caesar 23 - the soviet writer and soviet cultural policy

8/4/2019 Caesar 23 - The Soviet Writer and Soviet Cultural Policy

1/57

e.,., % ' .aAPPROVED FOR RELEASEDATE: JUN 2007

CAESAR IX OCI No. 4734/5915 September 1959COPYNO. - +

SOVIET STAFF STUDY

THE SOVIET WRITER AND SOVIET CULTUR AL POLICY

Office of Current Intelligence

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

XR7 0-14( U )


2/57

,

Thi s work ing pape r is a n o t h e r s t u d y i nt h e se r i e s prepa red unde r Pro j ec t CAESAR.P r o j e c t CAESAR i s des igned t o prov ide de -t a i l e d a n a l y s es from a l l i n t e l l i g e n c e s o u r ce so f d e ve lo p me nt s a f f e c t i n g l e a d i n g m e m b e r s oft h e S o v i e t h i e r a r c h y , t h e i r p o l i t i c a l andp e r s o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , p o l i c i e s w i th w hicht h e y h av e bee n i d e n t i f i e d , an d p o l i t i c a l i n -s t i t u t i o n a l c ha ng es which a f f e c t t h e S o v i e tl e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n .While t h e p a p er s in this s e r i e s a re co-ord ina t ed and checked f o r f a c t u a l a cc ur ac yw i t h i n OCI, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a re those oft h e a u t h o r s and do no t r e p r e se n t t h e o f f i c i a l

views of CIA.

Ii


3/57

THE SOVIET WRITER AND SOVIET CULTURAL POLICYPage-ummary and Conclusion . . . i

Introduction ... 1Relaxation of Restraints (Spring 1953 - Spring 1954)

The Official "Thaw"Protest Against Dehumanization of LiteratureAppeals for Greater LatitudeOfficial Restraints Without Repression(Spring 1954 - Spring 1956)

Tightening the ReinsPreparations for Second Writers' CongressCriticism of Literary BureaucracyThe Second Writers' CongressNew Literary CurrentsDe-Stalinization in Literature (Spring-Fall 1956)

Psychological Impact of De-StalinizationOfficial ConfusionIdeological Confusion"

Reassertion of Orthodoxy (Fall 1956 - Spring 1957)Vigorous Official CounterattackOfficial Reconsiderations

"Comradely PersuasionvJ Spring 1957 - Summer 1959)"The Feat of Silence"Khrushchev's Literary ProgramLiterary StalematSearch for a New Accommodation

. . . 4... 5. . . 79... 10... 12... 12... 13

... 18... 19... 22

... 24... 27

... 30... 34... 40... 44


4/57

THE SOVIET WRITER AND SOVIET CULTURAL POLICY

Summary and Conclusions"The l a g b et we en l i t e r a t u r e a n d li f e" - -t h e o f f i c i a lSovie t euphemism f o r t h e f a i l u r e of writers t o f u l f i l l t h e i rp r o p a g a n d i s t i c m i ss i on - ha s a ss um ed u n i q u e a n d e v e n dramaticc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e per iod s i n c e S t a l i n ' s d ea th . Thep r e s s u r e f o r grea te r c r e a t i v e freedom, a pp ea r i ng i n i t i a l l yi n 1953 as c a u t i o u s p r o t e s t s b y v e t e r a n wri te rs a g a i n s t t h es t a n d a r d s of t h e S t a l i n e ra and developing l a t e r i n t o h ead -l o ng a s s a u l t s by b o t h o l d and young writers,was o f f i c i a l l yc o n d o n e d u n t i l i t came i n t o open c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e d i c t a t e sof p o l i t i c a l o r t ho d o x y. When t h e o f f i c i a l b r a k e s a n d t h e

p r e s s u r e for r e t r e n c h m e n t w e r e a p p l i e d , i n e a r l y 1954 an da g a i n i n l a t e 1956, it was expected t h a t l i t e r a t u r e w ouldr e t u r n t o i t s t r a d i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n a s t h e handmaiden Qfp o l i t i c s . I n s t ea d , i n a remarkable d i s p l a y of i n t r a n s i -g e n c e , t h e S o v ie t l i t e r a r y p ro f es s io n -- at l e a s t i t s mosti n f l u e n t i a l a n d t a l e n t e d me mb ers --c on ti nu ed t o r es i s t b e i n gwooed o r ca j o l ed in- to t o t a l s u b m i s s i o n . In t h e i r r e s o l u t eand pro t r ac t ed f e a t of r e s i s t a n c e , S o v i e t writers haved e m o n s t r a t e d a m ea su re o f , p e r s o n a l i n t e g r i t y an d u n i t y ofpurpose unmatched by any o t h e r segment of S o v i e t s o c i e t y .As a r e s u l t of t h e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n o f f i c i a l p o l i c yand t h e d u r a b i l i t y of t h e p r e s s u r e s f o r l i b e r a l i z a t i o n , So-v i e t l i t e r a t u r e h a s b e e n carr ied b eyo nd t h e c o n f i n e s of

t h e S t a l i n eTa. While c o n t i n u i n g t o s u f f e r f r o m p r e s c r i p -t i o n s of c o n t e n t , s t e r e o t y p e s of c h a r a c t e r , and d i s t o r t i o n sof t r u t h , S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e has i n r e c e n t y e a r s p ro be d areasof human a c t i v i t y r a r e l y f r e q ue n t e d d u r i n g S t a l i n ' s l i f e -t i m e . N o t o n l y d i d t h e h er e t i ca l l i t e r a r y works (e .g . ,Ehren burg ' s The Thaw, Du din tse v ' s N o t by Bread Alone, andL i t e r a t u r n a y a M o s k v a 11 ) depa r t from e a r l i e r c o n v e n t i o n she f f i c i a l l y a p pr ov ed wo rk s (e.g.,Korneychuk's Wings, NikolayevaOs B a t t l e on t h e Way, andKoc h e to v ' s T h e t h e r s Yershov) mirrored some of t h e moreunseemly aspec t s of S o v i e t s o c i e t y . Even more s i g n i f i c a n tt ha n t h e ch an ge s i n l i t e r a r y c on t e n t has been t h e s t r i k i n gc h a n g e i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l m i l i e u g ov er ni ng c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y .T he open ing of wide r avenups of c om mu n ic at io n w i t h i n t h el i t e r a r y p r o f e s s i on s i n c e 1 9 53 h a s l e d t o t heemer gence ofa k i n d of i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e i m p os s i bl e u nd er S t a l i n . The


5/57

. . .

change i n t he i n t e l l e c t u a l cl imate , w hi c h w a s cramat-zed byt h e o u t b i l r s t s of nonconf or mi ty in 1956, h a s been most clear-l y r e f l e c t e d i n t h e w i l l i n g n es s of i n c r e a s i n g n um be rs ofwriters t o e x p r e s s t h e i r g e nu in e c o n v i c t i o n s i n p u b l i c ,e v e n t h o u g h these v i e w s h a v e r e p e a t e d l y b e e n a t odds w i t he s t a b l i s h e d n orm s. Th e f a c t t h a t s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s of can-dor a n d c o n v i c t i o n h a v e c o n t i n u e d t o m a n i f e s t themselvesd u r i n g t h e p o s t - S t a l i n per iod.. i s a measur e of t h e g re a t e r t o l e r a t i o n accorded wri ters

One of t h e more i m p o r t a n t aspects of t h e c h a n ge i nt h e i n t e l l e c t u a l cl imate h a s been t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ofa t t i t u d e s among l e a d i n g m e m b e r s of t h e l i t e r a r y p r o f e s s i o n . ,Writers who i n t h e pas t were c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n f o r m i s t havei n t h e mom relaxed c o n d i t i o n s of t h e p o s t - S t a l i n per iodappeared as a r d e n t a d v o c a t e s of greater freedom i n t h e a r t s .I l y a E hr en bu rg h a s stood a t t h e f o r e f r o n t of t h e e r s t w h i l eo f f i c i a l a p o l o g i s t s who, w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g t o r e n d e r Caesarh i s d ue a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n fe r en c es a nd o f f i c i a l f u n c t i o n s ,have plugged f o r a widen ing of t h e f r o n t i e r s i n t h e i r own'p r o f e s s i o n a l l i f e . C a p i t a l i z i n g on t h e i r i n t e r n a t i o n a l pres-t i g e and l o y a l se rv ice t o t h e r eg ime , these v e t e r a n s h a v es o u g h t t o remove t h e t r a m m e l s on c rea t ive i n i t i a t i v e an dplace S ov ie t l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y on a s o u n d e r f o o t i n g .By v i r t u e of t h e i r e x c e p t i o n a l t a l e n t s a nd en or mo usp r e s t i g e , t h e e s t a b l i s h e d w r i t e r s have been a b l e t o exer ta f a r g r ea t e r i n f l u e n c e t h a n t h e i r numbers imply--a f a c tt h a t h a s been a c o n s t a n t source of c o n c e r n t o t h e regimei n i t s e f f o r t s t o r e c r u i t new t a l e n t s more r e c e p t i v e t o o f-

f i c i a l d i c ta te . Proof of t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l appea l of s u c hl i t e r a r y v e t e r a n s as Ehrenburg, Tvardovsky, and Panfe rovhas be e n r e f l e c t e d i n t h e moderate t r e a t m e n t accorded t h e i ri conoc la sm, a s w e l l as i n t h e i r r e t e n t i o n of i n f l u e n t i a lp o s i t i o n s in t h e l i t e r a r y p ro f e ss io n . Al t h o u g h members oft h e o l de r g e n e r a t i o n of S o v i e t w r i t e r s have passed t h r o u g ho f f i c i a l c e n s ur e r e l a t i v e l y u ns ca th ed , t h e y have, by impl i ca -t i o n , f r e q u en t l y been charged w i t h a c t i v e l y e n co u ra g in g t h espread of u n d e s i r a b l e a t t i t u d e s among t h e " p o l i t i c a l l y un-developed" younger writers--a g e n e r a t i o n w hi c h h a s showns u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e respect f o r t h e t r a d i t i o n s of t h e p a s t .The t e n a c i t y w i t h which h e r e t i c a l o p i n i o n s have s u r v i v e di n t h e S o v i e t l i t e r a r y community, a s w e l l as t h e success

e n j o y e d b y wri ters i n e va d in g o f f i c i a l c o n t r o l s and r e s i s t i n g

- ii -


6/57

f

o f f i c i a l pressures , h a s i n p a r t r e s u l t e d from t h e moremoderate p o l i c i e s of t h e p o s t - S t a l i n regime.b ludgeon ing writers w i t h i n d i s c r i m i n a t e p e r s o n a l a t t a c k s ,p u r g e s , o r worse, t h e regime has s o u g h t t o persuade andc o n v e r t wri te rs t o i t s c a us e . T h i s p o l i c y h a s b ee nc a l c u l a t e d t o s t i m u l a t e c re a t i v e o u tp u t w h i l e a t t h e samet i m e k e e p in g d i s s i d e n c e w i th in b ou nd s. However, becauset h e c o n t r o l s imposed have not been r i g i d enough t o p r e v e n tq u e s t i o n i n g a nd t h e c o n c e s s i o n s t o wri ters n o t e x t e n s i v eenough t o s a t i s f y them, t h i s p o l i c y h a s perpe tua ted t h ev e r y e l em e nt o f r e s i s t a n c e t h a t it was d e s ig n e d t o c u r b .The co n ti n ue d v i t a l i t y of t h e p r e s s u r e s f o r l i b e r a l i z a -t i o n m igh t a l so be e x p l a i n e d b y t h e n a t u r e of t h e c rea t iveprocess i t s e l f . Most S o v i e t wri t e r s are p r o b a b ly as s t r o n g -l y commit ted p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y t o t h e p r i n c i p l e of c re a t i v efreedom as t h e i r Weste rn coun te rpa r t s . To those--probablyt h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of writers--who have made peace w i t ht h e i r env i ronmen t in t h e bel ie f t h a t t h e i r idea l s can ber ea l i zed w i t h i n t h e o f f i c i a l framework, c o n f o r m i ty w i t ho f f i c i a l v a l u e s has p r o b a b ly n o t i n v o lv e d a n y severe v i o l a -t i o n s of consc ience . To those w i t h u n u s u a l t a l e n t whoasp i r e t o c ap tu re a r t i s t i c a l l y t h e d e p t h a nd v a r i e t y ofhuman experience, however, t h e o f f i c i a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s a n dp r o s c r i p t i o n s have genera ted re sen tmen t and d i s g u s t . Fromt h i s g r o u p have come t h e s t a n d a r d - b e a r e r s of a r t i s t i c i n -t e g r i t y who have s e r v e d a s a r a l l y i n g p o i nt f o r t h o s ea n x i o u s t o defend and expand the scope of c r e a t i ve a c t i v i t y .

