Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Reading in Russia

 | 
Damiano Rebecchini
, 
Raffaella Vassena

“Reader, Where Are You?” An Introduction

Damiano Rebecchini et Raffaella Vassena

Note de l’auteur

Pages 11-27 were written by Damiano Rebecchini, pages 27-31 by Raffaella Vassena.

Texte intégral

  • 2 Rubakin 1895: 11-102.

11. “Reader, where are you?”, wondered, in the mid-1880s, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, one of the Russian writers that paid the most attention to the readership of his time. His question arose from the difficulty he experienced in grasping the key features of the contemporary reader, especially in the last decades of the 19th century. In that period, the Russian reading audience was characterised by great cultural fragmentation, with few new books, a defective distribution network, a small number of both public and private libraries spread over a huge territory, with a reduced readership and incomplete collections.2 Nonetheless, in spite of the difficult spread of reading in Russia – compared with the rest of Europe, the USA and Australia – the study of Russian readers began precisely in that period. And this debut is as little known as it was brilliant.

  • 3 On the 19th century origins of the history of reading in Russia, see Bank 1969 and 1969. A short an (...)

2The history of reading in Russia has very bright origins (1880s-1920s), a rather dark past (1930s-1960s), a lively recent history (starting from the 1970s) and, hopefully, a “shining future.”3 We will attempt, in this introduction, to highlight some steps that we deem relevant in the shaping of a discipline that may seem recent but has, in fact, ancient origins.

  • 4 See Karamzin 1964: 176-179; Bulgarin 1998: 45-55; Goncharov 1955: 170-182; Saltykov-Shchedrin 1970: (...)
  • 5 In general, on Rubakin, see Simsova 1968, Senn 1977, and Rubakin A. 1979.
  • 6 See An-skii 1894 (a pseudonym of Rappoport), Prugavin 1895, An-skii 1913. One of rare works of that (...)
  • 7 See Darnton 1986: 5-30.

3As early as the 19th century, important authors like Nikolai Karamzin, Faddei Bulgarin, Ivan Goncharov and Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin left us illuminating writings on the condition of readers in their age4. We believe that the founding of a proper scientific discipline, though, can be traced back to the late 19th century, and is especially linked to one specific name, Nikolai Rubakin’s, and one specific event, the “discovery” of the popular reader5. Ever since the 1880s, Rubakin had understood that, in order to study this new phenomenon – the rapid spread of reading among country people and factory workers after Alexander II’s reform of public education (1864) – the impressionist and amateur methods used by many keen writers and teachers, from Lev Tolstoy to Khristina Alchevskaia, were no longer viable. There was the need for a certain critical distance guaranteed by a scientific method; indeed, there was the need to employ the methods used in ethnology. The first steps in the new discipline were precisely informed by ethnology and anthropology, in the cultural discovery of the other, of the mysterious ‘popular reader’ (chitatel’iz naroda). Yet Rubakin, differently from many of his contemporaries like Semen Rappoport and Aleksandr Prugavin, does not limit himself to studying the popular reader, but relies on a wide range of human and social sciences, from statistics to psychology, to investigate the evolution of reading in the entire Russian society of the second half of the 19th century.6 Between the late 1880s and the early 1890s, he thus wrote a masterful book for its time: Etiudy o russkoi chitaiushchei publike. Fakty, tsifry, nabliudeniia (Studies on the Russian Readership. Facts, Figures, Observations, 1895). In Etiudy o russkoi chitaiushchei publike, we can already spot a series of methodological problems relevant not only for the future development of the discipline in Russia, but essential to this day in the history of reading tout court.7

  • 8 Rubakin 1895: 7-102. On collecting information from correspondences with readers, see Rubakin 1975, (...)

4In his study, Rubakin first proves the need to relate any quantitative analysis on reading (data on new titles published, circulation, reprints, the number of bookshops per city, percentages of literacy and education among the population, the attendance of libraries and reading halls, etc.) to qualitative close observations of readers. He always tends to check the data of official statistics (e. g. those provided by the State Committee for the press, by the local committees for literacy, by the managements of public libraries and zemstvo, etc.) against information collected on the field: between 1889 and 1907, he came into direct contact with more than 5100 readers, teachers, librarians.8 Rubakin insists on the need to study readers in their homes, in libraries and reading halls, in order to observe their behaviours, habits, automatisms. He observes, for example, how the books in private collections do not always correspond to the owner’s readings, and how the books taken out from libraries are returned with uncut pages, etc. In so doing, Rubakin well describes the complex relationship linking the country’s social and political life and the evolution of reading in Russia, between moments of inertia and of acceleration (the activism of Russian readers in the 1860s, the fragmentation and the paralysis of the 1880s, etc.).

  • 9 Rubakin 1895: 20 and 155-191.
  • 10 The interest in a psychological typology of readers will return in the USSR thanks to, among others (...)
  • 11 Rubakin 1895: 158-191.
  • 12 See Rubakin 1968: 26-46. On the influence of various scientific disciplines on Rubakin’s research o (...)
  • 13 See Rubakin 1968: 26-46. According to Evgeny Dobrenko, “Rubakin was the first to formulate the basi (...)
  • 14 Rubakin 1968: 26.
  • 15 See e. g. Tompkins 1980: IX; Dehaene 2007.
  • 16 See Rubakin A. 1979: 151
  • 17 Potebnja 1894: 136.
  • 18 Simsova 1968: 14.
  • 19 See Todorov 1980: 67-82 and De Certeau 1990: 239-255.

5But not only. Rubakin senses the need to categorize readers not so much based on their social class, as to their different ways of reading and using the written word.9 From his very first investigation, he aims at going beyond all rigid sociological categories and outlining a psychological typology of readers based on the function they attribute to books.10 In our view, the lively close-up portrait he draws of different popular readers – the intellectual reader, the practical-utilitarian reader, the scientist-reader, etc. – in the final chapters of his work remains exemplary to this day.11 And in the following decades he would multiply his attempts at providing a scientific basis to a new discipline, bibliopsychology, that focused precisely on the psychology of readers. His massive research would thus result in the creation, first, of the bibliopsychology section of the J. J. Rousseau Institute of Geneva in 1916 and, in 1928, of the International Institute of Bibliological Psychology in the same city. Based on research by German psychologists like Wilhelm Wundt and Hermann Ebbinghaus, and on theories by scientists like Richard Semon and Ivan Pavlov, in the 1920s Rubakin elaborated a series of relevant works on the psychology of readers, from Introduction à la psychologie bibliologique (1922) to Psikhologiia chitatelia i knigi (The psychology of the reader and books, 1928).12 In these studies, Rubakin devises some concepts like “interverbal expectation” and “interverbal associations,” which seem today closer to the categories developed, some forty years later, by Roman Ingarden and Wolfgang Iser in their phenomenology of reading.13 Rubakin goes as far as describing the reading process in these terms: “Every reader builds up a projection of every book he reads [...]. The ‘special method’ of bibliopsychology consists of statistical evaluation of the excitations experienced by the reader during the process of reading.”14 These ideas seem to anticipate, on the one hand, those of Reader-Response Criticism and, on the other, the more recent ones of cognitive psychology and the “reading sciences.”15 At the same time, though, Rubakin does not consider reading a mechanicist and deterministic process, but grants his reader some freedom. Starting from the vision of the linguist Aleksandr Potebnja, Rubakin develops his own idea of “reader’s creativity” corresponding to the “author’s creativity,” the former interacting with the latter in a relationship that is both free from and dependent on the text.16 Potebnja had written: “We can understand a poetic work insofar as we participate in its creation.”17 For Rubakin, too, it is the reader who constructs, combines, re-creates the text: “It is the living being which creates, constructs and combines; the book is no more than an instrument.”18 The text instructs, the reader constructs. In his view, Rubakin seems to foresee not only the structuralist interpretation of reading as construction, for example Tzvetan Todorov’s, but also the more open and suggestive view of Michel De Certeau of reading as a form of “poaching,” a tactic full of artifices, which leaves great freedom to the reader to move within the text.19

  • 20 Rubakin 1895: 1-2.

6Following the French critic Émile Hennequin and his La critique scientifique (1887), Rubakin had also hinted, in his first research, to the complex relationship between the study of reading and that of literary works. In the introduction to Etiudy, he wrote: “The history of literature is not only the history of authors and their works, through which some ideas reach society, but is also the history of the readers of such works. (...) The study of an author’s readers and admirers contributes to understanding the author himself. (...) Between the reader and the writer, between the psychological characteristics of the former and those of the latter, there is such a close and complex connection that they indeed are a whole, one single entity.”20 However, during the 1910s and 1920s, this aspect remained in the background in his research. Motivated especially by a populist ethical imperative, Rubakin mostly wrote to disseminate science among the new popular readership. He assembled important bibliographic tools to help librarians and the new readers to find their way in the world of books (Sredi knig, Among books, 1905) and developed his scientific research on the psychology of individual readers. It was precisely his focus on the psychology of individual readers, the lack of a ‘class’ vision, that which will determine the ban on his works during the following decades when Stalin ruled.

  • 21 Eikhenbaum 1969: 512-541; Tynianov 1977b: 227-252.
  • 22 These studies will be developed in particular by scholars at Leningrad’s Institut Slova and Institu (...)

