№ 4, 2025 year

Almost a quarter of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s preserved epistolary legacy consists of his correspondence with his wife Anna Grigorievna dated 1866–1880. These are not merely letters related to love and family, but a valuable source of information about the writer’s life and inner world. They demonstrate his profound personal evolution from an unhappy relationship to true happiness and a period of creative flourishing, which became possible thanks to his wife, his assistant. The article substantiates the need for a new edition of the Dostoevskys’ correspondence, which the leading researcher of Dostoevsky’s biography and work, Boris Tikhomirov, called “a top priority.” The widow was the one to begin the preparation for the publication of the correspondence between Fyodor Dostoevsky and herself. Not intending to publish her husband’s letters to her during her lifetime, she presented the publishing principle to the heirs: to publish only Dostoevsky’s letters, without her reply messages. On the one hand, she subjected her husband’s letters to strict censorship, thickly crossing out certain lines, and destroyed more than 30 of her own letters from 1871–1874. On the other hand, she made copies of her husband’s letters and excerpts from her destroyed letters, and compiled two versions of essential notes to the letters specially for future readers. The first and only edition of the Dostoevsky family correspondence was published in 1976. It became a significant event in Soviet Dostoevsky studies, but by now it has become significantly outdated. Among the shortcomings of the publication are the following facts: not all letters were published; words and paragraphs were omitted from them; about 10 letters were incorrectly dated; individual words were incorrectly deciphered; an inconsistent punctuation principle was used. This article is the first to introduce into scientific circulation a playful letter from the writer’s wife, unaccounted for in the 1976 edition, which was an altered version of the anonymous letter from Sofia Smirnova’s novel “Sila Kharaktera” (“Strength of Character”) (1876) and caused a violent scene of jealousy on the part of Dostoevsky. The researchers face the scientific and educational task of preparing a new edition of Dostoevsky’s correspondence with his wife. It is necessary to publish all the known texts of the spouses’ letters in full, correct the mistakes of previous publishers, take into account two versions of Anna Dostoevskaya’s notes and the latest discoveries in Dostoevsky studies. The new edition stimulates the scientific study of Dostoevsky’s family correspondence both in terms of its poetics and as a historical source.Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaya, letter, correspondence, publication, textual criticism, notes, commentary, family

Based on documents stored in the Historical Archive of Estonia and the Tallinn City Archive, the article systematizes information about the family of the writer's sister-in-law, Emilia Fyodorovna Dostoevskaya, a native of Reval, with whom he communicated for almost 40 years. The circle of her direct relatives, which includes the Dittmer and Bergmann families, whose members F. M. Dostoevsky met during his three trips to Reval in the 1840s, has been established. The names and dates of births, deaths, and marriages of E. F. Dostoevskaya's grandfather, father, mother, stepfather, and nine siblings have been introduced into scientific circulation. This information is supplemented by unpublished letters from her family (1851, in German) addressed to Mikhail Mikhailovich, Emilia Fyodorovna and Fedya Dostoevsky, which are stored in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. Archival data make it possible to clarify and document the status of another person from Dostoevsky's entourage: August Alexandrovich Bergmann, an employee of the magazines Vremya and Epoch in the 1860s, referred to in various sources as an “acquaintance,” “neighbor and acquaintance of the Riesenkampf family,” “distant relative” of Emilia Fedorovna — her younger half-brother Three photographs of the Bergmanns, preserved by E. F. Dostoevskaya’s youngest daughter, E. M. Manasseina, are also more accurately attributed. The study demonstrates the method of searching for genealogical and biographical information regarding the Baltic Germans of the Russian Empire: archival documents (the SAAGA project) supplement the information from the Amburger card index, the Baltic Biographical Lexicon, the digital archive of the University of Tartu, address books, and the German-language press. One of the difficulties when working with this type of sources (both documents and correspondence) is the need for a preliminary decoding of cursive German Gothic. Neural network-based translation programs can become an auxiliary tool. With their help, six Bergmann letters from 1851 and a letter from E. F. Dostoevskaya to the writer dated August 19, 1868 (a response to his letter dated August 9 (21), 1868 from Vevey, published by V. S. Nechaeva in 1927) were transcribed and translated for the first time. Thus, it became possible to get acquainted with the complete epistolary mini-cycle of nine letters from E. F. and F. M. Dostoevsky and to supplement biographical information about this person from Dostoevsky’s inner circle.Emilia Fyodorovna Dostoevskaya, Mikhail Dostoevsky, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Bergmann, Dittmer, Ditmar, Reval, “Vremya”, “Epokha”, epistolary, archival search, genealogy, attribution

The article focuses on one of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s most elaborated unrealized projects — the story of Captain Kartuzov (1868–1869). The drafts are examined through the lens of Dostoevsky’s spatial poetics and the problem of constructing a fictional world. The action of the projected story was to unfold between Reval and St. Petersburg, which in Dostoevsky’s notebooks acquire the status of not merely geographical but symbolic and semantic poles of the narrative. Special attention is given to how the Reval layer of “Kartuzov” emerges from the character’s almost courtly poetic discourse, while the St. Petersburg fragments are defined through references to real topoi — the “London” Hotel and the “Red Tavern.” The study also interprets the mention of Riga in the calligraphic drafts as part of the writer’s spatial imagination. St. Petersburg, Reval, and Riga appear as “eccentric cities” located “on the edge” of cultural space. Additional attention is paid to how the urban imagery shapes Kartuzov’s character and contributes to the overall tone of the narrative. The analysis of the drafts shows that at the early stages of conceptualization Dostoevsky constructs the story’s spatial framework according to the principles of both “collision” and “comparison.” The article concludes by identifying several techniques used by Dostoevsky to introduce and shape the urban locus in his preparatory notes.Dostoevsky, Kartuzov, unrealized project, St. Petersburg, Reval, drafts, manuscripts, spatial poetics, chronotope, space, semiotics of the city

In the sketches of the “Novel about Children,” which was the starting point on the writer’s path to the novel “A Raw Youth,” there is an active character, a teacher named Fyodor Fyodorovich. He loves children selflessly, even those who have become criminals, and unites them in a kind of brotherhood. At the same time, he is devoted to the ideas of socialism. The article proves that one of the prototypes of this character (along with P. M. Zeidler) was Fyodor Fyodorovich Rezener, who established a colony for juvenile delinquents near St. Petersburg, which was repeatedly covered in “The Citizen” (“Grazhdanin”) edited by Dostoevsky. While conceiving the “A Writer’s Diary” in 1876, Dostoevsky visited this colony, which he had “long been striving to do.” The writer’s interest in Rezener could have been aroused by other facts of his biography: the public clash with Antonelli, the endured slap in the face, a new type of relationship with children at the primary school he headed on Vasilyevsky Island, the spirit of socialism in translation and journalism, which brought him closer to P. L. Lavrov and N. G. Chernyshevsky. Dostoevsky’s benevolent interest in the ascetic socialist teacher testified to a change in his strategy towards the “infected” generation compared to the “Demons.” It is no coincidence that the new novel “A Raw Youth” was published in Otechestvennye Zapiski, the “nihilists'” media outlet. The change in strategy is already noticeable in the “youth” policy of the weekly “The Citizen” run by the writer, as well as in the first drafts of the future novel. Dostoevsky calls Fyodor Fyodorovich a “direct” Christian because of his pedagogical experiments, and the idea of universal fatherhood. This is the objective meaning of real life-building, dictated by his vitalizing love for children. Fyodor Fyodorovich is absent from the final text of the novel, but the motives associated with him are preserved in the Raw Youth’s conversations with Makar Ivanovich about “atheists” and “communism,” as well as in Versilov’s vision of “the last day of humanity.” In it, Christ returned to the orphaned people, because God’s image did not die in the souls of those who retained the need to love the “other”. This “other,” according to Dostoevsky, is primarily a child, a “baby.” “Practical Christianity” makes the very existence of civilization contingent on the continued ability to love and understand the little ones. This understanding is demonstrated in the finale of the novel “A Raw Youth” by the “educator” Nikolai Semenovich, and in the next novel by Alexey Karamazov. In Dostoevsky’s eyes, P. M. Zeidler and F. F. Rezener spent their entire lives proving the actual feasibility of essentially Christian pedagogy.the novel “A Raw Youth”, creative history, Fyodor Fyodorovich Rezener, P. M. Zeidler, prototypes, pedagogy, socialism, Christianity, “Grazhdanin”, “The Citizen”

