The research centers upon the bibliographical study of the history (1991–2017) and prehistory (1957–1990) of M. M. Prishvin’s «Diaries» (1905–1954) publication recognized as the longest (18 volumes) diaries in Russian literature.  In modern science Prishvin’s «Diaries» are studied in a number of aspects: as a historical and cultural chron­icle of the country in 1905–1954; the writer’s self-consciousness and creative laboratory; a fiction text in the system of its motives, literary and philosophical contexts, as well as from the point of view of its publishing fate which is narrowly understood as a fragmentary history of its publication.  The paper novelty is due to, first, reconstruction of the history and prehistory of the «Diaries» publication, and second, the system analysis of the publication history in connection with the changing economic models of publishing business, types of publishing houses, their repertoire, strategies, and features of the editorial work during the publication of the collected works. Moreover, the author distinguishes three types of ego-texts in Prishvin’s works (sketch books, diary, and diary books) and, accordingly, different publication strategies.  The study reveals that within the prehistory of the «Diaries» publication there were two main approaches to their publishing: first, they were published in shortened versions (1986); second, in fragmentary versions based on the thematic or chronological principle, most often in a journal variant.  Prishvin’s «Diaries» are considered in the context of the writer’s whole collected works: the pre-Soviet («Znanie Publishing House», 1912–1914) and the Soviet («Gosizdat», 1927–1930, 1929–1931; «Goslitizdat», 1935–1939; «Khudozhestvennaya literature», 1982–1986) periods.  The history of Prishvin’s «Diaries» publication in the post-Soviet period is described as a collective book project carried out by the efforts of five state and non-state publishing houses: «Moskovskii Rabochii» (1991–1995), «Russkaya kniga» (1999–2004), «ROSSPEN» (2012); «Novyi Khronograf» (2013–2014); and «Rostok» (2006–2017). The author demonstrates the «Diaries» connection with the repertoire and strategies of these publishers.  After the reconstruction of the history and prehistory of Prishvin’s «Diaries» publication from the initial fragments to full print and electronic versions, the author convincingly proves that this long-term collective book project belongs to the local history of the Russian publishing industry in the XX–XXI centuries.