"The last traces of the dispute are drowning in political screeching." The beginning of the defeat of the "New World" / July 26, 1969
Literary Persecution Calendar / Weekend Special Project

In the year declared as the Year of Literature, Weekend launches a new project: a literary persecution calendar. Each issue contains one of the cases of repression in the history of Russian literature, which fell on the corresponding dates and was told in the words of participants and witnesses. More in and more with

Alexander Tvardovsky, 1960s

Week from July 26 to August 3, 1969, editor-in-chief of Novy Mir Alexander Tvardovsky called "holy week". These days can be considered the beginning of a real rout of the magazine, which was by no means anti-Soviet, but in whose publications there was at least part of the truth about Soviet reality and there was no outright lie.
Many Soviet writers and the foreign press tried to repel the organized campaign of harassment in the press, readers sent thousands of letters of support, and for a while it even seemed that Novy Mir could survive. However, six months later, in February 1970, the secretariat of the Writers' Union decided to remove Tvardovsky's deputies from the editorial board and appoint new people to take their place, after which Tvardovsky submitted his resignation. Along with Alexander Solzhenitsyn's expulsion from the Writers' Union, the destruction of Novy Mir marked the final transition from a literary thaw to stagnation.
From the note of the department of culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the magazine "New World", August 6, 1969

<…>Propaganda and culture departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU reported to the Central Committee of the CPSU about serious ideological errors <…>in the journal and previously published materials that caused sharp criticism in the press and in the Writers' Union of the USSR. However the editors of the journal did not draw the necessary conclusions from this criticism.<…>Secretariat of the Board of the USSR Writers' Union, having considered the issue on strengthening the leadership of the journal, offered Comrade Tvardovsky for the position of Deputy chief editor several eminent writers. <…> Tov. Tvardovsky rejected all recommended candidates. <…>Secretaries of the board of the SP of the USSR<…>recommended that Comrade Tvardovsky go to full-time work in the secretariat of the board of the USSR Writers' Union. Tov. Tvardovsky rejected this proposal, saying that he would soon apply to the secretariat with a request release him from the position of editor-in-chief magazine, and asked for a month's leave, after which he will not return to journal.. However, even after the release of an official statement from Comrade Tvardovsky about his release from the work of the editor-in-chief, there was no receipt.<…>Secretariat of the Writers' Union of the USSR continues the necessary work in this direction.

Read more...

... about serious ideological errors ...

From the article “What is New World Against?” / Ogonyok, July 26, 1969

Our time is the time of the sharpest ideological struggle.<…>we affirm again and again that the penetration of bourgeois ideology into our country has been and remains the most serious danger. If it is not fought against, this may lead to the gradual replacement of proletarian internationalism by cosmopolitan ideas so dear to the hearts of some critics and writers grouped around the "New World".

Signatures: M. Alekseev, S. Vikulov, S. Voronin, V. Zakrutkin, A. Ivanov, S. Malashkin, A. Prokofiev, P. Proskurin, S. Smirnov, V. Chivilikhin, N. Shundik

…in this direction…

Our premonitions are coming true. A.T. again in the hospital. It is possible to start a new attack on the magazine and A.T. personally. Everything that has been done before has failed, but they cannot leave us alone. And here is a new wave of turbidity.<…>In the spirit of the "canonical" articles of 48. Or maybe even worse.<…>All. The indictment is ready. Known for the samples. Live a century - wait a century - repetitions. And we are moving far away - to Stalin.

From the book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn "A calf butted with an oak tree" / 1971

<…>the most agile corpse-eaters - "Ogonyok" - picked up, and fired a two-million volley at "N. Mir" - "a letter from eleven" writers, whom no one knows. Yes, not in defense of the "country of the fathers", or there the "spiritual word", but - drowning the last traces of the dispute in political screeching, in the most vulgar denunciatory accusations: a provocative tactic of building bridges! Czechoslovak sabotage! cosmopolitan integration! capitulation! it is no coincidence that Sinyavsky is the author of N. Mir!

... offered Comrade Tvardovsky ...

From an open letter to Alexander Tvardovsky from the turner of the Podolsk Machine-Building Plant M. Zakharov / Socialist Industry, July 31, 1969

Like a communist to a communist - who gave the right to some of your authors to mock the most sacred feelings of our people? Above their love for the Motherland, for their home, for the Russian birch, finally?

... in the press and in the Union of Writers of the USSR ...

The Holy Week of Novy Mir, from Sunday to Sunday, culminated in perhaps the most masterpiece creation of ghoul creativity, an article in Sovetskaya Rossiya about the New York Times' speech on "Letters to Ogonyok". "5. Makedonov, however, noted that for all the obscenity of this "document" it already contains a certain uncertainty and incompleteness of triumph. It is already necessary to involve world anti-socialist forces in justifying the Letter. Already, as happens on a larger scale, the consequences of the deed put in place of its causes (the protracted flirting of Novy Mir with the bourgeois press).

... the editors did not draw the necessary conclusions ...

From the response of The New York Times to the "Letter of the Eleven" / July 27, 1969

The Soviet Union's leading liberal journal, Novy Mir, is today accused of preaching "ideas of cosmopolitanism," vilifying Soviet patriotism, and underestimating the threat of bourgeois ideology.<…>Liberals expressed fear that a patriotic campaign was needed simply to stop truthful publications portraying Soviet society in a bad light.<…>There is evidence that in recent months attempts have been made to remove Mr. Tvardovsky, editor-in-chief of Novy Mir, from his post, but so far the magazine has retained the same directness as always, without any changes in the composition of the editorial board.

From the article "Regarding the speech of the New York Times" / "Soviet Russia", August 1, 1969

<…>Is it possible that the editor-in-chief of the magazine A. T. Tvardovsky, the communists in the editorial office, and this time will not think about why their position in literature and public life causes so much joy in the camp of anti-Sovietists, why no other Soviet press organ uses such a "credit" among bourgeois ideologists, like "New World"? Isn't it clear that the New York Times is just trying to flirt with Novy Mir and some of its unlucky authors?

… about strengthening the leadership of the journal…

On February 3 of this year, Comrade K. V. Voronkov informed me at the Writers' Union of the decision of the Bureau of the Secretariat, taken without my consent and in my absence, to appoint Com. Bolshova. I have nothing against Comrade Bolshov for the simple reason that I don’t know him at all, I haven’t seen him in person, and I don’t even know his name and patronymic, nevertheless I consider this fact an unprecedented infringement of the rights of the editor-in-chief, which is offensive to me. character.<…>I cannot regard this decision otherwise than as a direct compulsion to resign me.

...comrade Tvardovsky rejected everything ...

From a letter from Alexander Tvardovsky to Leonid Brezhnev / February 7, 1970

<…>I am aware of attempts to oppose the poet Tvardovsky to Tvardovsky the editor. Such a division is completely wrong. Over the past twenty years, all my works - poems, articles, poems, including the poem "For the Far Far Away" awarded the Lenin Prize - first appeared on the pages of Novy Mir.<…>The measures currently being taken to "tame" the journal cannot but have, therefore, the most negative consequences, not only literary, but also political. In wide circles of our readers, they will inevitably be perceived as a relapse of Stalinism.

... harsh criticism ...

From a collective letter to Leonid Brezhnev from Soviet writers / February 9, 1970

<…>Recently, a campaign has been waged against A. T. Tvardovsky and the journal Novy Mir, which he manages, with the aim of removing Tvardovsky from the leadership of the journal. Decisions have already been made to change the editorial board of Novy Mir, essentially aimed at Tvardovsky's departure from the journal. A. T. Tvardovsky can be safely called the national poet of Russia and the people's poet of the Soviet Union. The significance of his work for our literature is invaluable. We do not have a poet equal to him in talent and importance.<…>We are absolutely convinced that it is necessary for the good of all Soviet culture that Novy Mir should continue its work under the direction of A. T. Tvardovsky and in the composition of the editorial board, which he considers useful for the journal.

Signatures: A. Beck, V. Kaverin, B. Mozhaev, An. Rybakov, Yu. Trifonov, A. Voznesensky, Ev. Evtushenko, M. Aliger, Evg. Vorobyov, V. Tendryakov, Yu. Nagibin, M. Isakovsky.

... dismiss the editor-in-chief ...

From the book of Anatoly Rybakov "Roman-memories" / 1997

As Mozhaev said, having received the letters, Brezhnev grimaced: - What kind of "collectives" are these? Let them come to the Central Committee, we'll talk.<…>We were told that on Monday a delegation of writers (no more than five people) on behalf of the Central Committee would be received by Comrade Podgorny. The hour of the reception will be reported to the editors of Novy Mir. This news instantly spread throughout Moscow, on Monday, at nine o'clock in the morning, its authors gathered in Novy Mir. There is nothing to say about the employees - everyone was here. Tvardovsky was sitting in his office in a dark suit, with a tie, serious, concentrated, aware of the importance of the moment for the fate of the magazine and of all Soviet literature.<…>We are waiting for a call from the Central Committee. Nobody leaves. They brought sandwiches, boiled tea, had a snack. In general, as on a combat watch. We waited until midnight. Nobody called. A day later, Literaturnaya Gazeta came out with the decision of the secretariat of the Writers' Union. Tvardovsky resigned as editor-in-chief of the magazine. The heroic period in the history of the "New World" is over.

…continues necessary work…

From the note of the chairman of the KGB of the USSR Yuri Andropov to the Central Committee of the CPSU / September 7, 1970

The State Security Committee received materials about the mood of the poet A. Tvardovsky. In a private conversation held in early August 1970, he stated: "<…>Those who today are trying to whitewash Stalin should be ashamed, because in their hearts they know what they are doing. Yes, they know what they are doing, but they justify themselves with lofty political considerations: this is required by the political situation, state considerations!<…>And from zeal, they are already beginning to believe in their writings. You'll see, at the end of the year Literaturnaya Gazeta will publish a review of Novy Mir: what a meaningful and interesting magazine it is now! And do you think there will be readers who will believe? There will be. And the subscription will grow. An ordinary reader, as they like to say, he believes the printed word. He will read ten articles about the fact that we have no censorship, and on the eleventh he will believe.

...the log will not return...

From the book of Veniamin Kaverin "Epilogue" / 1979

Tvardovsky and Novy Mir were the support, the power, the moral standard of the new Soviet literature. The decision, fatal to our art, might not have been made if those writers whose characteristic feature is the gulf between talent and position were not vitally interested in it. Gray, petty-bourgeois literature made its way, and Tvardovsky stubbornly insisted on a completely different literature - born of time, and not a personal goal.

BUK "Regional Library for Children and Youth"

Information and bibliographic department

To the 100th anniversary of the birth

"New world"

Digest

Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky (1910 - 1971) was a multifaceted creative personality. Recognized during his lifetime, writer, three times Stalin Prize laureate, order bearer, candidate member of the CPSU Central Committee - and the first publisher, as editor-in-chief of Novy Mir, of anti-Stalinist works that became symbols of the "thaw" of the 60s of the last century.

Do these two hypostases contradict each other? Far from it, because both in literary creation and in editing, Tvardovsky adhered to certain principles, which in general can be described as striving for truth.

Without much desire, Alexander Trifonovich took on editorial duties. Konstantin Simonov recalls this in the essay “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation”: “Fadeev, who loved Tvardovsky very much as a poet, appreciated his strictness, independence of judgment ..., for a long time sincerely wanted to draw Tvardovsky into some great social and literary work. It was Fadeev who persuaded Tvardovsky ... to agree to go edit Novy Mir instead of me. It was a pity for me to leave Novy Mir ... But after Fadeev’s persuasion, Tvardovsky suddenly unexpectedly ... said that if I agreed to pull such a cart as Literaturnaya Gazeta, he, if offered, ... would take my tug in Novy Mir » .

The first stay of Tvardovsky at the head of the "New World" (1950 - 1954) was short-lived. He took seriously the pain of the devastated Russian village, giving way in 1952 to the sharp journalistic article by Valentin Ovechkin "District weekdays". Then Tvardovsky was not touched. And already in March 1953, after the death of Stalin, when the air of a thaw blew in, journal criticism began to unfreeze and come to life. Articles, reflections on the problems of culture by Vladimir Pomerantsev, Mark Shcheglov, Fyodor Abramov, Mikhail Livshits appear in Novy Mir. Occupying a leading position in prose, Novy Mir publishes Vasily Grossman's novel For a Just Cause (1952) and Viktor Nekrasov's story In the Trenches of Stalingrad (1954) on its pages, which received wide public outcry. All this was the reason for the dismissal of Tvardovsky in the summer of 1954 from the post of editor-in-chief of Novy Mir. The second and no less important reason for his departure from the magazine was the sharply satirical poem "Terkin in the Other World" . It was regarded by the party leadership as a "libel on Soviet reality", banned and, after repeated appeals by Tvardovsky to it, was published only in 1963. Criticism met the poem very restrained, and with the onset of "stagnation" this work was not republished and was not mentioned in print. The performance of the satire theater staged on its basis (1966) was soon removed from the repertoire.

For four years, Novy Mir again passes into the hands of Simonov, and when Simonov is again removed for ideological oversights, Tvardovsky is returned to the magazine. And since 1958, almost until his death, he remains one of the official leaders of the Writers' Union and at the same time - the actual ideological leader of the opposition liberal intelligentsia.

How to reconcile it? This question is now being asked by writers of various flanks. Why did Tvardovsky, with his peasant roots, with his Russian national consciousness, find himself in a rally not with the "patriots", but with the "liberals"?

The liberals of the turn of the 1950s and 1960s had no other safe haven, except for the "New World", which opposed the opportunistic officialdom. Who was the only one who had both power in literature and independence from its party bosses?

It was him, of course.

