Vol 9, No 2 (2022)

The article substantiates the principles of studying the graphic content of Dostoevsky’s handwritten texts and creating an electronic catalog of graphic samples that would include the most representative examples of the writer’s handwriting and their scientific description. The research material is Dostoevsky’s workbooks, which include entries of various kinds: rough sketches for artistic and journalistic ideas, letter drafts, notes for memory, addresses, calculations related to household and editorial and publishing needs. The variety of the material under study allows us to collect more informative and complete data on the specifics of graphic characteristics in the writer’s texts. The analysis and systematization of handwriting features, typical and atypical handwriting, are productive in deciphering the so-called “difficult readings” and are important for understanding the semantic context of Dostoevsky’s recordings, in some cases allowing to clarify important factual information. The practical value of the research lies in the possibility of using the data obtained in the study of hard-to-read handwriting, illegible spellings, as well as in the analysis of non-verbal forms of Dostoevsky’s graphics and their role in the creative process of the author. To solve these problems, a special toolkit has been developed that allows for the research selection of graphic images and their description.

The article discusses the debatable issues in the study of the unfinished story by N. A. Nekrasov about F. M. Dostoevsky. Nekrasov played an important role in the evolution of Dostoevsky’s literary reputation. The novel “Poor Folk” became a literary sensation in 1845–1846, and its author was called a genius. In the mid-1850s Nekrasov undertook a revision of these events. The prototypes of his characters are real people. The story presents three characters: Mertsalov (Belinsky), Glazhievsky (Dostoevsky), Chudov (Nekrasov). Their images are distinctive and unambiguous. Mertsalov is contradictory: he greets the young writer with enthusiasm, but he is cruel and demanding of “literary sympathizers”, whom he perceives as servants. Only Chudov is revealed as a positive hero. He is not an intriguer, is honest and critical of all participants in this literary story, condemns intrigues and gossip. A character of this work, he is also the author’s alter ego. As a prototype, Dostoevsky is explored in Nekrasov’s text from three perspectives. Acting as a memoirist, Nekrasov presents Dostoevsky as a writer and as a historical figure. A documentary approach prevails in these episodes, the author uses the facts of the biography of the writer, who found himself at the epicenter of St. Petersburg literary life in the mid-1840s. As a critic, Nekrasov analyzes the creative experience of early Dostoevsky, recognizing Makar Devushkin and Golyadkin in the author. As a journalist and editor, Nekrasov presents Dostoevsky as a character of gossip, rumors, Belinsky’s satirical message to Dostoevsky, I. Panaev’s feuilletons. This is an exaggerated and caricature image of a young genius who is not ready for this role, who is insolvent as a person, and therefore ridiculed and rejected by Belinsky’s entourage. Nekrasov made the story of Glazhievskiy an instructive one. The author exposes his characters. There are contradictions within the characters, but no complexity. He is interested in the subject matter, but not in its participants. At first, Nekrasov was carried away by the topic, but later lost interest in it.

“A Writer's Diary” is an example of the unique journalistic style of Dostoevsky, who worked in many journalistic genres, including political review. The writer analyzed current domestic and international events, relying on a large volume of the metropolitan, provincial and foreign press, as well as appealing to examples from distant and recent history. Extracts from an article by the Russian antiquarian M. S. Kutorga, found in the working materials for “A Writer's Diary” for 1876, are a vivid example of such appeals. Dostoevsky is interested in the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle cited by Kutorga about tyranny, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and also about Solon's reforms. This article provides a factual and textual commentary on the extracts, determines their connection with the contents of the 1875–1876 notebook. The facts of ancient history, interpreted by the ancient Greek philosophers and, subsequently, by the Russian historian, resonate with the historiosophical concept of Dostoevsky, who defends the monarchical and Orthodox positions.

The creative heritage of F. M. Dostoevsky has always aroused interest among Iranian researchers and lovers of Russian literature. The article is devoted to the study of Dostoevsky’s influence on the formation and development of Persian literature. This influence found expression in such a peculiar phenomenon as a triple translation: the translation of Dostoevsky’s novel into Persian, the translation of literary text into cinematic language, and the translation of Christian content into the language of Islamic culture. The article contains an analysis of the film adaptation of “White Nights,” which was released in 2002. The author of the script for the film is Saeed Aghighi, the author of the production is an outstanding Iranian film director Farzad Motamen. The feature film is a free adaptation of Dostoevsky’s novel “White Nights” to modern Persian spatial, temporal, cultural and religious features. It can be considered the only successful Iranian film adaptation of the works of Russian classics. The film was the result of a creative dialogue of the translator, screenwriter and director with the author, interaction and mutual enrichment of different types of arts, national cultures and confessions, literary, philosophical and religious codes of communication.