Dale Quarrington

The Second Critique of Dostoevsky

The relationship that Turgenev and Dostoevsky shared was tumultuous at best. But more often than not, it has been believed that Dostoevsky was the one to initiate the volatility in their relationship. But this idea is very misleading. Not only that, but it does a great disservice to the two’s entire relationship. Thus, the point of this critique will be to examine the two sides of the relationship between Dostoevsky and Turgenev; and not just the one.

In total, the essay will be divided into four parts:

1. First Meeting, and Subsequent Encounters
2. Penal Servitude and Other
3. The Final Split
4. The Final Fourteen Years (Death of Dostoevsky, and the Pushkin Speech)

i.) The First Meeting and Subsequent Encounters; 1845-1846

The original facilitator that brought the two writers together was to be found in a literary circle, which bore the name “The Belinsky Circle,” to which both belonged. Other members included Annenkov, the historian K. D. Kavelin, the poet Nekrasov, Goncharov, Botkin, Herzen and Ogarev. Notably, Turgenev joined in the winter of 1843. The Circle’s interest, which lasted from 1843-1848, was George Sand (the French author). The Circle was also interested in other French writers of the time, and in particular, those that had a socially subversive message. However, the most relevant to the Circle was the newly published novel Dead Souls, by Nikolai Gogol. For Belinsky, the leader of the Circle, this work instantly gave the social message that he had been looking for. Immediately, upon the publication of Poor Folk, by Dostoevsky, in 1846, Belinsky took Dostoevsky under his wing. Belinsky believed full well that it would be Dostoevsky that would promote his left wing politics, through Dostoevsky’s literature.

The mentor and protégé relationship found between the two, can be found in an observation made by, none other than, that of Turgenev:

Yes, he [Belinsky] used to say proudly, as though he had himself been responsible for some terrific achievement, yes, my dear fellow, let me tell you it may be a tiny bird, and he would put his hand about a foot from the floor to show how tiny it was, but it’s got sharp claws. Imagine my surprise when I met Mr. Dostoevsky a little later and saw before me a man of more than medium height, taller than Belinsky himself at any rate. But in his access of paternal tenderness to a newly discovered talent, Belinsky treated him like a son, just as if he were his own little boy.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.159

This point is furthered by Dostoevsky, himself, when he writes to his brother, Mikhail, in the winter of 1845:

“Belinsky could not be more fond of me.”
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.159.

Such was the atmosphere found in ‘The Belinsky Circle’ that helped to introduce the two authors, to one another. And in mid November, 1845, the two authors would meet for the very first time; which would help to establish a life-long relationship of turbulence between the two.

Immediately, Dostoevsky took to Turgenev and his amiable personality. The reason why he was so open and friendly towards Turgenev, was that Dostoevsky was lacking any true intimate friendships besides those of Shidlovsky, and his brother, Mikhail. It is out of this situation, and Turgenev’s agreeable disposition, that Dostoevsky openly befriended Turgenev. Such is the case that can be found in the quote by Dostoevsky, towards Turgenev, written to his brother Mikhail:

A poet, an aristocrat, talented, handsome, rich, intelligent, well-educated, and twenty five years old. And to conclude, a noble character, infinitely direct and open, formed in a good school.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.162

It is this genuine naivety, and Turgenev’s affable personality, that allowed Dostoevsky to see Turgenev for what he was not. Dostoevsky’s statement is more of a dreamlike description of a best friend, than was to be found in Turgenev in actuality. And like most dreams, Dostoevsky’s was only temporary. This was brought about by “The Belinsky Circle,” towards Dostoevsky, by Turgenev himself. At first, Turgenev would mock Dostoevsky, egging him on into arguments. Saying things that he knew would excite the highly sensitive and self conscious Dostoevsky. Such is the view put forth by Belinsky, to Turgenev, about his actions:

Well, you’re a fine one! You latch on to a sick man, you egg him on, as if you didn’t know that when he gets worked up he doesn’t know what he’s saying.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.163

