Полемика о славянофилах в «Гражданине» Достоевского
Controversy over Slavophiles in Dostoevsky’s “Grazhdanin”

Summary/Abstract: “Slavophilism” is a polysemantic research term that characterizes one of the key trends in Russian philosophy, politics, and literary criticism. Having emerged in the Russian terminological thesaurus in the early 19th century, the word was initially used by the Karamzinists to refer to the Shishkovites, and was later transferred to the Moscow’s “samobytniki” (advocates of native culture) — Alexei Khomyakov, the Kireevsky brothers, the Aksakovs (father and sons), Yuri Samarin, and others. The Slavophiles themselves, so named by the Westernizers, were skeptical of this designation, preferring to call themselves the “Moscow party.” Their stronghold was Moscow University, Moscow newspapers, magazines, and literary salons. A characteristic feature of the Slavophiles was the localization of their movement within the historical chronotope of Moscow. In 1873, the editors and contributors of “Grazhdanin” (“The Citizen”) — Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mikhail Pogodin, Vladimir Meshchersky, Ivan Nekrasov, Tertius Filippov, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, and others — undertook a revision of the established concept of Slavophilism. According to Mikhail Pogodin, Alexander Pushkin was a Slavophile, and Slavophile ideas were shared by many, including the Pochvenniki — the authors of the St. Petersburg publications “Zarya” (“Dawn”) and “Grazhdanin”. Following Pogodin, Dostoevsky reassessed Slavophilism and Pochvennichestvo. In his Pushkin Speech, he recognized the poet as “Russia’s foremost Slavophile,” identifying himself with Pushkin, Khomyakov, Samarin, and the Aksakovs, and publicly declared himself a Slavophile in print. In Ivan Aksakov’s newspaper “Rus’”, Pochvennichestvo was defined as “St. Petersburg Slavophilism.” The followers of the Slavophiles preferred a broad interpretation of their ideas, presenting Slavophilism as a living, internally contradictory, yet integral phenomenon of Russian history whose significance extended beyond the original tenets. Their dispute marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Slavophilism in the 19th — 21st centuries.

• Details
• Contents