№ 1, 2025 year

The article is a continuation of the textual study of the draft autograph of the F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons.” It examines the role that a coherent draft text of a novel plays in establishing the main text of a work. The draft autograph was usually followed by final and typeset manuscripts; based on the latter, the first printed publication of the work was created. The novel “Demons” is not represented by final manuscripts: they have not been preserved. During Dostoevsky’s lifetime, it was published twice — in 1871–1872 in the “Russkiy Vestnik” (“Russian Bulletin”) journal and in a separate (book) edition in 1873. In a case of this sort (the absence of final handwritten sources) the draft coherent text is of particular importance because it partially (and sometimes significantly) coincides with the final one and allows uncreative changes (distortions) that have arisen during the preparation of the work for publication. The specified manuscript is considered as a source of information about the author’s punctuation. In many cases, the draft reveals the reasons for a particular punctuation form of the text and shows the nature of the changes made by the author in the process of further developing the novel’s idea. There are cases when a draft manuscript contains certain discrepancies with the lifetime editions that raise the question of the degree of authorization of changes to the text in print. A comparison of sources reveals numerous examples confirming that punctuation is important for interpreting the semantic context of notes. In connection with the study of a draft autograph containing information about the author’s punctuation, both about its individual features and the situational choice of punctuation marks in a particular context, the article examines the problem of the author’s punctuation in theoretical and practical aspects, as well as the principles of reproducing the punctuation of sources in the preparation of Dostoevsky’s texts for print. The changes in the text of the lifetime editions of the novel “Demons” in the publication of the first academic Complete Works of Dostoevsky are analyzed in detail, using, when necessary and possible, these handwritten sources.Dostoevsky, Demons, textual criticism, handwritten text, printed text, author’s punctuation, author’s style, author’s language

Judicial figure A. F. Koni was a collector of literary relics — manuscripts, books, portraits of prominent personas of the second half of the 19th century, with whom he maintained relations. The owner bequeathed his collection to the Pushkin House, but its documents were dispersed among various archives in Russia, and some of them were lost. The article systematizes and describes F. M. Dostoevsky’s autographs from the A. F. Koni collection, a small number of which have been preserved to date, specifically, a gift inscription on a copy of the “A Writer’s Diary” from 1876, one letter from Dostoevsky to A. F. Koni and one to A. N. Pleshcheyev, and three letters to N. A. Nekrasov. The study suggests versions of their entry into various funds and archives after the death of the collector. Attention is heeded to Dostoevsky’s letters to Nekrasov that were preserved by A. F. Koni, and in whose fate literary critics V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov and K. I. Chukovsky were involved. Whether A. F. Koni was a manuscript donor for the collection of autographs of artists and scientists collected by A. G. Dostoevskaya cannot be definitively confirmed. However, as their correspondence shows, he promised to supply the widow with books for the Museum of the Memory of F. M. Dostoevsky, as well as to introduce her to the letters of A. P. Bergeman about Marfusha, the girl in whose fate the writer and lawyer took an active part in 1877 The article introduces for the first time into scientific circulation the letters of A. P. Bergeman to A. F. Koni written in January — July 1877 They present unknown information about Marfusha and formulate the foundations of that “active love” by A. P. Bergeman, which Dostoevsky mentioned in a note in his drafts of the “А Writer’s Diary.” There may have been other Dostoevsky manuscripts in A. F. Koni’s collection, most notably the missing letters to Nekrasov. A subsequent search for them in archives and private collections is necessary.F. M. Dostoevsky, N. A. Nekrasov, A. F. Koni, A. G. Dostoevskaya, A. P. Bergeman, E. V. Ponomareva, K. I. Chukovsky, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, B. L. Modzalevsky, manuscript, autograph, collection, letter, archive

