A FOUR-LINE news item in some of the foreign language dailies records the end of one of the most spectacular careers in the Russian revolutionary movement. It comes from Germany and refers to the death of Yevno Azev.
Yevno Azev’s last days were spent obscurely as an engineer in some German factory. His death has passed almost unnoticed. No doubt this is due to the fact that in reality he has been dead since 1909 when it was discovered that he was an agent of the Tsar’s police.
Azev took part in the Russian revolutionary movement since the second part of the nineties. A member of the party of the Socialist Revolutionists almost since its foundation, he soon became one of its most influential leaders. Consolidation of various fragments into one centralized body, foundation of a central organ and a theoretical review, smuggling of literature to Russia, organization of the Agrarian Socialist League and the elaboration of the terrorist campaign plan of the party—they were all tasks in which he took a most prominent part.
But his real greatness lay in the terrorist branch of the activities. His ascension to supreme power in the fighting organization dated from the arrest of Gregory Gershuni in December, 1903. Gershuni was the soul of the terrorist activities. Like Zheliabov, in the times of Narodnaya Volya (mistakenly recorded in history under the name of Nihilism). Gershuni was the leading spirit in all terrorist enterprises directed against Sipiagin, Obolensky, Bogdanovich and other ministers and governors of the Tsar. But the most spectacular deeds occurred after his arrest when Azev, who no doubt occasioned it, introduced more “efficient” methods. He brought up a whole pleiad of fearless and skilled terrorists who net to work according to regular strategical plans—in daring and ingenuity often surpassing the imagination of the author of the “Three Musketeers.” His chief lieutenant was Boris Savinkov, who later became minister of war under Kerensky and still later, after leaving his party, became one of the leaders of the White Counter-revolutionists.
The successful terroristic attempts against the life of the Russian Minister of the Interior, Von Plehve, by Yegor Sazonov, and against the Tsars uncle, the Grand duke Sergey, by Ivan Kalaiev, were both organized by Azev. These achievements earned hint unbounded admiration and influence in his party . . . and during all this time, nay, since his early student years, he was in the employ of the police and delivered uncounted active comrades to the gallows.
Sometimes the attempt was made to present Azev as a kind of Jekyll and Hyde who, although serving the police, was at the same time a revolutionist whose acts against Plehve and Sergey were inspired by genuine hatred for his masters. But those who took this view forgot that there were always conflicting groups in the Tsarist camp. Plehve and Sergey at that given moment were obnoxious to the chiefs of the secret service and other powerful groups behind the curtains. Their removal by some self-sacrificing revolutionist could only be welcome to them at the same time increasing the importance of the police and emphasizing its necessity for the protection of the government.
Azev was unmasked in the beginning of 1909. It was Vladimir Burtsev, now a worthy comrade of Savinkov, who first voiced suspicions to this effect upon the indications given to him by a certain Bakal, a “repentant” spy formerly in the service of the Warsaw police. The information was later confirmed to Burtsev by Lopukhin, Conner police director of Petrograd, who, after 1905, began to show ‘liberal’ leanings. Lopukhin was sent to Siberia for his indiscretion while Burtsev was menaced with death by Savinkov and other worshippers of Azev who refused to believe that for so many years they had been the dupes of a provocateur. Finally, the members of the Central Committee of the party could not resist the evidence, particularly as Azev failed to give plausible explanations for some of his movements. Azcv fled and settled in Germany whence the news of his death came recently.
The case of Azev was not the only one where a police spy occupied an important position in a revolutionary organization. In fact, there hardly ever was in history a subversive movement that was not infested with traitors and spies. The names of Degaiev of the Narodnoya Yolya of twenty-five years before and that of Malinovsky. important member of the Bolshevik Party who was unmasked a few years after Azev, are sufficient proofs to that effect.
But there is a distinction between the activities of the agents provocateurs in a predominantly terrorist party like that of the Social Revolutionists, and in an organization relying exclusively on mass action. In the latter, the provocateur, though betraying from time to time, individual members or groups, is nevertheless useful through his propaganda in strengthening the mass movement. In the former, the whole party becomes a puppet in the hands of the department of police. In subsequent issues we will treat some other cases of famous provocateurs in the Russian revolutionary movement.
When the working class and peasantry took power in Russia in the October Revolution there were three main architectural tendencies which all competed with each other: realistic classicism, rationalism and constructivism. Later a fourth group so-called “proletarian architects”, organized itself into VOPRA (All-union Society of Proletarian Architects).
Classicism drew inspiration especially from ancient Greco-Roman models, the renaissance and Russian national architecture. Its leading names were Zholtovsky and Schuschev. This tendency will be discussed in a later episode. There was also a style of sorts in the late Russian empire known as “eclecticism”, a vulgarized type of architecture using pseudo-classical sources. Enemies of classicism often simply lumped them all into the “eclectic” category.
Constructivism was a tendency that arose mainly in the 1910s. It will also be discussed in more detail in the next episode. The main idea of constructivism is that form of the building emerges from its function, or represents its function. Constructivist buildings are often characterized by a highly geometric and industrial look, they are often designed to look like machines. Constructivism was often also called “utilitarianism” by its opponents, because constructivism tries to be oriented towards practice and at least theoretically puts the form of the building to a very subordinate position compared to its function, seemingly ignoring aesthetic qualities. The constructivists were mainly united in the “Organization of modern architects” (OSA).
A constructivist building. NKTP (People’s Comissariat for heavy industry) competition entry, A. & V. Vesnin with M. Ginzburg
The third tendency, rationalism, will be dealt with in this episode. The rationalists were a modernist tendency whose buildings are characterized by abstract geometric shapes. They were called “formalists” by their critics because they emphasized form and aesthetic quality more than functionality. Their view of aesthetic quality was not really based on beauty, but rather on “rationality”, hence the name “rationalism”. They considered that forms easy to perceive, or “requiring the least mental energy” were rational.
The rationalists were heavily inspired by the suprematism of Malevich and El Lissitzky, in fact El Lissitzky is often called a formalist/rationalist. They were also influenced by idealist gestalt psychology, empirio-criticism and the aesthetics of Kant. Rationalists were organized into ASNOVA* or Association of new architects. Later a split occurred where some of them constituted a new organization called ARU or association of architect urbanists.
*“The Association of New Architects (ASNOVA) was the first association of innovative architects. Nikolai Ladovsky, a VKhUTEMAS professor, was its theoretician and leader… The architects Vladimir Krinsky, Alexei Rukhlyadev, and Victor Balikhin were among ASNOVA’s founders. Lazar Lisitsky and Konstantin Melnikov stood close to the association.” (Andreĭ Vladimirovich Ikonnikov, Russian architecture of the Soviet period, p. 99)
Alongside the architectural debate between formalists, constructivists, classicist realists and the VOPRA, there was also a debate concerning city planning. Many architects, mainly constructivists but also some others, supported so-called “anti-urbanism” while many formalists supported urbanism. That debate will be discussed in a later episode.
The rationalists and constructivists were both very hostile to each other, however they had much in common and the buildings they designed look very similar, despite the different methods used. Eventually both of them were defeated by socialist realist architecture. In the course of several articles I will first provide a criticism of the erroneous anti-communist views of these tendencies, and then explain the marxist-leninist, socialist realist view of architecture.
The rationalists and constructivists are always portrayed very favorably by capitalist writers, who try to make them look good and use them to fight against socialist realism and marxism-leninism. Capitalist writers try to portray these modernist artists as superior artistically, and even more in accordance with marxism and the revolution. It is very characteristic that capitalist writers rarely focus on socialist realism, but the vast majority of literature on this topic focuses only on these modernist trends, such as rationalism and constructivism. But we must look at these trends critically in the light of facts.
According to marxist theory, the economy of a given society forms a base, on top of which arises an ideological superstructure. This ideological superstructure includes many forms of perceiving the world: philosophy, science, politics, religion as well as art. Art, according to marxism, is part of the superstructure, and is a specific form of social consciousness. Art is political and ideological. Even if the artist in question claims to not be involved in politics, he is still expressing some aspect of the ideological climate of the given society.
There is no “neutral art”, which is not ideological or political, and not expressing the interest of a given class. Art can be either more or less consciously political, or spontaneously political. Spontaneously political art is typically anti-communist, because in capitalist society the reactionary ideological hegemony of the decaying capitalist class prevails, and it continues to have a strong influence for a long time even after capitalism is toppled. Furthermore, the traditions of thousands of years of class struggle will continue to influence people for a long time.
Marxism denounces the capitalist theory of “art for art’s sake”, which states that art should not have any message or politics. Art for art’s sake is actually only a cover to hide the bourgeois nature of such supposedly neutral art. The rationalist/formalist organization ASNOVA actually claimed to support socialism, but they still described their formalist principles by the phrase “The measure of Architecture is Architecture.” (Anatole Kopp, Town and revolution; Soviet architecture and city planning, 1917-1935, p. 76) i.e. the equivalent of ‘art for art’s sake’ in architecture.
This was also pointed about a Soviet critic:
“The main slogan under the sign of which ASNOVA (created in 1923) came out was the slogan: “Measure architecture with architecture.” Comparing the speeches of formalists in other areas of art, we find an analogy to this slogan. “Literature for literature”, “art for art’s sake”, the thesis that art can be understood and explained only from its own foundations, the assertion of the complete autonomy of art from public life” (K. Mikhailov, “VOPRA—ASNOVA—SASS”, 1931)
ASNOVA also had many commonalities with the ultra-left theories of so-called Proletkult or “proletarian culture”. Proletkult was an organization and movement started by the revisionist Bogdanov, who’s theories Lenin had destroyed in his classic philosophical work Materialism and empirio-criticism. Bogdanov advocated the idealistic philosophy of empirio-criticism, which denied dialectical materialism and claimed that the objective world does not exist, or is not cognizable, so that all we can gain knowledge about are our own ideas and sensations. Bogdanov called this “proletarian philosophy”.
Bogdanov’s idea of “proletarian culture” or Proletkult, was that the workers must reject all traditions, that the proletariat must create an absolutely new culture with nothing in common with past history. This basically anarchistic idea is deeply anti-marxist. Marxism considers that the workers must absorb and master all past human culture, and critically evaluate it, taking its best elements and developing them further. The future culture can only be built on top of the past.
Socialism will be built by taking the industry and science developed in capitalism, and not by destroying industry and science. The erroneous aspects of past science and industry will be left behind, and the usable aspects will be critically re-worked and developed further. Lenin said:
“The task of Marxists… is to be able to master and refashion the achievements of these [bourgeois scientists]… and to be able to lop off their reactionary tendency, to pursue our own line and to combat the whole line of the forces and classes hostile to us.” (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism)
“Only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture.” (Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues)
So-called “avant-garde” abstract art movements follow an anarchistic method. They think they can create something “entirely new”, totally rejecting everything from the past. In reality, such art movements have always merely copied reactionary imperialist fads and have never created anything original at all. The same goes for ASNOVA.
Marx himself considered ancient Greek art to still be “in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable ideal” for contemporary art (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
ASNOVA followed Bogdanov’s idea that all past culture must be rejected, both good and bad:
“ASNOVA’s concept of architecture remained deeply rooted in Kasimir Malevich’s Suprematism. This concept, in turn, was based on a rather vulgar interpretation of Marxism. According to the suprematists, each mode of production generated not only a ruling class but also an official artistic style supported by that dominant social class. Deviations from that official style were the products of subordinate classes. All art, prior to the rule of the proletariat, therefore, manifested the ideology of some class. But the revolution was to bring about the destruction not merely of the bourgeoisie, but of all classes as such. Consequently, the art of the proletarian revolution must be the expression not merely of another style but of absolute, eternal, “supreme” values”” (Hugh D. Hudson, Blueprints and blood: the Stalinization of Soviet architecture, 1917-1937, p. 24)
As Hudson says, ASNOVA relied on the idealist views of Malevich. Malevich believed that there are certain “absolute”, “eternal”, “supreme” values, which are class-neutral and ahistorical. In his paintings, in works such as Black square, Malevich tried to express these supreme ideas by maximum abstraction, with only two-dimensional geometric shapes with flat colors.
K. Malevich, Black square.
“The association members described themselves as rationalists, seeing the chief task in organizing and rationalizing the perception of architecture.” (Andreĭ Vladimirovich Ikonnikov, Russian architecture of the Soviet period, p. 99)
For them, this rationalizing meant something quite specific, which again was drawn from suprematism:
“ASNOVA was under an especially strong influence of Malevich’s Suprematism. His advocation of austerity as the measure of art’s value provided the basis for the principle of “psychological energy”, seen by Ladovsky as the chief criterion of form-shaping in architecture. He attempted to base ASNOVA’s rationalistic aesthetics on data of experimental psychology, or “psychotechnics”” (Ikonnikov, p. 99)
The leading figure of ASNOVA, Ladovsky wrote that: “Modern aesthetics, is about saving the psychophysical energy of man.” (“Izvestia ASNOVA”, 1926, Ladovsky, “The basis for constructing a theory of architecture.”)
As a marxist critic wrote:
“it is necessary to establish how they understand “rationality” itself. “Architectural rationality,” writes one of the leaders of formalism, N. Ladovsky, “is based on an economic principle in the same way as technical rationality.
The difference lies in the fact that technical rationality is the saving of labor and material when creating an expedient structure, and architectural rationality is the saving of mental energy when perceiving the spatial and functional properties of the structure. The synthesis of these two rationalities in one structure is rational architecture” (“Izvestia ASNOVA”, 1926 Ladovsky, The basis for constructing a theory of architecture.)
Already here the moments of an idealistic understanding of architecture are striking. Architecture is reduced to pure technology and pure form, and form is made dependent on perception, the basic thing that we consider to be decisive for architecture, its dependence on certain forms of social relations, on socio-economic conditions, is thrown out.” (A. I. Mikhailov, “Formalism in Soviet architecture”, 1932)
“We can find the development of these provisions in a number of formalists. Their philosophical essence goes back to the aesthetics and philosophy of Kant, who puts forward form as the basis of art and aesthetic judgment, excluding the latter from the socio-practical environment. However, they go back to Kant’s aesthetics for the most part not directly, but through the latest idealistic movements. The connection with modern idealist philosophy is easily revealed if we compare the main provisions of Machian philosophy with the provisions of the formalists. The principle of saving psychic energy corresponds to Mach’s principle of “least waste of effort”, reducing form to sensation – the primacy of sensation in Mach, etc.” (A. I. Mikhailov, “Formalism in Soviet architecture”, 1932)
The marxist critic correctly points out the idealist character of ASNOVA’s theories. They correctly point out that the suprematist principle of “economizing mental energy” is the same as that of the machists (i.e. empirio-critics).
He calls the aesthetic views of ASNOVA Kantian, because according to the classical idealist Kant, forms of consciousness and forms of perception are eternal, non-class and ahistorical. According to Kant’s idealist views, aesthetics are not determined by societal factors, but are eternal and are determined by the very structure of our consciousness – this is the exact view of the ASNOVA rationalists, in fact it is the core of their theory.
“formalists reduce architectural form to perception. For them, this architectural form exists only in perception and is subordinate to it. Again, there is no special need to prove that here the formalists are simply applying the old idealistic position that being, reality, is determined by consciousness.
The materialist will seek an explanation for the evolution of architecture in specific historical, social conditions, while the formalist will look for the eternal laws of perception, which in his opinion determine the change of architectural forms. The eternal laws of perception, rooted in the unchanging nature of man (“generally” devoid of any social connections), plus the artistic will of the architect, based on knowledge of these laws, are the “factors” that determine the work of the architect for the formalists…
How should “artistic will” be expressed and what is it based on? The “rationalists” readily answer this question.
“An architect-artist”, writes Dokuchaev, “in addition to knowledge of the construction and technical side of construction, must at the same time be an artist who has undergone a rational school of studying the needs of the human eye and who knows how to methodically satisfy these needs. The foundations of our perception rest on laws and principles that are deeply objective in nature. The psychophysiological foundations of our perception do not change so quickly and do not depend on fashion. Therefore, the architect-artist must raise (and not follow fashion) the consumer to understand these objective laws of the art of architecture, which take into account our ability to perceive forms and space. The technique that architecture uses must itself be subordinate in its design to the principles of architecture)”. [Dokuchaev – “Modern Russian architecture and Western parallels”, “Modern Art”, 1927, No. 2.]
What do all these provisions essentially mean? Essentially, they set out a program of idealistic bourgeois aesthetics and try to impose it on the proletariat under the guise of the “eternal laws” of perception, and hence the “eternal” laws of harmony, rhythm, etc.
The anti-Marxist, anti-proletarian character of such a program is completely obvious.” (K. Mikhailov, “VOPRA—ASNOVA—SASS”, 1931)
“The entire history of idealism in art was full of endless tricks to create some “eternal” laws of art that ignored its social conditioning.
For example, one of the founders of psychological aesthetics, Fechner in the second half of the twentieth century wrote about the six main laws of perception of peace and beauty (according to Fechner, these laws are as follows: intensity of aesthetic threshold, intensification of impressions, unity, lack of contradictions, clarity and associations). Close to them are… the “five pairs of concepts” by Wölfflin – one of founders of modern formalist art criticism (linear flatness – picturesqueness, flatness – depth, closedness – openness This form, plurality – unity, absolute and relative clarity). Theorists from ASNOVA found themselves captive of these anti-scientific, metaphysical ideas about art.” (Mikhail Tsapenko, On the realistic foundations of Soviet architecture, pp. 127-128)
“Extreme formalists from ASNOVA placed special emphasis on geometric expressiveness of form, as a manifestation of absolute static and dynamic properties. As we have already seen, in a number of cases geometrical properties were given a naive-symbolic social interpretation (like the spiral expresses the “idea of revolution,” etc.). But soon even such a primitive public understanding of architecture seemed to formalists as something too “social”. Their further experiments in the field areas of psychological perception of architecture come down to the fact that architecture must express abstract ideas from the world of physics and geometry: ideas of gravity, elasticity, rhythm, repetition, etc.” (Tsapenko, pp. 128-129)
Tsapenko points out that ASNOVA rationalists originally gave crude symbolistic meanings to various geometric shapes. Such as, a spiral means revolution, or like in El Lissitzky’s poster Beat the whites with the red wedge, the capitalist whites are represented by stationary spheres and squares, while the communist reds are represented by dynamic and moving triangles. But later even this crude social symbolism became too concrete for the rationalists, and they retreated even further away from real life, even further into abstraction, trying to express in their works only such “eternal”, “supreme” values as ‘gravity’, ‘movement’, ‘contrast’ etc.
El Lissitzky, Beat the whites with the red wedge.
Marxist critics pointed out how utterly ASNOVA was detached from the reality of socialist construction, and how they worshiped abstract form isolated from social content:
“At one time, Izvestia ASNOVA published a very interesting project by El Lissitzky in this regard: a series of skyscrapers for Moscow.
The skyscraper, in the shape of the letter H, is given in this project horizontally raised above the ground on stilts. How does the author explain this unusual form of residential structure? “Until the possibilities of completely free soaring have been invented,” he writes in his explanation, “we tend to move horizontally, not vertically. Therefore, if there is no space on the ground for horizontal planning in a given area, we raise the required usable area onto stilts.”
“I proceeded from the balance of two contrasts:
a) the city consists of atrophying old parts and growing living, new ones; We wanted to deepen this contrast;
b) give the structure itself spatial balance as a result of contrasting vertical and horizontal stresses” [See “Izvestia ASNOVA”, 1926, “Series of skyscrapers for Moscow” by El Lissitzky.]
Thus, the task was based on two points:
a) this form of technology for orientation, human movement in space, which fully corresponds to the above-cited position of the formalists that architecture serves “the highest technical need of man – to navigate in space”;
b) the formal-aesthetic task of achieving a contrast of horizontal and vertical tensions, which corresponds to the fetishism of abstract form.
But the result was a structure that stands in stark contrast to the possibilities for urban reconstruction that exist in the USSR, a refusal to develop new types of housing that correspond to new social relations.
El Lissitzky did not try to pose all these questions. All this turned out to be unimportant for him. At the same time, masked by the abstractions of “orientation in space” and the search for abstract formal relations, El Lissitzky gave a solution, the class content and direction of which are beyond doubt.” (A. I. Mikhailov, “Formalism in Soviet architecture”, 1932)
Such views of ASNOVA became increasingly more of a problem as socialist construction advanced, because they fell behind from current architectural tasks, and the importance of practical tasks was emphasized more and more, especially after the criticism of the Deborin school in philosophy (see my article on the Deborinists).
Marxism also rejects formalism, the worship of form without content, because it is tied to the theory of “art for art’s sake” and is anti-realistic. Practically all abstract art is formalistic. Instead of formalism, marxism advocates socialist realism, which portrays reality in a truthful way, elevates people’s class consciousness and gives them a way forward.
A writer from VOPRA wrote:
“We especially emphasize the groundless fantasy and utopianism of formalist architects in the field of solving social and everyday problems of today and the idealistic nature of their theories and methods of work.” (K. Mikhailov, “VOPRA—ASNOVA—SASS”, 1931)
At the first congress of Soviet architect K. S. Alabian criticized “the early years of Soviet architecture, years of “paper architecture” divorced from the demands of the people and cut off from real construction. The ultimate product of these years was merely “formalistic sleight of hand.” … Alabian turned to ASNOVA, “which flowed from the aforementioned cult of abstract form.””(Hudson, p. 191)
Rationalist buildings. N. Ladovsky, Commune house (sketch). El Lissitzky, Horizontal skyscrapers.
Certainly El Lissitzky’s “horizontal skyscraper” is a perfect example of such purely “paper architecture”. It should also be noted that such paper architecture did not arise by chance, but due to a combination of factors:
1) a result of the influence of western bourgeois art,
2) a result of idealist petit-bourgeois views, detached from reality,
and to a significant degree,
3) the result of the economic situation of the country at the time. During the civil war and early NEP years only very little actual construction took place because of the country’s poverty. Architects from a bourgeois background and with bourgeois ideas had time to create utopian designs on paper, but no resources to actually build.
Of course even during this period, many reasonable designs were also created, and some were later utilized. Certainly the economic situation which prevented real construction caused the modernist architects to become more and more “experimental” and detached from reality in their designs, because they didn’t have to worry about actually trying to make their designs a reality. When socialist construction was put on the order of the day, and even when economic reconstruction was demanded, that kind of architectural ideas were hopelessly inadequate.
The ASNOVA notion that architecture doesn’t deal with specific social goals, with materials etc. but with abstract “space” and that “man’s highest need is navigation through space” also came under attack by marxists. It was revealed to be completely idealist and out of touch with reality:
“VOPRA believes that architecture should meet specific social needs and express specific content; ASNOVA leaders state that architecture should “serve the highest technical need of man – to navigate in space .”
VOPRA comes from the demands of the proletariat as a class subject of proletarian architecture, ASVOVA – from the “objective” laws of vision, from “spatial logic”, “economy of mental energy”.
VOPRA – for conveying through architecture the deepest intentions, aspirations and ideas of the working class.
ASNOVA – for the “eternal”, objective beauty of forms that speak of “power and weakness, greatness and baseness, finitude and infinity” (typical fetishes of preaching idealistic aesthetics)… In fact, they preach and adapt idealistic-bourgeois theories…
Kant’s doctrine… that aesthetic pleasure does not stand in connection with practice, disinterestedly, etc., Wölfflin’s “categories of vision”, the reduction of the evolution of art to the “objective” laws of this vision ( eyes), Fiedler’s autonomy of art, Hildebrand’s provisions on the certainty of our relationship to the outside world by the knowledge and representation of space and form, and the understanding of art as a pure visual form – all this found its place in the theory and method of the “rationalists”.” (K. Mikhailov, “VOPRA—ASNOVA—SASS”, 1931)
During the Debate between the dialectician school of Deborin and the mechanists, ASNOVA allied itself with the Deborinists and attacked its rivals, the constructivists, as mechanists. While it was not incorrect to accuse the constructivists of mechanism, the formalists themselves were not by any means free from serious mistakes. (Hudson, p. 80)
ASNOVA waged an ultra-leftist campaign against their constructivist rivals, interpreting Deborin’s dialectics in a voluntarist way, claiming that all tradition must be destroyed and using class-conflict terminology, while the constructivists utilized Bukharin’s theories of equilibrium and class-harmony.
“Rejecting OSA’s stress on interclass cooperation in solving concrete problems of building a socialist environment, ASNOVA parroted the Stalinist cliches regarding the class-ideological functions of architecture and the need for architecture to symbolize an idea.” (Hudson, p. 82)
It is completely dishonest for Hudson to call ASNOVA’s views “stalinist cliches” on class-ideological functions of architecture, because ASNOVA advocated theories of non-class – i.e. bourgeois – aesthetics, and because the only sense in which ASNOVA understood class conflict, was metaphysical and Bogdanovist. They believed that class-conflict means the destroying of all tradition. They considered that each new ruling class simply destroys the past, instead of critically assimilating, re-working and developing it.
That is not to say that there was nothing positive to the rationalists. As stated by a marxist writer, Ladovsky split from ASNOVA and created a new organization, the ARU in 1928. The ARU attempted to be more praxis-oriented, though it ultimately failed in this regard:
“In 1928 Ladovsky and a few other members left ASNOVA which they considered too involved in abstract theory. They formed the Association of Urban Architects, ARU, in order to concentrate on planning methods essential to the reconstruction of the state and particularly the development of nationalized land. They considered architecture as a socialist and psychological means of educating the masses. They advocated courses in urbanism and the popularization of their aims. Projects were carried out by Ladovsky and students of VKHUTEMAS (a theatre in Sverdlovsk, a housing estate for the Telbesk factory, Trubnoy Square in Moscow and plans for the development of middle Asia).” (V. Khazanova, “Soviet Architectural Associations 1917-1932” in Building in the USSR, 1917-1932, ed. O. A. Shvidkovsky, p. 22)
“By the beginning of the reconstruction period, the formalists began to come closer to practice, and the association of urban architects [ARU] separated from them (1928)…
Positive changes were manifested in the fact that the formalists who joined the ARU set themselves specific tasks of participating in the planning and redevelopment of cities. They tried to set these tasks in accordance with the requirements of socialist construction. Listing the main features of a city in a socialist system, in contrast to the West, they point to a number of socio-economic and political aspects that must be taken into account as the basis for planning work… despite individual shifts, the formalists, renaming themselves “urban architects,” remained in their old position on the main, decisive issues.” (A. I. Mikhailov, “Formalism in Soviet architecture”, 1932)
Also, rationalism, while upholding a rather warped view of aesthetics, still did not deny aesthetics to the same degree as constructivism:
“Rationalism lead by N. A. Ladovsky… while sharing many of the constructivist principles, was more favourable to classical heritage and allowed for some decorativity.” (A. Bazdyrev, “History of Soviet Architecture: From Palaces to Boxes)
Though ASNOVA’s views were completely confused, some of their ideas were not wrong. Their ideas such as unity of buildings and their environment, the unity of ensembles instead of individual buildings etc., were correct and had dialectical features. Their rivals, the constructivists, believed that the function of the building ought to completely determine its form, and design should be done from “inside out”, one building at a time, disregarding whether the building fits its environment.
Still, ASNOVA’s views were idealist and anti-marxist to the core and ought to be rejected. While sharing many things with constructivism, rationalism had even less positive qualities.
IN SUMMARY
ASNOVA’s views were eventually rejected by marxists and the architectural community both for theoretical and practical problems.
-ASNOVA tried to develop a “rational” aesthetics, which reduced aesthetic value to the crude idea that a building which requires the least mental energy to perceive, is rational. This was based on idealist theories derived from suprematism and reactionary philosophy. It was analogous to empiriocriticist views. ASNOVA spent a lot of effort studying perception through laboratory methods, but aesthetic beauty cannot be measured like that.
-ASNOVA’s view of aesthetics was incredibly flawed because it believed that since aesthetics was purely rooted in laws of perception, it should therefore remain the same for all classes and all times. It was thus a normative type of aesthetics, but like so often happens, it didn’t correspond to reality at all. No society has ever followed the guidelines of ASNOVA. This theory is anti-marxist since it is “class-neutral” and ahistorical. A materialist understanding must recognize that aesthetics develops historically based on material causes and reflects class interests, though it shouldn’t be understood simplistically.
-ASNOVA actually held the suprematist view that each class has its own style of art, which is an oversimplification. But ASNOVA considered this irrational and focused on creating the art of the classless society. This further put them out of touch with reality because classes still existed. This is derived from the suprematist notion that art must not reflect material reality, but “supreme values” beyond the material world, or outside the material world. Marxists could not accept such idealism.
-These ideas eventually become reduced to crude symbolism where abstract shapes are given some ideological meaning. ASNOVA was correct to consider that buildings have an ideological effect on the viewer, but they understood this in such a crude form it became useless. Nobody is going to see a triangular building and be convinced that communism is correct. Its not so simple. This topic will be discussed further in a later episode. Furthermore, ASNOVA even retreated from this to expressing even more abstract “supreme values” such as abstract gravitation, motion, contradiction, etc. which is truly just “formalism”, i.e. the worship and fetishization of experiments with forms for their own sake.
-All these criticisms showed that rationalism was totally unacceptable and unworkable, despite their attempts to justify it by appealing to marxism, and I have not even contrasted ASNOVA to socialist realism yet. When I start to discuss socialist realism, it will become even more apparent how ASNOVA meets none of the criteria that was required. However, the failure of ASNOVA is blatant even without discussing realism at all.
-Despite all these philosophical and theoretical criticisms, the most important flaw with rationalism was that it was simply not feasible or practical. Practice was always the most important criteria for the Soviet Union. Constructivism was criticized theoretically, but always received some praise for its practical achievements. ASNOVA had much fewer such achievements. Their ideas were often impossible to implement and were a hindrance. As such they had absolutely zero chance of winning the architectural debate.
ASNOVA “remained, until its demise, a relatively small grouping based mainly in Moscow.” (Ikonnikov, p. 99) and its leading architects eventually adopted more workable ideas. Ladovsky and El Lissitzky both adopted socialist realism and contributed to socialist construction.
SOURCES:
Andreĭ Vladimirovich Ikonnikov, Russian architecture of the Soviet period
Hudson and Khazanova are anti-communist bourgeois writers, Ikonnikov is a Soviet revisionist writer. All the other sources are recommended reading, though the VOPRA position is also not entirely correct and will be explained in a later episode. Tsapenko and Bazdyrev are particularly good sources.
On March 3rd 1918 Soviet Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany, the peace of Brest-Litovsk. Lenin considered this peace treaty absolutely crucial, because aggressive German imperialism was still attacking Russia and the Russian army had completely disintegrated. There had been a revolution, troops were simply leaving their posts and going home, the army was not in any condition to resist the Germans.
A Left-Communist Opposition emerged inside the Bolshevik party, which attacked Lenin and claimed it was unacceptable to make such a peace. They declared that rather than sign the peace, it was better to sacrifice the Russian revolution on the altar of world revolution. In an article of the same name, Lenin characterized the Left-Communist arguments as “strange and monstrous”. How would the sacrificing of the only successful proletarian revolution benefit world revolution? How could they resist Germany without signing the peace, since their army had been wiped out?
Instead, Lenin completely correctly understood that if the Russian revolution survived, it would be able to help other revolutions, but if it was pointlessly squandered, it would only harm the cause of world revolution. This kind of dialectical thinking of Lenin’s, of using the Russian revolution as a base area for spreading the revolution, was later developed to the idea of Socialism in One Country.
However, others were not thinking so dialectically in a correct Marxist way, but instead thought metaphysically:
“For Alexandra [Kollontai], Bukharin, Pyatakov, and other leftists [left-oppositionists] the treaty meant not only the betrayal of internationalism but the reinforcement of German imperialism” (Porter, Alexandra Kollontai: A Biography, p. 307)
“After the Brest-Litovsk treaty had been signed on March 3 and the Germans had established a puppet regime in the Ukraine, the left Bolsheviks in Petrograd had brought out their own paper, Communist, in which they reviled the leadership for compromising its revolutionary principles.” (Porter, pp. 308-309)
“Bukharin attacked the peace as crippling the energies of the working class, and its defenders as concerned only with party unity… He was supported in a series of anti-Leninist speeches by Mikhail Uritsky (the prominent leftist central-committee member), Andrey Bubnov, Karl Radek, Ryazanov, and Alexandra, all of whom repeated that Soviet power was worth nothing without an international revolution, and that no defeat was to be as feared as this “obscene peace.” The leftists Pyatakov and Yakovleva threatened to resign from the central committee if Lenin’s line was adopted” (Porter, p. 309)
Kollontai made a very serious mistake when she allowed herself to be swept up by leftcommunist arguments. Listen to the absolutely childish idealism of Kollontai’s regarding the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Kollontai opposed the Brest-Litovsk peace and thought that “if they were destroyed instead, “it would be good to end in beauty.” The vision of mass triumph or glorious death for the good of future generations had swept Kollontai onto a revolutionary wave of her own imagining. Every outburst of discontent in war-weary Europe (and there were many in 1918) fed the illusion for her, as did the presence in Russia of others who shared her vision. Now her variant of Marxism, always a sustainer in battle and an illuminator of reality, had turned into a distorter that threatened the survival of her government. To ignore the fact that the Bolsheviks had no army, that partisans could not prevent the Germans from occupying all the territory they demanded and more, that the Bolsheviks would then have to deal with both their domestic enemies and foreign forces — was to allow ideology to create an illusion of strength where there was none.” (Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik feminist: the life of Aleksandra Kollontai, p. 141)
Ultra-leftists have always used fancy language and empty sloganeering, to hide that they have absolutely nothing in reality to offer. However, I believe that Kollontai was sincere. She imagined that if the Russian revolution was sacrificed, it would inspire and cause a world revolution. This is because on some level, she still believed revolution was something spontaneous, which was a remnant of her menshevik past.
“When it came to war and revolution, Kollontai and Lenin still spoke different languages. Revolution for her… was a burst of spontaneity” (Beatrice Farnsworth, Aleksandra Kollontai: socialism, feminism, and the Bolshevik Revolution, p. 113)
“In appealing to the notion of world revolution, Kollontai and Iakovleva both seemed to be resorting to rhetoric. Certainly Krupskaia thought so when she wrote that the Left Communists talked themselves into “such ridiculous statements” as that it would be better to let the Soviet power perish than to conclude a shameful peace… In the face of defeat, both women resigned their positions in the Soviet government— Iakovleva withdrawing as Business Manager of the Supreme Economic Council, and Kollontai leaving the Commissariat of Public Welfare.” (Farnsworth, p. 112)
The Left-Oppositionists all resigned their posts in protest, and some actually plotted to overthrow Lenin. Lenin commented on their behavior:
“Since the conclusion of the Brest peace, some comrades who call themselves “Left Communists” have formed an “Opposition” in the Party, and in consequence of this their activity is slipping further and further towards a completely disloyal and impermissible violation of Party discipline.
Comrade Bukharin has refused to accept the post of member of the C.C. to which he was appointed by the Party Congress.
Comrades Smirnov, Obolensky and Yakovleva have resigned from their posts as People’s Commissars and as business manager of the Supreme Economic Council.
These are absolutely disloyal, uncomradely actions that violate Party discipline, and such behaviour was and remains a step towards a split on the part of the above-mentioned comrades.” (Lenin, Comment on the Behaviour of the “Left Communists”)
THE DEBATE ON STATE CAPITALISM (1918)
In 1918 Lenin began advocating a policy he called state-capitalism. This meant that before capitalism was abolished, the proletarian state would impose strict control on the capitalists. The economy would need to develop so that damage of the war was repaired and industrialization begun. After this transition period, socialist construction could begin. The state-capitalist policy would also involve higher wages for experts to incentivize them to collaborate with the revolution:
“Left Communists saw in this a major policy shift with the specter of bureaucratic centralization… The pragmatic policies that Lenin labeled “state capitalism” and that strengthened his hopes for revolutionary survival suggested to Kollontai and Iakovleva that counterrevolution was imminent.” (Farnsworth, p. 114)
Lenin had discussed these ideas already before the revolution in his pamphlet “The impending catastrophy and how to combat it”. He said state-capitalism means scientific large scale production which is as planned as possible and that such state monopoly production was a complete “material preparation for socialism”, i.e. it created the industry, technology and infrastructure for socialism, which could then be taken over by the proletariat and capitalism abolished.
This first attempt at state-capitalism was quite short-lived though, because already the same year foreign imperialist countries invaded Soviet Russia and funded White Armies to attack Soviet power, starting the Russian foreign interventionist civil war. The state-capitalism policy was replaced by war-communism, which meant that the communists immediately took over practically all industry and distribution as an emergency measure for war purposes.
THE DEBATE ON LABOR CONSCRIPTION (1920)
One of the policies of war-communism was labor mobilization, ordering every citizen to engage in some kind of useful work for the war effort. This policy was mostly associated with Trotsky and Kollontai supported it whole-heartedly. However, Trotsky’s involvement soon became infamous, because unlike Lenin and the other Bolsheviks, Trotsky did not see labor mobilization as an emergency war time policy, but as something permanent.
Kollontai had her own special reason for supporting this policy, which many others were suspicious of: she understood that as long as labor mobilization was in effect women would be forced (or rather would be allowed) away from housework into social production, and there would be no female unemployment, or any male unemployment for that matter either.
Both Trotsky and Kollontai, like many others, saw certain war-communist policies, not as temporary emergency measures, but as socialism. Many ultra-left utopian views developed during the civil war, and many people wanted to push for ultra-radical policies that would completely change all of society very quickly. Lenin on the other hand, thought that instead of building utopias “all efforts, all thoughts” must be “subordinated to the war and only the war” (Lenin, All Out for the Fight Against Denikin!)
“The Soviet government in January 1920 proclaimed the Universal Compulsory Labor Law. Its architect was Trotsky, whose military tone was objectionable to many.
[Trotsky said]”…The weapon of state compulsion is military force. Therefore the militarization of labor, in one form or another, is inescapable in a transitional economy based on universal compulsory labor.”
…Kollontai called it, a great day— indeed, the greatest in the history of women… Labor conscription was a response to the exigencies of the Civil War. Yet just as Kollontai earlier seized on the possibilities for socialism inherent in public feeding [communal kitchens], so now she responded with enthusiasm to labor conscription. On her own, Kollontai elevated into an ideology, and attempted to convert into a revolutionary force for social change, an ad hoc emergency measure of the era of War Communism. That a libertarian like Kollontai should see potential for the transformation of the position of women in a measure opposed as oppressive by the Party’s leftists seemed a subject for wonder. Kollontai defended what to many was a bizarre stance. Women’s greatest, most liberating day was not the one when they received legal rights equally with men; rather, it was the one when they were compelled by the state to work equally with men… It is important here to understand that Kollontai welcomed the decree on labor conscription primarily because she anticipated the social and psychological reorganization that would surely result from it. Women would answer no longer to their husbands or families but to the collective. No longer would women be suffering creatures in need of protection for themselves and their young; they would become independent beings, sources of vital strength whose interests society respected.
For Kollontai one of the most important features of the new labor law was the element of compulsion, the very aspect other leftists found most objectionable. What may at first seem aberrant becomes more comprehensible when we consider that Kollontai’s preoccupation with women’s need to be liberated was constantly being thwarted by women’s distressing unawareness that the need existed. Kollontai depended on a degree of compulsion to alter women’s perception of themselves and their role.” (Farnsworth, p. 187-188)
“Other women in the [Women’s department of the communist party] Zhenotdel endorsed labor conscription, but only Kollontai offered it as a panacea… Samoilova, although convinced that obligatory labor was essential, treated it as a wartime device and compared it to recruitment for the Red Army. Perceiving labor conscription primarily from the standpoint of the needs of the state, she asked what better way there was to acquaint the masses of backward women, especially the “parasitical” elements among them, with the value of collective labor.” (Farnsworth, p. 190)
Once the civil war was coming to an end and the war-communist policies were being abolished in favor of the New Economic Policy, Kollontai still believed those war-era policies should remain permanently in force. Left-oppositionists such as Bukharin, were already admitting that during war-communism they had not understood it as an emergency measure, but had believed in utopias:
“by November 1921, when further decrees were issued limiting the categories of persons liable to being called up for labor service and limiting service itself to natural emergencies, even the most committed believer should have recognized that labor conscription was being halted with the end of the Civil War. The director of the Zhenotdel [Kollontai] was one of the last to capitulate. An article in Kommunistka in November 1921 suggests that Kollontai was still not accepting the demise of obligatory labor. A further decree was required in February 1922 before labor conscription as practiced under War Communism ended.” (Farnsworth, p. 290)
“formerly a leading exponent of War Communism, offered an apologetic view of what seemed his own past folly. Bukharin saw the transition to the New Economic Policy in 1921 as the “collapse of our illusions.” Kollontai, on the other hand, continued to defend practices now being abandoned: labor conscription, public feeding, ration books… Long after the demise of War Communism, she persisted in believing in its basic notion… whereas the NEP appeared a bitter betrayal.” (Farnsworth, p. 291)
In Lenin’s opinion “it was only dire necessity, war and wholesale destruction that had imposed this war-time communism upon the Bolsheviks” (Sidney & Beatrice Webb, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation, Third ed. in one volume, Longmans, Green and co. 1947, p. 449)
THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY (1921)
Not only did Kollontai have unrealistic expectations and illusions about war-communism, but she also was vehemently against the NEP for other reasons too. Firstly, she was concerned that since the NEP again allowed capitalists to carry out their activities, it would create female unemployment, which indeed happened. Secondly, Kollontai believed the NEP would have a corrupting influence on the entire society, since it increased material inequality, strengthened the capitalists, strengthened capitalist culture etc.
All these things were true of course, the NEP did indeed pose many dangers. It strengthened the capitalists and kulaks, it did have a corrupting influence on some party members etc. Lenin was very aware of these problems. However, Lenin explained that the NEP was a necessary breathing space, it was a step backward, a retreat, but a necessary retreat. It would allow the economy to recover from the war somewhat, and then socialist construction to begin.
“In so far as war communism was treated as an over-rash, over-enthusiastic dash forward into the higher reaches of socialism, premature no doubt but otherwise correctly conceived, NEP was a temporary withdrawal from positions which it had proved impossible to hold at the moment, but which would have sooner or later to be regained; and it was in this sense that Lenin… called NEP “a defeat” and “a retreat — for a new attack”” (E. H. Carr, The Russian Revolution: from Lenin to Stalin, New York: Free Press, 1979, p. 37)
The right-wing of the party led by ex-left-communist Bukharin, claimed that the NEP had very few negative aspects. They demanded more de-regulation, called for rich peasants to “enrich themselves” and said they would develop socialism “at a snails pace” and capitalism would “peacefully grow into socialism”. They did not see the NEP or the strengthening of the bourgeoisie as any kind of threat, and, saw the NEP as basically not a temporary retreat, but an extremely long lasting policy.
The ultra-leftists on the other hand, did not understand why the NEP was absolutely necessary, and saw only the negative aspects of the NEP. They exaggerated the dangers of the NEP and called for very unrealistic and unworkable policies in place of NEP. They spread pessimism and a feeling of demoralization.
Kollontai considered the NEP a “dangerous digression from the class-oriented revolution, and a backward search among the debris of the bourgeois past.” (Farnsworth, p. 251)
At the Third Comintern Congress Kollontai argued that the NEP was corrupting the Russian communist party and proletariat with a petit-bourgeois spirit. She claimed the world revolution was near and that the world looked for guidance from the Russian proletariat, which would be unable to lead if the NEP was implemented.
Kollontai claimed “The NEP, by giving capitalism the opportunity to flourish once again in Russia, threatened to destroy what advances the Revolution had made in the direction of socialism… In the atmosphere of the NEP, the working class was losing faith in its abilities, and the peasantry was being encouraged to see itself as the basis of Soviet society. A petty bourgeois spirit would soon flourish.” (Farnsworth, p. 254)
According to Kollontai, during the NEP “Not simply the bourgeois “NEPman,” but the working class man was being reinforced in the age-old view of women as household servants and instruments of pleasure. Party workers who a couple of years earlier had lived only for the Revolution were falling under the influence of feminine wiles. Kollontai portrayed such situations in her novel Vasilisa Malygina, in which a young woman, Nina Konstantinovna, seduces the proletarian Vladimir and makes him her “protector” as well as her lover. Kollontai pictured Nina as “painted and powdered,” interested only in clothes and men, a real burzhuika. After the Revolution, she is taken on as an office worker. Her aim is to ensnare a man who will provide for her… she completes the corruption of Vladimir, who is already falling victim to NEP luxury. Kollontai feared that in the atmosphere of the NEP the “Nepmansha,” the “dolly,” would replace the “new woman” as a role model.” (Farnsworth, pp. 296-297)
Indeed, all kinds of violations of the law were being perpetrated by the capitalists.
“Two examples of court cases against employers were reported in the women’s press. In one a shopowner was found guilty and sentenced to a year in the labor camps for not paying a pregnant saleswoman her maternity-leave wages, for willfully dismissing a woman union delegate, for refusing to recognize the union, and for firing another saleswoman who refused to comply with his personal desires. In the other case the owner of a knitting workshop was convicted of hiring adolescent girls, forcing them to work twelve- to fourteen-hour days and paying them substandard wages. He also allegedly humiliated and abused them.” (Elizabeth A. Wood, The baba and the comrade: gender and politics in revolutionary Russia, p. 132)
The NEP involved cuts to government spending, because during war-communism the government had basically owned everything, controlled everything and funded everything. Now it was no longer possible.
“High party officials such as Emelian Iaroslavskii, who served on the Central Control Commission, also wrote about the dilemma of government cutbacks. What could be done for women and children, he asked, under the conditions of NEP, “under the conditions of a hard, cruel, reduced state budget, with our unallayed poverty and the unliquidated consequences of the famine, given the human mass of homeless children?”” (Wood, p. 161)
“Valerian Kuibyshev, a leading economist in the party, described the current times [NEP] as “an extremely dangerous moment for women workers.”” (Wood, p. 125)
Next time we will discuss Kollontai’s involvement in the only opposition movement that she participated in – “The Worker’s Opposition”.
SOURCES:
Porter, Alexandra Kollontai: A Biography*
Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik feminist: the life of Aleksandra Kollontai*
Beatrice Farnsworth, Aleksandra Kollontai: socialism, feminism, and the Bolshevik Revolution*
Source: USSR information bulletin, volume VIII no. 3, Feb. 11, 1948
ALEXANDER DARGOMYZHSKY, one of the most remarkable of the Russian composers of the nineteenth century, was born 135 years ago, on February 14, 1813. His operas Russalka or The Water-Sprite and The Stone Guest, as well as his many vocal compositions, marked an epoch in the history of Russian music.
From what we know of the composer’s biography, his musical talent appeared very early. At eleven he was composing ballades and piano pieces. When he grew up he did not, however, choose music as his profession, but for many years held a post in one of the ministries in St. Petersburg. It was not until he was thirty years of age that he gave up his post in the ministry to devote himself to composing music.
His creative life was a struggle for Russian national art. Like Mikhail Glinka, who preceded him and was the founder of Russian classical music, he realized that true art can be built up solely on a thorough understanding and profound insight into folk art. He made an exhaustive study of Russian folk songs and dances, which later served as the basis of much of his work.
The democratic nature of his compositions was seen in his approach to Russian national songs, and we find that many of his original songs follow the folk song construction. National folk motifs are present in his symphonic compositions, too.
He was the creator in Russia of the dramatic and satiric song, new genres for his time. He was the first to introduce satire, ridiculing hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness, into Russian vocal art. His song The Worm is an example of this.
The opera The Water-Sprite, which was completed in 1855, was an event in Russian music. This is a musical drama based on the poem by Alexander Pushkin. At times lyrical, at others intensely dramatic, the music has touches of purely national humor.
The Stone Guest was written in the last year of the composer’s life and sums up, as it were, his creative work. He was attracted by the idea of writing a musical drama free of operatic conventions. The subject was taken from Pushkin’s poem. Dargomyzhsky departed from the traditional forms, the arias, duets and ensembles, and while preserving the verse intact, strove to reveal its deep-lying content. A master of melodic declamation, he has succeeded in merging verse and melody.
Dargomyzhsky’s compositions did not gain acknowledgment from aristocratic audiences, but were warmly welcomed by democratic circles.
His works are well known abroad. In the mid-nineteenth century Franz Liszt wrote a brilliant pianoforte transcription of Dargomyzhsky’s Tarantella. The Water-Sprite was performed on opera stages all over the world. The works of Alexander Dargomyzhsky, particularly this opera and most of his songs, though they are nearly a hundred years old, are still performed at Soviet opera houses and concert-halls, and awaken warm response in the hearts of millions.
Plan for the Palace of Soviets by Iofan, Gelfreich and Shchuko
This series will discuss the development of Soviet architecture and to an extent also city planning. We will discuss how socialist construction turned the country of barracks houses and homelessness into a developed society with a beautiful built environment where everyone had a roof above their head.
This series will be a discussion of the history of Soviet architecture, mostly focusing on the ideological aspects and debates, which were always strongly connected with practical questions.
I’ll discuss what socialist realism means in architecture and how the socialist realist method arose in the 1930s and struggled with other trends, and the most important architectural discussions of the time: the competition for the design of the palace of Soviets, the construction of the Moscow metro and the general plan for the reconstruction of Moscow.
I’ll also discuss the reconstruction of the Soviet Union after the Great Patriotic War and post-war developments, and the related architectural issues. Lastly l’ll cover the destruction of socialist realist architecture by the Soviet revisionists khrushchevites-brezhnevites.
In this first part I’ll talk about the first policies of the Soviet government related to housing and construction and compare them to those of the Russian empire.
HOUSING CONDITIONS IN TSARIST RUSSIA
With the rise of capitalism poor people from the countryside were concentrated into terribly overcrowded cities, into constantly swelling slums. City workers lived in horrific housing conditions or were totally homeless.
In his classic work The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 Friedrich Engels wrote:
“The manner in which the great multitude of the poor is treated by society today is revolting. They are drawn into the large cities where… they are deprived of all means of cleanliness, of water itself, since pipes are laid only when paid for, and the rivers so polluted that they are useless for such purposes; they are obliged to throw all offal and garbage, all dirty water, often all disgusting drainage and excrement into the streets… They are given damp dwellings, cellar dens that are not waterproof from below, or garrets that leak from above. Their houses are so built that the clammy air cannot escape.” (Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844)
Karl Marx wrote figuratively that with the rise of capitalism “Man returns to the cave dwelling, which is now, however, poisoned by the mephitic, pestilential air of civilization, in which, moreover, he only dwells precariously, a foreign power which can slip away from him any day, out of which he can be thrown any day if he does not pay. He must pay for this death house.” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844)
As pointed out by V. I. Lenin, “side by side with the luxurious mansions of the rich… there grew up the slums where the workers were forced to live in cellars, in overcrowded, damp and cold dwellings, and even in dug-outs near the new industrial establishments.” (Lenin, Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Social-Democratic Party)
Living conditions like that are still the norm for most people in capitalist countries today. Western imperialist countries, where about 20% of the world’s population lives, have better housing conditions in comparison, but in Asia, Africa and Latin America the situation is still as dire as described by the classics of socialism more than a hundred years ago. Even in the richest imperialist countries, there are millions of homeless people and very serious overcrowding exists.
Slum in South Korea
Anti-communists often say that in Russia socialism forced people into small unappealing apartments. But what were the living conditions in Russia before the socialist revolution? And what was really the result of socialism on housing?
With the development of capitalism in Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s “the housing distress among the greater part of the urban population reached catastrophic proportions. The dwelling area continually decreased in the factory towns and districts of the cities. For instance, in the large textile center of Ivanovo-Voznesensk (Ivanovo) it amounted to about 2 square meters per person… The already deplorable sanitary conditions worsened, since sanitary-engineering measures were applied only in the largest cities, and then only in the central districts. In smaller cities and in suburbs of large ones municipal services and public facilities were rarely available. In 1911, for example, out of 1,063 towns with a population of over 10,000, only 219 possessed water-supply systems. These conditions led to a high mortality rate, further aggravated by the complete lack of police control on building and housing conditions. Moreover, there was hardly any semblance of zoning or planning.” (Maurice Frank Parkins, City planning in soviet Russia, pp. 5-6)
“Moscow, like all capitalist cities, was characterized by the glaring contrast between the luxurious residences of the parasitic classes, on the one hand, and the slums, hovels and cellars of the urban poor, on the other. Of all European and American capitals and large cities, Moscow was the most backward and poorly laid-out city, and its population had the highest death rate (twenty deaths per annum per thousand inhabitants).
To give an idea of the level of the municipal “facilities” in pre-revolutionary Moscow, we cite a descriptive passage from the book of a certain I. Slonov, From the Life of Merchant Moscow (1914).
“At that time” (the end of the nineteenth century) “the central streets of Moscow were lighted with kerosene lamps, and the suburbs and outlying streets were lit with dim vegetable oil lamps. The lighting and cleaning of them was the duty of the firemen. A large part of the hempseed oil, which was supplied for lighting purposes and which was of a rather inferior quality, was eaten by the firemen with their porridge. As a result, what few lamps there were, barely penetrating the darkness of the night, went out early, and the streets were plunged into pitchy darkness, thus completing the picture of patriarchal Moscow.”
Old Moscow was built chaotically. There were no plans whatever; buildings were erected wherever and whenever fancy dictated.” (L. Perchik, The Reconstruction Of Moscow, pp. 13-14)
“That barbaric Russian capitalism not only did not improve, but, in a number of cases, actually rendered the old feudal plan of Moscow worse, is borne out by the following facts. Tverskaya, once called Tsar Street (now Gorky Street) from a straight street became crooked at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries as a result of the shameless filching of land by private owners. Bolshaya Dmitrovka, which at one time formed one straight thoroughfare with Malaya Dmitrovka, changed its direction at the end of the seventeenth Century as a result of the erection of a church and a number of merchants’ houses at the junction of these two streets. Petrovka was made narrower and crooked because at the end of the eighteenth century one Gubin, a merchant, appropriated a part of the area of the street to build his house, and on the other side the Petrovsky Monastery extended into the street. Thus, by the joint efforts of priest and merchant this street was hemmed in from both sides.” (Perchik, pp. 14-15)
“In an article by I. Vemer, “The Housing Conditions of the Poorer People of Moscow,” published in 1902 in the organ of the Moscow City Council of the landlords and merchants, we read:
“In Moscow, as in all big cities in general, there is quite a considerable group of persons who have not only sunk to an extreme level of destitution, but who have even lost all human dignity. Drunkenness, disease, chronic hunger, the influence of changes in temperature on their all-but naked bodies—all these deplorable and distressing conditions have made them physically and morally unfit for regular work, as a consequence of which they have no definite means of subsistence, neither property nor even a permanent abode. These outcasts of our society usually spend their days on the streets, and their nights in dosshouses, which they have to quit at daybreak [does this description differ at all from that of modern day USA?].
“The next class of the poorer population of Moscow constitutes a huge category of able-bodied and hardworking people. These are the factory and mill workers, small independent artisans and the people who work for them, cab-drivers, seasonal workers from the country employed by contractors, labourers, small tradesmen, clerks, domestic servants, low-paid railway employees, and the families of the people belonging to the professions we have enumerated and many other professions. The characteristic feature of this class of persons is that it has a somewhat fixed and steady income, although this income at times varies considerably; it has some sort of possessions, and is anxious to obtain a permanent place of residence. These are the people who occupy quarters which differ from the doss-houses only because they are tenanted by a settled population who hire premises for a fixed, more or less prolonged period. [Moscow City Council News, No. 19, October 1902, p. 2.]” (Perchik, pp. 15-16)
“According to the figures of the 1912 census Moscow had 24,500 rooms of this type, occupied by 327,000 people, -or more than 20 per cent of the entire 1,600,000 population of the city. An average of ten persons to a room lived in Moscow’s basement and semi-basement one-room apartments; in one-room apartments above-street level— six to a room, and in two-room apartments—three to a room. In old Moscow 88.2 per cent of the houses were constructed of wood, 91.2 per cent were one and two-storeyed” (Perchik, p. 17)
In tsarist Russia “in most cases the workers left their families home in the peasant hut and were crowded into factory dormitories. Others lived in the basements of the lower middle class apartment houses, or in peasant huts on the outskirts of the city. Workers’ families considered themselves lucky if they had a room for themselves. In many cases they could only rent a ‘corner’ divided by curtains from the other family occupying the balance of the room.
Only in Leningrad (then Petrograd) did a considerable part of the workers live in apartment houses. But even here there was an average of 3½ persons per room in the working class districts.” (Hans Blumenfeld, Planning in the Soviet Union, TASK Planning and Architecture, Vol. 3., p. 49)
In tsarist Russia “houses were of the most primitive type. No running water or sewers; an outhouse in the backyard; kerosene lamps.” (Blumenfeld, p. 50)
According to Cathy Porter, workers in the Krenholm factory in Estonia, one of the factories with the best conditions in all of the Russian empire “worked anything from twelve to eighteen hours a day. Imprisoned within the factory walls, they were allowed out only once a week, on Sundays; few workers had their own living quarters, and most lived in vast dormitory barracks — families, babies, single people and children all stacked one above the other on narrow bunk beds or on the floor… the great anxiety which preyed on them all was the air pollution. Most of them were stricken with tuberculosis after three or four years working in air thick with textile fibers, and they quickly tended to become listless and nauseous. Few of them expected to live to be thirty” (Cathy Porter, Alexandra Kollontai: A biography, p. 49)
“Here is one of numerous characterizations of the level of “municipal facilities” in old Moscow.
“The courtyards of the houses are usually very dirty and are paved only in very rare instances. Cesspools and garbage bins are rarely cleaned; investigators have noted many cases where the cesspools were absolutely overflowing, exuding vile odours, and where there was garbage scattered about the courtyard. Neither the courtyards nor the staircases are illuminated and on winter evenings you can cross the courtyard or descend into a basement apartment only at the risk of breaking your neck.
“The latrines in most of these houses are for common use, and are kept in a very filthy state. In the census forms a great many cases are noted where layers of excrement a quarter of an arshin deep covered the floor of the latrine, rising higher than the seat; there are not a few cases where the cesspools, overflow and the contents seep into the passages and sometimes under the floors of the apartments. The tenants prefer to relieve themselves in corners of the courtyard, and children are set down near the steps. In many cases latrines and urine-gutters adjoin an old wall, as a consequence of which foul fluid seeps into the apartments and contaminates the air to such an extent that after half an hour of it the census takers ‘developed nausea, became ill and dizzy.’” [Moscow City Council News, No. 19, October 1902, pp. 5-6, I. Verner, “The Housing Conditions of the Poorer People of Moscow.”]” (Perchik, p. 18)
In the peak year of the Russian empire (1913) “out of 700 large or medium-sized towns only 215 had a water-supply system (to which 90 percent of the buildings were not even connected)… only 23 towns had an effective sewage system and that only in the central district” (Anatole Kopp, Town and revolution; Soviet architecture and city planning, 1917-1935, p. 34)
So to summarize: the city masses in the Russian empire were either totally homeless or lived in tiny apartments with 2 square feet per person, in small shacks, dug-outs or holes in the ground, or in factory barracks where countless strangers, men and women, families with children and single people all slept next to each other on floors, boards or bunks. The cities had practically no zoning or city planning. Streets were crooked and narrow, muddy and not paved.
There were practically no municipal services. No effective sewers, but instead there was literal human excrement on the courtyards of homes, and it even leaked into homes and polluted the water. There was no plumbing or electricity. The conditions were not all that different from modern day African slums. In industrial work places the pollution was life-threatening, not very different from some places in Asia today. And there were basically no functioning street lights, at night the streets and courtyards were dark and dangerous.
Only with the October Revolution things began to change.
FIRST HOUSING MEASURES OF THE BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT
After taking power in the October Revolution the Bolsheviks immediately began to address the problem of homelessness and the terrible living conditions. They took immediate emergency measures:
“The emergency measures were simple but radical. Workers’ families were evacuated from their hovels and installed in the town houses and apartments formerly occupied by the bourgeoisie. Rents were fixed on the basis of income, and household equipment and furniture were requisitioned and distributed among the ill-housed. These were the measures proposed by Engels” (Kopp, p. 33)
Engels had written that the socialist revolution must eventually solve the contradiction between the town and countryside:
“How a social revolution would solve this question depends not only on the circumstances which would exist in each case… it is not our task to create utopian systems for the arrangement of the future society, it would be more than idle to go into the question here.” (Engels, The Housing question)
But he states that “one thing is certain: there are already in existence sufficient buildings for dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real “housing shortage,” given rational utilization of them. This can naturally only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers excessively overcrowded in their former houses.” (Engels, The Housing question)
His suggestion was followed. Immediate action against homelessness was taken by confiscating mansions and large houses and dividing them into many small apartments, or turning them into collective housing units. Often the previous rich inhabitants were allowed to stay in one room, while the rest of the house was given for others to use. However, this was only an immediate emergency measure to get people off the streets, later once actual new homes could be built, many of these mansions and castles were turned into orphanages, vacation homes for various mass organizations etc.
“Housing space clearly in excess of reasonable needs was taken over to begin a massive scheme for resettling workers from huts, basements and makeshift barracks. By 1924, about 500,000 people were resettled in Moscow alone, and 300,000 in Petrograd. This whole programme… resolved the most acute housing shortage” (Andreĭ Vladimirovich Ikonnikov, Russian architecture of the Soviet period, p. 75)
During the civil war commune-homes and communal services became more widespread, basically due to extreme scarcity of resources and the need to share the little that was available. People had an immediate material interest to collaborate with their neighbors and friends and form collectives:
In the 1920s “new forms of community life were evolving as workers moved into tenement houses and set up common kitchens and cafeteria, laundries, kindergartens, reading and recreation rooms, all based on self-service and self-management. Such communes became widespread at that time, numbering 865 in Moscow alone by the end of 1921…
The Civil War, in which the young Soviet state had to cope with both internal counter-revolution and intervention from foreign powers, was not the time for a large-scale construction effort. Although these years saw the construction of around 300 power stations, a number of textile mills and an automobile plant in Moscow, these construction programmes were pathetically few compared to the needs of such a huge country. However, despite the forced curtailment of activity, despite the hunger and the exigencies of the grim war years, architects embarked on an unheard-of effort with great enthusiasm.” (Ikonnikov, pp. 75-76)
During the NEP (which began in 1921) due to the continuing shortage of good quality housing “the right to build one’s own home was encouraged by the government, and credits were granted to home builders by the state bank.” (Parkins, p. 12)
Due to the measures of evacuating people to better housing, some construction by the state and co-operatives, communes and also private construction by the peasants and workers, even supported by the government, living conditions had improved markedly and were much less crowded: “By 1923 the percentage of persons living more than two to a room, which had been 61.7 in 1912, was down to 36.7.” (Parkins, p. 32)
Barracks living and homelessness were being gradually eliminated, although this was still far from what would be achieved under socialism in the 1930s, 40s and 50s.
BEGINNINGS OF CITY PLANNING
Modern city planning in Russia began with the October revolution, with the decrees nationalizing the land.
“Soviet city planning may be assumed to date from February 19, 1918, less than four months after the historic days of October. That, in fact, is the date of promulgation of the decree of the Pan-Russian Executive Committee proclaiming the socialization of the soil” (Kopp, p. 34)
Progressive architects – whom I will discuss in later parts – joined with the Bolshevik government in the monumental task of reconstructing the country on a rational basis:
“The first architects to come to grips with the realities of the early twenties saw their task as primarily an immense effort of modernization. Their aim was to raise the Russian cities, which had scarcely emerged from the Middle Ages” (Kopp, p. 38)
“the elementary city planning practiced in western Europe, however primitive and ineffective it may appear to us today, was several decades in advance of corresponding developments in prerevolutionary Russia. Indeed, it was scarcely possible to speak of city planning in the empire of the czars… the only function of city maps was to record the anarchic sprawl of new construction… there were virtually no specialists versed in these problems and no teaching facilities for training them” (Kopp, p. 34)
“Soviet architects were most concerned with achieving reasonable city and regional planning. Especially important concern was to produce designs for the reconstruction of Moscow and Petrograd. They started with the core of the problem, viz. the role of the major cities in the development of a socialist society, and their impact on population distribution patterns. By 1918 the engineer Boris Sakulin had designed the layout of the economic region around Moscow, outlining a system of satellite towns linked by a railway network. Between 1921 and 1924 a design for Greater Moscow, embracing the city and its suburban area, was mapped out by Professor Sergei Shestakov. His concept was that the new large building areas surrounding the Moscow nucleus were to be alternated with radial parkland strips linked by an outer green belt. This idea was developed later in the master plans of the city and determined its eventual structure. The alternation idea was linked to a certain extent with the garden-city concept that was popular at the beginning of this century, but, more importantly, it emanated from the Russian national tradition of city blocks penetrating the surrounding area in a radial pattern.
In the spring of 1918 a group of Moscow architects, headed by Ivan Zholtovsky and Alexei Shchusev, set up a studio to develop the design of a “New Moscow”, the First Master Plan for the city’s development. Such things as a scientific basis for modern town-planning and design, and a national economy model to guide Moscow’s development, were all but non-existent because of the continuing Civil War. But the youthful team (Leonid Vesnin, Ilya Golosov, Victor Kokorin, Nikolai Kolli, Nikolai Ladovsky, Konstantin Melnikov, Sergei Chernyshev and others) had on their side the talent and the revolutionary romanticism of the period. Despite the fact that the principles for reconstruction evolved largely through intuition, life vindicated many of the solutions found. Thus, for instance, it was decided not to depart from the historical layout of Moscow: the city’s centre was thought of, in Shchusev’s words, as akin to the sun with rays emanating from it, i.e. as a nucleus with a system of smaller centres issuing radially from it.
In accordance with the “New Moscow” layout, the first housing construction site— the Sokol, designed by Nikolai Markovnikov— was started in the city’s north-west in 1923.” (Ikonnikov, pp. 77-78)
“In Petrograd, an architectural studio was set up in May 1919 under the Council for Streamlining the Layout of Petrograd and Its Suburbs. Headed by Ivan Fomin, the group included, among others, Alexander Nikolsky (1884-1953), Lev Tverskoi (1899-1972), and Noi Trotsky (1895-1940). A general plan for Greater Petrograd was one of the group’s first works (1919-1921). The idea was to complement the city with a web of satellite towns united into linear groups; between the satellite towns and the city’s historical nucleus there was to be an area of semi-autonomous housing complexes separated by parkland strips. The plan, left unrealized, anticipated the principles of the master plan for Stockholm which three decades later left a lasting impact on town-planning worldwide. The general layout also provided for the expansion of the city’s historical nucleus towards the Gulf of Finland to form a coastal front; this idea was in fact implemented after the Second World War.” (Ikonnikov, p. 78)
Although these plans were often quite modest or were not realized, they marked the beginning of town planning.
PALACES OF LABOR AND “MONUMENTAL PROPAGANDA”
Besides the evacuation of poor people into tolerable housing, and the first step towards city planning, there was another important project launched by Lenin, which would be very significant for decades to come – the idea of monumental propaganda. Lenin realized that the built environment was part of the societal superstructure, imposing a certain class viewpoint on the people.
In the Russian empire the environment literally looked semi-feudal. There were churches and monasteries and religious artifacts everywhere. The were monuments and statues glorifying monarchy and medievalism. Lenin called on artists and architects to begin changing the tsarist cityscape, by creating palaces of labor, places where workers could hold meetings and events, and by creating monuments to the revolution. The change of the built environment was also intended to leave a lasting impact on the minds of people, even if the revolution was defeated in the civil war.
The communist poet Mayakovsky took up Lenin’s call and proclaimed in a poem “Street-brooms our brushes, and public places our palettes.” (Mayakovsky, “Order to the Army of the Arts”)
“Lenin was keenly aware of the historical need for a radical, albeit temporary [many of the decorations were thrown up quickly and were temporary], transformation of the urban environment through art. He put forward the idea of “monumental propaganda”. To implement this idea, the Council of People’s Commissars— the Soviet Government— proposed, in its decree of April 12, 1918, that the artistic community be mobilized to participate in a broad competition for designs of monuments to commemorate the great days of the socialist revolution.” (Ikonnikov, p. 93)
“Architects with professional credos shaped by the pre-revolutionary years felt a natural urge to borrow from the traditions of classicism. Now, however, classicism was being revived in designs full of pathos and even of high emotion. The forms sought to glorify the spirit of the Revolution, and it was considered that they should match its grandeur by giant volumes, mind-boggling sizes, and impressive monumentality. Piranesi’s emotional and tragic phantasmagorias became one of the chief sources of inspiration. The works of architects of the French revolution— the laconic symbolism of Ledoux, the fantasies of Boullee and Peyre— also came as natural prototypes.” (Ikonnikov, p. 79)
“The first designs, in which romantic ideas materialized most fully, were drawn in the quest for new types of public buildings. One such design was that of the workers’ palaces. As early as 1918, workers’ clubs began to spring up in every Russian city, housed in nationalized mansions. Rearrangement of such buildings was a difficult enterprise, and even after significant reconstruction had been undertaken, they remained inadequate for the everyday work of education, amateur artistic productions and recreation. To provide a radical solution to this social need, a competition for the construction of a Workers’ Palace in Petrograd was held in 1919 on the initiative of the workers of the Putilovsky Plant, then the city’s largest industrial complex” (Ikonnikov, p. 80)
Many of the early monuments were temporary decorations or temporary monuments, which were constructed hurriedly to spread the revolutionary message. Some high quality works were created, such as statue of the Bolshevik scientist Timiryazev by Merkurov. Lev Rudnev’s monument to the martyrs of the revolution (in the Field of Mars) was also highly important.
“Architects enthusiastically set to work. A competition was announced for the execution of a monument to the victims of the Revolution. It was the first commission from the state. M. Gorky, A. Lunacharsky and A. Blok headed the first jury and selected the project of L. Rudnev. The work was completed in 1920 and is an outstanding example of Soviet architecture.” (V. Khazanova, “Soviet Architectural Associations 1917-1932” in Building in the USSR, 1917-1932, ed. O. A. Shvidkovsky, p. 19)
Its rather odd for Khazanova, a bourgeois writer to call it a monument to the “victims of revolution”, when it would be more accurate to call it a monument to the fighters who died in the revolution, or “victims of counter-revolution”!
“Leningrad collaborated in carrying out Lenin’s monumental plan of propaganda. Norberg, Chernyshev, Ladovsky, Osipov, Vsavolsky, Efimov, Vasiliev, Dokuchaev, the Vesnin brothers, Kokorin and Kolli competed for the design for a monument for the Soviet constitution and other sculptural embellishments. The Sovnarkom published decrees on 9 May and 18 June 1918 for the administration of VSNKh and proceedings and regulations for building and planning. Many meetings and regular conferences were organized. The first All-Russia conference for productivity and building took place in 1923. By 1925 the delegates included Shchusev, Malinovsky, Semenov, Ginsburg and others. The Petrograd association worked on the Petrosoviet building under I. Fomin and jointly with MAO [Moscow Association of Architects] on planning and cultural projects…
In 1922 they launched architectural competitions. In 1924 Lunacharsky organized one for the construction of Lenin’s mausoleum. They planned dwellings for workers, a garden city (1922), a communal house in Ivano-Voznessensk (1925), a Palace of Work in Rostov-on-Don, a workers’ club in Briansk, public buildings, such as banks, in Moscow (Arcos), Novosibirsk, and Sverdlovsk, post offices, a university in Minsk, the Republican Hospital in Samarkand, a monument to Karl Marx and the 1923 Exhibition.” (V. Khazanova, “Soviet Architectural Associations 1917-1932” in Building in the USSR, 1917-1932, ed. O. A. Shvidkovsky, p. 20)
In the next part I’ll discuss debates between different architectural schools of thought in the Soviet Union.
Moscow City Council News, No. 19, October 1902, I. Verner, “The Housing Conditions of the Poorer People of Moscow”
Anatole Kopp, Town and revolution; Soviet architecture and city planning, 1917-1935
Engels, The Housing question
Andreĭ Vladimirovich Ikonnikov, Russian architecture of the Soviet period
Mayakovsky, “Order to the Army of the Arts”
V. Khazanova, “Soviet Architectural Associations 1917-1932″in Building in the USSR, 1917-1932, ed. O. A. Shvidkovsky
Parkins, Kopp, Porter and Khazanova are anti-communist bourgeois writers, Ikonnikov is a Soviet revisionist writer. I recommend the work of Perchik (a marxist author) and Blumenfeld (sympathetic liberal writer).
