№ 2, 2019 year

The article envisages the problems of the chronological attribution of F. M. Dostoevsky’s “second” notebook kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (Fund 93.I.2.7). All the dating information related both to the notebook in whole and to its particular records, is specified. Since the book was filled up in different directions, sometimes chaotically, it is difficult to establish the exact chronological order of records. The article makes a conclusion that the dating of “1861–1864” specified in some publications should be definitely revised. A possibility of keeping a notebook in the last months of 1862 is envisaged, however, the period of “1862–1864” proposed by G. M. Fridlender needs further justification. To understand the sequence of filling up the book, the article grouped and analyzed records relating to 1863 and 1864: it was at that time when Dostoevsky turned to the notebook the most frequently. A lot of questions touched upon in the article are of a polemical character and need further studying.F. M. Dostoevsky, manuscripts, notebooks and workbooks, textual study, attribution, chronology

The article presents an overview of the materials about F. M. Dostoevsky from the collection of his wife A. G. Dostoevskaya, who in May 1906 gave them for eternal storage in Moscow. Since the middle of the XX century the documents have been partially kept in the Manuscript Department of the State Museum of the history of Russian literature named after Vladimir Dahl (State Literary Museum). The most valuable are the letters of F. M. Dostoevsky and other visual materials related to the main events of the writer's life. All these documents have preserved the memory of the life of the great writer, the uniqueness of his personality. Text documents of the Fund systematically and fully represent newspaper criticism of F. M. Dostoevsky in the period from 1846 to 1914 and selectively, at the level of individual articles, the history of the study of the biography and work of the writer in the XX century. The Dostoevsky Manuscript Fund is enriched with a plentiful collection of the Fund of visual documents, among others photographs, portraits of Fedor Dostoevsky and persons from his entourage, collected by A. G. Dostoevskaya.F. M. Dostoevsky, collection of A. G. Dostoevskaya, The Russian Literature History State Museum Named After V. I. Dahl, handwritten materials, source studies

The article introduces into scientific circulation archival documents from the funds of the Russian State military-historical archive (RGVIA, Moscow), which give additional material for the construction of the scientific biography of brothers Mikhail and Fedor Dostoevsky in one of the least studied periods , from 1837 till 1839, the time of Mikhail Dostoevsky’s admission to the Engineering corps and the first two years of training of Fedor Dostoevsky in the Main engineering school. Archival data are supplied with the materials of printed sources of the era, mostly introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The new data give a comprehensive picture of the educational process in the Main engineering school in the period of 1838–1839. In scientific circulation are introduced all the disciplines and courses attended by Dostoevsky twice, as far as he was kept for a second year, and during his study in the 3rd conductor class, and during his first and second years study in School. The content of these courses is described shortly but in details; the bibliographic list contains the titles of the course books. For the first time all 19 teachers whose lectures Dostoevsky attended during this period are systemized. The names of eight of them are introduced into scientific use for the first time. In addition, there were identified the names of 20 teachers, both full-time and the invited tutors, who were part of the examination Committee administering the annual exam passed by Dostoevsky in 1839. The Names of seven of them are also introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. Biographical data on the rest of the teaching staff are updated and supplemented.Mikhail and Fedor Dostoevsky, scientific biography, new archival and printed sources, Engineering corps, Main engineering school, educational process, teaching staf

The article presents new details of the biography of F. M. Dostoevsky in the period of 1843–1844, when after finishing the Main Engineering School the future writer was enrolled into St. Petersburg Engineering team at the Drafting Office of the Engineering Department. Up to now that one-year period in his official activities was an absolutely blind-spot in Dostoevsky’s biography. The Conduit List of company — and field-officers/engineers registered in St. Petersburg Engineering team and assigned to the Drafting Office of the Engineering Department allows introducing into scientific use the data about fifteen colleagues of Dostoevsky. This list represents an annual document used to be composed in the Military Department until the 1860s and contained both official data and information on the behaviour, intellectual capacities etc of the officers of certain unit. These data of the Conduit List after being analyzed and commented, based on the printed sources of the epoch and other biographical reference books, notably enrich our knowledge about Dostoevsky’s relationships in 1843–1844.Dostoevsky, academic biography, archival sources, the Conduit List, Engineering Team, The Drafting Office, collegues, biographical data

