Vol 8, No 4 (2021)

The article considers the need to republish the texts of classical Russian literature in general, as well as the creative heritage of F. M. Dostoevsky in particular, in the author’s orthography. The author analyzes the key cultural and technological obstacles on the path to drawing the attention of the public and the scientific community to the problem of insufficient number of books published in traditional orthography. A set of practices and solutions that contribute to changing the current situation in the long and short term is proposed. Based on historical experience, as well as the work of modern researchers in the field of textual studies, the socio- cultural functioning of traditional spelling in Russia at the present time is highlighted. This is the language in which the Russian classics were created. Rehabilitation and functioning of traditional spelling involves the capacity to write and publish your texts in scientific and business communication. It is necessary to encourage the use of traditional orthography in professional literary-critical and linguistic activities. Technical issues need to be addressed, in particular, the introduction of a new standard for the Russian keyboard layout, the development of information and reference services on the history of the Russian language, tools and technologies for creating electronic texts. Creating the digital Dostoevsky can help solve the problems of the variable use of traditional Russian writing.

The article analyzes certain proper names and titles of the works from the 1860s notebooks of F. M. Dostoevsky (preserved in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library, fund 93.I.2.8 and in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts, fund 212.1.4, 212.1.5). Some of the notes have not been deciphered or have a controversial reading in research literature. These include both the names of people with whom Dostoevsky personally communicated, the names of the authors of books that the writer read, and the anthroponyms of literary heroes. Proceeding from the commentaries that accompany the first publications of notebooks in vol. 83 of the “Literary Heritage” series, as well as in vols. 20 and 27 of “The Complete Works” of the writer in 30 volumes, the author of the article offers an updated and/or corrected commentary on certain names and titles. Thus, the correct title of the book by the historian I. D. Belyaev, which was a part of Dostoevsky’s library, and about which a memo was made, is established. Dostoevsky often left critical notes in his notebooks regarding the works of a particular contemporary. The article examines a number of entries about “nihilistic novels” instigated by the reading of the then-current works on female emancipation. The commentary by T. I. Ornatskaya, who ascribes the name “Lilinka” and the records associated with it to “Dream,” a short story by

A. V. Korvin-Krukovskaya, is disputed, confirming the opinion of other researchers that the source of the records is N. D. Akhsharumov's novel “A Tricky Business.” The article also analyzes records concerning the writer's debts (for example, to V. P. Polyakov, P. A. Popov and V. P. Popov), as well as notes about the failed and unknown authors of the “Epoch” (a certain Andreev). In Dostoevsky's notebooks of the “Time” (“Vremya”) and “Epoch” (“Epokha”) period (1860–1865) there are proper names that still have no corresponding comments. The article aims to draw the attention of researchers to existing problems for further development of the topic.

The article presents the history of business and friendly relations between F. M. Dostoevsky and M. I. Semevsky, an employee of the “Vremya” journal and the editor of “Russkaya Starina”, the largest historical journal of the 19th century. Semevsky most likely met Dostoevsky in the early 1860s, when the former became a contributing author of the “Vremya” journal and wrote two large-scale historical essays for the publication: “Tsarina Praskovya” and “The Mons Family.” Dostoevsky was familiar with Semevsky’s works even prior to their personal meetings and intended to polemize with his concept of Peter’s time, as evidenced by the surviving sketches of the writer’s critical review. The idea of a polemic was rejected when Semevsky became the author of the “Vremya” journal. Its editors, the Dostoevsky brothers, appreciated his cooperation and, as confirmed in the fee book, paid him more than many other authors. The meetings of Dostoevsky and Semevsky were reflected in the epistolary legacy and in the notes of Semevsky, which he wrote in the autumn of 1866 after the trial of the revolutionary Nikolai Ishutin. In November 1876, Semevsky gave Dostoevsky the documents for “A Writer’s Diary”, requesting him not to identify the source. The communication between Dostoevsky and Semevsky in the last year of the writer’s life is mentioned in the memoirs of E. N. Opochinin. The article provides an overview of Dostoevsky’s letters of 1854–1879, published in “Russkaya Starina” in 1883–1885, as well as of memoirs of various persons about Dostoevsky, published during the life of the editor and after his death. Archival documents revealing new facts of the biography of Dostoevsky, Semevsky and their contemporaries were used and introduced into scientific circulation in the study.

The article is devoted to the biography of the Soviet-Iranian researcher F. Riza-Zade, also known as F. Sayyah, and her studies of Dostoevsky’s literary heritage. A number of archival materials that reflect the professional and friendly relations of F. Riza-Zade in 1929–1930s have been introduced into scientific circulation. A review of the articles “Dostoevsky and Modern French Literature (On the Influence of Dostoevsky)” and “Dostoevsky in Western Criticism,” as well as the preface to the Persian translation of Dostoevsky’s novel White Nights, published in Tehran, has been carried out. It is noted that the researcher’s works have laid the foundations of Soviet and Iranian comparative studies: Dostoevsky’s work was interpreted in the broad context of French literature, German philosophical and aesthetic tradition and Iranian cultural symbols of good and evil. The key methodological principles of F. Riza-Zade are analyzed: the focus on sociological criticism of the Pereverzev school, a cultural and aesthetic approach to the analysis of genre problems, tendency towards self-sufficiency in literary research and rejection of philosophical speculation. The conclusion is made about the importance of the works of F. Riza-Zade in the study and popularization of Dostoevsky’s work and in the fostering of Russian-Iranian cultural ties.

In the article, Konstantin A. Barsht’s publications devoted to the study of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s creativity are subjected to a critical analysis: 1) works on the drawings and calligraphy of the writer; 2) a commented edition of Dostoevsky’s novel “Poor Folk” for “Literary Monuments” series; 3) publications about the manuscripts of the novel “Demons”, including the publication of Dostoevsky’s workbooks with draft notes for this novel (2021); 4) Barsht’s articles from the collection “Dostoevsky: Еtymology of Narration” (2019). The analysis of these publications reveals Barsht’s unprofessionalism as a researcher, as well as his violation of scientific ethics. The authors of the article proceed from the idea that this kind of imitation of research is unacceptable, publications should undergo a qualified examination and receive expert evaluation.