The first All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers. First Congress of Soviet Writers
The formation and development of Soviet literature should be regarded as a complex and contradictory process. On the one hand, the rich literary culture of Russia, even in the conditions of revolutionary upheavals and civil war, managed to withstand and survive as the most important element of the spiritual life of the country. Of course, the corps of writers thinned out; many of them left Russia, which had risen in revolutionary ecstasy. Others remained, uniting in various literary associations. The talent of a number of young writers and poets emerged. In the 20s of the last century, works appeared that became classics Russian literature modern times.
On the other side, new government and its ideology approached literature from utilitarian class positions, from the point of view of expediency of time. For them, the ideas of Lenin’s article “Party Organization and Party Literature,” written back in 1905 and which caused negative reaction in literary circles of the country. Soon after October revolution Attempts were made to isolate proletarian writers and poets into single creative organizations, the term travel writer appeared. Significant damage to literature was caused by the activities of the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP), which arrogated to itself the right to teach other writers how and what to write, to speak on behalf of the Bolshevik Party. As totalitarianism became established in the USSR, there was no place in literature for dissent, a variety of creative methods, or the activities of various writing and poetic groups. In such a situation, a course was set for preparing and holding an All-Union Congress of Writers, aimed at organizing a single creative union of writers, with the help of which it was possible to guide and control literature.
In Soviet literature until the end of the 80s of the twentieth century. The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers was assessed extremely positively. So, Ershov L.F. I believed that this congress demonstrated the ideological community of word artists. “This was a brilliant victory for our party (VKP (b) - V.M.) in one of the most difficult areas of ideology - in the field of literature."
Scientific research and documentary publications of the 90s of the last century make it possible to learn a lot of new things about the preparation and progress of the writers' congress of 1934. This is, first of all, the Verbatim Report of the Congress and the documentary collection "Power and the Artistic Intelligentsia." These and other publications clearly show the leading role of the Bolshevik Party in the process of uniting the forces of writers, in determining the tasks and creative methods of Soviet literature. The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) abandoned its neutral (at least in words) position in relation to various creative writing groups, etc. The previously hidden details of the work of the writers' congress, the creative positions of the writers, their increasingly growing conformism, etc. became known to a wide readership.
History of the organization of the First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers.
An important step towards the creation of the SSP was taken on April 23, 1932, when the Decree of the PB of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” was published. This decree liquidated the associations of proletarian writers (VOAPP, RAPP) and outlined a course to unite all writers who supported the platform of Soviet power and sought to participate in socialist construction into a single union of Soviet writers with the communist faction in it. It was also decided to develop measures to implement this decision. All preparatory work for the congress was carried out under the vigilant control of the PB and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
At the beginning of May of the same year, a group of poets (N. Aseev, A. Bezymensky, A. Zharov, V. Inber, M. Svetlov, etc.) sent a letter to the secretariat of the CPSU (b) in which they welcomed the party’s course towards creating a writers’ union . At the same time, they expressed concern that in the new union, poets, as before, would not be allowed to lead it, and that in the new union, the Rappovites would also rule: “Certain groups and comrades are trying to blur the decision of the Central Committee, trying to present the matter as if nothing happened , that only the name of the union has changed, and not the content of its work... We ask that all measures be taken to eliminate such tendencies, promising the Central Committee the warmest, most active support in the fight against hostile trends and influences on Soviet literature, in the direction of the fight against circleism, literaryism , groupism, etc.”
On May 7, 1932, a Decree of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) appeared on measures to implement the resolution of the PB of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” which approved the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Writers for the RSFSR, consisting of 24 people. It included: M. Gorky (honorary chairman), I.M. Gronsky (chairman of the union and secretary of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) faction at the Writers' Congress), V.Ya. Kirpotin (union secretary), A.A. Fadeev, F.I. Panferov, V.M. Kirshon, A.S. Serafimovich, A.I. Bezymensky, V.V. Ivanov, L.N. Seifullina, L.M. Leonov and others. Similar organizing committees were created in national republics. All of them united into the organizing committee of the All-Union Federation of Soviet Writers.
At its first meeting, the Presidium of the SSP Organizing Committee appealed to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with a request to approve the composition of the editorial boards of a number of magazines: “At the Literary Post”, “Krasnaya Nov”, “October”, “ New world" and etc.
However, “peace” was not established among writers after the above decree. This is evidenced, for example, by letters from A.A. Fadeeva L.M. Kaganovich and V.M. Kirshona I.V. Stalin and L.M. Kaganovich in May 1932. Prominent members of RAAPA complained that they were out of work and were criticized for the activities of this organization. Fadeev did not agree with the statement that he spent 8 years on some kind of groupism and circleism and that he should publicly sign this to the ridicule of all enemies of the proletarian revolution. In turn, Kirshon believed that the removal of RAPP members from work on the editorial boards of magazines would not lead to the consolidation of communists in the literary union: “In the context of the campaign waged against us by our literary opponents, shouting that RAPP was liquidated for the mistakes of the RAPP leadership, our complete removal from working in the editorial offices of literary magazines cannot but be perceived as our reluctance to participate in carrying out the party line on the literary front... Comrade Stalin spoke about the need to put us on “equal conditions.” But in such a situation, what may result is not “equal conditions,” but defeat." And further: “Working in an atmosphere of mistrust is very difficult and difficult. We want to give Bolshevik works. We ask for the opportunity to work on the literary front, correct the mistakes we have made, and rebuild in new conditions.” Kirshon asked to leave the magazine “At the Literary Post” to the former Rappovites. The party leadership took into account the requests of the Rappovites. In June 1932, the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On Literary Magazines”. A number of them were combined. In particular, the magazine “At the Literary Post” merged with the magazine “For Marxist-Leninist Art History” and “Proletarian Literature” into one publication. Kirshon, Fadeev and other Rappovites joined the editorial boards of a number of magazines.
The opening date of the congress was repeatedly postponed. It was originally planned for 1932, but the PB of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on September 27, 1932 postponed the congress until mid-May 1933. However, this date was not final.
On March 16, 1933, I. Gronsky, in a memo to Stalin and Kaganovich, reported on the work done by the organizing committee of the congress and made a number of proposals related to the upcoming writers' forum. He believed that there was no reason to postpone the congress from May 1933 to a later date and that the following steps should be taken now (i.e. in March 1933):
1. Approve the order of the day of the congress and speakers.
2. The norm of representation at the congress. The following order of work of the congress was proposed:
1. Opening speech by Gorky on the tasks of the SSP.
2. Political report (from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b)).
3. Report of the SSP organizing committee (report by I. Gronsky).
4. The tasks of Soviet drama (proposed as a speaker by A.I. Stetsky - head of the department of cultural education of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks)
5. Charter of the SSP (report by Subotsky).
6. Report of the Credentials Committee.
7. Elections of the union board and audit commission.
The norm of representation at the congress was proposed as follows: one delegate from 10 members of the Union. Thus, it was planned to elect 500-600 people to the congress. Gronsky proposed to approve in advance the theses of the reports and resolutions of the congress in the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
A few days later, there was a resolution of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the All-Union Congress of Writers", which fixed a new date for the convening of the Congress of Writers - July 20, 1933 in Moscow and essentially approved all of Gronsky's proposals. Only the speaker on Soviet drama was replaced. The manager's report was scheduled. sector of fiction of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks V.Ya. Kirpotin and co-reports by playwrights V. Kirshon, N. Pogodin and A. Tolstoy.
However, for some reason, the writers' congress was once again postponed to 1934. Even before the congress, the Politburo decided to create a literary fund at the writers' union, designed to improve the cultural and everyday services and financial situation of writers. Funds were to come from publishing activities, theater fees, contributions from members of the Union of Soviet Writers.
Since the spring of 1934, the secret political department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR organized regular informing of the leadership of the People's Commissariat and the Party Central Committee about the mood in the writing community, the progress of the election of delegates to the congress, etc. In particular, the day before, government leaders were informed about the composition of delegations of writers from different regions of the country with characteristics of many writers. In essence, these were small dossiers on the congress participants, which contained information about their party background, participation in nationalist movements, etc.
The list of delegates included 597 people. Of these, 377 people had a casting vote, 220 had an advisory vote. It is noteworthy that among the delegates with a casting vote, 206 were members of the CPSU(b) or candidates, 29 were members of the Komsomol and 142 were non-party members. Average age The delegates were about 36 years old, the writing experience was about 13 years. Thus, quite young and professional writers took part in the work of the congress. The organizers of the congress were also satisfied with the social composition of the delegates. About 70% of them came from working and peasant backgrounds
The genre composition of the participants in the writers' forum was diverse: prose writers accounted for about 33%, poets - 19.2%, playwrights - 4.7%, literary critics - 12.7%, essayists - 2%, journalists - 1.8%, children's writers - 1.3%, etc.
Writers and poets of 52 nationalities of the country were represented at the congress, including Russians - 201 people, Jews - 113 people, Georgians - 28, Ukrainians - 25, Armenians - 19, Tatars - 19, Belarusians - 17, Uzbeks - 12, Tajiks - 10, etc. The most representative were the writing delegations from Moscow - 175 people, Leningrad - 45, Ukraine - 42, Belarus - 26, Georgia - 30, Armenia - 18, Azerbaijan - 17, Uzbekistan - 16, Tajikistan - 14.
In particular, Tambov writer L.N. Zavadovsky, writer O.K. Kretova, prose writer, translator M.M. Kireev, prose writer, journalist M.M. Podobedov, critic, literary critic Plotkin took part in the congress from the Central Black Earth Region L., editor of the newspaper "Commune" Shver A.V.
Finally, 40 foreign writers were present at the congress, including Louis Aragon, Martin Andersen Nexe, Jean-Richard Bloch, Willy Bredel and others. Some of them spoke in the debate. Thus, the authorities could hope for predictable decisions from the writers' congress that corresponded to the then ideology and politics.