I n s t e a d of

D e s p i t e i t s p o l i t i c a l o v e r to n e s , t h e movement t o eman-c i pa t e S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e from t h e f a l s e v a l u e s and bureau-c r a t i c c o n t r o l s of t h e pas t h a s b e e n l a r g e ly a p o l i t i c a l i ncharacter . What t h e S o v i e t wri te rs have demanded--and t h i s2s c l ea r from t h e i r works of a r t a nd p u b l i c speeches--isn o t so much t o be f r ee t o a t t ack t h e p r e v a i l i n g i d eo l og y ,OF even t o d i s c u s s p o l i t i c a l issues, b u t s im p ly t o descr ibel i f e 8s t h e y see i t w i t h ou t c o n s t a n t r e f e r e n c e t o ideo logy .Bored or d i s g u s t e d w i t h t h e a r t i f i c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s of goodand e v i l a n d , i r r i t a t ? d by c o n s t a n t o f f i c i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e ,t h e y l o n g f o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o crea t e w i t h g r e a t e r o r ig -i n a l i t y and v a r i e t y . I n s t e a d of a t t e m p t i n g t o c h a l l e n g et h e f o u n d a t i o n s of t h e p o l i t i c a l o r d e r w h i c h t h e y have comet o accept i n p r i n c i p l e , t h e w r i t e r s have appealed f o r ameasure of p r o f e s s i o n a l autonomy under w h i c h t h e y c o u l df r e e l y e sp ou se t h e v e r y i d e a l s t o w hi c h t h e regime i sp u b l i c l y co mmi t t ed .


7/57

Apart from t h e i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o write sp o n t a n e o u s l ya n d h o n e s t l y , there w a s p r o b a b l y n o d e f i n e d aim u n i t i n g t h ebo l de r voices i n t h e So vie t l i t e r a r y community . In demand-i n g a d h e r e n c e t o t r u t h i n a r t , many of them s i n c e r e l y be-l i e v e d t h e y w e r e advanc ing o f f i c i a l o b j e c t i v e s as w e l l ase x p r e s s i n g t h e "wisdom of t h e masses." In most i n s t a n c e st h e e x p o su r e s of b u r e a u c r a t i c a b u se s i n b e l l e s - l e t t r e s re-f l ec t ed n o t o n l y a d e v o t i o n t o t r u t h a n d i n d iv id u al h um a 'nv a l u e s , b u t a l s o a p r i m i t i v e f a i t h i n s o c i a l i s t and p a t r i o t i ci d e a l s . In s h o r t , what t h e more outspoken wri ters werea s s e r t i n g was e s s e n t i a l l y a moYale i n d i c t m e n t of c o r r u p t i o n ,I nh u ma n it y , a nd i n j u s t i c e , b u t i n so d o i n g t h e y p r o b a b lyc o n c e i v e d themselves n o t as t h e opponen t s of t h e regimeb u t as t h e bearers of i t s consc ience .

While o s t e n s i b l y moral and a p o l i t i c a l i n t o n e a n dp r o f e s s i o n a l i n p u r p o se , h ow ever, t h e demands of S o v i e tw r i t e r s f o r grea te r c r e a t i v e l a t i t u d e have i n e v i t a b l y hadf a r - r e a c h i n g p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t h e e y e s of t h e regime.I n a t t e m p t i n g t o d e p i c t r e a l i t y as t h e i r consc ience s guide--n o t a s t h e regime sees i t - - t h e wri ters have, i n e f f e c t ,t h r e a t e n e d t o u su r p t h e p a r t y l eadersh ip ' sn o s i n g an d p r e s c r i b i n g f o r t h e i l l s of Sov i e t soc ie ty . Khru-shchev made t h i s c l ea r a t t h e T h i r d Writers' Congress i nMay 1959 when he asserted, "Li s t en , dear f r i e n d s . If t he rei s anyone who d i s c l o s e s a n d l a y s bare d e f i c i e n c i e s a nd v i c e sand whose hand does n o t f a l t e r i n t h i s process, i t i s t h ep a r t y a nd i t s c e n t r a l committee." S e n s i t i v e a b ou t i t s pre-r o g a t i v e s , t h e p a r t y l e a d e r s h i p h a s a l w a y s feared a l l pre-t e n s i o n s of p r o f e s s i o n a l autonom y which might lead t o t h espread of p o l i t i c a l h e r e s y . Recogn iz ing t h e pow@r of t h epres s and mindfu l of t h e u n d e s i r a b l e p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e sexpressed a n d e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e l i t e r a t u r e of t h e "thaw,"t h e regime has a l w a y s j e a l o u s l y g u a r d e d i t s monopoly i nt h e molding of p u b l i c o p in i on .

In v iew of t h e bas ic c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e p u r p o se sof a r t and p o l i t i c s , t h e prospects f o r a d u r a b l e accommoda-t i o n between w r i t e r and regime i n t h e USSR appear t o beremote. Given t h e f o r m id a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l w eapons a t i t sd i s p o s a l , t h e regime a p p a r e n t l y i s capable of keep ing pres-s u r e s w i t h i n t h e l i t e r a r y community u n d er c o n t r o l . I nf a c t , under Khrushchev's l eadersh ip t h e regime seems supremelyc o n f i d e n t t h a t e v e n t s o u ts i d e t h e realm of l e t t e r s w i l lu l t i m a t e l y prove more d e c i s i v e i n s h a pi ng po pu la r a t t i t u d e st h a n t h e i d e a s e x p r e s se d by S o vi et i n t e l l e c t u a l s . Neverthe-l e s s , as l ong as t h e regime remains committed t o t h e p o l i c yof "comradely persuasion"--admittedly an improved thoug hs t i l l imperfect t echn ique of con t ro l - - a t l e a s t some w r i t e r sw i l l c o n t i n u e t o press f m a n e x p an s io n of a r t i s t i c a n d i n t e l -. l e c t u a l h o r i z o n s .

r o l e i n diag-

- i v -


8/57

Because of t h e e s s e n t i a l l y p e rs on al n a t u re of a r t i s t i c cre-a t i o n and th e enormous in f lue nce exert ed -- even wi th in a t o t a l -i t a r i a n s oc ie ty -- by i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t i c p e r s o n a l i t i e s on t h emoods of t h e i r community, i t is n e c es s ar y t o e x e r c i s e c o ns i d e r-able c a u t i o n i n any d i s c u s s i o n of a n o f f i c i a l c u l t u r a l p o l ic y .I n t h e S o v i e t c o n t e x t , t h e c u l t u r a l m i l i eu is o f f i c i a l l y re -garded a s one of t h e many domains of t h e s t a t e , and t h e a r t i s ti s viewed as a " t r ansmiss ion b e l t , ' - ' an "engineer of t h e humanso u l , " w h o se f u n c t i o n is t o p o p u l a r i z e o f f i c i a l d i r e c t i v e s , t oexhor t ar id reform t h e c i t i z e n - , u n t i l h i s g o a l s a nd those of t h es t a t e c o in c id e . To f u l f i l l t h e assignments of t h e s t a t e , t h ea r t i s t has been s a d d l e d w i t h a h u g e , o v e r l a p p i n g b u r e a u c r a t i ca p p a r a t u s w hic h ha s i n t e r f e r e d w i t h h i s t r a d i t i o n a l f u n c t io n ofobserv ing and por t r ay ing l i f e . The f a c t t h a t S o v i e t a r t , music,and l i t e r a t u r e are s u b s e r v i e n t t o p a r t y d i r e c t i v e s and c o n t r o l s ,however , makes ne i th e r th e na tu re of t h a t a r t n o r t h e o f f i c i a ld i r e c t i o n s im p le .

To ach ieve i t s propagand i s t i c Func t ions , t h e S o v i e t l i t -e r a r y p r o fe s s i on , now numbering nearly 5 ,000 members, has beeno r g a n i z e d on a comprehens ive na t iona l s c a l e , e x a l t e d t o a l o f t ys o c i a l s t a t u s , and s up po rt ed w i t h genero us emoluments. The r e -gime h a s h a rn es se d t h e l i t e r a r y p r o f es s i o n w i t h a n elaboratesystem of c o nt ro 2 s- -t he p a r t y a p p a r a t u s , t h e w r i t e r s ' o r g a n i z a -t i o n s , e d i t o r i a l boards , r e p e r t o r y c o u n c i I s , a n d g o v e r n m e n t a lcensorship--and h a s t h r u s t o n a l l w r i t e r s t h e a r t i s t i c c r e d o sof " s o c i a l i s t real ism" and "party-mindedness" (p ar t i yn os t) un-d e r which t h e y a re o b l i g e d t o p o r t r a y r e a l i t y n o t a s t h e y seeit bu t a s t h e s h i f t i n g n e ed s of t h e regime demand. A l l t h e i n -s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s of pers uas ion and coercio n have been employedt o win w r i t e r s t o t h e Communist cause, t o induce them t o c r e a t ew o r k s t h a t w i l l no t on ly conform w i t h o f f i c i a l i d e o l o g y b u tw i l l a t t a i n l a s t i n g a r t i s t i c q u a l i t y .

Although s o c i a l i s t rea l i sm a nd pa r t iy no s t have long beenproc la imed the o f f i c i a l credos of S ov ie t l i t e r a t u r e , these con-c e p t s hav e ne ve r bee n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y d e f i n e d i n t h eo ry or prac-t i c e . In g e n e r a l , t h e y ha ve come t o r e p r e s e n t a n i d e a l i z e d ap-proach t o l i f e , t h e l e i tm o t i v of which i s t h e march o f S o v i e ts o c i e t y un de r t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e Communist pa r t y alo ng t h eroad t o Communism. The s o c i a l ev i l s - - " su rv iva l s of capi ta l i sm"--encoun te red on t h e way must , according t o t h e o f f i c i a l p r e s c r i p -t i o n , be t r e a t e d as t r a n s i t o r y a n d be overcome by "posi t ive

- 1 -


9/57

s t r u g g l e . " The So v i e t w r i t e r i s t h u s p l ac e d i n t h e p o s i t i o nof a v i s i o n a r y who m us t d e s c r i b e i n p o s i t i v e terms a l i f et h a t h e h a s n ev e r s e e n an d y e t p r e s e n t it a s t h e r e a l i t y of'the p res en t day . Never th e le ss , th e ambi gu i t i e s in t h e of-f i c i a l c r i t e r i a , a s w e l l a s t h e c ha ng es i n t h e p o l i t i c a lc l im a te , h av e a f f o r d e d So v i e t w r i t e r s a grea t e r degree ofl a t i t u d e i n p ly in g t h e i r & r a f t t ha n i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d .Even d u r i n g p e r i o d s - o f s e v e r e s t p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l s , some So-v i e t w r i t e r s h av e t hr o ug h s h e e r f o r c e of t a l e n t be en ab le t obend t o t h e i r own purposes t he o f f i c i a l d i c ta t o w h i c h o t h e r s 'have b e e n s u b s e r v i e n t .t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t l i t e r a t u r e oc cu pi es i n t h e USSR exceeds byf a r t h e ' l i m i t s t o Which it i s c o nf i ne d i n t h e West. Th i s i sdue not only t o a s t r o n g l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n d a t i ng back t o t h e1 9 t h c e n t u r y , b u t a l s o to t h e c o n di t i on s g o ve rn in g i n t e l l e c t u a land s o c i a l l i f e i n t h e USSR. As opposed t o t h e d u l 1 , s t e r e o -typed , and mono l i t h ic ou tpour ings of the Sovie t propaganda ma-c h i n e , l i t e r a t u r e pr o vi d es a re fuge f rom t h e u n r e m i t t i n g p r e s -s u r e s of e v e r yd a y So v ie t l i f e . By opening t o t h e r e a de r aworld o f s e n s e a n d e m ot ion de n i e d him by o f f i c i a l p r e s s , So-v i e t l i t e r a t u r e p er fo rm s a s o c i a l f u n c t i o n a n d e x e r c i s e s a pub-l i c inf 1-uence qu i t e comparable t o t h a t of t he "human i n t er es t"j o u r n a l i s m of t h e West. T h i s f u n c t i o n an d t h i s r e s po ns e g i v et h e S o v i et w r i t e r an i nc om p ar ab ly g r e a t e r s t a t u s v i s- a -v i s t h ep u b l i c t h a n t h a t of h i s W es te rn c o u n t e r p a r t a nd e x p l a i n t h ea cu t e s e n s i t i v i t y of t h e Sov ie t r eg ime t o l i t e r a r y d ev el op me nt s.

