Vol 11, No 1 (2024)

Omsk is the city where F. M. Dostoevsky served a penal sentence in 1850–1854 and where the “rebirth of his beliefs” occurred. In the first part of the article, Dostoevsky’s memorable sites in Omsk are revealed based on the impressions of the writer himself, as reflected in “Notes from the Dead House” and “Siberian Notebook,” memoir, epistolary, local history and archival sources (Article lists of prisoners of the Omsk prison (ostrog) and maps and plans of the Omsk fortress, stored in the Russian State Military Historical Archive, metric books of Omsk, stored in the Historical archive of the Omsk region). Through the Tara fortress gate, prisoners arrived at the Omsk prison (ostrog); and through the Tobolsk fortress gate, they went to menial jobs. The house of the engineer general have been preserved, who was in charge of prison work (it also housed the engineering office, where Dostoevsky worked as a scribe), as were the complex of the military hospital, where prisoners were treated and had the opportunity to read and write, and where the “Siberian Notebook” was created, the fortress of the Resurrection Military Cathedral, where they were taken for church services and whose rectors nursed the prisoners, and the house of Platz-Major V. G. Krivtsov and the house of the commandant of the Omsk fortress A. F. de Grave. The second part of the article, arranged as a tour of Dostoevsky’s sites in Omsk, describes the history and current state of all identified objects in the same order from the point of view of the restorer and architect. Some loci have disappeared irrevocably; some have been restored for the anniversary of the writer; some of them do not have the status of a monument of history and culture. The task of professional restoration, conservation and museumification of all the memorable sites in Omsk has been set to create a single memorial route “Dostoevsky’s Omsk.”

The article examines the creative history of short stories from the Russian history of Apollon Maikov on the basis of epistolary sources and archival materials. The idea of the work emerged in the author’s mind in a discussion with Fyodor Dostoevsky: in letters of 1867–1869 they reflected on Russia’s past and future, the work on the translation of the “Tale about Igor’s Campaign,” the need to create a textbook living history, the central event of which would be the spread of Christianity in Russia. In correspondence with Maikov, Dostoevsky outlined the concept of epics as a literary genre capable of expressing the essence of Russian history and “serving to revive the self-consciousness of the Russian people” and delineated the turning points of history that determined the future of the country. Maikov conceived another version of the description of Russia’s past — a cycle of ten to twelve historical short stories “for children and the people.” He recorded the plan of the work point by point in papers dating from 1868, and outlined it to Dostoevsky in an April letter for 1869. In separate short stories, he intended to reveal the deeds of Alexander Nevsky, Metropolitans Peter and Alexy, Dmitry Donskoy, Ioann III, Ivan the Terrible, Ermak, St. Sergius of Radonezh, Peter I, Catherine II, Suvorov, the events of 1812, the Crimean War and the liberation of the peasants. The author planned to tell the reader about the main events of Russian history and the patriots of Russia, to reveal the supreme destiny of its historical path, the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian national character, to highlight the idea of unity and integrity of all Russian territories. To realize the idea, Maikov processed chronicle legends, epics, folklore sources (for example, anecdotes about Peter I), the works of historians (I. D. Belyaev, K. P. Pobedonostsev, etc.). He thought out the plots in detail, worked through them repeatedly (which is confirmed by the preserved cycle plans for 1868 and 1881), but released from print only two short stories in 1869 (the second story includes four separate plots). Neither Dostoevsky nor Maikov succeeded in carrying out their plans for historical works. But their plans testify to a common understanding of the historical path of Russia — the path of preserving the Orthodox Christian truth in the struggle for identity and independence. Conscious of their moral duty to the fatherland, they considered it their duty to convey to readers the need to feel Russian and the right to be proud of the history of this great country.

The article examines the path of Armenian Dostoevsky studies — starting from the 80s of the 19th century. It was then that interest in Dostoevsky’s work arose in Armenian literary circles — in particular, in the periodicals of Tiflis, K. Polis, Petersburg, Paris. At the origins of Armenian studies of the Russian writer are the editors of Armenian newspapers and magazines Arpiar Arpiaryan, Levon Bashalyan, and Arshak Chopanyan. For the first time to Dostoevsky’s work contacted the editor of Tiflis newspaper “Mshak” Grigor Artsruni in 1880; he tried to consider the work of the novelist in the context of mysticism and religious views. And the first work of the Russian writer in the Armenian language was the story “Notes from the Dead House,” which was printed in 1885 in the weekly “Araks” published in Petersburg. The first work of the Russian writer translated into Armenian was the story “The Boy at Christ’s Christmas Tree,” published in 1886 in the Constantinople newspaper “Masis.” The translation was not signed. In 1892, in the St. Petersburg bulletin “Araks” were published “Notes from the House of the Dead.” The unknown translator left the work unfinished. The new translation of the story was done by Yervand Otyan. In subsequent years, the works of Dostoevsky were translated by K. Mirianyan, Shirvanzade, S. Shalchyan, G. Lerentz, K. Surenyan, A. Mazmanyan, A. Mekhakyan, A. Hovhannisyan and others. The writer’s death became an occasion for new reflections on his life and work. At the next stage of Armenian history, at the beginning of the 20th century, discussions about the novelist’s work became more often, lectures and discussions were organized at the literary evenings of the Caucasian Society of Armenian Writers. Many Armenian writers and critics recognized the influence of Dostoevsky not only on their creativity, but also on world perception (A. Oshakan, K. Surenyan, Nar-Dos, Shirvanzade). Some of them became translators of Dostoevsky (Surenyan, Shirvanzade), and some initiated new translations (Arpiaryan, Chopanyan). In the second half of the 20th century, Karpis Surenyan, Levon Mkrtchyan and Karen Stepanyan became the most important actors of the Armenian Dostoevsky studies. Remarkable typological and comparative parallels were drawn between Dostoevsky and Mickiewicz, Narekatsi, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Schiller, Cervantes and other authors.