Speech by M. Gorky
The First All-Union Congress of Writers was held from August 17 to September 1, 1934. During this time, 26 meetings were held at which reports by A.M. were heard and discussed. Gorky about Soviet literature, S.Ya Marshak about children’s literature, K. Radek about modern world literature and the tasks of proletarian art, V.Ya. Kirpotina, N.F. Pogodina, V.M. Kirshon on Soviet drama, N.I. Bukharin on poetry, poetics and the tasks of poetic creativity in the USSR, V.P. Stavsky about the literary youth of the country, K.Ya. Gorbunova about the work of publishing houses with beginning writers, P.F. Yudin on the charter of the Union of Soviet Writers. The state of literature in the national republics was analyzed.
The beginning of the writers' congress was remarkable. It was discovered by A.M. Gorky, a man who became famous in his time as the “petrel of the revolution,” who stood in opposition to the Soviet leadership in the October days of 1917. Now he spoke at the congress as an apologist for the Soviet system. Hence such pathetic words in his speech: “We act as judges of a world doomed to destruction, and as people who affirm the true humanism of the revolutionary proletariat, the humanism of a force called upon by history to free the entire world of working people from envy, bribery, from all the ugliness that over centuries, they have distorted working people. We are the enemies of property, the terrible and vile goddess of the bourgeois world, the enemies of zoological individualism, affirmed by the religion of this goddess... We speak in a country illuminated by the genius of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a country where the iron will of Joseph Stalin works tirelessly and miraculously ". In our opinion, the report of A.M. Gorky’s views on Soviet literature cannot be called analytical. According to V. Baranov, it was a concise outline of the development of artistic consciousness, starting with oral folk art and ending with the most mature forms of generalization, established in world literature. Having included a considerable amount of specific material and demonstrating enormous erudition, the speaker managed not to name a single name of Soviet writers. V. Baranov refers to the version according to which Gorky’s speech was only part of a report that contained a specific conversation about writers and works. But this conversation did not suit the Soviet leadership and therefore did not take place. This version has a right to exist and then the impersonality of Gorky’s report is understandable.
Among the problems raised by Gorky in his report, significant place was assigned to the tasks of Soviet literature. In particular, he emphasized that she cannot boast of the ability to take a creative approach to analyzing life. The stock of impressions and the amount of knowledge of writers is not large, and there is no special concern for expanding or deepening it. There is a lot of philistinism among writers. The main hero of Soviet literature should be the working man. Writers should pay more attention to children, Soviet women, the history of their country, etc. This call will be developed at the congress in the greetings and orders of numerous delegations from the Red Army, collective farmers, etc. From the order of the Red Army delegation: “We are waiting for you to write about the Red Army, about its fighters, to reflect the most important thing - the ordinary soldier in all his Everyday life“… “If a black raven croaks on the borders and white tanks roar, we will take the steering wheel in our hands, and our engines will rush into battle at fourth speed.”
Speaking about the Writers' Union, Gorky emphasized that it (the union) must set the task not only of protecting the professional interests of writers, but also the interests of literature as a whole. The union must, to some extent, take upon itself the leadership of the army of aspiring writers, must organize it, teach it how to work with literary material, etc. This explains Gorky’s thesis that Soviet literature should be organized as a single collective whole, as a powerful instrument of socialist culture. For Gorky, the principle of party leadership of literature was axiomatic. Thus, he served as a mouthpiece for party politics in literature. However, this did not save the writer from scathing criticism on the sidelines of the congress. According to M. Shahinyan, his report was incorrect, incorrect, not at all Marxist, and everyone was dissatisfied with him, even foreign delegates. Shaginyan suggested that Gorky’s report would be disavowed by Stalin. However, this assumption did not come true.
Zhdanov's speech
The secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, A. Zhdanov, also set the tone for the work of the Writers' Congress. In his speech, ideological cliches were clear: “The USSR has become an advanced industrial country, the country of the largest socialist agriculture in the world. The USSR has become a country in which our Soviet culture is developing and growing in full bloom. For Zhdanov, Soviet literature was presented as the most ideological, the most advanced and the most revolutionary. The current state of bourgeois literature is such that it can no longer create great works due to the decline and disintegration of the capitalist system. It is characterized by rampant mysticism, clericalism, and a passion for pornography. The “notable people” of bourgeois literature are now thieves, detectives, prostitutes , hooligans. It’s a completely different matter in the USSR, there are different heroes. Soviet literature is full of enthusiasm and heroism. It is optimistic. Zhdanov recalled Stalin’s words about writers as engineers human souls. They must know life in order to be able to depict everything truthfully in works of art, to depict it not scholastically, lifelessly, not simply as “objective reality,” but to depict reality in its revolutionary development. At the same time, truthfulness and historical specificity must be combined with the task of ideological transformation and education of working people in the spirit of socialism. This is the method of socialist realism. Zhdanov believed that Soviet literature is not afraid of accusations of bias. It is tendentious, because in the era of class struggle there is not and cannot be literature that is not class-based, not biased, and supposedly apolitical. He proclaimed a break with the old type of romanticism, which depicted a non-existent life and non-existent heroes, leading the reader away from the contradictions and oppression of life into the world of the unrealizable, into the world of utopias. We, they say, need revolutionary romanticism. Let us note right away that the claims made by Zhdanov against old romanticism should be attributed in full to Soviet literature of the 30s and subsequent years. Revolutionary romanticism became essentially utopian. Unfortunately, the theses of Zhdanov’s report turned into targets for domestic writers. From their pens will come tendentious and utopian works, far from the truth of life, but at least consistent with party guidelines.
Zhdanov's report also contained reasonable ideas. In particular, he called on writers to master the so-called literary technique, to collect, study, critically master the literary heritage of the past, to fight for the culture of language, for high quality works. The existing literature did not yet meet the requirements of the era. However, all these instructions and assessment of Soviet literature were elementary, non-specific and had the same directive character.
Debate after the speech of Gorky and Zhdanov
Many of the then famous writers took part in the debate that unfolded at the writers' congress. In their speeches, the ideas and provisions of the reports of Gorky and Zhdanov were developed. F. Gladkov could declare, for example, that the success of their artistic creativity depends to a large extent on whether the writer stands high as a cultural force, how deeply he has assimilated the theory of Marx-Lenin-Stalin. Among the shortcomings of Soviet literature, he attributed the powerlessness to create a typical human figure who would be a leader, who would excite, call for, and raise. There are no heroes like Bazarov, Rudin, Chelkash, F. Gordeev, etc. The writer criticized the inability of writers to maintain the plot of their works, which led to its collapse. The reader began to languish over the book; reading it became a depressing, boring task for him. For him, the book became “chewing gum.” Gladkov highly valued the work of F. Dostoevsky, who knew how to fill a complicated criminal plot with deep content, create amazing types of his time, and rise to philosophical heights. Gladkov, like other writers, was concerned about the problem of the language of works of art, but his judgments were clearly erroneous when he considered the language of Soviet workers to be richer, more dynamic, and cultural compared to pre-revolutionary times. He contradicted himself, admitting the presence in the language of the Soviet era of many different layers, dirt, cronyism, swearing, and old mutilated words.
In turn, L. Leonov expressed confidence that Soviet writers would participate in world congresses of socialist literature. The agenda will include not only issues related to the new man, but also issues of combating the elements and expanding human activity in space. Our century is the morning of a new era. Fiction ceases to be just fiction, it becomes one of the most important tools in the sculpting of a new person.
This idea was developed by I. Ehrenburg: “Our new person much richer, subtler, more complex than its shadow on the pages of books. Instead of a warm, vibrating life, instead of an organic biography, every now and then we end up with a declaration, equipped with a drummer’s card and a dozen well-known thoughts. ...Often we see people only in the workshops or on the board of the collective farm. Construction scaffolding turns into ultra-theatrical stages." Instead of living people, the reader sometimes sees mannequins. In the show modern man many writers take the path of least resistance. They replace the painful process of creativity with skillful maneuvering. They carefully avoid topics that seem difficult to them, brush aside the truthful portrayal of the complexity of human psychology at the turn of the era. Ehrenburg sharply raised the question of literary criticism. The latter, in his opinion, puts writers either on the red or black board, while easily changing the position of writers. “We cannot allow,” Ehrenburg asserts, “that literary analysis of works immediately influence social status writers. The issue of distribution of benefits should not be dependentcty from the critic's opinion. You cannot... consider the failures and breakdowns of an artist of words as crimes, and successes as rehabilitation." The idea was sharply voiced that writers are not consumer goods, there is no such machine that would allow the production of writers in series. You cannot approach the work of a writer with the yardstick of construction pace Thus, Ehrenburg dealt a blow to the popular opinion that any person who has mastered the technique of writing can become a writer in the Soviet country. In his opinion, the creation of a work of art is an individual, ... intimate matter, and literary teams will remain in the history of Soviet literature as picturesque , but a quick detail teenage years. In all likelihood, the writer had in mind a team of writers who visited the White Sea-Baltic Canal, which was being built by prisoners, and wrote a shameful book of essays. This trip was described in some detail by A. Avdeenko in the story “Excommunication.” Some congress participants regarded Ehrenburg's remark as an attack against them. In particular, Gorky defended collective publications, and Vs. Ivanov was openly proud of the trip to the canal and remarked venomously: “This does not mean that I am persuading the incomparable Ehrenburg to join one of these brigades. Some people like the international carriage built in 1893, and others like the Maxim Gorky airplane.”
Ehrenburg took under protection the works of V. Mayakovsky and B. Pasternak. Acquaintance with their works requires the reader to have general cultural and special literary training. “Romances on the harmonica are much easier than Beethoven,” he noted ironically.