In essence, Tvardovsky turned out to be a double hostage: among the liberals, a hostage of the party (which he joined in 1940 and from which he would hardly have agreed to leave); among the party members - a hostage of the free-thinking intelligentsia (from which he could no longer back down).

He was pulled in different directions, to break. Solzhenitsyn hurried to free the journal from party tutelage. Tvardovsky somehow could not stand it: “So you will release, and only then hurry!” (and another quarter of a century separates the country from such liberation) .

An idea of ​​the difficulties that one had to face while serving as the editor of the New World can be obtained from the poem “Terkin in the Other World” mentioned above.

The image of Terkin - a front-line soldier, a folk hero - was required by the author as a sharp contrast to the deadly bureaucratized world. This world, “the other world,” is an allegory of the actual situation in the USSR in general and in the Soviet press in particular, the ideal of a mossy orthodox censor, from whom Tvardovsky’s freedom-loving magazine suffered so much. Despite the fact that Alexander Trifonovich was a staunch communist, such ironic stanzas as “Our other world in the afterlife is the best and most advanced” clearly look like pebbles in the garden of official propaganda. The author filled the poem with those realities and human types that were hated by him as a person and a professional. We are especially interested in the portrait of the editor of Grobgazeta:

All in sweat rules the articles,

Moves nose back and forth;

That will reduce

That will add

Then he will insert his word,

That someone else will cross out ...

To know, I was sitting alive in the newspaper,

Cherished the great post.

As used to this world,

So he suffers from it.

Possessing vast experience in editing manuscripts, twice (1950 - 1954; 1958 - 1970) heading Novy Mir, heading the poetry department of Literaturnaya Gazeta, working in the Writers' Union of the USSR with young authors - Tvardovsky never looked like such an anti-editor.

It is interesting that, adhering to the truth and “closeness to life” in everything, Tvardovsky, in his work with writers, tried not to resort to literary and philological terminology unless absolutely necessary, striving for figurativeness - and thanks to it - the ultimate intelligibility of his recommendations:

– Try to inflate the bugle on this cupola, there is already heat in it, add it, just don’t get carried away ...

- Everything was going well, and then you began to be carried away, and further and further, and the plot stopped. Rake and leave alone everything that you failed, do not torment the tortured ...

- Here you hit a vein, maybe by accident, but it doesn’t matter anymore, and then you jumped off and went one moss with a swamp.

Tvardovsky's credo is not "correction for the sake of correction", but the search and polishing of talents. In the conditions of Soviet reality, this meant, even during the “thaw”, also the fight against censorship and orthodox criticism, that is, upholding the very right to publish these talents. was the key to the fact that the "New World" has become one of the main symbols of the liberal era of the second half of the 50s, early 60s. He gave light to a number of outstanding works that made a shift in public consciousness. This situation has developed, it should be noted, not because of the dissident convictions of the editor, but solely because he steadfastly followed the truth. Literature, in his opinion, should "describe life with perfect truth." (But in this way, a priori, it ran counter to official propaganda, that is, it became “anti-Soviet”). Tvardovsky demanded from literary texts what the editors of countless Soviet Grobgazets did not want to see in them: novelty, relevance, and, with attention to form, depth of content. “If there is nothing to say,” Tvardovsky believed, “there is no need to take up a pen at all.” To any author, beginner or experienced, he could advise the same as to himself:

Find yourself in yourself

And don't lose sight… .

Let us note that in literary relations, as in any other, Tvardovsky did not know how to lie. To pretend that he liked something - whether from editorial benefits in order to maintain friendly relations, or simply out of a sense of self-preservation, protecting his peace, he could not catastrophically .

Editorial Board of the New World. Sitting (left to right), . They stand. February 1970

Thanks to talented editorial work, Novy Mir gathered around itself the best literary forces. Writers Fyodor Abramov, Vasily Grossman, Vasil Bykov, Vera Panova, I. Grekova, Fazil Iskander, Yuri Trifonov, Emmanuil Kazakevich, Natalia Ilyina, Boris Mozhaev, Viktor Astafiev collaborated in it. From the older generation, Veniamin Kaverin, Konstantin Paustovsky, Valentin Kataev were published in the magazine; poets Boris Pasternak, Anna Akhmatova, Nikolai Zabolotsky, Olga Berggolts, Margarita Aliger, David Samoilov, Anatoly Zhiguli, Alexander Yashin; critics Vladimir Lakshin, Andrey Sinyavsky, Felix Svetov, Igor Vinogradov, Stanislav Rassadin, Mark Shcheglov... Fresh literary forces became the opening of the magazine - Vitaly Semin, Vladimir Tendryakov, Rasul Gamzatov, Yuri Burtin.

Tvardovsky encouraged the publication of honest memoirs, which were practically not published under Stalin. So, he published the memoirs of Ilya Ehrenburg "People, Years, Life", Alexander Gorbatov, an army general, "The Years of War", as well as the essays of Lev Lyubimov "In a Foreign Land" and "Notes of a Diplomat" by Ivan Maisky. In 1968, the publication of the autobiographical book of the revolutionary Elizaveta Drabkina "Winter Pass" began, interrupted after the release of the first part and resumed only 20 years later.

The journal portfolio was overflowing with manuscripts of the most topical nature. There were stories by Sergei Zalygin, Vladimir Voinovich, Chingiz Aitmatov, emigrant poems by Tsvetaeva, stories by the Russian "Nobel Prize winner" and also an emigrant Ivan Bunin, diaries, notes, memoirs of doctors, ministers, theater-goers, and sometimes church ministers.

But one day a notebook with the title "Shch - 854. One day of one convict" lay on the table of Tvardovsky. An unknown author (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a mathematics teacher from Ryazan) told about only one, not the brightest and most difficult day of a convict, a former collective farmer. Tvardovsky was eager to print the manuscript, although he understood that Soviet literature did not allow such frankness. And he was not wrong. The vicissitudes of the struggle for the story turned out to be more fascinating than any other detective story. Until the very last moment, Tvardovsky did not fully believe that victory was possible. Solzhenitsyn showed camp life as ordinary, familiar, and examined it with tenacious peasant eyes, accustomed to noticing every small detail. Tvardovsky gave the manuscript to Nikita Khrushchev, and he decided: "To print."

By signing the issue with "One day ...", Tvardovsky in the future signed his own verdict as the editor-in-chief, a fighter and a person - all three incarnations were inseparable in him. From now on, he became a hostage to the literary and human fate of Solzhenitsyn, who almost immediately revealed the rejection of communism as an idea. Until the end of his days, Alexander Trifonovich could not fully join the position of his "godson", but did everything to protect both him and his offspring, the magazine. Khrushchev very soon guessed where and what the uncompromising and corrosive former artilleryman Solzhenitsyn was aiming for, but it was too late. In November 1962, Novy Mir opened with “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” (Tvardovsky managed to defend this name in the struggle with the author instead of “Shch - 854 ...”, Solzhenitsyn’s prison number).

No journalism, no appeals were able to influence the souls of people as much as this story. The position of the magazine was inspired by "One day ..." as a fact, but the same fact split it. Most of the employees of the "New World" considered themselves the heirs of the revolutionary democrats, but Solzhenitsyn and some other writers went much further.

It was they who soon joined the ranks of internal and external emigration. In 1965, one of the prominent authors of the magazine, Andrei Sinyavsky, was arrested, who, after an odious trial, received seven years in a labor camp, served time and emigrated to the West. Georgy Vladimov, Vladimir Voinovich, Viktor Nekrasov entered into an irreconcilable confrontation with the regime. Naum Korzhavin and Vasily Aksyonov, Anatoly Kuznetsov and Boris Zaks went into exile in their own ways. Maximov in exile published the magazine "Continent", Sinyavsky - "Syntax"; and they became centers of attraction for dissident writers. One can imagine what attention the special services and censors received from the magazine, which nurtured and supplied the West with such selective personnel.

The attacks of those in power and pro-government criticism were incessant: according to Yuri Trifonov, "the pressure of a terrible atmospheric column ..." was always felt. Officials of Glavlit, who embodied the worst version of editing, studied the materials received by Tvardovsky with particular predilection, striving to prohibit any text containing even a shadow of unreliability. Because of this, some issues of the disgraced magazine were published two to three months late.

Readers treated this with understanding, looking forward to each new issue. Tvardovsky was forced, defending the magazine, to go to the "instances", "on the carpet" and "there is soap" (his words). The words “allusion”, “Tvard heresy”, “one tvard” sounded in the language of the press - as a measure of the resistance of a journalist against the raging authorities. Despite the monstrous pressure, in the "New World" Russian literature of a high standard was alive and turned out to be "inexorable" (V. Kaverin).

In June 1970, Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky modestly celebrated his 60th birthday. Despite disagreements with literature officials, Tvardovsky was going to be awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor. And he went to Kaluga, to a lunatic asylum - to visit Zhores Medvedev, who was imprisoned there. The Tsekovsky worker said to the poet with a sigh:

- We, Alexander Trifonovich, were going to give you the Star of the Hero, and you ...

Tvardovsky responded to these words:

“But I didn’t know that the title of a hero is given for cowardice….

As a result, the writer was nevertheless awarded, however, more modestly - the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. The hero of the day himself, grinning, commented on this event as follows: “Work, they say, more, work ...” Tvardovsky refused a gala evening at the Central House of Writers . And the authorities, in their attacks on Novy Mir, used a different tactic: shuffling the composition of the editorial board and introducing alien members into it. After another such action, the editorial board of the journal was completely ruined, and it became impossible to keep the journal in the same spirit. Therefore, on February 9, 1970, Tvardovsky left the post of editor-in-chief of Novy Mir.

It should be noted that no matter what assessments were given to Tvardovsky's last decade in Novy Mir, it was undoubtedly the brightest period in the history of the magazine. Criticism and prose became his face, poetry occupied a subordinate place. Tvardovsky himself professed in poetry a low-key, precise, close to prose word. This is probably why he had a cold attitude towards modernist prose and poetry, preferring literature that developed in classical forms of realism. In general, Novy Mir combined ideological liberalism with aesthetic conservatism, and this editorial position did not prevent the magazine from becoming the best periodical literary and artistic publication in the country in the 60s of the 20th century.

Probably, the most difficult long-term struggle for Novy Mir destroyed the health of its editor-in-chief, who became seriously ill and died less than two years after his resignation - on December 18, 1971, obviously untimely, at the age of 61.

In this way, . We see an example of truly creative editorial activity, which consists in supporting talented and honest literature, not in censorship, but in care, in carefully separating the wheat from the chaff. In this way, the experience of Tvardovsky as an editor is on a par with the similar experience of other outstanding Russian writers - Pushkin, Nekrasov, Tolstoy, Korolenko, Gorky - who, each in their own way, strove to serve the good of Russian literature. Such an approach to his work, which Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky professed, should become a model for all subsequent generations of Russian editors.

References and website addresses

1 . Anninsky, L. Alexander Tvardovsky: “… But still, nevertheless, nevertheless…” [Text] / L. Anninsky // Svobodnaya thought – XXI. - 2005. - No. 8. - P. 147 - 161.

2 . Lakshin, in the "New World" [Text] / . – M.: Pravda, 1989. – 48 p.

3 . Turkov, Alexander Trifonovich [Text] / // Russian writers: XX century: biographical dictionary: A - Z / comp. . - M., 2009. - S. 518.

4 . Khazin, M. What should we do with you, my oath ... [Text]: in defense of the good name of Alexander Tvardovsky / M. Khazin // Lit. newspaper. - 2008. - April 3. - May 6 (No. 18). – P. 6.

5 .Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky [Electronic resource] // SOUB im. : [website]. – Electron. Dan. - Smolensk: SOUB, 2009 - . – Access mode: http://www. *****/tvardov/newworld. htm

6 .Zemlyanoy, S. Opposition from above [Electronic resource]: life and death of the "New World" and Alexander Tvardovsky / S. Zemlyanoy // Political magazine: [website]. – Electron. Dan. - M .: Publishing House Political Journal, 2003 -. – Access mode: http://www. *****/index. php? action=Articles&dirid=50&tek=4224&issue=121

7 . Ivanov, the world of Alexander Tvardovsky [Electronic resource] / // *****: [website]. – Electron. Dan. - M., 1997 -. – Access Mode: http://*****/arc/lit_zametki/issue8/

8 . New World [Electronic resource] // Encyclopedia Around the World: [website]. – Electron. Dan. - [B. m.]: Encyclopedia Around the World, 2000 - . – Access mode: http://dictionary. *****/dict/krugosvet/article/d/d8/1012569.htm

9 . Tvardovsky, Alexander Trifonovich [Electronic resource] // Wikipedia: free encyclopedia: [website]. – Electron. Dan. - Florida: Wikipedia Foundation, 2001 - . – Access mode: http://wiki. *****/wiki/Tvardovsky,_Alexander_Trifonovich

The blue cover of Novy Mir, one of the oldest literary magazines in Russia, is familiar without exaggeration to every Russian reader. You can read about the birth of the journal, about its long and complex history in the Soviet “Essays on the History of Journalism”, and in the “Concise Literary Encyclopedia”, and in the famous “Lexicon of Russian Literature of the 20th Century” by the German researcher Wolfgang Kazak. However, it would be useful to recall some milestones in this history.