72. Between the late 1910s and the 1920s, a group of linguists and literary critics from St. Petersburg and Moscow would conduct a series of studies in which the issue of the reader (and of the listener) is considered a relevant moment in the construction of the literary text. We are thinking in particular of certain works by some Russian formalists like “Oda kak oratorskii zhanr” (The ode as an oratorical genre, written in 1922) by Yurii Tynianov, or “O kamernoi deklamatsii” (On chamber declamation, 1923) by Boris Eikhenbaum.21 Here the problem of reading, not meant as reception but as oral reproduction of a written text, is the starting point of a fruitful investigation which, stimulated by the reading performances of his main contemporary Russian poets (from Blok to Maiakovsky), and supported by parallel German research on Ohrenphilologie (E. Sievers), will lead Eikhenbaum and his colleagues, between the late 1910s and the early 1920s, to study the fundamental melodic-syntactic elements informing poetic language (e. g. in Melodika russkogo liricheskogo stikha, Melody of Russian Lyric Poetry, 1922).22

  • 23 See Eco 1984: 7-8.
  • 24 See Tynianov 1977c: 270-281.
  • 25 See Tynianov 1977a: 255-269; Eikhenbaum 2001: 61-70.
  • 26 At the same time, in those years the magazine Lef, close to the formalists, elaborated the concept (...)
  • 27 Shklovskii 1929.
  • 28 Grits, Trenin, Nikitin
  • 29 Aronson, Reiser 1929. Also see Literaturnye salony

8Generally speaking, in their main works, formalist critics seem to be more interested in the mechanisms behind the production and operation of the literary text than those linked to their reception. And, in particular, the reader they refer to is not an empiric reader, but rather a totally abstract and ideal entity, almost like a “model reader,” to use Umberto Eco’s term.23 Nonetheless, even formalists who, to react against impressionism and the late 19th century psychologism, seemed to want to ban the empirical reader from their analyses, cannot in fact do without him, especially when, in the mid-1920s, they have to face the problem of literary evolution.24 Some key concepts they elaborated to explain evolution, like “effacement” or the “automatization” of certain literary elements (meter, plot structure, etc.) presuppose first the reader’s reactions, and only later those of the author of the text. The need to analyse the interaction between literary phenomena (like genres) and popular and everyday linguistic phenomena, the byt (e. g. the familiar letter, the drawing-room poetry album, the feuilleton, etc.) encouraged formalists to widen the subject of their historical-literary analyses significantly.25 Thus, especially in the late 1920s, formalists began to deal with issues such as the role of publishers-booksellers, the situation of the book market, the demand, the places where literature was consumed, the professionalization of literature-writing between the 18th and 19th centuries, etc.26 Thus emerged a number of innovative works that shed light on the past of Russian readers. Let us consider, for example, Viktor Shklovsky’s book Matvei Komarov, zhitel’goroda Moskvy (Matvei Komarov, Inhabitant of the city of Moscow) (1929) on the “lackey literature” of a minor 18th century Russian writer and his readership.27 Another example is the work by three of Eikhenbaum’s disciples, T. Grits, V. Trenin and M. Nikitin, Slovesnost’i kommertsiia. Knizhnaia lavka A. F. Smirdina (Literature and trade. A. F. Smirdin’s bookshop, 1929), on the trade of the great St. Petersburg bookseller Aleksandr Smirdin and the professionalization of literature-writing in Russia from the 18th century to the 1830s.28 Yet another example is M. Aronson and S. Reiser’s volume Literaturnye kruzhki i salony (Literary salons and groups, 1929), which reviews the main places of literary production and consumption in the first half of the 19th century, focusing on reading practices, forms of circulation and the appropriation of texts.29

  • 30 Beletskii 1996: 37.
  • 31 See Mandel’shtam 1987: 48-54.
  • 32 Ibid.: 53.
  • 33 Beletskii 1996: 45.
  • 34 Ibid.: 43-44. These observations were later developed by Beletskii in his 1938 article “Nekrasov i (...)
  • 35 Beletskii 1996: 4.

9It was Aleksandr Beletskii, though, a critic far from the world of formalism and a professor at the University of Khar’kiv, where Potebnja taught, who, in our view, best develops the problem of the “reader as a participant in the literary process” in those years.30 In a pioneering paper of 1922, titled “Ob odnoi iz ocherednykh zadach istoriko-literaturnoi nauki: Izuchenie istorii chitatelia” (On one of the immediate tasks of historical-literary scholarship: the study of the history of the reader, 1922), Beletskii raises, in particular, two key issues in the reader-author relationship: the problem of the implicit reader, especially in poetry, and the question of the stratification of literary tastes in society as an evolutionary factor in literary history. As happened with Rubakin, for Beletskii, too, Hennequin’s book, La critique scientifique, has an important role in raising consciousness about the complexity of the reader-author relationship. But it was especially an essay by the poet Osip Mandel’shtam, “O sobesednike” (On the interlocutor), published in the magazine Apollon in 1913, which helped him develop the concept of “implicit reader” and its relevance in literary analysis.31 Naturally, neither Mandel’shtam nor Beletskii used the term “implicit reader” (coined by Wolfgang Iser in 1972 and modelled on Wayne Booth’s “implicit author”). They rather talk about an “imaginary interlocutor,” a “fictitious reader.” Nonetheless, it is clear that they do not mean an empiric but a textual reality, with which the author establishes a dialogic relationship and which influences the reactions of the real reader. Mandel’shtam had written: “There is no poetry without dialogue,” and the poet’s dialogue is much purer, higher and more poetic as the imaginary “interlocutor” is less known, concrete and historically determined to him.32 And Beletskii had added: “The study of the reader starts from the study of the imaginary reader. This may sometimes coincide with the real reader. But it can also be one’s ‘secret and faraway friend,’ ‘the educated posterity, the young son of Phoebus,’ ‘the friend of the sacred truth.’ Or even a mean ignorant person and an idiot, a representative of that crowd that the poet flees to find the solitude in which he will be able to converse with himself, with the posterity, with his muse. The idea of an imaginary interlocutor also applies to the latter case: indeed, without dialogue, not only poetry but any other form of creation is impossible.”33 An example of this is the acute analysis he makes of the evolution of the implicit reader in Nikolai Nekrasov’s poetic production.34 Beletskii concludes: “We thus wanted to put forward the idea that the study of fictitious readers, necessarily present in the poet’s conscience during the creative act, can somehow shed light on the creative act itself.”35

  • 36 Ibid.: 39. As regards Lanson’s article, see Lanson 1910: 385-413.
  • 37 Beletskii 1996: 42.
  • 38 See Lanson 1930: 8
  • 39 Beletskii 1996: 40.
  • 40 Stroev 1996: 26. On this matter, also see Rubakin 1895: 17-18

10Beletskii’s essay is especially interesting because the critic does not just underline the importance of analysing the “fictitious reader” in an author’s poetic production, but relates this analytic moment to a deeper reflection on the reactions of real readers and on historical and literary evolution. Starting from a famous paper by Gustav Lanson (“La méthode de l’histoire littéraire”, 1910), Beletskii agrees with the French critic that “without a history of the Russian reader, the history of literature has no solid basis: it is mutilated; its conclusions, as rigorous as they may be, are partial, and none of its periods can be seriously evaluated.”36 But he also wonders: what reader are we talking about? In the case of 18th century Russia, for example, what reader is it? And he quickly and masterfully sketches how, in the same period, the second half of the 18th century, and in the same Russian society, very different literary tastes and orientations coexisted. From the sophisticated world of the court to the uncultivated country gentry, from popular urban readers to the sect of the Old Believers scattered in the Russian forests, the literary tastes of the various communities of 18th century Russian readers were so distant as to represent, synchronically, the entire evolution of Russian literature from its origins till the end of the 18th century. “Where is thus the real Russian reader of the 18th century?”, wondered the critic, “at the Academy or in an estate outside of Moscow? In a village of the Saratov governorate or in a district town? In Northern Palmyra or in the Briansk forests? In all of these places, at the same time. And there is no reason to focus on one and discard the others. Choosing one over the others would confirm the thesis according to which in every historical period there is a certain social group that influences and promotes the general culture of that age. That is unquestionable. Yet, the history of literature, perhaps even more than the history of the other arts, also draws from underground rivers (emotions, the power of tradition, etc.), which flow invisibly only to emerge unexpectedly in the following age.”37 Beletskii seems to want to accomplish Lanson’s dream of a Histoire provinciale de la vie littéraire de la France (1903), a “history of the culture and deeds of the obscure reading crowd.”38 From this perspective, states Beletskii, the study of readers’tastes in different social contexts and classes is no less relevant than the evolution of genres and literary forms: “the time has come to admit that a work is or isn’t literary, is first or second class, judging from the awareness that readers have of it.”39 And the same applies to the following periods. At the end of the 19th century, while in some St. Petersburg or Moscow contexts they read the symbolist poets, in the remotest country estates they loved the classics from Pushkin’s age, while the peasant readers still read authors and texts from the early 18th century: “In Russia, space materialises time,” correctly wrote Aleksandr Stroev.40

  • 41 Khlebtsevich 1923; Kleinbort 1925; Smushkova 1926; Bek, Toom 1927; Slukhovskii 1928; Toporov 1930.
  • 42 See Lovell 2000: 29-35.
  • 43 See e. g. Kufaev 1927; Muratov 1931.

113. There has always been a close relationship between the flourishing of sociological studies on the contemporary reader and the development of the history of reading. As seen, between the 1880s and the 1920s, the emergence on the cultural scene of a new figure, the popular and mass reader, and the numerous studies on this phenomenon, also greatly stimulated diachronic and historical investigations. During the 1920s the studies on the new Soviet readers, conducted through questionnaires and surveys “on the field,” were many and directed at identifying uses, tastes and preferences of real readers in different contexts (e. g. Red Army soldiers, Leningrad metal workers, Siberian peasants from the Altai region, etc.).41 In the 1930s, on the contrary, the interest in contemporary readers tended to be rapidly set aside. Increasingly, in the press and in the specialised literature, real readers were replaced by generic concepts like “the Soviet reader”, “the mass reader” (massovyi chitatel’), “mass reading public” (massovaia chitaiushchaia publika), in order to cover a reality that was still too diverse, in the eye of those in power, for a socialist society.42 This is the time when the myth of the “Soviet reader” is constructed, when the foundations of the legend of the Russians as “the most reading people in the world” (samyi chitaiushchii narod v mire) are laid, when the potential of reading is exalted only as a tool for ideological and political instruction, while stigmatizing its entertaining and escapist functions. Thus, the lively constructivist covers disappear from bookshops, the 19th century popular genres are banned (folk tales too, in the beginning!), and ideologically undesirable books are expurgated from libraries, relegated into collections not accessible to the ordinary reader (spetskhrany). At the same time, the studies on the history of reading in Russia also tend to decrease and disappear. And, simultaneously, the investigations on the history of the book, which had greatly flourished in the 1920s, promoted for example by Mikhail Kufaev and Mikhail Muratov, tend to become scarce in the 1930s.43

  • 44 Weinberg 1974 and Firsov 2012
  • 45 See, e. g., Sovetskii chitatel’: Opyt konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia 1968; Kniga i chte (...)
  • 46 See Asmus 1961; Khrapcenko 1968; Meilakh 1971; Kantorovich, Koz’menko 1977; Blqgoi 1978.
  • 47 See e. g. Kantorovich 1969 and Meilakh 1971. On this, see Todd 1987: 327-347. from the early 1980s, (...)
  • 48 See Beliaeva 1977: 370-388. See Todd 1987: 342 on the subject.