Clearly in the spirit of the party guidelines of A. Zhdanov’s report, L. Sobolev, whose novel “Major Repairs” was then rated quite highly (for example, by Gorky), spoke at the congress. Popular on long years became his phrase: “The party and the government gave the Soviet writer absolutely everything. They took away from him only one thing - the right to write badly.” In this phrase, half-truth is closely intertwined with hypocrisy and clothed in a beautiful verbal shell. It is unlikely that anyone at the congress took seriously the words of A. Sobolev, although Gorky praised the writer’s saying, adding to it the words that the party and the government are depriving writers of the right to command each other, representing the right to teach each other in terms of sharing experience.
The performance of A. Fadeev was noteworthy. Already then a member of the literary authorities, he did not limit himself to assessing the literary life of the country, burst out with praises to the party leadership, describing the friendship of people from the highest party echelon as courageous, principled, iron-clad, cheerful, and heroic. Fadeev, perhaps the first at the writers' forum, called on his colleagues to portray the figure of such a powerful genius of the working class as Stalin. However, this topic was not developed by other delegates of the congress, except for some points in I. Babel’s speech about the need to work on words in literary works in the same way as Stalin works on his speeches; Arosev's statements that Stalin is best friend and the leader of our literature and frenzied speech, Vs. Vishnevsky. The latter expressed his joy at the fulfillment of Lenin’s behest to transform Soviet literature into part of the common proletarian cause. Vishnevsky’s speech was pathetic and testified to his devotion to the ideals of the October Revolution and the Civil War. He called on writers to show Lenin in 1917 as the deepest, most interesting, most brilliant example of a commander and military leader in all of world history. Praises to Stalin also surpassed all boundaries: “Who knows that the entire Siberian partisan movement was silently led by Stalin? He ensured the defeat of Kolchak’s white front and the Far Eastern intervention. We contrast the cult of the superman in Germany, the cult of the “son of heaven” in Japan with the image of a true proletarian leader - a simple a calm human leader."
Y. Olesha’s speech evoked conflicting feelings. In his opinion, all the vices and all the virtues live in the artist. Each artist can only write what he is able to write. The writer admitted that until recently socialist industry and new buildings were not his topic: “I could go to a construction site, live at a factory among the workers, describe them in an essay, even in a novel, but this was not my topic... It’s difficult for me to understand the type of worker the type of revolutionary hero. I can't be that." Such a statement can be regarded as bold and frank. But then the writer will say: “Now is a different time. I want to create a type of young man, giving him the best of what was in my youth.” It can be assumed that Olesha fell under the spirit of the writers' congress with its promises, instructions, and oaths. It is known that Olesha, even after the congress, did not create a single remarkable, solid work in the spirit of socialist realism, glorification of the Soviet system, etc.
The same can be said about L. Seifullina, a brave and honest writer who openly expressed her views on Soviet literature. At the congress, she could declare that writers had no need to swear their loyalty to Soviet power. Being writers of the Soviet country, they cannot be hostile to it. On the other hand, Seifullina sarcastically remarked: “The Soviet government cherishes writers like nowhere else, and they are already accustomed to this. The writer is not averse to entrusting the proofreading of his works to the Politburo. With every little thing, we are accustomed to turning to the party and the government and waiting, than we will help. We are not looking for new names... We have no criticism at all. Writers must create responsible criticism for themselves, must defend themselves if it is irresponsible. Writers must talk about this not in quiet conversations behind the scenes, but loudly strive for this. ... In the writers' room "Rapp's habits still persist in the environment. We need smart, sensible leaders of the writers' union, not bureaucrats." A critical remark about Soviet drama was also appropriate: “It’s not Kirshon’s fault that he plays Shakespeare. It’s not Kirshon’s fault, but our fault that he already plays Shakespeare.” This is how Seifullina expressed her attitude towards this playwright’s undeservedly highly rated play “Wonderful Alloy”.
Results of the First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers.
At the congress, two principles of future totalitarianism in culture were demonstrated: the cult of the leader and unanimous approval of all decisions. The principles of socialist realism were out of discussion. All decisions of the congress were written in advance and delegates were given the right to vote for them. None of the 600 delegates voted against it. All speakers mainly talked about the great role of Stalin in all spheres of the country’s life (he was called “architect” and “helmsman”), including in literature and art. As a result, an artistic ideology was formulated at the congress, and not artistic method. All previous artistic activity of mankind was considered a prehistory to a “new type” of culture, “a culture of the highest stage,” that is, socialist. At Gorky’s suggestion, the most important criterion for artistic activity, the principle of humanism, included “love-hate”: love for the people, the party, Stalin and hatred for the enemies of the motherland. This kind of humanism was called “socialist humanism.” From this understanding of humanism the principle of partisanship of art and its back side- the principle of a class approach to all phenomena of social life.
It's obvious that socialist realism, who has his own artistic achievements and had a certain influence on the literature of the twentieth century. nevertheless, it is a much narrower trend than the realism of the twentieth century in general. Reflecting ideological sentiments Soviet society Literature, guided by Stalin’s slogan about strengthening the class struggle during the construction of socialism, was increasingly drawn into the search for “enemies.” Abram Tertz (A. Sinyavsky) in the article “What is socialist realism” (1957) defined its essence as follows: “The theological specificity of the Marxist way of thinking pushes to bring all concepts and objects, without exception, to the Goal, correlate with the Goal, define through Target. Works of socialist realism are very diverse in style and content. But in each of them there is a concept of purpose in direct or indirect meaning, in open or veiled expression. This is either a panegyric to communism and everything connected with it, or a satire on its many enemies.”
Really, characteristic feature The literature of socialist realism, social and pedagogical, according to Gorky’s definition, is its pronounced fusion with ideology, sacredness, and also the fact that this literature was in fact a special type of mass literature, in any case, it performed its functions. These were propaganda socialist functions.
The pronounced agitational nature of the literature of socialist realism was manifested in a noticeable predetermined plot, composition, often alternative (friends/enemies), in the author’s obvious concern for the accessibility of his artistic preaching, that is, a certain pragmatism. The principle of idealization of reality, which underlies the “method,” was Stalin’s main principle. Literature was supposed to lift people's spirits and create an atmosphere of anticipation for a “happy life.” In itself, the aspiration of the writer of socialist realism “to the stars” - to the ideal model to which reality is likened - is not a vice, it could be normally perceived among the alternative principles of depicting a person, but turned into an indisputable dogma, it became a brake on art.
But in the literature of these years there were also other voices - reflections on life and anticipation of its future difficulties and upheavals - in the poetry of Alexander Tvardovsky and Konstantin Simonov, in the prose of Andrei Platonov, etc. A major role in the literature of those years was played by an appeal to the past and its bitter lessons ( historical novels Alexei Tolstoy).
Thus, the congress awakened a lot of hope among poets and writers. “Many perceived it as a moment of contrasting the new socialist humanism, rising from the blood and dust of the battles that had just died down, with the bestial face of fascism, which was advancing in Europe. There were different intonations in the voices of the deputies, sometimes not without critical accents... The delegates rejoiced that, thanks to the transformation of society, countless ranks of new readers were rising.”
Collective trips of writers, artists and musicians to construction sites and republics became completely new methods in culture, which gave the character of a “campaign” to the purely individual work of a poet, composer or painter.
K. Simonov in his book “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” recalls: “Both the construction of the White Sea Canal and the construction of the Moscow-Volga Canal, which began immediately after the completion of the first construction, were then, in general and in my perception, not only construction, but also a humane school reforging people from bad to good, from criminals to builders of five-year plans. Both through newspaper articles and through the book that the writers created after a large collective trip in 1933 along the newly built canal, this topic was mainly discussed - the reforging of criminals. ... all this was presented as something – on a societal scale – very optimistic, as a shift in people’s consciousness, as an opportunity to forget the past and move on to new paths. ... It sounds naive, but that’s how it was.”
At the same time, control over the creative activities of the entire Union and its individual members increased. The role of the censor and editor in all areas of culture increased. Many major phenomena of Russian literature remained hidden from the people, including the novels of Mikhail Bulgakov and Vasily Grossman, the works of foreign writers - Ivan Bunin, V. Khodasevich, and the work of repressed writers - Nikolai Gumilyov, Osip Mandelstam. Back in the early 1930s, Stalin called M. Bulgakov’s play “Running” an anti-Soviet phenomenon, an attempt to “justify or half-justify the White Guard cause,” Stalin allowed himself rude and insulting reviews to address something that seemed closely connected with the party and the whole history revolution and civil war poet, like Demyan Bedny. However, in 1930-1931, Stalin called him a “cowardly intellectual” who did not know the Bolsheviks well, and this was enough for the doors of most editorial offices and publishing houses to be closed in front of D. Bedny.
During these same years, Soviet children's literature flourished. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that many artists and writers, whose work “did not fit” into the rigid framework of socialist realism, went into children’s literature. Children's literature talked about universal human values: about kindness and nobility, about honesty and mercy, about family joys. Several generations of Soviet people grew up reading the books of K.I. Chukovsky, S.Ya. Marshak, A.P. Gaidar, S.V. Mikhalkova, A.L. Barto, V.A. Kaverina, L.A. Kassilya, V.P. Kataeva.
Thus, the period from 1932 to 1934 in the USSR was a decisive turn towards totalitarian culture:
1. The apparatus of art management and control over it was finally rebuilt.
2. The dogma of totalitarian art - socialist realism - has found its final formulation.
3. War was declared to destroy all artistic styles, forms, trends that differ from the official dogma.
In other words, three specific phenomena entered artistic life and completely defined it as the main signs of totalitarianism: organization, ideology and terror.
Literature:
Georgieva T.S. Russian culture: History and modernity: Tutorial for universities. – M., 2000. – 575 p.
World of Culture: Literature. Painting, Architecture. Ballet/Author-comp. O.M. Chernyakevich. – Smolensk, 2001. – 461 p.
World of Russian culture: Encyclopedic reference book/Auth. A.V. Agrashenkov, M.M. Shumilov. – M., 1997. – 618 p.
Russian literature of the 20th century. Reader. Compiled by N.A. Trifonov. - M., 1970.
Internet resources.