Andrei Andreevich Dostoevsky, the youngest son of A. M. Dostoevsky, along with his father, widow, son and grandson of the writer, became one of the key figures in preserving the memory of F. M. Dostoevsky. He actively helped Anna Grigorievna in her search, genealogical and publishing work: from 1903 to 1908, he turned out to be the secret keeper of the rough proof of the unpublished chapter “At Tikhon’s” from the novel “Demons.” Later, in 1914–1915, after the publication of N. N. Strakhov’s slanderous letter, he took part in collecting signatures in defense of the memory of the deceased under the protest compiled by A. G. Dostoevskaya. In a letter dated 1909, he informed her about the writer’s autographs being sold by the St. Petersburg bookseller F. G. Shilov (his notes to the clicker M. A. Aleksandrov). After the death of the writer’s widow and son, in Soviet times, being the head of the Dostoevsky family, Andrei Andreevich continued the activities of A. G. Dostoevskaya, adequately accepting the mission that fell to his lot: he actively participated in the large-scale jubilee exhibition dedicated to the life and work of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky and timed to his centenary (November 1921), in 1925–1930 he was a curator in the Pushkin House, and became one of the main informants of M. V. Volotskoy, providing rich material on the Dostoevsky family tree, which formed the basis of the book “The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevsky” (1933). He published and commented on the memoirs of A. M. Dostoevsky (1930). Having inherited from his father a large family archive, which, in addition to his father's memoirs and diaries, included family correspondence, i.e., letters from the 1830s, Andrei Andreevich preserved it and transferred it to the Pushkin House (Fund 56). The specifics of his long-term work on the preservation of the heritage of F. M. Dostoevsky’s writings are reflected in his family’s correspondence, which is still poorly understood, and the events of his life are often directly related to the fate of the manuscripts he kept. It is important to systematize the archive of A. A. Dostoevsky and study his biography in detail in order to track the fate of the lost autographs of letters.Andrei Andreevich Dostoevsky, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, archive, epistolary, autograph, list, missing manuscript, biography

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Mombelli was one of the members of the Petrashevsky, Durov, and Speshnev circles closest to Dostoevsky in the late 1840s. December 22, 1849 they stood together on the scaffold on the Semenovsky parade ground. The article introduces new documentary data on the military service performed by former Petrashevets Mombelli in the North Caucasus in 1857‒1884. An obituary notice about his death in St. Petersburg on December 14, 1891 from the “Novoe Vremya” newspaper was republished, naming Mombelli’s highest rank in his military career — Major General. The author traces the origin of the false information about the time and place of the death of the former Petrashevets (1902, Vladikavkaz), widely presented in dictionary-encyclopedic publications and biographical literature, as well as the erroneous indication that N. A. Mombelli “rose to the rank of Major” in the military sphere. The stages of the former Petrashevets career have been restored according to Mombelli’s 1884 Service Record, discovered by the authors in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA), as part of the case “On the Dismissal of Major General Mombeli.” Such 19th century printed sources as collections of the “Highest Orders on Military Ranks,” annual Lists of generals and officers (Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels) by seniority, and publications in the Russian Invalid newspaper, the official organ of the Ministry of War, are extensively utilized. In the light of new archival and printed sources, the memoirs of N. A. Mombelli and the few biographical studies about the Petrashevets have been critically revised.N. A. Mombelli, Petrashevets, North Caucasus, service career, Major, Major General, service record, obituary, code of supreme orders

The playwright, publicist and theater critic D. V. Averkiev began his literary career in the journal published by the brothers Mikhail and Fyodor Dostoevsky “Epokha” (1864–1865). The young employee considered F. M. Dostoevsky his principal teacher. On many issues, he shared the beliefs of the editor of the “Epokha,” and Dostoevsky, in turn, gave the publicist the opportunity to express those ideas that he himself did not have the time to embody. The article traces the polemic of Averkiev, which represents the editorial point of view of the “Epokha”, with the opinions of N. M. Kostomarov and D. I. Pisarev on the significance of the Battle of Kulikovo and Prince Dmitry Donskoy in the history of Russia. After the closure of the “Epokha” magazine, the relationship between Averkiev and Dostoevsky persisted. The writer praised Averkiev’s comedy about Frol Skabeev, anticipating its theatrical success. The publicist was a guarantor for the groom at the wedding of Dostoevsky and A. G. Snitkina, a witness to the triumph that followed the writer’s speech at the Pushkin celebrations in Moscow, and an administrator at Dostoevsky's funeral. Averkiev and his wife helped the writer’s widow in the work aimed at preserving his legacy. Averkiev’s artistic work created in the period after Dostoevsky’s death is imbued with a sense of love and deep respect for the memory of the great writer. In 1885–1886 following Dostoevsky, he published a monthly journal, “A Writer’s Diary”, which was doomed to failure and provoked mixed reactions from readers (reviews by S. A. Vengerov, P. M. Tret’yakov, and I. E. Repin are provided). The article analyzes the contents of the correspondence between Averkiev and Dostoevsky in 1877, for the first time Averkiev’s note to Dostoevsky asking for financial assistance dated 1863–1864 was published, and new documents were introduced into scientific circulation. Among them is a draft of a biographical sketch about Dostoevsky written by Averkiev for the second edition of the Complete Works of the writer (1885–1886), and letters from Averkiev to A. G. Dostoevskaya for 1884 and 1891.Dostoevsky, Averkiev, Epokha, criticism, dramas, Mamaevo massacre, Battle of Kulikovo, Dmitry Donskoy, polemic, teacher, journalism, A Writer’s Diary