D e sp it e t h es e s e v e r e l i m i t a t i o n s on c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y ,

The re la t ionsh ip be tween the reg ime and the w r i t e r has beenf u r t h e r c o m p l i ca t e d b y t h e e norm ous growth of t h e S o v i e t r e a d i n gp u b li c and t h e h i s t o r i c a l ro l e o f l i t e r a t u r e in a c o u n t r y w i t hf e w o t h e r a t t r a c t i o n s . S chooled i n t h e g r e a t t r a d i t i o n s of t h e1 9 t h c en tu ry l i t e r a r y c l a s s i c s and en la rged by th e p rocess ofmass e d u c a t i o n , t h e So v i e t r e a d in g p u b l i c h a s d e v e lo p ed a power-f u l t a s t e f o r good l i t e r a t u r e and a s u r p r i s i n g im m u n i ty a g a in s tp o l i t i c a l p am ph le te er in g- -a f a c t e vi de nc ed by t h e s t r i k i n g pref -e r e nc e f o r p re -S ov ie t l i t e r a t u r e a t a l l t im e s s i n c e t h e revo lu -t i o n . To be read, a work of a r t must be beldeved, and t o be be-l i e v e d , i t mu s t mirror a reasonab ly acc u ra te image o f S ov ie t so-c i e t y . H e n c e , t o s e c u r e o f f i c i a l s a n c t i o n a s w e l l as popular ap-p r o v a l , t h e w r i t e r must a t t empt t o r e c o n c i l e t h e c o n f l i c t i n g d e-mands of t h e c o n f or m i t y a nd c r e a t i v i t y - a p o l i t i c a l l y d e l i c a t e anda r t i s t i c a l l y d i f f i c u l t u n d e r t a k i n g ,

- 2 -

1


10/57

. .

Thus it has never been poss ib l e t o u n d e r s t a n d S o v i e t c u l -t u r e e i t h e r a s a m ec ha ni ca l r e f l e c t i o n of p o l i t i c a l e ve nt s o r .as an i s o l a t e d and autonomous phenomenon, Dur ing th e pos t -S t a l i n pe r io d t h e c u l t u r a l s ce n e has b ee n u n se t t l e d by t h e a p -pearance of new te ns io ns and con fusi ons which have a s s a i l e db o t h t h e b u r e a uc r a c y a nd t h e a r t i s t i c i n t e l l i g e n t s i a an d havecaused them a t times t o i n t e r a c t w i t h e a ch o t h e r i n un pr ec e-d e n t e d way s .

I n a n y b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l s k e t c h of S o v i et c u l t u r a l p o l i cy ,i t is d i f f i c u l t t o a vo id s e t t i n g a r b i t r a r y p e r i od s i n t i m e andg i v i n g t h e impress ion of a sudden r a i s in g and lower ing of ac u r t a i n on a s e r i e s of s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s c e n e s . A t t imes d u r i n gt h e p e r i o d u n d er r e v i e w , dramat ic s c e n e s which were i n t e r -r u p t e d by a b r u p t d e sc e n t s of t h e o f f i c i a l c u r t a i n c o n t in u edt o be s t a g e d i n t h e wings and even i n t h e o r c h e s t r a i t s e l f .A t o t h e r t i m es , t h e a p p a r en t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a nd c o n f us i o ni n o f f i c i a l c u e s had l i n g e r i n g e f f e c t s n e i t h e r a n t i c i p a te dnor d e s i r e d by t h e o f f i c i a l prompters . Y e t i n r e t ro s p e ct I tc a n be s e e n t h a t p r oc e ss e s of c ha ng e g r a d u a l l y c r y s t a l l i z e d in-to p a t t e r n s of development which may be i d e n t ' i f i e d as d i s t i n c tphases o f t h e p o s t -S t a li n c u l t u r a l p o l i cy . .

- 3 -


11/57

R e l a x a t i o n- ---f Restraints (Spr ing 1953 - Spring 1954)The O f f i c i a l '*Thaw'*. The postwar l i t e r a r y purge conduct-e d u n d e r t h e imprimatur of t h e p a r t y d e c r e e s of 1946-1948,*which a t tempted t o p la ce S o vi et l i t e r a t u r e i n a r i g i d p a r t ys t r a i t j a c k e t , h ad r u n i t s course w e l l b ef or e S t a l i n ' s d e a th ,and had l e f t i n i t s wake an a r t s o s t e r i l e t h a t i t t h r e a t - -ened t o undermine the very purposes f o r which i t w a s o f f i c i a l -l y des igned . In th e a tmosphere of p e r va s i v e c o n t r o l s a nd f e a r ,t h e S o v i e t l i t e r a r y community was driven down a b l i n d a l l e y ofc o n fo r m i ty w i t h ou t c r e a t i v i t y . The f a c t t h a t s om e th in g w a ss e r i o u s l y amiss i n S ov ie t l i t e r a t u r e came t o be recogn ized bye ve n t h e r egi me i t s e l f , a s was ev idenced by th e in c re ase d vo l -ume of c r i t i c a l comment t h a t b eg an i n t h e c e n t r a l p r e s s i n t h esummer of 1950. P l a y w ri t i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r w a s a t t a c k e d , per-h a p s b ec au se t h e n e a r l y em pty t h e a t e r s p u b l i c ly d r a m a t i ze d t h ef a i l u r e o f t h e numerous i d e o l o g i c a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y p l a y s . Thes i t u a t i o n on t h e c u l t u r a l f r o n t r ea ch ed s u ch p r op o rt i on s t h a tMalenkov, i n h i s c e n t r a l committee r e p o r t t o t h e 1 9 t h p a r t yc o n gr e s s i n October 1 95 2, c a s t i g a t e d t h e ' * f al s e ne s s a n d ro t "in S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e a nd a pp ea le d f o r g r e a te r imag ina t ion andv a r i e t y . W hile c a l l i n g for new Gogols and Sh che dri ns who,w i t h t h e f i r e of t h e i r s a t i r e , would '*burn aw a y e v e r y th in g . . .t h a t r e t a r d s p r og r e ss , *I however, Malenkov emphasized t h a t th eb a s i c s t a n d a r d s of So v ie t l i t e r a t u r e r em aine d- u nc ha ng ed .In re sponse t o t h e o f f i c i a l l y e nc ou ra ge d "thaw," the sym-bol popu la r ized by t h e t i t l e of I l ya Ehrenburg ' s subsequen t l yp u b l i s h e d n o v e l , t h e pent-up yearnings of t h e c u l t u r a l i n t e l -l i g e n t s i a f o r g r e a t e r c r e a t i v e l a t i t u d e began g r a d u a l l y b u t un-

m i s t a k a b ly t o b r ea k t h ro ug h a f t e r t h e d e a t h of S t a l i n . T h ei n i t i a l r e a c t i o n s t o t h e o f f i c i a l o v e r t u r es , which were ex-p r e s s e d i n l i t e r a r y d i s cu s si o ns and c r i t i c a l a r t i c l e s l o n g ~-,

I *The term "Zhdanovshchina" was c oi ne d i n t h e West t o de-s c r i b e t h e p o st wa r c u l t u r a l p ur ge s u p e r v i s e d by S o v i e t p o l i t -buro member Andrey Zhdanov. Th is term is misleading , however ,s i n c e t h e most r e p r e s s i v e phase of t h i s pu rg e, i n v ol v i ng t h ea r r e s t s a n a lo r e x e c u t i o n s of '*homeless cosmopo l i tans , ' o c c u r r e da f t e r Zhdanov's de at h i n August 1948.

- 4 -


12/57

before t h e y a p p ea r ed i n b e l l e s - l e t t r e s , were r e s er v e d i ncharac te r and l i m i t e d i n s co pe . More emot iona l than in -t e l l e c t u a l i n n a tu re , t h e e a r l y c r i t i c a l s t i r r i n g s were d i -r e c t e d n o t so much a t t h e root of t h e c u l t u r a l malaise--r i g id o r t h o d o x y a n d u b iq u i t o u s c o n t r o l s - - a s a t i t s morepronoun ced symptoms--the deh uma niz ati on of t h e a r t s , t h ea r t i f i c i a l i t y o f a r t i s t i c s t e r e o t y p e s , a n d t h e l a c k of i n -t e g r i t y i n a r t i s t i c work.u a l r a t h e r t h an s o c i a l themes and a r e d i s c o v e r y of bas ichuman values, such as l o v e , h on e s t y, a nd s i n c e r i t y , became It h e h a l lm a r k s of t h e f i r s t p rob ing c r i t i c i s m s of t h e S o v i e ts c en e i n t h e p e r io d im me diat ely f o l l o w in g S t a l i n ' s d e a th .Pr o t es t Aga inst Dehuman izat ion o f L i te ra tu re . One oft h e f i r s t e mo ti on al p r o t e s t s a g a i n s t t he s t e r i l i t ' y of t h ep a s t , a n o u t b u r s t t h a t w a s echoed d u r in g 1953 by severa lf i r s t - r a n k S o v i e t w r i t e r s , dram at i s t s , and composers, wase x p r e s s e d by the young Leningrad poetess O l g a B e r g go l t s i nL i t e r a r y Gazet te o n 1 6 A p r i l 1953. B e r g g o l t s dep lo red t h eabsence of love and o th e r human emot ions i n Sov ie t l y r i cp o e t r y . She complained:

A , r e o r i e n t a t i o n t ow ar d i n d i v i d -

I n a g r e a t many of our l y r i c a l poems t h e mostim p o r t a n t t h in g is lacking: humani ty , t h e human being.I don't mean t h a t human beings a r e n o t r e p r e s e n t e d a ta l l . Indeed they a r e , human beings of a l l t y p e s a n dp r o f e s s i o n s ; w e a re c o n f r o n t e d w i t h b u l ld o z e r a n d steam-s h o v e l o p e r a t o r s ; we are c o nf r on t ed w i t h h o r t i c u l t u r -i s t s - e f t e n w e l l , sometimes b r i l l i a n t l y , d e s c r i b e d . Butt h e y a re a l l seen f rom t h e o u t s i d e , a n d t h e most i m -p o r t a n t t h i n g of a l l is l a c k in g i n o u r poe'try-a l y r i chero w i t h an i n d i v i d u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e world, t ot h e c o u n t r y s i d e .The p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e v i r t u a l e x c l u s i o n from S o v i e tl i t e r a t u r e o f pe r s ona l p rob lems and human emot ions and t h ealmost p a t h o l o g i c a l o b s e s s i o n w i t h dams, t r a c t o r s , and f a c -t o r i e s s o o n de v elo pe d i n t o w i d e a d m iss io n s i n t h e p a r t y p r e s sa nd c u l t u r a l j o u r n a l s of s e r i o u s d e f i c i e n c i e s in S o v i e t c u l -t u r e . In J u n e a n d J u ly 1953 Pravda c r i t i c i z e d p la y w r ig h t sf o r t h e " d u l l , '' "superf i c i a 1 , ~ ' c a l o r l e s s " l a y s w h i c hwere " s c h e m a t i c p o r t r a y a l s of c o n f l i c t ." C a l l in g f o r a " b o l d ,c r e a t i v e s e ar c h f o r t h e new," Pravda s h a r p l y a t t acked t h e So-v i e t Writers' Union for n o t d e v e l o p i n g "bo ld and p r in -c i p l e d " c r i t i c i s m a n d s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . To encourage more

- 5 -


13/57

f l e x i b i l i t y a nd s t i m u l a t e s uc h c r i t i c i s m , as w e l l as t o adop tt h e r e g im e' s newly r ev i ve d p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e t o a l l o r g a n i -za t i on s , Pravda demanded th e in t ro du c t io n of "col lec t ive l ead -e r s h i p " i1 p r o f e s s i o n a l u n i on s of c u l t u r a l w or ke rs .

