P.I. Bartenev and I. E. Zabelin: Publisher and correspondent communication as an instrument of the editorial policy of the Russkii archiv

Kovrigina Lyubava Mihailovna Master's Student; Faculty of History and Philology; St. Tikhon Orthodox University for the Humanities 40 Zapadnaya str., Kremenki village, 607324, Russia, region l.m.kovrigina@yandex.ru

The second half of the 19th century was marked by the flourishing of historical journalism in Russia. One of the first specialized publications in this field was the historical and literary magazine "Russian Archive". Its founder, Pyotr Ivanovich Bartenev (1829-1912), determined the editorial policy of the publication from 1863 to 1912. Russian Russian Archive mainly published sources and research on Russian history of the XVIII–XIX centuries. Bartenev received materials for the magazine from private and state archives, the Chertkov Library, which he was in charge of from 1859 to 1872, as well as from numerous correspondents. They were people of different social status, professional activity and ideological views. The editor's communication with correspondents was carried out both personally and through letters, the bulk of which is located in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI) in F. 46 (P. I. Barteneva), well researched ^{[18, 23]}. Part of Bartenev's epistolary legacy has been preserved in the department of written sources of the State Historical Museum. Among them are ten letters from Peter Ivanovich Bartenev to Ivan Egorovich Zabelin (1820-1908), written from 1872 to 1907.^[27] The letters contain information about the publisher's relationship with the historian as one of the correspondents of the Russian Archive, which allows us to advance the study of the nature of Bartenev's editorial activities. Thus, the subject of this article is the communication between Bartenev and Zabelin as one of the tools of the editorial policy of the journal under study.

The main source of the work is Bartenev's letters to Zabelin, and auxiliary publications are the publications of the Russian Archive, diaries and memoirs of the heroes of the article. The analysis of this material in combination with the historical and biographical method will make it possible to form a complete picture of the relationship between Bartenev and Zabelin.

The topic of P. I. Bartenev's communication with the correspondents of the Russian Archive has been studied selectively in historical science. Researchers were interested in Bartenev's contacts with V. Y. Bryusov ^{[2, 35]}, P. A. Vyazemsky ^{[24, 32]}, L. N. Tolstoy ^{[1, 9]}, L. N. Trefolev ^[10]. There are well-known works on the editorial policy of the Russian Archive, which highlight the important role of the publisher's interaction with a wide range of people in order to obtain materials for publication ^{[23, 37]}. The relationship between P. I. Bartenev and I. E. Zabelin was fragmentary in the monographs of A. D. Zaitsev ^[18] and A. A. Formozov ^[36]. The researchers are familiar with Bartenev's letters to Zabelin, but they have not been analyzed in detail. Consequently, the scientific novelty of this work consists in studying unpublished letters of P. I. Bartenev to I. E. Zabelin in the context of coverage of the editorial policy of the publisher of the Russian Archive.

The history of the acquaintance of the future publisher and the historian is currently known only in general terms, however, it can be noted that no later than the 1840s-early 1850s. they were introduced to each other. In 1847, at the request of the trustee of the Moscow Educational District, Count Sergei Grigoryevich Stroganov (1794-1882), Pyotr Ivanovich Bartenev entered the literature department of the Historical and Philological Faculty of Moscow University. By this time, Ivan Egorovich Zabelin was the author of a number of historical works published in Moskovsky Vedomosti and Moskvityanin, was a long-term employee of the Armory Chamber, and was a member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, headed by Count S. G. Stroganov. Zabelin was not a student, but attended lectures at the university, was familiar with T. N. Granovsky, M. P. Pogodin, S. M. Solovyov and other teachers. Therefore, it can be assumed that both Bartenev and Zabelin were present at the same lectures or home meetings at the professors. Perhaps the characters in this article could have been introduced to each other outside the university environment, in the circle of their Moscow acquaintances. It was determined that by 1855 Peter Ivanovich and Ivan Egorievich met each other more than once. This is evidenced by an entry from Bartenev's diary, which mentions his personal meeting with Zabelin in January 1855 at a dinner with businessman and philanthropist Kozma Terentyevich Soldatenkov (1818-1901), and describes him as "constantly silent", apparently Peter Ivanovich had already met him more than once in such meetings and Ivan Egorovich was usually not talkative. ^[3]. In any case, they were already acquainted in the 1850s. Interestingly, their closer communication began not as an editor and correspondent, but as a publisher and reviewer, and this was due to the publication of letters from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

In 1856 Peter Ivanovich became the publisher of the Collection of Letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ^[33]. The collection was published with the financial support of K. T. Soldatenkov. The publication was attended by the author of the explanatory article S. T. Aksakov and the compiler of the comments P. A. Bessonov.