The Novy Mir magazine, which is preparing to celebrate its 95th anniversary in 2020, has been published in Moscow since 1925. Yu. M. Steklov, the then editor of the Izvestia newspaper, suggested creating a monthly literary, artistic and socio-political magazine on the basis of the Izvestia publishing house, which was carried out. For the first year, the management of the journal was in the hands of A. V. Lunacharsky (who remained a member of the editorial board until 1931) and Yu. M. Steklov; F. Gladkov was the executive secretary. Then, both in Izvestia and in Novy Mir, Steklov was replaced by I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov. In 1926, Vyacheslav Polonsky, a critic, was entrusted with the management of the magazine. In 1931, the leadership passed to the editor-in-chief of Izvestia, I. M. Gronsky, but in 1937 Gronsky was arrested, this was preceded by sharp party criticism of Novy Mir in connection with the publications of Boris Pilnyak and the protection of the writer by the editors of the magazine. The post of editor was taken by V.P. Stavsky, in 1941 he was replaced by V.R. Shcherbina. After the war, the well-known writer K. M. Simonov became the editor-in-chief, and in 1950, the no less famous Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky(1910-1971), creator of "Country of Ants" and "Vasily Terkin". This first tenure of Tvardovsky as editor-in-chief was short-lived. Due to the publications of V. Pomerantsev, F. Abramov, M. Shcheglov and M. Lifshitz, which were acute for that time, he was removed from the leadership in 1954. K. Simonov returned to his place, during which V. Dudintsev's novel "Not by Bread Alone" was published, which caused great controversy and became, despite its modest literary merits, a serious social event. In 1958, Tvardovsky returned to the post of editor-in-chief. It was then that the period in the life of the magazine began, inextricably linked with its name. The words "New World", "Tvardovsky's journal" become symbolic, causing admiration and respect from some readers, and gnashing of teeth from others (especially in official instances). A lot has been written about those years, about that edition, about its fate, including on the pages of Novy Mir. "New World" by Tvardovsky is one of the brightest pages in the history of Russian journalism. Tvardovsky, the editor, became one of the most remarkable journal figures not only of the Soviet period. Thanks to Tvardovsky, a short story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (1962) by the then unknown Ryazan teacher Alexander Solzhenitsyn could appear on the pages of the magazine, which became a milestone not only in the literary, but also in the political life of the country. The active position of the journal in literary and social issues (expressed, of course, to the extent possible due to censorship harassment) in the 60s caused both open stormy controversy in the press and tough behind-the-scenes struggle. In 1970, Tvardovsky was removed from his post as chief editor, and died soon after. These dramatic events are covered in detail from different points of view by many Russian and foreign researchers and direct participants in those events (including the ideological opponents of Novy Mir). Of the books about this time, it is worth noting the memoirs of Vladimir Lakshin and Alexander Solzhenitsyn ("A calf butted an oak tree"), authors closely associated with the then Novy Mir, and nevertheless entered into polemics among themselves. This is not the place to argue with one or another harsh judgment. Obviously, the period of Tvardovsky's editorship was glorious period in the history of the journal. After Tvardovsky, the journal was headed by V. A. Kosolapov, S. S. Narovchatov, V. V. Karpov. And since 1986, with the beginning of "perestroika and glasnost", the journal was headed for the first time by a non-partisan writer - a well-known prose writer Sergei Pavlovich Zalygin(b. 1913). Under him, in 1991, the circulation of the magazine soared to a record high of two million seven hundred thousand copies (circulation is, in fact, incredible for a thick literary magazine and possible only in the euphoria of the then “perestroika”). “Chernobyl Notebook” by Grigory Medvedev, “Stroybat” by Sergei Kaledin, “Advances and Debts” by economist Nikolai Shmelev ... All such (memorable to many) publications were given with great difficulty, but each was another breakthrough from the policy of controlled “glasnost” to genuine freedom the words. The success of the magazine was also associated with the publication of many books previously banned in the USSR, such as Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak, Pit by Andrei Platonov, 1984 by George Orwell, but especially Alexander Solzhenitsyn's works The Gulag Archipelago, In the First Circle ", "Cancer Ward".

Seven decades, which almost coincided with the existence of the USSR, were lived by the magazine not in an airless space - together with the country and the era. The history of Russian literature of the 20th century - with all its complexities and contradictions, with all its glory and disgrace - is captured in one way or another on the pages of Novy Mir. To use the hackneyed expression “high road of literature”, this road has always passed through the “New World”. It is best to simply list the most famous works published (in whole or in part) at different times on the pages of the magazine. "The Black Man" by Sergei Yesenin, "Lieutenant Schmidt" by Boris Pasternak, "Walking Through the Torments" and "Peter the Great" by Alexei Tolstoy, "Golden Chain" by Alexander Grin, "Russia Washed with Blood" by Artyom Vesely, "The Life of Klim Samgin" by M. Gorky, “Sevastopol” and “People from the backwoods” by A. Malyshkin, “Sot” and “Skutarevsky” by Leonid Leonov, “Hydrocentral” by Marietta Shaginyan, stories by Isaac Babel, “Energy” by Fyodor Gladkov, “Quiet Don” and “Virgin Soil Upturned” Mikhail Sholokhov, Andrei Bely's memoirs, Vsevolod Vishnevsky's "Optimistic Tragedy", Boris Kornilov's "My Africa", Mikhail Koltsov's "Spanish Diary", Boris Pilnyak's American novel "OK" and Andrei Platonov's stories, "I was killed near Rzhev" and " Terkin in the Other World” by Alexander Tvardovsky, “The Tempest” by Ilya Ehrenburg, “Road Makers” by Nikolai Zabolotsky, “Smoke of the Fatherland” by K. Simonov, “Vitya Maleev at School and at Home” by N. Nosov, translations by S. Marshak from Robert Burns, “ For a Just Cause” by Vasily Grossman, “Ship Thicket” by Mikhail Prishvin, “Out of Court ” Vladimir Tendryakov, “Orphan” by Nikolai Dubov, “Serezha” by Vera Panova, “Regional weekdays” by Valentin Ovechkin, “Vladimir country roads” by Vladimir Soloukhin, “On the Irtysh” by Sergei Zalygin, “Big ore” by Georgy Vladimov, “Farewell, Gyulsary!” Chingiz Aitmatov, “Silence” by Yuri Bondarev, “On Trials” by I. Grekova, “Vologda Wedding” by Alexander Yashin, “Theatrical Novel” by Mikhail Bulgakov, “Constellation of Kozlotur” by Fazil Iskander, “The Holy Well” and “Werther has already been written” by Valentin Kataev , “In August 1944 (The Moment of Truth)” by Vladimir Bogomolov, “Exchange” by Yuri Trifonov, “From the Life of Fyodor Kuzkin” by Boris Mozhaev, “Sotnikov” by Vasil Bykov, poems by Evgeny Yevtushenko and Andrei Voznesensky, “Blockade Book” by Daniil Granin and Ales Adamovich, Fyodor Abramov's "House" ... The list is endless. There is such a term - "great literature", and it is impossible to deny that the great literature of these Soviet decades arose mainly on the pages of Novy Mir.

Of course, today the “New World” is already different - not the same as it was in the 20s, not the same as in the 30s-40s, not the same as in the “Tvard” 60s, not the same as in the stagnant 70s and not even the same as in the first years of "perestroika". Russia is changing; authors, collaborators and readers are changing (if only for the sad reason of natural decline). This is currently monthly journal of fiction and social thought published on 256 pages. In addition to novelties of prose and poetry, the magazine offers the traditional headings “From Heritage”, “Philosophy. Story. Politics”, “Far Close”, “Times and Mores”, “A Writer's Diary”, “The World of Art”, “Conversations”, “Literary Criticism” (with subheadings “The Struggle for Style” and “In the Course of the Text”), “Reviews . Reviews”, “Bibliography”, “Foreign book about Russia”, etc. Since 1998, the editor-in-chief has been a literary critic Andrey Vasilevsky. Executive secretary - prose writer Mikhail Butov. Ruslan Kireev is in charge of the prose department. The department of poetry is headed by Oleg Chukhontsev, the department of criticism - Irina Rodnyanskaya, the department of history and archives - Alexander Nosov. Freelance members of the editorial board (and now the Public Council) are Sergei Averintsev, Viktor Astafiev, Andrei Bitov, Sergei Bocharov, Daniil Granin, Boris Ekimov, Fazil Iskander, Alexander Kushner, Dmitry Likhachev and other respected writers. In 1947-1990 the journal was an organ of the Union of Writers of the USSR. But since 1991, thanks to the new legislation on the mass media, the Novy Mir magazine has become a truly independent publication, not directly associated with any of the creative unions or public organizations, which, however, does not prevent the editorial staff from attracting the best forces of Russian literature and journalism . Among the authors of the journal is the Nobel laureate in literature - Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Sergey Averintsev, Anatoly Azolsky, Alexander Arkhangelsky, Viktor Astafiev, Andrey Bitov, Sergey Bocharov, Dmitry Bykov, Renata Galtseva, Mikhail Gasparov, Daniil Granin, Boris Ekimov, Fazil Iskander, Anatoly Kim, Naum Korzhavin, Mikhail Kuraev, Alexander Kushner, Semyon Lipkin, Inna Lisnyanskaya, Dmitry Likhachev, Vladimir Makanin, Valentin Nepomnyashchiy, Evgeny Rein, Lyudmila Ulitskaya, Galina Shcherbakova and others. The journal considers it necessary to give readers the most adequate and diverse picture of what is actually happening in Russian literature. Far from everything that happens in it pleases the employees of Novy Mir. And, apparently, not everything that is printed on its pages always corresponds to the personal preferences and aesthetic ideals of all those who make the magazine. However, this tolerance is not unlimited. "New World", striving for diversity, does not consider it necessary to provide its pages for all points of view and literary experiments without exception.

Cultural and democratic, the magazine calmly follows its chosen direction, avoiding extremism of any kind and combining artistic novelty with intellectual thoroughness and even a kind of “academism”. Two more concepts can be added to this - conservatism and historicism. The preservation of the memory of the past is reflected in the appearance of the journal, which has not changed much over decades, in the stable selection and arrangement of journal headings (although here, too, natural changes are taking place, prompted by life itself, and not far-fetched changes). An appeal to prehistory, to the roots of every topical social phenomenon and literary fact, is a distinctive feature of what is published and gives it depth. The journal has a wide range of expertly prepared archival publications and unexpected historical research. A lot of space, especially in connection with the upcoming 200th anniversary of Pushkin, is given to new research on the work and personality of the great poet. The editors of Novy Mir do not at all strive to keep up with the fast-flowing day with its minute sensations, which are immediately doomed to oblivion. The journal prefers to focus more on general issues than on specific ones. Novy Mir, which values ​​its independence, does not participate in the fierce “struggle of people,” although at the same time, like any Russian thick literary journal, it cannot avoid participating in the “struggle of ideas.” The facts pass, but the problems remain.

This stability, one might even say - respectability, distinguishes Novy Mir for the better from the superficial mass journalism that overwhelms many periodicals. So the positive image of the magazine, which has developed among readers, both in Russia and abroad, is unlikely to undergo serious changes in the future. In one of Novy Mir's addresses to readers, wonderful words were said: “Masterpieces are not born every year, but Russian literature is alive, and we feel like an organic part of this living culture”.

The first exile of Alexander Tvardovsky

from "New World" in 1954

In writers' circles, many greeted the year 1954 with great hopes. The creators expected serious indulgences from the authorities and censorship. And the party apparatus promised to create new magazines and publishing houses.

The year 1954 began well for Alexander Tvardovsky personally. The Presidium of the Board of the Union of Soviet Writers at the end of January nominated his poem "For the distance - the distance" for the Stalin Prize. The poet himself worked with passion on a new thing - the poem "Terkin in the Other World."

It seemed to him that everything seemed to have grown together and success was guaranteed. In the Novy Mir magazine, too, everything seemed to be going well. In any case, Tvardovsky was very pleased with the resonance caused by Vladimir Pomerantsev's article "On Sincerity in Literature." Speaking on January 25 at the Writers' Union, he remarked: “After all, God knows what happened when the notes from Pomerantsev's diary were published. Nobody knows him and many people ask: who is he - a teacher, a writer? But it got huge responses. You won’t get this issue of the magazine in libraries, all the time there are phone calls, letters, requests.”

than Tvardovsky

guilty before the party apparatus

Thunder struck in April. First, an article appeared in Litgazeta Boris Agapov with criticism of an article published in the February issue of Novy Mir Mikhail Lifshitz. Lifshits carved a diary Marietta Shahinyan, accusing the writer of incompetence and unprofessionalism. And Agapov called Lifshitz a snob. It later turned out that Shaginyan, starting in 1947, enjoyed the unconditional support of the influential secretary of the Central Committee of the party Mikhail Suslov.

Further more. During the exchange of party documents in the Krasnopresnensky District Party Committee of Moscow, Tvardovsky discovered that his registration card indicated that the poet's parents were kulaks. Outraged by the injustice, the editor-in-chief of Novy Mir demanded that changes be made to the documents and, following the example of numerous reference books, consider him the son of a blacksmith, that is, a native of a working, but not a kulak, family. However, the secretary of the district party committee HELL. Platonov he refused it. The piquancy of this whole situation was added by the fact that back in 1952, at the nineteenth party congress, the poet was elected a member of the Central Auditing Commission of the CPSU.

From hopelessness, on April 15, 1954, Tvardovsky wrote a letter personally to the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev. But the leader, it seems, at first did not attach much importance to this issue. Seeing that the new leader did not immediately rush to take the poet under his protection, Alexey Surkov long dreamed of retiring Alexandra Fadeeva and to take the place of General Secretary in the Writers' Union, spread a rumor around Moscow that the editor of the Novy Mir magazine defiantly refused to receive a new type of party card and allegedly presented an ultimatum to the party bodies.

Discouraged, on May 4, 1954, Tvardovsky wrote a second letter to Khrushchev, which he personally handed to the leader the next day at a party meeting of Moscow writers. However, the leader did not even begin to read it. He only remarked dryly to Tvardovsky: “Change is not difficult, but consider whether it is worth it”. And right there, in front of the poet's eyes, his appeal was handed over to the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee Ekaterina Furtseva.

