Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:50:39.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passage to Europe: Dostoevskii in the St. Petersburg Arcade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Katia Dianina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The St. Petersburg Passage—a shopping arcade and recreation complex, comprising restaurants, exhibitions, amateur theater, and the Literary Fund—was a remarkable center of public life in imperial Russia. Contemporary journalists wrote incessantly about the Passage, celebrating the various forms of popular entertainment that it offered. In his strange unfinished story “The Crocodile,” which also takes place in the Russian arcade, Fedor Dostoevskii parodies this trivial discourse of the daily press. Urban spectacles and their refraction in the mass-circulation media are the main targets of his caricature of westernized popular culture in Russia. The writer's response to Russian modernity, as it was taking shape in the age of the Great Reforms, is expressly negative. Dostoevskii believed that in a decade defined by the rise of civic consciousness, the Russian press should address vital social concerns at home instead of celebrating ephemeral cultural imports, such as the arcade and the newspaper feuilleton.

Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , Summer 2003 , pp. 237 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This project was assisted by a grant from the Eurasia Program of the Social Science Research Council with funds provided by the U.S. Department of State under the Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Title VIII). I would like to thank David Brandenberger, Donald Fanger, Polina Rikoun, and William Mills Todd IIIfor their comments on earlier versions of this article.

1. The original title of the story, as it appeared in the journal Epokha, read: “Neobyknovennoe sobytie, ili passazh v Passazhe, spravedlivaia povest’ o torn, kak odin gospodin, izvestnykh let i izvestnoi naruzhnosti, passazhnym krokodilom byl proglochen zhiv'em, ves’ bez ostatka, i chto iz etogo vyshlo. Semenom Strizhovym dostavleno.” On republication in his Collected Works(1865), Dostoevskii renamed the story “The Crocodile” and made the original title the subtitle. Kiiko, E. I., “Primechaniia,”in Dostoevskii, F. M., Polnoesobranie sochinenii v tridtsali tomakh(hereafter PSS) (Leningrad, 1972-1990), 5:393Google Scholar. The choice of the pseudonym Strizhov is not accidental: M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin labeled Epokha'scontributors slrizhiin his parodic article “Literaturnye melochi,” Sovremennik, 1864, no. 5.

2. “Vsednevnaia zhizn',” Gobs, no. 93 (3 April 1865).

3. Dostoevskii, “Nechto lichnoe,” PSS, 21:23-30. V A. Tvardovskaia argues, for instance, that Chernyshevskii, as the leader of revolutionary democrats, was the main target of Dostoevskii's “pamphlet.” Most recently, L. A. Iezuitova considered “The Crocodile” as a tragic grotesque on Chernyshevskii's trial; in her reading, “imprisoned” in the crocodile, Ivan Matveich behaves in the dignified style of the famous political prisoner. In his recent talk, Victor Terras proposed to read “The Crocodile” as a travesty of Chernyshevskii. Tvardovskaia, V. A., Dostoevskii v obshchestvennoi zhizni Rossii(Moscow, 1990), 48-51 Google Scholar; Iezuitova, L. A., “Povest’ Dostoevskogo ‘Krokodil,'”in Markovich, V. M., ed., Ot Pushkina do Belogo: ProblemypoetikirusskogorealizmaXlX-nachalaXXveka(St. Petersburg, 1992), 194-231 Google Scholar; Victor, Terras, “Aristophanean Travesty in Dostoevsky”(paper presented at the annual meeting of AATSEEL, Chicago, Illinois, 27-30December 1999)Google Scholar. For more on the “Dostoevskii and Chernyshevskii” theme, see N. K. Mikhailovskii, “O Pisemskom i Dostoevskom” (originally published in Zapiski sovremennika, February 1881), Sochineniia, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1896-97), 5:423-24; V E. Cheshikhin-Vetrinskii, N. G. Chernyshevskii, 1828-1889(Petrograd, 1923), 137; N. F. Bel'chikov, “Chernyshevskii i Dostoevskii (iz istorii parodii),“/%cAat' i revoliutsiia5 (July-August 1928): 35-53; V S. Dorovatovskaia-Liubimova, “Dostoevskii i shestidesiatniki,” in Dostoevskii(Moscow, 1928); Rozenblium, L. M., “Tvorcheskie dnevniki Dostoevskogo,”in Neizdannyi Dostoevskii: Zapisnye knizhki i tetradi 1860-1881 gg.(Moscow, 1971), 44-46.Google Scholar