Arguments were only further fuelled by Grigorovich, who reported to Dostoevsky, all the things Turgenev said about Dostoevsky, when he wasn’t present at the meetings hosted by The Belinsky Circle. Thus, Dostoevsky usually arrived at the meetings already angry, which then, was only furthered by Turgenev’s antagonistic actions and arguments against Dostoevsky, when he did show up. This came to a head, and eventually boiled over, resulting in the eventual split between Dostoevsky and Turgenev in the fall of 1846. A witness to the final meeting, Mme Panaev, described it as follows:

Once, while Dostoevsky was present, Turgenev depicted his meeting in the provinces with a person who imagined himself a genius, and painted the iridic side of the individual in a masterly fashion. Dostoevsky, white as a sheet, and quivering from head to foot, took flight, not waiting to hear the rest of Turgenev’s story, I remarked to them all: why drive Dostoevsky out of his mind like that? But Turgenev was in the very highest spirits and carried away the others, so that nobody paid any attention to Dostoevsky’s sudden exit...From that evening, Dostoevsky no longer visited us, and even avoided meeting any member of the circle in the street...He saw only [Grigorovich], who reported that Dostoevsky abused us vehemently...that he had become disenchanted with all of us, that all were envious heartless, and worthless people.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.164

This has incredible merit, especially for Turgenev. Who saw the success, and acclaim flowered upon Dostoevsky; and in particular, by the two’s mentor: Belinsky. Thus, the only way to interrupt Dostoevsky’s success was to prey upon his weakness; which were his insecurities. This is more than evident in the above information already given. However, Turgenev took his jealousy one step further, even after Dostoevsky had left The Belinsky Circle, by creating a literary caricature of Dostoevsky. The circumstances behind this caricature, was that Belinsky was collecting material for an almanac, which he was to call Leviathan. And supposedly, for the historical information is not at all clear, Dostoevsky asked for special treatment, in its publication, by either being first or last. Whether real or imagined, this was all it took to fuel the already envious Turgenev, with the aid of Nekrasov, to illustrate a literary caricature of Dostoevsky. In the caricature, Turgenev describes Dostoevsky as:

The Knight of the Rueful Countenance...a pimple on the face of Russian literature, jeers at his inflated opinion of his literary prowess, and ridicules him for having fainted dead away on being presented to a beautiful aristocratic society belle, who wanted to meet the author of Poor Folk.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.168

This was more than enough for Dostoevsky. He completed a split with the obviously envious Turgenev, which would be the start to their tumultuous relationship.

ii.) Prison and Other; 1846-1867:

The second stage that will be analysed will be the actions in, and around, Dostoevsky’s prison sentence. Even before Dostoevsky was sentenced to serve his prison term in Siberia, and close to the first break between the two, is the critique of each others work; by both. For Dostoevsky, as directed towards Turgenev, he was not always critical. In some cases, he was quite complementary. Such is the case in:

I have read scarcely anything this year... It’s Turgenev who pleases me the most - only it’s too bad that with such an enormous talent there is such a lack of self-control.
- Seeds of Revolt; Frank, p.234

During the sixties, the two shared friendly correspondence. And while most critics attacked Turgenev’s Father’s and Sons, Dostoevsky accepted the ideas in it, and legitimized the novel as an authentic work of literature. Such can be found in the letter written by Turgenev to Dostoevsky:

You have grasped so fully and sensitively what I was trying to say through Bazarov that I am left with nothing more to express but astonishment and pleasure.
– Reminiscences; Anna Dostoevsky, p434-435

However, during the same period of time, Dostoevsky was also very critical of Turgenev’s writing. For The Bachelor, by Turgenev, Turgenev was criticized by some that he borrowed too heavily from the idea’s of Dostoevsky in his work; Poor Folk.

