Kunt Ernő szerk.: Kép-hagyomány – Nép-hagyomány (Miskolc, 1990)

I. RÉSZTANULMÁNYOK - Tatiana Voronina: A lubok helye és szerepe az orosz népi kultúra rendszerében a 19. század 20-as és 60-as évei között

lubok prints was different.

4 It is indeed true that the lubok designs were printed without censorship upto 1822. After the publication of a series of decrees by the church and government in 1760 it was considered that the paintings acquired legel recognition, and, that moreover, their production, printing and sale were no longer prosecuted, as they fell within the defined rules and were controlled by the government.

5 In 1826 many of the prints were forbidden and the blocks from which they were printed were destroyed. Those prints which ..were harmful to faith, throne, morality and the personal honour of citizens", were forbidden in 1828. Moreover, from that year on prints came to be registered in censorship committees. A new decree of 1839 limited publication of folk tales and prints containing portraits of the members of the tsar family, various heros and prominent warriors. But all that was only a prelude to the decree of 1851, which led to elimination of all the old copper plates. Henceforth, all the prints screened by censorship were produced bearing stamps containing detailed information as to the name of the publisher and owner of a workshop. It might seem that one could speak of pressure exercised by censorship and of the limitation of lubok production. But the data of the very same censorship testify to a constant rise in the numerical output of prints. Thus, in 1829 only 74 out of 476 prints were authorised to appear, whereas in 1850 - 233 prints, in 1860 - 436 prints, in 1862 - 1275 prints. In 1865 the temporary rules on censorship and production were introduced, and as a consequence many salesmen abandoned their trade. This led to a gradual diminution of topics: in 1866 294 prints were produced, in 1867-477, in 1868-550, in 1869-410, and in 1874 even 103 prints. Production of lubok prints was controlled by the state, which constituted one of the aspects of the general protective policy of autocracy. The basic aim of the decrees was not only to regulate the output but to protect the national masses from the diffusion among them of „undesirable" opinions and concepts, and allow the printing of only of moral and useful or at most harmless-prints. We may also conclude that from the 2s to 4s the government orders did not yet constitute all in all special barriers for producers: uptill 1851 many prints continued to be distributed without any permits, that is the lubok production was controlled to the degree of practical feasibility. The decree of 1851 in effect for the first time ever began to exercise strict control over lubok production and also gave it the air of an official publication, but did not restrict its numerical quantity. The decree of 1865 allowed the mass output of engravings to acquire a new economic base and stabilised legally the de facto situation which had long been taking shape in print production. This is proved by a sharp rise in output and emergence of monopolistic lubok traders. Moscow remained the main center of lubok print production during the early part of the 19th century. There it was that over 50 workshops producing copper engravins were located, and lithography workshops appeared in the late 2s which became particularly widespread in the 5s. The owners of the major workshops of the 2s and 4s were namely Loginov, Streltsov, Akhmetyev and Schurov who were gradually ousted in the 5s by Rudnev, Yakovlev, Morozov, Gavrilov, Byelyankin and Glushkov. In addition to indigenous Muscovite workshop owners there were foreign owners, such as Lindrot, Lilye, Bilrot, Diring, Bartoldi, Roppold, Ventsel and Siverse. Prominent French firms of Miné, Daziaro and Marotte also supplied the Moscow market with their products. This exercised considerable influence on the subject and style of Russian popular prints. It was due to their influence that the early 3s saw the portrayal of landscapes, European cities and prominent foreign personalities, female heads and torsos. Besides, alongside scenes of Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829, portraits of Russian, Turkish and Greek generals and later on of the participants of the Crimean war of 1854-1855, widespread were also religious sheets, scenes of outdoor festivals (III. 1), engravins of tsars and of members of royal family portraits (III. 2). Gradually out of date paintings failed to meet