№ 3, 2026 year

The article is devoted to the Moscow archival research of Boris Tikhomirov (1952–2025), a unique scholar of the biography and work of Fyodor Dostoevsky. On the basis of published and unpublished materials of the scholar, including his letters to Irina Andrianova, it traces how the well-known expert on Dostoevsky’s “Petersburg text” turned to the writer’s Moscow roots. The combination of digital technologies (neural network search through documents of the Central State Archive of the City of Moscow) and classical archival heuristics allowed Tikhomirov to establish previously unknown relatives of the writer, clarify facts about the lives of his ancestors, and refute biographical myths. A logical continuation of this work was that in the summer of 2025 Tikhomirov, together with Moscow colleagues, was preparing an application to the Russian Science Foundation for a project on the theme “Dostoevsky’s Moscow.” One of the tasks of the project was to be the preparation of an encyclopedic reference work, “F. M. Dostoevsky and Moscow,” the plan for which, presented in this article, was developed by the scholar. He also compiled, but did not complete, an address index, “Dostoevsky’s Moscow (up to May 1837),” recording dozens of addresses of the Dostoevsky family and their circle of relatives. These materials are made public in this article. Tikhomirov’s last study, devoted to Moscow topography, was prepared in July-August 2025, during the period when the application was being discussed. In this work, on the basis of archival documents, for the first time an exact and complete chronology was compiled of all the places of residence of the writer’s grandfather, Fyodor Nechaev, who lived in Moscow for 46 years, changing eight addresses; the author was able to establish seven of them with documentary precision, and one with a high degree of probability. The manuscript was handed over to Irina Andrianova on August 19, 2025, in connection with her interest in the Borovsk branch of the Dostoevsky family. The author died suddenly on August 28, 2025 — before the project application was sent. The posthumous publication of the manuscript of his article in the journal “The Unknown Dostoevsky” (2026, vol. 13, no. 3) introduces the discoveries he made into scholarly circulation.Boris Tikhomirov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Moscow text, Dostoevsky’s Moscow, Dostoevsky’s Petersburg, archival research, genealogy, Fyodor Nechaev, local history, metric books, confession registers, revision tales, digital technologies

Fyodor Timofeevich Nechaev (1767/1768 — March 20, 1832), Dostoevsky’s maternal grandfather, was not a native Muscovite. He was born in the town of Borovsk, Kaluga Governorate, but from 1786 (or late 1785) until the end of his life he resided continuously in Moscow. During this period, he changed eight addresses: he owned two houses, lived in rented apartments on five occasions, and shortly before his death settled with his family in the house of his son-in-law (the husband of his eldest daughter Alexandra), A. A. Kumanin, a merchant of the First Guild. Seven of F. T. Nechaev’s historical addresses have been established with documentary certainty. For one further address, the police precinct, the block, the church parish, and the name of the property owner have been identified; the street has been determined with a high degree of probability, though the house number remains unknown. Six of Dostoevsky’s grandfather’s addresses can be unequivocally pinpointed on a contemporary map of Moscow (the buildings dating back two centuries have, of course, either not survived or been substantially rebuilt), while the location of the other two can only be approximated. Over the forty-six years of his Moscow life, Dostoevsky’s grandfather lived within the parishes of seven churches, where he was married (twice), had his children baptized and given funeral services (of his twenty-three known children, only five reached adulthood), where his first wife (the writer’s grandmother, Varvara Mikhailovna) received a funeral service, and where he himself was also commemorated. Of these churches, only five have survived to the present day (all are currently functioning Orthodox churches); two, including the one where Dostoevsky’s mother, Maria Fyodorovna, was baptized, were demolished by the Communist authorities in the 1930s, although their historical addresses are, of course, known. The present publication provides a comprehensive survey of all eight Moscow addresses of Fyodor Timofeevich Nechaev, based on archival documents and printed sources from the 18th and 19th centuries.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Fyodor Timofeevich Nechaev, the Nechaev family, Moscow, local history, historical address, address book, confession register, metric book, revision tale, deed of purchase

The article examines one of the most important episodes in the novel “Crime and Punishment” — Raskolnikov’s first dream, in which Moscow realities are revealed for the first time, realities not noted in any of the specialized commentaries on Dostoevsky’s work. The article critically examines the existing hypothesis that the landscape of the western outskirts of Zaraysk — a town adjacent to the Dostoevskys’ estate of Darovoe — corresponds to the description of the area in Raskolnikov’s first dream. Drawing on archival documents, memoir and epistolary evidence, and an 1848 cartographic plan of Moscow, the article advances a well-grounded hypothesis that this dream, rich in autobiographical reminiscences and allusions, reflects the writer’s impressions and memories of his Moscow childhood — memories that acquire symbolic significance in “Crime and Punishment.” In contrast to purely quotidian description (as, for example, the tavern in Maryina Roshcha in A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “A Family Affair”), in Dostoevsky such key topographical markers as Maryina Roshcha, Lazarevskoe Cemetery, the Church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit with its green dome, and the tavern near the cemetery are intertwined with the motif of death and resurrection, largely determining the novel’s Easter pathos.Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”, Raskolnikov’s first dream, Lazarevskoe Cemetery, Maryina Roshcha, real commentary, autobiographical reminiscences, Moscow childhood, plan of Moscow, parish register