12The ‘rediscovery’ of the Russian reader and his history only occurs in the late 1960s, resulting from a series of favourable political and cultural conditions. On the one hand, it is linked to the ‘rehabilitation’ of sociology, which had been banned during Stalin’s years, but had been reaccepted by the 20th congress of the Communist Party in 1956 and officially recognised as an autonomous discipline by the 23rd congress of 1966.44 This circumstance, for instance, allowed a group of Moscow sociologists, based at Moscow’s “Lenin” State Library, to restart investigating contemporary Soviet readers, showing in various studies how the Soviet readership was much more complex and diverse as shown in previous decades.45 On the other hand, the ‘rediscovery’ of the reader is connected to the Soviet literary critics’renewed attention for the theories of reception. This newly found interest is testified to by a series of theoretical interventions by authoritative Soviet scholars, like the philosopher Valentin Asmus and the critics Mikhail Khrapchenko, Boris Meilakh and Vladimir Kantorovich, who encouraged a significant renovation of literary studies in the Soviet Union.46 Partly also stimulated by western studies, like Robert Escarpit’s Sociologié de la literature (1968), the new investigations definitely went beyond the strict interpretative categories of sociology as identified by V. F. Pereverzev in the 1920s, significantly widening the discipline and methods of literary reception.47 Papers like, for instance, Liudmila Beliaeva’s “Tipy vospriiatiia khudozhestvennoi literatury (psikhologicheskii analiz)” (Types of reception of literature. A psychological analysis, 1977), which provides an articulated typology of different aesthetic reactions to some Soviet literary texts – from the highly competent reader to that with a fragmentary, incomplete understanding of texts – represent an important evolution compared to previous Soviet studies.48

  • 49 See, among others, Barenbaum 1961 and Barenbaum 2003.
  • 50 See Luppov 1970; Luppov 1973; Luppov 1976; Luppov 1986.
  • 51 See Blium 1966; Blium 1979; Blium 1981. Apart from Moscow and Leningrad, other like Irkutsk and Nov (...)
  • 52 See Barenbaum 1970: 14. On Barenbaum as a historian of reading, see Samarin 2010: 167-186.
  • 53 Slukhovskii 1976: 33-43.
  • 54 Istoriia russkogo chitatelia 1973-2010.
  • 55 See Barenbaum 1973: 77-92; Barenbaum 1982: 17.

13Finally, a further contribution to the consolidation of the history of reading in Russia arrived in the 1970s, on the one hand, with the rediscovery of Rubakin’s heritage and, on the other, with the new wave of studies on the history of the book. A relevant input for the development of this discipline came from scholars like Iosif Barenbaum of the Leningradskii Gosudarstvennyi Institut kul’tury, a tireless promoter of initiatives in favour of research on the history of the book and reading, and the author of significant works on book reading and circulation in mid-19th century radical contexts and, in general, on bookselling in Petersburg.49 Another contributor was the historian Sergei Luppov of Leningrad’s Academy of Sciences, an expert in book production and circulation in 17th and 18th century Russia.50 A third important figure was Arlen Blium of Leningrad University, an acute observer of the history of censorship in Russia and the USSR and of publishing in 19th century Russian provinces.51 Barenbaum, for instance, stimulated by the research done by western and Polish historiographers, in particular by Richard D. Altick (The English common reader. A social history of the mass reading public 1800-1900, 1957) and Karol Głombiowski (Problemy historii czytelnictwa, Problems in the history of reading, 1966), as early as 1970 perceived the possibility of finding new room for research on the history of reading in Russia, for example in series like Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy and in the Trudy published by the Leningrad’s State Institute of Culture.52 With the convergence of sociology, literary theory and the history of the book, in the 1970s, the history of reading in the Soviet Union consolidated and became increasingly institutionalised.53 One of its most evident manifestation, apart from a series of conferences in the early 1970s, was the publishing of the first volume of the series Istoriia russkogo chitatelia (History of the Russian reader, 1973-2010),54 on the initiative of Barenbaum, in 1973. The name of the series is not accidental, as it deals not so much with the history of reading as with the history of the Russian reader. Many of the works in this series, indeed, still show some attachment to categories and concepts typical of the most rigorous Marxist criticism. The reader is often represented according to class connotations (raznochino-demokraticheskii chitatel’, chitatel’-rabochii, etc.) that were not fully representative of the Russian ages taken into consideration. At the same time, though, in Barenbaum’s studies there seems to emerge, although with some ideological limits, a certain attention to reading practices and modalities (kruzhkovoe chtenie, massovoe chtenie, etc.) that takes into consideration their influence on the reception of works and ideas within different communities of readers.55

144. As we have underlined, the 1960s’renewed interest in studying the history of reading in the USSR was linked mostly to official figures and initiatives promoted from within large Soviet institutions, like Moscow’s State Library, Leningrad’s Academy of Sciences, Leningrad’s State Institute of Culture. Their more peripheral geographic position allowed a group of scholars from the University of Tartu (Estonia), like Yury Lotman, to conduct highly innovative research in the field of semiotics that also closely dealt with the role of the reader. The semiotic perspective, in particular, allowed them to go beyond the rigid methodological dichotomy that had until then informed studies on reading, characterised by an irreversible tension between historical-sociological research and theoretical-literary reflection. Considering culture as a set of primary and secondary sign systems (primary and secondary modelling systems) and the reader’s behaviour as a text, Tartu’s semiotic school dropped the hiatus between the literary work and its reader’s historically and socially determined reactions. From this perspective, reading appeared a process of translation from the author’s artistic language to the reader’s often not less artistic language.

  • 56 Lotman 1997.
  • 57 Ibid., 617.
  • 58 Ibid., 620.

15A first brilliant example is a short essay by Lotman from 1966, “Ob odnom chitatel’skom vospriiatii ‘Bednoi Lizy’ N. M. Karamzina (K strukture massovogo soznaniia XVIII v.)” (A reader’s reaction to ‘Poor Liza’ by N. M. Karamzin (On the structure of the conscience of mass readers in the 18th century)).56 The author begins with some interesting theoretical considerations: “A writer addresses his readership using the ‘language’ of a specific artistic system. This language may or may not suit the language of his readers. If it does not suit it, what may happen is that either the reader totally appropriates the language of the artistic structure created by the author, or a ‘translation’ occurs (often unconsciously) into the language of the reader’s artistic thought. Studying the latter phenomenon is interesting for two reasons: on the one hand, it allows reconstructing the structure of the thought of those assimilating the text; on the other, it allows highlighting certain elements of the author’s artistic system, which manifest themselves more clearly during the process of translation into a different system of ‘codification’.”57 To illustrate this translation process in practice, i. e. the selection of the elements that the reader considers the most significant in a text and their re-codification in his language, Lotman reports a very interesting case. He analyses the transcription made by an 18th century writer of a conversation occurred near Moscow at the end of the 18th century between an artisan, who was gilding the ikonostas of the Simonov monastery and a “muzhik,” about a classic of Russian sentimentalism, Nikolai Karamzin’s Poor Liza (1792). The artisan tells the peasant the story of poor Liza: he tells him about how he had learnt, read, understood and interpreted it. Lotman describes which elements of Karamzin’s refined literary text are grasped by the artisan in his ‘translation’ and which are ignored. He especially points out not only the aesthetic and genre norms through which the artisan filters the story (the folklore oral genres, the adventure fiction plots, etc.) but also some of the aspects of the mentality of the mass reader of the time (the typical popular understanding of love, guilt, fate, etc.). Finally, Lotman briefly mentions an aspect that will later become central in his reflection on the reader, i. e. how the text is not only deformed by the reader’s aesthetic and ethical norms, but in turn contributes to modify those very norms.58

  • 59 Lotman 1982: 81.

16This is the subject of a short theoretical paper titled “Tekst i struktura auditorii” (The text and the structure of its audience, 1977), which focuses on how the reader is transformed by the text he is reading. Writes Lotman: “Any text (and especially a literary one) contains in itself what we should like to term the image of the audience (…) this image actively affects the real audience by becoming for it a kind of normative code. This is imposed on the consciousness of the readership and becomes the norm according to which it imagines itself, and thus moves from the text into the sphere of real human behaviour.”59 Lotman, furthermore, underlines how between the text and the reader there occurs a sort of a dialogue whose communicative efficacy is based on a shared “common memory,” a concept that seems close to that of “horizon of expectation,” elaborated by Hans Robert Jauss.

  • 60 Ibid., 86.

17Lotman shows, for example, how an allusion contained in some lines of Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin could, on the one hand, be fully understood only by a circle of the poet’s intimate friends. On the other hand, its obvious allusiveness would encourage even the provincial reader to consider himself as intimate with the author, to feel like one of his friends – thus widening the horizon of the reader’s “common memory” – and “ to recall what his memory did not know.”60

  • 61 Lotman 1973: 337-355; Lotman 1975: 25-74; Lotman 1977: 65-69; Lotman 1996: The English translations (...)
  • 62 Lotman 1996: 108-111.
  • 63 Ibid., 97.
  • 64 Lotman 1967: 208-281.
  • 65 Quoted in Mil’china 1983: 130.

