ISSN OO38-O903

SO LAN US

NTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR RUSSIAN & EAST EUROPEAN
BIBLIOGRAPHIC, LIBRARY & PUBLISHING STUDIES

New Series Vol. 4 1990

SOLANUS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR RUSSIAN & EAST EUROPEAN
BIBLIOGRAPHIC, LIBRARY & PUBLISHING STUDIES

New Series Voh 4 1990

CONTENTS

Bob Henderson , Lenin and the British Museum Library page 3

Lev Shilov , Literaturnaia plastinka i ee mesto v sisteme kul'turnykh

tsennostei 16

Boris Korsch , Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev 24

Appendix: Proposals for the Restructuring of Librarianship in the USSR

(Introduction and translation by Christine Thomas) 46

Aleksandr Suetnov , Samizdat glazami bibliografa 50

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book (Introduction and translation

by W.E. Butler) 67

Notes on Library Collections

la. D. Isajevych , Two Rare Russian Books in the Collections of the New York

Public Library 76

R. H. Davis , Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books at the New York Public

Library 87

Reviews

Svodnyi katalog inkunabulov moskovskikh bibliotek, arkhivov i muzeev

(Eugenia Zazowska) 100

Zh. Pavlova, Imperatorskaia Biblioteka Ermitazha, 1562-1915 (Mary Stuart) 101

Robert Otto, Publishing for the People: The Firm ( Posrednik’ 1885-1905

(Michael J. de K. Holman) 103

Xenia Werner, Wassili Masjutin in Riga , Moskau und Berlin (Hartmut

Walravens) 105

L’ Emigration russe. Revues et recueils, 1920-1980 (Mark Kulikowski) 107

W. Kasack, Entsiklopedicheskii slovar ' russkoi literatury s I9iy goda and

Dictionary of Russian Literature since I9iy (Martin Dewhirst) 108

The Red Pencil: Artists., Scholars and Censors in the USSR (Jenny Brine) 109

Ben Heilman and Johan Kjellberg, Suomen venajankielisen kirjallisuuden

bibliografia 1813-1952 (J. E. O. Screen) 1 1 1

Notes 1 13

Mikhail Af anas 'ev et al ., The Development of the State Lenin Library of the

USSR: A Concept Paper (translation by Christine Thomas) 1 16

Books Received 122

r 7 7i ^

Contributors \ 123

Solanus is published by the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries
(sconul), 102 Euston Street, London nwi 2HA, United Kingdom.

© sconul 1990.

The views expressed in Solanus are not necessarily those of sconul.

Editorial Board

Dr Jenny Brine, Leeds

Professor C. L. Drage, School of Slavonic and East European Studies,
University of London

Dr W. F. Ryan, The Warburg Institute, University of London
Dr Christine Thomas, The British Library, Editor
Dr Gregory Walker, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

International Advisory Panel

Professor W. E. Butler, University College London

The Very Rev. Alexander Nadson, Francis Skaryna Byelorussian Library,
London

John S. G. Simmons, All Souls College, Oxford
Miranda Beaven, University of California, Berkeley
Professor Jeffrey Brooks, University of Minnesota
Professor Marianna Tax Choldin, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign

Edward Kasinec, Chief of Slavonic Division, The New York Public Library
Professor Gary Marker, University of New York at Stony Brook
Dr Wojciech Zalewski, Stanford University Libraries
Dr Frangoise de Bonnieres, Ecole des Langues Orientales, Paris
Dr Horst Rohling, Universitatsbibliothek Bochum

Price of this volume: £7.00 including postage. Payment from outside the UK is
accepted only by International Money Order or by bank draft in £ sterling on
a uk bank.

All correspondence, including subscription and advertising enquiries, should
be addressed to the Editor:

Dr Christine Thomas

Slavonic and East European Collections

The British Library

Great Russell Street

London wcib 3DG

United Kingdom

Telephone: 071-323 7587

The Editor will supply Notes for Contributors and Notes for Reviewers on
request.

Typeset in Plantin and Times Cyrillic at Oxford University Computing Service

Lenin and the British Museum Library

Bob Henderson

Of the many historical figures who have studied in the British Library
perhaps none has been more fulsome in its praises than the founder of the
world’s first socialist state, Vladimir Il'ich Lenin. On five of the six occasions
he visited London between 1902 and 19 11 he made a point of calling into the
British Museum in Great Russell Street to make use of its library collections
which were in his view unparalleled. After one such visit he said:

. . . there is no better library than the British Museum. Here there are fewer
gaps in the collections than in any other library.

He was equally impressed by the efficiency and expertise of the staff of the
‘exceptional reference section’:

Ask them any question, and in the very shortest space of time they will tell
you which books to consult to find the material that interests you.

And later:

They have extremely rich Russian collections and specialist staff who keep
a close eye on what is being published in Russia and make their
acquisitions immediately. You just have to put in a request for a book and
it will be found for you.1

His attachment to the Library dates from 29 April 1902, when for the first
time he signed the Library’s Admissions Register and entered Panizzi’s
famous Round Reading Room to pursue his studies. He had arrived in
London with his wife, Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaia, earlier that
month in order to set up publication of Iskra , the organ of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, which was being turned out of Munich by
the German authorities. The Twentieth Century Press had agreed to carry
out the printing at 37a Clerkenwell Green (now the home of the Marx
Memorial Library), and soon accommodation was found for the new arrivals
not far from there, at 30 Holford Square, Pentonville.

It was from this address that Lenin wrote his first letter to the Director of
the British Museum requesting permission to study in the Library. The letter,
written in perfect English, is dated 21 April 1902, and bears the signature
‘Jacob Richter’, the pseudonym which he used in England to throw the

1 N. S. Karzhanskii, ‘V. I. Lenin na V s"ezde RSDRP’, in Vospominaniia o Vladimire Il'iche
Lenine (Moscow, 1956), tom 1, pp. 362-3 [10799.6.2]. An English translation of the relevant
section appears in Lenin and Library Organisation, edited by N. S. Kartashov (Moscow, 1983),
pp. 164-5 [YA. 1990.3.1507].

4

Solanus 1990

Tsarist police off his track. The reference required by the Museum authorities
was supplied by I. H. Mitchell, General Secretary of the General Federation
of Trade Unions. However, this did not satisfy the Admissions Office as the
home address given by Mitchell could not be found in the London street
directories. Lenin then wrote a further letter enclosing another recommend¬
ation from Mitchell, who this time wrote from the address of his union’s
headquarters. This proved sufficient and five days later, on Tuesday 29 April,
Lenin signed the Admissions Register and was issued with a reader’s ticket,
number A72453. This was valid for three months only, but the Library’s
‘Card Index of Readers’ shows that on 28 July this period was extended by
another three months, and on 28 October by a further six months. On 29 April
1903, exactly one year after entering the Reading Room for the first time, he
surrendered his reader’s ticket to the authorities and a few days later left
England for France.

In August of the same year Lenin and Krupskaia returned for the Second
Congress of the RSDLP but there is no firm evidence to suggest that he
visited the British Museum on this occasion, despite the fact that he said that
he used the Library whenever he was in London.2 However, during the Third
Party Congress, which again took place in London (from 25 April to 10 May
1905), it is known that he paid a visit to Great Russell Street and there copied
out extracts from the works of Marx and Engels. He next visited London for
the Fifth Congress in 1907, and spent roughly a week in the Library at the
beginning of June. In May of the following year he returned, this time with
the express intention of spending a month in the Library to work on his book,
Materializm i empiriokrititsizm. He made use of the Library’s collections on
only one more occasion, in November 19 1 1 during his lecture tour of Europe.

Although these last four visits have been well documented in the
reminiscences of his family and colleagues, until now no confirmation of them
had been found in the archives of the Library.3 Nor had any serious research
been undertaken to resolve the question of exactly how many books Lenin
donated to the Library; according to the General Catalogue of Printed Books
there are only two such works, which are listed as:

2 The name ‘Richter’ does appear in the ‘Temporary Admissions Register’ for July/August
1903 (no. 1057), but with no further information available it is impossible to say whether this
entry refers to Lenin or not.

3 Perhaps the best source for this period of his life is L. L. Murav'eva and I. I. Sivolap-
Kaftanova, Lenin v Londone (Moscow, 1981) [X. 808/34948]; also in English as Lenin in London
(London, 1983) [X. 808/39009]. Of the many volumes of reminiscences available, the best is
Krupskaia’s Vospominaniia 0 Lemne (Moscow, 1957) [10798.3a. 68], also in English as Memories of
Lenin (London, 1970) [X. 708/5880].

Lenin and the British Museum Library

5

Za 12 let. Sobranie statei , tom i, 2 chast. i.

S. Peterburg, 1908. [Cup. 403. w. 8].

Author’s presentation copy to the British Museum.4

Given the fact that he donated many more of his works to other European
libraries, it is indeed hard to believe that he should have given no more than
these two slim volumes to this institution which he held in such high esteem.

It is now almost ninety years since Lenin first entered the domed reading
room to begin his studies, and at last, following the recent discovery of a
number of documents in the British Museum Archives, more light can be
thrown on these and other matters relating to his visits to London and his use
of the Library. Perhaps the most important of the documents are those dating
from 1908, which comprise among other things two previously unknown
Lenin letters.

The first of these is dated 18 May 1908, and is addressed to the Director of
the British Museum (Fig. 1). It reads as follows:

I am writer by profession. I have sent to the British Museum from
Geneva, where I am usually living, two of my Russian books (my
pen-name is Iljin). I came now in London in order to study comparatively
new english and new german philosophy. I enclose a written recommend¬
ation from a London householder, and I should be very much obliged if
You would give me admission ticket to the Reading Room of the British
Museum.

VI. Oulianoff.

21. Tavistock Place. 21. [sL]
London. W.C.

1 8-th may 08.

His ‘written recommendation’ came from a certain J. J. Terrett (Fig. 2),
but unfortunately history repeated itself and, just as had happened six years
previously, the authorities refused him admission. Two days later he wrote
again enclosing a second reference, this time from his old friend, the manager
of the Twentieth Century Press, Harry Quelch. This was evidently sufficient,
since he was immediately asked to call into the Library to pick up his reading
ticket. He did so on Friday 22 May, and after signing the Admissions Book
was issued with a three-month pass.

These documents are of interest in several respects. Firstly, if one compares
the 1902 correspondence with these letters one is struck by the number of
mistakes in the latter: uncertainty about capitalization, omission of articles,
etc. Lenin was without doubt a gifted linguist, and thanks to the lessons which
he took in London in 1902 he had developed an excellent knowledge of

4 The British Library: General Catalogue of Printed Books to 197s (London, 1983), vol. 189,
p. 68. British Library pressmarks are given throughout in square brackets.

6

Solanus 1990

IS- / J

-6e« yx<

c

'?-£ <r -r* r

?

■£*

’ SS

Fig. 1

Lenin and the British Museum Library

7

8

Solanus 1990

English.5 Should one simply put this apparent drop in standards down to a
lack of regular practice, or alternatively should one conclude that the letters of
1902 must have been written with some assistance? Of course it could be that
both assumptions are true.

The letters also confirm some facts about this period of his life which either
have been referred to by Lenin himself, or have been known previously only
from the reminiscences of his contemporaries; for example, his subject of
study — European philosophy; his address in Bloomsbury; and the name he
used during this visit — VI. Oulianoff. In fact, this was the first time he had
used his real name (in its French transliterated form) in his dealings with the
Library, and it was for this reason that he was obliged to reapply for
admission. Had he continued to use the Richter pseudonym he would have
found the admissions procedure much easier, as the 1912 edition of the
Library’s Guide to the Use of the Reading Room states:

If immediate renewal is not required the ticket should be returned, and
can be renewed on simple application when desired. Once granted the
renewal of a ticket, whether it be applied for immediately after its
expiration or at a later period, does not involve the production of a fresh
recommendation.6

The same guide also explains why the first letter of recommendation was
not sufficient, since neither was Terrett ‘a person of recognised position’, nor
did he certify in his letter that the applicant would ‘make proper use of the
Reading Room’. Moreover, the authorities would not have been able to
confirm Terrett’s place of abode ‘in the ordinary sources of reference’ — he is
not listed as a tenant of 100 Byne Road in the Sydenham street directories for
that period.7 It is also worth noting that he manages to misspell his address in
the city (Bartholemew instead of Bartholomew), and finally he forgets to date
the letter. Taking all this into account it is perhaps no surprise that the
Library found this reference quite unsatisfactory. Indeed, a prospective
reader could not have asked for a worse recommendation.

Who then was this mysterious referee who claimed to be ‘well acquainted’
with Lenin, but who has received no mention in any work by or about him? In
the 1908 Voting Registers for the City of London , under the name John Joseph
Terrett, he is listed as an elector for 53 Little Britain (or 78 Bartholomew

5 Lenin advertised in the Athenaeum of 10 May 1902 offering to exchange Russian lessons for
English [P. P.5639]. One of the three replies he received was from a Mr Henry Rayment of 70
Station Road, Sidcup, Kent, who as well as giving Lenin English lessons became a close friend,
and also allowed his address to be used as an Iskra ‘mailbox’. See Murav'eva and Sivolap-
Kaftanova (note 3), pp. 43, 86. Also Kelly’s Directory of the Six Home Counties (London, 1845
etc.) [P-P.2505.ybq].

Guide to the Use of the Reading Room (London, British Museum, Department of Printed
Books, 1912), pp. 7-8 [1 1917.aa.26].

Kelly’s Sydenham, Norwood and Streatham Directory (London, 1881 etc.) [P. P.2505. ye/35].

Lenin and the British Museum Library

9

Fig. 2

10

Solanus 1990

Close).8 His usual place of abode is given not as Sydenham, but as 130 Ridley
Road, Forest Gate. In fact, from 1896 to 1908 he lived at various addresses in
the Forest Gate/West Ham area, from where he occasionally contributed
articles to Justice. He was also the author of two of the socialist pamphlets
published by the Twentieth Century Press.9 There is therefore little doubt
that he knew Harry Quelch, and it is likely that through him he was
introduced to Lenin. Fortunately, Quelch’s recommendation included every¬
thing which Terrett’s had omitted. His letter serves as further proof of his
lasting friendship with Lenin, and of his willingness to lend a hand to his
Russian socialist comrades whenever required.10

Perhaps the most interesting piece of information contained in the
documents is Lenin’s reference to the two books which he had sent to the
Museum from his address in Geneva. On the face of it, this seems to
correspond to the two volumes of Za 12 let listed as donations in the General
Catalogue : both were written under the same pseudonym VI. II 'in, and both
appeared in print a few months before his arrival in London. The first was
published in early December 1907 and was received in the Library on 11
January 1908, while the second came out under the title Agrarnyi vopros in
mid- January 1908 and arrived in London on 14 March. Further details are to
be found in the 1908 volume of the British Museum’s ‘Book of Presents
(Report of Donations to the Department of Printed Books)’, where they are
listed as:

Present 152: “12 Years Ago” by VI. Il'in, tom 1 (in Russian). Pres’d. by
the Author.

Present 537: “The Agrarian Question” by V. C. Oulsanov [sic]. Pres’d. by
the Author, Rue des deux Ponts 17, Geneve.

However, the ‘Book of Presents’ contains an even more interesting entry for
11 April 1908:

Present 857: “Development of Capitalism in Russia” by V. Ili», 1908. (In
Russian). Pres’d. by Mr. Oulianoff, 17 Rue des deux Ponts, Geneve.

This appears in the General Catalogue as:

Razvitie kapitalizma v Rossii. Izdanie vtoroe, dopolnennoe. .

S.-Peterburg, 1908. [08226. i.22].

No information is given as to its provenance, although on the title page of the

8 Voting Registers for the City of London, 1908 (Polling District No. 14, Farringdon Without,
Northside), p. 1277 [BLL.71].

9 The two pamphlets are ‘Municipal Socialism ’ in West Ham (London, TCP, 1902), and
Right Hon. H. H. Asquith and the Featherstone Massacre (London, TCP, 1907). His articles for
Justice include ‘Jack Williams for West Ham Guardians’, 22 June 1907, p. 5 [Colindale].

Lenin refers to Quelch on several occasions in his Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow,
1958-70), tom 20, 23, 28, 39, 46, 47, 54 [8183. aa.i].

Lenin and the British Museum Library

1 1

work itself one can just make out the pencil inscription ‘Donation from the
Author’.

Clearly, in his letter of 18 May Lenin was referring to these last two works.
As for the first volume of Za 12 let , it may even be that Lenin himself did not
donate this work to the Library; two days before the Museum received the
book, Lenin had written to Maksim Gor'kii in Capri asking if he had received
a copy of the work which he had asked to be sent to him from St Petersburg. It
could be that he also asked for a copy to be forwarded to the British Museum
on his behalf.11 Whether or not this is so, there can be no doubt about the
provenance of another volume in the British Library’s collections. This work
is listed in the ‘Book of Presents’ for 1 1 November 19 1 1 as:

“Deux Partis” par G. Kamenoff, 1911. Pres’d. by Mr. Oulianoff, 4 Rue

Marie Rose, Paris.

This fourth Lenin donation appears in the General Catalogue as:

“ Dve partii . . s predisloviem N. Lenina ” Paris, 191 1. [8094.^43].

Again no information on provenance is given. However, the Library’s
‘Temporary Admissions Register’ for November 19^1 shows that Lenin was
once more admitted under the name VI. Oulianoff (no. 2129), while the
Library’s ‘Card Index of Readers’, as well as confirming his London
address — 6 Oakley Square, N.W. — , also gives the date of his readmission: n
November. It is therefore almost certain that Lenin presented his colleague
Kamenev’s book to the Library in person.12

Many more of Lenin’s works held by the British Library bear the yellow
stamp signifying a donated work. However, these are either not listed in the
‘Book of Presents’ or are entered as anonymous gifts or as donations from
elsewhere. A case in point is Present 582 for 12 April 1902:

“What’s to be done” by N. Lenin (in Russian). Pres’d. by J. H. W. Dietz,

Nachf. Stuttgart.13

Unfortunately, it is impossible to say whether his German publishers made
this donation on their own account, or whether they were instructed to do so
by Lenin. On the other hand, the Library’s copy of the 1903 edition of K
derevenskoi bednote (shelfmark C.i2i.a.6/8) also bears a yellow stamp, and,
even though it is not listed in the ‘Book of Presents’, one may be inclined to

11 Lenin (note 10), tom 47, pp. 119-20.

12 In a letter to Kamenev Lenin wrote: ‘Sizhu v Britanskom muzee i s uvlecheniem chitaiu
broshiury Shveitsera 60-kh godov ...’ (Lenin (note 10), tom 48, pp. 41-2). It is interesting that,
whereas the ‘Card Index of Readers’ gives his date of admission as 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 ., this letter is dated 10
November. It is impossible to say which is mistaken.

13 This work is entered in the catalogues as Chto delat ? Nabolevshie voprosy nashego
dvizheniia (Stuttgart, 1902) [C.121.C.3.].

12

Solanus 1990

believe that if Lenin had to donate only one of his works this would most
certainly have been his choice, since it was based largely on the research work
which he carried out during his first visit to the Library.14

In fact it is surprising that he managed to carry out this research at all,
given the fact that during this period most of his time was taken up with his
work on Iskra , to which he contributed a series of articles, all based to a
greater or lesser extent on information drawn from the Library’s collections.
Indeed, the Iskra of 1902-3 owes a great deal more to this institution, for, as
some further archival discoveries confirm, the Library was also frequented by
other members of the journal’s editorial board during their stay, as well as by
some other Iskra contributors.

The first to follow in Lenin’s footsteps signed the ‘Register of Readers’ on
25 July 1902 as ‘Leopold Bieljansky’, and received pass number A73105, valid
for three months. This was almost certainly L. Martov, i.e. Iulii Osipovich
Tsederbaum, later to become the ‘leader’ of the Mensheviks but at this time
still a close friend of Lenin and a member of the so-called ‘Iskra Commune’.
This entry is interesting also in that it provides us for the first time with the
full address of the ‘Commune’: 14 Sidmouth Street, W.C.15

Next to sign the Register was Lev Grigor'evich Deich (Deutsch), one of
the founders, with Plekhanov and Zasulich, of the Emancipation of Labour
Group. Using his pseudonym ‘Leo Allemoun’, and giving his address as 26
Granville Square, W.C., he entered the Reading Room on 2 August with pass
number A73153, valid for three months. He was followed on 18 August by
another member of the ‘Commune’, Vera Ivanovna Zasulich, herself no
stranger to the Library, having worked there extensively during her first stay
in London almost ten years previously. On that occasion Edward Aveling, the
husband of Marx’s daughter Eleanor, had helped her gain admission. This
time she used the same pseudonym, ‘Vera Beldinsky’, and was admitted with
pass number A73243, which was valid for six months.16

Unfortunately, the correspondence relating to these three admissions has

14 Much work has already been done to list the material read by Lenin during his visits. See
the appendix (below) and also P. Bogachev’s article in Bibliotekar ', 1961, no. 4, pp. 25-9
[P.P. 1213. cm.]; ‘Lenin v Britanskom muzee’, Inostrannaia literatura, 1957, no. 4, pp. 20-3
[P-P.4881.sdn.]; and Vladimir Il'ich Lenin: biograficheskaia khronika (Moscow, 1970-1985), tom
1, pp. 382-6, 404, 407-9, 427, 435-7, 441, 445-6, 447, etc. [YH. 1987.3.870],

15 The ‘Card Index of Readers’ shows that the ‘communards’ had already moved to another
address — 23 Percy Circus, W.C. — by October 1902. This address was also given by a certain
‘Boris Nemirovsky’ when he registered as a reader on 28 January 1903 (pass no. A74664). His true
identity has still to be established, although one can be quite certain that he too was involved with
Iskra in some way.

16 ‘Menia Eleonora svoim umom v muzee zapisala Veroi Bel1, — ia nashla chto tak i luchshe ...
Ia i u khoziaek i na pochte vezde stala raspisyvat'sia V. (B.). No net, Vydali bez razgovoru.’
Gruppa ‘ Osvobozhdeme truda\ 1926, no. 4, p. 289 [8289. dd. 3]. In fact, according to the archives,
Zasulich never used this shortened form of her usual pseudonym.

Lenin and the British Museum Library

13

not yet been found in the British Museum archives, but luckily the same is not
true of a fourth admission, that of Georgii Valentinovich Plekhanov, the
father of Russian Marxism. Having decided to pay a brief visit to the editorial
team in London he wrote to Lenin asking that rooms be found for him. Then
on 6 October 1902, just a few weeks after his arrival, he sent a letter to the
Museum from his lodgings at 25 Frederick Street, W.C., asking to be
admitted to the Reading Room in order to, as he put it, ‘faire quelques
recherches dans le domaine de la philosophic’. He enclosed a reference from a
noted Swedish medical practitioner, Dr Henryk Kellgren of 49 Eaton Square,
S.W., and was admitted without any problems two days later with pass
number A73677, which was valid for three months.17 Although Lev Trotskii
is also known to have used the Library at this time, as yet no reference to his
admission under any of his known pseudonyms has been found in the
Museum archives, despite extensive searches.18

One can be sure that the archives contain many more documents relating to
this period and the use of the Library by Lenin and his associates. For
example, as yet no firm evidence has been found of his 1905 and 1907 visits,
although the ‘Temporary Admissions Register’ does mention that a certain J.
P. Richter was admitted during May 1907 (no. 3782). However, it is
impossible to check on this since the corresponding volumes of temporary
readers’ signatures for that period are not available. This is indeed unfortu¬
nate, since those 1907 volumes would have provided us for the first time with
his London address. As for his associates, there is without doubt still a great
deal of information to be found in both the British Museum and the British
Library on Lenin’s other colleagues in the RSDLP, on the Iskra editorial
board, and in the British socialist movement as a whole.

Of course such archival discoveries as those described above are useful
insofar as they furnish us with a wealth of factual information such as dates,
addresses and pseudonyms. Moreover they show just how widely the
‘sanctuary’ of the British Museum Library was used and valued by the
Russian emigre community and, finally, by showing the wide range of
contacts and friendships which existed between the emigres and their British
contemporaries, they provide us with a fascinating insight into the political
and intellectual life in London at the turn of the century.

17 Like Zasulich, Plekhanov had been admitted to the Library in September 1894, also with
the assistance of Edward Aveling. See also B. A. Chagin and I. N. Kurbatova, Plekhanov
(Moscow, 1973), pp. 58-9, 206 [X. 708/10793].

18 Trotskii says that shortly after arriving in London in October 1902 he obtained entry to the
‘sviatilishche’ (i.e. sanctuary) of the British Museum Library with the assistance of Lenin, and
later says that Harry Quelch had helped him gain admission. L. Trotskii, Moia zhizn' (Berlin,
1930), tom 1, pp. 170, 172 [010795. i. 58]; this work exists in several English editions, e.g. My Life
(Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1979) [X.708/ 16420].

14

Solanus 1990

Appendix

Material Consulted by Lenin in the British Museum Library

Unfortunately, the Library does not keep a record of the books and journals
issued to individual readers, but by cross-checking against the catalogues
the notes and bibliographical references given in Lenin’s Biograficheskaia
khronika — an extremely detailed chronicle of his life — it is possible to identify
some of the items which he used in his studies. During the period 1902-3
these included:

Coulet, Elie, Le Mouvement syndical et cooper atif dans V agriculture franfaise
(Montpellier, 1898) [08282. k. 20]

David, Eduard, Socialismus und Landwirtschaft (Berlin, 1903)

[08275.C.43]

Fischer, Gustav, Die sociale Bedeutung der Maschinen in der Landwirt-
schaft (Berlin, 1902) [8205. pp. 3. (5.)]

Goltz, Theodor A. G. L. von der, Die agrarischen Aufgaben der Gegenwart
... (Jena, 1895) [08277.I1. 27]

Hertzog, August, Die bauerlichen Verhaltnisse im Elsass durch Schilderung
dreier Dorfer (Strassburg, 1886) [082824.34/1]

Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher ( Berlin, 1872- ) [P-P.2350.ca]

Maercker, Max, Die Kalidiingung in ihrem Werte fur die Erhohung und
Verbilligung der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion (Berlin, 1892)

[7074^.2]

Ogden, H. J., The War against the Dutch Republics in South Africa
(Manchester, 1901) [09061. bb. 19]

Turot, Paul, L’Enquete agricole de i866-i8yo ... (Paris, 1877) [7075^.2]

Zeitschrift des Koniglich Preussischen Statistischen Bureaus (Berlin, 1861- )

[P-P.3874.ba]

As mentioned above, during his brief 1905 visit we know only that he made
notes from the works of Marx and Engels. It may be that one of the items
consulted was the Library’s copy of the first Russian edition of Das Kapital ,
which is entered in the catalogue as:

Kapital .. 3 tom. (S.-Peterburg, 1872-96) [C.i85-b.i2]

It is interesting to note that the second of these three volumes was also a
donation; not from Lenin, however, but from Friedrich Engels and Marx’s
daughter Eleanor. The following inscription — possibly in the hand of
Engels — appears on the title-page:

To the British Museum from the literary executors of Karl Marx.
London. 1.2.86. Presented by F. Engels & Eleanor Marx Aveling.

All that is known of Lenin’s 1907 visit is that he spent some time in the
Library at the end of the Fifth Party Congress editing the stenographic
reports of his speeches. Fortunately, a more detailed account of the

Lenin and the British Museum Library

15

works which he consulted in 1908 can be gained by cross-checking the
bibliographical references given in Materializm i empiriokrititsizm (Moscow,
1920) [08465.ee. 34] against the Library’s catalogues. However, since Lenin
carried out the research for this book in other institutions besides the British
Library — most notably, the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris — we cannot be
absolutely sure about what material was consulted in which library. Neverthe¬
less, we might assume that he turned to the British Museum for most of his
British and American sources. These included:

Bax, Ernest Belfort, The Roots of Reality (London, 1907) [84704.25]

Berkeley, Bishop George, Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human
Knowledge (in his Works, Oxford, 1871) [2022. c] or [08486. f. 19]

Clifford, William K., Lectures and Essays , 3rd ed. (London, 1901)

[012355. e. 13]

Huxley, T. H., Hume (London, 1879) [2326.6.21]

James, William, Pragmatism (London, 1907) [2236.6. 12]

Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science , 2nd ed. (London, 1900) [08703.6.10]

Ramsay, Sir William, K.C.B., Essays, Biographical and Chemical (Lon¬
don, 1908) [12352. t. 5]

Snyder, Carl, The World Machine (London, 1907) [08709. dd]

Stallo, J. B., Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics , 2nd ed. (London,
1882) [2324.3.1/38]

Thompson, Joseph John, Corpuscular Theory of Matter (London, 1907)

[08709. dd. 16]

Ward, Professor James, Naturalism and Agnosticism , 3rd ed. (London,
1906) [4016.1.12]

Mind , new series (London, 1892- ) [P.P.1247]

The Monist (Chicago, 1890- ) [P-P.1253.gj

Nature, weekly (London, 1869- ) [P.P.2011.C]

Natural Science, monthly (London, 1892- ) [P.P.1976.C]

Open Court (Chicago, 1887-1936) [P.P.638.k]

Philosophical Review (Boston, N.Y., 1892- ) [P.P. 1253d]

Scientific American Supplement { N.Y., 1876- ) [P.P.i6i2.fa]

Finally, in his letter to Kamenev of November 1911 Lenin himself
describes his subject of study (see note 12). In this instance we can be quite
sure of the pamphlets which he consulted since there are only four of Johann
Baptist von Schweitzer’s works dating from the 1860s in the Library’s
collections. These are:

Der einzige Weg zur Einheit (Frankfurt am Main, i860)
Der Zeitgeist und das Christenthum (Leipzig, 1861)

Zur deutschen Frage (Frankfurt am Main, 1862)

Die osterreichische Spitze ... (Leipzig, 1863)

[8073.6. 115.(3)]
[4016. bb. 25]
[8072.cc.48j
[8073. ccc. 99(6)]

JlHTepaTypHaii IljiacTHHKa
h ee mccto b CHCTeMe KyjitTypHBix xjeHHOCTeH

JleB LLIhjiob

3a nocjieAHHe TpH ^ecHXHjiexHH b pa3JiHHHbix cTpaHax (r^e 6ojibine, r^e
MCHbiiie) H3AaHO MHoro coTeH, a Moacex 6bxrb, h xmchh JiHxepaxypHbix
ruiacTHHOK. Tpy^Ho /ja)xe npn6jiH3HxejibHO onpe,nejiHXb hx o6mee KOJinne-
ctbo h Aaxb hm KaKyio-jiH6o xapaxxepHCXHKy, xaic kslk Hiixepecbi GojibuiHH-
cxsa AHCKOxpatJ)HHecKHx H3AaHHH cocpe^oxoHeHbi npeac^e Bcexo Ha My3bi-
KanbHbix AHCKax; CBe^eHHj? xce o jiHxepaxypHbix 3ByK03annc5ix MajioHHCJieH-
Hbl, pa3p03HeHHbI H CJiyHaifflbl. (PeHb HJjeX He XOJIbKO O ‘xpa^HUHOHHblx’
rpaMnjiacxHHKax, ho h o cMarHHxo(|)HjibMax’, ‘KOMnaxx-Kaccexax’, ‘xoMnaicx-
^HCKax’ H BHAeOKaceexaX — XeXHHHeCKHH BH/J HOCHXeJIfl HH(j)OpMaUHH RJIR XOH
nocxaHOBKH Bonpoca, Koxopyto a HMero b BHjjy, 3HaHeHHH ne HMeex.) Ho xo,
hxo caM (J)eHOMeH jmxepaxypHOH njiacxHHKH jio chx nop xeopexHnecKH He
ocMbicjien, se^ex, no MoeMy MHenmo. k cepbe3HOMy npocnexy b npaxxHne-
CKOH ^eHxejibHocxH mhoxhx 6h6jihoxck h My3eeB MHpa: HeKoxopbie H3 hhx jxo
chx nop BooSine HXHOpnpyiox jiHxepaxypHyio njiacxHHKy, He cHHxaa ee
ZiocxoHHbiM oGbexxoM co6npaHH5i h HxyneHHH, a xe, Koxopbie Bee >Ke HMeiox
jiHxepaxypnbie njiacxHHKH, name Bcexo CMOxpax Ha hhx KaK Ha Maxepnaji
'no^co6Hbm’, xpexbecxeneHHbiH.

JlnLUb HeMHoxHe HauHOHajibHbie 6H6jinoxeKH KOMnjieKxyxox cboh (J)OHHbi
jiHxepaxypHbiMH njiacxHHKaMH. Tax, naiipHMep, Gojibinon Ox/ieji 3ByK03ann-
ch HMeex EnGjiHOxeKa KoHxpecca ClIIA, h BpHxaHCKaa 6H6jiHoxeica xax >k e
HMeex 3HanHxejibHoe co6paHHe xanncen b cocxaBe CBoexo (jmjmajia — Hauno-
HajibHoxo 3ByKOBoxo apxHBa. flpyxne >kc Boo6me He hmciox 3ByKOBbix
JiHxepaxypHbix ({ioh^ob. FjiaBHaa 6H6jiHoxeKa CCCP— rocy/japcxBeHHafl 6h-
6jiHoxeKa hm. B. H. JleHHHa— npaBjja, box yace xpn n^cHXHjiexHs icax
co6npaex njiacxHHKH, ho axo b cbocm noztaBjifliomeM 6ojrbuiHHcxBe nnacxHH-
KH My3bIKajXbHbie, H HaXOJJHXCfl 3XOX He60JTbUI0H (J)OH,H B BeAeHHH HOXHOXO

ox^ejia.

B HacxoameH cxaxbe a xony noxa3axb, hxo Aumepamypnax nAacmuHKa
uMeem ceoto ocodyw cymb, Komopax pe3Ko omAuuaem ee om nAacmuHKu
My 3biKaAbH,ou , npedeAbHo npudAUAKaem ee k Kume, k xydoAteecmeenHou Aume-
pamype u daem eu npaeo dbinib odbeKmoM codupanux u u3yuenux npexcde eceeo
e dudAuomeKax, AumepamypHbix My3exx h b xex yne6Hbix 3aBen,eHH5ix, xzte
AocxaxoHHo cepbe3HO H3ynaexcH Jinxepaxypa.

BnojiHe nonycxaio, hxo 3xa npo6jieMa npe>KAe Bcexo axxyajibHa jijih
pyccKOH xyjibxypHOH )kh3hh, nocKOJibxy 3eynaHue cocxaBJiaex cymecxBeHHyio
KOHCxpyKXHBHyio ocoGeHHOcxb pajja ^xanpOB hmchho pyccxon jiHxepaxypbi h

Literaturnaia plastinka

17

oco6eHHO no33Hn, a ny6jiHHHbie BbiCTynjieHHH nHcaTejieH b naiueH CTpaHe
HMeiOT AaBHIOK) TpaAHIJHIO H CBH3aHbI C OnpeAeJieHHbIMH OCo6eHHOCTHMH
HauieH HCTopHH. BepoaTHo, othm h onpe^ejiaeTca to, hto Hauia CTpaHa b
o6nacTH jiHTepaTypHOH 3Byxo3anHCH, xa>xeTC5i, jiHAHpyeT. Ho, nojiaraio, hto
b toh hjih hhoh cTeneHH 3Ta npoGjieMa HBjiaeTCH aKTyajibHOH h ajia mhothx
Apyrnx HauHOHajibHbix KyjibTyp.

nepBbie jiHTepaTypHbie njiacTHHXH noaBHjiHCb b Pocchh eme b 1910-x
roAax. ‘OGmecTBO AeflTejieii nepHOAHHecxon nenaTH’ npn ynacTHH am jihh-
cxoh KOMnaHHH TpaMMO^OH5 3anHcajio BbiCTynjieHHH JT. Tojictoto, Jl.
AHApeeBa, H. EyHHHa, B. Bpiocosa, A. KynpuHa... HjiacTHHXH JIbBa Tojicto-
ro nojib30BajiHCb Taxon nonyjinpHocTbio, hto ycTpaHBajmcb Aa>xe hx xojuiex-
THBHbie iipocjrymHBaHHH. Hmchho JIbBy TojiCTOMy npHHaAJie)XHT Mbicjib o
tom, hto co BpeMeHeM h npn yMejiOM Hcnojib30BaHHH jiHTepaTypHaH njia-
CTHHKa ‘mokct npHHecTH Taxyto >kc nojib3y, xax h xmira’. B 1919 roAy, b
paarap rpa5XAaHCX0H BOHHbi, OAHOBpeMemio c penaMH Jlemma, KajiHHHHa,
ByxapHHa, JlyHanapcKoro h Tpopxoro, 6bijm H3AaHbi JiHTepaTypHbie njia-
cthhxh npojieTapcKHx noaTOB B. KHpHjiJiOBa h TepacHMOBa... B 20-30-e toam
H3AaBaJTHCb IIJiaCTHHKH MOAHbIX ‘MOJIOAOKHblx’ H03T0B M. YTXHHa, A.
^CapOBa, B. MH6ep... Hanmiafl c 60-x toaob ocoGchho mhoto 6biJio 3anHcaHO
njiacTHHOK TaKHx npeACTaBHTejieH ‘acTpaAHOH no33HH’, xax B. AxMaAyJiHHa,
Ebt. EBTymeHKO, A. Bo3HeceHCXHH, P. Po^cacctbchckhh, B. OxyA^xaBa.
Eopa3AO MeHblUHMH THpa»:aMH, HO TO)Ke H3AaBaJIHCb H H3AaiOTC5I njiacTHHKH
TaKHx noaTOB, xax A. AxMaTOBa, H. 3a6ojiouxHH, M. WcaxoBcxHH, C.
Mapmax, H. MaTBeeBa, B. naciepHax, J\. CaMOHjioB, B. CjiyixxHH, B.
Coxojiob, A. TBapAOBcxHH, A. TapxoBcxHH... npeACTaBjieHbi Ha njiacTHHxax
h npo3aHXH: M. TopbXHH, J\. T paHHH, M. 3omeHxo, B. KaTaeB, JI. JleoHOB,
K. naycTOBCXHH, M. npHmBHH, K). TpH(})OHOB, B. IIIyxmHH... BojibmHM
ycnexoM nojib3yiOTCfl y jnoGHTejieH jiHTepaTypbi njracTHHXH, Ha xoTOpbix
co6paHbi pecTaBpHpoBaHHbie 3anHCH tojiocob nHcaTejien npomjioro, Taxnx,
xax A. Ejiox, B. BepecaeB, C. Ecchhh, 3. EarpHAXHH, A. Cepa(J)HMOBHH, H.
OcTpoBCXHH, K). TbiHHHOB, K3. Ojiema...1 Bee name b nocjieAHHe toam
BbixoA^T XHHru c npHjio>xeHHeM cth6xhx miacTHHOx’. EojibmoH nonyjiap-
HOCTbK) b CoBeTexoM CoK>3e nojib3yeTca >xypHaji ‘Kpyro3op’, noHTH b
xa^xAOM HOMepe xoToporo OAHa H3 3BynamHx CTpaHHH, otboahtch jiHTepaTy-
pe hjih TeaTpy.

Tenepb y>xe mhothc HauiH nncaTejin npeACTaBjieHbi He TOJibxo HHTaTejno,
ho h cjiymaTejiio. PacTymaa nonyjiapHOCTb miacTHHOX c rojiocaMH
nHcaTejieH, BepoHTHO, npe5KAe Bcero o6bHCHaeTCH TeM, hto JiHTepaTypHaa

1 IlepBbie ^Be tbkhx njiacTHHKH no# Ha3BaHHeM Tobopht nHcaTejm’ (A 05592-3 h A 018421-
2) cocTaBJieHbi M. AHjipoHHKOBbiM, TpeTbfl, noa Ha3BaHHeM Tonoca, 3a3BynaBLUHe BHOBb’ (M 40
39857-8) cocTaBjieHa mhok).

i8

Solanus 1990

njiacTHHKa AaeT npeKpacHyio BOBMoamocTb, ycjibiinaB caMoro aBTOpa, boc-
HpHHHTb ero HHTOHai],HOHHyK) TpaKTOBKy npOH3BeAeHHH H TCM CaMbIM
rnyGace h nojiHee nocTHHb nncaTejibCKHH 3aMbiceji. OcoGemia ijeHHa bo3mo>k-
HOCTb ycjibiiuaTb aBTopcKoe HTeHHe cthxob, Tax KaK 3Aecb 3Bynamaa,
My3biKanbHaa CTOpOHa noAnac HCKjnoHHTejibHO Bamia. ‘Mania nosTHnecKoro
cnoBa,— roBOpHT K)HHa Mopmj, Hba 6ojibmaa aBTOpacaa njiacTHHKa Bbimjia
BecHOH 1979 roAa,— 3to Marna HcnoBeAajibHOCTH, coKpOBeHHoro BocnoMHHa-
hha, AyxoBHoro B3AeTa, Mania OAepacHMOcra npeKpacHbiM, 3to 6eAaa Mania,
KOTopaa HHKaK He npHKpaniHBaeT cthxh, a cjiHBaeTca c hhmh h npojiHBaeT
CBOH CBeT Ha HHX...’

