âMany wept â¦
The public rushed to read and buy Dostoevsky.
As though death had unveiled him, whereas he had not existed before.â1
This volume investigates the production and dissemination of Dostoevskyâs works in the thirty years following his death, assessing how the social, political, and cultural institutions of Tsarist Russia contributed to making his literary reputation and shaping his legacy. If, as Robert Darnton asserted, the history of books cannot be disentangled from the social, economic, political, and cultural history of their context, then the case of Dostoevsky warrants special attention for several reasons.2 The writerâs death on January 28, 1881, shortly preceded the death of Tsar Alexander II, who, two decades earlier, had initiated significant reforms aimed at modernizing the deep structures of Russia. His violent assassination by terrorists exposed the limitations of this project and provided the Tsarist government with a pretext for implementing a highly repressive and reactionary policy, which ultimately exacerbated existing social tensions. In this Russia, torn apart and âteetering on the brink,â3 Dostoevskyâs work acquired significance well beyond its literary value, becoming imbued with social, political, and religious meanings. It thus became an additional arena of contention among the State, the Church and Russian society, contributing to the debate over the countryâs profound contradictions.
Dostoevskyâs work stands out for its ability to simultaneously explore both particular and universal dimensions of the human condition. It examines the deep nature of the human soul while also questioning the specificity of the Russian individual, as well as Russian history and national identity. Dostoevskyâs âfantastic realismââthe profound adherence of his literary creation to contemporary realities, coupled with its projection toward a transcendent dimensionâcaused his work, from its earliest manifestations, to divide rather than unify, generating heated debates among his contemporaries. Thus began a stratification of interpretations of Dostoevskyâs work, which this volume aims to partially unveil by exploring the sources that are both chronologically and personally closest to the author. The strength of Dostoevskyâs work lies in its ability to provoke fractures, sow doubt, and induce unease and disorientation in the reader.4 It is precisely in this divisive power that his perennial relevance is rooted. For this reason, investigating the ideological battles that emerged around Dostoevsky after his death helps understand not only why his ability in challenging and questioning convictions remains powerful today, but also why any attempt to fit his work into binary interpretive models or predetermined political labels is doomed to fail. Only by embracing the problematic nature of his art and its resistance to rigid categorizations can we fully appreciate its complexity and value.
This was, in essence, the mission that the writerâs wife, Anna Grigorevna Dostoevskaia, née Snitkina (1846â1918), undertook upon his death. Sheâalong with their children, the sole holder of the rights to her husbandâs works until 1910âmanaged their production and distribution, ultimately establishing what can be described as the first publishing enterprise run by a single woman in Russia.5 The very young stenographer and ardent feminist who, by marrying Dostoevsky in 1867, had brought order to both his work and personal life, revealed herself to be an exceptional entrepreneurial talent. Far more than a mere publisher, starting in 1873âthe year of the volume publication of The PossessedâAnna Grigorevna coordinated every phase of the production, manufacturing, and distribution of her husbandâs works. She was responsible for proofreading and editing the texts; locating printing houses; managing promotional activities; liaising with booksellers; recording sales revenues; and, finally, responding to subscribers. Following The Possessed came the volume editions of The Idiot in 1874 and Notes from the House of the Dead in 