Proclamation of the method of socialist realism as the main one in new literature. The congress was preceded by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” which abolished many literary organizations- and above all RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) - and a single Union of Writers was created. Its goal was declared “to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction...”. The Congress was preceded by some liberal changes in the public atmosphere:
1) culture came to the fore as the most reliable bastion in the fight against fascism. At this time, M. Gorky’s famous article “Who are you with, masters of culture?” appeared, addressed to the writers of the world, to their reason and conscience: it formed the basis for many decisions of the Congress of Writers in Defense of Culture (Paris, 1935), in which among others, B. L. Pasternak participated;
2) on the eve of the congress, many “fierce zealots”, carriers of communist arrogance, real “demons” - persecutors of M. A. Bulgakov, A. P. Platonov, N. A. Klyuev, S. A. Klychkov, V. lost their influence. Y. Shishkova and others, such peddlers of vigilance and a caste approach to culture as L. Averbakh, S. Rodov, G. Lelevich, O. Beskin and others. And vice versa, some former oppositionists were involved in active work in the field of culture ( N. I. Bukharin was appointed editor of Izvestia and was even approved as a speaker on poetry at the First Congress instead of N. Aseev);
3) already before the congress, the idea of the greatest responsibility of creative achievements, their words for the people in the harsh, actually pre-war decade, when gunpowder smelled from all borders, was introduced into the minds of writers - sometimes despotic - about the inadmissibility of fruitless formalistic experiments, trickery, naturalistic everyday writing, and especially preaching the powerlessness of man, immorality, etc.
The Congress of Writers was opened on August 17, 1934 in the Hall of Columns in Moscow with an opening speech by M. Gorky, in which the words were heard: “With pride and joy I open the first Congress of Writers in the history of the world.” Subsequently, there were alternate reports from writers - M. Gorky himself, S. Ya. Marshak (on children's literature), A. N. Tolstoy (on drama) - and party functionaries N. I. Bukharin, K. B. Radek, speeches by A. A. Zhdanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky and others.
What and how did the writers themselves talk about - not functionaries at all, not obsequious rushers in creativity - Yuri Olesha, Boris Pasternak, V. Lugovskoy? They talked about the sharply increased role of the people in the character, type of creativity, and in the fate of writers.
“Do not break away from the masses... Do not sacrifice face for the sake of position... With the enormous warmth with which the people and the state surround us, the danger of becoming a literary dignitary is too great. Away from this affection in the name of its direct sources, in the name of great, practical, and fruitful love for the homeland and today’s greatest people” (B. Pasternak).
“We took and nibbled on topics. In many ways, we walked along the top, not into the depths... This coincides with the drying up of the influx of fresh material, with the loss of a coherent and dynamic sense of the world. We need to free up space in front of ourselves... Our goal is poetry, free in scope, poetry coming not from the elbow, but from the shoulder. Long live space! (V. Lugovskoy).
The positive side of the work of the congress was that although the names of M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, O. Mandelstam, N. Klyuev were not mentioned, A. Bezymensky and D. Bedny were silently relegated to the background. And the frantic singer of collectivization F. Panferov (with his multi-page “Whetstones”) appeared as a phenomenon of very low artistic culture.
Was the method (the principle of world exploration, the initial spiritual and moral position) of socialist realism to blame for many of the sins of literature?
When developing the definition of the method, the fact that it was necessary was clearly taken into account - this was the spirit of the 30s, the spirit of a return to the Russian classics, to Russia the motherland! - discard the aesthetic directives of L. D. Trotsky, the “demon of revolution”, in the 20s. which prescribed a break with the past, the denial of any continuity: “The revolution crossed time in half... Time is cut into living and dead halves, and one must choose the living one” (1923). It turns out that in the dead half of culture are Pushkin, Tolstoy, and all the literature of critical realism?!
Under these conditions, a kind of “aesthetic revolution” took place; a definition of the method and the main point, the requirement for its functioning was found: “a truthful, historically specific image of reality in its development.” Witness and participant in conversations between writers (most often in the house of M. Gorky), chairman of the Organizing Committee of the First Congress, editor of “New World” I. M. Gronsky recalled the path to this definition:
“...I proposed to call (the creative method. - V.Ch.) proletarian socialist, and even better, communist realism... We will emphasize two points: firstly, the class, proletarian nature of Soviet literature, and secondly, we will point out literature The goal of the entire movement, the entire struggle of the working class is communism.
“You correctly pointed out the class, proletarian character of Soviet literature,” Stalin remarked, answering me, “and you correctly named the goal of our entire struggle... Pointing out the ultimate goal of the struggle of the working class - communism - is also correct. But we do not pose as a practical task the question of the transition from socialism to communism... Pointing to communism as a practical goal, you are getting a little ahead of yourself... How would you react if we call the creative method of Soviet literature and art socialist? realism? The advantage of such a definition is, firstly, brevity (only two words), secondly, clarity and, thirdly, an indication of continuity in the development of literature.”
Socialist realism is an accurate reflection of the era of the 30s. as the pre-war era, which required extreme monolithicity, the absence of strife and even disputes, an ascetic era, in a certain sense simplified, but extremely holistic, hostile to individualism, immorality, and anti-patriotism. Having received retroactive force, that is, having been extended to the story “Mother” by Gorky, to the Soviet classics of the 20s, it gained powerful support and persuasiveness. But called upon to be “responsible” for the ideologically depleted, normative literature of the 40s and 50s, almost for the entire “mass culture,” he became the object of feuilleton-cheeky irony.
First Congress of Soviet Writers, 1934
Your report on Soviet poetry is on the agenda of the upcoming Congress of Soviet Writers, and this gives me the courage to address my questions directly to you.
These questions are as follows: the most difficult to understand at the present time, among the numerous representatives modern poetry, the place and significance of one of the most talented masters - Boris Pasternak. Lyrics equal in strength, expressiveness, novelty of sound and some kind of inexplicable, contradictory, rather guessed than realized enormous connection with the deepest aspects of socialist, that is, tomorrow's art, are not found in modern poetry.<…>Do I need to prove to you that the poet, brought with all his being, at the high mountain pass of his path to the exclamation: “You are near, the distance of socialism,” is really a great poet? Pasternak's exclamation is worth much more than other dissertations that begin and end with hosannas to the new world. His lyrical truthfulness is such that every “wrong sound” emitted by him takes revenge on him, just as a hundred thousand demons cannot take revenge... Such is his biography, and such is his poetry<…>.
Pasternak said that he used to have big hopes to the congress - he hoped to hear at the writers' congress something completely different from what the speakers dedicated their speeches to. Pasternak expected speeches of great philosophical content and believed that the congress would turn into a meeting of Russian thinkers. Maxim Gorky's speech seemed lonely to him at the congress. What Pasternak considered most important for the fate of Russian literature was not discussed at the congress. Pasternak was disappointed:
“I’m deadly depressed,” he repeated several times. “You know, it’s just murderous.”
(Mindlin Em. Extraordinary interlocutors: a book of memories. M., 1968. P. 429)
Boris Pasternak is the poet furthest removed from the topic of the day, understood even in a very broad sense. This is a poet-song singer of the old intelligentsia, which became the Soviet intelligentsia. He, of course, accepts the revolution, but he is far from the peculiar technicalism of the era, from the noise of battles, from the passions of struggle. He broke ideologically with the old world (or, more accurately, severed his connection with it) back during the imperialist war. The bloody mess, the mercenary trade of the bourgeois world was deeply disgusting to him, and he “broke away”, left the world, locked himself in the mother-of-pearl shell of individual experiences, the most tender and subtle, fragile tremors of a wounded and easily vulnerable soul.<…>Pasternak's happiness is that he is far from consistent. Following the message to Bryusov, he places a magnificent eulogy dedicated to the memory of Larisa Reisner; he glorifies the “mad” year of 1905 in a whole series of poems; he writes his “Lieutenant Schmidt”, “January 9” - and all this in full-fledged stanzas of real poetry. He gave a very convex image of Lenin. And yet, even in his revolutionary poems, revolutionary in their own way, ideological meaning, you can find a number of approaches in this sense through associations that are completely unexpected and often highly individual. Pasternak is original. This is both his strength and his weakness at the same time. This is his strength, because he is infinitely far from the template, cliché, rhymed prose. This is his weakness, because this originality turns into egocentrism in him, when his images cease to be understandable, when the trembling of his breathless rhythm and the bends of the finest verbal instrumentation turn, beyond a certain limit, into changes in incomprehensible image combinations - they are so subjective and intimately subtle.<…>This is Boris Pasternak, one of the most remarkable masters of verse in our time, who not only strung a whole string of lyrical pearls on the threads of his creativity, but also gave a number of deep sincerity revolutionary things.
(Bukharin N.I. Poetry, poetics and tasks of poetic creativity in the USSR: report at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers // Izvestia. 1934. August 30. No. 204 (5452). pp. 3–4)
Bukharin's speech, which everyone likes, is nothing remarkable. What can we expect from Bukharin if he proclaims the first poet of the senseless and empty Pasternak? One must lose the last remnants of reason in order to proclaim formal trinkets as the basis of poetry. And the fact that there is a struggle all around, that the revolution continues - they completely forgot about it. You cannot approach poetry the way Bukharin approaches it. This plays into the hands of those who want poetry to be a “gourmet dish” for the few.