Just as Dostoevsky’s Makar Devashkin protects Varvara Doroselova, so a good-hearted, rough hewn middle-age bureaucrat name Moshkin (the bachelor) takes under his wing a much younger girl who becomes his ward. In Poor Folk, a similar situation ends tragically when the girl vanishes into he steppe as the bride of a brutal landowner, but when Marya’s fiancé deserts her for reasons of social snobbery, Moshkin proposes himself and is accepted. The play, thus concludes with a completely happy ending that reverses Dostoevsky far more persuasive resolution.
– Years of Ordeal; Frank, p.26-27

It is for this very reason that Dostoevsky criticizes Turgenev’s writing. Turgenev had stolen an idea that Dostoevsky had clearly and convincingly portrayed, and altered it dissatisfactorily; at least to Dostoevsky, and many critics. So much so, that Dostoevsky remarked about The Bachelor, that it, “smacks of childish incapacity.” And Dostoevsky was well within his rights to criticize the short-comings of Turgenev’s literary work. This contrast found within the criticism of Turgenev, by Dostoevsky, furthers itself well within the ideas of each others writing. While always original, Dostoevsky’s ambition was to emulate Turgenev as an illustrator of the passionate element, Dostoevsky soon swept this aside for that of a novel of ideas. Thus, Dostoevsky made the movement away from Russian Romanticism, which was prevalent at the time in Russian literature, for that of the prototypical existential literary novel. This divide was even further exemplified in the differences found between Dostoevsky’s and Turgenev’s characters; namely, the weak versus the strong. For Dostoevsky, the height of any character was his fragility. Whereas, for Turgenev, it was the solid characters that were absolutely sure of their futurity, that Turgenev preferred to offer to his readers. Such can be found in the response made by Plishcheev, directed at Turgenev’s On the Eve, towards his friends, which supports Dostoevsky’s, earlier remarks:

You make me very angry my friend by your response to Turgenev’s novel... According to that - no artist would dare delineate any type serving to represent a particular species of people, a certain class of society; all would be labels. And why is life so easy for the Bulgarian - devoting himself to the great work of liberating his country? I do not know if he finds life so easy - but I would wish to live such a life. An immediate nature, solid, not subordinate to analysis and the process of reflection, not becoming entangled in various contradictions, may find it easier to live if you wish...but when such natures place their lives in jeopardy for the sake of a love for justice - why should they be less worth of sympathy than Hamlet and the tribe of Hamlet...Turgenev took this fact and was right in so doing.
– Years of Ordeal; Frank, p.253-254

It is apparent that Dostoevsky criticized Turgenev’s usage of the strong character type. To which, all of life revealed itself with ease towards the strong character. For Dostoevsky, this was a weakness of Turgenev’s literature, because it avoided the actual realities of life. Where it is never clear cut, nor without confusion; as Turgenev would have you believe it to be in his fiction. And while Dostoevsky was able to keep his criticism’s and praise limited to the literary world, Turgenev was not. Such is the case, in a criticism given by Turgenev, to Annenkov, about Dostoevsky while he was in Siberia!

Fedor Mikhailovich (Dostoevsky’s first and middle name) who used to make your eyes start from your head.
- Turgenev; Schapiro, p.97

However, much like Dostoevsky, Turgenev was also able to return the favour of praise. But like before, and unlike Dostoevsky, Turgenev did it outside the world of literature. Dostoevsky learned from Pleshcheev (in a letter from 1859), that Turgenev inquired about Dostoevsky’s welfare while he was still away in exile, in Siberia. Between the two, the break-up had been momentarily forgotten, with Turgenev’s inquiry, and Dostoevsky’s acceptance of its sincerity. This token of friendship was furthered by Turgenev, knowing that Dostoevsky had to make a living by his pen, upon his return to St. Petersburg. Thus, Turgenev was kind enough to bring Dostoevsky 600 rubles, from a publisher in Moscow, as partial payment for The Village of Stepanchikovo. Turgenev was returning from Moscow, to St. Petersburg, and as a friend, in 1860, Turgenev did Dostoevsky a huge favour. And finally, during this time of renewed friendship, Turgenev gave Dostoevsky Phantoms, for publication in Dostoevsky’s periodical; Epoch. It is at this point in the friendship that it reaches its zenith in late 1863 to early 1864. However, this period of time helps to support the idea that the two had a very turbulent friendship. Through the volleys of criticism and praise, either in literary form, or in actual life, the two continued upon the trend that would define their friendship; stormy. Thus, much like the original meeting, and subsequent divide of the two, in the 40's, the 50's and 60's continued the turbulence found in their friendship throughout their lifetimes.

