Blog

I take Aleksandr Daniel’s definition (which I heard also from Dmitrii Prigov) of samizdat as a special “mode of existence of the text” (Daniel’, “Istoki i smysl” 17 - Please see “Selected Sources”). The production of Soviet samizdat occurred outside of official print institutions and censorship. Characteristic of the distribution of samizdat was the fact that it happened beyond the author’s control. Daniel’ also described samizdat in terms of “socially significant” texts. This qualification might be confusing. It is not any particular content that defines samizdat.

Does the suggestion that samizdat texts are “socially significant” because they circulated beyond the author’s control mean that texts which circulated most widely are most significant?                

 The founding father of samizdat bibliography, Aleksandr Suetnov, pointed out that practically every formal aspect of samizdat editions – title, periodicity, imprint, etc. – is liable to be variable and difficult to establish (SUET 246).                

A large number of Soviet samizdat periodical editions label themselves al’manakhi, a term that does not translate well into English. In English, an almanac is “an annual table, or book of tables, containing a calendar of months and days, usu. with astronomical data and other information, formerly including astrological and astrometeorological forecasts” (Shorter Oxford English Dict., 5 ed.).