Skip to main content Accessibility help

Aleksandr Miliukov's Svetoch and Dostoevskii's Vremia: A Case of Recycled Ideas?

  • Ellen Chances


“Miliukov has become the editor… of the journal Svetoch. It will be a good journal.“

Letter of Mikhail Dostoevskii, February 1, 1860

Speaking of the Russian institution known as the “thick journal” (tolstyi zhurnal), Trotskii once wrote, “Our journals were laboratories in which intellectual currents were being worked out.“ In certain ways the “thick journals” of the 1860s replaced the salons of the 1840s as forums for the exchange of ideas. And it was on the pages of one of these journals, Vremia (later replaced by Epokha), that Fedor Dostoevskii and his brother Mikhail, as editors—with great help from Nikolai Strakhov and Apollon Grigor'ev—worked out the ideology they dubbed the “concept of the soil” (pochvennichestvo)? The main ideas were to steer a course midway between Slavophilism and Westernism and to achieve a reconciliation between the educated segment of society and the narod.



Hide All

1. Fedor Dostoevskii. Novye materialy i issledovaniia, Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 86 (Moscow, 1973), p. 377.

2. Trotskii, Lev, “Sud'ba tolstogo zhurnala,” in Literatura i revoliutsiia (Moscow, 1924), p. 324.

3. Vremia, whose existence spanned the years 1861–1863, was suspended by the authorities; it opened under another name, Epokha, in 1864 and closed because of lack of financial success. Fora detailed study of these magazines, see Nechaeva, Vera, Zhurnal M. M. i F. M. Dostoevskikh “Vremia” 1861–1863 (Moscow, 1972); Nechaeva, , Zhurnal M. M. i F. M. Dostoevskikh “Epokha “1864–1865 (Moscow, 1975); Chances, Ellen, “Literary Criticism and the Ideology of Pochvennichestvo in Dostoevsky's Thick Journals Vremia and Epokha ,” The Russian Review, 34, no. 2 (1975): 151—64; Chances, “Pochvennichestvo—Evolution of an Ideology,” Modern Fiction Studies, 20, no. 4(1974–75): 543–51; Chances, , “Pochvennichestvo: Ideology in Dostoevsky's Periodicals,” Mosaic, 7, no. 2 (1974): 7188 ; and Dowler, Wayne, Dostoevsky, Grigor'ev, and Native Soil Conservatism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982). Also useful is the material from Dostoevskii's notebooks(1860–1865) reproduced in Dostoevskii, Fedor, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, vol. 20(Leningrad, 1980), pp. 152206 ; commentary, pp. 346–93. A recent article, undertaken at the requestof the editors of the Academy Edition of Dostoevskii's works, attempts, on the basis of acomputer investigation, to determine the authorship of twelve articles in Vremia and Epokha. Geir Kjetsaa, , “Written by Dostoevskij?Scando–Slavica, 26 (1980):19–31 . Kjetsaa comments that theaesthetic views in one of the articles from Vremia under discussion bear a striking resemblance to alater piece on the same topic in Svetoch. Ibid., p. 29

4. Georgii Fridlender, “U istokov ‘pochvennichestva’ (F. M. Dostoevskii i zhurnal ‘Svetoch’), “Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 30, no. 5 (September–October 1971):400–10.