O f f i c i a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e s t a t e of l i t e r a t u r e wasb u t t r e s s e d by e q u a l l y c r i t i c a l o u t b u r s t s by t h e w r i t e r s them-s e l v e s . A t a confe rence of young c r i t i c s i n Se p te mb er , t h ee l d e r l y poetess a nd S t a l i n pr i ze winner , Vera Inber , warnedt h a t " a l l is n o t w e l l i n o u r p oe t ry " a nd t h a t t h e S o v i e t p u b l icw a s t i r e d of " the same s t e a m s h o v e l , t h e same dam, the same road."She a l so d e pl o re d t h e h a rs h a t t i t u d e of Soviet c r i t i c s who tend-e d t o r e g a r d t h e wri te r a s "an enemy who st o o d on t h e o the r s i d eo f t h e l i t e r a r y b a rr i ca d e. " A t t h e same c o n f e r e n c e t h e o l dnove l i s t and p laywr igh t Kons tan in Paus tovsky found it n e c e s s a r yt o r em in d h i s a u d ie n ce t h a t w r i t i n g a nd c r i t i c i s m c o n s t i t u t e d a" h i g h c a l l i n g , ' a n d t h a t t h e wri t e r . ' s r 7 c r e a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l i t y" .s h o u ld be g r a n t e d du e r e s p e c t ,Among t h e i s s u e s which began t o emerge w i th b i t i n g forcei n t h e g r a d u a l l y b ro ad en in g d i s c u s s i o n was t h e q u e s t i o n of t h ew r i t e r ' s own r e s p o n si b i l i t y f o r t h e i n t e g r i t y of h i s work. TheJune e d i t i o n of Novy M i r c a r r i e d a long poem en t i t l ed "Dis tanceBeyond D i s t a n c e " b y i K e d i t o r , t h e d i s ti n g ui s h ed poet AleksandrTvardovsky ; th i s w a s t h e f i r s t work t o f o c u s a t t e n t i o n o n t heproblem of t h e " in ne r e d i t o r " i n t h e w r i t e r ' s mind,. Tvardovskyp o i n t e d t o t h e l a c k of c o u r a g e o n t h e p a r t of t h e w r i t e r a s oneof the ma in reasons f o r t h e s t e r i l i t y of S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e . Hisp o i n t w a s driven home by t h e p l a y w r ig h t A . Sa ly n s k y , w r i t i n g inL i t e r a r y Gaze t te on 20 October. "The s ad de s t th in g , " Salynskyo b s e r v e d , " is tha ' t some w r i t e r s h av e n o t f r e e d t h e ms e lv es fromt h e ' i n t e r n a l c en s o r ' whic h f o r s o long s a t a t t h e s i d e of t h e

w r i t e r and bound h i s though t , h i s tongue , say i ng : 'Th is i s pos-s i b l e , b u t t h i s i s imposs ib le . ' But why shou ld any th ing ac tu a l lybe imposs ib le? Af te r a l l , S o v i e t w r i t e r s , even when sh ar pl y c r i t i -ciz ing negat ive phenomena of o u r l i f e , a f f i r m t h e p o si t i v e i d e a lof t h e Communist way of l if e! "The v i e w s expressed by Tvardovsky, Salynsky, and o t h e r s dur-i n g t h e o f f i c i a l "thaw" a f t e r " S t a l i n ' s d e a th r e p re s e nt e d a c u r r e n tof t h o u g h t w h ic h p e r s i s t e d w i th in th e c u l t u r a l i n t e l l i ge n t s i a ,d e -s p i t e subsequen t changes i n o f f i c i a l pol icy . According t o t h i spo i n t o f v iew, w r i t e r s c o u l d r e g a i n t h e a r t i s t i c s e l f - r e s p e c tt h a t t h e y h ad s u r r e n d e r e d u nd er S t a l i n i s m o n l y by r i d d i n g them-s e lv e s o f t h e " i n t e r n a l c en so r" -- th e r e lu c t a n c e t o s p e a k t h e

- 6 -


14/57

t r u t h b ec au se of o b s e s s iv e f e a r o f c om m it ti ng m i s t a k e s . Bya f f i r m in g t h e Communist i d e a l , a s d id Sa ly n sk y a nd o t h e r s ,writers and i n t e l l e c t u a l s were r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s sio n t o s howt h e i r l o y a l t y t o t h e regim e i n t h e f r e e e x p r e s s i o n of t h ou g htand c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y unencumbered by a r t i f i c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s .By t h e f a l l of 1953 t h eo f f i c i a l c a m p a i g n for ' Ithe new, t h e bold , and t h e express ive ' 'had begun t o e l i c i t a v a r i e t y of unusual responses which noto n l y en l a rg e d t h e s co pe of t h e l i t e r a r y d is c u s s i o n b u t a l s ob eg an t o c h a l l e n g e l o n g - s t an d in g l i t e r a r y c on v e n tio n s a nd po-l i t i c a l t ab o os . In a l en g th y a r t i c l e i n t h e O c to be r i s s u e of-namya, I lya Ehrenburg , long a be l lwe the r o f t h e p a r ty l i n eu nd er S t a l i n , d i r e c t e d a s ha rp a t t a c k a t l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s ,c h a r g in g them w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e w re tc hed s t a t e ofS o v i et l i t e r a t u r e . G iv in g v en t t o t h e w r i t e r s ' des i res t oa bandon l i t e r a t u r e by decree f o r g en ui ne l i t e r a r y e x pr e ss i on ,Eh r e n b u r g r i d i c u l e d t h e S o v i e t b u r e a u c r a t i c p r a c t i c e o f o r d e r -i n g w r i t e r s t o compose a n o v e l o r p l a y in t h e same way an i n -

d iv id u a l would o r d e r a s u i t from h i s t a i l o r . E v e n w r i t e r sl i v i n g u n de r t s a r i s m had a b e t t e r t i m e of i t , h e d e c l a r e d ,drawing by i m p l i c a t i o n a n inv id i ous compar ison w i t h t h e S t a l i ne r a . Ehrenburg as se r t ed t h a t t h e "commands" by c r i t i c s wereu n s ui t e d t o t h e f i e l d of l i t e r a t u r e , i n s i s t i n g t h a t " a wri terwri te s a book because it i s n e c es s a ry f o r h i m t o s a y somethingof his own about people. ' 's u c h p ro mine nt l i t e r a r y p o l i t i c i a n s a s K o n st a n t in S imonov andAleksandr Fadeyev. A t t h e Oct obe r 1953 plenum of t h e boardof t h e S o vi e t Writers ' Union, which was devo ted t o the need

I t o r e v i t a l i z e dra ma, Simonov l am en te d t h a t p u b l i s h in g h o us e s,f e a r f u l of " bu rn in g t h e i r f i n g e r s , " were n o t r e p r i n t i n g worksfrom t h e 1920s and 1930s a n d t h a t t h e a t e r s were not p r e s e n t i n g

A pp ea ls f o r G r e a t e r La t i t u d e .-

The c r i t i c i s ms voiced by Ehrenburg w e r e supplemented by

p l ay s f rom tho se yea rs , even though these works had hreviouslybeen condemned as outmoded a nd i d e o lo g i c a l l y d e f i c i e n t . S i -monov a l s o c a l l e d f o r a r e v i v a l of t h e c l a s s i c s . A t the sames e s s i o n , t h e f or me r s e c r e t a r y g e n e r a l of t h e union, AleksandrFadeyev, proposed an amnesty for w r i t e r s who had been black-l i s t e d because of one mis take . Such w r i t e r s shou ld be shownt h e e r r o r of t h e i r ways and fo rg iven , Fadeyev dec la red .I t was n o t u n t i l t h e a pp e ar a nc e o f t h e a r t i c l e by V . Pom-e r a n t s e v "On S i n c e r i t y i n L i t e r a t ur e ' ' i n t h e December 1953 issueof Novx Mehowever, that t h e l i t e r a r y d i s cu s s io n u nf ol de d i n t os h a r p c o n t r o v e r s y . P o m e r a n t s e v ' s a r t i c l e was s i g n i f i c a n t n o t

- 7 -


15/57

o n ly f o r i t s u se of p a r a b l e s a nd v i g n e t t e s i n a h e r e t i c a l v e inand i t s t r e a t m e n t of a s p e c t s of S o vi e t l i f e r a r e l y d i s c us s edin p r i n t , b ut a l so for i t s impass ioned appea l f o r g r e a t e r con-f i d en c e i n t h e m a t u ri t y of t h e c r e a t i v e a r t i s t ' s own judg-ment--a theme whi ch was t o be f u l l y de v el op e d by t h e so-cal led" d i s s i d e n t " wri t e r s i n 1 95 6 a n d 1957. Pomerantsev drew at ten-

I t i o n t o one of t h e basic prob lems conf ron t ing t h e S o v i e t wri te r :t h e d i f f i c u l t y of engaging t h e i n t e r e s t of r eade r s whi le por -t r a y i n g o n l y a f i c t i o n a l i z e d a cc ou nt of S o v i e t l i f e .A t t a c k i n g t h e preva lence of s t e r e o t y p e s i n S o v i et l i t e r -a t u r e an d t h e a r t i e i c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s on w r i t i n g , P o m e r a n t s e vc a l l e d o n a u t h o r s t o p o r t r a y c o n c r e t e p ro bl em s r a t h e r t h a n t og l o s s over r e a l i t i e s . R e c a s t i g a t e d d o c t r i n a i r e c r i t i c s andimpuden t ly t aun ted t h e Writer's Union: I ' I have heard t h a tShakespeare w a s n o t a member of any un ion , y e t he d i d n o tw r i t e badly!" But h i s most % e l l i n g b a r b , which w a s t o drawt h e i r e of o f f i c i a l c r i t i c s , was h i s i n s i s t e nc e t h a t s i n c e r i t ys h o u l d be t h e primary measure of c r e a t i v e a r t . "Don ' t th inka b o u t p r o se c u t i o n , " he adv ised w r i t e r s . "Don't f e e l compelledt o s e t down your co nc lu si on s; d on 't l e t y o u r se l f w r i t e a s i n g l el i n e t h a t you do n ot f e e l . Be independent!"Although Pomerantsev and Ehrenburg d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h eu l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y of t h e r eg im e i n t h i n g s l i t e r a r y , by impl i -c a t i o n t h e y were s t r i k i n g a t p a r t y con t ro l s and t h e havoc thosec o n t r o l s c au s ed t o t h e c r e a t i v e i m a g i n a t i o n of t h e l i t e r a r ya r t i s t . By i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e r e a l a r t i s t i c t e s t of a work ofl i t e r a t u r e w a s I t s s i n c e r i t y , P om era nt se v w a s , i n e f f e c t , ques-t i o n i n g t h e p r e s c r i b e d t e s t s of s o c i a l i s t rea l i sm a n d p a r t i y -n o s t a n d t h u s , by impl icat ion , condemning t h e whole body ofp o st w ar l i t e r a t u r e wh ich ha d s u b s c r i b e d t o t hose t e s t s .