18Lotman’s theoretical observations are supported by a series of brilliant historical-literary contributions dedicated in particular to Russia’s 18th and early 19th century.61 In these, he proves with many examples how literary and dramatic texts entered the lives of the Russian readers of the period, influencing their behaviour. Lotman shows how Russia’s cultural isolation in the early 18th century contributed to making books, for Russian readers, an ethical as well as an aesthetic model, with an acquired normative value, much more universal and binding than in the West.62 From the translations of western literature and from the theatre scene, the 18th century Russian public draws models on how to feel and behave in social situations unfamiliar to it. Lotman describes, for instance, the different effect on Russian readers of different literary genres: “with novels and elegies, they learn to feel, with tragedies and odes they learn to think.”63 He observes the relationship between the literary models of classicist literature and sentimentalist models, and underlines the strong influence that the works by authors like Rousseau and Karamzin had on the Russian “fabrication of romantic sensitivity.”64La Nouvelle Héloïse shall be my code de morale in everything, in love, virtue, public and private duties,” writes Andrei Turgenev, an admiring reader of Rousseau, in 1801.65 It is perhaps his associating a semiotics of readers’behaviours to the semiotics of literary texts what seems today to be Lotman’s greatest contribution to the history of reading in Russia.

  • 66 For a wider overview on the development of studies on the history of reading in the see Histoires d (...)
  • 67 Marker 1985 and Brooks 1985. See also Marker 1982, Marker 1986 and Brooks 1978.
  • 68 See Marker 1985: 13.
  • 69 Brooks 1985: 372.

195. Starting from the 1980s, western scholars began to offer important contributions to the development of this discipline, not only in their different use of sources, but also in their methodological contribution to the general interpretation of the reading phenomenon. Their studies are the result of a trend that had been going on in the West since at least the 1960s: the attempt to interpret reading by drawing from other disciplines. Among these, Pierre Bourdieu’s and Jürgen Habermas’s sociology; bibliography as in the works of Donald Mckenzie; the history of publishing as in Roger Chartier’s research; Clifford Geertz’s anthropology in Robert Darnton’s most recent works, to quote just some of the best known names in western reading historiography.66 It is perhaps not by chance that two of the most important contributions of the 1980s, shedding new light on the past of Russian readers – Gary Marker’s Publishing, printing and the origins of intellectual life in Russia, 1700-1800 (1985), and Jeffrey Brooks’s When Russia learned to read. Literacy and popular literature, 1861-1917 (1985) – deal with issues that were fundamental in the history of western reading, like the spread of books in the Age of Enlightment and popular literature.67 In the accurate study made by Gary Marker of Russia’s first private publishers and booksellers, in the 18th century, the influence of Darnton’s first works may be felt.68 And in Jeffrey Brooks’s ground-breaking work – which reflects many of the issues on the relationship between literacy, reading and the popular mentality discussed in France by historians like François Furet and Robert Mandrou – there are traces of the reflections on American popular culture made by Henry Nash Smith and John G. Cawelty.69 To Marker’s and Brooks’s works, it is worth adding Louise McReynolds’s important study on mass printing in the second half of the 19th century, The news under Russia’s Old Regime. The development of a mass circulation press (1991), where she investigates the birth and spread, in Russia, of a commercial newspaper industry between 1855 and 1917. The author highlights the impact that this had on Russian readers, and identifies this period as the moment when a public opinion began to form, according to Habermas’s conceptual model. However, it must be said that, in general, for these scholars, the chance to establish a relationship between reading in Russia and in other western countries in the same period represented an important cognitive tool, often not available to their Soviet colleagues.

  • 70 Zorin, Nemzer 1989. Also see the recent and refined essay by Andrei Zorin on influence of sentiment (...)
  • 71 Kochetkova 1983; Kochetkova 1994: 156-188.
  • 72 Samarin 2000. On subscribers’lists as sources for the history of reading, see Darnton 1986: 11.

20Marker’s works were later followed by other relevant contributions on reading in 18th century Russia. Among them, Andrei Zorin’s and Andrei Nemzer’s essay “Paradoksy chuvstvitelnosti (N. M. Karamzin ‘Bednaia Liza’)” (1989), which investigates the transformation of the myth of Poor Liza among Russian readers from various social contexts, and its echo in different editorial contexts (from the first Moscow travel guides to the great novels of the second half of the 19th century).70 Some of Natalia Kochetkova’s studies are also dedicated to the Russian sentimentalist reader, focusing not only on how sentimentalist literary works, both Russian and foreign, shaped the Russian readers’sensitivity, but also on the most common reading practices of the period, which had been little studied before, and the representation of the reader in the literature of the period.71 Finally, A. Iu. Samarin’s studies focus on an important type of source for the history of reading in the 18th century: the lists of subscribers to books and magazines. Nevertheless, these, as has been often pointed out, represented a limited part of the reading audience: the richest and most interested in luxury editions.72

  • 73 Mil’china 1983: 91-97.
  • 74 Reitblat 1991a: 32-47, 97-128, 143-165; Reitblat 2001: 70-81.
  • 75 Reitblat 1991a: 48-66 and 166-184; Reitblat 2001: 36-50.
  • 76 Reitblat 1991a: 67-96, 185-199 and Reitblat 2001: 51-69, 98-107, 191-202.
  • 77 Reitblat 1991b and Reitblat 1995, Reitblat 1999.
  • 78 Reitblat 1990; Rasnolistov, Mashkirov 1991-1993; Reitblat 1992a; Reitblat 1994; Reitblat 2005.
  • 79 Dubin, Gudkov, Reitblat 1982; Frolova, Reitblat 1987; Reitblat 1992b.

21In the 1980s, studies on 19th century Russian readers and their reading habits increased greatly, especially thanks to scholars based in the Soviet Union. A first stimulus for an in-depth analysis is represented by an essay by Vera Mil’china, “Pechatnyi vsiakii list im kazhetsia sviatym...” (“Every printed sheet seems sacred to them...,” 1983), in which she observes the “very passionate” relationship that some groups of Russian readers had with books between 1800 and 1830.73 But perhaps the scholar that most contributed to the studies on reading in 19th century Russia was Abram Reitblat, a sociologist who had begun by researching “reading dynamics” in Soviet libraries, and then, in the mid-1980s, went on to analyse reading dynamics in the 19th century. Reitblat’s achievement was that he widely and exhaustively investigated, in two relevant collections of essays – Ot Bovy k Bal’montu. Ocherki po istorii chteniia v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (From Bova to Bal’mont. Essays on the history of reading in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, 1991) and Kak Pushkin vyshel v genii. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki (How Pushkin managed to become a genius. Historical-sociological essays, 2001) – the whole system of literary consumption in Russia in the 19th century, from censorship to criticism, from the educated to the popular reader. In his essays, he remarked on the editorial formats dominating the various ages and social contexts (almanacs, thick journals, popular dailies, illustrated weekly magazines, chapbooks);74 the places where literature was consumed (city reading halls, public, private and peasant villages libraries, etc.);75 the creation of authors’reputations and of a literary canon among the 19th century Russian readership.76 His detached sociological approach allowed him to produce an accurate description of literature’s function as a social institution, within which various factors closely interact (authors, censors, publishers, booksellers, readers, critics, teachers). Finally, Reitblat had an important role in stimulating the studies on the history of reading in the 19th century by editing collective volumes on the subject77 and forgotten best-sellers from the past,78 and by compiling bibliographies on reading.79

  • 80 Sovetskii chitatel’1992; Dobrenko 1997; Lahusen 1997.
  • 81 Lahusen 1997: 151-178.
  • 82 Lovell 2000

22The 1990s, lastly, saw the publication of significant research on the phenomenon of reading in the Soviet Union. Apart from a collection of papers edited by Barenbaum, Sovetskii chitatel’ (1920-1980) (The Soviet reader, 1992), in our view, two were the key studies that mostly influenced criticism: Evgeny Dobrenko’s book Formovka sovetskogo chitatelia. Sotsialnye i esteticheskie predposylki retseptsii sovetskoi literatury (1997) (eng. trans. The making of the state reader. Social and aesthetic contexts of the reception of Soviet literature), and Thomas Lahusen’s How life writes the book: Real Socialism and Socialist Realism in Stalin’s Russia.80 The two volumes integrate each other, in a sense. Dobrenko’s carefully observes the multiple factors that contributed to the creation of the “Soviet reader”: libraries, schools, reading circles, public readings, etc. All these institutions collectively shaped the features of a Soviet reader that was ideal rather than real. Dobrenko’s main and innovative idea is that the aesthetics of socialist realism was not only a top-down imposition, it also resulted from a collective effort to which the Soviet readers themselves actively contributed, consciously or unconsciously. Thomas Lahusen’s book, focusing on a great classic of Soviet literature, Vasilii Azhaev’s Daleko ot Moskvy (Far from Moscow, 1948), the 1949 Stalin Prize, seems to confirm Dobrenko’s hypothesis. Lahusen attentively investigates the novel’s complex creative process, shaped not only by its author’s tragic vicissitudes but – though differently – by critics, censors, readers, in a sort of collective writing practice. This study, based on a wide and precious collection of testimonies given by Soviet readers – from public statements, transcribed in shorthand during the numerous encounters with the author, to their private letters – shows how socialist life actually influenced not only his books but also his readers and their reactions.81 A noticeable work completing Dobrenko’s and Lahusen’s books is Stephen Lovell, The Russian reading revolution: Print culture in the Soviet and Post-Soviet eras (2000). This volume, besides providing a short overview of the main steps in the creation of the Soviet reader in the USSR’s first decades, also focuses at length on the transformation of reading in the post-Stalin years and up to the radical changes of Gorbachev’s perestroika and Eltsin’s Russia.82

236. The essays in the present volume are deeply rooted, both methodologically and conceptually, in the research context illustrated thus far. Some of the contributions better expand and contextualise certain concepts – like “the fictional interlocutor,” “the audience’s image,” “the reader’s common memory” – in different ages and literary circumstances, from Russian 18th century Classicism to Vissarion Belinsky’s 1830s criticism, from Dostoevsky’s novel to the symbolist and mass journalism of the beginning of the 20th century. Other papers start from elements of the Russian sociological tradition and expand the research on manuscripts, investigating their function within different reading communities. Other scholars focus on reading practices to investigate their effects on both individuals like Alexander II and collective entities like the Russian audience of the 1860s. Other papers employ tools from the history of the book to observe how certain editorial formats and types of mise en page of poetic texts influenced and shaped the reactions of the symbolist reader. Others, finally, offer precious insights into the reactions of real readers before masterpieces of Russian literature like Anna Karenina.