The article analyzes the structure and content of the concept “Moscow” in the issues of “A Writer’s Diary” for 1876–1881. It identifies the mechanisms by which ideas about Moscow are conceptualized in Dostoevsky’s journalistic discourse, taking into account its periphrastic names and the author’s precedent names. The principal cognitive feature constituting this concept in “A Writer’s Diary” is Orthodox Moscow in its value-based opposition to criminal Moscow (church vs tavern). Moreover, Moscow acquires the features of an authorial concept in the biographical context. A key characteristic of its representation is the departure from a straightforward opposition between Moscow and St. Petersburg. On the whole, the dynamics of the development of the “Moscow” concept in “A Writer’s Diary” is characterized by a transition from its representation as a concrete location to the idea of a city-“allegory,” distinguished by an extreme degree of generalization and expansion of the image of Moscow. In the final issue of “A Writer’s Diary,” Dostoevsky, speaking of Russia’s mission as a “universal human vocation” and “universal service to humanity,” essentially identifies the concepts “Russia” and “Moscow” in their axiological essence. In this symbolic pair, Moscow acquires the meaning of a nominative synecdoche, fixed by the tradition of usage. In the new formula defining the role of Russia/Moscow in world history, what became important for Dostoevsky was an orientation not only toward Europe but also toward Asia.Fyodor Dostoevsky, journalistic discourse, “A Writer’s Diary”, concept “Moscow”, concept “Russia”

The article examines the role of the periodical press, primarily “Moskovskie Vedomosti,” in the realization of Dostoevsky’s conception of the novel “Crime and Punishment.” Drawing on newspaper chronicles from 1865 concerning a case of counterfeiters (in particular, A. T. Neofitov, who was part of the Dostoevsky family’s inner circle as the first executor of the will of A. F. Kumanina, the writer’s godmother), the article reveals how newspapers became for the writer a source of fabula-related and psychological models for the creation of Raskolnikov’s image. Newspaper reports about the crimes of counterfeiters provided the impulse for him to carry out his criminal design, while the inability of P. Vinogradov, a figure in the case, to control himself at the fatal moment reflected, as in a mirror, the doubts and fears of the protagonist — as is evident from a comparative analysis of the publications of “Moskovskie Vedomosti,” the draft notes, and the final text of the novel. In the novel, the psychological line concerning Raskolnikov developed in parallel with the Moscow crime chronicle, which, in the author’s interpretation, acquired an ethical dimension. The trajectory of the criminal’s spiritual rebirth, outlined in the speech of the lawyer Neofitov, became central to “Crime and Punishment” and reached its completion in the epilogue of the novel.Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”, Raskolnikov, “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, counterfeiters, fabula

This article introduces into scholarly circulation and analyzes a little-studied episode in the biography of Anna Dostoevskaya — her long-term correspondence and collaboration with Sergey Shubinsky, editor and co-founder of the journal “Istoricheskiy Vestnik” (“The Historical Herald”), who had personally known Fyodor Dostoevsky. The source base of the research comprises the correspondence between the writer’s widow and this influential figure in Russian journalism: 18 letters covering the years 1885–1901. An analysis of the correspondence allows us to trace the evolution of their relationship — from an initial business inquiry of a biographical nature, through expert consultative assistance in compiling a bibliographic index of Dostoevsky’s works, to friendly personal meetings. The article introduces for the first time a record of Shubinsky’s address found in Dostoevskaya’s notebook of 1888–1889, establishing that the editorial office of “Istoricheskiy Vestnik” was located in the editor’s own apartment. During the 1880s–1890s, Shubinsky took part in publishing projects aimed at popularizing the writer’s legacy, including Alexey Suvorin’s “Cheap Library” and Alexander Kruglov’s collection Dostoevsky for School-Age Children. Through textual analysis, the authors have redated one of Shubinsky’s letters, which Dostoevskaya had mistakenly assigned an earlier date. Special attention is given to Shubinsky’s role as a collector of memorial relics: the article introduces, within the context of their collaboration, the fact that he donated to the “Museum in Memory of Fyodor Dostoevsky” a photographic copy of the writer’s 1858 portrait from Semipalatinsk. The authors conclude that the cooperation between Dostoevskaya and Shubinsky represented a model of a trusting professional alliance: the editor acted not only as a publisher of materials about the writer, but also as a systematic supporter of the widow’s main memorial projects. The introduction of the complete corpus of correspondence with Shubinsky into scholarly circulation offers a fresh assessment of Anna Dostoevskaya’s efforts to preserve her husband’s legacy and clarifies the circle of his closest contemporaries who became her mainstays. The Appendix to the article publishes for the first time Anna Dostoevskaya’s memoirs about the writer’s stay in Staraya Russa, which she sent to “Istoricheskiy Vestnik,” as well as her correspondence with the journal’s editor.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaya, Sergey Shubinsky, Alexey Suvorin, Istoricheskiy Vestnik, literary reputation, epistolary corpus, history of Russian journalism, archival research