iii.) The Final Split (both before and after); June 28, 1867

It is the final split that will be focussed on, in particular, in this part of the critique. Also, the focus will be narrowed to examine those events that contributed to the final split, both before, during and after June 28, 1867.

a.) Before

Before the split, Dostoevsky and Turgenev were on a good footing with one another, which is evident in a number of things. One of which was Dostoevsky’s confidence in going to Turgenev for a loan on July 29, 1866, in Wiesbaden. After five days of continuous gambling, Dostoevsky had lost everything, and was destitute. So much so, that Dostoevsky had to pawn his own watch. In a pleading letter, Dostoevsky begs Turgenev for 100 thalers:

...since you are more intelligent than the others, it is morally easier to turn to you. Here is what is involved: I appeal to you as one human being to another, and I ask for one hundred thalers.
- Miraculous Years; Frank, p.33

To which, Dostoevsky promised to repay Turgenev within a month, from money he had been expecting to receive from various sources. Sympathetic, Turgenev sent all the money that he could, at the time; 50 thalers, to his colleague, almost instantaneously. This was met by Dostoevsky’s gratitude towards Turgenev’s loan (which is also an acknowledgement of the very loan itself):

...although (it) has not entirely cleared me, all the same it is of great help. I hope to pay you back very soon.
- Miraculous Years; Frank, p.33

Another proof that leads a person to believe that both Dostoevsky and Turgenev were on a friendly footing, can be found in Turgenev’s praise of Dostoevsky’s understanding towards his Fathers and Sons. After receiving an admiring letter from Dostoevsky, Turgenev thanked Dostoevsky for the praise, he expressed about his Father’s and Sons. The flattering views were expressed in Dostoevsky’s own Epoch periodical. In it, Dostoevsky viewed Turgenev’s hero, Bazarov, primarily as a tragic figure torn by the conflict between his Nihilistic reasoning, and his great heart. Turgenev’s response expressed, to the effect, that Dostoevsky was only one of two that understood his novel; Fathers and Sons. A very flattering compliment from a person, who if not on the best of terms, would never have been given. Therefore, for these two reasons, the friendship is convincingly established through the frequency of their meetings, as well as the compliments shared between the two. Yet, within a year’s time, the two would never speak to each other directly, again.

b.) June 28, 1867

The days before the infamous encounter, Dostoevsky found himself back in Baden-Baden. This, was exactly where Turgenev was taking up residency. Dostoevsky was on, yet another, gambling binge. And as luck would have it, while Dostoevsky was out on a stroll with Anna (his wife), they ran into Goncharov, a mutual friend of the two. Goncharov told Dostoevsky:

...how Turgenev had caught right with Feodor yesterday, but had said nothing to him knowing how gamblers do not like to be spoken to.
- Miraculous Years; Frank, p.212

Learning of this unwelcome news, Dostoevsky had to pay Turgenev a visit; as it is incumbent upon a visitor to do in Russian tradition. It was unwelcome because the very loan Dostoevsky had asked for, just one year earlier, had still not been repaid; even after a promise of just one month. Therefore, the news given by Goncharov, to Dostoevsky, was unwelcome. However, for Dostoevsky, the meeting with Turgenev was now unavoidable. Dostoevsky told Anna that he planned on calling Turgenev, the very next day, to pay him the accustomed visit. But it wouldn’t be a successful visit; Turgenev wasn’t home. It was only after three days that the two would finally meet; on June 28, 1867.