24Through the analysis of some texts by two great 18th century Russian critics – Sumarokov and Kheraskov – Rodolphe Baudin sheds new light on the classicist debate on the novel, moving away from literary poetics and towards textual pragmatics and the phenomenology of reading. According to Baudin, the Russian criticism of the European novel as a genre did not originate simply from a literary-taxonomic preoccupation but from fear of the new reading practices implied by this genre, which threatened the literary semiosphere of Russian Classicism. Apart from underlining the connection between genre and reception, Baudin’s paper also invites a reflection on the link between reading practices and the evolution of the social function of reading in Russia: with the burst on the scene of the novel, reading ceases to be exclusively a “normative” activity and becomes a pastime, a means to escape towards imaginary worlds.

25The issue of the construction of a model-reader is the subject of Anne Lounsbery’s paper, which investigates the normative function of the term “provincial” in some of Belinsky’s articles from the 1830s. Lounsbery shows how Belinsky, with the term “provincial,” did not mean a mere geographical location, but rather a lack of critical sense typical of the Russian reader. In contrast with this type of reader, Belinsky constructs, in his articles, the image of a model-reader with an aesthetic sensitivity that can raise him above a mediocre “localness,” and allows him to scan and evaluate reality according to western standards that seem universal to him.

26Damiano Rebecchini’s paper reviews the reading methodologies and practices employed by the romantic poet Vasilii Zhukovsky in educating the young Alexander II. Rebecchini discusses how the didactic tools used by Zhukovsky, such as tables, maps, prints and commonplace-books, could shape his pupil’s historical and political vision, favouring a contextualising and historicising type of reading.

27Laura Rossi deals with the representation of children’s literature in the Russian autobiographic discourse of various authors between the 18th and 19th century (I. Dmitriev, S. Aksakov, A. Grigor’ev, A. Herzen, M. Gorky, I. Bunin, etc.). Reporting a wide variety of examples, Rossi identifies some key elements in their reading experiences (e. g. the “first book” motive, the distinction between religious and secular readings), underlining their importance in constructing an individual’s identity and illustrating their various modalities of representation.

28Robin Feuer Miller contributes a paper on the representation of reading in F. M. Dostoevsky’s epistolary novel Poor People (1846). Miller shows how reading here acquires the double role of learning about (and misunderstanding) the self and the other: in an exasperated attempt to “read” and “have themselves read,” the two protagonists entrust the construction of their identity to words, their own or someone else’s. The concept coined by M. Bakhtin of “another’s speech” is embodied here in read speech, which informs the protagonist Makar Devushkin so much as to determine the expression of his self-conscience. Miller’s paper also provides a precious input to make us reflect on the relevance of Dostoevsky’s text in this era of e-mails, Twitter and other social media, in which we are witnessing a deep change in interpersonal relationships, and where the boundary between real and virtual communication is increasingly disappearing.

29Abram Reitblat’s contribution offers a detailed analysis of the circulation and reception of manuscript literature in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. As opposed to what happened in the 20th century, when manuscript literary texts (for instance the samizdat) were seen as a “deviation from the norm,” only familiar to a few, between the 18th and the 19th century manuscript literature acquired a “non-official” communicative function that is far from marginal. Particularly valuable is not only Rejtblat’s classification of the different manuscript genres that circulated in Russia in those years (political, erotic, heretic, memorial, amateur literary texts, etc.) but also his data on the various “categories” of readers that enjoyed those texts.

30Literature’s social function is also at the centre of Raffaella Vassena’s paper on public literary readings, a phenomenon typical of the 1860s. Analysing the communicative short circuit generated by these readings, at times grossly misunderstood by the audience, Vassena highlights how certain collective reading practices, in a moment of great political awareness, considerably increased the chances of distorting the literary message.

31William Mills Todd III, in his paper, reports a precious testimony: the reactions of a real reader, Prince V. N. Golitsyn (1847-1932), to L. N. Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina (published in instalments in the magazine Russkii Vestnik between January 1875 and April 1877). Todd’s study proves not only the influence of serial reading in constructing the meaning of a text (thus emphasising the sensationalist component in the plot), but also shows in practice – in a unique analysis – which of the semantic, ethical and aesthetic potentials of the text are grasped by readers close to the culture and the social environment described in the novel. This paper strikes us for both the aesthetic evaluations of this educated and liberal reader (his “false realism” and “disgusting realism” accusations) and for the literary associations that Tolstoy’s masterpiece evokes (the importance of an author like Octave Feuillet). The horizon of expectation, here, is no abstract critical concept, but a visible network of intertextual relationships activated by reading the work.

32Similar testimonies of real readers’ reactions to a literary work represent a precious resource when studying the history of reading. Another such example is brought to us by Edyta M. Bojanowska, who centres her paper on the relationship between the real reader and the creation of the literary text. Using N. V. Gogol and I. S. Turgenev as case-studies, Bojanowska describes to what extent the reactions of readers to whom authors showed their work in progress affected the texts, leading them to change the plot, eliminate or add scenes and characters and, in some cases, even destroy the manuscripts. Her analysis allows Bojanowska to go beyond some rigid aspects of reception theories, calling for the need to study the reader not only as the addressee of the finished product – whose creativity is only required to decode the message and construct a meaning – but as a co-author of the text itself, able to inspire and shape the writer’s own creative process.

33Jeffrey Brooks focuses instead on the role that a writer’s readings can play in his creative conscience, analysing some “low” literary models in the works of Anton Chekhov. Brooks shows first to what extent popular literature, especially the serialised feuilleton genre, influenced Chekhov’s writing both as regards the themes and the poetics of the narration. He then investigates how Chekhov managed to re-elaborate these influences, conferring literary dignity to them and simultaneously enriching them with a universal ethical dimension.

34Jon Stone’s paper deals with the poetry volume Collected verses by the symbolist poet Aleksandr Dobroliubov, edited by Valerii Briusov for the symbolist publisher Skorpion. Stone thoroughly investigates how the editorial and mise en page strategies elaborated by Briusov aimed at creating a specific code of communication with the elitist modernist audience and thus at shaping the new symbolist reader.

35Oleg Lekmanov’s paper is also dedicated to the modalities of interaction between the text and the reader and to the strategies to shape one’s own audience. In particular, it analyses linguistic and stylistic registers in three Russian magazines from the 1910s: the symbolist Novyi put’, the children’s magazine Tropinka, and the mass periodical Sinii zhurnal. Lekmanov poses a series of relevant questions, partly unexplored, on the role of the reader in the editorial policies of early 20th century Russian magazines.

36The final paper in this volume is Evgeny Dobrenko’s essay, attributing the reader a key-role in 20th century Soviet literature. Dobrenko illustrates the parable of the role of the reader, from the Soviet literature of the 1920s, to the socialist realism of the 1930s, up to the sots-art of the 1970s. If, in the 1920s, some literary characters are modelled on the features of the mass reader, in Stalin’s years it was precisely the mass reader who represented the majority of the Soviet writers. Finally, in the 1970s, Moscow’s conceptual artists ironically attribute, in their works, artistic value to the aesthetic experience of the mass Soviet citizen.

37The richness of the materials, the different approaches and the various methodologies adopted by the contributors to this volume represent a precious resource for the study of the history of reading in Russia. Among the many roads that may be taken in the future, the one combining textual analysis and empirical research seems worth of special attention. The empirical reader has often been emarginated by literary criticism, reluctant to consider him an active element in constructing the meaning of a literary work, and rather keen on seeing him as one of the functions of the text. An analysis of texts that also included a meticulous and systematic search for primary sources testifying to “real” readers’ reactions (correspondences, diaries, memoirs, censors’ reports, etc.) may well shed new light on “how” and “why” people read in Russia.

Bibliographie

An-skii S. A. (Rappoport S. A.), 1894, Ocherki narodnoi literatury, Sankt-Peterburg, Russkoe Bogatstvo.

—, 1913, Narod i kniga, Moskva, L. A. Stoliar.

Aronson M., Reiser S., 1929, Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, pod red. B. M. Eikhenbauma, Leningrad, Priboi, 2nd edit., 2001, Moskva, Agraf.

Asmus V. F., 1961, “Chtenie kak trud i tvorchestvo,” Voprosy Literatury, 2: 36–46.

Bank B. V., 1969, Izuchenie chitatelei v Rossii (XIX v.), Moskva, Kniga.

Barenbaum I. E., 1961, N. A. Serno-Solov’evich (1834-1866): ocherk knigotorgovoi i knigoizdatel’skoi deiatel’nosti, Moskva, Izdatel’stvo Vsesoiuznoi knizhnoi palaty.

—, 1970, “Nekotorye aktual’nye problemy istorii chitatelia v SSSR,” in Izdatel’skoe delo. Knigovedenie, 1 (7): 10–22.