Source: Suomi-Unkari [Magazine of the Finland-Hungary friendship society], 1953, no. 9 Translated by ML-Theory.
The highly significant discovery of Hungarian scientist Imre Töró debunks outdated heredity theory.
Hungary’s rapidly developing science can point to a growing number of accomplishments, of which the Hungarian people are justifiably proud. Among these accomplishments is the important observation of academician Imre Töró, that cell nuclei don’t have to emerge from other cell nuclei. Imre Töró has discovered a new way that cells are born.
An English doctor Harvey, the discoverer of blood circulation, once made the claim that life can only be born from an egg. Later the great French bacteriologist Pasteur corrected the claim into the form that life can only be born from life. After the cell was discovered, German researcher Virchow concluded that a cell can only be born from a cell. Later this claim was further supplemented so that a cell nucleus can only be born from a cell nucleus.
Right up until the last few years, the science of the whole world generally accepted these claims. However, they left open a certain question, namely how the first cell could’ve emerged. If a cell can only emerge from another cell and a cell nucleus from another cell nucleus, it leaves open the issue of the origin of the first cell and it can only be explained by some kind of supernatural creator.
*
This question was left unanswered until Soviet researcher Lepeshinskaya proved with a long series of experiments that cells can descend also from living matter without a cell structure. Lepeshinskaya’s discovery has both a tremendous theoretical and practical significance. Discovery of the fact that cell nuclei aren’t formed only by other cell nuclei has an important significance e.g. in observing the formation of blood cells, swelling, wound healing and other such phenomena, which it casts in an entirely new light.
Already for a long time Töró has been investigating the thymus. The function of the thymus has until now remained unknown. This organ with a very high number of cells is located behind the ribcage and degenerates and fattens during puberty. We can therefore deduce that the thymus is related with growth and development. Other observations point to strange changes in the thymus caused by infectious diseases. Ultimately the function of that peculiar organ in a diseased or healthy organism remains unexplained as of yet. That is why the results of any experiment on the thymus have great importance.
*
Töró has put himself the question, how does the thymus, when its original cells have diminished in number due to various states of toxicity, again restore the number of its cells to the original amount within a short period of time. Töró observed that within cells in the thymus, next to the cell nucleus there was visible another smaller cell nucleus. Initially Töró has given the explanation that the cell has attached to itself fragments of the cell nuclei of other cells that’ve been shattered due to poisoning, and has started nourishing them. Nutritive cells have been discovered to attract fine particles of coloring. However, it has become evident that the cells of the thymus do not attract coloring particles, so the assumption that the cells in question function as nutritive cells cannot be correct. But then, what can those small objects near the cell nucleus be? The question received an answer when Töró grew the thymus of a white rat in a glass tube, keeping its so-called tissue processes alive for a long time. Painstakingly Töró immortalized on film, the processes taking place in its individual cells, because it is not possible to follow the slow development of the cells’ life by looking through a microscope. The images on the film showed, that on the edges of individual larger cells, a bulge appeared, and a small rapidly moving cell quickly developed inside it. These small cells were different than those they descended from, and identical with the characteristically small cells in the thymus.
Continued research into this phenomena demonstrated that this was a new way cells can be born, and it debunked the claim of Virchow’s cell theory that cell nuclei can be born only from other cell nuclei. Töró has noticed that the cell nuclei of the small cells emerged when very fine cell nuclear substance appeared and concentrated inside the cytoplasm of the larger cell, without the mother cell’s nucleus playing any part in it. These newborn cell nuclei then detached from the mother cell and with the cytoplasm they had taken with them, constituted new independent small cells.
The phenomena demonstrates that a new cell nucleus can be born without the division of another one. The cell nucleus is not only born from another cell nucleus, but can also be formed from emerging new cell nuclear constituents and in turn give birth to a long series of new generations. This means that throughout all organic life, new cell nuclei descended from chromosomes can emerge, which do not have to thank old cell nuclei for giving birth to them, but instead cell nuclear constituent parts sprinkled in the cytoplasm.
*
According to the theory of Weissman the chromosomes of each cell descend from the nucleus of the particular female sex cell, and thus the germ cell is an immortal substance. According to this theory hereditary properties depend on the germ cell and chromosomes. Since new chromosomes cannot be born, since cell nuclei can only be born from cell nuclei, the amount of heritable chromosomes is predetermined and unalterable. All these suppositions have been entirely debunked by Töró’s discovery. If it turns out – and it has happened – that the cytoplasm of some cell can independently the of the old cell nucleus give rise to a new cell nucleus containing new chromosomes, the notion of the cytoplasm’s unchangeability has been shattered and thus Weissman’s theory of heredity become wholly indefensible. Töró’s observations corroborate the conclusion of academician Lepeshinskaya that living matter without a cell structure can give rise to new cells.
Töró’s theory does not only have theoretical but also a tremendous and important practical significance. A part of the cells formed in the thymus pass into the blood vessels, and these cells have properties that differ from all other cells traveling in the circulatory system. The task of future research is to discover what role the cells coming from the thymus play in blood. The explanation of that fact would probably have diagnostic importance, and it can be hoped it could be used to reliably and correctly diagnose diseases which up until now have been difficult to diagnose.
Pictures from left to right:
1) At the edge of the cell can be seen a bulge that is becoming a new cell.
2) The cell has opened up and the new cell has separated from it.
3) The cell closes up.
4) The mother and daughter cells next to each other.
5) In the middle of the picture can be seen a large cell and a new cell developing inside of it, while the mother cell’s nucleus is untouched. In the same picture three new small cells that’ve detached from the mother cell are visible.
In this episode I’ll be discussing Kollontai’s career throughout the February and October revolutions, and briefly her work as a commissar for social welfare.
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION OF 1917
When the February revolution overthrew the tsar, Kollontai was still abroad. Upon hearing about it she immediately began preparing her return to Russia.
On March 2 [old calendar style], 1917, Kollontai “learned from a Norwegian friend that Tsar Nikolai had abdicated. “I darted out into the hall; we hugged one another. I wanted to run somewhere. We had won! We had won! We had won! The end of the war! It wasn’t even joy, but some kind of giddy rejoicing.”… A new Russia was being born from the ashes of war, just as Lenin had predicted.” (Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik feminist: the life of Aleksandra Kollontai, p. 102)
“In early April, Lenin returned to Petrograd. On April 4, at a general meeting of Social Democrats at the Tavrida Palace, he called on the Bolsheviks to demand the transfer of power to the soviets, nationalization of land, abolition of the army and police, and an end to Russian participation in the war… Henceforth they must demand “Peace, Bread, and Land” and “All Power to the Soviets.”… Kollontai rose to defend him… Foreign correspondents dubbed her the “Valkyrie of the Revolution,” while moderate Russian newspapers called her “a mad Bolshevik.”” (Barbara Evans Clements, p. 109)
Kollontai returns to Russia and begins speaking to the masses. On March 20th after hearing speeches by generals, SRs and Cadets.
“I force my way to the speaker podium. -Are you crazy? they say to me. -When they hear your bolshevik slogans, they’ll tear you to pieces! Nothing of the kind: the frontline soldiers understood the message quite well. “Down with the imperialist war!”, “Land to the people!”, “Long live the worker and soldier soviets!”” (Kollontai, Hetkiä elämästäni, p. 281)
“on 23 February 1917 (International Women’s Day in the Russian calendar) women workers at the Vyborg textile factory in Petrograd went on strike, and marched to the city centre, where they were joined by housewives from food queues… women played an important role in winning over or disarming the tsarist troops. The regime was far weaker and more vulnerable than its German counterpart, and proved unable to cope. 23 February was the first day of the February Revolution. It set off the chain of events that led within a short space of time to the overthrow of the Tsar. It was the Bolshevik women’s organizations, revived in March, and now joined by Alexandra Kollontai, which managed to channel this discontent into further political action as the Provisional Government (backed by the [bourgeois] feminists) continued to fight the increasingly hopeless war against Germany. As a result, women took a notable part in supporting and supplying the Bolshevik forces in the October Revolution, in staffing the Proletarian Red Cross, and indeed in fighting alongside the men themselves.” (Richard J. Evans, Comrades and sisters: feminism, socialism, and pacifism in Europe, 1870-1945, p. 149)
THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION
Since April 1917 Lenin called for the overthrow of the provisional government which was continuing the reactionary policies of the tsar. The 6th Bolshevik party congress was held in Petrograd in July 26-August 3, 1917, presided over by Stalin, as Lenin was in hiding. This party congress adopted the position of the armed uprising against the provisional government.
At this party congress, the semi-Menshevik Mezhraiontsy group of Trotsky stated that they had changed their position and requested to join the Bolsheviks and were granted permission. Mezhraiontsy members such as Volodarsky and Uritsky became real Bolsheviks, but Trotsky and his friends only joined for opportunist reasons. Trotsky said “he joined the [Bolshevik October] revolution voluntarily, with certain reservations” (Hetkiä elämästäni, p. 292)
Trotsky had never agreed with Bolshevism and still maintained his disagreement. He said: “The Bolsheviks have de-bolshevized themselves, and I cannot call myself a Bolshevik. It is impossible to demand of us a recognition of Bolshevism.” (Lenin at the Mezhrayontsi conference, Lenin Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., pp. 302-03)
A central committee meeting in October 1917 decided that the October insurrection would be launched. Only two members of the central committee – Zinoviev and Kamenev – openly opposed the revolution. However, Trotsky opposed the revolution secretly. He claimed the revolution was correct in essence, but the time was not right. He said the revolution should be postponed until after the 2nd congress of Soviets. However, this plan was pure sabotage.
Zinoviev and Kamenev stated that the Bolsheviks should wait until the congress of Soviets, and then take power parliamentarily. However, when they were voted down, they tried to reveal the plan of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, thus sabotaging the uprising. For this treason Lenin called for their expulsion from the party:
“I declare outright that I no longer consider either of them comrades and that I will fight with all my might, both in the Central Committee and at the Congress, to secure the expulsion of both of them from the Party.” (Lenin, Letter To Bolshevik Party Members, 18 October, 1917)
Trotsky was actually working together with Zinoviev and Kamenev. The entire reason he wanted the October uprising to be postponed until the congress of Soviets would decide upon it, was so that the plan for the uprising would become public, would become known to the capitalist government, and thus would be prevented.
“Although at this meeting Trotsky did not vote against the resolution directly, he moved an amendment which would have reduced the chances of the uprising to nought and rendered it abortive. He proposed that the uprising should not be started before the Second Congress of Soviets met, a proposal which meant delaying the uprising, divulging its date, and forewarning the Provisional Government.” (The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – short course)
“Kollontai described the meeting where the Central Committee voted for an armed uprising in October 1917. She discussed Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s opposition to precipitous action and Lenin’s argument that their fears were unfounded… Stalin energetically supported Lenin, she declared. Stalin had led the Bolsheviks while Lenin was hiding in Finland, and he had provided the revolutionary spark necessary to fire the party into action. Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky, on the other hand, malevolently plotted to thwart Lenin… Kollontai wrote: “The two base figures of the malicious enemies and traitors to the party sat separate from us on the divan, not at the table. They sat side by side, they whispered to one another, Zinoviev and Kamenev came out against Lenin, against the C.C., with foully cowardly objections, with criminal, disorganizing arguments.”
She said that Zinoviev and Kamenev wanted the Bolsheviks to seize power by parliamentary means, which was true, in a sense. They had favored delaying until the Constituent Assembly convened, in the belief that the party would be stronger then. Lenin and Trotsky responded by arguing instead for an armed uprising, but Trotsky wanted to wait until the Congress of Soviets in early November… Kollontai pictured Trotsky’s general agreement with Lenin as even more deceitful than Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s open opposition. Trotsky was hiding his true desire to subvert the revolution. “Here the Judas Trotsky… fawned. He was for the uprising, ‘for legality,’ and ‘for delay.’ He was for waiting until the Congress of Soviets. Also treachery, only in a hidden form. The Judas told everything on himself in this decisive hour.” When the vote was taken, “the two hands of the traitors” showed their “treachery”” (Barbara Evans Clements, pp. 254-255)
On October 10th (23rd old style) the Bolshevik central committee votes about the October Revolution. “Ten hands are raised in favor of the declaration based on Lenin’s proposal, two [Zinoviev and Kamenev] are against. The latter are traitors, who oppose the party and revolution, and therefore also communism and its victory.” (Hetkiä elämästäni, p. 289)
“Only Kamenev and Zinoviev now stood out against the seizure of power. “We have wasted a considerable amount of time since September, when the situation was ripe for power,” Lenin retorted crisply. “What did those cowards want?” Alexandra wrote. “To gain power by the opportunist parliamentary path?”. Dawn was breaking as the votes were taken; by a majority of ten to two, the central committee supported the resolution that “the armed rising has fully matured”” (Cathy Porter, Alexandra Kollontai: A biography, p. 277)
“as the preliminary Soviet congress opened… Trotsky spoke that day to assure his impatient audience that “armed conflict, today or tomorrow, does not enter our plans…” Alexandra had no time for such assurances: “How can he say that ‘armed conflict does not enter our plans’ when the armed uprising is already a fact?” Lenin was equally distraught over this inexplicable lenience: “I urge comrades with all my strength that everything now hangs on a thread, and that the issues before us won’t be resolved by conferences or congresses (even the congress of Soviets) but exclusively by the struggle of the armed masses,” he wrote from his hiding place in the city. “We cannot wait!! We may lose everything!!!”” (Porter, p. 278)
“The armed insurrection has begun… Trotsky, the Judas, declared: “An armed insurrection today or tomorrow does not fit with our plans, because the congress of Soviets takes place soon.” Despite the fact that the armed insurrection was already happening! The traitor, Judas, travelled under his own flag, “he joined the revolution voluntarily, with certain reservations…” Lenin warned about such betrayals” (Hetkiä elämästäni, p. 292)
The decision to carry out the revolution was taken and “at the conclusion of the [October 16th, 1917] meeting the central committee met alone, and appointed a “military-revolutionary centre ” consisting of Sverdlov, Stalin, Bubnov, Uritsky and Dzerzhinsky” to lead the revolution (E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923, vol. 1, New York : W.W. Norton, 1985, p. 96).
“This meeting elected a Party Centre, headed by Comrade Stalin, to direct the uprising.” (The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – short course)
DEBATE ABOUT COALITION WITH MENSHEVIKS AFTER THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917)
Even after the successful October Revolution, Zinoviev and Kamenev demanded that power would be given back to the capitalists. The capitalist provisional government had been headed by a “trudovik” fake socialist Kerensky, and many of his colleagues were Right-SRs and Mensheviks. Zinoviev and Kamenev stated that Bolsheviks should invite the Right-SRs and Mensheviks to also share power.
“The working women’s conference of November 1917 came during a Party crisis. Zinoviev and Kamenev were leading the opposition to Lenin’s… insistence on one-party Bolshevik rule. Kollontai used the conference to rally support for the majority position, and her eloquence, Liudmila Stal’ was certain, convinced the women delegates to endorse Lenin’s all-Bolshevik government rather than a coalition of all Soviet parties [although to be exact, there were some left-SR comissars in the Soviet government too]. Kollontai’s protege, the 24-year-old Nikolaeva, led a delegation of nine working women to Smolny Institute to announce the conference’s support of a Bolshevik government. She spoke, she said grandly, in the name of 80,000 working women of Petrograd. Lenin… addressed the delegates. So too did Zinoviev, who tried to convince them that the new government must be a coalition of all the socialist parties that had overthrown Kerensky [This claim of Zinoviev’s was not strictly true, because Zinoviev wanted to also include precisely those Mensheviks and right-SRs who had been overthrown!]. It was no use. The working women preferred Kollontai’s explanation” (Beatrice Farnsworth, Aleksandra Kollontai: socialism, feminism, and the Bolshevik Revolution, p. 89)
Kollontai also wanted to include the Mensheviks in the Soviet government, because she had a long history of minimizing the differences between different Marxist groupings. She still had some level of sympathy for the Mensheviks and did not fully consider them as rotten opportunists. Granted, there were some Mensheviks who corrected their erroneous views and became good Bolsheviks – Kollontai herself being one of them – but Menshevism as a political party and political trend, was entirely opportunist.
“When Lenin… announced the names of the commissars who would serve as the executives of the Soviet system, several prominent Bolsheviks, among them Shliapnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, criticized the list as too narrowly Bolshevik. They believed that representatives of other socialist parties should be brought into the government as the best way to guarantee the survival of Soviet rule. Kollontai agreed. She told several people in November that the Bolsheviks should form a coalition with the Mensheviks…
Despite her belief in coalition government, Kollontai did not protest as vehemently as Shliapnikov, who resigned his post as commissar of labor. She talked to Bolsheviks and non-Bolsheviks about the need to work with other socialists” (Barbara Evans Clements, pp. 122-123)
THE PALACE OF MOTHERHOOD
In the first Soviet government Kollontai became the commissar for social welfare. She helped organize the Department for the Protection of Mother and Child and to draft the first decrees on protection of mothers and children. She wrote in her memoirs:
“The idea of establishing a Department for the Protection of Mother and Child arose in the heat of the October battles. The basic principles underlying the work of the department, and the related statutes on social provision for mothers and expectant mothers were drafted at the first conference of women workers immediately following the October Revolution… the initiative on the issue of protection and provision for mother and child came from the working women themselves…
The first concern of the People’s Commissariat for State Welfare was to maintain and rebuild the huge children’s homes in Petrograd and Moscow, in order to convert these ‘angel factories’ into homes for mother and child.
The People’s Commissariat also took control of all the existing créches, consultation centers and children’s homes (very few in number) that had been founded before the revolution by charitable organizations.
In order to take possession of these institutions and run them in accord with Soviet policy, the People’s Commissariat for State Welfare first had to form a section of social investigation whose members included a large number of women workers from factories and plants. Its first task was to investigate all institutions whose work was connected with the protection of mother and child, and to deal with the open sabotage by their staff and administrators.” (Kollontai, “The First Steps Towards the Protection of Motherhood”, in From My Life and Work)
The decree of January 20th 1918 by the People’s Commissariat for State Welfare began the reorganization of lying-in hospitals, gynaecology clinics etc., which were all transferred to the control of the Department for the the Protection of Mother and Child. The decree also stated that medical services for pregnant women must be reorganized under the following basic principles:
1) the services must be available to even the poorest mothers
2) doctors must be paid and provided by the state
3) poor women can no longer be used for practice by unskilled amateurs or unqualified students.
Kollontai further wrote that:
“The next step taken by the board for the protection of mother and child was to bring together in one state organisation all the institutions caring for mother and child in the pre- and post-natal periods, and all institutions involved in child care, from children’s homes to village creches. A decree issued by the People’s Commissariat on 31 January, 1918, instructed the Department for the Protection of Mother and Child to create a network of institutions which would bring up for the Soviet Republic spiritually and physically strong and healthy citizens. This same decree also ordered the creation of a model Palace of Motherhood and the conversion of all the lying-in hospitals and children’s homes in Moscow and Petrograd into one general institution to be known as ‘The Moscow Children’s Institute’ and ‘The Petrograd Children’s Institute’. Children’s homes were renamed young children’s palaces.” (Kollontai, “The First Steps Towards the Protection of Motherhood”, in From My Life and Work)
The decree issued on January 31 created a commission whose purpose was to pursue the following main aims:
1) reduce infant mortality
2) raising of children in accordance with the new socialist family, i.e. with the workers’ state and collective institutions taking part in it from the very beginning
3) creating a physically and psychologically healthy environment for children.
Other welfare measures were also taken:
“Russia’s infant mortality rate is the highest of any so-called civilized country. Kolontai, in an effort to correct this, opened a Palace of Motherhood, with a maternity exhibition and training classes to prepare a mother for the coming of her child. She planned this as a model for similar houses to be established all over Russia. It was arranged that mothers could come there for eight weeks prior to the birth of the child, and remain for eight weeks afterward, while substitute mothers went into the homes to take care of the other children.
Several measures were passed by the Council of People’s Commissaries to protect maternity, and these were under the jurisdiction of Kolantai’s department. The work-day for nursing mothers was reduced to four hours, and a compulsory rest period before and after the birth of the child was established.” (Bessie Beatty, The Red Heart of Russia, p. 382)
Kollontai actively participated in setting up “palaces of motherhood”, places with resources for mothers and children, which would be setup everywhere in Soviet Russia, but they initially faced relentless sabotage by reactionaries:
“Kollontai introduced measures to protect women as mothers, an area the bourgeois feminists slighted. Her efforts to nationalize maternity and infant care set off a wave of “insane attack” in which Kollontai was accused of promulgating laws obligating girls of twelve to become mothers. A particularly vicious attack took the form of destruction by fire of a “Prenatal Care Palace” housed in a former school for young noblewomen still under the direction of a countess.” (Beatrice Farnsworth, p. 97)
“the nurses and the countess… were convinced that the Bolsheviks planned to bring pregnant streetwalkers into their decent home.
Kollontai met countless pregnant women who begged for a place where they could safely give birth. Kollontai sided with them against the fundamentalists. She went home exhausted and hungry.
Then the phone rang. Korolev told her that the maternity hospital was on fire. After calling for sailors to help put out the blaze, she rushed off to the building. The whole central area containing the Palace of Motherhood was burning; Korolev said it looked like arson because several areas had gone up at once. Wretched and angry, Kollontai stood in the January night, watching her cherished project destroyed. The nurses shouted that it was God’s judgment on her for being an anarchist and an anti-Christ.” (Barbara Evans Clements, pp. 130-131)
The reactionary clergy ferociously attacked Kollontai and her policies, spreading insane lies and superstition, and engaging in terrorism:
“the entire central part of the building had collapsed, and the glowing snow was littered with beams, boards, and shattered glass… a young commissariat worker ran up to tell her what she had already realized, all too horribly clearly — it was sabotage. The fire had started in too many places at once — and on the very night before the Palace was to have opened — for it to have been caused by mere carelessness: the wing accommodating the countess, the nannies still loyal to her, and their infant charges was untouched. Alexandra’s “baby,” created through sleepless nights and hours of patient preparation and persuasion, was dead…
Suddenly from out of the intact section of the building a strange disheveled procession of nannies emerged, moving toward the smoldering rubble in their nightdresses, babies in their arms. ‘There she is, the Antichrist!” they yelled as Alexandra and Korolev made for the side wing. “She took the icons down! She wants to turn the orphanage into a brothel! The Bolsheviks are after the children’s rations!” She helplessly tried to pacify them and talk to them. “She wanted to burn us with our babies!” they cried, hysterical… One nanny leaped forward and tried to throttle her…
The countess, summoned to Smolny by a couple of sailors, imperturbably explained that the fire was a divine judgment on the throwing out of the icons, and on Alexandra’s insults to the religious propriety of her establishment. And… for her sluttish Bolshevik nurses” (Porter, pp. 304-305)
SOURCES:
Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik feminist: the life of Aleksandra Kollontai*
Finland celebrates its independence on December 6th. The independence was gained as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, which overthrew the capitalist Kerensky regime and all remnants of tsarism. The Soviet government met with a delegation of Finnish government leaders in 1917 and immediately recognized Finland’s declaration of independence.
You can learn more about the Finnish struggle for independence from this article.
Afterwards the Finnish capitalist class has consistently sold the independence of Finland to foreign imperialist powers: to Germany in 1918, to England in the 1920s and 30s, again to Hitler’s fascist regime in the second world war, and today the independence has been sold to the EU and Nato, to German and American banks.
We know fascists are the shock troops of decaying capitalism. EU and Nato both support the fascist regimes in Ukraine and Israel. The fascists always try to pass themselves off as genuine patriots and use nationalistic and chauvinist demagogy. They blame all the ills of imperialist capitalism on ‘cultural marxism’ or on jews, despite themselves being in league both with imperialism and the zionist state of Israel. Israel, as is known, carries out a fascist and genocidal policy in Palestine, and supports the Ukrainian nazis.
The fascists have made it their habit to march in the Finnish capital city on independence day. They claim to want a “new independence”. All of that is of course pure bunk, as they don’t genuinely oppose imperialism or capitalism, and only try to mislead the masses.
The fascist marches on independence day have gone unde different names, but usually the name is simply “612”, the date of the independence day.
The fascist marches immediately provoked counter-protests, and already for several years both fascists and anti-fascists have marched in Helsinki on the same day, at the same time, and the police has tried to keep them separated. For a number of years already, the fascist march has been significantly smaller than the anti-fascist march, called “Helsinki without nazis” (“Helsinki ilman natseja” or HIN).
The purpose of HIN has always been to prevent the fascists from marching. The Finnish state has continually supported the fascists. The courts have given nazis the permission to use swastika flags. When the Finnish branch of the so-called ‘nordic resistance’ was banned, after they beat someone to death in broad daylight, the organization was allowed to change its name to “Towards freedom” and continue operating. The fascists have also been allowed to register a party (the “Blue black movement”) and run in elections. Other fascist organizations are also allowed to operate.
The anti-fascist demonstrators consist of a broad coalition of masses, ranging from liberals to communists and anarchists. The movement itself is seemingly led by social-democrats, anarchists and liberals. While the anti-fascists have merely wanted to prevent fascists from marching and terrorizing people, the police have taken as their mission to make sure the fascists are able to march.
Usually the police have simply kept the anti-fascists away from the fascists, thus allowing fascists to carry out their actions openly. In December 2023 the HIN decided to demonstrate at the same place as the fascists. The anti-fascists were to arrive several hours earlier, thus preventing the fascists from coming there. The police declared this action of anti-fascists as illegal and banned.
In Finland demonstrations do not require permission. The website of the police states that organizers should notify the police about demonstrations 24 hours before hand, but if this is not done, it is possible to notify the police even during the demonstration. So in practice, no permission is required. However, this seemingly gives the police unlimited arbitrary powers. They can still declare any gathering as illegal, or at least force the demonstration to move somewhere else.
For example, pro-Palestinian demonstrators have been told by the police, that demonstrating in front of the Israeli embassy is not allowed. There is no law against it, but in practice the police are able to make that decision.
By 6th of December the police had told anti-fascists that their gathering at Töölöntori square would be considered illegal and would not be tolerated. The anti-fascists gathered there anyway, stating that they were there hours earlier than the fascists. Did the police really mean the square would be reserved for the fascists for the entire day? More than a thousand anti-fascists gathered at the square. The masses did not provoke the police and were entirely peaceful.
An incident took place, where a couple of anti-communist anarchists attacked maoist communists and tried to steal their hammer and sickle flags, calling them ‘authoritarian’. The attack did not work and the revolutionaries and broader masses condemned it, shouting “united front against fascism”, “down with anti-communist laws”, “oust the fifth column”!
Shortly afterwards the police started attacking the anti-fascist demonstrators from all sides, squeezing them in and trying to split them into smaller groups. The police screamed that they will start making arrests unless the people leave. The masses shouted “police is a friend of the fascists” and “nazis out of Helsinki”. Pro-Palestine slogans “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Free, free Palestine” were also shouted.
There were Palestinian flags, red flags and hammer and sickle flags present. Communists held red banners against capitalism and fascism, and against the anti-communist laws. You can read about the government’s proposed anti-communist laws here.
The police were in full riot gear and used a tremendous amount of force to remove the masses from the square. They rode around on horses trying to scare people, pushed people down, struck them with batons, arrested dozens. The police pushed the masses for hours and were finally able to force them off the square and kept forcing them further on the streets.
The masses remained incredibly united and calm, everybody was united against the terrorist police and the fascists. There was firm unity between communist forces of different organizations.
The fascist march was delayed as a result of the determined action of the masses. Finally a couple hundred fascists arrived, surrounded by police protection. The anti-fascist masses shouted “fascists out of Helsinki”.
The police exposed the masses to danger by splitting them up and preventing them from finding their comrades who might’ve been separated in the push. The masses were careful to find their friends and comrades before leaving the demonstration and traveled in groups, in case they ran into fascist thugs on their way home.
The decision to organize the anti-fascist demonstration despite the ban was correct. It was correct to take a concrete step to hinder the fascists. The masses gained valuable experience and formed ties of unity, despite the sabotage by a few elements who objectively collaborated with the police by attacking communists, fellow anti-fascists.
The police exposed their class essence by deciding that they would use extreme force and remove more than a thousand peaceful people from the square, to make room for a few hundred fascist criminals, many of whom apparently came from Sweden, where the nazi ‘nordic resistance’ and the ‘soldiers of odin’ fascist street gang are strongest.
THIS PAGE IS STILL VERY INCOMPLETE.
IT WILL BE UPDATED, RE-STRUCTURED AND IMPROVED OVER TIME.
Note: This page contains a database of artists from the Soviet Union. It also contains progressive artists from the pre-revolutionary period which naturally influenced Soviet art.
I’ve largely used the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (third edition, 1979) as a source. This source, while usually fine, is not entirely satisfactory as it is from the revisionist period, but unfortunately the earlier editions have not been translated into English. I’ve also used some other sources (one of the best is the Short Philosophical Dictionary, 1954, by Yudin and Rosenthal) and will continue to add more better sources.
See also my database of Hungarian art. I also plan to create a page for Finnish art in the near future.
ART IN THE SOVIET UNION (INTRODUCTORY ESSAY)
The Socialist Realist method
Art in the Soviet Union followed the principles of Socialist Realism, it was “socialist in its content and national in its form”, i.e. it had a socialist meaning and message, and used forms that were familiar and understandable to the people, being developed from the national cultural traditions.
Despite developing out of the cultural tradition, Soviet art was not conservative but progressive and innovative. Radical innovations in form include the Stanislavsky method in drama, Mayakovsky’s poetry, and others. Despite being national in form, socialist realism is internationalist, takes influences and learns from other cultures.
Socialist realism opposes anti-national or national-nihilist cosmopolitan art, which denies all national cultural tradition and in fact ends up only copying the most recent fads in western imperialist trash.
Socialist realism uses a realistic mode of representation. By realism Marxists mean something more broad than the general use of the term. Realism in the Marxist sense means that the artistic representation corresponds to reality, i.e. is truthful. Realistic art reveals social and economic relations of society, human psychology, historical development.
Socialist realism is also realism in the more traditional sense, i.e. representational, non-abstract. This is because the form of art must correspond to its content. An overly obscure presentation cannot serve a truthful message but only an obscurantist, mystifying or deceitful message.
The truthful and clear mode of presentation, rooted in the cultural tradition forms part of the democratic nature of Socialist realism. It is democratic as it is “folk-oriented”, created by the people and to be understood by the people, instead of being elitist. Socialist realism is deeply in touch with the people, instead of being out of touch with the people.
Marxists understand that all cultural, social and economic development is built upon elements of the past. Capitalism developed out of feudalism and socialism develops out of capitalism. Marxism developed from prior materialism and dialectics, from utopian socialism and political economy, while critically adopting and mastering all the usable elements of the past and discarding the outmoded hindrances. Similarly, Socialist realism critically uses and masters the artistic creations of the past, developing new art from that basis.
So-called “avant-garde” abstract art movements follow an anarchistic method. They think they can create something “entirely new”, totally rejecting everything from the past. In reality, such art movements have always merely copied reactionary imperialist fads and have never created anything original at all.
Creating great art is very complicated and difficult. It continues to be necessary to study the great art works of the past. Marx himself considered ancient Greek art to be still be “in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable ideal” (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
Speaking at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers Zhdanov stated that Socialist realist “literature is the youngest of all the literatures of all countries and peoples. At the same time, it has the greatest idea-content and it is the most advanced and revolutionary” but speaking 14 years later at a meeting of Soviet composers he stated that “the classics remain unsurpassed” (On Literature, Music and Philosophy). This is because the birth of great art takes entire epochs, and requires both more advanced content, but also unprecedented mastery of skill. The emerging of new better art is a very prolonged process.
Socialist realism is the most advanced art in the history of humanity, as it reflects the interests of the most advanced society. However, we are not in a position to discard the old classics.
Soviet art – a peak of human culture
The Russian empire was famous for its literature. The leading writers were democratic and anti-tsarist, and include such giants of literature as Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev, Gogol, Chekhov, progressive poets such as Pushkin, Nekrasov, Lermontov, social-critic playwrights such as Ostrovsky, and revolutionary critics such as Chernyshevsky, Pisarev, Stasov and Belinsky. They ruthlessly exposed and criticized the prevailing conditions under the tsarist yoke. They revealed a deep connection and love for the people, humanism and patriotism.
After the revolution an entirely new socialist literature arose. Its leading members were such masters as Maxim Gorky, Nikolai Ostrovsky (How the steel was tempered), Gladkov (Cement), Fadeev (The Young guard), Sholokhov (The Quiet Don, Virgin soil upturned), A. N. Tolstoy (The Road to calvary), and poets like Mayakovsky. Not only the Russians but all the peoples of the Soviet Union also had their great writers and artists: Taras Shevchenko in Ukraine, Abovian Khachatur in Armenia, M. F. Akhundov in Azerbaijan etc.
Russia’s greatest pre-revolutionary painters were doubtless the revolutionary Ilja Repin and anti-militarist Vasily Vereshchagin. After the October Revolution there was a flourishing of socialist realist painting. Great works were created by Yuri Pimenov, Isaak Brodsky, Alexander Gerasimov, Vasily Yefanov, S.V. Aleksandrovich etc.
Russia is also famous for its classical music, which is strongly influenced by folk music of the masses. The founder of Russian national music Mikhail Glinka considered it necessary to utilize the boundless source that is folk music. Glinka’s ideas were continued by Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky and all the best composers, while also keeping a keen eye on the development of foreign music. Soviet classical music brought forth the leading composers of the 20th century: Shostakovich, Prokofiev and others. Notable Soviet composers of popular music and mass songs include Anatoly Novikov and Matvei Blanter.
Following the tradition of their predecessors such as M. F. Kazakov, Soviet architecture attained great heights, building probably the most beatiful buildings in the world. Leading Soviet architects include A. V. Shchusev, Vladislavovich Zholtovsky, A. G. Mordvinov etc. Sculpture also flourished at the hands of masters like Vera Mukhina and Matvei Manizer.
While the Russian empire had practically no film industry, Soviet cinema is world-renowned. The leading directors and cinematographers such as Sergei Eisenstein came from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also developed the most advanced methods in drama led by Nemirovich-Danchenko and Konstantin Stanislavsky in particular.
Pre-revolutionary Russia was famous for its ballet with dancers like Vaslav Nijinsky, and this was developed to an even higher level in the USSR with dancers and choreographers like A. I. Vaganov and V. I. Vainonen.
Soviet art represents a treasure-trove of human civilization.
________________________________________
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin made valuable contributions to aesthetics and philosophy of art in their works.
“Rustaveli Shota (XII c.) Genius Georgian poet, author of the poem “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”, one of the greatest monuments of world culture. Considering poetry “one of the branches of wisdom”, Rustaveli summarized in artistic form all the previous development of Georgian social and philosophical thought. The poetic images of the poem embody deep philosophical ideas directed against the prevailing philosophical currents of the Middle Ages.
Deeply folk at its core, imbued with humanism, singing with great artistic power the lofty ideas of love, friendship and heroism, Rustaveli’s poem undermined the foundations of medieval scholasticism and opposed the dead asceticism of the church. Rustaveli boldly violated the traditions of medieval literature with his work. In his poem there is no mention of the Christian “triunity” and other religious attributes that were considered mandatory in medieval literature. The world in which the heroes of the poem live and fight is the real, material world; there is no place for any otherworldly beginning in it. The heroes of the poem are endowed with truly human passions and aspirations.
They fight in the name of lofty “earthly” ideals, not at all caring about the “beyond” life. The God referred to in the poem is “the fullness of all things”, the personification of the unity of the world, and not the traditional god of religion. The emergence and disappearance of things is, according to Rustaveli, the connection and separation of the four elements – “fire, water, earth and air.” The cosmos is eternal and boundless, it is characterized by an indestructible internal regularity. Like all phenomena of the world, human activity is strictly determined. However, Rustaveli connects the regularity (fate) with the activity of a person, with his struggle, which brings the victory of good over evil. Evil, according to Rustaveli, is not a natural principle. It is rooted only in human relationships. Therefore, man must and is able to overcome evil by his struggle.
Genuine heroism is directly connected with such a struggle, overcoming any obstacles on the way to a noble goal. Knowledge becomes wisdom only when combined with practical activity, and without wisdom there is no true heroism. The main incentives for heroic activity are love and friendship, imbued with lofty moral principles. The heroes of Rustaveli’s work show miracles of courage and courage for the sake of love and friendship. Rustaveli’s love and friendship outgrow the boundaries of personal feelings: they acquire social significance, regulating people’s relations in society. Rustaveli was the first in world literature to sing of friendship between peoples, based on deep patriotism, selfless service to his people.
Rustaveli’s aesthetic views are closely connected with his general philosophical concept, with his ethics. The beautiful and the sublime are not only our subjective feelings, they are objective categories. The true beauty of a person is not so much in his external attractiveness, but in lofty moral principles. The task of poetry is to reflect the life and struggle of people for lofty and noble goals, for the establishment of human happiness on earth.
If the philosophical views of Rustaveli go far beyond the Middle Ages, if his ethical and aesthetic views in a large sea echo the progressive ideas of modernity, then his socio-political convictions are much more limited by the conditions of feudalism. Rustaveli stands up for the ideas of enlightened absolutism, for a single, powerful and independent state; demanding, however, the limitation of the tsarist autocracy by the advice of wise statesmen. Social relationships based on the feudal hierarchy, Rustaveli considers unshakable. But he demands a humane and fair attitude towards people, the elimination of poverty, protests against the humiliation of the human person.
Rustaveli’s poem dealt a powerful blow to the Christian ideology of the Middle Ages. For centuries, the reactionary forces of Georgia, mainly obscurantist clerics, have tried to destroy the great poem and even traces of its influence. But the Georgian people, considering the creation of Rustaveli as an expression of their national self-consciousness, a symbol of their best aspirations, defended this brilliant work and preserved it to this day. Now it has become the property of all the peoples of the great Soviet Union and entered the treasury of world culture.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
ALI-SHIR NAVA’I (1441-1501)
Alisher Navoi, ‘Ali-Shir Nava’i, also known as Nizām-al-Din ʿAli-Shir Herawī. National poet of Uzbekistan, writer, statesman, linguist and painter.
“Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilyevich (1711-1765). Lomonosov was a great Russian scientist, poet, founder of materialistic philosophy and natural science in Russia. The son of a peasant-Pomor from the village of Denisovka, near Kholmogory, Arkhangelsk province. Lomonosov from an early age passionately strived for knowledge. In 1730 he left for Moscow and, having overcome many difficulties associated with his peasant origin, entered the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy there. In 1735 he was sent to the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, and after a while abroad, from where he returned in 1741. The Academy of Sciences with its foreign dominance did not recognize Lomonosov as a scientist for a long time. Only in 1745 he was approved as professor of chemistry.
The materialist tradition in the development of advanced Russian philosophy and science originates from Lomonosov. Lomonosov’s scientific activity was distinguished by its versatility. Lomonosov’s achievements in the field of chemistry and physics are especially significant. Lomonosov’s great scientific feat is the discovery of the law of conservation of matter and motion as a universal natural law and its theoretical and experimental substantiation. Already in his first natural-scientific works, Lomonosov comes to the conclusion about the constancy of matter and motion. Lomonosov gave a detailed substantiation of the law he discovered in 1748: “All changes occurring in nature occur in such a way that as much as is added to what is added, the same amount is subtracted from the other. So, as much substance as is added to one body, the same amount is taken away from another … This law of nature is so universal that it also extends to the rules of motion.” Later, Lomonosov substantiated this law in the work “Discourse on the hardness and fluidity of bodies” and in other works. The law of conservation of matter is rightfully called the Lomonosov Law. Lomonosov proved this law experimentally by weighing substances before and after a chemical reaction. Lomonosov’s position on the conservation of motion was confirmed in the concrete form of the law of conservation of energy after almost a hundred years. Thus, Lomonosov has priority in discovering the universal law of conservation of matter and motion, which lies at the foundation of modern natural science, especially physics and chemistry. Justifying the proposition about the non-destructibility and non-creation of matter and motion, Lomonosov thereby defended the indissolubility of matter and motion. The law of conservation of matter and motion Lomonosov came to the motion of particles of matter.
Lomonosov is the founder of chemical atomistics, revealing the atomic-molecular structure of matter. He believed that “corpuscles” (molecules) are composed of the smallest particles – “elements” (atoms). “Corpuscles,” wrote Lomonosov, “are homogeneous if they consist of the same number of the same elements connected in the same way … dissimilar when their elements are different and connected in different ways or in different numbers; the infinite variety of bodies depends on it.” Lomonosov’s understanding of heat as a mechanical motion of “corpuscles” is based on the law of conservation of motion. In Reflections on the Elastic Force of Air, Lomonosov developed the theory of the structure of air on the basis of molecular-kinetic concepts that played a huge role in the further development of science. Lomonosov resolutely fought against anti-scientific views, which in the 18th century. dominated in natural science, for example, against the metaphysical concept of “caloric.”
In Reflections on the Cause of Heat and Cold, Lomonosov wrote that “there is a sufficient basis for heat in motion. And since motion cannot occur without matter, it is necessary that a sufficient basis for heat lies in the motion of some matter.” Lomonosov expresses ingenious ideas that various natural phenomena are caused by different forms of motion of matter. Lomonosov laid the foundation for a completely new science – physical chemistry, linking physical theories and research methods with the solution of chemical problems. Lomonosov paid considerable attention to the development of the mining and metallurgical business. In the field of geology, he first put forward the idea of development.
He investigated the wealth of the subsoil of Russia, found out the conditions of navigation along the Northern Sea Route. A supporter of the heliocentric theory in astronomy, the multitude of worlds and the infinity of the universe, Lomonosov was the first to discover the air atmosphere around Venus and, in opposition to the teachings of the church, admitted the possibility of life on other planets. He basically correctly explained the causes of climate change on earth, the presence in the North in the frozen layers of the earth of the remains of animals and plants that are not characteristic of the conditions of the North. Lomonosov predicted that at high air densities, deviations from the Boyle-Mariotte law should be found. Lomonosov was the first to introduce in chemistry the method of quantitative (weight) reception as a systematic method of research, and invented a number of instruments for use in navigation, meteorology, geodesy, physics, chemistry, etc.
Lomonosov solved the main question of philosophy materialistically. With his research, he made a breach in the metaphysical worldview that prevailed at the time; on a number of issues Lomonosov pursued the idea of development. At the same time, due to the limited knowledge of that time, he considered mainly mechanical laws and properties of nature. He considered the main properties of matter to be extension, force of inertia, impenetrability, mechanical motion. Lomonosov contrasted the materialistic view of atoms to the idealistic monadology of Leibniz, which he sharply criticized. Rejecting Leibniz’s spiritual monads, Lomonosov called corpuscles “physical monads.”
Lomonosov’s views contain elements of dialectics. He already considers the world around us as constantly changing and developing. In his work “On the Layers of the Earth,” he talks about the changes and evolutionary development of the plant and animal kingdoms, puts forward a bold theory about the plant origin of peat, coal, oil, amber, an evolutionary theory of the origin of soils. Lomonosov considered motion as “eternally” existing. In his work “On the heaviness of bodies and on the eternity of the primary movement,” he writes: “… the primary movement can never have a beginning, but must last forever.”
Lomonosov developed a materialistic theory of knowledge. He proceeded from the fact that the source of knowledge is the external world, which affects the human senses. He was a staunch opponent of the Cartesian idealist theory of “innate ideas” and Locke’s “inner experience.” Lomonosov spoke in favor of combining experimental data with theoretical conclusions. He condemned those who divorced cognition by reason from sensory perceptions, who metaphysically opposed synthesis to analysis. In the theory of knowledge, Lomonosov assigned a large place to experience, understanding the latter in a narrow sense, in the sense of a scientific experiment and sensory perception of objective reality. Lomonosov sharply criticized the idealist theory of the so-called “secondary qualities,” arguing that “secondary qualities” exist as objectively as primary ones.
“With Lomonosov,” wrote Belinsky, “our literature begins.” Lomonosov was the founder of Russian grammar. Thanks to Lomonosov, a new grammar based on living Russian speech came to replace the dead, scholastic schemes of the old grammar. As a poet, Lomonosov performed primarily with poems in which he called for the development of the arts and sciences in Russia, for the spread of Enlightenment among the Russian people.
For a number of years, Lomonosov waged a stubborn struggle for the creation of domestic science, he did a lot for the development of natural science in Russia, for combining advanced science with practical tasks. Lomonosov was the first Russian scientist to receive the title of Academician. He was the founder of Moscow University (1755) and advocated the transformation of the Academy of Sciences. Lomonosov fought against the clergy, sharply castigating the ignorance of the priests. As a historian, as a patriot, he fought against the distortions of Russian history and against the dominance of the reactionary “German party” in the Academy of Sciences. Lomonosov loved his people dearly; he believed in the great future of the Russian people. The last edition of Selected Philosophical Works of M. V. Lomonosov was published in 1950.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
A. P. SUMAROKOV (1717-1777)
“Sumarokov, Aleksandr Petrovich. Born Nov. 14 (25), 1717, in St. Petersburg; died Oct. 1 (12), 1777, in Moscow. Russian writer.
Sumarokov came from an old family of the nobility. From 1732 to 1740 he studied at the Military Academy for the Nobility, where he began writing poetry. Sumarokov gained fame with his love songs, which circulated in manuscript. M. V. Lomonosov, an advocate of civic themes in poetry, disapproved of these works, and Sumarokov replied with his Critique of the Ode.
In the Epistle on Versification (1747), Sumarokov formulated the poetics of the main genres of classicism, particularly the comedy and the fable. The polemics between Lomonosov and Sumarokov in the 1750’s constituted an important stage in the establishment of the aesthetics and methodology of Russian classicism.
Sumarokov wrote a number of verse tragedies, including Khorev (1747), Hamlet (1748), and Sinav and Tntvor (1750), which combined love motifs with social and philosophical problems. Sumarokov’s plays formed the basis of the repertoire of the first professional, permanent Russian public theater, which Sumarokov directed from 1756 to 1761. The performers in Sumarokov’s plays were the first professional Russian actors.
In 1759, Sumarokov published the first Russian literary journal, Trudoliubivaia pchela (The Industrious Bee). In the late 1750’s and early 1760’s he wrote fables that castigated bureaucratic arbitrariness, bribery, and the inhuman treatment of serfs by landowners. During the 1770’s, Sumarokov wrote his best comedies, The Imaginary Cuckold, The Mother as Rival of Her Daughter, and The Troublesome Girl (all 1772), as well as his best tragedies, The False Demetrius (1771) and Mstislav (1774). Sumarokov’s comedies are satires of mores; in them, the author differentiates the characters by their speech, thus anticipating the comedies of D. I. Fonvizin. In 1774, Sumarokov published the collections Satires and Elegies.
Sumarokov, his followers, and his successors helped establish classicism in Russian literature. Sumarokov also wrote articles on philosophy and political economy.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. vsekh soch. v. stikhakh i proze, 2nd ed., parts 1–10. Moscow, 1787.
Stikhotvoreniia. [Introductory article by P. N. Berkov.] Leningrad, 1953.
Izbr. proizv. [Introductory article by P. N. Berkov.] Leningrad, 1957.
REFERENCES
Gukovskii, G. A. O sumarokovskoi tragedii. In Poetika: Sb. st., fasc. 1. Leningrad, 1926.
Berkov, P. N. Sumarokov, 1717–1777. Leningrad-Moscow, 1949.
Serman, I. Z. Russkii klassitsizm. Leningrad, 1973.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Leningrad, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by I. Z. SERMAN)
G. S. SKOROVODA (1722-1794)
“Skovoroda Grigory Savvich (1722-1794) – an outstanding Ukrainian philosopher, humanist, democrat and educator, who expressed the protest of the peasant masses against serfdom. After graduating from the Kiev Theological Academy, he was a poetics teacher at the Pereyaslavl Theological Seminary, then at the Kharkov Collegium. For progressive views, he was persecuted. The hostile attitude of the clergy and the ruling classes forced him to give up teaching.
In order to spread his views among the people, he chose the lifestyle of an itinerant philosopher. One of the first in the history of Russian and Ukrainian social thought, Skovoroda, raised the struggle against official religion and dead church scholasticism. He turned to man and his mind, to nature. His philosophical views are contradictory. The main question of philosophy he solved idealistically, recognizing the primary spiritual principle. At the same time, there was a strong materialistic tendency in his worldview. Following Mikhail Lomonosov, he came to the conclusion that matter is eternal in time and infinite in space.
He believed that law prevails in nature. His fluctuations between materialism and idealism took the form of a dualistic theory of three worlds and two natures. He argued that the whole world consists of a macrocosm (nature), a microcosm (man) and a world of symbols (the Bible). Each of them has two natures: an external material and an internal spiritual. Nature consists of many worlds, it is not created by anyone, cannot be destroyed, has no beginning or end, for the end of one is the beginning of another. This is the materialistic tendency of Skovoroda’s philosophy. Skovoroda believed that the world is cognizable, but in order to cognize the macrocosm, one must first know oneself, since the laws of the macro- and microcosm are the same. The other side of his epistemology is ethics: truth is complete in unity with virtue outside of it it is empty and turns into idle curiosity; knowledge and science should serve the people.
Skovoroda considered the Bible as a means of cognition of the spiritual principle, as a third, symbolic world. He singled out in it the external material side and internal divine content: the Bible for him is both God and the serpent. Here Skovoroda’s contradictory attitude towards religion and the Bible is reflected. He vigorously criticized the official religion (its orthodoxy, dogmatism and scholasticism, as ridiculous lies and the fables of the shameless, harmful and lying Bible), thereby rising to the level of militant anti-clericalism. At the same time, he clothed his preaching of enlightenment and ethics in a religious form. He wanted to create a religion of love, virtue and truth. God for him is nature, man, truth, virtue, etc. Skovoroda criticized the church, hated the white and black clergy.
Skovoroda fought for the interests of the oppressed common people, he angrily criticized the rich for money-grubbing, for their parasitism. In money-grubbing, he saw the source of all social disasters: litigation, robbery, flattery, buying and selling, extortion, wars, the fall of states and republics. The people are in chains, politically oppressed, deprived of rights, in ignorance, Skovoroda said. He called to wake the people up. Skovoroda saw salvation in self-knowledge: having cognized the evil inclination, people must free themselves from it and build a new society based on reason, truth and virtue. He dreamed of seeing the mountainous Rus as a mountainous Republic. Skovoroda passionately loved his homeland and people. With all intransigence, he spoke out against anti-patriots and cosmopolitans. He ardently defended the unity of Ukraine with Russia, the friendship of these two fraternal peoples.
Skovoroda was realistic and strong in criticizing the rich, landowners, officials, official religion and clergy, but he was weak and utopian in addressing issues of social development. His worldview evolved towards materialism and towards a more acute formulation of social problems. But he did not come to a materialistic solution to the fundamental question of philosophy; in public views, although he went beyond the enlightenment of the 18th century, he did not reach revolutionary positions. His views reflected the weakness and narrowness of the peasant anti-serf movement. Philosophical and literary works of Skovoroda: The initial door to Christian good behavior (1766), Dialogue about the ancient world (1772), Friendly conversation about the spiritual world, Alphabet of the world (1775), The struggle of the Archangel Michael with Satan (1783) and others.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
G. R. DERZHAVIN (1743-1816)
“Derzhavin, Gavrila Romanovich. Born July 3 (14), 1743, in the village of Karmachi or Sokury, in present-day Laishevo Raion, Tatar ASSR; died July 8 (20), 1816, in the village of Zvanka, present-day Novgorod Oblast. Russian poet.
Derzhavin was born into a noble family of modest means. He attended Kazan Gymnasium (1759-62), and beginning in 1762 he served as a soldier in the Preobrazhenskii Regiment, which took part in the palace revolution that resulted in the accession of Catherine II to the throne. Ten years later Derzhavin was promoted, and as an officer he participated in the suppression of the Pugachev Rebellion. He served briefly in the Senate, where he became convinced that he could “not get along where they do not love justice.”
Derzhavin was rewarded by Catherine II for composing the “Ode to Felicia” (1782), which was addressed to her. In 1784 he was made governor of Olonets and later of Tambov Province (1785-88). As Catherine’s private secretary (1791-93), Derzhavin displeased the empress and was dismissed from her personal service. In 1794 he was appointed president of the Collegium of Commerce, and from 1802-03 he was minister of justice. He retired in 1803.
Derzhavin’s works were first published in 1773. At first, he wrote his odes in the tradition of Lomonosov. However, he proceeded to develop his own poetic style, which found brilliant expression in such poems as “Ode on the Death of Prince Meshcherskii” (1779), “Ode to Felicia” and “God” (1784), “The Vision of Murza” (1789; published in 1791), and “The Waterfall” (1791-94; published in 1798). In addition to works praising the monarch and the military leaders, Derzhavin wrote odes portraying unworthy magnates and the morals of court society and expressing intimate lyric motifs. Often , he combined elements of the ode and the satire in the same poem. The poet angrily criticized social vices (“To Potentates and Judges,” 1780-87, and “The Magnate,” 1774-94, published in 1798). Pushkin characterized Derzhavin’s poetry thus: “Derzhavin, scourge of magnates, at the sound of the dread lyre, their haughty idols did expose” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 2, 1956, p. 124).
Derzhavin’s philosophical lyrics express the tragic antithesis between life and death (“Where board with viands was, there coffin stands,” from the “Ode on the Death of Prince Meshcherskii”). They show a keen perception of the greatness and at the same time the insignificance of man (“I am tsar, I am slave, I am worm, I am god,” in the ode “God”), and they express a feeling of the instability of human fortunes (“The Waterfall”). Derzhavin sought a way out of these contradictions in religion (for example, the ode “God”). In the 1790’s Anacreontic lyrics prevailed in his work, and in the latter years of his life he turned to dramatic composition.
In 1811, Derzhavin joined the literary society called the Society of the Lovers of the Russian Word. He gave his support to the literary “old believers” and conservatives, but at the same time he looked with favor on Zhukovskii and “took notice” of the young Pushkin. Derzhavin’s artistic method is marked by concrete imagery, abundant personal biographical motifs, and fluid forms, but at the same time, his works reveal the didacticism and allegorism typical of classicism. His poetic language is rich in attributives conveying nuances of color, and it is saturated with phonetic effects. Derzhavin introduced lifelike, colloquial speech into the language of poetry.
WORKS
Sochineniia, vols. 1-9. Explanatory notes by la. K. Grot. St. Petersburg, 1864-83.
Stikhotvoreniia. Edited with commentary by G. Gukovskii, introductory article by I. A. Vinogradov. Leningrad, 1933.
Stikhotvoreniia. Introductory article and textual preparation by V. P. Druzin. Moscow, 1963.
REFERENCES
Belinskii, V. G. “Sochineniia Derzhavina.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6. Moscow, 1955.
Blagoi, D. D. Derzhavin. Moscow, 1944.
Zapadov, A. V. Masterstvo Derzhavina. Moscow, 1958.
Serman, I. Z. Derzhavin. Leningrad, 1967.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII v: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Leningrad, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. A. LESSKIS)
N. I. NOVIKOV (1744-1818)
“Novikov, Nikolai Ivanovich. Born Apr. 27 (May 8), 1744, on the family estate Tikhvinskoe-Avdot’ino, near the village (now city) of Bronnitsy, near Moscow; died there July 31 (Aug. 12), 1818. Russian representative of the Enlightenment; writer, journalist, and publisher.
Novikov studied from 1755 to 1760 at Moscow University’s Gymnasium for the nobility. He then served in the Izmailovskii Regiment. From 1767 he worked for the Legislative Commission, which was set up to draft a new code of laws. His work on the commission played an important role in the formation of his Enlightenment views and in his opposition to serfdom.
After the commission was dissolved in 1769, Novikov published the satirical journals Truten’ (The Drone), Pustomelia (The Tattler; 1770), Zhivopisets (The Painter), and Koshelek (The Purse; 1774), in which he included his own works under various pseudonyms, including Pravduliubov. In these works he angrily denounced advocates of serfdom and government officials from the dvorianstvo and sympathetically portrayed peasants—the “feeders of society.” Conducting polemics in Truten’ with the journal published by Catherine II, Vsiakaia Vsiachina (All Sorts of Things), Novikov affirmed the need for serious social satire and exposed the empress’s hypocritical game of playing the “enlightened monarch.” Of particular success was the journal Zhivopisets, in which he printed the antiserfdom “Letter to Fallaley” and “A Fragment of a Journey”; artistically these were his most significant works. (Novikov’s authorship of these works has been disputed by some scholars.)
Novikov considered one of his most important tasks to be the struggle for a national basis for Russian culture—a struggle against the nobility’s worship of all things foreign. He published the book Attempt at a Historical Dictionary of Russian Writers (1772), ancient works on Russian history (Ancient Russian Library, 1773–75), and Russia’s first philosophical journal, Utren-nii svet (Morning Light; 1777–80). In 1777 he began publishing Sankt-Peterburgskie uchenye vedomosti (The St. Petersburg Scholarly Gazette), the first Russian journal of critical bibliography.
In the period of reaction after the crushing of the Peasant War of 1773–75 under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev, Novikov joined a Masonic lodge. While sharing the Masonic Utopian belief in the possibility of the moral reeducation of people corrupted by serfdom, he kept aloof from the mystical strivings of the “brothers” and sought to use the Masonic order and its financial resources for educational purposes—for the extensive development of book publishing. Having signed a ten-year lease for the university printing press in Moscow, where he moved in 1779, Novikov created the Typographic Company, which had two additional presses. He published numerous periodicals, including the newspaper Moskovskie vedomosti (The Moscow Gazette; 1779–89), the journal Moskovskoe ezhemesiachnoe izdanie (The Moscow Monthly Publication; 1781), the periodical Gorod-skaia i derevenskaia biblioteka (Town and Country Library; 1782–86), and the first journal in Russia for children, Detskoe chtenie (Children’s Reading; 1785–89). He also printed textbooks and books in various fields of knowledge. Literary and theoretical works by representatives of the Enlightenment, including D. Diderot, J. J. Rousseau, and G. E. Lessing, occupied a special place among the works he printed. He published nearly one-third of all books published in Russia during these years. Novikov organized book selling in 16 Russian cities and opened a library with a reading room in Moscow. With the income from book sales he created two schools for children of the raznochintsy (intellectuals of no definite class), as well as a free pharmacy in Moscow. He also used his income to provide assistance to peasants who had suffered in the 1787 famine. During this period he continued his literary work, writing the cycle of satirical short stories entitled Russian Proverbs (1782); he also authored philosophical, economic, and pedagogical works. In 1792 he was arrested and sentenced, without a trial, to 15 years in the Shlis-sel’burg Fortress. He was freed in 1796 under Paul I but without permission to continue his earlier activities.
Novikov’s contribution to the development of Russian literature and social thought was highly valued by A. S. Pushkin, the Decembrists, V. G. Belinskii, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevskii, N. A. Dobroliubov, and G. V. Plekhanov.
WORKS
Izbr. soch. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
Satiricheskie zhurnaly N. I. Novikova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
REFERENCES
Svetlov, L. B. Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ N. I. Novikova. [Moscow] 1946.
Makogonenko, G. P. Nikolai Novikov i russkoe prosveshchenie XVIII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1952.
Blagoi, D. D. “Satiricheskie zhurnaly 1769–1774 gg. N. I. Novikova.” In his book Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII v., 3rd ed. Moscow, 1955.
Zapadov, A. V. “Zhurnalist, izdatel’ i pisatel’.” In the collection Kniga, fasc. 17. Moscow, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. P. MAKOGONENKO)
D. I. FONVIZIN (1744/45-1792)
“Fonvizin, Denis Ivanovich. Born Apr. 3 (14), 1744 or 1745, in Moscow; died Dec. 1 (12), 1792, in St. Petersburg. Russian writer.
Fonvizin was from a wealthy family of the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry). From 1755 to 1762 he studied at a Gymnasium that was under the auspices of Moscow University. In 1762 he became a translator in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and moved to St. Petersburg. From 1763 to 1769 he served as secretary to the cabinet minister I. P. Elagin.
During the 1760’s, Fonvizin formulated his humanist views: he advocated universal education and favored a gradual emancipation of the peasants as their level of education rose. His ideal political system was an enlightened monarchy.
Fonvizin translated (1761) the Moralistic Fables by the Danish humanist L. Holberg from German. He also translated (1762) Voltaire’s tragedy Alzire, or the Americans (1764–66) and Voltaire’s treatise Discourse on the Freedom of the French Aristocracy and the Value of the Third Estate. At this time, Fonvizin wrote his first original works, A Letter to My Servants Shumilov, Van’ka, and Petrushka (published 1769) and the didactic comedy of manners The Brigadier General (1768–69, published 1792–95).
In 1769, Fonvizin became the secretary to the head of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, N. I. Panin. Both opposed the government of Catherine II, attacked favoritism, and believed that Russia needed “fundamental laws.” In 1777–78, Fonvizin visited France; his letters to Panin became the Notes of a First Journey (published in the 19th century), which vividly depicted the pre-revolutionary crisis in France.
In 1781, Fonvizin wrote his most important work, the comedy The Minor (staged 1782, published 1783). It depicted the absurd life of the Prostakov family of landowners as an outgrowth of serfdom and showed how serfdom negatively influenced the development of the personality. The hero, Starodum, was the first portrayal of an enlightened Russian humanist, patriot, and opponent of serfdom and despotism. Fonvizin’s comedy strongly influenced the Russian realist theater, particularly the plays of I. A. Krylov, A. S. Griboedov, N. V. Gogol, and A. N. Ostrovsky.
In 1782, Fonvizin retired to devote himself to literature. The following year he published the satires “A Register of Russian Social Classes,” “The Tale of a Supposed Deaf-Mute,” and “Several Questions That Could Arouse Particular Attention Among Intelligent and Honest People,” all of which evoked annoyed responses from Catherine II. Fonvizin’s later attempts to publish his works were suppressed by Catherine. In 1788 he was forbidden to publish a five-volume collection of his works and the journal A Friend of Honest People, or Starodum. One of the satires written for the journal, “A Universal Courtiers’ Grammar,” circulated in manuscript. Fonvizin was able to publish (anonymously) only the novella Callisthenes (1786).
Late in life, Fonvizin was seriously ill. In 1789 he began work on A Candid Confession of My Deeds and Thoughts (unfinished; published 1830). A draft of the comedy The Choice of a Tutor was probably written in 1790.
Fonvizin was one of the most prominent representatives of Russian humanist realism, the author of the first authentically Russian comedy, and, in Pushkin’s words, “a friend of freedom.”
WORKS
Pervoe polnoe sobr. soch., kak original’nykh, tak i perevodnykh. St. Petersburg–Moscow, 1888.
Sobr. soch., 1–2. [compiled and with an introductory article by G. P. Makogonenko.] Moscow–Leningrad, 1959.
Komedii. Leningrad, 1976.
REFERENCES
Viazemskii, P. A. Fonvizin. St. Petersburg, 1848.
Blagoi, D. D. D. I. Fonvizin. Moscow, 1945.
Gukovskii, G. A. “D. I. Fonvizin.” In Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 4, part 2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Pigarev, K. V. Tvorchestvo Fonvizina. Moscow, 1954.
Kliuchevskii, V. O. ‘“Nedorosl” Fonvizina (Opyt istoricheskogo ob”iasneniia uchebnoi p’esy).” Soch., vol. 8. Moscow, 1959.
Makogonenko, G. P. Denis Fonvizin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961.
Makogonenko, G. P. Ot Fonvizina do Pushkina. Moscow, 1969.
Kulakova, L. I. D. I. Fonvizin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. V. IVANOV)
I. A. KRYLOV (1769-1844)
“Krylov, Ivan Andreevich. Born Feb. 2 (13), 1769 (according to other data, 1768), in Moscow; died Nov. 9 (21), 1844, in St. Petersburg. Russian author, fabulist, and journalist. Son of an army officer who had risen from the ranks.
Krylov’s childhood was spent in the Urals and in Tver’ (now Kalinin). He encountered financial hardship early in life and became a secretary in the civil service while still a teenager. He arrived in St. Petersburg in 1782 and worked as a minor clerk in the Kazennyi Prikaz (Treasury Office). He compensated for his lack of formal education by studying literature, mathematics, French, and Italian on his own. At 14 he wrote the comic opera The Coffee-stall Keeper (1782), which was a lively portrayal of the mores of provincial supporters of serfdom. Between 1786 and 1788, Krylov wrote the comedies The Frenzied Family, The Author in the Anteroom, and The Mischief-makers, which ridiculed the emptiness and corruption of the nobility in the capital, and the tragedy Philomela, which was directed against despotism.
In 1789, Krylov launched the journal Spirits’ Mail; he used it as a forum for his satirical letters that daringly exposed the vices of the nobility and the abuses of the bureaucratic machinery. His journalism, as well as such prose works as the novella Kaib (1792), demonstrated that Krylov was the successor to N. I. Novikov’s enlightened satire. Catherine II frowned on his bold satire, and Krylov was forced to discontinue his literary activity and remain out of sight for several years in the provinces. His vicious antigovernment comic-tragedy Trumf (Podshchipa, 1799–1800) was circulated in manuscript copies.
Krylov finally received permission to return to St. Petersburg in 1806. That year and the next he wrote the successful comedies The Fashionable Shop and A Lesson for Daughters, which ridiculed the nobility’s Gallomania. From 1812 through 1841, Krylov worked as assistant librarian in the Imperial Public Library.
Krylov’s first book of fables came out in 1809 and heralded the beginning of his carrer as a fabulist. According to N. V. Gogol (Sobr. Soch., vol. 6, 1953, p. 166), Krylov’s fables became the “book of the people’s own wisdom.” The genuine national character and inexhaustibly rich picturesque language that Krylov used in the Russian fable brought the genre to the peak of its development and made him one of the world’s leading fabulists. A. S. Pushkin noted the profound national originality in Krylov’s fables that he saw “expressed in the joyful slyness of the mind, in mockery, and in picturesque expressions” (poln. sobr. soch., vol. 7, 1958, p. 32).
Unlike his predecessors, for whom the moral was the focal point of the story, Krylov created fables that were satires or comic episodes. V. G. Belinskii described Krylov’s fable” The Peasant and the Sheep” as “a poetic picture of one side of society, a small comedy in which the descriptions of the characters are surprisingly true to life” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 8, 1955, p. 574). This was the basis of Krylov’s realistic approach to life. His fables express the people’s attitude to social injustice, and many are directed against the despotism of the autocratic rule and the predatory nature of bureaucrats—for example “The Wolves and the Sheep,” “Plague of the Beasts,” and “The Dances of the Fish.”
While some of Krylov’s fables (such as “The Horse and the Horseman” and “The Ear”) do justify meekness before the authorities and reveal the inconsistency of Krylov’s political views, his profound democratism, his expression of the moral ideals of the people, and his condemnation of egotism and false aristocratic society remained his constant and unending concern (”The Peasants and the River” and “Leaves and Roots,” for example). His fables linked to the theme of the Patriotic War of 1812 (”The Raven and the Hen,” “The Wolf Against the Huntsman,” and “The Division”) are imbued with his belief in the moral strength of the people.
In contrast to the traditional fable genre, in which the characters are strictly allegorical, Krylov introduced realistic traits into his characters; he brought them into the broad spectrum of Russian society and he depicted social strata from the tsar down to the shepherd.
Krylov introduced the spoken idiom into Russian literature. His art is organically linked to Russian proverbs, fairy tales, and sayings; it also contributed original maxims, many of which became proverbs themselves, to the treasury of the national language. A. S. Pushkin, A. S. Griboedov, and N. V. Gogol emulated his language. V. I. Lenin employed Krylov’s images and apt expressions. His fables have been translated into more than 50 languages.
WORKS
Basni, books 1–9. St. Petersburg, 1843.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1944–46.
Soch., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1969.
REFERENCES
Blagoi, D. D. Velikii russkii basnopisets I. A. Krylov. Moscow, 1944.
Stepanov, N. L. I. A. Krylov:Zhizn’i tvorchestvo, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1958.
Stepanov, N. L. Krylov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1969.
Desnitskii, A. V. “1766 god kak god rozhdeniia I. A. Krylova.” Russkaia literatura, 1962, no. 2.
Kenevich, V. F. Bibliograficheskie i istoricheskie primechaniia k basniam Krylova, 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1878.
Istoriia russkoi titeratury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazateV. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by N. L. STEPANOV)
I. P. KOTLIAREVSKY (1769-1838)
“Kotliarevskii, Ivan Petrovich. Born Aug. 29 (Sept. 9), 1769, in Poltava; died there Oct. 29 (Nov. 10), 1838. Ukrainian writer and social and cultural figure who played an important role in the development of modern Ukrainian literature and the Ukrainian literary language.
The son of a minor official, Kotliarevskii studied at the Poltava Seminary (1780–89). From 1796 to 1808 he served in the army. After his retirement, he returned to Poltava in 1810, where he assumed the post of supervisor of the House for Educating Children of Poor Noblemen, showing himself to be a democratic and humanistic educator. In 1812, Kotliarevskii formed a cossack regiment that distinguished itself in battles with Napoleon’s troops. From 1816 to 1821, he headed the Poltava theater. From 1818, he was associated with Decembrist circles, and in 1821 he was elected an honorary member of the Free Society of the Lovers of Russian Philology. In 1798, Kotliarevskii’s verse travesty Aeneid (parts 1–3) was published in St. Petersburg without his knowledge. The epic marked an entire phase in the development of modern Ukrainian literature. In 1809 he published the epic with a fourth part, under the title Virgil’s Aeneid, Rendered in Ukrainian by I. Kotliarevskii. The full text of the Aeneid (parts 1–6) appeared in 1842. Kotliarevskii used the rich potential of the travesty genre to depict in a grotesque and satirical manner events in the Ukraine at the time of the abolition of the Zaporozh’e Sech’ by the tsarist regime and the enserfment of the peasantry. The poem’s descriptions of everyday life and customs at all levels of Ukrainian society and the character of the Ukrainian people make it a veritable encyclopedia of the life of the Ukrainian people in the 18th and early 19th century.
Kotliarevskii’s plays Natalka Poltavka and The Magician Soldier played an important role in the development of Ukrainian drama. They were first staged in 1819 by the Poltava theater with M. S. Shchepkin playing major roles. Today they are performed by many theaters in the Soviet Union. In 1889, N. V. Lysenko wrote an opera based on the plot of Natalka Poltavka. A monument to Kotliarevskii was erected in Poltava in 1903. The State Literary Memorial Museum was opened there in 1952, and a memorial site was created at Kotliarevskii’s former estate on the 200th anniversary of his birth in 1969.
WORKS
Povne zibrannia tvoriv, vols. 1–2. Kiev, 1952–53.
Tvory, vols. 1–2. Kiev, 1969.
In Russian translation:
Eneida. Moscow, 1961.
Sochineniia. Leningrad, 1969.
REFERENCES
Istoriia ukrains’koi titeratury, u 8 tt., vol. 2. Kiev, 1967.
Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi u dokumentakh, spohadakh, doslidzhenniakh. Kiev, 1969.
Volyns’kyi, P. K. Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi: Zhyttia i tvorchist’, 3d ed. Kiev, 1969.
Kyryliuk, le. Zhyvi tradytsii: Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi ta ukrains’ka literatura. Kiev, 1969.
Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi: Bibliohraf. pokazhchyk. 1798–1968. Compiled by M. O. Moroz. Kiev, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. E. ZASENKO)
A. D. ULYBYSHEV (1794-1858)
“Ulybyshev, Aleksandr Dmitrievich. Born Apr. 2, 1794, in Dresden; died Jan. 24 (Feb. 5), 1858, at the Lukino estate, near Nizhny Novgorod, in what is now Gorky Oblast. Russian publicist, music critic, and playwright.
Born of a noble family, Ulybyshev served in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in St. Petersburg from 1816 to 1830. Between 1816 and 1824 he was also editor of the newspaper Le Conservateur impartial (from 1825, Journal de St. Pétersbourg), where he published a series of articles on music and literature. In 1819 and 1820 he was active in the Green Lamp circle. Author of the first study (1843) on Mozart in European musicology, Ulybyshev also wrote several works on Beethoven and a number of denunciatory plays, including Schismatics and A Suitor With No Money.