According to Dostoevsky’s version of their meeting in 1867, described in a long letter of 16 August in to the poet Maikov, he called on Turgenev at noon, and found him at lunch: ‘to tell you the truth I never liked this man even before as a person...I also detest his aristocratic, pharisaical way....of coming at you to embrace you, and then thrusting forward his own cheek for you to kiss.’ Dostoevsky made 3 charges against Turgenev, allegedly as the result of this meeting. First, that he was an atheist: ‘He declared to me that he was a definitive atheist.’ Second, that he hated Russia: His book Smoke irritated me. He told me himself that the main thought, the fundamental point of his book was contained in the phrase, “If Russia were to be sunk without trace there would be no loss or cause of excitement for mankind.” ‘He declared that that was his fundamental conviction about Russia.’ Third, that he was a Germanophile. As Dostoevsky was leaving, so he says, he made some derogatory remark about the Germans, to which Turgenev retorted: “In speaking like that you offend me personally. You must know that I have finally settled here, that I regard myself as a German and not as a Russian, and that I am proud of this.” In ending his letter to Maikov, he says that he promised himself never to see Turgenev again: ‘He has offended me to much with is convictions.’ On the following day Turgenev called on Dostoevsky at 10 o’clock in the morning, which Dostoevsky took as an insult, since he had told Turgenev that he and his wife always slept until eleven.
– Turgenev; Schapiro, p.213-214

All of Dostoevsky’s letter is corroborated by Dostoevsky wife, Anna, in her diary. The day of the encounter, Dostoevsky told all that occurred in their meeting to her. She then jotted down everything that he told to her immediately afterwards. Thus, the letter that Dostoevsky wrote to Maikov, a month after the encounter, is corroborated by the accuracy found in Anna’s diary. Therefore, Dostoevsky is consistent in his opinions of Turgenev; and their meeting. Turgenev, however, refutes this claim of Dostoevsky’s, once the meeting had become public knowledge; to which, Turgenev thought Dostoevsky had made it public knowledge, which he hadn’t.

Referring to the shocking and absurd opinions about Russia and the Russians that he (Dostoevsky) attributes to me...which are suppose to constitute my imitate convictions, Turgenev denies that he ever would have expressed his intimate convictions before Dostoevsky. I consider him, he writes, a person who, as a consequence of morbid seizures and other causes, is not a full control of his own rational capacities; and this opinion of mine is shared by many others. During Dostoevsky’s visit, Turgenev urbanely explains, he relieves his heart by brutal abuse again the Germans, against me and my last book, and then departed; I hardly had the time or desire to contradict him; I repeat that I treated him as somebody who was ill. Probably his disordered imagination produced those arguments that he attributed to me, and on whose basis he composed against me his...message to posterity.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.219-220

But this explanation falls well short of an adequate response. The reason for this is Turgenev’s mind frame at the time of their encounter. While Dostoevsky was once again at the end of his financial rope, it was nothing new to him; Turgenev’s criticism, on the other hand, over his new novel Smoke, was in fact new to him. Therefore, while Dostoevsky almost assuredly did not help the situation, he wasn’t the one to have carried it to the extreme it ended at. The naturally reserved and proper Turgenev, had become bitter and vindictive over the criticism he had been receiving, and the lack of support that he was hoping to attain. This is evident in what Turgenev does the very next day, calling upon Dostoevsky, knowing that he and his wife always slept until 11 o’clock each and every day.

c.) After

The character of both Dostoevsky and Turgenev, would help to dictate the way in which each reacted to June 28^th, 1867. For the aristocratic and refined Turgenev, he probably felt embarrassed for losing himself in front of Dostoevsky, and uttering things that he later regretted.