5. Miliukov speaks of first meeting Fedor Dostoevskii and his brother Mikhail in 1848. Miliukov, Aleksandr, Literaturnye vstrechi i znakomstva (St. Petersburg, 1890), pp. 169–74. When Dostoevskiiwas banished to Siberia in 1849, his brother Mikhail and Miliukov were the only people tosee him off. Grossman, Leonid, Dostoevskii (Moscow, 1965), p. 158 . Upon his return toSt. Petersburg in December 1859, the two met him at the railroad station. Nechaeva, Zhurnal… “Vremia,” p. 36. Miliukov, in a letter dated September 28, 1859, had asked Dostoevskii to write for his newperiodical. Neizdannyi Dostoevskii. Zapisnye knizhki i tetradi 1860–1881 g., Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 83 (Moscow, 1971), p. 160 . Dostoevskii agreed to collaborate on Svetoch but never publishedany of his works there. See, for example, the correspondence of 1859 between Mikhail and FedorDostoevskii about publication plans for Selo Stepanchikovo. Dostoevskii, Fedor, Pis'ma, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1928), pp. 262–64; vol. 2 (Moscow, 1930), pp. 604–605, 611. Miliukov published some of hisown articles in Vremia and Epokha. It was he who, in all probability, according to Soviet scholarI. D. lakubovich, wrote a review of Dostoevskii's “Diadiushkin son” in the April 29, 1859 issue ofa Brussels newspaper, Le Nord. Iakubovich, I. D., “Neizvestnyi otzyv o povesti ‘Diadiushkin son,' “in Fridlender, , ed., Dostoevskii. Materialy i issledovaniia, vol. 5 (Leningrad, 1983), pp. 190–91.Dostoevskii agreed to serve as the godfather of Miliukov's son in September 1860. Miliukov,Literaturnye, p. 222. And it was at Miliukov's urging that Dostoevskii engaged the services of the stenographer who was later to become the author's second wife. Ibid., pp. 234–35; Dostoevskaia, Anna, Vospominaniia, ed. Grossman, Leonid (Moscow, 1925), pp. 25, 33–34. For Dostoevskii's descriptionof Miliukov's warm personality, see Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18 (Leningrad, 1978), p. 168 .During the latter part of the 1860s and the beginning of the 1870s, the relationship betweenDostoevskii and Miliukov grew cooler. For more on this, consult Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 20 (Leningrad, 1980), p. 348 . It is interesting to note that former Petrashevets and poet Aleksei Pleshcheev foresaw a problemwith Miliukov's ability to give life to a journal. In October 1859, before Svetoch had begun publication,Pleshcheev wrote to Dostoevskii that Miliukov was “good, intelligent, but to what extent he [was] capable of setting a tone for the journal, of breathing life into it with a lively new word—the question still remain[ed].” Alekseev, Mikhail, ed., Literaturnyi arkhiv. Materialy po istorii literaturyi obshchestvennogo dvizheniia, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1961), p. 261 .

6. Fridlender, “U istokov, “

7. ‘ “Bogi Gretsii’ iz Shillera,” Svetoch, 1860, no. 1: 11–16; “Poslednii den’ prigovorennogo ksmerti (iz Viktora Giugo),” Svetoch, 1860, no. 3: 79–166; “Groza. Drama v piati deistviiakh A. N.Ostrovskogo,” Svetoch, 1860, no. 3: 1–36. In citing page references, I shall hereafter refer to Svetochas 5. A discussion of Mikhail Dostoevskii's translation of Hugo for Svetoch appears in Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 20 (Leningrad, 1980), pp. 275–76. New information about Mikhail Dostoevskii is located on pp. 331–32 of the same volume.

8. Fridlender, “U istokov,” pp. 406–407. Fridlender's views on Dostoevskii's Pushkin Speechire further elaborated upon in his “Rech’ o Pushkine kak vyrazhenie esteticheskogo samosoznaniiaDostoevskogo,” Russkaia literatura, no. 1 (1981), pp. 57–64.

9. Fridlender, “U istokov,” pp. 407–408.

10. Ibid., p. 408.

11. Ibid., p. 400. For more on Kalinovskii, see Gerasimova, Iulia, Iz istorii russkoi pechati vPeriod revoliutsionnoi situatsii kontsa 1850–kh nachala 1860–kh gg. (Moscow, 1974), p. 188.

12. Fridlender, “U istokov,” pp. 400–401.

13. Ibid., p. 404. When analyzing the switch of some people from Svetoch to Vremia, we mustlot forget the role played by personal considerations. For instance, Pleshcheev left the ranks ofontributors to Svetoch because some of his poetry had received a bad review in Miliukov's journal.iteraturnyi arkhiv, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1961), p. 273.