In 1857, Zabelin published a review of this collection in the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski ^[17]. On the one hand, Ivan Egorovich noted the importance of publishing the letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, on the other hand, he criticized the notes to them. Zabelin noted their inaccuracy, and in this regard, his disagreement with the assessments of morals during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. In addition, the reviewer blamed Bessonov for his earlier statement in the Russian Conversation concerning Russian historians who "hate ancient Russia, cannot stand it, and therefore constantly attack it" ^{[8, p. 70]}. As a result, Zabelin accused the compilers of the letter collection of the fact that the notes and interpretations in many places are superficially indicated and not supported by facts.

P. I. Bartenev's letters to P. A. Bessonov are kept in f. 56 of the description, some of them have been published ^[28]. We are interested in the outline of Bartenev's article, which contains a response to criticism of his publication. They formed the basis of the "Reply to G. Zabelin on the analysis of the book "Collection of Letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich", which was published in No. 6 of the Slavophile newspaper "Rumor" for 1857 ^[6]. In the draft version, Bartenev noted that Zabelin's review was devoted to a petty analysis of the notes to the collection, and his reasoning was dictated by resentment at several lines from the Russian Conversation ^{[28, p. 283]}. The published article adopted a more restrained tone.: Bartenev and Bessonov thanked the historian for his helpful remarks, refuted the undeserved criticism, and also noted that Zabelin "needlessly took the accusations against Russian historians personally; this does not apply to him at all" ^{[6, p. 78]}.

The Collection of Letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was Bartenev's first independent publishing work. Zabelin's remarks about the need to confirm any information with facts were the basis for the editorial activity of the founder of the Russian Archive. But for Zabelin, reviewing the collection of letters did not go unnoticed: according to his testimony, it is known that this experience allowed him to study in more detail the materials about Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and characterize his personality ^{[13, p. 43]}.

Bartenev's collaboration with Zabelin as a correspondent began in the 1870s. Zabelin was not the leading correspondent of the magazine, but rather one of many, therefore, his example of communication with the publisher can be attributed to Bartenev's usual practice when interacting with authors.

In 1861, a controversy broke out in the periodical press about the heroes of the Time of Troubles, which began with an article by N. I. Kostomarov "Ivan Susanin", published in Otechestvennye Zapiski. The historian shifted the emphasis in the interpretation of the story of Ivan Susanin from his personal feat to the fate of one of the victims killed by robbers who roamed Russia during the Time of Troubles ^[20].

In April of the same year, in the newspaper Nashe Vremya, S. M. Solovyov published a response article "History and Modernity", in which he justified the feat of a Kostroma peasant, emphasizing that his death saved Mikhail Fedorovich's life ^[34].

A new round of discussion began in 1871, when the article by A. D. Dominsky "The Truth about Susanin" was published in the "Russian Archive" ^[11]. The answer to it was the publication of N. I. Kostomarov's "Personalities of the Time of Troubles" in the Bulletin of Europe ^[22], in which the merits of four figures of that era were questioned: M. V. Skopin-Shuisky, D. M. Pozharsky, K. Minin and I. Susanin. This work caused a resonance in the scientific community. Articles by V. I. Dorogobuzhinov ^[12], I. E. Zabelin ^[14], and M. P. Pogodin ^[27] became a response to it. Interestingly, N. A. Zontikov in his monograph "Ivan Susanin: Legend or Reality" ^[19], covering the controversy surrounding Kostomarov's work on Ivan Susanin's feat, did not mention Zabelin's articles from the Russian Archive, although he repeatedly cited the journal's publications in his work.

In 1871 Ivan Egorovich Zabelin wrote the essay "Minin and Pozharsky. Straight lines and Curves in the Time of Troubles" and wanted to publish it, like Kostomarov, in the Bulletin of Europe, but the publisher of the magazine, Mikhail Matveyevich Stasyulevich (1826-1911), refused him for an unknown reason, perhaps because of the inconsistency of the work with the liberal direction of the magazine. Then Zabelin turned to the Russian Archive. Bartenev accepted his work and published it in parts in several issues of the magazine for 1872. In this essay, Zabelin highlighted the history of the Time of Troubles, its causes, and examined in detail the participation of ordinary people, as well as K. Minin and D. M. Pozharsky in the liberation of the country from foreigners. The historian refuted Kostomarov's point of view, who questioned the feat of these figures. His view on the events of the 17th century. Zabelin based his work on a critical analysis of information from historical sources, primarily the "Tales of Avraamiy Palitsyn about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery" ^[15].