1

- 8 -


16/57

O f f i c i a l R e s t r a i n t s Wi th ou t R ep r e ss i o n ( Sp r- ng 1 95 4 - S p r i n g'1956)T i g h t e n i n g t h e R e i n s . By s p r i n g 1954 t h e o r i g i n a l e f -f o r t s of t h e r eg im e t o prom ote some r e l a x a t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a r ysp h e r e r a n u p a g a i n s t t h e p ro bl em of g e n ui n e c r i t i c i s m o fo f f i c i a l p o l i c i e s . The f r a n k e x po s ur es of c u l t u r a l s t a g n a -t i o n and t h e o uts pok en c a l l s f o r c r e a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l i t yby l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , a s w e l l a s t h e a pp e ar an c e of c e r t a i np l a y s a nd no v e l s i n a s i m i l a r v e i n, soon b eg an t o r a n k l et h e regime and i t s c u l t u r a l henchmen.. Pomerantsev wass h a r p l y a t t a c k e d i n L i t e r a r y G a z et t e on 30 January 1954,a n d d u r i n g t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e y e ar t h e r e were f e w a u t h o r i -t a t i v e a r t i c l e s b ea ri ng on l i t e r a r y p o l i c y o r t h e o r y whichd i d n o t d e a l h a r s h l y w i t h t h e h a p l e s s c hampion of s i n c e r i t ywho s t o o d c o n v i c t e d of f l p h i l i s t i n i s m , a p o l i t i c i s m a nd sub -

j e c t i v i s m . "The f i r s t c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r eg im e had m i s -g i v i n g s on t h e i s s u e of l oosen ing the bonds on its writerscame i n a P r a v d a e d i t o r i a l of 12 Apr i l 1954 . While c o n t i n u -i n g on t h e one hand t o r ebuke thos e who pa in ted Sov ie tr e a l i t y i n " i d y l l i c t one s" and ignored the many sh o r t -com ings i n w r i t i n g , t h e , e d i t o r i a l c r i t i c i zed t h o s ewho went " t o t h e opp os i t e ex tr eme" and descr ibed only "nega-t i v e phenomena " " T h i s , Pravda warned, "has been part cu-l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e r e c e n t l y i n d ra ma turg y a s w e l l as i n i n -d i v i d ua l a r t i c l e s o f c r i t i c i s m . " The f i r s t f r o s t w a s i n t h ea i r .The n e w s t i f f e n i n g became ev iden t a lmos t immedia te ly .On 28 A p r i l t h e p r es i d iu m of t h e S o v ie t Writers' Unionannounced the exp u l s ion o f four p layw r igh t s , A. Surov,

I?. V i r t a , T . Galsanov, and L. Korobov, from i t s membership"as pe op le who have committed a number ofa n t i s o c i a l a c t s i n co m p at i bl e w it h t h e c a l l i n g of a S o v i e twri ter ." I r o n i c a l l y , t h e deeds of m ora l i n s t a b i l i t y ofw hi ch t h e se p l a y w r i g h t s were accused were t h e very samet r a i t s t h e y had a t t ac k e d i n t h e i r works. The subsequentcr i t i c i sms of t h e i r p l ays- -VI r t a ' s The F a l l o f Pompeyevand S u r o v ' s R e sp e ct a b l e P e op l e- -f or h a v in g " f a l s e l y p r e -s e n t ed f a u l t s of t h e way of l i f e of i n d i v i d u a l , m o r a l l yu n s t a b l e members of ( S ov i et ) s o c i e t y as t y p i c a l and a l -mos t l ead ing t r a i t s of ( S ov i et ) r e a l i t y " s u g g e st e d t h e r e a lr e a s o n s b eh in d t h e i r e x p ul s i b d .

amoral and

- 9 -


17/57

The o f f i c i a l s r e s p on s i bl e f o r c o n t r o l o ve r t h e c u l -t u r a l communi ty , inc rea s in g ly conce rned wi th t h e nonconform-is t a t t i t u d e s e x pr es se d d u r in g t h e '%haw," now ap p l i e d them-s e l v e s t o c he ck in g t h e s e t e n de n c ie s .a r t i c l e d e v o te d t o t h e Seco nd Writers' Congress scheduledf o r " e a r l y in t h eUnion, Aleksey Surkov, s e t t h e t o n e of t h e o f f i c i a l r e ac t io nb y r e a s s e r t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i a l i s t r e a l i s m andp a r t i y n o s t l a i d down i n 1934 and invoked i n t h e c e n t r a lcommittee decrees of 1946-48 . Warning t h a t th es e p r in c i p l e smust not be quest ioned , Surkov lowered the boom on t h o s ewho had sou ght t o acce le ra te t h e c u l t u r a l l lt ha w. tt Fromt h e v i g o r o u s r e a c t i o n s of t h e l i t e r a r y bureaucracy-- the of-f i c i a l s of t h e Writers' Union and the s t a f f s of s u c h p a p e r sa s Pravda, Iz ve s t ia , and Li te ra ry Gazette- -which was chargedw i t h i n s t a n t and e f f e c t i v e c l a r i f i c a t i o n and d i s se m i na t i onof changes i n t h e p a r t y l i n e , i t was c l e a r t h a t t h e r e t u r nt o c on v e n t i o n a l f o r m ul a t i on s br ou gh t a f e e l i n g of r e l i e famong t h e d e f e n d e r s of t h e s t a t u s quo.

On 25 May i n a Pravdat h e f i r s t s e c re t ar y of t h e Writers '

P r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e Second Writers ' Congress. Whilep r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e Writers ' Congress were und er way i nt h e s p r i n g a nd summer of 1954, t h e p r e s s f l a y e d t h e v a r i o u sde vi an t works, a few of which had pre vio usl y been pr a i se d .o r had escaped c r i t i c i sm . Pomerantsev 's a r t i c l e , VeraPanova ' s novel The Seasons , Leonid Zo r in ' s p la y The Gues ts ,and Ehrenburg ' s novel The Thaw a l l came under heavy c r i t i c i s mf o r m i r r o r i n g "only t h e d a r k e r a s p e c t s of l i f e , ' " d i s t o r t i n gS o v i e t r e a l i t y , " c ar i c at u r in g o ur a r t i s t i c l i f e , " and chal-l e ng i ng t h e " L en i ni s t p r i n c i p l e of p a r t i y n o s t i n l i t e r a t u r e . "The o f f i c i a l c om p la in t a g a i n s t t he se works was n o t t h a t t h e ye xp os ed s o c i a l e v i l s and bad c h a r a c t e r s bu t t h a t t h e y t r e a t e dt h e s e e v i l s a nd c h a r a c t e r s a s endemic t o t h e S o v i et s c e n e ,if n o t a c tu a l l y p r o d u c t s of t h e s ys t em , i n s t e a d of a s d i s -g u s t i n g e x cr e s c e n c e s of t h e p a s t .O f f i c i a l c r i t i c i s m of t h e d e v i a n t s a nd t h e i r works w a salso accompanied by ch an ge s i n t h e s t a f f s o f t h e o f f en d i ngl i t e r a r y j o u rn a l s . Th e e d i t o r s of _o_C_tob_e~, yodr Panferovand I . Pa d e r in , were removed i n June 1954. In A u g u s t , a f t e ra meeting of t h e pres id ium of t h e Writers ' Union, t h e j o u r n a lNovy Y i r w a s censu red for having publ is hed t h e Pomerantseva r t i c l e and o t h e r s , a nd i t s ed i to r - in -ch ie f , Tvardovsky ,who admitted t h e e r r o r of h i s ways, was rep la ce d by Simonov.

A t t h e same t i m e , t h e s e c r e t a r i a t of t h e un io n was o r d e r e dt o imp ro ve i t s gu idance o f t he jo u r na l s under i t s j u r i s d i c -t i o n ,

. - 10 -


18/57

While t h e o f f i c i a l spokesmen t h u s r e a s s e r t e d t h e i rcon t ro l , many of t h e writers who had responded to o ea ge r l yt o t h e r e l a x e d a tm os ph er e now r e t r e a t e d w i t h a l a c r i t y b e -f o r e t h e b l a s t s of e d i t o r i a l s a nd l 'd i sc u s si o nf f meet ings .W ha te ve r c o n f u s i o n h ad a r i s e n o u t of t h e re g i m e ' s e f f o r t st o p ry writers and a r t i s t s away f rom t h e 7Jsafe " formula sa nd worn c l i c h e s t h e y h ad p a r r o t e d u n d er S t a l i n i s m wasd i s s i p a t e d w i t h r e l a t i v e ease--in marked con t r as t w i t h t h efoo t -d ragg ing and def i ance which was t o g r ee t a s i m i l a rp ol ic y s h i f t i n l a t e 1956.

A t t h e same t i m e , however , there were a f e w o u t b u r s t sof s e l f - a s s e r t i o n which m ar re d t h e o f f ' i c i a l f a c a d e of c u l -t u r a l o r thodoxy and harmony. I l ya Ehrenburg r e f use d t oy i e l d u n de r t h e b a r r a g e of cr i t i c i sm of h i s no vel The Thaw.The novel, a s i t s t i t l e s u g g e s t s , described w i t h unusua lf r a n k n e s s t h e r i g o r s of l i f e u nd er S t a l i n a nd t h e hopesand promises of changes i n t h e p e r i o d t h a t f o l l o w e d S t a l i n ' sd e a t h . The n o v e l , p u b l i sh e d in t h e May i s s u e of Znamya,was a t t acked on 6 June i n Komsomolskaya Pravda . D es pi tet h e heavy a t t a c k s t h a t f o ll ow e d, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l e n g t h ya n d d e t a i l e d c r i t i c i s m by Simonov i n t h e 17 an d 20 J u l yi s s u e s of L i t e r a r y Gazette, Ehrenburg r e j ec t ed t h e i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s of h i s c r i t i c s and a s s e r t e d t h a t " a c c us a t io n sb u i l t on s p e c u l a t i o n s " d i d harm t o t h e c a u se of S o v i e tl i t e r a t u r e . E hre nb urg 's a b i l i t y t o a vo id r e c a n t a t io n wasprobab ly a r e s u l t of o f f i c i a l d i s i n c l i n a t i o n t o make asp e c t a c l e o v e r a p ro mi ne nt a n d l o y a l p u b l i c s e r v a n t .doxy had brought to an end t h e public demands of writersf o r g r e a t e r l a t i t -u d e i n l i t e r a r y e x p re s s i o n and r ed u c edt h e t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l of l i t e r a r y d i s cu s s i on t o where ithad been under S ta l in . In t h e o f f i c i a l c r i t i c i s ms andd e n u n c i a t i o n s , h ow eve r, t h e r e a p p e a r s t o h av e b ee n a con-s c i o u s e f f o r t t o a vo i d t h e heavy damage t o l i t e r a t u r ewhich c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e w i t c h h u n t s of t h e p a s t . Themore moderate and reasonable tone of t h e m a n y a r t i c l e sa nd e d i t o r i a l s t h a t a pp ea re d in t h e p e r i o d i c a l pres s p r i o rt o t h e Writers' C on gre ss i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s e r i o u s e f f o r twas being made t o pre se rve t h e l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y o f w r i t e r sa nd make them a d a p t t o t h e p a r t y l i n e , r a t h e r t h a n b a n i sht h e m f r o m t h e c u l t u r a l scene. The f a c t t h a t t h e c o n g r e s sh ad t o be p o s t p o n e d s e v e r a l t i m e s gave some i n d i c a t i o nt h a t t h e l i t e r a r y b u re au cr ac y was t a k i n g d e l i b e r a t e p a i n st o c rea t e an a tmosphere of unanimi ty i n t h e l i t e r a r y com-munity.