14. Maikov published one other poem, “Dva karlina,” in Svetoch in 1861.

15. Krestovskii, “S evreiskogo,” 5, 1860, no. 1: 8–9; “Kalika—perekhozhaia,” 1861, no. 1: 1–12; “Besenok (povest’),” dedicated, incidentally, to Fedor Dostoevskii, 1861. no. 1: 17–110; “Vladimirka, “1861, no. 2: 1; “Radix jalappae (Sovershenno santimental'noe prikliuchenie),” written under the pseudonym Doctor DULCAMARA–PURGATIRIUS, 1861, no. 2: 69–98; “Brat'iam, “1861, no. 3: ix; “Khandra,” 1861, no. 4: 1; “Iz starykh pesen (Stikhotvoreniia),” 1861, no. 9: 119–20; “Ty govorish', chto khotela–by ty,” 1861, no. 11: 81–82.

16. Mei, “Firdusi (iz Geine),” S. 1860, no. 2: 1–7; “Shveika (rasskaz),” 1860, no. 2: 109–18: “Videnie,” 1860, no. 5: 1–4; “Prostoliudin (iz Beranzhe).” 1860, no. 5: 13–14; “Po–griby (Pesnia izopery ‘Ivanovskaia noch “),” 1860, no. 5: 16; “Moe prizvanie (iz Beranzhe),” 1860, no. 7: 1–2: “Pfal'tsgrafinia Iutta (iz Geine),” 1860, no. 7: 3–4; “Pesni Geine,” 1860, no. 9: 1–6; “Pesni,” 11: 64; “Chubuk (listki iz kakogo–to dnevnika L. Meia),” 1860, no. 12: 63–108; “Batia,” 1861,no. 1: 111–62; “Au–Au!” 1861, no. 2: 67; “Krakovets v Litve,” 1861, no. 3: 5–6; “Dve smerti, “1861, no. 4: 35–36; “Golub'–vestnik (Beranzhe, 1826),” 1861, no. 5: 1–2; “Pesnia (V. V Krestovskomu), “1861, no. 6: 46.

17. Grigor'ev, “Prometei (Iz Bairona),” 1861, no. 2: 65–66; “Iskusstvo i nravstvennost'. NovyeGrübeleien po povodu starogo voprosa,” 1861, no. 1: 1–22; “Realizm i idealizm v nashei literature(po povodu novogo izdaniia sochinenii Pisemskogo i Turgeneva,” 1861, no. 4: 1–26. For details on the censorship history of Grigor'ev's translation of “Prometheus.” see Miliukov, “Ap. Grigor'ev i L. A. Mei,” in Literaturnye, pp. 255–56.

18. “Pis'ma o zhizni. Pis'mo I,” S, 1860, no. 3: 1–20; “Pis'mo II,” 1860, no. 5: 1–23; “Ocherkivoprosov prakticheskoi filosofii P.L. Lavrova,” 1860, no. 7: 1–13; “Znachenie smerti. Pis'ma o zhizni(Pis'mo IV),” 1860, no. 8: 1–22; “Soderzhanie zhizni (Stat'ia I),” 1861, no. 1: 37–58; “Znachenie i zhizn’ Spinozy,” 1861, no. 9: 99–128.

19. Fridlender, “U istokov,” p. 405.

20. Knizhnyi vestnik. Zhurnal russkoi literaturnoi deiatel'nosti, knizhnoi torgovli, knigopechataniia, 1860, no. 15: 154.

21. D. Kalinovskii, “Vstupitel'noe slovo,” S, 1860. no. 1: i–xii.

22. Ibid., p. x.

23. Ob “iavleniia o podpiske na zhurnal ‘Vremia’ na 1861 god,” in Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18 (Leningrad, 1978), pp. 3540.