(Oreshin P.V. Between a rock and a hard place. Union of Soviet Writers of the USSR. M., 2011. T. 1. P. 351–352)
With Bukharin, it turned out that the center, the pinnacle expression of our poetry today is concentrated on the names of B.L. Pasternak, Selvinsky and two or three other poets. With all my deepest respect for Pasternak as a master and poet, I am still forced to say that for a large group of people who grow up in our literature, Pasternak’s work is an inappropriate point of orientation. Comrade Bukharin made a reservation here that he was discussing issues of poetry from the point of view of increasing skill. Fine. But we know that mastery does not exist outside the specific historical context, that mastery lives entirely in the era. And from this point of view, Comrade Bukharin’s outcome was rather unfortunate. Comrade Bukharin here, from this rostrum, quietly liquidated all proletarian poetry, which with such difficulty gained strength, poetry that with such difficulty strengthened its authors among the readership. We can and should talk about the great shortcomings that plague proletarian poetry, but the coverage of the issue given by the speaker does not turn out to be what we need. I think that it would be necessary here, at the congress, to say about a number of poets who have enormous prospects, whose breath is extremely deep, to say how boldly, how courageously they will cross the line that makes them embarrassed by the question - will there be enough breath for accepting the air of revolution. This question will remain very acute until they establish that deep, comprehensive realization of their capabilities is only historically possible when, say, Pasternak’s talent is deployed adequately on the vast rich material of our revolution. When, say, the same Pasternak, who until now has been luring the Universe into the very narrow platform of his vision of the world, makes a reverse movement and with his capabilities enters this spacious world; then its possibilities will sound a thousand times more vivid.
(Surkov A.A. Features of our humanism // Izvestia. 1934. September 1. No. 205(5453). S. 3)
Poetry is prose, prose not in the sense of the totality of anyone’s prose works, but prose itself, the voice of prose, prose in action, and not in a fictional retelling. Poetry is the language of an organic fact, that is, a fact with living consequences. And, of course, like everything in the world, it can be good or bad, depending on whether we keep it undistorted or manage to spoil it. But be that as it may, this is exactly what is pure prose in its primordial tension there is poetry<…>.
There are norms of behavior that make the artist’s work easier. We must use them. Here is one of them: if happiness smiles on one of us, we will be prosperous, but may the wealth that devastates a person pass us by. “Don’t break away from the masses,” says the party in such cases. I have no right to use her expressions. “Don’t sacrifice your face for the sake of position,” I will say in exactly the same sense as she does. With the enormous warmth with which the people and the state surround us, the danger of becoming a socialist dignitary is too great. Away from this affection in the name of its direct sources, in the name of great, real, and fruitful love for the homeland and its current greatest people, at a businesslike distance from them, burdened with affairs and worries. Anyone who doesn’t know this turns from a wolf into a lapdog...
(Pasternak B.L. Speech at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers // Pasternak B.L. PSS. T. 5. P. 228)
Behavior and individual awkward actions of B.L. often caused laughter and smiles. During the First Congress of Writers, a delegation of metro builders came to the Column Hall with greetings. Among them were girls in rubberized overalls - their industrial clothes. One of them was holding a heavy metal tool on her shoulder. She stood right next to Pasternak, who was sitting on the podium, and he jumped up and began to take the instrument from her. The girl did not give it up: the instrument on her shoulder - a calculated theatrical effect - was supposed to show that the metro construction project had come here straight from the mine. Without understanding this, B.L. I wanted to lighten her load. Watching their struggle, the audience laughed. Pasternak was embarrassed and began his speech with explanations about this.
(Gladkov A.K. Meetings with Boris Pasternak. P. 74)
And when, in an unconscious urge, I wanted to remove from the shoulder of a Metrostroy worker a heavy hammering tool, the name of which I don’t know (laughter), but which was pulling her shoulder down, could a comrade from the presidium, who joked about my intellectual sensitivity, know that in multi-atmospheric vapors, created by the situation, she was in some immediate sense my sister, and I wanted to help a close and long-known person.
(Pasternak B.L. Speech at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers // Pasternak B.L. PSS. T. 5. pp. 227–228)
I won't describe in detail<…>, how in the spring of nine hundred and first year a detachment of Dahomey Amazons was shown in the zoological garden. How the first sensation of a woman connected with the feeling of a naked formation, closed suffering, a tropical parade to the drum. As sooner than necessary, I became a slave of the forms, because early I saw the uniform of slaves on them.
(Pasternak B.L. Security certificate)
I did not sit until the end of the congress and left after Stetsky’s speech, before Gorky’s final words.
The first days after my arrival here, I dreamed of answering you at length, which would be beneficial for me, because it would organize my impressions of the congress, but then I sat down to work, which always goes worse than my calculations, and so a month passed.
Now I see that it’s better to talk about all these topics when we meet (after all, you’ll probably be going to Moscow at the beginning of winter?), and I’m not sure whether I have a greater need for such a conversation than you.
The fact is that although you were not deceived about the telephone (it was in the spring, not before the congress) and the attitude towards me at the congress was a complete surprise, all this is much more complicated than you might imagine, and most importantly: indirectness the reasons connecting these things with me are grayer and less festive.
And I already made the mistake of starting with myself under the influence of your letter. After all, the same awkwardness, with a much greater significance, for all of us and for me, was represented by the congress itself, an extraordinary phenomenon in all respects. After all, most of all, it was he who amazed me and could have amazed you with the spontaneity with which he threw me from hot to cold and replaced some joyful surprise with a long-familiar and all-destroying conclusion.
It was that musical structure that is already familiar to us, in which three correct sounds are accompanied by two false ones, but a whole symphony was performed in this key and in this key, and this was, of course, new.
The intense emphasis on the importance of Pasternak at the 1st Congress of Soviet Writers, which confused many and was understood by them as a focus on “pure”, that is, non-public, narrowly personal lyrics, was in fact a correct focus on the freedom and self-legitimacy of the poet, for the poet speaks to the era without through someone else's agency and receives her commands directly from her lips. Raising Pasternak to the shield, we are raising to the shield not the “purity” and intimacy of his poetry, but his loyalty to his talent.
(Svyatopolk-Mirsky D.P. Notes on poetry // Znamya. 1935. No. 12. P. 231)
From the book Secrets of the Afghan War author Lyakhovsky Alexander AntonovichChapter VI First stage of withdrawal Soviet troops
From the book What the Figures Are Silent About author Averbakh Yuri LvovichUnification Congress While in Moscow, which became the capital of Soviet Russia in 1918, chess began to be revived with the help of Vsevobuch, a state organization, in the former capital, Petrograd, private initiative triumphed and restoration took place.
From the book Lenin. Emigration and Russia author Zazersky Evgeniy YakovlevichThe course for the new congress Lenin turns to the experience of the Paris Commune, its gains and achievements, shortcomings and mistakes, considering the Commune as the greatest example of the greatest proletarian movement of the 19th century. And in the March days here in Geneva, at a meeting of Social Democrats,
From the book When World War II began and when it ended author Parshev Andrey PetrovichThe first battle, the first company, the first tanker Even knowledgeable people sometimes believe that only advisers were there. Well, yes, there were advisers. Of the 59 Heroes of the Soviet Union for the Spanish campaign (starting with the Decree of December 31, 1936), there were two advisers: Batov - a combined arms adviser and
From the book Consumer Revolt author Panyushkin ValeryFirst Congress In 1988 under the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions trade unions) a working group was created that was supposed to unite consumer societies that had spontaneously arisen throughout the country into a centralized consumer union. Now God knows how
From the book The Origin of Partocracy author Avtorkhanov Abdurakhman GenazovichChapter 16. VII EMERGENCY CONGRESS OF THE PARTY The seventh emergency congress of the party, convened to ratify peace, took place on March 6–8, 1918. It was the first party congress after the seizure of power. By this time the party had about 300 thousand members in its ranks, but at the congress it was represented
From the book Criminal Regime. Yeltsin's "Liberal Tyranny" author Khasbulatov Ruslan ImranovichChapter 17. LENIN, OPPOSITION AND THE 8TH CONGRESS Soviet Russia could have annulled the Brest-Litovsk separate peace only as a result of Germany’s capitulation to the Western powers, but still the Bolsheviks believed that Germany’s capitulation “had some negative significance”
From the book The Vile “Elite” of Russia author Mukhin Yuri IgnatievichChapter 23. THE LAST CONGRESS WITHOUT LENIN The last congress during Lenin’s lifetime was the XII Congress, which took place in April 1923. Hopes for Lenin’s participation in the work of the congress were still so great that the Politburo on January 11, 1923 approved him as the rapporteur on the political report of the Central Committee. But
From the book The Main Process of Humanity. Report from the past. Addressing the future author Zvyagintsev Alexander GrigorievichVII Congress of Deputies on the new Constitution
From the book The Unknown Revolution. Collection of works by John Reed by Reed JohnXIX Congress The first attempt to remove the Party Central Committee from power and transfer power to the people failed not only because of the resistance of the dictator - the Central Committee, but also for an objective reason - the threat of war. But in 1945 there was a victory that amazed the world, and by 1952 the development of the country was so successful, and
From the book Double Conspiracy. Stalin and Hitler: Failed Putschs author Prudnikova Elena AnatolyevnaDocument No. USSR-51 From the note of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR dated May 11, 1943 “On the mass forcible deportation of peaceful Soviet citizens into Nazi slavery and on the responsibility for this crime of the German authorities and private individuals exploiting
From the book “Catch Pigeon Mail...”. Letters (1940–1990) author Aksenov VasilyChapter XII. Peasant Congress On November 18 (5), snow fell. When we woke up in the morning, we saw that the window cornices were completely white. The snow was so thick that nothing could be seen ten steps away. The dirt has disappeared. The gloomy city suddenly became dazzling white. The droshky gave way to boots, with
From the book The Word and “Deed” by Osip Mandelstam. Book of denunciations, interrogations and indictments author Nerler Pavel“Congress of the Winners”, also known as the “Congress of the Executed” So, the confrontation grew. At the same time, by 1934 it became clear that the government’s policy was paying off. The country was gradually emerging from devastation, not the kind that, as Professor Preobrazhensky put it, “not in closets, but in
From the author's bookTo the Presidium of the IV Congress of Soviet Writers from the delegate of the congress Aksenov V.P. Moscow I inform the Presidium that I have received a letter from the writer A. I. Solzhenitsyn, sent by him to the Congress and, probably, already known to the Presidium. I want to declare that I agree with Solzhenitsyn on
From the author's bookUnited State Political Administration of the USSR (1934): Stalin Prize for 1934 1 Preparation for arrest and arrest And all night long I wait for our dear guests... O. Mandelstam For O.M. arrived on the night of May 16-17, 1934. Around one o'clock in the morning a distinct, characteristic knock was heard:
From the author's book‹10› Extract from the minutes of the Special Meeting at the Collegium of the OGPU of the USSR dated June 10, 1934 with a resolution to amend the Resolution of the OSO dated May 26, 1934 Extract from the minutes of the Special Meeting at the Collegium of the OGPU dated June 10, 1934 Secretary of the Collegium of the OGPU
And others . In addition to the writers, the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR Andrei Bubnov, Chairman of OSOAVIAKHIM Robert Eideman, and First Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR Jan Gamarnik attended the congress.