1875, the independent publication of A Writerâs Diary in 1876, 1877, 1880, and 1881, and the volume editions of Crime and Punishment in 1877, Humiliated and Insulted in 1879, and The Brothers Karamazov in 1881. After her husbandâs death, Dostoevskaia revitalized her efforts, eventually securing a prominent position in the publishing field. She is credited not only with the first posthumous editions of Dostoevskyâs Complete Collected Works [Polnoe sobranie sochinenii] but also with a series of other projects, including collections for children and adolescents, adaptations for the common reader, the establishment of a museum dedicated to Dostoevsky, and the publication of a bibliography in 1906 that remains an essential reference for Dostoevsky scholarship.6 Dostoevskaiaâs bibliography includes twenty sections, describing over four thousand itemsâthe writerâs autograph materials, editions of his works, critical articles about him, as well as illustrations, portraits, busts, and memorabiliaârelating to the life, work, and reception of her husbandâs work from 1846 to 1903. The structure she imposed on this bibliography is in itself an act of interpretation, providing significant insight into her sensibility as a reader and her editorial policy. First, the types of items included in Dostoevskaiaâs bibliography allow us to expand the notion of âtextâ to a system of signs, or, from a sociological perspective, to a âmaterial constructionâ7 that constitutes a symbolic system designed for interpretation. Second, the presence of sections such as âEditions for Childrenâs Reading, selected from Dostoevskyâs Worksâ or âEditions for the Common People, selected from Dostoevskyâs Worksâ already provides insight into the trajectories that Dostoevskyâs legacy had taken two decades after his death. The fate of these trajectories after 1910 constitutes a separate story that can be explored elsewhere. Moreover, other aspects of Dostoevskyâs canonization, such as his legacy in the intellectual history of early twentieth-century Russia and the migration of his works into other mediaâsuch as theatreâfall outside the scope of our inquiry.8 In our account, the issue of Dostoevskyâs literary reputation and canonisation is examined primarily within the framework of Anna Grigorevna Dostoevskaiaâs editorial activities and projects.
The role of Dostoevskaia in the professionalization of Dostoevskyâs literary activities is unanimously recognized by both Russian and Western scholarship, which, particularly over the past decade, has increasingly focused on her as the subject of specialized studies.9 A research group at the University of Petrozavodsk, led by Vladimir Zakharov, is credited with initiating a major project dedicated to Anna Dostoevskaia, uncovering a vast amount of unpublished material related to her work and facilitating its digitization. I owe a great deal to the Petrozavodsk group, particularly to Irina Andrianova, the leading expert on the subject. Andrianovaâs work, as well as the archival materials she generously shared with me over the past few years, guided my research into Dostoevskaiaâs publishing activities and led me to identify several aspects worthy of further investigation.10 To date, there has been no comprehensive study examining how, in her role as a publishing mediator, Dostoevskaia contributed to the evolution of Dostoevskyâs image after his death. Specifically, the ways in which the publishing industry, along with other cultural, social, and political institutions of late-nineteenth-century Russia, participated in negotiating the semantic potential of Dostoevskyâs work have yet to be the subject of scholarly reflection. Ultimately, this involves a process of negotiation between, on one hand, the public and, on the other, the selection, production, and distribution of cultural materials by institutions within the literary field: publishing, censorship, the book market, literary and pedagogical criticism, the periodical press, schools, as well as organizations and committees dedicated to the dissemination of education.