24. Toll’ figured in the wide circle of literary friends and contemporary writers whom Dostoevskii mentioned in his letters. Fedor Dostoevskii, Pis'ma, vol. 2, pp. 546, 548. For more on Toll',consult Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18 (Leningrad, 1978), pp. 339–40; vol. 19 (Leningrad,1979), pp. 250–51.

25. Miliukov, “Oblomov, roman I. Goncharova (2 toma),” S, 1860, no. 1: 14.

26. Miliukov, “Zakliuchitel'noe slovo Russkoi Besedy,” 5, 1860, no. 2: 26–27.

27. V. Iakovleva, “Rimskie ocherki,” S, 1860, no. 1: 135.

28. K. Bozhovskii, “O narodnom sueverii i vliianii ego na zhizn'. Stat'ia pervaia,” 5, 1860,no. 2: 45–98.

29. L. Bliummor, “Sovremennye lubochnye kartinki,” S, 1860, no. 5: 24–34. L. Bliummor (or Bliummer) was Leonid Krutolarskii's pseudonym, according to lampol'skii, Isaak, Satiricheskie i iumoristicheskie zhurnaly 1860kh godov (Leningrad, 1973), p. 39 .

30. “Khronika sobytii v Rossii,” S, 1860, no. 6: 12–13.

31. E., “Dikii dom. Epizod iz povesti,” S, 1860, no. 9: 7–36; L. Bliummer, “Dva mesiatsa nastsene,” 1860, no. 9: 37–44; “Uchitel’ Anninskoi shkoly (iz zhurnala Dikkensa),” 1860, no. 9: 45–80.

32. Review of “Biblioteka detskikh knig. Kosmos. Chteniie dlia detei starshego vozrasta” in “Razbor vnov’ vyshedshikh knig,” 5, 1860, no. 9: 36–40. Note: Articles for which I do not cite anauthor were unsigned.

33. N. A. P–skii, “Sladkie sny i grezy nad slovami ‘velikikh myslitelei,'” 5, 1860, no. 9: 1–30.

34. Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18 (Leningrad, 1978), p. 37 . In discussing Vremia, the editors of the Academy Edition of Dostoevskii's works explore the positions on education and the masses taken by publicists of the 1860s (Chernyshevskii, Dobroliubov, Pisarev, Konstantin Aksakov,and indeed, Svetoch's L. F. Panteleev). Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 19 (Leningrad, 1979),pp. 231–40. By not stating that the topic of education occupied a central position in Svetoch, the commentary does not make a case for linking Vremia to Svetoch in this respect.

35. “Plody uchenogo pedantizma. Kak byvaet i kak byt’ moglo by. Pedagogicheskie mysli FedoraKestnera,” Vremia, 1862, no. 6: 1–17. In citing page references, I shall hereafter refer to Vremiaas V.

36. Fedor Dostoevskii, “Riad statei o russkoi literature. Knizhnost’ i gramotnost'. Stat'ia pervaia, “V, 1861, no. 4: 35–52. For excellent explanatory notes and background information, the reader is referred to Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 19 (Leningrad, 1979), pp. 230–62.

37. “Rasskazy o temnykh predmetakh, o vol'chestve, natural'noi magii, obmenakh chuvstv,sueveriiakh, fokusnichestve, koldunakh, ved'makh i t.p.,” K 1861, no. 4: 53–76.

38. Stepan Fedorov, “Pomeshannyi,” V, 1861, no. 2: 193–232.

39. For more on this transition, see Chances, “Pochvennichestvo—Evolution,” pp. 543–51.

40. Fedor Dostoevskii, “Dva lageria teoretikov. Po povodu ‘Dnia’ i koi–chego drugogo,” V, 1862, no. 1: 160.

41. Nikolai Strakhov, “Novaia shkola. Stat'ia pervaia,” V, 1863, no. 1: 150.

42. N. A. P–skii, “Sladkie sny i grezy nad slovami ‘velikikh myslitelei.’ O shkol'noi distsipline, “5, 1860, no. 10: 10.

43. See, for instance, A. Gorbunov's translation of Adam Mickiewicz's “Konrad Vallenrod, “5, 1860, no. 4: 1–94 and “Agnesa Sorel',” S, 1860, no. 9: 113–44.