The article makes an attempt to identify a prototype of the image of an entomologist in the novel “Uncle's Dream” by F. M. Dostoevsky. According to the author's observations, it was F. V. Gebler, the founder of the systematic entomology in the Altai region, the author of scientific papers on insects Insecta Sibiriae rariora, descripsit” (= Rare insects of Siberia, description) and the “Notes on the insects of Siberia, especially of the Altai”. In addition, the image of the entomologist assumed some features of A. Humboldt, who also visited Barnaul, and a friend of the writer P. Semyonov, who during the expedition to the Tien Shan in 1856–1857 spent winter in Barnaul (the mining capital of the Altai). Dostoevsky mentions in the novel “a particular species of worm with horns”. The writer chooses the object of the researcher’s irony a very rare insect Leptura altaica, living in the vicinity of Barnaul, parody plays the facts and urban legends and creates allusions, clearly referring to Barnaul.Dostoevsky, “Uncle’s Dream”, F. V. Gebler, the image of the scientist, Leptura altaica, siberian text, Barnaul, Alexander von Humboldt, P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky

The article represents the results of an archival research conducted in spring of 2019 with the purpose to find the traces of F. M. Dostoevsky during his visit to Florence. New documents supplementing the history of an execution writ of a merchant from luzhsky district Burkovsky who did not manage to hand it over the writer because of the departure of the latter, were found and analyzed. Two documents were found In the Florence State Archive, composed by the prefect’s order in response to the temporary attorney Glinka’s request for search of the writer for the purpose to give him the above mentioned document. In addition, the article for the first time provides a photocopy of the record from the parish register of 1868, held in the Orthodox Cathedral of the Nativity of Jesus Christ and St. Nicholas, about the burial service, death and funeral of S. P. Koloshin, a newsman and correspondent of Dostoevsky, whose archive containing Dostoevsky’s letters has not been found yet.Dostoevsky, Florence, S. P. Koloshin, Orthodox Cathedral of the Nativity of Jesus Christ and St. Nicholas, parish register, judicial search, the Florence State Archive, the Historical archive of Florence

This article describes the evolution of the relationships between F. M. Dostoevsky and A. S. Suvorin. A particular attention is paid to the change of the views of the publisher of “Novoe Vremya” on F. M. Dostoevsky’s work and personality: their relationship came a difficult way from an ideological and political confrontation to mutual respect and friendship. The influence of A. S. Suvorin on the creative activity and the legacy of the writer is very extensive: it is not limited by the well-known memories from the diary of a media magnate, and goes far beyond his newspaper feuilletons. The publisher of “Novoye Vremya” not only consistently supported Dostoevsky on the pages of his newspaper, but also took an active part in construction of a monument to the writer, creating Dostoevsky school in Staraya Russa, the preparation and publication of his Complete Works. A. S. Suvorin also supported Dostoevsky`s family after his death, and in 1899 he first produced puting on a theatre stage of the “Crime and Punishment”. Dostoevsky highly appreciated A. S. Suvorin and invariably showed interest for his opinion: many ideas for future great works were born in the polemic with Neznakomets.A. S. Suvorin, journal “Novoe Vremya”, history of mutual relations

The article for the first time gives a detailed description of the activities of lawyers who participated in the “Kumanin process”. The analysis of letters and documents drawn up by the chief attorney of the writer in the case of “Kumanin inheritance” B. B. Polyakov and his bailsmen confirms that in some cases the lawyer dodged his responsibilities and cared only about his own benefit, delaying the division and sale of the writer’s land property. During the work with archival sources we have managed to deduce what lands were included in the Ryazan estate, as well as which part of the estate accrued to Dostoevsky. From the correspondence with Polyakov it got about that the writer did not manage to take the property over the land. One of the reasons for this was the unfair behavior of lawyers, which led to the failure of the “Kumanin case” and a split-up of the successors.F. M. Dostoevsky, B. B. Polyakov, “Kumanin case”, lawyer attorney, property section, inheritance