“The anger of the people rose in a great flurry”, “Wipe it off the face of the earth!” and other blows against Zinoviev and Kamenev

Prepared by Nadezhda Biryukova

On August 21, 1936, Pravda published an open letter from Soviet writers “Erase it from the face of the earth!”. Written as part of the struggle against a group of former party leaders, it was mainly directed against Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. The letter was signed by 16 well-known writers: Vladimir Stavsky, Konstantin Fedin, Pyotr Pavlenko, Vsevolod Vishnevsky, Alexander Afinogenov, Nikolai Pogodin, Leonid Leonov and others. Among them was the name of Boris Pasternak.

“The bullet of the enemies of the people was aimed at Stalin. The faithful guardian of socialism, the NKVD, seized the assassins by the hand. Today they are before the court of the country.<...>
But who so impudently encroaches on our destinies, on the soul and wisdom of our peoples - on Stalin? Nazi secret police agent Fritz David. What is he capable of? To kill the leader of mankind from around the corner in order to open the way to power for the terrorist saboteur Trotsky, terrorist saboteurs, liars Zinoviev, Kamenev and their henchmen.

Our trial will show the whole world through what stinking cracks the sting of the Gestapo, that obliging patron of Trotskyism, was pushed through. Trotskyism has become a concept unambiguous to meanness and low betrayal. Trotskyists have become true servants of black fascism.<...>

History is true. It gives the best human strength to socialism, creating geniuses and leaders of the people. For fascism, history leaves the lowest dregs, the likes of which the world has never known.<...>

The anger of the people rose in a great storm. Our country is full of contempt for scoundrels.

The old world is gathering its last reserves, drawing them from among the last traitors and provocateurs of the world.

We appeal to the court in the name of the good of mankind to apply the highest measure of social protection to the enemies of the people.

Contemporaries were struck by Pasternak's signature under the open letter. Marina Tsvetaeva wrote to her Czech friend, translator Anna Teskova:

"Dear Anna Antonovna,
here for you - instead of a letter - Rilke's last elegy, which, except for Boris Pasternak, no one read. (And B.P. - I read it badly: after such an elegy, is it possible to put your name under a petition for the death penalty (Trial of the Sixteen)?!) ”

The circumstances under which Pasternak's name appeared in the newspaper are clarified from the diary of literary critic Anatoly Tarasenkov:

“Then came the events connected with the Trotskyist trial (Kamenev-Zinoviev). According to Stavsky, B. L. initially refused to sign the appeal Union of Writers demanding that these bandits be shot. Then, under pressure, he agreed not to delete his signature from the already printed list. Speaking at the Znamya activists on August 31, 1936, I sharply criticized B. L. for this Refusal to sign.. Obviously, Asmus, who was present at the meeting, gave it to him Valentin Asmus, philosopher and literary critic.. When after that I came to B. L., the cold in our relationship intensified. And although
B. L. in front of Zinaida Nikolaevna advancing on me Zinaida Nikolaevna Neugauz, Pasternak's wife., which fully justified her husband's behavior in this matter, even somewhat tried to "justify" my speech about him, it was clear that the gap was not far off.

Anatoly Tarasenkov

After 20 years, Pasternak recalled:

“It was in the year 36, when these terrible processes began (instead of stopping the time of cruelty, as it seemed to me in the year 35), everything broke in me, and unity with time turned into resistance to it, which I did not hide.”

The shameful event of the literary and public life country of the second half of the fifties was associated with the novel by Boris Pasternak "Doctor Zhivago". Boris Slutsky was also drawn into it - a three-minute speech against Pasternak became the tragedy of Slutsky until the end of his days.

Attitude towards B. L. Pasternak in Soviet time always been wary. The growing interest in Pasternak in the West was of particular concern to the party and literary leadership in 1946, when the name of the poet was first mentioned among the candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature. So far, this has not yet been connected with the novel: the writer began working on it at the end of 1945. The events took on a scandalous character in November 1957, after the release of the novel in Milan, translated into Italian. (In May - June of the following year, the book was published in France, England, the USA and Germany.) Nobel Prize"Per outstanding achievements in modern lyric poetry and the continuation of the noble traditions of great Russian prose” (October 23, 1958). Pasternak's answer to the Nobel Committee: "Infinitely grateful, touched, proud, surprised, embarrassed" - turned out to be the last straw.

Pasternak wrote the novel without hiding. I read finished chapters to close people, sent excerpts to sisters in England (with a request not to publish in any way). In January 1956, he gave the manuscript to the Novy Mir magazine, but it soon became clear that the magazine would never publish the novel. Six months later, Pasternak signed an agreement for the publication of Doctor Zhivago in Italy with the communist publisher Feltrinelli. This step of the poet became known to Moscow. Unexpectedly, in January 1957, a contract for the publication of Doctor Zhivago was offered by Goslitizdat. The agreement was signed. Encouraged by the possibility of the novel appearing in Russia, Pasternak turned to Feltrinelli with a request to delay publication until it was released in Moscow.

When creating the novel, Pasternak did not intend to in any way give it an anti-Soviet orientation. The main theme of the novel is stated as "the opposition of pagan Rome (read: Stalin's Moscow) to Christianity, slavery to freedom, peoples and leaders to individuals."

The publication of the novel was associated with risk, and Pasternak understood this. Back in 1945, while conceiving Doctor Zhivago, Pasternak wrote: “I felt that I was no longer able to put up with the administrative schedule of the destined, and that in addition to humility (albeit on a ridiculously small scale) I had to do something expensive and my own. , and in a more risky way than before, to try to go out in public.

The absence of direct anti-Soviet passages in the novel, however, did not stop the authorities from preventing its publication. The Central Committee was aware of the danger of the novel, understood how incompatible the universal values ​​proclaimed in it with the dominant ideology: the publication of the novel could break a serious breach in the dense ideological fence. The command was given not to publish the novel under any circumstances. Contracts for publishing in Russia turned out to be fiction.

In September 1958, when the possibility of a Nobel Prize for Pasternak became known, a plan was considered to avoid scandal. It was supposed to publish "Doctor Zhivago" in Moscow in a small circulation with limited information about it in the press. But this plan was rejected and they preferred to launch a broad political campaign to discredit the author and the novel. It was envisaged to involve the public in thoughtless defamation in the spirit of the thirties. There was little time to prepare and implement the plan.

An expanded meeting of the leadership of the allied and Moscow writers' organizations was scheduled for October 27. On October 25, Literaturka published a review by the editors of Novy Mir, which served as the basis for refusing to publish the novel, and an editorial article "A provocative outburst of international reaction." On the same day, Pravda published a vicious article by D. Zaslavsky, "The Hype of Reactionary Propaganda Around the Literary Weed."

In full agreement with these articles, it was planned to discuss the issue: "About the actions of a member of the USSR Writers' Union B. L. Pasternak, incompatible with the title of a Soviet writer."

Pasternak was sent an invitation. Sick, he did not go to the meeting, but sent explanatory note. The poet asked his comrades not to consider "my absence a sign of inattention." He recalled that "in the history of the transmission of the manuscript, the sequence of events is broken", that the novel was first given to our publishing houses in "a period of general softening of literary conditions", when there was hope for publication. "In front of my eyes, the honor done to me, modern writer, who lives in Russia and, consequently, Soviet, is rendered at the same time to all Soviet literature. I am sorry that I was so blind and deluded. Regarding the essence of the award itself, nothing can force me to recognize this honor as a disgrace and to thank me for the honor done me with a reciprocal rudeness ... I expect everything for myself, comrades, and I do not blame you. Circumstances can force you to go very far in reprisal against me in order to rehabilitate me again under the pressure of the same circumstances when it is already too late. But there have been so many in the past!! Take your time, please. It will not add glory and happiness to you. Further, Pasternak agreed to contribute the monetary part of the prize to the fund of the Peace Council, not to go to Stockholm to receive it, or to leave it at the disposal of the Swedish authorities.

Pasternak's note was regarded as "outrageous impudence and cynicism." They unanimously supported the decision of the presidium to deprive Pasternak of the title of Soviet writer and to exclude him from the membership of the Writers' Union. On the same days, rallies and meetings were held in the country, condemning the great poet and his novel.

Against whom was all this insane, shameful action directed? against romance? No, they forgot about him, as if he did not exist. Against the Nobel Committee and the Prize? No: only against the writer himself and his behavior. His inflexibility before the authorities, his proud position - that's what most of all not only angered, but also caused fear. They were afraid of a contagious example of unacceptable disobedience.

The decision to expel from the Writers' Union ended the first act of the tragedy.

A general meeting of Moscow writers was scheduled for October 31st. According to Soviet tradition, the decision of the presidium had to be approved by all writers. Two days earlier, at a plenum of the Central Committee of the Komsomol, Secretary V.E.

The event had to go smoothly, without excesses. The indoctrination of future participants began, and the main emphasis was placed on those whose participation would increase the credibility of the meeting. Well-known writers whose creative authority and moral reputation were not tarnished by conciliation began to be summoned to the Central Committee and to the party committees. Surrendered Tvardovsky, S. S. Smirnov, Vera Panova, Nikolai Chukovsky. Other "famous" (Markov, S. Mikhalkov, Prokofiev, Sobolev, Antonov and many others) did not have to give up: they were "volunteers".