44. A typical piece is a Heine poem in which the narrator is thrilled when he hears his nativeGerman tongue. Vsevolod Kostomarov, trans., “Germaniia. Iz zimnei skazki Genrikha Geine,” S, 1861, no. 3: 79.

45. Examples include comments on the burial of the Czech nationalist Vaclav Hanka in the monthly feature “Inostrannaia khronika” of 5, 1861, no. 4: 41–45; the increased “Slavic narodnost' “of Czech journalism in A. Beztsennyi's “Zhurnalistika u chekhov,” 5, 1861, no. 12: 79–102; in the same issue, a statement of hope for all Slavs to be brothers, L. Kondratovich, “Istoriia pol'skoi literatury, ot nachala ee do nastoiashchego vremeni,” p. 47; and in the “Inostrannaia khronika “section, words of praise for the rebirth of the “free Slavic world,” S, 1862, no. 5: 48.

46. The shift in Vremia's attitude toward nationality at the time of the Polish Uprising of 1863is beyond the scope of this article since Svetoch had ceased publication by then. It is interesting to note, however, that Svetoch's editor Miliukov, in an article in Epokha, lashed out against one Slavic ethnic group, the Ukrainians, for expressing nationalistic feelings and the desire to write literaturein the Ukrainian language. “Vopros o malorossiiskoi literature,” Epokha, 1864, no. 4.

47. Dostoevskii, “Riad statei o literature: Vvedenie,” V, 1861, no. 1: 1–33.

48. “Neskol'ko slov o Ristori,” V, 1861, no. 1: 152.

49. “Politicheskoe obozrenie,” V, 1861, no. 1: 19.

50. “Iz zapisok vedennykh vo vremia chetyrekhletnego puteshestviia demokratsionnoi komissii po Turtsii i Persii,” V, 1861, no. 6: 502, 507.

51. Review of “Severno–russkie narodopravstva vo vremena udel'no–vechevogo uklada,” V, 1863, no. 1: 96.

52. “Inostrannaia khronika,” S, 1861, no. 3: 14–24.

53. “Franklin i ekspeditsiia v poliarnye strany,” 5, 1861, no. 8: 27–76.

54. “Peterburgskaia letopis',” 5, 1861, no. 7: 69–70.

55. “Peterburgskaia letopis',” 5, 1860, no. 3: 60. The performance took place on April 14, 1860. Stepanova, G.V., “Pis'ma P. I. Veinberga k Dostoevskomu,” in Fridlender, , ed., Dostoevskii. Materialyi issledovaniia, vol. 4 (Leningrad, 1980), pp. 241, 243.

56. Miliukov, review of N. Ustrialov's Istoriia Petra Velikogo, vol. 6, S, 1860, no. 3: 38–54.

57. Ibid., p. 45. Note Miliukov's use of the word pochva, not commonly used in Svetoch articles until Vremia had started publication.

58. D. Bliummer, “Belinskii pered litsom zapadnikov i slavianofilov,” 5, 1861, no. 1: 28–29.

59. Ibid., pp. 35–36.

60. Ibid., pp. 36–38. For more on these ideas of Belinskii and their relation to Dostoevskii, seeJoseph Frank's penetrating analysis in Dostoevsky. The Seeds of Revolt 1821–1849 (Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 213–16. Dostoevskii, in Dnevnik pisatelia, was later to denythat Belinskii would have embraced Slavophilism. Dostoevskii, “Starye liudi,” Dnevnik pisatelia za 1873, in Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 21 (Leningrad, 1980), p. 11.

61. Review of “Zhitie Ivana Iakovlevicha, izvestnogo proroka v Moskve,” by I. Pryzhkov, 5,1861, no. 3: 40–52.

62. “Russkaia khronika,” S, 1861, no. 6: 22–23.