Given the multiplicity of factors involved, the approach must necessarily be interdisciplinary. This study will focus not so much on the analysis of Dostoevskyâs poetics and styleâassuming the reader is already familiar with these aspectsâbut rather on the construction, evolution, and transformation of his legacy within the cultural, social, and political context of late Imperial Russia. Our primary theoretical and methodological references lie in the fields of literary sociology on one hand, and historical studies of cultural practices, books, and reading, on the other.11 In the Russian sphere, the works by Boris Dubin, Lev Gudkov, and Abram Reitblat have explored the sociocultural framework and developmental stages of Russian literary institutions, particularly emphasizing the interaction between them.12 Additionally, the research on the history of reading in nineteenth-century Russia by Jeffrey Brooks and Abram Reitblat has contributed to contextualizing the historical dynamics of this interaction, investigating its effect on the audience.13 More recent studies have explored the role of publishing in creating a national identity that served as an alternative to the model imposed by the Tsarist regime.14
An important source of inspiration for this study includes research on âliterary afterlives,â which, while abundant in the Anglo-Saxon and French literary contexts, offers relatively few examples in the field of Russian literatureâamong them, the excellent and ever-relevant study by Stephen Moeller-Sally on Gogol, and the more recent one by Ekaterina Liamina and Natalia Samover on Ivan Krylov.15 As Astrid Erll argues, the reconstruction of literary afterlives involves an investigation into the mechanisms through which cultural memory is transmitted over time. For this reason, their investigation possesses an inherently interdisciplinary nature, combining three distinct approaches. From a social standpoint, the focus is on the dynamic interactions between literary texts and the institutions that engage with them. This perspective investigates how changing social formationsâeach with its distinct historical perceptions, contemporary challenges, interests, and expectationsâengage with literature, resulting in varied receptions and reinterpretations. From a media-culture perspective, the focus is on the intermedial networks that preserve and perpetuate the enduring influence of certain narratives, including intertextual and intermedial references, rewritings, adaptations, and forms of commentary and cross-referencing. From a more text-centered perspective, one might inquire whether certain inherent characteristics of literary works render them more âactualizableâ than others, thereby facilitating their rereading, rewriting, remediation, and sustained discourse.16
One of the theoretical assumptions underlying this study, therefore, posits that the meanings of texts depend, on the one hand, on the material forms they assume and, on the other, on the circumstances through which readers receive and appropriate them.17 If the textual characteristics can vary from edition to edition, only a historical perspective makes it possible to reconstruct the process through which the meaning of a literary work is formed. By studying the forms of a textâs transmission, one can trace its life over time, analyzing how the shift from one form to another may alter the social and cultural foundations of its audience, the uses of the text, and its potential interpretations. It is particularly important to emphasize this term, âpotentialâ: while paying attention to some cases of reception, this study aims not so much to historically reconstruct the interpretations of Dostoevskyâs work within different reading communities, but rather to outline how Dostoevskyâs texts operated in different and evolving contexts.
As Roger Chartier writes regarding the implications of Donald McKenzieâs âtextual bibliography,â âon the one hand, the forms given to texts are structured according to the assumed proficiencies and expectations of the target audience. On the other hand, the media through which a text is presented (whether for reading or listening) possess their own inherent dynamics: depending on their characteristics, they can either foster a new audience or enable new forms of appropriation.â18 In other words, a text crafted by the author or publisher for an educated audience demonstrates specific formal characteristics that consider the readersâ level of expertise and, in some cases, their ideological orientation. Darntonâs notion of âthe communications circuitâ provides an analytical model that reflects the complexity of the communication process inherent in the transmission of a printed text.19 This process involves various social actors engaged in a system of alliances, struggles, misunderstandings, concessions, and compromises, which inevitably intertwines the history of the book with the social, economic, and political history of a given country. As Robert Escarpit observes, this process unfolds through a series of choices, or selections, that keep the production, distribution, and consumption of the text within clearly defined boundaries.20 These boundaries are drawn by the elite who hold the key to the âcorrect interpretationâ of the text, transforming it, in Michel De Certeauâs words, into a âcultural weaponâ and a âprivate hunting reserve.