Turgenev in English: A Checklist of Works by and about Him — Key Ideas to Explore

Scope and Structure of the Checklist

The preface outlines a tripartite structure. The first part covers all works by Turgenev published in English translation, subdivided into collected editions (chronologically ordered) and selections or individually published works (alphabetically by English title). The second part lists stories, prose poems, and other works that appeared in anthologies and periodicals, arranged alphabetically by published title. Notably, individual stories from A Sportsman’s Notebook and Poems in Prose are grouped under those collective headings. The third and largest section is a chronological listing of criticism in English, from early reviews to scholarly studies.

The compilers explicitly exclude “encyclopedia entries, brief notes, theatrical notices, adaptations from Turgenev, and other trivia.” They also state that no special effort was made to locate book reviews after 1904, when the Hapgood translation of the collected works was completed. This cutoff gives the checklist a distinct historical focus on the nineteenth-century reception of Turgenev in the English-speaking world.

Bibliographic Challenges and Methods

The preface candidly acknowledges difficulties in compiling the checklist, particularly for collected editions. The compilers note that the Garnett and Hapgood translations “were published piecemeal as well as complete and the more popular volumes were frequently reissued, printed from the same plates.” Their solution was to list the first publication of each volume in the collected editions and the dates when complete sets were reprinted. This pragmatic approach reflects the complexity of tracking multiple editions and reissues.

To verify entries, the compilers consulted the National Union Catalog, the printed catalogs of the Library of Congress, the Slavonic Division of The New York Public Library, and the British Museum. They also searched the collections of Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia universities. The preface states that “most entries have been personally examined,” indicating a hands-on verification process. This methodological transparency adds to the checklist’s reliability as a reference tool.

The Chronological Criticism Section

The criticism section, arranged chronologically, begins with entries from 1883—the year of Turgenev’s death—and continues through the early twentieth century. Early entries include obituaries and memorials from periodicals such as the Athenaeum, the Critic, and the Saturday Review. Notable critics appear: Henry James’s essay “Ivan Turgénieff” (1884) is listed, as are pieces by George Moore (1888, 1891), Alphonse Daudet (1883), and Georg Brandes (1889). The section also includes reviews of specific translations, such as the 1884 Gersoni translation of Mumu and The Diary of a Superfluous Man.

The compilers’ decision to include book reviews published before 1904 gives the section a dual purpose: it documents the reception of Turgenev’s works as they appeared in English and provides a record of critical discourse. The chronological arrangement allows a reader to trace the evolution of Turgenev’s reputation in the Anglo-Saxon world, from immediate posthumous tributes to more analytical studies.

Using the Checklist as a Research Tool

This checklist is designed for scholars and readers seeking to locate English translations of Turgenev’s works or critical studies about him. The alphabetical arrangement of individual works and the chronological ordering of criticism facilitate targeted searches. For example, a reader interested in Fathers and Sons can look under the English title in the first section, while someone researching early critical responses can browse the chronological list from 1883 onward.

The compilers’ note that “most entries have been personally examined” and that they searched multiple major library collections suggests a high level of accuracy. However, the preface also warns of limitations: the exclusion of “trivia” and the cutoff after 1904 for book reviews mean that later critical works are not covered. Researchers should supplement this checklist with more recent bibliographies for twentieth- and twenty-first-century criticism.

This checklist offers a focused, evidence-based guide to Turgenev’s presence in English up to the mid-twentieth century. Its value lies in the compilers’ careful documentation of editions, translations, and early criticism, grounded in personal examination of the entries. For a first reading, the preface provides essential context on the scope and limitations, while the chronological criticism section gives a snapshot of how Turgenev was received by English-speaking critics in the decades after his death. Use the alphabetical listings to locate specific works, and the chronological list to trace the arc of critical attention.

I still find myself thinking about that Turgenev checklist—how strange it was to feel someone’s whole literary afterlife laid out so quietly. It left a tender ache, like recognizing a friend’s old letters. Something similar happened with Henrik Ibsen A Bibliography of Criticism and Biography with an Index to Characters — A Closer Reading, tracing all those voices around one man’s work. The weight of it stayed with me for days.