63. Miliukov, “Mneniia o nashikh universitetakh,” S, 1861, no. 11: 86.

64. “Russkaia khronika,” S, 1862, no. 4: 17.

65. N. Aristov, review of “Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom (Issledovanie P. Pekarskogo),” S, 1862, no. 6: 15, 25–26.

66. N. Svedentsov, “Dva slova o slavianofilakh,” S, 1862, no. 7: 70.

67. Miliukov, “Stikhotvoreniia A. S. Khomiakova,” S, 1861, no. 6: 33–48.

68. Recent scholarship runs counter to this view. Tunimanov, Vladimir, “Dostoevskii i Saltykov–Shchedrin,” in Fridlender, , Dostoevskii, vol. 3 (Leningrad, 1978), p. 99 . Aleksandr Ospovat speaksof the vagueness and unfinished quality of Vremia's ideology. Ospovat, “Zametki o pochvennichestve, “in Fridlender, Dostoevskii, 4:170–72. Although I do not agree with these scholars on this particular point, I must emphasize that Soviet scholarship on pochvennichestvo, particularly in the last decade, has been very good. Especiallynoteworthy are, in addition to Fridlender's article, “U istokov,” Nechaeva's books, Zhurnal… “Vremia” and Zhurnal… “Epokha “; the chapter “Pochvennichestvo i ‘polemika idei,'” in Tunimanov, , Tvorchestvo Dostoevskogo 1854–1862 (Leningrad, 1980), pp. 193224 ; Tunimanov, “Ob “iavleniia redaktsii ‘Vremeni,'” in Fridlender, Dostoevskii, 5: 191–94; Ospovat's series of articles, “Dostoevskii i rannee slavianofiTstvo (1840-e gody),” in Fridlender, Dostoevskii, vol. 2 (Leningrad,1976), pp. 175–81; Ospovat, “K izucheniiu pochvennichestva (Dostoevskii i Apollon Grigor'ev), in Fridlender, Dostoevskii, 3: 140–50; Ospovat, “Zametki o pochvennichestve,” in Fridlender, Dostoevskii, 4: 168–73; the extensive scholarly commentaries in Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18(Leningrad, 1978); vol. 19 (Leningrad, 1979); and vol. 20 (Leningrad, 1980); and Gural'nik, U. A., “Dostoevskii, slavianofily i ‘pochvennichestvo,'” in Lomunov, K. N. et–al., eds., Dostoevskii— khudozhniki myslitel. Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1972), pp. 427–61.

69. Tunimanov, Tvorchestvo, p. 209.

70. “Zamechaniia na stat'iu Semevskogo o knige Ustrialova ‘Tsarevich Aleksei Petrovich,' “Manuscript Division, Lenin Library, Moscow, fond 93, opis’ 1, delo 3,11. 1, as quoted in Nechaeva,Zhurnal… “Vremia,” pp. 201–202.

71. “Petrovskaia opeka nad russkim umom.” Review of “Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom. Issledovanie P. Pekarskogo, vol. I, 1862,” V, 1862, no. 4: 48–49.

72. See, for instance, the Vremia comments on plans for freedom of the press in France. “Politicheskoe obozrenie,” V, 1861, no. 2: 101.

73. “Glavneishie cherty vsekh polozhenii o krest'ianakh i dvorovykh liudiakh,” V, 1861, no. 2:600.

74. For more detail on this, see Chances, “Pochvennichestvo: Ideology,” pp. 71–88.

75. Kalinovskii, “Vstupitel'noe slovo,” S, 1860, no. 1: x.

76. A review of Stikhotvoreniia V. I. Krasova in “Razbor vnov’ vyshedshikh knig,” S, 1860,no. 1: 76–85.

77. Mikhail Dostoevskii, “Groza;’ S, 1860, no. 3: 4–5.

78. Ibid., p. 6.

79. Ibid., pp. 8–9.

80. F. Toll', “Dilettant v zhizni. Povest',” 5, 1860, no. 5: 17–96.

81. D. Lomachevskii, “Smotritel'—ukrotitel',” S, 1860, no. 5: 97–112.

82. “Russkaia khronika,” S, 1860, no. 11: 11.

