№ 2, 2025 year

The publication introduced into scientific circulation documents related to the elevation to hereditary nobility in 1828 of the writer’s father Mikhail Andreevich Dostoevsky, his sons Mikhail, Fyodor, and Andrei, and his daughter Varvara, which were extracted from the archive file entitled “Evidence of the Nobility of Dostoevsky. 1828,” discovered by the author in the Central State Archive of Moscow (TSGA Moscow), in the fund of the Chancellery of the Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly. The publication of the documents is accompanied by a description of the procedure for the review and approval of M. A. Dostoevsky’s request for him and his children to be entered into the third part of the noble genealogy book of the Moscow province. Adjustments are being made to the traditional ideas about the chronology of this event. Documents from the case “On the Nobility of the Dostoevsky Family,” stored in the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA), in the fund of the Department of Heraldry of the Senate, are also being introduced into scientific circulation. The internal connection of the documents of the two archival files is established. Additionally, the resolution of the Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly dated September 12, 1881 about the inclusion of the writer’s widow Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya and the children Lyubov and Fyodor in the family tree is published.Dostoevsky family, hereditary nobility, genealogical book, Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly, Department of Heraldry of the Governing Senate, Central State Archive of Moscow, Russian State Historical Archive

The article introduces new archival materials concerning the Moscow branch of the Dostoevsky family tree, which were discovered by the author in the Central State Archive of Moscow (TSGA of Moscow). Previously unknown to researchers, eleven members of the genus belonging to the families of Anna Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Tikhomirova and Evdokia (Avdotya) Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Memorskaya, the sisters of the writer’s grandmother Varvara Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Nechaeva, have been identified. Metric records have been published about the wedding of these great-aunts of Dostoevsky and about their deaths (the first in 1804, and the second in 1837), about the birth (and in some cases about the death) of their children. The initial information about their husbands, Andrei Gavrilovich Tikhomirov and Mikhail Fedorovich Memorsky, has been collected. The problem of determining the year of birth of persons born in Moscow earlier than 1777 is outlined. The difficulty of calculating the year of birth according to confessional records is also indicated. Based on archival research, corrections were made to the memoirs of the younger brother of the writer Andrei Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, and gaps were filled in the genealogical painting of the Moscow branch of the writer’s family, published in the fundamental “The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevskys” (2013).F. M. Dostoevsky, Kotelnitskys, Tikhomirovs, Memorskys, genealogy, metric book, confession sheet

F. M. Dostoevsky and D. V. Grigorovich, who had known each other since studying at the K. F. Kostomarov’s preparatory boarding school in St. Petersburg, and then at the Main Engineering School, were of opposite natures and had never been particularly close during their interactions. However, the mid-1840s were the time of the greatest rapprochement between the two writers and their mutual influence on each other’s work. One of the most famous episodes in memoirs about Dostoevsky is the incident described by Grigorovich. In 1844 the aspiring writer Dostoevsky advised Grigorovich, who was preparing his debut work “St. Petersburg Organ Grinders” for publication, to supplement the description of the 5-copeck coin thrown to the organ grinder with a vivid detail. The image of a ringing and bouncing coin became an example of the subtlety of the literary taste of the future author of “Poor Folk” and a paragon of stylistic requirements for a realistic work. Grigorovich’s testimony is usually accepted and quoted without any doubt as to its authenticity. The article presents the fact that Dostoevsky’s former flatmate sometimes made things up in his conversations and memoirs. However, he was unlikely to have made up this story, since the literary lesson was reflected not only in the essay “Petersburg Organ Grinders,” but also in the short novel “Plowman” by Grigorovich. The conversation with Grigorovich and the reading of his essay did not pass unnoticed by Dostoevsky himself. He used the image of a jingling coin tossed to an organ grinder in the novel “Poor Folk,” and in the story “Mr. Prokharchin” he listed the toy characters of Grigorovich’s essay. Grigorovich seems to have remembered Dostoevsky’s stylistic lesson half a century later. Judging by the advice given by Grigorovich to the young writer Anton Chekhov in a letter from 1886, as he grew older and improved his writing skills, he clarified his position on the limits of acceptability when introducing artistic details into realistic descriptions. As a result, he advised Chekhov not to get carried away with unnecessary details that have a “cynical connotation” and spoil the reader’s impression of the text. The young writer agreed with Grigorovich and followed this recommendation. The advice on improving literary style given by Dostoevsky and later Grigorovich became classic lessons of writing skill.Dostoevsky, Grigorovich, Chekhov, natural school, Physiology of St. Petersburg, hurdy-gurdy, Poor Folk, Mr. Prokharchin, Crime and Punishment, correspondence

F. M. Dostoevsky associated the name of N. M. Karamzin with his childhood memories. In 1862, after Dostoevsky discovered the “Note on Ancient and New Russia in Its Political and Civil Relations,” he connected the historiographer’s name with Slavophile ideas about the unification of the “Russian lands.” The figures of the court historiographer N. M. Karamzin and the statesman M. M. Speransky occupied a special place in F. M. Dostoevsky’s reflections on the spiritual and historical path of Russia. Dostoevsky heeded attention to Speransky in 1861 owing to the M. A. Korf’s book “The Life of Count Speransky.” M. M. Dostoevsky commissioned its review by M. I. Vladislavlev and the journal “Vremya” published it. The names of Speransky and Karamzin appeared together only once — in a June 1870 entry in the preparatory materials for the novel The Demons: “Who: Speransky or Karamzin?” The rough draft demonstrates that in the novelist’s mind considered the positions of these historical figures ideologized and diametrically opposed, similarly to the polemics between Westernizers and Slavophiles, respectively: the names of Karamzin and Speransky signified the idea of two possible paths of Russia’s subsequent development. While from Dostoevsky’s point of view the Slavophiles (“conservatives”) affirmed the pre-Petrine ideal and were merely abstract dreamers, the Westernizers (“nihilists”) continued the work of Peter the Great, i.e., the destruction of traditional foundations. According to Dostoevsky, the “dreamy” nature of the Slavophiles was overpowered by virtue of Karamzin’s idea of the dialectical connection between the old and the new. The well-known formula about universality, all-humanity, all-understanding and all-response embodies the novelist’s reflections. According to Dostoevsky, A. S. Pushkin possessed these qualities.Dostoevsky, Karamzin, Speransky, Pushkin, Demons, conservatism, nihilism, Slavophilism, Westernism, pochvennichestvo, historiosophy