Россия-Италия-Германия: литература путешествий
Beginning in the early 1920s, Bolshevik leaders proclaimed the need to radically revise the pre-revolutionary legacy of children’s literature and to create new Soviet books for children. In our paper, we seek to disentangle what factors played a role in the chances of legacy authors and works to be included in the limited selection of appropriated children’s classics by the 1930s. Based on thе comprehensive bibliographic data on books for children printed between 1918 and 1932 along with several authoritative Soviet sources recommending books for children, we use statistical modeling to assess what authorities effectively served as a kind of “security certificate” protecting certain authors and books from the default purge policy. Our results indicate that inclusion in the 1923 Narkompros list of authors whose work was pronounced a state monopoly, as well as inclusion in the Gorky’s list of books suggested for his “World Literature” publishing house both had a significant positive effect on the number of printings by the given author. Contrary to our expectations, the popularity of the author in the pre-revolutionary anthologies for children did not promise any significant publishing growth prospects in the 1920s and early 1930s.
Collection of articles in honor of Yuri Vladimirovich Mann
This article analyzes the perceptions of Russia, Russians, and Russian art existing in Britain, namely, those demonstrated by the country’s literary community of the first half of the 20th century. The article shows that this period saw a plethora of publications of translations of Russian fiction that were accomplished by professional translators, Slavonic scholars, and writers and appeared in periodicals and other print formats. The article provides a general overview of the British literary community’s reactions to Russia, Russians, and Russian literature. It is hard to overestimate the importance of these materials since many of the translations have never been comprehensively analyzed in conjunction with the originals, and Russia’s images in Britain were often formed on the basis of the translations. Paradoxically, the characterizations of Russia produced within the British society were more indicative of problems and domestic issues of Britain itself rather than of Russia because images of Russia provided an occasion to discuss problems of Great Britain. Contributors to the discussions, meanwhile, were asserting the superiority of Britain, less frequently – Russia, with only a handful of them advocating acceptance of the other. Usually, periods of positive perceptions of Russia have coincided with periods of improvement in political and economic relations between the nations. But all the complexities of the relations notwithstanding, mutual influence of the two national literatures is obvious.