—, 1971, “Istoriia chitatelia kak sotsiologicheksaia i knigovedcheskaia problema,” in Nauchnaia konferentsiia, posviashchennaia problemam psikhologii chteniia i chitatelia, 29 okt.–2 noiab. 1971 g.. Kratk. tez. dokl., Leningrad: 6–9.

—, 1973, “‘Kruzhkovoe’ chtenie raznochinnoi molodezhi vtoroi poloviny 50kh – nachala 60kh godov XIX v.,” in Istoriia russkogo chitatelia, vol. 1, Leningrad, LGIK: 77–92.

—, 1982, “Nekotorye itogi izucheniia istorii russkogo chitatelia: (po materialam ‘Istorii russkogo chitatelia’, vyp. 1-3),” in Istoriia russkogo chitatelia, vol. 4, Leningrad, LGIK: 3–21.

—, 2003, Knizhnyi Peterburg: tri veka istorii. Ocherki izdatel’skogo dela i knizhnoi torgovli, Sankt-Peterburg, Kultinformpress.

Bek A., Toom L., 1927, Litso rabochego chitatelia, Moskva, Leningrad, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo.

Beletskii A. I., 1964, “Ob odnoi iz ocherednykh zadach istoriko-literaturnoi nauki,” in Idem, Izbrannye trudy po teorii literatury, Moskva, Prosveshchenie: 27–42, (French transl. in Beletskii 1996).

—, 1996, “Étudier l’histoire du lecteur: un problème actuel de l’histoire littéraire,” in Livre et lecture en Russie, sous la direction de A. Stroev, trad. de M. L. Bonaque, Paris, Éditions de la maison des sciences de l’homme: 37–51.

Beliaeva L. I., 1977, “Tipy vospriiatiia khudozhestvennoi literatury (psikhologicheskii analiz),” in V. Ia. Kantorovich, Iu. B. Koz’menko (eds.), Literatura i sotsiologiia: Sbornik statei, Moscow, Khudozhestvennaia literatura: 370–388.

Blagoi D. D. et al. (eds.), 1978, Tvorcheskii protsess i khudozhestvennoe vospriiatie, Leningrad, Nauka.

Blium A. V., 1966, “Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’v russkoi provintsii kontsa XVIII – nachala XIX veka: (Osnovnye tematicheskie napravleniia i tsenzurno-pravovoe polozhenie),” in Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy, Moskva, Izdatel’stvo vses. knizhnoi palaty, vol. 12: 136–159.

—, 1979, “Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’S. Peterburgskogo komiteta gramotnosti (1861–1895),” in Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy, Moskva, Izdatel’stvo vses. knizhnoi palaty, vol. 38: 99–117.

—, 1981, “Chitatel’skie nastroeniia i vkusy peterburgskogo studenchestva kontsa 70kh godov XIX v.,” in Knizhnoe delo Peterburga – Petrograda – Leningrada, Leningrad, LGIK: 146–161.

Brik O., 1923, “Tak nazyvaemyi ‘formal’ nyi metod’,” Lef, 1: 213-215.

Brooks J., 1978, “Readers and Reading at the End of the Tsarist Era,” in W. M. Todd III (ed.), Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800-1914, Stanford, Stanford University Press: 97-150.

—, 1985, When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861–1917, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Bulgarin F. V., 1998, “O tsenzure v Rossii i o knigopechatanii voobshche” (1826), in Vidok Figliarin. Pis’ma i agenturnye zapiski F. V. Bulgarina v III otdelenie, podgot. A. I. Reitblat, Moskva, Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie: 45–55.

Darnton R., 1986, “First Steps towards a History of Reading,” Australian Journal of French Studies, 23: 5–30 (2nd edit. in R. Darnton, The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History, New York, W. W. Norton, 1990: 154–187).

De Certeau M., 1990, L’invention du quotidien. 1. Arts de faire (1980), nouvelle édition par L. Giard, Paris, Gallimard: 239–255.

Dehaene S., 2007, Les neurones de la lecture, Paris, edit. Odile Jakob.

Dobrenko E., 1997, Formovka sovetskogo chitatelia. Sotsialnye i esteticheskie predposylki retseptsii sovetskoi literatury, Sankt-Peterburg, Akademicheskii proekt (Engl. Transl. The Making of the State Reader. Social and Aesthetic Contexts of the Reception of Soviet Literature, transl. by J. M. Savage, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1997).

Dubin B. V., Gudkov L. D., Reitblat A. I., 1982, Kniga, chtenie, biblioteka. Zarubezhnye issledovaniia po sotsiologii literatury. Annotirovannyi bibliograficheskii ukazatel’za 1940-1980 gg., Moskva, INION AN SSSR.

Eco U., 1984, The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Eikhenbaum B. M., 1969, “O kamernoi deklamatsii,” in Idem, O poezii, Leningrad, Sovetskii pisatel’: 512-541.

—, 2001, “Literatura i literaturnyi byt” (1927), in Idem, “Moi vremennik.” Khudozhestvennaia proza i izbrannye stat’i 20-30kh godov, Sankt-Peterburg, Inapress: 61–70.

Firsov B. M., 2012, Istoriia sovetskoi sotsiologii: 1950–1980e gody. Ocherki, vtoroe izdanie ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe, Sankt-Peterburg, Izdatel’stvo Evropeiskogo Universiteta v Sankt–Peterburge.

Goncharov I. A., 1955, “Materialy, zagotovliaemye dlia kriticheskoi stat’i ob Ostrovskom” (1873), in Idem, Sobranie sochinenii v 8 tomakh, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, vol. 8: 170–182.

Grits T., Trenin V., Nikitin M., 1929, Slovesnost’i kommertsiia. Knizhnaia lavka A. F. Smirdina, pod red. V. B. Shklovskogo i B. M. Eikhenbauma, Moskva, Federatsiia, (2nd edit., Moskva, Agraf, 2001).

Histoires de la lecture: un bilan des recherches, 1995, sous la direction de R. Chartier, Paris, Editions MSH.

Istoriia russkogo chitatelia, 1973–2010, voll. 1–4, pod red. I. E. Barenbauma, Leningrad, LGIK; vol. 5, pod red. P. N. Bazanova, V. V. Golovina, Sankt-Peterburg, 2010, izd. SPbGUKI.

Izdanie i rasprostranenie knigi v Sibiri i na dal’nem vostoke. Sbornik nauchnych trudov, 1993, Novosibirsk, GPNTB.

Kantorovich V. Ia, 1969, “O nekotorykh aspektakh sotsiologii literatury,” Voprosy literatury, 11: 43–59.

Kantorovich V. Ia., Koz’menko Iu. B. (eds.), 1977, Literatura i sotsiologiia: Sbornik statei, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia literatura.

Karamzin N. M., 1964, “O knizhnoi torgovle i liubvi ko chteniiu v Rossii” (1802), in Idem, Izbrannye sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, Moskva–Leningrad, sost. G. Makogonenko, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, vol. 2: 176–179.

Khlebtsevich E. I., 1923, Izuchenie chitatel’skikh interesov (Iz opyta bibliotechnoi raboty v Krasnoi Armii), Moskva, Krasnaia Nov’.

Khrapchenko M. B., 1968, “Vremia i zhizn’literaturnykh proizvedenii,” Voprosy Literatury, 10: 144–170.

Kleinbort L. M., 1925, Russkii chitatel’– rabochii, Leningrad, Leningr. Gub. Sov. Prof. Sojuzov.

Kniga i chtenie v zhizni nebol’shikh gorodov, 1973, Moskva, Kniga.

Kniga i chtenie v zhizni sovetskogo sela, 1978, Moskva, Kniga.

Kochetkova N. D., 1983, “Geroi russkogo sentimentalizma. Chtenie v zhizni chuvstvitel’nogo geroia,” in Russkaia literatura XVIII – nachala XIX veka v obshchestvenno–kul’turnom kontekste, Leningrad, Nauka: 121–142.

—, 1994, Literatura russkogo sentimentalizma (Esteticheskie i khudozhestvennye iskaniia), Sankt-Peterburg, Nauka: 156–188.

Kogan V. Z., 1969, “Iz istorii izucheniia chitatelia v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii,” in Problemy sotsiologii pechati, vyp. 1, Novosibirsk, Nauka: 18–67.

Kufaev M. N., 1927, Istoriia russkoi knigi v XIX veke, Moskva, Nachatki znanii.

Kungurov G. F., 1965, Sibir’i literatura, Irkutsk, Vost. Sib. Knizh. Izdanie.

Lahusen T., 1997, How Life Writes the Book. Real Socialism and Socialist Realism in Stalin’s Russia, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.

Lanson G., 1910, “La méthode de l’histoire littéraire,” La Revue du mois, 10 October, 1910: 385–413.

—, 1930, “Programme d’études sur l’histoire provinciale de la vie littéraire en France” (1903), in Idem, Études d’histoire littéraire, Paris, Champion.

Lederle M. M., 1895, Mneniia russkikh liudei o luchshikh knigakh dlia chteniia, Sankt-Peterburg, izd. M. M. Lederle i K.

Literaturnye salony i kruzhki. Pervaia polovina XIX veka, 1930, pod red. N. L. Brodskogo, M.– L., Academia.

Lotman Iu. M., 1967, “Russo i russkaia kul’tura XVIII veka,” in Epokha Prosveshcheniia: Iz istorii mezhdunarodnykh sviazei russkoi literatury, pod red. M. P. Alekseeva, Leningrad, Nauka: 208–281.

—, 1973, “Teatr i teatral’nost’v stroe kul’tury nachala XIX veka,” in Semiotyka i struktura tekstu: Studia poświęcone VII Miçdzynarodowemu kongresowi slawistów, Wrocław: 337–355 (English transl. in Nakhimovsky, Stone 1985).

—, 1975, “Dekabrist v povsednevnoi zhizni: (Bytovoe povedenie kak istoriko-psikhologicheskaia kategoriia),” in Literaturnoe nasledie dekabristov, pod red. V. G. Bazanova, V. E. Vatsuro, Leningrad, Nauka: 25–74 (English transl. in Nakhimovsky, Stone 1985).