WORKS
Novaia biografiia Motsarta, vols. 1-3. Moscow, 1890-92. (Translated from French.)
Beethoven, ses critiques et ses glossateurs. Leipzig, 1857.
REFERENCE
Kremlev, Iu. Russkaia mysl’ o musyke, vols. 1-3. Leningrad, 1954-60.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
K. E. RYLEEV (1795-1826)
“Ryleev, Kondratii Fedorovich. Born Sept. 18 (29), 1795, in the village of Batovo, in what is now Gatchina Raion, Leningrad Oblast; died July 13 (25), 1826, in St. Petersburg. Russian poet and Decembrist.
Ryleev came from a modest landholding family of the gentry. He was trained in the First Cadet Corps in St. Petersburg from 1801 to 1814 and took part in foreign campaigns of the Russian Army in 1814 and 1815. He left the army in 1818. In 1821 he became an assessor of the St. Petersburg Criminal Court, and in 1824 director of the Russian-American Company. In 1823 he became a member of the Northern Society of Decembrists, subsequently heading its most radical and democratic wing. In his political views, Ryleev evolved from a moderate constitutional monarchist to a republican. He played a leading role in organizing the uprising of Dec. 14, 1825. He was executed in the Peter and Paul Fortress along with four other leaders of the uprising.
Ryleev won literary recognition with his satire To a Court Favorite (1820), a denunciation of the practices instituted by Arakcheev. The further development of his creative principles was linked with the Free Society of Amateurs of Russian Literature, of which he became a member in 1821. From 1823 to 1825, Ryleev published the annual almanac The Polar Star in collaboration with A. A. Bestuzhev. From 1821 to 1823 he wrote the cycle of historical songs The Thought (published separately in 1825), including “Oleg the Wise” “Mstislav the Daring,” “The Death of Ermak,” “Ivan Susanin,” “Peter the Great in Ostrogozhsk,” and “Derzhavin.” Ryleev turned to Russia’s heroic past and reinterpreted it in the spirit of his own civic ideals.
Ryleev’s central work, the epic poem Voinarovskii (published separately in 1825), is imbued with the Decembrists’ love of freedom and foreshadows the approaching fate of the movement. Ryleev expresses his lofty thoughts on serving the country in the confession of the hero, Voinarovskii, who is exiled to Siberia for participating in the revolt against Peter I incited by Mazepa. Contradictions in Ryleev’s treatment of history appear in his romantic idealization of Mazepa and Voinarovskii and in his deviations from historical fact for the sake of publicizing Decembrist ideas. A. S. Pushkin valued Ryleev’s epic poem more highly than the cycle The Thought, although in his own narrative poem Poltava, Pushkin disputed the conception of history that Ryleev expressed in Voinarovskii.
In his unfinished narrative poem Nalivaiko, fragments of which were published in 1825, Ryleev addressed the theme of the Ukrainian Cossacks’ struggle for national liberation against the oppression of the Polish szlachta (nobility) in the 16th century. The most complete expression of civic zeal in Ryleev’s poetry was the section from his narrative poem The Citizen that begins “Will I, in the fateful time…” His agitational and satirical songs, written in collaboration with Bestuzhev, resound with hatred for the autocratic serfholding order and with direct calls for its overthrow. They include “Oh, where are those islands …,” “Our Tsar, Russian German …,” “As the smith walked along …,” and “Oh, I am sick at heart even in my native land…”
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch. [Edited, introductory article, and commentaries by A. G. Tseitlin.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.
Stikhotvoreniia, Stat’i, Ocherki, Dokladnye zapiski, Pis’ma. [Introductory article by V. G. Bazanov.] Moscow, 1956.
“Delo K. F. Ryleeva.” In the collection Vosstanie dekabristov, vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1925.
REFERENCES
Bazanov, V. G. Poety-dekabristy. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Oksman, lu. G. “Agitatsionnye pesni Ryleeva.” In Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 59. Moscow, 1954.
Tseitlin, A. G. Tvorchestvo Ryleeva. Moscow, 1955.
Nechkina, M. V. Dvizhenie dekabristov, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1955.
Frizman, L. G. Poeziia dekabristov. Moscow, 1974.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by S. M. ALEKSANDROV)
A. S. GRIBOEDOV (1795-1829)
“Griboedov, Aleksandr Sergeevich. Born Jan. 4 (15), 1795, in Moscow; died Jan. 30 (Feb. 11), 1829, in Tehran. Russian writer and diplomat. Born into an old aristocratic family.
Griboedov received a well-rounded education. He studied music (two waltzes by Griboedov are extant). He entered Moscow University in 1806 and graduated from the department of literature and law in 1810 and later studied in the physics and mathematics department. In 1812 he enlisted in the army but was not involved in any fighting. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1817. In St. Petersburg he made the acquaintance of A. S. Pushkin, V. K. Kiukhel’be-ker. and P. Ia. Chaadaev.
His first literary efforts were the comedies Newlyweds (1815) and One’s Own Family (1817. coauthored by A. A. Shakhovskii and N. I. Khmel’nitskii). The future satiric realist is already discernible in the comedy The Student (1817, with P. A. Katenin).
In 1818, Griboedov was appointed secretary of the Russian mission in Tehran. In 1822 he went to Tbilisi as secretary of the diplomatic corps attached to A. P. Ermolov, commander of Russian troops in the Caucasus. There Griboedov began to write the comedy Woe From Wit, the idea for which had apparently already arisen in 1816. Work on the play was completed in St. Petersburg (1824), where Griboedov found himself in an atmosphere created by the ripening plot of the Decembrists. K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, Kiukhel’be-ker, and A. I. Odoevskii were his close friends. Like the Decembrists, Griboedov hated the autocratic, serf-owning class, but he was skeptical of the possible success of a purely military plot.
Woe From Wit is Griboedov’s most important work. It reflects the whole history of an epoch. The Patriotic War of 1812 and the national-patriotic upsurge it evoked sharpened and strengthened the mood of antiserfdom among the popular masses and a leading sector of aristocratic society. It is no accident that Griboedov, apparently soon after finishing his comedy, conceived a popular tragedy, ¡812 (fragments were published in 1859); its hero would have been a peasant serf—a home-guardsman who, after the end of the war, chose death over slavery.
The conception of Woe From Wit and its content are connected with the Decembrists’ ideas. The dramatic conflict of the comedy was an expression of the struggle between two societal camps: feudal serf-owning reaction and advanced youth, from whose milieu the Decembrists emerged. The comedy also gives, in the words of Pushkin, “a vivid picture of the manners” of Moscow high society (see Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 10, 1958, p. 121). The “bygone age” of the Famusovs is inimical to culture, enlightenment, and social and spiritual progress. The features of the Arakcheev reaction are incarnated in the image of Skalozub: it was precisely the Skalozubs who were to shoot the Decembrists on the Senate Square in St. Petersburg. Molchalin became the generic designation for cringing servility and hypocrisy, a symbol of moral slavery.
The serf-owning aristocracy and the superficial aristocratic liberals (the image of Repitilov) are counterposed by Chatskii, whom A. I. Herzen called a Decembrist. In Chatskii, Griboedov reflected the revolutionary patriotism of the Decembrists, the protest against despotism, and the struggle for the national uniqueness of Russian culture and against slavish worship of all that was of foreign origin. The tsarist censor forbade the comedy to be published; in 1825, fragments were published in the almanac Russkaia Taliia; the first edition, cut by the censor, appeared in 1833 (full text published in 1862). The comedy began to circulate in manuscript form. The Decembrists spread it as propaganda for their ideas. In the eyes of following generations, Chatskii became a symbol of protest against everything anachronistic and reactionary and of struggle for the new and progressive.
The appearance of the comedy Woe From Wit was a harbinger of the coming victory of realism in Russian literature. Griboedov portrayed life and his characters in concrete historical terms. The strength of Griboedov’s realism came out in his portrayal of people and manners as dependent on social environment and in his ability to capture the essential aspects of reality, create type characters, and generalize social phenomena in living individual images. A master of dramatic composition, Griboedov developed the action of the comedy with growing tension, interweaving the drama of Chatskii’s love with social drama. Griboedov was an innovator, replacing the classic five-act division with a four-act arrangement, and using instead of the canonical Alexandrine verse a free and lively iambic line of varying length, which goes back to the verse of I. A. Krylov’s fables. “About the verses I will not speak: half of them ought to become proverbs.” noted Pushkin (ibid., p. 122). With Krylov and Pushkin, Griboedov created the Russian literary language.
Griboedov’s comedy, first performed in Moscow in 1831, has been a school of realism for many generations of Russian actors up to the present day.
Griboedov returned to the Caucasus in 1825 and heard of the defeat of the December 14 uprising in St. Petersburg. In January 1826, Griboedov was arrested in the Groznyi Fortress and was under investigation in St. Petersburg in connection with the Decembrist affair until June 2, 1826. It was impossible to prove his participation in the plot, but he was placed under secret-police supervision. Griboedov returned to Tbilisi in September 1826 and continued his diplomatic work; in 1827 he was charged with handling relations with Turkey and Iran. At the end of the Russo-Iranian War of 1826–28, he participated in working out the Turkmanchai Peace Treaty, favorable to Russia ; he delivered the text to St. Petersburg in March 1828. Griboedov brought the plan and fragments of a romantic tragedy he had begun, Georgian Night (published 1859), in which he exposed the feudal serf-owning class in the spirit of Decembrist ideas.
In April 1828, Griboedov was sent as plenipotentiary resident minister (ambassador) to Iran, an appointment he viewed as political exile. On the way to Iran, Griboedov again spent several months in Georgia; in Tbilisi he married Nina Chavchavadze, the daughter of his friend, the Georgian poet A. Chavchavadze. As ambassador, Griboedov’s policy was firm. “Respect for Russia and its demands, that is what I need,” he said (Soch., 1945, p. 550). Fearing strengthening Russian influence in Iran, English diplomatic agents and reactionary Tehran circles, unsatisfied with the peace with Russia, set a fanatical crowd on the Russian mission. Griboedov was killed during the destruction of the mission. He was buried in Tbilisi on the Hill of David.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. Petrograd. 1911–17.
Soch. Moscow, 1956.
Gore ot uma. Edition prepared by N. K. Piksanov. Moscow, 1969.
REFERENCES
Belinskii. V. G. “Gore ot uma.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 3. Moscow, 1953.
Goncharov, I. A. “Mil’on terzanii.” Sobr. soch., vol. 8. Moscow, 1952.
A. S. Griboedov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Moscow, 1929.
Piksanov, N. K. Tvorcheskaia istoriia “Gore ot uma.” Moscow-Leningrad, 1928.
Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vols. 47–48 [Griboedov]. Moscow, 1946.
Nechkina, M. V. A. S. Griboedov i dekabristy, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1951.
Orlov. V. N. Griboedov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1954.
Petrov, S. A. 5. Griboedov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1954.
A. S. Griboedov v russkoi kritike. Moscow, 1958.
Popova. O. I. Griboedov—diplomat. Moscow, 1964.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliografich. ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by S. M. PETROV)
A. S. PUSHKIN (1799-1837)
Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin, the Russian national poet.
The article in The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979 on Pushkin is so long I’m only including a link to it.
“Baratynskii, Evgenii Abramovich. (also E. A. Boratynskii). Bora Feb. 19 (Mar. 2), 1800, in the village of Mara, Tambov Province; died June 29 (July 11), 1844, in Naples; buried in St. Petersburg. Russian poet. Born into a noble family of modest means.
In 1819, Baratynskii was enrolled as a private in one of the St. Petersburg regiments. He served in a regiment stationed in Finland from 1820 to 1825 and retired in 1826. He began publishing in 1819. At first he wrote elegies and epistles (for example, Dissuasion [“Do not tempt me without need . . .”], 1821; put to music by M. I. Glinka) marked by the striving toward a psychological exposition of feelings in their complexity and internal dynamics. In 1826, Baratynskii’s “Finnish tale” in verse, Eda, was published. The book Two Tales in Verse (1828) was a manifestation of his friendship with A. S. Pushkin and the closeness of their literary positions; it included Pushkin’s narrative poem Count Nulin and Baratynskii’s narrative poem The Ball. After the revolt of the Decembrists was crushed, his poems were characterized by pessimistic themes of loneliness, grief, the inferiority of human nature, the vanity of existence, the coming destruction of mankind, and the doom of art. Affirmative notes can be heard in his last poems, written during his journey to Italy (The Steamboat, 1844).
Philosophical concerns and profundity of thought are characteristic of Baratynskii’s poetry. V. G. Belinskii considered “Mr. Baratynskii unquestionably the leading figure among those poets who made their appearance together with Pushkin” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1955, p. 479).
Baratynskii spent the last years of his life at the estate of Muranovo (which later belonged to the Tiutchevs) near Moscow. In 1919 a literary memorial museum devoted to Baratynskii and F. I. Tiutchev was established on the estate.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–2. Edited and with notes by M. L. Gofman. St. Petersburg, 1914–15.
Stikhotvoreniia. Poemy. Proza. Pis’ma. Introductory article by K. Pigarev. Moscow, 1951.
Poln. sobr. stikhotvorenii, 2nd ed. Introductory article, preparation of text, and notes by E. N. Kupreianova. Leningrad, 1957.
REFERENCES
Belinskii, V. G. “O stikhotvoreniiakh g. Baratynskogo.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 1. Moscow, 1953.
Belinskii, V. G. Stikhotvoreniia E. Baratynskogo.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6. Moscow, 1955.
Frizman, L. G. Tvorcheskii put’ E. A. Baratynskogo. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by D. D. BLAGOI)
F. I. TIUTCHEV (1803-1873)
“Tiutchev, Fedor Ivanovich. Born Nov. 23 (Dec. 5), 1803, in the village of Ovstug, in what is now Briansk Oblast; died July 15 (27), 1873, in Tsarskoe Selo, now the city of Pushkin, Leningrad Oblast. Russian poet.
Tiutchev belonged to an old, noble family. He began writing poetry early in life, and in 1819 his first published work appeared, a free adaptation from Horace. From 1819 to 1821 he studied in the philology department of Moscow University. After completing his course of study, he began working in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. Tiutchev was in the Russian diplomatic service in Munich from 1822 to 1837 and in Turin from 1837 to 1839. While he was abroad, his poetry and translations (including translations of Heine) were published in Moscow journals and almanacs. In 1836, A. S. Pushkin, greatly impressed by poems of Tiutchev sent to him from Germany, published them in Sovre-mennik (The Contemporary). Tiutchev returned to Russia in 1844, and in 1848 became senior censor in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 1858 until the end of his life, he headed the Committee of Foreign Censorship.
Tiutchev’s best works were written in the late 1820’s and during the 1830’s; his lyric masterpieces from this period included “Insomnia, ” “A Summer Evening, ” “A Vision, ” “The Last Cataclysm, ” “Just as the ocean embraces the earthly sphere, ” “Cicero, ” “Silentium!”, “Spring Freshets, ” and “An Autumn Evening.” Tiutchev’s lyrics, marked by intensity of thought and an acute sense of the tragedy of life, reflect the complexity and inconsistency of reality. In the late 1840’s and early 1850’s, Tiutchev wrote a great many poems; his first poetry collection, published in 1854, was highly praised by his contemporaries.
During his student years and early in his stay abroad, Tiutchev was influenced by liberal political ideas. However, as the revolutionary trend in Europe developed, his conservatism became stronger. In the 1840’s, Tiutchev became a Pan-Slavist, maintaining that autocratic Russia, destined to unite all the Slavic peoples, was a bulwark against the revolutionary West. This view was apparent in his political article “Russia and Revolution” (1849) and in the poems “The Sea and the Cliff, ” “Dawn, ” and “Prophecy.” While fearing revolution, Tiutchev was at the same time acutely interested in the “elevated spectacles” of social upheavals. He sensed within himself “a fearful duality” and “the double existence” that he believed was typical of contemporary man (“Our Age, ” 1851; “O my prophetic soul!” 1855).
Tiutchev’s philosophical views were influenced by Schelling’s philosophy of nature. In Tiutchev’s lyric poetry, there is a sense of trouble, and the world, nature, and man are shown in constant conflict. Man is doomed to a “hopeless, ” “unequal” battle, a “desperate” struggle with life, fate, and himself. However, fatalist motifs in Tiutchev’s poetry are combined with praise of the victory of strong-willed characters (“Two Voices, ” 1850). Tiutchev is particularly drawn toward the depiction of storms in nature and in man’s soul.
In Tiutchev’s poetic system all of nature is seen as a living entity, and man’s inner world is identified with the outer world. Nature imagery in Tiutchev’s late lyric poetry has a previously lacking Russian national character. Tiutchev and E. A. Baratynskii are the greatest Russian 19th-century philosophical lyric poets. Tiutchev’s verse, while unique, reflected the general trend from romanticism to realism in Russian poetry of the 19th century.
In the 1850’s and 1860’s, Tiutchev wrote his best love lyrics, whose remarkable psychological penetration revealed the deepest human feelings.
A true lyric poet and thinker, Tiutchev was a master of Russian verse who endowed traditional meters with unusual rhythmic variety and made use of bold, highly expressive metrical combinations. Many of his poems have been set to music, for example, “Spring Freshets, ” with music by S. V. Rachmaninoff. Many of his poems have also been translated into foreign languages.
Tiutchev’s life and work are the subject of museum exhibitions at the Muranovo estate near Moscow and in the village of Ovstug in Briansk Oblast.
WORKS
Stikhotvoreniia, pis’ma. [Introductory article by K. V. Pigarev.] Moscow, 1957.
Stikhotvoreniia. [Introductory article and preparation of text by N. la. Berkovskii.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Lirika, 2nd ed., vols. 1–2. [Edition prepared by K. V. Pigarev.] Moscow, 1966.
REFERENCES
Blagoi, D. “Genial’nyi russkii lirik (F. I. Tiutchev).” In Literatura i deistvitel’nost’. Moscow, 1959.
Pigarev, K. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Tiutcheva. Moscow, 1962.
Gippius, V. V. “F. I. Tiutchev.” In Ot Pushkina do Bloka. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Kasatkina, V. N. Poeticheskoe mirovozzrenie F. I. Tiutcheva. Saratov, 1969.
Bukhshtab, B. Ia. “F. I. Tiutchev.” In Russkie poety. Leningrad, 1970.
Zundelovich, la. O. Etiudy o lirike Tiutcheva. Samarkand, 1971.
Ozerov, L. Poeziia Tiutcheva. Moscow, 1975.
Chulkov, G. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva F. I. Tiutcheva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933.
Gregg, R. A. Fedor Tiutchev: The Evolution of a Poet. New York–London, 1965.
Bilokur, B. A Concordance to the Russian Poetry of Fedor I. Tiutchev. Providence, R.I., 1975.
F. I. Tiutchev: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ proizvedenii i literatury o zhizni i deiatel’nosti, 1818–1873. (Compiled by I. A. Koroneva and A. A. Nikolaev; edited by K. V. Pigarev.) Moscow, 1978.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by K. V. PIGAREV)
ABOVIAN KHACHATUR (1805-1848)
“Abovian Khachatur (1805-1848) was a great Armenian writer, democrat-educator, teacher, founder of the new Armenian literature and the new Armenian literary language. Abovyan experienced the beneficial influence of Russian democratic culture, such as Griboyedov, Belinsky and others. During his stay at Derpt University (1830-1836), Abovyan became closely acquainted with advanced Russian social thought and the literary life of the Pushkin era. This was of great importance for the formation of his worldview. His friend, the Azerbaijani educator Akhundov, was personally connected with the Decembrists.
Abovyan is the author of the novel The Wounds of Armenia (written in 1840, first published in 1856) and a number of other works in which he reflected with great force the heroism of the national liberation struggle of the Armenian people against the Persian and Turkish conquerors. He defended the human right to freedom, including national freedom. Understanding freedom as a consequence of the natural equality of people, Abovyan rejected the Christian morality of non-resistance to evil and affirmed the idea of the activity of the people. Pointing out that Christian ideology should be seen as one of the causes of “the misfortune of our nation”, he argued that the people have the right to use weapons against their enemies. Abovyan’s works are imbued with deep faith in the strength of the people.
In his works, Abovyan exposes the cruelty of the exploiting serfs, priests, monks, the rich, shows the awakening of the spirit of protest among the serfs. However, the weak development of the class struggle in the 30-40s of the XIX century. in Armenia did not allow Abovyan to bring the anti-serf ideology to revolutionary democracy, to the demand for the revolutionary overthrow of serfdom.
There is a materialistic tendency in Abovyan’s philosophical statements. Not daring yet to question the religious-idealistic fictions, according to which the world was generated by God, the “world spirit”, Abovyan, however, paid great attention to the natural-science hypotheses about the formation of the solar system, the emergence of the flora and fauna. With all his work, Abovyan strove to attract people’s attention to “earthly affairs” and spoke about the “other world” with undisguised irony. Spirituality for Abovyan is a property of only some bodies. “The tree is, exists, but is not aware of its existence, the animal is aware, but vaguely; Man is, exists, is aware of his existence because he thinks.
The soul of a person is a property of his body, it appears with him and is destroyed with him, therefore, talk about the other world is empty. The immortality of a man is in his deeds. Abovyan understood that his ideas were directed against religion and idealism, but he himself did not draw atheistic conclusions. This testifies to the inconsistency of Abovyan’s philosophical views. The materialistic tendencies of his philosophy come out especially clearly on the question of knowledge. The source of knowledge is the objects of the objective world. “We must first sensually identify objects, and then understand their order with thought.” “First test by experience, and then lock yourself in a room,” he said.
Considering art as a reflection of life, Abovyan demanded that Armenian literature leave religious themes and turn to the life of the people, sing of their wisdom, heroism, courage and nobility. The highest goal of art is to serve the people.
One of the main ideas in Abovyan’s work is the idea of the unbreakable friendship of the Armenian people with the Russian people. “Worlds may collide with worlds, peoples may come and disappear, but as long as the Armenian has breath and language, how can he forget the hour when the Russians liberated the Armenian country.” Abovyan’s ideas about the age-old friendship of the Armenian people with the Russian people, with the peoples of Transcaucasia, like his other ideas, played a huge role in the history of Armenian culture. They entered the treasury of the democratic Armenian culture of the 19th century. and, being developed by the revolutionary democrat Nalbandian, largely determined the further paths of its development.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
A. V. KOL’SOV (1809-1942)
Kol’tsov, Aleksei Vasil’evich. Born Oct. 3 (15), 1809, in Voronezh; died there Oct. 29 (Nov 10), 1842. Russian poet.
Kol’tsov’s father, a cattle dealer, belonged to the Voronezh petite bourgeoisie. From childhood Kol’tsov assisted his father in business, herding cattle on the steppes as well as buying and selling them in village marketplaces. He studied in the district parochial school for less than one and a half years. At age 16 he began writing poems, imitating the popular poets of the time. His first mentor was the Voronezh seminarist A. P. Serebrianskii. In 1830, Kol’tsov met N. V. Stankevich, who had come to Voronezh. Stankevich brought the poems of the unknown youth to the attention of Moscow men of letters, including V. G. Belinskii, who soon became Kol’tsov’s close friend and mentor. He had a decisive influence on Kol’tsov’s fate as a poet, contributing to the formation of the young poet’s world view and to his liberation from elements of religiosity.
Using funds collected by subscription, Stankevich and Belinskii published the first slim volume of Kol’tsov’s poems in 1835. The talent of this self-taught poet was ardently supported by A. S. Pushkin, I. A. Krylov, P. A. Viazemskii, and V. F. Odoevskii. Kol’tsov’s progressive contemporaries were attracted by the profoundly national character of his poems, which sharply distinguished them from the numerous imitations of folk poetry. He wrote of man’s joyous work on the land and his merging with nature (”Song of the Plowman,” “The Harvest,” and “The Mower”). In some of his poems realistic depictions are combined with a certain idealization of the people’s life. Nevertheless, progressive Russian critics such as N. A. Dobroliubov, N. G. Chernyshevskii, and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin valued above all the democratic content of Kol’tsov’s creative work, which opened up new levels of life for poetry, and they regarded his talent as evidence of the creative forces inherent in the people. Belinskii wrote that through Kol’tsov’s songlike lyrics literature was “boldly entered by bast sandals, torn caftans, dishevelled beards, and old, cloth wrappings for sandals. And all this dirty stuff was transformed by him into the pure gold of poetry” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 9, 1955, p. 534). Referring to Kol’tsov as a “great folk poet,” Dobroliubov noted that his songs “constituted a completely individual, new type of poetry for us. … Kol’tsov was the first to present in his songs the genuine Russian person, the real life of our common people as it is, without inventing anything” (Sobr. soch., vol. 1, 1961, p. 440).
Kol’tsov’s opinions on literature, as expressed in his letters to his friends, show that despite the tragic circumstances of his private life and the unbearable narrowness of the petit bourgeois milieu in which he was suffocating, he continued to develop in the direction predicted by Belinskii. This is revealed in the poem “The Forest” (1937), in which the poet sings with epic power about Pushkin, who had just died, and pays tribute to Pushkin’s genius. Genuine, folk-based images and fresh, vivid language drawn from the wealth of folk songs were combined in Kol’tsov’s mature poems with profound social thoughts. Many of his songs and poems were set to music by composers such as A. S. Dargomyzhskii, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, M. P. Mussorgsky, and M. A. Balakirev.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. stikhotvorenii. Leningrad, 1958.
Soch., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1961.
Soch. Moscow, 1966.
REFERENCES
Belinskii, V. G. “O zhizni i sochineniiakh Kol’tsova.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 9. Moscow, 1955.
Tonkov, V. A. A. V. Kol’tsov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, 2nd ed. Voronezh, 1958.
Chicherov, V. “Russkaia pesnia i pesni-stikhi A. V. Kol’tsova.” In his book Voprosy teorii i istorii narodnogo tvorchestva. Moscow, 1959.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. V. ZHDANOV)
N. V. GOGOL (1809-1852)
“Gogol, Nikolai Vasil’evich. Born Mar. 20 (Apr. I), 1809, in the village of Bol’shie Sorochintsy, in present-day Poltava Oblast; died Feb. 21 (Mar. 4), 1852, in Moscow. Russian writer. Born into a family of landowners of modest means, V. A. and M. I. Gogol-Ianovskii. His father wrote several comedies in Ukrainian.
Gogol was educated at the Nezhin Gymnasium (1821–28). where his interest in literature and painting manifested itself along with a superior talent for acting. Gogol’s social attitude during this period was typified by his conduct in the “freethinking case,” when he took the side of Professor N. G. Belousov, who was being persecuted for disseminating progressive ideas.
From his youth, Gogol had dreamed of lofty civic pursuits. He moved to St. Petersburg in 1828 hoping to devote himself to jurisprudence. However, the atmosphere of the bureaucratic state soon compelled him to abandon his intention. Gogol changed jobs several times. He attempted to teach history, but gradually literary activity crowded out all his other occupations.
In 1829, Gogol published his unsuccessful idyll, Hanz Kiichelgarten, under the pseudonym V. Alov. In 1831 he became acquainted with A. S. Pushkin, who played an important role in forming Gogol’s literary personality. Gogol’s Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka (1831–32) brought him literary fame. In 1835 the collections Arabesques and Mir-gorod were published; and in that same year V. G. Belinskii called Gogol “the chief figure in our literature and the master of our poets” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 1. 1953; p. 306).
The apex of Gogol’s creative work as a playwright was The Inspector-General, published and staged in 1836. The satirical force of the play provoked fierce attacks upon Gogol from reactionary circles. The attacks and his dissatisfaction with the St. Petersburg production of the play, which lowered his social comedy to a farcical level, left Gogol profoundly depressed. In June 1836 he went abroad and remained there until 1848 (with the exception of two trips back to Russia). For the most part, he lived in Rome, where he became friends with the artist A. A. Ivanov.
In Italy, Gogol worked on his principal creation—the novel-narrative poem Dead Souls. His conception called for a three-volume work. Gogol published only the first volume (1842), which prompted an even more powerful social uproar than The Inspector-General. Of the mass of diverse interpretations of the “poem” the most correct was that by Belinskii, who defined the book’s essence as “the contradiction between the social forms of Russian life and its profound, substantive foundation” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1955, p. 431). Gogol’s Works in four volumes were published soon after; the short story “The Overcoat” was in the collection. With Dead Souls, it became a kind of manifesto of the critical trend in Russian literature.
Gogol’s ensuing creative work proceeded with more and more difficulty and unevenness. Sensing that he could not further realistically embody his concept in Dead Souls, Gogol published a book entitled Selected Passages From a Correspondence With Friends (1847), where in the form of exhortations he attempted to show Russian society the path to moral renewal. After his return to his native land in 1848, he tried to continue work on Dead Souls, but a feeling of creative inadequacy haunted him. On the night of Feb. 12 (24), 1852, while in a state of depression, he burned the manuscript of the second volume of his novel.
Gogol’s significance for Russian society was expressed by N. G. Chernyshevskii in these words: “He awoke in us an apprehension of ourselves” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 3, 1947, p. 20). Gogol depicted in his work those aspects of life that previously had been considered the province of the “low” genres in art. He made “a profitable marriage,” “the desire for a good job,” and similar motifs the basis of the action, creating a living picture of the prevalent mores of the epoch of Nicholas I. At the same time Gogol continued the process begun by Pushkin of enriching the literary language and bringing it as close as possible to the spoken language.
Gogol was acutely troubled by the lack of spirituality in the life around him and its narrowly egoistical and mercantile interests. He ridiculed the inner emptiness of provincial “existers” (“Ivan Fedorovich Shpon’ka and His Auntie,” “The Story of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled With Ivan Nikiforovich,” and “The Carriage”). Gogol’s dramatic works (Marriage, The Inspector-General, and the so-called dramatic fragments) demonstrate that the “respectable” shell of work, family, and everyday relations conceals people’s complete inner isolation and profound social antagonisms. The St. Petersburg stories (“Nevsky Prospect,” “Notes of a Madman,” and “The Overcoat”) gave the theme of the hierarchical compartmentalization of society and of man’s terrible loneliness a tragic resonance. Gogol contrasted this way of life with the ideals of liberty, the brotherhood of man, and lofty spiritual values. In the Zaporozhian Sech’ in Taras Bulba, Gogol depicted a harmonious society where man is free from the conventions of bourgeois civilization and where the interests of the individual merge with the interests of the group. “Old-World Landowners” contrasts the unselfish mutual devotion and the goodness of the two old people to the unnatural life of St. Petersburg society. In “The Portrait,” an artist who gives himself entirely to art is contrasted with one who has ruined his talent for the sake of money and cheap success.
Gogol’s ideals were incompatible with the moral norms of the feudal-bourgeois society. Nevertheless, a fundamental trait of Gogol’s aesthetics was the striving to introduce beauty into contemporary life. Service to civic ideals, which he had not accomplished in a government career, became the goal of his artistic creative work. The concept of art as a socially transforming force was expressed most fully by Gogol in “After the Theater,” “The Portrait,” and Chapter 7 of Dead Souls.“It is impossible for a society to strive toward the beautiful, unless and until you show it all the depths of its present vile loathsomeness,” wrote Gogol (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 8, 1952, p. 298). It was from this point of view that The Inspector-General and Dead Souls were created. By refusing to grant any genuinely human merit to the moral and psychological figures of his negative heroes, Gogol “tore off their human masks,” in Herzen’s words (Sobr. soch., vol. 13, 1958, p. 175).
A basic device of Gogol’s grotesque is to make his characters resemble animals or inanimate objects. The typicalness of the social psychological traits that are at the root of his characters underlies his realism. Gogol imprinted the moral outline of contemporary society in his characters with such psychological power that they took on a generic significance that has outlived their epoch. By showing the parasitic and antipopular character of Nicholas I’s bureaucracy and of the landed gentry, Gogol’s works proclaimed the historical exhaustion of feudal relations in Russia.
Another aspect of Gogol’s creative program was to show society the “path to the beautiful,” a task central to the creation of the second volume of Dead Souls. Gogol’s inability to realize this goal stemmed from his desire to arrive at the transformation of society by means of the moral rebirth of each of its individual component members. In this way, according to Gogol, the institutions of tsarist Russia could remain inviolable. His lack of understanding of the economic and political causes of social relations and his sympathy with the romantic conception of history, according to which the Russian nation was considered to be free from internal class enmity, led Gogol in the early 1840’s to the abstract conclusion that it was precisely in Russia that the principle of human brotherhood would first be affirmed and embodied. He sought in the Russian man those lofty spiritual qualities that would serve as the keystone for the realization of his ideal.
Gogol found all the best qualities of the national character in the milieu of the people, among the representatives of the toiling peasantry; they personified the living soul of the nation in the kingdom of dead souls described by the writer. However, the spirit of the historical views of his own epoch led Gogol to conceive of the nation as an internally unified organism and to try to seek out and bring to life these same moral traits even in the milieu of the ruling classes. In this erroneous theory lay the basis of Gogol’s creative tragedy. Because he considered a nation’s religion to be its inalienable characteristic, he presented his social ideal in Orthodox Christian trappings. His religiosity increased during the last few years of his life. He combined a negation of the moral foundations of existing society (many chapters of Selected Passages were forbidden by the censorship) with a recognition and acceptance of the monarchy, the church, and the system of serfdom. In like manner he combined an affirmation of the peasantry’s most important role (“Blessings upon all those who sow; they provide the subsistence for millions,” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 7, 1951, p. 72) with an attempt to create an ideal landowner and a Christian tax-farmer. Be-linskii’s famous letter to Gogol (1847) sharply criticized Selected Passages Front a Correspondence With Friends. Chernyshevskii characterized Gogol as “a martyr of afflicted thought and good strivings” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 3, 1947, p. 776).
Gogol’s art has achieved worldwide fame, but its internal complexity has led to controversy in its critical evaluation. Various schools in Russian and foreign literary scholarship have proposed differing interpretations of the contradictory aspects of his art. Soviet scholarship approaches Gogol in terms of his legacy, whose foundation was laid by the works of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Following the lead of Chernyshevskii, who introduced the concept of the “Gogolian period” in Russian literature, Soviet scholarship has revealed the enormous influence of Gogol’s creative work on the entire subsequent development of Russian critical realism. The numerous works devoted to Gogol, the republication of his works, and the embodiment of his characters on the stage and screen and in music and painting, both in the USSR and abroad, affirm the unflagging interest throughout the world in the art of this great Russian writer.
Gogol was buried in the cemetery of the Danilov Monastery in Moscow; in 1931 his remains were transferred to the Novodevich’e Cemetery.
WORKS
Sochineniia, 10th ed., vols. 1–7. Edited by N. Tikhonravov. Moscow, 1889–96.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–14. Moscow, 1937–52.
REFERENCES
Belinskii, V. G. O Gogole: Stat’i, retsenzii, pis’ma. Moscow, 1949.
N. V. Gogol’ v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Moscow-Leningrad, 1952.
Shenrok, V. I. Materialy dlia biografii N. V. Gogolia, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1892–98.
Mashinskii, S. I. Gogol’ i “delo o vol’nodumstve.” Moscow, 1959.
N. V. Gogol’ v russkoi kritike. Moscow, 1953.
Gippius, V. V. “Tvorcheskii put’ Gogolia.” In his book Ot Pushkina do Bloka. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Belyi, A. Masterstvo Gogolia. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.
Pereverzev, V. F. Tvorchestvo Gogolia, 4th ed. Ivanovo-Voz-nesensk, 1928.
Pospelov, G. N. Tvorchestvo N. V. Gogolia. Moscow, 1953.
Khrapchenko, M. B. Tvorchestvo Gogolia, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1959.
Stepanov, N. L. Gogol’: Tvorcheskii put’, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1959.
Gukovskii, G. A. Realizm Gogolia. Moscow, 1959.
Ermilov, V. V. Genii Gogolia. Moscow, 1959.
Voitolovskaia, E. L., and A. N. Stepanov. N. V. Gogol’: Seminarii. Leningrad, 1962.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Morshchiner, M. S., and N. I. Pozharskii. Bibliografiia perevodov na inostrannye iazykiproizvedenii N. V. Gogolia. Moscow, 1953.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by E. A. SMIRNOVA)
V. G. BELINSKY (1811-1848)
“Belinsky Vissarion Grigorievich (1811-1848) – an outstanding representative of Russian materialist philosophy, a great revolutionary democrat, the founder of revolutionary democratic aesthetics, a genius literary critic. Belinsky’s revolutionary-democratic, materialist outlook was formed under the influence of the growing struggle of the peasantry against the landlords and Tsarism.
In the 1830s-40s. the entire ideological and political struggle in Russia was centered around the issue of serfdom. In the 1830s Belinsky was an educator, an enemy of serfdom, but he had not yet come to revolutionary conclusions. From the beginning of the 1840s, Belinsky firmly took the position of revolutionary democracy and led the ideological struggle against serfdom, for the revolutionary liberation of the oppressed peasantry. He acted as a predecessor of “the complete displacement of the nobility by commoners in our liberation movement.” Although Belinsky had not yet put forward in a direct form the slogan of the peasant revolution, as Chernyshevsky and his associates later did, but in fact he had already come to the conclusion that only a popular revolution could wipe out serf slavery from the face of the earth and liberate working people.
Belinsky mercilessly criticized all three “strongholds” of landlord Russia: serfdom, autocracy, and the church. The famous letter to Gogol of July 3, 1847, which was banned until 1905, is the most wonderful evidence of Belinsky’s revolutionary democracy. This revolutionary testament, which summed up Belinsky’s literary and socio-political activities, “was one of the best works of the uncensored democratic press, which retained enormous, living significance to this day.” This letter, like all Belinsky’s works in the 1840s, was a deep expression of the interests of the oppressed peasant masses, their moods and aspirations. Belinsky followed a difficult path in the development of his philosophical views. In the first period of the formation of his worldview, which lasted until about the end of the 1830s, his head stood on the positions of philosophical idealism. However, he soon broke off from idealism. Belinsky the revolutionary, passionately striving for the struggle for the liberation of the working people, could not come to terms with idealist philosophy, which erected a barrier between thought and practice, between theory and life.
In the early 1840s, in the course of the struggle against Russian and Western European reactionary ideology, his transition from idealism to materialism was accomplished. Belinsky becomes a conscious, convinced materialist in philosophy and passionately defends the principles of materialist philosophy. He claims that a person’s consciousness and ideas depend on the material external environment, that “the most abstract mental representations are still nothing more than the result of the activity of the brain organs, which are inherent in certain abilities and qualities.” Belinsky makes fun of the mystics and supporters of the vague philosophy of German idealism, who, living forever in abstractions, consider it beneath their dignity to study nature and the human body.
Fighting against agnosticism and skepticism, he seeks to strengthen in people confidence in the possibility of true knowledge of the world. His transition to the position of materialism allows him to develop and more deeply substantiate his dialectical view of the world. Development can never stop at anything, Belinsky argues. Forward movement, from the lowest to the highest, Belinsky considers an immutable law of life. Development in nature and society is conditioned, according to Belinsky, by the struggle of internal contradictions, contained in essence, phenomena, it is accomplished through the destruction of the old and the creation of the new. “Everything living,” he writes, “is the result of a struggle; everything that appears and is affirmed without a struggle, everything is dead.”
His materialism is not free of elements of anthropologism; he often speaks about man in general, deriving his mental activity and moral qualities from the physiology of man. The source of social progress, movement forward, as well as the source of all inertia and immobility, he sees in human nature, and he depicts the struggle of the new with the old as the struggle of reason with prejudices. However, his materialist philosophy differs significantly from the anthropological materialism of Feuerbach, with whose teachings he became acquainted at the time when his transition to materialism was already completed. In contrast to Feuerbach, Belinsky seeks to apply to human life the idea of development, the principle of historicism. The needs of a person, his interests, the person himself, according to Belinsky, change as a result of the historical development of society. Belinsky proceeded from the class nature of society and attached great importance to the struggle between the forces of the old and the new. He wrote that “each of our class has everything its own, special: and dress, and manners, and way of life, and customs … So great is the separation that reigns between … representatives of different classes of the same society!”
Belinsky was influenced by the early works of Marx. He read the German-French Yearbook, in which Marx’s articles On the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right and On the Jewish Question were published, and regretted that he could not popularize the ideas expressed in these works of Marx in feudal Russia. Belinsky is alien to contemplation in his approach to reality. His worldview has a militant, effective, revolutionary character. His thoughts and ideas are subordinated to one goal: the revolutionary transformation of society on a democratic basis. In the sociological views of Belinsky, one of the central places is occupied by the idea of historical regularity.
According to Belinsky, the change of one historical epoch to another, the transition from one system of social relations to another is by no means accidental and does not occur at the whim of rulers and legislators; this transition is made due to historical necessity, conformity to law. However, Belinsky could not scientifically substantiate the idea of historical regularity and bring it into line with the real course of history: his mainly idealistic understanding of the history of society interfered. He did not see that the fundamental and decisive cause of the struggle of classes, the struggle of the new with the old, is primarily the mode of production of material wealth. He had not yet singled out the working class from the general mass of the oppressed; the proletariat for him is only the most suffering element of society.
But Belinsky made a number of materialistic guesses in sociology. He understood that the masses of the people played a decisive role in history. Power, Belinsky believed, must, in a revolutionary way, pass into the hands of the entire mass of the working people. If, he said, the masses of the people still do not decide the fate of society, then the future fate of society depends on them: “…when the masses are asleep, do what you want, everything will be your way”; but when they wake up, then the question of the emancipation of the peasants “will be decided by itself, in a different way, 1,000 times more unpleasant for the Russian nobility. The peasants are very excited, sleep and see liberation.” Belinsky was an ardent supporter of the development of industry, trade, and railways in Russia.
He saw the progressiveness of capitalism in comparison with the feudal-serf system and at the same time understood that now the bourgeoisie is not fighting, but triumphant, that capitalism will not be able to resolve new issues, that it will not bring freedom and happiness to the masses. Equality, according to Belinsky, can be achieved only after the elimination of the rule of the bourgeoisie, which he calls a syphilitic wound on the body of society. Belinsky was a utopian socialist. He declared that the idea of socialism became everything to him. His utopian socialism. differed from the utopian socialism of Western European thinkers: he was merged with revolutionary democracy. Belinsky hoped not to destroy the system of social slavery peacefully, but through a violent revolution. Belinsky was a great patriot of the Russian people; his patriotism was based on revolutionary democracy.
He fought against the Pan-Slavists and the Slavophiles who aligned with them, who praised the dark, negative aspects of Russian serfdom. At the same time, he castigated the “careless vagabonds in humanity”, cosmopolitans, bourgeois-landlord liberals, Westernizers who tried to turn Russia into an appendage of capitalist Europe, belittling the Russian people and their culture in every possible way. Belinsky considered the inalienable qualities of the Russian people to be courage, resourcefulness, sharpness, strength of spirit, lack of mysticism and religious contemplation, the ability to wide scale in their activities, diligence, wisdom, heroism in the fight against external and internal enemies. These qualities of the great Russian people allowed them to defend their land, freedom and independence from foreign invaders.
Belinsky has repeatedly stressed that the patriotism of the Russian people plays an exceptional role in the preservation and strengthening of Russia’s independence. Belinsky was a supporter of friendship between the masses of various nationalities, sought to awaken sympathy for the oppressed peoples of Russia and rebelled against any national oppression and violence. He deeply understood the need for close communication and cooperation between different peoples of the world and wanted Russia to show all peoples an example of a commonwealth of nations, a new happy life. Belinsky in 1840 expressed a prophetic thought about the great future of Russia: “We envy our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who are destined to see Russia in 1940, standing at the head of the educated world, giving laws to both science and art, and receiving a reverent tribute from all enlightened humanity.”
Belinsky is the founder of revolutionary democratic aesthetics and criticism. He gave a materialistic definition of the essence of art. Art, according to Belinsky, is a reproduction of reality, it is a repeated, as it were, a newly created world. Belinsky belongs to a deep theoretical foundation of artistic realism. He fought for the recognition of the high social role of art and condemned the contemplative attitude of art to reality. True art, Belinsky considered only deeply ideological art, which gives people the right direction in life, fights against social oppression. Real art does not turn away from the people, but lives their life, awakens them to fight against the oppressors, calls the people forward. “Nationality is the alpha and omega of the aesthetics of our time” wrote Belinsky.
His literary critical works were invaluable for the development of Russian literature. They have retained their freshness, their significance for the present. Soviet art uses everything of value created by Belinsky in the field of aesthetics and literary criticism, learns from him intransigence to everything backward in art, accepts his ideas about the high purpose of advanced art, about heroic service to the people and the Motherland.
The main works of Belinsky: Literary Dreams (1834), Works of Alexander Pushkin (1843-1846), A Look at Russian Literature of 1846 (1847), A Look at Russian Literature of 1847 (1848), Letter to N.V. Gogol. July 3, 1847 and others. The selected philosophical works of Belinsky were published in 2 volumes (1948); the complete works in 13 volumes; his letters, a significant part of which are not inferior in their content to theoretical works, were published in 3 volumes (1914). A number of his manuscripts and materials were published in 1948-1951. in Literary heritage in 3 volumes.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
A. I. HERZEN (1812-1870)
“Herzen Alexander Ivanovich (1812-1870) – a great Russian revolutionary democrat, an outstanding materialist philosopher, a brilliant publicist and writer. Herzen’s socio-political and philosophical views were formed during the growth of the Russian revolutionary movement as a reflection of the imminent changes in the socio-economic structure of the country. Herzen’s worldview was greatly influenced by Russian advanced, revolutionary and materialistic thought. Lenin’s article In Memory of Herzen is the key to a correct, Marxist understanding of Herzen’s worldview, his role in the Russian liberation movement and the main stages of his activity.
Herzen belonged to the generation of noble revolutionaries of the first half of the 19th century. The uprising of the Decembrists awakened Herzen, notes Lenin. Herzen was an implacable enemy of serfdom and autocracy. He saw the whole meaning of his life in the struggle for the abolition of serf slavery, for the liberation of the Russian people from the oppression and tyranny of the autocracy. Persecuted by the government, Herzen was forced to go abroad in 1847, but even there his entire activity was devoted to the struggle for the interests of his homeland.
The philosophical doctrine of Herzen is a direct continuation and development of the views of Russian progressive thinkers, of Lomonosov, Radishchev and the Decembrists. Herzen is a brilliant and greatest representative of materialism. “In the serf Russia of the 1840s, he managed to rise to such a height that he rose to a level with the greatest thinkers of his time.” Herzen saw the positive elements of the Hegelian dialectic, which he sought to rework in accordance with the revolutionary democratic tasks of the time. While Hegel in every possible way obscured the revolutionary side of dialectics, Herzen saw in dialectics the algebra of revolution. Dialectics, wrote Herzen, “extraordinarily liberates man and leaves no stone unturned from the Christian world, from the world of traditions that have outlived themselves.”
In his main philosophical work, Letters on the Study of Nature, Herzen gave a deep criticism of idealist philosophy and opposed metaphysical materialism, which, in his words, “from the side of consciousness, methods is incomparably lower” than dialectical idealism. Herzen demanded a combination of materialism with the idea of development, a combination of natural science with philosophy, theory with practice. “Philosophy without natural science is just as impossible as natural science without philosophy,” he wrote. Herzen clearly reveals the depravity of the philosophical idealism of Hegel and other idealists. It is in vain that thought claims to be the first in relation to nature, he declares; not nature arises from thought, but, on the contrary, thought from the development of nature. Herzen proclaims the triumph of materialistic philosophy.
The materialist Herzen also sharply criticizes that simplified, one-sided materialism, which “went directly to the destruction of all immaterial, denied the universal, saw the separation of the brain in thought, in empiricism a single source of knowledge, and recognized the truth in some particulars, in some things, tangible and visible.” Clearly seeing the limitations of vulgar materialism, Herzen requires a combination of empiricism with thinking, which, in his opinion, will cause an unprecedented flowering of science and philosophy. “Empiricism will cease to be afraid of thought; thought, in turn, will not move away from the motionless alienation of the world of phenomena; then only the out-of-essence object will be completely defeated, for neither abstract metaphysics, nor particular sciences can master it.” Only philosophy, “grown up on empiricism, is a terrible forge, before the fire of which nothing can resist.”
His historical and philosophical concept was a major achievement in pre-Marxist historical and philosophical thought. He reveals the opposition of materialism and idealism, the struggle between them, gives a number of deep assessments and characteristics of various theories and views. However, not being a historical materialist, he could not understand the laws governing the development of philosophy and in a number of cases gave incorrect assessments, for example, some aspects of French materialism. Lenin highly valued Herzen’s Letters on the Study of Nature. About the first of the letters, Empiricism and Idealism, Lenin wrote that it “shows us a thinker who, even now, is head and shoulders above the abyss of modern natural scientists-empiricists and darkness to those of today’s philosophers, idealists and semi-idealists. Herzen came close to dialectical materialism and stopped before: historical materialism.”
After the defeat of the 1848 revolution, Herzen experienced a spiritual collapse. Deeply shocked by the failure of the Parisian workers, whose revolt he witnessed directly, Herzen curses the bourgeoisie; he understands that without a new revolution, without the destruction of the existing order, there is no way to a brighter future. But he does not see a force capable of leading the struggle, does not see the paths leading to victory over the old system. Herzen did not know the true laws of the development of society, he remained an idealist in his views on history, although in a number of questions he expressed deep thoughts about the laws of historical development: such are his thoughts about the role of the masses in history, about classes, etc. But he did not understand that the force that is called upon to destroy the rule of the bourgeoisie is the proletariat.
Herzen was a socialist, but his socialism had no scientific basis and belonged, as Lenin pointed out, to those forms of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialism that were finally killed by the June days of 1848. Herzen’s spiritual collapse after 1848 was “the collapse of bourgeois illusions in socialism. Herzen’s spiritual drama was a product and reflection of that world historical era, when the revolutionary spirit of bourgeois democracy was already dying (in Europe), and the revolutionary spirit of the socialist proletariat was not yet ripe.” Later, Herzen acted as the ideologist of peasant utopian socialism.
He believed that after the abolition of serfdom, bypassing the capitalist path of development, Russia was using the peasant community for the transition to socialism. His theory of peasant socialism was closely associated with his revolutionary democracy. Herzen, wrote Lenin, saw socialism “in the emancipation of the peasants with land, in communal land tenure and in the peasant idea of the right to land.” The idea of the right to land and equalizing division of land was the formulation of the revolutionary aspirations for equality on the part of the peasants who fought for the complete overthrow of landlord power and the abolition of landlord ownership. But in this socialism, according to Lenin’s definition, there was “not a grain of socialism, it was a beautiful-hearted phrase, a good dream.”
Herzen’s skepticism after the defeat of the 1848 revolution was, however, a form of transition from the illusion of “supra-class” bourgeois democracy to the inexorable class struggle of the proletariat. In 1869, Herzen breaks with the anarchist Bakunin and turns “his gaze not to liberalism, but to the International, to that International led by Marx, to that International that began to gather the shelves of the proletariat, to unite the world worker.”
True, his weakness during this period was also reflected in the fact that he believed that socialism should come out with “a sermon, equally addressed to the worker and the owner, the farmer and the bourgeois.” In this respect, there is a great difference between Herzen and Chernyshevsky; Chernyshevsky always understood that the social order could be changed, not by preaching, but only by revolutionary violence against the exploiting classes. Herzen (until 1861) showed vacillations, deviations from democracy to liberalism, but with the atom the democrat still prevailed in him. “It is not Herzen’s fault, but his misfortune,” Lenin points out, “that he could not see a revolutionary people in Russia itself in the 1840s. When he saw it in the 1860s, he fearlessly sided with revolutionary democracy against liberalism. He fought for the victory of the people over Tsarism, and not for a deal between the liberal bourgeoisie and the landlord Tsar. He raised the banner of the revolution.” Herzen’s great merit is that he created a free Russian press abroad. The Bell and the Pole Star, published by Herzen in the 1850s and 1860s, educated the young generation of Russia in the spirit of an irreconcilable struggle against serfdom and autocracy.
Herzen was a great patriot of his homeland, he infinitely loved his homeland, its working people and hated its oppressors. He fought against the sycophancy of the government “elite” abroad, against cosmopolitanism. Herzen opposed the national oppression of peoples by Tsarism; defended the freedom of the Polish people, who rebelled against the oppression of the autocracy. Herzen sharply and mercilessly criticized the Western European bourgeois order, arguing that the death of capitalism is inevitable.
Herzen has a number of brilliant works on art (Who is to blame?) In them, he also fights against serfdom and autocracy. In his works on art, his humanism, high ethical views, and the demand for realism in art are clearly expressed. Herzen fought against the lack of ideology in art, defended the principle of nationality. His views on art were formed under the influence of the revolutionary democratic criticism and aesthetics of Belinsky, the artistic realism of Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov. The main works of Herzen: Dilettantism in Science (1843), Letters on the Study of Nature (1845-1846), Letters from France and Italy (1847-1851), From the Other Shore (1847-1850), The past and thoughts (1852-1867), Letters to an old friend (1870). Selected Philosophical Works in two volumes was published in 1948.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
“Akhundov Mirza Fatali (1812-1878) is an outstanding Azerbaijani writer, thinker, public figure, educator. Akhundov’s worldview was shaped under the influence of advanced Russian social thought, especially Russian revolutionary ideas. democrats – Belinsky , Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. According to his philosophical views, Akhundov was an atheist materialist.
There is, he said, one material substance. It is one, eternal and infinite, it is the cause of itself and the basis of all processes and phenomena in the world. Matter is primary, consciousness is secondary. Nature, or matter, exists objectively, by itself, without the help of any external force. Space and time are necessary attributes of matter. In the article “An Answer to the Philosopher Hume” Akhundov criticizes the subjective-idealistic concept of causality. Causality and causality for him are objective categories that exist independently of man and his will. Akhundov also solves questions of the theory of knowledge materialistically. He proceeds from the fact that the world and its patterns are quite cognizable, as evidenced by science. Feelings are the source of knowledge. Akhundov’s materialism was metaphysical materialism. In explaining history and social phenomena, he remained on the positions of idealism.
Akhundov was an atheist who declared a mortal struggle by breaking from the religion of Islam. Mankind, he said, made the greatest mistake by mixing two completely opposite nights – science and faith. “Faith and science are two opposite things, destroying one another and unable to unite together …” If science in the history of mankind was the cause of progress, then religion, on the contrary, was the cause of stagnation. Religion, says Akhundov, was the main reason for the backwardness of the East.
Akhundov is the founder of Azerbaijani dramaturgy and theater. He created wonderful comedies: “Haji Kara”, “Molla Ibrahim Khalil – an alchemist”, “Monsieur Jordan – a botanist and dervish of Mestali-Shah”, “The Bear – the winner of the robber”, etc. He also created the first work of fiction in Azerbaijani literature – philosophical story “Deceived Stars”. Akhundov was an outstanding poet. He deeply studied the work of Lomonosov – Derzhavin, Gogol, Pushkin. Impressed by the tragic death of Pushkin, Akhundov in his wonderful poem “On the Death of Pushkin” expressed with great force a feeling of anger and indignation at the murder of the great poet.
He wrote: “You knew Pushkin and heard that he is the head of all poets on earth… He became a target for villainous bullets – they stopped a hot life. The slave of black power, the messenger of black darkness shot the singer from afar. Akhundov highly valued Russian culture and the Russian language. He believed that “the Russian language has no equal in the presentation of deep thoughts.” Akhundov was not only a true patriot of the Azerbaijani people, but also a supporter of friendship between peoples of different nationalities. He stood up for the creation of fraternal, international relations among the peoples of Transcaucasia.
The main philosophical work of Akhundov: “Three letters of the Indian prince Kemalud-Dovle to the Persian prince Jalalud-Dovle and the answer to them of this latter.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
“The ideas of Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky were like a shining beacon to the democrats and enlighteners of the peoples of Transcaucasia, Central Asia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The fight against the autocracy and serfdom was the common cause of the Russian progressives and the foremost representatives of the non-Russian nationalities. In the nineteenth century they were drawn closer together, ideologically and politically, in what amounted to a united front. And it was the influence of the great Russian thinkers that led M. F. Akhundov, one of the most outstanding nineteenth-century enlighteners in the East, to voice his impassioned protest against the slavery in which Mohammedan women were held.” (Nina Popova, Women In The Land Of Socialism, p. 24)
I. A. GONCHAROV (1812-1891)
“Goncharov, Ivan Aleksandrovich. Born June 6 (18), 1812, in Simbirsk; died Sept. 15 (27), 1891, in St. Petersburg. Russian writer. Born into the family of a merchant.
Goncharov studied at the Moscow Commercial College (1822–30) and graduated from the literature section of Moscow University (1831–34). In the 1830’s he was drawn into the family circle of N. A. Maikov, an academician of painting. Goncharov anonymously entered his first works, “A Bad Ailment” (1838) and “A Lucky Error” (1839), in the family’s manuscript almanacs (“Snowdrop” and “Moonlit Nights”). Goncharov imitated the romantic poets in his early verse. The study “Ivan Savvich Podzharbin” (1842. published in 1848) is his most significant early work.
In 1846, Goncharov became acquainted with V. G. Belinskii, who was to play an important role in the writer’s artistic destiny. His first novel, A Common Story, was published in 1847. Belinskii saw it as a “terrible blow at romanticism, dreaminess, sentimentality, and provincialism!” (Poln. sobr. soch.. vol. 12, 1956. p. 352). During 1852–54, Goncharov took part in an expedition of the military frigate Pallas as secretary to Admiral E. V. Putiatin. His impressions from this journey formed the cycle of essays The Frigate Pallas (1858). In these essays Goncharov, with great artistic mastery, depicted the nature, psychology, customs and morals of the peoples of Europe and Asia. He became a censor in 1856. He was editor in chief of the semiofficial newspaper Severnaia pochta (1862–63) and was a member of a council on press affairs.
Goncharov’s second novel, Oblomov (1859, expressed the antiserfdom aspirations of Russian society, the stagnation of Russian life, and a consciousness of the need for renovation. N. A. Dobroliubov saw the novel as an indictment of serfdom, and in the character of Oblomov he found a generic type, a character created by the backwardness of Russian life, and an example of the psychology of sluggishness and parasitical existence.
The Precipice (1869), Goncharov’s last novel, presents a sympathetic picture of a searching young Russia (in the image of Vera), criticizes gentry liberalism and dilettantism, and depicts the collapse of the “old truths.” Yet it also contains a prejudiced treatment of the nihilists (in the image of Mark Volokhov) and an attempt to find positive qualities in the milieu of the landowner (in the image of the grandmother).
In his last years Goncharov wrote the studies “Old Time Servants” and the “Inconstancy of Fate,” critical articles, and the story “A Literary Evening.” In his best article. “A Million Torments,” Goncharov gave a subtle evaluation of A. S. Griboedov’s Woe From Wit and of its stage presentation. Goncharov also wrote interesting commentaries on his own works: “Introduction to the Novel The Precipice” (1869, published in 1938), “The Intentions, Goals, and Ideas of the Novel The Precipice” (1876, published in 1895), and “Better Late Than Never” (published in 1879).
Goncharov has entered Russian and world literature as a master of realistic prose. His novels represent an original trilogy that reflects the essential aspects of the life of Russian society in the 1840’s. 1850’s. and 1860’s. Goncharov’s three novels are united by the same problems and group of character types, whose features reappear in each novel but who evolve with the changes in Russian society. Aleksandr Aduev from A Common Story corresponds to Raiskii of The Precipice and to Oblomov, just as Petr Aduev corresponds to Stolz and to Tushin. Even though he valued entrepreneurs for being sober businessmen who would end the feudal, country-estate style of life, Goncharov nevertheless did not accept their narrow-mindedness and unabashed egoism, which he revealed in his first novel in the character of Petr Aduev.
The female characters he created are artistically perfect; the heroines are distinguished by their energy, intelligence, moral strength, and faith in the high destiny of man. The characters of Lizaveta Aleksandrovna in A Common Story, Olga in Oblomov, and Vera in The Precipice reflect the progressive aspirations of Russian society and are among the best female characters in Russian literature.
Each part of the trilogy shows how stagnation and apathy are replaced by awakening. A Common Story, in Goncharov’s own words, shows “the disintegration of the old ideas and morals—sentimentality, caricatured exaggeration of the feelings of friendship and love, poetry, and idleness” and the necessity of “the struggle with the all-Russian stagnation.” In Oblomov the center of gravity becomes the exposure of the country estate based on serf laboras the source of the parasitism of the landlord. The basis of The Precipice is the awakening of a “potential oblomovite” (Raiskii) and of the young forces from the gentry intelligentsia (Vera), who are contrasted with a prereform nihilist (Mark Volokhov).
In his article “What Is Oblomovism?” Dobroliubov characterized the uniqueness of Goncharov’s realism as the “ability to capture a complete image of the subject, to execute it clearly and distinctly, to sculpture it” (Sobr. soch., vol. 4, 1962, p. 310). V. I. Lenin often made use of the Oblomov type, seeing in it the embodiment of patriarchism, backwardness, parasitism, laziness, and inertia.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch.. vols. 1–12. St. Petersburg, 1899.
Sobr. soch.. vols. 1–8. Moscow. 1952–55.
Sobr. soch.. vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1959–60.
Povesti i ocherki. Leningrad. 1937.
Literaturno-kriticheskie stall i pis’ma. Leningrad. 1938.
REFERENCES
Belinskii. V. G. “Vzgliad na russkuiu literaturu 1847 g.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 10. Moscow. 1955.
Dobroliubov, N. A. “Chto takoe oblomovshchina?” Sobr. soch.. vol. 2. Moscow. 1952.
Tseitlin, A. G. I. A. Goncharov. Moscow. 1950.
Rybasov. A. P. I. A. Goncharov. [Moscow] 1957.
Prutskov. N. I. Masterstvo Goncharova—romanista. Moscow-Leningrad. 1962.
I. A. Goncharov ν russkoi kritike. Moscow, 1958.
Alekseev, A. D. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva I. A. Goncharova. Moscow-Leningrad. 1960.
Piksanov, N. K. Master kriticheskogo realizma I. A. Goncharov. Leningrad, 1952.
Piksanov. N. K. Roman Goncharova “Obryv” ν svete sotsial’noi istorii. Leningrad. 1968.
I. A. Goncharov ν vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Leningrad. 1969.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Alekseev, A. D. Bibliografüa I. A. Goncharova (1832–1964). Leningrad. 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. P. PIROGOV)
N. V. STANKEVICH (1813-1840)
“Stankevich Nikolai Vladimirovich (1813-1840) – Russian idealist philosopher who played a prominent role in the Moscow philosophical circle of the 1930s, the so-called Stankevich circle (Stankevich, Belinsky, Aksakov, Botkin, Bakunin). In addition to the student’s historical work, the tragedy written by Stankevich in his youth, in addition to poems and translations, after him were fragments of the philosophical works My metaphysics and On the relationship of philosophy to art.
The main material characterizing the socio-political and philosophical views of Stankevich is his Correspondence, first published in 1857. According to his socio-political views, Stankevich was a noble educator. He condemned serfdom and reacted negatively to the reactionary official ideology. Stankevich counted on a peaceful, gradual abolition of serfdom. Stankevich’s moderately educational political position also determined the nature of his philosophical views. Highlighting the tasks of enlightenment, “educating mankind”, he saw in philosophy a means of improving people in “moral” and “mental” terms. According to our philosophical views, Stankevich is an objective idealist. His idealistic worldview had a religious character. Stankevich expressed his thoughts about the relationship between phenomena in the world and about development. However, Stankevich’s dialectic was idealistic. He spoke about the harmony prevailing, in his opinion, in the world. Unlike the German idealists, Stankevich attached great importance to experiential knowledge. At the end of his life, he expressed thoughts about the need to connect philosophy with life more closely. Science, he wrote, “must go into business, disappear into it.”
Stankevich’s ethical theory is built on the principle of “love” and on the denial of selfishness. In accordance with his philosophical and ethical principles, Stankevich also solved the problems of aesthetics. The task of art, in his opinion, is reduced to promoting the moral improvement of a person, fostering a feeling of love. Art for Stankevich is closely related to religion. In the conditions of the harshest reaction that followed the uprising of the Decembrists, even moderate enlightenment, even the idealistic ethics of Stankevich, far from revolutionary, had a progressive meaning, they opposed him to the camp of the serf-owners.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
N. P. OGAREV (1813-1877)
“Ogarev Nikolai Platonovich (1813-1877) – noble revolutionary, publicist, thinker and poet, associate of Herzen; along with Herzen, he was one of the most prominent public figures of the noble period in the history of the Russian revolutionary liberation movement in the 1830s and 40s. Ogarev remained an active participant in the revolutionary struggle in the subsequent, raznochinsky, period of the liberation movement in Russia in the 1850s and 60s. At the very beginning of the difficult and dangerous path he had chosen, Ogarev met his associate, comrade and friend, Alexander Herzen, with whom he walked hand in hand throughout his life. Like Herzen, Ogarev was brought up on Russian literature, on the ideas and traditions of Russian revolutionaries: Radishchev, Ryleev, the Decembrists, Ogarev and Herzen studied together at Moscow University. They managed to unite around themselves a close circle of noble youth.
The activities of this circle attracted the attention of the Tsarist gendarmes; in 1834 Ogarev and Herzen were arrested and exiled. In 1840 Ogarev appeared in print with his poetic works, imbued with ideas of liberation, deep sympathy for the enslaved people. Chernyshevsky wrote that in Ogarev’s poetry “he found an expression of an important moment in the development of our society,” that is, the liberation movement, that “Ogarev has the right to occupy one of the most brilliant and clean pages in the history of our literature.” The name of Ogarev will be pronounced with love and often, Chernyshevsky wrote, and “it will not be forgotten unless our language is forgotten.”
In 1847, Ogarev first came out with publicistic articles on the social structure of Russia, in which he expressed his anti-serfdom and democratic convictions. In 1850 he was arrested again, but the Tsarist gendarmes could not substantiate the accusations against Ogarev of creating a “communist sect”. He was released, after which in 1856 he emigrated abroad. Together with Herzen, he published Kolokol, General Veche, etc., was a co-editor of these publications, published his articles and poems in them. Ogarev devoted the last 20 years of his life to journalism and propaganda of revolutionary theory.
At the time when Ogarev lived and fought, all social issues were reduced to the struggle against serfdom and autocracy. Ogarev’s activities were devoted to this struggle. He called for the immediate abolition of all serfdom, both landlord and state; insisted on the transfer of land to the common ownership of peasant communities and on the establishment of artel cultivation of the land. Ogarev opposed any class strife, against the caste of officials. He demanded the introduction of equality and the establishment of such a state system in which people who are elected and responsible to society will rule the country. At the same time, Ogarev sharply criticized the formal character of bourgeois democracy in the countries of Western Europe and America.
Ways and means for the implementation of the socio-political program developed by him were presented to Ogarev in different periods of his activity. In the mid-1830s, he spoke out for a peasant revolution, then, after the accession of Alexander II, he recommended the path of peaceful reforms. After the reform of 1861, Ogarev was one of the first to declare that “the people were deceived by the Tsar, the old serfdom was replaced by a new one.” During this period, he again and finally returned to the idea of a peasant revolution. In 1861-1862. Ogarev was a member of the central committee of the secret society Land and Freedom; he developed the program of this society, participated in the establishment of its practical activities. In the 1860s, Ogarev criticized the liberals and tried to get closer to the students of Chernyshevsky, with the “young emigration.”
Ogarev was looking for the correct theoretical foundations of the scientific understanding of social development. Public life, in his opinion, is a living stream, a process. History, he said, “does not develop according to the program; it goes ahead with its inevitable results from the existing circumstances.” Ogarev considered the social character of people’s life, their needs for food and conveniences of life, the productive activity of people, and the economy of society to be important factors in history.
But, being in the position of an idealistic understanding of history, he saw the content of the historical process in the improvement of people’s consciousness, which ultimately determines the progress of all areas of society. The development of society is carried out, according to Ogarev, in the struggle of the new with the old. New in social life is in direct contradiction with the historically established form of the past. Ogarev, like Herzen, considered the establishment of socialism to be the goal of the struggle against the autocratic serf system. His utopian socialism was closely associated with faith in the peasant community and peasant labor cooperatives.
In his materialistic philosophy, to which he came in the mid-1840s, Ogarev proceeded from the recognition of the real world surrounding man, from the recognition of the eternally existing and constantly changing nature, matter. Based on the data of contemporary natural science, he argued that the human mind reflects the laws of the development of nature and society.
He argued that sensations are the source of our knowledge. Ogarev sharply opposed idealism, which “rejects a fact with disdain if it contradicts it.” At the same time, he criticized empiricists who are content only with observing facts, neglecting their theoretical generalization. Ogarev argued that never and nowhere were convictions free from the practical interests of various estates and groups. “I am for a party in philosophy,” he said. Ogarev sharply castigated the ideologists of the conservative landlord class for the fact that their philosophy played into the hands of the Tsarist government and reaction and that it supported the old conditions of social relations, practically beneficial for them. His philosophical views as a whole are characterized by the features of limitation, characteristic of everything before Marxian materialism.
Ogarev was an ardent patriot of his fatherland, a staunch defender of the interests of the masses. Like his friend and colleague Herzen, Ogarev played a significant role in the preparation of the Russian revolution.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
M. Y. LERMONTOV (1814-1841)
“Lermontov, Mikhail Iur’evich. Born Oct. 3 (15), 1814, in Moscow; died July 15 (27), 1841, in Piatigorsk. Russian poet.
Lermontov was the son of retired captain Iu. P. Lermontov (1787–1831) and M. M. Arsen’eva (1795–1817). He lost his parents early and was raised by his grandmother, E. A. Arsen’eva, who gave her grandson a well-rounded education. Lermontov’s childhood was spent on her country estate, Tarkhany (now the village of Lermontovo, Penza Oblast), where the future poet observed scenes of peasant life and rural nature and listened to folk songs and legends about Stepan Razin and Emel’ian Pugachev. Trips with his relatives to the Caucasus (in 1818, 1820, and 1825) left a deep imprint on Lermontov’s memory.
From 1828 to 1830, Lermontov studied at the Boarding School for the Nobility in Moscow. He turned to poetry and wrote his first narrative poems (Circassians and Prisoner of the Caucasus), which were imitative of A. S. Pushkin’s work. Lermontov’s years at Moscow University (1830–32) were significant ones in the formation of his world view. His contemporaries at the university were V. G. Belinskii, A. I. Herzen, and N. P. Ogarev, whose influence on the general intellectual level of the students was pronounced even then. In that period, Lermontov wrote lyrical poetry, narrative poems, and plays, including the drama A Strange Man (1831), which expressed hatred of despotism and serfdom.
Clashes with reactionary faculty members led Lermontov to abandon the university, move to St. Petersburg, and enter a school for second lieutenants in the guards and cavalry junkers, where he spent “two dreadful years” full of military drilling. Secretly, in snatches, Lermontov worked on the novel Vadim, which depicted episodes from the Pugachev uprising. Leaving the school as a subensign, or cornet (1834), Lermontov served in the Life Guards Hussar Regiment stationed in Tsarskoe Selo but spent considerable time in St. Petersburg. His critical observations of aristocratic society there formed the basis of his play Masquerade (1835), which, despite several revisions, was not allowed to be staged.
The Death of a Poet (1837), a wrathful response to Pushkin’s death, was a watershed in Lermontov’s work and destiny. The poem, which blamed not only the killer but also the court aristocracy for the tragedy, circulated throughout Russia. Lermontov was arrested and transferred to the Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment in Georgia. During his exile, he met banished Decembrists and the Georgian intelligentsia and took a lively interest in the folklore, life, and language of the mountain peoples. Caucasian themes took a permanent place in Lermontov’s work as writer and artist (he was a talented sketcher and painter). Early in 1838, as a result of intercession by Arsen’eva and V. A. Zhukovskii, Lermontov was transferred to the Grodno Hussar Regiment stationed outside Novgorod, but he made a stop in the capital on the way to his new post; in the spring of 1838 he was returned to the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. The two years that Lermontov spent in St. Petersburg (1838–40) coincided with the flowering of his talent.
Lermontov’s poetry began to appear regularly in print. The historical narrative poem Song About Tsar Ivan Vasil’evich (published in 1838; the author’s name was withheld by the censor) enjoyed great success. Lermontov made friends among the editors of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski and became acquainted with Belinskii.
