№ 4, 2021 year

With deep sadness, the editorial board of "The Unknown Dostoevsky" journal informs readers about the death of one of its founders, Deborah Anne Martinsen. She died on Sunday, November 28, after a prolonged illness. Together with her family and friends, we are grieving this irreparable loss. She never gave up, and while she was ill, she prepared two new books for publication. Deborah’s work was multidimensional. For many years she had taught Literature Humanities — a core course at Columbia University, courses on Dostoevsky, worked with graduates of Columbia University. Since the V symposium, held in France in 1983, her life has become intertwined with the International Dostoevsky Society. She became an active member of IDS, was an indispensable participant in all subsequent symposia, one of the organizers of the 1998 IDS Symposium in New York, and a co-organizer of other symposia. Deborah Martinsen was the most exceptional President of IDS and her organizational talent was greatly appreciated. In recent years, Deborah has devoted a lot of effort to editorial work at the "Dostoevsky Studies" journal. Her work in our journal "The Unknown Dostoevsky" was also among her creative activities. She was always a large part of our lives and will be dearly missed. Eternal memory, dearest Deborah!Deborah Anne Martinsen (1954-2021), obituary, International Dostoevsky Society, President, Columbia University

The article considers the need to republish the texts of classical Russian literature in general, as well as the creative heritage of F. M. Dostoevsky in particular, in the author's orthography. The author analyzes the key cultural and technological obstacles on the path to drawing the attention of the public and the scientific community to the problem of insufficient number of books published in traditional orthography. A set of practices and solutions that contribute to changing the current situation in the long and short term is proposed. Based on historical experience, as well as the work of modern researchers in the field of textual studies, the socio-cultural functioning of traditional spelling in Russia at the present time is highlighted. This is the language in which the Russian classics were created. Rehabilitation and functioning of traditional spelling involves the capacity to write and publish your texts in scientific and business communication. It is necessary to encourage the use of traditional orthography in professional literary-critical and linguistic activities. Technical issues need to be addressed, in particular, the introduction of a new standard for the Russian keyboard layout, the development of information and reference services on the history of the Russian language, tools and technologies for creating electronic texts. Creating the digital Dostoevsky can help solve the problems of the variable use of traditional Russian writing.Russian classics, F. M. Dostoevsky, spelling reform of 1917–1918, author’s spelling, traditional spelling, graphic image of the word

F. M. Dostoevsky received a huge amount of correspondence, especially in the 1870s — the time of the publication of the “A Writer’s Diary”. More than 1,600 letters to the writer from over 500 addressees have been preserved. This volume is comparable only to the correspondence of L. Tolstoy in the 1880s — 1890s, responding to which required the help of numerous assistants. Dostoevsky did not have the opportunity to answer all the letters, but tried not to ignore the correspondence from his readers. His work with the received letters is evidenced by the notes and marks (including non-textual ones) made on them. They are systematized in “The Handwritten legacy of F. M. Dostoevsky” (2021) and analyzed in this article. 109 of Dostoevsky's notes were revealed on the letters of his addressees of 1859–1881, three of them for the first time: on the envelopes of letters from O. A. Antipova’s letters of May 7, 1877, from Prince N. N. Golitsyn's of February 9, 1878, and on the sheet from D. A. Insarsky's letter of August 14, 1864. The systematization of the writer's notes and marks on the letters of his correspondents allowed to classify them in three groups. These are records containing information about the addressees and their letters, made by the author of “A Writer’s Diary” immediately after reading the letters; rough drafts of works; records for memory (addresses, lists of personal effects, monetary calculations related to the publication of works). In the process of working on the description of Dostoevsky's notes, the text of some entries was clarified, and mistakes made in the academic “Complete Works” of the writer (the initials of the addressees, the dating of letters, etc.) were corrected. Dostoevsky's notes and marks on the letters of his correspondents reflect his creative process, details of everyday life and publishing activities, and the author's lively dialogue with readers.F. M. Dostoevsky, letter, correspondent, addressee, reader, note, marginalia, “A Writer’s Diary”, textual criticism, dialogue, creative process, draft

The article analyzes certain proper names and titles of the works from the 1860s notebooks of F. M. Dostoevsky (preserved in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library, fund 93.I.2.8 and in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts, fund 212.1.4, 212.1.5). Some of the notes have not been deciphered or have a controversial reading in research literature. These include both the names of people with whom Dostoevsky personally communicated, the names of the authors of books that the writer read, and the anthroponyms of literary heroes. Proceeding from the commentaries that accompany the first publications of notebooks in vol. 83 of the “Literary Heritage” series, as well as in vols. 20 and 27 of “The Complete Works” of the writer in 30 volumes, the author of the article offers an updated and/or corrected commentary on certain names and titles. Thus, the correct title of the book by the historian I. D. Belyaev, which was a part of Dostoevsky’s library, and about which a memo was made, is established. Dostoevsky often left critical notes in his notebooks regarding the works of a particular contemporary. The article examines a number of entries about “nihilistic novels” instigated by the reading of the then-current works on female emancipation. The commentary by T. I. Ornatskaya, who ascribes the name “Lilinka” and the records associated with it to “Dream,” a short story by A. V. Korvin-Krukovskaya, is disputed, confirming the opinion of other researchers that the source of the records is N. D. Akhsharumov's novel “A Tricky Business.” The article also analyzes records concerning the writer's debts (for example, to V. P. Polyakov, P. A. Popov and V. P. Popov), as well as notes about the failed and unknown authors of the “Epoch” (a certain Andreev). In Dostoevsky's notebooks of the “Time” (“Vremya”) and “Epoch” (“Epokha”) period (1860–1865) there are proper names that still have no corresponding comments. The article aims to draw the attention of researchers to existing problems for further development of the topic.F. M. Dostoevsky, notebooks, autograph, names, anthroponym, comments, Epoch, Epokha, I. D. Belyaev, A. V. Korvin-Krukovskaya, N. D. Akhsharumov, P. Isaev, V. P. Polyakov, Andreev, P. A. Popov, V. P. Popov, G. E. Blagosvetlov

The journals "Vremya" and "Epokha" attracted the attention of researchers primarily in connection with the personality and work of the writer Fyodor Dostoevsky, who took an active part in the journals published by his brother, Mikhail Dostoevsky. This fact determined the nature of the study of these journals: they are least researched as independent periodicals in the 1860s, with most of the works being devoted to specific aspects. Despite the increased attention of researchers to "Vremya" and "Epokha" in recent decades, many questions remain unresolved: the editorial and royalty policy of journals and the financial side of the publication have not been sufficiently studied, the key problem of attribution of anonymous and pseudonymous journal articles has not been fully resolved, i.e., in regard to the co-authorship and editorial work of F. M. Dostoevsky, and the determination of the degree of the writer’s contribution to the articles by other authors. The article not only enumerates the problems of studying "Vremya" and "Epokha" and the role of Dostoevsky in these journals; it also presents an analysis of certain materials from the editorial archive. The entries of a credit and debit notebook offer insight into the financial side of the publication (costs and income of the editorial office), the conduct of editorial and publishing affairs by the Dostoevsky brothers, and allow to judge the success of their enterprise. A payroll record includes receipts from employees for the honoraria received for their work and publications. The editing fee system is determined by the ratio of the costs of fees to the amounts received by the journal staff on the payroll record. The materials from the editorial archives of "Vremya" and "Epokha" analyzed in this article contain valuable information for attribution of anonymous and pseudonymous journal texts. The analysis of editorial records, correspondence of journal employees, memoirs and other documentary sources allow to confirm existing attributions or find contradictions in them and highlight the most reliable ones. The analysis of the materials from the editorial archives of "Vremya" and "Epokha" significantly expand the understanding of these two periodicals of the 2nd half of the 1860s and the writer’s related activities as part of his creative work. These documents open up broad prospects for further study and search for answers to questions.editorial archive, "Vremya", "Time", "Epokha", "Epoch", Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mikhail Dostoevsky, pochvennichestvo, native soil, attribution, a credit and debit notebook, a payroll record, journalism

The article presents the history of business and friendly relations between F. M. Dostoevsky and M. I. Semevsky, an employee of the “Vremya” journal and the editor of “Russkaya Starina”, the largest historical journal of the 19th century. Semevsky most likely met Dostoevsky in the early 1860s, when the former became a contributing author of the “Vremya” journal and wrote two large-scale historical essays for the publication: “Tsarina Praskovya” and “The Mons Family.” Dostoevsky was familiar with Semevsky’s works even prior to their personal meetings and intended to polemize with his concept of Peter's time, as evidenced by the surviving sketches of the writer's critical review. The idea of a polemic was rejected when Semevsky became the author of the “Vremya” journal. Its editors, the Dostoevsky brothers, appreciated his cooperation and, as confirmed in the fee book, paid him more than many other authors. The meetings of Dostoevsky and Semevsky were reflected in the epistolary legacy and in the notes of Semevsky, which he wrote in the autumn of 1866 after the trial of the revolutionary Nikolai Ishutin. In November 1876, Semevsky gave Dostoevsky the documents for “A Writer's Diary”, requesting him not to identify the source. The communication between Dostoevsky and Semevsky in the last year of the writer's life is mentioned in the memoirs of E. N. Opochinin. The article provides an overview of Dostoevsky's letters of 1854‒1879, published in “Russkaya Starina” in 1883‒1885, as well as of memoirs of various persons about Dostoevsky, published during the life of the editor and after his death. Archival documents revealing new facts of the biography of Dostoevsky, Semevsky and their contemporaries were used and introduced into scientific circulation in the study.M. I. Semevsky, F. M. Dostoevsky, “Russkaya Starina”, archive, document, memoirs, correspondence, memory, history of Russia, Peter’s Epoch, Nikolai Ishutin