—, 1977, “Poetika bytovogo povedeniia v russkoi kul’tury XVIII veka,” in Uchennye zapiski Tartuskogo universiteta, vol. 411: 65–69 (English transl. in Nakhimovsky, Stone 1985).

—, 1982, “The Text and the Structure of Its Audience,” transl. by A. Shukman, in New Literary History, vol. 14, n. 1: 81-87.

—, 1992, Izbrannye stat’i, vol. 1, Tallin, Aleksandra.

—, 1996, “Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury XVIII – nachala XIX veka,” in Iz istorii russkoi kul’tury. Tom IV (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka), Moskva, Iazyki russkoi kul’tury: 13–346.

—, 1997, “Ob odnom chitatel’skom vospriiatii ‘Bednoi Lizy’ N. M. Karamzina. (K strukture massovogo soznaniia XVIII v.),” in Idem, Karamzin, SPb. 1997, Iskusstvo: 616–620.

Lovell S., 2000, The Russian Reading Revolution. Print culture in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Eras, London, Macmillan Press.

Luppov S. P., 1970, Kniga v Rossii v XVII veke, Leningrad, Nauka.

—, 1973, Kniga v Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII veka, Leningrad, Nauka.

—, 1976, Kniga v Rossii v poslepetrovskoi epokhi (1725–1740), Leningrad, Nauka.

— (ed.), 1986, Frantsuzskaia kniga v Rossii v XVIII veke. Ocherki istorii, Len., Nauka.

Melent’eva Iu. P., 2010, Chtenie: iavlenie, protsess, deiatel’nost’, Moskva, Nauka.

Mandel’shtam O. E., 1987, “O sobesednike” (1913), in Idem, Slovo i kul’tura, Moskva, Sovetskii pisatel’: 48–54.

Marker G., 1982, “Novikov’s Readers,” Modern Language Review, Summer 1982, 77, 4: 894–905.

—, 1985, Publishing, Printing and the Origins of Intellectual Life in Russia, 1700–1800, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

—, 1986, “Russian Journals and Their Readers in the Late Eighteenth Century,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, new series XIX: 88–101.

McReynolds L., 1991, The News under Russia’s Old Regime. The Development of a Mass Circulation Press, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Meilakh B. S., 1971, “Khudozhestvennoe vospriiatie kak nauchnaia problema,” in B. S. Meilakh ed., Khudozhestvennoe vospriiatie: Sbornik 1, Leningrad, Nauka: 10–29.

Mil’china V. A., 1983, “Pechatnyi vsiakii list im kazhetsia sviatym...,” Literaturnoe obozrenie, 5: 91–97 (French transl. in Stroev 1996).

Muratov M. V., 1931, Knizhnoe delo v Rossii v XIX i XX vekach: ocherk istorii knigoizdatel’stva i knigotorgovli, 1800–1917 gody, M.– L., Sotsekonomgiz.

Nakhimovsky A. D., Stone A., eds., 1985, The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History: Essays by Iurii M. Lotman, Lidiia Ia. Ginzburg, Boris A. Uspenskii, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Napravleniia i tendentsii v sovremennom zarubezhnom literaturovedenii i literaturnoi kritike. Problemy sotsiologii literatury za rubezhom. Sbornik obzorov i referatov, 1983, Moskva, Akademiia nauk SSSR.

Nemzer A., Zorin A. L., 1989, “Paradoksy chuvstvitel’nosti (N. M. Karamzin ‘Bednaia Liza’),” in “Stolet’ia ne sotrut...” Russkie klassiki i ikh chitateli, Moskva, Kniga: 8–54 (French transl. in Stroev 1996).

Potebnja A. A., 1894, Iz lektsii po teorii slovesnosti. Basnia, poslovitsa, pogovorka, Khar’kov, K. Schasni.

Prugavin A. S., 1895, Zaprosy naroda i obiazannosti intelligentsii v oblasti prosveshcheniia i vospitaniia, 2 nd ed., Sankt-Peterburg, I. N. Skorokhodov.

Rasnolistov O. (pseudonym of A. I. Reitblat), E Mashkirov (pseudonym of E. I. Melamed) (eds.), 1991–1993, Staryj russkii detektiv, Zhitomir, Olesia, voll. 1–5.

Rasprostranenie knigi v Sibiri (konets XVIII – nachalo XX v.), 1990, Novosibirsk, GPNTB.

Reitblat A. I., Frolova F. M., 1987, Kniga, chtenie, biblioteka: sovetskie issledovaniia po sotsiologii chteniia, literatury, bibliotechnogo dela, 1965–1985 gg.: Annotirovannyi bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, Moskva, GBL.

Reitblat A. I. (ed.), 1990, Lubochnaia kniga, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia literatura.

—, 1991a, Ot Bovy k Bal’montu. Ocherki po istorii chteniia v Rossii vo vtoroi poloviny XIX veka, Moskva, MPI, (2nd edit., Moskva, Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2009)

— (ed.), 1991b, Chtenie v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, Moskva, Izdanie Gos. Biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina.

— (ed.), 1992a, Ugolovnyi roman. Sbornik, Moskva, Irdash.

—, 1992b, Chtenie v Rossii v XIX – nachale XX veka: Annotirovannyi bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, Moskva, RGB, 1992.

— (ed.), 1994, Nat Pinkerton, korol’syshchikov: Rasskazy, Moskva, Panas-Aero.

— (ed.), 1995, Chtenie v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, Moskva, Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie.

—, 2001, Kak Pushkin vyshel v genii. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Moskva, Novoe Literaturnoe obozrenie.

— (ed.), 2005, Lubochnaia povest’. Antologiia, Moskva, OGI.

Rubakin A. N., 1979, Rubakin (Lotsman knizhnego moria), Moskva, Molodaia Gvardiia.

Rubakin N. A., 1895, Etiudy o russkoi chitaiushchei publike. Fakty, tsifry, nabliudeniia, Sankt-Peterburg – Moskva, Izdanie O. N. Popovoi.

—, 1968, “The ‘special method’ of bibliopsychology,” in Nicholas Rubakin and Bibliopsychology, edited by S. Simsova, translated by M. Mackee and G. Peacock, London, Clive Bingley: 26–46.

—, 1975, Izbrannoe v dvukh tomakh, sost. A. N. Rubakin, voll. 1–2, Moskva, Kniga.

Russkaia kniga v dorevoliutsionnoi Sibiri, 1984–1996, Novosibirsk, voll. 1–7, AN SSSR.

Saltykov-Shchedrin M. E., 1970, “Naprasnye oposeniia” (1868), in Idem, Sobranie sochinenii v 20 tomakh, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, vol. 9: 7–35.

—, 1974, “Chitatel’(Neskol’ko nelishnykh kharakteristik)” (1887), in Idem, Sobranie sochinenii v 20 tomakh, Moskva, Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, vol. 16, kn. 2: 133–154.

Samarin A. Iu., 2000, Chitatel’v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII veka (po spiskam podpischikov), Moskva, MGUP.

—, 2010, “I. E. Barenbaum–chitateleved i istorik russkogo chitatelia,” in Istoriia russkogo chitatelia, SPb., SPGUKI, vol. 5: 167–186.

Senn A., 1977, Nicholas Rubakin: A Life for Books, Newtonville, Oriental Research Partners.

Shafir Ia., 1927, Ocherki psikhologiii chitatelia, Moskva–Leningrad.

Shklovskii V. B., 1929, Matvei Komarov, zhitel’goroda Moskvy, Leningrad, Priboi.

Shukman A. (ed.), 1984, The Semiotics of Russian Culture, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan.

Simsova S. (ed.), 1968, Nicholas Rubakin and Bibliopsychology, translated by M. Mackee and G. Peacock, London, Clive Bingley.

Slukhovskii M. I., 1928, Kniga i derevnia, M. L., Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo.

—, 1976, “Problemy istorii chteniia. (K postanovke voprosa),” in Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy, vol. 33: 33–43.

Smushkova M. A., 1926, Pervye itogi izucheniia chitatelia: Obzor literatury, M.– L., Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo.

Sorokin I. A., 1968, “Bibliopsikhologicheskaia teoriia N. A. Rubakina i smezhnye nauki,” in Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy, vol. 17: 55–68.

Sovetskii chitatel’(1920–1980). Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, 1992, pod red. I. E. Barenbauma, Sankt-Peterburg, Sankt-Peterburgskii Gosudarstvennyi Institut Kul’tury.

Sovetskii chitatel’: Opyt konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia, 1968, Moskva, Kniga.

Stroev A., 1995, “La lecture en Russie,” in Histoires de la lecture. Un bilan des recherches, sous la direction de R. Chartier, Paris, Imec éditions: 181–196.

— (ed.), 1996, Livre et lecture en Russie, trad. par M. L. Bonaque, Paris, Éditions de la maison des sciences de l’homme.

—, 1996, “Livre en Russie,” in Livre et lecture en Russie, sous la direction de A. Stroev, trad. par M. L. Bonaque, Paris, Éditions de la maison des sciences de l’homme: 11–31.

Todd W. M. III, 1987, “Recent Soviet Studies in Sociology of Literature: Confronting a Disenchanted World,” in Stanford Slavic Studies, 1: 327–347.

Todorov Tz., 1980, “Reading as Construction,” in S. R. Suleiman, I. Crosman (eds.), The Reader in the Text, Princeton, Princeton UP: 67–82.

Tompkins J. P., 1980, “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism,” in J. P. Tompkins (ed.), Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, Baltimore, John Hopkins UP: IX–XXVI.

Toporov A. M., 1930, Krest’iane o pisateliakh. Opyt, metodika i obraztsy krest’ianskoi kritiki sovremennoi khudozhestvennoi literatury, Moskva, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo (5th edition, Moskva, Kniga, 1982).

