№ 2, 2026 year

The article analyzes the functioning of the word “all-man” in Dostoevsky’s texts and in research discourse, which has Moscow roots; the history of the formation of this word as an axiologeme opposite to the lexeme “ordinary or typical human being” is revealed; the process of their value perversion is considered, as a result of which the term “ordinary or typical human being” acquired a sharply negative meaning, fixed in the Dostoevsky “Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s Language” and in the “Terminological Dictionary-Thesaurus of F. M. Dostoevsky’s "Gospel Text",” the “all-man” appeared as the ideal of the development of the Russian person. The origins of this key lexeme in the writer’s language are noted: from the articles of the Moscow Slavophile S. P. Shevyrev, who created the word form “all-human,” to the book by N. Y. Danilevsky, who was the first to use the words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” as antonyms. The baton from Dostoevsky was taken by V. S. Solovyov, the philosophers of the Silver Age and the Eurasians. The works of St. Justin (Popovich) and Walter Schubart became an important stage in the development of Dostoevsky’s anthropological ideas. A significant contribution to their understanding was made by Russian researchers V. N. Zakharov, N. F. Budanova, T. A. Kasatkina, E. P. Litinskaya, E. Yu. Safronova et al. The article also critically examines the reflection of Dostoevsky’s axiologems in philosophical and explanatory dictionaries, in which the lexemes “all-man” and “ordinary or typical human being” are mainly presented as synonyms, with a significant semantic and axiological shift. It is concluded that solving the complex problem of adequate reception and interpretation of the lexemes “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man,” researchers need to take into account both their history in the Russian language and the lexico-semantic, stylistic, and axiological features of their functioning in Dostoevsky’s texts and in Russian literature and culture in general.Dostoevsky, Christian anthropology, axiology, Moscow code, ordinary or typical human being, all-man, history, reception

The article describes and analyzes English-language research into Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech. Generally, the Pushkin Speech has been investigated in two modes: as a phenomenon of literature and literary scholarship — a guide to conceptualizing Russian literature — and as a political phenomenon. The Pushkin Speech was primarily explored as a literary phenomenon by British writers and scholars, while American, Canadian, and New Zealand researchers focused on it as a political statement. Interpretations of the Pushkin Speech in particular, and of Dostoevsky’s works and Russian literature in general have generally been significantly influenced by the politics du jour and by Russia’s relationship with the West at any given time. During détentes, the Pushkin Speech received more positive treatment, and researchers were willing to see not only its political, but also its religious dimensions (see Marcus Levitt’s concept of the “Pentecostal” spirit of the Pushkin Speech). Conversely, during periods of increased tensions and animosity, the Pushkin Speech was and is treated as a manifestation of far-right militant politics. Such perceptions of the Pushkin Speech correlate with a perception of Russia (typical primarily of the US, but probably not alien to the West as a whole) that swings cyclically between opposite poles: interest and hope that Russia will meet certain political and social standards proclaimed by the West, and disappointment that arrives once Russia no longer deems it necessary to meet someone else’s standards. Currently, the research into the Pushkin Speech aligns with the sentiments of a political conflict between Russia and the West.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Pushkin Speech, Marcus Levitt, Alexandra Smith, Irene Zohrab, Alan Pollard, Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover, D. W. Martin, Neil Stewart, Joseph Frank, Gary Saul Morson

The article presents a critical analysis of the translation of Dostoevsky’s key words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” into English and French. These terms function in the writer’s texts as an antiaxiologeme and an axiologeme respectively, expressing the ideal of the Russian person’s development. Both lexemes are recorded in “Dostoevsky’s Dictionary of the Language” and in the “Terminological Dictionary-Thesaurus of Dostoevsky’s "Gospel Text".” However, the interpretation of these authorial concepts still poses difficulties, which become especially evident in translation practice. In the analyzed translations of these lexemes, despite all efforts toward accuracy, there are clear instances of a lack of both equivalence and adequacy in the transmission of their conceptual meaning are noted. The dictionary meanings chosen by European translators do not always correspond to the author’s context and style in Dostoevsky’s journalism, in “Notes from Underground,” and in the novel “Demons,” leading to significant semantic and axiological shifts. The analysis shows that the complex problem of differentiated translation of the lexemes “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” remains relevant. The conclusion is drawn that, in solving the complex problem of adequate reception and interpretation of the words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man,” which are important in the writer’s language, it is necessary to take into account the lexico-semantic, stylistic, axiological features of their functioning in Dostoevsky’s texts and in Russian literature and culture in general.Dostoevsky, axiology, ordinary or typical human being, all-man, reception, translations