The congress delegates adopted the charter of the USSR Writers' Union; Socialist realism was recognized as the main method of Soviet literature.
For several years after the end of the congress, 220 of its participants were subjected to repression.
Conversations about the need to create a writers' organization began long before the event itself. According to journalist Alexander Belyaev, this idea was first voiced back in the 1920s, when Yevgeny Zamyatin’s dystopian novel “We” was published, which dealt with the control of literature with the help of the Institute of State Poets and Writers.
In April 1932, a decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” was published, designed to unite disparate writing groups into a monolithic structure. At the same time, the organizing committee of the Writers' Union was created (chaired by Maxim Gorky), whose task was to prepare the writers' congress. Due to organizational problems, the date of the congress was postponed several times; The names of speakers and topics for speeches changed.
In May 1934, the main work related to the preparation of the event was entrusted to Andrei Zhdanov. At the same time, the secret political department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR began collecting information about the mood in the literary community and preparing characteristics of future delegates.
According to the participants, the atmosphere resembled a great holiday: orchestras played, crowds of Muscovites greeted the delegates at the entrance to the Hall of Columns, portraits of Shakespeare, Moliere, Tolstoy, Cervantes, and Heine were hung on the walls of the House of Unions. Enterprises of the capital - Trekhgorka, metro builders, railway workers - sent their representatives to the congress with parting words and wishes. Collective farmers recommended to Mikhail Sholokhov that in the continuation of “Virgin Soil Upturned” Lukerya should become a “shock worker of communist production.” The pioneers entered the hall with instructions: “There are many books marked “good,” / But the reader demands excellent books.”
As congress participant Elena Khorinskaya recalled, delegates had the opportunity at any time to order a car for travel for personal needs and receive free tickets to any performances or concerts. The writers' meals were organized in a restaurant located not far from the Hall of Columns.
The main report was read by Gorky, who said that collective writing would help authors get to know each other better and “be re-educated into people worthy of a great era.” Part of his speech was dedicated to Dostoevsky, whom Gorky called "an insatiable avenger for his personal misfortunes and suffering."
His co-rapporteur Samuil Marshak told the delegates about the instructions from children and reminded that a variety of books should be written for young readers: scientific, documentary, fiction.
Isaac Babel also received prolonged applause. His speech was devoted to vulgarity, which in new era“no longer a bad character trait, but a crime.” Poet Nikolai Tikhonov dedicated his speech to Leningrad poets, who were “most influenced” by Sergei Yesenin.
Yuri Olesha, recognizing that the writer gets used to the images of his heroes, including negative ones, noted that “all the vices and all the virtues live in the artist.” His speech seemed sincere; during the days of the congress, he believed that “all doubts, all suffering had passed.” A few days after his speech, he told Ehrenburg in a private conversation that he would no longer be able to write - “it was an illusion, a dream at a holiday.”
Nikolai Bukharin's 24-page report caused a great stir; his speech, in which the poems of Balmont and Gumilyov were quoted, and Pasternak was named first from Soviet poets, became the reason for controversy, in which Alexander Bezymensky and Demyan Bedny participated.
Gorky, who, as some delegates noted, was very ill during the congress, in his closing remarks raised the question of creating a “Classics Theatre” in Moscow. In addition, he drew attention to the need to support poets and prose writers of Eastern and Western Siberia and expressed the idea of releasing periodic almanacs with works national literature.
The pathetic atmosphere of the event was disrupted by conversations on the sidelines. NKVD officers recorded remarks from Babel that “the congress is passing as dead as a royal parade,” and from the poet Mikhail Semenko, who said that the smooth atmosphere made him want to throw “a piece of food” at the presidium. dead fish". Korney Chukovsky subsequently recalled the melancholy “this congress” caused in him.
The phrase “socialist realism,” which first appeared on the pages of Literaturnaya Gazeta two years before the start of the congress, was one of the most common at the event: it was mentioned in almost all reports, including polemical ones. Thus, Alexander Fadeev expressed concern that the widespread use of the new method will lead to the creation of “leaf literature.” Nikolai Bukharin called for preserving the creative freedom of poets within the framework of socialist realism and abandoning “mandatory directives in this area.”
The discussion was summed up by Gorky, who in his speech called the development of socialist realism creativity man “for the sake of victory over the forces of nature.” In the charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR adopted at the congress, socialist realism was recognized as the main method of Soviet literature and Soviet criticism, “requiring from the artist a truthful, historically specific image of reality in its revolutionary development.”
The list of foreign writers invited to the congress was compiled in advance - it included writers in whom the Soviet regime was “interested.” The criteria by which foreign guests were selected were mainly formulated by the curator of the event, Andrei Zhdanov: these are people who sympathize with the USSR and socialist construction. These included Louis Aragon, Martin Andresen Nexo, Jean-Richard Bloch, Andre Malraux, Raphael Alberti.
The delegates to the congress welcomed not only these writers, but also those who were absent: Romain Rolland, Henri Barbusse, Bernard Shaw, Heinrich Mann. Presentations were made by Andersen-Nexø, who called on artists to “give shelter to everyone, even lepers,” and Andre Malraux, who argued that “photography of a great era is not yet great literature» .
“Intourist” was engaged in servicing foreign guests. The Politburo recommended that this structure, which was under the control of the NKVD, not only “pay special attention to the quality of the guides’ work, providing sensible, comprehensive and politically consistent explanations when conducting excursions with foreign tourists,” but also “abolish the acceptance of tips throughout the system.”
Maxim Gorky (chairman), Alexander Afinogenov, Fyodor Gladkov, Leonid Leonov, Alexander Serafimovich, Mikhail Sholokhov, Alexander Fadeev, Lydia Seifullina, Ilya Erenburg, Nikolai Tikhonov were elected to the presidium of the Union of Writers of the USSR. Regional cells of the joint venture with the necessary apparatus, board and chairmen began to be created locally. Writers had the opportunity to advance along the nomenklatura path and improve their financial situation: the official salaries of Literary Fund employees in 1935 ranged from 300 (secretary of the board) to 750 (director) rubles responded to Gorky’s words with the phrase:
Among the results of the congress was the exclusion of Dostoevsky from the history of Russian literature, which lasted for almost three decades: after the speeches of Gorky and Shklovsky, the author of “Demons” began to be called a traitor.
Financial results showed that 54,000 rubles were spent on operating the building in two weeks. Meals for one delegate cost the organizers 40 rubles (total amount - 300,000 rubles). A separate expense item was related to gifts for participants, photography, free subscriptions to newspapers and magazines - more than 34,000 rubles were spent on these needs. In a situation where the average salary of a Soviet worker was 125 rubles, the total costs of holding the Writers' Congress exceeded 1.2 million rubles.
Soon after the event, the regions began to receive directives on preparations for the exit from social significant works. Through the section of playwrights, recommendations were sent to more than fifty writers “on the creation of dramatic works worthy of the great date of the 20th anniversary of the October Revolution.” The secret political department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR, tracking the mood of writers after returning home, stated that in the regions the reaction to the results of the congress was sluggish, and writers were more interested in their own everyday problems than in public issues.
The foreign guests who participated in the congress did not go unnoticed: according to the press and publishing department of the Central Committee, in 1935 one hundred books by foreign authors were published in the Soviet Union; The leaders in circulation were Aragon, Barbusse, Malraux and other writers who were included in the “nomenklatura lists of “friends”” of the USSR.
Despite large-scale propaganda work, some decisions of the congress remained unfulfilled for a long time. Thus, the idea of creating the Union of Writers of the RSFSR was brought to life only in 1958.
On August 17 - September 1, 1924, the First Congress of Soviet Writers took place in the Hall of Columns in Moscow - an event as significant as it was mysterious...
A line of national, internal support was being built in the country. Most of our leaders began to understand that in the upcoming battle with the world of fascism and capital we cannot count on the help of the world proletariat, we must rely on our people, our economy, history, culture.
And at this time, the People's Commissariat for Education, where N.K. Krupskaya tried to rule, “expelled” Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and other “non-proletarian” writers from school libraries. But a patriotic group of the country’s leaders gave the signal for the publication of classics of domestic literature in millions of copies, the creation of libraries for schoolchildren, peasants, Komsomol members, and Red Army soldiers from the works of N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, A. Pushkin, N. Nekrasov, M. Lermontov, I. Krylov.
Books of Pushkin's works filled the country in 1937.
Revived historical traditions, which forged the character of the Russian people as victor over foreign invaders.
Revolutionaries of all eras pushed aside, giving way to St. Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Peter the Great. The letter from the country's leaders - Stalin, Zhdanov, Kirov - said that we must respect the history of the country and its heroes: military men, scientists, cultural figures.
The First Congress of Soviet Writers became a field ideological battle many forces, and not only within the country. A considerable part of Russian writers, not accepting the actions of the Soviet government in the maelstrom of historical events, left Russia. Russian literature in exile for many years preserved the spirit, style, and image of Russian classics. Among them are the great I. Bunin, I. Shmelev, I. Ilyin.