â21 However, when the same text is republished in a new editorial form, such as a widely circulated series targeting a mass audience, it may give rise to different interpretations, which contribute no less than the original ones to the process of meaning-making. The transition of a text from the cultured circuit to the popular circuit can have long-term repercussions on its subsequent editorial history. As Escarpit notes, while the limited cultured circuit involves a series of selections that mutually influence one another, allowing the publisher to operate within well-defined and relatively predictable boundaries, the popular circuit entails large-scale mechanisms that escape the publisherâs control and, we might add, the control of institutions overseeing the interpretation of the original text.22
Traces of this lack of control can also be found in the early stages of Dostoevskyâs posthumous editorial history, which unfolded during a period of significant transformation in Tsarist Russia. Thanks to the reforms introduced by Alexander II in the 1860s, the publishing industry gradually gained greater prominence in the Russian cultural landscape, alongside other social institutions that, until then, had regulated the balance of power within the literary field. As intermediaries between authors and the public, publishersâtogether with educators and cultural activistsâplayed a central role in the dissemination of books among lower- and middle-class audiences. Borrowing the title of Jeffrey Brooksâs pivotal work, this marks the beginning of the period âwhen Russia learned to read.â With the gradual establishment of an extensive network of primary schoolsâthough still unevenly distributed between urban centers and rural provincesâreading ceased to be the privilege of a few and became a valuable means of adapting to new social conditions and a changing way of life.23 Within a few decades, there was a rapid increase in the volume of printed material. New publishing houses, often backed by foreign capital, capitalized on technological advancements in typography, transportation, and communications to intensify production, expand distribution networks, and develop new commercial channels. Alongside the new Russian publishing giants such as Ivan Sytin, Aleksei Suvorin, and Adolf Marx, the late 1870s saw the emergence of small and medium-sized private publishing enterprises. New bookstores and lending libraries were established in urban centers and rural areas. The number of Russian and foreign books printed increased significantly, with 2,191 titles in 1872 and 2,668 in 1873, rising to 5,451 new titles by 1877.24 The agricultural crisis and the reactionary politics of the 1880s did not halt the development of the publishing industry. On the contrary, book production doubled, increasing from 18.5 million copies in 1887 to over 56 million copies by 1901, while diversifying into a wide range of thematic areas.25
The development of the book market was accompanied by a steady increase and a progressive diversification of the reading public, particularly among the lower-middle strata of the population. As Nikolai Rubakin observed in his 1895 study on the social-psychological profile of the Russian reader, this development was uneven and still far from European standards, yet it represented a significant turning point in Russia compared to the past.26 The true novelty, however, lies not so much in the presence of a popular readership and literatureâalready established in Russia with its tradition primarily related to the lubokâbut in the interaction that developed during the late nineteenth century between two previously independent circuits of book production, distribution, and consumption: the cultured and the popular. Amid the mass of printed material, the 1880s saw the emergence of inexpensive editions of classical works, sometimes adapted for specific categories of less educated readers. The introduction of âhighâ literature to less educated social strata not only contributed to the cultural development of new interpretive communities but also shaped their social consciousness by offering alternative identity models to the prevailing ones.27 Although Russian state and religious authorities initially sought to counter this identification process, over time they began to employ it as an ideological tool, promoting the names of great writers as symbols of national pride.
