E-catalog        

Библиогр.: 52 назв.

The article deals with one interesting historical and philosophical fact that is still poorly investigated in the field Dostoevsky’s studies: the analysis of the work on Fyodor Dostoevsky conducted by the famous Russian philosopher Aleksei Fedorovich Losev while working at the State Academy of Artistic Sciences (GAKhN). The article also provides additional information about Losev’s work at GAKhN in the 1920s, based on archival evidence. Particular attention is paid to the activities of the Russian philosopher at GAKhN’s Literary Section in 1927–1929 (in the group for the study of ancient literature, in the Commission for the Study of Dostoevsky's work). The author cites numerous evidences of Losev's special at-tention to the work of Dostoevsky, including the fact that the Russian philosopher took part in discussions with reports on topics devoted to the work of the Russian writer. The author draws attention to the fact that the main point of Losev’s analysis of Dostoevsky’s work was the symbolism of the writer. Dostoevsky’s work attracted Losev throughout his life. This is evidenced not only by youthful memories of his passion for the work of the great novelist, but also references to the Russian writer, which are observed in his works of different periods. The author notes that Losev turned to the study of the problem of the symbol in the works of Dostoevsky already in the 1920s, but the philosopher managed to publish these studies only much later. According to Losev, symbolic images permeate the entire work of the Russian writer. Losev’s prose of the 1930–1940s also did not remain devoid of ideological contaminations in the spirit of Dostoevsky: suffice it to mention here such works of the Russian philosopher as Perepiska v komnate (Correspondence in the Room), Vstrecha (The Meeting), the novel Zhenshchina-myslitel’ (The Woman-thinker). The same religious pathos of Losev's philosophical discourse is also present in his prose, for example, in the themes of man's estrangement from ideal life and rejection of the religious sphere. Based on a comprehensive analysis of archival sources, primarily the minutes of GAKhN meetings stored in the RGALI archive, and their comparison, the author presents, as far as possible, a picture of the activities and interests of the Russian philosopher, which helps to better represent the range of his scientific interests and significantly expands the possibilities for further research on this period of Losev's life, and also provides new materials for the history of GAKhN.