Among others, they remembered Boris Slutsky. After I. G. Ehrenburg's letter in Literaturka, which was published in a million copies, the controversy surrounding this letter and the readership success of the first book "Memory", Slutsky became a prominent figure and his name was well known. Slutsky's biography met the "criteria" - a participant in the Great Patriotic War, wounded at the front, a poet whose anti-Stalinist poems were known to the general reader, "a man of impeccable ethical reputation" (Evg. Yevtushenko), a writer who made his way into literature through the slingshots of censorship, despite the resistance of those who now branded Pasternak's "apostasy". The Central Committee knew that the "famous Soviet poet Slutsky" was known in society as the most significant anti-Soviet poet. “The key to this paradox,” writes Oleg Khlebnikov, “is only that, not being an enemy of Soviet power and the electrification of the whole country, Slutsky wrote the truth about both, as well as about the war, about the pre-war terror, about Stalinism in general , about post-war state anti-Semitism…” Many of Slutsky’s poems went from hand to hand in the lists. Some of them ended up abroad and were published in collections of Soviet uncensored poetry. The involvement of a "Soviet - anti-Soviet" poet was seen as one of the main tasks of the ideological preparation of the meeting: the participation of such a person allowed the leadership to say: "You see, not only Sofronov, but also Slutsky is against Pasternak."

Slutsky, a member of the party, was obliged by the party committee to persuade the non-party Leonid Martynov to attack Pasternak. S. Lipkin recalls this - but from his memoirs it turns out that Martynov "persuaded" Slutsky. “Martynov's candidacy,” writes Semyon Lipkin, “pleased the party committee because Martynov was non-party, talented and non-state. It was known that Pasternak appreciated him. Martynov reluctantly agreed, but half an hour before the start of the meeting he said to Slutsky: “Why don’t you take the floor? I will only speak if you speak.” Confused, Slutsky took Martynov to the party committee. The secretary of the party committee (I forgot his last name) turned to Slutsky: “Really, why don’t you speak? Leonid Nikolaevich is right.” Slutsky was forced to agree. He told me all this evil, angry, I think, with himself. But I was not disposed to a good-natured conversation. We do not doubt that Slutsky said exactly this to S. Lipkin, but known facts it contradicts. In any case, it was not "half an hour" before the start of the meeting that Slutsky decided the question - to speak or to evade.

The interest of the leadership in attracting Slutsky was as great as the understanding that it would be difficult to persuade "such" one. There followed a call to the Central Committee, a conversation with Polikarpov, calls to the party committee.

According to V. Kardin, Slutsky was told that “in fulfillment of his duty as a communist, he is obliged to brand Pasternak at a meeting of Moscow writers. This is the task of the party ... ". Cardin remembered this from the words of Slutsky.

Slutsky found himself in a party trap, sandwiched between duty and conscience, between duty and honor.

Duty and obligation, as the poet then understood them, prevailed. He wrote about this in verse:

Music of distant spheres, conflicting professions. Party member, citizen of the USSR, subjects of poetry was me. It was hard to be. Yet there was. For fear, for conscience. Something I would like to forget. Something worth remembering. Duty, like a wolf, grabbed me. (Miscellaneous debts, mismatched.) I'm like the Volga, flowing into the five seas, bewildered. Dry and tired.

Slutsky was a principled opponent of the preliminary publication of works abroad: he believed that the writer was obliged to publish in his homeland. So did his literary friends. In Samoilov's Daily Records for 1960 (p. 301) there is the following note: “Voznesensky told me that the English journalist Marshak published my poems in London. What is the morality of a Western journalist! They do not understand that we do not want to quarrel with the motherland. Everything we don't like is an internal matter. No one is allowed to interfere in this!” Nikolai Glazkov had a whole ballad called "A Conversation with the Devil", in which the devil seduced the poet with fame and fortune obtained through foreign publications. The poem ended eloquently: “Get away from me, Satan!” There were also less stringent judgments. “We,” recalls Nina Koroleva, referring to her Leningrad comrades, “had our own understanding of the problem of “poet and power”: the state prints and rewards those who glorify and propagate it and party politics ... The fact that Doctor Zhivago appeared abroad we considered it a bold and defiant gesture, to which the poet has the right, but the state also has the right not to approve it. And we considered the leadership of the Moscow writers' organization to have completely sold out to the Soviet government and the party for benefits and handouts.

It never occurred to Slutsky himself to send his "Notes on the War" abroad for publication. This "business prose" - the sharp truth about the war - would have gone like hot cakes from foreign publishers. The same applies to the hundreds of poems lying on the poet's desk, which had no chance of being published in their homeland. Slutsky's poems were published abroad, but not at his will. He himself did not send his poems there. “Mezhirov, at the height of the stagnation,” recalls Oleg Khlebnikov, “showed me an anthology of Soviet uncensored poetry published in Munich, in which many of Slutsky’s poems, then unknown to Russian readers, were printed. But Slutsky turned out to be true to himself here too - he did not transfer his manuscripts abroad. This was done by one of his admirers: Slutsky's poems then diverged in the lists. And the Germans acted correctly in relation to the poet: they published a large selection of him without indicating the name of the author. Moreover: the selection was divided into two parts and above both was listed “Anonymous”. But for those who understand, Slutsky's "signature" recognizable intonation spoke more eloquently about authorship than the signature. Fortunately, literary critics in civilian clothes are not very qualified, and they are definitely deaf to poetry.

This principled position of Slutsky undoubtedly turned out to be the crack through which they were able to get to him and persuade him to speak. The success of the "processors" became possible also thanks to the deep partisanship of Slutsky. This is said by many who knew him closely and were friends with him.

“Member of the CPSU Slutsky,” Vladimir Kornilov wrote, “for a long time, almost all his life, continued to believe in the party, or rather, stubbornly forced himself to believe in it ...” Loyalty to the “construction program” and party duty, and by no means cowardice or opportunistic considerations, forced Slutsky to succumb to the persuasion and demands of the party committee.

Naum Korzhavin: “I ... then did not at all, not for a single minute doubt the honesty and decency of Slutsky and therefore reacted to his misconduct not with indignation, but ironically - I understood that it was not calculation that led him to this, but the honestly and literally professed principle of party spirit from following which he never received any benefits.

B. Cardin: “Telling me in detail about the meeting, Slutsky did not look for excuses ... he wanted to understand how this happened to him. In search of an explanation, he said: “The mechanism of party discipline has worked ...”

C. Apt: “Why did he, the poet, then join the choir of detractors? Most likely, he did this “in the order of party discipline”, I think that he was offered to speak in an ultimatum form ... I think that he really was stunned by the fact that Pasternak published his novel abroad ... I fully admit that in the award Pasternak of the Nobel Prize, Slutsky could see a political action ... "

When I first came to Moscow after the incident and met with Boris, I ventured to ask him. (It was hard for me to remind about what had happened. In general, relatives tried not to talk about this story, understanding how he himself was tragically experiencing it. They were silent, without saying a word.) But I could not help but ask. I don't remember exactly my question. There was no approving subtext in it, but it did not begin with the words "How could you?"

Boris referred to strong pressure, a call to the Central Committee. He was, as they say, pressed against the wall by the position of secretary of the party bureau (or member of the party bureau - I do not remember exactly) of the poetic section of the Moscow writers' organization. The position was binding. The meaning of his excuses boiled down to the fact that he could only "speak as indecently as possible." He spoke about how many painful hours he had endured in search of the form and content of his speech. But I did not feel any hesitation “to speak or abstain” in his words.

He ended our conversation directly and unambiguously: “Having refused, I had to put my party card. After the 20th Congress, I did not want to and could not do it. I understood these words as an expression of support for the "thaw"; we never returned to this topic (P. G.).

Meanwhile, this is where the main thing was. Boris Pasternak was an enemy of the "thaw"; Boris Slutsky was her convinced singer.

Pasternak, in a conversation with Olga Ivinskaya in 1956, expressed his attitude to the “thaw”: “For so long a madman and a murderer reigned over us, and now a fool and a pig; the killer had some impulses, he intuitively felt something, despite his desperate obscurantism; now we have been taken over by the realm of mediocrity.” The eldest son recorded Pasternak's remark in the fall of 1959: "They used to shoot, blood and tears were shed, but it was still not customary to take off your pants in public."

Slutsky was the one to whom the "thaw" gave a voice, and he himself tried to become the voice of the "thaw". He formulated all those provisions that, for many reasons, Nikita Khrushchev could not formulate. “Socialism has been built, we will settle people in it”, or “Smoke break is announced for those who stormed the sky”, or “Do you decide the fate of people? Ask about children, find out if the villain has any sons, ”or ...

These formulas of Slutsky cut into memory, and are no worse than Pasternak's poetic aphorisms. Sometimes they even look like Pasternak's - and sometimes Pasternak's lines become similar to the lines of his antagonist: "The story is not what we wore, but how they let us go naked ..." - "Seven and a half fools watched eight and a half!"

This is not surprising: Pasternak was one of Slutsky's poetic teachers - not directly, like Selvinsky or Brik, but indirectly, not as clearly as, say, Khodasevich, whose lines and images Boris Slutsky uses in the most unexpected situations, but ... all the same was. Moreover, in the first recorded statement of Boris Slutsky about poetry, the shadow of Pasternak flickers - we already wrote about this in the second chapter.

1937 Four teenagers conduct a comic questionnaire. They answer one single question: "What is poetry?" One of the teenagers is Boris Slutsky. His answer is surprising both in its look back at Pasternak and in its fearlessness for those years of total fear. "We were music on ice" - "the only kind of musicality punishable by the Criminal Code (see Article 58)". In this answer, his future extremely short military legal activity, and the refusal after this experience of any work related to jurisprudence under the conditions of the Soviet system, and the only mistake that Slutsky made under the conditions of this very system, were visible.

