№ 4, 2023 year

The article analyzes the material of the draft manuscript of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons”, specifically, the pages containing the scene of Karmazinov reading his work “Merci”. The draft manuscript of the novel “Demons” is a syntactically coherent text containing a large number of author’s edits between the lines and in the margins. The analysis of the manuscript made it possible to identify inaccuracies in its reading by publishers that negatively affect the interpretation of the text. In addition, this analysis helped to correct these errors and accompany them with the necessary textual commentary, affecting, in particular, such problems as the establishment of the text, the identification and analysis of new discrepancies (variants) between the sources of the text, as well as text omissions in print. The textual part of the work is continued by the historical-literary and real commentary proposed in the article based on the newly discovered information about the features of the creation of the artistic concept of “Demons,” explaining the significance of literary and historical motifs that are associated with ancient culture and history for the novel plot. In the process of analyzing handwritten and printed sources, literary and historical allusions were established, which the specified episode of the novel “Demons” contains. In addition, the article examined the historical subtext and symbolism of ancient motifs that were reflected in the scene of literary reading in “Demons,” as well as the content of some historical sources (works by ancient authors on the history of Ancient Rome; lectures by T. N. Granovsky, who became the prototype of the hero of the novel, Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky). New information revealed during the study of the draft manuscript of “Demons” indicates, on the one hand, that the ancient “trace” played an important role in the development of the idea of this novel, on the other hand, the complexity of the novel’s narrative structure.F. M. Dostoevsky, I. S. Turgenev, novel Demons, draft manuscript, Merci, T. N. Granovsky, allusion, antique motifs

Based on the material of F. M. Dostoevsky’s 1875–1876 notebook, stored in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts, fund 212.1.15, as well as on the material of A. G. Dostoevskaya’s 1876–1877 notebook and subscription books (preserved in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library, fund 93.III.2.1 and in the Department of the Manuscripts of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkinskiy Dom), Russian Academy of Sciences, fund 100, no. 30729), the article examines certain names of book publishers and the booksellers with whom the Dostoevskys dealt in the mid-1870s. The commentary on these names is most often absent in the first academic Complete works of the writer (in 30 volumes) and in the publication of this notebook of Dostoevsky in volume 83 of the Literary Heritage series, or it is too brief. The purpose of the author is to supplement the existing commentary or to provide new one, as well as to clarify some of the names, based on the entries from A. G. Dostoevskaya’s notebook and signature books (which were written in a handwriting close to calligraphic) and literature on publishing and book trade in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. The article not only provides extended commentary on such famous names as F. A. Bitepage, M. O. Wolf, Ya. A. Isakov, but also reviews biographies and clarifies the readings of names from Dostoevsky’s notebook of the following book publishers and booksellers A. I. Bortnevsky, F. I. Kolesov, F. G. Mikhin, A. I. Manukhin, I. P. Semennikov.F. M. Dostoevsky, A. G. Dostoevskaya, notebook, subscription book, book publisher, bookseller, book trade, F. A. Bitepage, A. I. Bortnevsky, M. O. Wolf, Ya. A. Isakov, F. I. Kolesov, F. G. Mikhin, A. I. Manukhin, I. P. Semennikov

The reconstruction of Dostoevsky’s first literary experience — the lost drama “Mary Stuart” — involves the identification and analysis of the sources of the idea. As a result of the conducted research, a hypothetical chain of events was built. In 1838 (1835, according to other sources), Dostoevsky was impressed by “Mary Stuart” at the Alexandrinsky Theater with A. M. Karatygina in the title role: the image of the suffering queen created by the actress was superimposed on the reading of both Schiller’s tragedy “Mary Stuart” and Walter Scott’s novel “The Abbot.” Russian collection of her biographical documents, published in 1809 and the 1839 French-Russian edition of letters of Mary Stuart, her will and the report on the execution discovered by A. Ya. Lobanov-Rostovsky in the archives, came into the view of the novice writer when he was studying the “historical data” about the “life and execution” of Mary Stuart. In 1839–1840, a fictionalized biography of the “criminal” queen, compiled by Alexandre Dumas, was published. In his version, the image of Mary Stuart is twofold: along with the heroic beginning of the character, the theme of sinful passion emerged. The bifurcation of the image was reinforced in the 1841 essay by Filaret Shal, who also emphasized the religious motives of the unfolding historical drama. Comprehending all these turns of European and Russian historiography in 1839–1842, Dostoevsky could use as the basis of his play the dialogue of the nurse and Mary in the fourth scene of the first act of his tragedy about the correlation between guilt and responsibility, which Schiller did not continue. For Schiller, Mary Stuart is the title character, but not the only main one, moreover, the theme of Elizabeth in many ways attracted dramatic interest. Dostoevsky most likely focused on the internal collisions of the “gigantic character,” whom he placed in a line of Racine’s heroines (first of all, the “Shakespearean essay” by Phaedra): Maria integrated the firmness of spirit in the face of suffering and death itself with the omnipotence of passion, accompanied by torments of conscience. The “historical data” that Riesenkampf hinted at, mastered by the Russian author, allowed to continue Schiller’s creative work. The article identifies and analyzes a range of these data thatrevealed the deep collisions of European history embodied in one of its iconic characters to Dostoevsky.F. M. Dostoevsky, Mary Stuart, F. Schiller, V. Scott, A. Dumas, J. Racine, Ph. Chasles, sources, reconstruction of the idea

The article is devoted to the influence of the folk environment, in which the future writer found himself during the summer holidays in his parents’ Darovoe estate (Kashirsky district, Tula province) in 1832–1836, on the formation of F. M. Dostoevsky’s views about the Russian people. The work is a continuation of the previous publication on this topic, which introduced into scientific circulation an ethnographic document stored in the scientific archive of the Russian Geographical Society (RGS), compiled by the priest P. V. Proferansov, rector of the Holy Spirit Church in the village of Monogarovo, Kashirsky district. The Dostoevsky, landowners of Darovoe, were among the parishioners of this church. The present study aims to significantly expand and clarify the ethnographic context of the “village” period of F. M. Dostoevsky’s life, since the materials of P. V. Proferansov contain multiple information gaps, which can be filled in by the data sent to the RGS in the late 1840s by the landowners of the Kashirsky district A. E. Meshchersky and A. B. Freireis. Their descriptions are interesting not only because they contain rich ethnographic material, but also because of the revealed connection of the RGO informants to the personality and creativity of F. M. Dostoevsky. A. E. Meshchersky was a noble assessor of the Kashirsky Zemsky court in the 1830s, during the litigation of F. M. Dostoevsky’s parents with P. P. Khotyaintsev about cross-strip land ownership in Darovoe, and in 1839–1840 he took part in the hearings on the death of M. A. Dostoevsky, the writer’s father. A. B. Freireis can serve as an example of “the best people,” which F. M. Dostoevsky reflected on in the “A Writer’s Diary.” The new archival materials not only allow us to hypothetically recreate the folk environment of Darovoe, as F. M. Dostoevsky could have known it in childhood, but also confirm the writer’s visionary ideas about the national character and the “binding idea” of the nation.F. M. Dostoevsky, scientific biography, Darovoe estate, Kashirsky district of Tula province, Russian Geographical Society, State Archive of Tula Region, archive, ethnographic description, Russian people, A. E. Meshchersky, A. B. Freireis

In F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel, the emotional monologue of Ivan Karamazov, who metaphorically explains his refusal of harmony obtained at the cost of a child’s tear and compares it with returning to God a ticket granting admission to the world, has determined the sense and tradition of the functioning motif in Russian literature. In scientific literature the character’s statement about the ticket returned to God is investigated as a quotation from three possible sources: the poem “Resignation” by F. Schiller, the letter of V. G. Belinsky to V. P. Botkin, and “St. Petersburg Evenings” by J. de Maistre. In the article these works are viewed as the texts that determined the formation of the motif of returning the ticket to God for both “The Brothers Karamazov” by F. M. Dostoevsky and the entire Russian culture. These texts clarify, update, identify, and designate this motif. The influence of the texts by Schiller, Belinsky, and J. de Maistre determines the artistic logic of the choice of the word “ticket.” The poem “Resignation” by F. Schiller, a letter by V. G. Belinsky, the novel “St. Petersburg Evenings” by J. de Maistre are diverse options that determine the formation by the writer of the ideological and emotional fullness of the motif of the ticket returned to God. The texts of Schiller and Belinsky focused on the idea of a rejection of the world and a rebellion against it. The theodicy of J. de Maistre is opposite: the world created by God is accepted no matter what. The influence of works with such a contradictory potential is the reason for F. M. Dostoevsky’s choice of the phrase “the most respectful” rebellion. The motif of returning the ticket to God, based on the deistic concept, determined F. M. Dostoevsky’s brilliant premonition about the future path of Russia and filled it with a deep philosophical and universal resonance.F. M. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, F. Schiller, Resignation, V. G. Belinsky, J. de Mestre, St. Petersburg Evenings, motif, returned ticket, God-fighting, deism, image-symbol