4. Tunimanov, V.A., TvorchestvoDostoevskogo, 1854-1862(Leningrad, 1980), 269, 274Google Scholar.

5. Johann Friedrich, Geist, Arcades, the History of a Building Type,trans. Newman, Jane O.and Smith, John H.(Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 4.Google Scholar

6. Walter, Benjamin, The Arcades Project, trans. Howard, Eilandand Kevin, McLaughlin(Cambridge, Mass., 1999), 3, 37Google Scholar; Benjamin, “Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century,” in Peter, Demetz, ed., Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings,trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York, 1986), 147-48Google Scholar; Geist, Arcades, 33-38,113. See also Susan, Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project(Cambridge, Mass., 1991)Google Scholar.

7. Otechestvennye zapiski58, no. 5-6 (May-June 1848): 154. The first passage in St. Petersburg, the so-called Shchukin dvor, was built in 1841-42, but it was destroyed by fire in 1862. In Moscow, the Golitsyn gallery, designed by M. D. Bykovskii, was in operation from 1835 to 1842. A few other buildings of the passage type were constructed in the northern capital in the middle of the nineteenth century, but the label “passage” adhered only to the one on Nevskii Prospekt. None of the other arcades in the city ever achieved the level of popularity and visibility of the St. Petersburg Passage. In the 1890s, Russia's biggest passage, the Upper and Middle Market Arcades (later known as GUM), was built in Moscow but, designed in a distinct Russian national style, it carried a meaning that was quite different from its antecedents in Europe and St. Petersburg. See Punin, A. L., Arkhitektura Peterburga serediny XIX veka(Leningrad, 1990), 180-84Google Scholar; Punin, , Arkhiteklurnye pamiatniki Peterburga, vtoraia polovina XIX veka(Leningrad, 1981), 97-98 Google Scholar; Borisova, E. A., Russkaia arkhitektura vtoroi poloviny XIX veka(Moscow, 1979), 186 Google Scholar; Shumilkin, S. M., “Passazhi Rossii perioda klassitsizma,”in Smolina, N., ed., Arkhitektura mira: Materialy konferentsii “Problemy islorii arkhitektury”(Moscow, 1992), 108-13Google Scholar.

8. Literaturnaia gazeta, no. 48 (2 December 1848).

9. Describing this kind of clientele, the author of a comprehensive guide to St. Petersburg, V Mikhnevich, wrote that, at its inception, the Passage functioned as a center for “elegant trade and elegant promenades for an elegant public.” See Mikhnevich, V. O., Peterburg ves’ na ladoni: S planom Peterburga, ego panoramoi s ptich'ego poleta, 22 kartinkami i s pribavleniem kalendaria(St. Petersburg, 1874), 249 Google Scholar.

10. Mikhailov, M., “Peterburg i ego okrestnosti,” Severnoe siianie 1(1862): 103 Google Scholar.

11. “Dnevnik: Muzei, biblioteki i vystavki,” Golos, no. 334 (16 December 1863); cf. “Ukazatel’ muzeev,“PribavleniekPeterburgskomu listku, no. 2 (lOJanuary 1865).

12. Aleksei, Grech, Ves’ Peterburg v karmane: Spravochnaia kniga dlia stolichnykh zhitelei i priezzhikh, splanami Sanktpeterburga i chetyrekh teatrov, sostavlennaia Alekseem Grechem,2d ed. (St. Petersburg, 1851), 428.Google Scholar

13. Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosli, no. 219 (9 October 1860).

14. Illiustratsiia, no. 27 (7 August 1848); Literaturnaia gazeta, no. 48 (2 December 1848).

15. Golos, no. 207 (11 August 1863).

16. Dostoevskii, “Riad statei o russkoi literature,” PSS, 18:43.

17. The word passage, meaning “passageway” (prokhod), had been known in the Russian language since the time of Peter the Great. In the course of the nineteenth century, a number of more specialized connotations became associated with it, including the colloquial sense of “an unexpected turn of affairs” (as, for instance, in Gogol': “ Akh, kakoi passazh!“). Dostoevskii plays with the word's many meanings in the full title of his story. Smirnov, N. A., Zapadnoe vliianie na russkii iazyk v Petrovskuiu epokhu(St. Petersburg, 1910), 221 Google Scholar; Slovar'sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka(Moscow, 1959), 9:262-63; Vladimir, Dal', Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka,3d ed. (St. Petersburg, 1907), 3:50Google Scholar. The only definition listed in the Pushkin dictionary is “incident” ﹛proisshestvie). Vinogradov, V.V., ed., Slovar’ iazyka Pushkina(Moscow, 1959), 3:279Google Scholar. In response to Bulgarin's proposal to adopt the French term, Ekaterina Burnasheva, a self-styled neophyte writer, argued for the use of a Russian alternative, gorodok, literally meaning a “city in miniature.” Interestingly, Burnasheva's proposal literalizes Benjamin's metaphor for the arcade. See F. B., “Fel'eton: Zhurnal'naia vsiakaia vsiachina,” Severnaia pchela, no. 87 (20 April 1846); Ekaterina, Burnasheva, “Gorodok,” Severnaia pchela,no. 135(18 June 1848)Google Scholar.

18. Literaturnaiagazeta, no. 48 (2 December 1848).

19. Peterburgskii listok, no. 12 (4 April 1864).

20. Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, no. 35 (12 February 1848); Severnaia pchela, no. 11 (11 January 1849); see also Stolpianskii, P., Staryi Peterburg: Peruzina(Petrograd, 1916), xl-xliGoogle Scholar.

21. Koni, A. F., Peterburg: Vospominaniia starozhila(St. Petersburg, 1922), 56-57 Google Scholar; Zelenskii, V. A..ed., Passazh: Sankt-Peterburg, 1848-1998(St. Petersburg, 1998), 39-41 Google Scholar. In her diary, E. A. Shtakenshneider noted another appearance by Dostoevskii in the Passage later the same year; see her Dnevnik i zapiski, 1854-1886, ed. I. N. Rozanov (Moscow, 1934), 269-70. The Literary Fund likewise sponsored amateur theatrical performances, the first of which—a staging of Gogol“s The Inspector General—took place on 14 April 1860 in the Ruadze Hall. P. I. Veinberg, Pisemskii, Dostoevskii, and A. A. Kraevskii, among other lit terateurs, participated in this production to great public acclaim. A year earlier, Kraevskii apparendy vouched for Dostoevskii when die latter applied for membership in die Literary Panteleev, Fund. L. F., Vospominaniia, ed. Reiser, S. A.(Moscow, 1958), 229-31, 515-19Google Scholar; Veinberg, P. I., “Literaturnye spektakli (Iz moikh vospominanii),”in F. M. Dostoevskii v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov(Moscow, 1964), 1:330-36Google Scholar. See also R. B. Zaborova, “F. M. Dostoevskii i Literaturnyi fond (po arkhivnym dokumentam),” Russkaia literatura, 1975, no. 3:158-70; T. I. Ornatskaia, “Deiatel'nost’ Dostoevskogo v ‘Obshchestve dlia posobiia nuzhdaiushchimsia literatoram i uchenym’ (1859-1866),” in Fridlender, G. M., ed., Dostoevskii: Materialy i issledovaniia(Leningrad, 1987), 7:238-60Google Scholar.

22. Cf. a parody of this episode in Dobrokhotova-Maikova, N.and Piatnitskii, V., Veselye rebiata: Odnazhdy Gogol’ prishel k Pushkinu …(Moscow, 1998), 64.1Google Scholaram grateful to Tatyana Babyonyshev for bringing diis source to my attention.

23. Kiiko, “Primechaniia,” 387-98; Joseph, Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865(Princeton, 1986), 361-66Google Scholar.

24. Fyodor, Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, trans. Cioran, S. D.(Ann Arbor, 1985), 20-21 Google Scholar. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of The Crocodileare Cioran's, with minor alterations. All other translations are mine.

25. For more on the ideology of pochvennichestvo, see, for instance, Ellen Chances, “Literary Criticism and the Ideology of Pochvennichestvo in Dostoevskii's Thick Journals Vremiaand Epokha,” Russian Review34 (1975): 151-64.

26. Traditionally, critics have read Ivan Matveich's “scholarly” diatribes as a parody of D. I. Pisarev's and V. A. Zaitsev's notorious declarations on the subject. Pisarev believed, for instance, that it was specifically “European ideas on natural sciences and anthropology“ that needed popularization in Russia. Dostoevskii, PSS, 5:389. Among more topical concerns, the mid-1860s also witnessed a veritable explosion of writing about animals. Crvielty to animals, in particular, was an incredibly popular topic in the daily press. Among many other similar pieces of news, see, for instance, “Fel'eton: Peterburgskoe obozrenie,” Peterburgskii listok, no. 137 (15 November 1864); “O zhestokom obrashchenii s zhivotnymi,“ Peterburgskii listok, no. 139 (19 November 1864); “Eshche neskol'ko slov o zhestokom obrashchenii s zhivotnymi,” Peterburgskii listok, no. 66 (8 May 1865). For more on Darwin's resonance in Russia, see Alexander Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought(Berkeley, 1988); on the overall interest in the natural sciences in reform-era Russia, see Kirpotin, V.la., Dostoevskii v shestidesiatye gody(Moscow, 1966), 224 Google Scholar. Russians were not alone in their desire to defend animals. In Germany, for instance, associations for the protection of animals appeared in large numbers in the 1860s. See David, Blackbourn, The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany, 1780-1918(New York, 1998), 279 Google Scholar.

27. “On ves'—zheludok” (PSS, 5:329). The discourse on briukho originates with the polemical writings of Pisarev and Zaitsev. As a leitmotif, “briukho” runs through a number of polemical writings by Dostoevskii and his close associate A. A. Grigor'ev, who used it to parody the position of their opponents in 1864 and 1865. “Sotsialisty dal'she briukha ne idut,” declares Dostoevskii laconically in his notebook; in “Gospodin Shchedrin, ili raskol v nigilistakh,” published in the May 1864 issue of Epokha, the writer elaborates on the image: “briukho—eto vse, a vse prochee, pochti bez iskliucheniia,—roskosh’ i dazhe bespole'znaia roskosh'! K chemu politika, k chemu natsional'nosti, k chemu bessmyslennye pochvy, k chemu iskusstva, k chemu dazhe nauka,— esli ne syto briukho?” In a similar vein, and in the very next issue of Epokha, A. A. Grigor'ev summons Rabeleis's “discovery” of briukho as yet another illustration of the materialist economics of the gut. PSS, 20:328, 192,110; A. A. Grigor'ev, “Paradoksy organicheskoi kritiki,“ Epokha6 (June 1864): 264-77. See also Nechaeva, V. S., ZhurnalM. M. iF. M. Dostoevskikh “Epokha“: 1864-1865(Moscow, 1975), 156 Google Scholar; Bel'chikov, “Chernyshevskii i Dostoevskii,” 45. For a detailed discussion of Dostoevskii's treatment of the “schism among the nihilists,” see B. P. Koz'min, “'Raskol v nigilistakh' (Epizod iz istorii russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli 60-kh godov),” historii revoliulsionnoi mysli v Rossii: Izbrannye trudy(Moscow, 1961), 20-67.

28. Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 40-43.

29. R. A. Peace, “Dostoevskii as Prophet: The Case of Skvernyi anekdotand Krokodil,“ Slavonic and East European Review71, no. 2 (April 1993): 263; Bel'chikov, “Chernyshevskii i Dostoevskii,” 48-50.

30. Dostoevskii elaborates on the kind of voice that Ivan Matveich issues from inside the crocodile: “His voice was muffled, thin, even shrill, as though originating at some significant distance from us. It was reminiscent of the situation when some jokester, going off into another room and covering his mouth with an ordinary bed pillow, would start to shout, wishing to represent to the company remaining behind in the other room how two peasants would hail each other when out in the wilderness or separated by a deep ravine. This was something I had had die pleasure of hearing once at my acquaintances during yuletide.” Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 29-30.

31. Jones, Malcolm V., “Dostoyevsky and Europe: Travels in the Mind,” Renaissance and Modern Studies 24(1980): 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 20, 37-40.

33. For example, in “Winter Notes on Summer Impressions,” Dostoevskii writes: “tsivilizatsiia— ne razvitie, a, naprotiv, v poslednee vremia v Evrope vsegda stoiala s knutorn i tiur'moi nad vsiakim razvitiem!” (PSS, 5:61).

34. See, for instance, Iezuitova, “Povest’ Dostoevskogo ‘Krokodil,'” esp. 205, 213, 227.

35. Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 32. Cf. Khomiakov, A. S., “Mechta” (1834), Polnoesobranie sochinenii Alekseia Stepanovicha Khomiakova(Moscow, 1900), 4:215Google Scholar.

36. Another fantastic monster imagined by Dostoevskii, also of allegedly European descent, surfaces in the pages of his 1878 feuilleton “Triton.” PSS, 21:248-51. Cf. I. A. Salov's Grachevskii krokodil(written in 1879, revised in 1884), where a crocodile serves as the narrative's organizing trope. Here the frightful beast, which makes a sudden appearance in the Russian provinces, represents the general anxiety associated with the spread of the nihilist movement. Curiously, much like Dostoevskii's crocodile in the Passage, Salov's grotesque reptile is also a discursive creation born in the pages of the popular press; upon its initial publication in Russkii vestnik, a contemporary review similarly attacked Salov's story as an “indecent lampoon” (neprilichnyi paskvW). See Salov, I. A., Grachevskii krokodil: Povesti i rasskazy(Moscow, 1984), 252-430 Google Scholar; “Sochineniia” Salova, I. A., Delo, 1884, no. 2: 45-49 Google Scholar.

37. Joseph, Frank, “Dostoevsky: The Encounter with Europe,” Russian Review 22(1963): 240 Google Scholar.

38. Cf. Dostoevskii's representation of Europe as a cemetery in The Brothers Karamazov. For more on this, see Tarasov, B. N., “Dve Evropy Dostoevskogo,” Literatura v shkole 4(1996): 23 Google Scholar.

39. See, for instance, Druzhinin, A. V., Pis'ma inogorodnegopodpischika, in Druzhinina, Sobranie sochinenii A. V.(St. Petersburg, 1865-67), 6:223-25Google Scholar. For more on the genre of feuilleton, see Tynianov, Iu. N.and Kazanskii, B. V., eds., Fel'eton: Sbornik statei(Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar; Oksman, Iu. G., ed., Fel'etony sorokovykh godov: Zhurnal'naia i gazetnaia proza I. A. Goncharova, F M. Dostoevskogo, I. S. Turgeneva(Moscow, 1930)Google Scholar; Zhurbina, E. I., Teoriia i praktika khudozhestvenno-publitsisticheskikh zhanrov(Moscow, 1969)Google Scholar; Zhurbina, E. I., Povest’ s dvumia siuzhetami: O publitsisticheskoi proze,2d ed. (Moscow, 1979)Google Scholar. See also Ekaterina Dianina, “The Feuilleton as an Everyday Guide to the Culture of Mid-Nineteenth-Century St. Petersburg,” a chapter in “A Nation on Display: Russian Museums and Print Culture in the Age of the Great Reforms” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002), 103-34; Konstantine Klioutchkine, “The Rise of Crime and Punishmentfrom the Air of the Media,” Slavic Revieio61, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 88-108.

40. Quoted in Zhurbina, Povest's dvumia siuzhetami, 91-92.

41. Quoted in Louise McReynolds, The News under Russia's Old Regime: The Development of a Mass-Circulation Press(Princeton, 1991), 67.

42. Skabichevskii, A. M., Literaturnye vospominaniia(Moscow, 1928), esp. 241-42, 327-28Google Scholar.

43. Feodor, Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, ed. George, Gibian, 3d ed. (New York, 1989), 135-36.1.1.Google ScholarIzler was considered a founder of popular entertainment in St. Petersburg. In summer 1864, for instance, he engaged two celebrities, “the rubber man” and “the human fly” ﹛chelovek-mukha), who performed in Mineral Waters just outside St. Petersburg with great success, gathering some 4,000 spectators. Golos, no. 172 (24 June 1864), and no. 158 (lOJune 1864). On popular entertainment in general, see James von, Geldemand Louise, McReynolds, eds., Entertaining Tsarist Russia: Tales, Songs, Plays, Movies, Jokes, Ads, and Images from Russian Urban Life, 1779-1917(Bloomington, 1998)Google Scholar.

44. According to Benjamin, in the age of the arcades, literature takes the form of the feuilleton. Cf. Balzac's representation of the Wooden Galleries as a site where the publishing business flourished. Benjamin, “Paris,” 161; Honore, de Balzac, , Lost Illusions, trans. Hunt, Herbert J.(London, 1971), 260-66Google Scholar.

45. “Otovsiudu,” Golos, no. 230 (21 August 1864).

46. Golovachev, A. A., “Politicheskoe obozrenie,” Epokha 9(1864): 1-26 Google Scholar. For cridcal interpretations of die epigraph, see M. P. Alekseev, “Ob odnom epigrafe u Dostoevskogo,“ in Kuleshov, V.I., ed., Problemy teorii i istorii literatury: Sbornik statei, posviashchennyi pamiati professoraA. N. Sokolova(Moscow, 1971), 367-72Google Scholar; T. I. Ornatskaia, “'Krokodil.’ ‘Podrostok' (Dopolnenie k kommentariiu),” in Fridlender, ed., Dostoevskii, 7:169-71; Nechaeva, Zhurnal M. M. i F. M. Dostoevskikh “Epokha,”81-83, Iezuitova, “Povest’ Dostoevskogo ‘Krokodil,'“ 195.

47. Iurii, Seleznev, Dostoevskii(Moscow, 1981), 357 Google Scholar.

48. Consider die proliferation of such fillers as “maybe,” “perhaps,” and their close synonyms: vidimo, veroiatnee vsego, kazalos', po-vidimomu, veroiatno, po vsei veroiatnosti, razumeetsia, stalo byt'.

49. Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 34. Cf. in “Kalambury,” Dostoevskii describes the style of the newspaper Golosas “unnatural.” PSS, 20:138. For more on Dostoevskii's stylization of the feuilletons, see Dorovatovskaia-Liubimova, “Dostoevskii i shestidesiatniki,” 19-20, 27.

50. Dostoevsky, The Crocodile, 79-80 (emphasis in the original).

51. “Fel'eton: Na rasput'e,” Golos, no. 2 (2January 1863).

52. “Fel'eton: Peterburgskoe obozrenie,” Peterburgskii listok, no. 67 (9 May 1865). Cf. the crocodile's discourse in Chukovskii's tale for children, Krokodil. See Kornei, Chukovskii, Sobranie sochinenii v shesti tomakh(Moscow, 1965), 1:272-95Google Scholar. Despite overt similarities, there is no apparent connection between Dostoevskii's biting satire and the Soviet satirical journal Krokodil, which also specialized in caricatures and feuilletons.