The article presents new facts about the biography of Maria Dmitrievna Dostoevskaya (1824–1864). The published archival research covers two periods of her life. The first period (1824–1850) is associated with cities in the south of the Russian Empire, where Maria Dmitrievna spent her childhood and youth. The second period (1851–1859) took place in Western Siberia, where she met and married Fyodor Dostoevsky. Documentary sources, such as marriage registers, confession books, form lists, and documents on conscription, are introduced into scientific circulation. These sources allow us to establish the exact date of Maria Dmitrievna’s marriage to A. I. Isaev, the birth and death of their second child, Olga, as well as the brief visit of the Isaev family from Siberia to Astrakhan in the spring of 1853. For the first time, the exact name of Maria Dmitrievna’s mother, Varvara Ivanovna Konstant, and some biographical information about her are provided. This is also the first time that information about Maria Dmitrievna’s closest relatives on her first husband’s side has been published: A. I. Isaev’s stepfather, Colonel P. P. Uvarov, A. I. Isaev’s mother, Olga Nikolaevna Olina, her sisters, Vera and Evgenia, and his older brother Nikolai. The article also provides additional information about Maria Dmitrievna’s Siberian surroundings and the customs officials who served alongside A. I. Isaev, including P. Z. Sapozhnikov, who was the groom’s father-in-law at Fyodor Dostoevsky’s wedding and Maria Dmitrievna’s godfather. The full name of the postman, Andrey Pavlovich Lepukhin, whose apartment the Dostoevskys lived in from 1857 to 1859, is established. A comparative analysis of surviving cartographic materials, reference books, archival sources, memoirs, and publications from the 19th century allowed us to clarify the addresses of the houses where M. D. Dostoevskaya lived from 1824 to 1859, as well as the churches where she was a parishioner. The collected facts can add new information to the biography of Maria Dmitrievna Dostoevskaya, as well as clarify information about the writer’s surroundings.Maria Dmitrievna Dostoevskaya, Constants, Isaevs, Uvarovs, Olins, Taganrog, Astrakhan, Petropavlovsk, Semipalatinsk, Kuznetsk, archive search, biography

This article examines annotations (commentaries) pertaining to everyday life in the works of F. M. Dostoevsky. One of the most pressing domains of everyday existence is the cost of living — that is, expenditures and income, money and its material equivalents, and prices for food, clothing, housing, and the like. Any detail, any object of everyday life, constitutes an element of culture. The image of a thing as a cultural phenomenon is connected in our perception with a specific meaning shaped both by the characteristics of a given historical epoch and by everyday experience. The use of such an image as an artistic detail in literary works is always aimed at eliciting the emotional response that the author anticipates from the reader. It is for this reason that descriptions of everyday details must be exceedingly accurate and readily recognizable. However, the cultural specificities of the nineteenth century, in their material expression, have largely lost their significance for modern readers and scholars, and reconstructing the artistic meaning of Dostoevsky’s compositions can sometimes present considerable difficulty. This study identifies certain features of Dostoevsky’s treatment of the financial arithmetic of his characters’ everyday lives, as well as certain stylistic differences in the use of arithmetic elements in the novels “Poor Folk,” “Crime and Punishment,” and “The Idiot.” Beyond the financial dimension of arithmetic, we have also examined the artistic implications of one of Dostoevsky’s unusual observations — “how women drink” — with specific reference to the number of sips (in the novels “Crime and Punishment” and “Demons”). Commentaries on the episode of Stepan Trofimovich’s wanderings in “Demons” required not only extensive recourse to Dostoevsky’s own works and those of his contemporaries, but also to the drinking legislation of the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century.Dostoevsky, Russian history, everyday life, 19th-century drinking legislation, artistic detail, arithmetic in literature