David Samoilov, talking about the peculiarities of thinking of his "friend and rival", writes about the "inability to foresee" Boris Slutsky. The remark is extremely subtle and precise, but incomplete. It could be assumed that Boris Slutsky's "inability to foresee" is connected with his "factovism", with the fact that he "slid with pleasure towards objectivism" - but how then to connect this "factovism", this "striving for objectivity" with utopianism Boris Slutsky, with his loyalty to the twenties, the then readiness to remake and reshape the world?

Most likely, the point was that Slutsky not so much "did not know how to foresee", but did not want to - and therefore could not ... Boris Slutsky wrote "after the future", after everything that could happen happened - happened:

... But the task, once set, unresolved as it was and she stands old, old, and things are really bad. Surprisingly bad things...

For this reason, Boris Slutsky was a poet of a consistently tragic outlook. This is his fundamental difference from the historical optimist Boris Pasternak.

One of the greatest paradoxes of the era is the clash of these two poets. Surprisingly, the Nietzschean Boris Pasternak not only fit into the Soviet ideological and aesthetic system, he was one of its founders, one of its most talented creators, while the democratic communist turned “rotten liberal” Boris Slutsky turned out to be one of its destroyers. The multi-hundred-page Doctor Zhivago genre continues the Soviet novel multipath, while The Cologne Pit, and even more so God, become the breaking point of the tradition.

Boris Slutsky had no typological resemblance to Pasternak. There were many reinterpreted, altered quotes - for example, "The day was stuffy, and the tone was vulgar." There was no typological similarity, but there was a repulsive genealogy. A complete, fundamental, ideological discrepancy was superimposed on the game that the authorities started with the intelligentsia. We repeat: if Pasternak were asked if he was ready by any bold act to expose the putrid deception of the “thaw”, to indicate the boundaries beyond which she would not step, he would answer: Yes, I’m ready ... If Slutsky were asked if he was as ready as possible to expand the "thaw" boundaries, he would have answered ... It is clear what he would have answered.

Despite the general dissimilarity, there was something in common in these poets, and it manifested itself in difference. Both were most clearly manifested in the way they read poetry: just as they talked in life. And then the difference began, because Pasternak spoke in the same way as he read poetry. Slutsky, on the other hand, read poetry in the same way as he spoke: calmly, businesslike, dryly. He reported on the situation: “A man at a fork in the road / covers his eyes with a newspaper, / but where he will turn, / is printed in this newspaper. // (...) At the fork in front of him there are two ways, / but where should he go, / is published in this newspaper. These verses, however, can only be read in a businesslike and calm tone. The intonation of Pasternak's everyday conversation was odic, piitic, and poetic. Slutsky's verse, poetic intonation was the intonation of everyday, business conversation, even if it was about something unbearable, terrible: “We were seventy thousand prisoners in a large ravine with steep edges…»

Did Slutsky think about the consequences of his speech, about how his comrades would react to this, about his reputation, about himself, about Tanya? I couldn't help but think. Did you understand that the mere fact of the appearance on the podium of a shameful trial would break, distort your whole life? Of course I understood. But when making a decision, he considered it right to give up his personal interest for the public good, as he understood it (benefit).

“Which of us, people of the front-line generation,” wrote V. Kardin, “lived without sin? The history of Slutsky is special. He admitted his guilt ... for "mistakes" that led to common troubles. Let them be committed apart from him, let the party be in no hurry to take responsibility for them. By his own will, by the dictates of his conscience, he took on his shoulders an exorbitant burden, which almost everyone strove to push away from himself.

“The more stubbornly Slutsky intended to follow what he swore, what he wanted to believe in spite of many things, the more obvious was the general drama of deceived and deceived people, a general one that levels everyone, one in which an individual and remarkable mind is superfluous” (St. Rassadin) .

“Apparently, after the Pasternak story,” writes Vl. Kornilov, - Slutsky wrote:

There is no ability to refer to the disease, There is no talent not to be at home. You have to cross yourself and climb In such dirt, where no other can be.

No matter how you look, it's cleverly said, There are few mistakes, but many advantages. And from the point of view of the Lord God? Lord, he will say anyway - shit.

The Lord does not like smart and learned people, Prefer quiet fools Doesn't respect new converts And with curiosity honors heretics.

This poem is reminiscent of Bagritsky's lines:

Uncomfortable communist Run like a greyhound…”

Here, Slutsky's sincere, albeit erroneous, conviction of the possibility of liberalizing public life, of the need to support and not let the first shoots of freedom wither, played. Pasternak's act seemed to him a provocation, after which "tightening the screws" could begin. He considered that refusing to speak, evading the fulfillment of a party assignment would objectively harm the "thaw". He thought that he could turn the discussion of Pasternak's act into a condemnation of the Nobel Committee.

I have repeatedly witnessed heated debates on these topics between Slutsky and Samoilov. Samoilov considered the XX Congress and the well-known resolution of the Central Committee of 1956 that followed it highest point“sinusoids”, allowed for the possibility of descending and new ascending branches of development, understood the temporary, transient nature of the “thaw”. Slutsky was convinced and insisted that now development would go in a "straight" upwards. In my assessments, I hesitated between the opinions of my friends: I wanted everything to turn out “according to Slutsky”, but I could not believe it “in Samoylov's way”. Needless to say, life has confirmed the correctness of Samoilov and the error of Boris? Is this misconception the reason for the tragedy of Slutsky? Doesn't this explain (but not justify) the motives that brought Boris Slutsky to the podium of the infamous meeting of the Moscow Writers' Organization, which subjected Boris Pasternak to a beating? (P.G.)

The day before the meeting, Pasternak refused the prize. In a telegram to Stockholm, he wrote: “In connection with the importance attached to your award by the society to which I belong, I must refuse the undeserved distinction awarded to me. I ask you not to accept with resentment my voluntary refusal. There was no cowardice in this, much less cowardice. He was afraid, but not for himself: he was deeply worried about the fate of his loved ones.

But the running mechanism of persecution could not stop. Be that as it may, on October 31 the meeting took place, and Boris Slutsky spoke at it.

Much has been written about the meeting. Let us give only the impression of A. Matskin, who was present at the meeting:

“The audience was amazing - all the bad instincts inspired by the Stalinist despotism found themselves in this bacchanalia ...

Although it was the end of the 50s, the massacre followed the ritual of the trials of the 30s. Speakers, replacing each other, raged, and each tried to surpass the other in his tribunal.

And suddenly two worthy poets are included in this orgy - Slutsky and Martynov ... "

A verbatim report published later allows us to imagine how “bad instincts inspired by Stalin’s despotism” dominated the meeting, compare Slutsky’s speech with other speeches and see how Slutsky managed to realize his plan to “speak as indecently as possible”. Almost all the speakers agreed with the Komsomol leader Semichastny, who called Pasternak "a pig that shits where it eats." S. S. Smirnov: “... I somehow involuntarily agreed with the words of Comrade Semichastny ... Maybe these were somewhat rude words and a comparison with disgusting, but in essence this is true ...” V. Pertsov “Comrade Semichastny is right ... Pasternak is not only a fictitious figure in an artistic sense, but it is also a vile figure ... Let him go there ... we must ask that he not be included in the upcoming population census. A. Sofronov: “... I heard Semichastny's speech about Pasternak. We can’t have two opinions about Pasternak… Get out of our country.” L. Oshanin: “... we don't need such a person, such a member of the SSP. We don’t need such a Soviet citizen.” K. Zelinsky: “This is a man who holds a knife in his bosom ... An enemy, and a very dangerous, twisty, very subtle enemy ... Go and get your 30 pieces of silver! We don't need you here today." A. Bezymensky: “The decision that was made to expel from the Union is correct, but this decision must be supplemented. The Russian people correctly say: “Get the bad grass out of the field” ... His departure from our environment would freshen the air.” V. Soloukhin: "... since he is an internal emigrant, shouldn't he actually become an emigrant?" And stuff like that… Only in Valeria Gerasimova's speech there was not a word about expulsion and expulsion.

The speech of S. S. Smirnov took eleven pages of the report, the speeches of other writers from two to five pages. Slutsky's speech took 18 lines (!). Slutsky's "anger" fell not on the executed poet, but on the "gentlemen of the Swedish academicians." Let us quote Slutsky's speech in full.

“The poet is obliged to seek recognition from his people, and not from his enemies. The poet must seek glory in his native land, and not from an overseas uncle. Gentlemen, the Swedish academicians know about the Soviet land only that the Battle of Poltava, hated by them, and even more hated by them, took place there. October Revolution(noise in the hall). What is our literature to them? A year before the death of Leo Tolstoy, the Nobel Prize was awarded for the tenth time. Ten times in a row, Swedish academics failed to notice the genius of the author of Anna Karenina. Such is the justice and such is the competence of Swedish literary judges! That's who Pasternak accepts an award from and that's who he's looking for support from!

Everything that we, writers of various trends, are doing is directly and frankly aimed at the triumph of the ideas of communism throughout the world. This year's Nobel laureate is almost officially named Nobel laureate against communism. It is a shame to wear such a title to a person who grew up on our land.