In September 1872, Kostomarov's article "Who is to blame for the Time of Troubles" was published in Vestnik Evropy, addressed personally to Ivan Egorovich. In it, the author reproaches Zabelin for the fact that he saw not the Poles as the greatest danger to the country, but the internal turmoil caused by the boyars and the military class, exaggerated the role of the people in saving the state and did not treat the personality of Prince D. M. Pozharsky impartially. Kostomarov defended his point of view, according to which the prince, although he was an honest and benevolent man, was not distinguished by outstanding abilities and was a mediocre figure of that time ^[21].

Zabelin's response to this publication was published in the December issue of the Russian Archive ^[16]. In a letter dated October 19, 1872, Bartenev asked his correspondent to deliver the article to the editor, and also expressed his admiration for what he had read, assessing the essay as "excellent, and especially since a new and fresh look at internal history is presented even more definitively" ^{[27, l. 138]}. Most likely, the letter was about Zabelin's response to Kostomarov. In terms of content and nature, this article differs from Ivan Egorovich's first work in the Russian Archive. Here you can see the thought work of a mature historian who talked about his profession. He noted that it is necessary to approach history critically, pay attention to the content of concepts, and avoid condemnations and subjunctive moods in describing the consequences of historical phenomena. He gave a justification for the causes of the Time of Troubles from a socio-economic point of view, examining in detail the history of the formation of the military class and emphasizing its key role in the riots of the early 17th century. He argued that Minin's accusations of dictatorship and demagoguery, and Pozharsky's accusations of mediocrity were groundless. Thus, Zabelin and Kostomarov, polemicizing on the pages of periodicals, each remained of their own opinion, adhering to diametrically opposed views on the history and figures of the Time of Troubles.

In December 1872, Bartenev sent Zabelin a fee of 150 rubles. for an article in the 12th notebook of the "Russian Archive" ^{[27, l. 141]}. There was no fixed amount that Pyotr Ivanovich paid the correspondents. By his nature, he was a calculating man, one might even say stingy. The fee for materials for the magazine was negotiable, its size could vary from 1 to 200 rubles. Sometimes correspondents asked Bartenev for books instead of money. In Zabelin's diary dated June 28, 1873, there are lines: "...Bartenev gave 75 rubles instead of 50 rubles for the last article" ^{[13, p. 106]}. Most likely, we are talking about the fact that Zabelin received 75 rubles for each article. In any case, Peter Ivanovich was not stingy, Zabelin's royalties were quite decent.

Interestingly, it was in the "Russian Archive" that studies were published that defended the names of national heroes K. Minin, D. M. Pozharsky and I. Susanin from attacks. Bartenev's personal views on Russian history played a significant role here, he could not allow such expensive and significant names for Russian society to be humiliated and their feat devalued. It is also important to note that Bartenev was interested in not only publishing sources on the pages of the Russian Archive, but also raising controversial historical issues that interested readers and could attract new correspondents to the magazine.

In his surviving letters, Bartenev repeatedly informed Zabelin of his desire to see him personally, which happened. The historian's diary repeatedly mentions Bartenev's visits.

Peter Ivanovich highly appreciated Ivan Egorovich as a specialist, was familiar with his works. In a letter dated June 30, 1876, he noted: "You are a living person. The spirit of the parties and the preconceived idea do not overwhelm you. The freshness and independence of thought immediately find a corresponding expression" ^{[27, l. 142]}. In another letter dated November 12, 1892, Bartenev asked Zabelin to send him the 2nd volume of the History of Russian Life, writing that "they read it from me" ^{[27, l. 150]}. These letters are evidence that the relationship of the characters in this article was not only formal, but also friendly and professional, where the love of history was an important unifying factor.

On November 1, 1892, Zabelin's fiftieth birthday was widely celebrated. In the 12th issue of the Russian Archive, Bartenev dedicated a note to the hero of the day ^[5], in which he described the honors and congratulations given to the venerable historian. Ten years later, in the 9th issue of the Russian Archive for 1902, a review of Zabelin's book "History of the City of Moscow" was published by the publisher's son Sergei Petrovich. S. P. Bartenev gave a positive assessment to the historian's work, noting that "one of the most valuable advantages of his － this is a common, true Russian meaning, which is imbued from beginning to end" ^{[7, p. 160]}.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the number of subscribers to the Russian Archive began to decrease. The magazine stopped responding to the demands of society, and the attitude of both readers and the editor towards history changed. By 1900, Bartenev saw the Russian Archive as no longer an advanced publication that covered modern issues with references to the past, but rather an archive, a collection of sources and an article for future historians. It is necessary to take into account both the advanced age of Peter Ivanovich and the fact that most of his correspondents had died or retired by the 1900s. Bartenev continued his publishing activities: he searched for materials, asked friends to write articles for the magazine, but he did it no longer with the same energy and enterprise that in the first decades of his work on the Russian Archive.

