The evolution of Russian drama from the early twentieth century to the present day has been shaped by an alternation between censorship and relaxation, and has included exciting periods of formal innovation. The psychological realism of Konstantin Stanislavskii’s stagings of Anton Chekhov’s plays was challenged by the post−1917 radicalism of Vsevolod Meierkhold, exemplified in his production of Vladimir Maiakovskii’s Mystery-Bouffe. Experimentation gave way to rigidity under Socialist Realism, but the post-Stalin era saw cautious innovation in playwriting succeeded by a flourishing culture of ‘director’s theatre’, led by figures such as Iurii Liubimov. Innovations gathered pace under glasnost, opening out to the bold variety of ‘New Drama’ in the twenty-first century. This has now given way to the rigid constraints imposed by the Putin regime.

This chapter traces the rise of secular, non-governmental publishing in Russia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and argues that a succession of risk-taking entrepreneurs eventually made it possible for authors to become remunerated professionals and to become the entertainers, tribunes, and conscience of the nation. Despite the obstacles of government interference, undercapitalisation, and mass illiteracy, publishers underwent a series of transformations, from printer-artisans to merchant-booksellers to, by the 1840s, intellectuals, becoming a force for shaping imaginative literature, primarily through the medium of the thick journal. Only by the end of this period did they become major print capitalists, but even then, the publisher often remained a creaky mechanism for producing literature, with poorly fitting parts and thin financial lubrication. The influence of these publishers and their enterprises, however, is demonstrated by the fact that the new Soviet regime made closing them down one of its first tasks.

This chapter outlines the role of empire in shaping Russian literature from the mid-seventeenth century onwards. It traces the persistent literary impact of empire using the concept of imperiality, developed by analogy with coloniality, which decolonial theory describes as a sociopolitical and cognitive framework that endures beyond the times of colonialism. The chapter highlights the impact of empire on eighteenth-century Neoclassical poetry and on literature of the Romantic era. It then explores the enduring presence of empire in later periods, including Realist and early Modernist writing, as Russia’s colonial practices combined with a self-image as a magnificent and much-put-upon nation state. Finally, it presents the Soviet-era cultural system of the ‘friendship of the peoples’ as a reimagined imperiality and concludes with an in-depth discussion of critical reflections on imperial legacies by post-Soviet authors such as Viktor Pelevin, Vladimir Sorokin, and Liudmila Ulitskaia.

This chapter traces the evolution of a specific character type that began with Aleksandr Pushkin’s Tatiana Larina in Eugene Onegin. In the hands of future authors such as Ivan Turgenev and Fedor Dostoevskii, Tatiana came to represent an ideal for the Russian woman based on soulfulness, fidelity, and self-sacrifice. Russian women writers, too, used Tatiana as a model for their heroines. With the rise of the ‘woman question’ in the 1860s, the Russian woman was redefined to reveal her new potentials in a shifting society, with Nikolai Chernyshevskii’s Vera Pavlovna as a new ideal. In the Soviet period, she was rethought yet again to respond to shifting political mandates, variously downplaying or emphasising her maternal, caregiving side. The faithful, all-enduring Tatiana took on a new form in Anna Akhmatova’s Requiem and continues to evolve in contemporary feminist writing.

The chronology of the Baroque age in Russian culture is contested, but by the broadest definition it can be located in the second half of the seventeenth century and approximately the first third of the eighteenth century. The emergence of the Baroque tends to coincide with the emergence of the court as a focus and patron. General features include a greater prominence of individuality (even originality), a greater emphasis on entertainment as one function and purpose of literary production, and a highlighting of performative verbal and formal devices. This chapter explores two types of literary production that particularly exemplify aspects of the Baroque mode: parody and satire, and syllabic verse. As a case-study in the latter, the chapter introduces a cycle of poems by the most prominent and prolific Baroque versifier, and arguably Moscow’s first professional writer of literature, Simeon Polotskii.

Of all European literatures, the Russian literary canon has perhaps been the one most focused on the figure of the ruler. In the eighteenth-century odes, the relationship between the poet and the ruler was described as vertical: the poet looks up at the ruler and exalts him or her through poetry. The first attempts to shift from the vertical to the horizontal plane took place in Gavriil Derzhavin’s verse, most notably through the familiar depiction of Catherine II in his ode ‘Felitsa’ (1782). The influence of this ode can still be felt half a century later in Aleksandr Pushkin’s novel The Captain’s Daughter (1836), where the titular Masha Mironova meets (but does not recognise) Catherine II, and the empress comes to personify history itself. Such images of the pre-Revolutionary ruler went on to shape depictions of the leader (namely Lenin and Stalin) in the first half of the twentieth century.

This chapter considers the Russian Symbolist movement as an alternative to the utilitarian-populist literary edifice in addressing the socio-political problems that confronted Russia at the turn of the twentieth century. The chapter traces the growth of the Symbolist movement over its two phases, beginning with the searching attempts of the first generation of Symbolists – especially Dmitrii Merezhkovskii, Zinaida Gippius, and Fedor Sologub – to turn a secular culture in the direction of spirituality and religion; and then the ambitious “theurgical” activist partnership of the second generation of Symbolists – Aleksandr Blok, Andrei Belyi, and Viacheslav Ivanov – who rose to prominence during the politically tumultuous age of the fin de siècle (the decade surrounding the revolution of 1905), an era galvanised by a pervasive sense of disorientation, groundlessness, experimentation, and apocalyptic presentiment.

Literature about Russians abroad includes memoirs and other non-fiction narratives of exile and emigration, often by writers who wrote from first-hand experience. It also includes fiction by writers who may or may not have emigrated themselves. Emigration is at once a biographical fact and a literary phenomenon; this has led to conflicting approaches to its interpretation. This chapter centres on the protagonists found in works of émigré literature – universalising archetypal figures, minimally disguised authorial alter egos, and migrants who elicit an unexpected jolt of recognition – all created in their historical moment, yet open to new meanings beyond their time and émigré milieu. It concludes with an examination of the exodus of writers from Russia that began soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the concomitant need to re-evaluate the association between literary emigration and the émigré writer as a voice of moral authority.

Ever since the 1960s, Russophone professional and lay authors have been leaving the printed page and climbing onto other – and, with time, online – platforms, and pairing words with (moving) images with fervour. How should we define their activities? How should we assess their visual and digital experiments? Can a social-media entry in verse by a poet be considered literature? To what extent can the text-oriented tools of traditional literary studies help us unpack GIF-laden online stories? And how do understandings of literature as a highbrow cultural practice help us to understand social-media odes to classics by teenagers? This chapter follows the forms that Russophone literary activities have taken beyond print outlets, paying special attention to digital-writing forms. It surveys literary production across websites, social media, and other digital platforms from the mid−1990s to the early 2020s by authors including Olia Lialina, Roman Leibov, Linor Goralik, Dmitrii Vodennikov, and Galina Rymbu.

This chapter provides an overview of twentieth- and twenty-first-century explorations of poetic form, with a focus on late Imperial and early Soviet Modernism. Rebelling against nineteenth-century norms, Modernist poets sought to devise a poetic idiom more in tune with their era of rapid cultural, political, and technological change. The rich and diverse poetic output of this period did not simply reject the limits imposed by formal convention. Rather, it expanded them, experimenting with metrical forms as well as the visual and sonic shape of the poem to uncover the particular qualities of poetic language. The chapter also considers the effect of shifting social circumstances on poetry, and particularly the new forms it took as it addressed mass audiences. The final part of the chapter traces the resonance of Modernist experiments in later Soviet poetry and the continued importance attached to form in the work of contemporary poets.

This chapter provides an introduction to Russian literature in the Modernist and avant-garde period, stretching from about 1890 to 1930. This period was one of extraordinary experimentation in Russian literature and the chapter outlines the differences between the key movements that emerged and their leading practitioners, including Symbolism (Aleksandr Blok), Futurism (Vladimir Maiakovskii, Velimir Khlebnikov), and Acmeism (Anna Akhmatova, Osip Mandelshtam). It highlights the inextricable links between literature and politics in this period, especially following the Revolution of 1917, which saw the Bolsheviks take power and establish the Soviet Union. While the early 1920s witnessed a genuine debate among writers about what the new Soviet literature would look like, this diversity vanished by the end of the decade as centralisation took hold. By the 1930s, Socialist Realism had become the only approved official aesthetic. The chapter concludes with remarks about the Modernists’ legacy within and beyond Russia.

A capitalist market has been part of modern Russian literature since at least the early nineteenth century. Even during the Soviet era, the market was never entirely abolished. But when socialism fell in 1991, capitalism rushed in. This chapter focuses on the economic, social, and aesthetic consequences of the market in post-Soviet Russian literature. The book market boomed just as thick journals and legacy critics lost cultural authority, and as readers, publishers, and writers were pulled towards bestselling imports, largely western pulp. Drawn by success and fascinated by new forms, many authors innovated genre conventions, authorial performance, and audience interaction, using misdirection, mystification, and online and social media, among other strategies. Others mobilised the terms of capitalism to mount a critique of the illusory values of the new market society.

This chapter surveys the changing meanings associated with the figure of the intelligent in Russian literature from the late eighteenth century to the present day. Its focus falls on the period between 1860 and 1880, when the term ‘intelligentsia’ entered the Russian press as a way of identifying ‘intellectual proletarians’: educated people alienated from the state, society, and the means of production. The chapter offers an overview of the varying literary representations of the intelligentsia in changing historical contexts: before and after the Revolution of 1917, during the cultural Thaw that followed Stalin’s death, and in late- and post-Soviet culture. The chapter also sketches the ‘pre-history’ of the intelligentsia: the retroactive projection of the term intelligentsia onto several generations of educated people who lived before the notion came into use in the 1860s.

This chapter first outlines the history of imperial and Soviet censorship, before analysing the complex interactions of the multiple state and Party institutions, and individuals, that characterised censorship during Stalinism and post-Stalinism. The influence of Soviet censorship was profound, but somewhat unpredictable: not all elements of the censorship worked in harmony, and lines of authority were sometimes blurred. Censorship very often simply prohibited publication: as a result, many of the most talented authors of the twentieth century were appreciated only posthumously. Censorship could also, however, shape literary texts by generating complex textual strategies for concealing and revealing hidden meanings. Moreover, it could produce multiple versions of texts, either through continued rewriting to keep up with changing official requirements, or through the unpredictable reproductions that became common within the self-publishing network of samizdat. This meant that definitive versions of many important twentieth-century texts only appeared after 1991.

The Russian ‘thick journal’, from its inception in the early 1800s to the present day, is at once a cultural institution, an index of intellectual life, and an important publishing mechanism. During the nineteenth century, the temporal focus of this chapter, Russia’s low literacy rate, poorly developed distribution networks, and virtual absence of inexpensive editions of high-quality literature gave the monthly thick journal a central place in Russian culture. From the 1840s until the 1880s, the thick journals published every subsequently canonical Russian novel except for Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls, alongside works of criticism, history, philosophy, the natural sciences, and the social sciences, creating an expanding galaxy of discourses, many of which would migrate into the thematics and styles of the fictions they surrounded. That writers often began serialisation before completely drafting their novels made these fictions more open to such migration.

The Tale of Igor’s Campaign (Slovo o polku Igoreve) is a literary text that has acquired emblematic significance far beyond literature, in discourses of cultural and national identity in both Russia and Ukraine. It is short, fewer than ten pages of modern printed text, yet its status is incalculable. Its subject is not, on the surface, a hugely consequential event: a failed foray against the steppe nomads in 1185 led by a minor prince of the Rus ruling family, Igor Sviatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversk. Yet in the lyrical imagination, the episode acquires almost cosmic resonance. In the densely metaphorical narrative, nature itself participates and responds. Rus princes and nomad chieftains are falcons and wild oxen, skies darken, lances sing, rivers are invoked as if people, and the fingers of a bard are falcons descending upon swans.

This chapter argues that the brevity and inherent orality of the Russian short story allows for the introduction of new, often stigmatised subject matter and for experimentation with form and language. The short story laid the groundwork for the novel, but not by providing shorter pieces to be assembled into a more complex plot. Rather, its role was to work out innovative aesthetic and thematic models that the novel would later carry into the cultural mainstream. For this reason, the short story often came to the fore during periods of literary and ideological change. The chapter presents the evolution of the Russian short story in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with particular attention to Anton Chekhov, the author who finalised the shift to what we now recognise as the typical concerns of the modern short story.