In very short speech Slutsky (the shortest of all those who spoke at the meeting) there is not a single word about the expulsion of Pasternak from the Writers' Union, there are no demands to expel Pasternak from the country. Slutsky's speech is completely devoid of negative statements about the artistic merits of Boris Pasternak's poetry. He did not talk about the poet, although his attitude towards Pasternak the poet had changed by that time compared to his earlier views. The sharp statements of Slutsky cited on this score in the memoirs of David Samoilov should be attributed, on the one hand, to the nervous tension in which Slutsky was, arguing with his friend about Pasternak after the speech, on the other hand, to the ideological position of Samoilov himself. Here is what David Samoilov wrote: “Slutsky then compiled a hierarchical list of available poetry. In fairness, it should be said that he gave himself second place. Martynov - No. 1 ... There was no place for Pasternak and Akhmatova in the payroll of the literary renaissance. Slutsky then seriously told me that Martynov was a more important phenomenon and a more talented poet. Subordination failed. “The story of Doctor Zhivago and the Nobel Prize demanded a clear answer from Slutsky and Martynov - whether to stand up for Pasternak and thereby irritate the authorities and damage the renaissance, or defend the renaissance ...

His renaissance turned out to be closer to the body.

Samoilov further recalls that “then the logic of this act seemed more convincing to him than now ... The speeches of the official radicals (Slutsky, Martynov) turned out to be unexpected and seemed unforgivable. Objectively, they are not as guilty as it seems. People are a scheme that is somewhat different from the official one, but nevertheless they are people of a scheme, they are in their balance of power modern literature, in its subordinate registers they did not find a place for Pasternak and Akhmatova. And their intentions were the best. Pasternak and Akhmatova seemed like yesterday's day of literature. The Renaissance promised the future. It was worth abandoning the past for the sake of the future. It was necessary “not to frighten the authorities” with radicalism, but to look for conciliatory positions, not to disengage, but to unite in the name of saving the new renaissance. This is a pathetic idea, repeatedly used by all types of conformists and has always led literature to the loss of moral authority and to new clamps.

The attitude towards the performance of Boris Slutsky occupies a prominent place in the memories of him. Most have forgiven him, but no one has forgotten. When the book of memoirs about Slutsky was being assembled, the compiler was reproached for having too much "this" in the book. But the compiler is powerless "to cut down with an ax what is written with a pen", no matter how close and dear Slutsky may be to him.

“Of the entire biography of Slutsky,” writes Alexei Simonov, “the grateful memory of his contemporaries most impresses the fact of his participation in the famous “talk” on the condemnation of Pasternak ...

Why was everyone forgotten, but he was not forgotten?

They say we live in a cruel age. Personally, I don't agree. I don’t know how the whole century, but the second half of it - which I can judge as a participant - starting with the death of Stalin, seems to me a period of forgiveness with an ever-decreasing distance between crime and the absence of punishment ... Returning to Slutsky, this is how I explain the phenomenon of selectivity of our memory in relation to him, that he experienced pangs of conscience where the rest had long and hopelessly forgiven themselves ...

If there is a clue to the “phenomenon” of Slutsky, then it lies ... in a rarely quoted stanza:

And if the rock crumbled to dust, I take the blame."

Here are some of the most significant memories.

Semyon Lipkin: “A few days after the performance, Slutsky came to me without a preliminary call. He was unshaven, his usual impassive, commanding face was reddened ... I was not in the mood for a good-natured conversation:

Borya, you understand that no collection can exclude a great poet from Russian literature. You, clever man, committed an act not only bad, but also senseless.

Slutsky helplessly objected:

I do not consider Pasternak a great poet. I don't like his poetry.

Do you adore Sofronov's poems? Why didn't you demand Sofronov's expulsion?

But he's a criminal, his hands are covered in blood. And you leave this mediocre lyricist in the Writers' Union, and expel Pasternak.

... When Slutsky fell seriously ill, I felt that I should not have talked to him like that.

… We met after Pasternak's funeral. Slutsky nervously began to question me about the funeral ... Slutsky absorbed every word. I felt sorry for him."

David Samoilov: “I didn’t know about the upcoming performance. He did not consult with me. After a disgusting meeting ... Slutsky, agitated, came to me. He brought his speech, typed on a typewriter. I read. And, I confess, I was not horrified. Slutsky's logic, his sort of historical, tactical correctness, still had an effect on me.

Slutsky himself was horrified, but later, when the boundaries of the frail renaissance were finally outlined. He repented of his action. And internally he paid for it a long time ago.

Slutsky is commemorated of his speech by people like Yevtushenko and Mezhirov, who have never been morally superior to him, except perhaps more circumspectly. Why, in connection with the expulsion of Pasternak, is Slutsky most often remembered, not at all mentioning Martynov and casually Smirnov?

There is more demand from Slutsky.”

Nina Koroleva: “Of course, we were sorry that Slutsky, like Leonid Martynov, condemned Pasternak, but we didn’t know how and why this happened, how good his will was in this ... It was painful for the dear poet.”

D. Shraer-Petrov: “The writers are now scandalously accusing each other of betraying Pasternak. How to tell the difference between someone who voted against a disgraced poet, demanded his crucifixion, or locked himself in a closet during a debate? I chose not to believe. Such a person could not!”

Solomon Apt: “Whoever knew Slutsky in any way does not doubt that he was tormented by his guilt hopelessly and, unlike some other speakers of that time, did not reassure himself later by referring to what, they say, the time was like that” .

Vladimir Ognev: “Then I was struck by the unexpectedness of Boris's act. Now I feel sorry for Slutsky and am embarrassed by the spectacular cruelty of Yevtushenko, who gave “thirty pieces of silver” in front of my eyes - two tags for his speech against Pasternak.

Yevgeny Yevtushenko: “He prophetically wrote about himself:“ Angelic, and not automobile, apparently, I was knocked down by a wing. An ethically impeccable man, he made, as far as I know, only one single mistake, which constantly tormented him.

Few people make mistakes, but far from all suffer. The level of pangs of conscience is the level of conscience itself. The mistake that tormented him was that he once opposed Pasternak. Slutsky paid in full for this - but not only with his torment, and not with the commission of other similar mistakes. I, brought up both by his poetry and by himself, warmed up, fed, supplied with the money that he always had for others, turned out to be boyishly cruel to him; and for some time our almost daily friendship broke off. I forgot that he is mortal.

Was Slutsky right when he wrote: “Sins are forgiven for poetry. Big sins - big verses,” I don’t know, but his prayer addressed to a descendant: “Strike, but don’t forget. Kill, but do not forget, pierces with its dying courage of self-condemnation.

Galina Medvedeva: “... it was difficult to understand fatal mistake Slutsky, which so lubricated and broke the brilliant beginning of the path. An ambitious desire to become in the front ranks a little freer than the sighing literature, quite legitimate, but if without human sacrifice ... For the fact that Slutsky executed himself, he was forgiven. Even the incorruptible L. K. Chukovskaya spoke of his repentance sympathetically and gently. But how humanly it is a pity for this sorrowful torment, this torture of conscience ... "

Despite the refusal of the award, Pasternak, differently evaluated in society and literary circles, behaved courageously and surprisingly calmly. According to relatives, in the most painful and gloomy October days of 1958, Boris Leonidovich worked at the table, translated Mary Stuart. But the "epopee" could not but affect the health. Less than two years after the persecution and forced refusal of the prize, on May 30, 1960, Boris Leonidovich Pasternak died. He was seventy years old. He passed away as courageously as he had lived. Pasternak's funeral proved to be the first public demonstration of the growing democratic literature.

Slutsky, in the years following 1958, thought about the Moscow writers' meeting and about his speech, wrote poems that become more understandable as soon as they are perceived against the backdrop of Pasternak's story.

They beat themselves with short swords, showing resignation to fate, do not forgive that they were timid, nobody. Even to yourself.

Got scared somewhere. And this case whatever you call it, the most evil, prickly salt settles in my blood.

Salt my thoughts and actions, eat and drink together, and trembling, and tapping, and does not give me rest.

Life, though tinged with dark memories, went on. “He freed himself, he burned out in himself a slave of preconceived truths, cabinet schemes, soulless theories. In his work of the late 1960s and 1970s, we are shown a good and strict example of a return from a purely ideological person to a natural person, an example of tearing off old clothes, an example of restoring confidence in living life with its true, and not phantom, foundations. “Political chatter does not reach me,” one of the most political Russian poets now wrote. From the nervous machine-gun crackle of politics, he went to a calm and clear voice of truth - and she responded in him with lines of beautiful poetry ”(Yu. Boldyrev).

Note of the Department of Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the results of the discussion at the meetings of writers of the issue “On the actions of a member of the Union of Writers of the USSR B.L. Pasternak, incompatible with the title of a Soviet writer"

Boris Pasternak.

Central Committee of the CPSU

I report on the meeting of the party group of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR and joint meeting The Presidium of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, the Bureau of the Organizing Committee of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR, the Presidium of the Board of the Moscow Branch of the Union of Writers, held on October 25 and 27 of this year.

At these meetings, the issue “On the actions of a member of the Union of Writers of the USSR B.L. Pasternak, incompatible with the title of a Soviet writer.

30 people took part in the discussion of the issue. All the comrades who spoke in the debate with a feeling of anger and indignation condemned the treacherous behavior of Pasternak, who went to become an instrument of international reaction in its provocations aimed at fomenting the Cold War.

The unanimous opinion of all the speakers came down to the fact that Pasternak could not have a place in the ranks of Soviet writers. However, in the course of the debate, some comrades expressed the opinion that Pasternak should not be immediately expelled from the Writers' Union, as this would be used by international reaction in its hostile work against us. This point of view was especially actively defended by Comrade. Gribachev. 1 He said that the exclusion of Pasternak from the Writers' Union should be preceded by a wide speech by the Soviet public in the press. The decision of the Writers' Union to expel Pasternak from its ranks must be the fulfillment of the will of the people. Comrade's position Gribachev was supported by the writers L. Oshanin, M. Shaginyan, S. Mikhalkov, A. Yashin, S. Sartakov, I. Anisimov, S. Gerasimov 2 and some others. S.A. Gerasimov said that "we just need to give vent to the people's opinion on the pages of the general press." In the speeches vols. Gribachev and Mikhalkov, the idea was expressed of expelling Pasternak from the country. They were supported by M. Shahinyan.