Eme HeAaBHO AHTepaTypHaa nAacTHHKa 6buia npeAMexoM HHTepeca h
yBjienenHa BecbMa HeMHorax jnoGHTeAeii 3BynameH jiHTepaTypbi. Ho b
nocjieAHHe roAW, Bepoarao, He 6e3 bjihahha yHacTHBUinxca noaTHnecKHx
BenepoB, 6ojiee nacTbix TejieBH3HOHHbix h paAHonepeAan c ynacTHeM nncaTe-
jieii, jiHTepaTypHaa njiacTHHKa npHBjieicaeT Bee Gojibiuee BHHMaHHe
KHHrojHoGoB. PiHorAa Aaace npnxoAHTca BCTpenaTb npeAnojioaceHHe o tom,
hto ‘3ByHamaa KHHra’ cmo'axt co BpeMcneM b KaKOH-TO CTeneHM 3aMeHHTb
KHHry nenaTHyK). C 3thm TpyAHO corjiacHTbca. JlHTepaTypHaa njiacTHHKa
HHKorAa He 3aMeHHT nenarHyK) KHHry, h6o cucmeMbi ‘ uumameAb-KHuea ’ u
‘ cAyuiameAb-nAacmuHKa ’ uuewm npumfunuayibHbie omAunun. KHHra 6oAee, neM
njiacTHHKa, neM TejienepeAana, neM KHHO(})HjibM aKTHBH3HpyeT cnoco6HOCTb k
BOoGpa^CeHHK). HHTaa, Bbl Ha OCHOBe CBOHX 3HaHHH, OnbITa, 3MOHHH BOCC03-
AaeTe aji» ceGa npoHHTaHHoe. Cayman njiacTHHKy hjth cMOTpn TejienepeAany,
Bbl 3HaKOMHTeCb He TOJIbKO C C3MHM npOH3BeACHHeM, HO H C erO aBTOpCKOH,
pe^cHccepcKOH, aKTepcKOH HHTepnpeTanHeH. Bbi cpaBHHBaeTe Bauie npeACTaB-
neHHe o npOH3BeACHHH c toh TpaKTOBKOH, KOTOpyio npeAJiaraeT bbm hchoji-
HHTejib. (CaM aBTOp Ha njiacTHHKe BbicTynaeT npencAe Bcero Kax HcnojiHH-
Tejlb.) HHTaTeJIb, B 3aBHCHMOCTH OT CBOeH HHAHBHAyaJTbHOCTH, 3HaKOMHTCn C
KHHroH Ka)KAbiH no-pa3HOMy, oGpaman Gojibinee hjih MeHbmee BHHMaHHe Ha
Te hjih HHbie cijeHbi, o6pa3bi, ottchkh npOH3BeAeHHn, h ABHnceTcn no
CTpaHHAaM B CBOeM, npHXOTJIHBO MCHHIOineMCB TeMne, 3aBHC5HHeM OT ero
CnOCOGHOCTH K 6bICTpOMy HJIH MeAJieHHOMy HTeHHK), CTeneHH Ba^CHOCTH,
KOTopyio oh npHAaeT HHTaeMOMy, ot ero 3aHHTepecoBaHHOCTH HHTpnroH h
MHO)KecTBa Apyrnx 4>aKTOpOB. CjiyuiaTejib njiacTHHKH nojiynaeT npoH3BeAe-
HHe b ynce onpeAejieHHOH HHTepnpeTanHH: HcnojiHHTejib HHTOHanHOHHO
BbiAejiHji HanGojiee, no ero mhchhio, 3HanHMbie MecTa, noAnepKHyji onpeAe-
jieHHbie TeMbi, BbiCBeTJiHji ocoGchho BancHbie eMy KpacKH. H nponecc pacKpbi-
THB npOH3BeAeHHfl npOHCXOAHT B TeMne, KOTOpblH M05KCT BecbMa OTJIHHaTbCB
ot TeMna Barnero BocnpHaran.

BnponeM, pa3roBop o pa3JiHHHH MencAy khhtoh h njiacTHHKoii, bo3mo*cho,
cjieAyeT HanHHaTb He c stoto, a c toto oneBHAHoro, ho eme Majio oco3HaH-
Horo (})aKTa, hto o6biHHO Mbi oGpamaeMcn k KHHre a-hb toto, htoGm

Literaturnaia plastinka

19

n03HaKOMHTbCa C HOBbIM AJI5I HaC aBTOpOM HJIH HOBbIM erO IIpOH3Be^CHHeM,
a, BbiGnpaH njiacTHHKy, Mbi pyKOBO/jCTByeMcn )KejiaHneM nojiyHHTb donoAHu-
meAbHyw uHcfiopMatfuto 06 ywce xopoiuo 3hcikomom, 6oAee moao, o cepbe3H0
3auHmepecoeaetueM nac aemope.2 Mto6m npocjiymaTb h ‘nocTHHb’ JiHTepaTyp-
Hyio njiacTHHKy, hco6xoahmo HMeTb k 3TOMy h oco6oe AymeBHoe pacnojio-
aceHHe, ‘HacTpon’, onpejjejieHHbie ycjiOBHH, b KOTOpbix Bac hhhto He 6y^eT
OTBuexaTb ot 3Toro npouecca, AOBOJibHO 3HaHHTejibHoe (okojio naca) BpeMfl.
Ho 3aT0 Bbi nojiyHHTe HenTO, He nepe^aBaeMoe h HeBocnojiHHMoe HHKaKHMH
HHbiMH cpe^CTBaMH: He TOJibKO 6onee rjiy6oKoe h apKoe npeACTaBjieHHe 06
y^e H3BecTHOM BaM npoH3Be^eHHH, ho h uaaw3uw Henocpedcmeeunoao o6uie-

HUA C JIHHHOCTbK) aBTOpa.

3HaKOM^cb c njiacTHHKaMH pa3Hbix nHcaTeneH, y6e^cAaeuibC5i b tom, hto
aBTOpCKoe HTeHHe b pa3HOH Mepe oGoramaeT Harne npejjCTaBJieHHe o caMOM
npoH3Be/jeHHH. Ecjih /uih nojiHoro, npaBHJibHoro BocnpHHTHH HeKOTOpbix
npoH3BeAeHHH BnojiHe .aocTaTOHHO ‘HTeHHe TJia3aMH’, to ajih noHHMaHHH
jjpyrnx, nojpiac cneunajibHO paccHHTaHHbix Ha onpejjejieHHoe npOH3HeceHHe,
coBepuieHHO hco6xoahmo ycjibiuiaTb aBTopcKoe HTeHHe. Tax, HanpHMep,
BoenpHHTHe cthxob MaHKOBCKoro ero cjiymaTejiHMH 6bijio nojmee, pe3yjibTa-
THBHee, HeM HHTaTeJIHMH. 3TOT n03T B CBOeM HTeHHH BbipaacaJI H TO, HTO B
caMOM npoH3Be,aeHHH He coAepacajiocb hjih 6bmo CTOJib Majio3aMeTHO, hto
jierKO motjio 6biTb nponymeHo ^a>Ke BHHMaTejibHbiM HHTaTejieM. CteByHHBa-
HHe aBTOpCKHM tojiocom npoH3Be,neHHH ‘AeKJiaMauHOHHoro’ acaHpa (Bo3He-
CeHCKHH, EBTymeHKO) OCo6eHHO Ba)KHO nOJIHOTO BOCnpHHTHH aBTOpCKOTO
3aMbICJia 3THX n03TOB, HO OHO CyiljeCTBeHHO H JlJIfl HpaBHJlbHOTO nOHHMaHHH
jiHTepaTypHbix npOH3Be,aeHHH nncaTejieH hhoto, ‘HejjeKJiaMauHOHHoro’ THna.

3to <HeHTo>, Ha nepBbrn B3rjiH,a oTcyTCTByiomee (hjih jjencTBHTejibHO He
coAep^cameecH b Texcre) h B03HHKaiomee jinuib b bbtopckom htchhh, oneHb
TpyAHO OnncaTb. Mo>KHO OTMeTHTb JIHIHb OTAejIbHbie OTTCHKH CMbICJIOBOH
TpaKTOBKH, KOTOpbie HeceT HHTOHaUHfl aBTOpa. M02CHO H3MepHTb H nOKa3aTb
Ha rpa(})HKe BbicoTy h CHjry 3Byxa, onpeAejiHTb TeMn npoH3BejjeHH5i h TeM6p,
ho to ABH>KeHHe rojioca, KOTOpoe nepejjaeT Mbicjib h nyBCTBo aBTopa bo Bcex
ero OTTeHKax, to, hto coacp>khtch b rjiy6HHe TexcTa h ncnxHKe TBOpua,
ycKOJib3aeT ot caMbix nyTKHX npH6opoB. Eme h euie pa3 yGejjHBiHHCb b tom,
hto MejiojiHH npoH3HeceHHoro cjiOBa Hpe3BbinaHHo cjioacHa h ee Hejib3H
3anncaTb hothmmh 3HaxaMH, oco6eHHo ueHHiub 3aMenaTejibHoe cpejjcTBO
3aKpenjieHH« h nepe/janH acHBoro cjiOBa— jiHTepaTypHyio njiacTHHKy.

flyMaeTca, CKa3aHHoro AocTaTOHHO /jjih toto, HTo6bi yBH/jeTb, HacKOjibKo

2 3ziecb h aanee HMeioTca b BH^y njiacTHHKH, HaHHTaHHbie caMHMH nwcaTejiaMH. 3anHCH
cneKTaKjieH, ruiacTHHKH htchob HecyT b ce6e TO»e Hpe3BbinaHHO neHHyio acTeTHHeocyio HH(j)op-
MaiiHio, ho HecKOJibKO hhoto xapaKTepa, hto, BnponeM, He HMeeT 3HaneHHfl ^jih BbiacHeHHH
ochobhoto Hauiero Bonpoca: onpe^ejieHHe Mecra jmrepaTypHOH njiacTHHKH b CHCTeMe KyjibTyp-
HblX UeHHOCTeH.

20

Solanus 1990

Hesepno c6jiHaceHHe, ^aKJiioHeHHe b oahh cko6kh’, a noA^ac h oTO)KAecTBne-
hhc njiacTHHKH jiHTepaTypHOH h njiaciHHKH My3biKanbHOH. 06mee y hhx
T0J1BK0 BHeUIHOCTb, COAep^aHHC )K6, ‘KaueCTBO HH^OpMaAMH’ COBepineHHO
pa3JIHBHO. Pa3JIHHHbI HX (JjyHKIJHH H ‘C(j)epa 6bITOBaHH5l\

OTjiHnaeT hx Apyr ot Apyra h Taxce BHeuiHee, ho cymecTBemioe o6ctob-
TeJlbCTBO, KaK KOJIHHeCTBO npOHTpblBaHHH. EcJIH My3bIKaJIbHa» njiacTHHKa
(AK>6HMaH) cjiymaeTCH accatkh, cothh pa3, BnjiOTb ao ee <3aHrpbiBaHH5i>, to
jiHTepaTypHyio imacTHHKy, AA>Ke caMyio HHTepecHyio, cjiymaeuib Bcero jinuib
HecKOJibKo pa3, a hotom o6pamaembCM k Hen ropa3AO pe^ce, jinuib ajih
yTOBHCHHA KaKOH-TO HHTQHaiJHH, ACMOHCTpaUHH AP)73b5IM, 3HaKOMbIM,

yneHHKaM. B Cobctckom Cok>3c jiHTepaTypnbie njiacTHHKH ctobt 3HaHHTejib-
ho AemeBjie njiacTHHOK 3CTpaAH0H MysbiKM. Ho, ecjiH ynecTb Ha3BaHHoe
o6CTOBTeJlbCTBO, TO IIOHBTHO, HTO Ka^CAOe ‘npOHTpblBaHHe’ JiHTepaTypHOH
HJiaCTHHKH o6xOAHTCH JIK)6HTeJHO JIHTepaTypbl TOpa3AO AOpO^Ce, HQM
AK)6HTeAIO My3bIKH. YuHTblBafl H 3TO 06CT05ITeJIbCTB0, HeoGxOAHMO BCJIHeCKH
CTHMyjiHpOBaxb coGnpaHHe jiHTepaTypHbix njiacTHHOK hmchho 6H6jiHOTeKa-
mh, niKOAaMH, Kjiy6aMH, TAe ee mo>kho ‘b3mtb HanpoxaT’, TAe ee noTemiHajib-
HbiH cjiyuiaTejib mot 6bi nojiyHHTb cobct h noHcneHHe.

Mmodbi odHapyjtcumb ceou cKpumue eo3MocncHocmu, AumepamypHan wia-
cniuHKa Hyjicdaemcn e KOMMeumapunx. Ohh oobihho noMemaioTca Ha ee
KOHBepTax h noA^ac 6biBaioT aoctatohho rjiyGoKHMH h noApo6HbiMH. Ho h
3tot >xaHp cBoeo6pa3Hbix peixeH3HH h nyTeBOAHTejien no MHpy 3ByHameH
jiHTepaTypw Taicace ocTaeTCM ao nocjieAHero BpeMeHH BHe bcbkoto bhhmahhb
Harnero jiHTepaTypoBeAOHHB. Jinuib nepBbie iuarn AejiaeT b otom HanpaBjie-
HHH H Hauia TeKCTOJIOTHB, CpaBHHTCJIbHO HCAUBHO 0C03HaB, HTO JIHTepaTyp-
Haa njiacTHHKa (h rnupe— jiKTepaTypHaa 3Byico3anHCb) MoryT 6biTb cepbe3-
HblM TeKCTOJIOFHHeCKHM HCTOHHHKOM.

BnepBbie b mhpoboh npaKTHKe, nacKOJibKO mhc H3BecTH0, jiHTepaTypHaB
njiacTHHKa Kax apryMeiiT npn yTOHHeHHH KaHommecKoro TeKCTa 6bijia
npHBAeneHa npH H3AaHHH 13-th-tomhoto coGpaHHH cohhhchhh B. MaaKOB-
ckoto, b KOTOpOM yHHTbiBaeTCB 3ByKOBOH BapnaHT CTHxoTBOpeHHB ‘Heo6bi-
naHHoe npHKjnoHeHHe’.3 Oahhm H3 nocjieAHHX npHMepoB toto, KaK 3ByK03a-
nHCb noMoraeT ncnpaBHTb ie k cio ji o ih m e c k y k> ouiH6Ky, MO^ceT cnyacHTb
HcnpaBAeHHe b 3HaMeHHT0M axMaTOBCKOM ‘PeKBHeMe’, TAe oihh6ohho nena-
TaBuiaaca MHorne roAbi CTpoKa

... riocTbiJiaa xAonaAa ABepb
b 1987 roAy 6buia HcnpaBjieHa:

... riocTbuiaa XAwnaAa ABepb.

3 B. MasiKOBCKHH. IlojiHoe co6paHHe cohhhchhh. MocKBa, 1956, t. 2, c. 444.

Literaturnaia plastinka

21

Bcero oxtfia 6yKBa, oahh 3ByK, a KaK MHoroe oh mchbct, KaK cymecTBeHHO
yTOHHJieT h pacuBenHBaeT, o6oramaeT o6pa3! Co BpeMeHeM, Kor^a
3ByK03anHCbiBaK>mHe ycrpoHCTBa Bee 6onee aKTHBHO 6y#yT Hcnojib30BaTbCB
HHcaTejiBMH, 3Ta npoGjieMa CTaHeT Bee Gojiee Ba>KHOH. Y)k e ceiniac MHorne
coBeTCKHe nncaTejiH ‘HaroBapHBaioT’ nepBbie BapnaHTbi cbohx npOH3Be#eHHH
Ha MarHHTO(J)OHbi. B mockobckom JlHTepaTypHOM My3ee, HanpHMep, xpaHBT-
CB C3ByKOBbie HepHOBHKH’ OflHOrO H3 pOMaHOB KoHCTaHTHHa CHMOHOBa H
no^roTOBHTejibHbie MaTepnajibi 3HaMeHHTOH khhth rpaHHHa h A. A^aMO-
BHHa o jieHHHrpaacKOH SjioKa^e— 3ByK03anHCH hx 6ece^ c ‘OjioKa/uiHKaMH’.

3th (j)OHorpaMMbi ^eMOHCTpHpOBajiHCb b 1980 rojxy h Ha oahoh h3
HHTepecHeHuiHx 3Kcno3HttHH My3ea, BbicTaBKe ‘3Bynama5i JiHTepaTypa’, koto-
paa noMorjia HaM rjiy6>Ke ocMbicjiHTb mhothc bo3mo)khocth h CBoeo6pa3He
JlHTepaTypHOM njiacTHHKH. Bo BpeMB ee pa6oTbi4 6bijia hctko BbiBBjieHa o^Ha
H3 npHMenaTejibHbix oco6eHHOCTeH jiHTepaTypHbix njiacTHHOK no cpaBHeHHio
c KHHraMH Tex ace aBTopoB: pe3Ko cflBHHyjiacb ‘cncTeMa npeanoHTemiH’.
OKa3anocb, hto cjiyuiaTenb jimepaTypHOH njiacTHHKH nacio npn cbocm
BblOope pyKOBO^CTByeTCB HeCKOJIbKO HHbIMH MOTHBaMH, HeM npH BblGope
khhth: BHHMaHHe Bbi3biBajm b nepByto onepeAb njiacTHHKH nncaTejieH,
HHTepeCOBaBUIHX CJiymaTeJieH He TOJIbKO Xy/IOvKeCTBeHHblMH .ZJOCTOHHCTBaMH
cbohx npoH3Be^eHHH, ho h cbohmh ‘jiHHHbiMH KanecTBaMH’, CBoeH nejioBene-
ckoh h nncaTejibCKOH cy^b6oH. KpoMe toto, ecjiH jxjik HHTaTejiH, HanpHMep,
xapaKTepHO CTpeMjieHHe no3HaKOMHTbCB c noica eme He H3BecTHbiM eMy
aBTopoM, to noceTHTejiB ^BynameM jiHTepaTypbi’ b nepByio onepe/jb HHTepe-
coBajiH rojioca nncaTejieH, khhth KOTOpbix eMy 6bijiH yac e xopouio 3HaKOMbi.
EMy 6buio BaacHo He CTOJibKo ‘hto’, CKOJibKO ‘KaK’; oh He CTOJibKO y3HaBan,
CKOJibKO npoBepan CTeneHb cootbctctbhb nojiynaeMbix npeACTaBjieHHH 06
aBTope o6pa3y cjioacHBHieMyca npn htchhh khhth. rioceTHTejieH BbicTaBKH
noHTH He HHTepecoBajiH 3anncH tojtocob nHcaTenen, KOTopbix ohh coBepuieH-
ho He 3HanH hjih 3HajiH Mano.

CaBHraioTCB b ‘3BynameH jiHTepaType’ h mhothc o6menpHHBTbie KpHTepHH
JiHTepaTypHbix ijeHHOCTeH, Ta ‘Ta6ejib o paHrax’, KOTopaa, npH Been ee
cnopHOCTH, Bee ace cymecTByeT b HHTaTejibCKOM co3HaHHH h H3,uaTejibCKOH
npaKTHKe. A Be^b jxo chx nop 6ojibimiHCTBO 3ByK03anHCbiBaioinHx ({)HpM h
pa^HOKopnopauHH, b hbcthocth ())HpMa ‘MejiOAHa’, npn onpeAejieHHH acejia-
TeJlbHOCTH 3ByK03anHCH TOJIOCa TOTO HJIH HHOTO nHCaTeJIB HCXO^BT H3
o6inenpHHBTOTO B AaHHblH MOMeHT nOHHMBHHB CpaBHHTeJIbHOH HeHHOCTH
khht naHHbix aBTopoB. A BbicTaBKa ‘3ByMamaB JiHTepaTypa’ noKa3ajia, hto

4 Ha nepBOH b MHpe BbicraBKe ‘3ByHamaa JiHTepaTypa’ (1980-1982) 6biJiH npeacTaBJieHbi Bee
>xaHpbi JlHTepaTypHOM njiacTHHKH — 3ByKOBbie c6ophhkh cthxob KaKoro-JiH6o ojihoto aBTopa,
IIJiaCTHHKH, o6T>ejIHHflK)mHe CTHXH pa3JIHHHbIX aBTOpOB no KaKOMy-JIH6o TeMaTHHeCKOMy IipH-
3Haxy, njiacTHHKH nHcaTeabCKHX MeMyapoB, jjhckh, coaeTaiomHe aBTopcKoe h aKTepcicoe HTeHHe,
hjih coBMemaiomHe cthxh h necHH, jioKyMeHTajibHbie h xyjio)KecTBeHHbie 3anHCH.

22

Solanus 1990

npflMOH 3aBHCHMocTH b aaHHOM cjiynae HeT! H #ejio He TOjibKO b tom, hto
cpaBHHTejibHaB ueHHOCTb jiHTepaTypHoro npOH3Be,aeHHH c ro^aMH MeHaeTca
h, nojjnac, AOBOJibHo cymecTBeHHO. ropa3£0 BaacHee to, hto HeicoTopbie
npoH3BeAeHHa (no CBoeMy acaHpy) 6ojibuie opneHTnpoBaHbi Ha 3ByHaHne,
Apyrne MeHbiue. BaacHO n to, hto b pajje cjiynaeB TOjibKO bbt op MoaceT
jjaTb ^ocTaTOHHo nojmoe n BepHoe TOJiKOBaHne OTaejibHOH CTpOKH, o6pa3a,
noKa3aTb ceMaHTHKy pnTMa, nojpiepKHyTb 3HaneHHe 3ByKonncn n apyrnx
ajieMeHTOB, cocTaBjraiomHx xyAoacecTBeHHoe npoH3Be,aeHHe.

06 3tom oneHb BaacHOM acneKTe aHajin3a aBTOpcxon HHTepnpeTaunn yace
roBOpnjiocb pa3JiHHHbiMH HCCJiejjoBaTejiaMH. Ho pa6oTa BbiCTaBKH ‘3Byna-
maa JiHTepaTypa’ noKa3ajia, hto 3ByK03anncb He TOjibKO noMoraeT HaM
Aora^aTbca o rjiy6HHH0M CMbicjre OTflejibHOH CTpoKH hjih (J)pa3bi, ho h,
npeac^e Bcero, HeceT HaM uHffiopMaifuto o Aumiocmu eoeopmpeeo. Eojiee toto,
b ,zi,aHHOM cjiynae tojioc aBTopa HaM TeM HHTepecHee, neM jiynme Mbi 3HaeM
(hjth npe^cTaBjiaeM ce6e, hto 3HaeM) ero jiHHHOCTb, c6jmacaa ee c AUHHoembw
AupuuecK020 2epon npouseedeHun. OTCio/ja peuiHTejibHoe npe^noHTeHHe noce-
THTejiaMH BbiCTaBKH njiacTHHOK c rojiocaMH aBTopoB HHpHHecKHx npOH3Be,ue-
hhh njiacTHHKaM aBTopoB HCTOpHHecKOH hjih 6biTOBOH npo3bi. OxoTHee,
HanpHMep, cjiymaioT EBreHHa EBTymeHKo, neM lOpna TpH(J)OHOBa.

Eme Gojree KpaHHHH h, Ha moh bttjiha, oneHb Bbipa3HTejibHbiH h #0Ka3a-
TejibHbiH npHMep ‘pa3HocTH imcaji’ jiHTepaTypHOH uchhocth b c3ByHameH’ h
‘nenaTHOH’ jiHTepaType: npH 6e3ycjiOBHOM jiH^epcTBe actckthbob b (jjopMy-
jiapax HHTaTejien MaccoBbix 6H6jiHOTeK hh ojjhh 3KCKypcaHT Ha BbiCTaBKe
‘3ByHamaa JiHTepaTypa’ 3a jxb a rozia ee cymecTBOBaHHa b rocjiHTMy3ee hh
pa3y He Bbipa3HJi acejiaHHa ycjibiuiaTb tojioc nonyjiapHeHuiero aBTopa jxqtqk-
thbob KDjinaHa CeMeHOBa, npeACTaBjieHHbiH TaM b nncjie Apyrnx #ByxcoT
(JiOHorpaMM. npH MeHbiueH, ho hccomhchhoh nonyjiapHocTH HCTopHHecKHx
pOMaHOB HHKTO H3 nOCCTHTejieH 3TOH BbiCTaBKH HH pa3y He 3aXOTeJT ycjlbl-
iuaTb tojioc OjibTH Oopiu... H Aaace tojioc ApKajina CTpyrauKoro, o/jhoto H3
HauiHx H3BecTHeHuiHx nHcaTejieH-(J)aHTacTOB, 3Bynaji cpaBHHTejibHo pejpco.

CjieAOBaTejibHO, b 3eyK03anucu no3T (jx a, npeacjje Bcero no3T, a yace bo
BTopyio onepejjb np03aHK, b TpeTbio— jjpaMaTypr, b neTBepTyio— onepKHCT, b
ABajmaTyio— KpHTHK...) Hac HHTepecyeT He CTOJibKO jx aace KaK HHTepnpeTaTop
CBoero TBOpnecTBa (KaK a jihhho nojiaraji MHorne tojxbi h o neM He pa3 nncaji
npHMeHHTejibHO k htchhio MaaKOBCKoro, EceHHHa, AxMaTOBOH), a KaK
AUHHocmb , c kotopoh Mbi yjice 3uaK0Mbi no ero CTHxaM. Ecjth ace ero
npoH3BeAeHHa He HecyT HaM b ztocTaTOHHOH Mepe tbkoh HHiJiopMauHH o
JIHHHOCTH hx co3,naTejiH, Kaxyio, HanpHMep, Mbi nojiynaeM H3 khht He TOjibKO
EceHHHa, Ejioxa, AxMaTOBOH, ho h riaycTOBCKoro, TpHHa, EyjiraKOBa,
3K3ionepH, XeMHHryaa..., to h ne oujyipaeM Mbi oco6ou nompedHocmu eo
ecmpeue c soaocom 3171020 nucameAH. Eojiee toto, ecjiH 6bi y Hac 6bijia
B03MoacHocTb Bbi6opa, Mbi, B03MoacHo, npeAnoHjiH 6bi BCTpeny c tojtocom

Literaturnaia plastinka

23

ero repoa: c rojiocoM /JoH-KHxoTa, a He CepBaHTeca; Akchhbh, a He
IIIoaoxoBa; EeH/jepa, a He Mjib(|)a-neTpOBa; CaHH TpHropbeBa, a He BeHHa-
MHHa KaBepHHa... Eoiocb, hto Aa)xe AHHbi ApxaAbeBHbi, a He JlbBa
HHKOJiaeBHHa.

AHanH3 oT3biBOB noceTHTejieH BbiCTaBKH ‘3Bynama5i jiHTepaTypa’ noKa3aji,
hto 3ByK03anHCb rojioca nHcaTejia npHo6peTaeT ocoGyio ueHHOCTb j\jm
cjiymaTejiH npescAe Bcero TOTAa, Kor^a b Hen oh HaxoAHT AonoAHHTeAbHbie
KpacKH k TOMy npeACTaBjieHHK), k TOMy o6pa3y aBTOpa, xoTopbift yace
CJI0)KHJ1C5I B ero BOo6pa)KeHHH.

MHOTAa, He coBnaB hjih Aa*:e ‘npOTHBopena’ co3AaBmeMycfl o6jiHKy,
3BynaHHe rojioca nHcaTejiH Mo:>xeT Aa>xe pa3onapoBaTb cjiyuiaTejiH. Tax,
HanpHMep, pa30HapoBan mhothx rojioc HHxojiaa OcTpOBCxoro... Cjihuikom
BbicoKHH ajia Toro My>xecTBeHHoro repoH riaBjia KopnarHHa, xoToporo Mbi
y3HajiH no noBecTH ‘Kax 3axajiHJiacb CTajib’. (Taxoe >xe pa30HapoBamie
HcnbiTaji a, ycjibiuiaB tojioc CeHT-3x3ionepH.) 3HaHHT, aeHHa ajia nAacTHHXH
He BCflxaa nHcaTejibcxan 3Byxo3anHCb (Hy, pa3yMeeTca, 3a jho6oh 3Byx rojioca
llyuixHHa, JlepMOHTOBa h Tojictoto Mbi totobm OT/jaTb mhoto h mhoto
Apyrnx tojiocob), a npoxae Bcero Ta, xoTopaa Aynrne ‘pa6oTaeT5 Ha pacxpbi-
THe ero o6pa3a h oAHOBpeMeHHo coAep^cHT HaH6oAee H3BecTHbie, acejiaTeAb-
ho, ‘xpecTOMaTHHHbie’ ero npOH3BeAeHH». Tax, HanpHMep, H3 chmohobcxhx
4>OHorpaMM name Bcero 3BynajiH cthxotbopchhh ‘}Kah MeH ‘Tbi noMHHuib,
Anerna, Aoporn CMOAeHuiHHbi’ h non™ He nojib30BajiHCb cnpocoM noceTHTe-
Aen Apyrne ero cthxh.

JlHTepaTypHaa nAacTHHxa — He 3epxajibHoe OTpaaceHHe xhhth, a ee CBoe-
o6pa3Hoe npoAOA>xeHHe h npHAo:>xeHHe. CaMO co6oh pa3yMeeTca, hto oHa
Mo>xeT h AOA)XHa cymecTBOBaTb h b AOMax AK>6HTejieH AHTepaTypbi, h Ha
mxoAbHOM ypoxe, h b yHHBepcHTeTCXOH ayAHTOpHH, h Ha paAHO... Ho
HaH6ojiee ecTecTBeHHaa h 6jiaronpHHTHaH cpeAa o6HTaHH« AHTepaTypHOH
nAacTHHXH — 6h6ahotcxh h My3en, paaom c xHHraMH h pyxonHCHMH. Tojibxo
TaM OHa Mo>xeT noAyHHTb Ty HaynHyK) o6pa6oTxy, xoMMeHTapHH, ocj)opMAe-
HHe (HHOTAa H HAAfOCTpaTHBHOe, 3pHTeJlbHOe AOnOJTHeHHe), XOTOpbie n03B0-
aht pacxpbiTb ee noTeHAHajibHbie bo3mo>xhocth AOCTaTOHHO noAHO.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev:
Change and Continuity

Boris Korsch

At the time of writing, Gorbachev’s period of office, although already longer
than those of his two predecessors put together, has not been long enough for
radical changes to have taken place in any sphere of endeavour (librarianship
included), but has been long enough to perceive those changes of policy which
occur with the assumption of office of any leader of the CPSU. Librarianship,
being a vehicle for conveying the current leader’s will to the population at
large, is particularly sensitive to such changes. The aim of this article is to
appraise these changes, setting them against a background of continuity,
i.e. the continuity of the relationship between the Communist Party and
librarianship.

Overall Political Control

The role of Soviet librarianship always was and still is defined in terms of
CPSU precepts: libraries are considered to be social-cultural-pedagogical
institutions with clearly set out political-ideological goals. Since the time of
Krupskaia up to the present day, they are seen as ‘ideological centres’,1
‘supporting bases of party organizations for the communist education of the
workers, ideological and informational institutions’, actively participating in
‘the solution of concrete problems related to the building of communism as
defined by ...’2 whichever happens to be the most recent Party congress (in
the present instance, the Twenty- Seventh). These ideological and political
aims inevitably place Soviet librarianship in a perpetual state of dependency
on the CPSU, subject to its control and patronage and its latest political line.
Thus, Soviet librarianship’s stance of open partisanship is a permanent
feature, which has remained unchanged for more than seventy years,
regardless of twists and turns in the Party line, the denunciation of former top
leaders (Stalin by Khrushchev and Gorbachev, Khrushchev by Brezhnev),
their abasement (Brezhnev by Gorbachev) or their consignment to oblivion
(Andropov and Chernenko by Gorbachev).

Even in the era of glasnost and perestroika CPSU politics continue to
dominate Soviet librarianship, and this state of affairs is likely to continue for
as long as the Soviet Union is ruled by one party. The library system, set up to

1 N. K. Krupskaia, O bibliotechnom dele: sbornik (Moscow, 1957), p. 103.

2 ‘Na marshe — Vsesoiuznyi smotr raboty bibliotek na zvanie “Luchshaia biblioteka raiona,
goroda, oblasti, respubliki” ’, Bibliotekar ', 1977, no. 4, pp. 6, 7 (p. 6).

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

25

serve society, has been transformed into an instrument for controlling the
reading habits of that society. Thus political considerations influence all
aspects of librarianship, from specific decisions on methodology to the choice
of problems to be researched. However, the formulation and mode of
implementation of the policies laid down by the Party do change.

The Concepts of Glasnost and Perestroika

During the last five years these two Russian words have entered into the
vocabulary of the world’s languages, so there is no need to dwell on them.
Glasnost has changed the social atmosphere in the Soviet Union, sanctioning,
as a prerequisite of perestroika, public disclosure and criticism of inefficiency,
of abuse of power and other shortcomings. Channels for expressing controlled
feelings of discontent have been opened, with the proviso that doubt is not
cast on the correctness of the relationship between the Party and librarianship.
Critics must not ‘undermine socialism’ and must seek answers to the
questions which they raise ‘within the boundaries of socialism’.3 Perestroika
lies not in finding a new direction, but in the ‘removal of administrative,
artificial obstacles’4 put in the way of the development of librarianship. It
involves ‘not only breaking what is old and obsolete, but also carefully
selecting from and using creatively the considerable amount of constructive
experience already available’.5 This means giving librarians a certain freedom
to make decisions on purely professional problems and providing incentives to
encourage them to use the new policy in ways acceptable to the Party. Official
encouragement for glasnost and perestroika has struck a responsive chord in
librarians and a more relaxed working atmosphere has been achieved;
questions hitherto untouched can be raised and a shift towards innovation and
the adoption of modern librarianship methods are now demanded. Thus,
reform is sanctioned and encouraged within the framework of the guiding
principles of Marxism-Leninism upon which Soviet librarianship was
founded.

Conditioned Responses

One thing that remains unchanged under Gorbachev is the reflex response
of librarianship literature to the message of the Party congress. The fact of
continuity is highlighted by the similarity of wording and formulation in
publications reacting to the Twenty- Seventh and earlier Party congresses.
Exactly as all other forthcoming congresses had been welcomed by pro¬
fessional publications, so was Gorbachev’s — ‘To the Twenty-Seventh CPSU

3 ‘Prakticheskimi delami uglubliat' perestroiku’, Pravda, 15 July 1987, pp. 1, 2 (p. 2).

4 P. Kapitsa, ‘Nauka i obshchestvo’, Kommunist , 1987, no. 13, pp. 79-89 (p. 89).

5 S. L. Tikhvinskii, ‘Zadachi dal'neishego sovershenstvovaniia koordinatsii istoricheskikh
issledovanii’, Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, 1987, no. 2, pp. 13-25 (p. 24).

26

Solanus 1990

Congress— a worthy welcome ( dostoinmu vstrechu)V .6 After the Congress the
common denominator of articles was the pledge of librarians to fulfil its
resolutions.7 Adaptability was not needed; a flow of articles began simulta¬
neously to be published in professional journals, all built around a common
ideological-political framework and applying the same stock phrases to
different problems of librarianship. Perestroika was the favourite subject, and
was presented as the master key to all aspects of Soviet librarianship, the
answer to all its problems. Such a concentration of articles on this one theme
would suggest that the theme was suggested, if not dictated, from above.
Perestroika became the watchword of Soviet librarianship. Broadening the
functions of the public library and raising its social role can be achieved
through perestroika.8 Perestroika penetrates higher librarianship education,9
bibliography,10 the style and methods of library work11 and library affairs in
general.12 As in the past, librarians received ‘recommendations’ on how to
propagandize and propagate the materials of the Congress,13 how to rewrite
textbooks in the light of its resolutions.14 Professors in librarianship were
mobilized to publish synopses for lectures on how to develop librarianship in
conformity with the Twenty- Seventh Congress,15 and all-union16 and

6 Sovetskoe bibliotekovedenie, 1986, no. i,p. 3.

7 Sovetskoe bibliotekovedenie , 1986, no. 2, p. 3.

8 A. Lenitskaite, ‘Kriterii perestroiki’, Bibliotekar ', 1986, no. 9, pp. 16-18.

9 V. I. Tereshin, ‘Puti perestroiki spetsial'nykh distsiplin v sisteme vysshego bibliotechno-
bibliograficheskogo obrazovaniia’, Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki SSSR, 1987, no. 6, pp. 3-8.

10 N. S. Kartashov, S. I. Korovitsyna and E. O. Maio-Znak, ‘Bibliografiia i perestroika’,
Sovetskaia bibliografiia , 1987, no. 6, pp. 1 1-20.

11 G. Chumikova, ‘Slovo k kollegam’, Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. 3, pp. 36-8.

12 A. I. Pashin, ‘Uglubliat1 perestroiku’, Sovetskoe bibliotekovedenie , 1988, no. 1, pp. 3-12.

13 I. Ganitskaia, ‘I slovom i delom’, Bibliotekar', 1986, no. 4, pp. 8, 9. E. O. Maio-Znak and
V. A. Fokeev, ‘Propaganda materialov XXVII S"ezda KPSS v universal'nykh nauchnykh
bibliotekakh’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia, 1986, no. 3, pp. 36-46. E. I. Berezkina, ‘Propagande
materialov XXVII S"ezda KPSS — vnimanie bibliotek’, Nauchnye 1 tekhnicheskie biblioteki
SSSR, 1987, no. 4, pp. 3, 4. XXVII S"ezd KPSS i aktual'nye voprosy formirovaniia
bibliotechnykh fondov. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov Gosudarstvennoi publichnoi biblioteki im. M. E.
Saltykova- Shchedrina (Leningrad, 1987), 159 pp.

14 A. S. Chachko, ‘Sistema izdanii po bibliotechnomu delu v SSSR: problemy izucheniia i
sovershenstvovaniia v svete reshenii XXVII S"ezda KPSS’, Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki
SSSR, 1986, no. 12, pp. 9-13.

15 G. P. Fonotov, Razvitie bibliotechnogo dela v svete reshenii XXVII S"ezda KPSS:
konspekt lektsii (Moscow, 1987).

16 E. A. Dorfman, ‘Meditsinskie biblioteki v period perestroiki. (Po materialam vsesoiuznogo
soveshchaniia-seminara “Sostoianie i puti perestroiki deiatel'nosti meditsinskikh bibliotek”,
Riazan', iiun' 1987)’, Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki SSSR, 1987, no. 11, pp. 12-17. I- K.
Nazmutdinov, ‘Biblioteki na putiakh perestroiki. (Po materialam vsesoiuznogo soveshchaniia
aktiva bibliotechnykh rabotnikov “Realizatsiia bibliotekami strany reshenii XXVII S"ezda
KPSS”, Moskva, noiabr' 1986)’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia, 1987, no. 2, pp. 78-82. S. V. Petrova,
‘Uroki professional' nogo razgovora: o vsesoiuznoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “Puti
perestroiki nauchno-issledovatel'skoi raboty po bibliotechnomu delu v svete reshenii XXVII
S"ezda KPSS”, Moskva, 1986’, Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki SSSR, 1987, no. 3, pp. 22-8.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

27

republican17 conferences and questionnaires18 were devoted to the same
problem. Librarians were called upon to transmit to the populace Gorba¬
chev’s proposals for reform in all spheres of Soviet life, be it agriculture,19 the
new Five-Year Plan20 or education.21

CPSU Resolutions on Librarianship

Another clear example of continuity can be seen in the special resolutions
of the CPSU directly concerning Soviet librarianship. Going through the last
three main resolutions on librarianship, those of 1959, 22 197423 and 1986,24
we notice the (unsuccessful) attempts to make each one appear different from
the last, while at the same time presenting it as a logical development of what
went before. In fact, they are all similar in format and content: they focus on
the same points, recognizing some of the achievements of Soviet librarianship,
criticizing the current state of affairs, blaming relevant agencies for the
non-fulfilment of Party objectives and issuing new instructions in accordance
with the latest Party line. In all of them, political directives take the form of
command-administrative acts with specific deadlines, not recognizing that the
main problems of Soviet librarianship were created by just such commands,
dictated from above without consideration for local conditions and
possibilities.

Sovershenstvovanie deiatel'nosti bibliotek sistemy prosveshcheniia po bibliotechno-
bibliograficheskomu obsluzhivaniiu rabotnikov narodnogo obrazovaniia v svete reshenii XXVII
S'ezda KPSS (Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii na vsesoiuznoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferen-
tsii, 17-19 noiabr', 1987, Tashkent), sostavitel' G. B. Chulkina (Moscow, 1987). ‘Vsesoiuznaia
nauchno-prakticheskaia konferentsiia “Puti perestroiki nauchno-issledovatel'skoi raboty po
bibliotechnomu delu v svete reshenii XXVII S"ezda KPSS” ’, Bibliotekar', 1989, no. 2, p. 56.