The history of Dostoevskyâs posthumous editions in the thirty years following his death demonstrates the heterogeneity and contradictions of the forces involved in this process, which followed the opposite trajectory of what might be generally assumed. Initially, the Tsarist government sought to promote an image of Dostoevsky as a âconservative and patriotic writer.â Over time, however, the growing dissemination of his works and the rise of new social actors facilitated the emergence of new interpretations of Dostoevsky that diverged from the official narrative. The situation that arose is succinctly encapsulated in De Certeauâs statement: âThe creativity of the reader grows as the institution that controlled it declines.â28 The most compelling aspect of Anna Dostoevskaiaâs editorial endeavors lies precisely in this shift in balance. Following Dostoevskyâs death, and with the endorsement of Kostantin PobedonostsevâChief Procurator of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church, member of the State Council, advisor to Alexander III, and legal guardian of Dostoevskyâs childrenâAnna undertook the mission of promoting the legacy of his concept of âRussiannessâ: a call for unity between the educated elites and the Russian people (narod), with the goal of fulfilling Russiaâs mission of universal Christian brotherhood. This is not the place to explore the complex implications of Dostoevskyâs controversial âRussian idea,â which we have addressed in other works.29 However, it is worthy specifying that, as pointed out by several scholars, the idea of âRussiannessâ espoused by Dostoevsky and many of his contemporaries did not fully align with Slavophile positions, nor was it merely a sterile call for loyalty to official nationalism as articulated in Sergei Uvarovâs triad âOrthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality.â Rather, it was centered on a concept of civilization that could be interpreted in various ways, with one of its key pillars in Dostoevskyâs thought being the education of the Russian people.30 It was precisely this pedagogical intent that led Anna Dostoevskaia to gradually adapt her editions to the needs of new segments of the public, emerging âreading communitiesâ31 previously unfamiliar with Dostoevskyâs work. Attuned to the tastes and trends of an increasingly diverse audience, and simultaneously cautious in seeking the approval of critics and governmental authorities, Dostoevskaia laid the groundwork for a gradual expansion of the distribution network for her husbandâs works. However, from a certain point onward, this process began to escape her control. Due to the rise of new media and the emergence of new social actors, the image of Dostoevsky proliferated during the 1890s and early 1900s through new affordable editions of his works, illustrated abridgments, public popular readings, biographical sketches tailored for the popular reader, and critical reinterpretations offering novel insights into his work and new connections with the shifting social and political landscape of early twentieth-century Russia. As a result, new âDostoevskysâ (with varying social, political and religious significance) emergedâor were on the verge of emergingâin conflict with the official image of the writer that the Tsarist government had sought to impose after his death. In this context of profound changes, Dostoevskyâs works took on new meanings, contributing to the gradual and non-linear process of the modernization of early twentieth-century Russian society.
A. S. Suvorin, Dnevnik A. S. Suvorina (Moskva-Petrograd: Izd. L. D. Frenkelâ, 1923), p. 212.
âBook history concerns each phase of this process and the process as a whole, in all its variations over space and time and in all its relations with other systems, economic, social, political, and cultural, in the surrounding environment.â R. Darnton, âWhat is the History of Books?,â Daedalus, 1982, vol. 111, n. 3, p. 67.
This expression (âkolebliasâ nad bezdnoiâ) is used by Dostoevsky in his letter of April 18, 1878, to the students of Moscow University: âNever before in our Russian life has there been an era when the youth (almost sensing that all of Russia stands at a final point, teetering on the edge of the abyss) were [â¦] more sincere than now, purer of heart, more thirsty for truth, more ready to sacrifice everything, even life itself, for the truth and for a word of truthâ (F. M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 30 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972â1990) [hereafter PSS], vol. 30/1, p. 23).
This aspect of Dostoevskyâs work has been explored from various perspectives. Here, I mention two fundamental studies to frame the issue: G. S. Morson, âParadoxical Dostoevsky,â The Slavic and East European Journal, 1999, vol. 43, n. 3, p. 471â494; L. Salmon, âParadoksalânostâ kak spetsifika khudozhestvennogo tvorchestva F. M. Dostoevskogo: priemy, stilemy, vozdeistvie,â in S. Aloe, D. Farafonova, L. Salmon (eds.), F.M. Dostoevskii: Iumor, paradoksalânost,â demontazh (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2023), p. 13â34.
In 1863, the first womenâs publishing cooperative was established in St. Petersburg, aiming to provide employment opportunities for women and contribute to the emancipation of their social condition. See I. E. Barenbaum, Knizhnyi Peterburg. Tri veka istorii (Sankt-Peterburg: KulâtInformPress, 2003), p. 261â266.
A. G. Dostoevskaia, Bibliograficheskii ukazatelâ sochinenii i proizvedenii iskusstva, otnosiashchikhsia k zhizni i deiatelânosti F. M. Dostoevskogo, sobrannykh v âMuzee pamiati F. M. Dostoevskogoâ v Moskovskom Istoricheskom Muzee imeni Imperatora Aleksandra III. 1846â1903 (Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. P. F. Panteleeva, 1906).