Newspaper advertisements were one of the key channels for distributing books published by the Dostoevsky family even during the writer’s lifetime. After his death, Anna Grigorievna continued to use this tool when she undertook the publication of the Complete Works of F. M. Dostoevsky. She carefully crafted her advertising strategy: she personally composed the texts and varied their format depending on the purpose. Among the messages she published, several types can be distinguished: brief advertisements with basic information (volume, contents of the volumes, price, shipping terms, contact details); news notes, most often concerning the release dates of upcoming volumes; and extensive bibliographic notes with a characterization of the writer’s oeuvre. The most expansive form was an article that included a detailed description of the edition, biographical information, and elements of literary analysis — a genre that served not only an advertising but also an educational function. In addition to press publications, Dostoevskaya placed informational inserts about the collection on the first or last pages of various books, and also sent out circulars — official notices dispatched by mail directly to recipients, bypassing public press. This content differentiation allowed her to reach a broad readership. Against the backdrop of the aggressive advertising practices of her time — with flashy headlines, illustrations, promises of discounts, and warnings about forgeries — Dostoevskaya’s advertisements stood out for their deliberate restraint. She did not use portraits of the author, did not resort to promotions, and did not urge readers to beware of counterfeits, consciously avoiding all the typical tricks of commercial advertising. Instead, she prominently highlighted the surname of F. M. Dostoevsky, believing that the name alone was sufficient to attract the reading public. Moderation and severity of style became for her a way of expressing respect for her husband and emphasizing his high literary status. This approach testified to Anna Grigorievna’s priority: not the pursuit of profit, but the worthy presentation of her husband’s oeuvre to readers, the dissemination of his ideas, and the preservation of his good memory.A. G. Dostoevskaya, newspapers, advertising, advertisement, circular, The Complete Works of F. M. Dostoevsky, typeface, bibliographic note, book market

From the second half of the nineteenth century, Yalta gained nation-wide prominence as a leading climatic health resort for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Although Fyodor Dostoevsky’s correspondents, Elizaveta Drashusova and Khristina Alchevskaya, strongly urged him to favour Taurida over foreign spas, the writer — who suffered from pulmonary emphysema — never experienced the therapeutic benefits of the Crimean climate. The chronological framework of this study (1890s — 1960s) enables an examination of the Yalta period in the life of the writer’s widow, Anna Dostoevskaya, not merely as a phase of her economic and philanthropic activities, but also as a crucial stage in her editorial work on her husband’s epistolary heritage. It was in Yalta, in 1917–1918, that she systematised Dostoevsky’s correspondence in preparation for publication — a fact attested to by a notice in the newspaper “Krasny Krym” (1926), which refers to a testament discovered in the Crimean Archives containing an inventory of 162 letters. Since the late 1890s, Yalta has been inextricably linked with the name of Anton Chekhov, who settled there on medical advice, accompanied by his sister and mother. The principal objective of this article is to verify the assertion made by Dmitry Dostoevsky, the writer’s great-grandson, concerning the friendship in Yalta between his great-grandmother and Chekhov’s sister, Maria Chekhova. To this end, the study analyses the intersecting spheres of their activity — namely, land management, construction, and charitable work. The source base comprises both published and unpublished materials, including documents held in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library (OR RSL), and Crimean periodicals dating from the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century. Of particular note are materials from the newspaper “Krymskii Kurier” (1898), which are introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. These sources reveal that Anna Dostoevskaya regularly advertised the long-term lease of her land plots for tobacco and fruit plantations, while concurrently nurturing plans to establish a family estate in Yalta. In addition, the study cites published memoirs of an acquaintance of Maria Chekhova, corroborating that she tended Anna Dostoevskaya’s grave at the Autka cemetery until her later years. Although this narrative has been mentioned sporadically in literary scholarship, the present article elevates it to the status of a verifiable literary fact — one that merits due consideration in any reconstruction of the posthumous Yalta chapter in the life of Dostoevsky’s widow.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaia, Maria Chekhova, Fyodor Fyodorovich Dostoevsky, Yalta, Crimea, biographical legend, fact verification, posthumous memory, Autka cemetery, Tenderiz estate