17 Aktual'nye problemy bibliotekovedeniia, bibliografovedeniia i istorii knigi Moldavii v svete
reshenii XXVII S'ezda KPSS i XVI S'ezda Kompartii Moldavii (Tezisy vystuplenii na
respublikanskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 28. III. 1987) (Kishinev, 1987).

18 K. I. Abramov, A. V. Sokolov and K. A. Sinkiavichius, ‘Perestroika i bibliotechnaia nauka
glazami uchenykh (Otvety na anketu redaktsii nauchnogo sbornika “Sovetskoe biblioteko-
vedenie”)’, Sovetskoe bibliotekovedenie, 1988, no. 4, pp. 3-16; 1988, no. 5, pp. 3-9.

19 ‘Kursom novoi agrarnoi politiki. Ob uchastii bibliotek v propagande i realizatsii reshenii
martovskogo Plenuma TsK KPSS’, Bibliotekar ‘ , 1989, no. 5, pp. 2, 3.

20 L. I. Kushtanina, ‘Biblioteki v novoi piatiletke’, Sovetskoe bibliotekovedenie , 1986, no. 2,
pp. 3-14. N. P. Igumnova and T. Ia. Kuznetsova, ‘Bibliograficheskaia deiatel’nost' bibliotek v
12-oi piatiletke i do 2000 g.’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia , 1986, no. 2, pp. 5-14. E. A. Fenelonov,
‘Massovye biblioteki v dvenadtsatoi piatiletke: razvitie seti i sovershenstvovanie deiatel'nosti’,
Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 1987, pp. 3-17.

21 ‘Ideologiiu obnovleniia — v deiatel'nost' bibliotek’, Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. 5, pp. 2-4.

22 ‘O sostoianii i merakh uluchsheniia bibliotechnogo dela v SSSR. Postanovlenie TsK
KPSS, 22. IX. 1959’, in KPSS o kul'ture , prosveshchenii inauke (Moscow, 1963), pp. 274-81.

23 ‘V Tsentral'nom Komitete KPSS. O povyshenii roli bibliotek v kommunisticheskom
vospitanii trudiashchikhsia i nauchno-tekhnicheskom progresse’, Bibliotekar ', 1974, no. 7, pp.
2-4.

24 ‘Osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia bibliotechnogo dela na 1986-1990 goda i na period do
2000 goda’, in Fenelonov (note 20), pp. 3-14.

28

Solanus 1990

Criticisms which recur are: book collections and library operations are
inadequate to meet present-day requirements; librarianship has failed to move
with the times; the growing interest of readers in politics, science, technology
and belles-lettres is not satisfied; lack of bibliographies and reference sources;
poor organization of book promotion programmes; many libraries lacking
their own buildings, reading rooms being located in unsuitable premises. The
resolutions also inveigh against lack of supervision and coordination, the
deplorable quality of librarianship education and librarians’ low professional
and political-ideological standards. The one and only, but very important,
difference between the 1959 and 1974 resolutions and the 1986 resolution is
the direction of criticism. The first two blame librarians and institutions
responsible for librarianship affairs for the non-fulfilment of Party directives
aimed at improving the situation. In the 1986 resolution criticism is directed
against government and Party bureaucratism, stagnation, obsolete method¬
ology, overdependence on administrative organs, librarians’ lack of personal
independence, and bad working practices.

The ultimate political objectives of the 1986 resolution are identical to
those of the previous two, and many of the reactions of the profession to the
resolution are reminiscent of earlier times. Much energy is absorbed by and
many activities are concentrated on the Twenty- Seventh Party Congress, the
promulgator of the resolution. As an answer to intolerable stagnation in the
Brezhnev period, recommendations for library work and books to ‘help
readers to understand Marxist-Leninist theories’ are being prepared;25
public libraries are active in the propagation of Congress material;26 on any
thematical enquiry, the librarian recommends ‘first of all’ Congress public¬
ations and Gorbachev’s works.27 The 1988 issue of the Lenin Library’s
theoretical-instructional annual Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty illumi¬
nates the main tasks of libraries ‘in the light of the resolutions of the
Congress’,28 tasks ranging from library administration through reading
guidance to book collections. Publications thematically linked with
Gorbachev’s Congress receive priority in technical and public services and
readers’ catalogues are supposed to reflect only the latest editions, mainly
published since Gorbachev assumed office.29 The promulgation of one
resolution after another, each repeating the same shortcomings, palpably

25 Fenelonov (note 20), p. 9.

26 L. A. Genshaft, ‘Rabota TsBS s uchiteliami’, Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 1987,
pp. 116-28 (p. 124).

27 G. E. Mironov, ‘Ispol'zovanie rekomendatel'nykh bibliograficheskikh posobii v propagande
proizvedenii K. Marksa, F. Engel'sa, V. I. Lenina’, Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty,
1987, pp. 40-51 (p. 47).

28 ‘Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty, 1988 \Novye knigi, 1987,00. 13, p. 1.

29 E. R. Sukiasian, ‘Aktual'naia politicheskaia informatsiia v katalogakh i kartotekakh’,
Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 19875 pp. 153-8 (pp. 154, 155).

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev 29

demonstrates that these resolutions are ineffectual and fail to produce
fundamental changes within the time limits which they dictate.

Glasnost and the Slow Progress of Perestroika

The impotence of administrative orders, even when they reflect more
liberal attitudes, is vividly illustrated by the unvarnished picture of Soviet
librarianship which has emerged since the advent of glasnost. Glasnost and
chance served to uncover severe shortcomings in the running of the Lenin
Library when in 1986 the construction of the new Borovitskaia Metro Station
shook its foundations and caused a crack in its oldest building, Pashkov dom.
In two articles by the journalist Ol'ga Chaikovskaia,30 followed by a heated
public discussion organized by the Moscow organization of the RSFSR
Union of Writers,31 all of which were given large spreads in Literaturnaia
gazeta , the administrators of the Lenin Library were taken to task not only for
their negligence in the matter of the damage caused to Pashkov dom and their
unwillingness to accept responsibility for it, but also for the ‘weakening of the
role of the Lenin Library as a scientific and cultural institution’.32 Particular
criticism was levelled at the heads of the Department of Manuscripts, which
was followed up some two years later by an open letter from Soviet scholars
addressed to the Minister of Culture.33 Over the last ten years, they said, they
had observed both a decline in scholarly standards and a decreasing degree of
glasnost; many manuscripts had been either consigned to the spetskhran or
classified as ‘for limited access’ and entire archives, including that of
Bulgakov, had been withdrawn from researchers. The signatories also claimed
that repeated appeals for reform in the Department of Manuscripts from the
scholarly community had been ignored, possibly because the Lenin Library
had for a long time been ‘outside the zone of criticism’. In the selection of a
suitable candidate as head of department they called for ‘wide and open
discussion’, as opposed to the practice of ‘secret selection’ ( keleinogo podbora ),
which was used in 1981 ‘in conditions of a total lack of glasnost’, and again in
late 1987. In his reply, the Minister of Culture admitted that ‘serious
shortcomings and breaches’ in the Department of Manuscripts had been
known about since 1978. 34

In correspondence ensuing from the Literaturnaia gazeta reports, the
Library was further criticized for not allowing its readers access to many of

30 Ol'ga Chaikovskaia, ‘Sdvig’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 26 March 1986, p. n, and ‘Soprotiv-
lenie’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 26 November 1986, p. 12.

31 ‘Uroki glasnosti i demokratizma. Vokrug glavnoi biblioteki. Treshchina snaruzhi ... i
treshchina vnutri’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 11 March 1987, p. 12.

32 Chaikovskaia, ‘Soprotivlenie’ (note 30).

33 ‘Izbrat1 nakonets dostoinykh. Otkrytoe pis'mo Ministru kul'tury tov. V. G. Zakharovu’,
Sovetskaia kul'tura, 28 January 1988, p. 2.

34 ‘Ministr otvechaet’, Sovetskaia kul'tura, 25 May 1988, p. 2.

Solanus 1990

30

the books in its collections. D. S. Likhachev accused the director of the
Library and the heads of the Manuscripts Department of resorting to
‘political demagogy’ to defend their position and of ‘being against changes so
much needed by us all’. He objected to ‘people indifferent to cultural and
national values taking upon themselves the right to decide which books we can
read and which not’.35 Another correspondent estimated that about one and a
half million books in Russian were not reflected in the public catalogues, while
the sociologists L. D. Gudkov and B. V. Dubin of the All-Union Book
Chamber claimed that the staff catalogue (not including periodicals) had over
two thousand more drawers than the public catalogue, which meant that
nearly five million books were not available to the Library’s users.36 The
author of the article received an unsigned letter from ‘staff of the Lenin
Library’ supporting their director, but she also received telephone calls from
other members of staff wishing to endorse the criticisms, but afraid of losing
their jobs by doing so openly.

I dwell on this state of affairs in the Soviet national library, the ideological
and methodological centre of Soviet librarianship and its pride and glory,
since it illuminates what may well be the situation of other libraries, large and
small. In March 1986 historians bewailed the fact that the Ministry of Culture
seemed to respond somewhat ‘sluggishly’ to the ‘needs and misfortunes’ of the
State Public Historical Library, a library without which ‘we historians find it
impossible to work’.37 (From 1985 the library was forced to introduce a
‘restricted service’ because of the lamentable state of its building.38)
Conditions were slightly improved by the opening of the library’s new
extension in 1988. However, physical conditions apart, debate continued
about the role and functions of the library. A 1979 Ministry of Culture
resolution had prescribed that the ‘Istorichka’ should take on the functions of
a methodological centre for the guidance of other libraries of the RSFSR, i.e.
that it should divert some of its resources into the preparation of mass -tirazh
recommendatory bibliographies on socio-political themes such as alcoholism,
rural conditions, etc. This, it was claimed, resulted in a dilution of its
traditional functions, such as the compilation of serious bibliographies on
history, an area of expertise for which it was renowned in the past. Following a

35 ‘Uroki’ (note 31).

36 ‘Uroki’ (note 31). Catalogues are discussed in Boris Korsch, ‘The Role of Catalogs in
Soviet Libraries’, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Slavic Librarians and
Information Specialists, edited by Marianna Tax Choldin (New York, 1986), pp. 210-41.

37 Z. V. Udal'tsova and N. P. Kalmykov, ‘Itogi i perspektivy izucheniia vseobshchei istorii v
svete reshenii XXVII S"ezda KPSS’, Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, 1986, no. 3, pp. 3-20 (p. 19).

38 A. P. Shikman, ‘V rezhime ogranichennogo obsluzhivaniia’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia, 1988,
no. 2, pp. 10-15. Vil' Dorofeev, ‘Vot takaia istoriia’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 2 March 1989, p. 13,
and ‘Vot takaia istoriia: ofitsial'nyi otvet i pis'ma chitatelei’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 14 September
1988, p. 12.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

3i

discussion held by the collegium of the Ministry of Culture in October 1988
and entitled ‘On measures for perfecting the activity and strengthening the
material-technical basis of the State Public Historical Library’, this question
had still not been fully resolved.39 Nevertheless, the debate does appear to
have been conducted in conditions of glasnost. The Ministry of Culture
discussion was attended by librarians, historians and journalists.

In the last two years reports have been published about even worse
conditions in libraries away from the centre. Vandalism is rife in the State
Library of the Uzbek SSR.40 A low standard of public service, poor
performance of librarians, the parlous state of the book repository and
vandalism are reported in the Tadjik Public Library.41 In the majority of the
thousand libraries of the Kazakh SSR librarians are said to show no initiative
in adopting new working methods, and of 8000 state libraries only eighteen
are housed in purpose-built buildings. Ninety settlements have no library,
and only fifteen per cent of libraries have telephone services.42 The State
Library of the Latvian SSR has been waiting since 1945 for its own building,
readers have no access to one third of the collections, and because of lack of
proper conditions 300,000 books are in immediate danger of perishing.43 A
disastrous situation reigns in the libraries of many republics.44 In contrast
with the general state of affairs, one ‘success ^tory’ is that of the Vernadskii
Central Scientific Library in Kiev, which during the last three years has
managed to bring speedily to fruition a project which had previously been
dragging on for ten years — the construction of a new library building. The
splendid new building was opened on 10 October 1989, and future plans
include the introduction of automation, the setting up of a republican
preservation centre and the compilation of a retrospective catalogue of
Ucrainica , to include publications in Ukrainian and on the Ukraine from all
over the world.45

At a session held in Tallinn in November 1987, departmental heads of the
inspectorates of library affairs of the ministries of culture of the union
republics and the directors of state republican libraries46 acknowledged the
kind of deficiencies enumerated above and outlined what they considered to

39 ‘Mneniia razdelilis1’, Bibliotekar ', 1989, no. 3, pp. 30, 31.

40 E. Berezikov, ‘Spasite knigu. Slovo pisatelia’, Pravda Vostoka , 28 July 1988.

41 S. Khokhlov, ‘O gordosti — poka bez gordosti. Pochemu ne soblazniaet chitatelei
porazitel'naia dostupnost' sokrovishch biblioteki respubliki’, Kommunist Tadzhikistana, 20
August 1987, p. 4.

42 ‘Shkola poznaniia i vospitaniia’, Kazakhstanskaia pravda, 1 1 September 1987 (editorial).

43 L. Zheglova, ‘Snova rokovoe “ili” ’, Sovetskaia Latviia, 24 November 1987, p. 2.

44 L. Reznikov and S. Iagimirova, ‘Spasat1 ili spisat”, Kazakhstanskaia pravda, 8 August
1987, p. 2.

45 V. S. Fedoruk, ‘Katalizator dukhovnosti’, Komunist Ukrainy, 1989, no. 9, pp. 62-9.

46 ‘Problemy i resheniia’, Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. i,p. 13.

32

Solanus 1990

be the major problems of Soviet librarianship: the deplorably low level of
librarians’ general education and professional training (a third of librarians
working in state public libraries have no special library education); unsatis¬
factory book stocks; weak propaganda of books and reading guidance; a
lagging behind in modern working methods. A pragmatic resolution adopted
at ministerial level by the session demanded perestroika in librarianship
affairs, repeating the resolution passed by the Twenty- Seventh Congress. It
was admitted that the process of perestroika in Soviet librarianship ‘proceeds
extremely slowly’ and discontent with its slow progress was expressed at
another session at the Ministry of Culture in December 1988. 47 A demand
was made again for ‘the strengthening of the role of libraries in the ideological
fulfilment of perestroika and democratization’. Forecasts made in the 1986
resolution have not been realized, and it has resulted in a typical chronic
failure, as did the resolutions of 1959 and 1974. It is remarkable, but not
surprising, that after more than seventy years Soviet librarianship is still being
urged to tackle its old/new unresolved problems.

The Soviet Librarian

Given that the political control of the CPSU is the sine qua non of the
existence and functioning of Soviet librarianship, then the Soviet librarian
must be seen as a tool, not required to concern himself or herself with the ends
of his or her profession, which are formulated or reformulated by the Party,
but only to realize those ends, using means which are also dictated from
above. The requirement for full obedience to political dictates has tended to
develop in the librarian apathy, devotion to routine, and scepticism about
anything new. Often, personal security has come before professional interests,
and librarians are frequently torn between the Party’s ideological demands
and the requirements of everyday, practical needs. No wonder then that in
their work they may tend towards caution, militating against any individual or
local initiative. Always dependent on and answerable to higher professional
authorities, librarians have become accustomed to not taking responsibility
for their daily work. In the selection of personnel for responsible professional
and administrative positions, political reliability has always been a prime
criterion.

The first general book on the profession of librarian appeared only in 1985,
and here it was described as ‘one of the largest but most little-studied
professions in the cultural-educational and scientific-information sphere’.48
A Soviet member of the profession bewailed the fact that the popular

47 ‘O khode perestroiki bibliotechnogo dela’, Bibliotekar 1989, no. 4, pp. 17-18.

48 ‘A. S. Chachko, Bibliotechnyi spetsialist: osobennosti truda i professionalizatsii (Kiev,
1985)’, Novye knigi , 1984, no. 38, p. 74.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

33

stereotype of librarians is of ‘modest, dependable workers, quite often having
a iower than average mental outlook, handers out of books — almost a
free-of-charge supplement to the book collections’.49 While observing that
such librarians were needed in the last decades, she affirms that, ‘as the times
demand’, the stage of perestroika requires initiative from below, and says that
the librarian should not ‘wait for bold and long-awaited resolutions from
above’.

Stalin did not trust professional librarians and imposed his rigid set of ideas
on them. Khrushchev permitted some doctrinal relaxation, and during his
time Soviet librarians started to get in touch with their Western colleagues,
but his short era brought no institutional or professional changes. In
Brezhnev’s period, the stifling atmosphere of doctrinal-theoretical ideas,
together with the halt in de-Stalinization, accentuated the poor performance
of Soviet librarianship. Gorbachev lessened the regimentation, and began the
process of transforming civil servants working in this field into professional
librarians.

Glasnost and perestroika have brought about a reappraisal of where a
decision should be made, what should be the criteria which guide it, and what
information is necessary for its basis. It is now suggested that decisions should
be made locally, within the library itself, that they should be based on the
ideological-political needs of the moment and that they should be informed by
the criticism and self-criticism of the librarians themselves. A librarian states
that, in the past, ‘instead of guidance and control by the department of culture
there was petty surveillance and administrative interference; departments of
culture would determine for the librarian not only the problems to be solved,
but also the forms of working with the public, the number of book exhibitions,
surveys, public readings, etc.’. The author of these words calls for more
realistic targets to be set and appraised by librarians themselves, and for them
to be allowed to control the quality of their own work at every stage.50
Another author proposes more freedom for librarians in book selection and
suggests that they should be responsible for the quality of their selection, to be
measured by the amount of use of each book. For example, in an ordinary
public library the aim should be to select only books which will be requested
at least ten to fifteen times.51 This suggests more independence than in the
past, when acquisitions were done strictly in accordance with book lists
compiled by the Lenin Library, regardless of local needs and interests.
(However, repeated instructions to acquire and disseminate the materials of

49 O. Kniaz'kova, ‘Khvatit zhdat' — pora deistvovat”, Bibliotekar 1988, no. 12, p. 40.

50 S. G. Madina, ‘Pud sovershenstvovaniia massovykh form raboty s chitateliami TsBS’,
Aktual 'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 1987, pp. 55-6.

51 Fenelonov (note 20), p. 13.

34 Solanus 1990

the Twenty- Seventh Congress still mean that such publications must feature
prominently in acquisition profiles.)

One dilemma which has always faced the Soviet librarian, in particular the
public librarian, is having to cope with the fulfilment of unrealistic targets set
from above and having to collect and present for inspection detailed statistical
reports to show that targets have been realized. Now, as in the past, statistical
data on acquisitions and readership must be compiled and then passed
through a long chain of control, inspected at local, regional and central level.
In order to make it appear that targets have been reached, statistics are
massaged at every level of inspection, and librarians are called upon to collude
in this exercise. The falsification of statistics is an accepted practice at all
stages of the library process, from publishing houses, through distribution of
books to libraries by library supply agencies, acquisition by libraries to book
circulation. In particular, phony and padded statistical reports are compiled
for ideological-political publications. Furthermore, the fact that such books
lie unread on library shelves does not, in the judgement of Party officials,
testify to lack of demand but to a failure on the part of the librarian in
providing adequate reading guidance, a result of his or her low level of
professional and political education. Since there is no way of really measuring
the effect of books borrowed on Soviet readers, success is measured in purely
quantitative terms. The practice of making librarians interview readers about
the books they have read and then record their opinions has become a
formalistic exercise, serving only to increase the amount of paperwork. (This
task, incidentally, is becoming increasingly difficult to fulfil, since the
present-day reader, according to recent research, is happy to ask the librarian
for advice on how to use the library, but reluctant to seek advice on what to
read and even more reluctant to discuss with the librarian and to ‘seek, with
his help, a correct assessment of what he has read’.)52 Thus inflated statistics
become the rule, not the exception.

Librarians are beginning to rebel against such practices in the interest of
professional self-respect. They cite specific examples of malpractice and
demand the setting of more realistic targets which can be honestly fulfilled.
The director of Children’s Public Library No. 74 in the Perovskii district of
Moscow describes how during Brezhnev’s regime she and her colleagues were
forced to achieve the magic, officially required number of sixteen thousand
books through the acquisition of unnecessary publications, since the public¬
ations which they needed were unobtainable, and how local department of
culture officials ‘literally forced’ librarians to stamp fictitious lendings on
books in order to ‘avoid unpleasantness from their inspectors in the Main

52 V. I. Pudov, ‘Beseda s chitateliami’, Aktual'nye voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 1987, pp.
68-80 (p. 71).

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

35

Cultural Administration’.53 A Lithuanian librarian inveighs against the
practice of using ‘dead souls’ to inflate readership figures.54 The publication
of such instances in the journal Bibliotekar' (an organ of the Ministry of
Culture) and, indeed, in Pravda would indicate official support for reform. In
1988 Bibliotekar' published a long piece, consisting of some of its readers’
responses to its ‘October Questionnaire’ which asked: ‘How do you evaluate
the process of perestroika in librarianship?’.55 In their replies, they underline
decades of inattention to library needs and speak openly about bureaucratism
and falsification. However, librarians often encounter resistance to reform
locally, from their administrators. Librarians in a lending department
resolved ‘to give up fabrications’ as from 1987 and to register only real
lendings, but the drop in statistics angered the administration and, on the
director’s orders, librarians continued to dupe.56 Nevertheless, it is evident
that working librarians are abandoning their attitude of passivity and
resignation and are ready to take responsibility for reform into their own
hands.

Political Control of Personnel

Gorbachev’s campaign for the election rather than the nomination of Party
officials and his stated determination to lessen their absolute control and make
them responsible to the voters has not changed the nature of their control
over librarians. All major Soviet libraries have their own primary party
committee — a ‘communist cell’ with smaller ‘cells’ in the various library
departments. Smaller libraries are linked to such ‘cells’ in the institutions
which they serve. A Party cell is headed by a secretary appointed by the
CPSU. He works in the library in a political capacity and has jurisdiction over
the library’s political, professional and cultural activities. He is largely
responsible for selecting and assigning librarians to important posts, and is in
a position to elevate and reward or to downgrade, punish and even to dismiss
non-conformist librarians. In turn, his work is checked and cross-checked by
the Party echelons above him. To be on the safe side, even librarians in top
positions tend to refer some librarianship matters to the Party authorities.
When there is a need to seek advice or decisions from professionals or subject
specialists, it is always the Party’s nominees who are summoned. There is no
doubt that, in this respect, continuity reigns. As in 1978 when the head of the
Lenin Library Manuscripts Department was reprimanded by the Party for

53 N. Erastova, ‘Pod shorokh bumag. Pis'mo bibliotekaria’, Pravda, 23 November 1986, p. 3.

54 B. Keris, ‘Chto nam meshaet?’, Bibliotekar', 1988, no. 1, pp. 28, 29. The author quotes
from the Lithuanian journal Biblioteku darbas, 1986, no. 1 1, p. 2.

55 ‘Oktiabr'skaia anketa “Bibliotekaria” Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. n,pp. 2-10.

56 L. Shumilova, ‘Daite rabotat' chestno!’, Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. 8, p. 13.

36

Solanus 1990

irregularities,57 so, ten years later under Gorbachev, it was the regional Party
Committee which pointed out 'the considerable neglect’ in the work of the
heads of that same department.58

However, some hard-won departures from previous practice have been
reported. On the basis of the ‘Law on State Enterprises’,59 which makes
provision for the election of the director of an enterprise by the ‘labour
collective’, librarians have been pressing, in some cases successfully, for their
directors to be elected rather than appointed. In 1988 a librarians’ candidate
was elected to the post of director of the Dnepropetrovsk Centralized
Network of Children’s Libraries and the role of the Party was only to confirm
her appointment.60 Even more historic were the elections for the important
post of director of the State Public Historical Library, held on 24 January
1989. In the words of a Ministry of Culture official, ‘this is the first time in the
history of the Russian Federation that such an election has taken place in the
library world’.61 She paid tribute to the role played by the library’s newly
founded Staff Council ( Sovet trudovogo kollektiva ) in working out the
electoral procedure, but also emphasized the role of the Party organization
and the Komsomol.

Gorbachev’s reforms do envisage looser and more broadly-based forms of
control. For instance, it is proposed that different libraries’ working methods
should be coordinated by subject specialists and Party organs, also that
working groups should be nominated, and staffed by ‘qualified people
educated in librarianship and experienced in party-political work’.62

Individual librarians remain under stringent control: personal record cards
kept on individual employees must reflect not only socio-demographic data,
family status and working record, but also their ‘public activity’, meaning
party membership, and political and social zeal, in professional and private
life.63

Librarians’ Associations: A Movement for Change

Since L. B. Khavkina’s unsuccessful attempt, in the early days of Soviet
power, to organize librarians’ associations at the largest libraries (with

57 ‘Ministr otvechaet’ (note 34).

58 ‘Izbrat1’ (note 33).

59 Zakon SSSR o gosudarstvennom predpriiatii ( ob "edinenii ) . Priniat na sed'moi sessii
Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR odinnadtsatogo sozyva 30 iiunia 1987 g. (Moscow, 1987), 64 pp.

60 ‘Direktor vybran!’, Bibliotekar', 1988, no. 4, p. 16.

61 ‘STK v bibliotekakh: byt1 ili ne byt'?’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia, 1989, no. 3, pp. 3-6 (p. 4).
See also ‘Marafon finishiroval? . Literaturnaia gazeta, 8 February 1989, p. 20.

62 Sukiasian (note 29), pp. 155-7.

63 L. M. Minina, ‘Planirovanie sotsial'nogo razvitiia kollektiva biblioteki’, Aktual'nye
voprosy bibliotechnoi raboty , 1987, pp. 29-39 (p- 31)-

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

37

political education as their primary purpose),64 no such organizations have
ever existed. Unlike members of other cultural professions in the USSR,
librarians have no union to bind them together or to provide a forum for
exchanging ideas, learning from one another’s experience or defending their
professional interests. Maybe the reason for this lies in the fact that librarians,
unlike writers or musicians, have never rebelled against Party control,
therefore there was no need, from the Party’s point of view, to create a union
which could be used as a two-edged weapon, having the semblance of a
professional organization but in reality being a means of exercising control
over its members.

The first All-Union Congress of Soviet Librarians, held in 1924, did not
produce a union and after that no general congresses have ever been held, only
conferences, narrower in scope, either on specific topics or for specific groups
of the profession. Under Stalin there was a sharp line of demarcation between
work places and no professional contact between librarians from different
libraries. Perestroika has led to a change. In June 1988 the Estonian Library
Association which was originally founded in 1923 and disbanded in 1940 was
re-formed,65 in December of that year Lithuania followed suit66 and in May
1989 the Library Association of Latvia was also reconstituted.67 These
associations are all organizations whose membership consists of librarians
rather than of libraries. In 1988 professional journals began to describe, for
the first time since 1926, Western models of such associations,68 and in the
same year the Plenum of the All-Union Library Council charged its bureau
with the task of drawing up proposals for the setting up of an all-union library
association. A draft document already compiled by the Lenin Library
envisaged it as an association with collective rather than individual member¬
ship, i.e. as a federation of independent library associations which could be
founded either on a regional basis or according to type of library and so on.
Therefore the founding of the all-union association has to await the formation
of those associations which will constitute its membership. Library associ¬
ations already exist in Leningrad, Saratov and Moscow (the Moscow
association was founded in December 1989) and there are plans for setting up
such associations in the Ukraine, Armenia and other republics, as well as in

64 L. B. Khavkina, Rukovodstvo dlia nebol'shikh i srednikh bibliotek, 5-e izd. (Moscow, 1926),
p. 304.

65 Aira Lepik, ‘Estonian Librarians’ Association Re-Founded’, Library Association Record ,
January 1989, p. 8.

66 Sovetskaia bibliografiia , 1989, no. 2, p. 95.

67 Bibliotekars , 5 May 1989.

68 E. D. Melenevskaia and A. A. Teplova, ‘Bibliotechnye assotsiatsii SShA i Velikobritanii’,
Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki SSSR, 1988, no. n,pp. 18-23.

38 Solanus 1990

cities and autonomous republics in many parts of the Soviet Union.69

Another more spontaneous and completely unprecedented kind of associ¬
ation, known to have been set up in at least three libraries, is the Staff Council
(. Sovet trudovogo kollektiva or STK). In 1987 some of the staff of the
All-Union State Library of Foreign Literature (VGBIL), far from satisfied
with their director’s interpretation of perestroika, decided to take matters into
their own hands and to take up ‘the Party’s challenge to democratically
transform the whole of society’ within their own library.70 Encouraged by the
recently passed ‘Law on State Enterprises (Organizations)’, which encourages
workers to take the initiative and to actively participate in the running of their
enterprise, they called a meeting on 6 February which passed a vote of no
confidence on the then director L. A. Gvishiani-Kosygina (who took
retirement shortly afterwards). They proceeded to elect a ‘Commission on
Perestroika of the Activity of VGBIL’, consisting of members of staff whom
they deemed to be most authoritative (including E. V. Pereslegina, inter¬
nationally respected as a Vice-President of IFLA). On the basis of more than
360 submissions received, the commission drew up a document entitled ‘The
Main Directions for Perestroika of the Activities of VGBIL’.

The commission was also charged by the staff of the library to draw up a
draft ‘Statute for a VGBIL Staff Council’. The Staff Council was envisaged
as a body which would participate in decision-making, one immediate
decision on which its potential members had strong views being the method of
selection of a new director. In May 1988 permission for the formation of a
Staff Council was reluctantly granted by the new director (a former
vice-director of the Lenin Library who had not been appointed through
elections but in the usual way, by the Ministry of Culture). Thereafter its path
was stormy. Its aspirations to concern itself with matters of policy (as
provided for by the ‘Law on State Enterprises’) were not well received by the
director, and in July it was struck a blow by the library’s official trade union
committee which voted that the Council should be scrapped and a new Statute
drawn up. Following a petition signed by seventy-five trade union members,
this decision was overthrown at a meeting of thirty-three members of staff and
representatives from the library’s Party and trade union committees. How¬
ever, in October of the same year, a challenge to its existence came from
higher up, in the form of a letter signed by a Vice-Minister of Culture and the

69 ‘Sovetskaia bibliotechnaia assotsiatsiia: kakoi ei byt'?’, Bibliotekar', 1989, no. 5, p. 4.
Evgenii Kuz'min, “‘Zabrat1 vse knigi by da szhech'”?’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 13 December
1989, p. 6 (about the founding of the Moscow Library Association). ‘Ustav Moskovskoi
bibliotechnoi assotsiatsii: proekt’, Vestnik Sovetskogo fonda kul'tury , 1989, no. 4, pp. 7— 11.

70 E. Iu. Genieva, ‘Ukroshchenie stroptivykh’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia, 1989, no. 1, pp. 93-96
(P-93).

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

39

Chairman of the Central Committee of Trade Unions of Cultural Workers.71
This somewhat ambiguous letter, couched in impenetrable legalistic terms,
inferred that the ‘Law on State Enterprises’ did not necessarily apply to
state-funded organizations unless they were in a position to become self¬
financing, although ‘it did not exclude the possibility in certain cases of
electing a Staff Council in a state-funded organization’. It also pronounced
that no Staff Council was valid unless its members had been elected in
accordance with certain recommendations confirmed in February 1988 by the
Central Committee of the CPSU, the Soviet of Ministers and the All-Union
Central Soviet of Trade Unions.

However, the Foreign Literature Library Staff Council continued to
function, albeit at loggerheads with the director of the library. Its activities
and aspirations received strong support from the journal Sovetskaia biblio-
grafiia. In March 1989 a letter from some of its members was published in
Literaturnaia gazeta , in which they set out the basis of their disagreement
with the director on policy.72 Conflict then deepened. In March 1989 several
of the Staff Council members claimed that decisions made by a commission
investigating the work of their department amounted to persecution. Two of
them (one a signatory of the letter to Literaturnaia gazeta) had been
pronounced not fitted for the posts which they held. One of them took the
library to court and on 11 April twelve colleagues declared a strike in their
support. The Moscow television evening news reported this event ‘unprece¬
dented in the history of Soviet libraries’.73 On 19 April Literaturnaia gazeta
published six letters expressing differing views on the theme ‘Libraries and
Culture’, in which the particular case of VGBIL was debated as well as
general issues.74 Finally in November 1989 it was reported that, following an
election, a new director had been appointed: ‘For the first time in the last
decades one of the major libraries of the country is headed not by a bureaucrat
with a dissertation, sent from above, but by a well known scholar, a writer ... a
People’s Deputy ... who has great authority in the intellectual world.’ The
new director, Viacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, announced his intention of
working in harmony with the Staff Council: ‘I see my main task not in giving
orders and directives. We must come to an agreement with the Staff Council
about a sensible distribution of responsibilities.’ 75

The staff of the State Public Historical Library, who also encountered
opposition from the ‘triangle’ of director, library Party bureau and trade
union committee when in 1988 they made a bid for open debate and for a say

71 ‘STK v bibliotekakh’ (note 61), p. 3.

72 ‘Biblioteki i nauka’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 1 1 January 1989, p. 5.

73 ‘STK v bibliotekakh’ (note 61), p. 6.

74 ‘Biblioteki i kul'tura’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 19 April 1989, p. 5.

75 ‘Zachem Inostranke takoi direktor?’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 15 November 1989, p. 7.

40

Solanus 1990

in the running of their library,76 now have a Staff Council which appears to
be functioning unhindered — witness the fact that it too was instrumental in
bringing about the appointment of its director through elections (see above).
The Vernadskii Central Scientific Library in Kiev also has a flourishing Staff
Council which is closely involved in decisions about day-to-day problems.77

Library Purges

Purges of library collections are a recurrent feature throughout the history
of Soviet librarianship.78 However, following Khrushchev’s denunciation of
Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress, there began, in parallel with the
rehabilitation of individuals, a quiet rehabilitation of repressed books, and
during Khrushchev’s thaw these books were taken out from the ‘special
collections’ ( spetskhrany ) and returned to library shelves. Under Brezhnev
‘Stalin’s parameters of censorship were broadened and a good half of
rehabilitated books were returned to the spetskhrany \79

Gorbachev’s thaw, his policies of glasnost and de-Stalinization have
resulted in an official campaign for the large-scale rehabilitation of repressed
publications, which has been widely reported and supported. Citing the
example of the Pasternak episode, Voznesenskii condemned ‘the epoch of
oblivion of glasnost’, ‘when people had to condemn a work without having
read it’, and proclaimed that ‘our people ... have a right to read and to make
their own independent judgement about everything’.80 The daily press has
been full of announcements about books which have been brought out of the
spetskhrany .81 The journal Voprosy istorii has reported on which repressed
authors can now be read in libraries;82 Bibliotekar ' recounts that ninety per
cent of previously withdrawn books have been made available to readers in the
Saltykov- Shchedrin Public Library, hails the opening up of the spetskhrany as
‘the most important achievement of perestroika in the field of culture’, and
describes what is happening as a logical continuation of what was begun by

76 ‘STK v bibliotekakh’ (note 61). See also ‘Marafon’ (note 61).

77 Fedoruk (note 45), p. 65.

78 Library purges are discussed in Boris Korsch, The Permanent Purges of Soviet Libraries ,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Soviet and East European Research Centre, Research Paper 50
(Jerusalem, 1983).

79 A. P. Shikman, ‘Sovershenno ne sekretno’, Sovetskaia bibliografiia , 1988, no. 6, pp. 3-16
(P- 6).

80 A. Voznesenskii, ‘Nakanune stoletiia poeta’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 25 February 1987, p. 16.

81 See, for example: Vladas Bulavas, ‘Knigi iz spetsfondov: izdaniia, ranee zakrytye dlia
obshchestvennogo pol'zovaniia v obshchie fondy’, Sovetskaia Litva, 12 March 1988, p. 4; V. A.
Solodin, ‘Vozvrashcheno iz spetsfondov’, Sovetskaia kul'tura, 22 March 1988, p. 8; E. Vrantseva,
‘Ozhivshie stranitsy’, Turkmenskaia iskra , 6 July 1988; B. Mironov, ‘Otkryvaia dver' v
“spetskhran” ’, Pravda , 10 September 1988; V. Solodin, ‘Spetsfondov bol'she ne sushchestvuet’,
Izvestiia , 26 October 1988 (Moscow evening edition).

82 Iu. A. Lukin, ‘Perestroika, demokratizatsiia, khudozhestvennaia literatura’, Voprosy istorii,
1988, no. 6, pp. 99-101.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

4i

Khrushchev.83 The television programme ‘Vremia’ included an item on a
Lenin Library exhibition of books released from its spetskhran , and Sovet-
skaia bibliografiia has published what is probably the first article on the
history of the spetskhrany .84 This and more. ‘Politizdat’ and other publishing
houses are beginning to republish books which were once repressed85 and the
Novye knigi prospectuses for 1990 advertise a new edition of the proceedings
of the ‘Fourteenth Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b)’ in which
‘inaccuracies, mistakes and misprints of the 1926 [i.e. Stalin’s] edition are
eliminated’.86

Since 1988 Sovetskaia bibliografiia has included a section ‘Bibliografi-
cheskaia reabilitatsiia’, providing lists of works by and about rehabilitated
personalities which may be returned to library shelves. Among those featured
have been Kamenev, Bukharin, Galich, Shalamov and Zamiatin. The
‘Iuridicheskaia literatura’ publishing house now publishes a special serial
Vozvrashchenie k pravde—reabilitirovan posmertno where lists of individuals
are published, useful as a kind of certificate of clearance for the guidance of
librarians. Perhaps most significant is the publication in Kommunist , the
theoretical-ideological organ of the CPSU, of the declaration by a history
professor at Leningrad University that the reader is by now capable of sorting
out independently, without interpretation, what Trotskii wrote, and that
there is no need any longer to pretend that the books which he published
abroad do not exist. The author advocates the same approach towards the
works of Zinov'ev, and even of Sukhanov (N. N. Sukhanov, 1882-1940, a
Menshevik) and Denikin.87

Some articles written about the current rehabilitation of repressed books
express reservations both about the way policy is decided and about the way in
which it is being implemented. One aspect of the operation which has been
criticized is the constitution of the commission which was set up to decide
which books should be restored to the reading public. This commission
(consisting of only seven people) is composed of representatives of the Main
Administration for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press (Glavlit), the
Ministry of Culture and the Lenin Library, i.e. of those very institutions
which were responsible for deciding that the books should be locked away in
the first place. There is no representative of any learned institution, no
member of the general public.88 This commission has issued lists of specific

83 S. Varlamova, ‘ “Spetskhran” bez tain’, Bibliotekar ', 1988, no. 12, pp. 24, 25.

84 Shikman (note 79).

85 ‘Novoe v Politizdate — otvety direktora A. P. Poliakova’, Kommunist, 1989, no. 1, pp.
121-3.

86 Novye knigi, 1989, no. 12, p. 32.

87 G. Sobolev, ‘Vozvrashchenie k chitateliiu’, Kommunist, 1989, no. 3, pp. 124-6.

88 Shikman (note 79), p. 9.

42

Solanus 1990

books which can be released and has also sent out more general guidelines on
material not included in those lists, for example, material published abroad. A
representative of Glavlit admits that implementation of the general guidelines
can cause problems, since librarians are being slow to exercise their right to
make decisions ‘either because of a certain inertia in their way of thinking or
because of a particular psychological timidity’.89 A librarian in the Bashkir
AS SR also points out the fact that centrally issued general guidelines are liable
to be acted upon in different ways in different institutions or, in some cases,
not acted upon at all, and suggests that instructions from the centre should be
abolished and that local library authorities should be forced to make their own
decisions about books in local spetsfondy.90

A difficulty for library users is finding out about books which have been
released.91 None of the major libraries appear to have plans to publish lists of
rehabilitated books. The only such list known to have been issued, compiled
by the ‘Viatka Booklovers’ Club’ in Kirov and printed in 250 copies, has
become known and used by scholars in many other towns.92 However,
perhaps the main cause for concern is the fact that certain categories of
material will continue to be kept in the spetskhrany (without being listed in
any public catalogue). Future publications which fall into these categories will
also be sent there. Some categories which have been named are: books which
give instructions on how to manufacture narcotics or explosives; books on
karate; and nationalist, fascist, pornographic and anti-Soviet literature. Fears
have been expressed that the criteria for withdrawing books will be kept
deliberately vague so as to provide loopholes for withdrawing books which the
authorities deem to be ‘dangerous’.93

When discussing literature which is kept in the spetskhrany , ‘we are talking
not about books which are printed in millions of copies and sold freely in
bookshops, but about a handful, at most ten copies, to be found only in the
largest research libraries’.94 By contrast, mass literature of a socio-political
nature which is acquired in multiple copies by public libraries is still subject
to another silent purge. In accordance with instructions from the Ministry of
Culture ‘on the procedure for the withdrawal of publications which are
outdated in content or in poor physical condition’,95 librarians have been
instructed to dispose of literature published in Brezhnev’s time not for the
reason that nobody wants to read it, but because it is ‘morally outdated’ and

89 Solodin, ‘Vozvrashcheno’ (note 81).

90 V. Korneev, ‘Poluotvorennaia dver', ili o vedomstvennoi priverzhennosti delat' iavnoe
tainym’, Bibliotekar', 1989, no. 4, pp. 19-21 (p. 20).