Someone returned to their homeland (A. Tolstoy, I. Kuprin, M. Gorky). On the territory of Soviet Russia, as it seemed to many, literature would never be revived. The leaders of those who declared themselves “proletarian” writers did not accept any continuity and proclaimed: “In the name of our Tomorrow, we will burn Raphael, We will destroy museums, we will trample the flowers of art...” Ruthless “proletarian” writers, true “frantic zealots” only for themselves conferred the right to be considered representatives of literature. All these Averbakhs, Lelevichs, Bezymenskys, Libedinskys, Utkins, Ermilovs crucified any attempts to think nationally, to peer deeply into life, to make it a subject artistic comprehension, search for truth. Everything in literature was subordinated to the idea of world revolution, the destruction “to the ground” of the old world and a throw into the future. Didn't notice outstanding stories M. Sholokhov, through clenched teeth they spoke about the talent of L. Leonov, V. Shishkov, calling them “fellow travelers” with contempt.
The main road of literature ended up in the hands of RAPP, VOAPP, MAPP - the so-called proletarian organizations of writers. They seized almost all literary and socio-political publications, waving the baton of criticism, beating all the rebellious, non-standard, trying to create national literature.
Society was then heterogeneous; there were many people who represented the basis of the pre-revolutionary system. And although by 1936 the Constitution declared the equality of all people, in reality this was not the case.
The first warning to the “frantic zealots” was in 1932 the party resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” according to which it was decided to liquidate the association of proletarian writers and unite all writers who support the platform of the Soviet government into a single Union of Soviet Writers. M. Gorky, who is considered the initiator of this decision, nevertheless spoke in support of RAPP, which, in his words, “united the most literate and cultural party writers.”
The congress was opened on August 17, 1934 by A.M. Gorky with his report. By this time he had finally returned to the Soviet Union. Of course, one can be skeptical and critical of the First Congress of Writers, but it nevertheless unfolded a panorama of the active, growing, diverse literature of the country. Did he mention all the worthy names? No, of course. Rappism did not give up its positions, the Trotskyist-Bukharin opposition gave its “battle” at the congress.
One can attribute the “excesses” to Stalin, but we must not forget that, in addition to A. Gorky, the main reports were given by N. Bukharin (on poetry, poetics and the tasks of poetic creativity), K. Radek (on world literature and the tasks of proletarian art). But it was N. Bukharin who published the famous “Evil Notes” about Sergei Yesenin back in 1927. After this, Yesenin disappeared from publishing plans, school textbooks and anthologies for almost 30 years. Bukharin was also merciless towards Mayakovsky. K. Radek was just as cruel to Russian poets.
They wanted to form their own ranks of recognized poets and leaders close to them in spirit. M. Gorky was used to put pressure on Stalin and Zhdanov. But talking about literature, artistic creativity, folk origins, Russian history, talent and language still took place, despite the loud proletarian rhetoric of the Rappovites. M. Gorky said: “The beginning of the art of words is in folklore. Collect our folklore, learn from it, process it... The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the creativity of our present.”
The Writers' Union was to a large extent subordinate to the state and party leadership, but conditions for creativity and material support were given to writers.
Option 2.
The first congress of Soviet writers took place from August 17 to 30, 1934. This truly significant event was preceded by the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” from which it followed that numerous writers’ organizations were to unite into one, consisting of writers who fully “support the platform of Soviet power.” The authorities wanted to unite completely different worldviews, creative methods and aesthetic inclinations of people.
The venue for the First All-Union Writers' Congress was the Column Hall of the House of Unions. For such a solemn event, it was necessary to decorate the room; after a few debates, it was decided to hang portraits of literary classics in the hall. Which immediately became a reason for the irony of evil-tongued writers:
There was enough room for everyone
Who's on the podium, who's on the ground,
And who is just on the wall!
So, for example, everyone was taken aback,
The fact appeared to us as in a dream -
At the department Tolstoy Alyosha,
Tolstoy's Leva is on the wall.
One of the delegates of the First Congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR, A. Karavaeva, recalled the opening day of the forum: “On a sunny August morning in 1934, approaching the House of Unions, I saw a large and lively crowd. Among the chatter and applause - just like in the theater - someone’s young voice was heard energetically calling: “Comrade delegates of the First Congress of Soviet Writers! When entering this hall, do not forget to raise your historical mandate!... The Soviet people want to see and know you all! Tell me, comrades, your last name and present your delegate card!”
According to mandate data, men predominated among the delegates to the First Congress of USSR Writers - 96.3%. The average age of participants is 36 years. The average literary experience is 13.2 years. By origin, the first place came from peasants - 42.6%, from workers - 27.3%, from the working intelligentsia - 12.9%. Of the nobles only 2.4%, clergy - 1.4%. Half of the delegates are members of the CPSU(b), 3.7% are candidates for membership of the CPSU(b) and 7.6% are Komsomol members.
The number of prose writers among the congress participants was 32.9%, poets - 19.2%, playwrights - 4.7%, critics - 12.7. Children's writers - 1.3% and journalists - 1.8%.
The national composition of the congress is also curious. Russians - 201 people; Jews - 113; Georgians - 28; Ukrainians - 25; Armenians - 19; Tatars - 19; Belarusians - 17; Uzbeks -12. A further 43 nationalities were represented by between 10 and one delegates. There were even Chinese, Italians, Greeks and Persians.
Bulgakov's talent as an artist came from God. And how this talent was expressed was largely determined by the circumstances of the surrounding life and by how the writer’s fate unfolded. In the early 20s, he conceived the novel “The Engineer with a Hoof,” but since 1937 it has received a different name - “The Master and Margarita.” Everything that Bulgakov experienced in his life, both happy and difficult, he devoted all his main thoughts and discoveries, all his soul and all his talent to this novel. “The Master and Margarita” is an extraordinary creation, unprecedented in Russian literature. This is some kind of fusion of Gogol's satire and Dante's poetry, a fusion of high and low, funny and lyrical.
Bulgakov wrote “The Master and Margarita” as a historically and psychologically reliable book about his time and people, and therefore the novel became a unique human document of that remarkable era. And at the same time, this multi-thought narrative is directed to the future, is a book for all times, which is facilitated by its highest artistry.
There is reason to assume that the author had little hope for the understanding and recognition of his novel by his contemporaries. In the novel “The Master and Margarita” there reigns a happy freedom of creative imagination and at the same time the rigor of the compositional concept. Satan rules the great ball, and the inspired Master, a contemporary of Bulgakov, writes his immortal novel. There, the procurator of Judea sends Christ to execution, and nearby, fussing around, berating, adapting, and betraying completely earthly citizens inhabiting Sadovye and Bronnaya streets of the 20-30s of our century. Laughter and sadness, joy and pain are mixed there, as in life, but in that high degree of concentration that is only accessible to a fairy tale or poem. “The Master and Margarita” is a lyrical and philosophical poem in prose about love and moral duty, about the inhumanity of evil, about true creativity, which is always an overcoming of inhumanity, an impulse towards light and goodness.
The events in “The Master and Margarita” begin “one spring, at the hour of an unprecedentedly hot sunset, in Moscow, on the Patriarch’s Ponds.” Satan and his retinue appear in the capital. The Diaboliad, one of the author’s favorite motifs, here in “The Master and Margarita” plays a completely realistic role and can serve as a brilliant example of a grotesque, fantastic, satirical exposure of the contradictions of living reality. Woland sweeps over Bulgakov's Moscow like a thunderstorm, punishing mockery and dishonesty. The very idea of placing the prince of darkness and his retinue in Moscow in the thirties, personifying those forces that defy any laws of logic, was deeply innovative. Woland appears in Moscow to “test” the heroes of the novel, to pay tribute to the Master and Margarita, who remained faithful to each other and love, to punish the bribe-takers, covetous people, and traitors. Their trial is not carried out according to the laws of good; they will appear before the underworld. According to Bulgakov, in the current situation, evil should be fought with the forces of evil in order to restore justice. This is the tragic grotesque of the novel. Woland returns to the Master his novel about Pontius Pilate, which the Master burned in a fit of fear and cowardice. The myth of Pilate and Yeshua, recreated in the Master’s book, takes the reader to the initial era of the spiritual civilization of mankind, affirming the idea that the confrontation between good and evil is eternal, it lies in the very circumstances of life, in the human soul, capable of sublime impulses and enslaved by false ones. , the passing interests of today.
A fantastic turn of events allows the writer to unfold before us a whole gallery of characters of a very unsightly appearance, drawing an analogy with life itself. A sudden meeting with evil spirits turns all these Berliozs, Latunskys, Maigels, Nikanor Ivanovichs and others inside out. The session of black magic that Woland and his assistants give at the capital’s variety show literally and figuratively “undresses” some citizens from the audience.
It is not the devil that is scary to the author and his favorite characters. The devil, perhaps, really does not exist for Bulgakov, just as the God-man does not exist. In his novel there lives a different, deep faith in historical man and in immutable moral laws.
For Bulgakov, the moral law is contained within a person and should not depend on religious horror of future retribution, the manifestation of which can easily be seen in the inglorious death of the well-read but unscrupulous atheist who headed MASSOLIT.
And the Master, the main character of Bulgakov’s book, who created the novel about Christ and Pilate, is also far from religiosity in the Christian sense of the word. He wrote a book of enormous psychological expressiveness based on historical material. This novel about a novel, as it were, focuses in itself the contradictions that everyone must resolve with their lives. subsequent generations people, every thinking and suffering personality. The master in the novel was unable to win. By making him a winner, Bulgakov would have violated the laws of artistic truth and betrayed his sense of realism. But does the final pages of the book really emanate pessimism? Let's not forget: the Master still had a disciple on earth, Ivan Ponyrev, the former Homeless, who had received his sight; on earth the Master still has a romance that is destined long life. “The Master and Margarita” is a complex work. Much has already been said about the novel, and even more will be said.
