№ 2, 2025 year

The publication introduced into scientific circulation documents related to the elevation to hereditary nobility in 1828 of the writer’s father Mikhail Andreevich Dostoevsky, his sons Mikhail, Fyodor, and Andrei, and his daughter Varvara, which were extracted from the archive file entitled “Evidence of the Nobility of Dostoevsky. 1828,” discovered by the author in the Central State Archive of Moscow (TSGA Moscow), in the fund of the Chancellery of the Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly. The publication of the documents is accompanied by a description of the procedure for the review and approval of M. A. Dostoevsky’s request for him and his children to be entered into the third part of the noble genealogy book of the Moscow province. Adjustments are being made to the traditional ideas about the chronology of this event. Documents from the case “On the Nobility of the Dostoevsky Family,” stored in the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA), in the fund of the Department of Heraldry of the Senate, are also being introduced into scientific circulation. The internal connection of the documents of the two archival files is established. Additionally, the resolution of the Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly dated September 12, 1881 about the inclusion of the writer’s widow Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya and the children Lyubov and Fyodor in the family tree is published.Dostoevsky family, hereditary nobility, genealogical book, Moscow Noble Deputies’ Assembly, Department of Heraldry of the Governing Senate, Central State Archive of Moscow, Russian State Historical Archive

The article introduces new archival materials concerning the Moscow branch of the Dostoevsky family tree, which were discovered by the author in the Central State Archive of Moscow (TSGA of Moscow). Previously unknown to researchers, eleven members of the genus belonging to the families of Anna Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Tikhomirova and Evdokia (Avdotya) Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Memorskaya, the sisters of the writer’s grandmother Varvara Mikhailovna Kotelnitskaya-Nechaeva, have been identified. Metric records have been published about the wedding of these great-aunts of Dostoevsky and about their deaths (the first in 1804, and the second in 1837), about the birth (and in some cases about the death) of their children. The initial information about their husbands, Andrei Gavrilovich Tikhomirov and Mikhail Fedorovich Memorsky, has been collected. The problem of determining the year of birth of persons born in Moscow earlier than 1777 is outlined. The difficulty of calculating the year of birth according to confessional records is also indicated. Based on archival research, corrections were made to the memoirs of the younger brother of the writer Andrei Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, and gaps were filled in the genealogical painting of the Moscow branch of the writer’s family, published in the fundamental “The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevskys” (2013).F. M. Dostoevsky, Kotelnitskys, Tikhomirovs, Memorskys, genealogy, metric book, confession sheet

F. M. Dostoevsky and D. V. Grigorovich, who had known each other since studying at the K. F. Kostomarov’s preparatory boarding school in St. Petersburg, and then at the Main Engineering School, were of opposite natures and had never been particularly close during their interactions. However, the mid-1840s were the time of the greatest rapprochement between the two writers and their mutual influence on each other’s work. One of the most famous episodes in memoirs about Dostoevsky is the incident described by Grigorovich. In 1844 the aspiring writer Dostoevsky advised Grigorovich, who was preparing his debut work “St. Petersburg Organ Grinders” for publication, to supplement the description of the 5-copeck coin thrown to the organ grinder with a vivid detail. The image of a ringing and bouncing coin became an example of the subtlety of the literary taste of the future author of “Poor Folk” and a paragon of stylistic requirements for a realistic work. Grigorovich’s testimony is usually accepted and quoted without any doubt as to its authenticity. The article presents the fact that Dostoevsky’s former flatmate sometimes made things up in his conversations and memoirs. However, he was unlikely to have made up this story, since the literary lesson was reflected not only in the essay “Petersburg Organ Grinders,” but also in the short novel “Plowman” by Grigorovich. The conversation with Grigorovich and the reading of his essay did not pass unnoticed by Dostoevsky himself. He used the image of a jingling coin tossed to an organ grinder in the novel “Poor Folk,” and in the story “Mr. Prokharchin” he listed the toy characters of Grigorovich’s essay. Grigorovich seems to have remembered Dostoevsky’s stylistic lesson half a century later. Judging by the advice given by Grigorovich to the young writer Anton Chekhov in a letter from 1886, as he grew older and improved his writing skills, he clarified his position on the limits of acceptability when introducing artistic details into realistic descriptions. As a result, he advised Chekhov not to get carried away with unnecessary details that have a “cynical connotation” and spoil the reader’s impression of the text. The young writer agreed with Grigorovich and followed this recommendation. The advice on improving literary style given by Dostoevsky and later Grigorovich became classic lessons of writing skill.Dostoevsky, Grigorovich, Chekhov, natural school, Physiology of St. Petersburg, hurdy-gurdy, Poor Folk, Mr. Prokharchin, Crime and Punishment, correspondence

F. M. Dostoevsky associated the name of N. M. Karamzin with his childhood memories. In 1862, after Dostoevsky discovered the “Note on Ancient and New Russia in Its Political and Civil Relations,” he connected the historiographer’s name with Slavophile ideas about the unification of the “Russian lands.” The figures of the court historiographer N. M. Karamzin and the statesman M. M. Speransky occupied a special place in F. M. Dostoevsky’s reflections on the spiritual and historical path of Russia. Dostoevsky heeded attention to Speransky in 1861 owing to the M. A. Korf’s book “The Life of Count Speransky.” M. M. Dostoevsky commissioned its review by M. I. Vladislavlev and the journal “Vremya” published it. The names of Speransky and Karamzin appeared together only once — in a June 1870 entry in the preparatory materials for the novel The Demons: “Who: Speransky or Karamzin?” The rough draft demonstrates that in the novelist’s mind considered the positions of these historical figures ideologized and diametrically opposed, similarly to the polemics between Westernizers and Slavophiles, respectively: the names of Karamzin and Speransky signified the idea of two possible paths of Russia’s subsequent development. While from Dostoevsky’s point of view the Slavophiles (“conservatives”) affirmed the pre-Petrine ideal and were merely abstract dreamers, the Westernizers (“nihilists”) continued the work of Peter the Great, i.e., the destruction of traditional foundations. According to Dostoevsky, the “dreamy” nature of the Slavophiles was overpowered by virtue of Karamzin’s idea of the dialectical connection between the old and the new. The well-known formula about universality, all-humanity, all-understanding and all-response embodies the novelist’s reflections. According to Dostoevsky, A. S. Pushkin possessed these qualities.Dostoevsky, Karamzin, Speransky, Pushkin, Demons, conservatism, nihilism, Slavophilism, Westernism, pochvennichestvo, historiosophy

The article examines the personal and literary relations of Ya. P. Polonsky and F. M. Dostoevsky. Despite some discord in the later years, they managed to maintain friendly relations. Special attention is paid to the joint work of Ya. P. Polonsky and F. M. Dostoevsky in the journals “Vremya” (“Time,” 1861–1863) and “Epokha” (“Epoch,” 1864–1865). As an active contributor to these publications, Polonsky shared Dostoevsky’s thoughts on the fate of Russia, addressing the issue of responsibility for the spread of liberal ideas and expressing his opinion on the “Polish question.” He was interested in the type of a Russian European, which he depicted in his novel in verse “Svezhee predanie” (“New Tradition,” 1861–1862) and in his drama “Razlad” (“Disagreement,” 1864). Like Dostoevsky in his prose, Polonsky in his poetry gravitated towards paradoxes and absurd proofs, rejecting logic and rationalism. In the poem “Dvoynik” (“The Double”), he reveals the duality of the lyrical hero, who is willing to switch to being a “ghost” from being “himself.” In the poem “Belaya noch” (“White Night”), he expresses the “constrained thought” of the residents of St. Petersburg, who seek release through anger and hatred, foreshadowing the Paradoxalist in “Notes from Underground” and Raskolnikov in “Crime and Punishment.” The two writers held similar principles and were united by moral ideas, Christocentrism, spiritual symbolism, and love for their homeland.Ya. P. Polonsky, F. M. Dostoevsky, a Novel in Verse New Tradition, Drama Disagreement, Russia, duality, petersburg type, Polish question, symbol

The article sets out the vital and promising task of creating a directory of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s correspondents that would include their scientific biographies. The author of “A Writer’s Diary” was not acquainted with most of the people who wrote to him in the 1870s. However, by reconstructing their biographies based on archival documents, it is possible to gain insight into the vibrant historical context in which Dostoevsky lived and worked. One of the writer’s correspondents who has been overlooked by researchers is Georgy Petrovich Enisherlov. In June 1876, he wrote two letters to Dostoevsky, enclosing his poems and requesting their fastest possible evaluation. The correspondent explained his haste and persistence by stating that he was seriously ill and expected to die soon. Based on documentary and reference sources, it was revealed that Georgy Enisherlov’s biography was typical for university students in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In his youth, he was eager to engage in active public work and became interested in revolutionary ideas, becoming a close associate of the leader of “Narodnaya Rasprava” Sergey Nechaev and was a co-author of the organization’s charter, “Katekhizis revolutsionera” (“Catechism of a Revolutionary).” However, Enisherlov’s close relationship with Nechaev later transformed into his hatred of the latter and the desire to kill him. In his autobiography, “My Confession,” the former member of the Nechaev Circle revealed the reasons behind this: Nechaev had sole authorship of the “Narodnaya rasprava” (“People’s Execution”) charter and had distorted Enisherlov’s proposed “Jesuit Path” of revolution. He also accused Nechaev of arresting his beloved, E. Ch. Tomilova. Enisherlov’s love poem, which he sent to Dostoevsky among other poetic texts, is dedicated to her. The rest of the poems are nature lyrics, reflections on God and the immortality of the soul. After enduring hardships in prisons and exile, the former member of the Nechaev Circle renounced his rebellious ideas and embarked on the path of “My Confession,” a journey of self-discovery and spiritual enlightenment. However, his “deathbed” letters to Dostoevsky, written in 1876, did not live up to their name. Enisherlov suffered from a hypochondriacal mental disorder and spent years living in anticipation of death. This is evidenced by the history of his transfer of his archive to the Rumyantsev Museum (now the Department of Manuscripts at the Russian State Library), which lasted from 1895 to 1913. It is difficult to determine whether Dostoevsky responded to the “dying” man’s letters, as Enisherlov did not mention this in his memoirs.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Georgy Enisherlov, Sergey Nechaev, Elizaveta Tomilova, Mikhail Avdeev, the Nechaev affair, Catechism of a Revolutionary, Peter and Paul Fortress, correspondence, biography, attribution

Copyright is one of the most important concepts in a writer's profession, which protected Fyodor Dostoevsky’s his intellectual property and allowed him to earn. After his death, his intellectual property was inherited by his wife and children. This article attempts to explore certain aspects of copyright that the writer's widow, Anna Grigorievna, faced based on the known documents from the Dostoevsky archive and legal literature from the 19th and early 20th centuries. This includes the recognition of letters as objects of copyright, the transfer of publishing rights to a third party, the distribution of income from book sales among the writer’s children as co-heirs of literary property, the permission to stage plays and operas based on Dostoevsky's works, the reduction of the copyright term, and the sale of literary property. An analysis of archival materials and a study of the legislation of the Russian Empire revealed a discrepancy between the ratio of inheritance shares for copyright between the publisher and her children, as stated in her private correspondence, and the type of property. Copyright was considered a movable asset, but the shares in the Dostoevsky family were distributed as if they were real estate. This suggests that copyright had a special status and could not be fully equated with movable property. Special attention is heeded to the reasons why Dostoevsky, while still alive, in 1874, sold the copyrights to his mother-in-law, Anna Nikolaevna Snitkina, and the writer's wife later acquired them. Dostoevsky intended this transfer of rights to ensure an equal distribution of income from the publications among his wife and children, which was subsequently implemented, as evidenced by Anna Grigorievna's notes. The article presents a hypothesis explaining Dostoevskaya's reluctance to disclose that she received a third of the income from the sale of the books. She was uncomfortable with the idea of her wealth, and she repeatedly referred to the widow's share, which was legally set at 1/7 of the inherited property. The materials on copyright issues presented in the article are examined in the legal context of the 19th century, offering a necessary historical commentary on the publishing activities of A. G. Dostoevskaya.A. G. Dostoevskaya, copyright, object of copyright, letters, translations of works, literary property, widow

This article is devoted to the analysis of the film adaptation of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” in the Iranian film “Crime” directed by M. A. Sajjadi. The research is based on the concept of R. Jacobson’s intersemiotic translation and the film adaptation theory, with the aim to study how a literary work is transformed into visual art with regard to the cultural context, national characteristics and creative intent of the director. The film “Crime” is an example of a domestication strategy in which the setting is moved to modern Tehran and the characters are adapted to Iranian culture. The main character Siyavush is the on-screen embodiment of Rodion Raskolnikov, who exemplifies internal struggle and resolves moral conflicts, but his motivation for his crime and the path to transformation are greatly simplified. The film also alters the original symbolism: the Christian idea of redemption is replaced by the theme of love, which reflects the cultural characteristics of Iran. The study demonstrates that adaptation is inevitably accompanied by a reduction, expansion and reinterpretation of the original, which makes it possible to create a new independent text. Despite significant changes, the film preserves Dostoevsky’s key ideas about moral responsibility and the search for meaning in life. Thus, “Crime” becomes a bridge between Russian classical literature and modern Iranian cinema, demonstrating the universality of Dostoevsky’s ideas in various cultural contexts.intersemiotic translation, cinematic adaptation, domestication, F. M. Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, Crime, Iranian cinema