№ 2, 2021 year

The article attempts to identify the classical linguistic and cultural context of F. M. Dostoevsky's education at the L. I. Chermak boarding school. It lists the programs and textbooks that Dostoevsky studied in 1834‒1837 to learn about the intricacies of classical languages and ancient history, and the teachers who may have influenced his perception of ancient history and culture. Using the issues of the “Biblioteka dlya chteniya” (Library for Reading) journal, the authors investigate which texts related to classical antiquity were available to Dostoevsky outside of the curriculum. The period of Dostoevsky's studies at the Chermak boarding school can be characterized as extremely favorable for the assimilation and comprehension of ancient heritage. The reason for this is the emphasis on classical languages in education set by government decisions, successfully augmented by the brilliant teaching staff at the boarding school, i. e., K. M. Romanovsky, N. I. Bilevich and A. M. Kubarev, Dostoevsky saw Greco-Roman antiquity not as a boring and tiresome collection of dead forms, but as a source of fantasies, reflections, comparisons, and sublime ideas. The publications in Library for Reading on history and archeology, literature and art of Ancient Greece and Rome revealed antiquity in a multi-faceted manner, taking the teenager inclined to serious reading far beyond the school curriculum into the world of stunning discoveries, sharp scientific controversy, bold comparisons with modern times and vivid artistic images.Fyodor Dostoevsky, L. I. Chermak, boarding school, antique heritage, classical education, N. I. Bilevich, A. M. Kubarev, “Biblioteka dlya chteniya”, Library for Reading journal

The article refutes the opinion found in some biographical studies, which states that Dostoevsky disliked the Latin language and showed nointerest in it. An appeal to the writer's letters, his journalistic and artistic works, surviving working notes suggests the opposite: Dostoevsky not only speaks positively of the Latin language, but also uses it in the process of creating his texts. An analysis of published works and surviving work notes revealed 67 Latin words and expressions. Many of the Latin insertions are encountered more than once, some have a distinct practical nature (for example, the NB anagram and its varieties). In terms of use, the Latin expressions used by Dostoevsky are from to medicine, jurisprudence, and Catholic church rhetoric, but for the most part they are common aphorisms and speech clichés. The article draws attention to the fact of Dostoevsky's work with Latin text as a commentator and translator and proves that the fragment of the prophecy from the book of Johann Lichtenberger cited in the 1877 Diary of a Writer was translated by Dostoevsky. Liberty (modified composition, insertion of additional words) and relative grammatical correctness (only two grammatical inaccuracies were found in the translation) testify to a fairly fluent command of Latin, which allowed Dostoevsky not only to translate the medieval religious text, but also to interpret it to illustrate his socio-political views.F. Dostoevsky, Latin, ancient tradition, “Diary of a Writer”, Johann Lichtenberger

The article introduces into scientific circulation official documents dated 1853‒1855, preserved in the State Archive of the Tomsk region and recreating the last months of the life of Alexander Ivanovich Isaev — a friend of F. M. Dostoevsky in Semipalatinsk, the first husband of Maria Dmitrievna Constant (Isaeva, Dostoevskaya). These documents include: A. I. Isaev's certificate of service, issued on September 27, 1853, and 6 reports and 12 official letters dated February‒November 1855. Until recently, the corpus of biographical literature about Dostoevsky offered an image of A. I. Isaev as a bitter drunkard, a weak-willed man who ruined his career and life and left his family in poverty. Materials of the State Archive of the Tomsk region contain positive characteristics of Isaev and confirm his professional achievements and career growth from 1840 to July 28, 1853, the day of his dismissal. These archival materials reveal an important fact — the official reason for his dismissal from service. It was not Isaev's alcoholism, exaggerated in the works of Dostoevsky's biographers, but a deadly disease, namely, consumption (tuberculosis). This fact explains the words of Dostoevsky in a letter to Baron A. E. Wrangel dated August 14, 1855. about Isaev’s “dark fate”, the writer's unwavering respect and goodwill towards him, as well as the desire to raise his son Pavel as if he was Dostoevsky’s own. Archival materials demonstrate that immediately after the Isaev's death on August 4 (16), 1855, many persons applied for his position as a tavern assessor in the Kuznetsk Zemsky court, but relinquished it soon after starting the job.F. M. Dostoevsky, Kuznetsk, Alexander Ivanovich Isaev, Maria Dmitrievna Dostoevskaya, Dostoevsky’s entourage, biography, demythologization, debunking of myths, Kuznetsky Zemsky court