The article introduces into scientific circulation two letters written by the widow and daughter of F. M. Dostoevsky in 1912 and 1924 and addressed to the famous French director Jacques Copeau. These documents were discovered as a result of archival searches in the J. Copeau foundation in the National Library of France. The two letters are connected by their subject — the debut production of the play “The Brothers Karamazov” by Copeau at the Paris Theater of Arts in 1911. Reviews of the production published in the European and Russian press contain range of opinions: from enthusiastic to sharply critical. In his letter A. G. Dostoevskaya praised Copeau’s drama, however, she familiarized herself with it without seeing the theatrical production itself, by reading the book that the director had sent her. The publication of Copeau’s play, which is based on the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, is a little-known exhibit of the Memorial Museum of F. M. Dostoevsky, established by the writer's widow in 1889. It is mentioned only in the notebook of A. G. Dostoevskaya 1912–1913. The year of inclusion of published Copeau’s play in the collection of the Memorial Museum of F. M. Dostoevsky is established based on the letter and the notebook of the writer’s widow. The letter from L. F. Dostoevsky contains information about her communication with such famous French writers as Jacques Copeau, Irénée Mauget and Paul Bourgeois, as well as about the attempts of the copyright heiress to receive remuneration for the production undertaken by Copeau. These details augment the currently scarce information about the emigration period in the biography of the writer's daughter. The appendix to the article contains the letters of A. G. and L. F. Dostoevsky in French and in translation.Anna Dostoevskaya, Lubov Dostoevskaya, Fedor Dostoevsky, epistolary heritage, Jacques Copeau, “The Brothers Karamazov”, Memorial Museum of F. M. Dostoevsky, Irénée Mauget, Paul Bourget, National Library of France

The article is devoted to the biography of the Soviet-Iranian researcher F. Riza-Zade, also known as F. Sayyah, and her studies of Dostoevsky’s literary heritage. A number of archival materials that reflect the professional and friendly relations of F. Riza-Zade in 1929–1930s have been introduced into scientific circulation. A review of the articles “Dostoevsky and Modern French Literature (On the Influence of Dostoevsky)” and “Dostoevsky in Western Criticism,” as well as the preface to the Persian translation of Dostoevsky’s novel “White Nights”, published in Tehran, has been carried out. It is noted that the researcher’s works have laid the foundations of Soviet and Iranian comparative studies: Dostoevsky’s work was interpreted in the broad context of French literature, German philosophical and aesthetic tradition and Iranian cultural symbols of good and evil. The key methodological principles of F. Riza-Zade are analyzed: the focus on sociological criticism of the Pereverzev school, a cultural and aesthetic approach to the analysis of genre problems, tendency towards self-sufficiency in literary research and rejection of philosophical speculation. The conclusion is made about the importance of the works of F. Riza-Zade in the study and popularization of Dostoevsky’s work and in the fostering of Russian-Iranian cultural ties.F. Riza-Zade (Sayyah), Dostoevsky researcher, history of literary criticism, psychological novel, philosophical and aesthetic criticism, Iran, cultural dialogue

Darovoye Estate is the place where F. M. Dostoevsky spent his childhood (1832–1836). The article analyzes the results of excavations in the central part of the Darovoye estate carried out in 2005–2020. The dating of remnants of buildings, complexes (mainland pits), as well as the entire lens of the cultural layer as a whole is considered. Based on the collection, which includes coins, stamps on glass and porcelain objects, ceramics, objects made of non-ferrous metals and iron, the author concludes that there were two main periods of development of the estate within its modern borders. The first refers to the mid-18th — early 19th centuries, the second covers the second half of the 19th — first half of the 20th century. An analysis of the ceramics collection allowed us to identify the types of ceramics characteristic of the 1820s — 1830s. The author concludes that the time period between the Napoleonic Wars to the 1850s is not represented in the present collection and suggests that during the “Dostoevsky period” center of the estate was located outside the current museum borders.F. M. Dostoevsky, archeology of the Modern Times, archeology of the Russian estate

In the article, Konstantin A. Barsht’s publications devoted to the study of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s creativity are subjected to a critical analysis: 1) works on the drawings and calligraphy of the writer; 2) a commented edition of Dostoevsky’s novel “Poor Folk” for “Literary Monuments” series; 3) publications about the manuscripts of the novel “Demons”, including the publication of Dostoevsky’s workbooks with draft notes for this novel (2021); 4) Barsht’s articles from the collection “Dostoevsky: Еtymology of Narration” (2019). The analysis of these publications reveals Barsht’s unprofessionalism as a researcher, as well as his violation of scientific ethics. The authors of the article proceed from the idea that this kind of imitation of research is unacceptable, publications should undergo a qualified examination and receive expert evaluation.Fyodor Dostoevsky, manuscripts, calligraphy, the writer’s drawings, textual criticism, research commentary, “Poor Folk”, “Poor People”, “Demons”, Konstantin A. Barsht