National cuisine and nationalist politics: V. F. Odoevskii and "Doctor Puf," 1844-45.
In the pages of Zapiski dlia khoziaev, the voice that most often addressed this question was the only figure to appear in nearly every issue: a somewhat mysterious "Doctor Puf," whose weekly semi-serious, semi-satirical column treated cooking as a particularly important subject. "Cooking is a matter common to all mankind," Doctor Pufwrote. "Not a single people invented an entire cuisine at once, but each has brought its inventions into one general whole--the property of all humanity." (4) In reality, the author of Doctor Puf's articles was Prince Vladimir Fedorovich Odoevskii (1804-69), the last member of an ancient, but by the 19th century largely impoverished, aristocratic family. Odoevskii was a well-educated and multi-talented public servant and philanthropist whose kindness, hospitality, and keen mind made him a popular figure among educated Russians of his era. (5) But for all his reputed mildness of character and moderate politics, Odoevskii's choice first to masquerade as Doctor Puf, and then to shift the focus of his writing from pure cooking advice to social commentary, showed him to possess a sharp satirical voice that made him a trenchant analyst and critic. His criticism took on one of the major issues of the day, nationalism, as he sought to separate out a rational discussion of national characteristics from any particular ideology based on perceived national difference or supremacy.
Odoevskii's particular concern with nationality and nationalism placed him squarely in the midst of the major political questions of the day, although hardly in sync with them. Slightly earlier, the triad of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality" had become a unifying theme of Nicholas I's reign, first stated by Minister of Education S. S. Uvarov and later developed by many writers, including, prominently, Faddei Bulgarin. This conception of "Official Nationality" promoted a state-oriented patriotism based on religion, the Romanov dynasty, and a newer ideal of romantic Russianness; in practice, too, it often promoted a certain uncritical promotion of anything identified as "Russian." (6) In addition to this official development, the 1830s and 1840s also saw a split develop in the minds of the oppositional intelligentsia along nationalist lines. Most of these writers touted the development of some ideal Russia but split on the value of Russianness. The socalled Westernizers believed that Russia needed further development along Western lines; the Slavophiles, in contrast, celebrated Russia's past and saw the West as a dangerous pollutant. The former have generally been seen as extreme rationalists, while the latter have been called dreamers of a "conservative utopia" by one historian. (7) Whatever the differences between these groups--whether they supported or opposed the state, whether they hoped to improve Russia through a return to the past or by moving toward a different future--they all agreed on one thing: Russia as a nation should be a focus of discussion and perfection.
Similar discussions about Russia's self-definition and self-interest permeated apparently non-ideological writings in ways that complicate the story of nationalism in Russia. Such discourses appeared frequently in writings about production and consumption and, particularly, in writings about the production and consumption of food. In histories of consumption based on the Western experience, consumption is most often tied to questions of class; in the 18th and 19th centuries, consumption becomes almost synonymous with the rise of the bourgeoisie. (8) In the Russian case, discussions of social difference often focused less on class or estate identities, and more on individual or group relationships with "traditional" and "foreign" behaviors and cultures. (9) Particularly in the 1840s, cookbook authors in Russia described the national or foreign character of their idealized kitchens. In 1841, K. A. Avdeeva popularized a new genre of explicitly Russian cookbooks written by and for women; she challenged the earlier dominance of cookbooks written by men, often gastronomically inclined "master-chefs," frequently translated from foreign sources. As her cookbook gained success, a divide between homely, middle-class, Russian foods and elite, foreign, gastronomic foods became important in the rhetoric of cookbooks, if not always in their actual contents. Also in 1841, Bulgarin began to publish his Ekanom; the chatty cooking column that ran in the weekly journal further developed this dichotomy between Russian and foreign, between domestic and gastronomic. (10)
From his first appearance, Odoevskii's Doctor Puf challenged this dichotomy. In part, he simply ignored the supposed division between domestic/feminine/Russian and foreign/gastronomic/male images of cooking and dining, refusing to take sides in this particular debate. But even more, he challenged the various conceptions of nationalism by instead examining what he saw as national characteristics, both positive and negative, without valorizing them into an ideology. From the very first, the Doctor Puf columns challenged the "official" version of Russianness as espoused by writers like Bulgarin. The journal Zapiski dlia khoziaev itself appears as an alternative to Bulgarin's Ekonom. It appeared with the same frequency and covered the same sorts of material; and the voice of Doctor Puf--often mocking, occasionally overblown and self-satisfied--could easily be read as a parody of Bulgarin's style. This identification may account for the pseudonym. Neil Cornwell believes the name derives from E. T. A. Hoffmann's Kater Murr. S. A. Denisenko, however, suggests that the "little word" puf was "fashionable in the 1830s-40s," in the sense of to puff up, "or even to deceive." (11) Given Bulgarin's reputation, naming an imitation of him "Doctor Puffery" was perhaps not a stretch. In addition, Odoevskii eventually moved his critique beyond one of Russian social mores and habits, to something rather larger, something that reflected the other major debate over nationalism: the Slavophile-Westernizer debate. By the early 1840s, that struggle had divided Russia's thinkers into two ever more combative camps; and Odoevskii found himself in an uncomfortable middle position, bound by friendship with many Slavophiles but separated from them geographically and, in many ways, by belief. (12) Although Odoevskii himself seemed not to intend to address such ideological distinctions, the rise in vehemence in the debate during the years he wrote as Doctor Puf seemingly impelled him to intervene here, as well.
Odoevskii used his anonymous position as Doctor Puf to take sides in these rhetorical battles. Or, rather, he used Doctor Puf to focus on the practical and to point out the ridiculousness of ideological extremes. According to V. E. Cheshikhin, Odoevskii was so mild-mannered that he was ill-suited to the fiery rhetorical battles that took over Russian journalism in the 1840s. (13) However, Odoevskii's writings as Doctor Puf, as well as his personal correspondence and notebooks, show him to have been a far more complicated, emotional, even fragmented figure. Doctor Puf became the means by which Odoevskii could express some of his controversial beliefs about a subject that was clearly important to the real man: nationality and its exploitation by ideologues. As Doctor Puf, Odoevskii initially only addressed nationality in the context of general social or culinary commentary, and focused far more on encouraging practical reason within the household. As the debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers grew more strident, and as Odoevskii found himself personally involved, Doctor Puf began to attack nationalism and nationalists, in the process at times turning against Odoevskii's longstanding friends. In these writings, Odoevskii showed himself to be a man fascinated by the idea of nationality but deeply distrustful of any nationalist ideals, a contradiction that after this brief period left him isolated from all sides of this debate, and out of the center of social and political thought in his later years.
On the surface, Odoevskii and his pseudonym were opposites in almost every way. Odoevskii was a married man of brilliant birth, Doctor Puf a bachelor of base (possibly even German!) origins. (14) An early biographer, V. A. Lezin, described Odoevskii as "always calm and quiet ... [he] rarely lost his temper.... He offended no one, insulted no one, from his birth never said a bad word to anyone, never refused anyone a request in his life, in a word he was 'excellent-natured.'" (15) Doctor Puf, in contrast, was prickly and sarcastic behind his jolly facade. Even in their qualifications to write a cooking column the two might seem at odds. While many recalled that Odoevskii had a particular interest in food and cooking, they might well have argued against his fitness to advise others. According to Cornwell, Odoevskii "considered gastronomy to be a branch of chemistry, distilling his sauces in retorts," not always to good effect. He quotes V. A. Sollogub, a frequent victim of Odoevskii's experiments, who recalled that "our stomachs would writhe, even in advance; at these dinners there would be served in alimentation some sort of chemical sauces, invented by the host himself, which were so revolting that even now, almost forty years later, my heart contracts at just the recollection of them." (16)
Another recent biographer gives a clue to this dichotomy. According to O. D. Golubeva, Odoevskii's legendary good nature was only part of his whole personality. She writes of hidden romances, a "double life," and a generally much more turbulent nature behind that mask of the ideal nobleman. (17) Many other accounts of the man and his work mention in passing a certain duality in his nature. For some, that duality came from his very origins: his rank and birth were as high as they could be, yet he lived modestly and always worked: "he, coming from the most ancient aristocratic line, a true Riurikid, mixed among plebeians." (18) The sheer number of Odoevskii's interests--cooking, science, music, literature, philanthropy--amazed others, best summed up by the poet Evdokiia Rostopchina: "goodbye, your alchemical-musical-philosophical-fantastical Excellency," she finished a letter to the prince. (19)
Odoevskii also often wrote under pseudonyms, and although he was certainly not the only writer of his time to do so--nor is it likely that his identity was actually obscured--he held on to them with particular tenacity. Doctor Puf was but one of many alternate identities he donned, through either pseudonyms or clearly alien narrators. (20) Often Odoevskii took on multiple personae within the same piece--indeed, in the course of writing his cooking column, he appears to have created figures whose "letters" to Doctor Puf he used to build arguments. (21) His reliance on these intermediaries seems to have met some deep internal need, for he would not give them up when begged to do so. Atone point, his friend and frequent editor A. A. Kraevskii decried Odoevskii's dependence on pseudonyms in a letter. After noting that some of Odoevskii's work appeared under his own name, Kraevskii asked why the author insisted that other writings be hidden behind pseudonyms. He finished, "good lord, deliver me from the pseudonym 'Bezglasnyi.' What is its purpose?" (22)
This multiplicity of voices has also made it difficult to identify Odoevskii's political loyalties. Odoevskii has been described as "a typical representative of conservative romanticism," as "in many ways close to the Slavophiles," and as a member of the generally westward-facing cabal of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. (23) Obviously, none of these labels is complete. Odoevskii was tied to the Slavophiles by long-standing friendships. He spent his early 20s in Moscow and there took a prominent role among the Liubomudry, the wisdom- (and Schelling-)loving romantics of that era. Even then, however, he was differentiated from the majority of future Slavophiles by his very employment; he was not one of the "archival youths" but instead involved in more practical service to the Russian state. (24) Nonetheless, he maintained these friendships after he moved to St. Petersburg to continue his work in the Russian state bureaucracy. There he wrote both literary fancies (most famously a "Russian Faust," the novel Russian Nights) and governmental reports; he served in multiple offices and as a member of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of State Domains; got involved in founding the new Otechestvennye zapiski; wrote stories for both elite and common audiences; and gained particular fame for his salon, home to prominent Russians from across the social and political landscape. (25)
Certainly by the 1840s, and in many ways before, Odoevskii's most consistent trait was a belief in applied rationality. Whatever his early romanticism and interest in aesthetics, whatever his taste for literary flights of fancy, whatever his personal ties to individual Slavophiles, over and over Odoevskii's work proved him to be a firm believer in practical, even utilitarian reason. Later in life he described himself as a "man little trusting in all that is not the result of direct experimentation," and his many writings on practical themes--whether as a member of state committees or as a private citizen--support this claim. (26) For all his rationality, however, he also held on to one element of his romantic youth: he remained an idealist, one who believed in the possibility of positive change. Now, though, he believed that positive change came through education and through science rather than through philosophical discussion. (27) Once past that "Wisdom-Loving" youth, he sought practical means to his idealistic ends. The ethereal philosophizing of the Slavophiles, and particularly their paeans to what Odoevskii saw as backwardness, were foreign to his personality. Instead, he believed that real, rational action was the best means to the ideal world he clearly desired.
Odoevskii began to write as Doctor Puf to intervene in the then current discourse over agricultural and culinary improvement, a discourse that was on the surface purely practical. That was certainly how he initially understood his role: the advertisement announcing the publication of Zapiski dlia khoziaev claimed that "Doctor Puf, professor of home economics and of the encyclopedia, member of various scientific and gastronomical societies," would provide readers with the "fruits of his theoretical observations and practical investigations in the realm of the art of cooking" and a "complete theory of culinary art," notwithstanding his silly name. (28) Even when considered simply in this light, Odoevskii's accomplishment was significant. His columns have recently been reprinted in a collected volume with "culinary commentary" by a prominent St. Petersburg chef, II'ia Lazerson. Although Lazerson finds some individual recipes odd, he gives Odoevskii credit for being a knowledgeable food writer. According to him, Odoevskii's first column "begins utterly correctly with basic foundations--bouillons," and although the lectures are presented "under a rather ironical sauce," that does not stop them from being good cooking advice. (29)
When he took on the pseudonym Doctor Puf, Odoevskii set out to present a rationalized (if somewhat eccentric) system of cooking and to celebrate practical reason in housekeeping. Initially, Doctor Puf described his intended audience as "economical people," and promoted the idea that people of any income could be economical simply by thinking. (30) He suggested ways households could economize by rationalizing their expenses: all the families living in a single building ought to create "dining companies" that would allow them to "eat half again as cheaply and ten times better," or even to form a "joint-stock company" to raise their own chickens, thus avoiding all the middle men who raised their prices. (31) He also gave examples of good housekeeping, which was marked by care and economy. Doctor Puf described a dinner party he had attended in order to give an example of both a good meal and a well-run household. The dinner was a modest family one, at the home of a young banker. The meal had only four courses (and notably international ones: "Russian shchi, English roast beef, Turkish beans, and toast wild fowl"), but all were perfectly prepared and served. The host served only two bottles of wine, but both were well chosen. Answering Puf's inquiries, the host commented that his wife herself had prepared the marmalade that had accompanied the roast, and that the entire household was kept orderly and neat by the efforts of only three servants. In short, as Puf noted, the dinner was served with the best possible condiments: "conscientiousness, good management, and a little enlightenment." (32)
More often, Doctor Puf did not content himself with praise for conscientious domestic economy but instead sharply criticized Russian habits he viewed as irrational and thus uneconomical and even destructive. In this he differed significantly from writers like Bulgarin, who lauded thrift and moderation but without criticizing existing Russian attitudes. Their advice sought to perfect that which was already without flaw (i.e., Russian) (33) In contrast, in mid-1844 Doctor Puf presented a series of dining disasters in contrast to the ideal dinner at the banker's home and used them to demonstrate the importance of practicality. In one case, a widow with an income of "about 40,000" and two daughters gave a terrible dinner, made so by her complete lack of order. She could not ensure a working doorbell, let alone organize her serfs to serve properly. Her lack of reason led to disorder and created waste. (34) In another, a millionaire peasant, Vasilii Sidorych, presented a dinner that was not simply bad but fatal, due to a complete disregard for modern food safety. After eating the tainted food produced by their deeply unhygienic kitchen, Sidorych's entire family fell ill; Doctor Puf reported that one child eventually died. The doctor himself avoided illness thanks to his keen eye; when inspecting the kitchen of Sidorych's dark and dirty home, he had noted that the pots and pans were improperly tinned. Although he brought the danger to his host's attention, his care was dismissed as newfangled nonsense--an example of irrational distrust of new scientific knowledge. (35) In a third case, the problem was miserliness: thrift taken to an irrational extreme. The guilty party here was another wealthy widow, who watched her kopeks but often lost track of her rubles (or, in the case of the dinner she presented Puf, the bread and wine). (36)
Doctor Puf had not only a relatively consistent view (and a generally negative one) of Russian habits of household management but also a consistent (and explicitly rational) view of the Russian culinary tradition. Doctor Puf focused on Russian cuisine here and there, occasionally devoting an article--sometimes a single passage--to the subject, and generally praising individual Russian foods. He added one rather kvas-patriotic note to the first "Russian" menu he presented: "I intend sometime to introduce here real Russian dishes, which, unfortunately, have begun to be forgotten or ruined by foreign cooks." That idea, that Russian nationality was in danger of dying out due to foreign interference, is clearly tied to the Slavophiles, as well as to earlier cookbook writers. (37) But in its actual contents, the menu suggested something rather different. It described shchi [cabbage soup], rice balls, turkey with mayonnaise, potatoes with veloute sauce, and bream with black butter. The only explicitly "Russian" part of this meal was the shchi, but the other dishes were clearly altered by foreign practice and yet presumably, since Doctor Puf felt fit to present them, had not been actively "ruined." Furthermore, even the "Russian" shchi was hardly a traditional version:
"What's a housewife, if she can't make shchi?" says a Russian adage. But there are all kinds of shchi. I recommend double shchi. For this, the day before prepare shchi, as usual, of raw or fresh cabbage, two carrots, one turnip, and two onions; overnight put it in an earthen pot on ice; in the morning rewarm it, put the liquid through a sieve, and the solids, that is both vegetables and beef, grate through another sieve and in this liquid, and not in plain water, prepare new shchi with new cabbage, roots, beef, as usual. (38)
This shchi was certainly not the cabbage soup of the people (nor was it terribly thrifty). Even here, that original idea of "forgotten" or "ruined" nationality seems clearly a figure of speech, rather than a deeply felt belief.
This sort of interpretation of Russian cooking was Doctor Puf's norm. A lecture later, he noted that his schedule of topics had to be interrupted because of the onset of Maslenitsa. The pre-Lenten festival required bliny [pancakes], so bliny recipes he would provide. "We begin with the most important axiom: 'the true, indigenous Russian bliny are buckwheat bliny'; all other bliny are futile and vain attempts to approximate buckwheat bliny," he wrote, and then listed a series of bliny varieties: buckwheat, "red," with eggs, with scrambled eggs, with farmer's cheese, with onions, with fish, with parmesan, with green cheese, with brains, with liver, with ham, with herring, bliny souffle, sweet, and Lenten. (39) In his next article, Doctor Puf turned a similarly gastronomic eye to Lenten foods, for those Russians who followed the Orthodox fasting calendar. His inclusion of specifically Lenten foods was a sign of his attention to Russian tradition, but the content of his recipes speaks to his interest in new approaches. Doctor Puf felt no need to preserve any pure Russianness in these Lenten foods: he noted that all Lenten foods benefited from a drop or two of soy sauce, and recommended two particular brands: Harvey Sauce and Coratsch. Soups, too, benefited from the "recently appearing dry mixture under the name: Brand's Herbaceous mixture." (40) The next week, Doctor Puf tackled another classic of Russian cuisine: ukha, or fish soup. Again, his presentation was of a particular kind: he presented "Russian-French ukha" and used a recipe by the great French chef Careme. (41)
Doctor Pufoften proposed rationales--and rational they explicitly were--for his willingness to alter (or refine or modernize or Westernize) Russian dishes and to consider foreign foods and techniques in detail. To his mind, practical rationality was the key to everything. Thus, if English soy sauce made Russian foods taste better, logic demanded its use. But Doctor Puf also found an absolute good in eating a varied diet, one that brought together foods and techniques from all over the world. Nutritionally, he believed that variety was necessary for a healthy, happy stomach. More important, though, the demands of a varied diet influenced the larger economic world: the "goal of all sciences, industries, trades, in a word, of all human activity is: to eat! It seems, even these two words (est; est [to eat, it is]) are absolutely equally meaningful and are spelled differently only due to misuse." (42) By this Doctor Puf meant, in part, that food could be a driving force of industry and progress, sides of rational modern life he appreciated. "Varied cooking [is] a true support of industry and trade; thanks to it, French truffles are imported into Petersburg; and our caviar and salted cucumbers go to Paris, where they are sold for a franc apiece," he later wrote. Although he approved of importing foreign foods, he also felt that Russian industry had to start producing-enlightened eating could thereby influence backward Russia's agricultural system for the better. (43) In his mind, eating broadly was not only rational but also patriotic.
Early in 1845, Doctor Puf introduced a new subject: not just national characteristics or national cuisine but nationalism. He had already challenged Bulgarin-like thoughtless paeans to Russianness; now he challenged other nationalist interpretations. At the same time, he took on a radically different tone in his writings on this subject, one much more antagonistic to those who claimed to be guided by nationalist ideals--the ideologues of Official Nationality could be objects of humor, but those of Slavophilism demanded more bitter satirical attention. This shift in tone seems to reflect both the increasingly politicized--and acrimonious--intellectual climate of the mid-1840s and Odoevskii's particular role in that politicization. According to Cheshikhin, 1845 brought the final split between Slavophile and Westernizer, the two camps divided in large part by their attitude toward Russian nationality and the influence of the rational West. The debate had been building in the publicistic literature and centered around Otechestvennye zapiski, with which Odoevskii was personally (if somewhat marginally) involved. Cheshikhin's stories suggest that anyone associated with any of the actors in this drama--and Odoevskii was associated with many of them--was pressured to take sides. (44)
For a man like Odoevskii, with friends and ideals in both camps, this split was not simply personally difficult but intellectually challenging as well. He felt his own views to be increasingly misunderstood during these years, particularly after his complete works were reviewed in Otechestvennye zapiski and found literarily admirable but politically Slavophile, and thus suspect. (45) "Tell me who this is who so hotly admired me, and who so vexingly, so cruelly, did not understand me," he wrote at the start of a long, heartfelt letter to the editor A. A. Kraevskii, "[it] is not me, but my phantom." At the base of his discomfort was what he felt to be a complete misunderstanding of his relationship to reason. His conception of reason was too practical to be accepted by either side. The Slavophiles found him too concerned with facts; and to his mind, the Westernizers demanded not the celebration of reason but skepticism--or even, had the word already been in vogue, nihilism. As he wrote to Kraevskii, "skepticism is complete inaction, and this should be distinguished from the desire to get to the bottom of things. A medic does not know what medicine to give--[if] that lack of knowledge has the consequence that he does not prescribe any kind of medicine--that is skepticism; a medic [who] prescribes medicine but then returns home and asks himself: what did he prescribe, could there be anything better, who does experiments, who looks at the experiments of others--that is not skepticism but that noble dissatisfaction which is the pledge of all movement forward." (46)
Odoevskii questioned current preoccupations with nationalism in much the same way he addressed rationality, by presenting examples of problematic behaviors and beliefs. The tone of these sections, however, is quite different-his satire seems based far more on emotion, even anger--again suggesting that Odoevskii felt a particular need to address nationalist ideologues at this time. First, Doctor Puf revisited an idea he had earlier mentioned in passing, the general cultural (or official) nationalist idea that Russian cuisine should be preferred to all others by those in Russia. The nationalist in this case was one Ivan Toropilin, a "bureaucrat of the seventh class," who wrote to Doctor Puf, claiming that Russian cuisine was in a dangerous place. As he put it, "today's cooks disregard ancient Russian dishes but have not reached the French table, and when they will attain it is unknown; meanwhile, our ancient foods are being forgotten and soon will have totally disappeared." Toropilin urged Doctor Puf to take up the cause of preserving Russian culinary traditions in the face of the foreign onslaught. (47) Doctor Puf responded with a plea for his readers to send him information on Russian foods, but an ironic one. He addressed his readers in mock-elevated terms:
Dear Sirs! Russian dishes are being lost, are being forgotten! Is the time not far off when (oh, shame!) we will cease to understand what exactly a pie baked in the hearth is??--In Petersburg they no longer exist! To prevent such a tragedy, I turn to each of you, especially to inhabitants of the provinces, to report to us a detailed description of even only one ancient Russian dish, which by tradition has been preserved in your kitchen. (48)
Doctor Puf went on, however, to defend the interpretation of Russian cuisine that he had been presenting over the past year. As he put it, rationally, it made no sense to limit one's table to historically Russian foods. He agreed that Russians cooked some foods better than anyone else--their pies and preserves, he felt, were second to none. But to ignore the great cuisines of other places out of a misplaced sense of nationalism would be to miss out on, in essence, the heights of world culture.
By the next issue, Doctor Puf had apparently received a reply, and one that emphasized this sort of romantic cultural nationalism. An author identified only as "Blinophile" wrote, "your appeal to lovers of Russian ancient dishes I read with great curiosity and interest ... now they diligently search out everything related to popular antiquity: both songs and superstitions; how is it that what out forefathers ate has been left in oblivion; really this is no trifle." (49) The bliny-lover then turned to a tale of his search for bliny while living as an expatriate in Berlin. Thanks to a Russian peasant living in the city, he was able to satisfy his hunger (and spark the intense curiosity of his German neighbors). The next week, two more letters to Doctor Puf appeared, one imparting a recipe for apple preserves and another, submitted by a "Moscow gastronome," for a supposedly "ancient Russian dish": "take good fresh cream and put in it strawberry or raspberry preserves so that to a teacup of cream goes a tablespoon of preserves; mix well and put out in the freezing weather (it is also possible to turn it in an ice-cream maker) and that's it." (50) This was it for responses to Doctor Puf's call for national recipes, whether because, as Doctor Puf later claimed, no one cared enough to send in materials, or because Odoevskii wanted to move on to examine other forms of nationalism.
Soon after this exchange, Doctor Puf began to describe a series of stereotypical nationalists and in the process harshly criticized each and every one. First, Doctor Puf described his conversation with Ivan Perfil'evich, an old-fashioned gentleman of high morals and low education. Ivan Perfil'evich was proud to have read only one book in his life: Francois Fenelon's Telemachus. Although Fenelon had addressed the opulence of the court of Louis XIV, Ivan Perfil'evich interpreted the book as a call to ancient and modest means in a Russian context. Thus, although he worked in a state office in St. Petersburg, he lived in a wooden house in Kolomna, because "out ancestors lived always in wooden houses and by no means in stone, which ... was taught to us exclusively by foreigners." Although he sought to live simply, he did not live cleanly; Doctor Puf was aghast at the "litter and nutshells" piled up in the corners. Ivan Perfil'evich prided himself on his "simple table" and on the fact that he did not "occupy himself with cuisine." For him, simple meant without condiments and without care, and thus, to Doctor Puf's taste, a deeply boring--and, as it turned out, illness-producing--meal.
Perhaps because of the insult to his stomach, Doctor Puf began to challenge Ivan Perfil'evich's assertions. Upon hearing that his host did not believe in condiments, as they were all foreign, Doctor Puf pointed out that salt, which was on the table, was a condiment, used to make things taste better. Ivan Perfil'evich blustered in reply that "salt is such an ordinary thing ... and anyway it is domestic, not imported ... and it has been used already since antiquity." Doctor Puf continued to poke holes in his host's--and Fenelon's--arguments and particularly took on the argument that trade was evil. For Doctor Puf, trade was one of the great benefits of a varied, modern culinary tradition, something to be sought after, not dismissed. Despite his efforts, Doctor Puf not only failed to convince his host but also ended up hungry, ill, and full of contempt for such uneducated and illogical praise of an imagined Russian ascetic past. (51)
Several issues later, Doctor Puf examined a different type of opponent: casual Western-oriented patriots. This time, Doctor Puf had been invited to a "scholarly-literary" dinner held at the home of a wealthy prince who employed a French chef with numerous sous-chefs and apprentices. The dinner was an example of the heights of cuisine--"soup from real turtle, 'kronety' with truffles, wild goat under sour-sweet sauce, microscopic chicken with microscopic young peas, pheasant a la Soubise, Chinese birds' nests, truffles in pastry, whole plates of cherries and strawberries (in March), in a word, divine!"--and had been held to find support for a new economic journal planned by the guest of honor, a young man named Pautinkin. Pautinkin (who was not a gastronome and refused the bird's nest) planned to publish a daily newspaper filled with information on anything and everything to do with Russia's economy, including Russian cooking. As he put it, his plan "deserves the attention of every enlightened person; it, perhaps, is the single means for us to know ourselves, to know out strengths, out methods, and to correct all to the enrichment of our fatherland; now each of us works separately, not knowing what the other does." With knowledge, Russia's economy could truly take off, thanks to better coordination of supplies, interests, and activities.
Doctor Puf, who had often spoken of the benefits of trade and growth, wholeheartedly supported Pautinkin's idea. He did, however, find Pautinkin's refusal to partake in all the glories of international trade, as represented by the dinner, illogical. More of his ire was held for the other dinner guests. The host had invited 15 men to the dinner, all wealthy, all in principle progressively patriotic, and all in practice preferring to talk of their horses, their dancers, and their wild spending habits throughout the meal. When Doctor Puf asked the table if anyone there was interested in such a patriotic goal as Pautinkin's, each diner, naturally, proclaimed his desire to help such an important plan. After dinner, however, when Pautinkin gave a lengthy talk on the program of his new periodical, and particularly when he mentioned that he needed 212,573 rubles to start printing, this room of committed patriots fell silent. Whatever their claims to interest, their pockets had nothing to spare. (52) Doctor Puf found the general willingness of Westernized Russians to talk about their love for country and interest in progress, but complete disinclination to take any actual steps to improve it, deeply frustrating.
Finally, Doctor Puf presented a third figure, one he found not simply frustrating but dangerous: a Slavophile. The Slavophile appeared as a stranger who approached Doctor Puf in the midst of dinner with the abrupt comment, "Mister Doctor! You are corrupting morality!" The good doctor expressed surprise and asked for clarification of his sins. The man continued:
You have forgotten, dear sir, that it is possible to be content even with bread, not to immorally chase after meat.... And you demand not just meat but different meats, game, fed on animals.... You demand various fish: carp and salmon and eel.... You demand vegetables, which are gained with difficulty, artificially, in greenhouses, in orangeries.... You demand foreign spices, expensive, imported.... You require entire ships--it is terrible to think that people subject their lives to danger only to procure oysters for you, to import truffles and every sort of trifie.... Because of your favor wives, mothers of families, instead of good, edifying conversations ... go into the kitchen, talk with the cooks, telling them how one must prepare this or that dish--what dissipation! (53)
Throughout this harangue, Doctor Puf interjected short replies, most of which reiterated the idea brought up in earlier volumes: that modern, varied cuisine helped keep the Russian economy afloat. In short, he noted, because the sort of dining he proposed kept so many individuals employed, and thus fed themselves, he was clearly adding to the grand sum of morality in existence in Russia, for "as the saying goes, 'a hungry belly is deaf to the good.'" As Doctor Puf elaborated on this idea and continued to laud the role of fine dining in improving morality, his antagonist, overcome by its aroma, ate Puf's meal (snipe on truffle puree) with gusto. Upon finishing this rarified dish, however, he immediately turned tack and showed his hypocrisy, exclaiming: "and with what dishes you mach! Refined dishes, ruined by French cooking! If only you would at least talk about our simple, native, national Russian dishes--for all that would be more proper!" (54)
This request directly challenged Doctor Puf's understanding of Russian cooking. Doctor Puf's antagonist submitted that Russian dishes were "simple, healthy, without any spices, without artifice, moral," in opposition to the "foreign; now you have macaroni, now some kind of croquettes, may they rot, now sauces, now vermicelli, now various foreign spices." When pressed to describe particular Russian dishes, the antagonist came up with various pies, bliny, and shchi. Doctor Puf, however, had an exaggerated answer to each of these. Russian pies were forgotten in the face of imports like those from Strasbourg. Shchi had been replaced by French versions of cabbage soup. When the doctor had asked his readers for other Russian foods, none remained. As a result, Doctor Puf concluded, all these supposedly Russian foods were "myths, dear sir, all myths! Russian cooking has come and gone!" In response to more prodding by his antagonist, Doctor Puf went on to describe the limited information on cuisine found in the works of Karamzin, and concluded that even in the 16th century there had been no such thing as "pure" Russian cooking. Saffron and other spices, techniques like spit roasting, all came from the east, not from Russia. He concluded:
Look: from the time of Tsar Ivan Vasil'evich, and likely even earlier, our cooking was not at all simple but fairly complicated, artificial, and spiced with foreign potions; our ancestors ate lemons, ginger, pepper, saffron, and other spices, just like us sinners; they also had foreign dishes, and their cuisine was eclectic, that is, combining everything within. Maybe that is bad, but maybe it is good, "maybe it is just how it has to be," as Gogol' says. And there is nothing to do about it! A man eats a chicken, digests it, it turns into his blood, into his sweat, his hands, his nails, and you shout: give the chicken back!--it is impossible, sir, it has been eaten and digested.... If you, Mister Slavophile, take upon yourself the wish to edify us in culinary production, then first of all work to discover pre-Tatar cooking; from here we, maybe, will borrow something; until that time excuse us! (55)
But this idea, and this understanding of history, provoked the antagonist, now identified by Doctor Puf as a Slavophile, beyond reason.
In his last appearance, the Slavophile went beyond the more-or-less rational arguments he had heretofore presented, as he challenged Doctor Puf's entire worldview, not simply his view of cuisine. First, the Slavophile discounted the doctor's conception of history. Why? Puf had researched the subject, and to the Slavophile the very act of doing research into the origins of things was simply a manifestation of "Western curiosity, willfulness, immorality," only necessary if one doubted the "truth," whatever that was. (56) In this case, too, Doctor Puf's desire to investigate Russia's past spoke to truly dangerous doubt: "what exactly do you doubt? The question of what kind of cooking we have? Consequently you do not recognize Russian cooking, consequently you do not recognize Russian nationality--consequently you rise up against Russian nationality and against everything holy in the world--this is as clear as two times two equals four." Doctor Puf responded in amazement--"what miraculous logic!"--and his antagonist immediately cursed the very idea of logic as evil and Western. As the antagonist grew steadily wilder in his manner, Doctor Puf realized that before him stood a "rather interesting example of mental pathology," a man so caught up in his worldview that he appeared to be in an ecstatic state. Finally, the man attacked Doctor Puf physically and stopped ranting only when dragged off the doctor by several bystanders. (57)
Although the very multiplicity of Odoevskii's literary personae makes it difficult to say decisively that this view of Slavophiles was Odoevskii's "true" view, evidence from his unpublished notes suggests that he was deeply concerned about the extreme Slavophile position, and in particular its unscientific understanding of history. Odoevskii's archive at the Russian National Library contains a bound volume of all his Doctor Puf articles, with some corrections, seemingly made in anticipation of publication as a stand-alone volume. As a whole, there are few notes; Odoevskii seems to have grown tired of the task rather quickly. But among the few notes and corrections are several that emphasize the question of nationality, and his distance from the Slavophiles. To an article on the "national" dish ukha, he added references to Westernizers and Slavophiles, suggesting that if Slavophiles truly believed in doing things "in the old way," they ought to be better informed as to what that old way was (in other words, that they did not know their history). He added language that emphasized the problems--as viewed by Westernizers-of current Russian society by changing "deeply rooted" to "patriarchal," and linking "patriarchal" to serfdom. (58)
One final letter published in Doctor Puf's column gives perhaps the best view of what Odoevskii thought was a better source for inspiration--not some abstract conception of nationalism but rather a practical concern for the everyday lives of individual Russians. "Magistrate Knuf" had shared a meal with a peasant family and was shocked at the poor quality of their food: "what did I see: a little piece of some sort of grey mass, which, by my guesses, was supposed to be bread, and a can of salt; in the middle of the table stood a bowl with some sort of watery mixture, that was supposed to be soup." He tried to eat some of the bread, but "my God, what sort of bread was this! The whole mass was gray, black, glutinous, undercooked; my teeth stuck in it, as in mud." Knuf used this experience first to criticize Slavophiles ("Here's the moderation and satisfaction with little that many call pure morals!") but also to ask Doctor Puf to address another problem with Russia's current state. He criticized Russia's so-called philanthropists who spent their time figuring out how to give peasants more beef but had no sense of the reality that some peasants were "eating chaff and calling it bread." He asked Doctor Puf to take up this cause: "Tell us better how to feed those who have nothing to eat? Tell us why there are so many, many people who have nothing to eat? ... do not forger, that this is a very important subject. The poor, I think, by the general rule of nature are everywhere the majority. And so, instead of tens of stomachs, with which to this point all your instructions have had to do, put together culinary lectures for the millions. The task is worth the candles, I assure you." (59)
Although the cooking column continued through the rest of 1845, the persona Doctor Puf retired not long after this letter appeared. (60) The mid-1840s marked hot only the end of Odoevskii's masquerade as Doctor Puf but a larger shift in his actions. He "abandoned" his literary career after 1844. His salon waned over the last years of that decade and died out in the early 1850s. There are certainly multiple explanations for this shift, from a chronic inability to deal with deadlines, to a lack of money, to the generally higher levels of repression in the latter years of Nicholas's reign. (61) His own explanation, however, had much more to do with Magistrate Knuf's letter. In the mid-1840s, just as his tenure as Doctor Puf came to an end, Odoevskii began to devote more and more time to philanthropic activities. Although he was involved in a number of philanthropic organizations, as of 1846 and for the next nine years he was particularly tied to the Society for the Care of the Poor in St. Petersburg. (62) He worked long and hard hours for this institution, as he simultaneously remained a state servitor as well as a member of several scientific committees. This role of the practical, pragmatic servant of the state and of its people, a role he wholeheartedly embraced in his everyday life, seems to have been his ideal of how best to be a Russian patriot, in stark contrast to those so-called nationalists he derided as Doctor Puf.
Although in his later years, as he continued to serve in the bureaucracy, eventually even reaching the tank of senator, Odoevskii turned away from some of his earlier concerns, he continued nonetheless to think about the problem of nationalism as an ideology. According to his friend Aleksandr Koshelev, Odoevskii mode a "profound turnabout" in later years, when he began to study Russian church music. Koshelev remembered Odoevskii's new interest in "cleansing" Russian music of foreign elements and took this as a sign that he had moved bock into line with his Slavophile friends. (63) But Odoevskii's notebooks suggest that even then he had a conception of nationality far too nuanced to fall neatly under the Slavophile banner. In the 1850s and 1860s, Odoevskii copied excerpts from newspapers and journals, as well as what seem to be original writings, in notebooks organized by subject; prominent among these subjects were "nationality" and "national characteristics," and Odoevskii's writings here seem extremely modern. He understood nationality as something real that influenced individuals but not as something immutable--it was not a self-sustaining "being" but rather a "sum of individual characteristics." He also understood that the idea of nationality was often used to justify unjustifiable actions--it could lead to the "slavish blind repetition of of what [our] ancestors did not because that was done rationally, but just because they did it so." (64)
If those were his feelings, then his decision to focus on music in his waning years signifies something other than a return to Slavophile roots. Instead, it suggests that Odoevskii sought to disconnect the idea of national characteristics from political discourse and reconnect it to scholarly study. He might want to "cleanse" Russian church music of outside influence, but he did so through research and work with manuscripts--exactly the opposite of the attitude toward history he had so deplored among Doctor Puf's Slavophile antagonists and explicitly not devoted to any politicized nationalist ideal. It was yet another example of his preference for and belief in practical reason, rather than any ideological construct that abused the knowledge that reason discovered. "Nationality" became a thing to be discovered and studied, not a source for inspiration beyond the simple pleasure that well-performed church music--or a perfectly cooked meal--could bring.
Of course, this realization left Odoevskii out of the mainstream of political thought in Russia. Odoevskii had feared that national characteristics might be transformed into irrational and dangerous nationalisms by ideologues who treated nationality as an objective fact rather than as an object of study. His fears were prescient. Pan-Slavism first altered Slavophilism into a messianic calling for Russian supremacy; it later led the Russian state into dangerous paths in foreign relations. Too, the unthinking celebration of all things denoted "Russian," regardless of their worth or character, was transformed into the chauvinistic Russophilia, xenophobia, antisemitism, and Russification of the late 19th century. Perhaps the final irony in Odoevskii's life--or, rather, his death--was that one of his eulogizers was Konstantin Pobedonostsev, then a minor bureaucrat but later synonymous with the repressive Russification program of late imperial Russia. Pobedonostsev simply remembered Odoevskii as a good man and favorite colleague, any deeper understanding of Odoevskii's life and thoughts was beyond him. (65) This was hOt entirely Pobedonostsev's fault. Odoevskii hid his critical voice behind pseudonyms and satire and reserved it for discussing politically marginal topics like cooking. In addition, in a country in which a simple meal of cabbage soup or a study of church music could be read as explicitly political acts, perhaps the task of examining nationality and nationalism rationally, scientifically, and objectively was too much for any one man, even one as brilliant, in his own way, as Prince Odoevskii.
University of Toronto
Sidney Smith Hall, Room 2055
100 St. George Street
Toronto, ON M5S 2H9
(1) This development highlights a characteristic contradiction of the Nikolaevan period: a general distrust of foreign influences in the world of ideas, combined with significant advances in transnational technical fields. See Marc Raeff, Understanding Imperial Russia, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 149-52. See also Gary Marker, Publishing, Printing, and the Origins of Intellectual Lire in Russia, 1700-1800 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 207; and Catriona Kelly, Refining Russia: Advice Literature, Polite Culture, and Gender from Catherine to Yeltsin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
(2) Such descriptions appeared in reviews ofagricultural guides, usually by authors who worried that this "fad" demeaned a serious topic. See, for example, "Kritika," Otechestvennye zapiski 14, otd. 6 (1841): 71; and "Sovremennaia russkaia literatura," Moskovskii telegrafl, 3 (1825): 255.
(3) Faddei Bulgarin, "Chto takoe ekonom?" Ekonom 1, 1 (1841): 1-3.
(4) Doktor Puf, "Perepiska doktora Pufa," Zapiski dlia khoziaev (hereafter ZKh) 2, 4 (1845): 30-31.
(5) Charles Passage later called him "a kind of human monument to his caste, exemplar of the conscience, humility, and thirst for knowledge that marked that Petrine society at its best, and wholly without the ugly elements that brought that society to its collapse in 1917" (The Russian Hoffmannists [The Hague: Mouton, 1963], 90); on his biography, see also Neil Cornwell, Vladimir Odoevsky and Romantic Poetics: Collected Essays (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1998), 1-3.
(6) The classic work on the official ideal is Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959). Liah Greenfeld suggested an earlier establishment of nationalism, dating it to the late 18th and very early 19th centuries, when the force of" ressentiment drove the Russian nobility to create an ideal of the Russian nation about which they could be proud (Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992]). Greenfeld's work draws on Hans Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960).
(7) The Westernizer/Slavophile controversy is outlined in Andrzej Walicki, A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism, trans. Hilda Andrews-Rusiecka (Stanfoid, CA: Stanford University Press, 1979), 92-114, 135-51. See also Howard F. Stein, "Russian Nationalism and the Divided Soul of the Westernizers and Slavophiles," Ethos 4, 4 (1976): 403-38; and particularly Susanna Rabow-Edling, Slavophile Thought and the Politics of Cultural Nationalism (Albany: SUNY Press, 2006).
(8) Neil McKendrick, John Brewer, and J. H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth- Century England (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 19-20, 197; Lorna Weatherill, "The Meaning of Consumer Behavior in Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century England," in Consumption and the World of Goods, ed. John Brewer and Roy Porter (London: Routledge, 1993), 206 27.
(9) This is not unique to the Russian case, of course; colonial goods were particularly meaningful in the middle-class consumption patterns of Western powers. See Woodruff D. Smith, Consumption and the Making of Respectabiliti, 1600-1800 (New York: Routledge, 2002).
(10) See Alison K. Smith, Recipes for Russia: Food and Nationhood under the Tsars (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008), 128-29, chap. 6. The Westernizer camp particularly disliked Ekonom, seeing it as an example of Bulgarin's blindness. Otechestvennye zapiski, in particular, either reviewed the journal harshly or used it as shorthand for bad economic advice many times in its first year; see "Kritika," Otechestvennye zapiski 14, otd. 6 (1841): 71-76, and 15, otd. 6 (1841): 17-18, 28-32.
(11) Neil Cornwell, The Life, Times, and Milieu of V. F. Odoevsky, 1804-1869 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1986), 18; V. F. Odoevskii, Kukhnia: Lektsiigo gospodina Pufa, doktora entsiklopedii i drugikh nauk o kukhonnom iskusstve, ed. S. A. Denisenko, commentary by I. I. Lazerson (St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbakh, 2007), 5-6; and for confirmation, V. I. Dal', Tolkovyi slovar" zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka, 4 vols. (Moscow: Russkii iazyk, 1998), 3: 544.