There are many interpretations famous novel. People will still think a lot about “The Master and Margarita” and write a lot. “Manuscripts don’t burn,” says one of the novel’s heroes. Bulgakov tried to burn his manuscript, but this did not bring him relief. The novel continued to live. The master remembered it by heart. The manuscript has been restored.
After the death of the writer, it came to us and soon found readers in many countries around the world. Now the work of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov has received well-deserved recognition and has become integral part our culture.
However, not everything has been comprehended and mastered. Readers of his novels, stories, plays are destined to understand his creations in their own way and discover new values hidden in the depths.
45. Good and evil in M.A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita.”
For a long time Bulgakov’s last work, “The Master and Margarita,” remained “in the shadows.” This is a complex, multifaceted work. Its genre was defined by the author himself as a “fantasy novel.” Through combinations of the real and the fantastic, Bulgakov raises many problems in his work, showing the moral flaws and shortcomings of society. Laughter and sadness, love and moral duty I see, reading the pages of the novel. One of the main themes, it seems to me, is the eternal theme of good and evil.
As long as man exists on earth, good and evil will exist. Thanks to evil, we understand what good is. And good, in turn, reveals evil, illuminating a person’s path to the truth. There will always be a struggle between good and evil.
Bulgakov depicted this struggle in his work in a very original and masterful way. The devil's retinue sweeps through Moscow like a whirlwind. According to that Moscow, in which lies, distrust of people, envy and hypocrisy exist. These vices, this evil, are revealed to readers by Woland, an artistically reimagined image of Satan. His fantastic evil in the novel shows real evil, mercilessly exposes the hypocrisy of people like Styopa Likhodeev, a significant personality in cultural and high circles Moscow - a drunkard, a libertine, a degenerate slacker. Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy is a scoundrel and a rogue, the variety show bartender is a thief, the poet A. Ryukhin is an inveterate hypocrite. Thus, Woland calls everyone by their proper names, indicating who is who. At a session of black magic in a Moscow variety show, he undresses, literally and figuratively, citizens who covet free goods, and sadly concludes: “They love money, but that’s always been the case... Well, they’re frivolous... well, what... . and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... In general, they resemble the old ones...”
What were they like, these old ones? The author takes us to distant Yershalaim, to the palace of the fifth procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. “In Yershalaim, everyone whispers about me that I am a ferocious monster, and this is absolutely true.” The procurator lives by his own laws, according to them the world is divided into those who rule and those who obey, a slave obeys his master - this is an unshakable postulate. And suddenly someone appears who thinks differently. A man of about twenty-seven whose hands are tied and who is physically absolutely helpless. But he is not afraid of the procurator, he even dares to object to him: “... the temple of the old faith will collapse and a new temple of truth will be created.” This is a man - Yeshua is convinced that there are no evil people in the world, there are only “unhappy” people. Yeshua interested the procurator. Pontius Pilate wanted and even tried to save Yeshua from a bitter fate, but he could not give up his truth: “Among other things, I said that all power is violence over people and that the time will come when there will be no power either of Caesars or of any kind.” or other authority. Man will move into the kingdom of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all.” But the procurator cannot come to terms with this; this is a clear contradiction of his ideology. Yeshua is executed. A man who brought people the righteous light of truth was executed; goodness was his essence. This man was spiritually independent, he defended the truth of goodness, instilled faith and love. Pontius Pilate understands that his greatness turned out to be imaginary, that he is a coward, and his conscience torments him. She is punished, his soul cannot find peace, but Yeshua - the embodiment of the moral force of good in the novel - forgives him. He passed away, but the grains of goodness he left behind live. And for how many centuries people have believed in Jesus Christ, of whom Yeshua is a prototype. And the eternal desire for good is irresistible. The master writes a novel about Christ and Pilate. In his understanding, Christ is a thinking and suffering person, bringing eternal values into the world, an inexhaustible source of good. The truth was revealed to the Master, he believed and still fulfilled the mission for which he lived. He came into this life to write a novel about Christ. The Master, like Yeshua, pays dearly for the right to proclaim his truth. Prophets find their place in a madhouse. And the world, alas, turns out to be such that the devil acts as a judge. It is he who pays everyone what they deserve. The master leaves people, finding peace and happiness. But it remains on the ground immortal work. The struggle between good and evil continues. From generation to generation, people are and will continue to seek a moral ideal, resolve ethical contradictions, seek the truth, and fight evil.
I think Bulgakov himself is such a fighter. His novel is destined to have a long life, I believe that it will not be lost in time, but will serve as a source moral ideas for many, many more generations.
The problem of good and evil is an eternal problem that has and will continue to worry humanity. What is good and what is evil on earth? This question runs as a leitmotif throughout M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita.” As you know, two opposing forces cannot help but come into conflict with each other, therefore the struggle between good and evil is eternal.
The conflict between these forces was most acutely reflected in the novel “The Master and Margarita.” So, before us is Moscow of the late twenties and early thirties. On a hot and stuffy evening, a gentleman who looks like a foreigner appears on the Patriarch’s Ponds: “...he didn’t limp on any leg, and he was neither short nor huge, but simply tall. As for his teeth, he had platinum crowns on the left side and gold ones on the right. He was wearing an expensive gray suit, with foreign-made shoes that matched the color of the suit... He looked to be over forty years old. The mouth is kind of crooked. Shaven clean. Brunette. The right eye is black, the left one is green for some reason. The eyebrows are black, but one is higher than the other...” This is Woland - the future culprit of all the unrest in Moscow.
There is no doubt that Woland is a representative of the “dark” force. (Woland is translated from Hebrew as “devil.”) It is important to pay attention to the epilogue to the novel. These are the words of Mephistopheles from Goethe’s “Faust”: “I am part of this force that always wants evil and always does good.” Mephistopheles in Faust is Satan, who punishes sinners and creates riots. No, Woland is not like Mephistopheles. His resemblance to him is limited only by external signs! Pointed chin, sloping face, crooked mouth. In Woland’s actions there is no desire to punish Muscovites mired in sins. He came to Moscow with one purpose - to find out whether Moscow had changed since the day he was last in it. After all, Moscow claimed to be the Third Rome. She proclaimed new principles of reconstruction, new values, new life. But what does Woland see when he organizes a black magic session for Muscovites at the variety theater? Greed, envy, desire to make “easy” money. And Woland draws the following conclusion: “Well... They are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... in general, they resemble the old ones... the housing problem has only spoiled them...”
Woland's arrival in Moscow is accompanied by unrest: Berlioz dies under the wheels of a tram, Ivan Bezdomny goes crazy, and the Griboedov House burns down. But is this the work of Woland himself? No. Woland's retinue is partly to blame for the troubles of Muscovites! Koroviev and the cat Behemoth. But most of all, Muscovites themselves are to blame for their misfortunes. After all, it was they who created a world around themselves that looked like hell, populated by anger, drunkenness, lies, and debauchery. Let’s at least take a look at the restaurant “Griboyedov’s House”, where MASSOLIT members spend their free time. Here, “swimming with sweat, the waiters carried sweaty mugs of beer over their heads,” “some very elderly man with a beard in which a feather of green onion was stuck was dancing,” “the crash of golden plates in jazz was sometimes covered by the crash of dishes that the dishwashers inclined plane they went down to the kitchen.” The whole atmosphere in the restaurant resembles the underworld described in the Bible, in one word “hell”.
When we get to Satan's ball, we can be convinced that humanity has always lived by the same laws and has always committed evil. In front of us and Margarita passes Mrs. Minkhina, who burned her maid’s face with a curling iron, a young man who sold the girl who loved him to brothel. But at the same time we understand that all these people are dead. This means that only the dead fall into Woland’s “department”, into the “department” of “darkness”. Only when a person is dead does his soul, burdened with sins, fall under the power of Woland. Then comes the reckoning for all the evil that a person has committed during his lifetime.
Woland’s “department” includes Berlioz, the Master and Margarita, and Pontius Pilate, the cruel procurator of Judea.
How many people have fallen under the power of Satan! Who can join the fight against evil, which of the novel’s heroes is worthy of “light”? This question is answered by a novel written by the Master. In the city of Yershalaim, mired, like Moscow, in debauchery, two people appear: Yeshua Ha-Notsri and Levi Matvey. The first of them believes that there are no evil people and that the most terrible sin- this is cowardice. This is the person who is worthy of “light”. For the first time he appears before Pontius Pilate “in an old and torn tunic. His head was covered with a white bandage with a strap around his forehead, and his hands were tied behind his back. The man had a large bruise under his left eye and an abrasion with dried blood in the corner of his mouth.” Can we say that Yeshua Ha-Nozri is Jesus Christ? The fates of these people are similar; they both died on the cross. But it is worth noting that Yeshua was twenty-seven years old, and Jesus was thirty-three years old when they were crucified. And Yeshua is the most ordinary person, an orphan, and Jesus Christ is the “son of God.” But it's not that. The main thing is that Yeshua carries goodness in his heart, he never did anything bad in his life, he came to Yershalaim to teach people goodness, to heal their bodies and souls. He is the savior of humanity. But, unfortunately, humanity does not need saving. On the contrary, it seeks to get rid of Yeshua as a criminal and a thief. And this is also a struggle between good and evil.
The clash of opposing forces is most clearly presented at the end of the novel, when Woland and his retinue leave Moscow. What do we see? “Light” and “darkness” are on the same level. Woland does not rule the world, but Yeshua does not rule the world either. All Yeshua can do is ask Woland to give the Master and his beloved eternal peace. And Woland fulfills this request. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the forces of good and evil are equal. They exist in the world side by side, constantly confronting and arguing with each other. And their struggle is eternal, because there is no person on Earth who has never committed a sin in his life; and there is no such person who would completely lose the ability to do good. The world is a kind of scale, on the scales of which lie two weights: good and evil. And, it seems to me, as long as balance is maintained, the world and humanity can exist.
Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” helps to look at the world around us in a new way. I believe that this novel helps to find and recognize what is good and what is evil.
46. Woland and his retinue.