This study is a contribution to the research of the extensive topic of Dostoevsky and Garibaldi and is an analysis of two fragments from Dostoevsky's texts, where he addressed the image of the Italian hero. This image is reflected in the artistic, journalistic and epistolary texts by Dostoevsky, his name is calligraphically printed on the pages of two of the writer's notebooks. The article analyzes an episode from the novel "The Idiot": the story of the liar and braggart General Ivolgin about his wound during the Crimean War that was treated by two outstanding surgeons – the Frenchman O. Nelaton and the Russian N. I. Pirogov. It is shown that the subtext of Ivolgin's story refers to the story of Garibaldi's wound in the battle of Aspromonte and the treatment of his leg by O. Nelaton and N. I. Pirogov, which Dostoevsky and his hero learned about from the newspapers. The European and Russian press, which closely followed the political events in Italy and Europe in the 1860s, created a heroic image of this man. The second reference to Garibaldi is from Dostoevsky's Geneva letter to his niece S. A. Ivanova dated January 1 (13), 1868. It presents a parody sketch of contemporary political events and figures in Italy (Cardinal Antonelli, General Kanzler, the defeat of Garibaldi's army at the Battle of Mentana). They are allegorically transferred to the games and amusements of the younger generation of the Ivanov family, with whom the writer spent the summer of 1866. The article corrects the error made by the publishers of Dostoevsky's letters: the title of "general kanzler" (this is how this phrase was published) never existed — in the Battle of Mentana, the supreme commander of the papal troops, which defeated Garibaldi, was General Hermann Kanzler, who had a German origin and surname. The cases considered indicate a significant interest of the writer in the heroic personality of Giuseppe Garibaldi, his activities and fate.F. M. Dostoevsky, J. Garibaldi, N. I. Pirogov, Auguste Nelaton, General German Kanzler, Cardinal Antonelli, The "Idiot" novel, "Vremya" journal, "St. Petersburg Vedomosti" newspaper, S. A. Ivanova, Yu. A. Ivanova

The attribution of content of Vremya (Time) and Epokha (Epoch) journals, in which many anonymous and pseudonymous articles have been published, presents many challenges for the researchers. In the XIX–XX centuries, a corpus of texts, which were unambiguously attributed to F. M. Dostoevsky, M. M. Dostoevsky, A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov and other Vremya and Epokha authors, was formed on the basis of traditional documentary (letters, payroll, income and expense book, memoirs), ideological and thematic and stylistic evidence. The following types of texts were isolated within the corpus of anonymous and pseudonymous articles, author's and collective articles, editorial inserts, notes; by type of writing - authorship, co-authorship, editing and adaptation of others texts. Modern methods of statistical analysis of formal grammatical and syntactic parameters in the text can provide sufficient grounds for expanding the source attribution base. This article presents the results of a study of a number of anonymous articles in the Dostoevsky brothers' journals using three statistical methods of attribution: linguistic and statistical analysis according to the G. Kjetsaa's method, the Transformer neural network and the Random forest algorithm. These results need to be correlated; they should be taken into account as complementary to traditional attribution methods.attribution, G. Kjetsaa, Transformer neural network, Random forest, linguistic statistical analysis, F. M. Dostoevsky, M. M. Dostoevsky, A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov, P. Kuskov, M. I . Vladislavlev, Vremya, Epokha, Time, Epoch