91 G. Malitskii, ‘Imeni poka ne sushchestvuet’, Knizhnoe obozrenie, 1989, no. 5, p. 7.

92 Shikman (note 79), p. 8.

93 Shikman (note 79), p. 10.

94 Shikman (note 79), p. 5.

95 N. Zagal'skaia, ‘Minus doverie’, V mire knig, 1986, no. 3, pp. 54-6 (p. 54).

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

43

because the presence of a large quantity of it in libraries hinders librarians’
work with ‘better editions’.96 These purges have to be carried out in the light
of the resolutions of the Twenty- Seventh Congress, since the presence in
libraries of publications which have been criticized by the Party is ‘un¬
doubtedly harmful’. This statement was made in an article about up-to-date
political information in library catalogues by a Lenin Library theoretician,
who talks of publications from Brezhnev’s time which contained mistakes,
and cites the example of anti-alcoholism pamphlets which referred to ‘social
wine-drinking’ and ‘tried to justify in economic terms the sale of alcoholic
drinks’.97

In my research paper ‘The Brezhnev Cult — Continuity’, written before the
convocation of the Twenty- Seventh Party Congress, I wrote: ‘The written
works of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko will remain on the shelves of
Soviet libraries till the day they are criticized or condemned by the current
leader. Then we can expect a purge in the libraries.’ 98 This proved to be
correct. Although glasnost and perestroika call for new thinking, the current
leader is pursuing the traditional tactics of discrediting his predecessors. In
spite of criticism of ‘depersonalization’ ( obezlichivanie )" and ‘depopulizing’
(< obezliudevshii )100 of historical research on the Soviet period and the Party,
new Gorbachev-style ‘white spots’ are being quietly created. A librarian
describes how, at a specially convened seminar, public librarians in the
Crimea were instructed ‘to withdraw from the collections, in accordance with
the highest instances, the works of Brezhnev, Grishin, Suslov, Chernenko and
a number of other writers, and, likewise, all political and economic literature
published before March 1985, as being out-of-date in content and having lost
its topicality’. It was also recommended that materials of the Twenty-Second
to Twenty- Sixth Party Congresses should be removed from the shelves and
that, in response to readers’ enquiries, librarians should say that ‘they were
out on loan’. Thus, says the author of this letter to Izvestiia , ‘while opening up
archival materials of half a century ago, are we not creating new “white spots”
in our most recent history?’.101 It is likely that this purge will apply not only
to the works of newly repressed personalities but also to books about them.
Works quoting them will also be withdrawn, or revised and re-edited with
such quotations removed. All this will necessitate new changes in Soviet

96 Fenelonov (note 20), pp. 12, 13.

97 Sukiasian (note 29), p. 157.

98 Boris Korsch, The Brezhnev Personality Cult ( The Librarian’s Point of View), The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, The Marjorie Mayrock Center for Soviet and East European Research,
Research Paper 65 (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 41.

99 ‘Doklad ... E. K. Ligacheva (Vsesoiuznoe soveshchanie zaveduiushchikh kafedram
obshchestvennykh nauk)’, Kommunist, 1986, no. 15, pp. 8-23 (p. 14).

i°° ‘Kmgi k iubileiu Oktiabria’, Kommunist, 1987, no. 10, pp. 1 16-20.

101 I. Zavgorodnaia, ‘Novye belye piatna’, Izvestiia, 17 August 1988, p. 6

44 Solanus 1990

library collections and the reorganization of their catalogues, especially in the
field of socio-political literature.

The purges will be complemented by a strengthening of acquisitions of
‘updated’ publications which support positions deemed important by the
current leader. Intensive publication of works relating to the Twenty- Seventh
Party Congress and of works by and about Gorbachev gathers unceasing
momentum. In 1977 the Soviet weekly national bibliography Knizhnaia
letopis' registered one of Gorbachev’s publications, and two in 1983. In 1985
his seven speeches were registered as sixty-one bibliographical units, with a
circulation of 7,352,500 copies in dozens of languages. In 1986 it included 232
entries for him, with no entries for any of his predecessors except Lenin. In
1987 there were 162 entries, and 233 in 1988. Print runs for all these editions
are huge. After the Twenty- Seventh Congress, the director of the Politizdat
publishing house reported that the Congress proceedings were being
published in an edition of forty-eight million copies, with a separate edition of
Gorbachev’s report to the Congress in fifteen million copies.102 The
proceedings*'of the Nineteenth Party Conference and Gorbachev’s report to
the Conference both had a print run of eighteen million copies.103 A
considerable proportion of these copies, together with recommendatory
bibliographies listing works about the Congress or propagating its recom¬
mendations, will find their way onto the shelves of Soviet public libraries.

Conclusion

Glasnost has shattered the myth of Soviet librarianship. Perestroika
demands reform, and the direction which those reforms should take has been
opened up for public discussion. Under Khrushchev, tentative, cautious
experimentation with public opinion research began, but it declined during
Brezhnev’s ‘years of stagnation’. Now, under Gorbachev, it is developing
rapidly, and the results of surveys are being made public. Information thus
gathered about reading habits, public services and the professional perfor¬
mance of librarians serves as a basis for policy-making in these areas.104 In the
past, local or all-union librarians’ conferences were the only occasions which
provided an opportunity for the discussion of professional problems. Such
conferences were of a formal nature and called upon librarians to take very
limited initiative, on an ideologically sound basis, and to ‘creatively endorse’

102 ‘Politizdat. Literatura dlia izuchaiushchikh materialy Partiinogo S"ezda’, Komrnunist,
1986, no. 15, pp. 1 19-21 (p. 1 19).

103 ‘Izdatel'stva — sisteme politicheskogo i ekonomicheskogo obrazovaniia’, Politicheskoe
obrazovanie , 1987, no. 10, pp. 139-41. ‘Novoe v Politizdate’, Komrnunist , 1989, no. 1, pp. 121-3
(p. 123).

104 Anatolii Solov'ev, ‘Diagnoz stavit sotsiolog’, Bibliotekar 1988, no. 12, pp. 36-8.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

45

Party policy.105 Some of them were summoned in order to consider the most
effective way of disseminating current Party policy,106 or to discuss a Party
resolution on a specific topic having nothing to do with librarianship.107
Such gatherings did not invite the disclosure of any undesirable facts and did
not encourage the expression of individual opinion. Soviet librarians also
avoided any comparative analysis which might cast doubt on the superiority of
the Soviet library system over the capitalist system.

There is no doubt that glasnost has changed this situation. A new style of
‘round table’ discussions has evolved, and important new decisions are
preceded by open discussion, even public debate, in which library users,
professional journals and the mass media take part. Thanks to glasnost, the
information on which decisions are based becomes broader, and there is a
departure from the old allegedly ‘consensus’ decisions. Previously, all
planning in Soviet librarianship was command planning; now there is some
encouragement for more localized planning, which should encourage initia¬
tive and give to librarians a more important role and more personal
responsibility. It is conceivable that, given the opportunity to exercise local
initiative, librarians could even succeed in arousing in their public a positive
response to the Party’s ideological-political programmes, instead of their
previous formalist or indifferent response to them. Institutional constraint on
government and Party bureaucrats makes their position more vulnerable, and
is being used by librarians to combat stagnation and weakness in their
profession. The majority of Soviet librarians, like their Western counterparts,
aspire to a truly professional status, and they, especially those of the younger
age group, are excited by policies which call for initiative and the abandon¬
ment of passivity. They are able to use complaints from the reading public
about problems that have been brewing for some time so as to exert pressure
for change on those librarians of the older age bracket who were denied any
initiative throughout their working lifetime and whose resistance to change is
deeply ingrained.

However, although glasnost has encouraged Soviet librarians to diagnose
existing ills in their profession, they are still uncertain about the extent to
which it will be possible to cure those ills. They do not know how far the
regime will be willing to go in order to bring about reconciliation between
political-ideological precepts and librarians’ professional consciousness. In
many ways, the two are incompatible. It is not certain to what, if any, degree
political control will be relaxed over Soviet librarianship, but it seems
relatively certain that the authoritarian credo of Leninism will continue to be

105 Biblioteki SSSR. Opyt raboty , Vyp. 29 (Moscow, 1966), p. 129.

106 O schast 'e byt 1 vmeste s narodom (Moscow, 1 978).

107 A. Dudarev, ‘Ne zabyvaia o glavnom’, Bibliotekar\ 1965, no. 9, pp. 31, 32.

46

Solanus 1990

its background. The enthusiastic response of Soviet librarians to Gorbachev’s
initiatives shows that a desire for change already existed in a state of gestation
in the professional community and was only awaiting a chance to emerge into
the open. Some change, as we have seen, has already occurred, but the old and
the new continue to coexist in Soviet librarianship. What will be the outcome
by the end of Gorbachev’s period of office is still uncertain, and it is very
possible that the archaic practices described in this essay will eventually be
modified or abolished.

I wish to thank Christine Thomas for drawing to my attention recently published
material about Staff Councils (STKs) in Soviet libraries.

Appendix

Shortly after this article had been written, the November 1989 issue of
Vestnik Sovetskogo fonda kul ' tury , which was devoted to the theme of Soviet
librarianship, provided graphic evidence of the determination of Soviet
librarians to abandon passive acceptance of the prevailing state of affairs and
to find ways of reforming and improving the Soviet library system. The
Vestnik' s historical analysis differs from that of Boris Korsch in one important
respect: while he dates the genesis of failure to the very beginning of the
Soviet regime, the Vestnik' s authors see the rot as beginning only in the 1930s.
However, the problems raised are strikingly similar, and Soviet librarians
propose radical solutions to them.

They speak of a change in the Soviet ‘library climate’ over the past two
years and describe as the ‘first swallows’ of this change of climate such events
as the election to office of the directors of the Historical Library and the
Foreign Literature Library. The Soviet Culture Foundation’s Council on
Librarianship ( Sovet sodeistviia bibliotechnomu delu ) calls on librarians all over
the country to debate the question of and promote the foundation of a Soviet
Library Association. Moscow librarians are called upon to form their own
local association by the Action Committee ( Initsiativnaia gruppa ) for the
Founding of a Moscow Library Association, a draft statute for which is also
published in this issue of the Vestnik. Perhaps most interesting of all are the
Action Committee’s proposals for the restructuring of Soviet librarianship,
printed in full below.

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev

47

Proposals for the Restructuring of Librarianship in the USSR

The task of restructuring librarianship means reviewing radically the way it is
organized now and the principles upon which our library system is based. Those main
principles are, firstly, concentration of power in the hands of the top echelons of the
ministry apparatus, to whom all resources (including personnel) belong and who have
the right to take any decisions falling within their domain; secondly, standardization
of types of libraries (library collections, tasks, methods of working), [made worse
by] the exceedingly poor and excessively institutionalized ( ogosudarstvlennykh ) forms
of libraries which have developed over the past decade; thirdly, control over
readers, who are barred from whole strata of literature, from a range of library
services and even from actual libraries of one kind or another.

In our opinion, the library system should be built on a completely different basis,
namely: on an understanding of the library as an independent social organism, as the
collective memory of society. Just as the institutions, groups and movements which
make up our society are varied, each with its own interests and values, so types of
libraries, their collections and services should be equally varied.

The main principles for the new organization of librarianship should be the
following:

— the independence of libraries of all types and levels, whose relations with the
state should be regulated by relevant economic and legal statutes;

— the sovereignty of the reader, the recognition of his right to be considered as a
sound, competent and responsible person in the totality of his abilities, aptitudes and
skills;

— the division of power, whereby executive power would be given to the librarian
himself (the library staff), and legislative power would be in the hands of library
councils (of a branch of knowledge, a region, a library association), which would
formulate library policy and control its implementation.

The realization of the above principles could be brought about by the measures
proposed below.

I. The Restructuring of the Organization of Librarianship:

1) repeal of the ‘Resolution on Librarianship in the USSR’ (1984) and a rejection of
the basic principles of library organization formulated in it;

2) decentralization of the administration of librarianship: taking state libraries away
from the authority of ministries and putting them under the jurisdiction of Soviets of
various levels;

3) rejection of the principle of residual ( ostatochnogo ) funding of libraries;
distribution of resources through the elected Council ( Sovet ) of Library Societies and
Associations, working closely with the Committees and Commissions of the USSR
Supreme Soviet (and correspondingly with Soviets of all other levels);

4) the implementation of self-government in libraries, in accordance with the ‘Law
on State Enterprises (Organizations)’, the resolution of the Soviet of Ministers no.
I47L

5) discontinuation of the practice of nomenklatura appointment of librarians to top
posts, and the election of directors on the basis of open competition; the confirmation
of directors thus elected at a session of the appropriate Soviet;

6) replacement of administration of librarianship by the apparatus with a
democratic system of ‘horizontal links’, on the basis of the creation of library
associations and societies of various types;

48

Solanus 1990

7) granting to any organization, group of people or individuals the right to open a
library, on the basis of any form of ownership (cooperative, mixed, shareholding, etc.);

8) the placing of relations between libraries and the state on a legal and economic
basis; recognition of the sovereign rights of libraries in the implementation of policy on
personnel, collection development, etc.;

9) the creation of councils attached to libraries made up of members of the public,
the development of patronage and other forms of public support ( obshchestvennogo
sodeistviia ) for librarianship.

II. The Transformation of the Library into a Real Cultural and Social
Centre:

1) for library collection development to be independent of political-ideological, use
or any other considerations, for it to be directed towards the collecting of items
representative of spiritual and material culture and [to aim for] collections which
reflect as fully as possible spiritual and material culture; the recognition of the library’s
right to be master of its own collections;

2) freedom to engage in publishing activities (publishing rights to be granted to any
organization, group of individuals, including librarians) and the freedom of the book
market as the only basis for normal collection development;

3) removal of prohibition of certain activities which libraries may not undertake;
encouragement of all kinds of cultural-educational, scientific, informational, publish¬
ing and other activities in libraries;

4) the speedy introduction into libraries of the achievements of modern material
culture (providing them with new technology and equipment, with new buildings
which meet modern standards, their design to be put out to competition, etc.); the
removal of control over the use of copying machines;

5) the transformation of the library into a centre of cultural and social initiative of a
given region.

III. Enhancement of the Prestige of the Library Profession, Improvement in
the Conditions of Library Staff:

1) the redirection of library education towards a fundamental grounding in the
humanities, natural sciences or science and technology for professional librarians; the
inclusion of library disciplines in the university education system;

2) improvement of material conditions of library staff, strengthening of their social
protection (raising their salaries to the national average; the payment in full of pensions
to working librarians of pensionable age, the creation of a system of benefits and
incentives for the strengthening of the profession, in particular additional payment as
compensation for working in buildings unsuitable for long-term habitation by people
or storage of books, etc.).

IV. The Broadening of Links between Soviet Libraries and the World
Library System, the Inclusion of Soviet Libraries in the World Cultural
Process:

1) to increase by all possible means and through all channels the acquisition of
foreign literature (increasing hard-currency allowances for the purchase of foreign
publications, removing administrative limitations and getting rid of ideological
dictates in the area of international book exchange, establishing direct links with
bookselling firms abroad, removing all bureaucratic procedures for placing hard-

Soviet Librarianship under Gorbachev ^

currency orders and centralized control of their content, etc.);

2) the development of direct links with libraries abroad, exchanges of specialists on
short visits and longer visits to gain work experience, the participation of professional

librarians in the work of international organizations and in international librarianship
programmes.

Action Group for the Founding of a Moscow Library Association, September 1989.

MOCKBA

CaMH3flax rjia3aMH 6H6jiHorpa(J>a

A. iCKcauap CyeTHOB

B ceMH^ecHTbie tojiu CTajio OHeBHAHbiM CHjibHeiimee pacxo^x/jeHHe xicyKjxy
^eKjiapauHHMH h peajibiiocxbio. B HpaBcxBeHHOM h MaTepnajibHOM 6ap#axe
o6ecueHHjiocb cjiobo. YIojx Ae6HJiHHecxHH napxHHHo-GropoxpaxHHecxHH npecc
e^Ba jih He nepBOH nouuia ryMamixapHaM HHxejuiHreHii,H5i. Hac jnmiajiH
xjie6a HacyLUHoro. Mb 6H6jiHOTeK HBbiMajiHCb h yHHHTO^cajiHCb xhoth,
cneixxpaHbi pocjm xax Ha npo>K>Kax, 6ojibuiHHCTBO necxHbix HCCjie^OBaHHH
b 006 me He nenaxanocb, a hx asxopbi jiHinajiHCb bo3mo)khocxh npo/jojDxaxb
pa6ory,1 Mb npaxxHXH 6H6jraorpac|)HpoBaHH5i 6bui BbinymeH nejibra nuacT
KHH)KHo->KypHajibHOH npo,u,yxii,HH nonpocTy Ha3biBaeMbm caMH3flaxoM. He-
caHKUHOHHpOBaHHoe MHeHHe He TOjibKo He npHHHMajiocb b pacnex, ho
^ejiajica bh/j, hto ero eoo6me He cymecxByex. Mpe^e hcm nncaxb o
6H6jiHorpa(j)HpOBaHHH, nonpo6yK) xax-xo o6o3HaHHXb npejjMex, noH5ixb, hto
xaxon caMH3AaT h xaxoBa ero HexopHH. B coBexcxoii npecce eocene nonxH He
6buro cxaxeri, paccxa3biBaioruHx 06 bxom, xapaxTepHOM TOJibxo jx jia Hac,
aBjieHHH.2

Bojibmafl nacTb caMH3,naxa (x.e. xa, o xoen HMeex cmbicjx roBopHXb)
oGnaAaex BceMH npHBHaxaMH, npHcymHMH xHHre hjxh >xypHajiy. Mcnojib3ye-
Mbie cnoco6bi nenaxH — MauiHHonHCb, rexxorpa(}), xcepoxc hjih npHHxep
xoMHbfoxepa, (j)oxocnoco6. HanajibHbie xwpami — 30-50 axaeMmiapoB.
OxoHaaxejibHbie ycxaHOBHXb HeB03M0>xH0, xax xax jiynmne H3AaHH5i MHoro-
xpaxHo AyOjiHpyioxca, nepecHHMaioxca, xax cbmhmm HHxaxejiflMH, xax h
^oOpoBOJibHbiMH pacnpocxpaHHxejiJiMH. Mpe>KHe hcm xpaxxo o6pHCOBaxb
HCxopHK) caMHB^axa, nonpoOyK) BnepHe onpeAejmxb ero, xax euxodmpyw
ne3aeucuMO om eocydapcmeenHoeo u uho20 KonmpoAH KHUMCHO-DtcypHdAbHyw
npodyKVfuro, paseueawipyw udeu u xydowcecmeeHHbie menemix, ne noAyuuewue
adeKeamHoso ompajtcemiH e 20cydapcmeeHHou neuamu uau pacxod.Hipuecn c
npu3HdHHbiMu udeoAosuuecKUMu u 3cmemuHecKUMu nopMaMu. CaMH3,nax cyme-
cxByex BHe o({)HUHajibHOH npeccbi h napajuiejibHo efi.

OxenecxBeHHbiH caMH3/i,ax HMeex /jojiryio HcxopHK). ‘MojieHHe’ /JamiHjia
3axoHHHxa, nocjiaHHa npoxonona ABBaxyMa — hxo bxo, ecjiH He npe^xenn
caMH3naxa? He3aBHCHMafl nenaxb — bxo ecxecxBeHHaa peaxmiB hohxoh-
(J)opmhoh nacxH o6mecxBa Ha jnoGbie npoaBjieHHH xoxajmxapH3Ma, ,ayxoBHO-
ro npHHyacAeHHfl, eAHHoo6pa3H», rocyAapcxBeHHOH jdxh h .nexjiapaxHBHoro

1 ^ocTaTOHno BcnoMHHTb HMeHa A. AMajibpHKa, )K. MeziBeaeBa, JI. ryMHueBa.

2 ABpopa, 1988, JNfe 3, c. 135-148. ^py>K6a HapoaoB, 1988, JSg 10, c. 204-207. /JayraBa, 1988,
No 9, c. 95-104.

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

5i

cjiOBo6jry,zjH5i. CymecTBOBaHHe caMH3,naTa y Hac onpeAemieTCfl hh3koh CTe-
neHbio ^yxoBHOH cbo6oabi rpaacnaH, oTpHiiaTejibHbiM OTHomeHHeM rocy^ap-
CTBa k HHaKOMbicjiHK). B pHBHjiH30BaHH0M ^eMOKpaTHHecKOM oGujecTBe
caMH3^aTa He cymecTByeT, t.k. nonra Bee mo>kho HanenaTaTb b HopMajibHofi
npecce; b t OTa HHTapHbix, /jHKTaTOpcKnx pe»:HMax ero Tax>Ke HeT, b CHJiy
nojiHoro OTcy rcTBHJi cbo6oa. Bo3mo>kho, 3to JiBJieHne CBsnaHo c HanajTbHbiM
npoueccoM /^eMOKpaTH3au,HH CTOJib >re tccho, cKOJib paHee co cTaHOBjieHHeM
rocy/japcTBeHHocTH. PyccKHe npaBHTejiH H3^peBjie npHCBOHjiH ce6e npaBo
nenbca 06 o6pa3e MbicjieH cbohx no/maHHbix. ‘Bbi OAHOBpeMeHHO HMnepaTop
h nana,’ 3aMeTHJi HanoneoH AjreKcaHApy, ‘sto oneHb y,ao6HO.’ PeaKijHfl Ha
no^aBjieHHe CBoGo/jbi BbiCKa3bmaHHH, ueH3ypy, H3BecTHa. 3to noHBJieHHe
noziMeTHbix riHceM h no#jio>KHbix MaHH(J)ecTOB, no3>Ke jihctobok h npoKjiaMa-
UHH, 330n0B H3bIK, TaMH3£aT FepueHa, H HaKOHeU,, KJiaCCHHeCKHH CaMH3AaT
HapOOTHKOB. npH HepBOM npH6jIH)KeHHH H MOry BCnOMHHTb TOJIbKO TpH
KpaTKHX nepHo^a b hctophh Pocchh, Kor^a caMH3^aTa He cymecTBOBajio.
3to npaBjieHHe EKaTepHHbi II (npHHeM, TOJibKo 1789 ro^a), KpaTKHH
nepHO^ Meac/jy jxsyx peBOjnorum, h Bpeivui npaBJieHHfl CTajiHHa. B ro^bi
CTajiHHmHHbi caMH3/jaTa He cymecTBOBano. ToTajibHbiH Teppop c/jejiaji cBoe
ziejio, a xuifl caMoyGHHCTBa HaxoAHjiHCb h Gojree jierKHe cnoco6bi. BnponeM,
oh cymecTBOBaji, ho TOJibKo b 3apo^biuie. HanHcaji-npOHHTaji-ceji.

ITepBbie cjra6bie poctkh ero noaBHjiHCb b uiecTH^ecflTbie ro/jbi, jinuib
cjierKa 3ano3#aB 3a MarHHTO(j)OHHOH rjiacHOCTbK). PeaiojHfl Ha ero noflBjieHHe
6bijia 6e3o6pa3HOH, ho npoijecc (He B03Bpama»cb k TeppopHCTHHecKHM
MeToaaM) y)Ke 6bijro He ocTaHOBHTb. PacnpocTpaHjnoTca npoH3Be/jeHH5i
CojDKemnjbiHa, ‘/Joktop TKHBaro’ riacTepHaica, ‘OKanHHbie a hh’ ByHHHa,
‘IIIecTBHe’ Bpo^cKoro h ‘PeKBHeM’ AxivraTOBOH, ‘JIe6e£HHbiH cTaH’ Ij,BeTae-
boh, paGoTbi Caxaposa, Poa h }Kopeca Me^BeAeBbix, poMaHbi Ha6oKOBa,
BOcnoMHHaHHa AHTOHOBa-OBceeHKO h E. rHH36ypr, ‘TexHOJiorHfl bjibcth’
ABTopxaHOBa, OpyajiJi h Kohkbhct, ‘BopoHe>KCKHe TeTpaAH’ MaHAejibiHTaMa
h HeKynHpoBaHHbie BynraxoB, njiaTOHOB, ‘MocKBa-neTyuiKH’ He3a6BeHHoro
Epo(j)eeBa h TeKCTbi TajiMHa... B 3tom nepeHHCJieHHH nepBbix )Ke bchomhhb-
ihhxch HMeH — nHTb Ho6ejieBCKHx jiaypeaTOB! rio-MoeMy, 3to ^ocTaTOHHO
xapaKTepH3yeT ypoBeHb nepBOH BOJiHbi oTenecTBeHHoro caMH3/jaTa. MyTb
n03>Ke HaHHHaHDT BblXO^HTb nepHOAHHeCKHe H3AaHH5i: ‘XpOHHKa TeKymHX
co6biTHH’, ‘Pycb’, ‘Bene’, ‘FIohckh’, ‘37’, ‘Hacbi’... B BOCbMH^ecaTbie roAbi hx
Tpa^HUHH npoAOJDKaioT ‘3Kcnpecc-xpoHHKa’, ‘3eMji«’, ‘Mhthh >KypHaji\ Flo
HX ny6jIHKaUH5IM CTaHOBJITCfl npHBbIHHbIMH HMeHa M. PaTyUIHHCKOH H B.
KpHByjiHHa, J\. FlHporoBa h Jl. Py6HHiuTeHHa, B. CopOKHHa h O. Ce^aKOBOH

— Bcex He nepeHHCJiHTb. Boo6me, MHe Ka^ceTca, hto npeeMCTBeHHOCTb
TpaAHUHH b caMH3AaTe ^OBOJibHa pa3BHTa. KpoMe npaMbix npo^ojDKeHHH
(‘XpoHHKa’ — ‘3Kcnpecc-xpoHHKa’; ‘Bene’ — ‘3eMjifl’; ‘FIpH3biB’ — ‘Mama’)

— 6ojibuiHHCTBO H3aaHHH BOCbMH^ecHTbix npo£OJDicaK)T pa3pa6aTbmaTb

52 Solanus 1990

jihhhk), HaMeneHHyK) b oahom H3 ‘poAOHaHajibHHKOB’ He3aBHCHMOH nenaTH.3

ABaHrap^Hbie jxrwkqwwa b HCKyccTBe ecTecTBeHHO noBJieKjiH 3a co6oh

H3,aaHHe xyao)KecTBeHHbix »:ypHajiOB, opHeHTHpoBaHHbix Ha MOAOAe>Kb.

KhHO, >KHBOnHCb, JXK3.3, pOK, KOUeHTyaAH3M H HOBaH BOJTHa - BCe 3TH

HanpaBjreHH5i 6bijiH npeACTaBAeHbi He3aBHCHMbiMH H3AaHH»MH.4 Bbiji co3AaH
xy^o>KecTBeHHbiH caMo^ocTaTOHHbm apeaa napajuiejibHoro HcxyccTBa, b

KOTOpOM BbIKpHCTaJIJlH30BaJIHCb H B3aHMOA6HCTBOBaAH HOBbie XyACOKeCTBeH-
Hbie HanpaBjieHHH. 3aivteTHM, hto cneiXHaubHbiH >KypHaji ‘JlHTepaTypHaa
yne6a’ Bee 3to BpeMH npeGbiBan b coctoahhh coijHaAHCTHHecKoro peajiH3Ma.
)KypHajibi >kc, cnenHajTH3npyK)mHecH no BHflaM HCKyccTBa, 06 aBaHrapAHbix
TeneHHHx npocTo He nHcajiH, hjih nncajiH Taic, hto, Majio-MajibCKH
CBe^yiomeMy neAOBeicy ctmaho Gbijio HHTaTb. BoroHCKaTejibCTBO moaoaoto
nOKOJieHHH 6bIJIO nO^Aep^CaHO peAHTH03H0-(J)HA0C0(})CKHMH H3^aHHHMH — OT

‘BXO’ (cBK>jijieTeHb xpHCTHaHCKOH oGmecTBeHHOCTH5) ao ‘Bbi6opa\ ‘Hanm’
h ‘Xape KpHuiHbi’. Otmcthm jiHHHoe MyacecTBO H3AaTeAen AonepecTpoenHO-
ro nepHOAa. Mhothc H3 hhx nonajiH b jiarepH no 3HaMeHHTon CTaTbe 190-1
(pacnpocTpaHeHHe 3aBeAOMO jio>KHbix... nopOHamHx... H3MbimjieHHH). A Han-
6ojiee HacTOHHHBbie yAOCTOHAHCb h 70-h. Kax 3a«BHji He^aBHO oahh nepe-
CTpoHBuiHHCH npoxypop H3 MaraAaHa, ‘rpa^aHCKaa CMejiocTb 3thx jno^en
onepeAHJia Harny Ha ^ecHTHjieTHe’.5

6H6jmorpa(j)a, Rax h ajia topncTa, KpaHHe BaacHa tohhoctb b TepMHHo-
JIOTHH, 0/JH03HaHH0CTb TOAKOBaHHfl. MHOTOe H3 TOTO, HTO B 1979 TOAy
TpaKTOBajiocb Kax ‘nopOHamne H3MbimjieHHH’, cennac o6menpH3HaHHbiH
4>aKT, cooOmeHHbiH BAo6aBOK c bmcokhx TpH6yH. FlepBoe npHHaAAeacHT
caMH3AaTy — BTOpoe HeT. BecbMa BepoaTHo, hto to, hto cennac nenaTaeTCH
b cbo6oahoh npecce, jieT nepe3 AecATb bohact b ackchkoh o(J)HUHajibHbix
HAeoAoroB. Ho nona ajia 6H6AHorpa(J)a Bamibi TOHHbie KpHTepHH OT6opa,
CTporoe noHHMaHHe TepMHHa ‘caMH3AaT\ HeacHOCTeii 3Aecb mhoaccctbo. B
ceMHAecHTbie roAti 6oAbuiyio nacTb caMH3AaTa cocTaBAHAH khhth (b tom

HHCAe KOnHH 3anaAHbIX H3A<1HHH). B GbITOBOM nOHHMaHHH - BCe, HTO

H3AaeTC« 6e3 cooTBeTCTByiomero pa3pemeHHJi — caMH3AaT. Ho moacho ah
npHHHCAHTb k HeMy nepenenaTKH, T.e. pa3MHOAceHHe tckctob H3AaHHbix Ha
3anaAe, hah )Ke He bbixoahbuihx nocAe peBOAionHH, H3bHTbix H3 6H6AHOTeK?
C JOpHAHHeCKOH TOHKH 3peHHH 3TO, B03M05KHO, H CHMH3AaT, HO C 6u0AU02pa-
(fiuuecKou — 3to AHuib caMOACATeAbHan nepenenaTKa yace H3AaHHOH h

3 Ha TpeTbeM coBemaHHH pe^aKTopoB He3aBncnMbix H3naHHH, KOTopoe cocTOHjiocb 19-20
Hoa6pfl 1988 r. b Mockbc, 6biJio CKa3aHO, hto caMH3^aT yMep h Ha CMeHy eMy npHiujia
He3aBHCHMaa nenaTb. MTo6bi He B^aBaTbca b TepMHHOJiorHHecKHe cnopbi, a 6yay Hcnojib30BaTb
06a TepMHHbi, nojiaraa no cyTH hx HaeHTHHHbiMH.

4 CymecTByeT ‘AeJio’ (^)Ka3), ‘napa^HTMa’ (cHHKperaHecKHH aBaHrapa), ‘ypnaHT’ (pox),
‘CHHe-4)aHTOM’ (napajuiejibHoe khho).

5 CouHajiHCTHHecKaa HH^ycTpHa, 1988, 8 hiohb.

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

53

\

i

»

t

KOH<PEAEPAUMPl AHAPXO-CHHAMKAAHCTOS

frf/fCft 4MPQ&H * W?PTUJ?M!

/

- 1

x

54

Solanus 1990

3a(J)HKCHpOBaHHOH XHHTH. Bo3MO>KHO, OHa MaJIO/JOCTyHHa, HO yHTeHa H
coxpaHeHa b naMHTH, Bornjia b cooTBeTCTByiomHe xaTajiorn.6 B to >xe BpeMJi,
nacTO H3AaHHs Ha 3ana/xe noaBjinioTCfl o^HOBpeMCHHO hjth nyTb paHbuie
pacnpocTpaHeHHB khhth 3#ecb. Mhothc TaMH3,zjaTCXHe >xypHajibi np»MO
yKa3bmaK)T, hto ‘6ojiee ^eyx TpeTen co^ep^caHHa cocTaBjiaioT MaTepnajibi
pa3HOo6pa3Horo jiHTepaTypHoro caMH3AaTa H3 Pocciih’.7 Ka>xeTC5i Bee >xe,
hto ^KecTKoe pa3AejieHHe TaM- h caMH3AaTa b 6H6jiHorpa(J)HH He o6xoahmo,
Tax xax b nepBOM cjiynae Mbi hmccm Aejio c OTenecTBeHHOH rpaacaaHcxoii
HHHLtHaTHBOH, a bo BTOpOM, (jiaxTHHecxH, c XHH5XHOH npo^yxiiHeH 3apy6e>x-
HblX CTpaH, HTO y^ejl HHOCTpaHHOH 6H6jIHOTpa(J)HH. ,HaTb )xe OTBeT Ha
Bonpoc, hto >xe nepBHHHO (‘TaM’ hjih ‘cbm’ — xy^a othccth?) MO>xeT jiHiub
neTxo opraHH30BaHHbiH yneT caMH3^aTa, aHajiHTHnecxoe onncaHHe. Hccom-
HeHHO, yHHTbmaTb Hy>KHO Bee, HTO H3^aeTCH HeaaBHCHMblMH H3AaTeJIHMH, HO
pa3AeJIHH HO (j)OpMaJIbHbIM npH3HaxaM, HCXO^fl H3 nOHHMaHHH CaMH3^,aTa.

Mo>xho jih, HanpHMep, npHHHejurrb x caMH3^aTy ajibMaHaxH mhotohk-
cjreHHbix CTy^HH, jiHTbo6be#HHeHHH? (‘Mopcxaa nepenaxa’, ‘Kopa6jib\) Mne
xa^ceTCH — jxa, ecjiH ohh He 3ajiHTOBaHbi, He npouuiH upe^BapHTejibHOH
ueH3ypbi, He caHxijHOHHpoBaHbi x Bbinycxy. A MHoroHHCJieHHbie ^oMauiHbie,
xpy>xxoBbie )xypHajibi? (‘FTapxc’ (Pwra), ‘UlTHjib’ (Cojiobxh).) OGjia/ian bccmh
npH3HaxaMH ca\iH3;iara, ohh tcm He vienee hmciot Becbvia hhsxhh xy/io>xe-
CTBeHHblH H HH(J)OpMaH,HOHHbIH ypOBCHb. Ba^CHee TOTO, OHH He CaMOCTOHTeJIb-
Hbi, xax xyAcoxecTBeHHoe hjih counajibHoe HBjieHHe. Pa36poc no xanecTBy, x
co^xajieHHio, b caMH3^aTe 3HaHHTejibH0 6ojibuie, HoxejiH b oijiHijHajibHOH
npecce. Ha ero CTpaHHijbi nona/jaioT npoH3Be,aeHH5i amieTaHTOB Bcex ryMa-
HHrapHbix oGjiacTeii — co6ctbchho xyAO>xecTBeHHoro TBOpnecTBa, (})hjioco-
(J)hh h ncHxojiorHH. Hy^xeH 3JieMeHTapHbiH xpHTepHH ‘xanecTBa’, ziaGbi
H36e>xaTb Heo6xo^HMOCTH yHHTbiBaTb yneHHHecxHe onbiTbi hjih HBHyio rpa-
(jiOMaHHio. Ho xto B03bMeT Ha ce6« CMejiocTb 6biTb axcnepTOM? OneBHzuio,
hto noxa OTHeceHHe toto hjih hhoto Texcxa x caMH3#aTy hocht BecbMa
cy6bexTHBHbiii xapaxTep.

C 1987 roaa toh b He3aBHCHMOH nenaTH 3arzjaioT noBceMecTHO
B03HHxaiomHe nepHO^HHecxHe H3AaHHH. 3a nocjieAHHe ABa ro/xa xojihhcctbo
H3^aHHH yseJIHHHJIOCb nOHTH B ^eCHTb pa3. Oco6eHHO CHJIbHblH Bcnjiecx
B03HHXH0BeHH« HOBbix H3^aHHH npOH3oiueji b Hanajie 1989 ro,aa. 3a nepBbie
uiecTb MecHueB noHBHjiocb Ha CBeT 160 H3AaHHH. Ecjih jxo 1987 ro^a
xojiHHecTBo HenoAueH3ypHbix H3AaHHH, xojie6ji«cb, He npeBbiuiaeT 10-20
Ha3BaHHH, TO CeHHaC MHe H3BeCTHO 6oJiee 600 H3AaHHH BblXOJJHLHHX B CTpaHe

6 Ecjih 6biTb TepMHHOJiorHHecKH npHjmpHHBbiM, 3to, kohchho, caMH3jtaT, ho He He3aBHCHMaa
nenaTb.

7 ‘3xo’, 1978, c. 159.

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

55

56

Solanus 1990

TOJIbKO Ha pyCCKOM 5I3bIKe! M3BeCTHO, HTO B JlHTBe H3/J,aeTCB 175 He3aBHCH-
Mbix H3^aHHH (Ha jihtobckom H3biKe), okojio 50 Ha KaBKa3e, no 10-15 B
JIaTBHH, 3ctohhh, 3anaAHOH YKpaHHe, Tax hto o6mee hhcjio HenoAneH3yp-
HblX H3£aHHH B CCCP Ha HblHeiHHHH A^Hb npH6jIH3HTeJTbHO 750-800
HaHMeHOBaHHH.

063aBejiHCb cbohmh H3AaHHJiMH h npeflCTaBHTejiH OTAejibHbix rpynn Hace-
jieHHa: mockobckhc xHrniH H3AaioT acypHaji ‘CBo6oAa’; CTyAeHTbi BbinycicaioT
pa3Hoo6pa3Hbie ‘MHcjjopMamioHHbie jihctkh’ (oahh H3 hhx — ‘Eohkot’ —
KOOpAHHHpoBaji 6opb6y CTyAeHTOB 3a OTMeHy Kypca bochhoh hoatotobkh b
By3ax); pa6oHHe BbinycicaioT ^cypHajibi ‘Ha6aT’, ‘PaGoHHH nyiV, ‘FlpojieTap-
CKHH BeCTHHK’. Ha TOpOACKyiO HHTeJUIHreHAHK), HbH B3rJI5JAbI C(j)OpMHpOBa-
jiHCb b KOHAe ceMHAecBTbix-HaHajre BocbMHAecjiTbix roAOB, opneHTHpoBaH
^cypHan ‘naparpatj)’. B JleHHHrpaAe bmxoaht npeicpacHbiH {^cmhhhctckhh
)KypHaji ‘TKenck'oe HTeHHe’, nponaraHAHpyioinHH )KeHCKoe TBopnecTBO h
p a 3 b h b a K) n i h h hash (J)eMHHH3Ma 3anaAHO-eBponeHCKoro HanpaBjieHHH. B
npoBHHUHH noBceMecTHO B03HHKaioT oGujecTBeHHbie H3AaHHa ‘B noAAep^cKy
nepecTpOHKH’, CBoero pOAa npoBOAHHKH rnacHOCTH, ocHOBHbie cnjibi
OTAaiouxHe 6opb6e c 3JioynoTpe6jieHH»MH h KOppynnHen MecTHbix BjiacTefi.
Mb nojiHTH3HpoBaHHbix ^cypHanoB 3Ta rpynna, no>icajiyH, HaH6ojiee mhotohh-
cjieHHaM. B nen BbiAenaeTca ‘EiojuieTeHb /I,o6pOBOJibHoro o6mecTBa coAen-
ctbhh nepecTpoHKe’, BbixoAflinHH b AnaTHTax, TpaacAaHHH* — acypHaji
opraHH3anHH ‘3a HapoAHbin (jipoHT CTaBponojibjp, o6beAHHHBinHH MecTHbix
HHTejuieKTyajioB, npenoAaBaTejien yHHBepcHTeTa b 6opb6e 3a rpa^KAaHCKHe
npaBa HacejieHHH, ‘Aimy’ — OiojuieTeHb He3aBHciiMoro HH(J)opMH,eH rpa b
IO)KHO-CaxajiHHCKe... Bcex He nepenHCJiHTb. Kaic npaBHJio, 3th H3AaHHH

COCTOHT H3 AByX HeTKO pa3ACJieHHbIX HaCTeH - AOKJiapaTHBHOH H HH(J)OpMa-

thbhoh. B nepBon npHBOA^T nporpaMMHbie AOKyMeHTbi, pa3Hoo6pa3Hbie
AeKjiapanHH, 3aaBjieHH5i h o6paineHH5i rpynn h cok)30b; bo BTOpon —
xpoHHKa o6ruecTBeHHon )kh3hh ropoAa hjih pernoHa. HHorAa k hhm Ao6a-
BjiaeTca h jiHTepaTypHaa CTpamnja, b kotopoh noMemaiOTCH jih6o npOH3Be-
AeHHH, He HanenaTaHHbie b CTpaHe, jih6o TBopnecTBO MecTHbix aBTopoB.

Tnpami He3aBHCHMbix H3AaHHH, 3a HCKJiiOHeHHeM OTAenbHbix nonynapHbix
ra3eT, peAKO npeBbiuiaioT 2-3 cothh 3K3eMnjiapOB. KaK npaBHJio, AejiaioTca
ohh Ha MauiHHKe, a noTOM pa3MHO»caK)TC5i Ha Kcepoxce. B nocneAHee BpeMH
Bee name Hcnojib3yeTC» nepcoHajibHbin KOMnbioTep c nenaTaiomHM ycTpon-
ctbom. EojibuiHHCTBO peAaicnHH paGoTaeT Ha tojiom 3HTy3na3Me, OTAaBaa
3TOMy Bee CBo6oAHoe BpeMfl. OAHaKO KpynHbie H3AaHH« y>Ke Bbmy^cAeHbi
hath no nyTH npo4)eccHOHajTH3Ma, tcmh hjih HHbiMH nyTHMH o6ecneHHBaa
(JiHHaHcoBbie AOTanHH Ha H3AaHHe >KypHajia. JX o chx nop He3aBHCHMbie
H3AaTejiH He hmchdt npaBa Ha 3aKjnoneHHe AoroBopoB c THnorpaijiHHMH, He
HMeioT npaBO Ha 3aKOHHbix ocHOBaHnax npoAaBaxb cboio npoAyKnnio,
npHo6peTaTb 6yMary, MHO>KHTejibHyio TexHHKy. 3to, ecTecTBeHHo, MeinaeT

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

57

*

fiUEOf

*^Ha7i

^yee^OM X^HCOTHaHCltOH

itynbivii/^M

/Vlocfisa

5«

Solanus 1990

hx Bbixo^y Ha iiiHpoKoro HHTaTejia, 3acTaBjiaeT ocTaBaTbCA b nojiyno^nojib-
HOM COCTOAHHH, a CXjjHIJHaJlbHOH npeCCe npH TaKOM nOJ105KeHHH M05KH0
^ejiaTb bha, hto HHKaKoro KOHKypeHTa He cymecTByeT. Ha Kaicne ToubKo
yxnmpeHHA He HAyT He3aBHCHMbie H3AaTeAH, nbiTancb aohccth cBoe caobo ao
HHTaTeAa: b TopbROM oaho BpeMA cyLuecTBOBaAa xoAanaA ra3eTa-TyM6a,
KOTOpyio Tacicaji Ha ce6e no ropoAy 3aKOAOHeHHbiH BHyTpn peAaKTop, b
OGHHHCKe cymecTByeT acypHaA Ha KOMnbioTepHbix AHCKeTax, b Pobho ra3eTa
H3roTOBAAeTCA b BHAe nAaicaTa h pacKAeHBaeTCA Ha 3a6opax... Teorpa^HA
He3aBHCHMOH npeccbi — bca CTpaHa, ot JlbBOBa ao MaraAaHa. Co6cTBeHHbie
AcypHaAbi HMeioT CTaBponoAbCKHe xyTOpAHe h TaTapcKHe koaxo3hhkh, He-
(J)TAHHHKH BaXTOBHKH H 3KCKypCOBOAM Ha COAOBKax!

MHoroHHCAeHHOCTb HanpaBAeHHH b caMH3AaTe TaKOBa, hto TpyAHO npeA-
AOACHTb Kaicyio-AH6o npHeMAeMyio KAaccH(J)HKaAHio. nepHOAHHecKHe H3Aa-

HHA AerKO nOApa3ACAAK)TCA Ha TpH OCHOGHblX HanpaBAeHHH - peAHTH03H0-

(j)HAOco(j)CKHe, AHTepaTypHO-xyAOAcecTBeHHbie h o6mecTBeHHO-noAHTHHecKHe
H3AaHH». Han6oAee MHoroHHCAeHHbi h 6bicTpo pa3BHBaiomHecA, HecoMHeH-
ho, o6mecTBeHHo-noAHTHHecKHe AcypHaAbi. JlHTepaTypHo-xyAO»cecTBeHHbix h
peAHTH03H0-(J)HA0C0(J)CKHX B03HHKA0 BeCbMa MaAO.

BoAbuiaa nacTb o6mecTBeHHO-noAHTHHecKHX H3AaHHH npeACTaBAaeT pa3~
Hoo6pa3Hbie TeneHHA AeMOKpaTHHecicoro HanpaBAeHHH: ot coijHaA-
AeMOKpaTOB AO aHapXO-CHHAHKaAHCTOB. EcAH HX o6beAHHHTb no KpHTepHK)
OTpHuaHHA TOTaAHTapH3Ma h onno3HH,HOHHOCTH k cymecTByiomeMy napTO-
KpaTHHeCKOMy npaBAeHHK), TO OHH COCTaBAT COAHAHOe 60AbUIHHCTB0 CpeAH
He3aBHCHMbix H3AaHHH. Oahako, noAHTHHecKHH h TeMaTHHecKHH cneKTp
o6mecTBeHHO-noAHTHHecKHx H3AaHHH BecbMa pa3Hoo6pa3eH. K coacaAeHHio,
a He Mory npeAAOACHTb npneMAeMyio KAaccH(J)HKauHio noAHTH3HpOBaHHbix
H3AaHHH: noHATHA ‘npaBbie’ h ‘AeBbie’ b CCCP aabho cMemeHbi, a H3
npHMepHO 200 AeMOKpaTHHecKHx acypHaAOB 150 HMeioT co6cTBeHHyio nAaT-
(J)opMy. CxeMa npeBpaTHAacb 6bi b 6ecKOHeHHO yBeAHHHBaiouiHHCA nepeneHb
noAHTHnecKHx HanpaBAeHHH: AeMOKpaTbi, coanaA-AeMOKpaTbi h t.a. FIo3to-
My, pa3 MbI TOBOpHM O He3aBHCHMOH, T.e. H3HanaAbHO 0nn03HH,H0HH0H
npecce, MHe KaaceTCA npneMAeMbiM BecbMa ycAOBHO noApa3AeAHTb He3aBHCH-
Mbie o6meCTBeHHO-nOAHTHHeCKHe H3AaHHA no HX OTHOUieHHK) K
cymecTByiomeMy nopAAKy Bemen. npoBeAeM ycAOBHoe AcaHpOBoe pa3AeAe-
HHe H3AaHHH Ha 06meCTBeHH0-n0AHTHHeCKHe, peAHTH03H0-(J)HA0C0(J)CKHe H
AHTepaTypHO-xyAOAcecTBeHHbie. BHyTpH o6mecTBeHHo-noAHTHHecKHX H3Aa-
hhh BbiAeAHM TpH rpynnbi — ACMOKpaTHnecicoe HanpaBAeHHe, HaunoHaAb-
Hoe, h npoAeTapcKoe (npaBO-KOHcepBaTHBHoe). M3AaHHA ACMOKpaTHHecKoro
HanpaBAeHHA ecTecTBeHHo paenaAyTCA Ha rnecTb rpynn: paAHKaAbHo-
AeMOKpaTHHecKHe (acecTKO onno3HUHOHHbie); AH6epaAbHO-AeMOKpaTHnecKHe;
couHaAHCTHHecKHe; HauHOHaAbHo-AeMOKpaTHnecKHe; nauH(j)HCTCKHe; 3eAe-
Hbie. npn Taxon cxeMe 6yAeT y>Ke npocTO npOBecTH 6oAee ApoOHoe AeAeHHe,

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

59

h:zxh hctbeh hoe okoiecmbhpckoe

MH<PUPMALIMOHHOE M3ZIAHME

BIOAAETEHB

H E3ABMCMM0r0

CMBUPCKOrO MHOOPMAUMOHHOrO ATEHTCTBA

mm 30 29 OKTflBPR

siyyy^ BbinycK i9&9

M A (DM 51

3AK0HA

M3/IATEJI I.CT HO C[1 A " B^MA fl 9 "
hobc >< :n HHT<'K

&Mm****h\ ttmm m*Mn

- [|r -riw.--

6o

Solanus 1990

HanpHMep, MapxcHCTCXHe n3/jaHH5i pacnojio^caTca b AByx-Tpex py6pnxax —
ot jiH6epajibHo-#eMOKpaTHHecKHx ao 3ejieHbix. B AeMOxpaTHHecxnx H3AaHHBx
mo5kho ycnoBHO Bbi/jeuHTb rpynny ‘nepecTpoeHHbix’, T.e. noAAep^XHBaiomHX,
b pa3HOH cTeneHii, HHHUHaTHBbi BJiacTen, ‘npaB03amHTHbix’ h >xecTxo onno-
3HH,HOHHbIX. HaUHOHaHbHO-B03pO>K£eHHeCKHe H3AaHHB eCTeCTBCHHO pacna-
AyTca Ha HauHOHajibHo-AeMOKpaTHnecKHe, AeHTpHCTCxne h HaijHOHajibHO-
UIOBHHHCTHHeCKHe.

JlH6epajibHO-AeMOKpaTHHecKHe H3AaHH*i — 3to Gojibmaa (6ojibme copoxa)
rpynna )KypHajiOB h 6K)jiJieTeHeH, hohbhbuihxch b 88-89 roAax. Kax npaBHJio,
ohh H3^aioTC« pa3Hoo6pa3HbiMH xjiy6aMH h o6beAHHeHHBMH: ‘b 3amHTy
nepecTpOHXH’, ‘co^eHCTBHa nepecTpOHxe’, ‘AeMoxpaTHnecxoH nepecTpoHXH’ h
t.a. BojibmHHCTBO H3 hhx nbiTaioTca coxpyflHHHaTb c BjiacTBMH, He BcerAa,
BiiponeM, ycneuiHO. HaMOOJiee H3BecTHbie h xapaxTepHbie H3 3thx H3AaHHH
6K)jijieTeHb ‘^oGpoBOJibHoro o6mecTBa CoAeHCTBHa nepecTponxe’, BbixoAfl-
lahh b AnaTHTax (fl,o6pOBOjibHoe o6mecTBO h GiojuieTeHb Hbme npocjiaBjie-
Hbi TeM, hto oahhm h3 ero axTHBHbix ynacTHHxoB ao 1989 roAa h npeAceAaTe-
jieM o6mecxBa 6ma AnexcaHAp 06oachcxhh — AenyTaT BepxoBHoro CoBeTa,
nepBbiH xaHAHAax b aAbTepHaTHBHbie npe3HAeHTbi CTpanbi (Tax h He Aony-
uxeHHbiH x Bbi6opaivi). ‘BecTHHx Coioaa coaghctbhb peBOAKHjHOHHOH nepe-
CTpOHxe5, BbixoAJimHH b ToMcxe, HecxoAbxo 6oAee onno3Hii,HOHHoe M3AaHHe,
BnpoHevi, cToamee Ha bhojihc MapxcHCTCxnx no3HAHBx. B MocxBe HaH6oAee
xapaxTepHoe H3 HSAamra 3toh rpynnbi, HecoMHeHHo, ra3eTa ‘TlaHopaMa’,
jiH6epajibHO-AeMoxpaTHHecxoe H3AaHne, cnoxoiiHoe h aHaAHTHHHoe. BbixoAfl-
iijhh b CTasponoAe Tpa^cAaHHH’ HMeeT noA3aroAOBOx: ‘M3AaHHe opraHH3a-
Ahh 3a HapoAHbiH cJ)poHT CrasponojiMi’, ho ero BnojiHe mo>xho othccth x
AH6epanbHO-AeMOxpaTHHecxHM H3AaHH«M. lloBepHB b AexjiapaTHBHoe 3a«B-
AeHHe o rAacHocTH, AeMoxpaTH3auHH, xoapacneTe, nAiopajiH3Me, npOBHH-
AHaAbHbie HHTejuiHreHTbi (xaHAHAaTbi Hayx, npenoAaBaTejiH) HanajiH axTHB-
h\k) Ae»TeAbHocTb no peaAH3au,HH 3thx nojTO>xeHHH h cpa3y >xe CTOJixHyjiHCb
C MOUJ,HbIM npOTHBOAeHCTBHeM MeCTHOH npaBBIIjeH Ma(J)HH. B CHAy 3TOrO
>xypHaA, ecTecTBeHHo, npeTepneA HexoTOpyio 3boak>ahk>, npeBpaTHBumcb b
onno3HAHOHHo-noAeMHHecxHH opraH, OTCTaHBaiomHH np0B03rjiameHHbie
Fop6aHeBbiM npHHijHnbi nepeA mccthoh BjiacTbio. Ochobhbim coAep^xaHHeM
CTaao yAHHeHHe npaBHTejien o6jiacTH b MHoroHHCJieHHbix rpexax. B JleHHH-
rpaAe bmxoabt Asa BnojiHe onno3HAHOHHbix jiH6epajibHO-AeMoxpaTHHecxHx
H3AaHHH ‘3a nepecTpoHxy’ — sto )xypHaji ‘IlepexpecTOx MHeHHH’ h raaeTa
‘CeBepo-3anaA’. ‘HepexpecTox MHeHHH’ — TeopeTHnecxHH >xypHaji, ocHOBHoe
BHHMaHHe yACAHioui,HH couHaAbHo-sxoHOMHHecxHM npo6AeMaM. ‘CeBepo-
3anaA’ — e>xeHeAeAbHafl ra3eTa aoboabho umpoxoro cnexTpa, OTHocHTejibHO
paAHxaAbHaa, ho 6e3 neTxo Bbipa>xeHHoro HanpaBjieHHB.

npaB03amHTHbie AeMoxpaTHHecxne H3AaHHa (hx 6ojibiue ABaAuaTH)
npOAOJi>xaK)T TeHACHAHio 6opb6bi 3a rpaacAaHcxHe npaBa b paMxax

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

61

cymecTByiomero coBeTCKoro h Me>KAyHapOAHoro 3aKOHOAaTejibCTBa,
cymecTByiomyio c cepeAHHbi inecTHAecaTbix toaob. K hum mo>kho othccth
npe^CAe Bcero ABa H3Aami5i KoMHTeTa CoAHaabHOH 3amHTbi (acypHaji T ojioc’
h ra3eTy ‘^CepHOBa’), 6iojuieTeHb ‘CrpaHHHKa y3HHKa’ h )KypHajibi ‘HpaBo’ h
‘IIpaBa HejioBeKa5, 6iojijieTeHH xejibCHHCKnx rpynn, H3AaiomHec5i b HecKOJib-
khx pecny6jiHKax. llpH BceM HenpHJiTHH cymecTByiomero CTpoa npaB03amHT-
Hbie H3AaHHH, reM He MeHee, hcxoaht H3 Toro, hto BjiacTH aojdkhm Bbinoji-
HSTb coGcTBeHHbie 3aKOHbi h noAnHcaHHbie hmh Me>KAyHapoAHbie corjiame-
hhh: npe>KAe Bcero Bceo6myio AeKjiapauHio npaB RejiOBeKa h BeHCKHe
AoroBopeHHOCTH. FIomhmo KOHTpojia 3a co6jnoAeHHe Me^cAynapoAHbix npa-
BOBblX aKTOB, npaB03aU3HTHbie H3AaHH« 3aHHMaK)TCH KOHKpeTHOH paGOTOH
no o6HapoAOBaHHK) (j)aKTOB h noMomn nocTpaAaBuiHM ot npoH3BOJia Bjia-
CTeH, OT aGcypAHOCTH H HCAeMOKpaTHHHOCTH HaUJHX 3aKOHOB. ToJICTbie
AeMOKpaTunecKHe h3abhh*i TaKHe xax TjracHocTb’, ‘HoeAHHOK’, ‘JleBbiH
noBopoT’, ‘OncpbiTaa 30Ha’ BKjnonaioT npaB03amHTHbie nyGjiHKaiiHH b ot-
AejibHbie pa3Aejibi.

Pa3Hoo6pa3HeHuiHe ajibTepHaTHBHbie nyra AeMOKparaHecKoro pa3BHTH«
CTpanbi, He coBnaAaioLUHe c HaMeneHHbiMH BjiacTHMH npeo6pa30BaHHJiMH,
npeAJiaraeT 6ojibuiaa rpynna paAHKajibHo-AeMOKpaTHHecKHx h3abhhh. MHa-
KO, T.e. CaMOCTOHTeJIbHO, MblCJIHU^He peAaKUHH B OCHOBHOM y6e>KAeHbI, HTO
jhoGoh nyTb pa3BHTHs npn coxpaHeHHH KOMMyHH3Ma Kax kohchhoh ijejiH, a
KOMMyHHCTOB y BJiacTH — TynHKOBbiH h TH6ejibHbiH jinn CTpaHbi. HaH6ojiee
xapaKTepnbiMH ajib H3AaHH« 3TOH rpynnbi aBjunoTca HecoMHeHHO ra3eTbi,
)KypHajibi ‘AeMOKpaTHHecKoro coK>3a’: ‘CBo6oAHoe cjiobo’, GiojuieTeHb ‘flC’,
‘HoBasi )KH3Hb’, ‘HaHauo’, ‘/jHCCHAeHT’, ‘YapeAHTejibHoe coGpaHHe’, h mho-
roHHCJieHHbie perHOHajibHbie HH(J)opMaH,HOHHbie jihctkh. 06lhhm ajib 3thx
H3ABHHH HBJiaeTCH OTKpOBCHHaH 0nn03HH,H0HH0CTb CymeCTByKUIjeMy pe)KHMy
— HenpHHTHe hh peajibHoro couHajiH3Ma, hh toto nyTH, KOTopoe npeAJiaraeT
KIICC. TTomhmo H3AaHHH J\C, HanGojiee hpkhmh paAHKajibHo-

AeMOKpaTHHeCKHMH H3ABHH5IMH, HBJI5HOTC5I HH(j)OpMaH,HOHHa5I (JiaKTOJlOTHHe-
exaa ra3eTa ‘3Kcnpecc-xpoHHKa’, >KypHajibi TaacHOCTb’, ‘/JeMOKpaTHHeacaa

0^^03H^H^^,, ‘MOHHTOp’. TjiaCHOCTb’ - MOIHHafl HH(J)OpMaH,HOHHaH (J)HpMa,

opneHTHpoBaHHaa Ha 3anaA. ‘3Kcnpecc-xpoHHKa’ — CBoero pOAa jieTonncb
onno3HunoHHoro abh^kchhh CTpaHbi h npecTynjieHHH BjiacTeii. Ctohuthh
oco6h«kom — >KypHaji KOH(j)eAcpaH,HH aHapxo-CHHAHKajiHCTOB ‘06mHHa’
nponaraHAHpyeT coBepineHHO opHTHHajibHyio KOHAenunio nojiHTHaecKoro
yCTpOHCTBa CTpaHbi.

Oco6oe nojio^KeHHe 3aHHMaioT H3AaHHa HapoAHbix (JipOHTOB. CpeAH hhx
ecTb h paAHKajibHbie onno3HunoHHbie H3AaHHa h npoKOMMyHHCTHHecKne h
eouMajiHCTHHecKHe h pycoc|)HjibCKHe. Han6ojiee MoiHHbie ABH>KeHHa cjio>kh-
jiHCb b BajiTHHCKHx pecnyGjiHKax. CaioAnc b JlnTBe h HapoAHbie (jipoHTbi
B JIaTBHH H 3CTOHHH HMeiOT COJTHAHyiO H3AaTeJTbCKyH3 6a3y, H3AaiOT

62

Solanus 1990

co6cTBeHHbie ra3eTbi h SiojuieTeHH, nojib3yiomHecji orpoMHOH nonyjuip-
HocTbto. HaHHHaa c 1989 roAa b BajiTHH npoH3omjia pe3Kaa noAHpH3aijH5i
He3aBHCHMbix o6mecTBeHHbix H3^aHHH. Ha oahom nonioce npecca HaijHOHa-

JIHCTHMeCKHX HapOAHbIX (j)pOHTOB, Ha ApyrOM - H3^aHH« HHTepZlBH>KeHHH.

Me^c^y co6oh ohh pa3H5iTCii ropa3AO 6ojibme He)KejiH ot rocyAapCTBeHHOH
npeccbi. Jlynume, Ha moh B3rji»A, H3#aHH a — sto pn>KCKa5i ‘ATMOAa’ h
TaJIJIHHHCKHH ‘BeCTHHK WJ\\ B POCCHH HapOAHbie (J)pOHTbI 3HaHHTejIbHO
MajiOHHCJieHHee h HcnbiTbiBaioT CHjibHoe npoTHBOAeHCTBHe BjiacTen. Kpyn-
Hbie opraHH3au,HH cuo^cnjiHCb b ilpocjiaBJie, JleHHHrpa^e h Ka3aHH; Ha
YKpaHHe — b KneBe. npH coachctbhh MocxoBCKoro HapoAHoro (j)poHTa
BbIXOAHT HeCKOJlbKO HC3aBHCHMbIX H3AaHHH; HaH6oJiee HHTepeCHbie H3 HHX —
‘JleBbiH noBOpOT’, ‘BecTHHK MocxoBCKoro HapoAHoro (JjpoHTa’ (npeKpamen)
h ‘Hauie Aejio\ Mockobckhh HapOAHbin (f)poHT (no cpaBHeHHio c npoBHH-
AHaubHbiMH) — HaHGojiee nojiHTH3HpOBaHHaH h pa3Hoo6pa3Ha« no
BKjnonaiouxHM b ce6a nojiHTHnecKHM HanpaBjieHHaM, opraHH3aijHfl.

CoTpyAHHKaM MocxoBCKoro 6iopo HH(J)opMaAHOHHoro o6MeHa, peryjiapHO
MHTaK)iiiH\i caMH3AaT, a 3aAaji Bonpoc: ‘Kaicne He3aBHCHMbie nojiHTH3Hpo-
BaHHbie H3AaHHH, no BauieMy mhchhio, OKa3biBaioT HaH6ojrbuiee bjthhhhc Ha
o6mecTBeHHoe ABHaceHHe, hbjhhotcji Han6onee HH(J)opMaTHBHbiMH h
npo^eccHOHajibHbiMH?’ B pe3yAbTaTe noflBHjica Taxon cnncoic: FlepBoe MecTO
npOHHO 3aHajia ‘3Kcnpecc-xpoHHKa\ 3aTeM ‘Atmoas’, a anee noHTH BpoBeHb
pacnojio^cHAHCb ‘06mHHa’, TjiacHOCTb’ h ‘Pe(j)epeHAyM\ B oTAejibHbix
perHOHax AOMHHHpyioT MecTHbie ra3eTbi: b BenopyccHH — ‘BeAopyccKa^

TpH6yHa’, B JIaTBHH - ‘ATrHMHMac’, B 3CTOHHH - ‘BecTHHK B Cn6HpH

— TIpecc-6iojiJieTeHb Ch6HA’, b JleHHHrpaAe — ‘MepKypnn’ h ‘CeBepo-
3anaA’. B Mockbc, b nocjieAHee BpeMB, 6biCTpo npno6peTaK)T nonyuHpHOCTb
ra3eTbi ‘HaHopaMa’ h TpaamaHCxoe aoctohhctbo’, no-npe>KHeMy Bbi3biBaeT
HHTepec penopTa>KHO-HpoHHHHbiH ‘XpoHorpa(J)’. CymecTByeT TaioK e pHA acyp-
HaJIOB BbICOKOrO ypOBHH H3AaiOmHXC5I OHeHb He6oJIbUIHM THpa^COM, He
OKa3bmaiomHx 3aMeTHoro bjihahhh, ho npnnoAHHMaiomHx ‘nuaHKy Kane-
CTBa’ caMH3AaTa. 3to npe>KAe Bcero cnaparpa(j)’, nyGjinnncTHHecKHH >xypHaji
ropoACKOH HHTejuiHreHAHH noKOJieHHB ceMHAecHTbix, aHajiHTHHecKHH ^cypHan

‘,HeMOKpaTH5I H Mbl’, ‘noeAHHOK’, ‘3eMJia’ - OAHH H3 HeMHOrHX AOCTOHHbIX

>KypHajiOB pyccKoro HaunoHajibHoro B03po^CAeHH». BnponeM, name Bcrpe-
naeTCH o6paTHoe — H3AaHH« AOCTaTOHHo cpeAHero ypOBHB bmxoabt 6ojib-
uihm (ajib caMH3AaTa) THpa>KOM h, b CHjiy CBoeil pacnpocTpaHeHHocTH,
HaHHHaiOT ‘6paTbCB b pacneT’, 3aHHMaeT onpeAejieHHyio HHtJjopMannoHHyio
HHuiy. 3to npe^KAe Bcero ‘HH^opMaunoHHbm 6iojiJieTeHb MAC’ (HH({)opMa-
AHOHHoro areHTCTBa CMOT), napTHHHbin opraH ‘Cbo6oahoc cjiobo’, mhoto-
Tnpa>KHbie 6ejropyccKHe h jihtobckhc H3AaHHa. B nocneAHHe Mecanbi CTajia
3aMeTHOH npOH3omeAiua5i cnjibHaa npo(J)eccHOHajTH3aAHfl caMH3AaTa, hto,
HecoMHeHHo jinuiaeT ero HexoTopon onapoBaTejibHocTH, omymeHHB AOBepna

Samizdat glazami bibliografa 63

h conpHnacTHOCTH, ho, b ijejioM, AejiaeT ero Gojiee OTBeTCTBeHHbiM h
jiHTepaTypHo rpaMOTHbiM.

CBoeo6pa3He coBpeMeHHoro coctobhhb caMH3AaTa 3axjnoHaeTC5i eme h b
tom, hto BHyTpn Hero ycTaHOBOHHbie pacxo^K^eHHfl e/jBa jih He 6ojiee
CHjibHbie, He>KejiH no othouichhio k o(J)HUHajibHOH npecce. Tpynna
MapKCHCTCKO-npojieTapcKHx >KypHajiOB £Ha6aT’, IlpojieTapcxHH bccthhx’,
‘PeBaHUl’, ‘MapKCHCT’, C OAHOH CTOpOHbl, COUHaJTHCTHHeCKHe H3aaHH« cJIe-
Bbm noBopoT5, ‘OTKpbiTaB 30Ha’ — b ueHTpe, jieBO^eMOKpaTHHecKHe Tuac-
HOCTb’, ‘fleHb 3a ahcm’, ‘Mohhtop’ — c Apyron. Pa3HOo6pa3HeHuiHe HauHo-
HajiHCTHHecKHe H3AaHH5i — ot pyccxoii TlaMBTH’ h JThtobckoto ‘Bo3pO^Ae-
hhjj’ ao A3ep6aHA>KaHCKoro ‘EiojuieTeHH H<J>’ — AexjiapHpyroT coBepuieHHO
nojuipHbie ueHHOCTH. BnponeM, H3AaHHB npeACTaBjiaiomHe KpaHHHe tohxh
3peHHB, eAHHCTBeHHbie, KOTOpbie BbiABHraioT pa3pa6oTaHHbie ajibTepHaraB-
Hbie nporpaMMbi. Kax Bbipa3Hjic« oahh m3 jiHAepOB pyccxoro B03po>xAeHHH

— ‘fleMOKpaTHHecKoe 6ojioto HHxaxnx npo6jieM He peiuHT’. A nojiBpH3auH5i
H3AaHHH b npH6ajiTHKe npocTO 6pocaeTCB b rjia3a. W3AaHHfl >xecTxo pa3Ae-
AeHbi Ha HaAHOHa.TbHbie (b ochobhom Ha H3bixe) h ‘HHTepHaAHOHajibHbie’,
pyccKOA3biHHbie, aaHHMaioLAHe, xax npaBHjio, Gojiee xoHcepBaTHBHyio no3H-

UHK>. B JlHTBe ‘ATTHMHMac’, ‘KayHO AHAac’ - ‘BeHHGe-EAHHCTBO-EAHOCTb’,

‘ruacHocTb’. B JlaTBHH ‘Atmoas’ — ‘Eahhctbo’. B 3ctohhh ‘Bccthhx H(J>’

— ‘BecTHHx WJ\\ npHHeM, HaH6ojibuiyK) arpeecHBHOCTb npojiBjisioT He
xoHcepBaTHBHO-nepecTpoeHHbie H3AaHHH, a HauHOHaji-naTpHOTHnecxHe.
CxjiaAtiBaeTCB BnenaTJieHHe, hto pyccxoa3biHHoe HacejreHHe oxpaHH npocTO
HanyraHO pa3MaxoM HauHOHajibHoro ABH>xeHHH h hhhcto xpoMe npH3biBOB x
CAep)xaHHocTH h 6jiaropa3yMHK> He Mo>xeT eMy npoTHBonocTaBHTb.8 OcoGhh-
XOM CTOHT nOJIHTH3HpOBaHHbie, HO BeCbMa CBOeo6pa3Hbie H3AaHHB HameA-
uiHe cbok) MHxpocouHajibnyio HHuiy — npeame Bcero (J)eMHHHCTCxoe 3KeH-
cxoe HTeHHe’ h ‘CBoGoAa’ — )xypHaji ‘cHCTeMbi’ (cobctcxhx xHnnH). ‘)KeHCxoe
HTeHHe’ b ochobhom npeAOCTaBjiaeT cboh CTpaHHUbi jiHTepaTypHOMy TBopne-
CTBy >xeHu^HH, ho nenaTaeT h ny6jiHijHCTHxy (cTaTba o PaHce ropGaneBon),
nepeBOAbi, cexcojiorHnecxHe HCCJieAOBaHHH. ‘CBoGoAa’ npeACTaBjiaeT HHTaTe-
JTBM OpHTHHaJIbHbie JTHTepaTypHbie H nyG.THAHCTHHeCXHe OnbITbl ‘CHCTeMHblx’
pe6flT. (KjiaccHnecxaB (J)hjioco(|)hh xHnnn AOBOJibHO pa3pa6oTaHa, h oahh H3
nOCJieAHHX MOTHXaH ABH^XeHHH UieCTHAeCBTblX H3AaeT B ETcXOBe XOpOHIHH
^xypHaji ‘12’.)

H3 peJIHTH03H0-(f)HJT0C0(J)CXHX H3AaHHH, BHe BCHXOH XOHXypeHU,HH ‘BblGop’

— )xypHajr xpHCTHaHCxoH xyjibTypbi, npoAOJDxaioiJUHH TpaAHijHH cepeGpaH-
hoto Bexa pyccxon 4)hjioco(|)hh. Tlpn htchhh ‘BbiGopa’ HHorAa B03HHxaeT
omymeHHe, hto He 6bijio b Pocchh ceMHACCHTHjreTHero xouiMapHoro

8 3th mjXSLHHH HejIb3H Ha3BaTb ‘caMH3AaTOM’, HO 3TO, HeCOMHeHHO, He3aBHCHMaa (B CMbICJie
nojiHTHHecKOH h KyjibrypHOH opneHTauMH) ot npaBHTejibCTBa npecca.

64

Solanus 1990

3KcnepHMeHTa, h hto acHBbie yneHHKH ConoBbeBa h OnopeHCKoro
npOAOJDKaiOT aejio yHHTeJieH. /I,OCTaTOHHO BbICOKOrO ypOBHfl, nOHTH MOKKOH-
(j)eccHOHajibHbiH ‘BiojijieTeHb xpHCTHaHCKOH o6mecTBeHOCTH’. )KypHaji oneHb
HH(f)OpMaTHBeH, CTpeMHTCfl OXBaTHTb BCe CTOpOHbl pejIHTH03H0H 5KH3HH
CTpaHbi. C BecHbi 1989 roaa bmxoabt OTAejibHbie HH(f>opMaHHOHHbie BbinycKH
5X0, co^ep>KamMe xpoHHKy pejiHTH03H0H >kh3hh CCCP. Bonee npaBbiii h
OpTO^OKCaJIbHblH, no CpaBHeHHK) C 3THMH H3AaHHHMH, npaBOCJiaBHblH )Kyp-
Haji ‘Cjiobo’ — oh Gy^eT 6onee Bcero 6jth30k peBHHTejiHM ‘enapxHajibHoro’
npaBOCJiaBna. K co^caHeHHio oneHb ManeHbKHM mpa^coM bmxoaht npexpac-
Hbin xpncTnaHCKHH acypHaA j\jw AeTen ‘Kpyr’. 3to, HacKOJibKo vine h3bcctho,
e^HHCTBeHHoe noAo6Hoe H3AaHHe, k TOMy 5Ke xoporno HjunocTpnpOBaHHoe
COBpeMeHHbIM XyaO>KHHKOM-aBaHrapAHCTOM. Ha MOJIOAOKb paCCHHTaH H
MHCCHOHepCKHH >xypHaji ‘Amboh’. B oojibineH hjih MCHbuien CTeneHH co6-
CTBeHHbiMH nepnoAHHecKHMH H3AaHHBMH npeACTaBJieHbi noBTH Bee pejinrno-

3Hbie KOH(J)eCCHH CCCP - OT pyCCKOH HCTHHHO npaBOCJiaBHOH aepKBH B

KaTaKOM6ax ao eBaHrejibCKnx xpncTHaH-GanTHCTOB n KaTOJiHKOB.

JlHTepaTypHbin caMH3AaT b nocjieAHee BpeMH noHTH He pa3BHBaeTC«, b
xyAinen CBoefi nacra ocTaBHCb yaejiOM rpa(})OMaHOB h lOHouiecTBa, b JiyniueH
— npo6HBuiHCb b ‘SojibuiyK)’ npeccy hjih Ha 3anaA. FIpoAOAacaiOT BbixoAHTb
He6oJIbUJHM THpa^COM HOBBHBUIHeCH B KOHIie CeMHJjeCHlblX JieHHHrpaACKHe
>KypHajibi ‘Hacbi’ h ‘06BOAHbiH KaHajf — asbho CTaBuine 3aMeTHbiM HBJie-
HHeM b jiHTepaTypHOM aHAeprpayHAe. ABaHrapAHCTCKHe tchachijhh, cjia6o
3aMeTHbie b ‘Hacax’, pacuBejiH b hobbhbuihxc« b 1985 roAy AByx HHTepecHbix
aBaHrapAHCTCKHx H3AaHH«x — ‘Mhthhom ^ypHajie’ (JleHHHrpaa) h
‘3ncHjioH-cajiOHe’ (MocKBa). M no cen AeHb, HecMOTpa Ha to, hto nacTb hx
peAaKIJHH 3MHTpHpOBaJia, OHH OCTaiOTCB JiyHUIHMH H3AaHHHMH B H36paHHOM
HanpaBJieHHH. B KOHu,e 1988 roAa b JleHHHrpaAe CTaji BbixoAHTb jiHTepaTyp-
HblH )KypHaJI ‘CyMepKH5, npOAOJl>KHBLHHH, nOHTH HCHe3HyBUiyB3 JIHHHK) Tpa-
AHHHOHajiH3Ma, KjiaccHHecKOH pyccKOH jiHTepaTypbi. 3to oneHb hhctmh h
rpycTHbin acypHaji jiHTepaTopoB noKOjieHHB ceMHAecHTbix. Bmxoa H3 o6men
CHTyaHHH nOCT-MOAepHH3Ma HIHyT AB a HOBbIX JieHHHTpaACKHX H3AaHHH (jie-
tom 1989 roAa cymecTBOBaBHine b MaxeTax) — ‘3Hax’ h ‘Becmnnc hoboh
JiHTepaTypbi’. 06a H3AaHiia 3aHHMaioTC5i noHcxaMH hoboto H3bixa b ncxyc-
CTBe, ‘HeoaBaHrapAOM’ (pa3HHua b B03pacTe Me)XAy H3AaTejiHMH — ABa
noKOJieHHJi). B Encxe, b rjiyxon npoBHHAHH, AecaTb jieT H3AaiOT nocTaBaH-
rapAHCTCKHH ajibMaHax ‘TpaHcnoHaHc’ ^cHByinne TaM nocT(j)yTypHCTbi; b
MocKBe peryjiHpHO nbiTaioTcn 3KcnepHMeHTHpoBaTb c H3AaHH«MH aBaHrap-
Ahctm pa3Hbix OTTeHKOB, nocjieAHee hx H3AaHHe Bbiuuio noA Ha3BaHHeM
‘MaHHaKajibHo-AenpeccHBHbiii ncnxo3\ HecKOJibKo H3AaHHH BbixoAHT Ha
6a3e jiHTepaTypHbix o6beAHHeHHH, ho 3aMeTHoro cjieAa ohh He ocTaBjunoT.
EcTecTBeHHO, b 3tom KpaTKOM o63ope nponymeHbi MHorne H3AaHHH
3acjiy>KHBaioiHHe paccMOTpeHHH.

Samizdat glazami bibliografa

65

^eM ace HHTepeceH caMH3AaT ajih 6H6jiHorpa(j)a? npeacAe Bcero tcm, hto
yace c MOMeHTa BbixoAa jno6oe caMH3AaTcicoe H3AaHHe — 6n6jiHorpa4)HHe-
cicaa pe^KOCTb. TnpaacH peAKO npeBbiuiaiOT 200 3K3eMnAapoB. Mhothc
HHTepecHeHiiiHe npoH3BeACHHa Tax h ocrajiHCb TOJibKo b caMH3AaTe. HanpH-
Mep, A. h B. CTpyrauKHe Tax nepeAeAajiH ajia ocjmijHaAbHOH nenaTH noBecTb
TaziKHe jieGeaH’, hto ot nepBOHanaAbHOH onTHMHCTHHecicoH aHTHyTonHH,
HacbimeHHOH coBeTCKHMH peaAHHMH — HHHero He ocTajiocb. A pyKonucHbie
c6ophhkh A. KpyneHbix! 3to ace KjiaccHnecKHH caMH3AaT! /Jah jnoGoro
HCCjreaoBaTejiH jiHTepaTypHoro h oGmecTBeHHoro npoijecca b Pocchh —
caMH3aaT ifeHHeHiHHH hctohhhk HH(j)opMauMH. MaTepHajibi, nenaTaiomHecH b
HeM, bo bchkom cjiynae 6onee o6beKTHBHo OTpaacaioT CHTyaijHio b HameM
oGmecTBe, He>Kejra noAHeBOJibHaa npecca. B HeM nojrynaioT BonAomeHHa
TOJibKo eme 3apoacAaK>mneca HanpaBJieHHa xyAoacecTBeHHOH h o6mecTBeH-
hoh MbicjiH. ‘CaMH3Aar cymecTBOBaji Bcer/ja’, — nnuieT /Jmhtphh JlHxaneB,
— ‘c Tex nop, Kax a yMeio HHTaTb, — a noMHio caMH3(naT.’ Tax HH(})opMai3Ha,
KOTopyio naTbijiHCb CAenaTb AOCTynHOH ajih rpaacAaH H3AaTejiH ceMHAecaTbix
(6hjih b kojiokoji h rjoOHjiHCb HTK cTpororo peaoiMa), cennac nyTb 6onee
AOCTynHa. ,/Jaace cTaBaTca ())HJibMbi h rejienepeaanH o nojiHT3aKjnoHeHHbix (b
tom HHCJie h b ncHxyuncax). Ho yBepTiopa k orrenejiH, Ha3biBaeMOH
‘rjiacHOCTbio’, cbirpaHa caMH3AaTOM. 3a#ana 6H6jiHorpa(J)a — 3a(j)HKCHpo-
BaTb: kto? r#e? xor^a?

Yxa3 o BOJibHbix THnorpa(j)Hax Bbiuieji noHTH 200 aeT Ha3aA. CeHnac Kny6
He3aBHCHMOH nenaTH HaMepeH Ao6nBaTbca oTMeHbi 3anpeTa Ha hhahbh-
AyaAbHyio (KoonepaTHBHyio) H3^aTejibCKyio AeaTejibHOCTb. B 6AHacaHiueM
OyayineM 6H6jiHorpa(J)aM h HH^opMaijHOHHbiM HHCTHTyTaM npHAeTca HMeTb
/jejio c HOBbiMH, HenoaueH3ypHbiMH oGbexTaMH 6H6iiHorpa(})HpoBaHHa,
cymecTByiomHMH BHe rocy^apCTBeHHon CHCTeMbi yneTa. Bn6jiHOTeKaM,
nojiynaioHiHM o6a3aTejibHbiH aoeMnjiap, ctohjio 6bi HanaAHTb xotb 6bi
ZienoHHpoBaHHe He3aBHCHMbix H3AaHHH Ha npaBax pyxonHCH. Hto ace 3to 3a
o6mecTBo — nmoiouxee Ha HHTejuieKTyajibHbiH noTemjHaji. OGlahh Mecan-
HbiH THpaac OTenecTBeHHoro caMH3AaTa npeBbiuiaeT 125.000 3K3eMnjiapoB.
3to okojio 400.000 HHTaTejien, h oTMaxHyTbca ot 3toto ())aKTa Hejib3a.
nepe/j HaMH aKHBaa HCTopHa HHTejiJieKTyajibHoro 6poaceHHa, nponcxoAamero
b HameM o6mecTBe. XoneTca ynoBaTb, hto B03MoacHO HopMajibHoe cyme-
CTBOBaHHe rocyaapcTBeHHOH h He3aBHCHMOH npeccbi. HHTaTejib caM Bbi6epeT,
hto eMy 6jiHace. Hco6xoahm AocTaTOHHO nojiHbin aHajiHTHnecKHH 6h6jiho-
rpa(J)HHecKHH yKa3aTejib.9 Heo6xoAHMa MopajibHaa h MaTepnajibHaa noA-
Aepaoca nepBbiM He3aBHCHMbiM 6H6jiHOTeKaM. Heo6xoAHM cboahwh KaTanor

9 Part of this article was written as an introduction to the author’s ‘Soviet Opposition Press
Handbook’ (‘CnpaBOHHHK He3aBHCHMOH npeccbi CCCP’), to be issued as a cneitBbinycK of nos.
5/6/7 of the samizdat journal ‘He3aBHCHMbiH 6H6jiHorpa({)’.

66

Solanus 1990

3THX 6h6j1HOTCK. J\jlH II,HBHJIH30BaHH0r0 o6lU,eCTBa He3aBHCHM0e KHHT0H3^a-
HHe 3X0 He yrojioBHo-HaKa3yeMoe ^ejmne, a ecTecTBeHHoe cjie^CTBHe
npo6y>K^eHHH o6mecTBeHHoro caMoco3HaHHJi, HanajibHbiH npouecc
^eMOKpaTH3aiXHH.

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book

W. E. Butler

The origins and activities of VOK have been outlined in an earlier issue of
Solanus.1 At the IV Congress of VOK held at Moscow on 19-20 October
1989, an event which takes place at five-year intervals, the Charter of VOK
was substantially amended to reflect the developments and implications of
perestroika.

In the period preceding the Congress there was a certain amount of
discussion about the directions in which VOK was developing, especially in
the columns of Knizhnoe obozrenie and V mire knig.2 These same views were
presented during the plenary debates at the Congress but found no support
insofar as rival candidacies for elective office within the organization were
concerned; the existing leadership was overwhelmingly re-elected.

Perestroika has nonetheless brought a number of changes reflected in the
new Charter. Serious book collectors are to have as much attention as the
ordinary reader — a contentious issue where emphasis on book studies
sometimes finds itself competing with what might be called ‘propaganda of
the book’. Bibliophiles in the RSFSR in January 1989 formed their own
Association within the VOK framework under thq guidance of O. Lasunskii
and V. Petritskii — both first-class bookmen. Recent issues of the Al'manakh
bibliofila develop thematically such diverse topics as ‘the book in Mongolia’
and ‘the Slavic book from the tenth to the twentieth century’. Even the rather
dull Kniga: issledovaniia i materialy has been enhanced with some absorbing
documents and articles on book collecting (see vols. 58 and 59).

In the spirit of perestroika VOK now accepts foreign members (insti¬
tutional and individual) and can confer honorary membership. The VOK
Charter is the first adopted by a social organisation in the Soviet Union to
authorise foreign economic activities of all kinds, an important development
in principle with implications far beyond the world of books.3

Although the acronym VOK remains, the Society approved a change of
name from the rather awkward All-Union Society of Lovers of the Book (and
although that is a literal translation of biblio philos , it does not convey the
seriousness of book collecting which the expression bibliofil does in the
Russian language) to the All-Union Society of the Book (Vsesoiuznoe
obshchestvo ‘Kniga’).

1 See W. E. Butler, ‘The All-Union Society of Bibliophiles’, Solanus 1 (1987), pp. 76-87.

2 See for example V. Ogryzko, ‘Kogo ob"ediniaet VOK?’, Slovo: v mire knig, 1989 no. 9, p. 9.

3 On the first fifteen years of VOK, with attention to its predecessor societies, see G. F.
Garin, Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo liubitelei knigi: istoriia, opyt raboty, problemy (1989).

68

Solanus 1990

Charter of the All-Union Society ‘Kniga’

[Adopted at the Constitutive Congress of the All-Union Voluntary Society of
Bibliophiles (1974), With Changes Made at the II (1979), III (1984), and IV (1989)

Congresses of the Society]

I . General Provisions

1. The All-Union Society ‘Kniga’ shall be a union of societies of bibliophiles of the
USSR, a self-governing, voluntary social organization uniting readers and propagan¬
dists of the book and carrying out its activities on the basis of full economic
accountability, self-financing, and non-subsidy in accordance with the USSR Con¬
stitution, prevailing legislation, and the present Charter.

2. The principal task of the Society shall be the development of the culture of the
peoples of the USSR in the sphere of the book and of reading, promoting the efficient
use of book funds of the country and personal book collections, the development of
book publishing and book distribution, and the realization of the requirements of and
the protection of the interests of its members.

3. The Society shall structure its work on the basis of programmatic documents of
the Party and the State, the initiative and amateur activity of its members and
associations in close contact with the founding organizations: the State Committee of
the USSR for the Press, the USSR Ministry of Culture, the State Committee of the
USSR for Public Education, the All-Union Central Consumers Union, the All-Union
Central Trade Union Council, the Central Committee of the Communist Youth
League, the Union of Writers of the USSR, and their local agencies, and other
interested State and social organizations and creative unions.

4. In order to achieve its purposes, the Society and its organizations shall:

(a) propagandize and disseminate the book, actively influence the formation of
readers’ tastes, inculcate a love for reading, and promote the enhancement of the
culture thereof and the satisfaction in every possible way of the spiritual interests and
demands of readers;

(b) independently and jointly with interested organizations:

— create social councils and sections, clubs of bibliophiles, bookstore clubs, peoples’
bookstores and kiosks, school cooperatives, social libraries, literary guest evenings,
video salons, and houses and museums of the book, book affairs, well-known literary
figures, and of public figures of science and cultures;

— promote the expansion of the network of mobile forms of library servicing of the
populace and the work of personal libraries open for public use;

— carry on philanthropic activity, collect literature from the populace for transfer to
childrens’ homes, boarding schools, military hospitals, hospitals, disabled veterans of
war and labour who require assistance, and take part in financing and implementing
programmes of cultural and social assistance;

— participate in the formation of thematic plans of publishing houses in the work of
formalizing advance orders for literature;

(c) organize creative meetings of readers with the authors of books and workers of
publishing houses, readers’ conferences and literary evenings, conversations, lectures,
book premieres and holidays, excursions to literary places, exhibitions of books and
bookplates, lotteries, book exchanges, and auctions of books and engravings;

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book

69

(d) enhance the knowledge of Society members in the domain of book culture, book
studies, bibliography, and antiquarian bookselling, and hold meetings and exchange
experience among bibliophiles;

(e) carry on publishing activity, publish the Al'manakh bibliofla , other periodical and
non-serial publications, books of various genres (including belles-lettres , scientific-
technical, and others), pamphlets, booklets, leaflets, posters, videos, and facsimile and
miniature publications;

(f) carry on production activity regarding the preservation of book collections, render
services to the populace, produce consumer goods, polygraphic, and production-
technical products, organize production activity on the base of cooperatives and of
joint enterprises with foreign firms, print all types of literature;

(g) carry on methods work, work out and disseminate the most effective forms and
methods of propaganda of the book, and hold competitions;

(h) realize among its members literature published by the organizations and enter¬
prises of the Society, other publishing houses, enterprises, and organizations,
including with the participation of cooperatives; take part in the dissemination of
subscription publications;

(i) cooperate with analogous non-governmental international and national societies of
foreign countries, and national associations of bibliophiles and bookplate collectors;

(j) carry on foreign economic activities;

(k) carry on other activities corresponding to the purposes and tasks of the Society.

II. Members of the Society , Their Rights and Duties

5. There may be members of the Society:

(a) citizens of the USSR who acknowledge its Charter and wish to take part in
resolving the tasks confronting the Society, working in one of its associations, and
annually paying the membership dues;

(b) pupils of schools of general education and other educational institutions who unite
into youth sections of friends of the book operating on the basis of a Statute confirmed
by the Central Board of the Society;

(c) State enterprises, institutions, and organizations, collective farms and State farms,
educational institutions, cooperatives, and social organizations wishing to facilitate the
activities of the Society and its associations (collective members);

(d) foreign citizens and organizations who express a wish to cooperate with VOK.

6. Individual members shall be admitted by a primary organization, and collective
members by the presidiums of the boards of districts (or city), regional, territory, or
republic (ASSR) organizations.

The admission of foreign members and organizations shall be effected by the
Central Board of VOK and by the boards of union republic societies and of the City of
Moscow.

A member of the Society shall be given a membership card and a lapel badge; a
collective member of a Society shall be issued a card of the established form.

7. A member of the Society shall have the right to:

(a) participate in all organizational, propagandist, production, publishing, and
methods activities of the Society;

70 Solanus 1990

(b) participate with the right of a casting vote in meetings of Society members and
criticize any worker in any organ of VOK;

(c) elect and be elected to the executive organs of the Society and participate in the
discussion of all questions considered at seminars, meetings, conferences, and
congresses of the Society;

(d) make proposals to the executive organs of the Society, State organs, and social
organizations directed toward effecting the goals and tasks of VOK, and participate in
their realization;

(e) receive advice from Society organizations regarding methods of work with the
book, with forming personal libraries, and using methods materials, visual aids, and
technical means of propaganda;

(f) take priority advantage of the material base of the Society and the services of its
enterprises and studios, as well as work with cooperatives attached to it;

(g) enjoy a preferential right to acquire literature published by the Society and its
organizations as well as publications ordered by and allotted to the Society by book
trade organizations;

(h) demand from executive organs of the Society any information affecting their
activities.

8. Members of the Society shall be awarded for active work a lapel badge,
certificate, diploma, commemorative lapel badge and shall be encouraged with books,
cash bonus, commemorative gift, tourist voucher, and other types of incentive.

For a substantial personal contribution to resolving the tasks confronting the
Society, the title ‘Honorary Member of the All-Union Society “Kniga” ’ may be
conferred on citizens of the USSR and foreign countries by the Presidium of the
Central Board, a lapel badge and a diploma being presented.

For many years of active service in the propaganda of the book, the most
distinguished members of the Society may be proposed by the Board of the Society for
State awards and the conferment of titles of honour.

III. Organizational Structure of the Society

9. The Society shall comprise on a voluntary basis the societies of lovers of the
book of the union republics and the City of Moscow, primary organizations which
unite in territories, regions, autonomous republics and national areas, cities, districts,
clubs of bibliophiles, bibliophile associations, and other entities.

10. The Society shall be structured on the principles of the electivity of the
executive organs and their periodic accountability to their organizations and to
superior organs of the Society, the adoption of decisions by majority vote, self¬
management, and collegiality and glasnost in the work of the executive organs.

During the elections of executive organs, Society members shall have the
unrestricted right to nominate candidates and to challenge and criticize any of them.

Elections before time of any organ may be held at the request of not less than
one-third of the members of the Society which direct the organizations or in which
they are united.

In the event a member of an elected organ does not justify the trust placed in him, he
may be withdrawn by majority vote of the participants of the plenary session of the
respective organ and, in a primiary organization, by the participants of the meeting.

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book

71

IV. Highest Organs of the Society

11. The highest agencies of VOK, the union republic societies, and the City of
Moscow shall be congresses, and in republics (AS SR), territories, regional, national
area, city, and district organizations, shall be conferences convoked by the respective
boards once every five years. The convocation and work procedure of the All-Union
Congress shall be announced not later than six, and of the congresses of the union
republic societies and the conferences of local organizations, not less than three months
before they commence work.

The norms of representation and the procedure for electing delegates of congresses
and conferences shall be established by the boards of the respective societies and
organizations.

Congresses and conferences shall be considered empowered if not less than half the
elected delegates are present at them.

12. Congresses and conferences shall:

(a) discuss the reports of boards and auditing commissions;

(b) determine the basic orientation of the activities of societies and organizations;

(c) elect by open or secret ballot (at the discretion of the congress or conference)
members of the boards and the auditing commission;

(d) congresses of the societies of union republics and of the City of Moscow shall elect
delegates to the All-Union Congress; conferences of republic (ASSR), territory, and
regional organizations, to the congresses of union republic societies; city and district
organizations, to the conferences of republic (ASSR), territory, national area, and
regional organizations, and where there are no regional divisions, to congresses of
societies of union republics;

(e) the congress of the All-Union Society shall confirm and make changes in and
additions to the Charter of the Society. Congresses and conferences of organizations of
societies of union and autonomous republics and the City of Moscow shall have the
right to adopt charters of the societies, taking into account the provisions of the
Charter of VOK and national traditions.

13. The executive organ of the All-Union and republic societies, of the City of
Moscow, and of republic (ASSR), territory, regional, national area, city, and district
organizations between congresses and conferences shall be the respective boards.
Plenary sessions of the boards shall be held not less than once a year. The sessions shall
be considered empowered when not less than half of the board members participate.

14. The central boards, the boards of the societies of the union republics and the
City of Moscow, and of republic (ASSR), territory, regional, national area, city and
district organizations shall:

(a) coordinate the activities of the respective societies, organizations, and associations
of bibliophiles in the interval between congresses and conferences and implement
decisions of the congresses and conferences;

(b) elect from among members of the board the executive organ — the presidium of the
board composed of a chairman, deputy chairman, executive secretary of the board
(when necessary), and members of the presidium in a number determined by the
boards;

(c) hear reports on the activities of the presidiums of the boards;

72

Solanus 1990

(d) effectuate control over compliance with the charters of the All-Union and republic
societies and the fulfilment of decisions of the congresses and conferences.

15. The central board, the boards of societies of union republics and the City of
Moscow, and of republic (ASSR), territory, regional, national and area organizations
shall create production enterprise and publishing houses working on full economic
accountability and self-financing.

16. The presidiums of the Central Board of VOK, the boards of societies of union
republics and the City of Moscow, and of republic (ASSR), territory, regional, and
national area organizations shall:

(a) in the interval between plenums of the boards carry on practical work relating to
the fulfilment of decisions of the congresses, conferences and plenums;

(b) create social councils and sections;

(c) effectuate moral and material incentives for organizations and members of the
Society;

(d) open accounts in branches of the State Bank;

(e) in order to carry on current work create a bureau which operates on the basis of a
Statute confirmed by the presidium.

17. The presidiums of city and district organizations shall:

(a) coordinate the work of primary organizations and other associations of the Society;

(b) effectuate the fulfilment of decisions of congresses, conferences, and plenums;

(c) effectuate moral and material incentives for organizations and members of the
Society;

(d) represent their organization in State, social, and cooperative organizations.

V. Primary Organizations of the Society

18. Primary organizations shall be the foundation of the Society and shall be
created, as a rule, at a place of work, study and residence where there are not less than
ten individual members. The rights of primary organizations may be granted to
associations of Society members in accordance with their interests.

19. A meeting of a primary organization and associations equated thereto shall elect
by open ballot a chairman and a treasurer not less than once every five years. Primary
organizations who number fifty and more members of the Society shall elect a bureau
and an auditing commission. The bureau shall elect a chairman and a treasurer.

20. The general meeting of a primary organization shall assemble as necessary, but
not less than once a year and shall be empowered if not less than half the members are
present at it.

21. The primary organization of the Society shall:

(a) realize the initiative of its members in the cause of propaganda of the book and of
reading;

(b) take part in measures carried on by VOK;

(c) promote the efficient use of book funds as well as of personal libraries of members
of the Society; organize premieres of books, readers’ conferences, debates, literary
evenings, competitions, and book exhibitions; promote the study of the history of the

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book

73

art of the book, the bookplate, and graphics, book publishing, and librarianship;
promote the exchange of books, the purchase of books, and the preservation of library
funds, and work with the thematic plans of publishing houses;

(d) decide questions of membership in the Society;

(e) make proposals to superior organizations of the Society concerning incentives for
active members;

(f) receive entry and membership dues;

(g) have the right to use part of the funds received from the collection of individual
membership dues within the amounts determined by the superior organization which
has an independent balance sheet. Reports concerning the expenditure of such funds
shall be confirmed by decision of the meeting of the primary organization.

VI . Auditing Commissions of the Society

22. A central auditing commission, auditing commissions of societies of the union
republics, of the City of Moscow, and of republic (AS SR), territory, regional, national
area, city, district, and primary organizations of the Society shall be elected by open or
secret ballot at congresses, conferences, and meetings by members of the Society who
are not members of the respective boards or bureaux.

The auditing commission shall be subordinate directly to the organ which elected it
and accountable thereto. The auditing commission shall elect from among its
membership a chairman, deputy chairman, and secretary.

23. The auditing commission shall verify the activities of the respective board and
enterprises subordinate thereto and, when necessary, the boards of inferior organiz¬
ations regarding questions of financial-economic activities, compliance with the
estimate and personnel discipline, accounts and reports, and the timeliness of
considering proposals, applications, and complaints of Society members.

The auditing commission shall conduct planned audits not less than once a year and
as necessary. The acts of auditing and auditing commission and its proposals must be
discussed at sessions of the presidiums, organization bureaux, and plenums of the
respective boards, meetings, and bureaux of primary organizations of the Society.

The auditing act shall, when necessary, be sent to the board of the superior
organization.

Auditing commissions shall, jointly with the boards of societies and their
organizations, render methods assistance to auditing commissions of inferior organiz¬
ations.

Expenses connected with the activities of the auditing commissions shall be
relegated to those of the respective board.

VII. Assets of the Society

24. Assets of the Society shall be formed from:

(a) revenues from measures relating to the propaganda of the book;

(b) revenues from publishing activities;

(c) revenues from production activities;

(d) revenues from the realization of literature and polygraphic products;

74

Solanus 1990

(e) entry and membership dues of individual members;

(f) voluntary contributions of collective members, organizations, and individuals;
revenues from the sale of stocks, and other receipts.

25. Members of the Society shall pay an entry fee in the amount established by the
boards of the societies of union republics and, annually, membership dues in the
amount of one ruble.

Students of higher and pupils of secondary specialized educational institutions shall
be exempted from the payment of entry dues, paying annual membership dues in the
amount of ten kopecks. The question of paying membership dues by school children
and pupils at vocational-technical schools shall be decided by the boards of the
societies of the union republics, the City of Moscow, and republic (AS SR), territory,
and regional organizations. The payment of dues by direct debit for pupils of schools,
technical institutes, and vocational-technical schools, and for students of institutions
of higher education from their earnings shall be permitted. Pupils at children’s homes
and boarding schools, as well as disabled persons, shall be exempt from the payment of
dues.

26. Membership dues and other cash receipts shall be deposited to the current
account of the respective board in the State Bank.

VIII. On the Rights of Organizations of the Society as Juridical Persons

27. The Central Board of VOK and its chairman shall, when carrying on economic
activities, enjoy the rights provided for by prevailing legislation for the directors of
union ministries and departments and shall confirm the structure and scheme of
post-salaries for workers of the board. Societies, and the boards of societies of union
republics and their chairman, shall enjoy the rights of the directors of ministries and
departments of union republics.

The Central Board of the Society and the boards of societies of union republics shall
have the right to:

— confirm statutes on payments for labour and incentives for propagandists of the
book and other activists of the Society;

— determine ticket prices for measures relating to propaganda of the book for which
admission is being charged;

— establish prices for their own publishing and other products;

— establish five-year normative standards for deductions for organizations within
their jurisdiction and for the boards of societies; for the formation of the production
and social development funds; and for the local budget.

28. The Central Board of VOK, the boards of societies of union republics and of
the City of Moscow, and of republic (ASSR), territory, regional, national area, as well
as of city and district organizations which have an independent balance sheet, shall
have the right:

(a) of publishing activities for the issuance of belles-lettres and other types of literature
and the creation for this purpose of publishing houses and printing shops;

(b) to create museums, houses of the book and creativity, literary theatres, video
salons, cultural-domestic centres, leisure bases, shops, and other trade enterprises,
create their own production and individual sectors, and also work places for recruiting
disabled persons for labour activities;

Charter of the All-Union Society of the Book 75

(c) to pay specialists who work at the Society increments to earnings for an academic
degree, title, and the use of a foreign language at work;

(d) to establish contacts with associations of readers and analogous societies of foreign
countries; create and participate in associations and consortiums with State, social, and
cooperative organizations;

(e) to carry on foreign economic activities in accordance with prevailing legislation,
including the creation of joint enterprises, trade houses, joint stock societies, hold
exhibitions, fairs and auctions, and open representations abroad. To carry on
export-import operations to ensure all types of activities and the socio-cultural and
domestic development of VOK, and open accounts in the Vneshekonombank SSSR.

29. The right to dispose of credits shall belong to the chairman of the respective
board and to the first deputy chairman, with the right to transfer this right to other
officials.

30. The Central Board of the Society, the boards of the societies of union republics
and the City of Moscow, and the republic (AS SR), territory, regional, national area,
city, and district organizations which have an independent balance sheet shall be
juridical persons and shall have a seal and a stamp with their respective names.

31. The boards of the societies of the City of Moscow, republic (ASSR), territory,
regional, national area, city, and district organizations which have an independent
balance sheet and production enterprises shall be guided in their activities by the
present Charter and the provisions of the Law on the State Enterprise (or Association).

32. The Central Board of VOK shall be situated in the City of Moscow, and the
boards of the societies of union republics in the capitals of the union republics.

33. The Society shall terminate its activities by decision of the All-Union Congress.

Translated from Knizhnoe Obozrenie, no. 48 (1 December 1989), pp. 14-15.

Two Rare Russian Printed Books
in the Collections of the New York Public Library:
The Moscow Gospels of 1606 and the Chasovnik of 1630

la. D. Isajevych

with the assistance of R. H. Davis

The New York Public Library (NYPL) holds North America’s largest and
most diverse collection of Slavonic early-printed books and manuscripts.
Among them are works by the first East Slavic printers Schweipolt Fiol (his
Pentecostal , 1491), Frantsysk Skaryna (a newly acquired fragment of the
Bible, 1519), and Ivan Fedorov (both the Apostols , 1564 and 1574, an Ostroh
Bible, 1581, and a fragment of the New Testament and Psalter , 1580). The
collection also includes books published in Russia (among them an undated
Gospels from the Moscow ‘anonymous’ press and the 1647 Russian translation
of Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen’s infantry manual), the Ukraine (several
liturgical and theological books of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, for example Ostroh editions of works by St John Chrysostom and
the Kiev Sluzhebnik of 1620), and Belorussia (the Kuteino 1653 edition of
Pamvo Berynda’s Lexicon)}

The Library recently expanded its collection through the acquisition of
nineteen Slavonic printed books and one manuscript from the collection of the
late Monsignor Basil Shereghy (1918- 1988). Dating from the seventeenth to
the early nineteenth centuries, the texts include some remarkable examples of
printing in Church Slavonic type, including one of the earliest Bulgarian
cyrillic imprints, printed in Rimnic, Romania (the 1806 edition of Kiriako-
dromion ), and a beautifully illustrated 1669 Kiev edition of the sermons of
Innokentii Gizel', Archimandrite of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves,
entitled ‘Peace of Man with God’.

Many of the books in the NYPL collection contain inscriptions which are
important sources for reconstructing the history of the books’ ownership and
dissemination. There are also books with fine bindings and other distinguish¬
ing features.

Although the largest collection of old Slavic books and manuscripts is in
the Slavic and Baltic Division, other items are also held by other departments

1 Robert Mathiesen, ‘Church Slavonic Books in The New York Public Library: A
Preliminary Catalogue’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities , vol. 87, no. 4 (1986-1987), 1989,
pp. 404-17; E. Kasinec, ‘Notes on Old Cyrillic Books and Manuscripts in American Repositories’,
Polata knigopisnaja , 3 (March 1980), pp. 12-19; and a forthcoming article by Robert H. Davis, Jr.
on the Russian and East European materials in the Spencer Collection of the New York Public
Library.

Two Rare Russian Books in the NY PL

77

of the Library., namely the Rare Books Division, the Manuscripts Division,
and the Spencer Collection.

The present paper is devoted to copies of two seventeenth-century Moscow
printed books. The first of these, held by the Spencer Collection, is interesting
because of its hand-coloured ornaments and miniatures, and the second, in
the collection of the Slavic and Baltic Division, because it has not been
previously described in the bibliographic and scholarly literature.

★

The Gospels (. Evangelie ) published by Anisim Mikhailovich Radishevskii
(Onysym Mykhailovych Radyshevs'kyi) was printed in Moscow in 1606.
This book is very rare outside the Soviet Union. The files of the Commission
which is preparing the union catalogue of old cyrillic and glagolitic imprints
indicate no copy of this book in any Western library.2 The copy of
Radishevskii’s Gospels was purchased for the Spencer Collection of the NYPL
in 1937 and, as far as we know, it is one of only three copies of the book on the
American continent, the other two being in the Harvard College Library and
in the private collection of the Rev. Basil Stroyen and Nina Bohush of
Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania.

The publisher and printer of this book, Radishevskii, occupies a unique
place in the history of Russian culture of the first half of the seventeenth
century. A Ukrainian by birth, he came to Moscow in 1586, probably form
Ostroh (Ukraine), the site of a famous press3 and of the no less famous
‘trilingual’ Academy.4 In Moscow archival records of the late sixteenth
century, he is described as ‘a bookbinder of printed books’. In the afterword
of the Moscow 1606 Gospels he refers to himself as a Volynets (i.e. a native of
Volhynia, a region in the Ukraine).5 The second book printed by Radishevskii
was the Ustav tserkovnyi (Order of Church Services) of 1610, with an
afterword containing a paraphrase of a passage from the preface to the Ostroh
Bible of 1581, in which the name of Prince Konstantyn Ostroz'kyi is replaced
by the name of the Tsar, Vasilii Shuiskii. The book was condemned by the
authorities, and some copies of it were destroyed. Thereafter, Radishevskii
was engaged as a military engineer and became an outstanding figure in the

2 Iu. A. Labyntsev, ‘Predvaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo shrifta
pervoi chetverti XVIIv.’, in V pomoshch' sostaviteliam svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii
kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov , edited by E. L. Nemirovskii, 7 (Moscow, 1982), p. 26, no.
20.

3 la. D. Isaevich, Preemniki pervopechatnika (Moscow, 1981), pp. 6—20.

4 I. N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov rightly considered the Ostroh Academy to be an ancestor of
all East Slavic universities. See I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, ‘Ukrainskii i belorusskii gumanizm’, in
his Slavianskie liter atury (Moscow, 1978), p. 183.

5 la. D. Isaievych, Pershodrukar Ivan Fedorov x vynyknenma drukarstva na Ukraini, 2nd ed.
(L'viv, 1983), pp. 72-3.

78

Solanus 1990

Moscow Ordnance Office ( Pushkarskii prikaz).6 During this period he
compiled from foreign sources (mostly from Leonhardt Fronsberger’s
Kriegsbuch 7) the first Muscovite Russian book on military equipment and
engineering, the Ustav ratnykh pushechnykh , i drugikh del kasaiushchikhsia do
voinskiia nauki ( Order of Troop , Gun , and other Matters Related to Military
Science). Some old manuscript copies of the book state that it was compiled by
‘Anisim Mikhailov’, but the identification of this man with Radishevskii could
not be confirmed until a copy which included his surname was discovered.8

The uniqueness of the NYPL copy of Radishevskii’s 1606 Gospels lies in
the illumination of its woodcuts. Such illumination was common in the West
during the incunable and early-printing periods, beginning with the Guten¬
berg 42-line Bible in the 1450s. In some copies of old cyrillic books, the
woodcuts (illustrations, ornaments and initials) were primitively coloured by
their owners or readers, but the illumination of cyrillic imprints by pro¬
fessional miniaturists was an extremely rare phenomenon. A surviving
example of such artistic colouring of ornaments is found in the copy of Ivan
Fedorov’s New Testament and Psalter (Ostroh, 1580), now in the library of
Moscow State University.9 As far as the Radishevskii Gospels of 1606 is
concerned, some copies were coloured at the press. A. A. Sidorov describes a
beautifully illuminated copy in the Lenin State Library in Moscow, and
suggests that this copy was coloured by the artist who made the drawings for
the block-cutters. Judging from Sidorov’s description, the colouring is
stylistically close to the colouring of the New York Public Library and
Harvard copies. However, the NYPL copy of the Radishevskii Gospels is
perhaps more richly illuminated than the other copies described in mono¬
graphs and printed catalogues.

In cyrillic printed books of liturgical content, titles, names of rubrics,
figures and symbols indicating the order of readings were often distinguished
by rubrication. But in the New York copy of Radishevskii, the red letters and
punctuation marks on initial pages, the lists of chapters and the first pages of
each Gospel are decorated with gilding (ff. 1-14, 128-135 °f the first foliation,
and 1-6, 126, 132 of the second foliation). The full-page engravings of the

6 M. A. Petrushenko, ‘Drukar XVII st. Onysym Radyshevs'kyi’, in Ukrains'ka knyha (Kiev
and Kharkiv, 1965).

7 First published in Frankfurt in 1573; the fourth edition appeared in 1596.

8 The title was applied to Radishevskii’s ‘Military Book’ ( Voinskaia kniga ) by its first
publisher, the archaeologist and journalist of Ukrainian descent V. H. Ruban. A copy of Ruban’s
edition of 1772 is in the University of California, Berkeley Library (catalogued under the name
Onisim Mikhailov). On Ruban’s publishing activity see David Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact
on Russian Culture, 1750-185° (Edmonton, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1985), pp.
119-26.

9 I. V. Pozdeeva, I. D. Kashkarova and M. M. Lerenman, Katalog knig kirillicheskoi pechati
XV-XVII vv. Nauchnoi Biblioteki MGU (Moscow, 1980), pp. 40-1.

Two Rare Russian Books in the NY PL

79

l

t

I

1

ta<ite»rwinain«TO

'jqpg-I.^TSW -J-M'-l -

The Evangelist Matthew. Coloured woodcut from the Gospels , Moscow, 1606. NYPL
Spencer Collection. Photographer Robert D. Rudic, New York City.

8o

Solanus 1990

Evangelists are illuminated in the style found in miniatures in contemporary
Russian manuscript books. The range of colours is rich and includes deep
tints of red, green, blue and gold. The faces of the saints are modelled with
subtle gradations of tone. The same colours are used for colouring the
ornamental headpieces. On the first page of each of the four Gospels floral
ornamental framing is added, including stylized leaves, flowers and buds. The
title page of the last chapter of the book, the Sobornik (the calendar of feasts
and index of the festal services), is also decorated by hand. The Sobornik' s title
page as well as the pages with the illuminations of the Evangelists are
protected by bound- in sheets of translucent fabric equal in size to the book’s
pages. Strips of paper with painted decoration are attached along the borders
of these interleaves. Thus the pictures appear to be framed when seen through
the protective sheets. Such protective sheets are also found in the Harvard
copy, which, although less sumptuous, was undoubtedly illuminated in the
same shop, and perhaps by the same artist.

We have no direct evidence as to where the illumination took place. The
skill of the miniaturist, however, suggests that the work can be ascribed to one
of the leading Moscow scriptoria connected with the press, or to the press
itself, as was suggested by A. A. Sidorov as regards the copy described in his
monograph.10

★

For centuries, the Chasoslov ( Book of Hours ) was extremely popular not
only as a prayer book, but also as a book used in elementary education, in all
East Slavic countries. The abridged version of the Book of Hours was known
as the Chasovnik , and later also as Uchebnyi chasovnik (Pedagogical Book of
Hours). The traditional sequence of Church Slavonic educational works was
as follows: Primer, Book of Hours, Psalter. It is no wonder that Books of
Hours and Psalters were published more frequently than any other book. For
example, after the appearance of the Apostol of 1564, Ivan Fedorov and Petr
Mstislavets published two further editions of the Chasovnik (7 VIII to 29 IX
1565 and 2 IX to 29 X 1565). 11 The next surviving edition dates from 1618,
and from 1618 to 1640 fourteen editions have been described in various
bibliographies.12 To these should be added five or six editions not described

10 A. A. Sidorov, Istoriia oformleniia russkoi knigi (Moscow, 1946), p. 86, and his
Drevnerusskaia knizhnaia graviura (Moscow, 1951).

11 E. L. Nemirovskii, Vozniknovenie knigopechataniia v Moskve: Ivan Fedorov (Moscow,
1964), pp. 312-19, and his Ivan Fedorov, okolo 1510-1583 (Moscow, 1985), pp. 109-1 1.

12 A. S. Zernova, Knigi kirillovskoi pechati izdannye v Moskve v XVI-XVII vekakh: svodnyi
katalog (Moscow, 1958), pp. 27-54.

Two Rare Russian Books in the NY PL

^ .Z,TfarqoCb .

1 H TH^ fcCHJ &*/W

^m& «r© s®

-■ if'© ^5(|H*TfA '♦ : H^'M A,i

fro HAtA't A” 3f *****

/ H ^

^lAAKA F4 K0A£J1HM4
•/» ^ A ■ . Jf - .. * >

ia fro ,, «3 ab'k t*i i ro

„ / -v ♦ -v "S

mkht^hm j o*ihm*h
ft M fftf Kof ^ j#*K o rro H

* ' — l/ '■■ . <

MfVOfTHf Wf^TH HO

o4 M«H . nfHjfH ha

• - n jT j * ( *r%

MA Mi

Chasovnik , Moscow, 16 XI 1630, f. 4/6V.

82 Solanus 1990

bibliographically but mentioned in the archives of the Moscow Press
(. Pechatnyi dvor ).13

The Chasovnik of 16 XI 1630, a copy of which has been discovered in the
Slavic and Baltic Division, is unknown to the bibliographers and unrecorded
in archival sources. This edition is very similar to other Moscow printings of
the work.

The book is printed in black and red and there are eleven lines to the page.
The same types (10 lines = 89-9001111) are used in other publications of the
period. Complete copies probably had 248 folios. There are no folio or page
numbers but the eight-leaf gatherings are signed with cyrillic numbers in the
bottom right-hand corner of the first sheet of each gathering. Three initial
gatherings (IT. 1/3 to 3/8), folios 11/4, 11/5, 17/4, 26/1, 29/4, and at least three
folios at the end of the book are missing from the New York Public Library
copy.14 The binder placed at the beginning of the volume the afterword and
eight folios containing the final part of the book (beginning with the title in
red Polunoshchnitsa , po j vsia suboty . . .).

Although the afterword lacks the final leaf, the part with the most
important information is preserved. Thus we know that the book was
published by order of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and with the blessing of his
father, the Patriarch of Moscow, Filaret. Archival records, summaries of
which have recently been published by I. V. Pozdeeva,15 contain data about
chronologically close editions of the Chasovnik , namely those printed from
March to May 1630 (no copy is recorded) and from 2 VI 1630 to 23 II 1631
(two copies, one in the Lenin Library in Moscow and the other in the
Saltykov- Shchedrin Library in Leningrad).16 Both were printed on the
newly acquired tenth press which was operated by the compositors Ivan
Minin and Ivan Danilov.17 The printing of the latter took an unusually long
time, so that the New York Public Library Chasovnik , though begun much
later, was completed much earlier than the Chasovnik of 23 II 1631. The
printing of this newly described Chasovnik took little more than a month: it
began on 12 X 7139 (i.e. 1630 A.D.) and was completed on 16 XI of the
same year.

A comparison of the New York Public Library Chasovnik with microfilms
of the 1618 and 1631 editions18 shows that the texts coincide page for page,

13 I. V. Pozdeeva, Novye materialy dlia opisaniia izdanii moskovskogo Pechatnogo dvor a
(Moscow, 1986), pp. 23-38, nos. 13, 16, 30, 44, 61, 75.

14 Here and later in this article the first number is the signature and the second is the number
of the folio in the gathering, e.g. 1/3 indicates the third leaf of the first gathering.

15 I. V Pozdeeva, Novye materialy (note 13), pp. 30-1, nos. 44-50.

16 A. S. Zernova, Knigi (note 12), no. 84.

17 I. V. Pozdeeva, Novye materialy (note 13), p. 31.

18 These titles were consulted on films borrowed from the collection of the Center for
Research Libraries (Chicago).

Two Rare Russian Books in the NY PL

83

* firo MAH

/f «■* y /I

ofTMfA • (MfiffrA fie

©•

aim n 1 - -

** ✓

«

orf,*,A*rM * an* *

*nw * ' »*■»< ^ •• S

*Tf9 , HISO . ilMAH% ^

firis.,Ki^KOfr^

«-* ^ ^

m,*. ^[nAHn^M
HMIHUU 4 fTHTMtC

HKf noAmr*&

Y ^

«N

. -r

't

>v

S. £

1

•*-. *■ -

$

>

3

t

v.

N,

t,

\

V.

s

N

T

\

s

>,

A

\

*NI

.>

t*

rv

J

1

&

§ 1
\

\

V >

o *

* N
^ £
• ^

\'

Chasovnik, Moscow, 16 XI 1630, f. 28/41-.

84

Solanus 1990

line for line, at least on those pages which are extant for all three copies. There
are only minor variants in orthography, punctuation and abbreviations. As a
rule, the typesetting of the 1631 Chasovnik is more primitive than that of the
newly discovered Chasovnik of 16 XI 1630. For example, on f. I34r (line 6) in
the 1630 edition there is the red-ink title Psalom ", 6. In the next edition this
title is included in the line which ends with the last word of the preceding
paragraph: esi ... Psalom , 6. In the 1630 edition f. 2iov. begins with the title
tropar' , glas ", 8". In 1631 the word tropar1 is abbreviated ( Prop ) and the
last letter of the word glas" is placed over the line. This allowed the text of
the paragraph to begin on the same line as the text of its title: tro(p) gla(s) 8 .
Svy. From this it is evident that the compositor of the Chasovnik of 16 XI
1630 was more skilled than his colleague who prepared the subsequent
edition. The Chasovnik s of 1630 and 1631 have identical signatures and texts
of afterwords; only the dates of printing differ.

The sequence of chapters in the 1630 Chasovnik is the same as in all
Moscow editions from 1565 to 1652 of both variants of the Book of Hours
(' Chasovnik and Chasoslov). The text begins with the vespers services
( vechernia ). The same order is found in the Venice edition of 1566 by Iakov
Kraikov, as well as in the Zabludau Psalter and Book of Hours of 1570 and in
the Ostroh Chasoslov of 1612. But in manuscript Books of Hours, as well as in
the first printed Church Slavonic edition— that of Schweipolt Fiol’s Cracow
press from the year 1491— the sequence of chapters was different, the first
being the Polunoshchnitsa.19 This order was later adopted in Ukrainian
editions of the Chasoslov , beginning with the L’viv version of 1609, and by
Moscow editions commencing with Patriarch Nikon’s Chasoslov of 1653. 20

The section titles in the Moscow Chasovnik of 16 XI 1630 are the same as in
previous Moscow editions of the book. Following titles are rendered with
ornamentally ligatured letters (viazf: ‘KANON PRESTEI BTSY’ (ff.
24-42); ‘TROPAR! BOGORODICHNY’ (ff. 27-82).

There are only three ornamental headpieces ( zastavki ) in the surviving
pages. The headpiece on the first leaf is the same as that used in the Chasovnik
of 13 VIII 1639 on ff. 25 and 29 (no. 87 in A. S. Zernova’s album).21 The
twenty-second gathering opens with the headpiece reproduced in Zernova’s
album (no. 332), but which is missing from her separately printed index to the
album.22 Finally, the headpiece on leaf 27/6 was used earlier in the Chasovnik
of 13 VII 1639 on ff. 86, 133, 215, 229.

19 E. L. Nemirovskii, Nachalo slavianskogo knigopechataniia (Moscow, 1971), p. 133.

20 The sequence of texts in Church Slavonic Books of Hours is discussed by the author
elsewhere. See Isaievych, Literaturna spadshchyna Ivana Fedorova (L'viv, 1989), pp. 60-3.

21 A. S. Zernova, Ornamentika knig moskovskoi pechati XVI-XVII vekov (Moscow, 1952).

22 A. S. Zernova, Ukazatel' k al'bomu ornamentiki knig moskovskoi pechati XVI-XVII vekov
(Moscow, 1952).

Two Rare Russian Books in the NYPL

85

r £ - -

'V**

O'

7 . J-

<*j dfurnuitv ^ t x

. ' r 7

■ucAja^s.i

f 1 !

yi l

•TV

^FtfiOAfVlfAV* vBf'A

' . - /

ffii

** /f

* v

S»

4V

f nfji*r^4»Mr»:f£

p^/iATMHA rri y ri

cr4 HtniA matin iw

*-» /t ' • ^

r 4. * «/ *rfiV «m*»

A r*/ , , /

nM*!W9 KIKH£«T1$<^

ipin wpr'tmin'f 4i?4r*

v>-

J*

■/

■ 1
)?

W

Chasovnik , Moscow, 16 XI 1630, the first page of the afterword (bound at the beginning

of the copy).

86

Solanus 1990

In the late seventeenth century the name of Thomas Strafford was
inscribed in the New York Public Library copy in two places: with the year
‘1691’ on f. 4/6V. (partly in Greek letters) and with the year ‘1699’ on f. 14/41:.
In the same hand appear several words from the Church Slavonic text of the
book. There are other English names and words on other pages: ‘William
We[n]tworth (f. ir.);23 ‘son ... Herbert ... Francis Mortimer’ (f. 31*.); ‘George
White’ (f. 6/2r.); ‘Atherstone 1691’ (f. 20/ ir.); ‘Purefoy, Caldecot’ (f.
28/5r.);24 as well as some others. Some short verses (two lines of a Sapphic
stanza) were written probably also in the seventeenth century, both in
Latin — ‘ Nemo tarn divos habuit faventes | | Crastinum ut possit sibi polliceri ’
(f. 19/8) — and English — -‘Improve your minutes whilst you may || they swiftly
fly and for no mortal stay’ (f. 28/4r.). It is evident that this copy was
brought to England by merchants who traded with Russia.

After the completion of Zernova’s catalogue of Moscow imprints, only two
dated Moscow editions of the first half of the seventeenth century were
located, as a result of the continuous efforts of archeographic expeditions
throughout the USSR. The New York copy represents a third. It is an
important addition to the union catalogue of the fifteenth- to seventeenth-
century cyrillic and glagolitic imprints, now being prepared by a group of
bibliographers from the USSR and other countries.25

23 Perhaps this is William Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (1626-1695), son of the famous
Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford, a principal supporter of King Charles I, executed in
1641.

24 Perhaps Purefoy was a relative of William Purefoy (1580?-! 659), a member of Parliament
and of the Court which tried Charles I.

25 The project, headed by Professor E. L. Nemirovskii, provides for the publication of two
series of catalogues: general catalogues of imprints of particular centuries, and more detailed
descriptions of the book production of individual presses. See E. L. Nemirovskii’s article,
published in IX Mizhnarodnyi z'izd slavistiv: istoriia, kultura, folklor ta etnohrafiia slovians 'kykh
narodiv (Kiev, 1983); V pomoshch1 sostaviteliam svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii
kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov (Moscow, 1980); and e.g. Iu. A. Labyntsev, Opisanie izdanii
nesvizhskoi tipografii i tipografii Vasiliia Tiapinskogo (Moscow, 1985).

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books
and Photographs at the New York Public Library

R. H. Davis, Jr.

Since its formation in 1895, the New York Public Library (NYPL) has
assembled one of the Western world’s greatest collections of illustrated books
and original photographs, depicting virtually all aspects of Russian/Soviet and
East European culture. Among the few comparable collections in the West of
research materials of this type are those of the Helsinki University Library,
the British Library, the Hoover Institution Library, the Library of Congress,
and the various special libraries of Harvard University such as that of the
Fogg Museum. However, even among those volumes available in other
collections, the NYPL’s are often distinguished by their provenance: many
were once in the personal libraries of various members of the Russian
Imperial family, or other notable personages, before being sold by the Soviet
state in the 1920s and 1930s.

The single greatest concentration of illustrated Slavica is in the Slavic and
Baltic Division, but the holdings of this administrative unit are complemented
by almost every curatorial division of ‘The Research Libraries’ and, surpris¬
ingly, by ‘The Branch Libraries’ system as well. The collections of each unit
comprise the warp and woof of a truly outstanding research resource.

For example, in the General Research Division one finds spectacular folio
volumes of coloured engravings, such as the collection A Picture of St.
Peter sburgh, Represented in A Collection of Twenty Interesting Views of the
City, the Sledges, and the People , published in London in 1815, as well as
Western-language archaeological plate books and Reisenliteratur dealing with
Russia. The Art and Architecture Division houses precious eighteenth-
century engravings by M. I. Makhaev (1718- 1770). 1 The Spencer Collection
holds works of historical as well as iconographic value, such as Istoricheskoe
opisanie drevniago Rossiiskago Muzeia published in Moscow in 1807, contain¬
ing thirty plates engraved by N. I. Sokolov ( 1 7??— 1 8??), and with a signed
dedication from A. F. Malinovskii (1762-1840) to P. S. Valuev (1743-1814).
The Spencer copy was formerly part of the Imperial library at Tsarskoe Selo.
Spencer also possesses a colourful, very rare Evangelie of 1606 printed by

1 On Makhaev, see G. I. Komelova, ‘K istorii sozdaniia gravirovannykh vidov Peterburga i
ego okrestnostei M. I. Makhaevym’, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha , XI, pp. 36-56.

88

Solanus 1990

A. M. Radishevskii (i5??-cu.i63o).2 Among the notable holdings of the Art,
Prints, and Photographs Division and the Rare Books Division are rare
illuminated manuscripts and engraved books of the Muscovite period,
popular prints of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and a collection of
approximately three hundred watercolours of ethnic costumes, drawn and
hand-coloured in vibrant hues by F. G. Solntsev (1801-1892) during the first
half of the nineteenth century. These watercolours came from the personal
library of Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918), and bear his monogram bookplate.

Some particularly striking illustrated book and iconographic materials can
be found in the various subdivisions of the Performing Arts Research Center
(PARC) at Lincoln Center. The Billy Rose Theatre Collection, for example,
contains cinema posters from the Soviet Union going back to the 1930s, and a
significant collection of pictures, programmes and scrapbooks (known
collectively as the Oliver Sayler Collection) on the Russian stage in the
twentieth century, with particular emphasis on the Moscow Art Theatre
during the 1920s. Works produced by the World of Art and Russian
avant-garde movements are encountered in many divisions of the Research
Libraries, but materials in the Theatre Collection are particularly extensive,
with original scene designs, costume sketches and caricatures by L. S. Bakst
(1866-1924), S. Lissim (1900-1981) and N. S. Goncharova (1881-1962). The
Dance Collection, also at PARC, is similarly endowed, with its own holdings
of original stage and costume designs by A. N. Benois (1870-1960), M. V.
Dobuzhinskii (1875-1957) and M. Chagall (1887-1985), among others. The
Dance Collection also maintains voluminous files of iconographic material for
researchers with an interest in the Slavic, and particularly the Russian, field,
including some six thousand photographic negatives of the ballerina Galina
Ulanova (1910- ), five hundred photographs of Nijinsky (1889-1950), cover¬
ing most of his great roles, as well as personal photographs, and a nine-hour
series of technical training films of Leningrad’s Kirov Ballet in the Jerome
Robbins Film Archive.

The Manuscripts Division — in which one would not expect to encounter
illustrated materials — possesses a large number of early Soviet posters,
collected on the spot by the American Relief Agency worker H. M. Fleming
(1900-1971).

Although the Branch Libraries are best known for their popular, circulating
collections, they also include sizeable holdings in the area of Russian

2 On the Radishevskii Gospels , see la. D. Isajevych, ‘Two Rare Russian Printed Books in the
Collections of the New York Public Library’, Solanus, Vol. 4 (1990). See also Robert Mathiesen,
‘Church Slavonic Books in The New York Public Library: A Preliminary Catalog’, Bulletin of
Research in the Humanities , 87 (4), pp. 404-17; and E. Kasinec, ‘Slavic and East European
Archival and Manuscript Materials in The New York Public Library’, Newsletter of the American
Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, 24 (3), p. 8.

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NYPL

89

Johann Jakobi von Wallhausen, Uchenie i khitrost' ratnogo stroeniia pekhotnykh liudei

(Moscow, Pechatnyi dvor, [1647]).

90 Solanus 1990

illustrated children’s books, and Soviet posters from the Second World War.

It is especially important to indicate and underline the degree to which the
various collections complement one another. By way of example, the Spencer
Collection holds the original watercolours of A. P. Bashutskii’s (1803-1876)
Panorama Sanktpeterburga , published in 1834, and an unpublished special
presentation volume of the engravings, while the Slavic and Baltic Division
holds a copy of the final published album. The Art, Prints, and Photographs
Division possesses the published Latin edition of P. S. Pallas’s (1741-181 1)
classic botanical study Flora Rossica published in 1784-1788, as well as a
sketchbook used in its preparation by the illustrator K. F. Knappe (1745-
1808), while Slavic and Baltic holds the published Russian text and plates.
The Spencer Collection possesses a copy of the German-language edition of
the coronation album of Empress Elizabeth (1709-1762); the Slavic and Baltic
Division has the Russian-language edition.

The size and rarity of the Library’s illustrated collection are accounted for
both by the institution’s propitious location at the heart of the largest Russian
book market in the United States, with the attendant opportunities for gift
and purchase that this facilitates, and by the Library’s aggressive purchasing
activity in the first three decades of this century. During the 1920s and 1930s,
at the time when the Soviet government sold confiscated objects of art,
printed books and manuscripts to Western collectors, colporteurs, and
directly to library collections, the Library was fortunate to have Avrahm
Yarmolinsky (1890-1975) as the Chief of the then Slavonic Division. Erudite
and indefatigable, Yarmolinsky travelled to the Soviet Union in 1923-1924
and purchased on-site many of the most spectacular items in the collection.3
The NYPL’s single largest acquisition during this period was the purchase of
the 2,000-odd volume library of Grand Duke Vladimir Aleksandrovich
(1847-1909), uncle of Nicholas II, in 1931. The Soviet press now openly
discusses this long-suppressed episode in Soviet history. The journal Ogonek,
for example, recently ran a series of articles that were highly critical of the
dispersal of Russia’s heritage.

Illustrated Book and Periodical Materials in the Slavic and Baltic

Division

Illustrative materials fall into two basic categories: firstly, the printed, or
published , illustrated book materials, which include images reproduced by
means of a broad range of processes such as lithography, chromolithography,

3 On Yarmolinsky’s book-buying trip to the Soviet Union in 1923-1924, see Robert A.
Karlowich, ‘Stranger in a Far Land: Report of a Bookbuying Trip by Harry Miller Lydenberg in
Eastern Europe and Russia in 1923-1924’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 87 (2/3), pp.
182-224.

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NYPL

91

Ocherki tverskoi stariny: Gorod Torzhok ([s.l., s.n., n.d.]). Embroidered cover. From the collection
of the Grand Duke Vladimir Aleksandrovich. Slavic and Baltic Division, NYPL.

92 Solanus 1990

wood-engraving, line engraving, photogravure, etching, etc.; and, secondly,
photographica , or original prints of photographs.

For the first category — published materials — it should be emphasized that
such materials are located at many different classmarks in the Slavic and
Baltic Division. This article is based on what is numerically the largest and
single most apropos classification, the art and architecture classmark (*QDZ),
and the so-called ‘Slavonic Reserve’, or Rare Books collection. Together,
these classmarks contain approximately 2,231 illustrated titles dating from the
period 1700-1940. 4

In preparation for a successful grant application aimed at preserving and
cataloguing these materials, a sample survey revealed that more than half of
the titles held by the Division at these two classmarks were the only copies in
the United States.

Rare illustrated book materials of the Imperial period include: every
coronation album from Empress Anna’s coronation in 1730 to Nicholas II’s in
1894; a complete copy of Plan stolichnago goroda Sanktpeterburga (St
Petersburg, 1753), with its panoramic fold-out views of the city; Opisanie
novago Imperatorskago dvortsa v Kremle Moskovskom (1851), containing
interior and exterior coloured views of the Kremlin and its Palace; and A. G.
Ukhtomskii’s (1779-1852) 1809 work Sobranie fasadov, containing archi¬
tectural illustrations and numerous aquatints. There are published albums of
photographs which are quite rare and often of interesting provenance. For
example, the Library’s copy of N. A. Naidenov’s (1834-1905) 1886 album of
views of Moscow bears the bookplate of Emperor Alexander III.5 The
Library also holds the supplement to Naidenov’s work, one of 350 copies
printed by I. N. Kushnerev & Co., also in 1886. There is D. A. Rovinskii’s
(1824-1895) Vidy Solovetskago monastyria (St Petersburg, 1884), which is
complemented by the Division’s holdings of early original photographs of the
Monastery dating from the 1850s; and I. S. Shchedrovskii’s (1815-1870)
famous collection of lithographs Stseny iz russkago narodnago byta (St
Petersburg, 1852), an outstanding work for the study of the images of Russian
popular culture. There are illustrated works on architecture, icons and book
illumination by I. A. Golyshev (1838-1896), as well as catalogues of Christian
‘antiquities’, including one by N. M. Postnikov (b. 1837?) which appeared in
an edition of only 100 copies. The Division also holds a copy of the art
historian and archaeologist V. V. Stasov’s (1824-1906) Slavianskii i vostochnyi

4 Illustrative materials are also encountered at many classmarks in the Slavic and Baltic
Division, including *QCT and *QCT + (Russian folklore); *QFE, *QFE + (Russian ethno¬
graphy); *QGR+ (Russian military and naval arts); *QPZ, *QPZ+ (Polish arts); *QVZ and
*QVZ+ (Czech arts).

5 N. A. Naidenov, Snimki s vidov mestnostei, khramov, zdanii i drugikh sooruzhenii (Moscow,
1886).

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NY PL

93

Natal'ia Goncharova, ‘The White Eagle’, from Misticheskie obrazy voiny (Moscow, V.
N. Kasin, 1914). Portfolio of fourteen lithographs. Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division

of Art, Prints, and Photographs, NYPL.

94 Solanus 1990

ornament (St Petersburg, 1887), an important work on design. A collection of
Stasov’s letters is held by the Library’s Manuscripts Division.

Some of the most colourful volumes concern military subjects, including
Illiustrirovannoe opisanie peremen v obmundirovanii (St Petersburg, 1898-
1899); the massive plate compilation Istoricheskoe opisanie odezhdy i vooruzhe-
niia Rossiiskikh voisk (St Petersburg, 1841-1862) by A. V. Viskovatov
(1804-1858); and the newly acquired Nabroski N. Samokisha iz zhizni
Gvardeiskoi Kavalerii ([St Petersburg], 1889-1890).

Finely illustrated children’s books and ephemera — such as a picture-puzzle
game from the nineteenth century — are to be found in the Division. These
include a large collection of fairy tales such as Skazka ob Ivane-tsarevich (St
Petersburg, 1901), and Vasilisa Prekrasnaia , illustrated by I. la. Bilibin
(1876-1942); silhouette illustrations to I. A. Krylov’s (1769-1844) fables; and
a collection of 250 volumes of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century children’s
books from the personal library of the bibliographer and political figure N. K.
Siniagin (1847-1912).

The collection is rich in volumes of portraiture, including Izobrazheniia
liudei znamenitykh (Moscow, 1844); the well known six-volume compilation
of Russian portraits entitled Russkie portrety XVIII i XIX stoletii , edited by
Grand Duke Nicholas (1859-1919) and published in St Petersburg in
1905-1909; as well as caricatures of the Russian and Soviet periods such as N.
G. Legat’s (1869-1937) Russkii balet v karikaturakh (St Petersburg, 189?),
and the Pochti portrety of the famous Kukryniksy (Moscow, 1932). There are
also many books dealing with the applied arts — lacemaking, folk art,
furniture, porcelain, etc. — which are of considerable practical use to the
auction houses, artists and antique dealers of the New York Metropolitan
area.

Illustrated editions of literary works abound, including lavishly illustrated
editions of the works of Pushkin by artists such as Dobuzhinskii (a portion of
Dobuzhinskii’s archives is also curated by the NYPL), and two by Benois, one
published by one of the finest printing houses in Russia, Golike and Vil'borg,
in 1917. For the Soviet period, there is a copy of Sem' plius tri (Kharkov,
1918), a rare illustrated avant-garde poem numbered fifty-seven in an edition
of two hundred.

Photographica

There are more than four thousand original albumen and gelatin prints
from the period ca. 1850-1930 in the Slavic and Baltic collection, covering an
extraordinary range of subjects. Aside from their documentary value for
architectural and ethnographic studies, individual images often constitute
remarkable aesthetic achievements in the history of photographic art.

The photographic images held by the Slavic and Baltic Division range from

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NY PL

95

Ol ga Rozanova, ‘Pikovyi korol' from Aleksei Kruchenykh, Zaumnaia gniga
(Moscow, s.n., 1915). Spencer Collection, NYPL.

96

Solanus 1990

the remarkably well preserved Risunki pamiatnikov chinam 12-go korpusa (a
Russian army unit fighting in the Caucasus) to an album chronicling the visit
of Emperor Wilhelm II to Russia in 1888 containing snapshots of the Tsar,
the German Emperor, and their respective families socializing on the Imperial
yachts.

One of the most notable collections of original photographs is the elder
George Kennan’s (1845-1924) assemblage of photographic portraits of
Russian anti-tsarist political exiles and convicts, which provide a rare glimpse
of the tsarist prison system, particularly when used in conjunction with other
photographic albums of Siberia held by the Division. Very recently, the
Division acquired an unusual set of late nineteenth-century photographic
prints of local inhabitants and exiled Russians in the Far East of Russia.

The forty-three photographs of the Dukhovnaia missiia v lerusaiime ,
possibly taken during the visit of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich
(1858-1915) to the Holy Land in 1881, are iconographic treasures, and have a
fine binding with carved olivewood boards. An Imperial presentation volume
of scenes from the Nizhnii-Novgorod Fair of 1896 depict many of its pavilions
and other important architectural features, such as the water tower designed
by the engineer V. G. Shukhov (1853-1939), which was among its most
popular attractions.

An album from the personal library of Alexander III depicts the Suzdal
monastery before the destruction of some of its many buildings during the
Soviet period. Also in the possession of the Division are many images of the
Church of Christ the Saviour, destroyed on the orders of L. M. Kaganovich
(1893- ) in the 1930s. These visual records are of great interest to the Russian
Orthodox Church and its communicants.

The Division’s holdings of pre-revolutionary illustrated books and
photographic images are its greatest strength in quantitative terms, and yet
there is much interesting material from the Soviet period as well: for example,
the original photographic albums of journalist Bessie Beatty (1886-1947) who
covered the early years of the Soviet state for the San Francisco Bulletin , and
incidentally was the subject of an article in the first issue of the Soviet Culture
Fund’s Nashe nasledie ; a collection of original views of Russia circa 1923,
taken by an anonymous photographer; and John Reed’s (1887-1920) own
collection of broadsides and posters from the period 1917-1918, donated to
the Division in the 1930s by the Association of Harvard Alumni.

Use of the Collections

The Slavic and Baltic Division’s collections of illustrated materials have
been employed by a broad constituency. During the past two years alone they
have been used by publishers such as Doubleday, Rizzoli, Abrams, and
Abbeville; by the designer Yves St Laurent, who incorporated illustrative

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NY PL

97

Konstantin Stanislavskii as ‘Satin’ in Maksim Gor'kii’s The Lower Depths (photograph
by Francis Bruguiere). N.d. Billy Rose Theatre Collection, NYPL.

98

Solanus 1990

materials in several exhibition catalogues of Russian costume;6 by dealers in
art and antiquities, auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s and rare
book dealers such as Ursus; and, quite recently, by the American Broadcast¬
ing Company; all have drawn extensively upon the visual and historical
materials in the Library for a wide range of purposes. And, of course, a large
and diverse international scholarly community regularly employs these
materials in their research.

Yet up to this point in time, much of the exploitation of the visual materials
in the collections has been on an ad hoc basis, depending largely on serendipity
for the location of just the right image for a given project. The question facing
the curators of illustrated materials is how best to facilitate the exploitation of
the visual resources of the Library in general, and of the Slavic and Baltic
Division in particular, which remains under-utilized in relation to the rest of
the Slavic collection; and, of course, how to accomplish this with a minimum
of wear and tear of the materials themselves.

The under-utilization of the collections is due in part to the fact that the
available Russian-language guides to published illustrated materials — such as
O. S. Ostroi and I. K. Saksonova’s Izobrazitel'noe i prikladnoe iskusstvo:
bibliograficheskoe posobie (Moscow, Kniga, 1986), N. A. Obol'ianinov’s
Katalog russkikh illiustrirovannykh izdanii 1725-1860 gg. (Moscow, Tovari-
shchestvo tipografii A. I. Mamontova, 1914-1915), and V. A. Vereshchagin’s
important compilation Materialy dlia bibliografii russkikh illiustrirovannykh
izdanii: Vyp. 1-4 (Leipzig, Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokrati-
schen Republik, 1975 (reprint edition)) — are little-known, and linguistically
beyond the capability of many potential users. Even less readily accessible are
the original photographic images, since the generic, artificial titles assigned to
the albums for cataloguing purposes rarely convey the diversity of the images
within.

Because of their large formats and the presence of coloured plates,
published volumes of illustrated material have been republished very
infrequently, limiting both their broad availability and user awareness. In
fact, a survey of the Pilvax Guide to Russian Reprints — the only extant com¬
prehensive guide to Russian commercial reprints — revealed a mere sixty-six

6 See, for example, Les Costumes Historiques Russes du Musee de VErmitage de Leningrad
(Paris, 1989), based on an exhibit of Russian costume prepared by Yves St Laurent at the Musee
Jacquemart Andre, Paris, 28 February-31 May 1989; Empire of the Czar: A Journey Through
Eternal Russia, by the Marquis de Custine, foreword by Daniel J. Boorstin, introduction by
George Kennan (New York, 1989); and 1917 in Photographs (New York, 1990); all of which made
extensive use of the Library’s collections.

Russian and Soviet Illustrated Books and Photographs at the NYPL 99

titles in architecture, general art, photography, graphics, religious art and
archaeology.7

There is, however, movement in a positive direction on many different
fronts. In the area of bibliographic awareness, the Slavic and Baltic Division’s
collection development policy continues to emphasize reference materials,
including collection surveys of other important art and iconographic collec¬
tions in the United States, such as the Institute of Modern Russian Culture,
now located at the University of Southern California, and abroad, such as the
Helsinki University Library. The Division has also assembled an outstanding
collection of Russian-language bibliographic guides. For those without a
reading knowledge of Russian, work is in progress on an annotated biblio¬
graphy of Western-language works, including translations from Russian,
concerning the fine and applied arts in Russia. This will be published
sometime in late 1990.

The present thaw in Soviet attitudes towards cooperative ventures with
Western businesses and institutions provides an unprecedented opportunity
for the republication of rare illustrated materials from Soviet repositories, as
well as the often equally scarce reference works necessary to access them. The
Division is actively encouraging new Soviet publishing ventures such as the
recently established ‘Nasledie’ to include such materials in their purview.

As to the future of the materials in the NYPL collections, two projects are
currently underway. Firstly, the Division is undertaking a division-
by-division review of the Library’s holdings, with particular attention being
paid to the subject matter of illustrated materials. Secondly, the Division has
received a grant of $1 85,000 from the Department of Education for the
preservation and description of its original photographic and illustrated books
collections. Progress in these areas will do much to advance the Division’s
efforts both to preserve its collections and to facilitate access to their contents.

7 The only notable exception is the colour microform set of avant-garde publications of the
early twentieth century, entitled Russian Futurism, 1910-1916 (Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey,
1976-1977).

Reviews

Svodnyi katalog inkunabulov moskovskikh bibliotek , arkhivov i muzeev . Sosta-
viteli N. P. Cherkashina (otv. sostavitel') [et al.\. Moskva, Gosudarstvennaia
biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, 1988. 191 pp. Illustrations. Indexes. 50k.

This recent work in the important series Materialy dlia svodnogo kataloga
inkunabulov khraniashchikhsia v bibliotekakh SSSR lists 252 editions in 272
copies preserved in six Moscow institutions: Moscow University Library, the
State Public Historical Library, the Central State Archive of Ancient
Documents (TsGADA), the All-Union State Library of Foreign Literarure,
the Pushkin Museum, and the Institute of Information on the Social Sciences.
There is also a supplement listing twenty-three incunables not included in the
1982 Svodnyi katalog.

The explanatory preface is followed by an introduction discussing the
nature and the history of the collections. We find out that the books include
writing in seven languages: Latin, Greek, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch
and Czech; they were printed in thirty-five cities; and they are a standard
cross-section of fifteenth -century output as far as genre and categories of the
texts are concerned.

It is pleasing to discover a number of distinguished rarities, such as
Richardus de Bury’s Philobiblon (Cologne, Johann Schilling, 1473, no. 204),
the unique copy of Pr overbios by Inigo Lopez de Mendoza (Seville, Stanislaus
Polonus, 1500, no. 150), and the 1488 Czech Bible (Prague, Jan Kemp, no.
53). Of great interest to students of early printing are fragments from three
Mainz Donatuses (one apparently printed by Johann Gutenberg, no. 90; the
others by Peter Schoffer, nos. 91, 92) and two fragments of books by
Speculum -Printer ( Disticha Catonis , no. 68, and Alexander de Villa Dei’s
Doctrinale , no. 14). All five are unique, and all five were identified and
described by N. P. Kiselev in Neizvestnye fragmenty (Moscow, 1961).

The catalogue proper follows the GM style of presentation; the layout is
clear, the illustrations well chosen and reasonably well reproduced. The
catalogue’s only disappointing feature is the paucity of copy-notes: the
imperfections are mentioned, but one is left wondering what exactly is
missing, and the complete absence of histories of individual copies impairs the
value of the catalogue to Slavic cultural and social historians.

The main listing is supported by customary indexes and an impressive set
of concordances — including those with published descriptions of fifteenth-
century books from all Soviet libraries. A useful list of fifty Soviet libraries
which have produced printed catalogues of their incunabula holdings con¬
cludes the work.

Reviews

IOI

All in all, the catalogue represents an important step toward a highly
desirable national census of incunabula, contributing greatly to our know¬
ledge both of fifteenth-century printing and of the range of library resources
in the Soviet Union.

Eugenia Zazowska The Pierpont Morgan Library ,

New York

Zh. Pavlova, Imperatorskaia Biblioteka Ermitazha , 7762-/9/7. Tenafly, N.J.,
Hermitage, 1988, C1987. 222 pp. Illustrations. Portraits. $15.00.

The transformation of the Hermitage Library from the private collection of
Catherine the Great into a world-class art library was accomplished, accord¬
ing to this account by Germaine Pavlova, almost in spite of the Museum
administration and the tsarist government. For much of its pre-Revolutionary
history, the Library languished or thrived according to the personal inclin¬
ation of the staff and the whim of the monarch. At times it was neglected by
incompetent, uninterested administrators; in better times it was protected by
the good will and foresight of talented curators (most notably F. A. Zhil', who
headed the Library from 1840 to 1863). At all times the Library’s directors
were constrained by the fact that the Library lacked legal status defining its
function and relationship to other organs of government and, indeed, to the
sovereign himself. As a result, the Library had neither an explicit mission nor
an acquisitions profile, nor, apparently, an identifiable clientele for most of its
history prior to the Revolution. This lack of direction is amply illustrated in
Pavlova’s narrative. What is missing from her account, unfortunately, is a
sense of the evolving cultural and socio-political milieu in which the Library
existed. Important questions concerning the operation of the Library also
remain unanswered. Without this broader historical context or the specific
details of operation, the picture of the Hermitage Library that emerges is
incomplete.

Pavlova, a former staff member at the Library who has previously
published a substantial article on the history of the Hermitage Library in its
initial phase of development (cIz istorii khizhnogo sobraniia Ermitazha:
Biblioteka Ekateriny II’, in Nauchnaia biblioteka Ermitazha 1, Trudy Gosu-
darstvennogo Ermitazha, 16 (1975), pp. 6-32), divides the Library’s pre-
Revolutionary history into four stages, each described in one of the book’s
four chapters. Although we learn a great deal about the acquisition of private
collections during each of these stages, other aspects of operation are not
addressed. Who used the Library? How extensively was it used? What were
the conditions of access? What were the views of the administration on access

102 Solanus 1990

to the collection and how did these views evolve over the course of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? What was the state of bibliographic
control in the Library and how was it achieved? Although classification
systems and catalogues are mentioned in passing (pp. 36, 72-3, 107), we do
not learn how these classification systems were devised or adapted, nor of
what they consisted; we do not learn what form the catalogues took, nor how
they were compiled, nor, finally, whether they were good catalogues.

By far the most interesting episode described in the book is a conflict of
tragic proportions between the director Zhil' and his subordinate and former
protege B. Kene. (Apparently broken by this ordeal and other difficulties,
Zhil' resigned his position in 1864 and committed suicide en route for his
native Switzerland shortly thereafter.) Here Pavlova draws exclusively on an
account written by Zhil' himself and sent to Alexander II upon his
retirement, which she found in the archive of the Winter Palace. Although
other sources are cited to document Kene’s unsavoury character (V. V. Stasov
found him tiresome and grasping, for example), the author should have noted
the absence of corroboration. Again, intriguing questions are left unanswered.
Why, for example, did Alexander II dislike Zhil', his former tutor, and were
his feelings sufficiently intense to cause him to countenance Kene’s corrupt
behaviour? How can Zhif’s timidity and ineffectiveness in this episode be
reconciled with Pavlova’s overall characterization of him as able and adept?
Zhif’s difficulties with Kene coincided with his decade-long struggle with
Baron M. A. Korf, director of the Public Library, to take over portions of each
other’s collections, and in this instance Zhil' was no match for the master
politician Korf. Again, there are inconsistencies in the characterization of
Zhil'. He is described as scrupulously honest (p. 96), while at the same time
he was wont to lie to Korf about conditions at the Hermitage (p, 92, p. 175, n.

75)-

In the end, it was not concern for the Library but a need for more space for
the art collections that dealt the Library the final blow. The acquisition of the
Marchese Campana’s collection of art and antiquities in 1861 prompted the
director of the Hermitage to order the library staff to weed out everything not
specifically related to the museum’s art and antiquities departments, and the
remaining collection was dispersed among those departments. Yet it was this
acquisition, according to Pavlova, that finally forced the Library to define
itself and, nearly three decades later, to embark on a corresponding pro¬
gramme of collection development. What appeared to be the Library’s demise
was actually its rebirth.

Pavlova has made extensive use not only of the archives of the Hermitage
but also those of numerous other institutions in Leningrad and Moscow. A
detailed list of archival sources consulted is appended. There is also a short list
of published sources, which curiously omits Pavlova’s own 1975 article.

Reviews

103

There are a few typographical errors and inconsistencies in the text. In the list
of published sources, the date of publication for the sesquicentennial jubilee
volume of the Public Library is given as 1965, rather than 1963; in the same
list Svin'in’s guidebook is listed twice, as item 27 and item 76, and the date of
publication of volume 4 is incorrect both times. On page 18 the date of
appointment of Catherine’s librarian — important because it is generally taken
as the date of founding of the Hermitage Library — is given as 1768, but on
page 32 it is correctly given as 1762. The reference on page 61 to the
‘Rumiantsevskii i Moskovskii Publichnyi muzei’ in 1836 is clarified in an
end-note explaining that the library did not exist as such at that time, but
incorrectly gives 1861, rather than 1867, as the date the library became the
Moskovskii Publichnyi i Rumiantsevskii Muzei (p. 1) (and in fact the
Rumiantsev Museum was founded in 1831, not 1861; it was, however,
transferred to Moscow in 1861). On page 80 Zhil' is directed to undertake
selection of illuminated manuscripts from the Public Library on 13 May 1840,
but 1848 or 1849 would seem more consistent with other events described.
The volume is lavishly illustrated with portraits of the principals, the royal
family and the Hermitage. The end-notes are extensive and in fact contain
much interesting material that could have been integrated into the text to
great advantage. Unfortunately, there is no index.

The history of the Hermitage Library is an important chapter in Russian
cultural history, and Pavlova is to be credited for amassing so much rich
detail. There remain a number of important questions about its development
between 1762 and 1917. Perhaps some of these will be addressed in the
Hermitage’s 225-year jubilee volume announced for publication in the fourth
quarter of 1989.

Mary Stuart Library , University of Illinois

at Urbana- Champaign

Robert Otto, Publishing for the People: The Firm Posrednik , 1885-1905. New
York and London, Garland Publishing Inc., 1987. 251 pp. $42.00.

This succinctly argued study is the first to consider the history of Posrednik
( The Intermediary) in the general context of popular publishing and the
broad movement for vneshkol'noe obrazovanie. A very useful introductory
chapter provides a history of publishing for the people from the early 1830s
and details the many unsuccessful attempts made by intelligenty to bridge the
cultural gap they agonizingly perceived to exist between themselves and the
common people. Of especial interest, given the eventual partnership between
the Tolstoyans and the lubok publisher Ivan Sytin and the successful

104

Solanus 1990

harnessing by Posrednik of the ofeni network of itinerant peddlers distributing
lubochnaia literatura the length and breadth of the Russian Empire, is the
author’s conclusion that prior attempts to feed the spiritual man in the
Russian peasant foundered largely as a result of excessive concern for content
and insufficient regard for problems of distribution. Similarly impressive is
his penetrating analysis of the nature and function of lubochnaia literatura
and the differing attitudes to it of the average peasant in search of pleasure
and the average intelligent pursuing aims more consciously cultural. Two
chapters are then devoted to the cooperation between Lev Tolstoi and
Vladimir Chertkov and the founding of Posrednik , and the crucial role played
by Sytin. Three further chapters are concerned respectively with the part of
Chertkov in the firm’s initial growth and the later contributions made by his
fellow Tolstoyans Ivan Gorbunov-Posadov and Pavel Biriukov and a
succession of equally selfless sympathisers; the contents of the firm’s
publications — fiction and non-fiction totalling some 600 non-copyrighted
titles between 1885 and 1904; and the broad impact it had on publishing for
the people in tsarist Russia. Although Posrednik continued its activities well
into the 1920s, the author wisely chooses to conclude his study in 1905,
shortly after the firm had parted company with Sytin and, furthermore, the
events of 1905 had led to the abolition of preliminary censorship for
publications under 100 pages.

At first sight Ivan Sytin and Vladimir Chertkov may seem strange
bedfellows. Sytin was semi-literate, self-made and as a publisher of lubochnaia
literatura primarily concerned to provide the people with the kind of reading
matter they wanted and were used to. As a businessman he was also interested
in making money. Vladimir Chertkov belonged to the highest ranks of the
Russian nobility, was an ex-guardsman turned Tolstoyan, and an advocate of
simplification, selflessness and primitive anarchistic Christianity. As a pub¬
lisher his prime concern was to enlighten and improve, providing the people
with good spiritual food and what he thought they needed for salvation.
Moreover, as an aristocratic penitent he abhorred profit, money and the world
of business. Yet, in spite of their contrasting backgrounds and ideologies, they
both wished to reach as large an audience as possible and each had something
to give the other. Sytin had the distribution network, Chertkov could attract
the prestigious authors. They came together, moreover, at a time when
increasing literacy among the Russian peasantry was creating an expanding
market for the wares they had to offer. The achievements of Posrednik , the
timely child of this improbable union, were considerable. As Robert Otto
writes in his final paragraph: ‘The firm was the first intelligenty publishing
house to both grasp the importance of distribution and act on it. By doing so,
the firm aroused the hostility of the government, provided the culturists with
a measure of encouragement in their belief that the education of the people

Reviews

105

was possible through their agency, and permitted a choice to the people where
none had previously existed.’

Reprinted photomechanically for the Garland Series of Outstanding
Dissertations from a thesis originally presented at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison in 1983, this study just missed E. A. Dinershtein’s
seminal book on Sytin published by ‘Kniga’ in 1983. As is inevitable in a
series of this nature, it unfortunately reproduces errors present in the original
dissertation. There are a fair number of misprints and typographical incon¬
sistencies and also the occasional mistranslation. The present reviewer will
surely not be alone in wondering whether ‘Tto HHTaTb Hapo/iy’, for
example, might not have been translated as ‘What the People Should Read’
rather than ‘What to Read to the People’ ? And although the bibliography is
excellent, and the author has consulted all the relevant Soviet depositories
(with the sole exception of the Rubakin archive in the manuscripts division of
the Lenin Library, to which he was not granted access), it surely should have
been possible to make some concession to the book form and add at least a
subject and name index? These are, however, but minor blemishes in what is a
balanced, broadly informed and well structured piece of work.

Michael J. de K. Holman Leeds University

Xenia Werner, Wassili Masjutin in Riga , Moskau und Berlin. Sein Leben in
Bildern und Dokumenten ( Vasilij Masjutin in Riga , Moscow and Berlin. His
life in pictures and documents). Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz.
Veroffentlichungen der Osteuropa-Abteilung, 11. Berlin, Berlin Verlag Arno
Spitz. [1989] 108 pp. DM48.00.

Masiutin (1884-1955) undoubtedly belongs among the prominent book
illustrators of the twentieth century. If he is not as well-known as he deserves,
it is partly on account of his life which led him from his birth-place, Riga, to
Moscow, and finally to Berlin. Another reason is that he illustrated mainly
Russian literature, both in Russian- and German-language editions; thus his
work did not have as wide a circulation as the oeuvre of other artists.

Masiutin attended the cadet school in Kiev but abandoned a military career
in 1907 to study at the Moscow College of Painting, Sculpture and
Architecture. World War I saw him as a soldier; in 1918 he started work at the
Graphic Department of the Artistic-Technical Workshops in Moscow. At the
end of 1920 he returned to his home-town Riga, and one year later he went to
Berlin for good. During his early time in Berlin he created many of his most
impressive illustrations. Ms Werner devoted a chapter in another publication
to this period in the artist’s life (‘Vasilij Masjutins Buchillustrationen im

xo6

Solanus 1990

«Russischen Berlin»’ (Masjutin’s book illustrations in «Russian Berlin»), in
Thomas R. Beyer et al ., Russische Autoren und Verlage in Berlin nach dem
Ersten Weltkrieg , Berlin, 1987, pp. 187-245). In addition to illustrating, he
worked for the UFA and other movie companies, the Habimah Theatre which
performed in Berlin in 1930, and the theatre of Mikhail Chekhov, a nephew of
the famous writer, in Paris. In 1945 Masiutin was taken into custody by the
Russian occupation forces because of his previous contacts with Ukrainian
nationalists, but one year later he was free again and even worked for the
Russian administration.

Ms Werner provides a short biography of Masiutin (pp. 7-12) which is
followed by a few quotations from Nabokov which do not deal with Masiutin
personally but give a good idea of the emigres’ usual trouble with the
bureaucracy. The illustrations consist of photographs, documents, postcards,
clippings from newspapers and letters, especially those written to his daughter
Marina. (‘Today I received your postcard, my dear little child. Now the
nights are pitch dark. Recently a horse escaped from the stable, tripped and
got severely hurt. Chukundra says hello. She steals oats from the white horse,
takes everything for herself and does not let him eat. I kiss you heartily, my
little one, be a good girl. God bless you! Your Vasja’ runs a postcard of 20 Jan.
1916.) Little sketches give the little girl a vivid idea of the letter’s contents.
This volume also reproduces quite a number of Masiutin’s works, entries in
exhibition catalogues and reports on exhibitions. Thus we learn that
Masiutin’s engravings were exhibited at the Moscow Rumiantsev Museum as
early as 1920, before he left the country (O forty V. N. Masiutina (1908-
1918), Moscow, 1920). Quite a number of Masiutin’s works (nos. 77-145)
were shown at The Hague in 1924, at the ‘Tentoonstelling van russische
kunstschilders’. No less than six items were included in Ten Years of Russian
Graphics ( Katalog vystavki graviura SSSR za 10 let ( 1917-1927)1 Moscow,
1927). Little-known among Masiutin’s works are his sculptures, his novels
(Dni tvoreniiai written in 1919, and Der Doppelmensch , Munich, 1925), and his
illustrations to /Esop's Fables (1937). The volume ends with a bibliography on
Masiutin. Especially important are several articles by Ms Werner, Klaus
Oestermann’s recent catalogue of Masiutin’s illustrations (1987), and an index
of names.

Illustrated biographies have become quite popular; they are usually more
imaginative and readable than mere texts. But there is a disadvantage: if there
are not any illustrations for a certain period of the person’s life, or if the items
in question are difficult to reproduce, these things are either omitted or only
briefly mentioned. For this reason the most convenient solution would seem
to be a well illustrated biographical text which goes beyond mere captions to
the pictures. The readers of the present biography would certainly appreciate
more information on Masiutin’s life and works than is provided. The

Reviews

107

bibliography refers to additional sources to be drawn on, including the
author’s own articles on Masiutin. Even if this lack of textual information is
quite regrettable, the volume as a whole is well done, and author and
publisher deserve our praise for making this unique material available to us.
Masiutin was an important representative of ‘Russian Berlin’ which has
recently attracted quite a lot of attention in connection with the celebration of
the 750th anniversary of Berlin. In May 1989 a major exhibition at the Berlin
Art Library, ‘Europaische Moderne’, included several items by Masiutin.
The initial on the book cover is taken from Masiutin’s illustrations for Boris
Pil'niak’s Povest1 peterburgskaia (Berlin, 1922, page 51). Besides the general
edition, the publisher offers a special numbered one which contains one piece
of original graphic by Masiutin (price DM64.00).

Hartmut Walravens Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz ,

Berlin

L’ Emigration russe. Revues et recueils , 1920-1980. Index general des articles ,
edited by T. L. Gladkova and T. A. Osorgina. Preface by Marc Raeff.
Bibliotheque russe de L’Institut d’etudes slaves, tome LXXXI. Paris, Institut
d’etudes slaves, 1988. 661 pp.

When considering the current state of Russian emigre bibliography, one
obvious weakness is in the area of periodical indexes. While we know which
periodicals were published, their contents are largely unknown to us. Without
access to such information our understanding of modern Russian culture will
necessarily be incomplete.

The volume under review attempts to address this bibliographic problem.
Growing out of an in-house finding guide, this work indexes some forty
journals and sixteen anthologies drawn from the collections of the Biblio¬
theque Russe Tourguenev and the Bibliotheque de Documentation Inter¬
nationale Contemporaine. The result is coverage of 25,260 items arranged
alphabetically by author. The volume also contains a brief preface and
introduction in French, Russian and English, bibliographical information on
the publications indexed, a list of anonymous articles, and an index of
personal names appearing in article titles.

While this index looks quite impressive, a closer examination indicates a
number of problems which limit its value as a research tool. These problems
rest primarily in the mechanics of compilation. For example, one wonders
why the contents of the journal Grani are included, when the journal issued its
owmseparate index in 1977. Equally puzzling is the omission of pagination for
each item, and why no subject index is included.

io3

Solanus 1990

Despite these factors, the index does provide access to a large body of
information hitherto difficult to locate. As such it aids in the overall
bibliographic control of Russian emigre publications. We should warmly
acknowledge the efforts made in bringing this index into existence, and hope
that future works will help further to close the considerable gaps in coverage
that remain.

Mark Kulikowski State University of New York

College at Oswego

Wolfgang Kasack, Dictionary of Russian Literature since 1917 . Translated by
Maria Carlson and Jane T. Hedges. Bibliographical revision by Rebecca
Atack. New York, Columbia University Press, 1988. xvi + 502 pp. Name and
subject indexes. $55.00.

Vol'fgang Kazak, Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' russkoi literatury s 1917 goda.
Translated by Elena Vargaftik and Igor' Burikhin. London, Overseas
Publications Interchange Ltd., 1988. 924 pp. Name and subject indexes.
£23.00.

This work started its public life in Stuttgart in 1976 as Lexikon der russischen
Liter atur ab 1917. It was immediately apparent that translations of it would
fill an important gap in the market in all other countries where there is an
informed interest in modern Russian literature. Now that the English- and
Russian-language editions are finally available the good news (as Professor
Kasack himself admits in the Russian edition, p. 898) is that many of the
entries are already, thanks to glasnost, partly out-of-date, and the even better
news (as O. Mikhailov tells us in his generally positive review on p. 206 of
Moskva , No. 1, 1990) is that a Soviet edition, ‘without any excisions at all, but
in a new redaction by the author’, is ready for publication by ‘Kniga’ in
Moscow. Until it is available, the Russian translation (from German)
published in London is a rather better buy than the English-language volume
(also translated from the German) published in New York. The former went
to press a little later which means that some of the bibliographies contain new
items, and it has a supplementary chapter at the end which even manages to
mention a few items omitted by Julian Graffy in his splendid survey of recent
developments (‘The Literary Press’, pp. 107-57 °f Culture and the Media in
the USSR Today , eds. J. Graffy and G. Hosking, Basingstoke, etc.,
Macmillan, 1989). More important, the translators into Russian have a much
better knowledge of the subject matter than do the translators into (sometimes
very awkward) English. For example, ‘Zinovyev regards his stylistically very
monotonous works as chapters of a larger book. His works are written without

Reviews

109

artistic talent in a quite consistent form of satiric condensation and abstraction
that often requires commentary’ (p. 487) is less satisfactory than ‘Cboh
BecbMa CBoeo6pa3Hbie no cthjtio npoH3Be£eHH5i caM 3. paccMaTpnBaeT KaK
ruaBbi oahoh 6ojil>uioh KHHrn. Bee ohh HanncaHbi b coBepmeHHO o^HOo6pa3-
hoh (nacTo TpeGyiouteii KOMMeHTapneB) (})opMe caTHpHHecicoro crymeHna n
a6cTparnpoBaHH5i n jinmeHbi xyAO^KecTBeHHbix /joctohhctb’ (pp. 300-1).
(The forthright German original is in the supplementary volume ( Erganz -
ungsband) of the Lexikon, Munich, Sagner, 1986 (Arbeiten und Texte zur
Slawistik, 38), p. 219.) Moreover, the English-language entry on Zinov'ev
misleadingly refers to Gomo sovetikus as ‘short stories’. Neither edition,
however, gives sufficient details in some of the bibliographical references: the
first source for further information on Zinov'ev is simply ‘G. Andreev,
Cologne, 1978’ (p. 487, English edition) and ‘G. Andreev, Koln, 1978’ (p.
301, Russian edition). What is it, and how do you find it?

Each volume is said to contain 619 author entries and 87 subject entries.
The Handbook of Russian Literature edited by Victor Terras is mentioned in
both editions under review; it should always be used when it contains an entry
on a writer or subject covered by Kasack, as it is very likely that Terras will
contain additional useful information. The choice of and space allocated to
authors included in Kasack has been queried by some emigres (Gorbanevskaia
gets almost as much space as Arsenii Tarkovskii and David Samoilov
together, for instance), but Kasack anticipates such criticisms by reference to
the easy availability elsewhere of data on many of the better-known writers.
He also explains convincingly in the Preface/OT aBTOpa why he includes
non-Russians who write in Russian (Aigi, Aitmatov) as well as Russians who
may be better known in other languages (Nabokov, Chelishchev), but it is a
pity that he excludes nearly all literary critics and scholars. Because of their
exceptional importance in Russia one hopes that more of them will be
accorded an entry in future expanded editions of this invaluable work of
reference.

Martin Dewhirst University of Glasgow

The Red Pencil: Artists , Scholars and Censors in the USSR , edited by
Marianna Tax Choldin and Maurice Friedberg; Russian portions translated
by Maurice Friedberg and Barbara Dash. Boston, Unwin Hyman, 1989.
xvii + 240 pp. Bibliography. £30.00.

This book is the proceedings of a conference on ‘Soviet Direction of Creative
and Intellectual Activity’, held at the Kennan Institute for Advanced
Russian Studies in May 1983. That conference built on and up-dated the

no

Solanus 1990

1969 London conference which resulted in The Soviet Censorships edited by
Martin Dewhirst and Robert Farrell (Metuchen, N.J., Scarecrow Press,
1973). The papers presented vary considerably — some are dispassionate
scholarly analyses, others impassioned and often bitter testimonials to the way
in which censorship has damaged Soviet literary and intellectual life. The
reports of the discussions at the end of each session give a lively indication of
disputes within the emigre community and between Western experts on the
operation and effects of censorship. The picture which emerges is often
confused and inconsistent, apparently because the censorship has operated in
different ways in dealing with certain journals or newspapers, and because the
system has changed over time.

The book opens with a short essay by Aleksandr Gershkovich on ‘Soviet
culture of the mid-1980s: a new thaw?’, which stresses that the ‘thaw’ began
well before Gorbachev came to power. It was not granted from above but
seized from below. No longer can we speak of one Soviet art or culture — there
are. now disparate voices, competing ideas. Leonid Vladimirov provides a
short piece on censorship, mainly up to the mid-1960s, and argues that one of
the worst effects of censorship is the deformation of literary taste. Maurice
Friedberg takes a fresh look at the treatment of foreign (mainly US) fiction
and literary history in Russian translation, and Marianna Tax Choldin
provides an illuminating analysis of discrepancies between the originals and
the Russian translations of four Western political books.

The papers on censoring the artistic imagination concentrate on writers’
personal experiences of censorship. Vassily Aksenov’s contribution is an
angry attack on socialist realism. Vladimir Voinovich stresses that the whole
of the Soviet system constitutes the censorship — it is not just Glavlit and the
formal agencies of control. Censorship benefits not only poor writers but also
those who are just not very good. Andrei Siniavskii, in a thoughtful piece on
the effects of censorship, shows how it corrupts language and distorts people’s
view of the world. Its benefits are limited — perhaps it trains readers to read
more sensitively, perhaps it makes readers appreciate great writers all the
more when they do find them. It also keeps misprints to a minimum!

The first paper in the section on the mass media is Golovskoi on film
censorship. He provides a history and description of how the film censorship
operated in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a brief chronology and a useful
glossary of organizations. This is followed by Il'ia Suslov on newspapers,
mainly Literaturnaia gazeta , and Boris Zaks on how Glavlit dealt with (or,
rather, failed to deal with) Novyi mir under Tvardovskii. Gershkovich covers
the theatre. In a wide-ranging essay (from Pushkin to the Taganka Theatre in
the 1980s) he concentrates on how the arts (especially the theatre) manage to
survive despite censorship. There is no paper dealing with radio and
television.

Reviews

hi

The section on ‘The Scientist’s Laboratory’ is disappointing. It consists of
one short contribution by the dissident physicist lurii larim-Agaev, which is
principally concerned with the existence of secret courts which deal with
secret establishments, followed by four pages of discussion. In order to live up
to its title, the volume should have included more material on how govern¬
ment direction affects science, technology, research and development. There
is nothing on medicine, and very little on music, the pictorial arts, history and
the social sciences (apart from Choldin on translations). Some of these issues
are discussed in Raymond Hutchings’s Soviet Secrecy and Non-Secrecy
(Macmillan, 1987), which incidentally does not appear in the bibliography
appended to The Red Pencil. Nevertheless, this bibliography of well over 200
recent books and articles is a valuable supplement to the conference
proceedings. There is an index but it appears flawed — for instance, the only
Soviet newspaper it lists is Pravda , despite numerous references to Literatur-
naia gazeta in Suslov’s piece.

Nevertheless, this volume is an important advance in our understanding of
how censorship and government direction affect literature and the mass
media. I wonder what changes would be reported by a similar conference in
ten years time?

Jenny Brine Leeds

Ben Heilman and Johan Kjellberg, Suomen venajdnkielisen kirjallisuuden
bibliografia 1813-1972. Bibliografi over den rysksprakiga litter aturen i Finland
1813-1972. Bibliografiia russkoi liter atury, izdannoi v Finliandii 1813-1972.
Publications of the Helsinki University Library, 52. Helsinki, Helsingin
yliopiston kirjasto, 1988. [xiii] + 96 pp.

This bibliography aims to include Russian-language material published in
Finland up to 1972 with the exception of underground literature printed in
Finland for distribution in Russia. Practially all items — there are around
1,500 — have been examined de visu. There are two alphabetical sequences of
books and pamphlets (Cyrillic and Roman, because items with a Russian-
language component — such as grammars and dictionaries — are included), and
lists of periodicals and series. A classified sequence, arranged by UDC main
classes and giving authors and short titles, provides a subject approach. The
book concludes with a handful of entries in Ukrainian, Belorussian and
Serbo-Croat. The bibliography is typographically clear and the principles on
which it is based are plainly set out in Finnish, Swedish and Russian.

The study of Russians in Finland and the relationship between Finland
and Russia has been greatly advanced by this most useful work. For example,

1 12

Solanus 1990

the incidence of publication of Russian language courses for schools, common
in the nineteenth century and up to 1917, and reappearing in significant
numbers only after the Second World War, reflects changes in syllabuses and
in official and popular attitudes in Finland. The mass of publications by
Finnish government agencies, such as Finnish State Railways, and by the
government itself during the last years before the Revolution are eloquent of
increasing Russian influence on Finnish administration. The presence of the
Russian army before 1917 is abundantly clear from its publications. The
continuing presence of the Russian Orthodox Church is apparent and a few
Russian social and cultural organizations, such as the Russkoe blagotvori-
tel noe obshchestvo v Finliandii, have endured beyond the 1920s; the Russkii
laun-tennis klub v Gel'singforse issued its regulations in 1930. The most
recent type of material is the trade literature of Finnish companies, marking
the establishment of regular commercial relations between Finland and the
Soviet Union with products as diverse as ro-ro ships and saunas.

Ben Heilman and Johan Kjellberg are to be congratulated not only on
closing a bibliographical gap but for opening up new opportunities for
scholars who will use their work.

J. E. O. Screen SSEES Library , London

ORBIS

BOOKS

The specialist booksliop for students of Soviet and East European af¬
fairs. Latest UK publications and a good selection of titles published
in the USA always available.

We also carry a large stock of Polish books published in and outside
Poland, as well as books in Czech, Russian and Ukrainian published
in the West. Our information bulletin NEW BOOKS, published three
times a year, is available on request.

Mail orders welcome. Credit cards accepted. Giro No. 577 1455
ORBIS BOOKS (LONDON) LTD

66 Kenway Road, I^ndon SW5 ORD lei: 0:71-370-2210

Notes

He3aBHCHMaa oGmecTBeHHaa 6H6jiHOTeKa

AjreKcaHAp CyeTHOB

He3aBHCHMaH o6mecTBeHHa» 6H6jiHOTeKa b Mockbc 6bma ocHOBaHa b 1988
roAy npH coachctbhh KpynHeHuiHx caMH3^aTCKHx H3AaHHH; ‘3Kcnpeee-
xpOHHKa’, TuacHOCTb’, ‘Bbi6op’, ‘CBo6oAHoe cjiobo’, ‘EiojuieTeHb xpHcraaH-
CKOH o6D3eCTBeHHOCTH’, ‘XpOHOTpa(})’ H Ap.

3aAana 6h6jihotckh — coop h xpaHeHHe npoH3BeACHHH HenoAUeH3ypHOH
(He3aBHCHMOH) nenaTH; npeAOCTaBjieHHe HHTaTejiHM khht npeACTaBjunoinnx
ajibTepHaTHBHyio TOHicy 3penn5i, H3AaHHbix Ha 3anaAe h He nocTynHBiHHx b
coBeTCKHe 6h6jihotckh, pyiconHceH h KHHr, H3bBTbix H3 rocyAapcTBeHHbix
6h6jihotck.

OoHA 6H6jlHOTeKH yHHKaneH. B HeM XpaHHTCfl H3AaHHH, BbIXOAHBUIHe
THpa>KOM He 6ojree AeCHTH 3K3eMnjI5ipOB, HO CTaBUIHe 3HaHHTeJIbHbIM Kyjlb-
TypHblM HJIH nOJIHTHHeCKHM Co6bITHeM (c6opHHK OT3bIBOB Ha ‘IlHCbMO
bo)kabm’ CoA^ceHHAbina, nepBbie ‘Xpohhkh TeicyinHX coObiTHH’, acypHajibi
‘06BOAHbiH KaHaji’, ‘3ncHJioH-cajiOH’). MHorHe peAaiojHH He3aBHCHMbix
H3AaHHH nepeAanH b 6H6jiHOTeKy cboh apxHBbi, HeKOTopbie pyKonHCH xpaHa-
iAHecfl b 6H6jiHOTeKe hmciotcb TOjibKO b oahom 3K3eMnjiflpe (Hanp. poMaH
(J)Hjioco(})a h 6orocjroBa H. BaHTOBa ‘Aa b CTOpOHe’).

K Hanajiy 1990 roAa 6H6jiHOTeKa HMeeT 12 (J)HjiHajioB b pa3Hbix ropOAax
CTpaHbi — b FleTpo3aBOACKe h Omckc, TaniKeHTe h JleHHHrpaAe. Ee (})oha
HacHHTbiBaeT okojio 10.000 cahhhu xpaHeHHfl, b tom HHCJie, nporpaMMHbie
AoxyMeHTbi He(j)opMajibHbix opraHH3au,HH, nepHOAHnecKHe He3aBHCHMbie
H3AaHHB, pyKonHCH, ‘TaMH3AaT’, KHHTH, H3AaHHbie 6H6jIHOTeKOH.

BH6jiHorpa(J)HHecKaB cjiy>K6a GhOjihotckh nocTOHHHo bcact yneT HenoA-
ueH3ypHbix H3AaHHH, KaTajiorH h TeMaTHnecKHe KapTOTeKH, BbinycKaeT 0630-
pbi caMH3AaTa, cneAHajibHbiH >KypHaji ‘He3aBHCHMbiH 6n6jiHorpa(})’.

EnGjiHOTeica cnoco6Ha oxa3aTb eoAeHCTBHe b KOMnjieKTOBaHHH He3aBHCH-
MbiMH H3AaHHBMH, npeAocTaBHTb HcnepnbiBaiomyK) 6H6jiHorpa(})HHecKyK)
HH(J)OpMaUHK) O CaMH3AaTe, npOBeCTH HCCJieAOBaHHfl no couhojiothh HTeHHB,
aHajiHTHnecKHe h pec[)epaTHBHbie o630pbi o6mecTBeHHoro abh^kchwh b CCCP.
BH6jiHOTeKa AencTByeT b paMKax Bchckhx h XejibCHHKCKHx AoroBopeH-
HOCTeH, ocymecTBJiBB npaBO cobctckhx rpa>KAaH Ha cBo6oAHoe nojiyneHHe h
pacnpocTpaHeHHe HH(j)opMauHH, CTaBB cBoefi kohchhoh uejibK), uiHpoKoe
pacnpocTpaHeHHe b Pocchh ryMaHHTapHbix ueHHOCTen mhpoboh h EBponeH-
CKOH KyjTbTypbl.

Solanus 1990

114

Aapec 6H6jiHOTeKH: BH6jiHorpa())HHecKaH cjry)K6a:

MocKsa. IIpo(j)coio3Haa 136.4.317. MocKBa. 1 15551. OpexoBbiii 6-p. 11.150.
Tejie(j)OH: 397-09-14. CyeTHOB A. H.

Tejre(()OH: 391-88-20.

The British Library has signed an agreement with the Nezavisimaia obshchest-
vennaia biblioteka, whereby the Nezavisimaia obshchestvennaia biblioteka will
select and acquire a wide and representative range of Soviet informal public¬
ations for the British Library , Slavonic and East European Collections. (Ed.)

The Library of Unpublished Manuscripts

A small independent library (Biblioteka neizdannykh rukopisei), attached to
the Tvorcheskii tsentr in Moscow, concentrates on literary samizdat, mainly
works by young authors who are not published by state publishing houses.
The Tvorcheskii tsentr also publishes a monthly bulletin entitled Tsentr
which gives information about new publications and ‘alternative’ cultural
events (mainly avant-garde) in Moscow and other places in the Soviet Union.
The Tvorcheskii tsentr has recently concluded an agreement with the
publishing house ‘Prometei’ for the publication of small -tirazh editions of
new authors. Pre-publication information about these is also given in Tsentr
from time to time. Tsentr can be ordered from: 1 17342 Moscow, P/O 342,
Mikhail Romm ( do vostrebovaniia). An annual subscription costs £10.00
Sterling or U.S.ft 17.00. Payment should be made by international money
transfer to: Account (raschetnyi schet) no. 57380407, Vneshekonombank
SSSR, Sovetsko-kanadskoe predpriiatie ‘Skantek Forum’ (dlia redaktsii
Vestnika Tvorcheskogo tsentra).

Notes

Books Wanted

115

The Leningrad Public Library is actively seeking to improve its holdings of
Russica published in the West. Donations of books or journals in Russian or
about Russia/the Soviet Union would be gratefully received. Address: Mrs
T. V. Furaeva, Head of the International Exchange Section, Saltykov-
Shchedrin State Public Library, Sadovaia ul. 18, 191069 Leningrad.

The Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Library in Kiev aims to build up a
comprehensive collection of Ucrainica wherever published and would wel¬
come donations of books or journals in Ukrainian or about the Ukraine.
Address: Dr M. I. Senchenko, Director, Vernadsky Central Scientific
Library, prospekt 40-rchchia Zhovtnia 3, 252039 Kiev.

Contacts for Book Collectors

Any organization or individual who would like to be put in touch with
bibliophiles and book collectors in any republic of the Soviet Union should
write to: Tsentral'noe pravlenie, Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo ‘Kniga’, Pushech-
naia ul. 7, 10303 1 Moscow.

Solanus 1991

Solanus , Volume 5 (1991), will be a special issue devoted to selected papers
from the International Slavic Librarians’ Conference (to be held in Harro¬
gate in July 1990 as part of the IV World Congress for Soviet and East
European Studies). It will be a double issue at double the normal price.

Stop Press: The Lenin Library

At the beginning of this year a special commission was appointed by the
Supreme Soviet to investigate the working of the Lenin Library and to make
recommendations on its future development. The Commission proposed that
the old building be restored and that a new main building be constructed on
the present site with two further new buildings in the vicinity. Printed below
are the recommendations of the Library Section of the Commission. The
Editorial Board is grateful to the authors for giving permission for this
document to be published in Solanus.

The Development of the State Lenin Library of the USSR: A Concept Paper

i '.A Standard Model. In order to evaluate correctly the present condition of a
library and to determine an appropriate course of development, it is necessary to have
a standard — an ideal model. A model that can be used for the Lenin Library is that of
the national library, which involves the fulfilment of the following functions (which
distinguish a national library from other types of library):

a) the exhaustive acquisition and long-term storage of library collections which
represent a constituent part of the national cultural heritage and which, in this
capacity, are of value to all mankind;

b) the enrichment of the national cultural heritage through the creation of a
bibliographical infrastructure in the form of national bibliographies, current national
bibliographies, union catalogues, retrospective directories, etc.;

c) the provision of library and bibliographical services without any limitations.

The realization of these essential functions presupposes: comprehensive collection

of publications on the basis of the copyright deposit law; democratic accessibility of all
collections and a guarantee of their safekeeping; and coordination and cooperation
with other types of libraries, since no national library can or should replace the library
system of the country.

The national library should be independent in its activity and protected by law
from any influence of an ideological or political nature -(in collection development,
cataloguing, public service, etc.).

It should be noted that the ideal model of a national library does not oblige it to
have an orientation towards world literature: it has the right to limit itself to
publications which represent the national cultural heritage. However, it is envisaged
that its collections should include exteriorica (patriotica) [i.e. material published
abroad in the languages of and/or about the Soviet Union], which do not form part of
the country’s national heritage but which supplement it.

2. The Lenin Library as the National Library of the USSR. The USSR is a
multi-national state, a federation of republics, each with its own national library. The
Lenin Library belongs to the type of the national library, but represents the cultural
heritage not of a separate ethnographic nation but of the Soviet people as a
community, formed historically and variable in its composition, living within defined

Stop Press: The Lenin Library

117

state boundaries. Therefore it is more exact to consider the Lenin Library as a state
library, understanding by the word ‘state’ the federative structure of the Union, and
not the ownership of the library by the organs of state power. The national library of
Russia is the Saltykov- Shchedrin State Public Library.

Within the framework of a federative state, and existing in parallel with the national
libraries of union republics and autonomous regions, the activity of the general state
library undoubtedly has its peculiarities. Firstly, its direct link with the idea of ‘state’,
as distinct from the national-cultural aspect of other libraries; secondly, the function
of representing national cultures at state level. The latter problem can be solved
through the possible delegation of functions by national libraries to the all-union
library.

The state (national) library of the USSR in all its activity and in the first place
through its collections represents the cultural potential of the Soviet State and of the
peoples which compose it, and gives a complete picture of the country and its place in the
world community .

The Lenin Library differs from other Soviet libraries which have national status in
that it does not have specialized collections, like the State Scientific Technical Library
and the All-Union Patents and Technical Library, or collections that are national in
profile, like the Saltykov- Shchedrin State Public Library and other republic libraries,
but has a collection of Soviet material which is universal in subject-matter. Thus it
represents in the public consciousness an especially precious symbol of the country’s
culture.

The public prestige and authority of the Lenin Library as a state universal library
was the cause of the decision of the ruling organs to invest in it the powers of the
‘main’ library in the country’s hierarchy of libraries. The Lenin Library began to
fulfil not only the function of representative of the Soviet library system within the
country and in the international arena, but also took on weighty powers in relation to
libraries in the LIS SR, as consolidated in law by the ‘Resolution on Librarianship in
the USSR’ (1984). The Lenin Library became the main link in the command-
administrative system of governing libraries, which is not one of the essential
functions of a national library. Over a period of time the administrative functions
became paramount in the activity of the Lenin Library.

Collection development. In the given case, the main priority should undoubtedly be
the receipt of all printed, audio-visual and other output issued on the territory of the
Soviet Union, the formation (supplementary collection development) of collections of
manuscripts and publications of previous epochs from within the same territorial
limits. In the field of supplementary collection development and in the acquisition of
exteriorica , depending on agreements with other national-state libraries, the scope of
acquisition can vary from exhaustive (where there is no national library or where its
functions have been delegated to the Lenin Library) to selective (where there is a
national library which undertakes responsibility for collecting national literature of
previous epochs and exteriorica. Similarly, agreements can be made between the
Lenin Library and other libraries whereby part of the function of collecting and
preserving particular types of publications (audio-visual, electronic, etc.) is delegated
to them.

In the field of foreign acquisitions, the national library is obliged to acquire
exteriorica and (in coordination and cooperation with other libraries) to collect a
representative sample of printed works and documents of foreign culture which reflect
both the links of the national culture with world culture and the most significant
processes in world culture and in the world community.

1 1 8

Solanus 1990

In the library’s collections, representing as they do the culture of the community,
there is a particular role to be played by former private collections of individual
bibliophiles. As products of the epoch in which they were formed, they deserve to be
stored and used as integral units. Therefore they should be kept together and special
rooms should be provided for work on them.

Archival and museum functions are not foreign to the Lenin Library. It does not
hold the Archive of the Soviet Printed Word, although it could do this, but it has in its
collections a considerable number of manuscripts and other material which have an
archival-museum value. In this sense the Lenin Library functions as a museum of the
book. It is clear that such a museum is indispensable, but its place is not necessarily in
the national library.

Expert monitoring of the flow of Soviet publications, growth in the acquisition of
exteriorica and an essential increase in the volume of current foreign material collected
will lead to an increase in the flow of new acquisitions. The transfer of texts onto
microform can only compensate for the growth in volume and will hardly lead to a
decrease in the amount of space filled each year.

Accessibility of the library and the system of serving readers. It follows from the
concepts of a national library set out above that its readership should be all citizens of
the USSR (from the moment they reach the age of majority). Thus everyone,
beginning with final-year pupils, becomes a potential reader of the Library.

It can be calculated that, given the same structure of visitors which there was at the
end of the 1960s when the Lenin Library’s reading rooms were open to everyone, the
number of readers would be at least double the number which is being used as a basis
for the plans for rebuilding the Lenin Library. This conclusion is confirmed by data
from the experiment carried out during the summer months of 1987 and 1988 when,
in spite of the drop in numbers of visitors which always occurs during the summer
period, lack of public knowledge about the experiment and the absence of student
readers (not to mention final-year pupils), there occurred a doubling of the normal
number of readers. In this case, the overall number of visits will not be fewer than
19,000 to 20,000 a day (if we calculate the maximum, then 23,000 to 26,000 visits a
day). The time spent in the reading rooms and, accordingly, the turnover of one
reader’s seat in reading rooms of different types, corresponding with readers of
different types, will differ, varying between 15 and 3 a day.

All the readers of the State Library, depending on the nature of their informational
and library needs, their level of bibliographical grounding, the range of information
which they require, the frequency of their visits and the length of time they spend
working in the library, their needs for additional space for meeting together, etc., can
be broken down into four groups:

1. Research workers — above all the most qualified, having an academic degree,
postgraduate students undertaking fundamental research. This type of work, repre¬
sented mainly by humanities researchers but also by theoreticians of the physical-
mathematical and natural sciences, is characterized by a significant frequency of visits
to the library, the length of time spent in the library each day, very high intensity of
demands on the collections, and breadth of demand — from the oldest literature to the
most recent Soviet and foreign literature. Subjectwise, this type of reader is
characterized by a diversity of needs, since within the boundaries of fundamental
research there is no clear differentiation of problems or of methods of analysis and
interpretation.

2. Research workers and engineers, planners, designers, connected mainly with the
technical and applied sciences and with research relating to different types of scientific

Stop Press: The Lenin Library

119

investigative work. Characteristic of this group of readers is a narrow-profile demand
for the most recent scholarly and informational literature in their field. The depth of
their informational demands does not exceed ten to twelve years, but the demands
themselves bear a highly differentiated thematical character. The periods of time
spent working in the library are significantly shorter, since the visit is for a specific
purpose, in search of specific information, and the frequency [of visits] is com¬
paratively less.

3. Students, carrying out or preparing for independent work, having an inclination
towards it, or carrying out diploma or course work. In terms of the future of research,
these are the most important group; without them there can be no continuity in the
development and existence of research: the earlier they move out beyond the limits of
their course work, the more beneficial the effect on the development of research in the
future. For them it would be desirable to have extra guidance in visual form and
personal help from consultants and librarians. The duration of students’ work is
closely tied to the organization of the timetable and changes significantly according to
the time of year and time of day — with heavy loading on the second half of the day
throughout the year and at the time of diploma work, with a very light loading on the
library in the summer.

4. The non-specialist reading public — groups of readers characterized by the
amorphous and unsystematic structure of their reading needs, those who visit the
library once for a specific purpose, those engaged in self-education, educational
activity, etc. These are teachers, people employed in publishing, pensioners, biblio¬
philes. Their information habits and demands do not presuppose a high level of
bibliographic culture, therefore they need the same help as the readers of any public
library.

These types of reader behaviour make particular demands of planners and
architects. Most appropriate to the work of the readers of the first type is the system of
carrels, with a large amount of open access to as wide as possible a range of basic and
reference works and as authoritative as possible a range of scholarly periodicals —
above all, of foreign periodicals — , and an individually equipped working place with
the direct transmission of information to the reader’s place. This category of readers
also needs specially planned and designated social meeting places — vestibules,
smoking areas, cafes (not just ‘feeding points’ but places conducive to the stimulation
of intellectual work and where readers can drink tea, coffee, etc.). This is not a luxury
but a form of normal academic work — we are speaking of the possibility, as at
conferences, of discussing topics or problems which have arisen with colleagues, or of
holding impromptu seminars, etc.).

For readers of the second category, on the other hand, use of the library in relation
to their basic work is facultative, and the amount of time spent in the library is
relatively limited. This group is characterized by a high turnover of readers’ seats and
speed of using literature. For them it is essential to have collections arranged in a
utilitarian fashion, according to subject, including secondary and reference works.

Students are, to a certain degree, similar to the first group, although they do not
need the system of carrels. On the other hand, their needs are highly specific, but the
depth of their demand is less than that of the first group. Here a high proportion of
requests is for literature of the ‘middle level’, representing the achievements of
relatively recent times (but not the latest topics of research), also for reference works
and textbooks.

The characteristics of the fourth group correspond to the usual non-specialist
forms of reader behaviour in large libraries. For them there should be displays on

120 Solanus 1990

particular themes, information systems to help them and rooms where they can
consult current periodicals (including foreign ones).

If the present limitations on access to the library collections were removed, the
probable structure of the overall flow of readers in visits per day could be defined
thus: Type 1— approximately 30%~35%> Type 2— 35%~40%, Type 3— io%-i5%,
Type 4 — 10%— 20%. In numbers this comes out as: 4,000-5,000 visits, 8,000 visits,
3,000 visits, 4,000 visits. However, the turnover [in a day] of one seat in various
reading rooms would differ: in reading rooms of the first type it would consist of
1-5-2, in reading rooms of the second type — 3, of the third type — 2-3, and of the
fourth type — 3 or more. The sum total of daily visits would be 19,000-20,000 readers,
which would mean a total provision of reader places in reading rooms of various types
of 10,000-11,000.

The information potential of a national library consists not only in the fullness of its
own collections, but in the fullest possible information about the existence of printed
and other documents in the libraries of the country (and the world). In the first place
this relates to the publications of the country itself and to exteriorica. In this
connection it would seem expedient to create electronic union catalogues (a union
catalogue of Soviet books, of Russian books, catalogues of publications in separate
languages) and on their basis to create an electronic catalogue of the library’s own
holdings.

The existence of the All-Union Book Chamber substantially limits the functions of
the national library in the area of current and retrospective registration of Soviet
publications. It would seem more rational to include the task of registering and
keeping the archival copy of national printed output, which now exists in the
All-Union Book Chamber, in the system of the Lenin Library, with the transfer of the
appropriate facilities, storage space and staff.

In the national library’s informational activity, priority should be given to
providing bibliographical-informational services for all-union and interdisciplinary
research programmes, and the setting up and carrying out of its own bibliographical
projects, which would realise the cultural potential of the library.

Closely linked to the informational activity of the library is the research work of the
library. In selecting priorities, three functions of the state library may be taken into
consideration: that of the national repository, that of the centre of spiritual culture,
and that of the ‘main library of the country’. With these in mind, research
programmes should concern themselves with the development of the library itself
(research into restoration, technology, public services, etc.), the opening up of the
collections (book studies, manuscript studies, history of the library, its collections,
etc.), and assistance to the library network (sociology, library studies, etc.). In a
limited form, all three directions of research can be carried out within the framework
of the structure of the library itself. However, the nature of such problems as
restoration of collections and research into the situation of libraries nationwide extend
outside the framework of internal problems. Therefore it would be preferable to have
independent institutions attached to the Lenin Library which would carry out a
nationwide programme of manuscript and book restoration (Centre for Preservation
and Restoration) and a programme for the development of librarianship (Institute of
Librarianship).

One essential function of a library as large as the Lenin Library is its activity as the
central, ‘main’ library of the country. This officially designated status of the Lenin
Library will only be fully confirmed in terms of its real leadership when it is able to
carry out the following functions [appropriate to] the chief institution:

Stop Press: The Lenin Library

121

A centre of national and international library loan. A wide network of borrowing
libraries, an improved system of efficient communication and an increase in requests
for scholarly publications could place even a library as large as the Lenin Library in
the position of not being able to fulfil this function properly. The most rational
solution would be to create a ‘lending library’, a large collection of books and
periodicals which could satisfy 70%-8o% of libraries’ loan requests and which would
draw widely on a store of negative copies made from the rare books in the main
collections in order to provide efficiently positives for despatch to requesting libraries.

The work of the library as the centre of the state’s automated system is possible only if
the library is technically equipped at a higher level than the other libraries and if it
employs technology at a similarly high level.

A look at the work of national libraries in various countries show's that, apart from
their organically inherent cultural-historical mission, they fulfil a whole series of
non-specific functions. Unlike foreign national libraries, the Lenin Library does not
fulfil a number of basic functions to be found in a centre for national bibliography and
cataloguing, and does not act as the library of parliament, but, in spite of its
significance as the state library, is subordinate to a specific government department
and is burdened with the following obligations:

— a centre of recommendatory bibliography;

— a specialized information centre on culture and art;

— an information centre serving science and scientific-technical progress;

— a methodological centre for the libraries of the country.

But the national library is by no means obliged to serve as an all-union
methodological centre or as the leading theoretical centre for library and bibliograph¬
ical studies. As many years of experience have shown, combining the functions of
directing librarianship and leading the theory of librarianship is far from ensuring the
integration of theory and practice, but rather leads to stagnation in both.

The deformation of the functional structure of the Lenin Library has serious
consequences not only for the cultural-historical mission of the Library, but also for
Soviet librarianship, of which it is the head.

Mikhail Afanas'ev
Lev Gudkov
Boris Dubin
Arkadii Sokolov

Books Received

Aktual'nye problerny teorii i istorii bibliofil'stva . (Tezisy soobshchenii 3-i
Vsesoiuznoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii) , sostavitel' i otvetstvennyi
redaktor V. A. Petritskii. Leningrad, Vsesoiuznoe dobrovol'noe obshchestvo
liubitelei knigi, Tsentral'noe pravlenie, 1989. Index. 165 pp. Unpriced.

Hugh A. Aplin, Catalogue of the G. V. Lomonossoff , R. N. Lomonossojf
Collections. Leeds, Leeds University Press (for the Leeds Russian Archive),
1988. xxxvi + 246 pp. Ulus. £7.50 + £2.00 p.&p. Available from the Leeds
Russian Archive.

Civil Rights in Imperial Russia , edited by Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson.
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989. xvi + 321 pp. Index. £30.00.

Historische Biicherkunde Siidosteuropa , herausgegeben von Mathias Bernath
und Karl Nehring, Leitung und Redaktion Gerhard Seewann. Bd. II.
Neuzeit : Teil I. Osmanisches Reich , Makedonien, Albanien , Siidosteuropa-
ische Arbeiten, 76/3. Miinchen, R. Oldenbourg, 1988. xxv+ 519 pp. Index.

Ian K. Lilly, Humanities Resources on Russia and the Soviet Union in New
Zealand Libraries , Bibliographical Bulletin, 17. [Auckland], Auckland Uni¬
versity Library, [1989?]. 31 pp.

A Russian Civil War Diary: Alexis Babine in Saratov , 191 7-1922, Donald J.
Raleigh, editor. Durham and London, Duke University Press, 1988.
xxiv + 240 pp. Illustrations. Bibliography. Index. $29.95.

Trotsky Bibliography : A Classified List of Published Items about Leon Trotsky
and Trotskyism. Second, totally revised and expanded edition. Edited by
Wolfgang Lubitz. Miinchen, etc., K. G. Saur, 1988. xxxi + 581 pp. Indexes.

E. Garrison Walters, The Other Europe: Eastern Europe to 1945. Syracuse,
N.Y., Syracuse University Press, 1988. xiii + 430 pp. Maps. Bibliography.
Index. $29.95 (cloth), $16.95 (PaPcr).

Jeanne Vronskaya, with Vladimir Chuguev, A Biographical Dictionary of the
Soviet Union 1917-1988. London, etc., K. G. Saur, 1989. xii + 525 pp.

Contributors

Mikhail Afanas'ev is the Director of the State Public Historical Library.

Professor W. E. Butler is Professor of Comparative Law in the University of
London, and Secretary of The Bookplate Society, London.

R. H. Davies is a Curator in the Slavic and Baltic Division, New York Public
Library.

Boris Dubin is on the staff of the All-Union Centre for the Study of Public
Opinion.

Lev Gudkov is on the staff of the All-Union Centre for the Study of Public
Opinion.

Bob Henderson is a Curator of the Slavonic and East European Collections
at the British Library, Humanities and Social Sciences, London.

Professor la. D. Isajevych is Head of the Department of the History of
Culture, Institute of Social Sciences in Lviv.

Boris Korsch is a Research Fellow at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Marjorie Mayrock Center for Soviet and East European Research.

Lev Shilov is a Senior Consultant at the State Literary Museum, Moscow.

Dr Arkadii Sokolov is a professor at the Leningrad State Institute of
Culture.

Aleksandr Suetnov is in charge of bibliographical services at the Nezavi-
simaia obshchestvennaia biblioteka in Moscow and editor of the samizdat
journal ‘Nezavisimyi bibliograf .

Cover motif: Engraving by S. Chekhonin, 1922.

IDC introduces JUMP

Joint USSR/IDC Microfiche Program

In September of 1989, IDC became the first Western
micropublisher to have microfiche cameras at work in
the Soviet Union where, in cooperation with several
large libraries, IDC can now film rare works which are
not available in Western libraries.

JUMP will start with selected material from the collections of
GPIB, the Synod Library, INION, and BAN.

The following lists are already available free on request;

• Rare Serials and Reference Works

• Lives of the Saints

• Translations of the Fathers
of the Church

• Russian Nekropol

JU MV

For more information, free lists, and suggestions concerning
subjects, advisors, or titles write to IDC Microform Publishers.

Microform Publishers

P.O. Box 11205, 2301 EE Leiden, The Netherlands

Fax 31-71-13 17 21