It seems that the perseverance of Tvardovsky's party apparatus has seriously angered. Apparently, someone gave the command to urgently extract all the dirt accumulated on the poet, and at the same time to study all the issues of Novy Mir for the end of 1953 - the beginning of 1954 for ideological errors. The executor of this order, apparently, became the head of the department of fiction of the department of science and culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU Vasily Ivanov, who considered himself a great critic and connoisseur of beauty, but in reality was a strangler of many writers.

It should be noted here that even earlier Tvardovsky very often aroused one irritation in the authorities. Few people know how, in the spring of 1945, the chairman of the Committee for the Arts, the future academician Mikhail Khrapchenko terribly did not want the poem "Vasily Terkin" to be awarded the Stalin Prize. In a letter Stalin he offered prizes of the first degree to mark the poem Arcadia Kuleshova"Banner of the Brigade" and the collection "I'm Coming from the East" Gafur Gulyam. Khrapchenko also wanted to delete Tvardovsky from the list of applicants. He wrote to the leader: “According to the section of poetry, A.T. Tvardovsky, put up for a prize for the poem "Vasily Terkin". The protagonist of the poem, in which the author tried to give a generalized image of a Red Army soldier, is depicted pale and often primitive; he does not convey the essential features of a Red Army soldier. The poem was written carelessly, in bad language.(RGANI, f. 3, op. 53-a, d. 8, l. 6). True, Stalin did not listen to Khrapchenko's opinion then. The prize was awarded to the poet on January 26, 1946.

The first outlines for the scenario of the future massacre of Tvardovsky were probably made on May 18, 1954. On that day, the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU for propaganda Peter Pospelov, previously wound up by Vasily Ivanov and, possibly, the deputy head of the department of science and culture of the Central Committee Pavel Tarasov, summoned Alexander Fadeev, who was on his last term in the secretaries general of the Union of Writers, and one of his deputies Konstantin Simonov. There was only one question: what to do with Tvardovsky. " Yesterday, - the poet wrote in his diary on May 19, 1954, - Fadeev's call: were with Simonov at Petr Nick<олаеви>cha[Pospelova]. "Convincingly" criticizes Pomerantsev, quotes that ... etc. In a word, he assented (“Although I haven’t read it, but I’ll say it”), and I must be called (of course, not to Pospelov - to Tarasov, at least not to Ivanov).

After receiving this unpleasant news, Tvardovsky rashly gathered to ask for help from the chairman of the Soviet government. George Malenkov, who in 1950, together with Mikhail Suslov, blessed his appointment to the "New World". But, having cooled down, he decided that Malenkov would hardly want to interfere in the diocese of Pospelov under the new conditions.

Tarasov soon informed Tvardovsky that Pospelov planned to gather the entire editorial board of Novy Mir. Preparing for a meeting with the party nobleman, the poet sketched theses for his speech in a workbook:

"To Pospelov:

1) Pomerantsev - yes, there are mistakes, inaccuracies, it is written somewhat pretentiously, etc., but basically it correctly reflects the mood of the reader (letter).

2) Lifshitz - the article is correct, and as for the "sharpness" of tone, see Chernyshevsky "On Sincerity in Criticism".

3) Abramov - mistake, p<тому>h<то>only after the plenums they gave it, it would have been necessary earlier, like Ovechkin.

4) Shcheglov - We are protesting ”(A.T. Tvardovsky. Diary: 1950-1959. M., 2013. P. 140).

While Tvardovsky was preparing for the upcoming conversation with the secretary of the Central Committee, an article by Alexei Surkov was published in the country's main newspaper, which expressed "serious concern for the direction of the literary-critical speeches of Novy Mir" (Pravda. 1954. May 25). Tvardovsky expected that his predecessor, Konstantin Simonov, would immediately stand up for the magazine. And he, on the contrary, in the absence of Fadeev, urgently assembled the secretariat of the Writers' Union and fully supported all Surkov's reproaches.

At the end of May 1954, it turned out that Pospelov had decided not to summon the entire editorial board of Novy Mir, but only the Communists. The conversations went on for two days. The poet was simply dumbfounded. He was given a real study, and in the spirit of the 37th year.

Tvardovsky bubbling all over with anger. Not only did Pospelov, who was also known as that dogmatist, smashed him to smithereens. Almost the entire leadership of the Union of Writers opposed the line of the editor of the Novy Mir magazine. But the poet was especially outraged by the behavior of his deputy Sergei Sergeevich Smirnov, who, with extraordinary ease, in fact, disowned his boss. In general, things went to the inevitable resignation of Tvardovsky.

By the way: not only Tvardovsky was terribly dissatisfied with the results of two days of conversations with the Communists, who were members of the editorial board of Novy Mir. The secretary of the Central Committee, Pospelov, was also very fierce. He was expecting complete repentance and forgiveness from the poet. And Tvardovsky unexpectedly showed stubbornness and intractability. Pospelov was greatly offended by this. After all, what happened: the editor of the magazine subordinate to him did not want to admit his mistakes and dared to challenge. Seething with rage, Pospelov decided to teach Tvardovsky a lesson and punish him roughly, so that it would be more repulsive for others to contradict the secretary of the Central Committee.

What was the dissatisfaction of the party

Already on June 5, 1954, a document was prepared with a detailed justification for the proposal to remove the poet from his post. I will give it in full.

"Central Committee of the CPSU

The journal Novy Mir has recently published a number of articles that testify to the fact that the editorial board of the journal has taken a politically harmful line, disorienting literature, directing it to a distorted image of the life of Soviet society.

The essence of this vicious line is especially clearly expressed in V. Pomerantsev's article "On Sincerity in Literature" (No. 12, 1953). In this article, the author, under the guise of a few general Marxist phrases, revises the main principles of the Communist Party on questions of literature and sets out an anti-Marxist subjective-idealist point of view on the nature and tasks of artistic creation.

Having put forward the “sincerity” of the writer as the main criterion for evaluating a work of art and demagogically juggling this concept, V. Pomerantsev opposes the principle of partisanship, against the ideological nature of Soviet literature and ignores the decisive importance of worldview. “The degree of sincerity,” he declares, “that is, the immediacy of a thing, should be the first measure of evaluation.”

The author of the article slanderously asserts that our literature is devoid of sincerity, replete with "man-made novels and plays", glosses over reality, is engaged in "inventing complete well-being", passes off "wishful thinking as already existing", that Soviet writers are "producers of standards", since their "straightened to straightness."

V. Pomerantsev scornfully characterizes the desire of our writers to portray the labor activity of the Soviet people. With a vicious mockery, Pomerantsev claims that the writers are hiding "behind a mining combine, behind a blast furnace, behind a tractor", "driving into magazines on a tractor."

The author of the article opposes one of the main tasks of our literature - the creation of a positive image of a Soviet person, worthy of being an example and an object of imitation. He angrily writes, for example, about this requirement of the Young Guard publishing house: “The hero of the work here should be the conqueror of the worlds, who has not reached the maximum Komsomol age.”

Pomerantsev seeks to divert our literature from the vital tasks of communist construction, to deprive it of prospects, and thereby render it incapable of fulfilling the task of communist education of the people. He believes that the task of the writer is not to propagate the ideas of the party in artistic images, which he calls "sermon", but "confession" - i.e. psychological introspection.

The author of the article, while hypocritically advocating for "sincerity" and "creative courage", actually calls on writers to slander Soviet society. Having cited in the article a number of individual negative examples taken from our life, the author presents them as a typical picture of Soviet society and encourages writers to follow a similar method.

V. Pomerantsev's article evoked strong condemnation in the Soviet press, among the general literary community, on the part of the SSP secretariat, the board and the party group of the board of the Union of Soviet Writers. Despite this fair criticism, and despite the fact that the author of the article was known to the editors as the author of the slanderous story "Alyosha Kochnev's Mistake" previously offered to the journal, the editorial board of Novy Mir stubbornly defended Pomerantsev's article, considering it the only correct expression of the party's policy in the field of literature. . The editor-in-chief of the journal A. Tvardovsky, defending this point of view, even stated that the main danger in the life of Soviet literature at the present time is not the erroneous line of the journal Novy Mir, but the line of the leadership of the Union of Soviet Writers, which allegedly suppresses criticism with its "intervention" shortcomings of Soviet literature, raised only by the only magazine Novy Mir.

Continuing the line defined in Pomerantsev's article, the editorial board in subsequent issues of the journal published vulgarizing articles by M. Lifshitz (No. 2, 1954) about M. Shaginyan's book "A Writer's Diary", F. Abramov "People of a collective farm village in post-war prose" (No. 4 for 1954), M. Shcheglov about Leonov's novel "Russian Forest" (No. 5 for 1954).

F.Abramov's article declares false and crosses out almost all the major works of recent years about the advanced people of the collective farm village, about the advanced collective farms, about the prospects for the development of collective farms. Defending this article, A. Tvardovsky bluntly stated that since "it is impossible to convince the collective farmers of the middle zone of the country that their situation is excellent," the magazine's mistake is only that it was published late.

M. Shcheglov's article erroneously asserts that the image of the provocateur and double-dealer Gratsiansky is a product of a number of social conditions inherent in our society. “It was not the gendarmes,” writes M. Shcheglov, “that made Gratsiansky the way he is, but a number of social conditions that created the post-revolutionary growth of the old philistinism” ...

In all the articles listed above, Soviet literature is, in fact, called upon to maliciously savor the negative phenomena of our life under the guise of their criticism, to show them in isolation from the achievements of the Soviet people and the majestic prospects for the development of agriculture, indicated by the decisions of our Party.

A. Tvardovsky, trying to substantiate his assertion that the line of the magazine is correct, tried to refer to the opinion of readers. Works are judged, he said, by the responses. What are these responses?

The resounding kiss of the enemy was awarded to the line of the journal Novy Mir by the reactionary bourgeois press and radio in the USA and Western Europe. So, for example, "Voice of the USA" on April 11 of this year. praised Pomerantsev’s article because it “strongly criticized the lies and falsehood that were established in Soviet literature at the behest of the communist authorities” ... which, they say, forced writers to show, contrary to their conscience and reason, “jelly pigs and roast geese on the tables of collective farmers as evidence of a happy life under socialism in those very collective farms, which, as it has now had to be admitted, have been brought to impoverishment by communist management "... All this Pomerantsev," the Voice of the USA emphasized, "confirmed with many often striking examples showing how the party doctrine distorts both literature and life".

The English magazine The Economist, the French literary weekly Le Figaro Literer, and others defend it against criticism of the Soviet press in the same spirit.

An analysis of 70 letters from readers received by the editors of the Novy Mir magazine regarding Pomerantsev's article and its criticism shows, first of all, that among the authors of these letters there is not a single worker and collective farmer. This circumstance not only did not make the editor of the journal and members of the editorial board think, but was presented as a positive phenomenon, since, according to A. Tvardovsky, Novy Mir is intended only for the intelligentsia. The vast majority of these letters are responses from unstable philistine-minded people and the politically immature part of the student youth.

Thus, the reader M. Nebogatov from the city of Kemerovo, supporting the anti-Marxist provisions of Pomerantsev's article, states: “Discourses about theoretical foundations and other things are all a screen for new hacks. True talent finds the right positions on its own, often without knowing any basics.

Pensioner A. Fedotov from the city of Zaraysk, Moscow Region, known to the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU for his numerous, but not solid complaints about the SSP and the press, which do not accept his anti-artistic, “literary” products for publication, angrily writes: “For 36 years that have passed since the October Revolution, we have not yet become quite prosperous and cultured. Why? Because some leaders of the state did not pursue the policy of the Communist Party, but were engaged in politicking. And writers sang of such leaders and their deeds.”

These philistine and even politically hostile responses of such "intellectuals" A. Tvardovsky tries to pass off as the country's public opinion, lordly dismissive of party criticism of his own line. At the same time, A. Tvardovsky demagogically stated that if the reader is informed that the line of the journal is wrong, then this will be understood as a ban on criticism in general, as its curtailment, that this allegedly threatens with bad consequences.

At a meeting in the Central Committee of the CPSU on the issue of the mistakes made by Novy Mir, with the participation of communists, members of the editorial board of Novy Mir, members of the secretariat of the Board of the SSP, as well as the editors of Pravda and Literaturnaya Gazeta, Comrade Tvardovsky continued to stubbornly defend the wrong log line.

The politically erroneous line of the "New World" is explained, first of all, by the ideologically vicious views of A. Tvardovsky himself, which were clearly revealed in his new poem "Terkin in the Other World", prepared by him for publication in the next issue of the journal.

At a meeting in the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade Tvardovsky declared that the pathos, the ideological meaning of his new poem is "the judgment of the people over the bureaucracy and apparatus." He does not have in mind individual bureaucratic distortions in the work of our state and party apparatus, but "bureaucracy and apparatus" as the main feature of the entire system of the Soviet social system. He states:

“In the Other World, the apparatus

As in this world.

Along and across - the wall,

Move that wall…”

A. Tvardovsky viciously scoffs at the content and methods of work of party organs. In the poem, he displays them under the guise of some kind of "underworld bureau."

"Here, he looks, in the dim light

Sitting in the Other World

Underworld bureau...

Apparently it's a personal matter.

Engaged - something sweetness!

The dead man admits his "mistakes", but

"Unsatisfied with recognition,

The pier is not fully disclosed,

educational penalty

The young man is being punished."

"He is with a sad smile

Holds a speech, mumbling a lesson

Say the collective mind

Helped him just right…”

A. Tvardovsky raises the question of why all this “apparatus and bureaucracy” is needed and immediately answers with a mockery:

"What do you mean why? Yes to everyone

Personnel to be in business.