In April 1867, Dostoevsky left Russia on a voyage. The writer had a hard time coping with his forced stay abroad for several years. His friends and comrades, A. N. Maikov and N. N. Strakhov, helped him cope with the difficulties. They kept in touch with Dostoevsky through correspondence, informing him about the events in Russia, and news related to Russian literature and journalism. The writer responded with enthusiasm to the news of the release of the new magazine “Zarya” (1869–1872), published by V. V. Kashpirev and edited by N. N. Strakhov. The trademark of the publication was N. Ya. Danilevsky’s work “Russia and Europe,” which was enthusiastically reviewed by the Zarya staff. Dostoevsky had known Danilevsky since the 1840s from M. V. Petrashevsky’s “Fridays.” The writer enthusiastically accepted the ideas expressed in “Russia and Europe,” but over time he felt alienated from Danilevsky, who, having published a book version of his work, in 1871, practically stopped developing his thoughts and views, refusing polemics and discussions. In a notebook from 1875–1876, Dostoevsky had left a significant note, which the publishers of 83 volumes of Literary Heritage misread. The writer’s inaccurate phrase was widely disseminated in research literature. Dostoevsky criticizes Danilevsky for his inaction. N. N. Strakhov was a fierce defender of the author of “Russia and Europe.” In the late 1880s, he entered into an unproductive polemic with V. S. Solovyov, which ultimately halted the potential development of the ideas set forth by Danilevsky, who was never able to lead the failed party.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Zarya magazine, Nikolay Danilevsky, Russia and Europe, Constantinople, Nikolay Strakhov, Apollon Maikov, Vladimir Solovyov, correspondence, Slavophiles, literary criticism, polemic

Crimea played an important role in the fates of F. M. Dostoevsky’s closest relatives. For almost two years (July 1858 — May 1860), the writer’s brother Andrei Mikhailovich Dostoevsky was on duty on the peninsula (Simferopol, Feodosia, Yalta, Sevastopol, Balaklava). The novelist’s widow, Anna Grigoryevna Dostoevskaya, who died in 1918 in German-occupied Yalta (Hotel “France”) the owner of the dacha on the South Coast. An important milestone in the life of the son of the classic writer Fyodor Fyodorovich Dostoevsky is connected with Simferopol: not only did he realize his dream of his own stud farm, but also got married for the second time. At the first glance, the “Crimean pages” in the biography of Fyodor Fyodorovich Dostoevsky have been thoroughly studied. However, the “Simferopol chronicle” of his life requires revision and clarification. This article proposes corrections to the date and place of the wedding of F. F. Dostoevsky and E. P. Tsugalovskaya. Irrefutable documentary evidence of this event is provided by the corresponding entry in the register of births, marriages and deaths of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Simferopol, which is currently preserved in the State Archives of the Republic of Crimea. An important verification commentary to this entry was the “Simferopol letters” of F. F. Dostoevsky to his mother. The surviving March and May messages of 1903 not only confirmed the wedding date indicated in the metric (April 27, 1903), but also helped to establish an nontrivial place of the sacrament — the house church in the name of St. Andrew the First-Called at the Orphanage of Andrei Yakovlevich Fabre. The juxtaposition of data from the metric record and direct epistolary evidence of F. F. Dostoevsky also made it possible to determine the members of his immediate circle in Simferopol.Fyodor Fyodorovich Dostoevsky, Еkaterina Petrovna Tsugalovskaya, genealogy, wedding, Crimea, Simferopol, metric record, archive, biography

The article presents a critical analysis of a literary hoax — a text allegedly belonging to F. M. Dostoevsky with more than a century-long distribution history in the form of numerous translations in Japanese and Chinese. “The Priest and the Devil,” attributed to the Russian writer, has never existed in the Russian language. It was created in English by the anarchist Emma Goldman. Its spread in China was facilitated primarily by the mistaken identification of the story with the chapter “At Tikhon’s” from the novel “Demons” due to the similarity of their titles when translated into Chinese. In this language, the singular and plural have no morphological markers, and the same hieroglyphs (without an additional lexeme expressing the parameter of plurality) can refer to either one demon/devil or a group of demons. However, the text of “The Priest and the Devil” does not correspond to Dostoevsky’s artistic style either ideologically, or in terms of literary techniques, or stylistically, and the dialogue between the antagonistic characters is an outright falsification of the ideological confrontation between Christ and the Grand Inquisitor from “The Brothers Karamazov” or Elder Tikhon and Nikolai Stavrogin from the novel “Demons”.Dostoevsky, literary hoax, falsification, The Priest and the Devil, Demons, error, translation