Thus, the refutation that Turgenev writes (which has previously been documented), to the periodical that published the letter of Dostoevsky to Maikov, acts as a device to write Dostoevsky off as a madman. And hence Dostoevsky’s opinion shouldn’t matter. For Dostoevsky, on the other hand, a highly emotional and proud man, he would live up to his promise to Maikov, and never see Turgenev again. In conclusion, the accuracy of Dostoevsky’s letter seems far more exacting, due to the reaction held by the two, against the other.

iv.) The Final Fourteen Years; 1868 - 1881

The final fourteen years of Dostoevsky’s and Turgenev’s relationship, was held together by a smattering of indirect exchanges, which were both friendly, and not so friendly. While the first twenty-two years of their relationship had been dictated by direct contact with each other, the second half would not be.

One of these indirect encounters came about with the caricature of Turgenev, as portrayed by Dostoevsky, in his Demons. In it, Dostoevsky returns the favour of Turgenev’s earlier caricature, with his own; in the form of Karamazinov; Pinko. The very name Karamazinov, is a play upon Cramoisi, which means crimson in French. Thus, Dostoevsky is ridiculing the socially liberal sympathies of Turgenev, in the characters name. The Demons is a novel that rejects the ideal of Nihilism from the previous generation’s acceptance of it, onto the contemporary generation. In it, Dostoevsky parodies Turgenev’s Phantoms, and hints that Karamazinov-Turgenev is a secret sympathizer with the Nihilistic terrorists. Ultimately, Dostoevsky portrays the Karamazinov-Turgenev character, as a person that can’t make heads or tails of who he is philosophically. So much so, that he just wants to fit in with the new generation of thinkers, even if it compromises his own beliefs. In a famous scene, in The Demons, Karamazinov presents a hungry literary circle with his supposed final work of fiction. Dostoevsky plays perfectly upon Turgenev’s personal mannerisms and vanities. And after he has read his work, which has spanned what seems to be an eternity; at least to the crowd, the crowd could have cared less about what had been said. Instead, all they want is to do is eat. And at the end, the narrator plainly states that they could not make sense of what Karamazinov had been saying. Much in the same way as Dostoevsky had felt towards Turgenev’s Phantoms. Turgenev eventually heard of Dostoevsky’s caricature of him. And in his reply, one can tell just how much it had hurt Turgenev.

I hear Dostoevsky has caricatured me. Well, let him have his fun. He came to me five years ago in Baden, not to pay back the money he borrowed from me, but to abuse me for Smoke...I listened to this whole harangue in silence, and what do I hear now? That I expressed all sorts of criminal opinions. It would be simple libel, if Dostoevsky weren’t insane - of which I don’t have the slightest doubt. He was probably hallucinating.
- Reminiscences; Anna Dostoevsky, p. 436

Thus, four years after their final split, Dostoevsky had hardly forgotten what Turgenev had said to him on June 28, 1867, nor the initial caricature of him.

The second encounter comes as a part of a misunderstanding that Turgenev held in 1876, about the money he had lent Dostoevsky in 1865, and the split that it brought about in 1867. Turgenev believed that Dostoevsky had not paid back the 50 thalers he had given him (even though he had). A young man, Alexander Fyodorovich Otto, came to visit the Dostoevsky’s, as commissioned by Turgenev, to retrieve the money that Dostoevsky owed Turgenev. Dostoevsky was surprised at this sudden revelation. He had paid Pavel Annenkov a mutual friend of Turgenev and Dostoevsky, the 50 thalers he owed him, in July 1875; which he subsequently did.

Mr. Otto confirmed this fact. But went on to further say that Turgenev had loaned Dostoevsky 100 thaler’s and not 50, like Dostoevsky had thought it to be. Thus, according to Otto’s records, Dostoevsky still owed Turgenev 50 more thaler’s:

My husband, assuming the error was his, was extremely agitated and called me in immediately.

‘Tell me, Anya, how much money did I owe Turgenev?’, he asked, introducing the visitor to me.

‘Fifty thalers’

‘Is that right? Are you sure? Could you be mistaken?’