In February 1840, because of a duel with E. Barant, son of the French ambassador, Lermontov was court-martialed and again sent on active army duty in the Caucasus. As a participant in the heavy fighting at the Valerik River in Chechen, he was twice recommended for decorations, but the tsar refused, not wishing to ease the poet’s lot. In February 1841, Lermontov was permitted a brief leave in the capital to see his grandmother; but soon, filled with gloomy presentiments, he was again forced to return to the regiment. In the last months of his life, Lermontov wrote his best poems: “Motherland,” “The Cliff,” “The Argument,” “A Leaf,” and “No, it is not you that I love so fervently.” The poet’s last work was “The Prophet.”
On the way to join his regiment, Lermontov delayed in Piatigorsk to take a cure; secret enemies, knowing how Lermontov was regarded in court circles, provoked a quarrel between Lermontov and another officer, N. S. Martynov, and did not prevent the duel that ended the poet’s life. Belinskii wrote: “A new, great loss has bereaved poor Russian literature” (Otechestvennye zapiski, 1841, no. 9, section 6, p. 2). Lermontov was buried in the Piatigorsk town cemetery on July 17 (29), 1841. Later the body was transferred to Tarkhany and buried in the Arsen’ev family vault on Apr. 23 (May 5), 1842.
Lermontov appeared in Russian literature as Pushkin’s successor in an era (after the Decembrist movement was crushed in 1825) when the gentry’s revolutionary spirit sought new paths of development. Even Lermontov’s juvenilia was imbued with a passionate dream of freedom and calls to action—for example, “The Turk’s Complaint” and “Monologue.” The weakening of the social movement gave a pessimistic coloring and tone to his work but also formed his sharply critical view of contemporary conditions. Even his early verses voiced Lermontov’s longing for the ideal.
While developing many of Pushkin’s artistic principles, Lermontov’s works reflected a new stage in the development of Russian social consciousness, and this defined the profound originality of his poetry, as Belinskii subtly noted: “Nowhere is there any of Pushkin’s revelry at the feast of life; rather, everywhere there are questions that darken the soul and chill the heart…. Yes, clearly Lermontov is a poet of a completely different era, and his poetry is a completely new link in the chain of our society’s historical development” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 4, 1954, p. 503).
Lermontov’s work was nurtured by the tradition of the romantic lyric poetry of the Decembrists, and he had an affinity for Byron’s stormy verse. Romantic art corresponded to Lermontov’s nature as a poet, helping him to express libertarian ideals and to reaffirm the idea of the freedom of the individual. His romanticism, far removed from any contemplative meditation, was filled with tragically intense emotions and thoughts. It also contained elements of the realistic vision of the world that gradually became an important aspect of his poetry. Thus, at the core of the romantic narrative poem Mtsyri (The Novice; 1839) are a real theme from contemporary Caucasian life and a topical ideological clash. A free mountain dweller is captured by a tsarist general and incarcerated in a monastery; his unquenchable thirst for freedom was read as a vivid protest against all forms of oppression and suppression of the individual.
The history of the narrative poem The Demon, on which he worked from 1829 almost until the end of his life, reveals Lermontov’s development. The artificially romantic setting of the poem gradually gave way to lifelike, concrete descriptions, and each new variant of the poem further clarified the author’s main purpose—to create in the Demon a powerful allegorical incarnation of the rebellion of the individual against the injustice of the “world order.” That was precisely the way that progressive contemporaries understood the poem. The Demon was the apogee of Russian romantic poetry. Yet the final editions of the poem reveal ever more clearly the dead end awaiting egocentric “demonism” and emphasize themes of spiritual rebirth through the love of a soul “open to goodness.”
In the second half of the 1830’s, Lermontov’s work had more variety in content and was richer in genre and style. While working on new romantic narrative poems, Lermontov also wrote verse novellas of contemporary life (Sashka and The Tambov Paymaster’s Wife) that satirically depicted daily life and mores. Important problems of contemporary life, the fate of his generation (”Thought,” 1838), the tragic solitude of the lover of freedom, and the moral condition of society became part of Lermontov’s poetic world. In “Poet” (1838), Lermontov expounded the high ideals of civic poetry, which should inspire “the fighter to battle.” As realistic elements increased in his work, so did his affirmation of folk themes, his interest in oral epic poetry, and his depiction of the Russian national character—for example, in Song About Tsar Ivan Vasil’evich, Borodino, (1837), “Last Testament” (1840), and “Motherland” (1841).
The novel A Hero of Our Time (1840), profoundly accurate in its social and psychological insights, was the crowning achievement of Lermontov’s realism. Its hero, Pechorin, shown against the vast canvas of Russian society, is an artistic creation of unfading significance. Lermontov used the devices of realism to expose the tragic contradiction between Pechorin’s deep nature and shallow actions. Lermontov’s intellectual and creative maturity is evident in the novel’s artistic innovations, construction, and psychologically sound character development, as well as in its incomparably precise and pure language, which delighted Gogol, Tolstoy, and Chekhov.
Civic, philosophical, and subjective, deeply personal themes are closely intertwined in Lermontov’s art. He introduced the “iron line” of verse, distinguished by unprecedented energetic expression, into Russian poetry. Answering the basic needs of the spiritual life of Russian society and the liberation movement, Lermontov’s poetry and prose laid the groundwork for a new flowering of national literature. Lermontov’s influence can be traced in the work of N. A. Nekrasov, I. S. Turgenev, L. N. Tolstoy, and F. M. Dostoevsky, as well as in Soviet poetry (A. A. Blok and V. V. Mayakovsky). His dramaturgy played a significant role in the development of the Russian theater. Lermontov’s legacy was widely interpreted in painting, theater, and cinema. His poems enriched Russian music, inspiring an opera (A. G. Rubinstein’s The Demon), symphonies (S. V. Rachmaninoff’s The Cliff and A. A. Spendiarov’s Three Palms), and art songs, by such composers as A. S. Dargomyzhskii and M. A. Balakirev; several poems became folk songs, including “I go out alone on the road.”
Soviet scholarship has explored Lermontov’s life and the complex intellectual and artistic questions inherent in his work. Texts have been reexamined and annotated; the poet’s biography has been almost rewritten on the basis of materials that were unknown or inaccessible to earlier researchers. Memorial museums have been founded in the village of Lermontovo (Penza Oblast), where the poet spent his childhood years, and in Piatigorsk, where Lermontov spent the last months of his life.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. Petrograd, 1910–13.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935–37.
Sochineniia, vols. 1–6. Moscow-Leningrad, 1954–57.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1964–65.
Sobr. soch. v chetyrekh tomakh, vol. 1—. Moscow, 1975.
REFERENCES
Belinskii, V. G. M. Iu. Lermontov: Stat’i i retsenzii, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1941.
Viskovatyi, P. A. M. Iu. Lermontov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1891.
Venok M. Iu. Lermontovu: Iubileinyi sb. Moscow-Petrograd, 1914.
Durylin, S. N. Kak rabotal Lermontov. Moscow, 1934.
Kirpotin, V. Ia. Politicheskie motivy v tvorchestve Lermontova. Moscow, 1939.
Ginzburg, L. Ia. Tvorcheskii put’ Lermontova. Leningrad, 1940.
Rozanov, I. N. Lermontov—master stikha. Moscow, 1942.
Brodskii, N. L. M. Iu. Lermontov: Biografiia, vol. 1 (1814–32). Moscow, 1945.
Andreev-Krivich, S. A. Lermontov: Voprosy tvorchestva i biografii. Moscow, 1954.
Sokolov, A. N. M. Iu. Lermontov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1957.
Mikhailova, E. N. Proza Lermontova. Moscow, 1957.
Eikhenbaum, B. M. Stal’i o Lermontove. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961.
Latyshev, S., and V. Manuilov. “Kak pogib Lermontov.” Russkaia literatura, 1966, no. 2.
Andronikov, I. L. Lermontov: Issledovaniia i nakhodki, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Manuilov, V. A. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva M. Iu. Lermontova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Gershtein, E. G. Sud’ba Lermontova. Moscow, 1964.
Maksimov, D. E. Poeziia Lermontova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Grigor’ian, K. N. Lermontov i romantizm. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Tvorchestvo M. Iu. Lermontova. Edited by U. Fokht. Moscow, 1964.
M. Iu. Lermontov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Moscow, 1964.
Vinogradov, I. “Filosofskii roman Lermontova.” Novyi mir, 1964, no. 10.
Mersereau, J. M. Lermontov. Carbondale, 111., 1962.
Gane, T. Lermontov. Bucharest, 1963.
Opitz, R. “Etappen im Schaffensweg Lermontovs.” Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, 1963, vol. 8, bk. 4, pp. 571–82.
Kempa, W. A. “Lermontow w Polsce: Szkis bibliograficzny.” Slavia orientalis, 1964, no. 4, pp. 459–80.
M. J. Lermontov v české literature: Bibliografie. Prague, 1965.
Manuilov, V. A., M. I. Gillel’son, and V. E. Vatsuro. M. Iu. Lermontov: Seminarii. Leningrad, 1960.
Kandel’, B. L. “Bibliografiia perevodov romana Geroi nashego vremeni na inostrannye iazyki.” In M. Iu. Lermontov, Geroi nashego vremeni. Moscow, 1962.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
M. Iu. Lermontov: Rekomendatel’nyi ukazatel’ literatury. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. V. ZHDANOV [14–1032–1; updated])
T. H. SHEVCHENKO (1814-1861)
“Shevchenko Taras Grigorievich (1814-1861) – a great Ukrainian poet, revolutionary and thinker, an ideological ally of the Russian revolutionary democrats, the founder of the revolutionary democratic trend in the history of Ukrainian social thought. His worldview was formed under the influence of advanced Russian literature, especially the ideas of Russian revolutionary democrats; his views reflected the interests of the revolutionary Ukrainian peasantry of the mid-19th century, the era of the crisis of the feudal-serf system in Russia.
A serf peasant, ransomed from captivity, Shevchenko, in the words of Dobrolyubov, is “a poet of the people … He came out of the people, lived with the people, and not only by thought, but by the circumstances of life, was closely and bloodily connected with the people.” Shevchenko was one of the most active participants in a secret political organization in Ukraine, Cyril and Methodius Society and headed the revolutionary, leading nucleus in it. He was associated with a group of Petrashevists, who, in their plans for a peasant uprising, hoped to use his revolutionary activities in Ukraine. The Tsarist government persecuted him all his life. In 1847; he was arrested, consigned to a soldier and exiled to the distant Kazakh steppes. For ten years (1847-1857) he was in exile. After the exile, Shevchenko became close to the members of the Sovremennik magazine and its editors, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.
Like Chernyshevsky, he called the people to the ax. His fiery poetry (Dream, Caucasus, Testament) and all his revolutionary activities were aimed at fighting against the gang of self-serving landowners and the crowned executioner, the Tsar, against the dishonest liberals, against the stupid lyricists (the apologists of serfdom). Shevchenko is a fighter for the people’s republic. He calls on the people: “Break the chains, and sprinkle the will of the villainous enemy’s blood.” Angrily exposing the great power oppression of the Russian landowners and the Tsar, Shevchenko fought for friendship between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, praised the glorious of the glorious Bohdan Khmelnitsky, a fighter for the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, advocated the unification of the Slavic peoples on a democratic basis. An ardent patriot who gave his whole life to the people, he exposed cosmopolitans, spoke out against Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists (Kulish, Kostomarov). Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists tried to falsely portray Shevchenko as a nationalist, liberal and “Christian”. Shevchenko did not consider the existing social system to be unshakable, he was convinced that the serf system would be destroyed everywhere, that this was due to the development of the steam engine, a technique that would devour the landlord-inquisitors, and that the most important role in a radical change in social life would be played by the masses. A materialist in his outlook, he argued that the strength of the spirit cannot manifest itself without matter. At that time, Shevchenko did not call his philosophical position materialism, mistakenly understanding by this word a vulgar form of materialism. Shevchenko exposed the lies of religion, the hypocrisy and self-interest of the priests, building their well-being on the blood of the people.
The atheist Shevchenko strongly denied the other world. In the poem The Heretic Shevchenko shows how Jan Hus fights for the interests of ordinary people, for the unity of the Slavs, bringing peace and glory to the world, and how the fat monk on the apostolic throne, the Pope, stands against him, hiding behind religion. Roman, along with princes, barony and crowned heads and blood, as in a shinny, trades. This speech of the poet against the Vatican has not lost its topicality to this day. Shevchenko’s atheism has its own characteristics. He often uses words such as god, saint, etc. But he did not put religious content in them at all, Shevchenko’s “God” is, as a rule, the truth in the minds of the people. He also solved the main question of aesthetics materialistically: the source of beauty is nature; any attempts to deviate from the eternal beauty of nature make the artist a moral monster. Fighting for the truthfulness of life, for nationality, for the high ideological nature of art, Shevchenko opposed idealism in painting as a hostile ideological trend. These views of Shevchenko are clearly reflected in his Diary.
In the 1840s and then in the 1850s, in the era of Chernyshevsky, in the struggle between two camps – materialism and idealism – Shevchenko was on the side of the Russian revolutionary democrats and materialists. His battle poetry, which spread underground, was a sharp weapon in the fight against serfdom. Shevchenko had a great influence on the further development of revolutionary social thought in Ukraine and Ukrainian culture (Ivan Franko, M. Kotsyubinsky, Lesya Ukrainka, etc.).” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
“Shevchenko, Taras Grigor’evich. Born Feb. 25 (Mar. 9), 1814, in the village of Morintsy, now in Zvenigorodka Raion, Cherkassy Oblast; died Feb. 26 (Mar. 10), 1861, in St. Petersburg. Ukrainian poet, artist, thinker, and revolutionary democrat.
Shevchenko was born a serf; orphaned at an early age, he worked as a shepherd and farm laborer for a priest. At the age of 14 he was employed as a “little cossack,” or servant boy, by P. V. Engel’gardt, the lord of the estate who was his master. Shevchenko was taught to read and write by a village d’iachok (lowranking church official). In 1829 he was taken to Vilnius by his master and lived there until early 1831, when he moved with Engel’gardt to St. Petersburg. In 1833 he was apprenticed to “a craft guild master in various forms of painting” named Shiriaev. In the spring of 1838, Shevchenko was bought out of servitude and gained his freedom.
Shevchenko’s earliest known works are the ballad The Mad Woman, the poems “Dumka” (“To the blue sea the water flows”) and “To the Eternal Memory of Kotliarevskii,” and the narrative poem Katerina. These works have been dated 1837 or 1838. A collection of Shevchenko’s poetry entitled Kobzar’ (The Bard), published in 1840, included several previously unpublished poems—”Songs of Mine,” “Perebendia,” “Dumka” (“What do my coal-black brows avail me?”), “To Osnov’ianen-ko,” “Ivan Podkova,” the ballad The Poplar, and the narrative poems Katerina and The Night of Taras.
As a summing-up of Shevchenko’s early work, Kobzar’ was indicative of the poet’s development in the mainstream of romanticism. In the ballads and narrative poems, reality is closely intertwined with the fantastic elements of folk legends and traditions. The plots are based on the unhappiness and tragedy of doomed love. At the same time, a strong realistic strain is already evident in Shevchenko’s early work; his heroines’ feelings are genuine and sincere, and concrete life circumstances can be discerned behind their suffering. Katerina, for example, is a completely realistic narrative poem about the bitter fate, despair, and suicide of a simple peasant girl, deceived by an officer and abandoned by him with her newborn child. In Shevchenko’s successive poems, love and the lot of women emerge as increasingly well-defined historical topics. In the narrative poems The Blind Woman (1842), Marina (1848), and The Princess (1847), Shevchenko justifies and sanctifies ruthless revenge against the oppressors’ violations of human dignity.
The same movement toward realism can be seen in the treatment of historical subjects. From such early works as The Night of Taras (1838) and “Ivan Podkova” (1839), which are imbued with the romance of ancient legends, the poet moved closer to the theme of struggle for national liberation. In his major narrative poem on a historical subject, The Haidamaks (1841), Shevchenko depicted the great popular uprising of 1768, known as the Koliivshchina, against the oppressive yoke of the Polish szlachta. In addition to being historically accurate, this verse epic is wholly addressed to the poet’s contemporaries. By recalling ancestral glories, Shevchenko sought to arouse the oppressed Ukrainian people to the revolutionary struggle for liberation.
In May 1843, Shevchenko journeyed to the Ukraine; he returned to St. Petersburg in February 1844, and in the spring of 1845 he set off once again for the Ukraine, intending to settle in Kiev. What he saw during his travels through the provinces of Kiev, Poltava, Chernigov, and Volyn’ (in the capacity of artist for the Archaeographic Commission of Kiev), and particularly his impressions of the hardships endured by the serfs, had a marked effect on Shevchenko and strengthened his revolutionary aspirations. In the course of his travels he wrote protest poems against serfdom, recording them in an album (Three Years). He read the poems to friends and allowed them to be copied.
In 1846, Shevchenko joined the secret Society of Cyril and Methodius, in which his position was on the left. In April 1847 he was denounced by a provocateur and arrested; he was then sent to serve as a soldier at the fortress of Orsk, in Orenburg Province, and in 1850 he was transferred to the Novopetrovskoe fortification (site of the modern city of Fort-Shevchenko) on the Mangyshlak Peninsula. Shevchenko’s crime, according to his sentence, was that “he wrote poems of the most disgraceful content in the Little Russian [that is, Ukrainian] language.” The deportation sentence provided that Shevchenko be placed under “the strictest observation in order to prevent his producing disgraceful compositions of any kind.” Confirming the sentence, Nicholas I added his own provision, placing Shevchenko “under the strictest supervision and prohibiting [his] writing and drawing” (quoted from Taras Shevchenko: Dokumenty i Materialy, 1963, p. 50).
The narrative poems The Dream (1844) and The Caucasus (1845) and other verse works for which Shevchenko was persecuted by tsarism marked a new stage in the development of Ukrainian political poetry and satire. In these works Shevchenko raised his own historical and political consciousness to a new level; he angrily stigmatized autocracy, called on all peoples to unite in human brotherhood, and glorified the struggle of the peoples of Russia against colonial oppression. The two narrative poems represented a further step in the development of Shevchenko’s realism and revolutionary democratic views. With these and subsequent compositions of Shevchenko’s during the 1840’s and 1850’s, Ukrainian poetry took its rightful place as part of advanced European literature and exercised considerable influence on 19th-century Slavic poetry.
Two poems by Shevchenko that were particularly influential are his “Testament” (1845; “When I die, O let my body”), which openly calls for the overthrow of tsarism and serfdom and envisions the wonderful future in store for the people, and the narrative poem The Heretic, or Jan Hus (1845), which is directed against religious obscurantism and political reaction and is permeated with the idea of friendship among peoples.
Shevchenko’s deportation lasted from June 1847 to August 1857; he was released after the death of Nicholas I. Exile did not destroy his talent, nor did it break his will or his revolutionary convictions. The poetry inspired by what he called the “enslaved Muse”—that is, the poems written in exile and carefully hidden during searches and arrests—bear the mark of Shevchenko’s increasingly revolutionary attitudes; a new power resounds in the cycle of poems The Tsars (1848), which proclaims the crowned tyrants’ guilt and invokes justice against them. In the cycle In the Fortress (1847) the poet pours out his passionate love for the Ukraine and its people—a love sharpened by exile. Elsewhere, Shevchenko expresses his feeling of fraternal love for all oppressed peoples—for example, for the Kazakhs in the poem “The Lord Had an Axe Behind His Door” (1848).
During his exile Shevchenko wrote, in Russian, the realistic novellas The Princess (1853), The Musician (1854–55), The Unfortunate Man (1855), The Captain’s Wife (1855), Twins (1855), and The Artist (1856). The novellas The Servant-Girl (1844) and Varnak (1845) were written before Shevchenko’s exile, and A Pleasant Stroll, Not Without a Moral (1856–58), after. The author’s opposition to serfdom permeates all these works. The central figure in Varnak, The Musician, The Artist, and A PleasantStroll is that of the educated serf, and his experiences are often autobiographical. The hero’s views on art reflect those of the author, who was a confirmed advocate of realism and was close to the “natural school” of Russian literature in both theory and practice.
The road back from exile was long and hard. Shevchenko was stopped on the way, in Novgorod, and forbidden to enter either of the two capitals. Through the efforts of friends, however, he obtained permission to live in St. Petersburg, and he arrived there in the spring of 1858. Here he became associated with the authors writing for the journal Sovremennik; those he was especially close to included N. G. Chernyshevskii, N. A. Dobroliubov, N. A. Nekrasov, M. L. Mikhailov, and the Kurochkin brothers. The note of anger in Shevchenko’s satire grew sharper, and the poet was once again placed under the strict supervision of the Third Section. During his visit to the Ukraine in the summer of 1859, Shevchenko was arrested near the village of Prokhorovka; he was then forced to leave the Ukraine and return to St. Petersburg.
A new edition of Kobzar’ —the most complete of the three editions published in his lifetime—appeared in 1860; certain poems, however, such as The Dream, The Caucasus, and The Heretic, as well as “Testament,” were necessarily excluded. Dobroliubov reviewed Kobzar’ in Sovremennik, calling Shevchenko “a true people’s poet” (Sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1963, p. 142). A number of the poems not included in Kobzar’ because of the censorship appeared in the collection New Poems of Pushkin and Shevchenko, which friends of Shevchenko’s published in Leipzig in 1859.
The works of 1857–61 represent the apex of Shevchenko’s poetry; there is now greater wealth and variety in his subjects (social, political, and philosophical), in his attitudes, in the range of colors of his nature poems, in the profound wisdom of his reflections on poetry, as in the triptych made up of “Fortune,” “The Muse,” and “Fame” (1858), in the rhythm and sophistication of poetic means, and in the skill of artistic imagery. Shevchenko’s narrative poems The Neophytes (1857), God’s Fool (1857), and Mary (1859), as well as his lyric verse of the 1850’s and early 1860’s, are among the highest achievements of this period. In The Neophytes, revolutionaries and Decembrists are glorified through allegorical images of early Christians; one can easily identify Nicholas I in the figure of Nero, and the nobles and landed gentry in Shevchenko’s patricians.
Shevchenko’s imitations of psalms and biblical motifs were another means by which he expressed revolutionary democratic ideas, as exemplified by his “Imitation of the 11th Psalm,” “Hosea, Chapter XIV,” and Mary. In his lyric masterpieces “O Blind and Wretched People,” “Archimedes and Galileo,” “There Is No Joy in Anything,” and “Although They Do Not Hit a Man Who Is Down” (all written in 1860), Shevchenko’s calls to revolution are issued with the assurance that “punishment will come! for the tsars and tsareviches of this earth.” In these and other poems (especially in “Silent Light! Shining Light!”), Shevchenko envisions the future in the light of socialist ideals.
In his poetic writing, Shevchenko was close to the folk tradition; without breaking away from that tradition, his poetry evolved toward increasingly greater originality. The rhythmic intonation of Shevchenko’s poetry is based on Ukrainian popular verse, but it is richer in its diversity of forms and rhythms and variety of strophic construction, whether syllabic (with 12-and 11-syllable or 14-syllable strophes) or syllabotonic (with, for example, 28 types of strophes in the poems written in iambic tetrameter alone). Shevchenko’s contribution to Ukrainian poetry was unique in that he radically broadened its cultural and intellectual horizons, drawing on the history and contemporary life of various European peoples and incorporating ideas and images from European literature.
Many of Shevchenko’s works were put to music by N. V. Lysenko (see his collection Music to Shevchenko’s “Kobzar’”) and other Ukrainian composers, such as K. G. Stetsenko, Ia. S. Stepovyi, and S. F. Liudkevich, as well as by the Russian composers M. P. Mussorgsky, P. I. Tchaikovsky, and S. V. Rachmaninoff. “Oh Songs, My Songs,” “Testament,” and the first part of The Mad Woman (“The mighty Dnieper roars and groans”) were made into folk songs, and “Testament” became one of the songs of the revolutionary movement.
Shevchenko’s death was perceived as a great loss for literature and for the liberation movement. His funeral was attended by many literary and public figures, including M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, and N. S. Leskov. N. A. Nekrasov wrote the poem “On Shevchenko’s Death,” and A. I. Herzen published a moving obituary in Kolokol (The Bell).
Shevchenko was also known as an artist. From 1838 to 1845 he studied with K. P. Briullov at the Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. His early works, such as Katerina (1842, T. G. Shevchenko Museum, Kiev) and the series of etchings Pictures of the Ukraine (published 1844), were indicative of Shevchenko’s orientation toward realism, culminating in the keen accusatory force of the watercolors and drawings done in exile—for example, the series The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Running the Gauntlet (ink and bister, 1856–57).
After his return from exile, Shevchenko did a great deal of engraving, which he saw as a means of spreading art among the people; in 1860 he was given the title of academician in copper engraving. He produced a series of profound psychological portraits, such as his Self-portrait (1840–41, T. G. Shevchenko Museum, Kiev), and affecting landscapes of the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Shevchenko was the founder of modern Ukrainian literature as well as a pioneer of critical realism and of the revolutionary democratic current in Ukrainian literature and painting. The best traditions of Ukrainian literature are linked to his creative work. Shevchenko’s literary works have been translated into many foreign languages, and their study constitutes a specialized branch of modern literature. There are Shevchenko museums in various cities and villages, including Kiev, Kanev (where Shevchenko is buried), Shevchenko, Morintsy, Leningrad, and Orsk. The University of Kiev and the Institute of Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR are named after Shevchenko, and the Ukrainian republic instituted the Shevchenko Prize. In May 1861, in conformity with the poet’s wish, the coffin bearing his remains was taken to the Ukraine and buried on Chernech’ia Gora, which overlooks the Dnieper near Kanev.
WORKS
Povne zibrannia tvoriv, vols. 1–10. Kiev, 1939–64.
Povne zibrannia tvoriv, vols. 1–6. Kiev, 1963–64.
In Russian translation:
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1964–65.
REFERENCES
Franko, I. “Stat’i o Shevchenko.” Soch., vol. 9. Moscow, 1959.
Ryl’skii, M. Poeziia Tarasa Shevchenko. Kiev, 1961.
Bel’chikov, N. Taras Shevchenko. Moscow, 1961.
Ivakin, Iu. Stil’ politychnoi poezii Shevchenka. Kiev, 1961.
Priima, F. Shevchenko i russkaia literatura XIX v. Moscow, 1961.
Kasiian, V. I. Mystetstvo Tarasa Shevchenka. Kiev, 1963.
Beletskii, A. I., and A. I. Deich. Taras Shevchenko, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1964.
Parkhomenko, M. T. G. Shevchenko — velikii ukrainskii poet. Moscow, 1964.
Shubravs’kyi, V. Ie. Shevchenko i literatura narodiv SRSR. Kiev, 1964.
Shaginian, M. Taras Shevchenko, 4th ed. Moscow, 1964.
Kiriliuk, le. Taras Shevchenko, 2nd ed. Kiev, 1964.
Svitova velych Shevchenka, vols. 1–3. Kiev, 1964.
Khinkulov, L. Taras Shevchenko, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1966.
Chamata, N. Rytmika T. H. Shevchenka. Kiev, 1974.
Shabliovskii, E. T. G. Shevchenko i russkie revoliutsionnye demokraty, 2nd ed. Kiev, 1975.
Shevchenkoznavstvo: Pidsumky i problemy. Kiev, 1975.
Burachek, M. Velikii narodnyi khudozhnik. Kiev, 1939.
Vandrovskaia, E. B. T. G. Shevchenko-khudozhnik. Alma-Ata, 1963.
Litopys zhyttia i tvorchosti Shevchenka. Kiev, 1961.
T. H. Shevchenko: Bibliohrafiia literatury pro zhyttia i tvorchist’ (1839–1958), vols. 1–2. Kiev, 1963.
Sarana, F. T. H. Shevchenko: Bibliohrafiia iuvileinoi literatury (1960–1964). Kiev, 1968.
Shevchenkivs’kyi slovnyk, vols. 1–2. Kiev, 1976–77.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. N. PARKHOMENKO)
I. S. TURGENEV (1818-1883)
“Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevich. Born Oct. 28 (Nov. 9), 1818, in Orel; died Aug. 22 (Sept. 3), 1883, in Bougival, near Paris; buried in St. Petersburg. Russian writer.
Turgenev’s mother was V. P. Lutovinova by birth; his father was S. N. Turgenev, an officer who had fought in the Patriotic War of 1812. Turgenev spent his childhood on his mother’s estate in the village of Spasskoe-Lutovinovo, Orel Province. The dvo-rianstvo (nobility or gentry) culture of this estate was a striking contrast to the tyranny that Turgenev’s mother exercised over her serfs. Turgenev enrolled in Moscow University in 1833. The following year he transferred to the University of St. Petersburg, where he studied in the department of literature of the faculty of philosophy, graduating in 1837 with the degree of candidate.
Turgenev’s earliest extant work, the dramatic narrative poem Steno (1834; published 1913), centered on a demonic hero. Turgenev wrote poetry beginning in the mid-1830’s. His first published work was a review of A. N. Murav’ev’s A Journey Around Russia’s Holy Places (1836). The first poems published by Turgenev, “Evening” and “To the Medici Venus, ” appeared in Sovre-mennik (The Contemporary) in 1838.
From 1838 to 1840, Turgenev intermittently continued his education abroad. At the University of Berlin he studied philosophy, Greek and Latin, and history. In Berlin and later in Rome he became close friends with N. V. Stankevich and M. A. Bakunin. Turgenev passed the examination for the degree of master of philosophy at the University of St. Petersburg in 1842. That year he took another trip to Germany. Upon returning to Russia he served in the Ministry of the Interior as an official in charge of special assignments, holding this post from 1842 to 1844.
In 1843, Turgenev became acquainted with the French singer P. Viardot. His friendly relations with her and her family, which continued throughout Turgenev’s life, had an important influence on his works; his attachment to Viardot was to a great extent responsible for his frequent travels and later for his prolonged residence abroad.
Turgenev’s acquaintance with V. G. Belinskii, whom Turgenev met in late 1842, was of great importance in his life. Turgenev soon established close ties with Belinskii’s circle and with the St. Petersburg literary figures, including A. I. Herzen, who were aligned with the Westernizers. Belinskii’s critiques and personal convictions were instrumental in consolidating Turgenev’s antagonism toward serfdom and toward Slavophilism. The stories “The Bailiff and “Two Landowners” in Turgenev’s A Sportsman’s Sketches (1847–52) reflected the influence of Belinskii’s Letter to Gogol, which Belinskii wrote during a stay abroad with Turgenev in 1847.
Turgenev’s narrative poem Parasha, published in 1843, was highly praised by Belinskii. It was followed by the narrative poems A Conversation (1845) and Andrei and The Landowner (both 1846). These works were physiological sketches in verse that linked Turgenev to the Gogolian school. There are two heroic types in Turgenev’s poetry: the first a passionate, rebellious dreamer characterized by inner anxiety and indefinite aims, and the second a skeptic akin to Onegin and Pechorin. Typical traits of Turgenev’s narrative poems are the longing expressed for what is lofty, ideal, and heroic, and the melancholy irony with which the poems’ homeless wanderers are treated.
Turgenev’s short stories of this period, “Andrei Kolosov” (1844), “Three Portraits” (1846), and “The Duelist” (1847), explored an issue first dealt with by the romantics—the relations between the individual and society. In the second half of the 1840’s, the figure of the skeptical hero, by now an epigone of Pechorin, had lost all significance for Turgenev. He now favored a hero whose will and feelings were spontaneous and free. At this time, Turgenev also published critical articles and book reviews, including reviews of M. Vronchenko’s translation of Faust, and of plays by N. V. Kukol’nik and S. A. Gedeonov. In these articles and reviews, Turgenev, like Belinskii, viewed literature as having a lofty social aim.
Turgenev’s earlier dramatic works included the genre plays Without Money (1846), Lunch at the City Marshal’s (1849; published 1856), and The Bachelor (1849) and the social drama The Boarder (1848; staged 1849, published 1857). These works, which in the manner of Gogol depicted humble, ordinary people, also had elements found in Dostoevsky’s psychological approach, as seen in the figure of Kuzovkin in The Boarder. The plays A Chain Is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link (1848), The Provincial Lady (1851), and A Month in the Country (1850; published 1855) expressed Turgenev’s characteristic dissatisfaction with the idle, introspective gentry intelligentsia and suggested a new hero—the raznochinets (a member of no definite class). Whereas Turgenev’s earlier dramas had dealt with persons oppressed by serfdom, his later plays depicted with psychological acuteness the conflicts between different social groups and different viewpoints, for example, between the gentry and the raznochintsy. Turgenev’s dramaturgy prepared the way for A. N. Ostrovskii’s socially oriented plays and for Chekhov’s psychological dramas with their subtle lyricism and their keen sense of man’s alienation.
A Sportsman’s Sketches was Turgenev’s most important early work. It significantly influenced later Russian literature and brought its author worldwide renown. The work was translated into many European languages, and by the 1850’s, when it was in effect banned in Russia, it had been published in many editions in Germany, France, England, and Denmark. According to M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A Sportsman’s Sketches “laid the foundation for an entire literature whose subject was the common people and their needs” (Sobr. soch., vol. 9,1970, p. 459). The sketches focus on the peasant serf, who is intelligent and talented but deprived of rights. Turgenev revealed the sharp contrast between the soullessness of the landowners and the lofty inner qualities of the peasants, who were one with the majestic, mysterious, and beautiful world of nature. Turgenev’s masterful depiction of the peasants as thoughtful, sensitive human beings who were worthy of respect was an innovation in Russian literature. Turgenev was also the first in Russian literature to portray peasants as distinct individuals with an inner life as refined, subtle, complex, and profound as the life of nature itself.
Turgenev’s concept of the Russian peasant was of great importance for the development of advanced social thought in Russia. Progressive readers saw in A Sportsman’s Sketches a convincing argument for the abolition of serfdom. In the 1870’s the Narod-niki (Populists) viewed the work as a revelation of the peasants’ moral loftiness and their state of poverty. A Sportsman’s Sketches influenced the depiction of the common people in Russian literature, as seen in works by L. N. Tolstoy, V. G. Korolenko, and Chekhov. The work was the first of Turgenev’s writings to be published in Nekrasov’s Sovremennik, and Turgenev soon became one of the journal’s most outstanding contributors.
In February 1852, Turgenev wrote an obituary on the death of Gogol in which he called Gogol a great writer who “delineated an entire period in the history of our literature” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 14,1967, p. 72). The obituary served as a pretext for Turgenev’s arrest and banishment under police surveillance to the village of Spasskoe for a year and a half. The true reason for this official action was Turgenev’s criticism of serfdom in A Sportsman’s Sketches. At this time, Turgenev wrote the novellas Mumu (published 1854) and The Inn (published 1855), which, like A Sportsman’s Sketches, were critical of serfdom.
In 1856 the novel Rudin was published in Sovremennik; it was a unique summing-up of Turgenev’s thoughts on the progressive hero of the times. Before the publication of Rudin, Turgenev wrote novellas and short stories depicting the idealist of the 1840’s from various viewpoints. The novellas Two Friends and A Quiet Spot (both 1854) presented negative portrayals of vacillating, introspective characters. In contrast, the short stories “A Hamlet of the Shchigry District” (1849), “The Diary of a Superfluous Man” (1850), “Iakov Pasynkov” (1855), and “A Correspondence” (1856) revealed the tragedy of the superfluous man and his tormenting alienation from the world and other people.
In Rudin, Turgenev manifested a dual view of the superfluous man: the author acknowledged Rudin’s contribution in arousing the civic awareness of the Russians of the 1840’s, but at the same time he made it clear that in the context of Russian life of the 1850’s the mere propagation of lofty ideas was insufficient. Turgenev had a sensitive perception of the demands of the contemporary age and, as was typical in his works, he integrated his hero with these demands. The Russians of this period awaited a progressive, civic-minded hero, and Rudin belonged to the generation that prepared the ground for such a figure. At this time, N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov encouraged the protest against serfdom that was implicit in many negative psychological traits of the superfluous man.
The novel A Nest of Gentry (1859) deals with Russia’s historical destiny. Lavretskii, the hero, is more ordinary than Rudin, but he is closer to the life of the common people and has a better understanding of their needs. Lavretskii considers it his duty to ease the lot of the peasants. However, for the sake of his personal happiness he abandons his civic obligations, although happiness too eludes him. Liza, the heroine, seeks to sacrifice herself for humanity but finds such sacrifice impossible in the real world, which constantly offends her moral sense. In a unique protest, Liza enters a convent; she thereby rejects life, although in a passive way. The figure of Liza is surrounded by the radiant aura that Saltykov-Shchedrin noted in “every sound [word] of this novel.” Whereas Rudin depicts the idealist of the 1840’s, A Nest of Gentry marks that idealist’s departure from history’s stage.
The publication of A Nest of Gentry and of the novellas that preceded it, Faust (1856) and Asya (1858), engendered a polemic in the press about renunciation, duty, and egoism. Turgenev’s views on these issues differed from those of the revolutionary democrats, who focused on the weakness and indecisiveness of the superfluous man and on his lack of a sense of civic responsibility. Chernyshevskii discussed this problem in a critique of Asya contained in his article “A Russian at a Rendezvous.” The ideal of the revolutionary democrats was a morally upright man in whom there was no conflict between personal needs and social obligations. The dispute about a new Russian hero was of profound importance at this time in view of the impending reforms and in the context of an atmosphere that was increasingly conducive to revolution.
Sensitive to the demands of the times, Turgenev presented in the novel On the Eve (1860) a positive hero capable of action, the Bulgarian raznochinets Insarov, an upright man who concentrates all his moral forces on seeking to liberate his native land. Turgenev paid tribute to heroes of this type, although he considered them narrow. In the article “When Will the Real Day Arrive?” (1860), which dealt with On the Eve, Dobroliubov observed that Insarov is not fully delineated or made believable. Consequently, in Dobroliubov’s view, the main figure in the novel is Elena Stakhova, who embodies the “civic need for action, a living action, and contempt for outdated principles and passive virtues” (Sobr. soch., vol. 3,1952, p. 36).
For Turgenev, Russia was soon to bring forth active heroes; to Dobroliubov, this meant revolutionary heroes. Turgenev could not accept Dobroliubov’s strongly topical interpretation of On the Eve, nor could he agree with the radical conclusions that Dobroliubov drew from the novel. Turgenev opposed the publication of Dobroliubov’s article, and when it was published on Nekrasov’s insistence, Turgenev left Sovremennik. He left the journal mainly because as a liberal he did not believe in the necessity of revolution; in V. I. Lenin’s words, Turgenev “was repelled by the peasant democracy of Dobroliubov and Chernyshevskii” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 36, p. 206). At the same time, Turgenev had respect for the lofty spiritual qualities of the revolutionary democrats, whom he saw as the heralds of Russia’s future.
In the novel Fathers and Sons (1862), Turgenev continued his exploration of Russia’s new man. The work does not merely deal with the contrast between two generations; it also depicts the conflict between the two ideological trends of idealism and materialism and the inevitable and irreconcilable clash between the old and new sociopolitical forces. Fathers and Sons reveals the painful, complex dissolution of former class relations, as well as the conflicts between the landowners and the peasants, who no longer adhere to their former obligations. The novel also reveals the antagonism existing between members of the dvorianstvo and the raznochintsy, as well as within the dvorianstvo class itself. This process of dissolution is presented in the novel as a destructive force that disrupts the secluded life of the aristocracy, breaks down class barriers, and alters the time-honored way of life.
The alignment of characters in Fathers and Sons and the development of the action indicated where the author’s sympathies lay. Turgenev had a dual view of the novel’s hero, the nihilist Bazarov, and carried on a polemic with him concerning Bazarov’s attitudes toward nature, love, and art. Yet Bazarov, who denied all values, was presented as a manly figure with consistent convictions who served a great, important cause. Bazarov’s rational opinions were in contrast with his intense, passionate nature. The Kirsanov brothers, who upheld old-fashioned principles and who represented the best members of the dvorianstvo, were depicted as inferior to Bazarov in moral force and in their understanding of life.
The tragic love of Bazarov and Odintsova in Fathers and Sons, which revealed the split between Bazarov’s inner character and his rational opinions, emphasized his moral superiority over the best representatives of the dvorianstvo. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev gave a sober, serious appraisal of the role of Bazarov, who was depicted both as a man standing on the threshold of the future and as “a strange counterpart of Pugachev.” Turgenev in the novel also appraised the position of the common people in the late 1850’s. He was aware of the alienation between the people and the progressive intelligentsia, who had undertaken to defend the people’s interests. To Turgenev, this alienation was one of the reasons for the tragic position of the progressive intelligentsia at this time.
Turgenev’s contemporaries reacted sharply to the publication of Fathers and Sons. The reactionary press accused the author of seeking to gain the approval of the young generation, and the democratic press reproached him for slandering that generation. The critic D. I. Pisarev, on the other hand, viewed Bazarov as a faithful depiction of the new hero. Turgenev wrote to K. K. Slu-chevskii concerning Bazarov: “If he is called a nihilist, by this is meant ‘a revolutionary’” (Poln. sobr. soch. ipisem: Pis’ma, vol. 4,1962, p. 380). Nevertheless, a certain ambiguity in Turgenev’s view of Bazarov has engendered disputes lasting to the present time concerning the author’s real attitude toward his hero.
After Fathers and Sons, Turgenev went through a period of doubt and disillusionment. In an open dispute with A. I. Herzen, he defended his humanist views. The novellas Phantoms (1864) and Enough (1865) were pessimistic, reflective, and melancholy. In Turgenev’s novels published after Fathers and Sons, the role played by the hero became increasingly less important. The novel Smoke (1867) focused on the upheavals in Russian life after the reforms, during a period when “the new was accepted badly and the old had lost all its force” (Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem: Soch., vol. 9,1965, p. 318). The novel has two heroes: Litvinov, whose tragic love reflects both the uncertainty of life in contemporary Russia and Litvinov’s own contradictory, vacillating relations with others, and Potugin, an advocate of Western civilization. The novel is anti-Slavophile and is sharply satirical in tone. Turgenev mocks both the representatives of the revolutionary emigration (the “Heidelberg arabesques”) and the higher circles of the Russian government (the “Baden generals”). In the novel, Turgenev condemns Russian life after the reforms, comparing it to smoke (hence the novel’s title). He views the political opposition not as foreign in origin but as engendered by Russian life. These authorial views distinguish Smoke from other antinihilist works of the period.
Turgenev’s novella Torrents of Spring (published 1872) was written in the form of the melancholy reminiscences of a superfluous man. In the novella A King Lear of the Steppes (published 1870), Turgenev meditated on the common people and on the essence of the Russian character. These two works prepared the ground for the most important work of Turgenev’s last period, the novel Virgin Soil (1877).
Virgin Soil was published at a time when Russian intellectuals were engaged in heated discussions on history and art. The novel deals with the Narodnik (Populist) movement. The author clearly respected the heroic impulses of the young Narodniki and their spirit of self-sacrifice, but he did not believe in the possibility of revolutionary changes. Turgenev gave the romantic realist Ne-zhdanov, who takes part in the movement of “going to the people, ” the traits of a Russian Hamlet. To Turgenev the sober and practical Solomin, who believes in gradual progress by means of small useful deeds, is closer to reality. In the ideological disputes among the novel’s representatives of liberalism (Sipiagin), conservatism (Kallomeitsev), and Narodnichestvo, or Populism (Ne-zhdanov, Marianna, and Solomin), Turgenev was clearly on the side of the Narodniki. In Virgin Soil, Turgenev finally became reconciled with the younger generation.
Late in life, Turgenev wrote a number of short works, including Poems in Prose (part 1, published 1882). In the poems “The Threshold” and “In Memory of Iu. P. Vrevskaia, ” he praised self-sacrifice in the service of the common people.
While living in Paris in the 1870’s, Turgenev became closely acquainted with leading Narodniki, including G. A. Lopatin, P. L. Lavrov, and S. M. Stepniak-Kravchinskii. Turgenev contributed money to the Narodnik journal Vpered! (Forward!). He had a keen interest in Russian and French literature and art and belonged to the circle of the most important French writers of the time, including Flaubert, Zola, Daudet, and the Goncourt brothers, who praised him as one of the greatest contemporary realist writers. At this time and later, Turgenev’s mastery of refined psychological analysis was unquestionably an influence on Western European writers. Mérimée regarded Turgenev as one of the leaders of the realist school, and Sand and Maupassant acknowledged a debt to Turgenev. In the Scandinavian countries, Turgenev’s novels, particularly Rudin, were especially popular, attracting the attention of a number of prominent playwrights and prose writers. Swedish critics noted the influence of Turgenev in Strindberg’s plays. Turgenev was also instrumental in popularizing Russian literature abroad.
Turgenev’s contributions to literature, scholarship, and art were highly valued in France and England. In 1878 he was elected vice-president of the International Literary Congress in Paris, and the following year he was awarded the honorary degree of doctor of civil law at Oxford University. During trips to Russia in 1879 and 1880, Turgenev took part in readings of literary works for the benefit of the Society of Lovers of the Russian Word. In 1880 he made a speech in praise of Pushkin, and was hailed by all of progressive Russia.
Turgenev’s works marked a new stage in the development of Russian realism. Their sensitivity to topical issues, their profound interpretation of events and human nature, and their authenticity of depiction made them a unique chronicle of Russian life from the 1840’s to the 1870’s. Turgenev’s contribution to the development of the Russian novel was particularly great. While continuing the traditions of Pushkin, Gogol, and Lermontov, Turgenev created a new biographical, personal novel that centered on a hero who typified his times. Turgenev’s profound, objective analysis of the superfluous man was further developed in works by Goncharov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov.
In his novels, Turgenev analyses the hero and the other characters, appraising them from a social and historical standpoint. The hero represents a certain world view, and his fate depends on his success in defending this view. The other characters, who express their own views through arguments and personal clashes, interrelate with the hero and bring into focus the strong and weak aspects of his convictions and character.
Women occupy a special place in Turgenev’s prose. Turgenev’s heroines—upright, uncompromising, sensitive, pensive, and passionate—expect, in the spirit of their times, an original, heroic male counterpart. Consequently, Turgenev gives his favorite heroines the right to pass judgment on the heroes. The development of love is predominant in Turgenev’s novels. Love is viewed as the source both of the highest happiness and of tragedy; emphasis is placed on the tragic significance of love.
An incompatibility between personal happiness and a sense of civic obligation is reflected in the conflicts between the hero’s inner nature and his outwardly expressed convictions. This incompatibility expresses Turgenev’s own views that the conflict between progressive figures and society was insoluble in Russia under serfdom and that the human personality could not manifest itself freely under the same conditions. Turgenev’s profound understanding of life’s conflicts and of human nature, his approval of progressive social trends, and his faith in a social ideal coexisted with his realization that such an ideal could not be achieved during that historical period. This realization also explains the duality in Turgenev’s attitude toward his heroes: he respects their lofty moral qualities but questions the correctness of their viewpoints. The same awareness that the social ideal was unattainable at the present time was at the basis of the melancholy, lyric atmosphere surrounding both Turgenev’s heroes, who do not succeed in realizing their convictions, and his heroines, who strive to accomplish positive deeds.
In Turgenev’s works, nature serves both as the background for the action’s development and as one of the chief means of characterization. Turgenev’s concept of nature fully reveals his world view and his aesthetic principles. To Turgenev, nature was an indifferent, imperious, egoistic, and overpowering force (see Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem: Pis’ma, vol. 1,1961, p. 481). Nature in Turgenev’s works is simple and direct in its naturalness, but infinitely complex in its mysterious, elemental manifestations, which are often inimical to man. However, nature in its joyful moments is for man a source of happiness, energy, spiritual loftiness, and self-awareness.
Turgenev was a master of subtle shadings and of the dynamics of lyric landscapes. As with painting, the effects of his portrayals of nature are generally created by the use of light. Turgenev captured the life of nature by means of an interplay of light and shadow, correlating this interplay with changes in the character’s moods. Nature in Turgenev’s novels has many meanings, and often assumes a universal, symbolic significance. Nature may reflect a character’s transition from one mood to another and may also reflect turning points in the development of the action; examples are the scene at the Avdiukhin Pond in Rudin and the thunderstorm in On the Eve. This method was continued by Tolstoy, Korolenko, and Chekhov.
In terms of psychological and satirical characterization, Turgenev continued the traditions of Pushkin and Gogol. Turgenev’s descriptions of his characters are objective; Turgenev believed it was necessary “to be a psychologist, but a covert one” (ibid., vol. 4, 1962, p. 135). The tension of man’s inner life, with its subtle shifts of mood, is conveyed through facial expressions, gestures, and bodily movements, by means of which the missing elements of a full psychological portrait may be divined. Like his great literary predecessors, Turgenev was also a consummate stylist who combined archaic elements of the Russian language with a wealth of colloquialisms.
Turgenev’s literary approach influenced both the Russian and the Western European novel of the second half of the 19th century. To a great extent, Turgenev’s novels provided a model for the intellectual novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, in which the heroes’ fates depend on their resolution of important philosophical problems that have universal significance for mankind. Turgenev’s works have also influenced many Soviet writers, including A. N. Tolstoy and K. G. Paustovskii. The plays of Turgenev have become a permanent part of the repertoire of Soviet theaters, and many of his works have been made into motion pictures.
Since the earliest years of the Revolution, Soviet literary scholars have engaged in an intensive study of Turgenev’s heritage. Many scholarly studies have been devoted to Turgenev’s life and works and to his role in Russian and world literature. The texts of Turgenev’s works have been subjected to scholarly analysis, and editions of his collected works have been published with extensive notes and commentaries. Museums devoted to Turgenev have been established in the city of Orel and at Spasskoe-Lutovi-novo, the former estate of Turgenev’s mother.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–12. Moscow, 1953–58.
Poln. sobr. soch. ipisem, vols. 1–28. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960–68.
Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 73, books 1–2. Moscow, 1964. Vol. 76: Moscow, 1967.
REFERENCES
Lenin, V. I. Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 5, p. 301; vol. 16, pp. 43–44.
Belinskii, V. G. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 7. Moscow, 1955. Vol. 10: Moscow, 1956.
Chernyshevskii, N. G. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 5. Moscow, 1950.
Dobroliubov, N. A. Sobr. soch., vol. 6. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Herzen, A. I. Sobr. soch., vol. 18. Moscow, 1959.
Pisarev, D. I. Soch., vol. 2. Moscow, 1955.
Lunacharskii, A. V. Stat’i o literature. Moscow, 1957.
Ovsvianiko-Kulikovskii, D. N. Etiudy o tvorchestve I. S. Tur geneva, 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1904.
Sakulin, P. N. Na grani dvukh kul’tur: I. S. Turgenev. Moscow, 1918.
Alekseev, M. P. I. 5. Turgenev i muzyka. Kiev, 1918.
Brodskii, N. L. I. 5. Turgenev v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov i egopis’makh, parts 1–2. Moscow, 1924.
Brodskii, N. L. I. S. Turgenev. Moscow, 1950.
I. S. Turgenev v vospominaniiakh revoliutsionerov-semidesiatnikov. Moscow-Leningrad, 1930.
Kleman. M. K. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva I. S. Turgeneva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.
Kleman, M. K. I. S. Turgenev: Ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva. Leningrad, 1936.
Turgenev v russkoi kritike. Moscow, 1953.
Turgenev iteatr. Moscow, 1953.
“Zapiskiokhotnika” 1. S. Turgeneva [1852–1952]: Sb. st. Orel, 1955.
Tseitlin, A. G. Masterstvo Turgeneva-romanista. Moscow, 1958.
Tvorchestvo 1. S. Turgeneva: Sb. st. Moscow, 1959.
Bogoslovskii, N. Turgenev, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1961.
Petrov, S. I. S. Turgenev: Tvorcheskiiput’. Moscow, 1961.
Bialyi, G. A. Turgenev i russkii realizm. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Kriukov, A. Turgenev i muzyka. Leningrad, 1963.
Pustovoit, P. G. Roman I. S. Turgeneva “Ottsy i deti” i ideinaia bor’-ba 60-kh gg. XIX v. [2nd ed. Moscow, 1965].
Shatalov, S. E. Problemy poetiki I. S. Turgeneva. Moscow, 1969.
I. S. Turgenev v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, vols. 1–2. [Moscow, 1969.]
Bialyi, G. A., and A. B. Muratov. Turgenev v Peterburge. Leningrad, 1970.
Zil’bershtein, I. S. Rozyskanüa o Turgeneve. Moscow, 1970.
Batiuto, A. I. Turgenev-romanist. Leningrad, 1972.
Kurliandskaia, G. B. Khudozhestvennyi metod Turgeneva-romanista. Tula, 1972.
Markovich, V. M. Chelovek v romanakh I. S. Turgeneva. Leningrad, 1975.
Efimova, E. M. I. S. Turgenev: Seminarii. Leningrad, 1958.
Bibliografiia literatury o I. S. Turgeneve, 1918–1967. Leningrad, 1970.
Turgenev i Orlovskü krai: Bibliografich. ukazatel’. Orel, 1971.
Granjard, H. Ivan Tourguénev et les courants politiques et sociaux de son temps. Paris, 1954.
Magarshack, D. Turgenev: A Life. London, 1954.
I. S. Turgenev und Deutschland: Materialien und Untersuchungen, vol. 1. Berlin, 1956.”
E. M. RUMIANTSEVA
“Turgenev was a regular visitor to the Herzens flat” in France (E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles, Penguin 1949, p. 48)
“Polonskii, Iakov Petrovich. Born Dec. 6 (18), 1819, in Riazan’; died Oct. 18 (30), 1898, in St. Petersburg; buried in Riazan’. Russian poet.
The son of an impoverished official, Polonskii graduated from the law faculty of Moscow University in 1844. His first collection of poetry, Musical Scales, appeared that year. From 1846 to 1851 he lived in Tbilisi, where he worked as an official. His collection Sazandar (1849) successfully portrayed the spirit and life of the peoples of the Caucasus. Beginning in 1851, Polonskii lived in St. Petersburg, where in 1859 and 1860 he edited the journal Russkoe slovo (The Russian Word). Between 1860 and 1896 he served on the Foreign Censorship Committee and on the Council of the Central Administration of the Press.
Amid the social polarization taking place during the 1860’s, Polonskii did not arrive at a clear-cut position. His democratic sentiments were sincere but vague. However, he believed that poets should follow the trends of the times, expressing this thought in the poem “My heart is a source, my song is a wave.” Thus, he wrote poems that were civic in tone, including “The Madman,” “I confess I forgot, gentlemen,” and “Miasma.” In 1878 he wrote “The Prisoner,” a poem sympathetic to V. Zasulich.
Late in life, Polonskii turned to themes of old age and death in the collection Evening Bells (1890). Most important among his narrative poems is the verse fairy tale The Grasshopper Musician (1859). Polonskii also wrote prose. His gentle, impressionable lyric heroes retain warm memories of childhood, as seen in “Winter Road” and “Another Winter.” Man’s soul is depicted with psychological exactitude in “In Winter, in a Carriage”; complex shifts of mood are masterfully conveyed in “At the Door.”
Many of Polonskii’s poems have been set to music by A. S. Dargomyzhskii, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, S. I. Taneev, and A. G. Rubinstein. His poem “Gypsy Song” (“My campfire shines in the fog”) has become a folk song.
WORKS
Stikhotvoreniia. [Introductory article, preparation of text, and notes by B. M. Eikhenbaum.] Leningrad, 1954.
REFERENCES
Orlov, P. A. Ia. P. Polonskii. Riazan’, 1961.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliografich. ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.”
V. I. MASLOVSKH
A. A. FET (1820-1892)
“Fet, Afanasii Afanas’evich. Born Nov. 23 (Dec. 5), 1820, in the village of Novoselki, in what is now Mtsensk Raion, Orel Oblast; died Nov. 21 (Dec. 3), 1892, in Moscow. Russian poet.
Fet was the son of the landowner A. N. Shenshin and of Karolina Fet. He was registered as Shenshin’s son but when he was 14 the registration proved to be invalid, and Fet was deprived of his privileges as a member of the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry). Fet graduated from the department of philology of Moscow University’s faculty of philosophy in 1844. He entered the military service in 1845 with the aim of obtaining noble rank.
Fet’s first collection of verse was A Lyric Pantheon (1840). He retired from the army in 1858, took up the management of his estate, and wrote few poems. In the early 1860’s, a period of sharp social demarcation that was related to the current revolutionary situation in Russia, Fet wrote a number of markedly reactionary publicist works defending the rights of landowners. He wrote poetry again late in life, publishing four collections of verse under the overall title Evening Lights (1883–91).
Fet was the main adherent of the doctrine of art for art’s sake in Russia. His poetry shunned the vital sociopolitical issues of contemporary life. At the same time, however, his poetry was in a broader sense firmly based in life. Fet sought to express in verse the true substance of existence, and succeeded brilliantly in conveying a sense of the material world as it is perceived spontaneously by man. In Fet’s lyrics life is an omnipotent, all-embracing force (“Spring and night have covered the vale,” 1856?); the poet’s ego merges with the elements (“What happiness: it’s night and we’re alone!” 1854). Intense lyric emotion is evoked in Fet by nature and the mysterious forces of spring (Again a May Night, 1857), by beautiful winter scenes (“How sad! The pathway’s end,” 1862), and by evenings and nights (“Whispers. Timid breathing,” 1850, and “On a southern night on a haystack,” 1857).
Fet depicted the shifting landscape of the human soul with a wealth of vivid realistic detail, graphic images, and visual and aural effects. His tendency toward vivid and sensitive depiction was particularly evident in his poems written in imitation of those in the Greek Anthology, for example, “The Bacchante” (1843) and “Diana” (1847). Fet’s refined psychological analysis was new in Russian poetry; he was the first Russian poet to render with exactitude man’s fleeting, shifting emotions.
Fet’s poetry is musical and melodious. Meaning is sometimes subordinated to sound, which is a particularly suitable vehicle for expressing fleeting moods.
Fet is known as a translator of Horace, Ovid, Goethe, and other classical and modern poets. Fet was the first to translate into Russian Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea (1881). He also wrote the memoirs My Recollections (parts 1–2, 1890) and Early Years of My Life (published 1893). Many of Fet’s poems have been set to music.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. stikhotvorenii, 2nd ed. [Introductory article by B. Ia. Bukhshtab.] Leningrad, 1959.
Vechernie ogni. [Afterword by D. Blagoi.] Moscow, 1971. (Contains a bibliography of musical works that have been set to the poems included in the edition.)
REFERENCES
Eikhenbaum, B. M. “Fet.” In O poezii. Leningrad, 1969.
Ozerov, L. A. A. Fet: O masterstvepoeta. Moscow, 1970.
Bukhshtab, B. Ia. A. A. Fet: Ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva. Leningrad, 1974.
Blagoi, D. Mir kak krasota: O “Vechernykh ogniakh” A. Feta. Moscow, 1975.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukaztel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. I. MASLOVSKII)
N. A. NEKRASOV (1821-1878)
“A central character in Ivan Turgenev’s famous novel On the Eve was a female revolutionary. Equally influential was the poet Nikolai Nekrasov, who praised the courage of Russian women while lamenting the hardships of their lives in poems that were widely read. Nadezhda Krupskaia, the daughter of a Russian army officer and a governess who grew up to be a Bolshevichka as well as Lenin’s wife, testified in her later life that Nekrasov’s poetry had opened her eyes to injustice in Russia.” (Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik women, p. 32)
“Nekrasov, Nikolai Alekseevich. Born Nov. 28 (Dec. 12), 1821, in the village of Nemirov, present-day Vinnitsa Oblast; died Dec. 27, 1877 (Jan. 8, 1878), in St. Petersburg. Russian poet and literary figure.
Nekrasov spent his childhood in the village of Greshnevo (the present-day village of Nekrasovo) near Yaroslavl, on his father’s estate. There he gained first-hand knowledge about the life of the peasants. From 1832 to 1837 he studied at the Yaroslavl Gymnasium. In 1839, Nekrasov applied, without success, for admission to St. Petersburg University; he audited courses there in 1839–40. After his father withdrew all material support, Nekrasov lived the life of a homeless pauper in St. Petersburg. He began publishing poetry in 1838.
In 1840, Nekrasov published a still immature collection of poetry, Dreams and Sounds, which was severely criticized in a review by V. G. Belinskii. Nekrasov himself later destroyed this work. Being of steadfast character, he promised himself that he would not “die in a garret,” and energetically embarked on work in literature and journalism. “It is inconceivable how much I worked,” he later reminisced. Nekrasov wrote short stories, novellas, plays, theater reviews, and feuilletons. His vaudevilles, written under the pen name of N. A. Perepel’skii, were staged at the Aleksandrinskii Theater.
In 1840, Nekrasov became a contributor to the theatrical journal Panteon and in 1841 to the Literaturnaia gazeta (Literary Gazette) and Otechestvennye Zapiski (Fatherland Notes). In 1842–43 he became friendly with Belinskii and his circle. Although he wrote important works during this period, such as the essay “St. Petersburg Corners” (1845), Nekrasov realized that he had to go beyond “hack work.” He experienced a turning point in his career, which he himself interpreted as a “turn toward truth.”
Nekrasov became an adherent of the natural school in Russian literature. His poetry began to deal heavily with social issues, for example, his poems “On the Journey” (1845) and “Fatherland” (1846). In his critiques and reviews and in his editorial undertakings, Nekrasov became Belinskii’s companion in arms, joining the struggle for realism and narodnost’ (close ties with the people) in Russian literature. Nekrasov’s talent as an editor and organizer of the greatest Russian writers became apparent during his coeditorship of the journal Sovremennik (The Contemporary). He managed to preserve the democratic tendency of this journal even during the years of political reaction after 1848. During this time, in collaboration with A. Ia. Panaeva (who later became his wife), Nekrasov published in installments the novels Three Countries of the World (1848–49) and The Dead Lake (1851). In spite of the uneven writing and the touches of melodrama in the chapters written by Panaeva, these novels are permeated by a democratic mood.
During the social ferment of the mid-1850’s, Nekrasov made Sovremennik the organ of N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov. The new collaborators took a firm ideological stand in regard to the drastic exacerbation of class conflicts; this precipitated an ideological split within the editorial office. Nekrasov courageously refused to collaborate with a group of liberal writers, although he was bound to them by ties of old friendship; “all his sympathies were on Chernyshevskii’s side,” pointed out V. I. Lenin (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 22, p. 84). Nekrasov’s energy, editorial experience, tactfulness, and skillful but exhausting struggle with the censor made it possible to publish vivid revolutionary articles and reviews. “Only because his mind was so brilliant, his soul so generous, and his character so firmly intrepid could I write as I did,” reminisced Chernyshevskii (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 15, 1950, p. 793).
At the turn of the 1860’s, Nekrasov’s talent as a people’s poet, satirist, exposer of the ruling circles, and protagonist of the oppressed village attained full maturity. Contact with the ideas of the “new people” in Sovremennik helped determine Nekrasov’s sociopolitical and literary convictions and led him to write outstanding works imbued with revolutionary fervor. His poems of this period include “Poet and Citizen,” “Reflections Before a Mansion Doorway,” “A Song for Eremushka,” “On the Weather,” and “The Weeping of Children.” In 1856, Nekrasov’s collection Poems was published; it was received as a manifesto of progressive Russian literature, openly calling citizens to revolutionary action. During the revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859–61, the village theme became even more accentuated in Nekrasov’s poetry. His verses (“Meditation,” “The Funeral,” “Kalistrat”) and narrative poems, including The Peasant Children (1861), The Peddlers (1861), and Frost the Red-nosed (1863), express a genuine love for the Russian peasant. By this time, Nekrasov’s influence in Russian society had become exceptionally strong, particularly among progressive youth and revolutionary figures, who considered him Russia’s greatest poet.
When the government openly began to persecute revolutionaries in 1866, Sovremennik was “threatened by an inexorable fate.” Nekrasov made a desperate and futile attempt to save the journal and read his verses at a dinner in honor of M. N. Murav’ev. This was a mistake (“a dissonant sound”), which Nekrasov bitterly regretted to the last days of his life. He expressed his regret in an untitled poem written in 1867 (beginning line, “Soon I shall die. A paltry legacy . . . “), in which he exclaimed “Forgive me, oh my fatherland, forgive!”
In 1868, Nekrasov succeeded in taking over Otechestvennye zapiski (Fatherland Notes). In this journal he published several chapters of Who Can Be Happy in Russia?; poems about the Decembrists, including “The Grandfather” (1870) and “Russian Women” (1872–73); and the satire The Contemporaries, 1875–76. These works, which as a result of censorship appeared in print in greatly distorted form, as well as his lyric poetry, reflect the most important trends in Russia in the 1870’s. This was the era of revolutionary narodnichestvo (Populism) and of the “To the People” movement. Nekrasov sought to encourage the revolutionary intelligentsia, whose selflessness he admired and whom he called to perform heroic deeds, as in his “The Sowers” (1876, published 1877).
Nekrasov spent the last years of his life in strenuous creative and social work, while beset with worries about the journal. All this time he was suffering from a grave illness. But even during this period he managed to write his “last songs,” in which with undiminished poetic force he examined the life he had led and wrote about his love for the Russian people and about his “muse” (“The people’s sister—and mine”). Nekrasov’s funeral at the cemetery of the Novodevichii Convent in St. Petersburg assumed the character of a public political demonstration. G. V. Plekhanov spoke on behalf of the Land and Liberty society. In another significant speech, F. M. Dostoevsky ranked Nekrasov as an equal of A. S. Pushkin.
Nekrasov’s poetry, continuing in the tradition of Pushkin, Lermontov, and Gogol, reflected the massive upheavals in the life of the Russian people, who were awakening to fight for their liberation. It is this quality of Nekrasov’s work that earned him his special place among the Russian realist writers of the 19th century. He not only sympathized with the people but he identified himself with peasant Russia: he spoke in its name and in its language. Toward the end of his life, Nekrasov, in his poem “Elegy” (1874), proclaimed, “I have dedicated my lyre to the people.”
The theme of “the people,” the peasants, is reflected in Nekrasov’s poetry by an infinite variety of types and characters that were new in Russian literature. Indeed, this theme is present in all of his work, from his early poems “The Troika” and “Fatherland” to his great epic poems, as well as in his death-bed lyric addresses to the Russian people. No one but Nekrasov could create such cruelly realistic pictures of the poverty and sorrow of the Russian village (“Reflections Before a Mansion Doorway,” “Orina, the Mother of a Soldier,” “A Feast for All”) and no one but he saw so well the positive aspects of peasant life or created so many great, courageous characters (Dar’ia, Matrena, Savelii, Ermil Girin) that represent the hardy Russian peasantry, unbroken by centuries of serfdom. Nekrasov rejected the Narodniks’ (Populists’) false idealization of village life and condemned the long-suffering passivity of most of the peasants (“And would your fate be so much worse if you suffered less?”). The image of strong and suffering Russia is always in the background of Nekrasov’s broad panoramas of village life (“You are squalid and you are abundant; you are strong and you are powerless, Mother Russia!”).
The idea of “the people” and their fate pervaded all of Nekrasov’s writings. In his “The Railroad” (1864), a hymn of victory celebrating the creative force of the people breaks through the gloomy depiction of the perilous labor of the construction workers. Nekrasov’s lyrics are topical and highly dramatic; they are largely devoted to the question of one’s duty to the people, for example, “Knight for an Hour” (1860). In his poetry, themes of love and nature are colored by the personal relation of the poet to society and to the man of action who is motivated by high ideals. Nekrasov’s heroic images of Belinskii, Dobroliubov, and Chernyshevskii are filled with romantic revolutionary enthusiasm.
Nekrasov never ceased to be affected by the tragic fate of Russian women. This theme was expressed both in his lyric poetry and in his narrative poems about women Decembrists, namely, Princess Volkonskaia and Princess Trubetskaia. In these historical poems, events of the past are interpreted from the perspective of the fate of the Russian people and the revolutionary, Narodnik ideals of the 1870’s.
The poem “Who Can Be Happy in Russia?” (1866–76) is Nekrasov’s crowning achievement. It is a veritable poetic encyclopedia of the life of the people during the mid-19th century. The work is written on a grand scale and is remarkable for its keen, sociocritical analysis given from the viewpoint of the peasants. Of particular importance in the poem is the figure of Grisha Dobrosklonov, who embodies the peasant revolutionary, the carrier of the people’s ideal of freedom. Masterfully written and highly innovative, Nekrasov’s poem made extensive use of oral folk poetry. Songs, proverbs, and superstitions, colloquial peasant speech and peasant humor were all united in a single artistic whole.
A tendency toward satire is the most important characteristic of Nekrasov’s work. His early satirical verse exposed loyal officials, bourgeois philanthropists, and high-ranking hypocrites, for example, his “Contemporary Ode” (1845) and “Cradle Song” (1845). Later, Nekrasov wrote devastating satires on the whole political system: serf-owners, liberal public figures, tsarist censorship, and the sham freedom of the press. Such satires include “The Newspaper Office,” “Songs About the Free Word,” and “Court.” Nekrasov later wrote such masterpieces of Russian satire as “Recent Times” (1871) and “Contemporaries” (1875–76). The main characters of the second poem are bourgeois businessmen and bureaucrats, whom Nekrasov depicts in the forceful manner of Saltykov-Shchedrin.
A profoundly patriotic poet, Nekrasov made extensive use of folk language and folklore in his poetry. He freely used prosaisms, various speech styles, and intonations from songs. Nekrasov’s poetry, with its indivisible unity of social concern and high artistic quality, had a beneficial influence on the subsequent development of classical Russian and, later, Soviet poetry.
Many of Nekrasov’s poems became folk songs during his life-time; they are still sung today (“The Peddler’s Box,” “In the High Rye”). Russian composers wrote music to Nekrasov’s texts: M. P. Mussorgsky composed music for “Kalistrat” and “A Song for Eremushka”; C. A. Cui for “The Bridal Couple,” “Match maker and the Groom,” “On Hearing of the Horrors of the War,” and “Katerina”; and S. I. Taneev for “How Strongly Beats the Restless Heart.”
Even before the Revolution, Marxist literary scholars (G. V. Plekhanov and others) began to study Nekrasov’s legacy. After the October Revolution of 1917, much work was done to collect and study his manuscripts and to restore the original texts that had been banned or distorted by tsarist censorship. Soviet Nekrasov specialists are researching and correcting facts about Nekrasov’s life and studying his literary techniques.
There are two literary memorial museums dedicated to Nekrasov: an apartment-museum in Leningrad (opened 1946) and an estate-museum in the village of Karabikha in Yaroslavl Oblast (opened 1947).
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem, vols. 1–12. Moscow, 1948–52.
Poln. sobr. stikhotvorenii, vols. 1–3. [Leningrad] 1967.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1971.
REFERENCES
Lunacharskii, A. V. N. A. Nekrasov: Sobr. soch., vol. 1. Moscow, 1971.
Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vols. 49–54. Moscow, 1946–49.
Evgen’ev-Maksimov, V. E. Zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’ N. A. Nekrasova, vols. 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947–52.
Chukovskii, K. I. Masterstvo Nekrasova, 4th ed. Moscow, 1962.
Korman, B. O. Lirika N. A. Nekrasova. Voronezh, 1964.
Nekrasovskii sbornik, vols. 1–5. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951–73.
Gin, M. M. Ot fakta k obrazu i siuzhetu: O poezii N. A. Nekrasova. Moscow, 1971.
Stepanov, N. L. N. A. Nekrasov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1971.
Zhdanov, V. V. Nekrasov. Moscow, 1971.
Zhdanov, V. V. “Nekrasov i zarubezhnaia literatura.” Inostrannaia Literatura, 1971, no. 12.
N. A. Nekrasov i russkaia literatura 1821–1971. Moscow, 1971. (Collection of articles.)
Nekrasov i literatura narodov Sovetskogo Soiuza. Yerevan, 1972.
N. A. Nekrasov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. [Moscow, 1971.]
Ivanov, G. K. Nekrasov v muzyke. Moscow, 1972.
Corbet, C. Nekrasov: L’Homme et le poete. Paris, 1948.
Ashukin, N. S. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva N. A. Nekrasova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. V. ZHDANOV)
F. M. DOSTOEVSKY (1821-1881)
“Dostoevsky, Fedor Mikhailovich. Born Oct. 30 (Nov. 11), 1821, in Moscow; died Jan. 28 (Feb. 2), 1881, in St. Petersburg. Russian writer. The son of a doctor at the Mariia Hospital for the Poor.
In 1843, Dostoevsky graduated from the St. Petersburg Military Engineering School and entered the drawing office of the Department of Engineering, but he retired after a year. Dostoevsky’s first novel, Poor People (1846), placed him in the ranks of the recognized writers of the Gogolian tendency—“the natural school.” V. G. Belinskii praised the novel highly for its portrayal of the social tragedy of the “little man.” In Dostoevsky’s next work, the novella The Double (1846), Belinskii noted Dostoevsky’s “enormous creative force” and the profundity of his conception but spoke critically of the work’s “fantastic coloring” (seePoln. sobr. soch., vol. 10, 1956, pp. 41, 42). Subsequently, White Nights (1848) and Netochka Nezvanova (1849) appeared. These works vividly displayed those features of Dostoevsky’s realism that distinguished him from the writers of the natural school: his profound treatment of psychology and the exceptional nature of his characters and situations.
Dostoevsky’s world view took shape under the influence of Belinskii’s democratic and socialist ideas and the theories of the French Utopian socialists, especially C. Fourier. Starting in 1847, Dostoevsky attended the circle of M. V. Petrashevskii; in 1848 he became active in the revolutionary circles of N. A. Speshnev and S. F. Durov. At meetings of the Petrashevskii group, Dostoevsky twice read Belinskii’s banned letter to Gogol. Indicted in the Petrashevskii case, Dostoevsky was given the death sentence, which was commuted, just before he was to be executed by a firing squad, to four years at hard labor followed by a term as a soldier in the ranks.
Dostoevsky’s epileptic attacks, to which he had been disposed, grew worse during the period of hard labor. In 1859 he received permission to return to St. Petersburg, where he published the novellas Uncle’s Dream (1859) and The Village of Stepanchikovo (1859) and the novel The Insulted and Injured (1861). One of his greatest works, written shortly after his term at hard labor and dealing with those experiences, was The House of the Dead (1861-62). His depiction of the sufferings of the common people resounded with a strong condemnation of the system of serfdom. I. S. Turgenev compared The House of the Dead with Dante’s Inferno, and A. I. Herzen compared it with Michelangelo’s Last Judgment.
In the atmosphere of social upheaval of 1859-61 and during the subsequent crushing of the revolutionary movement, Dostoevsky played an active role in public affairs. During these years he became close friends with the literary critic A. A. Grigoriev and the philosopher N. N. Strakhov. In the journals Vremia (Time) and Epokha (Epoch), which he edited with his brother M. M. Dostoevsky, Dostoevsky propagandized the theory of so-called pochvennichestvo (the movement back to cultural and national roots). While sharply criticizing Russia’s serfdom, the dissolution of the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry), and the rise of new, capitalist forms of exploitation, Dostoevsky at the same time thought that Russia’s special course of historical development would enable it to avoid the revolutionary upheavals which in Western Europe had led to the triumph of the inhuman laws of capitalism. Dostoevsky placed his hopes on moral improvement and on a reconciliation of the intelligentsia, detached from the “soil” [pochva], with the people. In the light of his ideal he fiercely condemned Western European bourgeois civilization (Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, 1863) and the spiritual “underground” of the individualist (Notes From Underground, 1864). Dostoevsky engaged in polemics with the ideologists of revolutionary democracy (the journal Sovremennik [The Contemporary]) and especially with the radical positivists (the journal Russkoe slovo [The Russian Word]) on the course of social reforms, the problems of ethics, the relationship to the people, and the essence of art.
In the 1860’s and 1870’s, Dostoevsky wrote his most out-standing novels: Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1868), The Devils (1871-72 [also known in English translation as The Possessed]), A Raw Youth (1875), and The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80). These works reflect his most important philosophical, social, and moral concerns. In 1873-74 he edited the journal Grazhdanin (Citizen; published with Prince V. P. Meshcherskii). In this journal he began publishing The Diary of a Writer, which continued to appear monthly in separate issues in 1876-77 and then came out in one issue in 1880 and one in 1881. Along with reflections on the burning issues of social life, literary criticism, and reminiscences, several creative works appeared in the Diary,including “The Heavenly Christmas Tree,” “A Gentle Soul,” and “Dream of a Ridiculous Man” (also published in English as “Dream of a Queer Fellow”). The speech on A. S. Pushkin in which Dostoevsky expounded his conception of the poet’s national significance while revealing his own moral and philosophical ideals also appeared in the Diary.
Dostoevsky’s works reflect the contradictions of reality and of social thought during a period of acute disruption of social relations in Russia and in Western Europe. The new bourgeois system led to a crisis of social ideals and to an instability in moral life. Dostoevsky wrote of himself: “I am a child of my century, a child of unbelief and doubt to this day and even (I know this) to the grave. What awful torments I have paid and am still paying for this thirst to believe, which becomes stronger in my soul the more I find arguments against it” (Pis’ma, vol. 1, 1928, p. 142). The basis of Dostoevsky’s realistic work is the world of human suffering, the tragedy of the downtrodden and humiliated individual. Through his mastery of the art of psychological analysis, Dostoevsky showed how the suppressing of man’s dignity destroys his soul and divides his consciousness in two, nurturing the feeling of one’s own worthlessness coupled with the growing urge to protest.
With penetrating insight, Dostoevsky discerned the growth of bourgeois individualism and the ideology of “Napoleonism.” This insight is reflected in a gallery of characters from the “underground man” in Notes From Underground to Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov. While defending the freedom of the individual, Dostoevsky at the same time believed that unlimited self-will leads to inhumane acts. He regarded crime as the most typical manifestation of the law of individualistic self-affirmation. Applying the principles of the artistic investigation of the individual to the domain of social relations, Dostoevsky saw in the revolutionary movement of his time merely anarcho-individualistic rebelliousness (especially in the novel The Devils). He feared that in revolutionary practice the immoral idea that “the end justifies the means” would triumph. Dostoevsky found a basis for his artistic generalizations on politics in the activity of his contemporaries like M. A. Bakunin and S. G. Nechaev, whose socialist ideas took on a perverted, petit bourgeois form, and in the history of bourgeois revolutions, in which the demands of the working people were mercilessly suppressed. The dream of preserving faith in man and of attaining an ideal founded on the triumph of the principle of goodness drew Dostoevsky to the image of Christ, whom he envisioned as embodying the highest moral values. However, historical experience implacably refuted this faith, confirming that Christianity was incapable of creating heaven on earth. Ivan Karamazov, repeating Voltaire’s tenet, exclaims: “Please understand that it is not god I do not accept, it is the world created by him, god’s world, that I do not accept and cannot agree to accept” (Sobr. soch., vol. 9, 1958, p. 295). In “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” the philosophical culmination of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky rejects the theory of the “happy” society in which man’s freedom and spiritual interests are eliminated.
To those heroes who possess the power of analytical, all-destroying reason, Dostoevsky opposes characters who are endowed with goodness of heart and subtle intellectual intuition. The latter include Sonia Marmeladova (Crime and Punishment), Lev Myshkin (The Idiot), and Alesha Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), who are ready to suffer for all humanity. Concerning the novel The Idiot, Dostoevsky wrote: “The main idea of the novel is to portray a positively beautiful man. There is nothing in the world more difficult than this, especially nowadays” (Pis’ma, vol. 2, 1930, p. 71). However, the tragedy of Myshkin lies in the disparity between the ideally good, trusting lover of truth and real life. For this reason he is comical and tragic like Don Quixote, with whom he is associated in the novel.
While believing that it was impossible to construct society on the basis of science and reason, Dostoevsky at the same time recognized “the reality and truthfulness of the demands for communism and socialism” (Literaturnoe nasledstvo,vol. 83, 1971, p. 446). In probing the “depths of the soul,” he felt social means of struggle against evil to be insufficient and sought moral support for humanity in the concept of god. In The Diary of a Writer (1877), Dostoevsky asserted that “evil is hidden in man deeper than the socialist-physicians suppose, … evil cannot be avoided in any social order” (Poln. sobr. khudozhestvennykhproizvedenii, vol. 12, 1929, p. 210). At the same time he wrote that” people can be beautiful and happy without losing the ability to live on earth. I do not want to and I cannot believe that evil is man’s normal state” (ibid.,p. 122). Thus, in his solution of the problem of good and evil, Dostoevsky was deeply contradictory.
Dostoevsky created special forms of realistic works, which he characterized in the following way: “I have my own special view of reality (in art), and that which most people call almost fantastic and exceptional sometimes constitutes for me the very essence of the real. Commonplace phenomena and the conventional view of them are not realism, in my opinion, but the very opposite” (Pis’ma, vol. 2, p. 169).
Dostoevsky combined the power of a brilliant psychologist, the intellectual profundity of a thinker, and the passion of a publicist. He was the creator of the ideological novel, in which the development of the plot is, in general, conditioned by the struggle of ideas and by the collision of world views embodied in the protagonists representing different ideologies. He posed social and philosophical problems within the framework of the detective plot. The dynamism of composition, the suspense in the development of conflicts, the expressive and condensed style served to personalize complex moral-psychological and sociophilosophical problems.
Dostoevsky’s novels are polyphonic. “The multiplicity of independent and unblended voices and consciousnesses, the genuine polyphony of voices, each with its full value, is indeed the fundamental feature of Dostoevsky’s novels,” writes M. M. Bakhtin, the first person to examine the polyphonism of Dostoevsky’s works (Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo, 1963, p. 7). At the same time the author’s relation to the world is revealed in Dostoevsky’s works with great vigor and fullness. The polyphonic quality of Dostoevsky’s artistic thinking was a reflection of the “many-voicedness” of the social reality that he brilliantly exposed in the middle of the 19th century, a polyphony that was to attain its culminating point in the 20th century. This social insight explains the powerful influence of Dostoevsky not only on art but also on the philosophical and aesthetic thought of the 20th century. The contradictory nature of Dostoevsky’s works was directly related to the contradictory interpretations of his activity as an artist and a thinker. One group of bourgeois philosophers considered Dostoevsky a Christian apologist (V. V. Rozanov, D. S. Merezhkovskii, N. A. Berdiaev). Others tried to transform him into a precursor of the Nietzschean ideas of anarchobourgeois individualism. Representatives of existentialism, who try to portray Dostoevsky, along with S. Kierkegaard and F. Nietzsche, as their ideological precursor, devote much attention to his work. Marxist criticism recognizes Dostoevsky’s genius as an artist without ceasing to struggle against his reactionary ideas. In the articles of A. V. Lunacharskii the contradictions of Dostoevsky’s world view are interpreted from a Marxist position.
The humanistic, antibourgeois character of Dostoevsky’s realism and his highly original ability in creating the intellectual novel exerted an enormous influence on Russian and world literature.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. khudozhestvennykh proizvedenii, vols. 1-13. Edited by B. V. Tomashevskii and K. Khalabaev. Leningrad, 1926-30.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-10. Under the general editorship of L. P. Grossman et al. Moscow, 1956-58.
Pis’ma: 1832-1881, vols. 1-4. Edited and annotated by A. S. Dolinin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1928-59.
REFERENCES
Lunacharskii, A. V. Sobr. soch., vol. 1. Moscow, 1963. Pages 157-99.
Lunacharskii, A. V. “Vstupitel’noe slovo na vechere, posviashchennom F. M. Dostoevskomu, 29 noiabria 1929 g.” In Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 82. Moscow, 1970.
F. M. Dostoevskii v russkoi kritike: Sbornik statei (articles of V. G. Belinskii, N. A. Dobroliubov, D. I. Pisarev, N. K. Mikhailovskii, M. Gorky, and others). Moscow, 1956.
Pereverzev, V. F. Tvorchestvo Dostoevskogo [2nd ed.]. Moscow, 1922.
Grossman, L. P. Zhizn’ i trudy F. M. Dostoevskogo. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935.
Grossman, L. P. Dostoevskii, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1965.
Shklovskii, V. Za iprotiv: Zametki o Dostoevskom. Moscow, 1957.
Tvorchestvo F. M. Dostoevskogo. Moscow, 1959.
Dolinin, A. S. Poslednie romany Dostoevskogo. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Fridlender, G. M. Realizm Dostoevskogo. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Kirpotin, V. la. F. M. Dostoevskii: Tvorcheskii put’ (1821-1859). Moscow, 1960.
Kirpotin, V. la. Dostoevskii v shestidesiatye gody. Moscow, 1966.
Kirpotin, V. la. Razocharovanie i krushenie Rodiona Raskol’nikova. Moscow, 1970.
Chirkov, N. M. O stile Dostoevskogo: Problematika, Idei, Obrazy. Moscow, 1967.
Kudriavtsev, Lu. G. Bunt ili religiia: (O mirovozzrenii F. M. Dostoevskogo). [Moscow] 1969.
Bel’chikov, N. F. Dostoevskii v protsesse petrashevtsev. Moscow, 1971.
Dostoevskii i ego vremia. Edited by V. G. Bazanov and G. M. Fridlender. Leningrad, 1971.
Suchkov, B. “Velikii russkii pisatel’.” Literaturnaia gazeta, Nov. 17, 1971.
Khrapchenko, M. “Dostoevskii i ego literaturnoe nasledie.” Kommunist, 1971, no. 16.
F. M. Dostoevskii v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, vols. 1-2. Moscow, 1964.
Dostoevskaia, A. G. Vospominaniia. Moscow, 1971.
Opisanie rukopisei F. M. Dostoevskogo. Edited by V. S. Nechaeva. Moscow, 1957.
F. M. Dostoevskii: Bibliografiia proizvedenii F. M. Dostoevskogo i literatury o nem. 1917-1965. Moscow, 1968.
Meier-Gräfe, J. Dostojewski als Dichter. Berlin, 1925.
Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited by W. A. Kaufmann. Cleveland-New York [1968].” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
“Maikov, Apollon Nikolaevich. Born May 23 (June 4), 1821, in Moscow; died Mar. 8 (20), 1897, in St. Petersburg. Russian poet.
Maikov was the son of the academic painter N. A. Maikov and the brother of V. N. Maikov and L. N. Maikov. He graduated from the law department of St. Petersburg University in 1841. He worked in the library of the Rumiantsev Museum and, beginning in 1852, on the Committee of Foreign Censorship. Maikov began to publish as early as 1835. His first collection, Poems (1842), was received favorably by V. G. Belinskii. Maikov’s liberal views of the 1840’s (his narrative poems Two Fates, 1845, and Mashen’ka, 1846) were later replaced by conservative opinions (the poem “The Carriage,” 1854) and by Slavophile and Pan-Slavic ideas (the narrative poem Clairmont Cathedral, 1853). During the 1860’s, Maikov’s work met with severe criticism from the revolutionary democrats. Maikov’s aesthetic views also underwent a change; a brief interest in the natural school gave way to an active defense of “art for art’s sake.”
Maikov’s poetry deals with the world of culture. His interests include art (the cycle of poems In the Anthological Genre), European and Russian history (the verse cycles Centuries and Peoples and Echoes of History), the work of Western and Eastern poets, whose works Maikov translated and stylized (for example, his cycle Imitations of the Ancients). Maikov’s poems contain many mythological symbols and historical names; however, his vivid descriptions of other ages and peoples are often merely decorative. Maikov was particularly attracted to Greek and Roman culture, in which he saw a multitude of ideal forms of the beautiful. Outstanding in his voluminous legacy of verse, Maikov’s poems about Russian nature still preserve their poetic charm (“Spring! The First Window-frames Removed,” “In a Shower,” “Fishing,” and “Swallows”). Maikov also made a verse translation of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign (1866-70) and translated the poetry of Heine, Goethe, Longfellow, and Mickiewicz. Many of Maikov’s poems have been set to music (by Tchaikovsky and by Rimsky-Korsakov).
WORKS
Izbr. proizv. [With an Introduction by N. L. Stepanov.] Leningrad, 1957.
REFERENCES
Chernyshevskii, N. G. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 2. Moscow, 1949. Pages 643-47.
Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. E. Sobr. soch., vol. 5. Moscow, 1966. Pages 424-35.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. I. MASLOVSKII)
A. N. OSTROVSKII (1823-1886)
“Ostrovskii, Aleksandr Nikolaevich. Born Mar. 31 (Apr. 12), 1823, in Moscow; died June 2 (14), 1886, in Shchelykovo, in what is now Ostrovskoe Raion, Kostroma Oblast. Russian playwright. Son of a juridical official. Mother’s family from lower orders of the clergy.
Ostrovskii spent his childhood and early youth in Zamoskvorech’e—a unique section of Moscow with a traditional, petit bourgeois, merchant way of life. He attended the First Moscow Gymnasium from 1835 to 1840. From 1840 to 1843 he was a student in the faculty of law at Moscow University but did not take a degree. His service in the Moscow courts from 1843 to 1851 provided him with a great deal of subject matter for his writing.
Ostrovskii’s first literary efforts were marked by the influence of the “Natural School” (Notes of a Resident of Zamoskvorech’e, 1847). In 1847 the newspaper Moskovskii gorodskoi listok published his first dramatic work, Scenes of Family Happiness (entitled A Family Scene in later publications). Ostrovskii gained literary fame with the comedy It’s a Family Affair, We’ll Settle It Among Ourselves, published in 1850. Originally entitled The Bankrupt, this work became popular even before its publication through a reading by Ostrovskii and P. M. Sadovskii and evoked favorable comments from N. V. Gogol, I. A. Goncharov, and T. N. Granovskii. It was banned from stage presentation (it was produced for the first time only in 1861), and Ostrovskii was placed under police surveillance by the personal order of Nicholas I.
In his first works, Ostrovskii adhered to an approach he described as denunciatory, moral, and civic (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 13, 1951, p. 141). He satirized the merchant milieu and especially its crude primitiveness and deceitfulness. Meticulous character development, accuracy of everyday scenes, humor and colorful language were the young Ostrovskii’s first achievements in realism. In his comedy The Poor Bride (1851), the playwright attempted to create a sociopsychological play drawn from the daily life of government officials.
Most of Ostrovkii’s early plays were published in the conservative journal Moskvitianin, on which Ostrovskii served both as an editor and a critic from 1850 to 1851. For some time he was part of the journal’s “young editorial staff,” and he formed close personal friendships with staff members. It was partly because of the influence of this circle and its chief ideologist, A. A. Grigor’ev, that Ostrovskii’s plays Don’t Get Into Another Man’s Sledge (1852), Poverty Is No Crime (1853), and You Can’t Always Live as You Like (1854) idealized the Russian patriarchal way of life and customs. These attitudes deadened Ostrovskii’s critical faculties. Nevertheless, the plays of this period revealed a search for positive elements in the life of the common people and introduced such original characters as Liubim Tortsov. Ostrovskii’s skills as a playwright also developed.
Ostrovskii’s plays rapidly won a place in the Russian repertoire after his comedy Don’t Get Into Another Man’s Sledge was produced in 1853 at the Bolshoi Theater by the Moscow Dramatic Troupe. For more than three decades, almost every season at Moscow’s Malyi Theater and St. Petersburg’s Aleksandrinskii Theater introduced a new Ostrovskii play.
From 1856, Ostrovskii regularly contributed to the journal Sovremennik and was friendly with the leaders of democratic Russian journals. During the years of social upsurge before the 1861 peasant reform, social criticism again became an important element in his work, and the dramatic quality of the conflicts intensified. In his comedy A Hangover at Someone Else’s Feast (1855), Ostrovskii not only created the impressive character Tit Titych Bruskov—an embodiment of the dark and crude force of domestic despotism—but also first used the word samodur (petty tyrant), which later was used to describe a whole gallery of Ostrovskii’s characters. The comedy A Profitable Post (1856) denounces bribe-taking among officials, a widely accepted practice. The Ward (1858) represents a poignant protest against the oppression of the individual. Ostrovskii’s accomplishments of this period were capped by his drama The Thunderstorm (1859), inspired by the author’s impressions gained from travels through the cities of the upper Volga region in 1856 and 1857.
In The Thunderstorm, Ostrovskii the satirist and “chronicler of daily life” depicts the stagnant atmosphere of a small provincial town with its coarseness, sanctimoniousness, and powerful rich and “elders.” Ostrovskii the dramatic poet allows the reader to experience the attractions of another world—the world of nature, the Volga, beauty, and tragic poetry—all of which permeates the character Katerina. The thunderstorm symbolizes the confusion in the heroine’s soul, conflicting emotions, and the moral elevation of tragic love. At the same time, it embodies the yoke of fear, under which people live. The “kingdom of darkness” is terrible not only because of the external force of Kabanikha’s and Dikoi’s oppression and persecution but also because of the inner weakness of submissive, weak-willed people, such as Boris and Tikhon. This kingdom of submissiveness and blind fear is undermined by two forces: on the one hand, reason, common sense, and education, embodied by Kuligin, and on the other, the pure soul of Katerina, which is alien to this world even though it is unconsciously and solely controlled by a sincere and untainted nature. In his essay “A Ray of Light in the Kingdom of Darkness” (1860), N. A. Dobroliubov highly praised the proud force and inner determination of The Thunderstorm’s heroine as a sign of the profound protest ripening throughout the country.
During the 1860’s, Ostrovskii remained faithful to his original theme, continuing to write true-to-life comedies and dramas; the plays showed as much talent as before, but they reinforced old motifs rather than mastering new ones (Difficult Times, 1863; The Jokers, 1864; and The Abyss, 1865). At this time Ostrovskii also turned to Russian history and patriotic themes. Based on his study of a wide range of sources, he wrote a cycle of historical plays: Koz’ma Zakhar’ich Minin-Sukhoruk (1861; 2nd ed., 1866), The Voevoda (The Military Governor, 1864; 2nd ed., 1885), The False Dmitrii and Vasilii Shuiskii (1866), and Tushino (1866).
Ostrovskii began a highly creative period in the late 1860’s, when themes and characters of the new, postreform Russia emerged in his dramas. Almost all his dramatic works of the 1870’s and early 1880’s were printed in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. Ostrovskii debunked postreform illusions and created new character types from the new breed of businessmen, acquirers, emerging patriarchal “moneybags,” and “Europeanized” merchants in a brilliant cycle of satirical comedies including Even a Wise Man Stumbles (1868), Fiery Heart (1868), Easy Money (1869), The Forest (1870), and Wolves and Sheep (1875). During this period, he used devices of psychological satire sometimes akin to those used by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (Glumov in the comedy about “wise men” and Milonov and Bodaev in The Forest). The playwright’s moral ideal was epitomized by persons of unselfishly noble nature and purity of soul, embodied in his characters Parasha (Fiery Heart) and Aksiusha and the actor Neschastlivtsev (The Forest). His concepts of happiness, the meaning of life, and man’s duty are seen in the play Hard-earned Bread (1874) and—in the form of a poetic utopia—in the fairy tale The Snow Maiden (1873).
During the final years of his creative life, Ostrovskii wrote important sociopsychological dramas and comedies about the tragic fates of abundantly talented, highly sensitive women caught in a cynical and mercenary world (The Girl Without a Dowry, 1878; The Ultimate Sacrifice, 1878; and Talents and Admirers, 1882). In these plays he also developed new forms of dramatic expressiveness that in some aspects anticipated the plays of A. P. Chekhov. Retaining the characteristic traits of his dramaturgy, Ostrovskii attempted to embody “inner struggle” in an “intelligent, refined comedy” (A. N. Ostrovskii v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, 1966, p. 294).
Ostrovskii’s 47 original plays, along with plays written in collaboration with the young dramatists N. Ia. Solov’ev and P. M. Nevezhin, and numerous translations and adaptations of foreign plays, formed an extensive repertoire for the Russian stage. Although national in traditions and sources, Ostrovskii’s dramas contain much that is profound and of universal significance. The playwright’s “moralizing” is closely linked with the democratic firmness of his moral ideal. Ostrovskii enriched drama with the experience of the social novel. He wrote what Dostoevsky called “novellas in roles” (“Neizdannyi Dostoevskii,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 83, 1971, p. 608). Ostrovskii depicts everyday life in terms of living, human relations, thoughts, and language rather than merely describing the superficial characteristics of the merchant, petit bourgeois, or gentry milieu. His masterful dialogue and his skillful construction of plots give rise to a naturalness of action and speech and to dramatically taut or lyrically animated, colorful humor.
Exceptionally socially conscious, Ostrovskii struggled all his life for the establishment of a new type of realistic theater, a genuinely artistic national repertoire, and a new standard of ethics for actors. In 1865 he created the Moscow Arts Circle. He founded and headed the Society of Russian Playwrights (1870), and he sent numerous projects and notes on the need for reforms in the Russian theater to government officials. Six months before his death, Ostrovskii accepted a post as artistic director of Moscow’s theaters.
Ostrovskii’s dramas were a very important factor in the development of the Russian national theater. As a playwright and director, Ostrovskii contributed to the formation of a new school of realistic acting and to the development of a galaxy of actors, especially at Moscow’s Malyi Theater; which included the Sadovskii family, S. V. Vasil’ev, L. P. Kositskaia, and later G. N. Fedotova and M. N. Ermolova. Ostrovskii has been recognized as one of the great writers closest in spirit to Soviet theater.
A great deal of scholarly study of Ostrovskii’s work has been done in the Soviet Union, including much textual study. Scholarly collections and monographs on his dramaturgy as a whole, the stage renderings of individual plays, and his language and style have been published. The estate where Ostrovskii lived for many years, died, and was buried—Shchelykovo—has been a museum-preserve since 1948. At the Malyi Theater in Moscow there is a monument to Ostrovskii (bronze and granite, 1924–29, sculptor N. A. Andreev).
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–12. (Edited by M. I. Pisarev.) St. Petersburg, 1904–09.
Poln. sobr. soch. vols. 1–16. Moscow, 1949–53.
Poln. sobr. soch. v 12 tt., vols. 1–2—. Moscow, 1973–74—.
REFERENCES
Dolgov, N. N. A. N. Ostrovskii Moscow-Petrograd, 1923.
A. N. Ostrovskii—dramaturg. (Collected essays edited, by V. A. Filippov) Moscow, 1946.
Reviakin, A. I. A. N. Ostrovskii. Moscow, 1949.
Reviakin, A. 1. “Groza” A. N. Ostrovskogo, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1962.
Reviakin, A. I. Moskva v zhizni i tvorchestve A. N. Ostrovskogo. Moscow, 1962.
Lotman, L. M. A. N. Ostrovskii i russkaia dramaturgiia ego vremeni. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961.
Kholodov, E. G. Masterstvo Ostrovskogo. Moscow, 1963.
Nasledie A. N. Ostrovskogo i sovetskaia kul’tura. Moscow, 1974.
A. N. Ostrovskii i literaturno-teatral’noe dvizhenie XIX-XX vekov. Leningrad, 1974.
Neizdannye pis’ma k A. N. Ostrovskomu. Moscow-Leningrad, 1932.
A. N. Ostrovskii v russkoi kritike. (Collected essays edited by G. I. Vladykin.) Moscow, 1953.
Denisiuk, N. (compiler). Kriticheskaia literatura o proizvedeniiakh A. N. Ostrovskogo, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1906–07.
Kogan, L. P. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. N. Ostrovskogo. [Moscow] 1953.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. IA. LAKSHIN)
“Nikitin, Ivan Savvich. Born Sept. 21 (Oct. 3), 1824, in Voronezh; died there Oct. 16 (28), 1861. Russian poet.
The son of a merchant, Nikitin attended a theological seminary until 1843. The financial ruin of his father forced Nikitin to become an innkeeper. In 1859 he opened a bookstore, which became an important center of the literary and public life of Voronezh.
Nikitin was first published in 1853. His early works, written from 1849 to 1854, were marked by contradictory tendencies; although much of his poetry of this period dealt with religious, mystical moods and was devoted to idyllic, contemplative descriptions of nature, social motifs were also discernible in some poems, for example, “The Silence of Night” and “Revenge.”
Nikitin’s creative maturity coincided with the social upsurge of the mid-1850’s; his world view was greatly influenced by revolutionary democratic criticism, including articles about himself by N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov. The life of the people became one of his poetic themes, reflected in the poems “The Barge Hauler,” “The Coachman’s Wife,” and “Street Meeting” and in the narrative poem The Kulak (1857; published 1858). Nikitin re-created the hopeless life of the peasants in the poems “A Night’s Lodgings in the Village,” “The Plowman,” “The Beggar,” and “Funeral Repast,” and he depicted the sufferings of the city’s poor in the poems “The Tailor” and “Mother and Daughter.” Poems protesting the unjust social order included “The Village Elder,” “Again, the Familiar Apparitions,” and “Master of the House.” The narrative poem Taras (1860; published 1861) developed the same theme. Revolutionary motifs were characteristic of Nikitin’s popular poems, including “Our Age Will Die a Shameful Death! . . . ,” “Brothers, We Bear a Heavy Cross. . . ,” and “The Despised Tyranny Will Fall” (all published for the first time in 1906). Nikitin’s prose work Diary of a Seminarian (1860; published 1861) posed the problem of molding a new man, so important for democratic literature.
Nikitin is an acknowledged master of the poetic Russian landscape. M. Gorky wrote of Nikitin with great respect, calling him a “brilliant and socially important” poet (Sovetskoe iskusstvo, June 23, 1936). Nikitin’s talent was highly rated by L. N. Tolstoy, I. A. Bunin, A. T. Tvardovskii, and M. V. Isakovskii. His lyric poems were set to music by many composers, including N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, R. M. Glière, and S. Moniuszko. A memorial literary museum has been opened in Voronezh in the house in which Nikitin lived from 1846.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem, vols. 1–3. St. Petersburg, 1913–15.
Soch. vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1960–61.
Poln. sobr. stikhotvorenii. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965.
REFERENCES
Tonkov, V. A. I. S. Nikitin: Ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1968.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX veka: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. A. TONKOV)
N. V. SHELGUNOV (1824-1891)
“Shelgunov Nikolai Vasilievich (1824-1891) – a prominent Russian publicist and public figure, revolutionary democrat, associate of N.G. Chernyshevsky. Even in his student years, Shelgunov was imbued with the ideas of Herzen, Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. In the 1850s, he established contact abroad with A.I. Herzen and wide circles of the Russian revolutionary emigration. Upon his return to his homeland, Shelgunov joined Chernyshevsky’s Sovremennik.
In the journalism of N.V. Shelgunov, a prominent place is occupied by the popularization of natural science and criticism of works of art, but it was mainly devoted to issues of history, politics and socio-economic relations. In solving the main question of philosophy, Shelgunov proceeded from Chernyshevsky’s materialistic propositions about a single material nature, about a single human body, which is part of the rest of the material world, a product of the development of matter. Shelgunov criticizes idealistic propositions about innate ideas, about the primacy of consciousness. The mind processes only the material that it receives from the impressions of the outside world, says Shelgunov.
In 1861, NV Shelgunov published an article entitled The Workers’ Proletariat in England and France in Sovremennik. In it, he outlined the content of F. Engels’ book The Condition of the Working Class in England and thus acquainted the Russian public with F. Engels’ outstanding Marxist work, which undoubtedly influenced the development of Russian social thought. Defending F. Engels from the attacks of the reactionary camp of Russian journalism, Shelgunov wrote: “Among the writers attacked by Hildebrant is Engels, one of the best and noblest Germans. This name is completely unknown to him, although European economic literature owes him the best essay on the economic life of the English worker … Engels calls evil by its name and does not want this evil.”
Philosophically, in addition to the named work of Shelgunov, the most interesting are his articles: Socio-economic fatalism, The loss of ignorance, Attempts of Russian consciousness, Letters about education. In his views on society, Shelgunov basically remained an idealistic enlightener, despite to the fact that he often paid tribute to the role of the masses in history. In his literary critical speeches, Shelgunov fought for the progressive role of art, for art that contributes to the development of society. Shelgunov exerted a progressive influence on his contemporaries as a talented publicist, denouncer of serfdom and the exploitative, bestial nature of growing capitalism. Tsarism brutally persecuted Shelgunov. Shelgunov spent several years in prison, for many years he was in exile.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
V. V. STASOV (1824-1906)
“Stasov Vladimir Vasilievich (1824-1906) – an outstanding Russian theorist and art historian, art and music critic. Graduated from the School of Law. From 1857 he worked at the Public Library in St. Petersburg. Being a follower of the materialist aesthetics of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Stasov was an ardent champion of the advanced, democratic trend in Russian art, a consistent propagandist of the Russian national realistic school. Following Chernyshevsky, Stasov sees in art a reflection of reality and demands from a work of art that it reflect and explain life and pass judgment on everything that has become obsolete, reactionary, and slows down the movement forward.
An outstanding ideologist of critical realism, Stasov considered art a powerful social force in the struggle for the democratic reorganization of society. Resolutely and sharply opposing cosmopolitanism in art, he consistently fought for the nationality of art and the development of Russian national art. He emphasized that art, which is not rooted in the life of the people, is powerless. According to Stasov, the development of his own, national art school, close to the interests and needs of the broad masses, is the only way to the flourishing of art. He sharply criticizes art which is far from the people, divorced from the burning issues of our time, the so-called art for art.
As an art critic, Stasov played a huge role in strengthening democracy and realism in art; supported leading artists (The Itinerants, including Repin, Kramskoi, Savitsky, Perov, Makovsky, Shishkin, Serov), leading composers (The Mighty Handful of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Cui, Balakirev and Rimsky-Korsakov), V.V. Stasov fought backwardness, reaction in art and aesthetics, smashed academicism and aestheticism, consistently exposed the formalism and decadence of the late 19th and early 20th-century Western European and Russian art.
Not adhering to consistently revolutionary democratic views, sometimes paying tribute to liberalism, Stasov failed to show the real historical reasons for the decline of bourgeois art, failed to understand that only a socialist revolution can provide art with unlimited opportunities for development. But under the conditions of that time, the activities of V.V. Stasov had progressive significance. The main works of Stasov: Twenty-five years of Russian art (1882-1883), The brakes of the new Russian art (1885), Essays on art in Europe in the XIX century (1901).” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
“Stasov, Vladimir Vasil’evich. Born Jan. 2 (14), 1824, in St. Petersburg; died there Oct. 10 (23), 1906. Russian art and music critic, art historian, and archaeologist. One of the foremost figures in 19th-century Russian democratic culture. Honorary member of the Academy of Sciences (1900). Son of architect V. P. Stasov.
Stasov came from a gifted family that produced a number of outstanding cultural and sociopolitical figures. After graduating from the School of Jurisprudence in 1843, he practiced law for a time but soon devoted himself entirely to art. In 1872 he became head of the art division of the Public Library (now the M. E. Sal-tykov-Shchedrin State Public Library).
Stasov considered art and music criticism to be his life’s work. Beginning in 1847 he regularly published articles on literature, art, and music. The range of his interests was encyclopedic: he wrote articles on Russian and foreign music, painting, sculpture, and architecture, and he compiled collections based on his research in archaeology, history, philology, and folklore. Maintaining progressive democratic views, Stasov relied in his critical works on the aesthetic principles of the Russian revolutionary democrats—V. G. Belinskii, A. I. Herzen, and N. G. Cherny-shevskii. He considered realism and narodnost’ (the popular nature of art) to be the bases of progressive contemporary art. Stasov was opposed to academic art, which was far removed from life and had its official center in Russia at the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Arts. He advocated realistic art and the democratization of artistic life.
A man of great erudition, Stasov was a friend of many progressive artists, musicians, and writers. He advised a number of them and defended them against the attacks of reactionary official criticism. He was actively associated with the Artists’ Artel, the Society of Wandering Art Exhibitions (peredvizhniki), and the New School of Russian Music, whose members he called the Mighty Bunch (the Russian Five). Stasov was the first to appreciate and support the work of M. M. Antokol’skii, V. M. Vasnetsov, V. V. Vereshchagin, I. N. Kramskoi, V. G. Perov, and I. E. Repin. He regularly published articles analyzing and supporting their new works.
In analyzing the artistic imagery of a work, Stasov denounced vestiges of the feudal serf-owning and bourgeois-autocratic orders in Russia. He affirmed the democratic ideals of freedom and people’s rights and instilled in both artists and their audiences a spirit of patriotism. Stasov consistently defended independent national paths of development for the Russian school of composers and was influential in the formation of the aesthetic and creative principles of the Russian Five. His 30-odd works on the music of M. I. Glinka, including a detailed monograph (1857), greatly helped to popularize that composer. Stasov also wrote influential monographs on the composers M. P. Mussorgsky and A. P. Borodin and the artists K. P. Briullov, A. A. Ivanov, Vereshchagin, Perov, Repin, Kramskoi, N. N. Ge, and Antokol’skii. He also wrote profiles of a number of performing artists, including O. A. Petrov and A. Rubinstein. He praised the work of A. K. Glazunov, A. K. Liadov, A. N. Skriabin, and F. Chaliapin.
Stasov was one of the first to systematically collect and publish the letters of Russian artists and composers; he published the letters of Kramskoi, Antokol’skii, A. A. Ivanov, Glinka, A. S. Dar-gomyzhskii, A. N. Serov, and Mussorgsky. As an art historian, he affirmed the importance of the realistic traditions of Velasquez, Rembrandt, Hals, and Goya. He was also instrumental in making popular in Russia the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Berlioz, Chopin, and Grieg.
Stasov’s articles were publicistic and polemical. In the heat of argument he sometimes fell victim to a certain one-sidedness and was excessively critical of some outstanding artistic developments. Nonetheless, he made a major contribution to the solution of extremely important problems of Russian realistic aesthetics. Concern over Russian art permeated Stasov’s extensive correspondence with artists, writers, and musicians. His works belong to the classical heritage of Russian artistic thought.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. St. Petersburg, 1894–1906.
Izbr. soch., vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1952.
Pis’ma k rodnym, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1953–62.
REFERENCES
V. V. Stasov: Sb. statei i vospominanii. Compiled by E. D. Stasova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
“K izucheniiu naslediia V. V. Stasova.” Sovetskaia muzyka, 1974, no. 7.
Lebedev, A. K., and A. V. Solodovnikov. V. V. Stasov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1976.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by IU. V. KELDYSH and A. K. LEBEDEV)
M. E. SALTYKOV-SHCHEDRIN (1826-1889)
“Saltykov, Mikhail Evgrafovich (also Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin; real surname Saltykov, pen name N. Shchedrin). Born Jan. 15 (27), 1826, in the village of Spas-Ugol, in what is now Taldom Raion, Moscow Oblast; died Apr. 28 (May 10), 1889, in St. Petersburg. Russian writer.
Saltykov’s father was descended from an old aristocratic family, and his mother was the daughter of a wealthy Moscow merchant. Saltykov spent his childhood years on his father’s country estate. There he witnessed the life of the serfs, which he subsequently described in Old Times in Poshekhon’e. He studied at the Moscow Institute of the Nobility from 1836 to 1838 and at the Alexander (formerly Tsarskoe Selo) Lycée from 1838 to 1844. It was while he was here that he began to write and publish poems. Upon graduating from the lycée, he served in the Ministry of War from 1844 to 1848, During the 1840’s he became acquainted with the Petrashevtsy, an advanced circle of St. Petersburg youth, and entertained a passion for the Utopian socialism of C. Fourier and Saint-Simon.
Saltykov’s first novellas, Contradictions (1847) and A Confused Case (1848), which pointedly depicted social problems in the spirit of the natural school, provoked the displeasure of the authorities. In April 1848, Saltykov was arrested and later banished to serve in Viatka for what Nicholas I called “an injurious mode of thinking and pernicious ambition to spread ideas that have already shaken all of Western Europe, subverted its authorities, and disturbed public peace” (cited by S. Makashin in Saltykov-Shchedrin: Biografiia, vol. 1, 1951, p. 293). In Viatka, Saltykov was appointed senior official for special assignments under the governor, and in 1850 he became a counselor of the provincial administration. Saltykov frequently traveled throughout Viatka and the adjacent provinces on government business and made detailed observations of the life of the peasants and provincial civil servants. The death of Nicholas I and the new government policy adopted after Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War (1853–56) brought Saltykov his freedom in late 1855. Returning to St. Petersburg during the resulting social upsurge, he immediately resumed his literary work, which had been interrupted by his nearly eight-year-long “Viatka captivity.” In the article “The Poems of Kol’tsov” (1856), a statement of his views, Saltykov urged writers to promote the social and practical role of literature and engage in the “study” of contemporary life, social issues, and, above all, the basic needs of the people. The article was banned by the censors, but Saltykov expressed the same views in the literary work Provincial Sketches (1856–57). He published the work under the pen name “the court counsellor N. Shchedrin,” which virtually replaced his real name in the minds of his contemporaries. In this, his first book, Saltykov depicted life in Russia during the last years of the serfholding system. His sweeping portrayals were marked by sharp contrasts: intense disapproval of serfdom and the civil service, skepticism for “talented personalities” (his own satirical term for the “superfluous men” of the noble landowning intelligentsia), and love and hope for the people and the peasantry. N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov highly esteemed the “spirit of truth” of this work, powerful in its portrayal of the social milieu and social psychology. The sketches enjoyed enormous success and immediately established Saltykov’s reputation as a writer.
At this time, however, Saltykov had not yet made up his mind to leave state service. Moreover, he believed that the government, having proclaimed a new, liberal policy, was capable of carrying out far-reaching progressive reforms, and he wished to take an active part in their execution. From 1856 to 1858 he served as an official for special assignments in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and helped prepare the Peasant Reform. Between 1858 and 1862 he was vice-governor first in Riazan’ and then in Tver’. As an administrator (the proponents of serfdom nicknamed him “Vice-Robespierre”), Saltykov initiated dozens of court investigations of criminal landowners and dismissed many bribe-takers and thieves from service. In early 1862, probably upon the private suggestion of the authorities, Saltykov went into retirement, ostensibly for reasons of health. His life and service in the provinces provided him with much material for his writing. At the same time, his experience as an official of the province-level administration dispelled his illusions about liberal enlightenment and his faith in the possibility of progressive “public service” while in the employ of the state.
During the years as vice-governor, Saltykov continued to publish short stories, sketches, plays, and dramatic scenes (from 1860, primarily in the journal Sovremennik). Some of these works resembled the Provincial Sketches and with the Sketches made up the Krutogorsk cycle. Others were intended for a cycle about the “dying” and a cycle about the “Glupov inhabitants,” both of which were never completed. The two cycles shared the common idea of the historical doom of the autocratic serfholding system. Most of these sketches and dramatic scenes were published in Innocent Stories (1863) and Satires in Prose (1863).
After leaving state service, Saltykov undertook the publication of his own journal, Russkaia Pravda, which he had conceived with the purpose of uniting “all the forces of progress,” but the government forbade him to publish. After Cherny-shevskii’s arrest and the eight-month suspension of Sovremennik, Saltykov joined the journal’s editorial staff on the invitation of N. A. Nekrasov and worked productively as a writer and editor. His monthly surveys “Our Social Life” remain outstanding landmarks of Russian social commentary and literary criticism of the 1860’s. In 1864, Sovremennik became involved in a dispute with the journal Russkoe slovo and with the pochvennik (“grass roots”) journals Vremia and Epokha, which were published by the Dostoevsky brothers. Saltykov opposed the views of the other editors of Sovremennik; he left its editorial staff and returned to state service. However, he continued to contribute to the journal, mainly as a writer, and to the end of his life honored the traditions of Sovremennik, the traditions of Chernyshevskii and Dobroliubov.
From 1865 to 1868, Saltykov headed the financial boards of Penza, Tula, and Riazan’. He used the observations he made during his last civil service position as a basis for Letters From the Provinces (1869) and, in part, Signs of the Times (1869). As works of literature and social commentary, these books provide a broad panorama of the first decade of postreform Russia.
In 1868, by order of the tsar, Saltykov was permanently retired from state service and barred from holding any future state position. At this time, he accepted Nekrasov’s invitation to join the staff of the reestablished journal Otechestvennye zapiski, intended to replace Sovremennik, which had been shut down in 1866. Saltykov’s 16 years of work on Otechestvennye zapiski, which became the chief literary periodical of Russian democracy of the 1870’s and 1880’s, form the central chapter in Saltykov’s biography. After Nekrasov’s death, Saltykov became head of the journal’s editorial staff.
Saltykov produced his greatest literary achievements in the 1870’s and 1880’s. He wrote The History of a City (1869–70), a bitter, angry book, in which he revealed the “tragic truth of Russian life” to his countrymen. He based the book on his cycles of sketches on “Glupov” and the “Glupov inhabitants” (1861–62) and on Pompadours and Pompadouresses (1863–74). Later, Saltykov wrote Gentlemen of Tashkent (1869–72) and Diary of a Provincial in St. Petersburg (1872), which portrayed the “reign of predation” of the period of Russian speculative promotion. Loyal Talking (1872–76) and The Sanctuary of Mon Repos (1878–79) are classic pictures of the birth of capitalist Russia, the accession of the Kolupaevs and Razuvaevs. The Golovlevs (1875–80) is one of the greatest but gloomiest works of Russian literature. The cycle In the Realm of Moderation and Precision (also published as The Molchalins, 1874–80) profoundly interpreted “Molchalinism,” a reference to a sycophantic character in A. S. Griboedov’s Woe From Wit, under new historical conditions as one of the social and psychological plagues of Russian life.
In 1875–76, Saltykov underwent medical treatment abroad. He again traveled abroad in 1880, 1881, 1883, and 1885. In Abroad (1880–81), he portrayed reactionary bourgeois Europe. In the 1880’s, Saltykov became proficient as a social critic by denouncing political reaction with furious sarcasm in A Modern Idyll (1877–81), Letters to Auntie (1881–82), and Poshekhon’e Tales (1883–84).
In 1884 the government banned publication of Otechestvennye zapiski. Saltykov reacted painfully to the closing of the journal. He was forced to publish in the periodicals of the liberals, the journal Vestnik Evropy and the newspaper Russkie vedomosti, which were alien to him in their orientation. Despite the harsh atmosphere of reaction created by the authorities and despite serious illness in his last years, Saltykov created such masterpieces as Tales (1882–86), which concisely reflected virtually all of the main themes of his work; The Trivialities of Life (1886–87), which treated history profoundly and philosophically; and, finally, his epic panorama of Russia under serfdom, Old Times in Poshekhon’e (1887–89).
Saltykov’s works are imbued with socialist and democratic thoughts and themes of liberation and open struggle against autocracy, serfdom, landowners, and the bourgeoisie. His writings were very important for Russian society. They promoted political awareness and civic protest and enriched Russian literature with their literary quality and significance as social commentary. Saltykov’s works are historically linked with the traditions of progressive Russian writers, such as A. N. Radishchev, V. G. Belinskii, N. V. Gogol, and A. I. Herzen, and with the traditions of the great satirists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, such as F. Rabelais, M. Cervantes, and J. Swift. Yet his works were a new and profoundly original phenomenon in the art of Russian critical realism.
Saltykov’s method of writing was distinguished by literary “study,” which involved analysis of a character’s social environment rather than individual personality. It also integrated the writer’s aesthetic creed with direct judgments and evaluations. These judgments expressed democratic protest and openly encouraged men to look at the world in a new way—with social truth and justice. Saltykov’s satirical method employed Aesopian language, that is, the combined use of semantics, syntax, and other elements of linguistics to give a double meaning to literary phrases by concealing a second design behind their direct meaning. Saltykov also made use of the art of the grotesque and created literary stereotypes, for example, the “Ivanushkas” (simpletons), the “Glupov inhabitants,” and the “motley people.” At the same time, Saltykov, as a realist, was a master of psychological analysis and truthful characterization. He created a world of real human beings, for example, Iudushka (Little Judas), Derunov, and the gallery of slaves in Old Times in Poshekhon’e. V. I. Lenin often referred to Saltykov’s characters in his social commentary. The traditions of Saltykov were continued by A. P. Chekhov in his use of the themes of the “motley people” and “the trivialities of life” and by M. Gorky in his early satirical articles and the works Tales and The Life of Klim Samgin. Some of Saltykov’s works have been dramatized for the theater and cinema, for example, the film Judas Golovlev (1934).
A memorial museum has been opened in the city of Kirov (1968) in the house where Saltykov lived during his years of exile in Viatka.
WORKS
Polnoe sobr. soch. ipisem, vols. 1–20. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933–41.
Sobr. soch ipisem v 20 tt., vols. 1–17—. Moscow, 1965–75. (Publication in progress.)
REFERENCES
Denisiuk, N. Kriticheskaia literatura o proizvedeniiakh M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, fasc. 1–5. Moscow, 1905.
M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v russkoi kritike. [Introductory article and notes by M. S. Goriachkina.] Moscow, 1959.
M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. [Preface and commentary by S. A. Makashin.] Moscow, 1957.
El’sberg, la. E. Stil’ Shchedrina. Moscow, 1940.
Makashin, S. A. Saltykov-Shchedrin—Biografiia, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Moscow, 1951.
Makashin, S. A. Saltykov-Shchedrin na rubezhe 1850–1860 godov. Moscow, 1972.
Kirpotin, V. la. Filosofskie i esteticheskie vzgliady Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow, 1957.
Pokusaev, E. I. Revoliutsionnaia satira Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow, 1963.
Iakovlev, M. V. “Poshekhonskaia starina” M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow, 1958.
Zhuk, A. Satiricheskii roman M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina “Sovremennaia idilliia.” Saratov, 1958.
Bushmin, A. S. Satira Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow-Leningrad, 1959.
Bushmin, A. S. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Leningrad, 1970.
Prozorov, V. O khudozhestvennom myshlenii pisatelia-satirika. Saratov, 1965.
Turkov, A. Saltykov-Shchedrin, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1965.
Mysliakov, V. Iskusstvo satiricheskogo povestvovaniia. Saratov, 1966.
Nikolaev, D. N. “Istoriia odnogo goroda’ M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina.” In Tri shedevra russkoi klassiki, Moscow, 1971.
Dobrovol’skii, L. M., and V. M. Lavrov. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v pechati. Leningrad, 1949.
Dobrovol’skii, L. M. Bibliografiia literatury o M. E. Saltykove-Shche-drine, 1848–1917. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961.
Bibliografiia literatury o M. E. Saltykove-Shchedrine, 1918–1965. Compiled by V. M. Baskakov. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by S. A. MAKASHIN)
N. G. CHERNISHEVSKY (1828-1889)
“Chernyshevsky Nikolai Gavrilovich (1828-1889) – the great Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, critically utopian socialist. The leader and ideological inspirer of the revolutionary democratic movement of the 1860s in Russia, Chernyshevsky was one of the outstanding predecessors of the Russian Social Democrats. Chernyshevsky consistently pursued “the idea of a peasant revolution, the idea of the struggle of the masses for the overthrow of all the old powers.” A whole generation of Russian revolutionaries was brought up on the works of Chernyshevsky, from which, as Lenin put it, breathes with the spirit of the class struggle.
His contribution to the development of Russian materialist philosophy is exceptionally great. He was a consistent materialist, an implacable opponent of philosophical idealism. “Chernyshevsky is the only truly great Russian writer who, from the 1850s up to 1888, managed to remain at the level of integral philosophical materialism and discard the pitiful nonsense of neo-Kantians, positivists, Machists and other confusionists.” Under the leadership of Chernyshevsky, the materialists criticized the camp of Russian idealists, which united all the reactionary elements that fought against the liberation of the people. Chernyshevsky deeply criticized the idealism of Kant, Hegel, Berkeley, Hume and the positivists, and he developed materialistic views, which were the pinnacle of pre-Marxist materialist philosophy. In contrast to the old, contemplative materialism, His materialism was revolutionary and effective. The contemplative approach to reality was alien to Chernyshevsky.
He completely subordinated his theoretical views to the cause of the struggle for the liberation of the commoners, that is, the working people, from serfdom and bourgeois slavery. In the field of the theory of knowledge, Chernyshevsky took strictly materialistic positions. He sharply criticized Kant’s agnosticism and other idealistic theories that deny the knowability of the world. He saw the source of knowledge in the objective world, influencing the human senses. He called practice the touchstone of any theory. Chernyshevsky did not dismiss like Feuerbach Hegel’s dialectic, and sought to rework it in a materialistic spirit. In a number of areas – in political economy, history, aesthetics, art criticism – Chernyshevsky gave excellent examples of a dialectical approach to reality.
However, due to objective circumstances – the conditions of serfdom in which Chernyshevsky lived and fought – he could not rise to the dialectical and historical materialism of Marx. Chernyshevsky’s materialism is not free from a number of essential shortcomings. Chernyshevsky himself called his materialism anthropological. The narrowness and limitation of anthropological materialism lies in the fact that it regards man as a part of nature, as a biological or physiological being, outside of his social production activity, not as a product of one or another. public relations. Hence the weakness characteristic of anthropological materialism in questions of the theory of knowledge, the inability to extend materialism to the history of human society, etc.
However, his revolutionary democracy helped him overcome many of the weaknesses of anthropological materialism. So, for example, Chernyshevsky came close to a materialist understanding of the phenomena of social life. This was especially evident in his understanding of the class nature of contemporary society, the irreconcilability of class interests, and in his understanding of the struggle between classes as the driving force of development. Chernyshevsky also saw the connection between the ideology and consciousness of people with the economic conditions of their life; he emphasized that the interests of the people are of fundamental importance in the history of society. He considered the masses to be the protagonist of history. “No matter how you reason,” he wrote, “only those aspirations are strong, only those institutions are strong that are supported by the mass of the people.” His sociological views were closely associated with his revolutionary democracy. In considering questions of philosophy, political economy, aesthetics, ethics, Chernyshevsky was above all a revolutionary democrat, the inspirer of the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed masses against tsarism and serfdom.
He understood perfectly well that only revolutionary violence can destroy the foundations of serfdom and clear the way for the people to a new life. He hated the liberals with all his heart, who covered up the exploitative essence of the serf and capitalist order with a beautiful-hearted phraseology. His greatest merit is the merciless exposure of the counter-revolutionary essence of Russian and Western European liberalism. During the period of the peasant reform, he fought against the servility of the liberals to the serf-owners. He, Lenin pointed out, perfectly understood “all the narrowness, all the squalor of the notorious peasant reform, all its serfdom character.” In his novel Prologue, Chernyshevsky created vivid and typical images of Russian liberals, in which the words about the liberation of the peasants are sharply at variance with the deeds. Lenin called Chernyshevsky and his opponents, the Russian liberals of that time, representatives of two fundamentally opposite historical tendencies, historical forces in the struggle for a new Russia.
Chernyshevsky paid much attention to the question of the state. He perfectly understood the real purpose of the state in feudal and bourgeois societies, the essence of its unbridled despotism. Therefore, as a revolutionary democrat, he associated the possibility of emancipating the peasantry and other working classes with the transfer of state power into the hands of the people themselves. In this spirit, he brought up the advanced Russian youth of that time; he rallied the revolutionaries, taught them to be loyal to the people to the end. The journal Sovremennik, headed by him, was the voice of the revolutionary forces of Russia in the 1850s and 1860s, the organizer of the revolutionary struggle against serfdom, the organ of the peasant revolution.
Chernyshevsky dreamed of going over to socialism through the old peasant community. He did not know and could not yet know that only the proletariat is the force that is capable of building socialism. However, in his theory of socialism, Chernyshevsky rose significantly above the Western European socialists-utopians and came closest to scientific socialism. He pinned all his hopes on the revolution. His utopian socialism was closely associated with his revolutionary democracy. In contrast to Western European utopians, he did not disdain politics, he himself was a major revolutionary politician. He understood that socialism can be created only on the basis of developed technology and that only the masses of the people themselves can be its creators.
His works in the field of political economy are of great importance. Marx pointed out that Chernyshevsky as an economist masterfully clarified the bankruptcy of bourgeois political economy. Lenin called Chernyshevsky a remarkably deep critic of capitalism. Chernyshevsky exposed the vulgar bourgeois economists with their desire to gloss over the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism. Chernyshevsky mercilessly criticized the vulgar American economist Carey for his preaching of the harmony of class interests. He called his system of economic views the political economy of the working people. The main idea of the political economy of workers is the idea of “a complete combination of the qualities of the owner and the worker in one and the same person.” Labor, he said, must cease to be a salable commodity.
His services in the field of aesthetics and literary criticism are extremely great. In his work Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality, Chernyshevsky gave a devastating criticism of Hegel’s idealist understanding of art and formulated the basic principles of revolutionary realistic art. The literary and critical works of Chernyshevsky, as well as the works of Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, had a huge impact on the development of advanced Russian literature, painting, music; they have retained their significance to this day. Art, according to Chernyshevsky, has as its task to truthfully and realistically reproduce life, to give a correct explanation for it and to pass judgment on reality. He demanded criticism of serfdom from art and, with his aesthetic principles, contributed to the development of the direction of critical realism in Russian art. At the same time, in life itself, in its development to new, higher social forms, Chernyshevsky argued, and not in abstract ideals one should see the truly beautiful. He highly raised the social ideological role of art. Chernyshevsky is a prominent writer, author of wonderful works of art: What is to be done?, Prologue<, etc.
The Tsarist government brutally dealt with Chernyshevsky: subjected him to civil execution and then sent him to hard labor and exile in Siberia, where he spent more than 20 years. But neither hard labor nor exile broke the will of this remarkable revolutionary and thinker. The great patriot of his people, Chernyshevsky fought against the cosmopolitanism of Babst, Chicherin, Katkov. With all his heart, he hated nationalists and racists. Chernyshevsky devoted his whole life to serving the Motherland, and his struggle for a better future for the people played a great role. The most important philosophical works of Chernyshevsky: Aesthetic relations of art to reality (1855), Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature (1855-1856), Critique of philosophical prejudices against communal ownership (1858), The anthropological principle in philosophy (1860). The most important philosophical thoughts were expressed by Chernyshevsky in letters to his sons from exile in 1876-1878 etc.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
A Vital Question, or, What is to be Done? [Audiobook part 1, part 2, part 3]
“Mikhailov, Mikhail Larionovich. Born Jan, 4(16), 1829, in Orenburg; died Aug. 3(15), 1865, in Kadaia, present-day Chita Oblast. Russian poet and revolutionary figure.
The son of a civil servant whose father had been a serf, Mikhailov was educated at home and at the University of St. Petersburg (1846–48). In 1845 his first poems and essays appeared in St. Petersburg journals, and in the early 1850’s he began writing prose in the style of the natural school. Among his best prose works are the novellas Adam Adamych and The Lace-maker and the novel Migratory Birds (1854). From 1852 he contributed poems, critical reviews, and publicistic articles to the journal Sovremennik (Contemporary). In such articles as “Women: Their Education and Importance in the Family and Society” (1860), he called for equal rights for women. After joining the circle that formed around N. A. Dobroliubov and N. G. Chernyshevskii, Mikhailov became an editor of Sovremennik in 1860 and headed the journal’s foreign-literature department. At this time he embarked on illegal activity, writing (with N. V. Shelgunov) and distributing the revolutionary proclamation To the Young Generation, printed in London by A. I. Herzen’s press. He was arrested in the fall of 1861 and sentenced to six years at hard labor and lifelong exile in Siberia.
In his lyric poetry and political satire, Mikhailov, a poet of the Nekrasov school, dealt with subjects from the life of the people, developed the traditions of the Decembrist poets and M. lu. Lermontov, and called for struggle against tyranny and oppression (“The Five,” “In Memory of Dobroliubov”). Several of his stirring poems, filled wiith civic ardor, became revolutionary songs (“In Memory of Dobroliubov,” “In a Firm and Warm Embrace”). Mikhailov’s excellent translations of P. J. Bėranger, A. Mickiewicz, H. Longfellow, T. Hood, and other poets made many works of progressive foreign poetry available to Russian readers. A. A. Blok considered his translations in Songs of Heine (1858) to be “genuine pearls of poetry” (Sobr. soch., vol. 11, 1934, p. 228).
WORKS
Soch., vols. 1–3. Edited by B. P. Koz’min. Moscow, 1958.
Sobr. stikhotvorenii. Introduction, text preparation, and notes by lu. D. Levin. Leningrad, 1969.
“Zapiski.” In N. V. Shelgunov. L. P. Shelgunova, and M. L. Mikhailov, Vospominaniia, vol. 2. Moscow, 1967.
REFERENCES
Lemke, M. K. “Delo M. I. Mikhailova.” In Politicheskie protsessy v Rossii 1860-kh gg., 2nd ed. Moscow-Petrograd, 1923.
Koz’min, B. P. “N. G. Chernyshevskii i M. I. Mikhailov.” In Literatura i istoriia. Moscow, 1969.
Fateev, P. S. M. Mikhailov—revoliutsioner, pisatel’ publitsist. Moscow, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. V. ZHDANOV)
M. L. NALBANDIAN (1829-1866)
“Nalbandian Mikayel Lazarevich (1829-1866) is an outstanding Armenian materialist thinker, revolutionary democrat, utopian socialist and educator, poet and publicist. Nalbandian was a colleague and like-minded Russian revolutionary democrats Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. Herzen and Ogaryov highly valued Nalbandian’s activities and his disinterested devotion to the cause of revolutionary democracy. Nalbandian devoted his entire life to the struggle against serfdom, the struggle to strengthen the Armenian-Russian friendship that binds the Armenian and Russian peoples. He believed that only the Russian peasant anti-serfdom revolution would bring national and social deliverance to the Armenian people.
Together with Chernyshevsky and his associates, he was preparing an all-Russian democratic revolution. Nalbandian ardently defended the idea of uniting the revolutionary movement of the peoples of Russia against tsarism. An ardent patriot, Nalbandian defended the democratic traditions of the Armenian people; he mercilessly smashed the Armenian bourgeois nationalists and liberals; thus, he branded the cosmopolitan views of the liberal Nazaryanets as a “pathetic, deplorable philosophy”, as a “monstrous and disgusting phenomenon.” He rejected the “theories” of liberals about class harmony, pointing to a fierce class struggle that is tearing society apart. He exposed the unjust, aggressive wars, the colonial policy of the capitalist powers, showed their predatory plans, solidarity with the policy of Turkish sultanism, with the policy of the physical destruction of the Armenian people.
In philosophy, Nalbandian was a materialist. He considered matter primary, eternal, indestructible; in itself is the reason for its existence. He attributed great importance to experience and induction . Ideas are a reflection of nature, the external world. Like the representatives of Russian materialism of the 40-60s of the XIX century. he sought to master the dialectic. Nature is always in motion; the organic world emerges from the inorganic, Nalbandian argued. Social life is a process of struggle between the progressive and the reactionary, in which the progressive trend eventually gains the upper hand.
Nalbandian rejected the idealistic philosophy of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, mercilessly criticized the reactionary, monarchist essence of Gogel’s views, his deviation from the idea of development. He defended the ideological positions of the emerging progressive Armenian literature, its democratic direction. In matters of aesthetics, he, following Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, defended realism. In philology, Nalbandian boldly broke with idealistic traditions and emphasized that the key to a correct understanding of the language must be sought in its connection with the life of the people and unity with thinking.
Nalbandian was an outstanding poet and writer. His works of art are imbued with hatred for everything serfdom. His ideas became the source of progressive, democratic Armenian culture in the second half of the 19th century. For his revolutionary activities, the distribution of banned London (Herzen) publications, Nalbandian was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he was for almost three years. He died in exile, tortured to death by the tsar’s executioners. The greatest works of Nalbandyan: “Two Lines”, “Earth Eating as a True Blow”, a literary-critical article about Proshyan’s novel “Soy and Vartiter”, etc.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
N. S. KUROCHKIN (1830-1884)
“Kurochkin, Nikolai Stepanovich. Born June 2 (14), 1830, in St. Petersburg; died there Dec. 2 (14), 1884. Russian journalist, social figure, and poet. Brother of V. S. Kurochkin.
Kurochkin graduated from the Academy of Medicine and Surgery (1854) and served as an army doctor in the Crimean War of 1853–56. Abandoning medicine in 1860, he helped his brother publish Iskra. He was a prominent member of Land and Liberty. From 1865 to 1867 he edited the journal Knizhnyi vestnik, which acquired a revolutionary democratic orientation in those years. From 1868 to 1874 he was on the editorial board of Otechestvennye zapiski. Kurochkin’s articles, criticism, and reviews were frequently published. As a poet, he gravitated to the genre of topical social satire and to translations (of such poets as A. Barbier, C. Baudelaire, V. Hugo, and G. Giusti).
WORKS
[“Stikhotvoreniia.”] In Poety 1860-kh gg. Leningrad, 1968.
REFERENCES
Amfiteatrov, A. “N. S. Kurochkin.” In his book Zabytyi smekh. Moscow, 1914.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. M. MIRONOV)
V. S. KUROCHKIN (1831-1875)
“Kurochkin, Vasilii Stepanovich. Born July 28 (Aug. 9), 1831, in St. Petersburg; died there Aug. 15 (27), 1875. Russian poet, journalist, and social figure.
Kurochkin was the son of a freed serf and the brother of N. S. Kurochkin. He served in the army (until 1853) and in the civil service, turning to literature and social activity in the mid-1850’s. From 1861 to 1863 he was a member of the Central Committee of Land and Liberty.
In the early 1850’s, Kurochkin appeared in print as a poet, prose writer, and playwright. His translations of the Songs of Béranger became popular (the first edition appeared in 1858 and was reissued six times during Kurochkin’s lifetime). From 1859 to 1873 he edited the journal Iskra; his contributions as an original poet of the Nekrasov school—civic poet, tribune, polemicist, and master of political caricature in verse—were an integral part of the journal.
WORKS
Stikhotvoreniia. Stat’i. Fel’etony. Moscow, 1957.
Stikhotvoreniia. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
REFERENCES
Dobroliubov, N. A. “Pesni Beranzhe: Perevody V. Kurochkina.” Sobr. soch., vol. 3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Mikhailovskii, N. K. “Literatura i zhizn’.” Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 7. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Iampol’skii, I. G. “V. Kurochkin.” In Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 8, part 2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. M. MIRONOV)
N. G. POMYALOVSKY (1835-1863)
Nikolai Gerasimovich Pomyalovsky. Writer of “Seminary Sketches”.
Seminary Sketches [note: includes an introduction and footnotes by reactionary anti-communists]
M. A. ANTONOVICH (1835-1918)
“Antonovich Maxim Alekseevich (1835-1918) – one of the largest representatives of advanced Russian philosophy of the 60s of the XIX century, grouped around Chernyshevsky. The activities of Antonovich, like other revolutionaries of the sixties, unfolded most clearly during the years of the struggle for the abolition of serfdom and reflected the revolutionary ferment in the peasantry, who fought against serfdom.
After graduating from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1859, Antonovich abandoned his spiritual career. Carried away by the ideas of Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, the ideas of representatives of advanced natural science, Antonovich becomes a materialist and atheist even in his student years. Personal acquaintance with N. A. Dobrolyubov finally determined the place of Antonovich in the public struggle. Having become an active contributor to Sovremennik, at the insistence of N. G. Chernyshevsky, he began to write articles on philosophical topics. The most important of them are: “Modern Philosophy”, “On Hegelian Philosophy”, “Two Types of Modern Philosophers”, “Modern Physiology and Philosophy”, “Modern Aesthetic Theory”, “Love Explanation with the “Epoch””. Antonovich also wrote a lot on questions of natural science. Antonovich’s works “Charles Darwin and His Theory”, “The Unity of the Physical and Moral Cosmos”, “The Unity of the Forces of Nature”, “The Life of Plants”, “The Life of Animals”, “On Steam and Steam Engines” and many others popularized advanced natural sciences in Russian society. -scientific knowledge, co-I acted in the formation of a scientific, materialistic worldview.
Antonovich strongly criticized Hegel’s idealism, Kant’s agnosticism, idealism in Russian reactionary journalism and passionately defended and promoted the materialism of N. G. Chernyshevsky. He took an active part in Chernyshevsky’s struggle against the Russian idealists headed by Yurkevich and Katkov, and in his fighting speeches he consistently defended the principles of philosophical materialism, the materialist theory of knowledge. His articles, in which he refutes the arguments of agnosticism and develops the materialist theory of reflection, relying on the data of physiology, have not lost their freshness and interest at the present time. However, Antonovich’s philosophical views lagged far behind those of his teacher, Chernyshevsky. Chernyshevsky’s materialism is closely connected with politics, with the revolutionary-democratic struggle 8a the reorganization of society; his writings exude the spirit of the class struggle. Antonovich, on the contrary, pays the main attention to natural science and education. Later, he completely departs from politics and devotes himself entirely to the promotion of scientific knowledge. Antonovich’s materialism remained contemplative, metaphysical, despite certain elements of dialectics.
As a literary critic, Antonovich demanded from art that it reproduce reality and serve the interests of society. The most striking work of Antonovich, devoted to literary criticism, was his article “Asmodeus of our time”, and in which Antonovich defends the revolutionary – democratic aspirations of the sixties against slander from the liberal camp. – He promotes and defends the aesthetic theory of Chernyshevsky. But due to the limitations of his general philosophical views, he expressed certain positions that contradicted the militant spirit of Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic theory. In recent years, having switched entirely to the field of natural science, Antonovich opened his own chemical laboratory and intensively studied geology. In the field of geology, he owns independent research and discoveries. “Selected Philosophical Works” by M. A. Antonovich was published in 1945.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
N. A. DOBROLYUBOV (1836-1861)
“Dobrolyubov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836-1861) – a great revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher and literary critic. Together with N. G. Chernyshevsky he was the ideologist of the peasant revolution in Russia. In the 1860s, a wave of peasant uprisings against serfdom and Tsarism arose in Russia. Lenin, noting Dobrolyubov’s services to his homeland, wrote that he is dear to all educated and thinking Russia as a writer who “passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the internal Turks, against the autocratic government.”
In a number of his works, especially in the articles The Dark Kingdom and A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom, Dobrolyubov gave a deep criticism of the autocratic-serf system in Russia. He called serf Russia the dark kingdom. Dobrolyubov saw a way out of this dark kingdom of serfdom and tyranny only in the revolution. No reforms can change the position of the peasantry. He was distrustful of the peasants’ emancipation being prepared, thereby expressing the peasants’ distrust of the reform.
Dobrolyubov exposed the liberals, angrily castigated their fruitless chatter about reforms and progress. “We do not need words that are rotten and idle, plunging into a smug slumber and filling our hearts with pleasant dreams, but we need a fresh and proud word, making the heart boil with the courage of a citizen, leading to wide and distinctive activity” he said, and he considered the peasantry as the most oppressed class of Russian society. The peasant revolution, in his opinion, will be the result of the merger of separate uprisings into one all-Russian uprising, which will destroy tsarism and serfdom. Dobrolyubov devoted his entire life to the preparation of the people’s peasant revolution.
Dobrolyubov believed that the future system, born of the revolution, would not be similar either to the autocratic-serf system, or to the bourgeois, capitalist system of Western European countries. Dobrolyubov calls Western democracy praised by Russian liberals as hypocritical, defending the rights of the rich, since the people in these countries remain a slave to the tyranny of the rulers. Parliament is a simple talking shop. Under capitalism, the working people are under double oppression: capitalist and feudal exploitation. “And it turned out,” wrote Dobrolyubov, “that the working people remained under two oppression: the old feudalism, still living in different forms and under different names throughout Western Europe, and the bourgeois class, which seized the entire industrial region.” Dobrolyubov saw the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie, revealing the contradictions of capitalist society, Dobrolyubov came, however, not to scientific socialism, but to utopian socialism. Not explicitly the laws of the development of society, he, like all revolutionary democrats, considered it possible to establish a socialist system after the peasant revolution. He directly called himself a socialist and a supporter of the republican form of government. In the future ideal republic, according to Dobrolyubov, all oppression is eliminated, parasites, villains, scoundrels are expelled from society, and holy brotherhood and equality are established without any advantage of nobility. The basic principle of the new society will be the distribution of material wealth but the quantity and quality of labor expended.
“Most importantly, it is necessary that the value of a person in society is determined by his personal merits and that material benefits are acquired by everyone in strict proportion to the amount and dignity of his labor.” Utopian socialism was for Dobrolyubov and all Russian revolutionary democrats the most progressive direction social thought in Russia and Western Europe in the pre-Marxian period. Dobrolyubov, however, did not understand that the victory of the peasant revolution would create conditions for the development of capitalism. The victory of the peasant uprising would have been a huge step forward for tsarist Russia and would have created the conditions for developing the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
The whole struggle of Dobrolyubov, all of his works are permeated with deep patriotism. He saw his great task in the liberation of the Russian people from serfdom and autocratic oppression. He saw the remarkable national traits of the Russian people, who had put forward from their midst great scientists, poets and thinkers. He caustically and evilly ridiculed the admiration for foreign countries, mercilessly exposed the cosmopolitans who madly renounce their homeland. The patriotism of Dobrolyubov, like all revolutionary democrats, was an expression of deep faith in the creative forces of the people, their revolutionary energy and the great future of their Motherland.
His revolutionary democracy was closely associated with philosophical materialism. His materialistic philosophy was a continuation and further development of the materialist tradition in Russian philosophy, stemming from M.V. Lomonosov and A.N. Radishchev. His teachers, who had a decisive influence on the formation of his worldview, were the great revolutionary democrats V.G.Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky. In all his works, Dobrolyubov confidently pursues a materialist line in solving the main issue of philosophy. He considers the material, objective world to be primary, consciousness, secondary, derivative.
His materialistic solution to the fundamental question of philosophy is based on the achievements of the natural sciences of that time. In full agreement with science, he argued that the material world affects a person, causing sensations. “We feel,” Dobrolyubov wrote, “that something is acting on us everywhere, something different from us, external, in a word, not me. From this we conclude that besides us there is something else, because otherwise we could not feel any external action on our self. Hence it follows that the existence of objects is recognized by us only because they act on us” The material world is subject to its natural laws. Dobrolyubov considers the desire to find a certain mysterious meaning in nature as completely unscientific, worthy of medieval alchemists.
By reference to mysterious forces, many natural scientists, wrote Dobrolyubov, try to cover up their ignorance of the laws of nature. He exposes the metaphysical concept of force as an ability divorced from matter. “Force is a fundamental, inalienable property of matter and cannot exist separately,” Dobrolyubov wrote. Force as one or another property of objects is inseparable from the material objects themselves. Therefore, the strength of the human brain, its ability to think, is a completely natural phenomenon inherent in matter at a high stage of its development. This means that there are no two opposite principles in man, just as there are none in the world.
There is a single material world and a human inseparable being. Dobrolyubov rejects as a completely unscientific dualistic division of the world and man into two essences: material and ideal. However, he by no means belittles the enormous significance of a person’s spiritual life and considers it absurd to assert coarse vulgar materialism, “as if a person’s soul consists of some subtlest matter.” Dobrolyubov considered the law of development to be the most important law of the material world. Nature and social life are subject to this law. “In the world, everything is subject to the law of development … In nature, everything proceeds gradually from the simple to the more complex, from the imperfect to the more perfect; but everywhere the same matter, only at different degrees of development.”
He considered this universal movement and development to be the basis of the qualitative diversity of the material world. There is no stagnation and immobility in society and in human thought. Dobrolyubov also materialistically resolves the second side of the fundamental question of philosophy. He believes that a person can cognize and cognizes the material world around him. He exposes agnosticism and reckless skepticism, as well as religious fables about the limited abilities of the human mind. A person, according to Dobrolyubov, in the process of cognition goes from the impressions caused in our feelings by external objects to the disclosure of their essence. Cognition is determined by the practical needs of life and is tested by human activity.
Based on the materialist theory of knowledge, Dobrolyubov deeply developed the philosophical foundations of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky’s aesthetics. He was a great literary critic. He considered artistic creation as a reflection of objective reality in human consciousness. He saw the commonality between science and art in the fact that they have one object: the material world surrounding a person.
An artist must be a thinker and not copy reality, but reveal the internal connections and sequence of phenomena, generalize facts and draw conclusions. The truth of the artistic image is not in the random signs of the phenomenon, but in the disclosure of the essence, the characteristic features of the phenomenon. Dobrolyubov demanded from the artist an image of the typical in phenomena, revealing their essence and connection with the surrounding reality. From literature, he demanded service to the working people. His aesthetic theory was of great importance for the development of advanced Russian art and literature.
His materialism was limited, he could not extend the materialistic explanation of the laws of nature to social relations. The reason for this was the economic and political backwardness of Russia at that time. His revolutionary democracy determined in his general idealistic views on the development of society a strong materialistic tendency, which was expressed in his recognition of the decisive importance of the masses in the historical process. Historical events need, according to Dobrolyubov, to be assessed by the impact they have on the people.
Having established the decisive importance of the masses in history, Dobrolyubov basically correctly resolved the question of the role of great personalities in the progressive development of mankind. He did not oppose the great personality to the masses, but revealed the connection between the people and the great person expressing their interests. In an effort to reveal the internal laws of the development of society, he pointed to the great importance of the class struggle. In the historical development of society, according to Dobrolyubov, the material side plays an important role, the distribution of benefits between people. However, in general, in his view of the development of society, Dobrolyubov remained an idealist.
Dobrolyubov drew atheistic conclusions from the materialistic explanation of the laws of nature. He saw the roots of religion in man’s fear of incomprehensible natural phenomena. He exposed the reactionary role of religion, instilling superstition and ignorance and calling on the masses to be patient, showed a direct connection between religion and politics.
An outstanding representative of Russian revolutionary democracy, a materialist philosopher, a great literary critic, Dobrolyubov was one of the forerunners of Russian social democracy. The classics of Marxism-Leninism highly appreciated the activities of Dobrolyubov as an outstanding thinker and fighter for the liberation of the Russian people from serfdom and autocracy.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
I. G. CHAVCHAVADZE (1837-1907)
“Chavchavadze Ilya Grigoryevich (1837 – 1907) – one of the outstanding classics of Georgian literature, the ideological leader of the national liberation movement in Georgia in the second half of the 19th century. V. Chavchavadze studied at St. Petersburg University. During his four years in St. Petersburg, he deeply studied literature, philosophy, law, political economy and history. Acquaintance with the works of Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov contributed to the formation of the progressive worldview of Chavchavadze, increased his hatred of the tsarist autocracy and serfdom. In connection with the student “riots” Chavchavadze was forced to leave the university and return to his homeland, where he led a group of progressive Georgian intellectuals who waged a decisive struggle against the ideologists of the reactionary nobility, against serfdom and patriarchal stagnation. Chavchavadze published the magazine “Sakartvelos Moambe” (“Georgian Bulletin”), and later the newspaper “Iveria”, in which he resolutely defended the Georgian language, literature and school, fighting against the Russification policy of tsarism in Georgia.
Chavchavadze’s activities covered all areas of the social and cultural life of Georgia. An outstanding poet and prose writer, he depicted the forced labor of Georgian peasants in his fiction, demanded the destruction of the serfdom. Defending the cultural heritage of the Georgian people from the attacks of Georgian reactionaries, Chavchavadze contributed with all his might to the development of Georgian culture, carefully nurtured the sprouts of the new and progressive. He was the soul and organizer of almost all cultural undertakings in contemporary Georgia. His authority and popularity were so enormous that the tsarist satraps saw in the person of Chavchavadze a serious opponent of the colonial policy of tsarism. In September 1907, Chavchavadze was killed by mercenaries of the tsarist secret police.
The progressive philosophical and aesthetic views of Chavchavadze finally took shape under the beneficial influence of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Recognizing the materiality of the world and the cognizability of its laws, Chavchavadze considered movement and development to be the main property of matter. From the idea of universal development and interconnection, he drew a conclusion about the concreteness of truth, arguing that everything depends on time, place and circumstances. Chavchavadze considered science and art to be a reflection of social life, emphasizing their reverse impact on the course of life itself. Demanding answers to the pressing questions of life from science and art, Chavchavadze waged an uncompromising struggle against the reactionary theory of “art for art’s sake.” In understanding history, Chavchavadze was an idealist. He considered human ideas and motives to be the driving force of history. However, Chavchavadze expressed a number of brilliant conjectures close to the materialist understanding of history. Patriotism, selfless love for his people, unshakable faith in his bright future organically combined Chavchavadze with respect for other peoples, especially for the great Russian people.
The peculiarity of the double oppression under which the Georgian people were – national and social – led Chavchavadze to the wrong conclusion that the main evil is national oppression and the enmity of the classes can only weaken the Georgian people in the struggle against the oppression of the Russian autocracy. Proceeding from these erroneous propositions, Chavchavadze began to propagate the ideas of national revival on the basis of the reconciliation of the estates and their peaceful cooperation. Under the conditions of developing capitalism and the growth of the labor movement in Georgia, these erroneous political views of Chavchavadze played a reactionary role. Considering the liberation of labor and the individual as the main task of his contemporary era, Chavchavadze, however, failed to rise to a scientific understanding of the ways to solve this problem.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
D. I. PISAREV (1840-1868)
“Pisarev Dmitry Ivanovich (1840-1868) – an outstanding Russian materialist and revolutionary democrat, a passionate champion of the abolition of serfdom and the emancipation of labor from the oppression of capital. After graduating from St. Petersburg University in 1861, Pisarev devoted himself entirely to journalism, becoming the head of the leading journal Russkoe Slovo and following in it the line of Chernyshevsky’s Sovremennik, the line of revolutionary democracy. During his short life path (Pisarev drowned at the age of 28; he was a political prisoner in the Peter and Paul Fortress) Pisarev managed to do a lot for the development of Russian social thought. In the years when Belinsky and Dobrolyubov were no longer alive, when Herzen was in distant exile, and Chernyshevsky in Siberian mines, Pisarev becomes the “ruler of thoughts” of the advanced public, especially the student youth. The ultimate goal of all our thinking, he said, is to “resolve the forever inevitable question of hungry and naked people.” As a student, he declares himself an enemy of serfdom. Pisarev called for the violent “overthrow of the successfully reigning Romanov dynasty.” Unable to openly call for revolution, he completely surrenders to the idea of spreading scientific knowledge among the people. He believed that the growth of enlightenment would increase the productive power of labor and help raise the welfare of the people.
At the same time, he emphasized that the growth of industry, the growth of wealth in the country in itself does not in any way solve the question of the welfare of the masses. Pisarev points to France and especially England, where the growth of wealth is accompanied by the progressive impoverishment of the working masses. He organically linked the propaganda of historical knowledge, natural science and industrialism with the democratic transformation of the political and economic social order. Pisarev tries as clearly as possible to show the decisive role of the masses themselves. He calls the liberals “a bastard of various sizes who amuse themselves with progressive phrases.” He strongly condemns the policy of reconciliation of parties: it is necessary to fully, to the end, disclose political differences, and not gloss over them.
Having gone through the evolution from abstract humanism to revolutionary democracy and utopian socialism, Pisarev becomes a bold propagandist of the ideas of socialism. He was deeply convinced that the future belongs to socialism: “Medieval theocracy fell, feudalism fell, absolutism fell; someday the tyrannical domination of capital will also fall.” Pisarev foresaw that for Russia, too, with the development of its industry, the labor issue would become the main issue of life and politics. Pisarev’s activities developed at a time when, according to the deep definition of V.I. Lenin, socialism and democracy in Russia were still merged together. Therefore, the most advanced leaders of the country, including Pisarev, expressed the interests of the working people in general, the interests of the exploited masses, which in general were still peasant masses.
In his philosophical and sociological views, Pisarev continued the materialist philosophy of Chernyshevsky. Pisarev constantly – from Epicurus to Chernyshevsky – singled out and defended the luminaries of the materialist camp in philosophy, constantly – from Plato to Hegel, to Yurkevich and A. Grigoriev – exposed the lies of idealism, its theoretical failure, his reactionary political orientation. Matter and motion, according to Pisarev, are indestructible, eternal and endless in the forms of manifestation: “Not a single piece of matter, not a single particle of force disappears in nature.” The laws of nature are also material in nature: they all “equally follow from the necessary and eternal properties of the infinite world substance.” Being, matter are primary, consciousness is secondary.
The entire spiritual world of a person, including unconscious motives, illusion, etc., are all reflections of external phenomena in the human psyche. Man, says Pisarev, is not a passive body of nature, but an active, active being. Science is not arbitrarily invented by man: “It is a snapshot from nature, nature itself, exposed, unraveled, having revealed its laws to the inquiring mind of man.” Pisarev recognized the objective nature of science, resolutely condemning such concepts in which only the subjective opinion of the speaker is expressed, and not the objective property of the subject in question. Art, artistic creation, as well as scientific, according to Pisarev, is a form of reflection of reality. In the 1860s in Russia, the struggle between materialism and idealism took on a particularly acute character on issues of aesthetics.
Idealists, following Schelling, argued that artistic creation is aimless, not amenable to the control of reason. Pisarev spoke out in the most resolute manner against reactionary aesthetics, against pure art, defending the ideas of socially oriented, meaningful, democratic art. A poet, Pisarev said, must reflect the pulsation of public life, passionately hate social injustice, write with the blood of the heart and the juice of nerves. Defending the materialistic foundations of Chernyshevsky-Dobrolyubov’s aesthetics, Pisarev, however, made serious mistakes.
So, he denied the social, cognitive significance of music, sculpture, painting, denied the great significance of Pushkin’s work. In matters of aesthetics, the historical limitations of Pisarev’s philosophical views were most pronounced. His great contribution to the materialistic theory of knowledge is his idea of the role of fantasy, dreams in cognitive and creative creativity. VI Lenin pointed out the deep ideas of DI Pisarev about something useful in his work What is to be done? and in Philosophical notebooks Along with mechanism and metaphysics, Pisarev’s works also contain strong elements of dialectics. One of the first outstanding Darwinists in Russia, he was completely independent of Muller-Haeckel and even earlier formulated the biogenetic law of development. Pisarev clearly saw the struggle between the dying old and the emerging new.
Especially many remarkable dialectical ideas were expressed by Pisarev in his sociological discourses. In understanding the laws and driving forces of historical development, he generally remained on the idealistic positions of pre-Marxist sociology. He took the development of knowledge and popular consciousness as the basis of progress. However, his works already contain many elements of a materialist approach to historical facts. As an economist, Pisarev developed the labor theory of value. Pisarev paid great attention to the role of labor and the working masses in the historical process. He came close to a correct understanding of the role of the material needs of the masses, the role of the economic factor, the decisive role of the masses in the development of society. The driving force of history, according to Pisarev, “lies always and everywhere, not in units, not in circles, not in literary works, but in general and mainly in the economic conditions of the existence of the masses.” As an ideologist of the toiling peasant masses, he was on the whole a supporter of revolutionary methods of struggle against the exploiting system of society.
The influence of Pisarev for his time was very great. The advanced thinking part of society both in Russia and in neighboring Slavic countries was read to them. He had a tremendous revolutionary influence on the development of Russian natural science. Outstanding figures of Russian science, Bach, Pavlov, Timiryazev and others recognize the influence of Pisarev on them. Under the influence of his sociological views, as well as the views of N. G. Chernyshevsky, the worldview of Serbian revolutionary Svetozar Markovich, Bulgarian revolutionary L. Karavelov and other leading figures of the Slavic countries was formed. Philosophical and socio-political works of D.I. Pisarev include: Historical Sketches (1864), Heinrich Heine (1867), The French Peasant in 1789 (1868), etc.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
ZHAMBYL ZHABAEV (1846-1945)
Stalin prize winning Kazakh Soviet poet.
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1936)
-Order of Lenin (1938)
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1939)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1941) – for well-known poetic works.
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
N. G. GARIN-MIKHAILOVSKY (1852-1906)
Cf. Gorky, Literary portraits
N. KARONIN-PETROPAVLOVSKY (1853-1892)
Cf. Gorky, Literary portraits
V. G. KOROLENKO (1853-1921)
Cf. Gorky, Literary portraits
I. Y. FRANKO (1856-1916)
“Franko Ivan Yakovlevich (1856-1916) – the great Ukrainian writer-thinker, scientist and public figure. Born into the family of a peasant blacksmith in the Drohobych region. After numerous ordeals and disasters, he graduated from the gymnasium; studied at the Lviv University. The Austrian authorities persecuted Franko, threw him in prison three times on charges of socialism, the creation of secret societies, sympathy for the Russians, and ties with the peasant movement. His worldview was formed under the influence of Taras Shevchenko and Russian revolutionary democrats: Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Saltykov-Shchedrin and Nekrasov.
The spread of Marxism influenced the development of his revolutionary democratic ideology towards scientific socialism. He studied and popularized the Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels and Das Kapital of Marx; first translated into Ukrainian the 24th chapter of the I volume of Capital and selected sections from Anti-Duhring of F. Engels. His worldview is closely connected with the liberation movement of the working people, with the awakening to the political life of the proletariat in the areas of oil fields and in the cities of Western Ukraine, with the achievements of natural science, with the teachings of Sechenov and Darwinism. Franko criticizes false Darwinists who apply biological laws to interpret the development of human society and draw reactionary conclusions from this. He calls for the democratization of science, for its transformation into an instrument of struggle for the interests of the working people.
His philosophical views are set out in the works: A few words about how to organize and maintain our popular publications, Thoughts on evolution in the history of mankind, Literature, its purpose and most important features, Critical letters about the Galician intelligentsia, and also in a number of works of art. Franko sees the basis of all that exists in matter. Nature is immortal, eternal, in constant motion, seething. Spirit is not a second world-creating principle, but only a reflection of moving matter, a function of the material brain and nervous system. Franko interprets human knowledge as a reflection of reality, nature. He refuted agnosticism and relativism.
Franko expressed some dialectical ideas, he saw the continuous change of the world, its contradictoriness, was guided by what was going forward. He is an atheist, a fighter against fideism and open clericalism, against clericalism and religious education of youth. The brightest publicistic works of the writer are directed against the Vatican, Catholicism, Uniatism, sectarianism. Franko criticized the false theory of the eternity of capitalism, exposed capitalist society as a predatory society, devouring generations and destroying the health and morality of the masses. This is a world of deceit and violence. Bourgeois democracy, proclaiming equality before the law, “looks as if they are comforting the hungry that he has the right to be full without giving him bread.” Franko firmly believes in the triumph of the revolution. Referring to Marx’s teaching on socialism, Franko calls for the elimination of the “wall” separating the working man from the instruments of production, for the transformation of the instruments of production into public property, for the elimination of “between,” this synonym for private property, for collective labor and distribution according to work.
In the struggle for the ideological nature of literature, Franko opposes the idealistic aesthetics with its metaphysical ideas about the eternal norms of art to the materialistic aesthetics of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov and Shevchenko. He emphasizes the historical character of art, claims that life is the main engine in art. For Franko, as well as for Shevchenko, poetry is “condensed, concentrated, crystallized reality.” He mercilessly criticizes the theory of art for art and decadence in literature. In his works of art, Franko deeply realistically reflected the servitude of the working people of Western Ukraine. He first introduced the image of a worker into Ukrainian literature. Maxim Gorky highly appreciated his work. Being an outstanding patriot, champion of friendship between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, Franko believed that “the hour will come! – and Ukraine will sparkle in a crimson halo in the circle of free peoples.”
He fought for the reunification of Ukraine as part of Russia, where, in his opinion, the spring of mankind began with the revolution of 1905. Speaking for the equality of peoples, Franko wrote: “Whoever oppresses, strangles and stops another nation in free development, digs a grave for itself and for the state, which seems to be served by this oppression.” He argued the impossibility of solving the national question without solving the social question. Franko was a resolute opponent of both bourgeois Ukrainian nationalism and rootless cosmopolitanism. He was the first in Ukraine to expose Mykhaylo Hrushevsky as the ideologue of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism, his false theory without the bourgeois character of the Ukrainian nation, denounced the activities of an espionage organization, which demagogically called itself the Union for the liberation of Ukraine, he condemned the book by Mykhaylo Hrushevsky on the history of Ukraine, written to please the German aggressors who were preparing a plan to seize Ukraine and tear it away from Russia. Franko’s book directed against Mykhaylo Hrushevsky (1912) is of scientific interest.
In the ideological development of Franko, there were also erroneous views. He did not always manage to avoid national narrow-mindedness, as Lenin pointed out in the interests of the democratic national liberation movement in Ukraine. Franko did not become a Marxist in his views, but his whole glorious life, his enormous artistic talent, which he put in the service of the working people, his military activity in the interests of the liberation of the Ukrainian people and the strengthening of friendship between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, brought him universal love; not only the Ukrainian people, but all the peoples of the Soviet Union honor the memory of Ivan Franko.” (Pavel Yudin and Mark Rosenthal, Short Philosophical Dictionary, 5th ed., 1954)
A. P. CHEKHOV (1860-1904)
cf. Äikiä, Majakovski, p.33
A. S. SERAFIMOVICH (1863-1949)
Stalin prize winning Soviet writer.
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1939)
-Order of Lenin (1933)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1943) – for “outstanding services in the field of literature, in connection with the 80th anniversary of his birth”
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – with the wording “For many years of outstanding achievements in literature”; during the Great Patriotic War, he transferred it to the Defense Fund.
“Serafimovich, Aleksandr Serafimovich (real surname Popov). Born Jan. 7 (19), 1863, in the stanitsa (large cossack village) of Nizhnekurmoiarskaia, now Tsimliansk Raion, Rostov Oblast; died Jan. 19, 1949, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1918.
The son of cossack captain in the army of the Don, Serafimo-vich spent his childhood in Poland, later living in the stanitsa of Ust’-Medveditskaia (in 1933 the stanitsa became the city of Ser-afimovich). From 1883 to 1887 he studied in the faculty of physics and mathematics at the University of St. Petersburg. In 1887 he was arrested along with those in the group that included A. I. Ul’ianov, and exiled to Arkhangel’sk Province. Returning to the Don region in 1890, he established ties with Social Democratic groups.
Serafimovich’s first published short story, “On the Ice” (1889), like his other early works presenting impressions of exile, was praised by G. I. Uspenskii and V. G. Korolenko. The short stories “The Switchman” and “Under the Earth” vividly depicted the contradictions of capitalist society. After publishing Sketches and Stories (1901), Serafimovich moved to Moscow, where he joined the literary society Sreda (Wednesday), met M. Gorky, and worked in the Znanie publishing house.
Serafimovich’s sketches and short stories “In the Middle of the Night,” “The Pogrom,” and “In the Presnia” dealt with events of the Revolution of 1905–07. Succeeding works placed increasing emphasis on history and reflected a growing understanding of the bourgeois world; an example was the novella Sands (1908). The novel City in the Steppe (1912) was a generalized history of Russian industrial capitalism. Serafimovich’s stories and sketches written during World War I (1914–18) revealed a sober understanding of the people’s misfortunes and depicted the development of antiwar and revolutionary attitudes among the people.
Serafimovich hailed the February and October revolutions of 1917. His work as a war correspondent for Pravda brought him to many fronts of the Civil War of 1918–20. His wartime publicist works were praised by V. I. Lenin, who wrote to Serafimovich: “I very much want to say to you how necessary your work is for the workers and for all of us” (Poln. sobr. soch, 5th ed., vol. 51, pp. 198–99).
The novel The Iron Stream (1924), a classic of Soviet literature, was Serafimovich’s most important work. Based on a historical event—the heroic campaign of the Taman’ Army (1918) under the command of E. I. Kovtiukh—the novel focused on the popular masses as they passed through the crucible of the Revolution.
In the 1930’s, Serafimovich published the series of sketches on the collectivization of agriculture Across the Don Steppes (1931) and spent time writing an autobiographical work. During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), the aged writer visited the front and again wrote publicist works.
Serafimovich took an active part in literary life over the course of half a century. He was editor of the journal Oktiabr’ (October) from 1926 to 1929 and was a founder of the Writers’ Union of the USSR. His works have been translated into many national languages of the USSR and into foreign languages. Serafimovich was awarded the State Prize of the USSR (1943). He also received the Order of Lenin and two other orders.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–10. Moscow, 1940–48.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–7. Moscow, 1959–60.
REFERENCES
Lunacharskii, A. V. “Put’ pisatelia.” Sobr. soch, vol. 2. Moscow, 1964.
A. S. Serafimovich: Issledovaniia, vospominaniia, materialy, pis’ma. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Gladkovskaia, L. A., and E. 1. Naumov, A. Serafimovich, D. Furmanov: Seminarii. Leningrad, 1957.
A. S. Serafimovich v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Moscow, 1961.
Volkov, A. Tvorcheskii put’ A. S. Serafimovicha, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1963.
Gladkovskaia, L. Rozhdenie epopei. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Khigerovich, R. “Zheleznyi potok” A. Serafimovicha. Moscow, 1968.
Fadeev, A. “Literaturnym edinomyshlennikam, druz’iam: Iz neopublikovannykh pisem,” Moskva, 1971, no. 12.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 4. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. A. NINOV)
M. M. KOTSIUBYNSKY (1864-1913)
“Kotsiubinskii, Mikhail Mikhailovich. Born Sept. 5 (17), 1864, in Vinnitsa; died Apr. 12 (25), 1913, in Chernigov. Ukrainian writer and public figure; revolutionary democrat.
The son of a minor government official, Kotsiubinskii graduated from the Shargorod Seminary in 1880. He was arrested in 1882 for his association with members of the People’s Will, and after his release he was kept under police surveillance. He worked as a teacher and statistician. Kotsiubinskii began to publish in 1890. In his sociopolitical, philosophical, and aesthetic views, he traversed a complex path from liberal Narodnichestvo (Populism) and kul’turnichestvo (culture-mongering, or the promotion of cultural and educational activities to the exclusion of political questions) to a revolutionary-democratic world view, showing a deep interest in Marxism. After about 1895 his works began to transcend the confines of the national peasant way of life, portraying various strata of bourgeois society.
Kotsiubinskii’s principal works—the novella Fata Morgana (parts 1–2, 1904–10) and other stories written between 1904 and 1912—present a broad panorama of the Revolution of 1905–07 and the ensuing reaction. The author depicts the people’s vengeance against their oppressors and the birth of a new countryside that, together with the working class, was gathering force for the revolutionary onslaught. In his short stories he showed provincial towns racked by pogroms (”Laughter” and “He Comes,” 1906), angry discontent among the people (”How We Went to Krinitsa,” 1908; “What Is Written in the Book of Life,” 1911), the heroes of the revolutionary underground, as contrasted with the renegades (”On the Road” and “The Stranger,” 1907; “Dream,” 1911), and ugly masks of the reaction (”Persona Grata,” 1908; “A Name-Day Present,” 1912). Kotsiubinskii denounced the decadents as “marauders of the revolution” in art (”Intermezzo,” 1909) and the liberals as accomplices of the reaction (”The Horses Are Not To Blame,” 1912). His novella Ghosts of Forgotten Ancestors (1912) triumphantly affirms the all-conquering truth of life.
Kotsiubinskii entered the history of Ukrainian literature as an artist of the revolution and greatly influenced the development of soviet Ukrainian prose, notably the writers A. Golovko, A. Dovzhenko, lu. lanovskii, and O. Gonchar. M. Gorky, a close friend, praised his work highly. Kotsiubinskii’s stories have been translated into many languages, and the films Bloody Dawn (1957), The Horses Are Not To Blame (1957), At a High Price (1958), and Ghosts of Forgotten Ancestors (1965) were based on his works. Two literary memorial museums—in Vinnitsa (1927) and Chernigov (1935)—are dedicated to Kotsiubinskii.
WORKS
Tvory, vols. 1–6. Kiev, 1961–62.
In Russian translation:
Sochineniia, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1965.
REFERENCES
Gorky, M. “M. M. Kotsiubinskii.” Sobr. soch., vol. 14. Moscow, 1951.
Ivanov, L. Mikhail Kotsiubinskii: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1956.
Kotsiubinskaia-Efimenko, Z. M. M. Kotsiubinskii: Masterstvo pisatelia. Moscow, 1959.
Kolesnyk, P. Kotsiubyns’kyi — khudozhnyk slova. Kiev, 1964.
Kalenychenko, N. Velykyi sontsepoklonnyk. Kiev, 1967.
Franko, I. Z ostannikh desiatylit’ XIX v.: Literaturno-krytychni statti. Kiev, 1950.
Kostenko, M. Khudozhnia maisternist’ M. M. Kotsiubyns’koho. Kiev, 1961.
Hrytsiuta, M. M. Kotsiubyns’kyi i narodna tvorchist’ Kiev, 1958.
M. Kotsiubyns’kyi: Bibliohrafichnyi pokazhchyk. Kiev, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by P. I. KOLESNIK)
EDUARD VILDE (1865-1933)
Estonian progressive writer and journalist (cf. Käbin, Suuri Lokakuu ja Eesti, s. 16).
J. RAINIS (1865-1929)
Latvian socialist poet, playwright, translator. People’s Poet of the Latvian SSR (1940, posthumously).
A. AKOPIAN / H. HAKOBIAN (1866-1937)
Armenian Soviet poet and writer. People’s Writer of the Armenian SSR and the Georgian SSR (1923).
“Akopian, Akop. Born May 29, 1866, in Elisavetopol’, now Kirovabad; died Nov. 13, 1937, in Tbilisi. Soviet poet, a founder of Armenian proletarian poetry. Member of the CPSU from 1904.
Born into the family of a craftsman, Akopian began publishing in the early 1890’s. His first collection of poems appeared in 1899. In 1902 he joined the workers’ movement in Transcaucasia. Enthusiasm for the revolution permeates such poems as “The Stoker” (1904), “Another Blow” (1905), “The Revolution” (1905), and “Dead, But Not Lost” (1906), such long poems as A New Morning (1909) and Red Waves (1911), and the battle songs “At Dawn” (1910), “The City” (1911), and “The Guardsmen” (1913). Akopian expressed his faith in the coming victory and praised the workers for their solidarity. He composed the resonant “Song of Labor,” which was described as “simple and threatening, like thunder.” The Bolshevik press called him the “Armenian Gorky” (Put’ pravdu, Sept. 13, 1914).
After Soviet power was established in Georgia, Akopian became commissar of the Georgian banks; he was elected a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Trans-caucasian Federation. The heroic spirit of socialist construction and the friendship of liberated peoples became the basic motifs of his poetry. His long poems Equality (1917), The Gods Began to Speak (1922), The Shir Canal (1924), The Volkhov Line (1925), and many others formed a hymn to the socialist revolution and Soviet order. In 1923 the honored title People’s Poet of Armenia and Georgia was conferred upon him. Akopian’s poetry has been translated into many languages.
WORKS
Hakobyan, H. Erkeri zolovacu, vols. 1–4. Yerevan, 1955–58.
In Russian translation:
Novoe utro. Izbr. stikhotvoreniia i poemy, 1895–1925. Moscow-Leningrad, 1928.
Izbrannoe. Moscow, 1951.
Sochineniia. Moscow, 1956.
Stikhi i poemy. Yerevan, 1960.
Stikhotvoreniia i poemy. Leningrad, 1962.
REFERENCES
Lunacharskii, A. V. “A. Akopian.” In Stat’i o sovetskoi literature. Moscow, 1958.
Sarkisian, G. A. Akopian. Yerevan, 1956.
Istoriia armianskoi sovetskoi literatury. Moscow, 1966.
Gyulnazaryan, X., and S. H. Manukyan. Hakobyani kyank’i ew gorcuneut’yan taregru t’yune. Yerevan, 1965.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by S. A. MUNUKIAN)
A. M. GORKY (1868-1936)
The Greatest writer of the Soviet Union, communist revolutionary, one of the founders of socialist realism.
A. I. KUPRIN (1870-1938)
“Kuprin, Aleksandr Ivanovich. Born Aug. 26 (Sept. 7), 1870, in Narovchat, present-day Penza Oblast; died Aug. 25, 1938, in Leningrad. Russian writer.
Kuprin was the son of a civil servant of modest means. He spent ten years away from home at closed military academies and served with an infantry regiment in Podol’ia Province for four years. In 1894 he left the service, moved to Kiev, and devoted himself to literary work. His works were first published in 1889. Kuprin traveled throughout the country, primarily southern Russia, and tried many different occupations. In 1901 he moved to St. Petersburg.
Kuprin became acquainted with Chekhov in 1899 and with Gorky and the Znanie association of writers in 1902. In 1905 his best work, the novel The Duel was published in the association’s collections (Sborniki tovarishchestva “Znanie”).
During the period of political reaction after the defeat of the Revolution of 1905–07, Kuprin’s creative powers declined. He spent the autumn of 1919 in Gatchina, which was cut off from Petrograd by General Iudenich’s White Guard forces. From there, he emigrated with his family and lived abroad for 17 years, chiefly in Paris. Throughout these years he suffered from poverty and from nostalgia for Russia. Gravely ill, he returned to his homeland in the spring of 1937.
Kuprin’s creativity was at its height during the years before he went abroad, especially during the era of social ferment before and during the Revolution of 1905–07. He earned a place in the history of Russian national literature with his novellas and novels— Moloch (1896), Olesya (1898), The Duel (1905), The Pit (part 1, 1909; part 2, 1914–15)—as well as with his masterful short stories. Among them were “At the Circus” and “The Swamp” (both 1902), “The Coward” and “The Horse Thieves” (both 1903), “A Peaceful Life” and “Measles” (both 1904), “Staff-Captain Rybnikov” (1906), “Gambrinus” and “The Emerald” (both 1907), “Sulamif’” (1908), “The Garnet Bracelet” (1911), “Listrigony” (1907–11), and “Black Lightning” and “Anathema” (both 1913).
As an émigré he wrote the novellas Junkers (1928–32) and Jeanette (1932–33), a few sketches, and some short stories based primarily on his memories.
Kuprin belonged to the pleiad of the writers of critical realism. Most of his works are topical and are pervaded by keen civic feeling and social consciousness. Moloch is a biting exposé of bourgeois “progress,” and The Duel is an exposé of the tsarist army. The Pit describes an attempt to help modern society heal the ulcerated wound of prostitution. Kuprin’s works reflect the influence of Chekhov, Gorky, and in particular, Leo Tolstoy.
A truthful and realistic artist who wrote only about what he saw, experienced, and felt, Kuprin addressed himself to a broad democratic audience. Usually, his writings focus on an “average” member of the Russian intelligentsia: a hard-working, sin cere man of conscience, gravely wounded by life’s contradictions. Colorful images of the common people also occupy an important place in Kuprin’s writing. He was inclined to describe “group” and “occupational” psychology, which are stable and common phenomena. His love of life, humanism, vivid power of description, and rich language make him one of the most widely read writers even today. Many of Kuprin’s works have been adapted for the stage and screen and translated into a number of foreign languages.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. [Introductory article by K. Paustovskii.] Moscow, 1957–58.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–9. [Introductory article by K. Chukovskii.] Moscow, 1964.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–9. [Introductory article by F. I. Kuleshov.] Moscow, 1970–73.
Zabytye i nesobrannye proizvedeniia: Podgot. teksta, prim, i materialy k biografii E. M. Rotshteina. Penza, 1950.
O literature. [Introductory article by the compiler, F. I. Kuleshov.] Minsk, 1969.
REFERENCES
Vorovskii, V. “A. Kuprin.” In his book Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i. Moscow, 1956.
Berkov, P. N. A. I. Kuprin: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Afanas’ev, V. A. I. Kuprin: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1960.
Volkov, A. Tvorchestvo A. I. Kuprina. Moscow, 1962.
Kuleshov, F. I. Tvorcheskii put’ A. I. Kuprina. Minsk, 1963.
Kuprina-Iordanskaia, M. K. Gody molodosti. Moscow, 1966.
Kuprina, K. A. Kuprin—moi otets. Moscow, 1971.
Istoriia russkoi literatury kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by I. A. PITLIAR)
A Great Love [includes “A Great Love”, “Sisters”, “The loves of three generations”] A Great Love [includes “A great love”, “Thirty-two pages”, “Conversation piece”. This is translated by anti-communist writer Cathy Porter and includes a slanderous introduction by her] Red Love
I. I. EVDOSHVILI (1873-1916)
“Evdoshvili, Irodion Isakievich (pseudonym of E. I. Khositashvili). Born May 7(19), 1873, in the village of Bodbiskhevi, present-day Signakhi Raion; died May 2 (15), 1916, in Tbilisi. Georgian poet; of peasant origin. Expelled from the Tbilisi Theological Seminary in 1893 for “unreliability.” His works began to be published in 1892. He participated in the Revolution of 1905-07 and was exiled to Sol’vychegodsk in 1910.
Evdoshvili was the first Georgian writer to create proletarians and revolutionary fighters as characters in literature. His poems “The Storm,” “To Friends” (1895), “The Muse and the Worker” (1905), “Freedom,” “At a Hero’s Grave” (1906), and “Song of the Struggle” (1907) summoned the masses to action. Several of his poems became popular songs. The characteristic traits of socialist realism are observed in Evdoshvilïs work. Later, new themes of mourning and sadness occasioned by the defeat of the Revolution of 1905-07 appeared in his works. Evdoshvili was the author of children’s poems and short stories, as well as acute topical satire. His work was highly praised by V. V. Mayakovsky.
WORKS
T’xzulebani, vols. 1-3. Tbilisi, 1935-37.
Sabavshvo mot’xrobebi. Tbilisi, 1952.
REFERENCE
Karelishvili, E. Pevets Gurii: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo I. Evdoshvili [1873-1916]. Tbilisi, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
M. M. PRISHVIN (1873-1954)
Mikhail Mikhailovich Prishvin was a Soviet writer (cf. Gorky, Literary portraits). Recipient of the Order of the Badge of Honor (1939) and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1943)
“Prishvin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. Born Jan. 23 (Feb. 4), 1873, on the estate of Krushchevo, now in Elets Raion, Lipetsk Oblast; died Jan. 16, 1954, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer.
The son of a merchant, Prishvin studied at the Riga Polytechnic School from 1893 to 1897. He was arrested for membership in Marxist groups. In 1902 he graduated from the agronomy division of the University of Leipzig. During World War I he was a war correspondent, and in 1917 and 1918 a journalist. From 1918 to 1922 he was a rural schoolteacher.
Prishvin began publishing in 1898; his first short story was published in 1906. He was employed as an agronomist, and a number of his trips were the source of his travel sketches. His books based on life in the north, marked by a poetical quality and an unusual perceptiveness, provided authentic descriptions of nature and everyday life. Examples of these works are In the Land of Unfrightened Birds (1907), In Search of the Magic Loaf (1908), and the novellas and short stories in The Black Arab (1910) and Glorious Tambourines (1913). The influence of the literary trend of decadence is perceptible in the collection At the Walls of the Invisible City (1909). Prishvin’s sketches, short stories, and phenological short stories, including Shoes (1923) and The Springs of Berendei (1925–26), depict new features of “the face of life itself.”
Prishvin’s lyric prose includes the novella Ginseng (original title The Root of Life, 1933), the narrative poem in prose Facelia (1940), and the cycle of miniatures Thaw in the Forest (1943). These works are permeated with a deeply felt summons to “creative conduct in life”: in Prishvin, cognition of nature is inextricably linked with an awareness of man’s social and moral essence. A similar unity marks the historical and modern scenes of such work as the novel-tale The Royal Road (published 1957), the tale The Storeroom of the Sun (1945), the novella-tale The Ship Timber Forest (1954), and the autobiographical novel Kashcheiv’s Chain (1960, begun 1923).
Prishvin praised Russian nature and was a poet-philosopher and a refined and original stylist. Many of his works have become part of the heritage of Soviet children’s literature and have been translated into foreign languages. He was awarded two orders.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–7. [Introductory article by M. Gorky and essay by N. Zamoshkin.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1927–30.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. [Introductory article by K. Paustovskii.] Moscow, 1956–57.
Izbr. proizv., vols. 1–2. [Introductory article by V. D. Prishvina.] Moscow, 1972.
“Avtobiografiia.” In Sovetskie pisateli: Avtobiografii, vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.
REFERENCES
Khmel’nitskaia, T. Tvorchestvo Mikhaila Prishvina. Leningrad, 1959.
Khailov, A. Mikhail Prishvin: Tvorcheskii put’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960.
Motiashov, I. Mikhail Prishvin: Kritiko-biografich. ocherk. Moscow, 1965.
Trefilova, G. P. “M. M. Prishvin.” In Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi literatury v chetyrekh tomakh, vol. 3, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1968.
Ershov, G. Mikhail Prishvin: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1973.
“Mikhail Prishvin.” In Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi literatury, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1970.
Russkie sovetskiepisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 3. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. P. PECHKO)
SERGEI SERGEYEV-TSENSKY (1875-1958)
Stalin prize winning Soviet author.
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1939)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1941) – for the epic novel “Sevastopol Strada”
-two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1945, 1950)
-Order of Lenin (1955) – for outstanding services in the field of fiction and in connection with the 80th anniversary of his birth
P. P. BAZHOV (1879-1950)
Russian and Soviet writer, folklorist, publicist, journalist. Gained fame as the author of the Ural tales. Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the 2nd and 3rd convocations.
He earned the following awards:
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1943) – for the book of Ural tales “The Malachite Box”
-Order of Lenin (1944)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
A. A. BLOK (1880-1921)
“Blok, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. Born Nov. 16 (28), 1880, in St. Petersburg; died Aug. 7,1921, in Petrograd. Russian poet.
Blok’s father was a professor of law at the University of Warsaw, and his mother, A. A. Beketova, was a writer and translator. He spent his childhood in St. Petersburg and the estate of Shakhmatovo near Moscow. He graduated from the Slavic-Russian division of the philology department of the University of St. Petersburg in 1906. In 1903 he married L. D. Mendeleeva, the daughter of D. I. Mendeleev. During the same period, Blok became acquainted with Andrei Belyi and V. Briusov. He began writing poetry as a child and first published in 1903. In 1904 he published the collection Verses About the Beautiful Lady, where he appeared as a lyricist and symbolist, having been under the influence of the mystical poetry of V. Solov’ev since 1901. In 1903 the theme of the misanthropic city of slave labor and abject misery (a section of “Crossroads,” 1902–04) entered Blok’s abstract romantic poetry. The Revolution of 1905–07 opened for the poet, in his words, “the face of an awakened life.” From this time on, the theme of the homeland was always present in Blok’s poetry. His works became tragic and very deep, pervaded with a sense of the catastrophic nature of the epoch and a foreboding of the gathering, purifying storm (the cycle The Field of Kulikovo, 1908, sections of the cycle Free Thoughts, 1907, and Iambs, 1907–14). The unfinished narrative poem Retribution (1910–21) is full of revolutionary presentiment. Hatred for the world of “sated people” and for the horrifying, inhuman aspects of life are persistently and strongly expressed in Blok’s work (a section of The City, 1904–08, and Terrible World, 1909–16). Blok’s love lyrics are romantic; along with rapture and ecstasy they contain fatalistic, tragic elements (sections of the cycle The Snowy Mask, 1907, Faina, 1907–08, Retaliation, 1908–13, and Carmen, 1914). The mature poetry of Blok is free of abstract mystical and romantic symbols and has a vitality and concreteness, with all elements in harmony and vivid imagery (Italian Verses, 1909, the narrative poem The Nightingale Garden, 1915, and others). Many of the ideas of Blok’s poetry are developed in his dramatic work, which includes the plays The Unknown Woman, The Puppet Show, and The King in the Square (all 1906); Song of Fate (1907–08); and The Rose and the Cross (1912–13). Blok’s poetic fame solidified after the publication of the collections Unexpected Joy (1906), The Snowy Mask (1907), Land Under Snow (1908), Lyric Dramas (1908), The Hours of Night (1911), and collected verse (Musaget Publishing House, vols. 1–3, 1911–12).
From the beginning of the 1900’s, Blok published critical and journalistic articles, sketches, and speeches. His prose deals with troubling questions and is socially and aesthetically significant; it is in essence lyrical and deals with general questions of culture, literature, and art (“Colors and Words,” 1906; “Hard Times,” 1906; “On Lyricism,” 1907; “On Theater,” “Letters on Poetry,” “The People and the Intelligentsia,” “The Elements and Culture,” 1908; “Lightning Flashes of Art,” 1909; “On the Present Condition of Russian Symbolism,” 1910; “The Fate of Apollon Grigor’ev,” 1916; and reviews of verse by A. Belyi, V. Briusov, K. Bal’mont, and E. Verhaeren).
Blok enthusiastically greeted the overthrow of tsarism in February 1917 and was one of the editors of the stenographic account of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of former tsarist ministers; this work was the source of his book The Last Days of Imperial Power (1921). The Great October Socialist Revolution caused an increase in Blok’s creative powers. In the article “The Intelligentsia and Revolution” (January 1918) he wrote: “We Russians are living in a period whose greatness has rarely been equalled…. With your whole body, with your whole heart, with your whole consciousness—listen to the Revolution.” (Soch, vol. 2, 1955, pp. 220, 228). In 1918, Blok wrote the narrative poem The Twelve, about the decline of the old world and its clash with the new one; the poem is built on semantic antitheses and sharp contrasts. The poem “The Scythians” of the same year is dedicated to the historical mission of revolutionary Russia. In the last years of his life, Blok carried on a great deal of literary and civic activity; he worked in the State Commission for the Publication of the Classics, in the Theatrical Division of the People’s Commissariat on Education, in the Union of Literary Figures, in World Literature Publishing House, and in the Union of Poets. In April 1919 he was appointed chairman of the board of producers of the Bol’shoi Dramatic Theater in Petrograd. He gave reports and speeches and wrote articles (“Katilina,” 1918; “The Fall of Humanism,” 1919; “Heine in Russia,” 1919; “On the Purpose of the Poet,” 1921; “Without Deity, Without Inspiration,” 1921, published in 1925). The works of Blok are related to the poetic traditions of V. A. Zhukovskii, M. Iu. Lermontov, A. A. Fet, and N. A. Nekrasov. Blok was a romantic whose poetry, in subject matter, became Russian reality and the real man. Characteristic are the diversity, rebelliousness, and emotional tension of his lyric hero and the multicolored and innovative artistic methods that he employs, such as the maximum blending of the cadence of the rhythm with the finest shades of meaning, his use of imperfect rhymes and free verse, and his work on tonic poems (especially the dol’nik).
The poetic works of Blok have been translated into many languages.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–12. Leningrad [1932–36].
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–8. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960–63.
Zapisnye knizhki: 1901–1920. Moscow, 1965.
Pis’ma Aleksandra Bloka k rodnym, vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1927–32. [Foreword by V. A. Desnitskii, notes by M. A. Beketova.]
Aleksandr Blok i Andrei Belyi: Perepiska. Moscow, 1940.
REFERENCES
Zhirmunskii, V. M. Poeziia A. Bloka. Petrograd, 1922.
Chukovskii, K. Aleksandr Blok kak chelovek i poet. Petrograd, 1924.
Chukovskii, K. “Aleksandr Blok.” In lz vospominanii. Moscow, 1959.
Beketova, M. Aleksandr Blok. Leningrad, 1930.
Nemerovskaia, O., and Ts. Vol’pe. Sud’ba Bloka. Leningrad, 1930.
Miasnikov, A. S.A. A. Blok. Moscow, 1949.
Orlov, VI. Aleksandr Blok. Moscow, 1956.
Orlov, VI. Poema Aleksandra Bloka “Dvenadtsat’,” 2nd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Timofeev, L. I. Aleksandr Blok. Moscow, 1957.
Timofeev, L. I. Tvorchestvo Aleksandra Bloka. Moscow, 1963.
Remenik, G. Poemy Aleksandra Bloka. Moscow, 1959.
Vengrov, N. Put’ Aleksandra Bloka. Moscow, 1963.
Turkov, A. Aleksandr Blok. Moscow, 1969.
Ashukin, N. Aleksandr Blok, Sinkhronisticheskie tablitsy zhizni i tvorchestva: 1880–1921. Bibliography 1903–1923. [Moscow] 1923.
Kolpakova, E., P. Kupriianovskii, and D. Maksimov. “Materialy k bibliografii Aleksandra Bloka za 1928–1957 gody.” Uch. zap. Vil’niusskogo pedagogicheskogo in-ta, 1959, vol. 6.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. A. SAAKIANTS)
K. I. CHUKOVSKY (1882-1969)
“Chukovskii, Kornei Ivanovich. (real name, Nikolai Vasil’evich Korneichukov). Born Mar. 19 (31), 1882, in St. Petersburg; died Oct. 28, 1969, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer, critic, literary scholar, and translator. Doctor of philology (1957).
Chukovskii was expelled from a Gymnasium in Odessa in the fifth grade because of his social origin (his mother was a peasant). He subsequently worked and studied on his own. He began his journalistic career in 1901, publishing essays on contemporary writers that were later collected in such books as From Chekhov to Our Times (1908) and Faces and Masks (1914). Although sharp and penetrating, Chukovskii’s literary portraits at times exhibited excessive subjectivity and paradoxicality of judgment. In Nat Pinkerton and Modern Literature (1908), he mocked petit bourgeois literature with great skill.
In 1916, M. Gorky invited Chukovskii to work at the Parus Publishing House and advised him to write for children. Chukovskii’s fairy tales in verse “Moidodyr” (1923), “The Giant Roach” (1923), “Mukha-tsokotukha” (1924; under the title “The Fly’s Wedding”), “Barmalei” (1925), and “Aibolit” (1929; under the title “The Adventures of Aibolit”) were elegant, witty, and free of didacticism. They quickly found their way into the hearts of young readers. Chukovskii’s painstaking study of children’s speech, ability to create words, and psychology resulted in Little Children (1928), republished later as From Two to Five (21st ed., 1970).
Chukovskii dealt with the legacy of N. A. Nekrasov in Nekrasov as Artist (1922), the collection of articles Nekrasov (1926), and the 1927 edition of Nekrasov’s Complete Collected Poems. His work on Nekrasov culminated in his definitive study, The Mastery of Nekrasov (1952; Lenin Prize, 1962).
A translator for many years, Chukovskii was the first to acquaint Russian readers with W. Whitman’s Leaves of Grass (1907). He analyzed contemporary methods of translation in Principles of Artistic Translation (1919) and High Art (1968). In his literary and historical memoirs, such as Contemporaries (1962) and Chekhov (1967), Chukovskii drew vivid portraits of Russian cultural figures. He also worked extensively as an editor.
Chukovskii received an honorary doctorate in literature from Oxford University in 1962. Many of his books have been translated into languages of the USSR and foreign languages. Chukovskii was awarded the Order of Lenin, three orders of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1965–69.
Aleksandr Blok kak chelovek i poet. Petrograd, 1924.
ll’ia Repin. Moscow, 1969.
Moi Uitmen, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1969.
REFERENCES
Petrovskii, M. Kniga o Kornee Chukovskom. Moscow, 1966.
Rassadin, S. “Iskusstvo byt’ samim soboi.” Novyi mir, 1967, no. 7.
Slonimskii, M. “Kornei Chukovskii.” Zvezda, 1972, no. 8.
Vospominaniia o Kornee Chukovskom. Moscow, 1977.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. V. ZHDANOV)
F. V. GLADKOV (1883-1958)
Great Soviet writer of socialist realism, journalist, war correspondent, teacher. Winner of two Stalin Prizes. His most famous book is Cement.
He earned the following awards:
-Two orders of Lenin (1939, 1953)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1943)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for “The Tale of Childhood” (1949)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1951) – for the story “Freemen” (1950)
A. N. TOLSTOY (1883-1945)
Great Soviet writer of Socialist Realism. His most famous work is perhaps The Road to Calvary.
DEMYAN BEDNY (1883-1945)
Great Soviet poet.
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Red Banner (1923)
-Order of Lenin (1933)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
SHAKHNO EPSHTEIN (1883-1945)
Soviet Russian Jewish publicist and literary critic. He wrote in Yiddish and Russian.
Born into a rabbinical family. Joined the bund in 1903. Was arrested for revolutionary activity in 1905 and again in 1906. Emigrated to the USA where he worked for the bund until returning to Russia after the February revolution. During the split of the Bund in 1919, he joined the Communist Bund (Komfarband), and in August of the same year – the Communist Party of Ukraine.
Since 1920, he was the editor of the State Book Publishing House, which published books in Yiddish, and served as chairman of the Jewish literary association. In the 1920s he conducted communist activities in the USA. He returned to work in the USSR by the end of the 1920s. In 1942-1945 he was the executive secretary of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee.
G. K. NIKIFOROV (1884-1939)
“Nikiforov, Georgii Konstantinovich. Born May 26 (June 7), 1884, in Saratov; died 1939. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1917.
Nikiforov published his first works in 1918. His experiences in the armed uprising in December of 1905 in Moscow are reflected in the novella Gray Days (1925). Nikiforov is the author of the novels By the Street Lamp (1927), Woman (1929), Head Wind (1930), and Unity (1933), which are devoted to the defense of the gains of the revolution, the Civil War, the creation of a new world, and the reorientation of man’s consciousness. He also published the historical novel The Masters (1935–37) and several novellas of intrigue. He was a member of the literary associations Kuznitsa and Oktiabr’.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. [Critical and biographical essay by A. Zonin.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1927–28.
REFERENCE
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 3. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
N. N. LIASHKO (1884-1953)
“Liashko, Nikolai Nikolaevich (pseudonym of Nikolai Nikolaevich Liashchenko). Born Nov. 17 (29), 1884, in the city of Lebedin, present-day Sumy Oblast; died Aug. 26, 1953, in Moscow. Russian Soviet author. Member of the CPSU from 1938.
Liashko became involved in revolutionary activity at an early age. His work was first published in 1905. He was one of the leaders of the literary group called The Smithy. Liashko was the author of the novella Blast Furnace (1925), about the reconstruction of the national economy, which had been destroyed by the Civil War; the novel Sweet Servitude (parts 1-2, 1934-36); the autobiographical novella Nikola From Lebedin (1951); and other works about the condition and struggle of workers before the October Revolution of 1917. Liashko was awarded two orders and various medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-3. (Introductory essay by A. Voinov.) Moscow, 1955.
REFERENCES
Serebrianskii, M. Tvorchestvo Nikolaia Liashko. Moscow-Leningrad, 1931.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki. Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’ vol. 2. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. N. BILL’-BELOTSERKOVSKY (1885-1970)
“Bill’-Belotserkovskii, Vladimir Naumovich. Born Dec. 28, 1884 (Jan. 9, 1885), in Aleksandriia, Kherson Province; died Mar. 1, 1970, in Moscow. Russian Soviet writer; Honored Worker in the Arts (1935). Became a member of the CPSU in 1917. Spent eight years as a sailor on schooners and steamships in the Russian and English merchant fleets and about seven years in the USA, where he was a laborer and window-washer. Returned to Russia in 1917 and took part in the Civil War.
Bill’-Belotserkovskii began to be published in 1918. In 1920 he published the collection of short stories Laughter Through Tears. His plays Rare Beefsteak (1920), Echo (1924), and Steer Left (1925) are concerned with international workers’ solidarity. In his best work, the play The Gale (1926), the leading role of the Party in the socialist transformation of the country, as well as the poetry of creative labor, was shown on the Soviet stage for the first time. Bill’-Belotserkovskii also wrote the plays Calm (1927), Moon on the Left (1928), Voice of the Womb (1929), Life Is Calling (1934), and Skin Color (1948; presented under the title Around the Ring in 1949). Bill’-Belotserkovskii’s best works are distinguished by social insight, dynamism, and a publicistic quality. He was awarded three orders, as well as medals.
WORKS
Izbrannoe. Moscow, 1964. [Introductory article by B. Rostotskii.]
P’esy. Moscow, 1955.
Put’ zhizni: Rasskazy. Moscow, 1959.
“Avtobiograflia.” In Sovetskie pisateli, vol. 1. Moscow, 1959.
REFERENCE
Rudnitskii, K. “Bill’-Belotserkovskii.” In Portrety dramaturgov. Moscow, 1961.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. S. NEVEROV (1886-1923)
Soviet writer. (cf. Raoul Palmgren, Kapinalliset kynät I, s. 18.)
FRIEDEBERT TUGLAS (1886-1971)
Soviet Estonian poet. People’s Writer of the Estonian SSR (1946), recipient of the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and the Order of the Badge of Honor (1956) (cf. Käbin, Suuri Lokakuu ja Eesti, s. 12).
S. I. MARSHAK (1887-1964)
“Marshak, Samuil Iakovlevich. Born Oct. 22 (Nov. 3), 1887, in Voronezh; died July 4, 1964, in Moscow. Soviet Russian poet.
Marshak was the son of a foreman at a soapworks. He began to write verses early, and in 1902 the talented boy attracted the attention of V. V. Stasov, who introduced him to M. Gorky. From 1904 to 1906, Marshak lived with Gorky’s family in Yalta. His work first appeared in print in 1907. From 1912 to 1914, Marshak attended courses in the department of art at the University of London. From 1915 to 1917 his first translations of English poetry were published in Russian journals. In 1920 he lived in Krasnodar (formerly Ekaterinodar), where he founded one of the first children’s theaters in the country and wrote fairy-tale plays for it.
In 1923, Marshak’s first books of verse for the very young appeared, including The House That Jack Built, Tots in a Cage, and Silly Little Mouse. From 1923 to 1925 he headed the journal Novyi Robinzon (The New Robinson), which brought together writers of the new Soviet literature for children. For a number of years, Marshak was director of the Leningrad editorial board of the State Publishing House of Children’s Literature. Gorky closely consulted with Marshak concerning his plans for a “great literature for little folk.” Marshak’s role as a poet for children was accurately described by A. A. Fadeev, who pointed out that in his verses Marshak knew how to talk to a child about the most complex ideas of great social content. He wrote about the valor of labor and about working people without sounding didactic; on the contrary, his verses were written in a lively, joyful, engaging manner, often in the form of a game, that was intelligible to children. These distinctive features of Marshak’s works for children were present in his early books The Fire, The Mail, and War With the Dnieper and in such later works as the satirical lampoon Mister Twister (1933) and the romantic poem Tale of an Unknown Hero (1938); they also appeared in his wartime and postwar writings, such as Military Mail (1944), True Stories and Fables (1947), and Year Round (1948). Marshak wrote excellent, exemplary children’s tales, songs, riddles, and plays for children’s theaters including Twelve Months, If You Fear Sorrow, You ’ Never Know Happiness, and Clever Things.
As a translator, Marshak enriched Soviet Russian poetry with classical translations of Shakespeare’s sonnets and of songs and ballads by Burns, Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, Kipling, Lear, and Milne, as well as Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Lithuanian, and Armenian poets. As a lyrical poet, Marshak won renown with his book of verses Selected Lyrical Verse (1962; Lenin Prize, 1963) and with a collection of lyrical epigrams.
As a prose writer and critic, Marshak was the author of the autobiographical novella At Life’s Beginning (1960) and of articles and notes on poetic technique (the book A Literary Upbringing, 1961). During the Great Patriotic War, Marshak proved to be a talented satirist. His satirical verses appeared regularly in Pravda and his wartime posters (done in collaboration with Kukryniksy) were enormously popular at the front and at home. Marshak’s books have been translated into many languages of the peoples of the USSR and into foreign languages. Marshak was awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1942, 1946, 1949, and 1951. He received two Orders of Lenin, two other orders, and a number of medals.
WORKS
Sobr. sock, vols. 1-8. Moscow, 1968-72.
REFERENCES
Gorky, M. Sobr. soch., vol. 25, pp. 112, 114; vol. 26, p. 63; vol. 27, p. 31; vol. 30, pp. 250, 288, 349.
Morozov, M. “Sonety Shekspira v perevodakh S. Marshaka.” In Marshak, S. la.: Stat’i i perevody. Moscow, 1954.
Fadeev, A. “O dvukh storonakh tvorchestva S. Ia. Marshaka.” Literatura i zhizn Oct. 5, 1960.
Rassadin, St. Obyknovennoe chudo: Kniga o skazkakh dlia teatra. Moscow, 1964.
Galanov, B. E. Samuil lakovlevich Marshak. Moscow, 1965.
Panteleev, L. “Marshak v Leningrad.” Zhivye pamiatniki. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Smirnova, V. “Uchitel’, drug, master.” In O detiakh i dlia detei, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Vengrov, N. “S. Ia. Marshak.” Inlstoriia russkoisovetskoi literatury, 2nd ed., vol. 3. Moscow, 1968.
Sarnov, B. Samuil Marshak: Ocherk poezii. Moscow, 1968.
Ia dumal, chuvstvoval, ia zhil: Vospominaniia o S. Ia. Marshake. Moscow, 1971.
Tvardovskii, A. “O poezii Marshaka.” InStat’iizametkio literature. 3rd ed. Moscow, 1972.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. E. GALANOV)
A. M. EFROS (1888-1954)
“Efros, Abram Markovich. Born Apr. 21 (May 3), 1888, in Moscow; died there Nov. 19, 1954. Soviet Russian scholar of art, literature, and theater; translator.
Efros studied at the law faculty of Moscow University from 1907 to 1911. He taught at the Second State Free Art Studios in 1919 and 1920 and at the State Institute of Theatrical Arts in Moscow, the Middle Asian University in Tashkent, and other institutions in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Efros, who made his debut as a translator in 1909, translated the Song of Songs and works by Dante and Petrarch. From 1917 to 1929 he was on the staff of a museum.
Efros began his career as an art critic and essayist in 1911. His favorite genre is the critical portrait that reveals the characteristics of the creative work and personality of an artist, writer, or actor. He wrote in this genre on such figures as V. A. Serov, V. I. Surikov, P. V. Kuznetsov, V. A. Favorskii, G. Apollinaire, J. Cocteau, P. Valéry, and S. M. Mikhoels. During the 1930’s, Efros translated and edited literary works by, and documents pertaining to, G. Vasari, P. P. Rubens, V. Van Gogh, Leonardo da Vinci, A. G. Venetsianov, and Sil’vestr Shchedrin. Efros studied the drawings of A. S. Pushkin.
WORKS
Profili. Moscow, 1930.
Dva veka russkogo iskusstva. Moscow, 1969. (Contains bibliography.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. V. TOLMACHEV)
MARIETTA SHANGINYAN (1888-1982)
“Shaginian, Marietta Sergeevna. Born Mar. 21 (Apr. 2), 1888, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Hero of Socialist Labor (1976); doctor of philological sciences (1946); corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR (1950). Member of the CPSU from 1942.
Shaginian, the daughter of an Armenian scholar and physician, graduated from the history and philosophy department of the Ger’e Advanced Courses for Women in 1912. From 1906 to 1912 she contributed to the Moscow press and later to the newspapers Priazovskii krai (The Azov Region), Kavkazskoe slovo (The Caucasian Word), and Baku (Baku). She published the books of poetry First Encounters (1909) and Orientalia (1913) and the short-story collections Narrow Gates (1914) and Seven Conversations (1915). In her novel One’s Destiny (published in full in 1923), she appealed to the intelligentsia to reconsider their own destiny from the point of view of the people’s destiny.
The October Revolution of 1917, which Shaginian enthusiastically welcomed, provided new themes for her writing, for example, the novella The Change (1923). Under the pen name Jim Dollar she published the series of agitation-adventure novellas Mess-Mend (1924–25), consisting of A Yankee in Petrograd, Lori Len, Metalworker, and The Road to Baghdad, which were published throughout the world by the working-class press and enjoyed enormous success; the series was adapted for the screen in 1926.
Shaginian’s novel Hydrocentral (1930–31) deals with socialist construction and new human relationships. The novel reflects the years the author spent at the construction site of hydroelectric power plants in Armenia. It reveals her gift for exploring a literary theme, developing a plot, and providing an abundance of technical information. These qualities make Hydrocentral one of the best examples of the Soviet industrial novel.
In her numerous essays, including “Journey Through Soviet Armenia” (1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951), Shaginian examines important phenomena of modern life against the scrupulously depicted panorama of Armenian culture and history. The book of sketches Letters From Abroad (1964) depicts postwar Europe’s complex ideological struggle in the face of the growing forces of the socialist camp. Shaginian, a master of the literary portrait, wrote sketches of G. B. Iakulov, V. F. Khodasevich, S. V. Rachmaninoff, and W. Blake, as well as full-length biographical works, including T. Shevchenko (1941), I. A. Krylov (1944), Studies on Nizami (1955) and Resurrection, which is devoted to the Czech composer J. Mysliveček. Shaginian was also the author of various studies, essays, and articles, including several about Goethe, for example, Journey to Weimar (1914, published 1923) and Goethe (1950).
Themes drawn from Lenin’s life occupy a special place in Shaginian’s works. The historical and philosophical interpretation of various problems determined her success as a writer. Her chronicle novels The Ul’ianov Family (1938, rev. ed. 1957) and The First All-Russian Exhibition (1965) were awarded the Lenin Prize in 1972, along with several of her sketches. In the two novels, Shaginian details the history of Russia in the 1870’s, shows the profound validity of Leninism as a historical phenomenon, and creates a vital image of Lenin as a man and thinker.
Shaginian’s works have been translated into many languages of the peoples of the USSR, as well as foreign languages. She has been awarded two Orders of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, seven other orders, and several medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1971–73.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–9. Moscow, 1971–75.
Ob iskusstve i literature, 1933–1957. Moscow, 1958.
Chetyre uroka u Lenina. Moscow, 1972.
“Chelovek i vremia: Vospominaniia.” Novyi mir, 1971, no. 4; 1972, nos. 1–2; 1973, nos. 4–6; 1975, no. 3; 1977, no. 1; 1978, no. 4.
REFERENCES
Gol’dina, R. Leninskaia tema v tvorchestve M. Shaginian. Yerevan, 1969.
Rus. sov. pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibligrafich. ukazatel’, vol. 6, part 1. Moscow, 1969.
Skorino, L. I. Marietta Shaginian—khudozhnik: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1975.
Goriachkina, M. “Mnogogrannyi talant.” Pravda, May 21,1975.
Serebriakov, K. B. Uroki zhizni. Moscow, 1977.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, article by M. S. Goriachkina)
A. A. D’AKTIL (1890-1942)
Russian Soviet songwriter, playwright, satirist writer and translator.
V. M. INBER (1890-1972)
Soviet poetess and prose writer, translator, journalist. Laureate of the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946).
“Inber, Vera Mikhailovna. Born June 28 (July 10), 1890, in Odessa; died Jan. 1, 1972, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Became a member of the CPSU in 1943.
Inber began to publish her works in 1910. Inber’s earliest poems were marked by the love of life and elegant, sober irony that were characteristic of her mature work. The collections The Goal and the Path (1925) and To a Son Who Does Not Exist (1927) reflect the poet’s interest in the creative forces of the new society. In the mid-1920’s, Inber was close to the constructivists; she later became a journalist, a writer of sketches (for example, her travel notes America in Paris, 1928), and a prose writer (humorous short stories from daily life in the cities; the autobiographical chronicle A Place Under the Sun, 1928). The collection of poems Sotto Voce (1932) conveys the warmth of new human relations. In this collection she studies the “region of the heart”; such was also the spirit and tone of Inber’s narrative poems about her trip to Soviet Georgia entitled Travel Diary (1939). During the Great Patriotic War, Inber was in besieged Leningrad, and with great artistic power she registered the heroic defense of the city: the collection of poems The Soul ofLeningrad (1942), her Leningrad diary Almost Three Years (1946), and the narrative poem The Pulkovo Meridian (1943; State Prize of the USSR, 1946). Among her postwar works are a book of poems entitled April (1960), with Lenin as its theme, and a book about literary experience, Inspiration and Craftsmanship (1957).
Inber is a poet of calm meditation and pensiveness, inclined to domesticating and “warming” the wide world. These same traits are also present in her popular poems and stories written for children. Inber was awarded three orders as well as medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1965–66. [Introduction by A. Makarov.] Za mnogo let. Moscow, 1964.
Stranitsky dneiperebiraia… Iz dnevnikov i zapisnykh knizhek [1924-65]. Moscow, 1967.
Anketa vremeni: Izbrannye stikhi. Moscow, 1971. [Foreword by Ts. Dmitrieva.]
Izbrannaia proza. Moscow, 1971.
REFERENCES
Grinberg, I. Vera Inber: Kriliko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1961.
Tarasenkov. An. Russkie poety XX veka—1900–1955: Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by I. B. RODNJANSKAIA)
She received the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1939)
-Medal “For the Defense of Leningrad” (1943)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the poem “Pulkovo Meridian” and the Leningrad diary “Almost Three Years”
-three Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1960, 1967, 1970)
D. A. FURMANOV (1891-1926)
Great Soviet writer of Socialist Realism. His most famous work is Chapaev.
“Bulgakov, Mikhail Afanas’evich. Born May 3 (15), 1891, in Kiev; died Mar. 10, 1940, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Born into the family of an instructor at the Kiev Theological Academy.
Bulgakov graduated from the medical department of the University of Kiev in 1916 and was a district physician in Smolensk Province. Bulgakov’s professional literary activity began in 1919. During 1922-26 he was a contributor to the newspaper Gudok. His first collection of satirical stories, Deviltry (1925), generated arguments in the press. The publication of the novel The White Guard (1925-27) remained incomplete. He used the themes of this novel for the play Days of the Turbins (staged by the Moscow Academic Art Theater in 1926). These works, as well as the play Flight (1926-28, produced in 1957), depict the change in attitudes of the old Russian intelligentsia, debunk the idea of the “White” movement, and show the sterility of life in emigration. In the comedies Zoia’s Apartment (produced by the Evg. Vakhtangov Theater in 1926) and The Crimson Island (produced by the Kamernyi Theater in 1928), Bulgakov ridicules the manners and morals of the milieu of NEP speculators and parodies the customs of the small, self-contained world of the theater.
The literary critics of the late 1920’s viewed Bulgakov’s work extremely negatively; his works were not printed and his plays were withdrawn from the theaters. In the early 1930’s, Bulgakov was assistant stage director of the Moscow Academic Art Theater and staged N. V. Gogol’s Dead Souls (1932). In the historical dramas The Bondage of Hypocrites, or Molière (1930-36; produced in 1943) and The Last Days, or Pushkin (1934-35; produced in 1943) and in the biographical story Life of Monsieur de Molière (1932-33, published in 1962), Bulgakov shows the incompatibility of true art with monarchic despotism. The uncompleted Theatrical Novel: A Dead Man’s Notes (1936-37; published in 1965) combines a lyrical confession and satire. From the early 1930’s until the end of his life Bulgakov worked on the novel The Master and Margarita (published in 1966-67). By combining three levels of action—the level of history and legends (ancient Judaea), of present-day manners and morals (Moscow in the 1930’s), and of mysticism and fantasy—Bulgakov created an original form of the philosophical novel, in which he posed the “eternal” problems of good and evil, of false and true morality. As a playwright and narrator Bulgakov was a master of polished realistic techniques, satire, flexible and vivid language, and rapidly moving plots.
WORKS
Izbr. proza. (Introductory article by V. Lakshin.) Moscow, 1966.
Dramy i komedii. (Introductory article by V. Kaverin.) Moscow, 1965.
“Master i Margarita.” Moskva, 1966, no. 11; 1967, no. 1.
“Avtobiografiia.” In Sovetskie pisateli: Avtobiografii, vol. 3. Moscow, 1966.
REFERENCES
Smirnova, V. “Mikhail Bulgakov—dramaturg.” In her book Sovremennyi portret. Moscow, 1964.
Lur’e, Ia., and I. Serman. “Ot ‘Beloi gvardii’ k ‘Dniam Turbinykh.’” Russkaia literatura, 1965, no. 2.
Ermolinskii, S. “O Mikhaile Bulgakove: Glava iz knigi vospominanii.” Teatr, 1966, no. 9.
Lakshin, V. “Roman M. Bulgakova ‘Master i Margarita.’” Novyi mir, 1968, no. 6.
Skorino, L. “Litsa bez karnaval’nykh masok.” Voprosy literatury, 1968, no. 6.
Vinogradov, I. “Zaveshchanie mastera.” Voprosy literatury, 1968, no. 6.
Skorino, L. “Otvet opponentu.” Voprosy literatury, 1968, no. 6.
Palievskii, P. “Posledniaia kniga M. Bulgakova.” Nash sovremennik, 1969, no. 3.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. IA. LAKSHIN)
JAAN KÄRNER (1891-1958)
Soviet Estonian poet and writer. Honored Writer of the Estonian SSR (1946), recipient of the Order of the Badge of Honor (1956) (cf. Käbin, Suuri Lokakuu ja Eesti, s. 12).
B. A. LAVRENEV (1891-1959)
“Lavrenev, Boris Andreevich. Born July 5 (17), 1891, in Kherson; died Jan. 7, 1959, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer and playwright. Son of a literature teacher.
Lavrenev graduated in law from Moscow University in 1915. He fought in World War I (1914–18) and in the Civil War (1918–20). His literary debut came with the publication of his poetry in 1911, and his first story was published in 1924. The novellas The Wind, The Forty-first (both 1924; made into motion pictures in 1927 and 1956), and A Story About Something Simple (1927) were devoted to events of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War. Lavrenev was drawn to heroic characters and the elemental, romantic aspect of heroism (the wind image).
In the late 1920’s, Lavrenev wrote primarily about the intelligentsia, the people, and the Revolution (the novella The Seventh Fellow-traveler, 1927), as well as the fate of culture and the arts (the novella Wood Engraving, 1928). His prose is dramatic, with intricate plotting and character development through direct action.
The play Break (1927; staged by many theaters at home and abroad) epitomized Lavrenev’s artistic concerns. He treated the Revolution and the heroic character in a thorough and new way, depicting heroism in its everyday rather than its extraordinary manifestations. This attitude was reflected in such later works as the novella Big Earth (1935) and the plays The Song of the Black Sea Sailors (1943) and To Those in the Sea! (1945).
Lavrenev criticized bourgeois society in the novel The Fall of the Itl’ Republic (1925), the novella A Strategic Mistake (1934), and journalistic articles, pamphlets, and feuilletons. He received the State Prize of the USSR (1946 and 1950) and was awarded two orders and several medals.
WORKS
Sobr. sock, vols. 1–6. Introduction by E. Starikova. Moscow, 1963–65.
REFERENCES
Vishnevskaia, I. Boris Lavrenev. Moscow, 1962.
Kardin, V. “Prostye veshchi (Zametki o proze Borisa Lavreneva).” Novyi mir, 1969, no. 7.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by D. P. MURAV’EV)
P. G. TYCHINA (1891-1967)
“Tychina, Pavlo Grigor’evich (also Pavel Grigor’evich Tychina). Born Jan. 15 (27), 1891, in the village of Peski, in what is now Bobrovitsa Raion, Chernigov Oblast; died Sept. 16,1967, in Kiev. Soviet Ukrainian poet; state and public figure. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR (1929). Minister of education of the Ukrainian SSR (1943–48). Hero of Socialist Labor (1967). Member of the CPSU from 1944.
The son of a d’iachok (low-ranking cleric) and elementary school teacher, Tychina graduated from the Kiev Commercial Institute in 1917. His work first appeared in 1912. In 1918, Tychina published the verse collection Sunny Clarinets, which was noted for its musicality, rhythmic richness, and use of both symbolist and impressionist poetic devices together with those of the folk song. The collections The Plow (1920) and Instead of Sonnets and Octaves (1920) demonstrated the development of Tychina’s talent as a poet of socialist revolution. The verse collection Wind From the Ukraine (1924) evokes the enthusiasm of building a new life and is imbued with the spirit of Soviet patriotism and internationalism.
In November 1933 the poem “The Party Leads, ” written in Ukrainian, appeared in Pravda; it resounded throughout Soviet poetry and played a major role in evolving the theme of friendship among peoples. The poem appeared in a collection of the same name in 1934. In the collections The Feeling of a United Family (1938; State Prize of the USSR, 1941) and Steel and Tenderness (1941), Tychina continued developing the themes of Soviet patriotism, socialist internationalism, and peace. In the 1930’s he also published the narrative poem Kotovskii’s Saber (1938) and the dramatic poem Shevchenko and Chernyshevskii (1939). His verses and narrative poems from the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 were published in Conquer and Live! (1942). The most significant work from this period is the narrative poem The Funeral of a Friend (1943). Tychina’s topical articles inspired Soviet soldiers to feats of valor.
In his later years, Tychina published the verse collections To Grow and Act (1949), Power Was Given to Us (1953), We Are the Conscience of Mankind (1957), Grow, Beautiful World (1960), and Communism Is Visible in the Distance (1961), as well as poems and fairy tales for children, translations of poetry of the fraternal peoples of the Soviet Union, and several works of literary criticism. An innovative artist, Tychina extensively used the poetic wealth of the Ukrainian folk song in his poetry, and many of his poems have been set to music. In 1962 he was awarded the Shevchenko Prize of the Ukrainian SSR for his selected works in three volumes (1957).
Tychina was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukraine from 1952 to 1959 and again from 1960. He was a deputy to the second through fifth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He served as chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR from 1953 to 1959 and as deputy chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from 1954 to 1962. Tychina was awarded five Orders of Lenin, two other orders, and various medals.
WORKS
Tvory, vols. 1–6. [Introduction by O. I. Bilets’kyi.] Kiev, 1961–62.
In Russian translation:
Izbr. proizv., vols. 1–2 [Compiled, edited, and with an introduction by L. Ozerov.] Moscow, 1971.
Stikhotvoreniia ipoemy. Leningrad, 1975.
REFERENCES
Ishchuk, A. Pavlo Tychyna. Kiev, 1954.
Shakhovs’kyi, S. V maisterni poetichnogo slova: Liryka Pavla Tychyny. Kiev, 1958.
Gubar, O. Pavlo Tychyna: Literaturnyiportret. Kiev, 1961.
Novychenko, L. Poeziia i revoliutsiia, 2nd ed. Kiev, 1968.
Tel’niuk, S. Pavlo Tychina: Ocherk poeticheskogo tvorchestva. Moscow, 1974.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. A. ISHCHUK)
A. G. MALYSHKIN (1892-1938)
“Malyshkin, Aleksandr Georgievich. Born Mar. 9 (21), 1892, in the village of Bogorodskoe, present-day Mokshan Raion, Penza Oblast; died Aug. 3, 1938, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer.
Malyshkin was the son of a peasant. In 1916 he graduated from the faculty of philology at St. Petersburg University. He fought in the Civil War of 1918-20. Malyshkin’s early short stories of 1914-16 depict the gloomy and quiet life of backwater districts. He became famous for his novella The Fall of Dair (1923)—one of the first attempts in Soviet literature to understand the popular nature of the Revolution. The romantic enthusiasm of the multitudes rushing headlong into the future is the keynote of the novella. In his novella Sevastopol’ (1931), Malyshkin describes the inner struggle of a young man from the lower strata of the democratic intelligentsia and his decision to join a revolutionary sailors’ regiment.
Malyshkin gained wide reader recognition with his best novel, Backwater People (1937-38), in which the vast panorama of Russia’s provincial districts emerging into new life is meticulously developed and profoundly felt. The novel centers on the builders of a gigantic metallurgical complex, Zhurkin, Tishka, and Polia, in whose destinies all events are measured. The figure of Podoprigora, the knight of revolution, is one of the principal accomplishments of the novel. Malyshkin’s best works combine the enthusiastic spirit of the reconstruction of society with a profound knowledge of life. His works have been translated into the languages of the peoples of the USSR and into foreign languages.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-3. Moscow, 1940-47.
Soch., vols. 1-2. Moscow, 1956.
REFERENCES
Ermilov, V. “Glavnoe v tvorchestve Malyshkina.” Znamia, 1954, no. 12.
Khvatov, A. Aleksandr Malyshkin: Ocherki zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1959.
Malakhov, N. Ob Aleksandre Malyshkine. Tashkent, 1960.
Kramov, I. Aleksandr Malyshkin: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1965.
Kramov, I. “Aleksandr Malyshkin: Ot ‘Padeniia Daira’ k ‘Liudiam iz zakholust’ia’.” Novyi mir, 1967, no. 11.
[Men’shutin, A. N.] “A. G. Malyshkin.” In Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi literatury, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 3. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by I. N. KRAMOV)
M. I. TSVETAEVA (1892-1941)
Soviet poetess, writer, translator.
K. G. PAUSTOVSKY (1892-1968)
Soviet writer, nominated four times for the Nobel Prize in Literature (1965; 1966; 1967; 1968).
“Paustovskii, Konstantin Georgievich. Born May 19 (31), 1892, in Moscow; died there July 14, 1968; buried in the city of Tarusa, Kaluga Oblast. Soviet Russian writer.
Paustovskii studied at the University of Kiev from 1911 to 1913. His first story, “On the Water,” was published in 1912. After the October Revolution of 1917 he worked for several newspapers, and later, between 1924 and 1929, for the Russian Telegraph Agency (ROSTA) and the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS). His early works, the collections of short stories and essays Sea Sketches (1925) and Approaching Ships (1928) and the novel Radiant Clouds (1929), are notable for their powerful, dynamic themes. Their protagonists are idealistic dreamers oppressed by everyday life, who despise routine and long for romantic advantures.
Paustovskii gained fame with his novella Kara-Bugaz (1932), whose documentary material is fused with literary inventiveness. His works of the 1930’s include novellas with a variety of themes and styles: The Fate of Charles Lanceville (1933), Kolkhida (1934), The Black Sea (1936), The Constellation Canes Venatici (1937), and A Northern Tale (1938; film of the same name, 1960). During this period he also wrote biographical novellas about people in the arts: Isaak Levitan and Orest Kiprenskii (both 1937) and Taras Shevchenko (1939).
Paustovskii attained maturity as an artist in Summer Days (1937), The Meshchora Land (1939), and The Dwellers of an Old House (1941). In these works he observed nature and man’s life closely and depicted them with lyrical inspiration. His favorite genre became the lyrically embellished short story, whose protagonists were creative persons of great spiritual force who did good and opposed evil.
In 1955, Paustovskii published the novella The Golden Rose, whose subject was “the splendid essence of the writer’s work.” He worked for many years on the autiobiographical The Story of a Life, in which the author’s life is portrayed in relation to events taking place in Russia between the late 19th century and the 1930’s. The narrative comprises six closely connected books: Distant Years (1945), A Stormy Youth (1955), The Beginning of an Unknown Epoch (1957), A Time of Great Expectations (1959), Rush to the South (1960), and Book of Wanderings (1963). This work may justly be considered a compendium of the author’s literary and moral quests. Paustovskii’s books have been translated into many foreign languages. He was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and a medal.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1957–58.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–8. Moscow, 1967–70.
Poteriannye romany. Kaluga, 1962.
Rasskazy, ocherki i publitsistika: Stat’i i vystupleniia po voprosam literatury i iskusstva. Moscow, 1972.
Naedine s osen’iu, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1972.
Rodina. Moscow, 1972.
REFERENCES
L’vov, S. Konstantin Paustovskii: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1956.
Levitskii, L. Konstantin Paustovskii: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1963.
Aleksanian, E. Konstantin Paustovskii—novellist. Moscow, 1969.
Il’n, V. Poeziia stranstvii: Literaturnyi portret K. Paustovskogo. Moscow, 1967.
Vospominaniia o Konstantine Paustovskom. Moscow, 1975.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. A. LEVITSKII)
K. A. FEDIN (1892-1977)
“Fedin, Konstantin Aleksandrovich. Born Feb. 12 (24), 1892, in Saratov; died July 15, 1977, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1858). Hero of Socialist Labor (1967). Corresponding member of the German Academy of Arts (1958).
The son of a member of the middle class, Fedin spent his childhood and youth in Saratov. He graduated from the Moscow Commercial Institute in 1914. At the beginning of World War I (1914–18), Fedin was in Germany, where he remained until the war’s end. Returning to Russia in 1918, he edited a local newspaper in Syzran’ in 1919 and edited the newspaper of the Seventh Army during the Civil War. In 1921 he joined the Serapion Brothers, a literary group. Fedin published several early literary works in 1913 and 1914.
Fedin’s first book was the short-story collection The Desert (1923). His novel Cities and Years (1924; film of the same name, 1930 and 1973) dealt with the fate of the intelligentsia during the Revolution and Civil War. In the novel the revolutionary will is personified in the figure of a staunch Bolshevik who administers historical justice to the hero, a confused, idle intellectual. The novel’s complex composition corresponds to the spirit of a turbulent time and to the profound reflections of the author, who sought a new understanding of the meaning of humanism.
In 1925 and 1926, Fedin published short stories and novellas about the peasantry, including Morning in Viazhno, The Transvaal, and Peasants. His novel The Brothers (1927–28) revealed the unity of national art and the new revolutionary art and stressed the importance of struggling for this new art. The novels The Rape of Europe (books 1–2, 1933–35) and Arktur Sanatorium (1940) attacked the political and moral foundations of the bourgeois world.
During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), Fedin wrote the play A Test of Feelings (1942) and short stories and sketches that were included in the cycles Several Populated Areas (1943) and Rendezvous With Leningrad (1944). He began work on a trilogy of novels whose first two parts were First Joys (1945; film of the same name, 1956) and An Unusual Summer (1947–48; film of the same name, 1956; State Prize of the USSR for both novels, 1949). The final novel of the trilogy was The Bonfire (books 1–2, 1961–65). The trilogy dealt with the origins of Russian revolutionary psychology and with the inevitable revolutionary renewal of Russian society. First Joys, whose action begins in 1910, is charged with the anticipation of an abrupt, redeeming change in society. The novel’s many themes are united by the idea that only a struggle to reorganize the world can form a human personality of value and integrity.
The events of An Unusual Summer take place in the Volga region in 1919. The novel presents penetrating depictions of two Bolsheviks, a worker and an intellectual, both leaders of a powerful historical movement as well as men whose profound inner world is in harmony with the unprecedented social tasks they are faced with. The novel also portrays members of the former intelligentsia of the world of art who free themselves of class prejudices and take part in the life of the new Russia. Both An Unusual Summer and The Bonfire, which is set during the Great Patriotic War, make use of abundant historical and journalistic material.
In The Writer, Art, and Time (1957; expanded edition, 1961), Fedin portrayed such contemporaries as M. Gorky, S. Zweig, R. Rolland, and L. Frank, discussed writers of the past, and reflected on writing and literary craftsmanship. The book of memoirs Gorky Among Us (1941–68) depicted the literary and social life of the 1920’s and presented valuable portrayals of Gorky, A. Blok, F. Sologub, A. Remizov, Vsevolod Ivanov, N. Tikhonov, and M. Zoshchenko.
Fedin’s works combine an epic sweep with lyricism and satire, and unite realistic details with philosophical speculation. These characteristics are linked to Fedin’s view of art as a creative force that finds and verifies its own paths and goals even while it presents a many-sided reflection of life. The “humaneness of the new world” is the main theme of the work of Fedin, who believed that a writer’s devotion to his vocation could be measured according to his adherence to this principle. Fedin’s works have been translated into the national languages of the USSR and into many foreign languages.
Fedin served as first secretary of the Writers’ Union of the USSR from 1959 to 1971 and as chairman of the union’s administrative board beginning in 1971. He was a deputy to the sixth through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He was awarded four Orders of Lenin, an Order of the October Revolution, two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor, several medals, and two orders of the German Democratic Republic.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–10. Moscow, 1969–73.
REFERENCES
Brainina, B. Konstantin Fedin: Ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva, 5th ed. Moscow, 1962.
Bugaenko, P. Maslerstvo Konstantina Fedina. Saratov, 1959.
Zagradka, M. O khudozhestvennom stile romanov Konstantina Fedina. Prague, 1962.
Tvorchestvo Konstantina Fedina: Stat’i, soobshcheniia, dokumental’nye materialy, vstrechi s Fedinym, bibliografiia. Moscow, 1966.
Kuznetsov, N. I. Konstantin Fedin: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1969.
Oklianskii, Iu. Konstantin Fedin: Vstrechi s masterom. Moscow. 1974.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 5. Moscow, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. IA. BRAININA)
V. V. MAYAKOVSKY (1893-1930)
The greatest Soviet socialist realist poet.
“Mayakovsky, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Born July 7(19), 1893, in the village of Bagdadi, present-day settlement of Maiakovskii, Georgian SSR; died Apr. 14, 1930, in Moscow. Soviet Russian poet.
Mayakovsky was the son of a forest ranger. After his father’s death, his family moved to Moscow (1906). Mayakovsky studied at a Moscow Gymnasium. He associated with Bolshevik university students, joined the party, and in 1908 was coopted into the Moscow committee of the RSDLP(B). He was arrested on three occasions, and in 1909 he was placed in solitary confinement in Butyrka Prison in Moscow.
Upon leaving prison, where he had begun to write verse, Mayakovsky decided to “make socialist art”: “I’ve interrupted party work. I’ve sat down to study” (Poln sobr. soch., vol. 1, 1955, p. 18). In 1911, Mayakovsky entered the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. The year 1912 saw his first poetical experiments connected with the theory and practice of the cubo-futurists, a group that attracted him by its protest against the foundations of bourgeois society. But while the antiaestheticism of the futurists manifested itself chiefly in the area of “pure form,” Mayakovsky interpreted it in his own way, as an approach to the solution to the problem of creating a new democratic language of poetry. He would speak of this in his long revolutionary poem, A Cloud in Pants (1915): “the tongueless street writhes for lack of a means of conversing and shouting” (ibid, vol. 1, p. 181).
Owing to its concern with social issues, Mayakovsky’s poetry did not fit into the framework of futurism; this became especially clear in his tragedy Vladimir Mayakovsky (staged 1913). The tragedy is an emotion-filled protest against the conventions of bourgeois society and the power of “soulless things.” Ultimately, the tragedy reflects the mood of the masses, who are filled with indignation at the injustice of the world but are not yet conscious of their own strength. The forceful rejection of bourgeois life can also be felt in the poet’s early verse, such as “The City Inferno” and “Here You Are!” (both published in 1913).
In 1914, Mayakovsky was expelled from school for taking part in the public readings given by the futurists. The beginning of World War I was reflected in his work in different ways. In his article “Civilian Shrapnel” (November 1914), he wrote: “today we need hymns” (ibid, vol. 1, p. 303). But the poems “War Has Been Declared” (July 1914) and “Mama and the Evening That Was Murdered by the Germans” (November 1914) reveal his revulsion to war and its bloody senselessness. In poems printed in the journal Novyi satirikon (New Satyricon), namely, “Hymn to the Judge,” “Hymn to the Scholar,” and “Hymn to the Bribe” (all published in 1915), Mayakovsky sarcastically praises the vileness of life, where honest labor, a clear conscience, and high art become objects of derision.
The long poem A Cloud in Pants represented a new stage in Mayakovsky’s poetry. “’Down with your love,’ ’down with your art,’ ’down with your social order,’ and ’down with your religion’: those are the four cries of the four sectors”—that was the way the poet himself characterized the basic social and aesthetic orientation of A Cloud (Preface, 2nd ed., 1918, ibid. vol. 12, 1959, p. 7). The poem reflected the growing strength of the millions, spontaneously rising up against capitalism and conscious of their path in the struggle. The basic spirit of Mayakovsky’s pre-October poems, The Spinal Flute (1916), War and Universe (separate edition, 1917), and Man (1916-17, published 1918), was a protest against bourgeois relationships that had crippled the true nature of man. These works attracted the attention of M. Gorky, who singled Mayakovsky out from the milieu of the futurists and drafted him to work on the journal Letopis’ (The Chronicle).
Joyously greeting the October Revolution of 1917, Mayakovsky defined his position thus: “This is my revolution. I went to Smol’nyi. Worked. Doing any kind of work” (ibid, vol. 1, p. 25). The poet strove to give an aesthetic interpretation of the “staggering facts” of the new socialist reality. Until October, Mayakovsky had had no clear social outlook. Certain dogmas of the futurist group left their imprint on his idiosyncratic verse forms and on his social and aesthetic views. After October, Mayakovsky’s social and aesthetic ideas changed, determined by his struggle for the ideals of communism (on a positive and as well as a satirical level). This could already be felt in the play Mystery-Bouffe (1918; second version, 1921)—“a heroic, epic, and satirical representation of our epoch” (ibid. vol. 2, 1956, p. 167)—the first Soviet play on a contemporary subject. While asserting the greatness and heroism of the common people, Mayakovsky exposed the creative impotence of the bourgeoisie. Only the “unclean,” with their moral purity and class solidarity, were equal to the task of building the “ark” of the new world. In “Left March” (1918), a unique hymn to proletariat strength and determination, the poet called for a struggle against the enemies of the Revolution. But Mayakovsky’s aesthetic palette was many-colored; his poem “A Good Attitude Toward Horses” (1918) speaks out in favor of the wealth of emotions in the new man, who should be capable of sympathy for everything living and everything defenseless.
The humanistic orientation of Mayakovsky’s poetry acquired a new social quality. The poem 150,000,000 (1919-20; 1st ed., anonymous, 1921) affirmed the leading role of the Russian people as the prophet of the socialist revolution. V. I. Lenin reacted negatively to the poem, seeing in it the influence of futurism, of which he disapproved. During those years, Mayakovsky was beginning to carve out a path to a genuinely democratic art that reflected the mood of the masses. After moving to Moscow in 1919 he worked for Okna ROSTA (Windows of the Russian Telegraph Agency), drawing posters with rhyming captions of an agitational nature; in three years he created about 1,100 “windows.” These posters and Mayakovsky’s industrial and book graphics of the 1920’s revealed with especial vividness his talent and experience and his vivid, laconic style. (Mayakovsky had turned to graphic art during this period; many of his portrait drawings, sketches for popular prints, and theatrical designs have been preserved.) This activity as a “poet-worker” who lends his pen and brush to the needs of the Revolution was highly essential for Mayakovsky; it corresponded to his aesthetic concept of art’s invasion into everyday life.
In his poetry of the 1920’s, Mayakovsky created a new type of lyric hero; this hero, who makes his appearance in “I Love” (1922), “About This” (1923), and “Letter to Tatiana lakovleva” (1928), does not separate his own personal world from the great world of social turmoil and does not think of the personal apart from the social.
Mayakovsky’s visits to the capitalist countries (the USA, Germany, France, and Cuba) resulted in the poetry cycles Paris (1924-25) and Lines About America (1925-26). Mayakovsky spoke as a plenipotentiary of the young socialist state, hurling a challenge at the bourgeois order.
The passion for anonymity (“I Sing of Millions”) in the poet’s work gave way to a more harmonious conception of the individual. Like Gorky, Mayakovsky stands at the source of Soviet Leniniana. In the poem Vladimir Il’ich Lenin (1924), the life and work of the leader of the proletarian revolution are artistically recreated against a broad historical background. Mayakovsky recognized the enormous importance of Lenin’s personality, “the most human human being” and “organizer of the victory” of the proletariat. The poem was a hymn to the “attacking class” —the proletariat and its party. Feeling himself “a soldier in a rank a billion strong” (ibid., vol. 7, 1958, p. 166), Mayakovsky viewed an orientation toward a communist future as the criterion for all creative work, including poetry. “The great feeling that goes by the name of’class’ “(ibid., vol. 6, 1957, p. 304) was the main driving force in Mayakovsky’s work during the Soviet era. A. V. Lunacharskii called the poem “It’s Good!” (1927) “the October Revolution cast in bronze.” In it, Mayakovsky sang of “the springtime of humanity”—his socialist fatherland. Together with Gorky, Mayakovsky became a founder of socialist realism in Soviet literature.
During these years, Mayakovsky wrote such lyrical masterpieces as “To Comrade Nette, the Steamship and the Man” (1926), “To Sergei Esenin” (1926), and “Lines About a Soviet Passport” (1929).
Mayakovsky’s lyricism is all-embracing; it expresses the unprecedented spiritual growth of man in the new society. Mayakovsky was a lyricist, poet-orator, and a satirist, a poet with a huge, “all-enveloping heart.” His verse combines faith in the triumph of communist ideals with an irreconcilable hostility toward everything that hinders “rushing forward into tomorrow.”
Mayakovsky’s criticism of bureaucracy and useless committee meetings in the poem “Lost in Conference” (1922) greatly pleased Lenin (see V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 45, p. 13). Inspired by the approval of the leader of the Revolution, Mayakovsky subsequently fulminated against all sorts of “Pompadours,” people who latched onto the party and covered their egotistical petit bourgeois identity with a party card; his poems “Pompadour” (1928) and “A Conversation With Comrade Lenin” (1929) were written in this vein. Mayakovsky’s poetry of the late 1920’s and his plays The Bedbug (1928, staged 1929) and The Bathhouse (1929, staged 1930) presented a whole gallery of characters whose capacity for protective camouflage and vain demagoguery make them dangerous. Mayakovsky’s satirical plays, innovative in both content and form, played a large role in the development of Soviet drama.
Mayakovsky created an innovative poetical system which in many ways affected the development of both Soviet and world poetry. His influence was felt by Nazim Hikmet Ran, Louis Aragon, Pablo Neruda, and Johannes Becher. Proceeding from his own ideological and artistic dilemma, Mayakovsky substantially reformed Russian verse. His new type of lyric hero with a revolutionary attitude toward reality promoted the formation of a new poetics of maximum expressiveness: all of the poet’s artistic means are directed toward an extremely dramatized, speechlike expression of the lyric hero’s thoughts and feelings. The novelty of Mayakovsky’s poetry is also reflected in the way his poems are typeset; heightened expressiveness is conveyed by means of changes in traditional orthography and punctuation and new techniques of printing the text—the short column (stolbik)and from 1923 the staircase (lesenka), which reflects the placement of pauses. The drive toward maximum expressiveness in verse proceeds along the various lines of vocabulary and phraseology, rhythmics, intonation, and rhyme.
Mayakovsky headed the literary groups LEF (Left Front of the Arts) and later REF (Revolutionary Front of the Arts). He also edited the journals LEF (1923-25) and Novyi LEF (New LEF, 1927-28); but he came to the conclusion that closed groups hinder normal creative communication among Soviet writers, and in February 1930 he joined RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers), which he viewed as a mass literary organization.
The complex situation of the last years of his personal life and literary struggle led Mayakovsky to depression and suicide. The long poem At the Top of My Voice (1930) is taken as the poet’s literary testament; it is full of a profound faith in the victory of communism.
Mayakovsky’s works are widely studied both in the USSR and abroad; in the USSR, a whole series of important research monographs have been written. However, his poetry has been the object of subjectivist interpretation by so-called Sovietologists, who seek to distort Mayakovsky’s image as a poet and empty his poetry of revolutionary content. Mayakovsky’s works have been translated into all the principal languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world.
In 1937 the Library-Museum of Mayakovsky was opened in Moscow (on former Gendrikov Lane, now Mayakovsky Lane). In January 1974 the State Museum of Mayakovsky was opened in Moscow (No. 3 Serov Passage). In 1941 a Mayakovsky Museum was opened in the settlement of Maiakovskii (formerly Bagdadi) in the Georgian SSR.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1-12. Moscow, 1934-38.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1-12. Moscow, 1939-49.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1-13. Moscow, 1955-61.
Maiakovskii-khudozhnik. Album written and compiled by V. A. Katanian. Introductory article by B. Slutskii. Moscow, 1963.
REFERENCES
Vinokur, G. Maiakovskii—novator iazyka. Moscow, 1943.
Feigel’man, L. Maiakovskii v stranakh narodnoi demokratii—Chekhoslovakii, Bolgarii, Pol’she. Moscow, 1952.
Papernyi, Z. O masterstve Maiakovskogo, 2nd enlarged ed. Moscow, 1957.
Papernyi, Z. Poeticheskii obraz u Maiakovskogo. Moscow, 1961.
Shtokmar, M. Rifma Maiakovskogo. Moscow, 1958.
Katanian, V. Maiakovskii: Literaturnaia khronika, 4th enlarged ed. Moscow, 1961.
Timofeeva, V. lazyk poeta i vremia: Poeticheskii iazyk Maiakovskogo. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Naumov, E. V. V. Maikovskii: Seminarii, 4th ed., Leningrad, 1963.
Duvakin, V. Radost’ masterom kovannaia: Ocherki tvorchestva V. V. Maiakovskogo. Moscow, 1964.
Lunacharskii, A. “VI. Maiakovskii—novator.” Sobr. soch., vol. 2. Moscow, 1964.
Lunacharskii, A. Maiakovskii i sovetskaia literatura. Moscow, 1964.
Metchenko, A. Maiakovskii: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1964.
Timofeev, L. Sovetskaia literatura: Metod, Stil’ Poetika. Moscow, 1964.
Timofeev, L. Maiakovskii i problemy novatorstva. Moscow, 1965.
Goncharov, B. “Maiakovskii v krivom zerkale ’sovetologii’.” Voprosy literatury, 1970, no. 3.
Pertsov, V. Maiakovskii: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo: 1893-1917. Moscow, 1969.
Pertsov, V. Maiakovskii: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo: 1918-1924. Moscow, 1971.
Pertsov, V. Maiakovskii: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo 1925-1930. Moscow, 1972.
Khardzhiev, N., and V. Trenin. Poeticheskaia kul’tura Maiakovskogo. Moscow, 1970.
Khardzhiev, N., and V. Trenin. Poet i sotsializm: K estetike V. V. Maiakovskogo. Moscow, 1971.
Aragon, L. Literatures soviétiques. Paris, 1955.
Stern, A. Poezja zbuntowana. Warsaw, 1964.
Huppert, H. Wladimir Majakowski in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Hamburg, 1965.
Duwakin, W. Rostafenster: Majakowski als Dichter und bildender Künstler. Dresden, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. P. GONCHAROV)
IVAN MATSA (1893-1974)
“Matsa, Ivan Liudvigovich (also Iogann Liudvigovich Matsa). Born Aug. 4, 1893, in Nizny Hrabovec, near Vranov, in Czechoslovakia. Soviet art scholar. Became a member of the CPSU in 1923.
Beginning in 1915, Matsa was a contributor to the Hungarian avant-garde literary magazines Tett (Action) and MA (Today). During the existence of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919, he was the assistant director of the Budapest National Theater. Matsa, who has lived in the USSR since 1923, has taught at a number of Moscow institutes, including Moscow State University (1928; professor, since 1930). He was an active member of October (an organization of people of the arts) from 1928 to 1932 and a corresponding member of the Communist Academy from 1930 to 1936. Since the 1920’s, Matsa has been working on problems of aesthetics, the ties between art and industry, and the theory and history of architecture. He has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor of the Hungarian People’s Republic, and several medals.
WORKS
Iskusstvo sovremennoi Evropy. Moscow-Leningrad, 1926.
Iskusstvo epokhi zrelogo kapitalizma na Zapade, Moscow, 1929.
Ocherki po teoreticheskomu iskusstvoznaniu. [Moscow] 1930.
Problemy khudozhestvennoi kul’tury XX veka. Moscow, 1969.
Legendâk és tények. Budapest, 1972.
REFERENCES
Aronov, V. “Issledovatel’ material’noi kul’tury.” Dekorativnoe iskusstvo SSSR, 1972, no. 9.
Komarov, A. “Legendy i fakty.” Tvorchestvo, 1973, no. 9.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
S. A. SEMENOV (1893-1942)
Sergei Aleksandrovich Semenov, Soviet writer.
Y. N. TYNYANOV (1894-1943)
Yury Nikolaevich Tynyanov was a Soviet writer, literary critic, translator, scholar and screenwriter.
E. G. BAGRITSKY (1895-1934)
“Bagritskii, Eduard Georgievich. (pseudonym of E. G. Dziubin). Born Oct. 22 (Nov. 3), 1895, in Odessa; died Feb. 16, 1934, in Moscow. Soviet Russian poet. Published literary miscellanies in Odessa from 1915.
In 1919, Bagritskii served in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Special Partisan Detachment, writing agitational poems, proclamations, and leaflets. In his lyric verse and narrative poems of this period (“The Bird-Snarer,” “Till Eulenspiegel,” “The Inn,” “The Watermelon,” and others) he created romantic images of freedom-loving, courageous people. In 1926 he wrote the narrative poem Ballad of Opanas (opera libretto of the same name, 1932) about the Civil War in the Ukraine and the fate of a peasant who betrayed the revolution. The influence of T. G. Shevchenko and of the Tale of Igor’s Campaign are evident in the poem. His collection of poems Southwest was published in 1928. In his second collection, The Victors (1932), Bagritskii glorifies the builders of the new world and communicates the intensity of the struggle against a philistine existence. In his third collection, The Last Night (1932)— which includes the narrative poems The Last Night, Man of the Suburbs, and Death of a Pioneer Girl—the theme of the succession of revolutionary generations rising up against an obsolescent world unfolds. Along with N. Dement’ev, he was the first to translate the poems of Nazim Hikmet into Russian. The works of Bagritskii, one of the greatest artists of Soviet poetry, are marked by revolutionary romantic inspiration, emotionalism, variety of color, and a concretely sensual, object-oriented perception of the world. His work has perceptibly influenced the development of Soviet poetry.
WORKS
Sobr. soch, v 2 tomakh, vol. 1. Edited by I. Utkin. [Introductory article by Iu. Sevruk.] Moscow, 1938.
Stikhotvoreniia.[Introductory article and preparation of text by V. Azarov.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Stikhotvoreniia i poemy.[Introductory article by I. Grinberg.] Moscow, 1958.
Stikhotvoreniia i poemy.[Introductory article by E. P. Liubareva.] Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
REFERENCES
Eduard Bagritskii.(A literary miscellany edited by V. Narbut.) Moscow, 1936.
Grinberg, I. I. Eduard Bagritskii. Leningrad, 1940.
Antokol’skii, P. “Eduard Bagritskii.” In his book Poety i vremia: Stat’i. Moscow, 1957.
Bondarin, S. “Eduard Bagritskii.” Novyi mir,1961, no. 4.
Liubareva, E. P. Eduard Bagritskii: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1964.
Rozhdestvenskaia, I. S. Poeziia Eduarda Bagritskogo. Leningrad, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
SERGEI YESENIN (1895-1925)
A famous Soviet poet.
F. I. PANFEROV (1896-1960)
“Panferov, Fedor Ivanovich. Born Sept. 20 (Oct. 2), 1896, in the village of Pavlovka, now in Ul’ianovsk Oblast; died Sept. 10, 1960, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1926.
The son of a peasant, Panferov began publishing in 1918. He studied at the University of Saratov from 1923 to 1925. After the October Revolution he worked for the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) and was editor of a district newspaper. From 1925 to 1927 in Moscow he edited the journal Krest’ianskii Zhurnal, thus helping propagandize the advantages of collective farming.
Panferov’s first published works were essays, short stories, and plays on the socialist reconstruction of the countryside. In his novel Bruski (books 1–4, 1928–37), the first multithematic work of Soviet literature on collectivization, he created vivid portraits of the resistant property owners and of representatives of the new countryside. The postwar development of agriculture was the theme of his trilogy Mother Volga, comprising the novels The Blow (1953), Meditation (1958), and In the Name of the Young (1960).
Panferov also published the novels The Struggle for Peace (books 1–2,1945–47; State Prize of the USSR, 1948), In the Landof the Vanquished (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949), and Great Art (1954). Between 1931 and 1960 he was intermittently the editor of the journal Oktiabr’. His works have been translated into many languages. Panferov was a deputy to the second, third, and fourth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He was awarded five orders and several medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch, vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1958–59.
REFERENCES
Gorky, M. “Po povodu odnoi diskussii.” Sobr. soch, vol. 27. Moscow, 1953.
Lunacharskii, A. “Chto pishut o derevne: ‘Bruski,’ Roman F. Panferova,” Sobr. soch, vol. 2. Moscow, 1964.
Surganov, V. Fedor Panferov. Moscow, 1967.
Stognut, A. Geroi; Vremia; Pisatel’, Kiev, 1973.
Vol’pe, L. “F. I. Panferov.” In Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi literatury, vol. 2. Moscow, 1960.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 3. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. A. KALASHNIKOV)
N. S. TIKHONOV (1896-1979)
“Tikhonov, Nikolai Semenovich. Born Nov. 22 (Dec. 4), 1896, in St. Petersburg; died Feb. 8, 1979, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer and public figure. Hero of Socialist Labor (1966). Served in World War I (1914–18), the Civil War (1918–20), and the Great Patriotic War (1941–45).
In the 1920’s, Tikhonov was a member of the literary group the Serapion Brothers. In 1920 he published his first narrative poem, 5am;’. Tikhonov endowed the hero, a Hindu boy, with his own personal emotions: admiration for Lenin’s genius and a sense of having discovered a whole new world through revolution. Tikhonov’s best early verses, such as “Ballad of Nails” and “Ballad of the Blue Packet,” appeared in his collections The Horde and Brew in 1922. These works, laconic in style and intensely emotional, are imbued with the austere romanticism of revolutionary heroism. The Lenin theme, the unfading freshness of revolutionary traditions, the image of the Communist, and the heroism of Leningrad during the blockade are typical of such works as the narrative poems Face to Face (1924) and Kirov Is With Us (1941; State Prize of the USSR, 1942) and the collection of sketches Leningrad Accepts the Challenge (1942).
Important themes of Tikhonov’s poetry and prose include the flowering of the Soviet East and the development of the countries of the East, the friendship of peoples, and mutual cultural enrichment among nations. These themes appear in the short-story collection The Adventurous Man (1927), the collection of sketches Nomads (1931), Verses on Kakhetia (1935), and the verse cycle Georgian Spring (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949). The experiences Tikhonov gained from many years in the international peace movement and his visits to countries of the West and East are reflected in the verse cycles The Shadow of a Friend (1936), Two Currents (1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952), and At the Second World Congress of Partisans of Peace (1953) and in the novellas White Wonder (1956) and Green Darkness (1966). Tikhonov was awarded the Lenin Prize in 1970 for Six Columns (1968), a collection of short stories and novellas.
Tikhonov wrote numerous articles and reports on literary and sociopolitical themes and translated poetry, chiefly from languages of the peoples of the USSR. His own works have been translated into the languages of the peoples of the USSR and many foreign languages.
Tikhonov, a member of the World Peace Council, was chairman of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace from 1949. He was a deputy to the second through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Tikhonov became secretary of the Writers’ Union of the USSR in 1944. He was awarded the International Lenin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Nations in 1957. He was awarded three Orders of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, four other orders, and various medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1958–59.
Sobr. soch. v 7 tt., vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1973–76—.
REFERENCES
Grinberg, I. L. Tvorchestvo Nikolaia Tikhonova. Moscow, 1958.
Turkov, A. M. Nikolai Tikhonov. Moscow, 1960.
Shoshin, V. A. Gordyi mir: Ocherk tvorchestva N. S. Tikhonova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Tvorchestvo N. Tikhonova: Issledovaniia i soobshcheniia; Vstrechi s N. Tikhonovym: Bibliografiia. Leningrad, 1973.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. P. PECHKO)
M. M. MOROZOV (1897-1952)
“Morozov, Mikhail Mikhailovich. Born Feb. 18, 1897, in Moscow; died there May 9, 1952. Soviet literary and theater scholar, educator, and translator.
Morozov studied in the department of philology at Moscow University. He was one of the founders of Soviet Shakespeare studies. Morozov made many contributions to the interpretation of Shakespearean drama; he translated a number of Shakespeare’s plays and devoted special attention to textual analysis. In his Commentaries on the Plays of Shakespeare (1941), Morozov drew on his experience as a textologist and theater scholar. From 1937 to 1947 he headed the workshops on Shakespeare and on foreign theater organized by the All-Union Theatrical Society and served as a consultant to theaters.
Morozov wrote articles on English theater and poetry, as well as on Soviet theater and drama. He taught at Moscow State University, where he became a professor in 1935, and at the State Institute of Theater Arts.
WORKS
“O Shekspire na sovetskoi stsene.” TeatraVnyi aVmanakh, book 6. Moscow, 1947.
Shekspir. Moscow, 1947.
Izbr. stat’i i perevody. Moscow, 1954.
Stat’i o Shekspire. Moscow, 1964 (With references.)”
V. P. KATAEV (1897-1986)
Soviet writer, poet, screenwriter and playwright, journalist, war correspondent.
He received the following awards:
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the story ” The Son of the Regiment ” (1945)
-three orders of Lenin (1939, 1967, 1974)
-two orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1957, 1984)
-Order of the October Revolution (1972)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1974)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1977)
ILF AND PETROV (1897-1937, 1903-1942)
“Il’f and Petrov. Russian Soviet satirical writers who collaborated in their work.
Il’ia ///(pseudonym of Il’ia Arnol’dovich Fainzil’berg). Born Oct. 3(15), 1897, in Odessa; died Apr. 13, 1937, in Moscow. Son of a bank employee.
Il’f contributed articles to Iugrosta (the southern branch of the Russian Telegraph Agency) and the newspaper Moriak (The Sailor). In 1923 he moved to Moscow and became a professional man of letters. It is not difficult to trace in Il’f’s early sketches, short stories, and feuilletons reflections, observations, and details that were later used in the joint works of Il’f and Petrov.
Evgenii Petrov (pseudonym of Evgenii Petrovich Kataev). Born Nov. 30 (Dec. 13), 1903, in Odessa; died July 2, 1942. Son of a history teacher.
Petrov was a correspondent for the Ukrainian Telegraph Agency and later a criminal investigator. He moved to Moscow in 1923 and became a journalist.
The future coauthors became acquainted in 1925 and in 1926 began their joint work, which in the beginning consisted in the composition of themes for drawings and feuilletons in the satirical journal Smekhach (Amuser) and in developing materials for the newspaper Gudok (The Whistle). The first significant joint work of Il’f and Petrov was the novel The Twelve Chairs, which was published in 1928 in the journal 30 drei (30 Days), and which was published as a separate book in the same year. The novel enjoyed great success. It was noteworthy for its great number of brilliantly executed satirical episodes, characterizations, and details, which were a result of lively observations on issues of the day. After this novel Il’f and Petrov wrote several short stories and novellas, including A Radiant Personality (1928) and 1,001 Days, or The New Scheherazade (1929). Il’f and Petrov began to contribute feuilletons regularly to Pravda and Literaturnaia gazeta at this time. In 1931 they published their second novel, The Golden Calf, which was a history of the subsequent adventures of Ostap Bender, the hero of The Twelve Chairs. The novel presents a whole gallery of petty characters in the grip of greedy motives and passions, who exist simultaneously with a “larger world, in which the big people and things live.” Il’f’s and Petrov’s travels in the USA in 1935–36 resulted in the book Little Golden America (1936).
Il’f died of aggravated tuberculosis in 1937. Notebooks, which was published after his death, was unanimously praised by the critics as an outstanding literary work. After the death of his coauthor, Petrov wrote a number of film scripts (in collaboration with G. Munblit), the play The Island of Peace (published in 1947), and Frontline Diary (1942). Petrov joined the Communist Party in 1940, and in the first days of the war he became a war correspondent for Pravda and Informbiuro. Petrov was killed in 1942 while returning from besieged Sevastopol’. He was awarded the Order of Lenin and a medal. There have been numerous stage and film versions of Il’f’s and Petrov’s books. They have been repeatedly reprinted in the USSR and translated into many foreign languages.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1938.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1961.
REFERENCES
Simonov, K. Foreword. In I. IPf and E. Petrov, Dvenadtsat’ stul’ev.Zolotoi telenok. Moscow, 1956.
Sintsova, T. N. I. Il’fi E. Petrov: Materialy dlia bibliografii. Leningrad, 1958.
Vulis, A. I. Il’f i E. Petrov: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1960.
Galanov, B. Il’ia Il’f i Evgenii Petrov. Moscow, 1961.
Vospominaniia ob I. life i E. Petrove. Moscow, 1963.
lanovskaia, L. Pochemu vy pishele smeshno? Moscow, 1969.
Russkie sovetskiepisateli, prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 2.Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. N. MUNBLIT)
V. I. LEBEDEV-KUMACH (1898-1949)
Soviet poet and lyricist of many popular Soviet songs.
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1936) – “for merits in the development of cinematographic art and the creation of a number of Soviet songs that have become the property of the masses”
-Order of the Badge of Honor (January 31, 1939) – “for outstanding services in the field of fiction”
-Order of the Red Star (1940) – “for the exemplary execution of command orders in the fight against the White Finns”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1941) – for the lyrics of popular songs (On July 30, Lebedev-Kumach transferred the award to the Defense Fund)
-Medal “For the Defense of Moscow”
-Medal “For the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “For the victory over Japan”
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Honorary Railwayman
I. N. LIBEDINSKY (1898-1959)
“Libedinskii, Iurii Nikolaevich. Born Nov. 28 (Dec. 10), 1898, in Odessa; died Nov. 24, 1959, in Moscow. Russian Soviet writer. Member of the CPSU since 1920. Son of a physician.
Libedinskii fought in the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War. He was a member of the Oktiabr’ literary group and a leader of RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers). Libedinskii’s novellas The Week (1922), one of the first important works by a young Soviet prose writer, and The Commissars (1925) are about the Civil War of 1918–20. The problem of party leadership is the core of the novels Tomorrow (1923), The Change (1927), and Birth of a Hero (1930).
Much of Libedinskii’s work is devoted to the life and customs of the peoples of the Caucasus, their past, and their revolutionary struggles, as well as to the international brotherhood of the nationalities of the USSR—for example, the novel Batash and Batai (1940–41) and the novel trilogy Mountains and Men (1947), The Blaze (1952), and Morning of the Soviets (1957). He also wrote war sketches and stories; a book for young people, Spiritual Training (1962); novellas about S. M. Kirov, published as Son of the Party (1964; with E. Blok); and the memoirs Contemporaries (1958) and Temporal Bonds (1962). Libedinskii was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and several medals.
WORKS
Izbr. proizv., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1958.
“Avtobiografiia.” In Sovetskie pisateli, vol. 1. Moscow, 1959.
REFERENCES
Fish, G. “Utro Sovetov.” Novyi mir, 1957, no. 11.
Voronskii, A. ”Nedelia Libedinskogo.” In his book Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i. Moscow, 1963.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazate’, vol. 2. Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. N. SOSIURA (1898-1965)
“Sosiura, Vladimir Nikolaevich. Born Dec. 25, 1897 (Jan. 6, 1898), at the station of Debal’tsevo, in what is now Donetsk Oblast; died Jan. 8, 1965, in Kiev. Soviet Ukrainian poet. Member of the CPSU from 1920.
The son of workers, Sosiura worked as a miner in his youth. He fought in the Civil War (1918–20).
Sosiura published his first works in 1917. In his early works he wrote of the heroic spirit of the Revolution and the Civil War, creative activity, the spiritual growth of Soviet man, and international proletarian solidarity. His early narrative poems include Red Winter (1921), The Year 1917 (1921), Oksana (1922), The Year 1871 (1923), The Answer (1926), Dneprel’stan (1926), and War Unto War (1930). Other early works include the epic poem The Railroad (1924), lyric poems, and several poetry collections. The themes of Soviet patriotism, friendship between peoples, and socialist construction are characteristic of Sosiura’s later collections, for example, Red Roses (1932), New Verses (1937), and I Love (1939). Sosiura published his patriotic lyric poems of the war years in the collections To the Red Army Soldiers (1941) and In Hours of Wrath (1942). During the war he also wrote the narrative poems Oleg Koshevoi (1943) and My Son (1944).
After the war, Sosiura wrote chronicles in verse of the country’s movement toward communism and its struggle for peace—the collections So That the Orchards Might Rustle (1947; State Prize of the USSR, 1948), On the Strings of the Heart (1955), Swallows in the Sun (1960, T. G. Shevchenko State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR), and The Happiness of a Working Family (1962, T. G. Shevchenko State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR).
Sosiura’s poetry is marked by intense lyricism, philosophical reflections, and classical clarity and simplicity. His works have been translated into many national languages of the USSR and into foreign languages. Sosiura translated many Russian classics, for example, works of A. S. Pushkin and M. I. Lermontov, as well as works by poets of the various Soviet republics. Sosiura was awarded two Orders of Lenin and three other orders.
WORKS
Tvory, vols. 1–3. [Introductory article by A. Kudin.] Kiev, 1957.
Tvory, vols. 1–10. [Introductory article by E. Kiriliuk.] Kiev, 1970–72.
In Russian translation:
Stikhotvoreniia ipoemy. [Foreword by A. Kudin.] Moscow, 1960.
Stikhi. Moscow, 1971.
REFERENCES
Volodymyru Sosiuri. Zbirnik statei. Kiev, 1958.
Radchenko, E. V. Sosiura: Literaturno-krytychnyi narys. Kiev, 1967.
Golos nizhnosti i pravdy: Spogady pro Volodymira Sosiuru. Kiev, 1968.
Volodymyr Sosiura: Bibliografychnyipokazhchyk. 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. I. KUDIN)
A. I. BEZYMENSKY (1898-1973)
“Bezymenskii, Aleksandr Il’ich. Born Jan. 6 (18), 1898, in Zhitomir. Soviet Russian poet. Member of the CPSU since 1916.
Bezymenskii took part in the October Revolution in Petrograd. He was a leader in the Young Communist movement, a member of the first convocation of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Youth League, and also a delegate to Komsomol congresses. At the seventh congress of the All-Union Lenin Communist Youth League he was elected an honorary Komsomol member.
Bezymenskii began publishing in 1918 and later became an active member of RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers). His first collections of poetry, October Dawns (1920) and Toward the Sun (1921), were marked by traits of the cosmic-abstract poetry of those years. Overcoming these tendencies, Bezymenskii turned to a depiction of the heroic quality of everyday life under the revolution—for example, the collection How Life Smells (1924) and the poems “On a Cap” and “On Felt Boots.” Many of his poems and songs are devoted to the Komsomol—for example, “The Young Guard” (1922), “Komsomol Fleet March” (1924), and the narrative poem Komsomoliia (1924). Bezymenskii came to be known as the poet of the Komsomol. He is also the author of the narrative poems Small Town (1921, published in 1922–23), Vladimir ll’ich Ul’ianov (1926), Felix (1927), Petersburg Blacksmith (1937, published in 1939), and Tragic Night (1930–63), devoted to the construction of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station.
Bezymenskii lashed out against careerism, bureaucratism, and bootlicking and exposed the forces of international reaction in numerous satirical works—the narrative poem Day of Our Life (1928), the verse play The Shot (1929), and the collections Verses of Wrath (1949) and A Book of Satires (1954), for example. Bezymenskii worked in the traveling editorial offices of Pravda and Komsomolskaia Pravda at plants and on new construction sites. Characteristic of Bezymenskii’s poetry are the contemporary subject matter and aphoristic, terse, and slogan-like lines. He has been awarded six orders and various medals.
WORKS
Izbr. proiz., 1918–1958, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1958.
Stikhi o voinakh. Moscow, 1968.
Partbilet No. 224332: Stikhi o Lenine: Vospominaniia. Moscow, 1968.
REFERENCES
Selivanovskii, A. “Aleksandr Bezymenskii.” In his book V literaturnykh boiakh: Izbrannye stat’i i issledovaniia (1927–36). Moscow, 1959.
Presniakov, O. Poet iz strany Komsomoliia. Moscow, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
EL-REGISTAN (1899-1945)
El-Registan (real name Gabriel Arshakovich Ureklyants), Soviet Armenian journalist, writer. Co-author (together with Sergei Mikhalkov) of the words of the USSR National Anthem (1945). Recipient of the Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd class, Order of the Red Star, Order of the Red Banner, Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”, and Medal “For victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”.
L. M. LEONOV (1899-1994)
Stalin prize winning Soviet writer.
He received the following awards:
-Two orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1939, 1984)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – for the play “Invasion”
-Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945)
-Six orders of Lenin (1946, 1959, 1967, 1969, 1974, 1979)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1949)
-In 1949 and 1950 he was nominated by V. Kiparsky for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
-Lenin Prize (1957) – for the novel Russian Forest (1953)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1967)
-Order of the October Revolution (1971)
-USSR State Prize (1977) – for the screenplay ” The Flight of Mr. McKinley ” (1975)
-Leo Tolstoy Prize (1993)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1994) – for his great personal contribution to the development of literature and art and the strengthening of interethnic cultural ties.
V. V. VISHNEVSKY (1900-1951)
“Vishnevskii, Vsevolod Vital’evich. Born Dec. 8 (21), 1900, in St. Petersburg; died Feb. 28, 1951, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1937.
At the age of 14, Vishnevskii went to the front as a volunteer during World War I. While in the army, he joined the Bolsheviks in June 1917 and took part in the October 1917 Uprising in Petrograd. During the Civil War, Vishnevskii served as a machine gunner in the First Cavalry Army; he was also a commander and political worker in the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. He began to publish in 1920 and was editor of the journal Krasnoflotets. Vishnevskii participated in the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40 and the Great Patriotic War (as a captain of the first class); he was also editor of the journal Znamia (from 1944).
In 1924, Vishnevskii published his Collected Sea Stones. His revolutionary romantic play The First Cavalry Army (1929) was devoted to the heroic events of the Civil War. It was followed by the play The Last Decisive Battle (1931); the premonitory tragedy Fighting in the West (1931; published in 1933), one of the first Soviet antifascist plays; and An Optimistic Tragedy (1933), in which the self-sacrifice of the heroine, a woman commissar, reveals the triumph of Bolshevik truth and justice. This play and the screenplay We Are From Kronstadt (1933) became classics of the Soviet dramatic repertory. Vishnevskii also wrote the plays At the Walls of Leningrad (1944) and Unforgettable 1919 (1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1950), the film-novel We Are the Russian People (1937), and the unfinished fictionalized documentary epic War. Vishnevskii’s works are characterized by a militant political tendency, an epic quality, romantic pathos, fast-moving development, a mastery in depicting mass scenes, and oratorical devices in the exposition. His plays have enjoyed extensive fame abroad. He also wrote sketches and journalistic pieces; he collaborated on the newspaper Pravda and was one of its military correspon-dents during the years of the Great Patriotic War. Vishnevskii was awarded two Orders of Lenin, five other orders, and various medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-5. [Introduction by K. Simonov and P. Vershigora.] Moscow, 1954—60.
“Avtobiografiia.” In Sovetskie pisateli: Avtobiografii, vol. 1. Moscow, 1959.
Izbrannoe. [Introduction by K. Simonov.] Moscow, 1966.
Stafi, dnevniki, pis’ma o literature i iskusstve. [Introduction by A. Makarov.] Moscow, 1961.
REFERENCES
Borodina, O. K. Vsevolod Vishnevskii (sketch of his life and work). Kiev, 1958.
Rudnitskii, K. Portrety dramaturgov. Moscow, 1961.
Anastas’ev, A. N. Vsevolod Vishnevskii: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1962.
Mar’iamov, A. M. Revoliutsiei prizvannyi: O Vsevolode Vishnevskom. Moscow, 1963.
Savchenko, M. M. Kinodramaturgiia Vsevoloda Vishnevskogo. Krasnodar, 1964.
Azarov, V. B. Vsevolod Vital’evich Vishnevskii. [Foreword by A. Dymshits.] Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by IU. A. OSNOS)
A. I. KOPYLENKO (1900-1958)
“Kopylenko, Aleksandr Ivanovich. Born July 19 (Aug. 1), 1900, in Konstantinograd, present-day Krasnograd, Kharkov Oblast; died Dec. 1, 1958, in Kiev. Soviet Ukrainian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1950. Son of a railroad man.
Kopylenko studied in the department of biology at the Kharkov Institute of People’s Education from 1920 to 1925. His works were first published in 1920. In the 1920’s he published the collections of short stories Kara-Krucha (1923) and In the Name of the Ukrainian People (1924) and the novella Wild Hops (1925), where the events of the Civil War of 1918–20 and the new life in the village are depicted in the spirit of revolutionary romanticism. Kopylenko turned to realism in the novel A City Is Born (1932; Russian translation, 1935), which deals with socialist construction, in the popular novels for young people Very Good (1936) and The Tenth Grades (1938), and in a number of children’s books. His postwar novels include The Lieutenants (1947; Russian translation, 1951) and The Earth Is Big (1957; Russian translation, 1962), both of which deal with the people in the kolkhoz village. Kopylenko’s works have been translated into foreign languages.
WORKS
Tvory, vols. 1–4. Kiev, 1961–62.
In Russian translation:
Lezviia. (Introduction by A. I. Beletskii.) Kharkov, 1927.
REFERENCES
Svider, P. I. Oleksandr Kopylenko. Kiev, 1962.
Kylymnyk, O. V. Oleksandr Kopylenko (1900–1958). Kiev, 1962.
Pro Oleksandra Kopylenka: Spohady. Kiev, 1971.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by S. A. KRYZHANOVSKII)
A. A. PROKOFIEV (1900-1971)
Russian Soviet poet and journalist, war correspondent, public figure. Hero of Socialist Labor (1970). Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1961) and the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946).
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1939)
-two Orders of the Red Star (1940), (1945)
-medal “For the Defense of Leningrad” (1942)
-Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd degree (1944)
-medal “For the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the poem “Russia” and the poems: “We will not give it back!”, “For you, Leningrad!”, “Feast”, “Oath” and others.
-four orders of Lenin (1957), (1960), (1967), (1970)
-Lenin Prize (1961)
-Hero of Socialist Labor with the award of the Order of Lenin and the gold medal “Hammer and Sickle” – for outstanding services in the development of Soviet literature, fruitful social activities and in connection with the seventieth birthday (1970)
ALEXANDER FADEYEV (1901-1956)
Great Soviet writer of Socialist Realism. His most famous work is The Young Guard.
D. A. VASILYEVICH (1902-1954)
“Donchenko, Oles’ (Aleksandr) Vasil’evich. Born Aug. 6 (19), 1902, in Bol’shie Sorochintsy, in what is now Poltava Oblast; died Apr. 12, 1954, in the city of Lubny. Ukrainian Soviet writer.
Donchenko began publishing in 1918. He is the author of two collections of poetry, The Red Easter Egg (1926) and Outskirts (1928), many dramatic works, and numerous stories, novellas, and novels. Most of Donchenko’s works are devoted to the problems of raising children and young people. His novels Stellar Fortress (1933; Russian translation, 1934) and The Gold Medal (1949; Russian translation, 1955) and the novellas School Above the Sea (1937; Russian translation, 1940) and Lukiia (1939; Russian translation, 1963) achieved wide recognition. Many of Donchenko’s works have been translated into the languages of the peoples of the USSR.
WORKS
Tvory, vols. 1-6. Kiev, 1956-57.
REFERENCE
Zaets’, I. la. Oles’ Donchenko. Kiev, 1956.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
M. M. ANTONOVICH (1902-1976)
“Mashara, Mikhas’ (Mikhail) Antonovich. Born Nov. 5 (18), 1902, in the village of Toboly, present-day Vitebsk Oblast. Soviet Byelorussian writer. Member of the CPSU since 1943.
Mashara was the son of a poor peasant. He is the author of the poetry collections Sketches (1928), Toward Sunny Shores (1934), Eve of Spring (1935), From Under Thatched Roofs (1937), To Byelorussia (1944), Through Storms (1948), and My Lake Country (1962) and the poems The Death of Kastus’ Kalinovskii (1934) and Mom’s Hill (1936). Mashara has written the novels The Kresy Are Fighting (1966), The Sun Behind the Bars (1968), and Lukishki (1970), about the struggle of the workers of West Byelorussia for their rights. He is also known as a translator. Mashara was awarded two orders and various medals.
WORKS
Ad rodnykh aselits. Minsk, 1959.
Vershy. Minsk, 1971.
REFERENCES
Klimkovich, M. “Mikhas’ Mashara.” In his book Litaraturna-krytychnyia artykuly, Minsk, 1962.
Pis’menniki Savetskai Belarusi: Karotki biiabibliiahrafichny davednik. Minsk, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
GABIDEN MUSTAFIN (1902-1985)
“Mustafin, Gabiden. Born Nov. 13 (26), 1902, in aul (village) no. 3, Akmolinsk District, present-day Tel’manskii Raion, Karaganda Oblast. Soviet Kazakh author and public figure. Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR (1958). Member of the CPSU since 1940. Candidate member from 1954 and member since 1956 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan.
The son of a nomad, Mustafin worked in the mines of Karaganda. He was first published in 1927, and his first collection of short stories, Er Shoiyn (and Other Short Stories), was published in 1929. His novel Life or Death (1941) was among the first works of Kazakh prose devoted to the working class. The novel Shiganak (1945; Russian translation, 1947) tells the story of the millet grower Shiganak Bersiev. The novella The Millionaire (1948) deals with the labors of Kazakh kolkhozniks, while the novel Karaganda (1952; Abai Kunanbaev State Prize of the Kazakh SSR, 1953), with the miners of Karaganda. The novel After the Storm (1959) describes how socialism transformed a Kazakh aul (village). The first part of the autobiographical novel Eyewitness (Russian translation, 1965) appeared in 1963. Mustafin’s works have been translated into many languages.
Mustafin has served as chairman (1953–56) and as first secretary (1962–64) of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of Kazakhstan. He was a deputy to the sixth convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He has been awarded two Orders of Lenin, two other orders, and several medals.
WORKS
Tangdamalï shïgharmalar, vols. 1–2. Alma-Ata, 1955.
Tangdamalï shïgharmalar, vols. 1–4. Alma-Ata, 1970–73.
In Russian translation:
Izbrannoe, vols. 1–2. Alma-Ata, 1963.
REFERENCES
Kirabaev, S. Gabiden Mustafin. Alma-Ata, 1957.
Lizunova, E. V. Sovremennyi kazakhskii roman. Alma-Ata, 1964.
Istoriia kazakhskoi literatury, vol. 3. Alma-Ata, 1971.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. SAKHARIEV)
He received the following awards:
-State Prize of the Kazakh SSR named after Abai Kunanbayev (1953) – for the novel “Karaganda”
-2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (…; 1962)
-2 Orders of Lenin (1967; 1972)
-Order of the October Revolution (1982)
-Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd degree
-Medal “In Commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin”
M. V. ALPATOV (1902-1986)
“Alpatov, Mikhail Vladimirovich. Born Nov. 27 (Dec. 10), 1902, in Moscow. Soviet art historian. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1958). Member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1954). Studied at Moscow University (1919–21).
Alpatov has taught since 1925 at the Higher Art and Technical Studio; the Higher Art and Technical Institute; the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature, and History; and Moscow State University. He has been a professor at the V. I. Surikov Art Institute in Moscow since 1943. Alpatov’s major works, which deal with problems in the art history of Russia and other countries, are marked by lively exposition, brilliant analysis of works of art, and a breadth of historical and cultural comparisons. He has been awarded the Order of Lenin and a medal.
WORKS
Ital’ianskoe iskusstvo epokhi Dante i Dzhotto. Moscow-Leningrad, 1939.
Vseobshchaia istoriia iskusstv, vols. 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948–55.
AleksandrAndreevich Ivanov:Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1956.
Etiudy po istorii zapadnoevropeiskogo iskusstva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1939. 2nd ed., Moscow, 1963.
Etiudy po istorii russkogo iskusstva, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. A. KAVERIN (1902-1989)
Stalin prize winning Soviet author. (Cf. Palmgren, Kapinalliset kynät I, s. 18).
“Kaverin, Veniamin Aleksandrovich. Born Apr. 6 (19), 1902, in Pskov. Soviet Russian writer.
Kaverin graduated from the Institute of Oriental Languages (1923) and the Department of History and Philology at Leningrad State University (1924). His first short story was published in 1922, and during the early 1920’s he was a member of the Serapion Brothers literary group. His works, written in a variety of genres and styles, deal with people who embody the creativity of the Soviet intelligentsia. Kaverin most often selects as his heroes scholars and men of letters whose sense of being is intrinsically bound up with their work and the defense of their principles. His narratives of their life and struggle are invariably built along complex and intense plot lines—for example, the novels The Fulfillment of Desire (books 1–2, 1934–36), Two Captains (books 1–2, 1938–4; State Prize of the USSR, 1946; 42 editions in 25 years), and The Open Book (1949–56). The novellas Seven Improper Couples and The Slanting Rain (1962) attempted to show the consciousness on the part of Soviet people of their rights, their obligations to their Motherland, and a feeling of mutual trust. In the 1960’s, Kaverin published a book of essays and memoirs, Greetings, Brother, Writing Is Very Hard (1965); a new edition of his book on O. I. Senkovskii, Baron Brambeus (1966); and the novellas The Double Portrait (1966) and The School Play (1968). His novel In Front of the Mirror and his literary reminiscences In the Old House were both published in 1971. Kaverin’s books have been translated into many foreign languages and languages of the peoples of the USSR. He was awarded three orders and several medals.
WORKS
Sochineniia, vols. 1–3. Leningrad, 1930.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1963–66.
“Avtobiografiia.” In Sovetskie pisateli: Avtobiografii, vol. 1. Moscow, 1959.
REFERENCES
Smirnova, V. “Dva kapitana meniaiut kurs.” Znamia, 1945, no. 8.
Maslin, N. “Veniamin Kaverin.” Novyi mir, 1948, no. 4.
Kostelianets, B. “Zhivoe edinstvo.” Zvezda, 1954, no. 11.
Gor, G. “Pisatef i nauka.” Russkaia literatura, 1962, no. 3.
Gei, N. “O tsennostiakh mnimykh i podlinnykh.” Literaturnaia gazeta, Aug. 18, 1971.
Russkie sovetskiepisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 2.Leningrad, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. N. MUNBLIT)
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Red Star (1945)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the novel “Two Captains”
-2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1962, 1972)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1982)
-Order of Lenin (1984) – for merits in the development of Soviet literature and in connection with the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Union of Writers of the USSR.
-Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd class (1985)
G. S. FISH (1903-1971)
“Fish, Gennadii Semenovich. Born Mar. 28 (Apr. 10), 1903, in Odessa; died July 6, 1971, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1943.
Fish graduated from the Institute for the History of Arts in 1924 and from the social sciences department of Leningrad University in 1925. He published his first works in 1922. His poetry collections include On the Neva (1926) and Arkrait’s Notebook (1933). His novellas, based on fact and topical in theme, deal with Karelia during the Civil War and the period of socialist construction; they include The Fall of Lake Kimas-ozero (1932), The Third Train (1935), and lalguba (1936). Fish described events of the Great Patriotic War (1941–45) in A Northern Tale (1942) and Birthday (1944). His books Hail, Denmark! (1959), Encounters in Suorni (1960), Norway Next Door (1963), and Among the Swedes (1966) are highly informative and hold the reader’s interest. Fish was also the author of plays and screenplays, including the script for the film A Naughty Girl (1939). His works have been translated into foreign languages.
Fish was awarded four orders and various medals.
WORKS
Izbrannoe. [Foreword by F. Svetov.] Moscow, 1965.
Skandinaviia v trekh litsakh, books 1–2. Moscow, 1969.
Snova v Skandinavii. Moscow, 1973.
Posle iiulia v semnadtsatom. Moscow, 1974.
Izbr. prozv., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1976.
REFERENCES
Antokol’skii, P. “Piat’ knig Gennadiia Fisha.” Literaturnaia Rossiia, 1967, Feb. 3.
Zhak, L. Gennadii Fish: Ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1976.
Russkie Sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 5. Moscow, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by T. L. NIKOL’SKAIA)
NIKOLAI OSTROVSKY (1904-1936)
Great Soviet writer of Socialist Realism. His most famous work is How the Steel Was Tempered.
“Gaidar, Arkadii Petrovich. (pseudonym of A. P. Golikov). Born Jan. 9 (22), 1904, in L’gov, in present-day Kursk Oblast; died Oct. 26, 1941. Soviet Russian author.
Gaidar was born into the family of a teacher, and he spent his childhood in Arzamas. He volunteered for the Red Army in 1918 and completed infantry courses in Kiev. When he was 16 he took command of a regiment and was wounded several times. Because of a contusion he left the army in 1924. His work was first published in 1925. The subsequent course of Gaidar’s life was in many respects determined by his short story RVS (1926); he had found his true calling in children’s literature, being able in his own way to impart to children his feelings about front-line solidarity and the lofty romance of the revolutionary fight. In his semiautobiographical novella School of Life (1930), Gaidar described the severe heroic training of the young generation of the revolution. In the novella Distant Lands (1932), the din of large-scale construction intrudes on a quiet out-of-the-way station, where the children are dreaming of distant lands. In the novella Military Secret (1935), Gaidar describes the lofty ideas of revolutionary internationalism and the brutal cruelty of the enemies of internationalism. He was also able to speak to children about life’s difficulties—for example, in the short story A Blue Cup (1936) and the novella Destiny of a Drummer (1939). His novella Timur and His Team (1940) won him genuine fame; his fascinating Pioneer fancy gave rise to a popular timurovtsy movement all over the country.
At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Gaidar was sent to the front as a special correspondent of Komsomol’skaia pravda. In the autumn of 1941 he was surrounded, and, finding himself at the enemy rear, he became a machine-gunner of a partisan detachment. He died a hero. He was buried in Kanev, where a monument to him was erected. Screen versions have been made of Gaidar’s best-known works, and his books have been translated in many countries. He was awarded two orders and also medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-4. [Introduction by L. Kassil’.] Moscow, 1959-60.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-4. [Introduction by L. Kassil’.] Moscow, 1964-65.
REFERENCES
Emel’ianov, B. Rasskazy o Gaidare. Moscow, 1958.
Putilova, E. O. O tvorchestve A. P. Gaidara. Leningrad, 1960.
Smirnova, V, Arkadii Gaidar: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1961.
Kamov, B. Arkadii Gaidar: Biografiia. Leningrad, 1963.
Kamov, B. Partizanskoi tropoi Gaidara. Moscow, 1968.
Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Gaidara: Sb. st. o Gaidare, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1964.
Maliugin, V. Povest’ o Gaidare. Gorky, 1964.
Kotov, M., and V. Liaskovskii. Vsadnik, skachushchii vperedi. Moscow, 1967.
Gints, S., and B. Nazarovskii. Arkadii Gaidar na Urale. Perm’, 1968.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. A. KASSIL’)
A. N. AFINOGENOV (1904-1941)
Soviet playwright, editor. CPSU(B) member since 1922.
Russian Soviet prose writer and playwright, journalist. Member of the Union of Writers of the USSR (1941). Recipient of the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1954, 1964).
A. A. ZHAROV (1904-1984)
“Zharov, Aleksandr Alekseevich. Born Mar. 31 (Apr. 13), 1904, in Semenovskaia, in present-day Mozhaisk Raion, Moscow Oblast. Soviet Russian poet.
Zharov joined the Komsomol in 1918, and became a member of the CPSU in 1920. Hestudied at Moscow State University, and was in V. la. Briusov’s poetry seminar. Zharov’s first poems were published in 1921. He belonged to the group of the most gifted Komsomol poets. His book of verse Drifting Ice, with a foreword by A. Lunacharskii, was published in 1925; the narrative poems Komsomol Member (1924), Master lakov (1924), Asians (1925), and Zharov’s most popular poem, Accordion (1926), came out in separate editions. In the 1930’s he wrote the poems Two Passports, Sentimental Friend, and Varia Odintsova (1938).
During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), Zharov served in the active navy. He wrote many patriotic poems about naval heroes, including The Warrior (1942),Kerim (1942), andBoris Safonov (1944). Zharov composed many popular songs including Blaze Up As Campfires, the Pioneer song, and The Sacred Rock, Sad Willows, We’re for Peace, We Were Cruising There, and Where’s the Early Morning Gone? He worked a great deal in the genre of the political poster. Zharov was awarded four orders and some medals.
WORKS
Izbr. proizv., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1954.
Na zemle, v nebesakh i na more: Novye stikhi. Moscow, 1960.
Stikhi, Pesni, Poemy. [Foreword by M. Matusovskii.] Moscow, 1964.
Zavetnyi kamen’. Moscow, 1967.
Strana iunosti, 1921–1968. [Introduction by P. Zhelezniakov.] Moscow, 1968.
REFERENCE
Tarasenkov, An. Russkie poety XX veka, 1900–1955: Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
MIKHAIL SHOLOKHOV (1905-1984)
“Sholokhov, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. Born May 11 (24), 1905, in the khutor (farmstead) of Kruzhilin of the stanitsa (large cossack village) of Veshenskaia, Oblast of the Don Host (now Veshenskii Raion, Rostov Oblast). Soviet Russian writer. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1939). Hero of Socialist Labor (1967). Member of the CPSU from 1932. Member of the Central Committee of the CPSU from 1961.
Sholokhov, who was of peasant birth, fought in the Civil War. His early short stories, first published in newspapers and magazines in 1923, were later collected in Tales of the Don and The Azure Steppe, both published in 1926. Sholokhov’s stories represented a notable contribution to the Soviet literature of the first half of the 1920’s; their themes were the Civil War in the Don region, the bitter class struggle, the place of the individual in the great social changes taking place in the villages and rural areas, and the author’s dream of a new world of social justice.
In 1925, Sholokhov began writing The Quiet Don (books 1–4, 1928–40; State Prize of the USSR, 1941), the novel that brought him world renown. The idea of history’s lawlike regularity underlies the novel’s intricate structure and plot. Sholokhov depicts the grandeur of the struggle between two worlds—the breakup of established social relations, traditions, and customs and the emergence and establishment of new ones. The novel deals with very important social issues, such as the relationship between the individual and the people’s historic destiny, the question of historical necessity and freedom of choice, and the historical circumstances that give rise to tragic conflicts and dramatic outcomes. In The Quiet Don, Sholokhov creatively develops the traditions of epic narration of “people’s destinies,” portraying the broad-scale movement of the masses as part of the historical process. The people are the novel’s hero.
