The article examines one of the most important episodes in the novel “Crime and Punishment” — Raskolnikov’s first dream, in which Moscow realities are revealed for the first time, realities not noted in any of the specialized commentaries on Dostoevsky’s work. The article critically examines the existing hypothesis that the landscape of the western outskirts of Zaraysk — a town adjacent to the Dostoevskys’ estate of Darovoe — corresponds to the description of the area in Raskolnikov’s first dream. Drawing on archival documents, memoir and epistolary evidence, and an 1848 cartographic plan of Moscow, the article advances a well-grounded hypothesis that this dream, rich in autobiographical reminiscences and allusions, reflects the writer’s impressions and memories of his Moscow childhood — memories that acquire symbolic significance in “Crime and Punishment.” In contrast to purely quotidian description (as, for example, the tavern in Maryina Roshcha in A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “A Family Affair”), in Dostoevsky such key topographical markers as Maryina Roshcha, Lazarevskoe Cemetery, the Church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit with its green dome, and the tavern near the cemetery are intertwined with the motif of death and resurrection, largely determining the novel’s Easter pathos.
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.
Abstract 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.
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.
This article examines the multifaceted influence of William Shakespeare's legacy on the works of the German Romantic writer E. T. A. Hoffmann. This influence is analyzed on several levels. On the level of character, Hoffmann reinterprets Shakespearean archetypes, as seen in figures such as Prosper Alpanus (Prospero), Zaches-Zinnober (Caliban), and Kapellmeister Kreisler (Jacques the Melancholic). On the plot level, the transformation of specific elements from Shakespeare's plays is noted. For instance, the scene of metamorphosis involving Prosper Alpanus and the fairy Rosenschon in "Little Zaches Called Zinnober," which employs insect imagery and the rhetorical device of litotes, correlates with Mercutio's Queen Mab speech in "Romeo and Juliet." Similarly, the episode with the three caskets in the novella "The Bride's Choice" constitutes an inter-textual play with the plot of "The Merchant of Venice." An important aspect of this literary inheritance is Hoffmann's assimilation and innovative transformation of stylistic devices characteristic of Shakespeare, such as irony, grotesque, and phantasmagoria (e. g., "Little Zaches," "The Golden Pot," "Lord of the Fleas"), as well as the principle of "theatricalization of narrative." The latter is realized both through the inclusion of staged spectacles and the "play-within-a-play" technique (e. g., in "Don Juan," "The Extraordinary Sufferings of the theater Director"), and through the frequent motif of characters acting under a false guise (e. g., in "The Devil's Elixirs," "Ignaz Denner," "The Devil Signor Formica"). Hoffmann's reception of the Shakespearean tradition bears the imprint of ideas from his predecessors and contemporaries, such as J. W. von Goethe, F. Schlegel, and L. Tieck. However, their interpretations did not become dogma for him. Hoffmann's own reading of Shakespeare is original, free from the conventions of classicism, and paves the way for subsequent modernist interpretations of the English playwright.