‘I remember it perfectly. Why, Turgenev’s letter stated exactly how much money he was sending you.’

‘Show me the letter - where do you have it?’ my husband demanded.

The letter, of course, was not at hand, but I promised to locate it, and we asked the young man to drop in again in a couple of days.
- Reminiscences; Anna Dostoevsky, p. 272

Dostoevsky was very upset, which is apparent in his remarks made to his wife. In fact, he was so upset, especially after suffering an epileptic seizure just three days earlier, that Anna stayed up well into the night in search of Turgenev’s confirmation letter, fearing that her husband would suffer yet another epileptic attack. Eventually, Anna would find it. And two days later, they showed it to Otto. To which, he apologized for the misunderstanding. But this misunderstanding would further the divide shared by Turgenev and Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky was embarrassed over the fact that he had once had to borrow money from Turgenev. Especially because it was held over his head; a full ten years later. This was something that he would, and could never forgive Turgenev for.

The third indirect encounter was a letter Turgenev sent Dostoevsky, in 1877, about his talent as a writer. Even after all there problems. Especially as of late, Turgenev still complimented Dostoevsky’s genius as a writer:

I resolve to write this letter to you despite the misunderstandings which have arisen between us and which caused a break in our personal relations. You have no doubt, I feel sure, that these misunderstandings could have no possible influence on my evaluation of your first-rate talent and of the high place you occupy by right in our literature.
- Reminiscences; Anna Dostoevsky, p. 377-378

This letter, sent to Dostoevsky, by Turgenev, reads more as an apology for having made a mistake over the 50 thalers just a year earlier, than it does as a compliment to his talent. While it is speculative, the compliments that he flowers Dostoevsky with, may have been intended to curry favour with him. Thus, putting him back into the relative good books of Dostoevsky, where he was no longer, especially because of Turgenev’s actions over the course of the past year.

The fourth, and final indirect encounter surrounds Dostoevsky’s death, and the subsequent events leading up to it. In particular, it occurred at Dostoevsky’s Pushkin speech, over the Pushkin anniversary, and the favourable reactions Turgenev gave towards Dostoevsky’s speech, and Dostoevsky gave to Turgenev for his speech:

At one moment in his speech, while praising the chastity and modesty of Pushkin’s Tatiana he linked with her the name of Turgenev’s Liza. Turgenev was visibly moved, and blew Dostoevsky a kiss - according to some accounts he went up and embraced him.
– Turgenev; Schapiro, p. 307-308

While the latter part seems a little far fetched, the first hand certainly does not. For as much as they may have hated each other at any given moment, they still respected each other, which is found in the above gesture by Turgenev. This respect, for each other, is coupled with the death of Dostoevsky. Upon hearing that Dostoevsky had died, Turgenev recognized the personal genius of Dostoevsky. So much so, in fact, that Turgenev contributed 25 roubles to a subscription to a monument to erect for Dostoevsky.

In conclusion, while both Turgenev and Dostoevsky had a turbulent relationship, they always respected each other; even at the height of their animosity towards each other. Thus, the point of this article has been to clarify the facts around Turgenev and Dostoevsky’s relationship, and not to distort them. While some would rather have the opinions favour one, over the other in the relationship: namely, Dostoevsky; the facts prove that Turgenev was just as much a contributor to their turbulent relationship, if not more so.

Resources

1) Dostoevsky, Anna. Reminiscences (New York, Liveright; 1975)

2) Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Demons (New York, Vintage Books; 1995)

3) Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt, 1821-1849 (Princeton, Princeton University Press; 1979)

4) Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850-1859 (Princeton, Princeton University Press; 1990)

5) Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865 (Princeton, Princeton University Press; 1988)

6) Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871 (Princeton, Princeton University Press; 1988)

7) Schapiro, Leonard. Turgenev: His Life and Times (New York, Random House; 1978)

8) Turgenev, Ivan. Fathers and Sons. (New York, Penguin Books; 1975)