The purpose of this article is to examine the confrontation between Europe and Moscow as two “local texts” in Dostoevsky’s most autobiographical and European novel, “The Gambler.” It is emphasized that the initial impetus for this work was the negative attitude toward Russia and the Russian people that the writer encountered during his first travels in Europe. The article analyzes the reflection in Dostoevsky’s text of the “most terrible insult against Russia” from the French newspaper “L’Opinion Nationale.” This harshly judgmental juxtaposition of barbaric Russia and civilized Europe, entrenched in the popular expression “Grattez le russe, et vous verrez le tartare,” is transformed into a motif of Russian barbarity in des Grieux and Alexei Ivanovich’s discussions of “Russian ugliness” with an Asian flavor. The writer’s response to the “L’Opinion Nationale” newspaper’s escapade is examined in the context of Russian journalism of the 1860s and, taking into account the plot’s triple test of all the novel’s characters: roulette, money, and love. The conclusion is that the typological characterization of the “Russians abroad” and the Europeans (with the exception of the Englishman Astley) who met in Roulettenburg is both self-critical and critical. Dostoevsky’s position in this regard is assessed as fundamentally ambivalent: Europe is no better than Russia, but Russia is no better than Europe. At the same time, the novel encodes an idyllic image of Russia, directly linked to Moscow and rooted in the patriarchal national consciousness, embodied by the characters who return to the Moscow estate (the landowner “grandmother” and her servant Potapych). A crucial detail in her description is the word “spirit,” which evokes associations not only with the Russian scent in its olfactory sense, but also with the concept of “Russian spirit,” which evokes the motif of “the fragrance of the Holy Spirit of God.” Thus, the juxtaposition of Europe and Moscow in The Gambler, while preserving its traditional historical and cultural meaning, ultimately acquires a fundamentally significant Christian, spiritual dimension.Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Gambler”, Europe, Russia, Moscow

The relevance of the current research is determined by the interest of humanities in studying intercultural interaction formed through the acquaintance of other cultures with works of Russian fiction. The main purpose of the research is to identify the features of the reception of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” in China by analyzing the linguistic characteristics of the core concepts “crime” and “punishment” that are included in the title of the novel and its translation into Chinese. The scientific originality of the research lies in the fact that, based on the material of the translation variants of the novel’s title into Chinese, a comprehensive etymological and lexical-semantic analysis of the words “crime” and “punishment” in Russian and Chinese has been conducted, and the features associated with the perception of the novel in Chinese culture have been identified. As a result, it has been established that the morphemes 罪 与 罚 in Chinese generally correspond to the lexemes “crime” and “punishment” in terms of semantic content and are adequate analogues reflecting the author’s intent.Fyodor Dostoevsky, novel “Crime and Punishment”, translations, concept “crime”, concept “punishment”, reception, intercultural communication

The article presents the results of a study of the emotional tone (sentiment analysis) of F. M. Dostoevsky’s works (novels “The Gambler,” “Poor Folk,” “Humiliated and Insulted,” “Crime and Punishment,” “The Idiot,” “Demons,” “The Adolescent,” “The Brothers Karamazov” and various editions of the “A Writer’s Diary”). The cointegrated/rubert-tiny-sentiment-balanced neural network model was used to classify text sentiment by fragment, and the KartaSlovSent dictionary was used to determine the sentiment of each word. The results of these two approaches to text sentiment analysis were compared, followed by graphical visualization. Sentiment analysis of the texts was also conducted using large language models (GigaChat, ChatGPT). The study was based on the hypothesis that F. M. Dostoevsky’s works have a positive emotional tone. The formulation of this hypothesis rests on the “Pollyanna principle,” according to which humanity, regardless of the subject of description, strives to create texts with a clearly pronounced positive expressive potential. The hypothesis was empirically refuted, but the study revealed the potential of using digital tools and statistical methods to determine the emotional and narrative architecture of literary works. The emotional tone of F. M. Dostoevsky’s key texts was identified and visually presented. The possibility of contextual errors in using the “dictionary” method to evaluate Dostoevsky’s works and the advantages of the RuBERT model, as well as its sensitivity to determining the emotional tone of literary texts in general, were empirically confirmed.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Pollyanna principle, text, emotional tonality, digital tools, sentiment analysis