, 130, X, 270, XI, 54, 200, 350, 469, XII (2), 25, 327; Sochineniya, V, 373, 417, XIV, 240, XV, 106; Nouv. corr. inédite, I, 59, 120, 143, 157, 202, II, xxxi, 145; Quelques lettres, 63–4; Ray, IV, 392; Charnwood, 254–5; Forster, II, 69–70 (Book 6, ch. 4); Goncourt, I, 1243; Katarsky; Kostomarova, 157; I. S. Turgenev v vosp. sov., II, 83, 203, 402, 404; Pavlovsky, 73; James, Partial Portraits, 222–3, ‘Ivan Turgénieff’ (1884), 45, 53, French Poets, 212–13; Friedländer, 831; Literaturnoye nasledstvo, toma 37–38, 540, 557; Leont’ev, 109; Turgenevsky sbornik, IV, 167–77; Daily Mews, 30 April 1858, 5, 7 September 1883, 3; Academy, 15 Sept. 1883, 180; Phelps, Russian Novel, 46; Bennett, 186–7; Halperine-Kaminsky, 9; Household Words, XI, 108–9, etc., XIII, 52–8; Waddington, ‘Dickens’, 56–7; Kolbasin, 22, 24; Athenaeum, I May 1858, 564; Timbs, 370. Meysenbug’s unsigned translation was called Childhood and Youth: A Tale from the Russian. The article which refers to Dickens’s ‘Achilles heel’ may in fact be the work of Ludwig Pietsch (whom Turgenev dubbed a Micawber!) Lohrli (136–8, 146, 256ff) states that the Household Words translations from Turgenev were by Edmund Saul Dixon, a reverend expert on gardening and poultry. Others had earlier thought they were the work of William Hepworth Dixon. Edgar Johnson (II, 713–14) is not alone in believing that the introduction, at least, was by Dickens. Cf. Gettmann, 19–21.Google Scholar
  3. Pis’ma, II, 301, III, 216, VIII, 107–8; Sochineniya, IX, 120, 154, XII, 68, XV, 48; Nouv. corr. inédite, I, 90, 93, 128, 148; Lettres inédites, 80, 85, 139; Houghton MSS 21/81, 43/22; Hansen-Taylor and Scudder, 11, 473; Argyll, 1, 401 etc.; Ritchie, Letters, 112; Polonsky, 132; Remusat; The Times, 10 June 1860; Athenaeum, 19 June 1858, 792, 3 July, 25, 4 Sept., 306; Robinson, 294; Viardot (Pauline), ‘Lettre inédite’, 14; FitzLyon, 323–5; Rozanov, 117; Grant Duff, 1851–1872, 1, 101–2, 1889-1891, I, 83; Herzen, XXVI, 178, 301.Google Scholar
  4. Pis’ma, II, 279, 567, III, 199–201, 217, 220, 228; Feoktistov, 168, 172; Brodsky, Botkin i Turgenev, 142–8; Herzen, XXVI, 178, 194; Ogaryova-Tuchkova, 108; Carlyle (Jane Welsh), Letters, ed. Bliss, 272–3, ed. Froude, 11, 354–5; National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ Library MSS 20.5.24, f. 7; Wilson, 316; Saturday Review, 22 Oct. 1881, 510; Annenkov (1960), 379, 387; Wilson and MacArthur, 66–7, 79–80, 262–3, 333, 386–7, 457; New York Times, 5 Sept. 1883, 55 Carlyle (Thomas), ed. Bliss, 332. It was William Ralston who reported Carlyle’s opinion of Mumu in the Saturday Review; in the Athenaeum he later made him say: ‘I think it is the most pathetic story I ever read’ (15 Sept. 1883, 338).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Patrick Waddington 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Waddington
    • 1
  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations