Дополнения к комментарию (на материале записных книжек и тетрадей Ф. М. Достоевского 1860-х гг.)
Additions to the Сommentary (Based on F. M. Dostoevsky's Notebooks of the 1860s)

Summary/Abstract: 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.

• Details
• Contents