The notebooks of F. M. Dostoevsky contain personal names and titles of works, many of which were left without comment or were reproduced incorrectly from the manuscript. The article examines the names of real persons from the “first” notebook of Dostoevsky in 1864–1865 (presently at The Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts. F. 212.1.3), the attribution of which was problematic for preceding researchers. In addition to academic publications, such as the Complete Works in 30 volumes or the series of Literary Heritage (vol. 83), the same issues arise in some modern electronic publications. Sometimes there is a confusion of names in the comments, for example, Panteleev / Panteleeva / the Panteleev brothers; similar confusion is observed with the Filippov brothers. Some names suggest a different reading: Blagosvetlov instead of Blagoeva, Voronov instead of Voronin. Dostoevsky often indicated the names of works instead of the names and surnames of the authors. This applies primarily to the entries in the Epoch magazine. Many of these works have never been published anywhere, thus, establishing the identity of the authors is difficult for the researcher. Within the framework of this study, individual entries from the “first” notebook of Dostoevsky were read with regard to the typical features of the writer's handwriting, and new explicatory comments to them were proposed, the failed authors of the Epoch magazine were identified (B. A. Pavlovich, V. A. Sleptsov, V. M. Sikevich, N. A. Neklyudov). The interpretation and attribution of personal names from Dostoevsky's notebook of 1864–1865 presented in the article are of a debatable nature and require further elaboration.F. M. Dostoevsky, description of manuscripts, notebook, autograph, comments, attribution, names, the “Epoch” magazine, Blagosvetlov, Panteleev, the Filippov brothers

The article presents a systematic analysis of the Russian press of 1880, which actively responded to Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech. The interpretive boom around his speech is of particular interest for the study of the formative processes of public and national consciousness in Russia. In the history of journalism, the debates that took place at that time can be equated with modern information wars. At the same time, this episode is one of the decisive ones for the ‘Dostoevsky problem’ in criticism and, more broadly, in the Russian public consciousness. The “Pushkin Speech” was obviously of a unifying nature, but it, and even more so the 1880 “A Writer’s Diary,” caused a severe split in journalism, which reflected the mindset of the Russian society. At first, there is a change of semantic accents in telegrams and correspondence, and then the key concept of "panhumanity" is presented exclusively as a “dream” in publications opposing Dostoevsky, one that is not only incompatible with reality, but also distracts from pressing socio-economic problems. There is also an expansion in meaning in the form of the notorious “messianism” of Dostoevsky. The most commonly used concept used by journalists that are hostile to the writer is mysticism as a euphemism for faith. In parallel, a different understanding of the Pushkin speech is being formed in some publications (Mysl’, Nedelya, Novoe Vremya, a little later — Rus’). It views it as a verbalization of the national idea in its focus on the panhuman as a feasible ideal. The dispute that ensued around Dostoevsky’s speech led to the self-determination of the leading trends of Russian thought.reception of Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech, history of Russian journalism, problems of interpretation, axiology, panhuman

This paper is the first to analyze the typewritten copies of D. S. Merezhkovsky’s famous article “Prophet of the Russian revolution (For Dostoevsky’s anniversary)” (1906) with the author’s notes. The article is believed to have been written at the request of A. G. Dostoevskaya for the anniversary edition of F. M. Dostoevsky’s complete works (to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the writer’s death). After having read it and heard the opinions about D. S. Merezhkovsky’s lecture, given on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the writer's death, A. G. Dostoevskaya turned down the article. D. S. Merezhkovsky immediately published it in the Vesy magazine, and subsequently as a separate brochure and then in both editions of his complete works. However, an examination of the article’s typewritten copies reveals that D. S. Merezhkovsky was working simultaneously on two versions of it: a short one for A. G. Dostoevskaya and an extended one for journal publication. Judging by the author’s notes, he intended to edit the article’s short version in accordance with A. G. Dostoevskaya’s comments, but she was unsatisfied with the result. Instead, the writer’s widow included S.N. Bulgakov’s biographical essay in the complete works. A textual analysis of the variants and revisions of D. S. Merezhkovsky’s article leads to conclusions about the evolution of his intent, the genre and semantics of the titles of the article, written under the influence of the events of the first Russian revolution as a polemically oriented journalistic text.Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaya, Merezhkovsky, “Prophet of the Russian revolution,” textual criticism, typewritten copy, revision, variant, biographical essay, journalistic article