By this time, Bartenev and Zabelin had quite strong friendly relations, which could only be interrupted by the death of one of them. Bartenev repeatedly asked Ivan Egorovich to write an article for the Russian Archive, as evidenced by both letters from the publisher and diary entries of the historian. In 1902, Zabelin nevertheless sent the publisher an article "The House of the Moscow Public and Rumyantsev Museum (formerly Pashkova)", which was written on the basis of the second part of his book "The History of the City of Moscow".

Bartenev's letter to Zabelin dated April 24, 1902 contains an expression of joy and gratitude: "You made me very happy by sending me an article about the Pashkov House. Everything will be done: the manuscript (as clear as your life, and your style) will be preserved, and the prints will be made" ^{[26, l. 153]}. This work was published only in 1904. It was published in the 9th issue of the Russian Archive ^[14].

Bartenev's delay was related to the selection of materials, each issue was prepared by him in advance. Many of the essays could have been in the publisher's editorial portfolio for years before being published, so this article was more fortunate.: She was immediately hired. Bartenev informed Zabelin about this in a letter dated April 25, 1904: "According to your request, dear Ivan Yegoryevich, the original of your article is being sent. Everything is checked with him, and there will be no mistakes. I took the liberty to make a note that K. G. Plemyanikova was the sister of the then president of the military college, Count Z. G. Chernyshov, and put my own P. B. If you don't like, you can cross out, since the article has just been reviewed. Paki and paki brings you gratitude" ^{[27, l. 156]}. Zabelin was not against the publisher's notes, and they were published.

Bartenev continued to contact Zabelin for his writings for the Russian Archive, as Ivan Egorovich mentioned in his notes dated November 5, 1902 and March 30, 1904 ^{[13, pp. 211, 213]}. Experiencing difficulties in attracting new materials for publication, Bartenev resorted to established and time-tested contacts.

For many years Zabelin was not only a correspondent, but also a regular reader of the Russian Archive. This is evidenced by both the historian's diary entries and their correspondence. From a letter from Bartenev dated January 25, 1905:"It is my fault, dear and esteemed Ivan Egorovich, for the late delivery of the Russian Archive. My heartfelt thanks to you for your gift. One of these days, let me personally bring it to you" ^{[27, l. 159]}.

The Zabelin Foundation has preserved a draft of a letter from Ivan Egorovich to Peter Ivanovich Bartenev dated February 13, 1903: "Long live the Russian Archive, long live this great forty-year-old mass of history... Russian Russians, who have illuminated so many important aspects of Russian history and Russian life, are worthy of praise. Long live the venerable collector and publisher of the Russian Archive and his hard-working and fruitful scientific work for many and many years to come" ^[26]. This letter was written on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Russian Archive. The historian praised the magazine and its publisher.

One of Bartenev's last letters to Zabelin was a birthday greeting from September 17, 1907: "I rejoice at your longevity, I greet you on this day, dear Ivan Yegoryevich. Live on for the joy and comfort of people who value you highly" ^{[27, l. 162]}. By this time, Ivan Egorovich was 87 years old, and Peter Ivanovich was 78 years old.

Russian graves Zabelin died in 1908, two years later in the "Russian Archive" Bartenev published a bibliographic note in memory of the historian, making a note to her that Ivan Egorovich sacredly honored the memory of his mother and visited her grave at the Vagankovsky cemetery, and on his return sometimes visited him in the editorial office, on Ermolaevskaya Sadovaya 175 ^[30].

Summing up the research, it should be noted that for the first time in the framework of publishing, Peter Ivanovich encountered Ivan Egorovich as a reviewer who gave an unflattering review of his work, but this did not hinder their fruitful cooperation on the Russian Archive. A detailed analysis of Bartenev's unpublished correspondence with Zabelin led to the conclusion that through letters and personal meetings with correspondents, the publisher of the Russian Archive received the necessary material for publication, informed about the publication process, the fee, and thus implemented editorial policy. The example of communication between Bartenev and Zabelin also showed that common views on historical topics, love for the past and scientific interest in history could become the basis of not only business, but also friendly relations, which favorably affected the content of the magazine, to which Peter Ivanovich devoted his entire life.