So that everything goes in its own order, "so that a comrade, both in a coffin - and in a deep sleep, would still fight - back or sideways." He ridicules Bolshevik vigilance. Thus he writes:

"Someone, apparently, loving,

vigilance especially

material for you

Reported behind the coffin.

In his criticism of Soviet society, A. Tvardovsky echoes bourgeois slanderers. He portrays our life as bleak, conditional, unreal, dead and unpromising. This is evident from the following lines of the poem:

"Listen, let me explain.

This setting:

Designated on the menu

And in nature there is no ...

- Well, even more precisely: salary

And conditional ration

On you and me

Listed in the convoy.

- It seems, then, a workday

On a burning collective farm?

In this regard, he ironically: "You did not know for sure how great the care of a dead person is here."

Developing the theme:

- Is it possible to shorten

this system?"

At a meeting in the Central Committee of the CPSU, A. Tvardovsky stated that his poem was the fruit of ten years of reflection, that he put "all the strength of his soul" on it.

Justifying his ideologically vicious poem, A. Tvardovsky referred to the positive opinion of his "friends" about it, before whom he read his new work aloud. Meanwhile, even the non-partisan poet Aseev, who listened to the poem, declared that it was politically dubious.

At a meeting in the Central Committee, the secretaries of the Union of Soviet Writers, the poets A. Surkov, K. Simonov, N. Gribachev and the writer B. Polevoy, unanimously condemned the vicious line of the Novy Mir magazine and the content of A. Tvardovsky's poem, emphasizing that, as Vol. Gribachev, is a "dead thing that comes from the author's soul."

A. Tvardovsky did not agree with the comradely criticism of his poem. He expressed an arrogant confidence that this poem, in spite of everything, would be published and that the people would supposedly approve of it.

Members of the editorial board of the journal "New World" vols. Smirnov and Sutotsky, as a result of criticism, recognized the fallacy and harmfulness of the line of the "New World", as well as the poem "Torkin in the Other World". Deputy Editor-in-Chief Comrade Dementiev, while agreeing that the publication of V. Pomerantsev's article was an editorial mistake, did not acknowledge the presence of the journal's vicious line. As for the poem by A. Tvardovsky, he considers it only "unfinished and in need of some improvement."

As the discussion of the errors of the Novy Mir magazine in the Central Committee of the CPSU showed, A. Tvardovsky and A. Dementiev cannot provide leadership for the journal and should be relieved of this work. We consider it possible to recommend Comrade V. V. Ermilov for the post of editor-in-chief of the Novy Mir magazine, obliging the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union to strengthen the editorial board of the Novy Mir magazine.

The Secretariat of the Union of Soviet Writers supports the candidacy of comrade. Ermilova V.V.

The draft resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU is attached.

P. Pospelov

A. Rumyantsev

V. Kruzhkov

P. Tarasov»

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, ll. 175-181).

Interestingly, usually notes of this kind for consideration at the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU were signed mainly by the heads of the relevant departments of the Central Committee or their deputies. But in this case, it seemed to Pospelov that it was not enough for the head of the department of science and culture of the Central Committee to leave their autographs under the document. A. Rumyantsev, Head of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Central Committee V. Kruzhkov and Rumyantsev's deputy - P. Tarasov. He decided for weightiness to fasten the note also with his signature. The calculation, apparently, was that Khrushchev, having seen Pospelov's autograph on the document, would fully support the prepared project.

There is another interesting point here. It is still unclear where the nomination came from. Vladimir Ermilov. It was another fixture. Many believed that his star finally set back in 1950, when he, entangled in his intrigues, recklessly challenged his recent friend Alexander Fadeev and, being the editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta, refused to print the final word of the Secretary General of the Writers' Union on some plenum, which irritated even Stalin. Who pulled this figure out of mothballs? It is unlikely that Kruzhkov or Rumyantsev were involved in this, and even more so Suslov. Rather, Pospelov personally took the initiative. This secretary of the Central Committee had previously disliked Fadeev and preferred to deal not with him, but with Simonov. But at the beginning of 1949, Fadeev, supported by Stalin, played ahead of the curve and did not allow Simonov to take his place. Pospelov did not dare to intervene in the struggle of writers then. However, he did not forget anything and was only waiting for a reason to take revenge. The occasion presented itself almost immediately after Stalin's death. Pospelov found it convenient to blame all the previous failures and mistakes in working with writers on Fadeev, who often went into hard drinking. It is no coincidence that he received Fadeev extremely rarely and through his teeth, constantly making it clear that the writer would not remain in his chair for a new term. Well, in order to sting Fadeev more painfully, Pospelov came up with a combination with Yermilov. Although, it is quite possible that Yermilov was promoted to the "New World" and some other forces.

Tvardovsky's defensive line

Did Tvardovsky know about the upcoming replacement and about his possible successor? I think not. Otherwise, he would have left at least some notes on this topic in his workbooks for the summer of 1954. And the poet at the beginning of June 1954 did not even say a word about his possible resignation and Yermilov. Only on June 9, while at a dacha in Vnukovo near Moscow, he noted that he was going to appeal to the high party leadership. Considering himself in many respects right, he decided to complain about Pospelov, who allowed a elaborative tone towards him, and to give arguments in defense of the line of the Novy Mir magazine chosen under him.

"To the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU

Comrades G.M. Malenkov, V.M. Molotov, N.S. Khrushchev, K.E. Voroshilov, N.A. Bulganin, L.M. Kaganovich, A.I. Mikoyan, M.G. Pervukhin, M.Z. Saburov.

The other day, members of the editorial board of the journal Novy Mir, the communists, were summoned by Comrade. P.N. Pospelov. The subject of the conversation was two questions: the work of the critical and bibliographic department of the journal and the manuscript of A. Tvardovsky's new poem "Terkin in the Other World."

Because Comrade. P.N. Pospelov said that these issues would be finally considered by the Presidium of the Central Committee, I consider it necessary to bring the following to the attention of the members of the Presidium:

1. Articles and reviews of the "New World" that have occupied the attention of the literary community and readers in the last six months (V. Pomerantseva - "On sincerity in literature", M. Lifshitz - on the "Diary" of Marietta Shaginyan, F. Abramov - on post-war prose, dedicated to the collective farm theme, M. Shcheglov - about the “Russian Forest” by L. Leonov), which I tried to explain with Comrade. P.N. Pospelov, cannot be regarded as a kind of “New World line”, moreover, harmful. Novy Mir has no special "line" other than the desire to work in the spirit of the Party's well-known directives on questions of literature, and there cannot be. The instructions of the Party on the need to develop a bold criticism of our shortcomings, including the shortcomings of literature, oblige and oblige the editors, to the best of their ability and understanding, to honestly and conscientiously fulfill them.

Being a participant in the last Plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which made a huge impression on me with the spirit and tone of direct and fearless criticism of shortcomings, intolerance for embellishing reality, I tried to direct the work of the journal in this spirit, I saw and see in this my direct task as a communist writer, especially in the period preparations for the Second Congress of Writers. There is no doubt that on this path I and my comrades could have made mistakes and omissions. It is impossible not to admit that, for example, V. Pomerantsev's article objectively brought, in the fair expression of Comrade. P.N. Pospelova, "more harm than good." I just want to say with all conviction that "more harm" did not come from the article itself, but from the hype raised around it in the press and in the Writers' Union, a hype that made a kind of bogey out of the very word "sincerity". About this, approximately, we, the editors of Novy Mir, spoke in an editorial removed from No. 6 by order of the Department of Literature of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

2. My new poem "Terkin in the next world", I think, was characterized by comrade only because of some prejudice. P.N. Pospelov as "a libel on Soviet reality", as "a slanderous thing". Without entering into an assessment of the literary merits and demerits of my new work, I must say that I strongly disagree with the characterization of its ideological and political essence given by Comrade. P.N. Pospelov. The pathos of this work, built on a plot that I had long conceived (Terkin enters the “other world” and, as the bearer of the undying, vital principle inherent in the Soviet people, gets out of there) is in a victorious, life-affirming ridicule of “all kinds of carrion”, the ugliness of bureaucracy, formalism, bureaucracy and routines that hinder us, hinder our victorious progress forward. I was animated by this task while working on the poem, and I hope that to some extent I managed to fulfill it. The form of conditional condensation I have chosen, the concentration of the features of bureaucracy, is legitimate, and the great satirists, whose experience I could not but follow, always used the means of exaggeration, even caricatures, to reveal the most characteristic features of the object being denounced and ridiculed. I readily admit that maybe I did not succeed in everything in the poem, maybe some of its aspects need to be clarified, brought to greater certainty, distinctness. I even admit that individual stanzas or lines may sound wrong and contradict the general idea of ​​the thing. But I am deeply convinced that, if finalized by me, taking into account all possible comments, it would benefit the Soviet people and state.

My pen, the most important thing that I have in life, belongs to the Party leading the people to communism. I owe the happiness of my literary vocation to the Party. Everything I can do to the best of my ability, she taught me. With the name of the Party, I associate everything that is best, reasonable, truthful and beautiful in the world, for which it is worth living and working. And I will continue to work and act in such a way that, not out of fear, but out of conscience, I will serve the cause of communism.

3. Having carefully and comprehensively considered everything connected with the two-day conversation with comrade. P.N. Pospelov on the issues of the “New World” and my poem, with full responsibility before the Presidium of the Central Committee, I can say that the low productivity of this conversation is determined by its “developmental” nature. Formidable accusations were made about actions and deeds that, as I expected, would deserve support and approval, and our objections and explanations of the merits of the case sounded in vain. I do not agree to immediately plead guilty - it means that you are not behaving in a party way, which means you will be punished. But what are such “automatic” confessions of mistakes worth, which are made either out of fear of being punished or simply out of inertia: accused - admit guilt, whether it is or not in reality.

Least of all, of course, could I have expected that consideration of important literary questions in such a high instance would assume such a character.

I ask the Presidium of the Central Committee to pay attention to these issues and resolve them in all fairness.

A. Tvardovsky

Tvardovsky Alexander Trifonovich, editor-in-chief of the magazine Novy Mir

Moscow"

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, pp. 196-199).

Khrushchev, for some reason or under someone's pressure, did not rush to bring the issue of the "New World" to the Secretariat of the Central Committee. For Pospelov, this was a bad sign. After all, what worked? If Khrushchev took Tvardovsky under his protection, then, logically, the question of the competence of not only the heads of the two departments of the Central Committee, but also Pospelov himself, who, in fact, authorized the persecution of the "New World", should immediately be raised. There was only one way out for Pospelov: by all means continue to put pressure on Khrushchev and prove to the leader how bad Tvardovsky is. And here all means were good.

Riot of students of Moscow State University

(in favor of the New World)

Already on July 3, 1954, the head of the department of science and culture of the Central Committee A. Rumyantsev informed the leadership that the Novomir articles Pomerantseva and Shcheglova excited student youth and it took the intervention of experienced fighters for ideology. To this message, he attached a note from the deputy head of the sector of his department A. Lutchenko. The note said:

“I consider it necessary to inform you about the meeting held on June 30 this year with students of the Moscow State University of writers A. Surkov, K. Simonov, B. Polevoy, editor-in-chief of the Literaturnaya Gazeta comrade. Ryurikov and editor-in-chief of the publishing house "Soviet Writer" t. Lisyuchevsky [so in the document, Nikolai Lesyuchevsky was actually the editor-in-chief of the publishing house. - V.O.] about Pomerantsev's article "On Sincerity in Literature" and a letter in defense of this article written to Komsomolskaya Pravda by a group of students and graduate students of Moscow State University.

In his speeches, vols. Surkov, Simonov, Field, Lisyuchevsky [sic in document. - V.O.], Rurikov and prof. Moscow State University comrade Metchenko comprehensively, deeply and sharply revealed all the viciousness of Pomerantsev's article, its demagogic character, its insincerity. The fallacy of the students of Moscow State University, who wrote a letter in defense of Pomerantsev's article, was shown very thoroughly and convincingly.

All speeches were accompanied by applause from those present, with the exception of 10-15 students, who met these speeches with hostility and generally behaved defiantly. These students made such remarks.

In response to Comrade Surkov's statement that lately literary works on collective farm themes have begun to be scolded, that they are supposedly all "lacquering", there was a replica: "correctly!". At that point in Lisyuchevsky's speech [surname distorted by the authors of the document. - V.O.], where he said that Pomerantsev's article was widely picked up by the foreign press and radio hostile to us, there was such a cry: "Ah, they were scared!"

To Simonov’s words that in Zorin’s play “Guests” at first he did not see what he saw after ... a replica was thrown: “After they were prompted from above?”.

The same question was also posed in the note received: "Do you consider it obligatory for a writer to be pushed from above?" And in a conversation with a teacher at Moscow State University, comrade Igumnova, this group of students told her that “a writer should not reckon with any advice and instructions. You, as a teacher of the foundations of Marxism-Leninism, work and speak insincerely, because everything is “conditioned” with you, you are afraid for your position.

Prof. Metchenko, in his speech, sharply criticized the articles published in the journal Novy Mir by a young “critic”, a graduate student of Moscow State University Mark Shcheglov, who, from an aesthetic position, sneers at the ideological orientation of Soviet works, mockingly calling it “piercing tendentiousness”. He recommends that the writer delve only into the soul of a person as the main and main thing in the activity of the writer. At this time, shouts were heard to the speaker: “Enough!”.

Simonov received notes: “Why are you against sincerity?”, “Literature should be sincere, not artificial.”

The same group of students tried to disrupt the speech of a graduate student of the Faculty of Philology, comrade Zaitsev, with clapping, who said that, being one of the authors of a letter to the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper in defense of Pomerantsev’s article, he realized his mistake and admitted, “Pomerantsev’s article struck me when I recently re-read it. I was struck in the eyes by her subtle demagoguery. I realized that we (who wrote the letter) helped Pomerantsev to attract the attention of students to his article.