53. In a letter to A. G. Dostoevskaia, dated 10 August 1879, Dostoevskii referred to the newspaper as “merzkii ‘Golos,’ kotoryi menia tol'ko besit.” PSS, 30.1:106. For more on Dostoevskii's critique of Goto, see his “Kalambury v zhizni i v literature,” PSS, 20:137-47. Among other things, Dostoevskii criticizes “mechanical fragmentation” of material in the newspaper and its overall practicality. Dostoevskii's criticism is possibly a response to caustic comments directed at his journal Vremiathat appeared in Golosin February 1863. See V-kin, “Literaturnyi Dul'kamara,” Golos, no. 41 (16 February 1863).

54. McReynolds, News under Russia's Old Regime, 31. For a detailed description of the newspaper's profile, see V. O. Mikhnevich, Piatnadtsatiletie gazety “Golos”(St. Petersburg, 1878); A. N. Stepanov, “GazetaA. A. Kraevskogo ‘Golos’ (1863-1883),“in Lazarevich, E. A., ed., Zhurnalistika i literatura(Moscow, 1972), 138-48Google Scholar.

55. In one of the 1873 issues of Grazhdanin, Dostoevskii specifically refers to Kraevskii as “olitsetvorenie obshchestvennogo mneniia v Peterburge.” See V. V Vinogradov, “Dostoevskii i A. A. Kraevskii,” in Bazanov, V.G.and Fridlender, G. M., eds., Dostoevskii i ego vremia(Leningrad, 1971), 30 Google Scholar. From 1863 to 1871, Kraevskii edited Golosvirtually single-handedly, which suggests a particularly strong identification between the editor and his publication.

56. I. I., Panaev, “Peterburgskii literaturnyi promyshlennik,”in Zapadov, A. V., ed., Russkiifel'eton(Moscow, 1958), 130-39Google Scholar.

57. “Kalambury/'P&S, 20:141,340-41.

58. PSS, 20:144. For more on Blondin, see A. I. Batiuto's commentary to “Kalambury,“ PSS, 20:340-41; see also Ken, Wilson, Everybody's Heard of Blondin(Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar. Likewise, in the sphere of the fine arts, Dostoevskii's opinion radically clashed with that of Nil Admirari, the feuilletonist for Golos. PSS, 21:423.

59. Letter to A. N. Maikov, 9 October 1870, PSS, 29.1:145. Cf. an earlier description of Russian liberals in a letter to the same correspondent: “Eto—tak nazyvaemoe prezhde 'obrazovannoe obshchestvo,’ sbor vsego otreshivshegosia ot Rossii, ne ponimavshego ee i ofrantsuzivshegosia—vot chto liberal russkii, a stalo byt', retrograd. Vspomnite luchshikh liberalov—vspomnite Belinskogo: razve ne vrag otechetsva soznatel'nyi, razve ne retrograd?“ Letter to Maikov from 18 February 1868, PSS, 28.2:259. For more on Kraevskii and Dostoevskii, see also PSS, 18:347-48. By contrast, Grigorovich defended Kraevskii's reputation. Grigorovich, D. V., Literaturnye vospominaniia: S prilozheniem polnogo teksta vospominaniiP. M. Kovalevskogo(Leningrad, 1928), 203-4Google Scholar.

60. PSS, 10:22.

61. “Ob izdanii ezhemesiachnogo zhurnala ‘Epokha,’ literaturnogo i politicheskogo, izdavaemogo semeistvom M. M. Dostoevskogo,“PSS, 20:217. For more onEpokha'sRussian orientation, see Nechaeva, Zhurnal M. M. iF. M. Dostoevskikh “Epokha,”esp. 28-29, 114.

62. Dostoevskii considered the title “Zapiski iz krokodila” (Notes from the Crocodile) in the draft. PSS, 5:336.