By t h e f a l l o f 1954 t h e o f f i c i a l campaign f o r o r t h o -

- 11 -


19/57

I

Criticism of Literary Bureaucracy. One of the con-sequences of the bans imposed by the regime at this timewas a shift from public discussion of controversial aes-thetic issues to examination of the shortcomings of theWriters' Union, the administrative organ responsible forthe day-to-day direction of Soviet literature. Criticismof the union was reflected on many levels--in the centralpress and at the preliminary congresses of writers inthe provinces and national republics.ranged from complaints of neglect of national literaturesand of younger writers to charges of preoccupation withorganizational problems, excessive bureaucracy, andfavoritism to older writers. \

The criticism

On 26 October, Literary Gazaette carried a letterfrom seven prominent writers--Veniamin Raverin, EmmanuelKazakevich, Mikhail Lukonln, Samuil Marshak, KonstantinPaustovsky (see page 6 ) , Nikolay Pogodin, and StepanShchipachov--which stated that the Writers' Union hadbeen transformed " f r o m a creative organization into akind of department of literary affairs." The writers,several of whom were to suffer official censure two yearslater for their participation in the outburst of noncon-formity that attended de-Stalinization, proposed a reor-ganization of the union involving a transfer of the func-tions of the various literary commissions under the unionto creative groups centered around various journals,each headed by leading writers.

This remarkable proposal was met with a heated replyin Literary Gazette on 11 November by Vassily Azhayev,a member of the presidium of the Writers' Union and headof the literary commission for young writers. Chargingthat the proposal contained "the clear thought of liquida-tion of the union itself," Azhayev demanded instead afurther strengthening of the organization. While theheated exchanges and the subsequent rejoinders in the presswere inconclusive with regard to the organization of theunion, they dfd reveal the depth of feelings separatingthe literary intelligentsia from the cultural bureaucrats.

At the Second Writers'he Second Writers' Congress.Congress--which finally convened in December 1954, 20years after the first such congress--the regime made ap.ointed effort to heal old sores by avoiding discussion of

- 12 -


20/57

s e n s i t i v e , c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s .t h e l i t e r a r y spokesmen--Surkov on t h e g en e ra l l i t e r a r ys i t u a t i o n , Simonov on pro se , Samed Vurgun on p o e t r y ,Ale ksa ndr Korneychuk on drama, and Serg ey Gerasimov onf i l m s -- c a u ti o n s l y l a b o r e d t h el y reaff i rmed a l l t h e po st wa r p a r t y - l i n e c l i c h e s on whatS o vi e t l i t e r a t u r e s h ou ld be . There were, n e v e r t h e l e s s ,o c c a s i o n a l f l i ck e r s of independence and c r i t i c i s m i n t h espe ech es of Mikhai l Sholokhov, Ehrenburg, Berg gol ts , ando t h e r t o p wri ters who vo iced d i s co n te n t wi th th e courseof S o vi e t l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i c i s m o f t h e u n l i m i t e d co n-t r o l of t h e l i t e r a r y bu re au cr ac y o ve r wri te rs and l i t e r a r yt a s t e .t y i n l i t e r a t u r e , t h e y ap p ea le d f o r a more d e m o c r a ti c a l lyrun l i t e r a r y o r g an i z a t i o n and f o r g r e a t e r l a t i t u d e ofe x p r es s i o n f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l writer.

The r e l a t i v e b o ld n e ss of t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s a t t h e con-g r e s s s u g ge s te d t h a t t h e f r ee r atmosphere in 1953 and 1954had developed a c e r t a i n p e r s i s t e n c e of i t s own which pre-c l u d e d a r e t u r n t o S t a l i n i s t i n t e l l e c t u a l co nf in em ent .The r eg ime c lea r ly d i d n o t w i s h t o se t t h e c l o c k t h a t farb a c k . I n s t e a d , t h e regime, under Khrushchev 's emergingin f lu en ce and power, was a t t emp t ing t o use t h e congress asa v e h i c l e f o r d ev elo pi ng l i t e r a r y c r e a t i v i t y w i th i n t h ef ramework o f p a r ty gu idance and th rough t h e es t ab l i sh edformula of " c r i t i c i s m and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m " among t h ewri t e r s t hemse lves .

I n t h e f o rm a l r e p o r t s

t o p i c s a nd p e r s i s t e n t -

W ithout q u e s t io n i n g t h e f i n a l a u t h o r i t y of t h e p a r-

New L i t e r a r y C u r r e n ts . Although t h e Second Writers 'Congress c losed on a predominant n ot e of , or thodoxy temperedby moderat ion , there w e r e s i gn s of change in t h e a c t u a ll i f e a n d work o f t h e S o v i e t l i t e r a r y comm unity. The s o f t e n -i n g of S t a l i n i s t r e p re s s i on , the d i sc l o su r e s o f ec on om icshor t comings , and t h e r e i n v i g o r a t io n of p o s i t i v e p a r t ya c t i v i t y - - a l l t h e s e m ea su re s i n t h e r e a l m of o f f i c i a lpo l i c y had begun t o be f e l t i n t h e c u l t u r a l s p he re .Writers who i n th e p as t had been under a heavy cloud ofs u s p i c i o n or worse began to r e t u r n t o c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y .Works that had been previously banned were r e p r i n t e d orr e s t o r e d i n t h e r e p e r t o i re s of S o vi et t h e a t e r s . And i nc r e a t i v e w r i t i n g i t s e l f , t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r was s lo wl ybroadened in r an g e t o i n c l u d e t o p i c s r a r e l y m en ti on ed i nt h e p a s t .l i f e of t h e c o u n t r y , many o f t h e p i l l a r s o f or th od ox y be-g an t o crumble, l e a v i n g i n t h e i r t r a i l a n e x tr em e ly com plexs i t u a t i o n .

Under t h e impetus of the changes in t h e p o l i t i c a l

- 13 -


21/57

The reappearance of v e t e r a n writers who had beenpurged or whose works had been su ppre ssed d ur i ng t h e hey-day of St a l in is m marked an important change i n t h e a tm os -p h e r e g o v er n in g So v i e t l i t e r a r y d ev elop me nt . In March1954 t h e j o u r n a l K ro ko di l c a r r i e d a n a r t i c l e by t h es a t i r i s t Mikha i l Zoshchenko, and in December an an tho logyd e vo ted t o t h e Second Writers' Congress, Leningrad Almanac ,c o n t ai n e d s e v e r a l poems by Anna Akhmatova. Thus a f mlo n g p e r io d of e n f o rc e d a bs en ce t h i s p a i r of d i s t i n g u i s h e dwri ters who had been l a b e l e d by Andrey Zhdanov t h e "scumof l i t e r a t u r e " (Zoshchenko) and a " c ros s be tween a nun anda whore'' (Akhmatova) were q u i e t l y r e i n s t ra t e d t o c r e a t i v ea c t i v i t y from which the y had been removed a f t e r t h e i rexpu ls ion f rom the Writers' Union i n 1946.

O t h e r r e t u r n e e s in 1954 were t h e drama c r i t i c s Y e .Kholodov, D. Danin, and Yu. Yuzovsky, t h e "home less cos -m o po l it a ns ' : who ha d d i s a p p e a r e d i n e a r l y 1949 a t t h e h e i g h tof t h e p o stw a r l i t e r a r y p u r g e. A l so n ot ew o rthy w a s t h ep u b l i c a t i o n of t e n poems by B or is Pa ste rna k in t h e A p r i l1954 i s sue of Znamya. The p ub l ic a ti on of t h e poems, whichwere t o form p a r t of t h e l a s t c h a p t e r of P a s t e r n a k ' s t h e nunf i n i sh ed nove l , Docto r Zh ivago , marked th e re tu rn t oc r e a t i v e w r i t i n g of one of t h e l e a d i n g f i g u r e s of t h eS o v i e t l i t e r a r y w or ld a f t e r a s e l f- i m po s ed a bs en ce of almost20 y e a rs . The r e t u r n t o t h e l i t e r a r y s c en e of i n d i v i d u a l sv i c t i m i z e d by S t a l i n i s t r e p r es s i o n- - a p r o c e s s which con-t in ued th roughou t 1955 and was t o be ac ce le ra te d by develop-m en ts a t t h e 2 0 th p a r ty c on gr es s- -c ou ld n o t b u t c r e a t e aanathemized by t h e reg ime. That t h e l i t e r a r y a u t h o r i t i e swere aware of t h i s danger was made appa rent by c r i t i c i s mof Zoshchenko and Pasternak already in June 1954.

' p o w er f u l new s t i m ul u s f o r t h e v e r y i n t e l l e c t u a l t r e n d s

~ The o f f i c i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of works l ong suppr esse dwas a p a r a l l e l development. On 17 March 1955, Trud an-nounced t h e fo r thcoming pu b l ic a t io n of t h e c o l l e c t e d worksof Ser ge y Y es en in , t h e h ig h ly i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c "h o ol iga npoe t" o f the NEP (New Economic Policy) period whose worksh ad b een t a b o o s i n c e h i s s u i c i d e i n 1925. In May, VladimirYayakovsky 's p opul ar p l ay The Bedbug, a s a t i r e on S o v i e tb u re a uc r ac y , was e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y r e c e i v e d in MOSCOW,where it h ad n o t b ee n s t a g e d s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1 93 0s . InOctober t h e emigr0; Russia n au th or Ivan Bunin , whose workhad been p ra i se d by Kons tan t in Fedin a t the-Wri ters ' Congress ,

- 1 4 -


22/57


23/57

i n Novy Mir- e f o r e S t a l i n ' s d e a t h a nd co n t i n ue d i n i n -s t a l l m e n t s in Pravda and Novy-i r u n t i l l a t e i n 1 9 5 6 , il-l u s t r a t e s some o f t h e c ha ng es i n t h e c o n t e n t of S o v i e tl i t e r a t u r e . While remaining w i t h i n t h e p r e s c r i b e d i d e o-l o g i c a l l i m i t s , Ovechkin was a b le t o d e p i c t w i th u n u su alcandor much of t h e u g l i n e s s of S o v i et r u r a l l i f e t h a t h a db e e n c o n c e a l e d f o r y e a r s . H i s sketches a c h i e v e d sp e c t a c u -l a r s u c c es s l a r g e l y be ca us e h i s c r i t i c a l p r o t r a i t of a g r i -c u l t u r a l management, of t h e s t rong-arm methods of r u r a lp a r t y l e a d e r s h i p , c o i n c i d ed w i th re f or m s a n t i c i p a t e d o runder taken by t h e regime.as t h e " n eg at iv e " f e a t u r e s he descr ibed w e r e a t t r i b u t e dt o human f a i l i n g s and n o t . t o t h e S o v i e t sy s t e m . By l a t e1956, however, when a wave of c r i t i c a l ferment shook thel i t e r a r y wo rl d, O ve ch ki n' s s h a r p pen began t o i r r i t a t e t h ereg ime . He was r ep rimanded by t h e pa r ty c e n t r a l commi tt eef o r h i s " a r b i t r a r y T 1 n d t T i n s u l t i n g "a r t i c l e i n t h e 2 October1956 i s s u e of L i t e r a r y G az e t t e , a n d l e s s t h a n a y ea r l a t e rhe was removed from t h e e d i t o r i a l b oard of t h e same news-p a p e r .