After all these speeches, a third-year student of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Lyubarsky, took the floor. He stated in a very cheeky tone that he was the organizer of writing a collective letter to the editors of Komsomolskaya Pravda, that he would not talk about his point of view now, since it remained the same, because none of the speakers had convinced him. As for the statement of the writer B. Polevoy that Pomerantsev and his defenders are striving for the glory of Herostratus and that if there, in ancient times, Herostratus, a petty person, everything he did came down, then with us the petty man Pomerantsev and others will not do, they will not receive this glory either, they will receive a well-deserved rebuff from the Soviet public, Lyubarsky replied: “I consider this undisguised hooliganism!”.

A. Surkov immediately spoke and to the approving applause of the whole hall criticized this young man. Following the speech of comrade. Surkov, the presiding Vice-Rector of Moscow State University Comrade. Vovchenko read out a note from a large group of students received by the presidium stating that the students present were outraged by Lyubarsky's speech, condemned this speech, and the writer B. Polevoy was apologized for the unworthy behavior of this student.

This meeting of writers and students of Moscow State University brought undoubted benefits. The critical questions of the situation in literature were expertly explained to the students. However, this cannot be limited to just that. Additional measures are needed to improve all political and educational work among the students of Moscow State University.

In this regard, it is necessary to control the instruction given by the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the Moscow City Party Committee to conduct a serious check on the organization of political and educational work at Moscow State University through the party, Komsomol and trade union organizations, administration, departments and faculty, with subsequent consideration this question in the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU or at the bureau of the MGK CPSU.

Deputy head sector of the Division of Science

and culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU

A. Lutchenko

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, ll. 188-190).

The choked first attacker of Tvardovsky

On July 7, 1954, Khrushchev personally convened a regular meeting of the secretariat of the Central Committee, putting the question of the "New World" first on the agenda.

Interestingly, in addition to Nikita Khrushchev, only two other people came to the meeting that day from the secretaries of the Central Committee: Pyotr Pospelov and Nikolai Shatalin. Suslov was absent for unknown reasons, although before that he had never lost sight of everything related to the Union of Writers and "thick" magazines. But what happened this time?

There are two versions. First. Pospelov was tired of being constantly secretly controlled by Suslov. In terms of status, Pospelov seemed to be equal with Suslov, but in reality Suslov had much more powers. It is no coincidence that the head of the department of science and culture of the Central Committee, Rumyantsev, often sent other notes, bypassing Pospelov, immediately to Suslov. Yes, Suslov seemed to spare Pospelov's pride. In his resolutions, he did not directly give instructions to Pospelov, but, as it were, he was only interested in the opinion of his colleague. Although sometimes Suslov expressed his point of view in such a way that it immediately became clear who was playing the first violin, who was the second. I will refer to Rumyantsev's appeal dated April 5, 1954 to Suslov regarding the playwright's scandals A.Surova(not to be confused with the poet A. Surkov). Suslov wrote at the top of the document: "Tov. Pospelov P.N. For my part, I agree with the proposal of the department. M. Suslov. 6/IV"(RGANI, f. 5, op. 17, file 486, sheet 66). And how did Pospelov react? At the bottom in the margins he wrote: “I agree with the proposal of the department. P. Pospelov. 6/IV-54". And what else could he do when Suslov was the first to approve everything.

Of course, Pospelov had long dreamed of securing the position of the main party ideologist and pushing Suslov into the background, or even the third plan. Isn't it for the sake of this that all the persecution of the "New World" was started? Perhaps he was haunted by the laurels of his teacher Andrey Zhdanov, who, after initiating a pogrom decree on the Zvezda magazine in 1946, managed to move his longtime rival Malenkov and retain the role of second person in the party. But if this was so, then Pospelov forgot how everything ended for Zhdanov: the unexpected death and the next elevation of Malenkov. Here, too, a lot has happened. True, things did not come to unexpected deaths, but Pospelov was not allowed to rise (Suslov then did everything to significantly narrow the powers of this dogmatist, and then they were sent from the Central Committee to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism).

The second version is also partly connected with the undercover struggle that unfolded in the Central Committee apparatus in the summer of 1954. It looks like two factions clashed. One not only did not allow any liberal freedoms, but advocated a sharp increase in party control in literature. She was thirsty for blood and wanted to pull the emboldened writers worse than Zhdanov did in 1946. And another group, on the contrary, offered to meet the needs of the artists and make a number of indulgences, including censorship.

Unlike Pospelov, Suslov preferred maneuvering between different camps. He did not want to act only with threats. The reputation of the strangler of freedom, forever entrenched in Zhdanov, did not suit him. To make from Tvardovsky, who, in terms of the scale of talent, was not so much inferior Akhmatova and Zoshchenko, another victim of the regime, was not part of Suslov's plans. He thought that Tvardovsky could just become a serious ally of the authorities (as well as Fedor Abramov and Lifshitz). But how could all this be directly explained to Pospelov and the heads of the departments that closed on Pospelov? An unnecessary howl could immediately rise. Therefore, Suslov preferred to act not openly, but behind the scenes. On the one hand, he found arguments for Khrushchev not to rush to conclusions, and on the other hand, he began to prepare the ground for reforms in that part of the party apparatus that dealt with ideology. It is no coincidence that he soon achieved the removal of Shatalin, Kruzhkov, Tarasov and some other party functionaries from the Central Committee who did not suit him and the division of the department of science and culture into two independent structures, lobbying for the post of head of the department of culture loyal to him Dmitry Polikarpov.

As a result, on July 7, 1954, at a meeting of the secretariat of the Central Committee, 12 people spoke on the issue of the Novy Mir magazine: Rumyantsev, Kataev, Alexander Dementiev, S.S. Smirnov, Surkov, Fadeev , Fedin, Ryurikov, Pospelov, Simonov, Sutotsky, Khrushchev. What they talked about is unknown (according to the established practice, the meetings of the secretariat of the Central Committee - in order not to interfere with free discussion and not to fetter anyone - were not taken in shorthand. Only the decision remained recorded in the minutes. It read: "Instruct TT. Pospelov, Rumyantsev and Kruzhkov, on the basis of the exchange of views held at the Secretariat, prepare a draft resolution and submit it for consideration by the Secretariat of the Central Committee "(RGANI, f. 4, op. 4, d. 289, l. 2).

Pospelov realized that his attack had bogged down. Everything could be limited to half measures. And he really didn't want that. Pospelov still believed that Tvardovsky should have been removed from the magazine. But who should be appointed in place of the poet?

Candidates for the place of Tvardovsky

The archive has preserved a draft resolution of the Central Committee, prepared, judging by one of the marks on the first page of the document, on July 10, 1954. The second paragraph of this project read: “Release Comrade Tvardovsky A.T. from the duties of the editor-in-chief of the Novy Mir magazine and approve Comrade V.P. Druzin as the editor-in-chief of this magazine.(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, l. 184).

Druzin before that, he edited the Zvezda magazine, uprooted with a red-hot iron, as Andrey Zhdanov ordered, the spirit of Zoshchenko and Akhmatova. Under him, the magazine branded as harmful cosmopolitans Boris Eikhenbaum, M. Azadovsky, dozens of other Leningrad writers and literary critics. And Druzin argued the new party course primarily with the articles of Alexander Dementiev and Fyodor Abramov, who, ironically, later became Novomirites and fierce supporters of Tvardovsky.

It is noteworthy that under the draft resolution on the resignation of Tvardovsky and the appointment of Druzin, Pospelov's autograph remained. In the graph "Voting results" he signed: "Per".

However, almost the next day, Pospelov changed his mind and sent Khrushchev a short note. The note said:

"Nikita Sergeevich!

1) Tvardov's son of a kulak, who died in exile. Tvardovsky recently refused to take a new party card from the district committee on the grounds that he did not agree that an entry about his father was left on his registration card.

2) It seems to me that Druzin should not be approved as the editor of Novy Mir. He's not doing well in the home."

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, l. 186).

Letter from the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU

P. Pospelova N. Khrushchev

After that, another draft resolution of the Central Committee appeared, in which Rumyantsev, Kruzhkov and Tarasov again named Yermilov as a possible successor to Tvardovsky.

MSU student protest

supported the Literary Institute

While the party apparatus was looking for a replacement for Tvardovsky, part of the Moscow students continued to brandish issues of Novy Mir with Pomerantsev's article everywhere. Party functionaries no longer knew how to calm the protesting youth.

On July 7, 1954, the holy trinity from the department of science and culture of the Central Committee - Rumyantsev, Tarasov and Ivanov - sent another denunciation to the leadership. They wrote:

"Central Committee of the CPSU

In addition to the notes of the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU on creative discussions in connection with the upcoming Second All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, we report on the journal Novy Mir that the appearance in the press of a politically harmful article by V. Pomerantsev caused unhealthy moods among some of the student youth.

On June 16 of this year, Comrade Surkov, Secretary of the Board of the Union of Soviet Writers of the USSR, made a speech to teachers and students (full-time students and correspondence students) of the Literary Institute. A.M. Gorky on some issues of the development of modern Soviet literature. Tov. Surkov received a large number of notes, mostly anonymous, and many questions were asked orally. An analysis of the notes shows that some of the students are infected with the philistine views of aesthetic writers and critics, who, in the course of the pre-Congress discussion, are trying to push through vicious, alien views, trying to lead them away from the solution of the main tasks of communist construction, to tear them away from the policy of our Party. During the conversation Comrade Surkov was sometimes asked provocative, anti-Soviet questions. An indicator in this regard is the following question: “If we draw an analogy between the literature of our days, and, say, the literature of the beginning of the 19th century, we see that we don’t have Gogols and the birth is not foreseen yet, but you can pick up as many Zagoskins and Kukolnikovs as you like (cheers - writers). Why?" In a number of notes, the politically harmful article by V. Pomerantsev, which was justly criticized in the party press and among writers, was taken under protection. Some authors of the notes rejected the merits of individual Soviet writers in literature, stating that young students do not like V. Mayakovsky’s poems, that it is a great grief for them to read these poems, that S. Babaevsky “wrote for abroad, so that our collective farms would not be scolded there”, that G. Nikolaeva is “not a party member and not sincere”: “at one time she repented of removing a number of sharp moments from her work, but now she sees that she did the right thing.” A number of authors of the notes incorrectly claimed that after the speeches of the party press criticizing the article by V. Pomerantsev and others, there allegedly was a "turn" in the party's attitude towards satire in literature.

Of particular note are the speeches at the meeting of first-year students Nikitin (correspondence student) and Karpeko. So, Nikitin said that he was not satisfied with the speech of A. Surkov at this meeting and on these issues "we should talk more." And he immediately added about S. Babaevsky’s novels that “in his novels there is an idyllic picture, but we failed with agriculture”, that “in Soviet literature people are far-fetched, false”. Student Karpeko said that he considered V. Pomerantsev's article to be correct, and about the presence of individual immoral acts in the writers' organization, he said that the entire Union of Soviet Writers was rotten to the core.

Observation of other discussions on questions of literature in the Writers' Union and in higher educational institutions of Moscow (in particular, at Moscow State University) also indicates the presence of unhealthy moods among some of the students (attempts to revise the principle of partisanship in literature, disagreement with the criticism of the party press of the harmful articles of V. Pomerantsev, F. Abramov, M. Lifshitz, vicious works like the play "Guests" by L. Zorin, etc., the accusation of all Soviet literature as a whole of varnishing reality, of implausibility, etc.). Things got to the point that an illegal meeting of students was held at the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University without the knowledge of the administration and the party committee, which approved the ideologically vicious article of V. Pomerantsev. The meeting decided to send a collective letter to the newspaper Pravda in defense of V. Pomerantsev. The letter was signed by 39 students.

In connection with this letter, on June 30, a meeting was held between a group of Moscow writers and students and faculty of Moscow State University. Comrade A. Surkov made a report on the state of Soviet literature on the eve of the Second Congress of Writers. Then the writers K. Simonov, B. Polevoy, editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta B. Ryurikov and editor-in-chief of the publishing house Soviet writer N. Lesyuchevsky spoke. From the staff of Moscow State University, prof. Metchenko, graduate students vols. Zaitsev and Kornienko, student Comrade Lyubarsky.

During the writers' speeches, remarks were heard from the audience, which are echoes of apolitical sentiments among some of the student youth. So, when Comrade Surkov said that the students of Moscow State University, who signed a letter to Pravda in defense of Pomerantsev, there was no need to do this at an illegal meeting, that they could talk openly on these issues, a remark was heard from the audience: “We were frightened!” . Criticism of Pomerantsev, Abramov, Lifshitz, Shcheglov was met by some students with muffled exclamations: “Wrong ... heard ... enough ...” You’re already repenting… Enough!” Zaitsev was obstructed. They did not allow to finish the speech and prof. Metchenko when he began to talk about the shortcomings of ideological and educational work at Moscow State University.

The presidium of the meeting received a large number of notes, many without a signature, which contained provocative questions: “Do you think it’s normal when our writers write on a prompt from above?”, “Why do writers write about the countryside who do not know and hide the situation in the collective farms? "," Why did Pomerantsev not have the right to criticize, but only Surkov was allowed to judge everyone? “Why are you poisoning Grossman’s novel?”, “What is the fate of Tvardovsky’s poem “Terkin in the Other World”?”.

Questions were also received indicating a misunderstanding by some of the youth of the meaning of the ongoing struggle on the literary front. Some people ask: "Why are you against sincerity?" etc. Separate notes expressed dissatisfaction with the work of the Literaturnaya Gazeta, which "promised, but does not develop, literary discussion."

