№ 2, 2026 year

The article analyzes the functioning of the word “all-man” in Dostoevsky’s texts and in research discourse, which has Moscow roots; the history of the formation of this word as an axiologeme opposite to the lexeme “ordinary or typical human being” is revealed; the process of their value perversion is considered, as a result of which the term “ordinary or typical human being” acquired a sharply negative meaning, fixed in the Dostoevsky “Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s Language” and in the “Terminological Dictionary-Thesaurus of F. M. Dostoevsky’s "Gospel Text",” the “all-man” appeared as the ideal of the development of the Russian person. The origins of this key lexeme in the writer’s language are noted: from the articles of the Moscow Slavophile S. P. Shevyrev, who created the word form “all-human,” to the book by N. Y. Danilevsky, who was the first to use the words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” as antonyms. The baton from Dostoevsky was taken by V. S. Solovyov, the philosophers of the Silver Age and the Eurasians. The works of St. Justin (Popovich) and Walter Schubart became an important stage in the development of Dostoevsky’s anthropological ideas. A significant contribution to their understanding was made by Russian researchers V. N. Zakharov, N. F. Budanova, T. A. Kasatkina, E. P. Litinskaya, E. Yu. Safronova et al. The article also critically examines the reflection of Dostoevsky’s axiologems in philosophical and explanatory dictionaries, in which the lexemes “all-man” and “ordinary or typical human being” are mainly presented as synonyms, with a significant semantic and axiological shift. It is concluded that solving the complex problem of adequate reception and interpretation of the lexemes “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man,” researchers need to take into account both their history in the Russian language and the lexico-semantic, stylistic, and axiological features of their functioning in Dostoevsky’s texts and in Russian literature and culture in general.Dostoevsky, Christian anthropology, axiology, Moscow code, ordinary or typical human being, all-man, history, reception

The article describes and analyzes English-language research into Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech. Generally, the Pushkin Speech has been investigated in two modes: as a phenomenon of literature and literary scholarship — a guide to conceptualizing Russian literature — and as a political phenomenon. The Pushkin Speech was primarily explored as a literary phenomenon by British writers and scholars, while American, Canadian, and New Zealand researchers focused on it as a political statement. Interpretations of the Pushkin Speech in particular, and of Dostoevsky’s works and Russian literature in general have generally been significantly influenced by the politics du jour and by Russia’s relationship with the West at any given time. During détentes, the Pushkin Speech received more positive treatment, and researchers were willing to see not only its political, but also its religious dimensions (see Marcus Levitt’s concept of the “Pentecostal” spirit of the Pushkin Speech). Conversely, during periods of increased tensions and animosity, the Pushkin Speech was and is treated as a manifestation of far-right militant politics. Such perceptions of the Pushkin Speech correlate with a perception of Russia (typical primarily of the US, but probably not alien to the West as a whole) that swings cyclically between opposite poles: interest and hope that Russia will meet certain political and social standards proclaimed by the West, and disappointment that arrives once Russia no longer deems it necessary to meet someone else’s standards. Currently, the research into the Pushkin Speech aligns with the sentiments of a political conflict between Russia and the West.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Pushkin Speech, Marcus Levitt, Alexandra Smith, Irene Zohrab, Alan Pollard, Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover, D. W. Martin, Neil Stewart, Joseph Frank, Gary Saul Morson

The article presents a critical analysis of the translation of Dostoevsky’s key words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” into English and French. These terms function in the writer’s texts as an antiaxiologeme and an axiologeme respectively, expressing the ideal of the Russian person’s development. Both lexemes are recorded in “Dostoevsky’s Dictionary of the Language” and in the “Terminological Dictionary-Thesaurus of Dostoevsky’s "Gospel Text".” However, the interpretation of these authorial concepts still poses difficulties, which become especially evident in translation practice. In the analyzed translations of these lexemes, despite all efforts toward accuracy, there are clear instances of a lack of both equivalence and adequacy in the transmission of their conceptual meaning are noted. The dictionary meanings chosen by European translators do not always correspond to the author’s context and style in Dostoevsky’s journalism, in “Notes from Underground,” and in the novel “Demons,” leading to significant semantic and axiological shifts. The analysis shows that the complex problem of differentiated translation of the lexemes “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man” remains relevant. The conclusion is drawn that, in solving the complex problem of adequate reception and interpretation of the words “ordinary or typical human being” and “all-man,” which are important in the writer’s language, it is necessary to take into account the lexico-semantic, stylistic, axiological features of their functioning in Dostoevsky’s texts and in Russian literature and culture in general.Dostoevsky, axiology, ordinary or typical human being, all-man, reception, translations