When V. P. Meshchersky founded his weekly “Grazhdanin” (“The Citizen”) in 1872, he conceived it as a “political and literary” publication. This became the program of the “newspapermagazine”. In an 1872 editorial, “citizen” is interpreted not as an impersonal French concept “citoyen”, but as a similar-in-meaning German word “Bürger” (a conscious hard worker and fighter for the honor of the Motherland). The article examines in detail the formation of the publication’s structure which finally took shape when Dostoevsky became a member of the editorial board. One of the sections of the publication was “Verses”. The poets’ circle of “Grazhdanin” included F. I. Tyutchev, A. N. Maykov, A. K. Tolstoy, Ya. P. Polonsky, A. N. Apukhtin, V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vs. S. Solovyov and others. Their works solved not only artistic tasks (creating a poetic world view, expressing aesthetic feelings), but also formulated the ideas of their time. The article analyzes F. I. Tyutchev’s poem “The Vatican’s Anniversary”, in which the poet expressed the philosophical and political ideas of “Grazhdanin”. They were later developed by V. P. Meshchersky in the article “The Struggle of the Church against the State in Europe”. The publication of original verses was accompanied by quotations from poets whose works were not published in “Grazhdanin”. For example, in “A Writer’s Diary”, Dostoevsky gave a critical analysis of N. A. Nekrasov’s poem “Vlas”. The writer’s polemics with the poet led to consequences. Dostoevsky expressed the ideas of “Grazhdanin”, Nekrasov accepted the enthusiastic criticism of the writer, but clarified and corrected some of his poems in a subsequent publication. A kind of creative dialogue took place between the writer and the poet. Verses in “Grazhdanin” complemented the philosophical, political and literary ideas of the publication, expressed lyrical experiences of poets, editors and readers. This article opens a series of works about the poetic repertory of “Grazhdanin”.Grazhdanin, The Citizen, prose, poetry, verse, poet, polemic, F. M. Dostoevsky, V. P. Meshchersky, F. I. Tyutchev, N. A. Nekrasov

The originality of Dostoevsky’s 1873 “A Writer’s Diary” is determined not only by the content of the work, but also by its integration into the media environment — “The Citizen” weekly journal. Using Bakhtin’s concept of a chronotope, the author substantiates the concept of media time-space, which is more concrete and immediate than artistic time-space, owing to their different natures. The article analyzes the interaction of three chronotopic levels: historical, media, and artistic. The specificity of “A Writer’s Diary” is determined by its functionality within the media structure of “The Citizen.” Calendar chronology becomes the organizing principle in Dostoevsky’s column, shaping the plot and dictating the content, genre, and style of each chapter. A model of a multi-level spatial-temporal structure of a publication is proposed (chronotope of an issue, week, genre, as well as the specific historical chronotopes). “A Writer’s Diary” is part of “The Citizen,” yet simultaneously opposes it, forming a novelized chronotope. This is achieved through a synthesis of journalistic, confessional, and artistic elements. Time and space structure the narrative and imbue it with symbolic meaning. Dostoevsky transforms historical and journalistic materials, subordinating them to artistic goals, creating paradox and polyphony.Dostoevsky, “A Writer’s Diary”, the weekly “Citizen”, media chronotope, the Romanization of the chronotope, Bakhtin, time, space, day, week, annual cycle

F. M. Dostoevsky’s epistolary archive contains three letters from E. A. Belov, a historian, teacher, literary critic, and memoirist, a pupil of P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky, a renowned chronicler and researcher of Russian history and the Old Believers. All three letters addressed to Dostoevsky were written in August 1873, during Belov’s brief collaboration with the weekly journal “Grazhdanin” (“The Citizen”). The writer placed great hopes in this contributor, as he acknowledged in his letter to A. G. Dostoevskaya, who later mentioned Belov’s name alongside such “Grazhdanin” contributors as K. P. Pobedonostsev, A. N. Maikov, T. I. Filippov, N. N. Strakhov, and A. U. Poretsky. With Belov’s arrival at “Grazhdanin,” the collective column “Criticism and Bibliography” was revived. Belov began actively collaborating with the journal, editing articles and publishing them in the critical section. During Dostoevsky’s editorship, seven articles and reviews by Belov were published, however, from September 1873 onward, his active participation in the journal was limited, although later, in the latter half of 1874, his publications in “Grazhdanin” appeared periodically. Belov’s name is mentioned sporadically in Dostoevsky studies, primarily in connection with an editorial conflict over D. D. Kishensky’s article, which is reflected in Belov’s letters to Dostoevsky. This article examines in detail Belov’s publications on public education that appeared in the summer 1873 issues of “Grazhdanin.” During their collaboration, Dostoevsky and Belov developed a creative dialogue between the editor and the critic. Belov’s publications raised various issues of public education, the journal’s spirit, and its direction. Along with other contributors to “Grazhdanin,” Belov presented a program for reforming the secondary education system. The critic’s fundamental idea was the paramount role of spiritual education, without which neither understanding national identity and national ideals, nor returning to national roots are possible. This idea is fundamental to comprehending the concept of folk spirit, which defines the meaning of Dostoevsky’s creative work.F. M. Dostoevsky, E. A. Belov, “Grazhdanin”, “The Citizen”, epistolary heritage, correspondence, correspondent, dialogue, public education, spiritual education, folk spirit

In 1874, Dostoevsky responded to the death of Nikolai Ivanovich Solovyov in the weekly “Grazhdanin” (“The Citizen”), positively characterizing his literary work. Their association was brief and dates back to 1864, when the then-unknown author sent the manuscript of the article “The Theory of Ugliness” to the editors of “Epoch.” The critic’s worldview and work were shaped by Dostoevsky’s direct influence. The key to the publicist's system of thought was the affirmation of “human dignity,” understood as the inseparable connection between aesthetic and moral principles. Solovyov combatted the nihilism and utilitarianism of the 1860s. The central focus of this debate was the defense of the spiritual significance of art and beauty as the foundations of morality. Solovyov’s articles published in the “Epoch” reveal the author’s original intention, which was based on the use of paradoxical titles. These formulations must be interpreted as a deliberate move in his polemical struggle. The article devotes particular attention to the creative dialogue between Solovyov and Dostoevsky, which can be traced not only in the writer's editorial revisions and notes but also in their correspondence. Surviving letters from Solovyov to Dostoevsky from 1871 reveal the evolution of their dialogue. In his epistolary writings, the critic emerges not only as a sensitive observer of the literary process but also as a profound interpreter of Dostoevsky’s work. The worldview of both authors was based on a number of common principles: the perception of nihilism as a threat to national culture, the appreciation of beauty as a salvific force closely linked to morality, and the affirmation of Christian values — family and faith.F. M. Dostoevsky, N. I. Solovyov, literary criticism, polemics, nihilism, utilitarianism, epistolary writing, pochvennichestvo