Before the concluding speech of Comrade Surkov, one of the initiators of the illegal student meeting at Moscow State University, a student of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Lyubarsky, spoke. He stated that he was not satisfied with the speech of TT. Surkov, Ryurikov, Lesyuchevsky. This statement was supported by shouts from the audience: "That's right!" Then Lyubarsky blatantly and viciously characterized the speech of B. Polevoy, who spoke about attempts by foreign reactionaries to raise a harmful article by Pomerantsev for the purpose of anti-Soviet propaganda, “as undisguised hooliganism”. In connection with this attack against B. Polevoy, notes were received from the audience stating that those present did not share the opinion of Lyubarsky regarding the speech of the writer Polevoy. The announcement of these notes was met with applause. However, some students did not applaud.

A letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU from a student of the historical and philological faculty of Sverdlovsk University V. Turuntaev also speaks of unhealthy moods among a part of the student youth. In his letter, V. Turuntaev demagogically states that the appearance in the party press of articles by A. Surkov, V. Yermilov, V. Kochetov in connection with the pre-Congress discussion caused alarm in everyone. According to the author of the letter, the “thaw” that had come in literature, “full will” in expressing one’s thoughts, “freedom”, which could contribute to the creation of classical Soviet literature that is absent in our country, were again under attack from “reinsurer critics”. The author of the letter writes: “It seems to me that Sholokhov has been silent until now only because he could not say everything he wanted without the risk of being spat on by overinsurer critics.” "Is the thaw that began in our literature and promised to bring good results - is it over?" According to the author of the letter, now everyone is worried about the question - is it really the line of the party, is it really now that the slogan of the party in the field of literature has become: “Besiege back!”

The author of the letter takes under protection the harmful article by V. Pomerantsev, the erroneous works “The Thaw” by I. Ehrenburg, “The Seasons” by V. Panova, declaring without evidence that these works are the books that our writers should imitate on the way to creating Soviet classical literature . At the same time, he demagogically and arrogantly declares that not only he alone thinks so, but all honest people.

The content of this letter was familiarized with the head. the Department of Science and Culture of the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee, Comrade Ryzhkov, who said that the author of the letter, V. Turuntaev, volunteered for a conversation and he was given the necessary explanations. Tov. Ryzhkov also said that the department of science and culture of the regional party committee, together with the party bureau of Sverdlovsk University, outlined measures to improve explanatory work among students.

The secretary of the party bureau of the Literary Institute comrade Molokova, the director of this institute comrade Petrov, as well as the secretary of the party committee of Moscow State University comrade Andrienko and the secretaries of the party bureau of the philological, mechanical and mathematical faculties comrades were called to the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Nikolaev and Pavlichenko.

At meetings of the Party bureaus of these institutions the other day, the question of the shortcomings of ideological and educational work among students in terms of explaining the basic questions of the development of literature and art was discussed. The Party Bureau outlined specific measures to eliminate these shortcomings. At the next meeting of the administration of Moscow State University, the issue of improving the ideological and educational work among university students will be specially discussed.

The Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU will exercise control over the implementation of the planned measures.

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, ll. 191-195).

V. Malin then on the first page of this note he left a note: "Tov. Khrushchev reported on other documents.

Khrushchev's unknown speech

Khrushchev himself continued to hesitate. Apparently, Tvardovsky became aware of this. One of the party apparatchiks advised him to try again to meet with the leader. On July 17, 1954, the poet recorded in his diary a draft appeal to the leader. He wrote:

“Dear Nikita Sergeevich!

I beg you to accept me on questions related to the discussion of the work of the Novy Mir magazine and my unpublished poem. Do not refuse me at least the shortest conversation, since we are talking not only about my personal literary fate, but also about the general fundamental affairs of Soviet literature. A. Tvardovsky.

However, Pospelov did everything to ensure that the poet's meeting with Khrushchev did not take place. He was afraid that the leader, succumbing to emotions, would not leave Tvardovsky in the journal.

The issue was finally to be decided at a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU on July 23, 1954. It was again chaired personally by Khrushchev. As on July 7, of the other secretaries of the Central Committee, only Pospelov and Shatalin were present. Suslov was absent again.

The question of Tvardovsky was no longer the first on the agenda, but the thirty-sixth. Officially, it sounded like this: "On the mistakes of the editorial board of the Novy Mir magazine"(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 292, ll. 12-13).

Judging by the protocol, Shatalin was the first to report. This meant that Pospelov no longer had complete confidence in this matter.

It is possible that everything could be limited to one censure. Much depended on what line of conduct the poet himself would have chosen. But Tvardovsky was not at the secretariat. He drank prematurely and no one managed to get him out of the binge.

At the secretariat itself, this time, apparently, there was no long discussion. Everyone was waiting for what Khrushchev would say. Tarasov, who was present at the meeting of the Secretariat, tried to completely outline the final speech of the leader (the record was preserved in the archive).

Khrushchev stated:

“There can be no two opinions - the discussed articles of the Novy Mir and Tvardovsky's poem “Terkin in the Other World” deserve condemnation.

Tov. Tvardovsky addressed the Presidium of the Central Committee with a statement in which he writes that in the poem he criticizes our shortcomings from party positions, that he was at the last plenums of the Central Committee and heard with what intransigence the Central Committee criticizes the shortcomings. It is difficult to judge from what positions Tvardovsky criticizes. One thing is clear, that Comrade Twardowski is a politically immature person.

We are also for criticism. We showed the power of criticism at the last plenums of the Central Committee, where questions of agriculture were discussed. Our enemies abroad for some time angrily shouted that they themselves admitted that it was bad on the collective farms. They soon became convinced that criticism was for the benefit of the collective farms and the hype stopped. I recently hosted my "old friend" McGee. He asked me maliciously: “How did you manage to do this with the collective farms?” I answered him that our criticism strengthens the collective farm.

We must criticize strongly, leaving no stone unturned for shortcomings, but from the standpoint of strengthening our system, our Party.

The enemies hoped that after Stalin's death there would be a revision of the party line, but they were mistaken. We are acting now and will continue to act in the spirit of the line worked out by all the previous experience of the Party's work. We are Leninists, we are Stalinists.

And some people even in our country understood this, to put it weakly, in a philistine way.

It happens that when you enter the forest, not all birds immediately take off. First, small birds fly up, then larger birds, and only then large birds lurking take off from under their very feet. So it turned out that those who were bursting with anti-Sovietism immediately took off, jumped out and spoke out.

About sincerity. People who talk a lot about sincerity themselves suffer more than others from insincerity. The bourgeoisie, for example, does not believe in the sincerity of the Communists and, from its position, thinks that people join the party because of material benefits.

We need to agree on the forms and procedure for resolving the issue raised. Should we take a detailed decision that would widely condemn unhealthy phenomena in the literature? It might be better for the Writers' Union to do this. The decision of the Central Committee is a great force, and this force must be used wisely. The decision of the Central Committee is binding even on those members of the Party (semi-Communists) who are connected with the Party only by carrying Party cards in their pockets. Among the writers there are people who have gone astray, they need to be convinced. It's very good that Surkov got away with it while he was arguing with students of Moscow University. In general, in our party we argue little, we convince little. We must patiently explain to the erring ones their mistakes.

About Tvardovsky's poem. How could he write it? Why did he ruin a good soldier, sent Terkin to the next world? Tvardovsky is a man of few parties! Perhaps his membership in the Revolutionary Commission of the Central Committee had an effect on him? Perhaps he thinks that since he is a member of the Revolutionary Commission of the Central Committee, he will be able to influence the Central Committee? The Central Committee will not cede its rights to anyone.

It is not necessary to write off Tvardovsky from the accounts of literature. It is necessary to tinker with him, but not to persuade. We must try to save him, if he himself is inclined to this.

A crushing decision of the Central Committee on the journal should not be taken. We need to calmly get past this case. We are so strong that no dead Turkins will shake the foundations of our state.

Concerning a meeting with writers. We need to think about what kind of meeting it will be, what questions should be raised and discussed.

Indeed, after some of the latest decisions, there could be ambiguity among people, some people could get confused. Take, for example, the Leningrad case. On our initiative, a review of the case was carried out, in our hands people were innocently convicted and shot. However, this was not explained, and writers have the right to know such things. Or, for example, questions of agriculture. They said and wrote that the grain problem had been solved and that we had annually 8 billion poods of grain. And now it turns out not so. Even this was not explained to writers, and being informed from other sources, they involuntarily become suppliers of material for their enemies in their works.

About the Deputy Editors of the Journal [about Sergey Sergeevich Smirnov and A.G. Dementieve. - V.O.]. We must treat them more carefully, from the positions of our strength. Let's build confidence in people. If they realize their mistakes, then leave them. In general, it is necessary to put an end to such a situation (as it was until recently), when people, after their “study”, did not know where they would spend the night and whether there would be a knock on the door at night.

It is necessary that in matters of art the direction should come from the Central Committee, and the struggle should be internal.

Tvardovsky should be summoned to the Central Committee, otherwise he might think that we are afraid of him. Yes, this can also encourage his supporters of obvious enemies such as the evil Gorsky.

In response to these unhealthy manifestations, we must think about deepening our work with the intelligentsia, informing them more from our positions. Perhaps, to gather the assets of the intelligentsia and make various reports?

During Dementiev's speech, a remark was thrown: "You (ie the magazine) began to look for a conflict with the party." “Manna from heaven that you planted this case with us. We will earn extra money on your mistakes"

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097, ll. 168-170).

massacre

Literally a few hours after the meeting, Pospelov sent a short note to the leader. He wrote:

“Comrade Khrushchev N.S.

I present the final text of the draft resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On the mistakes of the journal Novy Mir", edited together with comrade. Shatalin N.N.”

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097 l. 171).

In this project, Simonov was already named as Tvardovsky's successor. Someone crossed out Yermilov's surname (RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097 l. 174). Who insisted on this option, has not yet been established. Perhaps Simonov was suggested by Suslov as a compromise figure.

In the final edition, the Central Committee resolution was called “On the Mistakes of the Editorial Board of the Novy Mir Journal”. It said:

“The Central Committee of the CPSU notes that the editorial board of the journal Novy Mir made serious political mistakes in their work, expressed in the publication of a number of articles containing incorrect and harmful tendencies (articles by V. Pomerantsev, M. Lifshits, F. Abramov, M. Shcheglov). The editor of the magazine Comrade Tvardovsky and his deputies Comrade Dementiev and Comrade Smirnov were preparing for publication A. Tvardovsky's poem "Terkin in the Other World", which contains slanderous attacks against Soviet society. All these facts testify to the fact that a line has been outlined in the journal Novy Mir that contradicts the instructions of the party in the field of literature.

The Central Committee of the CPSU notes that the situation that has arisen in the editorial office of the journal Novy Mir, an organ of the Union of Soviet Writers, is largely due to the fact that the presidium and secretariat of the Union of Soviet Writers, until recently, did not essentially deal with the issues of the ideological direction of the journal Novy Mir, then as the leadership of the Union of Soviet Writers, the main attention in its activities should be given to questions of the ideological orientation of Soviet literature, questions of ideological education and the growth of the artistic skills of our writers. The Central Committee of the CPSU believes that at the present time the role of the Union of Soviet Writers as a public writers' organization is significantly increasing, helping the active participation of Soviet writers in communist construction, in the moral and political education of the builders of communism, in overcoming the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people. The Union of Soviet Writers must systematically discuss the main questions of the development and improvement of Soviet literature, discuss individual works, and help the political and artistic growth of writers through comradely criticism and comradely explanations. The Union of Soviet Writers is called upon to fight systematically and in a timely manner against deviations from the principles of socialist realism, against attempts to divert Soviet literature away from the life and struggle of the Soviet people, from topical questions of the policy of the party and the Soviet state, to combat attempts to cultivate decadent moods, to rebuff the tendencies of indiscriminate, nihilistic scolding of everything positive that has been done by Soviet literature. An exceptionally important role in the struggle for a new upsurge in Soviet literature, especially before the forthcoming Second All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, belongs to the Party organization of Soviet writers and communist writers, who must show themselves to be vanguard fighters for the party line in literature, able to convince and educate.

The Central Committee of the CPSU decides:

1. To condemn the wrong line of the Novy Mir magazine in matters of literature, as well as the ideologically vicious and politically harmful poem by A. Tvardovsky "Tyorkin in the Other World."

2. Release Comrade Tvardovsky A.T. from the duties of the editor-in-chief of the magazine "New World" and approve Comrade Smirnov K.M. as the editor-in-chief of this magazine.

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 292 pp. 12-13).

The full text of the resolution was initially decided to be sent to Pospelov, Suslov, Surkov, Chernukha, Kruzhkov and Rumyantsev. But at the last moment someone deleted Suslov's name from the mailing list. True, a handwritten note appeared that the extracts with the second paragraph of the decision were sent to Shatalin, Shepilov, Sytin and Suslov. What that means is still unclear.

Five days later, on July 28, this resolution was also considered at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The surviving certificate states: “THE QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CPSU CC” (RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097 l. 167).

"TT. Bulganin

Voroshilov - for

Kaganovch - no objections

Malenkov - for

Mikoyan - for

Molotov - no comments (comrade Lapshov reported)

Pervukhin - no objections (reported by Comrade Hakobyan)

Saburov - for

Khrushchev - for

The original Comrade Malin (for processing the issue at the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU "

(RGANI, f. 4, op. 9, d. 1097 l. 167).

Opal did not follow

Tvardovsky was able to meet with Khrushchev only the day after the Presidium of the Central Committee. “On July 29, 54, I was at N.S. Khrushchev - 1 hour 15 minutes, - Tvardovsky later noted in his diary.

Khrushchev made the poet understand that, in principle, nothing terrible had happened, he had to calm down and continue to engage in creativity. In any case, opals were not to be expected.