D. F. McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 14.
The only exception is represented by the illustrations of Dostoevskyâs works in weekly magazines, which will be addressed in the fourth chapter as an expression of a âDostoevsky for the masses.â The earliest theatrical adaptations of Dostoevskyâs works have already been the subject of scholarly investigation. See A. V. Burmistrova, âInstsenirovki romanov Dostoevskogo (pervye opyty),â Neizdannyi Dostoevskii, 2019, n. 3, p. 96â115.
A detailed list can be found in the bibliography. Here, I will mention only a few of the major works. I. S. Andrianova, âA. G. Dostoevskaia kak redaktor i izdatel,ââ in Dostoevskii i sovremennostâ. Materialy XXVI Mezhdunarodnykh Starorusskikh chtenii 2011 goda (Velikii Novgorod, 2012), p. 3â16; I. S. Andrianova, Anna Grigorâevna Dostoevskaia: prizvanie i priznaniia (Petrozavodsk: Izd.vo PetrGU 2013); I. S. Andrianova, Muzei pamiati F. M. Dostoevskogo: istoriia i perspektivy proekta (Petrozavodsk: Izd.vo PetrGU, 2015); I. Andrianova, âAspiration for independence. Anna Dostoevskaiaâs Publishing Commerce,â Canadian-American Slavic Studies, n. 50, 2016, p. 299â312. Special mention should be made of the 2015 edition of A. G. Dostoevskaiaâs memoirs, edited by Boris Tikhomirov and Irina Andrianova. Expanded and supplemented with previously unpublished materials, as well as a rich apparatus of notes and images, this edition adds an invaluable contribution to the literature on Dostoevsky: see A. G. Dostoevskaia, A. G., Solntse moei zhizniâFedor Dostoevskii. Vospominaniia 1846â1917. Vstupitelânaia statâia, podgotovka teksta, primechaniia I. S. Andrianovoi i B. N. Tikhomirova (Moskva: OOO âBOSLEN,â 2015). See also Andrew D. Kaufmanâs comprehensive biography of Anna Dostoevskaia: The Gambler Wife. A True Story of Love, Risk, and the Woman Who Saved Dostoevsky (New York: Riverhead Books, 2021).
In addition to the works of Irina Andrianova, two studies dedicated in part to the first posthumous edition of Dostoevskyâs Complete Collected Works are noteworthy: N. Perlina, âPervaia posmertnaia biografiia F. M. Dostoevskogoâanaliz istochnikov,â Russian Language Journal, n. 102 (1975), p. 42â56; K. A. Okisheva, Orest Fedorovich Miller Pervyi biograf F. M. Dostoevskogo (Naberezhnye Chelny: FGBOU VPO âNGPU,â 2019).
P. Bourdieu, The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996); M. De Certeau, Lâinvenzione del quotidiano (Roma: Edizioni Lavoro, 2005); R. Escarpit, Sociology of Literature (London: Frank Cass & Co. LTD., 1971); McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts; Darnton, âWhat is the History of Books?â; R. Chartier, The Order of Books (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994); Storia della lettura nel mondo occidentale, a cura di G. Cavallo e R. Chartier (RomaâBari: Editori Laterza, 2009).
B. Dubin, L. Gudkov, Literatura kak sotsialânyi institut. Sbornik rabot. 2-e izdanie (Moskva: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2020); A. I. Reitblat, âRusskaia literatura kak sotsialânyy institut,â in A. I. Reitblat, Pisatâ poperek: Statâi po biografike, sotsiologii i istorii literatury (Moskva: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2014), p. 11â32. See also W. M. Todd III (ed.), Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800â1914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978). More recently, the following collective study, provided with a brilliant introduction, has been published: A. V. Vdovin, K. Iu. Zubkov (eds.), Instituty literatury v Rossiiskoi imperii (Moskva: Izd. Dom Vysshei Shkoly Ekonomiki, 2023).
J. Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861â1917 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985); A. I. Reitblat, Ot Bovy k Balâmontu i drugie raboty po istoricheskoi sotsiologii russkoi literatury (Moskva: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2009).