Ovechk in was to l e r a t ed as long

The t r e n d t ow ar d g r e a t e r r e a l i s m t em pe re d by d a sh e sof optimism abou t t h e f u t u r e a nd f a i t h i n t h e wisdom oft h e p a r t y c o n ti n ue d t o d e v e l op A f t e r t h e Second Writers'C o ng r es s , d e sp i t e a dm o n it i on s a g a i n s t " on e- si de d" p o r t r a y a l sof r e a l i t y ."nega t ivd ' e l ement s a long w i t h t h e " p o s i t i v e " a nd t h e t r e a t -ment of d e l i c a t e p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s i n b e l l e s - l e t t r e s r a i s e dd i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m s for bo th t h e w r i t e r s and t h e c u s t o d i a n sof orthodoxy. Thus i n December 1954 l o c a l c r i t i c s con-sp icuo us ly avo ided r ev iewing Ukra in ian p laywr igh t and cen-t r a l co mm ittee m em b e r Aleksandr Korneychuck 's co n t ro ve r s i a lp la y , Wings, which d e a l t wi th t h e abuses of t h e secre tpo l i ce under Ber i a and w i t h o t h er s o c i a l e v i l s of S t a l i n ' sday. The pla y had been run nin g in Kiev at t h e t i m e oft h e Writers' Congress , but it was n ot u n t i l t h e f a v o r a b ler e c e p t i o n by Khrushchev and ot he r pa r t y l eaders a t t heMoscow premiere in l a t e F e b r u a ry 1 95 5 t h a t t h e p l a y wasr eg ar de d a s an a r t i s t i c a s w e l l a s a p o l i t i c a l s uc ce ss .Hence t h e tendent iousness demanded of S o v i e t wri t e r s andt h e s u b o rd i na t io n of a r t t o p o l i t i c s p o i nt e d up t h e p i t -f a l l s f a c i ng t ho s e wi th t h e t e m e r i t y t o p o r t r a y some o ft h e u nv ar ni sh ed r e a l i t i e s of e ve ry da y l i f e .

The admixture of i n c r e a s i n g l y h ea vy d o se s of

- 16 - \


24/57

The c o n t r a d ic t i on s i n t h e o f f i c i a l e f f o r t s t o e ncouragea more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l i t e r a t u r e w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e main-t a i n i n g o rt ho do xy were i l l u s t r a t e d i n an e d i t o r i a l i n t h eDecember 1 95 5 i s s u e of Kommunist, t h e p a r t y ' s t h e o r e t i c a lo r g a n , B e l a b o r in g the tendency of some Soviet writers t o' 'varn ish our r e a l i t y , " t h e e d i t o r i a l a t t a ck e d a t t em pt s t or ed uc e t h e d i v e r s i t y of a r t i s t i c s t y l e s and fo rms t o c rude"dogmat ic fo rmulas . " ' The ed i to r ia l t ' s f a i l u r e t o p ro vi de ac lear b l u e p r i n t . for writers t o f o l l o w , ho wev er , w as s p p t o -m a t i c of t h e c o u n t e r va i l i ng t r e n d s a t work. D e s p i t e t h er e t e n t i o n of t h e S t a l i n i s t i d e ol o g ic a l le ga cy , t h e p a r t i a lb re ak w it h t h e p a st i n o f f i c i a l p o l i c y h ad c o n t r i b u t e d t ot h e c r e a t i o n of a c l i m a t e of b ot h d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n a nd ex-p e c t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e Sov ie t c u l t u r a l community . The of- *f i c i a l d e p a r t u r e s f rom S t a l i n i s m had a l r e a d y s e t i n t o m ot io nf o r c e s which would seek e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e l i t e r a r y worlda l o n g l i n e s c o n s i d e r ed i n i m i c a l by t h e r eg im e.

I

- 17 -


25/57

De- S ta l i n i z a t on i n L i t e r a t u r e (Spr n g- F al l 1956)

Psycho log ica l Impac t of D e - S ta l i n i z a t i o n : The shocka d m i n i s t e r e d by K h r u s h c h e v ' s r e v e l a t i o n s a t t h e 2 0 t h p a r t y 'c o n g r e s s had a p ow er fu l d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t o n t h e S o v i e tl i t e r a r y world. Th e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e S t a l i n m yth, w h i c h -had l o n g s e r v e d as t h e keys tone of o r thodoxy, bred con-f u s i o n i n t h e r a n k s of t h e c u l t u r a l i n t e l l i g e n t s i a ands h a t t e r e d t h e f a c a d e . o f u n i t y so c a r e f u l l y c u l t i v a t e d b yt h e regime's l i t e r a r y spokes men i n t h e mo nths f o l l o w in g 5t h e Writers' Congress . Agains t t h e background of t h ec o u n t e r v a i l i n g t e n de n c ie s in t h e S ov ie t l i t e r a r y world andt h e i n c o n s i st e n c i e s in o f f i c i a l p o l i c y , t h e p a r t y c o n g r e s s ,seemed t o o f f e r t h e long-awa i ted a ssu rance t h a t t h e p a r t ywould look t o l e r a n t l y on those yearn ing for grea te r c r e a t i v efreedom, p ro vi de d t h e i r g e n e r a l l o y a l t y t o t h e purposes oft h e regime was n o t in doub t . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e opena t tack o n t h e S t a l i n c u l t r a i s e d a c h a i n of doub ts abou tlong-accepted concepts of S t a l i n i s t l i t e r a t u r e and t h ec o n t r o l s s e t up t o enforce them.R e a c t i o n s t o d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o n v a r i e d w i de l y w i t h i n t h el i t e r a r y c ommunity a t l a r g e . Among t h e b o l d e r wri te rs ,r e s t i v e u nd er t h e r e s t r a i n t s of p a r t y c o n t r o l s a nd o pp os edt o t h e f a l s e v a lu e s of S t a l i n i s t l i t e r a t u r e , d e- St al in iz a-t i o n w a s r e g a r d e d as v i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r long-endured suf-f e r i n g s a nd an i n v i t a t i o n t o g r e a t e r freedom of e x p r e s s io n .The l i t e r a r y b ur e a uc r a ts , whose r e p u t a t i o n s were d i s c r e d i t e da n d a u t h o r i t y impa i red by Khrushchev ' s d i sc losu res , f e l tonly d i s g u s t and des pa i r , sha rpened a t t i m e s by a s e n s e ofp e r s o n a l g u i l t . O t h e r s who had f a i t h f u l l y s up po rt ed t h e

o f f i c i a l l i n e - - t h e so-cal led l i t e r a r y ' 'v ar ni sh er s" -- we ret e m p o r a r i l y s h ak e n b u t r e c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o i d e n t i f y t h e m -s e l v e s w i t h what t h e y b e l i e v e d t o be t h e purposes of t h eregime. In g e n e r a l , d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o n g a v e im pe tus t o t h o s es e e k in g a change i n t h e l i t e r a r y s t a t u s quo and t e m po r a ri l yd i sa rmed those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s d e f e n s e .From t h e upsurge of c r i t i c a l s p o n t a n e i t y t h a t fo l lowedt h e p a r t y c o n g r e s s , i t was clear t h a t d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o n h a dproduced a painfu l awakening of i n d iv id u a l c o n s c i e n c e a n ds o c i a l c o u r ag e i n t h e m inds of mqny Soviet wri ters . Ap-p a l l e d by t h e i r own t i m i d acqu iescence t o d i s t o r t i o n s oft r u t h i n t h e past, many w r i t e r s became v i v i d l y aware f o rt h e f i r s t time of t h e need fo r p er s on al i n t e g r i t y and c i v i c

- 18 -


26/57

c o n s c io u s n e s s i n t h e i r a r t . Fadeyev 's s u i c i d e i n May 1956and Simonov's mea c u l pa i n t h e December i s s u e of _I_ovy P i rp r o vid e d e lo q u e n t t e s tim o n y t h a t n o t e ve n t h e p a r ty s t zw a r t s were immune t o pangs of cons cien ce . Under t h e impactof th e p ro found change i n mood and ou t l ook , t r u t h becamea l i t e r a r y watchword , and, one by one , writers a r o s e a f t e rt h e p a r t y c o n gr e s s t o r en ou nc e t h e " h a l f - t r u th s " o f t h e p a s t .In a t r i b u t e t o Fadeyev publ ishe d i n the J u n e i s s u e of Novy-i r , Simonov de p lo r e d t h e o f f i c i a l l y d i c t a t e d r e v i s i o n o fFadeyev's novelt h e c ha ng e in t h e c u l t u r a l m i l i e u as f o l l o w s : ''A p a i n f u lb u t e s s e n t i a l r e s p e c t fo r t r u t h . . ., thank heaven , has ag a ing e n e r a l l y be en t a k i n g r o o t i n o ur c o u n tr y i n t h e l a s t fewy e a r s .

" Ideologica l Confus ion ." The e x p a n s i v e s p i r i t o foptimism which i n f e c t e d broad segments of t h e c u l t u r a l in-t e l l i g e n t s i a i n t h e a f t er m a t h of t h e p a r t y c o ng r es s mani-f e s t e d i t s e l f in var i ous ways: i n t h e demands of wri ters andc r i t i c s f o r m o r e freedom i n t h e cho i ce and t rea tmen t o f sub -j e c t s ; in t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e 1920sand of w r i t e r s and c r i t i c s v i c t i m i z e d d u r i n g S t a l i n ' s p u r g e s ;i n t h e s h a r p i n c r e a s e in t h e number of t r a n s l a t i o n s of fo r -e ig n w r k s and of contemporary Western p l a y s performed ont h e So v ie t s t a g e a n d in t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of works t h a t pleadedt h e cause of t h e i n d i v i d u a l a g a i n s t t h e abuses of bureaucracy .There was a l s o a n o t i c e a b l e t r e n d t o w a r d g r e a t e r f r e e d o mof debate on l i t e r a t u r e a nd t h e ar ts b o t h a t pub l ic mee t ingsand i n t h e p r e s s . The a c t u a l i n t e n s i t y of t h e p o le m ic s w i t h -i n t h e S ov ie t i n t e l l i g e n t s i a i n 1 956, a phenomenon r e f l e c t e do n l y i n d i r e c t l y i n t h e S o v i e t p r e s s , w a s viv id ly documentedi n t h e novel The Brothe rs Yershov, which appeared tw o,y ear sl a t e r .

The Young Guard a f t e r t h e war and desc r ibed

The c u l t u r a l s c e n e w a s w i t n e s s t o a s u r g e of U t e r a r y. a c t i v i t y i n t h e spring and summer of 1956. A h o s t of newl i t e r a r y p u b l i c a t i o n s a pp ea re d, i nc lu di ng Neva, Moskva,-ashSovremennik, and L i t e r a t u r na y a Moskva. s v e r , h e proc-ess. of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n begun on t h e ev e of t h e c o n g r e s s w a ss h a r p l y accelerated b y t h e p o s th u m o u s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ofh a l f t h e Sov ie t au tho rs pu rged du r ing t h e 1930s and 1940s.Some of t h e i r works were p u b li s h ed o r p l a n s f o r s u ch p u b l i c a -t i o n were announced. Many f o r e i g n works of art appeared i nc a r e f u l l y e d i t e d a n th o lo g i e s o r in I n os t ra n na y a L i t e r a t u r a , ,a new j o u r n a l d e v o t e d t o t r a n s l a t i o n s and c r i t i c a l d i s c u s -s i o n s o f f o r e i g n wo rk s, l a t e r t o be d en ou nc ed f o r t h e i r " i d e o-l o g i c a l l y h o s ti l e " c o n te n t .

