The Reception of Fedor Dostoevskii in Britain (1869-1935) Lucia Aiello Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Bakhtin Centre, University of Sheffield October 2000 Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people and institutions that made it possible for me to undertake this research project and to bring this thesis to completion. In the first instance, I would like to acknowledge the Bakhtin Centre and the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies at the University of Sheffield for offering me the possibility to achieve a doctoral qualification in Britain. In particular, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor David Shepherd and Professor William Leatherbarrow for the provision of intellectual support and for giving me the necessary confidence in the validity of the project undertaken. In the second instance, I would like to acknowledge the British Academy for its funding that gave me the concrete opportunity to tum the initial proposal of research into a fully-fledged dissertation. I must also thank the secretary of the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies at the University of Sheffield, Ms Carol Speight, and the staff of Sheffield Central Library and Sheffield University Library. Also, I wish to thank a number of people that directly or indirectly contributed in turning my desire to do research work into a reality. First, I would like to thank the members of my family, Carmela, Giovanni, and Francesco, for their continued moral and material support, even in moments when the results did not quite meet the initial expectations. I also would like to give my special thanks to Dr David Miller, for me both a continuous source of intellectual stimulation and a concrete human support, real antidote against dangerous drifts towards despondency. Last but not least, I would like to thank Prof. Giovanni La Guardia of the Department of Sociology of Literature at the University of Naples; the seminar group of the Sociology of Literature course, for me a thought-provoking arena of many stimulating discussions; Ms Stefania Suma, Mrs Jean Miller and Mr David Miller Senior, and Ms Luisa Matera. Ringraziamenti Vorrei ringraziare innanzitutto il Bakhtin Centre e il Dipartimento di Russo dell'Universita di Sheffield per avermi dato la possibilita concreta di intraprendere il dottorato di ricerca; in particolare il ringraziamento e rivolto al Prof. David Shepherd e al Prof. William Leatherbarrow. Vorrei anche esprimere la mia gratitudine alla British Academy per aver finanziato il dottorato fino al momento del suo cornpletamento, alla segretaria del Dipartimento di Russo presso l'Universita di Sheffield, Ms Carol Speight, e allo staff delle biblioteche cittadine e universitarie di Sheffield. Ci sono inoltre varie altre persone che hanno fatto si che il mio desiderio di fare ricerca si trasformasse in realta, Vorrei esprimere la mia piu profonda gratitudine innanzitutto ai membri della mia famiglia, Carmela Giovanni e Francesco, per il loro continuo appoggio materiale e morale, anche in rnomenti in cui i risultati non sembravano affatto promettenti. Un grazie speciale va anche a David Miller, che col suo calore umano e con la sua capac ita di confronto, e stato, ed e tuttora, un constante stimolo intellettuale e un insostituibile compagno di vita. UItimi nell' ordine, ma non ultimi per importanza, vorrei nngraziare: il Prof. Giovanni La Guardia, del Dipartimento di Sociologia della Letteratura presso l'I.U.O. di Napoli, per essere stato positivamente determinante nella mia formazione e per avermi trasmesso la sua passione per il pensiero critico; il gruppo del serninario abbinato al corso di Sociologia della Letteratura, per avere soddisfatto la mia sete di confronto in tante appassionanti discussioni; la signora Stefania Suma, la signora Jean Miller e il signor David Miller Senior, e la signora Luisa Matera. I hereby declare that all the content of the work contained herein is the product of my individual intellectual endeavour and that all the contributory references, quotations, and sources have been rightfully acknowledged. Abstract This thesis deals with the reception of Fedor Dostoevskii in Britain from 1869 to 1935. The objects of investigation are reviews, essays, and monographs devoted to the Russian author and written in the designated timespan. These sources are investigated with the intention of exposing their underlying ideological tensions. In this light, the reception of Dostoevskii emerges as a process in which many elements come together. The leading argument of this thesis concerns the recognition that the impact of works of art in a determinate social setting can be measured, as it were, only by identifying a common ground of investigation. I argue that the common ground where art and society confront each other is the ideology of the aesthetic. On the basis of this critical approach, further considerations on the actual status of reception