Yu. Tatsumi, T. Tsurumi (eds.), Publishing in Tsarist Russia. A History of Print Media from Enlighteniment to Revolution (London: Bloomsbury, 2020).
S. Moeller-Sallyâs Gogolâs Afterlife: The Evolution of a Classic in Imperial and Soviet Russia (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2002); E. E. Liamina, N. V. Samover, Ivan KrylovâSuperstar. Fenomen russkogo basnopistsa (Moskva: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2024). Another study that has served as a source of inspiration for this work is M. C. Levitt, âThe Making of a National Poet: Publishing Pushkin, 1855â1887,â in D. Rebecchini, R. Vassena (eds.), Reading Russia. A History of Reading in Modern Russia, âDi/Segniâ (Milano: Ledizioni, 2020), vol. 2, p. 443â460.
A. Erll, âTraumatic Pasts, Literary Afterlives, and Transcultural Memory: New Directions of Literary and Media Memory Studies,â Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2011, 3(1).
As McKenzie argues, âa book is never simply a remarkable object. Like every other technology it is invariably the product of human agency in complex and highly volatile contexts which a responsible scholarship must seek to recover if we are to understand better the creation and communication of meaning as the defining characteristic of human societiesâ (McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts, p. 4).
R. Chartier, âTesti, forme e interpretazioni,â in D. F. McKenzie, Bibliografia e sociologia dei testi (Milano: Edizioni Sylvestre Bonnard, 1999), p. 104â105.
Darnton, âWhat Is the History of Books?,â p. 68.
R. Escarpit, Sociology of Literature, p. 65.
M. De Certeau, Lâinvenzione del quotidiano, p. 242.
Escarpit, Sociology of Literature, p. 56. For an in-depth discussion of the cultured and popular circuits, see pages 57â74.
See Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read, p. 35â58.
M. N. Kufaev, Istoriia russkoi knigi v XIX veke (Leningrad: Nachatki znanii, 1927), p. 173, 309.
Kniga v Rossii, 1881â1895, pod obshchei red. I. I. Frolovoi (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Rossiiskoi Natsionalânoi Biblioteki, 1997), p. 16â31. See also Reitblat, Ot Bovy k Balâmontu, p. 15â37.
N. A. Rubakin, Etiudy o chitaiushchei publike (Sankt-Peterburg, 1895), p. 89â90, 93â94. On the Russian reading public at the turn of the centuries see Kniga v Rossii, 1895â1917, pod obshchei red. I. I. Frolovoi (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Rossiiskoi Natsionalânoi Biblioteki, 2008), p. 635â654.
J. Brooks, âRussian Nationalism and Russian Literature: the Canonization of the Classics,â in I. Banac, J. G. Ackerman, R. Szporluk (eds.), Nation and Ideology: Essays in Honor of Wayne S. Vucinich (Boulder, CO, East European Quarterly, 1981), p. 315â334; A. Reitblat, âThe Making of the Russian Classic,â in Tatsumi, Tsurumi (eds.), Publishing in Tsarist Russia. A History of Print Media from Enlighteniment to Revolution, p. 37â68.
De Certeau, Lâinvenzione del quotidiano, p. 242.
R. Vassena, Reawakening National Identity. Dostoevskiiâs Diary of a Writer and its Impact on Russian Society (Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, 2007).
See S. Hudspith, Dostoevsky and the Idea of Russianness. BASEES/Routledge Curzon Series on Russian and East European Studies (London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004), p. 6; A. Vdovin, âFormulating the âRussian Ideaâ: Russian Writers and the Nationalization of Patriotism during the Crimean War (Maikov, Goncharov, Pisemsky),â in Russian National Mith in Translation, Acta Slavica Estonica VI. Studia Russica Helsingiensia et Tartuensia XIV (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2014), p. 107â120.
Chartier, The Order of Books, p. 1â24.