This was confirmed by the meeting of Tvardovsky on August 3, 1954 in the department of science and culture of the Central Committee. 3.VII- the poet noted in his diary, - call to P.A. Tarasov, where the Decree of the Central Committee on “N. world” - a resolution, the uselessness of which N.S. explained to me, as well as at the Secretariat, where I was not there due to my misfortune.

Tarasov emphasized to the poet: “No, it was about a decree like “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” - for the press. And this is so, as it were, internal.

Tvardovsky had only to go through several formal procedures: to report to the party group of the Writers' Union and to make various promises to the presidium of the Writers' Union. It was clear that no one would seriously beat him. If they curse, then with an indispensable reservation, what a great talent.

It turned out that Pospelov did not achieve his goal. And who was the winner? First of all, Suslov. These are whose positions after all this history have only strengthened. It is no coincidence that he later chaired almost all meetings of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and Pospelov only obediently nodded to him. I will add that from that moment on, Suslov took all issues related to creative unions and, in particular, with the preparation for the second congress of writers and the creation of new literary publications under his personal control, no matter how Pospelov and Shatalin wanted to.

True, Pospelov then still could not stand it and already before the very second congress of Soviet writers he again tried to play the “New World” card. Preparing in November 1954, on behalf of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a report on the preparations for the congress, he demanded that the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee recall all the sins of Tvardovsky as editor-in-chief of the journal. Well, the holy trinity from this department - Rumyantsev, Tarasov and Ivanov - did not let the boss down, they tried to catch up with as many horrors as possible. On November 23, 1954, they reported:

“The ideologically vicious line in matters of literature was revealed in the work of the editors of the journal Novy Mir.

As it was established, the editorial board of the journal Novy Mir was pursuing a politically harmful line, disorienting Soviet literature.

In No. 12 of the journal for 1953, an article by V. Pomerantsev “On Sincerity in Literature” was published, which was directed against the basic principles of socialist realism, falsely characterized Soviet literature, and tried to orient writers towards a one-sided, distorted image of reality.

V. Pomerantsev, a non-partisan, little-known writer, author of the mediocre story "The second-hand book dealer's daughter", worked for several years in the apparatus of the Soviet military administration in Germany and, communicating with circles of the German petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, became imbued with petty-bourgeois ideas, which affected his views on Soviet reality. V. Pomerantsev wrote a slanderous story "Mistake of Alyosha Kochnev", rejected by our magazines and publishing houses.

Embittered by failures, V. Pomerantsev argued in his article that our literature is devoid of sincerity, replete with "manufactured novels and plays", varnishes reality, is engaged in concocting continuous prosperity, that Soviet writers are "producers of standards", since they "straightened to straightforwardness ".

V. Pomerantsev mockingly ridiculed the desire of our writers to depict the labor activity of the Soviet people. He claimed that writers hide "behind a mining combine, behind a blast furnace, behind a tractor", "drive into magazines on a tractor."

V. Pomerantsev in his article expresses anti-kolkhoz sentiments and, in contrast to the instructions of the September Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, essentially defends private property, kulak tendencies in the development of the countryside.

In an effort to divert Soviet literature from the vital tasks of communist construction, deprive it of prospects and thereby make it incapable of fulfilling the task of communist education of people, Pomerantsev, in fact, urged writers to slander Soviet society. He argued that the task of the writer is not to propagate the ideas of the party in artistic images, which he calls "sermon", but "confession", that is, psychological soul-searching.

In the spirit of the erroneous provisions of Pomerantsev's article, the journal published vicious articles by M. Lifshitz, F. Abramov and M. Shcheglov in subsequent issues.

This is largely due to the fact that a group of politically compromised writers, who previously worked in the journal Literary Critic, such as I. Sats, M. Lifshits and V. Keller-Aleksandrov, dug in in the editorial office of the journal, who had a harmful influence on the editor-in-chief magazine A. Tvardovsky.

When discussing the mistakes of the editors of the journal Novy Mir in the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade A. Fadeev correctly characterized these critics as Menshevik book "Marxists".

The vicious views of aesthetic writers and critics have begun to exert a harmful influence on a section of our youth who, due to insufficient life experience and weak ideological and educational work, do not always correctly and deeply understand literary phenomena. Some students did not understand the criticism of harmful articles by V. Pomerantsev, F. Abramov, M. Lifshitz, criticism of vicious works, such as the play "Guests", etc. It came to the point that, for example, at the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, the administration and the party committee meeting of students, which approved the ideologically vicious article of V. Pomerantsev. The meeting decided to send a collective letter to the newspaper Pravda in defense of V. Pomerantsev. The letter was signed by 39 students. Only after a detailed explanation of this issue by the leading workers of the Writers' Union, the authors of the letter realized their mistake and abandoned it.

It is characteristic that the vicious speeches of the Novy Mir magazine, especially Pomerantsev's article, as well as Zorin's play The Guests, were raised to the shield by foreign reactionary propaganda, which would like Soviet literature to be the bearer of corrosive skepticism.

Laudatory responses and support for Pomerantsev's article "On Sincerity in Literature" and Zorin's play "Guests" came from the Voice of America, the BBC, the English magazine The Economist, the French Catholic literary weekly, and other bodies.

Voice of the USA April 11 this year praised Pomerantsev's article for allegedly revealing "the lies and falsity that were established in Soviet literature at the behest of the communist regime" and criticized the "party doctrine" that "distorts both literature and life."

Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Party July 23 this year considered with the participation of a wide circle of writers the question of the errors of the editors of the Novy Mir journal and issued a resolution on the basis of the report of the Department of Science and Culture, in which he condemned the wrong line of the Novy Mir journal in matters of literature and ordered the Presidium of the Board of the SSP to strengthen the management of journals and work on ideological education of writers"

(RGANI, f. 3, op. 34, d. 198 pp. 31-33).

Initial draft resolution of the Central Committee

But this was not enough for Rumyantsev's team. She also reported on the poet's spree. “A. Tvardovsky systematically drinks, which undoubtedly leaves an imprint of decadence on his latest works”(RGANI, f. 3, op. 34, d. 198 l. 37).

“What does A. Tvardovsky see, - wrote officials from the department of science and culture of the Central Committee, - a way out of this state of deadness and hopelessness, which, supposedly, characterizes our Soviet system?

A. Tvardovsky, through the mouth of the afterlife general, answers this question with a politically dubious, ambiguous hint:

... “I would have one regiment alive,

At least the battalion

I would ... Eh! .. And I didn’t say

In more detail"…

Only thanks to the intervention of the Central Committee of the CPSU, this poem was not published in print. At a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU on July 7, 1954, the writers Kataev, Surkov, Fedin, Fadeev, Simonov and the secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU spoke with a sharp condemnation of Tvardovsky's poem.

Tov. Khrushchev noted that the appearance of such works is not an accident. Tvardovsky showed political immaturity.

We stand for developing criticism of our shortcomings, but from party positions. Our criticism contributes to the strengthening of Soviet society, examples of such criticism are given in the decisions of the plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Tov. Khrushchev described Tvardovsky's poem as ideologically vicious and politically harmful.

A. Tvardovsky's poem "Terkin in the Other World" was condemned by the decision of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 23, 1954 "

(RGANI, f. 3, op. 34, d. 198, pp. 49-50).

Pospelov, apparently, counted on the fact that at the congress of writers it would be possible to return to the campaign to destroy Tvardovsky. But Suslov stood up for the poet. It was at his suggestion that Tvardovsky was invited on December 13, 1954, among a small group of writers, to a meeting with members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU. At the same time, Suslov perfectly understood that the poet, unlike other writers, would not ask for anything for himself, and if he began to talk about something, then rather about the degradation of the literary generals and the deceit of the bureaucratic apparatus (which, in fact, happened).

And most importantly, nothing happened so that, if not to condemn Tvardovsky, then at least to silence him. They didn't stop printing it. They did not stop electing to party congresses. And there new offers poured in. First, he was introduced to the Lenin Prize Committee. Then they started talking about a possible entry into the magazine "October". But Tvardovsky in May 1958 waited for something else from the authorities - an invitation to return to the "New World", the very one from which Pospelov expelled him in the summer of 1954. Moreover, negotiations on this issue with the poet were no longer conducted by Pospelov, but by another secretary of the Central Committee, Ekaterina Furtseva, the one who in the spring of 1954, being the head of the capital's party organization, was engaged in clarifying the social origin of the author of Vasily Terkin. Although everyone understood that in reality Tvardovsky was not promoted by Furtseva (behind the new appointment was primarily Suslov, who, as always, preferred to be in the shadows).

Another paradox of fate ... In 1954, Tvardovsky left the "New World" to the accompaniment of Simonov's criticism. But the time has come, and Simonov has become objectionable to the authorities. So who dug the hole for whom? Further: in 1954, Alexei Surkov insisted on the resignation of Tvardovsky, who then climbed out of his skin just to please Pospelov. Four years later, the same Surkov advocated the return of Tvardovsky to Novy Mir. He so wanted to appease Furtseva now. In general, political prostitution has existed at all times.

I will add that Tvardovsky had not stopped drinking by that time. Drinking has long been a part of his life. This means that the party elite (and, above all, Suslov and Furtseva) at the new stage were quite satisfied with this. Apparently, it was convenient for the Kremlin to do so. Perhaps Suslov believed that because of his frequent spree, Tvardovsky, who returned to Novy Mir, would be on his hook and the poet could be easily manipulated.

Vyacheslav OGRYZKO

For the first time, Tvardovsky took the post of editor-in-chief of the journal in 1950, replacing the ideologically “fined” K. Simonov. It was thanks to Tvardovsky that Novy Mir became one of the symbols of the liberal era in the second half of the 1950s and early 1960s, being not even a reflection of its “thaw” attitude, but, to a greater extent, its creator.

• Being inspired by the socio-political upsurge that emerged in the country after the death of Stalin, Tvardovsky published such bold publications on the pages of the magazine that it was impossible to think about even a couple of years ago.
• The second period of Alexander Trifonovich's editorship was perhaps the most significant and at the same time the most stressful period for the Novy Mir magazine.
• Tvardovsky was a surprisingly large, integral, intolerant personality. Therefore, having received the magazine again in 1958, Tvardovsky was preoccupied with creating a strong criticism department.

Among the “programmatic”, memorable speeches of the magazine, one can name: articles by V. Lakshin himself “Writer, reader, critic”, “Ivan Denisovich, his friends and enemies” (about the work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn), about the novel by M. Bulgakov “ The Master and Margarita.

Tvardovsky's position "against all odds" - the possibility of getting into big trouble, being removed from office, etc., his sense of his own connection with the lives of other people and the whole people - made the magazine the way many readers loved it - freedom-loving, honest, unbending.

At the beginning of 1970, the ideological leader of this direction in the then public life, Alexander Tvardovsky, after a long persecution, resigned from his post as editor-in-chief, and the editors were fired.

By about 1966, direct references to Stalin-era state violence had all but disappeared from the media. Against this background, the critical position in relation to the Soviet past, which was taken by Alexander Tvardovsky's Novy Mir, became especially uncomfortable. The pressure on the magazine increased sharply. The second half of the sixties was also the time when the strategies of literary journals - both Novy Mir and its opponents - took on a mature form. It is important that in 1966 it was not the press, but the readers themselves, the writers of the letters, who set the topic of state violence as the agenda. Readers' anxiety about a possible return of terror was not a response to some media scenario.

Vladimir Lakshin

Vladimir Yakovlevich Lakshin, Soviet literary critic and literary critic, was born on May 6, 1933 in Moscow into a family of theatrical figures.

In Novy Mir in the 1960s - the time the magazine took off - Vladimir Lakshin was the right hand of Alexander Tvardovsky. Together with Tvardovsky, he created a special "Novomir" style of work, the main thing in which was reverence for literature.

In 1966, Lakshin was appointed editor-in-chief of Novy Mir, however, government structures are reserved about this event, as they are not sure whether Lakshin, and, through him, Tvardovsky can be manipulated. After a "loyalty test", which Lakshin fails miserably, the critic's candidacy for the post of editor is rejected. Subsequently, the department of the Central Committee of Culture closely followed every step of the writer.

After the publication of Solzhenitsyn's book "A Calf Butted an Oak", Lakshin published an article in Western magazines about the relationship between the Novy Mir magazine and the author Solzhenitsyn, harshly criticizing the latter. After that, Lakshin finds himself in a difficult situation: on the one hand, he is published abroad, which causes dissatisfaction with the authorities; on the other hand, he criticizes the Nobel laureate Solzhenitsyn, which the Soviet intelligentsia does not like

"New world"( from an interview with I.I. Vinogradov. “THIS WAS THE ONLY LEGAL OPPOSITION MAGAZINE » In the Novy Mir magazine of the times of A.T. Tvardovsky, he was a critic, headed the prose department, led the criticism department for five years, and was a member of the editorial board. author of several books and many articles on the theory of literature, the history of Russian culture.)

What distinguished

1. it was the only legal opposition journal, which greatly distinguished it from, say, those well-known opposition journals of the 19th century with which Novy Mir was often compared - from Sovremennik, Otechestvennye Zapiski, Pisarev's journals, etc.

2. To some extent, Youth was adjacent to the "New World", but it was still a slightly different level.

3. Novy Mir enjoyed the reputation of being the most prestigious opposition journal with wide public recognition, which, although it was officially authorized, was constantly persecuted.

5. Therefore, it was and remained the main "gap" for free or semi-free speech, and everything more or less oppositional, liberal, democratic, any free, seeking thought, naturally, rushed into this "gap".

The spectrum was very wide. People of very different views went to the magazine, the vast majority were socialist-oriented, secular-humanistic, perhaps even actively atheistic in some ways.