Many comrades who spoke in the debate sharply criticized the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union and, in particular, Comrade. Surkov for the fact that the Secretariat did not expel Pasternak from the Union when it became known that he had transferred his slanderous essay to a bourgeois publisher - especially for the fact that the letter of the members of the editorial board of the journal Novy Mir to Pasternak was not published in the Soviet press.

The participants in the debate pointed out that the Secretariat of the Writers' Union, by not publishing the letter earlier, had now placed the Union in a more difficult position. If this letter had been published a year and a half ago, Comrade Gribachev said, "Pasternak would not have received the Nobel Prize, since the progressive press of the world would have done everything to prevent this." Comrade Gribachev shared this opinion in his speeches. Kozhevnikov, Sofronov, Kochetov, Karavaeva, Anisimov, Ermilov, Lesyuchevsky, Tursunzade. 3

The writers A. Sofronov and V. Yermilov sharply raised the question of the neglect of ideological work in the Writers' Union. Questions of the ideological life of the Writers' Union, noted A. Sofronov, have not been in the center of attention of the entire Union in recent years. Along with the correct and justified criticism of shortcomings in the work of the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union and its first secretary Comrade. Surkov in speeches vols. Gribachev, Sofronov and partly comrade. Kochetov, an attempt was made to present the matter in such a way that almost all the activities of the Secretariat of the Board were a compromise in literary policy, a deviation from the principled line. In relation to Pasternak, the Secretariat showed liberalism, said A. Sofronov, and at the same time Comrade. Surkov in every possible way humiliated the first writer of the world comrade. Sholokhov. My remark that one should not speak of literary politics as a policy of compromise met with no support.

As a result of a wide exchange of views, the party group unanimously decided to submit for discussion by the Presidium of the Board of the Writers' Union a resolution on the expulsion of Pasternak from the members of the Writers' Union of the USSR.

On October 27, a joint meeting of the Presidium of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, the bureau of the Organizing Committee of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Board of the Moscow branch of the Union of Writers, discussed the issue of Pasternak's behavior, incompatible with the title of Soviet writer.

The meeting was attended by 42 writers - members of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, the Bureau of the Organizing Committee of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR, the Presidium of the Board of the Moscow Branch of the Union of Writers and 19 members of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR and the Audit Commission. 26 writers did not come to the meeting. Of those who did not come to the meeting, there were no comrades due to illness. Korneichuk, Tvardovsky, Sholokhov, Lavrenev, Gladkov, Marshak, Tychina, 4 are on a business trip abroad. Bazhan, Ehrenburg, Chakovsky, 5 on treatment in a sanatorium - vols. Surkov, Isakovsky, 6 on employment with official affairs Comrade Latsis; 7 without giving reasons. Leonov and Pogodin. 8 The personal friend of Pasternak, the writer Vsevolod Ivanov, who said he was ill, also did not come. Pasternak himself did not appear at the meeting, citing illness. He sent a letter to the Presidium of the Union of Soviet Writers, outrageous in its impudence and cynicism. In the letter, Pasternak chokes with delight on the occasion of the prize being awarded to him and speaks with dirty slander about our reality, with vile accusations against Soviet writers. This letter was read at the meeting and met with anger and indignation by those present.

Presided over the meeting. Tikhonov N.S.; 9 comrade delivered a message. Markov G.M.

29 writers spoke at the meeting. Among the speakers were prominent non-Party writers, vols. Tikhonov N.S., Sobolev L.S., Nikolaeva G.E., Panova V.F., Azhaev V.N., Chukovsky N.K., Antonov S.P. 10 Speakers in the debate, with the full support and approval of all participants in the meeting, exposed and angrily condemned Pasternak's traitorous behavior. They characterized Pasternak as a defector to the enemy's camp who had broken with the people and the country. Speaking about the moral and political fall of Pasternak, his slanderous essay, the non-party writer V. Azhaev said: “We condemn with anger and contempt this, hostile to our socialist cause and artistically miserable, penny essay. We condemn the actions of Pasternak, incompatible with the title of a Soviet writer, who gave his vicious work into the wrong hands and is now ready to run skipping for a “reward”. These actions finally reveal in him a person who is alien to everything that is infinitely dear to every Soviet person.

The non-partisan writer G. Nikolaeva, describing the treacherous actions of Pasternak, said: "I believe that we have a Vlasovite before us." Regarding the question of measures in relation to Pasternak, she said: "It is not enough for me to exclude him from the Union - this person should not live on Soviet soil."

The non-party writer N. Chukovsky spoke in very harsh tones about the hostile nature of Pasternak, about his provocative actions: “In this whole vile story,” said N. Chukovsky, “there is still one good side - he tore off his visor and openly yourself as our enemy. So let us deal with him as we deal with our enemies.”

The writer Vera Panova defined her attitude towards Pasternak in these words: “In this embittered soul, which was revealed in all this business from writing a novel to a letter, there is neither a sense of native soil, nor a sense of camaraderie, except for immense egoism, unacceptable in our country , except for unbearable pride, unacceptable in a collectivist society. To see this rejection from the motherland and anger is even creepy.”

Regarding Pasternak's letter, the Armenian writer N. Zaryan 11 said: “This letter is already an anti-Soviet hostile letter. And on the basis of this letter it would be necessary to expel a person from the Writers' Union. With this letter, Pasternak places himself outside of Soviet literature, outside of Soviet society.

At this meeting, as well as at the meeting of the party group, in the speeches of S. Mikhalkov and Y. Smolich 12 sharp criticisms were made at the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union for the fact that the letter of the members of the editorial board of the Novy Mir magazine to Pasternak had not yet been published and the latter remained in the ranks of the Writers' Union.

Attention is drawn to the fact that only in a few speeches it was pointed out that for a long time some writers in every possible way extolled the importance of Pasternak in Soviet poetry. The poet S.I. Kirsanov, 13 who at one time extolled Pasternak, did not express his attitude to the issue discussed at the meeting.

The writers present at the meeting unanimously decided to expel Pasternak from the membership of the Union of Soviet Writers.

The decision on this issue states: “Given the political and moral fall of B. Pasternak, his betrayal of the Soviet people, the cause of socialism, peace, progress, paid for by the Nobel Prize in the interests of fomenting war, the Presidium of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, the Bureau of the Organizing Committee of the Union Writers of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Board of the Moscow branch of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR deprive B. Pasternak of the title of Soviet writer, exclude him from the membership of the Union of Writers of the USSR. 14

Head Department of Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU
D. Polikarpov

A note is attached to the document: “Submit to members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and candidates for members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 27.X.58. V. Malin.

AP RF. F. Z. Op. 34. D. 269. L. 53–57. Script.

Published: Continent. 1995. No. 1. S. 198–202.

Notes:

1. Gribachev N.M. (1910-1992) - poet, public figure. Editor-in-Chief of the magazine "Soviet Union", Secretary of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR. Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1949), Lenin Prize (1960).

2. Anisimov I.I. (1899-1966) - literary critic, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Author of works on classical and modern foreign literature. Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1978). In 1952-1966. director of the Institute of World Literature; Mikhalkov S.V. (b. 1913) - writer and public figure. In 1970-1990. Chairman of the Board of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR. Hero of socialist labor. Academician of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR, laureate of the Lenin Prize (1970) and State Prizes of the USSR (1941, 1950); Sartakov S.V. (b. 1908) - writer; Oshanin L.I. (1912-1996) - poet, author of popular songs; Shaginyan M.S. (1888-1982) - writer, corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Hero of socialist labor.

3. Ermilov V.V. (1904-1965) - critic and literary critic, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1950); Karavaeva A.A. (1893-1979) - writer, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1951); Kozhevnikov V.M. (1909-1984) - writer, public figure, editor-in-chief of the Znamya magazine (1949-1984), Hero of Socialist Labor; Kochetov V.A. (1912-1973) - writer. In 1953-1955. Secretary of the Leningrad Branch of the Union of Writers of the USSR. In 1955-1959. editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta. In 1961-1973 editor-in-chief of the magazine "October"; Lesyuchevsky N.V. (1908-1978) - publicist, in 1951-1957. first deputy chairman of the board of the publishing house "Soviet Writer", in 1958-1964. chairman of the board, since 1964 director of the publishing house "Soviet Writer"; Sofronov A.V. (1911-1990) - writer, playwright. In 1953-1986. editor-in-chief of the Ogonyok magazine, laureate of the USSR State Prizes (1948, 1949); Tursunzade Mirzo (1911-1977) - Tajik poet, public figure. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik SSR. Hero of socialist labor.

4. Gladkov F.V. (1883-1958) - writer. Laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1950, 1951); Korneichuk A.E. (1905-1972) - Ukrainian playwright, statesman and public figure. In 1938-1941, 1946-1953. Chairman of the Union of Writers of Ukraine, in 1953-1954. deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR. Member of the Central Committee of the CPSU since 1952. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1943). Hero of Socialist Labor (1967), laureate of the International Lenin Prize (1960); Marshak S.Ya. (1887-1964) - poet, translator, playwright. Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1963); Tychina P.G. (1891-1967) - poet, translator, statesman. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Hero of socialist labor, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1941).