- 19 -


27/57


28/57

The r e - es t ab l i shment o f t r u t h is n e c e s s a r y n o tf o r s e t t l i n g o l d a c co u nt s ( no th in g more harmfu lt h a n t h a t c o u l d b e im ag in ed ) b u t f o r t h e s a k e oft r u t h i t s e l f . The c ov er in g- up of c o n t r a d i c t i o n st h a t e x i s t i s s om etim es j u s t i f i e d by t h e s l o g a n :' c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f a l l c r e a t i v e f o r c e s . ' But t h i s -i s poor conso la t ion . The disease must b e c u r e d ,no t h idden .Works i n a s i m i l a r v e i n made t h e i r a pp ea ra nc e i n t h el a t e summer and f a l l , d e s p i t e t h e r i s i n g t i d e o f v o ca l op-

i

,p o s i t i o n fro m t h e spokesm en o f o r t h o d ox l i t e r a t u r e .c a l l y , t h e journal Novy M i r , which two years ea r l ie r had under-gone a change of e m r f i o e n s u r e i t s d o c t r i n a l p u r i t y ,l e d t h e parade of l i t e r a r y n o nc o nf o rm i ty . On i t s pages t he rea pp ea re d i n r a p i d - f i r e s u c c e s s io n D a n i i l G ra n i n' s s h o r ts t o r y P e r so n a l O p in io n (June), Semyon Kirsanov's poemSeven Bays of t he Week (September) , and V l a d i m i r Dudin t sev ' sn o v e l Not by Bread Alone (August-O ctober). A l s o i n d i c a t i v e ~of t h e avant -garde r o l e pe r fo rmed by Novy M i r i n t h i s p er io dw a s t h e f a c t t h a t Boris P a s t e r n a k s u b m e n h e m a nuscr ip to f h i s nove l Doc tor Zh ivago t o t h e j o u r n a l . S in c e t h eg e n r e of t h e work was clearly o u t s i d e t h e mainst ream ofS o v i e t l i t e r a r y d ev el op me nt , i t s rejectaori by 'the o u r n a l ' se d i t o r i a l board i n September w a s n o t s u r p r i s i n g .matched i n t h e f i e l d of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , which had beenr e l a t i v e l y q u ie s c en t d u ri ng t h e prev ious two year s . A t anexpanded meeting of t h e p r e s i d i u m o f t h e Writers' Unioni n Jul y , S imonov, Kirsanov, and o t h e r s made s t r a i g h t f o r w a r ddemands t h a t w r i t e r s be g r a n t e d a grea te r r o l e i n th e selec-t i o n of works t o be pub l i shed . The poe t Aleksandr Bek, d e p a r t -ing f rom h i s ea r l i e r s u bs e rv ie n ce t o t h e l i t e r a r y bu rea u-c r a t s , denounced t h e s y s t e m o f c e n s o r s h i p as " i n t o l e r a b l e "and c a l l e d f o r v o l u n ta r y c e n s o r s h i p exercised by t h e wri te rst hemse lves . He c i t e d as examples t h e c o n t i n ue d s u p p r e s s i o nof s e v e r a l o f P a s t e r n a k 's poems and t h e f a c t t h a t t h el a t t e r ' s long-heralded novel had not ye t appeared.

I r o n i -

The d e p a r t u r e s f r o m orthodoxy in b e l l e s - l e t t r e s were

The r ash of c r i t i c a l a r t i c l e s demanding greater crea-t i v e f re ed om , i n c l u d i n g an e f f o r t by Simonov to r e d e f i n es o c i a l i s t realism as a "wor ld out look" r a t h e r t h a n as a"method," was cl imaxed by th e appearance i n th e Novemberi s s u e of Problems of Phi losophy of a l e n g t h y a r t i c l e-

- 2 1 -


29/57

t i t l e d "On th e Problem of t h e Lag i n Drama and theThea te r . " In one of t he most ou t spoken pub l i shed a t -tacks a g a i n st o f f i c i a l i n te r fe r en c e i n t h e arts , t h ea r t i c l e , *by h e drama c r i t i c s B. Nazarov and 0 . Gridneva,blamed t h e s t a g n a t i o n i n S o vi e t drama on t h e " i g n o r i n g oft h e o b j e c t i v e laws of a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n , t h e h y p er t ro p h yof e d i t i n g , and t h e c r e a t i o n of a b u r e a u c r a t i c h i e r a r c h yi n a r t . " In t h e name of Leninism they appealed f o r ar e s t o r a t i o n of f u l l c on fi de nc e in t h e " c re a t i v e i n t e l l i -g e n t s i a " a n d f o r ex te ns i ve se l f-government f o r t h e t h e a t e r ."Is i t n e c e s sa r y t o p r ov e , " the'y a s k e d , " t h a t i n 1956 oura r t i s t i c i n t e l l i g e n t s i a h as g r e a te r r i g h t t o t r u s t t h a ni n 19303"

In a r t i c l e s i n t h e p r e s s and i n s p ee c he s a t v a r i o u sl i t e r a r y m e e ti ng s, wri ters and l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s a t t e m p t e dt o expand t h e scope of t h e i r c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y beyond t h el i m i t s a c c e p t e d by t h e regime. In c a l l i n g f o r a r e t u r nt o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n th e' l9 20 s, wh en d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r yt r e n d s were allowed t o compete, or i n c r i t i c i z i n g " a l lof t h e a ch ie ve me nt s of S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e p a s t 20y e a r s , " t h e y were i n e f f e c t a d v o c a t in g t h e a bandonm entof t h e o f f i c i a l s t a n d a r d s of s o c i a l i s t real ism andp a r t i y n o s t . In a t t a c k i n g t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l s ont h e ar ts , some wri t e r s were a r g u i n g t h a t o f f i c i a l g u id an cesh o u l d be exe rc i s ed o n ly th rough "comradely cr i t i c i sm"and t r u s t i n t h e wri t e r s ' l o y a l t y t o t h e p a r t y . Simonov'sa s s e r t i o n t h a t s o c i a l i s t realism w a s a "world out look" andn o t a "method" imp lie d t h a t a wri t e r i n h i s work shouldbe gu ided by h i s consc ience as a loyal Communist and notby t h e d i c t a t e s o f p a r t y a nd m i n i s t e r i a l b u r e a u c r a ts . Ins h o r t , t h e wri te rs and cr i t i c s were a p p e a l i n g f o r f re ed omi n d i v i d u a l c o n s c i e n c e ..of h e p r e s s w i t h i n t h e bo un ds of p o l i t i c a l l o y a l t y a n d

O f f i c i a l Confusion. Despi te t h i s upsurge o f c r i t i c a lf e r m e n t, t h e p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e 2 0 t h p a r t y c o n g r e s s w a sn o t a t i m e o f u n i n t e r r u p t e d c a l l s f o r g r e a t e r f ree do m i nt h e f i e l d of l i t e r a t u r e . As i n o th e r f i e l d s , t h e S o v i e tp r e s s p r i n t e d a number of wa rning s and rebuk es which i n-d i ca t ed b o t h t h a t t h e regime i n t e n d e d t o e s t a b l i s h c l e a rl i m i t s t o t h e p r o c e ss of d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o q &nd t h a t i twould n o t t o l e r a t e a t t e m p ts t o push t h i s p r o c e s s f a r beyondthose l i m i t s . As e a r l y as A p r i l , a n a r t i c l e i n Kommunistr e i t e r a t ed Khrushchev's condemnation a t t h e p a r t y c o n g r e s s

- 22 -


30/57

of e f f o r t s t o a p p l y t h e p r i n c i p l e o f " p e a c e f u l c oe x i s te n c e "t o t h e s p h e r e o f i d e ol o gy a nd re bu ke d t h e " a t t a c k s i n var i -i o u s forms a g a i n s t p a r t y l e a d e r s h i p in l i t e r a t u r e a nd t h earts." On 8 May an e d i t o r i a l i n L i t e r a ry Gazette s h a r p l yc r i t i c i z e d wri ters and c r i t i c s who had a s s e r t e d t h a t a r ts h o u l d n o t be t h e handmaiden of p o l i t i c s and ha d c a l l e df o r a r e t u r n t o t h e f r e e r l i t e r a r y a tmo sp here of t h e 1920s.

These and o ther s a l l i e s by t h e r e g im e ' s c u l t u r a lspokesmen, however , fa i l e d t o s tem t h e c o u r se of c r i t i c a lferm ent , and through most of le56 these demands appeasedt o be a rear -gua rd a c t i o n by outnumbered fo rc es . Ther e f u s a l of many w r i t e r s t o acknowledge o f f i c i a l s i g n a l sw hi ch i n t h e pas t had i n v a r i a b l y p ro du c ed des i r ed r e s u l t sr e p r e s e n t e d a u niq ue s i t u a t i o n r e f l e c t i n g t h e u n s e t t l e dc o n d i t i o n s t h a t a t t e n d e d d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o n . Lac ki ng c l e a rand a u t h o r i t a t i v e g ui d a n c e an d w ra ck ed by l ong- s t and ingp e r s o n a l f e u d s , t h e c u l t u r a l b u r ea u cr a ts were power lesst o s t e m t h e a d v e r se c o u r se o f e v e n t s . In l i g h t of t h i ss i t u a t i o n , it w a s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e why 1966 was l 'ater re -f e r r e d t o as " t h e b l a c k y ea r" i n t h e o f f i c i a l l i t e r a r yc a l e n d a r .

The confus ion i n t h e l i t e r a r y world h a s p e r h a p sfos t e r ed by t h e regime's e f f o r t s t o r e l a x some of i t sd i r e c t c o n t r o l s ov er c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i l e a t t h esame t i m e upholding t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s t an d ar d s of l i t e r a r yp r o d u c t i o n . In l a t e September a decree of the USSR Min-i s t r y of C u lt u re g ra n te d t h e a t e r s g r e a t e r autonomy i ns e l e c t i n g r e p e r t o i r e s and i n s t a g i n g new p r o d uc t i o ns anda b o l i s h e d t h e p r a c t i c e of commissioning authors t o w r i t ep l ays . S i m i l a r r i g h t s were g r a n t e d p u b l i s h i n g h o us e sin t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of f i c t i o n and t h e r e p u b l i c a t io n ofworks i n m ag a zi ne s , a c c o r di n g t o a n a r t i c l e i n KommunistNo. 3, 1957. Coming on t h e h e e l s of t h e d e - S t a l i n i z a t i o ncampaign , the o f f i c i a l e f f o r t s to l o o se n t h e s t r a i t - j a c k e tc o n t r o l s of t h e S t a l i n era whet ted t h e appe t i t e s of t h o s ed em and in g e ve n g r e a t e r l a t i t u d e t h a n t h e regime was pre -pared t o g r a n t .

- 23 -


31/57

Rea sse r t io n o f Or thodoxy (F a l l 1956 - Spring 1957)t h e d i sp u t e i n t h e l i t e r a r y f i e l d became caug ht up i n t h e back-wash of t h e p o l i t i c a l c r i s i s i n E a s te rn Europe, i t was c l e a rt h a t o c c a s i o n a l o f f i c i a l w ar ni ng s and m i l d rebukes were n o tenough t o a r r e s t t h e d r i f t of events .r a i s e d b y t h e outspoken demands of many w r i t e r s f o r a bas icr e l a x a t i o n of p a r t y c o n t r o l s an d a r e v i s i o n o f t h e t e n e t s ofsociazist. realism was a c c e n t u a t e d by t h e deve lopments i nPoland and Hungary, where, as Khrushchev l a t e r s t a t e d , t h e" c o u n t e r r e v o l u t i o n u se d c e r t a i n wri ters f o r i t s v i l e p u r p o se s . "The l e s s o n o f Hungary provided a s t r o n g case f o r a r e t ur n t oo u t r i g h t r e p r e ss i o n and r i g i d S t a l i n i s t c o n t r o l s o ve r c u l t u r a lp o l i c y . I l y a Ehrenburg

caesar 23 - the soviet writer and soviet cultural policy

Documents