theories and their relation to literary criticism are made, which lead in their turn to a reassessment of reception and reader-response theories by means of a particular instance, the reception of Dostoevskii. This critical approach appears to be productive in that it avoids reducing the study of reception to the compilation of different views on a certain subject. In this respect, in theoretical terms the early diffidence shown by British intellectuals towards Dostoevskii's novels is as relevant as the 'Dostoevskii cult'. These two aspects of the reception of Dostoevskii are not taken at face value, but are examined for what they reveal. I argue that the reticence towards Dostoevskii, even in the period of the so-called 'cult', bears witness to the ditTiculty that British intellectuals had in coming to terms with the innovative power of Dostoevskii' s form. I argue that both the initial suspicious attitude towards Dostoevskii's morbidity and the subsequent manifestations of enthusiasm for his prophetic gifts, especially after the publication of Constance Garnett's translations, are not based on any aesthetic consideration of Dostoevskii's nOvels. Dostoevskii the artistic innovator is the great absence, while we consistently come across Dostoevskii the prophet, Dostoevskii the psychologist and so on. I also argue that the failure of intellectuals like Virginia Woolf and E. M. Forster to recognise the innovative force of Dostoevskii' s novels can be read in the light of their reticence to really break with a literary tradition, which they knew was on the verge of a definitive crisis. In the course of the thesis, it is shown how this reticence seriously undermines their project of renovation of the novelistic form. Thus, the final assumption of the thesis is that the difficulty that British intellectuals had in grasping the importance of Dostoevskii' s works for the development of the novelistic genre is partly due to the persistence of psychological criticism, which focused on authorial intentions rather than on the novels themselves, and partly to the attempt to inscribe Dostoevskii's novels within the Romantic or Victorian conventions of novel writing. In the final section of the Conclusion, I argue that Dostoevskii's experiments with the novelistic form situate his writings closer to the Modernist examples of novel writing than to the Romantic ones. A brief analysis of Stavrogin's Confession aims at clarifying this aspect. Finally, I stress that Western literary criticism has become more aware of the pioneering significance of Dostoevskii's form only in the POst-World War II period, while in Eastern Europe signals of recognition of the Innovative potential of Dostoevskii' s form emerge already by the early 1920s. Contents The Reception of Fedor Dostoevskii in Britain (1869-1935) 1. INTRODUCTION: THE 'PROCESS' OF RECEPTION 10 1.1. 'RECEPTION' VS. 'REPUTATION' 10 1.2. THEY, 'THE INTELLECTUALS' . 13 1.3. PRIMARY SOURCES: A METHODOLOGICAL PREMISE 20 I, 3.1. Reviews and Publications: 111eNeed/or Selection 21 1.3.2. Translations: The Works and their 'Translatability' 22 1.3.3. Dostoevskii 's Reception ill Germany: A Case Study 2./ 1.4. 'REZEPTIONAsTHETIK': A CRITICAL EXCURSUS 26 1.4.1. From the Sign to the Aesthetic Object 28 1.4.2. Rezeptionasthetik. Interpreting Understanding 33 1.4.3. The Productive Parasitism (if Theories of Reception 37 PART I: THE INTRODUCTION OF DOSTOEVSKII IN BRITAIN 42 2. A DIFFICULT START 42 2.1. EARLY YEARS: A DELIBERA IE OMISSION...... 42 2.2. T1..JRGENEV:THE 'BRITISH' ANSWER TO FRENCH NATlJRALISM 45 2.3. A NOVELIST 'WORTHY OF NOTE' 51 2.4. THE CULTURAL SETTING. 58 2.4.1. The Professional Man of Letters 58 2../.2. The Vizetelly Affair. 66 2.4.3. The Unpleasant Dostoevskii 71 3. FROM 'MORBIDITY' TO 'SICKNESS': 'DEGENERATION NA~RATIVES' AND 'CLINICAL DISCOURSE' IN THE RECEPTION OF DOSTOEVSKII 76 3.1. 'A CONTINENTAL VIEW OF RUSSIA' 76 3.1.1. Georg Brandes and the 'True Scythian' 76 3.1.2. Brandes' Milieu: From Taille's 'Environmentalism' to Nietzsche's 'Aristocratic Radicalism' ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 3.1.3. Dostoevskii 's 'Morality (if the Slave' in Brandes' Philosophical Reading 82 3.1. 4. The 'Sick Genius' 85 3.1.5. The Degenerate Physiognomy of the Artist 91 3.2. A BRITISH VIEW OF RUSSIA 96 3.3. 'SICKNESS UNTO DEATH' . 102 3.4. SICKNESS UNTO LIFE? 107 PART II: THE MAKING OF A 'CULT': FACTS AND PERSPECTIVES 112 4. 'A MONSTER ERUPTING INTO THE HOUSE OF FICTION' (CONSTANCE GARNETT) 112 4.1. 'CULT': DENOTATION AND CONNOTATION OF A PROBLEMATIC WORD 112 41. .1. ",r;U:'II'lam nelnemannu· '}J'S roject.i..... 11''t 4.1.2. 'How all Obscure and a Careless Writer' (Constance Garnett} 117 4.2. THE 'CULT' YEARS: CONSOLIDATlNG THE TRADITIONAL LINE OF RECEPTION 119 4.2.1. The Ambivalence of Dostoevskii's Genius 119 4.2.2. Recurring Themes in the Reception (if Dostoevskii 122 5. PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE AND THE DOSTOEVSKIAN NOVEL 127 5.1.