5. Bazhan Mykola (Nikolai Platonovich) (1903-1983) - Ukrainian poet, public figure, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Hero of socialist labor. Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1982), State Prize of the USSR (1946, 1949); Ehrenburg I.G. (1891-1967) - writer, publicist, public figure, vice-president of the World Peace Council. Laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1942, 1948), the International Lenin Prize (1952); Chakovsky A.B. (b. 1913) - writer, journalist, public figure. Hero of socialist labor. (1973), editor-in-chief of the Foreign Literature magazine (1955-1963), editor-in-chief of the Literaturnaya Gazeta (since 1962). Laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1950, 1983), Lenin Prize (1978). Candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU since 1971, member of the Central Committee of the CPSU since 1986.

6. Isakovsky M.V. (1900-1973) - poet. Hero of Socialist Labor (1970).

7. V. T. Latsis (1904-1966) - Latvian writer, statesman. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, Council of Ministers of the Latvian SSR (1940-1946, 1946-1959). Laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1949, 1952). Candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU (since 1952).

8. Leonov L.M. (1899-1994) - writer, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1972), Hero of Socialist Labor (1967), laureate of the State Prize (1977); Pogodin N.F. (1900-1962) - playwright, laureate of the Lenin Prize (1959).

9. Tikhonov N.S. (1896-1979) - writer, public figure, chairman of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace (1949 - 1979), secretary of the SSP of the USSR, Hero of Socialist Labor (1967), laureate of the International Lenin Prize (1957), State Prizes of the USSR (1949, 1951, 1952 ).

10. Azhaev V.N. (1915-1968) - writer. Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1949); Antonov S.P. (b. 1915) - writer. Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1951); Nikolaeva G.E. (1911-1963) - writer; Panova V.F. (1905-1973) - writer. Laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1947, 1948, 1950); Sobolev L.S. (1898-1971) - writer, statesman. Member of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Council (since 1970). Hero of Socialist Labor (1969); Chukovsky N.K. (1904-1965) - writer.

11. Zaryan Nairi (1900/1901-1969) - Armenian writer.

12. Smolich Yu.K. (1900-1976) - writer. Hero of socialist labor.

13. Kirsanov S.I. (1906-1972) - poet. Laureate of the State Prize (1951).

14. On October 27, 1958, the Presidium of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, the Bureau of the Organizing Committee of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Board of the Moscow Branch of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR at a joint meeting adopted a resolution on the deprivation of B.L. Pasternak the title of Soviet writer and his exclusion from the Union of Writers of the USSR (Literaturnaya gazeta. 1958. October 28). The resolution was canceled by the Secretariat of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR on February 19, 1987 (Literaturnaya gazeta. 1987. February 25).

The electronic version of the document is reprinted from the site of Alexander N. Yakovlev.

Read further:

Pasternak Boris Leonidovich(1890-1960) poet, translator, prose writer.

Russia in the 50s(chronological table).

Major events of 1953(chronological table).

Whether Slutsky was right when he wrote: “Sins are forgiven for poetry. Great sins are for great poetry,” I don’t know, but his prayer addressed to a descendant: “Strike, but don’t forget. Kill, but don’t forget,” pierces with his dying courage of self-condemnation."

Galina Medvedeva: "... it was difficult to understand Slutsky's fatal mistake, which so lubricated and broke the brilliant beginning of the path. The ambitious desire to become in the front ranks a little freer than sighing literature, it is quite legitimate, but if without human victims ... For the fact that Slutsky executed himself, he even the incorruptible L. K. Chukovskaya spoke of his repentance sympathetically and gently.

Despite the refusal of the award, Pasternak, differently evaluated in society and literary circles, behaved courageously and surprisingly calmly. According to relatives, in the most painful and gloomy October days of 1958, Boris Leonidovich worked at the table, translated Mary Stuart. But the "epopee" could not but affect the health. Less than two years after the persecution and forced refusal of the prize, on May 30, 1960, Boris Leonidovich Pasternak died. He was seventy years old. He passed away as courageously as he had lived. Pasternak's funeral proved to be the first public demonstration of the growing democratic literature.

Slutsky, in the years following 1958, thought about the Moscow writers' meeting and about his speech, wrote poems that become more understandable as soon as they are perceived against the backdrop of Pasternak's story.

They beat themselves with short swords,
showing resignation to fate,
do not forgive that they were timid,
nobody. Even to yourself.

Got scared somewhere. And this case
whatever you call it,
the most evil, prickly salt
settles in my blood.

Salt my thoughts and actions,
eat and drink together,
and trembling, and tapping,
and does not give me rest.

Life, though tinged with dark memories, went on. "He freed himself, he burned out in himself a slave of preconceived truths, cabinet schemes, soulless theories. In his work of the late 60-70s, we are shown a good and strict example of a return from a purely ideological person to a natural person, an example of tearing off old clothes from oneself, an example of the restoration of trust in living life with its true, and not phantom, foundations. "Political chatter does not reach me," one of the most political Russian poets now wrote. From the nervous machine-gun crackle of politics, he went to the calm and clear voice of truth - and she responded in it with lines of beautiful poetry "(Yu. Boldyrev).

Chapter Seven
JEWISH THEME

The Jewish theme for the Russian poet Boris Slutsky remained a constant pain and a subject of deep thought. "To be a Jew and to be a Russian poet - this burden was painful for his soul."

This theme has always been in Russia (and not only in Russia) painful, delicate, difficult for poetic embodiment. To some extent, Mikhail Svetlov, Iosif Utkin, Eduard Bagritsky, Alexander Galich, Naum Korzhavin managed to realize it.

“Pasternak touched her in the verses of the early thirties,” writes Solomon Apt in his memoirs of Boris Slutsky, “he touched upon it in passing, with a hint, as if for a second, highlighting it with a beam, but without lingering, without plunging into the depths of the question of the dependence of wide recognition on its rootedness in the soil ... "Back in 1912, at the time of his passion for philosophy, Pasternak wrote to his father:" ... neither you nor I, we are not Jews; although we not only voluntarily and without any shadow of martyrdom bear everything that this happiness obliges us to ( me, for example, the impossibility of earning money on the basis of only that faculty that is dear to me), we not only bear it, but I will bear it and I consider getting rid of this vile; but Judaism is not closer to me from this. (A Jew in Russia could not be left at a university, and for a philosopher this was the only opportunity for professional work.) This question worried Boris Pasternak in the last years of his life. Two chapters (11 and 12) of "Doctor Zhivago" are dedicated to him. Pasternak, through the mouth of Zhivago, says that "the very hatred towards them is contradictory.<евреям>, its basis. Irritates just what should touch and dispose. Their poverty and overcrowding, their weakness and inability to repel blows. Unclear. There is something fatal here." Another character in the novel, Gordon, is looking for an answer to the question: "who benefits from this voluntary martyrdom, who needs so many innocent old people, women, children, so thin and capable of goodness, to be ridiculed and bleed for centuries and cordial communication?" The poet himself saw a way out in assimilation.

This topic was of concern close friend Slutsky David Samoilov. True, he does not have any poems devoted to the Jewish question, but in 1988, shortly before his death, recalling the Holocaust, the "doctors' case" and post-war anti-Semitism, Samoilov wrote in his diary: "If I, a Russian poet and a Russian person, are driven into a gas camera, I will repeat: "Shema Yisroel, adenoy eleheinu, edenoy echod." The only thing I remember from my Jewishness ". He could also add what was passed on to him from his beloved father - a sense of double belonging to Russia and Jewry.

Slutsky was not afraid that the passage to this "damned" area was tightly forbidden. He was not the first time to write "on the table." Poems on a Jewish theme were caused by enduring pain. And he wrote about this not at all because anti-Semitism touched him personally or because the Holocaust claimed the lives of his loved ones: he hated any manifestations of xenophobia. Loyal the best traditions Russian literature, Slutsky has always been on the side of the persecuted and oppressed.

Poems and prose related directly to the Jewish theme are organically woven into the work of the poet, in which a hymn to the courage of the Russian soldier, his compassion military fate and joy for his successes coexist with poems full of pity for the captured Italian ("Italian"), the mortally wounded "fritz" ("Hospital"), an elderly German woman ("German Woman") and the Polish officers of Anders's army returning from Soviet camps ("Thirty ").

The poet defended the need for the Jews to absorb the culture of those peoples, among which they were placed by fate, and to inscribe the Jewish experience in the cultural context of these peoples.

I can't trust the translation
His poems cruel freedom,
And so I will go into fire and water,
But I will be led by the Russian people.

I am a foreigner; I am not an infidel.
Not an old timer? Well, a newcomer.
I, as from faith, turn into heresy,
Desperately moved to Russia ...

In the poem "Birch in Auschwitz" Slutsky not accidentally writes: "I will not take as witnesses of death // a plane tree and an oak tree. // And I don't need a laurel. // A birch tree is enough for me." In this way, he emphasizes both his Jewishness (for Auschwitz was built to exterminate precisely the Jews), and his loyalty to Russia (for the birch is a symbol of Russia). For Slutsky, his Jewishness, Russian patriotism and internationalism are inseparable. Without these three components, it is impossible to imagine the ideology of Boris Slutsky, to which he remained faithful until the end of his days.

Alexander Podrabinek: As an epigraph to this issue of our program, we can take a quote from Plato's treatise "The State", in which he quotes the words of Socrates: "In relation to the state, the position of the most decent people is so difficult that nothing can be worse."

The theme of our today's program is the intelligentsia and the authorities, more precisely, not just the intelligentsia, but figures of science and culture, and more precisely, the cultural elite, the most talented and worthy, masters of culture, as Maxim Gorky once said about them.

This was in March 1932. American journalists wrote proletarian writer a letter expressing concern about the state of affairs in Soviet Russia.

“Who are you with, ‘masters of culture’?” Gorky asked them in a reply letter. He furiously stigmatized bourgeois cinema, which "is gradually destroying the high art of the theater", vilified "the monotonously sentimental and dull Charlie Chaplin" and the entire Western intelligentsia, which "continues to be content with the service of capitalism." About the Russian intelligentsia, he put it this way: “Look what harsh lesson history gave to the Russian intellectuals: they did not go with their working people, and now they are decaying in impotent rage, rotting in emigration. Soon they will all die out, leaving the memory of themselves as traitors.”

The Petrel of the Revolution was wrong: the theater did not disappear under the pressure of cinema, Chaplin remained the unsurpassed genius of silent cinema, the Russian intelligentsia did not die out, despite Gorky’s wishes, and he himself remained an obsessive line in school curriculum and no more.

I searched in vain Russian history cases when people with undoubted talent and successful creative destiny petitioned the monarchs to stifle freedom. Yes, they did not always occupy a worthy position. “Our everything” - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin in 1831 wrote a poem “To the slanderers of Russia”, in which he sang the suppression of the Polish uprising of 1830 by Russia. Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky responded to the same events with the poem "The Same Song in a New Way", in which he praised Russian weapons and the capture of Warsaw. Fedor Ivanovich Tyutchev was noted for the poem "So we made a fatal blow over the woeful Warsaw." Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov participated with a light heart in the conquest of the Caucasus, and once, obviously, in imitation of Pushkin, he wrote the poem “Again, folk winds”, but, thank God, did not publish it.

Everything is so, but none of them wrote letters of support and approval to the kings, did not squirm before the throne, did not call for reprisals against ideological opponents. It appeared later, in Soviet times. At the same time, the era of collective letters in support of the decisions of the party and government began. This is a special style. The main thing here is not to explain to the city and the world your position on this or that issue, but to demonstrate your loyalty. In the 1930s it became a ritual. Any attempt to avoid it could have dire consequences.

The Stalinist regime imitated popular support, which is why it was so important for it that the signatures of talented and recognized cultural figures stand under documents endorsing terror. In this field in 1937, Viktor Shklovsky, Andrei Platonov, Yuri Tynyanov, Isaac Babel, Konstantin Paustovsky, Vasily Grossman, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Yuri Olesha were noted. Under the letter of Soviet writers demanding to shoot the "spies" is the signature of Boris Pasternak. Poems praising Stalin were written by Alexander Vertinsky, Osip Mandelstam, Anna Akhmatova.

What made them go for it? Is it just the fear of possible reprisals? We are discussing this with our guest today, a philologist and literary critic Mikhail Yakovlevich Sheinker.

What was the motive, in your opinion, for writing such letters, maybe obvious motives and not obvious motives?

Mikhail Sheinker: First of all, I have a pleasant opportunity to refute you in one detail. It has been absolutely established that Pasternak's signature under the demand for the execution of the marshals was forged by the secretary of the Union of Writers Vladimir Petrovich Stavsky, who came to Pasternak, begged him, almost wallowing at his feet: "Boris Leonidovich, you need to sign, it is impossible not to sign." The pregnant Zinaida Nikolaevna, the wife of Boris Leonidovich, also fell at his feet. Nevertheless, he said: “I did not give them life, I cannot take it away” and did not sign. Stavsky left. And the horror of Stavsky, which is hard for us to imagine - it is easy to imagine the horror of Pasternak, it is easy to imagine the horror of Zinaida Nikolaevna for the unborn child - but the horror of Stavsky is probably difficult for us to imagine now. But it was such a horror that he signed Pasternak, forged it, signed this letter. But Pasternak later demanded that the Pravda newspaper remove and refute his signature.

Alexander Podrabinek: This is a very good clarification. How did other writers react? After all, they were worthy people, successful writers.

Mikhail Sheinker: I think that the only real explanation for all this is, of course, the degree of paralyzing fear to which the country has been reduced, including its best, most prominent representatives in the person of writers, poets, artists and others, as Gorky said, artists who were simply really afraid not only for their well-being, not only for the opportunity to write and publish their books, but simply really for their lives. I would only, if possible, say two more words about Platonov, because his position was different from most others.

Alexander Podrabinek: Why?

Mikhail Sheinker: Platonov was never prosperous, Platonov always had to fight for the opportunity to simply be in literature, to live literary work. And starting in 1938, Platonov was dominated by another, already personal, horror - this was the arrest of his 16-year-old son, who was imprisoned for three years and then died of tuberculosis shortly after his release three years later. And this, of course, could force Platonov to do anything.

Alexander Podrabinek: Fear is the engine of terror. It is certain. But it is unlikely that such a style of relations with the authorities has taken root in our society only because of the fear of cultural figures for their lives. Because in post-Stalin times, the refusal to demonstrate loyalty was no longer life-threatening, and the style of relations, meanwhile, remained the same.

As in the 1930s, the waves of public indignation in the Brezhnev era did not rise by themselves - campaign directors sat in Moscow on Staraya Square. Usually writers, composers, artists, scientists were called by the authorities for help when it was necessary to oppose foreign public opinion something of their own – well-deserved and at the same time loyal. The most extensive mobilization was carried out by the authorities when they launched campaigns to discredit Academician Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Top secret. Special folder. Extract from the protocol No. 192 of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU dated October 15, 1975 "On measures to compromise the decision of the Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize to Sakharov A.D."

Instruct the propaganda departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU to prepare, on behalf of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences and prominent Soviet scientists, an open letter condemning the action of the Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize to a person who embarked on the path of anti-constitutional, anti-social activities ... The editors of the Trud newspaper publish a feuilleton ...

Statement by Soviet scientists, Izvestia newspaper, October 25, 1975: “We fully share and support the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union ... Under the guise of fighting for human rights, Sakharov acts as an opponent of our socialist system. He slanders great conquests…, looking for pretexts to defame…”.

"Chronicle of high society life". October 28, 1975. “Sitting in his favorite place, in the kitchen of his apartment, close to the refrigerator and sink, the academician prescribed for humanity how to live.”

This is the height of comrade Azbel's feuilleton wit. Or the one who hid behind this pseudonym. Noted in " Literary newspaper and Canadian progressive writer Mary Dawson.

"... Enjoy your second of glory while you can, Mr. Sakharov, because in the end the truth prevails."

Such is the mechanics of all propaganda campaigns: the wave of the conductor's baton and figures of science and culture run together to demonstrate their loyalty. Only in the campaign of newspaper persecution of Sakharov in 1973 were such extraordinary personalities as composers Georgy Sviridov, Armen Khachaturian, Dmitri Shostakovich and Rodion Shchedrin; Cherenkov, Frank, Basov and Prokhorov, Nobel Prize winners in physics; Semyonov, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. And also: 33 academicians of VASKhNIL, 25 academicians of the Academy of Medical Sciences, 23 academicians of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.

Filmmakers did not stand aside either, including Alexander Alov, Sergey Bondarchuk, Sergey Gerasimov, Lev Kulidzhanov, Roman Karmen, Vladimir Naumov, Vyacheslav Tikhonov, Lyudmila Chursina.

The persecution campaign was also supported by Soviet artists - members of the Academy of Arts and non-members too.

And of course, writers, where would we be without them!

"Soviet writers have always fought for the lofty ideals of communism, together with their people and the Communist Party," they write to the editors of the Pravda newspaper. And in conclusion, they add: "... The behavior of such people as Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn cannot cause any other feelings than deep contempt and condemnation." And signatures: Chingiz Aitmatov, Yuri Bondarev, Vasil Bykov, Rasul Gamzatov, Sergei Zalygin.

This is not to mention Mikhalkov, Markov or Sholokhov.
What, in 1973, 20 years after Stalin's death, could so frighten Soviet writers, including those who were not at all mediocre, that they rushed to sign letters against Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn? What were they risking so much if they refused? Mikhail Yakovlevich, what do you think about this, because it was already a new time?

Mikhail Sheinker: Yes, it was a new time, but I think that old ideas, deeply rooted in this new, but not quite so new time, prevailed in the minds of these people. On the eve of the creation of the Union of Soviet Writers, Stalin wrote to Kaganovich, because Lazar Moiseevich at that time was very close to the issues of ideology and controlled them, Stalin wrote to Kaganovich: “It is necessary to explain to all writers that the master in literature, as in other areas, is only the Central Committee ".

Alexander Podrabinek: Very frankly.

Mikhail Sheinker: This frank and, we confess, convincing statement of Stalin became the basis, the soil of all the activities of official Soviet literature.

Alexander Podrabinek: But 20 years have passed since the death of Stalin, the thaw passed, the 20th Congress passed, the cult of personality was condemned, it would seem that after that it was possible, at least, for writers not to fear for their lives.

Mikhail Sheinker: Yes, of course, and that is why we are talking about all this now. Because if we were talking about people who saved their lives or the lives of their loved ones, I must admit that I would not have dared to discuss their deeds. But the lower the threshold of risk, the higher the threshold of betrayal, apostasy and betrayal, first of all, before oneself and one's talents. Because a Soviet writer could lose his prosperous position in an instant if they simply stopped publishing him and stopped releasing him, say, abroad.

Alexander Podrabinek: So that was the new price?

Mikhail Sheinker: This is the new price - cynical. Not a tragic, but a cynical price for this baseness and this betrayal.