Tynianov Iu. N., 1977a, “Literaturnyi fakt” (1924), in Idem, Poetika. Istoriia literatury. Kino, podgot. izd. i kommentarii A. E. Toddesa, A. P. Chudakova, M. O. Chudakovoi, Moskva, Nauka: 255–269.

—, 1977b, “Oda kak oratorskii zhanr” (1927), in Idem, Poetika. Istoriia literatury. Kino: 227–252.

—, 1977c, “O literaturnoi evoliutsii” (1927), in Idem, Poetika. Istoriia literatury. Kino: 270–281.

Val’dgard S. L, 1931, Ocherki psikhologii chteniia, M. L., Gosudarstv. Ucheb. Pedagog. Izdanie.

Vassena R., 2007, “K rekonstruktsii istorii deiatel’nosti Instituta Zhivogo Slova (1918–1924),” Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 86: 79–95.

Weinberg E. A., 1974, The Development of Sociology in the Soviet Union, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Zorin A. L., 2013, “Smert’v Peterburge v iiule 1803 goda,” Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 120, 2: 157–192.

Notes

2 Rubakin 1895: 11-102.

3 On the 19th century origins of the history of reading in Russia, see Bank 1969 and 1969. A short and incomplete review of some studies on reading in Russia between the 18th and the 19th century is found in Stroev 1995: 181-196. For a more complete bibliography, see Reitblat 1992b.

4 See Karamzin 1964: 176-179; Bulgarin 1998: 45-55; Goncharov 1955: 170-182; Saltykov-Shchedrin 1970: 7-35; Saltykov-Shchedrin 1974: 133-154.

5 In general, on Rubakin, see Simsova 1968, Senn 1977, and Rubakin A. 1979.

6 See An-skii 1894 (a pseudonym of Rappoport), Prugavin 1895, An-skii 1913. One of rare works of that period that investigates what the Russian upper classes read is Lederle 1895.

7 See Darnton 1986: 5-30.

8 Rubakin 1895: 7-102. On collecting information from correspondences with readers, see Rubakin 1975, vol. 1: 12 and collection N. 358 (N. A. Rubakin) of the Manuscript Section of the Russian State Library.

9 Rubakin 1895: 20 and 155-191.

10 The interest in a psychological typology of readers will return in the USSR thanks to, among others, Shafir 1927, Val’dgard 1931 and Beliaeva 1977.

11 Rubakin 1895: 158-191.

12 See Rubakin 1968: 26-46. On the influence of various scientific disciplines on Rubakin’s research on reading, see Sorokin 1968: 55-68.

13 See Rubakin 1968: 26-46. According to Evgeny Dobrenko, “Rubakin was the first to formulate the basic ideas of the ‘ aesthetics of reception’,” in Dobrenko 1997b: 10.

14 Rubakin 1968: 26.

15 See e. g. Tompkins 1980: IX; Dehaene 2007.

16 See Rubakin A. 1979: 151

17 Potebnja 1894: 136.

18 Simsova 1968: 14.

19 See Todorov 1980: 67-82 and De Certeau 1990: 239-255.

20 Rubakin 1895: 1-2.

21 Eikhenbaum 1969: 512-541; Tynianov 1977b: 227-252.

22 These studies will be developed in particular by scholars at Leningrad’s Institut Slova and Institut Istorii Iskusstv, where Sergei Bernshtein will set up a lab for recording poets and writers of the time reading poetic texts. See Vassena 2007.

23 See Eco 1984: 7-8.

24 See Tynianov 1977c: 270-281.

25 See Tynianov 1977a: 255-269; Eikhenbaum 2001: 61-70.

26 At the same time, in those years the magazine Lef, close to the formalists, elaborated the concept of “social demand” (sotsialnyi zakaz), which sees the author as directly and unilaterally depending on its reading audience, in a relationship similar to that between producer and consumer. See Brik 1923: 214.

27 Shklovskii 1929.

28 Grits, Trenin, Nikitin

29 Aronson, Reiser 1929. Also see Literaturnye salony

30 Beletskii 1996: 37.

31 See Mandel’shtam 1987: 48-54.

32 Ibid.: 53.

33 Beletskii 1996: 45.

34 Ibid.: 43-44. These observations were later developed by Beletskii in his 1938 article “Nekrasov i ego sobesedniki.”

35 Beletskii 1996: 4.

36 Ibid.: 39. As regards Lanson’s article, see Lanson 1910: 385-413.

37 Beletskii 1996: 42.

38 See Lanson 1930: 8

39 Beletskii 1996: 40.

40 Stroev 1996: 26. On this matter, also see Rubakin 1895: 17-18

41 Khlebtsevich 1923; Kleinbort 1925; Smushkova 1926; Bek, Toom 1927; Slukhovskii 1928; Toporov 1930.

42 See Lovell 2000: 29-35.

43 See e. g. Kufaev 1927; Muratov 1931.

44 Weinberg 1974 and Firsov 2012

45 See, e. g., Sovetskii chitatel’: Opyt konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia 1968; Kniga i chtenie v zhizni nebol’shikh gorodov 1973; Kniga i chtenie v zhizni sovetskogo sela 1978. On this matter, also see Lovell 2000: 45-50.

46 See Asmus 1961; Khrapcenko 1968; Meilakh 1971; Kantorovich, Koz’menko 1977; Blqgoi 1978.

47 See e. g. Kantorovich 1969 and Meilakh 1971. On this, see Todd 1987: 327-347. from the early 1980s, Soviet scholars could enjoy quite a wide bibliography of western works on the sociology of literature, see Dubin, Gudkov, Reitblat 1982 and Napravleniia i tendentsii v sovremennom zarubezhnom literaturovedenii i literaturnoi kritike 1983.

48 See Beliaeva 1977: 370-388. See Todd 1987: 342 on the subject.

49 See, among others, Barenbaum 1961 and Barenbaum 2003.

50 See Luppov 1970; Luppov 1973; Luppov 1976; Luppov 1986.

51 See Blium 1966; Blium 1979; Blium 1981. Apart from Moscow and Leningrad, other like Irkutsk and Novosibirsk gave rise to studies on the history of the book and reading in Siberia. See Kungurov 1965; Russkaia kniga v dorevoliutsionnoi Sibiri 1984-1996; Rasprostranenie knigi v Sibiri 1990; Izdanie i rasprostranenie knigi 1993.

52 See Barenbaum 1970: 14. On Barenbaum as a historian of reading, see Samarin 2010: 167-186.

53 Slukhovskii 1976: 33-43.

54 Istoriia russkogo chitatelia 1973-2010.

55 See Barenbaum 1973: 77-92; Barenbaum 1982: 17.

56 Lotman 1997.

57 Ibid., 617.

58 Ibid., 620.

59 Lotman 1982: 81.

60 Ibid., 86.

61 Lotman 1973: 337-355; Lotman 1975: 25-74; Lotman 1977: 65-69; Lotman 1996: The English translations of some of these papers on the semiotics of behaviour are found in Shukman 1984 and in Nakhimovsky, Stone 1985.

62 Lotman 1996: 108-111.

63 Ibid., 97.

64 Lotman 1967: 208-281.

65 Quoted in Mil’china 1983: 130.

66 For a wider overview on the development of studies on the history of reading in the see Histoires de la lecture 1995.

67 Marker 1985 and Brooks 1985. See also Marker 1982, Marker 1986 and Brooks 1978.

68 See Marker 1985: 13.

69 Brooks 1985: 372.

70 Zorin, Nemzer 1989. Also see the recent and refined essay by Andrei Zorin on influence of sentimentalist literary models on Andrei Turgenev’s behaviour and fate, in Zorin 2013.

71 Kochetkova 1983; Kochetkova 1994: 156-188.

72 Samarin 2000. On subscribers’lists as sources for the history of reading, see Darnton 1986: 11.

73 Mil’china 1983: 91-97.

74 Reitblat 1991a: 32-47, 97-128, 143-165; Reitblat 2001: 70-81.

75 Reitblat 1991a: 48-66 and 166-184; Reitblat 2001: 36-50.

76 Reitblat 1991a: 67-96, 185-199 and Reitblat 2001: 51-69, 98-107, 191-202.

77 Reitblat 1991b and Reitblat 1995, Reitblat 1999.

78 Reitblat 1990; Rasnolistov, Mashkirov 1991-1993; Reitblat 1992a; Reitblat 1994; Reitblat 2005.

79 Dubin, Gudkov, Reitblat 1982; Frolova, Reitblat 1987; Reitblat 1992b.

80 Sovetskii chitatel’1992; Dobrenko 1997; Lahusen 1997.

81 Lahusen 1997: 151-178.

82 Lovell 2000

Auteurs

He is Associate Professor of Russian Language and Literature at the University of Milan. He has been working for some years on the history of reading in nineteenth-century Russia. In particular, he has studied the literary canon and reading practices in different social environments, from the court of the tsars to the lower classes. He has published papers on how they read at the court of Tsar Nicholas I and on the reception of nineteenth-century authors like Gogol and Tolstoy in the peasant world. In recent years, his research has been focusing on the education of Tsar Alexander II. His favourite readings are: H. Melville, Bartleby the Scrivener; F. Dostoevsky, The Idiot; C.E. Gadda, Quer pasticciaccio brutto de via Merulana.

She is Assistant Professor of Russian Language and Literature at the University of Milan. Her research activity focuses on sociological aspects of the nineteenth-century Russian literature and culture, and on the post-revolutionary Russian diaspora. She is the author of Reawakening National Identity. Dostoevsky’s Diary of a Writer and its Impact on Russian Society (Peter Lang, 2007). Her most recent publications include articles on Russian culture of the 1860s and 1870s, as well as on the twentieth-century Russian diaspora to Italy. Her three favourite readings are F.M. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, D. Buzzati’s Short Stories, and V. Nabokov’s Lolita.

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr