Timashova Ol'ga Vladimirovna, Candidate of philological sciences, associate professor, sub-department of history of Russian literature and folk art, Institute of philology and journalism, Saratov State University (83 Astrakhanskaya street, Saratov, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. The article is dedicated to the first stage of the analysis of the notoriously famous journal Moskvityanin (The Moskovite) (1845–1859). At the initial stage of researching the program, staff, and censorship relationships of the journal, as well as later, first of all the question was brought forward whether Moskvityanin shared the ideas of Slavophilism or belonged to the morally discredited movement of ‘official national ethos’. Most scientists spoke in favor of the latter, A. N. Pypin, S. A. Vengerov and, partially, B. B. Glinsky among them. This belief was fixed in science for many years. N. P. Barsukov withstood those scientists. The author’s analysis shows that the implicit task of the scientists was to differentiate the ‘old editorial board’, advocating the ideas of ‘official national ethos’, from the ‘young editorial board’, including such famous names as A. N. Ostrovsky and A. F. Pisemsky. It was then that the well-spread concept had been formulated. According to this concept the young westerners becoming close to the editorial board was facilitated by ‘accidental’ (S. A. Vengerov) personal and historical reasons: by a close friendship between the graduates of the Moscow University and the time of the public editorial board.
Materials and methods. The article synthesizes the comparative, historical-literature and journal-critical methods.
Results. The author found out that all the first researchers used the memoirs of the surviving members of the ‘old editorial board’ (M. P. Pogodin) and the ‘young editorial board’ (T. I. Filippov) as the main source of materials and ideas for their concepts. Their reminiscences, as compared to most of the traditional ones – created in later life and drawing some conclusions – are rather controversial; they put forward their own concepts. Both of them absolutely decline the existence of the ‘official national ethos’ and consider the Moskvityanin as one of the first and best perio¬dicals of the Russian Slavophilism. M. P. Pogodin revealed that the wish to discredit the journal was hiding the desire of the progressive science to expose the minions of the strong crown, most of the Slavophils being ones. T. I. Filippov proved that the ‘young editorial board’s’ joining the journal was voluntary and ideological. They were engaged in the folk song as the reflection of the Russian culture, despised by the westerners. But Filippov’s urge to glorify his own importance in the group gave way to the critically inclined scientists to reject the concepts based on the memoirs. The analysis also demonstrates that the most heated debate was around the name of A. F. Pisemsky. Just as in the case with studying the journal as a whole the author managed to single out formal and ideological reasons. Formally the writer was not so closely related to the editorial board since he worked in Kostroma. He was actually the first to create a historic portrait and reminiscence of the ‘young editorial board’ in his novel “Agitated Sea” (1863). Like Ostrovsky, Pisemsky was obliged to the Moskvityanin for his debut and publication of his best early works. He copied the ‘young editorial board’s’ externally dissipated behavior. All these facts make it necessary to have a more in-depth analysis, and, instead of registering outward coincidences, to start analyzing the ideas of Pisemsky’s works published in the Moskvityanin; based on which a convincing conclusion can be drawn that they are very close to the ideology of the journal.
A. F. Pisemsky, M. P. Pogodin, T. I. Filippov, S. A. Vengerov, B. B. Glinsky, the “Moskvityanin” journal.
1. Slavyanofil'stvo i sovremennost': sb. st. [Slavophilism and modern times]. Saint-Peters¬burg: Nauka, 1994.
2. Kirpichnikov A. Nov' [The New]. 1885, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 651–652.
3. Slavyanofil'stvo: pro et contra [Slavophilism: pro et contra]. Moscow: Izd-vo R. Khr. gum. akademii, 2002.
4. Filippov T. I. Gorbunov I. F. Poln. sobr. soch. [Complete collection of works by Gorbunov I. F.]. Saint-Petersburg, 1904, vol. 1.
5. Ezhegodnoe obozrenie imperatorskikh teatrov. Sezon 1902–1903 [Annual review of the Emperor’s theatres. Season 1902–1903]. Moscow, 1903, iss. 13, pp. 199–200.
6. Glinskiy B. B. Istoricheskiy vestnik [Historical bulletin]. 1897, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 536–573.
7. T. Vestnik Evropy [European bulletin]. 1897, no. 4, pp. 727–770.
8. Barsukov N. P. Zhizn' i trudy M. P. Pogodina [Life and works of M. P. Pogodin]. Saint-Petersburg, 1898, vol. 12, head XXXIII–XXXV. Literary works of A. F. Pisemsky and A. N. Ostrovsky, pp. 87–88.
9. Pisemskiy A. F. Poln. sobr. soch.: v 20 t. [Complete collection of works: in 20 volumes]. Saint-Petersburg; Moscow: Tovarishchestvo M. O. Vol'f, 1895, vol. 9.
10. Pisemskiy A. F. Sobr. soch.: v 9 t. [Collected works: in 9 volumes]. Moscow, 1981, vol. 9.
11. Vengerov S. A. Vestnik Evropy [European bulletin]. 1886, bk. 2, pp. 581–612.
12. Pisemskiy A. F. Pis'ma [Letters]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1936.
13. Polevoy P. N. Istoricheskiy vestnik [Historical bulletin]. 1889, vol. 38, pp. 267–295.
14. Nelidov F. F. Russkaya mysl' [Russian thought]. 1901, vol. 33, pp. 1–37.
15. Totubalin N. I. Uchenye zapiski Lenigradskogo universiteta. Voprosy istorii russkoy zhurnalistiki [Proceedings of Leningrad University. Historical problems of Russian journalism]. 1957, vol. 218, iss. 33, pp. 58–87.