83. “Russkaia khronika,” 5, 1860, no. 12: 11–12.

84. Ob “iavlenie,” in Dostoevskii, , Polnoe sobranie, vol. 18 (Leningrad, 1978). p. 39.

85. By the way, the same kind of journalistic polemicizing makes its presence felt in Notes from Underground and in later novels by Dostoevskii. A great deal of work remains to be done in the area of the “thick journal” and its effect on Dostoevskii's evolution as a writer and on its relation to the development of nineteenth–century Russian literature as a whole.

86. Oblichitel'nyi poet, “Peterburgskaia letopis',” S, 1860, no. 12: 47. Dmitrii Minaev used thepseudonym “Oblichitel'nyi poet” for his monthly feature. I van Masanov, , Slovar’ psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obshchestvennykh deiatelei, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1956), p. 288 . In the 1860 she worked on the satirical journals Iskra and Gudok, editing the latter. A. M. Volkov, a major “Karrikaturnyi listok” cartoonist for Svetoch, was also active in Iskra, as were other contributors toSvetoch: I. F. Gorbunov, Apollon Grigor'ev, Vsevolod Krestovskii, Lev Mei, N. I. Naumov, A. P.Snitkin (whose pseudonym was Amos Shishkin), and Tikhanovich, Vladimir. Iampol'skii, Satiricheskaia zhurnalistika 1860-kh godov. Zhurnal reyoliutsionnoi satiry “Iskra” (1859–1873) (Moscow, 1964), passim. Grigor'ev, Krestovskii, and Mei also collaborated on Vremia.

87. “Stikhotvorenie A. S. Pushkina,” 5, 1861, no. 3: 1–2.

88. Sochineniia Pushkina, kak vyshedshie otdel'no, tak i pomeshchennye v periodicheskikh izdaniiakh i sbornikakh,” in Mezhov, Vladimir, ed., Pushkiniana. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel statei o zhizni A. S. Pushkina, ego sochinenii i vyzvannykh imi proizvedenii literatury i iskusstva (St. Petersburg, 1886), p. 135 , and Annenkov, Pavel, A. S. Pushkin. Material)/ dlia ego biografii i otsenki proizvedenii (St. Petersburg, 1873), p. 26.

89. “Russkaia khronika,” S, 1861, no. 4: 1–12.

90. N. Pervov, “Krepostnye artisty,” 5, 1862, no. 5: 5–75.

91. “Inostrannaia khronika,” 5, 1861, no. 10: 26.

92. “Russkaia khronika,” S, 1861, no. 10: 1–12.

93. “Peterburgskaia letopis',” S, 1862, no. 6: 59–69.

94. Miliukov, “O krugovoi poruke na Rusi,” S, 1861, no. 4: 27–46.

95. I mention an exception in n. 57.

96. “Realizm i idealizm v nashei literature,” S, 1861, no. 4: 1–26.

97. Miliukov's “prilozhenie,” an edition of translations called “Istoriia literatury drevnego inovogo mira,” attached to the end of each issue of Svetoch from 1862. no. 3 on, is not included in the calculation of translated material.

98. Tunimanov refers to an additional possible source for the pochvennik idea of reconciliation of Slavophiles and Westernizers, an article by I. V Pavlov (pseudonym L. Optukhin), “Vostok i Zapad v russkoi literature,” Moskovskii vestnik, 1859, nos. 4–5, as cited in Tunimanov, Tvorchestvo, pp. 193–94.

Aleksandr Miliukov's Svetoch and Dostoevskii's Vremia: A Case of Recycled Ideas?

  • Ellen Chances


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed