On Ethics and Accuracy of the Researcher: Problems of the Scientific Approach in the Article by P. A. Druzhinin on the Falsification of Manuscripts by A. A. Akhmatova

Abstract

The article is a response to the publication by P. A. Druzhinin “Falsification of Anna Akhmatovaʼs Manuscripts as an Actual Problem of Textual Criticism”, which evidently states the fallacy and bias of the authorʼs approach when discussing the authenticity or forgery of a number of Anna Andreevna Akhmatovaʼs manuscripts in private bibliophile collections. It is shown that P. A. Druzhinin often uses unverified information, not being a specialist in textual analysis and expertise of Akhmatovaʼs handwritten heritage. The main purpose of the response is to warn future researchers against using dubious methods of “auto-expertise”, which the author of this article resorts to. An assessment is also given to the archive of N. L. Dilaktorskaya (1914–1989) from the collection of the St. Petersburg bibliophile A. M. Lutsenko (1940–2008), who in Druzhininʼs article is presented as the owner of fake manuscripts by Akhmatova and their deliberate propagandist. It tells about the history of the formation of an extensive collection of Lutsenko (with a large number of autographs of the poet, acquired from various persons and under other circumstances, and the provenance and reputation of these inscripts is currently not questioned by anyone), about his acquisition of Dilaktorskayaʼs papers, as well as the evolution of the attitude towards them of A. M. Lutsenko as well as researchers of Anna Akhmatovaʼs creativity. It is emphasized that the negative opinion of the author of the response about the “Akhmatovaʼs manuscripts of Dilaktorskaya” was formed back in 2014, and on the basis of a thorough study of the composition of this Akhmatoviana (which still remains in the ownership of the Lutsenko family and hasn’t changed its owner, as opposed to the statements of P. A. Druzhinin). The distortions of the theses of the author of the response and other researchers on the topic under study are refuted. In addition, it is told about the collection of Akhmatovaʼs autographs in the possession of M. V. Seslavinskiy, which were included in the publication “Bibliophile wreath to Anna Akhmatova” (2014) and are not related to the “Akhmatova archive” by N. L. Dilaktorskaya from the collection of A. M. Lutsenko. A detailed textual analysis of an important controversial artifact known as the “Anna Akhmatova phone book” from the collection of Mikhail Viktorovich Ardov is presented.