Alexander Podrabinek: The genre of collective letters to the government did not disappear with the end of Soviet power, although at that time nothing threatened anyone. You can also understand when the government was weak and needed support, and the country was on the verge civil war. So it was in October 1993, and then an appeal was heard throughout the country by 42 writers calling on Yeltsin to defend Russian democracy. It is surprising that among the writers who demanded to repulse the red-brown rebels were not only Bulat Okudzhava and Dmitry Likhachev, but also Vasil Bykov, who once took part in the persecution of Solzhenitsyn, and Viktor Astafiev, who at one time, together with other writers, signed a public denunciation of the ensemble "Time Machine". At the same time, former dissidents Andrei Sinyavsky and Petr Egides, who signed the collective letter in the communist newspaper Pravda, were among the defenders of the Soviet restoration. Time sometimes turns everything upside down!

The red-brown rebellion then failed, and power was strengthened, which cannot be said about democracy. The genre of public unity with the authorities was also revived. On June 28, 2005, the Izvestia newspaper published a letter from 50 cultural figures who welcomed the already passed sentence on Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.

And quite recently, a collective letter from cultural figures appeared on the website of the Ministry of Culture “in support of the President’s position on Ukraine and Crimea,” and in fact, in support of the seizure of Crimea and military operations against Ukraine. Now there are already more than 500 signatures. And as usual in our recent history, along with professional opportunists and loyal courtiers, there are the names of those whom one did not even want to suspect in unanimity with the authorities: Pavel Lungin, Leonid Kuravlev, Oleg Tabakov, Gennady Khazanov, Dmitry Kharatyan ...

I guess everyone has their own list. Maybe we ourselves were mistaken, misjudging these people? Or maybe these people acted in forced circumstances? Writer and publicist Viktor Shenderovich divides all signatories into three categories.

Victor Shenderovich: There is such a liberal temptation to say with a grand gesture that they are all corrupt scoundrels, and close the topic. This is not entirely true, of course, there are very different cases. There are enthusiasts who run ahead of the locomotive and are happy to be noticed on any occasion. There are people there who have agreed with themselves that they will simply do their job under any authority, they simply agreed with themselves that they write music, play the viola, stage performances and there are no other requirements for them. This is the second category of people. The third category is the hostages. We remember the situation with Chulpan Khamatova. Among the signatories there is at least one hostage whom I know, a hostage who honestly explained to me in a completely personal manner, so, of course, I will not give a surname. These are people who are being held for a very vulnerable place, not in their rather impeccable biography, but in the fact that the authorities cut off funding, and they have sick children requiring operations, some medical centers, some people. And these are completely different cases, so I would not equate the great hostages with the conditional Babkina.

Alexander Podrabinek: Mikhail Yakovlevich, do you agree with such a conditional division into three categories?

Mikhail Sheinker: If we give these categories some more subtle and distinct form, then, probably, we can agree with him. Because Shenderovich listed those human reasons that make people do what they do not want to do. And as a nuance, I would say the following. Once upon a time, Pasternak, they even reproached him for this and looked at him with surprise at these moments, as they said, was infected with the personality of Stalin, wrote, as you know, the poem “Artist”, the second part of which was not subsequently published, but which, nevertheless, less, it was written, in 1936 it was published in Znamya. There are many words about Stalin: iron Man, event and so on. And the poem ends with the fact that here he is, the poet, now far from the heights of power, hopes that “somewhere there is knowledge about each other of the extremely distant two principles.” This is how Pasternak ends this poem. And of course, it was a sincere search for some new identity in a new world, in a new society, which forced Pasternak to write this poem. Of course, later he got sick of all this, survived all this, but nevertheless, we know that until the end of his life he had an attitude towards Stalin as a killer, but a killer on a large scale, which went against his attitude, say, to Khrushchev as to a vulgar and nonentity. I say this to the fact that among those present, I even understand who was, and there were people who just continued the branch of Pasternak, who may have been inspired by how Pasternak once wrote about Stalin and to some extent extrapolated these words to the current government. This is an attempt not only to get closer, not just to get along with her, not just to flatter herself to her, but simply to understand her and, perhaps, to force this power to pay attention to itself and this attention could be in the hope of these people to change something.

Alexander Podrabinek: Interestingly, there are veterans of this genre. Mikhail Sholokhov, for example, in 1937 signed letters demanding the execution of enemies of the people, and in 1973 he signed letters condemning Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. For example, the actress Lyudmila Chursina signed letters against Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn in 1973, and today she signs in support of Putin. That is, such a relay race.

Mikhail Sheinker: Yes, it's a great succession. But there is another legacy as well. For example, the venerable Veniamin Aleksandrovich Kaverin in 1952 did not sign a letter demanding the execution of "killer doctors", and then did not sign any letters of this kind at all, but he lived until the end of the 1980s and retained in this sense a firm, confident, definite and decent position. Or, say, Bella Akhmdulina, who in 1959 did not participate in the persecution of Pasternak, was expelled from Literary Institute, which did little harm to her at all, it could hardly harm anyone, but nonetheless. Whereas the unfortunate Boris Slutsky, who then signed this letter, was simply ill with this throughout his life. That is, he was not a clinical madman, but psychologically an absolutely torn man, and the reason for this was what he did in 1959, he is a front-line soldier, a brave man, and so on. And I'll tell you an interesting example. Among those who signed the letter in defense of democracy in 1993 was a man who in 1983 joined the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet People, which was organized by a strange coincidence; was taken as a joke. It included several people who physically proved, historically proved their courage - Dragoon Senior, General Dragunsky, a desperate warrior who became the chairman of this committee. Test pilot, hero of the Soviet Union, writer Hoffman, front-line soldier, what was he afraid of in 1983, you ask? One of the members of this anti-Zionist committee then completely revised all his views, became a man of democratic views, an adherent of Yeltsin's democracy, and so on.

Alexander Podrabinek: And there were also reverse cases. Completely, it would seem strange, for example, a letter condemning Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, in support of the verdict, was signed by Antonov-Ovseenko, who was the chairman of the regional public association of victims of political repressions, director of the Gulag Museum.

Mikhail Sheinker: This is a truly amazing fact. We remember Antonov-Ovseenko from his first long-standing publications on these topics.

Alexander Podrabinek: The same letter was signed by the historian Roy Medvedev, who at one time was persecuted for his book “To the Court of History”, searches were carried out at his house, the book was banned. It is very strange when people who themselves were subjected to repression, then come out in support of repression against other people.

Mikhail Sheinker: I absolutely do not want, I do not consider myself entitled to condemn anyone, and I wanted to turn the discussion in another direction, also consoling. Well, these people did this, what seems to you and me the deepest ideological, psychological and human mistake, but they did it, thank God, not on pain of death. Yes, we believe that they are mistaken, they had their own reasons, maybe their current personal life situation led to this, I admit, this is very likely some kind of ideological polemic in which they got involved. At least they didn't tremble for their lives when they did it.

Alexander Podrabinek: Obviously, the possibilities of self-justification are endless. But let's hear what Viktor Shenderovich says about this.

Victor Shenderovich: I’ll tell you a very funny thing about self-justification. Alexander Alexandrovich Kalyagin, who signed the most shameful recent history letters for the landing of Khodorkovsky and lived up to his reputation, then he staged Sukhovo-Kobylin's play "The Case" and played in it the most terrible Russian play about Russian lawlessness. I am not Alexander Alexandrovich's executor, but I think that he himself agreed with himself that he would sign here, but on the other hand they give him the opportunity in the theater built, given at the same time for this signature, but he is given the opportunity to play it, and he will enlighten. This is such a classic doublethink.

Alexander Podrabinek: However, no matter how sad our today's topic is, let's remember those who did not falter and did not break. Who would you remember in connection with this from writers and cultural figures in general?

Mikhail Sheinker: I know writers who escaped this subsequent shame in their own eyes simply because they were not invited to participate in these public signings. As for other people ... Let's say, the writer Dobychin, who left us, was never noticed in anything early and it is not known how, who himself has always been the subject of showdowns, breakdowns and this kind of public bullying. It must be said that Platonov was forced to embark on this vicious path only once and under the most severe pressure; later on, he always withstood his face until the end of his life and at the end of his life became a complete outcast in Soviet literature. I know a large number of people from the world of science who sometimes openly refused, and sometimes with the help of various subterfuges avoided signing any kind of documents of this kind. And they successfully succeeded because of their stamina, cunning, and sometimes luck. Let us recall the same venerable Kapitsa. So, of course, there were such people, but as time goes on, there are more and more of them and, I hope, will continue to become more and more. Because the level of current pressure on a writer, artist, scientist, any other public person, it seems to me, is still not so catastrophically difficult and terrible.

Alexander Podrabinek: Well, maybe it really isn't all that bad. And if it’s true that a village can’t stand without a righteous person, then there are probably not so few such people in Russia, can they? Viktor Shenderovich believes that there is no reason to be discouraged.

Victor Shenderovich: There is a point of reference from absolute moral authority, as they went to Tolstoy, Chekhov, Korolenko, Zola, that is, there is a person who embodies not only the ability to put words together and invent plots, but also absolute moral authority. A holy place is never completely empty. There is Lyudmila Ulitskaya. Now I'm not talking about comparison with Tolstoy or Chekhov in terms of literature and so on, I'm talking about a certain moral authority. The village does not live without a righteous person, these people exist, there is Akhedzhakova, who alone will redeem the entire acting class, there is Yursky, Basilashvili. There is Shevchuk - completely unexpected for me. Russian rock seemed to me to have long been tangled, but against this tangled background, Yuri Shevchuk suddenly appears. Let's be glad that these people exist, everything is not so bad.