(12) T. F. Pirozhkova, Slavianofil' skaia zhurnalistika (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1997), 9, 82; E. Iu. Tikhonova, V. G. Belinskii v spore so slavianofilami (Moscow: URSS, 1999), 10-30.
(13) Ch. Vetrinskii [V. E. Cheshikhin], V sorokovykh godakh: Istoriko-literaturnye ocherki i kharakteristiki (Moscow: A. D. Karchagin, 1899), 306.
(14) Odoevskii gave rare hints about Doctor Puf's biography: for example, in Skaramushev, "Lektsiia XXII," ZKh 1, 22 (1844): 174; Doktor Pur, "Lektsiia XX," ZKh 1, 20 (1844): 156; Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XVI," ZKh 1, 16 (1844): 126 n.
(15) V. A. Lezin, Ocherki iz zhizni i literaturnoi deiatel'nosti kn. V. F. Odoevskogo (po neizdannym istochnikam, khraniashchimsia v Imperatorskoi publichnoi biblioteke) (Khar'kov: M. Zil'berberg i S-via, 1907), 21. On his good nature, see also V pamiat" o kniaze Vladimire Fedoroviche Odoevskom: Zasedanie Obshchestva liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti, 13 aprelia, 1869 goda (Moscow: Russkii, 1869), 3. On his charitable work and refusal of recognition, see A. P. Piatkovskii, Kniaz" V. F. Odoevskii." Literaturno-biograficheskii ocherk v sviazi s lichnymi vospominaniiami (St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1880); and V. Botsianovskii, Kniaz" V. F. Odoevskii i obshchestvo poseshcheniia bednykh v S.-Peterburge (St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1899).
(16) Cornwell, Liage, Times, and Milieu, 17 18; similar accounts are found in ibid., 272; and O. D. Golubeva, V. F. Odoevskii (St. Petersburg: RNB, 1995), 48-50.
(17) Golubeva, V. F. Odoevskii, 19-20, 22.
(18) Botsianovskii, Kniaz' V. F. Odoevskii, 1. Others commented that he had an ability to write for peasant audiences that was peculiar in a mall of his birth; see I. A. Kubasov, Kniaz" Vladimir Fedorovich Odoevskii: Biograficheskii ocherk (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1903), 64.
(19) Otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi natsional' noi biblioteki (OR RNB) f. 539 (papers of V. F. Odoevskii), op. 2, d. 953, 1.4.
(20) On his tendency to use pseudonyms, or to use narrators to hide his own persona, see E. Nekrasova, "Pisateli dlia naroda iz intelligentsii," Severnyi vestnik, no. 2, otd. 1 (1892): 169-71. The card catalogue at the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg, lists five pseudonyms: V. Bezglasnyi, Lover of Church Singing, Moscow inhabitant, Tikhonykh, and Uncle Irinei. O. D. Glagoleva believes he used at least 60 pseudonyms; see her "Gospodin Puf, doktor entsiklopedii i drugikh nauk o kukhannom iskusstve," Peterburgskii Rerikhovskii sbornik 4 (2001): 1.
(21) A draft of one such "letter to Doctor Pur," written, with corrections, in Odoevskii's hand, is found in OR RNB f. 539, op. 1, d. 3, 11. 172-73. Odoevskii's personal papers also include a letter from his editor and friend A. A. Kraevskii, in which Kraevskii apparently forwarded a "question for Doctor Pur" (ibid., op. 2, d. 644, 1.11).
(22) Ibid., op. 2, d. 644, i. 25. A passage in an article also suggests the importance that pseudonyms held for Odoevskii. In his first appearance in Otechestvennye zapiski, Doctor Puf expressed joking outrage that some (personified by whoever advertised the column as being written by a "talented author, hiding behind the name Doctor Puf") thought that he did not exist: Doktor Puf, "Teoriia domostroitel'stva v ee nravstvennom, fizicheskom, umozritel'nom i prakticheskom otnoshenii," Otechestvennye zapiski (hereafter OZ) 44, 1, otd. 6 (1844): 13-14.
(23) On Odoevskii as a "conservative romantic," see Walicki, A History of Russian Thought, 77-80; and for an exploration of his romantic thought, see V. S. Turchin, Epokha romantizma v Rossii: K istorii russkogo iskusstva pervoi treti XIX stoletiia (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1981), 67-70. N.A. Parshukova calls him a "confirmed monarchist" ("V. F. Odoevskii kak teoretik i praktik tsenzury," in Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriia i sovremennost', no. 2 [St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia natsional'naia biblioteka, 2005], 93). On his Slavophile tendencies, see A. I. Koni, Kniaz" V. F. Odoewkii (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1904), 19. Cornwell describes this identification as "not so much completely wrong as incomplete and, therefore, misleading," in Lire, Times, and Milieu, 114. Odoevskii's Russian Nights and personal relationships with Slavophiles serve as the common evidence for this identification; see N. I. Tsimbaev, Slavianofil'stvo: Iz istorii russkoi obshchestvenno-politicheskoi mysli XIX veka (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1986), 70; and Vetrinskii, V sorokovykh godakh, 305-6. For comment on his association with Otechestvennye zapiski and Belinskii, see A. G. Demeut'ev, Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki 1840-1850 gg. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1951), 61, 113, 122 ; and Vetrinskii, Vsorokovykh godakh, 311.
(24) V. Koshelev, Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov, zhizneopisanie v dokumentakh, rassuzhdeniiakh i razyskaniiakh (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000), 79-82.
(25) Some of Odoevskii's work for the scientific committee is archived at Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv f. 398, op. 2, d. 323; op. 9, d. 2948; and op. 10, d. 3382. On the salon, see Pogodin's description in Vpamiat', 57; and Golubeva, V. F.. Odoevskii, 48-49.
(26) OR RNB f. 539, op. 1, ed. khr. 21, l. 73. Odoevskii went on to note that he nonetheless hated the effort involved in making truly scientific experiments and was thus in an "unfortunate" situation. On Odoevskii the scientist, see V. S. Virginskii, Vladimir Fedorovich Odoevskii: Estestvennonauchnye vzgliady, 1804-1869 (Moscow: Nauka, 1975). Even his work as a censor involved rationalizing and organizing the department's books; see Parshukova, "V. F. Odoevskii kak teoretik i praktik tsenzury," 87-88.
(27) On his early idealism, see P. N. Sakulin, Iz istorii russkogo idealizma: Kniaz" V. F. Odoevskii. Myslitel--pisatel', 1, pt. 1 (Moscow: M. i S. Sabashnikovy, 1913). On his beliefs about popular education, see Verginskii, Vladimir Fedorovich Odoevskii, 84; Vetrinskii, V sorokovykhgodakh, 310; and Nekrasova, "Pisateli dlia naroda," 159, 178.
(28) Unpaginated advertising supplement, Literaturnaia gazera  (1844).
(29) Odoevskii, Kukhnia, 630-31.
(30) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia II," ZKh 1, 2 (1844): 14. See similar comments in Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XVII," ZKh 1, 17 (1844): 134.
(31) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XIX," ZKh, 1, 19 (1844): 151; Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XLV," ZKh 1, 45 (1844): 359.
(32) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXXIII," ZKh 1, 33 (1844): 262 63.
(33) Bulgarin, "Chto takoe," 1-2.
(34) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXXI," ZKh 1, 31 (1844): 246-47.
(35) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXXII," ZKh 1, 32 (1844): 254.
(36) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXXIV," ZKh 1, 34 (1844): 270-71.
(37) For example, V. A. Levshin, in one of the first cookbooks to include Russian cooking, noted that "acquaintance with foreigners ... has acted in the same way on [i.e., ruined] the purity of Russian manners and the taste of the table.... One cannot here present a complete description of Russian Cooking, and must be satisfied with only that which could be collected from that remaining in memory." See V. A. Levshin, Slovar' povarennyi, prispeshnichii, konditorskii i distillatorskii, soderzhashchii po azbuchnomu poriadku podrobnoe i vernoe nastavlenie k prigotovleniiu vsiakogo roda kushan'ia iz frantsuzskoL nemetskoi, gollandskoi, ispanskoi i angliiskoi povarni, pirozhnogo, dessertov, varenii, salatov, vod, essentsii, ratafii, likerov, dvoeniiu vodok, i pr.; takzhe k uchrezhdeniiu stola s planami, podach, uslugi i proch, i s prisovokupleniera v osoblivykh paragrafakh polnoi Meshchanskoi povarni i Novoi; ravnym obrazom povaren avstriiskoi, berlinskoi, bogemskoi, saksonskoi i russkoi (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1795-97), 5: 40.
(38) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia IV," 31.
(39) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia V," 38-39.
(40) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia VI," ZKh 1, 6 (1844): 46 47 (the former misnumbered 44).
(41) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia Vil," ZKh 1, 7 (1844): 55.
(42) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXXIX," ZKh 1, 39 (1844): 311. On the health benefits of varied menus, see Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XLII," ZKh 1, 42 (1844): 335; and "Lektsiia IV," 30.
(43) Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XLII," 355; Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XIII," ZKh 1, 13 (1844): 102-3; Skaramushev, "Lektsiia XX," ZKh 1, 20 (1844): 156-57; Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia XXIV," 190; Doktor Puf, "Lektsiia L," ZKh 1, 50 (1844): 399.
(44) Ch. Vetrinskii (V. E. Cheshikhin), T. N.. Granovskii i ego vremia: Istoricheskii ocherk, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg: O. N. Popov, 1905), 262-77. He specifically recalled one incident that reflected this new spirit. In early 1845, the young Konstantin Aksakov went to visit the historian Granovskii in the middle of the night, embraced him, and then theatrically announced that he must break off all future relations with the man. Granovskii accepted this pronouncement "phlegmatically." See Vetrinskii [Cheshikhin], "T. N. Granovskii (Zapadniki i slavianofily v 1844-45 gg.)," Russkaia mysl' 17, 7, otd. 2 (1896): 139. See also E. Iu. Tukhonova, "Spory zapadnikov i slavianofilov v russkoi zhurnalistike 1840-kh godov," in Issledovaniia po istochnikovedeniiu istorii Rossii (do 1917g.) (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 1998), 207.
(45) The collected works were reviewed twice, first briefly ("Russkaia literatura," OZ 36, 9 : 1-2); and later in an extended article ("Sochineniia Kniazia V. F. Odoevskogo," OZ 36, 10 (1844): 37-54.
(46) OR RNB f. 391, d. 588, ll.3-4. The reviewer was Belinskii; see V. G. Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 13 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1953-59), 8: 294, 297-323, 681-83.
(47) Doktor Puf, "Perepiska doktora Pufa," ZKh 2, 4 (1845): 30.
(48) Ibid., 31.
(49) Doktor Puf, "Perepiska doktora Pufa," ZKh 2, 5 (1845): 38.
(50) Doktor Puf, "Perepiska doktora Pufa," ZKh 2, 6 (1845): 47.
(51) Doktor Puf, "Iskatel' blinov i prikliuchenii," ZKh 2, 8 (1845): 70-71.
(52) Doktor Puf, "Iskatel" blinov i prikliuchenii," ZKh 2, 12 (1845): 93-95.
(53) Doktor Puf, "Kukhnoistoricheskie i filologicheskie iz'iskaniia doktora Pufa, professora vsekh nauk i mnogikh drugikh," ZKh 2, 23 (1845): 182.
(54) Ibid., 183.
(55) Doktor Puf, "Kukhnoistoricheskie i filologicheskie iz"iskaniia doktora Pufa, professora vsekh nauk i mnogikh drugikh," ZKh 2, 24 (1845): 190-91.
(56) Could this be an attack against Khomiakov? In his generally sympathetic philosophical investigation of Khomiakov, N. A. Berdiaev noted: "Khomiakov did not love scientific investigations ... he sometimes made factual errors. He always cited from memory, which was remarkable, [and] never made notes" (Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov [Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 2005], 124).
(57) Doktor Puf, "Kukhnoistoricheskie i filologicheskie iz"iskaniia doktora Pufa, professora vsekh nauk i mnogikh drugikh. Okonchanie," ZKh 2, 26 (1845): 205-7.
(58) OR RNB f. 539, op. 1, d. 76, ll.9 oh.-10. The Slavophiles' understanding ofhistory began to concern Odoevskii earlier in the decade. In 1841 he corresponded with Kraevskii about Russian history in general and about Slavophile articles on history in particular; see ibid., op. 2, d. 643, ll.38-41.
(59) "Pis'ma k doktoru Pufu," ZKh 2, 27 (1845): 214-15.
(60) Odoevskii briefly reemerged in 1846, when he published several longer articles in the "Housekeeping" section of Otechestvennye zapiski. Here, too, he created not only Doctor Puf but also a series of other characters representing different outlooks, whom he set to arguing among themselves. Again he marginalized Slavophile ideals and emphasized applied rationality above all else. See Doktor Puf, "Razgovor ob iz"iskanii promyshlenostei i vozdelyvanii fabrichnostei voobshche, i o solenykh ogurtsakh v osobennosti," OZ 44, 2, otd. 6 (1846): 17-28; and "Chtenie tetradki, kotoraia tak ne ponravilas' tetushke," OZ 45, 3-4, otd. 6 (1846): 23-28.
(61) On the literary shift, and Odoevskii's difficulty finishing projects, see Cornwell, Life, Times, and Milieu, 72, 18. Kraevskii certainly worried about missed deadlines and printers' demands (OR RNB f. 539, op. 2, d. 643, ll. 3-4; d. 644, ll. 22-23, 37-38). Golubeva, V. F. Odoevskii, 70-71, discusses the decline of the salon.
(62) N. Putiata's eulogy focused on Odoevskii's relationship with this society. See also V pamiat', 11-32; and Botsianovskii, Kniaz' V. F. Odoevskii, a pamphlet lauding Odoevskii's efforts for the society.
(63) V pamiat', 9. On Odoevskii as a music critic, see G. Vernandt, "Ideia narodnosti v rabotakh V. F. Odoevskogo," Sovetskaia muzyka, no. 3 (1948): 44-52; David Lowe, "Vladimir Odoevskii as Opera Critic," Slavic Review 41, 2 (1982): 306-15; and James Stuart Campbell, V. F. Odoyevsky and the Formation of Russian Musical Taste in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Garland, 1989).
(64) OR RNB f. 539, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, ll. 270, 281b; op. 1, ed. khr. 32, l. 93 ob. These may be quotations, not original writings, but are not indicated as such (and many other handwritten pieces in the notebooks are credited to other authors).
(65) V pamiat', 69-86.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Smith, Alison K.|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2009|
|Previous Article:||An interview with Alfred J. Rieber.|
|Next Article:||Imperial scholars and minority nationalisms in late imperial and early Soviet Russia.|