The article is devoted to a subplot of molestation of a girl, which is repeated in several works by F. M. Dostoevsky, in the context of the 19th-century legislation. We focus on two works: “Crime and Punishment” and the chapter “At Tikhon’s” that was originally intended to be a part of “Demons”. Molestation occurs in both texts, and there are intersections in a number of details. Both victims (the drowned girl and Matresha) are poorly socialized and suffer from abuse in their families. Both girls are fourteen years old. Researchers have already pointed out that a possible source for this plot was an article in “Severnaya pchela” covering the suicide of a thirteen-year-old girl, Marfa Arkhipova, who was accused of stealing. Dostoevsky significantly expanded the plot, adding molestation and making the girls older. This article is intended to prove that the change in victim’s age was not accidental. The age of fourteen years in the 19th-century legislation is the boundary that separates sexual crimes in general from sexual crimes against children. There was no direct ban on such plots in censorship regulations. However, it appears that an author who decided to depict this crime would at least have to deal with their editor’s discontent. This is exactly what happened with the chapter “At Tikhon’s,” when M. N. Katkov, the editor of “Russkiy Vestnik,” refused to publish it. It is difficult to speculate and say what reaction this text would have caused among censors, and readers — if published. We know, however, that this subplot later served as a reason for N. N. Strakhov to accuse Dostoevsky of pedophilia.F. M. Dostoevsky, Matresha, Svidrigailov, Stavrogin, N. N. Strakhov, 19th-century legislation, molestation

The article provides an overview of the St. Petersburg addresses of the philosopher, literary critic and publicist Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896), one of the closest people to Dostoevsky in the 1860s and 1870s, the author of the first posthumous biography of the writer. Based on memoir literature, correspondence, official documents based on address books, report cards of houses, atlases of St. Petersburg, other reference literature of the XIX century. The article describes the residence addresses of the thinker since September 1844, when he arrived in the Northern capital from Kostroma, until the day of his death on January 24, 1896. In addition to the places of residence, the addresses of educational institutions (St. Petersburg Imperial University, the Main Pedagogical Institute) and Strakhov's places of service (the 2nd St. Petersburg Men's Gymnasium, the Imperial Public Library, the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of National Education, the Committee of Foreign Censorship) are taken into account; addresses where editorial circles of “Svetoch” magazines gathered with the active participation of Strakhov, "Vremya", "Epokha", "Zarya". In all cases, both historical addresses (including the names of the homeowners) and their location on the map of modern St. Petersburg are indicated.St. Petersburg, N. N. Strakhov, Dostoevsky, local history, address book, table of houses, atlas of St. Petersburg

The article examines the methodological aspects of the use of M. M. Bakhtin’s terminological thesaurus in modern Dostoevsky studies. The principal focus is on the instrumental application of the typical “Bakhtin formulas”: polyphony, the concept of genres, the confessional character of Dostoevsky’s word, chronotope, context of understanding, menippea, etc. It is noted that some of them are used discretely, that is, outside of their systemic connections with Bakhtin’s heritage as a whole. To one degree or another, they are taken into account in line with Russian ethnopoetics, in which the Bakhtin problem is actualized in the Orthodox context of Russian culture; it is noted that “Bakhtin” serves as the connection between Dostoevsky and the religious and philosophical tradition. Despite the fact that the discourse of a number of works provokes a possible transition to Bakhtin’s context of understanding Dostoevsky, the “absence” of Bakhtin is also significant in them, along with his ritual quoting. Bakhtin’s legacy remains an important philosophical and cultural stage in the study of Dostoevsky in Russian literary studies.российское достоевсковедение, историческая поэтика, этнопоэтика, Бахтин, терминологический тезаурус

For five days, the Japanese city of Nagoya became the world’s Dostoevsky capital. The XVIII Symposium of the International Dostoevsky Society (IDS) was held here on August 24–28, 2023 For the first time since the establishment of the IDS in 1971, it took place in Asia. This happened despite the pandemic and the aggravation of international problems and thanks to the great efforts of the organizers from Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, who carefully thought out the program of the event, as well as of the Symposium participants from all over the world, who represented several research generations and scientific schools and demonstrated a variety of approaches to the study of scientific biography and creative work of the classic of Russian and world literature. The XVIII Symposium was dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the novel “Demons,” the most political and religious work of the great Russian writer, published in 1871–1872. Therefore, the main focus of the Symposium was “"Demons" in their time and 150 years later.” The participants of the scientific forum paid considerable attention to the topic “Dostoevsky in art (music, cinema, theater, painting).” Among other topical issues of modern Dostoevsky studies, the following were considered at the Symposium: new methods of studying the writer’s work, including those related to the development of Digital Dostoevsky, problems of poetics and textual criticism of his legacy, new biographical studies and archival materials, Dostoevsky in the works of M. M. Bakhtin and, of course, Dostoevsky’s reception in Asia and the influence of his ideas and images on Asian culture and literature. The final event of the Sympo-sium was the round table “Dostoevsky and modern Japanese writers,” at which popular prose writers Fuminori Nakamura, Risa Wataya and Keiichiro Hirano spoke. Each of them spoke about the influence of the Russian writer’s work on his texts and discussed the incredible popularity of Dostoevsky’s ideas in today’s world. This article provides an overview of the reports, cultural events and the main results of the XVIII Symposium of the International Dostoevsky Society in Nagoya.Japan, Nagoya, International Dostoevsky Society, symposium, researcher of Dostoevsky’s life and work