The article examines the little-known play “Nastasya Filippovna” by M.  E. Kozakov and A. B. Marienhof — a dramatization of F. M. Dostoevsky's novel “The Idiot” — which represents an unexplored page in the creative reception of the great Russian writer's legacy in Soviet culture of the 1930s–1950s. The analysis draws on three typewritten copies of the play preserved at the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI) in the collections of the Main Repertoire Committee (F. 656. Op. 5. Item 3741) and of M. E. Kozakov (F. 1517. Op. 1. Items 65, 83), as well as the only copy we have identified of the play's typed edition, issued in 1945 by the Distribution Department of the All-Union Copyright Administration (from the holdings of the Russian State Library of Arts). An additional source is the correspondence of A. B. Marienhof, his wife A. B. Nikritina, M. E. Kozakov, and his wife Z. A. Nikitina, which is preserved in the RGALI archives. Despite the co-authors' experience and skill, the dramatization — approved by the Glavrepertkom in 1944 — never attracted the interest of theatres. In the 1940s, due to the reevaluation of Dostoevsky's works within Soviet ideology, his writings were discouraged on the domestic stage. The Thaw of the mid-1950s brought a new interpretation of “The Idiot”'s thematic concerns, most vividly realized in G. A. Tovstonogov's landmark production (1957): the image of the fatal woman with a troubled past — Nastasya Filippovna — was relegated to the background, making way for the image of Prince Myshkin, reinterpreted by the “Thaw-era” intelligentsia and brilliantly portrayed on stage by I. M. Smoktunovsky. At the same time, the interpretation of Dostoevsky's central characters in Kozakov and Marienhof's dramatization is largely consonant with I. A. Pyryev's vision, who in 1957–1958 prepared the literary screenplay and directed the film “The Idiot” (“Nastasya Filippovna”).F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Kozakov, A. B. Mariengof, “The Idiot”, “Nastasya Filippovna”, Dostoevsky in the USSR, dramatizations

This article analyzes the film “Pir Pesar” (international title: “The Old Bachelor”) by Iranian director Octay Baraheni (2021) as an example of intersemiotic translation of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov.” The theoretical framework of the study includes R. Jakobson’s concept of intersemiotic translation, as well as the notions of domestication (L. Venuti), reduction, expansion, and reinterpretation (O. A. Leontovich). The article examines how the film transfers the plot of the 19th-century Russian novel to contemporary Tehran, adapting the system of characters, temporal and spatial context, as well as religious symbolism to the cultural codes of the Iranian viewer. It is shown that while preserving Dostoevsky’s key themes (father-son conflict, guilt and responsibility, tragedy of love), the film subjects the original text to reduction (a decrease in the number of characters), expansion (addition of new scenes), and reinterpretation (replacement of Christian symbolism with secular ethics). “The Old Bachelor” emerges not as a literal adaptation, but as an independent work demonstrating the universality of Dostoevsky’s ideas and the possibilities of adaptation them in a different cultural environment.intersemiotic translation, domestication, film adaptation, Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov”, “The Old Bachelor”, Iranian cinema

The article presents an overview of the 19th Symposium of the International Dostoevsky Society (IDS), which was held for the first time in Latin America — in Buenos Aires, in June 2026. This event became the culmination of many years of work by the Argentine Dostoevsky Society (SAD) and a clear testament to the profound interest in the works of the Russian writer in a region where he has long been perceived not as a “foreign” but as a “native” author. The article traces the history of Dostoevsky’s reception in Argentina, beginning with the first publication in the year of his death (1881), and analyzes the reasons for the particular affinity of his ideas with the Argentine worldview — vast spaces, multinationality, existential concerns. Special attention is paid to the writer’s influence on key figures of Latin American literature: R. Arlt, E. Sabato, J. L. Borges, and J. Cortázar. The symposium program, structured along regional lines, is described in detail. The article examines the main areas of contemporary research: translation issues (Brazilian and Argentine schools), comparative analysis and the history of reception in Latin American countries, Colombia, and Europe; the application of digital humanities (Chinese and American projects); philosophical and religious aspects of Dostoevsky’s work. For the first time in the history of IDS symposia, several papers from different countries were devoted to Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya, presenting her not merely as a wife and biographer, but as an independent publisher, bibliographer, and active participant in the cultural process. The presentations of the Russian delegation are reviewed, including studies of the textual criticism of “The Citizen,” the poetics of “The Adolescent,” as well as questions of Dostoevsky’s reception in the West. The author concludes that holding the forum in Buenos Aires confirms Dostoevsky’s global status as a writer whose ideas remain relevant to a wide variety of cultures, and that Argentina is becoming one of the world’s leading centers of Dostoevsky studies.International Dostoevsky Society, symposium, Argentine Dostoevsky Society, reception, translation, Buenos Aires, Alejandro González, “The Adolescent”, Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya, digital humanities