Sholokhov’s poetic world is the world of high tragedy, with strong and clear-cut characters acting at critical moments in history. The story of the life of Grigorii Melekhov is not merely part of the dramatic history of the Don Cossacks; it also reflects historical processes of enormous social and psychological importance. The figure of Grigorii Melekhov was an innovation in world literature. His personality is revealed through full exposition of his feelings in a variety of circumstances. The wide range of Sholokhov’s psychological analysis is a typical aspect of his artistic skill.
Sholokhov’s evaluative ability is an important attribute of his skill at psychological analysis. The people’s revolutionary struggle, taken as the objective criterion of evaluation, makes it possible to separate Melekhov’s historically justified delusions from his guilt. At history’s sudden turning points, Grigorii is constantly faced with the need to choose. The social tragedy is carried over into the depths of consciousness; its sources lie in the hero himself—in his social ambivalence and contradictions. Grigorii has rejected the old world, but he neither understands nor trusts the truth of the new reality confirmed in blood, struggle, and suffering, and he is ultimately left behind at the crossroads of history.
The truly great artist is the one who can see reality in all its complexity and conditionality and perceive the stern objective laws by which it is governed. The technique used by Sholokhov in depicting the character and fate of Grigorii Melekhov played a significant part in the development of the method of socialist realism. The revolutionary masses so powerfully portrayed in The Quiet Don affirm the optimistic idea of the triumph of life—the victory of the new through trials and suffering—and convey the grandeur of the changes taking place. The heroic spirit that pervades the novel arises from its historical optimism; it arises from the affirmation of the majesty of life and the greatness of the deed.
Virgin Soil Upturned (books 1–2,1932–60; Lenin Prize 1960) is an epic novel about the year 1930 and the revolutionary changes in village life. The first part of the novel (book 1) is basically constructed as a “case history”; the story of a kolkhoz in Gremiachii, it is a novel with many heroes. One of Sholokhov’s aesthetic principles is to rely as much as possible on actual historical situations. This first part of Virgin Soil Upturned resounds with the full force of the emotions attendant upon the transformation of society, the abolishment of old forms of ownership, and the difficult birth of new social relations. The novel’s heroes, aware that their life’s purpose is to serve the great cause of the people, are the agents of and participants in the novel’s historical events; the author’s well-defined and intensely individualized characterization of three Communists—Davydov, assigned by the party to carry out the collectivization of the countryside, Razmetnov, and Nagul’nov—helps reveal the meaning of these great events.
The second part of the novel (book 2) captivates the reader with its lyrical “poetry of feelings”; the author’s voice is now more markedly poetic. Hence the unique manner in which the plot is developed—the external slowness of the action, the many stories told by the heroes about themselves, the protracted conversations, and the more intense focus on relations in which intimate feelings are revealed. One of the most highly valued aspects of Sholokhov’s talent is his ability to see and to vividly reproduce both the tragic and the humorous in life. The character of Grandfather Shchukar’, for example, is marvelously conceived. The novel abounds with meditations on what constitutes genuine humaneness, on the paths of progress, and on historical necessity.
During the Great Patriotic War, Sholokhov’s essays were published in various periodicals and in such collections as On the Don, In the South, and The Cossacks. His short story “The Sciences of Hatred” (1942) was widely read. Chapters from his novel They Fought for Their Fatherland were first printed in Pravda and Krasnaia Zvezda in 1943–44. Sholokhov’s goal in this novel (which appeared in a later version in 1969) was to record the people’s heroic wartime feats.
The short story “Fate of a Man” (1956–57) was a notable event in socialist art. The tragic story of Andrei Sokolov is shown to be conditioned by and related to the historic trials that the war inflicted on the people, the state, and the individual. This enables the author to present man and war in large-scale and generalized terms, to place them in historical perspective, and to show the incompatibility of the socialist and fascist worlds. The underlying theme of the story is faith in goodness, humanity, and social progress—the affirmation of life and of the great deed.
Sholokhov is one of the great masters of the literature of socialist realism. His novels were the first in the history of world literature to show the working people in all their wealth of types and characters; his protagonists are so fully portrayed in social, moral, and emotional terms that they have joined the ranks of the lasting figures of world literature.
In his novels, Sholokhov combined the poetic heritage of the Russian people with the advances of the realistic novel of the 19th and 20th centuries; he discovered previously unknown links between the spiritual and the material and new connections between man and the world around him. Sholokhov’s epic body of work represents man, society, and nature as manifestations of the eternally creative stream of life; it is their unity and interdependence that give Sholokhov’s world its uniquely poetic character. His works have been translated into most of the languages of the peoples of the USSR and of the world.
Sholokhov was a deputy to the first through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He has been a member of the board of directors of the Writers’ Union of the USSR since 1934 and has been a member of the World Peace Council. He is honorary doctor of philological sciences of the University of Rostov-on-Don and the University of Leipzig and honorary doctor of law of the University of St. Andrews. He was awarded four Orders of Lenin and two other orders, as well as various medals and a foreign order. He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1965.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–8. Moscow, 1965–69.
Onisrazhalis’ za Rodinu. Moscow, 1971. (Chapters from the novel.)
Po veleniiu dushi: Stat’i, ocherki, vystupleniia, dokumenty. Moscow, 1970.
REFERENCES
Lezhnev, I. Put’ Sholokhova: Tvorch. biografiia. Moscow, 1958.
Gura, V. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo M. A. Sholokhova. Moscow, 1960.
Britikov, A. Masterstvo Mikhaila Sholokhova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Petelin, V. Gumanizm Sholokhova. Moscow, 1965.
Iakimenko, L. Mikhail Sholokhov: Lit. portret. Moscow, 1967.
Iakimenko, L. Tvorchestvo M. A. Sholokhova, 3rd ed., revised and expanded. Moscow, 1977.
Priima, K. I. ”Tikhii Don” srazhaetsia, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1975.
Lukin, Iu. Dva portreta. Moscow, 1975.
Metchenko, A. Mudrost’ khudozhnika. Moscow, 1976.
Biriukov, F. G. Khudozhestv. otkrytiia Mikhaila Sholokhova. Moscow, 1976.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. G. IAKIMENKO)
TATYANA TESS (1906-1983)
Tatyana Tess (real name Tatyana Nikolaevna Sosyura), Soviet writer, journalist and publicist, long-term employee of the Izvestia newspaper.
She received the following awards:
-2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1949; 1960)
-Order of Lenin (1962)
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1967)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1981)
-Prize of the Union of Journalists of the USSR
A.O. AVDEENKO (1908-1945)
“Avdeenko, Aleksandr Ostapovich. Born Aug. 8 (21), 1908, in Makeevka. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU since 1945.
Avdeenko spent his childhood as a street urchin; he worked in the mines and plants of Donbass and as a railroad engineer on the “hot lines” of Magnitogorsk. His novel I Love (book 1, 1933; book 2, 1967) is autobiographical. The first book was highly praised by M. Gorky in a speech at the First Writers’ Congress. Avdeenko has also written the novels Fate (1936) and Labor (1951), the military adventure stories “AboveTissa” (1954) and “Mountain Springtime” (1955), and plays, including Peers. He has received three orders.
WORKS
U karpatskogo kostra. Moscow, 1957.
Eto tvoi svet. Moscow, 1960.
Vera, Nadezhda, Liubov’. Moscow, 1962.
Dunaiskie nochi. Moscow, 1963.
Chernye kolokola. Moscow, 1964.
Vsia krasota chelovechestva. Dnevik pisatelia. Moscow, 1969.
REFERENCES
Zlobin, S. “Kniga o bol’shoi liubvi.” lunost’, 1960, no. 2.
Survillo, V. “Ispytannie schast’em.” Novyi mir, 1967, no. 9.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 1. Leningrad, 1959.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
B. L. GORBATOV (1908-1954)
Soviet writer and screenwriter, journalist, war correspondent. Laureate of two Stalin Prizes of the second degree (1946, 1952).
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1936) – for participation in the Arctic flight of V. S. Molokov
-Order of the Red Star (1942)
-Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the story “The Unconquered” (1943)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1952) – for the script of the film ” Donetsk Miners ” (1950)
-Lenin Komsomol Prize (1978 – posthumously) – for books about the labor achievements of Komsomol members and youth of the first five-year plans, which became the military weapon of the Lenin Komsomol in the communist education of the younger generation
-Medal “For the Defense of Odessa”
-Medal “For the Defense of the Caucasus”
-Medal “For the liberation of Warsaw”
-Medal “For the Capture of Berlin”
B. N. POLEVOI (1908-1981)
“Polevoi, Boris Nikolaevich (real surname Kampov). Born Mar. 4 (17), 1908, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer and public figure. Hero of Socialist Labor (1974). Member of the CPSU since 1940.
Polevoi graduated from an industrial technicum in Tver’ in 1926. He fought in the Soviet-Finnish War (1939–40). During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45) he was a war correspondent for Pravda. Polevoi’s first novella, written in the form of a sketch, was Memoirs of a Louse-ridden Man (1927); a later novella was The Hot Factory Shop (1939). His book The Tale of a Real Man (1946; State Prize of the USSR, 1947; film of the same name, 1948) was based on the exploits of the pilot A. P. Mares’ev, Hero of the Soviet Union. It gained renown in the Soviet Union and abroad.
The Soviet people’s heroism in the war years and during the postwar reconstruction were themes of the collection of sketches and short stories We Are Soviet People (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949) and of such novels as Gold (1949–50; film of the same name, 1970), Far Back on the Home Front (1958), On the Wild Shore (1962; film of the same name, 1966), and Doctor Vera (1966; film of the same name, 1968). The essay collections American Diaries (1956; International Peace Prize, 1959), Through the Wide World (1958), and Thirty Thousand Li Through China (1957) dealt with Polevoi’s trips abroad.
Since 1962, Polevoi has been editor in chief of the journal Iunost’ (Youth), and since 1967 secretary of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of the USSR. He is a member of the bureau of the World Peace Council and of the Presidium of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace. Since 1952 he has been vice-president of the European Society of Culture.
Polevoi has been awarded two orders of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, and six other orders, as well as several medals. He has also received the Gold Medal of the World Peace Council (1968) and a number of foreign orders and medals. Many of his works have been translated into foreign languages.
WORKS
Izbr. proizv., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1969.
Chelovek—cheloveku: Povesti. Moscow, 1971.
Eti chetyregoda: Iz zapisok voennogo korrespondenta, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1974.
REFERENCES
Galanov, B. Boris Polevoi. Moscow-Leningrad, 1957.
Leonov, B. “Krasota podviga.” Znamia, 1971, no. 3.
Mikhailova, L. “Otrazhenie istorii v cheloveke.” Novyi mir, 1974, no. 5.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 3. Moscow, 1964.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article V. A. KALASHNIKOV)
A. A. KRON (1909-1983)
“Kron, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (pseudonym of A. A. Krein). Born June 30 (July 13), 1909, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU (1939).
Kron graduated from the history and philosophy department of Moscow State University in 1930. In the same year he made his literary debut with the play Rifle No. 492116, in which, as in his later plays The Coward (1935) and Our Weapons (1937), he develops the theme of the clash of an anarchic psychology with duty to the party and the spirit of collectivism. During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 he served in the Baltic fleet and took part in the defense of Leningrad. He also worked in the military press. His comedy Distant Reconnaissance (1941; staged at the Moscow Art Academic Theater, 1943), devoted to the Baku oil workers, was very popular. This play, as well as Kron’s subsequent plays Officer of the Navy (1944; staged at the Moscow Art Academic Theater, 1945), Second Breath (1946), and Party Candidate (1950), deals with intense moral conflicts. Kron’ is also the author of the comedy The Sea Has Stretched Far (1942, with V. Azarov and Vs. Vishnevskii).
Kron’s major plays have become an important part of the repertoires of Soviet theaters and have been repeatedly staged abroad. He published the novel Home and Ship (1964), devoted to the defense of Leningrad, and two books of essays, Sailing and at Anchor (1961) and The Eternal Problem (1969). He has been awarded two orders and a number of medals.
WORKS
Izbrannoe. Moscow, 1972.
P’esy. Introduction by B. Zakhava. Moscow, 1955.
Dramaticheskie proizvedeniia. Moscow, 1958.
Teatr. Afterword by S. Dunina. Moscow, 1971.
REFERENCES
Survillo, V. “Ot p’esy k romanu.” Novyi mir, 1965, no. 2.
Plotkin, L. “Kniga, zastavliaiushchaia dumat’: O romane A. Krona ‘Dom i korabl’.” Neva, 1965, no. 10.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. N. MUNBLIT)
AADU HINT (1909-1989)
Estonian Soviet writer, Honored Writer of the Estonian SSR (1955), People’s Writer of the Estonian SSR (1965).
He received the following awards:
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1950, 1967)
-Honored Writer of the Estonian SSR (1955)
-2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1956, 1967)
-People’s Writer of the Estonian SSR (1965)
-Order of Lenin (1980)
-Friedebert Tuglas Literary Prize for Novels (1982)
-Order of the Badge of Honor
S. P. BABAEVSKY (1909-2000)
“Babaevskii, Semen Petrovich. Born May 24 (June 6), 1909, in the village of Kun’e, Kharkov Province. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU since 1939.
Babaevskii graduated from the M. Gorky Institute of Literature in 1939. His first story was published in 1929. The novel Bearer of the Gold Star (books 1–2, 1947–48), which won the State Prize of the USSR in 1949, and its continuation, the novel Light Over the Earth (books 1–2, 1949–50), which won the State Prize of the USSR in 1950 and 1951, depict the reconstruction of a kolkhoz destroyed by war. He is the author of the novella and short-story anthologies Sukhaia Buivola (1958), Along Paths and Roads (1958), Sisters (1958), Four Raisas (1959), and others. In 1961 Babaevskii published the novel Son’s Rebellion; in 1964, the novel Native Land; and in 1967–68, the novel White Light,(books 1–2). A deputy to the fourth convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and various medals.
WORKS
Belaia mechel’: Povesti i rasskazy. Moscow, 1958.
REFERENCES
Makarov, A. Romany S. Babaevskogo “Kavaler zolotoi zvezdy” i “Svet nad zemlei.” Moscow, 1952.
Radov, G. “Iz-za chego ’synovnii bunt’? Otkrytoe pis’mo S. Babaevskomu.” Izvestiia, Feb. 1, 1962.
Vlasenko, A. “Pravda pobezhdaet.” Literaturnaia Rossiia, Sept. 18, 1964.
Svite’skii, V. “Oboroniaias’ ot deistvitel’nosti’.” Pod”em, 1966, no. 5.
Ivashchenko, V. “Emotsii i zhiteiskaia praktika.” Literaturnaia gazeta, July 10, 1968.
Kozlov, I. “A esli bez emotsii?” Ibid.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 1. Leningrad, 1959.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
HANS LEBERECHT (1910-1960)
“Leberekht, Gans Fridrikhovich (Hans Leberecht). Born Nov. 18 (Dec. 1), 1910, in St. Petersburg; died Nov. 10, 1960, in Tallinn. Soviet Estonian writer. Member of the CPSU since 1945. Son of a worker; an industrial laborer. From 1935 to 1937, Leberecht studied at the M. Gorky Leningrad Evening University of Literature. He wrote his works both in Estonian and Russian. During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 he fought in the ranks of the Estonian Corps of the Soviet Army.
Leberecht’s novella Light in Koordi (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949), about the beginnings of the conversion of the Estonian peasantry to collective forms of labor, played an important role in the establishment of socialist realism in Estonian literature. Leberecht is the author of the novels Captains (1954), The Soldiers Come Home (1956), and The Palaces of the Vassars (1960) and the novella In One House (1957). He was awarded two orders and several medals.
WORKS
Teased, vols. 1–3. Tallinn, 1963–64.
In Russian translation:
Povesti Moscow, 1953.
Dvortsy Vassarov. Moscow, 1965.
REFERENCES
Piskunov, V., and I. Solomykov. “Gans Leberekht.” In Ocherk istorii estonskoi sovetskoi literatury, Moscow, 1971.
Sõgel, E. “Hans Leberecht.” In Eesti kirjanduse ajalugu, ch. 3. Tallinn, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
R. K. KOCHAR (1910-1965)
“Kochar, Rachiia Kocharovich (pseudonym of R. K. Gabrielian). Born Jan. 20 (Feb. 2), 1910, in the village of Kumlibudzhakh, Alashkert District, Western Armenia (Turkey); died May 3, 1965, in Yerevan. Soviet Armenian writer. Member of the CPSU from 1939.
Kochar began publishing his work in 1930. Sketches and short stories of the period of the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) went into the collections Birth of Heroes (1942), On the Eve (1943), and Sacred Vow (1946). The novel Children of the Great House (parts 1-2, 1952-59; Russian translation, 1962) reflected the events of the war and explored their great historical significance. The White Book (1965), a collection of novellas and short stories, provides an account of the tragedy of the Armenian people in the period of World War I. His publicistic and critical articles are collected in Literature and Life (1949). Kochar was awarded the Order of the Red Star and various medals.
WORKS
K’ochar, H. Erkeri zhoghovatsol, vols. 1-6. Yerevan, 1964—71.
Mezh son ghavakmere, vep, issues-2. Yerevan, 1959.
In Russian translation: Frontovye ocherki. Yerevan, 1944.
Rasskazy. Yerevan, 1950.
Lunnaia sonata: Povesti i rasskazy. Moscow, 1959.
Izbrannoe. Moscow, 1973.
REFERENCES
Istoriia armianskoi sovetskoi titeratury. Moscow, 1966. Pages 202-05. Soghomonyan, S. “Hiachya K’ochar.” Saketakam Jiakanolt’yaln, 1962, no. 8.
Nazhabyan, Sh. Hiachya K’ochar. Yerevan, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. A. KOVALENKO (1911-1971)
Alexander Aleksandrovich Kovalenkov, Russian Soviet songwriter and prose writer, teacher, front-line correspondent. Recipient of the Order of the Red Star.
M. P. STELMAKH (1912-1983)
Stalin prize winning Soviet writer.
He received the following awards:
-the Stalin Prize (1951 for the novel “Velika nadnya”)
-Lenin Prize (1961 for the trilogy “Bread and Salt”, “Human Blood is not Water”, “Great Family”), in August 1963, an eleven-year-old school was opened in Dyakivtsi, for the construction of which Stelmakh gave the compatriots the monetary reward of the Lenin Prize.
-Red Banner of Labor (1962)
-Three orders of Lenin (1967, 1972, ? )
-By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated May 23, 1972, for his literary and social activities, as well as in connection with the approaching 60th anniversary, Mykhailo Opanasovich Stelmakh was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor with the award of the Order of Lenin and the Hammer and Sickle gold medal.
-State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR named after T. G. Shevchenko (1980 for the novel “Four Fords” ).
-order of the Patriotic War 2nd degree (1985).
-order of the October Revolution
-order of the Friendship of Peoples
E. G. KAZAKEVICH (1913-1962)
Russian and Jewish Soviet writer and poet, translator, screenwriter.
He received the following awards:
-two Orders of the Patriotic War II degree (1944, 1945)
-two Orders of the Red Star (1944- for bravery during the capture of the village of Bobrovo, 1945)
-Medal “For Courage”
-Medal “For the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “For the capture of Berlin”
-Medal “For the Liberation of Warsaw”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1948) – for the story “Star”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for the novel “Spring on the Oder”
B. A. SCHMIDT (1913-1988)
Boris Andreevich Schmidt, Soviet poet, prose writer and journalist, war correspondent, recipient of the Order of the Red Star (1945), Order of the Badge of Honor (1973), Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd degree (1985), Honored Cultural Worker Karelian ASSR (1983).
A. B. CHAKOVSKY (1913-1994)
Stalin prize winning Soviet writer.
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Red Star (1944)
-Stalin Prize of the third degree (1950) – for the novel “We already have morning” (1949)
-two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1963, 1988)
-four Orders of Lenin (1967, 1973, 1979, 1983)
-Order of the October Revolution (1971)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1973)
-Lenin Prize (1978) – for the novel Blockade
-State Prize of the RSFSR named after the Vasilyev brothers (1980) – for the script of the film Blockade (1973, 1977)
-USSR State Prize (1983) – for the novel “Victory”
-Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1985)
-Medal named after Alexander Fadeev
S. V. MIKHALKOV (1913-2009)
Sergei Mikhalkov is a co-author (along with El-Registan ) of the text of the national anthem of the USSR.
“Mikhalkov, Sergei Vladimirovich. Born Feb. 28 (Mar. 13), 1913, in Moscow. Soviet Russian author and public figure. Academician of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR (1971). Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1967). Hero of Socialist Labor (1973). Member of the CPSU since 1950.
Mikhalkov is the son of an office worker. From 1935 to 1937 he studied at the M. Gorky Literary Institute. His work first appeared in print in 1928. In his popular verses for children, Mikhalkov presented in lively and captivating form what A. A. Fadeev called “the foundation of social upbringing” (Pravda, Feb. 6, 1938). Mikhalkov used games to teach children about the world around them; in addition, he inculcated a love of work and cultivated the traits of character necessary for builders of a new society.
During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, Mikhalkov served as a war correspondent for newspapers at the front; he wrote many essays, stories, satirical verse and feuilletons, and texts of war placards and leaflets. Especially popular were his topical, piercing fables that were often written in the form of pribautki [witty and amusing sayings], raeshniki [rhymed pribautki], or direct, publicistic appeals.
Mikhalkov’s plays for the children’s theater include Tom Kenty (1938), A Special Mission (1945), The Red Tie (1946), I Want to Go Home! (1949), The Boastful Bunny (1951), The Sombrero (1957), and The Expensive Boy (1971). His plays for adults include Il’ia Golovin (1950) and the satirical comedies The Hunter (1956), Wildcat Vacationers (1958), A Monument to Myself (1959), The Crayfish and the Crocodile (new ed. 1960), and Eciton Burcelli (1961). He also wrote the screenplay for the film Girlfriends at the Front (1942). Mikhalkov’s fairy-tale novella The Festival of Disobedience (1971) has been very successful with small children. His book of pedagogical articles and notes Everything Begins With Childhood (1968) is devoted to his reflections about the upbringing of the coming generation. Mikhalkov has also published as a translator.
Mikhalkov served as a deputy to the eighth convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He has held the position of secretary of the board of the Writers’ Union of the USSR and has also served as first secretary of the board of the Moscow branch of the Writers’ Union of the RSFSR (1965–70). In 1962 he became the editor in chief of the satirical film journal Fitil’ (Wick). Since 1970, Mikhalkov has been chairman of the board of the Writers’ Union of the RSFSR.
Mikhalkov’s works have been translated into many foreign languages and into the languages of the peoples of the USSR. He has been awarded the State Prize of the USSR (1941, 1942, 1950), the Lenin Prize (1970), three Orders of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, three other orders, and a number of medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., 4 vols. Moscow, 1963–64.
Sobr. soch., vols. Foreword by D. Blagoi. Moscow, 1970–71.
Chuvstvo loktia. Vystupleniia. Stat’i. Retsenzii. Moscow. 1971.
REFERENCES
Kassil’, L. Sergei Mikhalkov: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1954.
Ershov, G., and V. Tel’pugov. Sergei Mikhalkov: Kritiko-biograficheskii ocherk. Moscow, 1956.
Galanov, B. Sergei Mikhalkov: Ocherk tvorchestva, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1972.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. E. GALANOV)
K. M. SIMONOV (1915-1979)
“Simonov, Konstantin (Kirill) Mikhailovich. Born Nov. 15 (28), 1915, in Petrograd; died Aug. 28, 1979. Soviet Russian writer and public figure. Hero of Socialist Labor (1974). Member of the CPSU since 1942.
Simonov, who graduated from the M. Gorky Institute of Literature in 1938, published his first work in 1934. His narrative poems The Victor (1937), about N. Ostrovskii, The Battle on the Ice (1938), and Suvorov (1939) expressed a vivid sense of impending war. Simonov’s main theme, which took form before the war, was the courage and heroism displayed by people deeply involved in contemporary upheavals; examples were the plays Story of a Love (1940) and A Lad From Our Town (1941; State Prize of the USSR, 1942; film of the same name, 1942).
During the Great Patriotic War, Simonov was a front-line correspondent for the newspaper Krasnaia Zvezda. He was one of the first writers to turn to the theme of the Russian at war, in the play The Russian People (1942; State Prize of the USSR, 1943) and the novella Days and Nights (1943-44; State Prize of the USSR, 1946; film of the same name, 1945). Simonov’s lyrics became widely popular during the war; examples were “Do you remember, Alesha, the roads of Smolensk?” “Wait for Me,” and “Kill Him!” Also popular were the poems from Simonov’s collections With You and Without You (1942) and War (1944), which united themes of patriotism, courage, and heroism with those of front-line friendship, love, and loyalty.
The cold-war period was reflected in Simonov’s ideologically topical plays The Russian Question (1946; State Prize of the USSR, 1947) and Another’s Shadow (1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1950) and in the book of poems Friends and Foes (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949). In the mid-1950’s, after the publication of the novel Comrades in Arms (1952; new edition, 1971), Simonov began work on the trilogy The Living and the Dead (Lenin Prize, 1974), comprising the novels The Living and the Dead (1954–59; film of the same name, 1964), Nobody Is Born a Soldier (1963–64; filmed as Retribution, 1969), and The Last Summer (1970-71). The trilogy is an epic panorama of the Soviet people’s path to victory during the Great Patriotic War. In this work, Simonov sought to unite two artistic goals: to depict an authentic chronicle of the war’s main events as seen through the eyes of their witnesses and participants Serpilin and Sintsov, and to analyze these events from a contemporary viewpoint. Closely linked to the trilogy were Southern Tales (1956-61) and the novellas From the Notes of Lopatin (1965) and Twenty Days Without War (1972), as well as Simonov’s multi-volume war diaries, which included commentaries added by the author at the time of publication.
Simonov also published the novella Smoke of the Fatherland (1947), the play The Fourth (1961), and many other plays. He has written scenarios for feature and documentary films, narrative poems, books, travel essays, articles, and addresses on literary topics and subjects of public interest. Many of his works have been translated into the national languages of the USSR and into foreign languages.
Simonov’s public activities have been varied: he was editor of Literaturnaia gazeta in 1938 and from 1950 to 1954 as well as of the journal Novyi mir (New World) from 1946 to 1950 and from 1954 to 1958. He served as deputy general secretary of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of the USSR from 1946 to 1954. Simonov was a candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU from 1952 to 1956 and a member of the Central Auditing Commission of the CPSU from 1956 to 1961; in 1976 he once again became a member of the commission. He was a deputy to the second and third convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. In 1949 he became a member of the presidium of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace. Simonov served as secretary of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of the USSR from 1954 to 1959. In 1967 he once again became secretary of the union’s administrative board. He has been awarded three Orders of Lenin, five other orders, and several medals.
WORKS
Sobr. soch., vols. 1-6. Moscow, 1966-70.
REFERENCES
Vishnevskaia, I. L. Konstantin Simonov: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1966.
Fradkina, S. Tvorchestvo Konstantina Simonova. Moscow, 1968.
Lazarev, L. I. Voennaiaproza Konstantina Simonova. Moscow, 1975.
Russkie sovetskiepisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 4. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. A. BELAIA)
M. L. MATUSOVSKY (1915-1990)
Russian Soviet poet, screenwriter and translator, war correspondent, author of poems for many famous songs. Candidate of Philological Sciences (1941). Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1977).
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Red Star (1942)
-two Orders of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945, 1985)
-State Prize of the USSR (1977) – for poems of recent years
-Order of the October Revolution (1984) – for merits in the development of Soviet literature and in connection with the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Writers’ Union of the USSR
-Honorary citizen of Lugansk since April 1987
-two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor
E. B. MEZHELAITIS (1919-1997)
“Mezhelaitis, Eduardas Ben’iaminovich. (also Eduardas Miezelaitis). Born Oct. 3, 1919, in Kareiviskiai, present-day Pakruoji Raion, Lithuanian SSR. Lithuanian Soviet poet. Member of the CPSU since 1943. Son of an industrial worker.
In 1939-40, Mezhelaitis studied at the departments of law of the Universities of Kaunas and Vilnius. In 1943, during the Great Patriotic War, he was a war correspondent with the 16th Lithuanian Division.
Mezhelaitis was first published in 1935. His first collections of poems (Lyrics, 1943; Wind From the Homeland, 1946; and My Nightingale, 1952) revealed him as a poet of obvious lyrical talent. His work was nourished by the wellsprings of folklore, and his lyrical hero felt an unbreakable bond with his people and his native landscape.
Mezhelaitis’ early lyric poetry is close in spirit and style to the poetic tradition of S. Neris and S. Esenin. An important milestone in his writing was the epic narrative Fraternal Poem (1955), on the theme of socialist friendship among peoples. In 1957 he published the book of verse Other People’s Stones, consisting of the meditations of the Soviet communist poet about the capitalist world. The appearance of the collection of poems Man (1961; Lenin Prize, 1962) was an event both in the artistic career of Mezhelaitis and in Soviet poetry as a whole. Man is a joyous hymn to the Communist Man and his earth, while at the same time the author is troubled by the fate and future of all humanity. Profound intellectualism, a philosophic quality, and publicistic zeal are the basic features of the collections Sun in Amber (1961), Self-portrait: Airborne Sketches (1962), Southern Panorama (1963), and Cardiogram (1963).
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, Mezhelaitis published books of poetical polemicism, expressing his thoughts about Lithuanian and world art; among them are Lyrical Etudes (1964), Bread and the Word (1965), Moths (1966), Here Is Lithuania (1968), Horizons (1970), Antakalnis’ Baroque (1971), and The Amber Bird (1972). His collections of poetry for children include Who Should I Be (1947), What the Apple Tree Said (1951), and Teacher (1953). He has also translated works of A. S. Pushkin, M. Iu. Lermontov, and T. G. Shevchenko into Lithuanian. His own works have been translated into many languages. From 1959 to 1970 he was chairman of the board of the Union of Writers of the Lithuanian SSR, and he has been secretary of the board since 1959. He became a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania in 1960 and was a deputy to the sixth and seventh convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He was awarded the Nehru Prize (1969), as well as the Order of Lenin, three other orders, and medals.
WORKS
Poezija, vols. 1-2. Vilnius, 1968.
In Russian translation:
Kryl’ia. Vilnius, 1953.
Vesennie gosti. Moscow, 1959.
Aleliumai Moscow, 1970.
Kontrapunkt. Moscow, 1972.
REFERENCES
Tikhonov, N. “Zametki o novom sbornike stikhov Ed. Mezhelaitisa.” Kommunist (Vilnius), 1961, no. 9.
Ognev, V. Kniga pro stikhi. Moscow, 1963.
Lankutis, J. “Chelovek” E. Mezhelaitisa. Moscow, 1965.
Makarov, A. Eduardas Mezhelaitis. Moscow, 1966.
Narovchatov, S. Poeziia v dvizhenii. Moscow, 1966.
Urban, A. “Avtodokumental’naia proza.” Zvezda, 1970, no. 10.
Lankutis, J. Miećelaičio poezija. Vilnius, 1965.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by E. VETROVA-BORISOVA)
D. A. GRANIN (1919-2017)
“Granin, Daniil Aleksandrovich (pseudonym of D. A. German). Born Jan. 1, 1919, in the village of Volyn’, in present-day Kursk Oblast. Soviet Russian writer. Member of the CPSU since 1942.
Granin graduated from the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute in 1940 and worked at the Kirov Plant. From there he went to the front and fought until the end of the war in the tank troops. In 1945 he began working in the Leningrad Regional Administration of Power System Management and Scientific Research Institute.
He began publishing in 1949. The main theme of Granin’s works is the romance and poetry of scientific and technological creativity and the struggle between searching, principled, genuine scientists imbued with the communist ideological context and untalented people, careerists, and bureaucrats (the novels The Searchers, 1954, and I Am Going Into a Storm, 1962). The novel After the Wedding (1958) is about the experience of a young inventor sent by the Komsomol to work in the countryside. All three novels were staged and made into films.
His other works include the short stories and tales “The Triumph of Engineer Korsakov” (published in 1949 under the title “Dispute Across the Ocean”), “The Second Alternative” (1949), “Iaroslav Dombrovskii” (1951), and “His Own Opinion” (1956); books of essays on trips to the German Democratic Republic, France, Cuba, Australia, and Britain (Unexpected Morning, 1962, and Footnotes to a Guidebook, 1967; the short story “The House at Fontanka” (1967); the tale Our Battalion Commander; and Two Faces, reflections on A. S. Pushkin’s The Bronze Horseman (1968). Granin was awarded three orders and medals.
WORKS
Izbrannye proizvedeniia, vols. 1–2. Leningrad, 1969.
“Kto-to dolzhen: Povest’.” Zvezda, 1970, no. 1.
REFERENCES
Surovtsev. Iu., and M. Shcheglov. “Novatorstvo—eto bor’ba.” Novyi mir, 1954, no. 11.
Vinogradov, I. “’Lichnaia otvetstvennost’.” Druzhba narodov, 1959. no. 2.
Voitinskaia, O. Daniil Granin: Ocherk tvorchestva. Moscow, 1966.
Shubin, E. “’Pisatel’ i ego geroi: K 50-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Daniila Granina.” Zvezda, 1969. no. 1.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 1. Leningrad, 1959.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by F. M. LEVIN)
J. SMUUL / L. SMUUL (1922-1971)
“Smuul, Iukhan (Juhan Smuul; before 1954, Juhan Schmu-ul). Born Feb. 18, 1922, in the village of Koguva, on the island of Muhu; died Apr. 13, 1971, in Tallinn. Soviet Estonian writer. Writer of the Estonian SSR (1965). Member of the CPSU from 1951.
Smuul published his first poems in the early 1940’s. His first collection of poems was Grim Years of Youth (1946). In the poetry collections A Team of Boys From Järvesuu (1948) and So That the Apple Trees Might Blossom (1951) he depicted the young generation in constructive socialist work. He wrote the collection Verses and Narrative Poems (Russian translation, 1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952) and the narrative poem I Am a Komsomol Member (1953; Russian translation, 1956), which deals with the Great Patriotic War (1941-45). Smuul’s other works include the series of sketches Letters from the Village of Sõgedate (1955; Russian translation, 1957) and the grotesquely humorous novella The Surprising Adventures of the Muhu Islanders at the Jubilee Song Festival in Tallinn (1957; Russian translation, 1959). Smuul’s diary of his journey to the antarctic, The Ice Book (1958; Russian translation, 1959; Lenin Prize, 1961), enjoyed great popularity. Treating similar themes, he wrote The Sea of Japan: December (1963; Russian translation, 1964).
Smuul affirmed the goodness of genuine human values in his plays The Atlantic (staged 1956; published 1957), Lea (1959; Russian translation, 1960), and Jõnn of the Island of Kihnu— The Wild Captain (1964; Russian translation, 1965). The plays The Colonel’s Widow, or Doctors Don’t Know Anything (1965; staged 1966; Russian translation, 1966)and Until the Foxes Come (also known as The Life of Penguins, 1969) both treat contemporary ideological, political, and ethical issues in a grotesque allegorical manner. There are artistic links between these plays and Smuul’s satirical Monologues (separate edition, 1968; Russian translation, 1969).
Smuul was chairman of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of the Estonian SSR from 1953 to 1971 and secretary of the administrative board of the Writers’ Union of the USSR from 1954 to 1971. He was a deputy to the fifth and sixth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Smuul was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and various medals. In 1971 an annual literary prize of the Estonian SSR was established in honor of Smuul and a memorial museum was opened in his homeland.
WORKS
Mere ja taeva vahel. Tallinn, 1959.
Hea meremeeste hoidja. Tallinn, 1972.
Valus valgus. Tallinn, 1972.
In Russian translation:
Morskiepesni. Moscow, 1963.
P’esy. [Afterword by A. Turkov.] Moscow, 1974.
REFERENCES
Surovtsev, Iu. Iukhan Smuul. Moscow, 1964.
Ocherk istorii estonskoi sovetskoi literatury. Moscow, 1971.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by E. NIRK)
R. G. GAMZATOV (1923-2003)
Stalin prize winning Soviet writer.
He received the following awards:
-Stalin Prize, third class (1952) – a collection of poems and the poems “The year of my birth”
-Lenin Prize (1963) – for the book “High Star”
-Hero of Socialist Labour (1974)
-State Prize of the RSFSR, Gorky (1980) – for the poem “Take care of mothers’
-Four Orders of Lenin
-Order of the October Revolution
-Order of the Red Banner of Labour, four times
-Order of Peter the Great
-Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius (Bulgaria)
-Order of the Golden Fleece (Georgia)
-People’s Poet of Daghestan
-International Award for “Best Poet of the 20th century”
-Writers Award in Asia and Africa “Lotus”
-Jawaharlal Nehru Award
-Ferdowsi Award
-Award of Hristo Botev
-International Prize Sholokhov in art and literature
-Lermontov Award
-Fadeev Award
-Batyr Award
-Mahmoud Award
-C. Stalskiy Award
-G. Tsadasy Award
-Order of the Friendship of Peoples (1993) – for outstanding contribution to the development of the multinational Soviet literature and productive
-Order of Merit for the Fatherland, 3rd class (1999) – for outstanding contribution to the multinational culture of Russia
-Order of St. Andrew (2003) – for outstanding contribution to the development of national literature and public activities
I. V. TRIFONOV (1925-1981)
“Trifonov, Iurii Valentinovich. Born Aug. 28, 1925, in Moscow. Soviet Russian writer.
The son of V. A. Trifonov, the Soviet military figure, Trifonov graduated from the M. Gorky Institute of Literature in 1949. He has published his work since 1947, first gaining a reputation with the novel Students (1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951). In 1963 he published the novel The Quenching of Thirst, which concerns the construction of the Turkmen Canal; a film of the same name was made from the novel in 1965. In his The Fire’s Glow (1965), Trifonov used material from his father’s life to create a documentary narrative about lesser-known events of the Civil War of 1918–20.
Trifonov is the author of the short story collections The Cap With the Big Peak (1969) and Games at Twilight (1970) and the novellas The Exchange (1969), Preliminary Conclusions (1970), A Long Goodbye (1971), and A Different Life (1975). These tales combine painstaking psychological analysis with moral judgment of the heroes, by both the author and the heroes themselves. Scrutinizing the banal details of everyday life and entrenched attitudes, Trifonov exposes their historical roots and examines contemporary manners. His novellas, particularly The House on the Embankment (1976), have met with mixed reviews. The historical novel Impatience (1973) is dedicated to the selfless activity of A. Zheliabov and his comrades, the heroes of the People’s Will. Trifonov’s works have been translated.
Trifonov has been awarded the Order of the Badge of Honor and various medals.
WORKS
Rasskazy ipovesti. Moscow, 1971.
Dolgoeproshchanie. Moscow, 1973.
REFERENCES
Rosliakov, V. “Utolennaia zhazhda.” Moskva, 1963, no. 10.
Babaev, E. “Rasskazy romanista.” Novyimir, 1970, no. 9.
Pertsovskii, V. “Ispytanie bytom.” Novyimir, 1974, no. 11.
Dudintsev, V. “Velikii smysl—zhit’.” Literaturnoe obozrenie, 1976, no. 5.
Sozonova, I. “Vnutri kruga.” Literaturnoe obozrenie, 1976, no. 5.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vol. 7, part 2. Moscow, 1972.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. A. LEVITSKII)
THEATER (actors, directors etc.):
V. I. NEMIROVICH-DANCHENKO (1858-1943)
Russian and Soviet theater director, teacher, playwright, writer, theater critic. People’s Artist of the USSR (1936), winner of two Stalin Prizes of the 1st degree (1942, 1943), holder of the Order of Lenin (1937). Together with Konstantin Stanislavsky, he is the founder of the Moscow Art Theatre.
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Red Eagle (Wiesbaden, 1906)
-People’s Artist of the Republic (1923)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1936)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1936)
-Order of Lenin (1937)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1942) – for staging the play “Kremlin Chimes” by N. F. Pogodin
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – for many years of outstanding achievements in the field of art and literature
KONSTANTIN STANISLAVSKI (1863-1938)
Leading figure in Soviet theater, actor, director.
V. I. KACHALOV (1875-1948)
Russian and Soviet actor, teacher. One of the leading actors of the Moscow Art Theater for many years. People’s Artist of the USSR (1936). Laureate of the Stalin Prize, I degree (1943).
He earned the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the Republic (1924)
-People’s Artist of the Republic (1927)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1935)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1936)
-Two orders of Lenin (1937, 1945)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – for outstanding services in the field of theatrical and dramatic skills
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
E. B. VAKHTANGOV (1883-1922)
Russian and Soviet theater director, actor and teacher, founder and head of the Student Drama Studio (1913-1922), since 1921 known as the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, and since 1926 as the Evgeny Vakhtangov Theater.
F. F. FEDOROVSKY (1883-1955)
Russian, Soviet theater artist, painter, teacher, doctor of art history (1952), professor. Chief artist of the Bolshoi Theater (1929-1953). Academician of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1947). People’s Artist of the USSR (1951). Winner of five Stalin Prizes (1941, 1943, 1949, 1950, 1951).
He earned the following awards:
-World Exhibition in Paris (Honorary Diploma – for the layout for R. Wagner’s opera “Lohengrin”, 1925)
-International exhibition in Milan (1927) (“Grand Prix” – for sketches for M. P. Mussorgsky’s opera “Boris Godunov”)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1930)
-World Exhibition in Paris (1937) (“Grand Prix” – for sketches for the opera “Prince Igor” by A. P. Borodin and “Quiet Flows the Don” by I. I. Dzerzhinsky)
-Two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1937, 1951)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1943)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1941) – for the design of the opera performance “Prince Igor” by A. P. Borodin (1934)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – for the design of the opera performance “Emelyan Pugachev” by M. V. Koval (1942)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow”
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1949) – for the design of the opera performance “Boris Godunov” by M. P. Mussorgsky (1948)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1950) – for the design of the opera performance “Sadko” by N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov (1949)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1951)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1951) – for the design of the opera performance “Khovanshchina” by M. P. Mussorgsky (1950)
-Order of Lenin (1954)
-Doctor of Arts (1952)
-Big Gold Medal of the World Exhibition in Brussels (1958)
A. Y. TAIROV (1885-1950)
Soviet Russian Jewish theater actor and director. Founder and artistic director of the Chamber Theater (1914-1949). People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1935).
He earned the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1924)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1935)
-Order of Lenin (1945)
-Honored Art Worker of the Estonian SSR (1948)
N. M. TSERETELLI (1890-1942)
Uzbek Soviet actor and director, collector and developer of Russian toys.
S. M. MIKHOELS (1890-1948)
Great Soviet Jewish actor and director of theater in Yiddish, theater teacher, public figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1939). Laureate of the Stalin Prize 2nd degree (1946). Recipient of the Order of Lenin (1939).
He earned the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the Republic (1926)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1935)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1939)
-Order of Lenin (1939) – for outstanding services in the development of Soviet theatrical art
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for staging the play Freilekhs by Z. Schneer
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” (1946)
A. D. POPOV (1892-1961)
Russian Soviet actor, theater and film director, teacher, theater theorist. Chief director of the Theater of the Revolution (1931-1935) and the Central Theater of the Red Army (1935-1958). People’s Artist of the USSR (1948), Laureate of three Stalin Prizes (1943, 1950, 1951). Member of the CPSU since 1917.
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1933)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1942)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1943) – for staging the play “A long time ago” by A. K. Gladkov
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1948)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for staging the play “The Wide Steppe” by N. G. Vinnikov
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1951) – for staging the play “Admiral’s Flag” by A.P. Stein
-Order of Lenin (October 31, 1953) – for outstanding services in the development of Soviet theatrical art and connection with the 60th anniversary
“Popov, Aleksei Dmitrievich. Born Mar. 12 (24), 1892, in the city of Nikolaevsk, now Pugachev, Saratov Oblast; died Aug. 18, 1961, in Moscow. Soviet stage director, theoretician of theater arts, and teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1948); Doctor of Art Studies (1957). Member of the CPSU since 1954.
Popov studied at an art school in Kazan. In 1912 he became an actor in the Moscow Art Theater. From 1918 to 1923 he was an actor and director in the Theater of Studio Productions in Kostroma and was also the theater’s manager. Here, following the traditions of the Moscow Art Theater, he staged a number of plays, including Berger’s The Deluge, Dickens’ The Cricket on the Hearth, and An Evening Dedicated to the Paris Commune. From 1923 to 1930, Popov was a director in the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, since 1926 called the Vakhtangov Theater. Here he helped establish Soviet dramaturgy by staging Seifullina and Pravdukhin’s Virineia (1925) and Lavrenev’s The Break (1927). From 1930 to 1935 he was the artistic director of the Theater of the Revolution, where his productions of N. F. Pogodin’s Poem of the Ax (1931), My Friend (1932), and After the Ball (1934) convincingly depicted the heroic nature of socialist construction.
Popov’s directing truthfully and comprehensively revealed the inner world of man in the new socialist society. This talent was most fully revealed in his work at the Central Theater of the Red (now Soviet) Army (CTSA), which Popov headed from 1935 to 1960. There he staged large-scale heroic folk productions extolling the constructive labor and military exploits of Soviet man. Popov revealed qualities typical of contemporary man by meticulously and sensitively portraying each character’s psychology; the same aim was served by his staging of mass scenes that were replete with thought and feeling. His CTSA productions included Prut’s The Year Nineteen (1936), Chepurin’s Stalingraders (1944), Vinnikov’s The Wide Steppe (1949), and Virgin Soil Upturned (1957), adapted from Sholokhov’s novel. In the CTSA, Popov also directed plays devoted to Russia’s history, including Bekhterev and Razumovskii’s General Suvorov (1939), Trenev’s The General (1945), and Shtein’s The Admiral’s Flag (1950); in the Moscow Art Theater he directed A. N. Tolstoy’s Ivan the Terrible {Difficult Years; 1946).
Popov made an important contribution to the stage depiction of the philosophic and humanistic meaning of Shakespeare’s works in his productions of the tragedy Romeo and Juliet (1935, Theater of the Revolution) and the comedy The Taming of the Shrew (1937, CTSA). His production of the early Soviet film comedy Two Friends, a Model and a Girl Friend (1928) was an interesting experiment. Popov applied the principles of the Moscow Art Theater creatively, first and foremost by penetrating into the essence of modern life and the spiritual world of Soviet man. He developed a theory that the unity of a stage production resulted from the harmony of true-to-life components.
Popov trained many actors and directors. Beginning in 1919 he taught at the CTSA school and the State Institute of Theatrical Arts, where he became a professor in 1940 and artistic director in 1961. Popov was awarded the State Prize of the USSR (1943, 1950, and 1951), as well as the Order of Lenin and several medals.
WORKS
Khudozhestvennaia tselostnost’ spektaklia. Moscow, 1959.
Vospominaniia i razmyshleniia o teatre. Moscow, 1963.
SpektakV i rezhisser, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1972.
REFERENCE
Zorkaia, N. Tvorcheskii put’ A. D. Popova. Moscow, 1954.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. I. ROSTOTSKII)
N. A. SHIFRIN (1892-1961)
Russian Jewish Soviet theater artist. Winner of two Stalin Prizes (1949, 1951).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1946)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1949) – for the design of the play “Moscow Character” by A. V. Sofronov
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1951) – for the design of the play “Admiral’s Flag” by A.P. Stein
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1958)
ANTS LAUTER (1894-1973)
Estonian Soviet actor, theater director, teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1948). Laureate of the Stalin Prize of the third degree (1952).
He earned the following awards:
-Order of the Estonian Red Cross III class (1938)
-People’s Artist of the Estonian SSR (1942)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1944)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1947, 1948)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1948)
-Stalin Prize of the third degree ( 1952 ) – for playing the role of Voronov in the play “Unforgettable 1919” Vs. V. Vishnevsky
-Order of Lenin (1956)
P. A. MARKOV (1897-1980)
Russian Soviet theater critic, director, theater theorist, teacher, one of the largest domestic theater historians. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1944), holder of the Order of Lenin (1948).
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1938)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1944)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
-Order of Lenin (1948)
-State Prize of the RSFSR named after K. S. Stanislavsky (1966)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor
E. M. KUZNETSOV (1900-1958)
“Kuznetsov, Evgenii Mikhailovich. Born Dec. 22, 1899 (Jan. 3, 1900), in Warsaw; died Mar. 27, 1958, in Moscow. Soviet authority on the theater and critic. Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1939). A specialist on the estrada (the variety stage), the circus, and mass folk performances.
In 1928, Kuznetsov became director of the Leningrad Circus Museum. In the 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s he was artistic director of the Leningrad Circus and of the Central Board of the Circuses of the USSR. One of the founders and the first editor in chief of the magazine The Soviet Circus (1957–58), Kuznetsov was also the author of many books on the history of the Soviet and European circuses. He was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.
WORKS
Arena i liudi sovetskogo tsirka. Leningrad-Moscow, 1947.
I. F. Gorbunov. Moscow, 1947.
Iz proshlogo russkoi estrady. Moscow, 1958.
“Komissar teatrov.” In M. F. Andreeva. Moscow, 1961.
Tsirk: Proiskhozhdenie, razvitie, perspektivy, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1971. (With bibliography.)
REFERENCE
Dmitriev, lu. Sovetskii tsirk, Moscow, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
N. F. POGODIN (1900-1962)
“Pogodin, Nikolai Fedorovich. (real surname Stuka-lov). Born Nov. 3 (16), 1900, in the stanitsa (large cossack village) of Gundorovskaia, Donetsk Oblast; died Sept. 19, 1962, in Moscow. Soviet Russian playwright. Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1949).
Pogodin began publishing in 1920. He was a traveling correspondent for Pravda from 1922 to 1932. In 1926 he published the collections of sketches Red Calico Morning and Red Sprouts. The content of his journalism provided the material for his first plays.
In the play Tempo (1929; staged 1930), Pogodin created a “collective” hero—the seasonal construction workers. Subsequently he turned to creating individualized characters in such plays as Poem of the Ax (1930; staged 1931), My Friend (1932), and After the Ball (1934). His work developed from the reportage of the early plays to the stirring plot of The Aristocrats (1934). Pogodin’s plays about the workers of the first five-year plan helped significantly to bring about a rapprochement between the Soviet theater and socialist reality and to develop the image of contemporary man in dramaturgy and stagecraft. His plays are unstructured; the action often moves to factory workshops, construction sites, and collective-farm fields.
Pogodin’s trilogy about the founding and early stages of the Soviet state (Lenin Prize, 1959) centers around Lenin and is an important achievement in the dramaturgy of socialist realism. It comprises Man With a Gun (1937; State Prize of the USSR, 1941; film of the same name, 1938), The Kremlin Chimes (1940; staged 1942; new version, 1955; staged 1956), and Third Pathétique (1958; staged 1959). The revolution and the changes it effected in people are portrayed through protagonists’ lives, and the varied activities of Lenin are explored. The trilogy combines lyricism, a broad grasp of current events, and character depiction in depth.
A number of Pogodin’s comedies and his screenplay Kuban’ Cossacks (1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951) minimized dramatic tension. Increased social content and moral conflict were found in the comedy When Lances Are Broken (1953) and the drama Petrarch’s Sonnet (1956). In the 1950’s, Pogodin was especially interested in the morality and character of Soviet youth, reflected in the plays The Little Co-ed (1958) and Rhapsody in Blue (1961) and the novel The Amber Necklace (1960).
As playwright, publicist, and critic, Pogodin played an important role in the development of the Soviet theater. He was editor in chief of the journal Teatrftoca 1951 to 1960. He was awarded two Orders of Lenin and several medals.
WORKS
Sobr. dramaticheskikh proizvedenii, vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1960–61.
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1972–73.
Teatr i zhizn’. Moscow, 1953.
Iskat’, myslit’, otkryvat’. Moscow, 1966.
Neizdannoe, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1969.
“Avtobiograficheskaia zametka.” In Sovetskie pisateli, vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.
REFERENCES
Zaitsev, N. Nikolai Fedorovich Pogodin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958.
Popov, A. Vospominaniia i razmyshleniia o teatre. Moscow, 1963.
Karaganov, A. Ogni Smol’nogo. Moscow, 1966.
Kholodov, E. P’esy i gody: Dramaturgiia N. Pogodina. Moscow, 1967.
Slow o Pogodine: Vospominaniia. Moscow, 1968.
Potapov, N. Zhivee vsekh zhivykh: Obraz V. I. Lenina ν sovetskoi drama-turgii. Moscow, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by N. V. ZAITSEV)
S. V. OBRAZTSOV (1901-1992)
“Obraztsov, Sergei Vladimirovich. Born June 22 (July 5), 1901, in Moscow. Soviet Russian theatrical figure, actor, and director. People’s Artist of the USSR (1954) and Hero of Socialist Labor (1971). Son of V. N. Obraztsov.
Obraztsov studied in the department of painting at the Higher Arts Studios from 1918 to 1926. From 1922 to 1930 he performed at the Moscow Art Musical Studio of the Moscow Art Theater (from 1926, the V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko Musical Theater). He acted in strong character roles at the Second Moscow Art Theater from 1930 to 1936.
Obraztsov first used puppets in his performances in 1920. By the mid-1930’s he had become a popular variety performer, known for his parodies “romances with puppets.” The head of the State Central Puppet Theater since 1931, Obraztsov developed the theory and techniques of the theater, created the theater’s repertoire, and trained many actors and directors. His productions for children include Speranskii’s Kashtanka (1935), Tarakhovskaia’s By a Wave of the Wand (1936), Gernet’s Aladdin’s Lamp (1940), Marshak’s Mister Twister (1961), and Gernet’s Little Tiger Petrik (1965). Those for adults include Gogol’s The Night Before Christmas (1941); Speranskii’s The Deer King (1943); The Unusual Concert (1946); Shtok’s The Devil’s Mill (1953) and The Divine Comedy (1961); The Housewarming (1970); and The Central Puppet Theater Shows and Tells (1973).
Since 1956, Obraztsov has also worked in film as a screenwriter and director. Among his films are The Amazing Is Close at Hand (1962), The Movie Camera Accuses (1968), Improbable Truth (1970), and Who Needs Him, This Vas’ka! (1973). Vice-president of the International Puppeteers Union from 1957 to 1976, Obraztsov was made president in 1976. He has been president of the Soviet center of this organization since 1958. He has taught intermittently, since 1935, and in 1973 he became a professor. Obraztsov received the State Prize of the USSR in 1946 and the K. S. Stanislavsky State Prize of the RSFSR in 1967. He has been awarded two Orders of Lenin, two other orders, and a number of medals.
WORKS
Akter s kukloi. Moscow-Leningrad, 1938.
Moia professiia. Moscow, 1950.
O tom, chto ia uvidel, uznal i ponial vo vremia dvukh poezdok v London. Moscow, 1956.
“Estafeta iskusstv.” Iskusstvo kino, 1966, nos. 1, 3, 7; 1967, no. 3; 1968, nos. 6, 11; 1971, no. 6.
REFERENCES
Smirnova, N. I. Sovetskii teatr kukol, 1918–1932. Moscow, 1963.
Smirnova, N. I. Teatr Sergeia Obraztsova. [Moscow, 1971.] [18–645–3; updated]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
F. G. VERESHCHAGIN (1910-1996)
“Vereshchagin, Fedor Grigor’evich. Born May 4 (17), 1910, in Nikolaev. Soviet stage director. People’s Artist of the USSR (1977). Member of the CPSU since 1954.
Vereshchagin graduated from the department of stage directing of the Kiev Institute of Theatrical Arts in 1941. From 1941 to 1943 he was administrator and artistic director of the Frontline Theater of the Red Army. He was engaged as principal stage director of the N. K. Sadovskii Vinnitsa Theater of Music and Drama in 1948 and became administrative director as well in 1955. He was one of the first to stage N. Ia. Zarudnyi’s Veselka (1958) and Dead God (1959) and I. F. Stadniuk’s People Aren’t Angels (1967). His other productions have included Franko’s The Dream of Prince Sviatoslav (1954) and Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle (1974).
Vereshchagin has been awarded the Order of Lenin and several medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
CINEMA (directors, cinematographers etc.)
I. Y. SUDAKOV (1890-1969)
Soviet theater director, theater and film actor, theater teacher, People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1938), twice winner of the Stalin Prize (1942, 1951). Member of the CPSU(B) since 1940.
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1933)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1935)
-three Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1937, 1948, 1955)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1938)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1942) – for staging the play “In the Steppes of Ukraine” by A. E. Korneichuk (1941)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1951) – for the role of Joachim Pino in the film “Conspiracy of the Doomed” (1950)
E. I. SHUB (1894-1959)
Soviet film director, screenwriter, film editor, film critic. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1935). Winner of the Order of the Badge of Honor (1940).
SERGEI EISENSTEIN (1898-1948)
A leading Soviet film director.
F. M. ERMLER (1898-1967)
Soviet film director, actor, screenwriter. People’s Artist of the USSR (1948). Laureate of four Stalin Prizes (1941, 1946 twice, 1951).
He earned the following awards:
-Order of Lenin (1935)
-International Film Festival in Moscow (1935, Grand Prize (“Big Silver Cup”) for the film program “Lenfilm”, films “Chapaev”, “Maxim’s Youth” and “Peasants”)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1940)
-Stalin Prize II degree (1941) – for the film “The Great Citizen” (1937, 1939)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize II degree (1946) – for the film “She defends the Motherland” (1943)
-Stalin Prize, 1st class (1946) – for the film The Great Break (1945)
-Cannes Film Festival (1946, Grand Prix (among 11 films representing national cinematography), film “The Great Break”.
-Medal “In memory of the 250th anniversary of Leningrad” (1947)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1948)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1950)
-Stalin Prize III degree (1951) – for the film “Great Power” (1949)
G. L. ROSHAL (1899-1983)
Soviet theater and film director, screenwriter, teacher, publicist. People’s Artist of the USSR (1967), winner of two Stalin Prizes of the first degree (1950, 1951).
Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1935)
-two orders of the Red Banner of Labor (including 1939)
-Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1942?)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1950) – for the film “Academician Ivan Pavlov” (1949)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1951) – for the film “Mussorgsky” (1950)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1959)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1967)
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1974)
-Order of Lenin (1978)
Y. Y. RAIZMAN (1903-1994)
Soviet film director, screenwriter and teacher. Winner of six Stalin Prizes (1941, 1943, 1946 twice, 1950, 1952).
He received the following awards:
-Soviet Film Festival in Moscow (Certificate of Merit, film “Pilots” (together with the animated feature film “New Gulliver”), 1935)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1941) – for the film “Last Night” (1936)
-World Exhibition in Paris (Grand Prix, film “The Last Night”, 1937)
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1940)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1943) – for the film “Mashenka” (1942)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) – for the documentary film “On the issue of a truce with Finland” (1944)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) – for the documentary “Berlin” (1945)
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
-Cannes International Film Festival (Grand International Prize “For the best feature documentary film”, film “Berlin”, 1946)
-People’s Artist of the Latvian SSR (1949)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for the film “Rainis” (1949)
-Two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1950, 1963)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1952) – for the film Cavalier of the Golden Star (1950)
-IFF in Karlovy Vary (Grand Prize ” Crystal Globe “, film “Chevalier of the Golden Star”, 1951)
-IFF in Cartagena (Grand Prize, film “Chevalier of the Golden Star”, 1951)
-IFF in Venice (Honorary Diploma, film “Communist”, 1958)
-All-Union Film Festival in Kiev (First prize in the section of feature films, the film “Communist”, 1959)
-All-Union Film Festival in Kiev (First Prize for Best Director, film “Communist”, 1959)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1964)
-Two orders of Lenin (1967, 1973)
-All-Union Film Festival in Leningrad (Award for the best director’s work, the film “Your Contemporary”, 1968)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin” (1969)
-IFF in Łagów (Poland) (Award “Warsaw Siren” by the jury of the Critics’ Club, film “Your Contemporary”, 1969)
-Order of the October Revolution (1971)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1973)
-Medal “Veteran of Labor” (1974)
-International Documentary Film Festival in Nyon (Grand Prix “Golden Sistertius”, for participation in a retrospective of Soviet films, 1974)
-Venice International Film Festival (Special Prize “For Artistic and Professional Cooperation”, film “Private Life”, 1982)
-All-Union Film Festival in Tbilisi (Main Prize, film “Private Life”, 1983)
-USSR State Prize (1983) – for the film “Private Life” (1982)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1983)
-State Prize of the RSFSR named after the Vasiliev brothers (1986) – for the film ” Time of Desire ” (1984)
-Film award ” Nika ” in the nomination “Honor and Dignity” (1988)
S. I. YUTKEVICH (1904-1985)
Soviet theater and film director, artist, teacher, film theorist. Doctor of Arts (1941). Hero of Socialist Labor (1974). People’s Artist of the USSR (1962), winner of two Stalin (1941, 1947) and two State Prizes of the USSR (1967, 1983). Recipient of three Orders of Lenin (1964, 1967, 1974).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1935)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (February 1, 1939) – director of the film ” Man with a Gun ” (1938)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1941) – for the film ” Yakov Sverdlov ” (1940)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1947) – for the film “The Youth of Our Country” (1946)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
-Was nominated for the IFF in Cannes (1954, Special Prize of the Higher Technical Commission, for directing, the film “The Great Warrior of Albania Skanderbeg”)
-Cannes International Film Festival (1954, International Prize (“In recognition of the success of national cinemas”), the film “The Great Warrior of Albania Skanderbeg”)
-Cannes International Film Festival (1956, Best Director Award , film “Othello”)
-Was nominated for the IFF in Damascus (1956, Gold medal, film “Othello”)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1957)
-VKF in Kiev (1959, Diploma of the 1st degree, film “Stories about Lenin”)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1962)
-Three Orders of Lenin (1964, 1967, 1974)
-Was nominated for the IFF in London (1966, Honorary Diploma, film “Lenin in Poland”)
-International Film Festival in Cannes (1966, Prize of the French National Film Center, film “Lenin in Poland”)
-International Film Festival in Cannes (1966, Prize for Best Director , film “Lenin in Poland”)
-2nd VKF in Kiev (1966, First Prize in the section of historical and revolutionary films, the film “Lenin in Poland”)
-State Prize of the USSR (1967) – for the film “Lenin in Poland”
-Jussi Prize (Finland , 1970) – for the best foreign film (“Lenin in Poland”)
-Order of the October Revolution (1971)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1974)
-Venice IFF (1982, “Career Golden Lion”)
-USSR State Prize (1983) – for the film “Lenin in Paris” (1981)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1984)
D. I. EREMIN (1904-1993)
Dmitry Ivanovich Eremin, Soviet writer, screenwriter, film critic, editor-in-chief of the magazine “The Art of Cinema” (1949-1951). Recipient of the Order of the Badge of Honor (1944), the Stalin Prize, third degree (1952), 2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1964; 1974), Order of Friendship of Peoples (1984) and Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”.
L. D. TUR (1905-1961)
Leonid Davidovich Tur (real name Tubelsky) Soviet Jewish playwright and screenwriter. One half of the “Tur brothers”. Winner of the Stalin Prize, first degree (1950). Recipient of the Order of the Red Star (1943), Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd degree (1945), Medal “For victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”.
P. L. TUR (1908-1978)
Pyotr Lvovich Tur (real name Ryzhey) Soviet Jewish screenwriter and playwright. One half of the “Tur brothers”. Winner of the Stalin Prize, first degree (1950). Recipient of the Order of the Red Star (1943), Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd degree (1945), Medal “For victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”, Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1967).
R. G. GRIGORIEV (1911-1972)
Soviet documentary film director. Member of the CPSU(B) since 1942. Member of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, the Union of Cinematographers of Bulgaria, the Union of Journalists of the USSR. Twice winner of the Stalin Prize (1949, 1951), Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1965), Honored Artist of the Uzbek SSR (1971), order of Lenin recipient (1971).
BALLET
A. I. VAGANOVA (1879-1951)
“Vaganova, Agrippina Iakovlevna. Born June 24 (July 6), 1879, in St. Petersburg; died Nov. 5, 1951, in Leningrad. Soviet ballerina, choreographer, and teacher. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1934).
In 1897, Vaganova graduated from the St. Petersburg Theatrical School, where she studied with L. I. Ivanov, E. O. Vazem, and P. A. Gerdt. From 1897 to 1916 she danced at the Mariinskii Theater in St. Petersburg, becoming famous as a virtuoso of classical dance. Her best roles included Odette-Odile in Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake and the Tsar-maiden in Pugni’s The Little Humpbacked Horse. She began teaching in 1917 after leaving the stage. In 1921 she became a teacher at the Leningrad Choreographic School, where she became a professor in 1946. From 1931 to 1937, Vaganova was artistic director of the ballet of the S. M. Kirov Leningrad Opera and Ballet Theater, where she staged the ballets Swan Lake (1933) and Pugni’s La Esmeralda (1935). Vaganova’s work as a choreographer was marked by a search for new means of expression in the classical dance, which became an excellent model for performing—dancing as well as acting. From 1946 to 1951 she headed the subdepartment of choreography at the N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatory in Leningrad. She expounded her teaching methods in the book Fundamentals of the Classical Dance (1934; reprinted four times). The essence of her method consists in the demand for the comprehension and aesthetic expressiveness of dance movements and for the free use of technique based on the correct placing of the body and arms. Vaganova’s teaching methods are widespread in Soviet choreographic teaching practice and exert considerable influence on ballet abroad. Vaganova’s students included G. S. Ulanova, M. T. Semenova, O. G. Iordan, N. A. Anisimova, T. M. Vecheslova, N. N. Dudinskaia, and A. la. Shelest. She was awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1946, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Bogdanov-Berezovskii, V. M. A. Ia. Vaganova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
A. Ia. Vaganova. Stat’i. Vospominaniia. Materialy. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958. [Collection.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
VASLAV NIJINSKY (1889-1950)
“Nijinsky, Vaslav. (full Russian name, Vatslav Fomich Nizhinskii). Born Feb. 28 (Mar. 12), 1889, in Kiev; died Apr. 11, 1950, in London. Russian ballet dancer and choreographer.
Nijinsky attended the St. Petersburg Theatrical School until 1907, at which time he was accepted as a soloist at the Mariinskii Theater. He was dismissed by the theater in 1911. From 1909 to 1913 and again in 1916 and 1917, Nijinsky was a principal dancer and choreographer with the Russian Seasons and the ballet company organized by S. P. Diaghilev.
Nijinsky danced the lead roles in M. M. Fokine’s productions of Stravinsky’s Petrouchka, N. Cherepnin’s Le Pavilion d’Armide and Narcissus, Arenskii’s Egyptian Nights, Schumann’s Chopinana (Les Sylphides) and Le Carnaval, and Weber’s Le Spectre de la rose. In Paris he staged Debussy’s Afternoon of a Faun in 1912 and Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du printemps and Debussy’s Jeux in 1913. Nijinsky staged R. Strauss’ Till Eulenspiegel in New York in 1916.
As a dancer, Nijinsky revived the art of the male dancer, combining extraordinary jumps and pirouettes with expressive plasticity and pantomime. An innovative choreographer, he expanded the vocabulary of the ballet.
REFERENCES
Lunacharskii, A. V. V mire muzyki: Stat’i i rechi, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1971.
Fokine, M. M. Protiv techeniia: Vospominaniia baletmeistera. Leningrad-Moscow, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. M. KRASOVSKAIA)
V. I. VAINONEN (1901-1964)
“Vainonen, Vasilii Ivanovich. Born Feb. 8 (21), 1901, in St. Petersburg; died Mar. 23, 1964, in Moscow. Soviet choreographer. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1939).
Vainonen graduated from the Petrograd Choreographic School in 1919. From 1919 to 1938 he was a dancer and then choreographer at the S. M. Kirov Theater of Opera and Ballet in Leningrad. From 1946 to 1950 and from 1954 to 1958 he was choreographer at the Bol’shoi Theater in Moscow. His production of Asaf’ev’s ballet The Flames of Paris (1932) initiated the national and heroic trend in Soviet choreography. He also staged ballets that dealt with modern themes: Asaf’ev’s Partisan Days (1937) and Militsa (1947) and Spadavekkia’s The Shore of Happiness (1952). The production of Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker (1934) was a major contribution to the art of classical dance. Among Vainonen’s other productions were Drigo’s Harlequinade (1945) and Vasilenko’s Mirandolina (1949). Vainonen was awarded the State Prize of the USSR twice (1947, 1949)—for his staging of The Flames of Paris (1947) and the dances in Smetana’s opera The Bartered Bride (1948) at the Bol’shoi Theater. He was also awarded a medal and the Order of the Badge of Honor.
WORKS
“Zametki o iazyke khoreografii.” Teatr, Moscow, 1940, no. 9, pp. 75-80.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by N. V. VAINONEN)
A. M. MESSERER (1903-1992)
“Messerer, Asaf Mikhailovich. Born Nov. 6 (19), 1903, in Vilnius. Soviet ballet dancer, choreographer, and teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1976) and Honored Art Worker of the Lithuanian SSR (1953). Member of the CPSU since 1944.
Upon graduating from the Moscow Choreographic School in 1921, Messerer was accepted into the ballet company of the Bolshoi Theater where he was a student of A. A. Gorskii and V. D. Tikhomirov. He has contributed much to expanding the technique of male dancing, thus enriching and making more complex the “vocabulary” of ballet dancing. His best roles included Colin in Hertel’s La Fille mal gardee, Basil in Minkus’ Don Quixote, Philippe in Asaf ev’s The Flames of Paris, the Acrobat in Gliere’s The Red Poppy, and the title role in Stravinsky’s Petrouchka. His concert divertissement The Soccer Player (or The Football Player), to the music of A. N. Tsfasman, was particularly popular.
Messerer choreographed his first work in 1926. He began teaching in 1921 and from 1923 to 1960 taught at the Moscow Choreographic School. Since 1946 he has been conducting a classe de perfectionnement for ballet dancers of the Bolshoi Theater. A recipient of the State Prize of the USSR (1941, 1947), Messerer has been awarded three orders and various medals.
WORKS
Uroki klassicheskogo tantsa. [Moscow] 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
M. T. SEMENOVA (1908-2010)
“Semenova, Marina Timofeevna. Born May 30 (June 12), 1908, in St. Petersburg, Soviet ballerina. People’s Artist of the USSR (1975).
In 1925, Semenova graduated from the Leningrad Choreographic School, where she studied under A. Ia. Vaganova. In the same year she joined the Leningrad Theater of Opera and Ballet, where she was a soloist until 1930. From 1930 to 1952 she was a soloist with the Bolshoi Theater. Her roles included the title role in Adam’s Giselle, the title role in Glazunov’s Raymonda, Nikiya in Minkus’ La Bayadère, and Odette-Odile in Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake.
Semenova’s dancing was characterized by expressive body movements, vigorous leaps, excellent balance, and striking femininity. Semenova endowed classical dance with simplicity and naturalness and gave new social meaning to the characters of the heroines of old ballets. She toured France in 1935 and 1936. She taught at the Moscow Choreographic School from 1953 to 1960. Semenova became ballet mistress and répétiteur at the Bolshoi Theater of the USSR in 1953 and a teacher of the department of choreography at the A. V. Lunacharskii State Institute of Theatrical Arts in 1960. She received the State Prize of the USSR in 1941. Semenova has been awarded two orders and various medals.
REFERENCES
M. T. Semenova. Moscow, 1953.
Ivanova, S. Marina Semenova. Moscow, 1965.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
MUSIC (composers, performers etc.)
M. I. GLINKA (1804-1857)
“Glinka, Mikhail Ivanovich. Born May 20 (June 1), 1804, in the village of Novospasskoe, in present-day El’nia Raion, Smolensk Oblast; died Feb. 3 (15), 1857, in Berlin. Russian composer. Founder of Russian classical music.
Born into a landlord’s family, Glinka lived in St. Petersburg from 1817. He was a student in the Nobles’ Pension attached to the Main Pedagogical School, where his tutor was the poet and Decembrist W. K. Küchelbecker. He took piano lessons from J. Field and C. Meyer and violin lessons from F. Böhm; later he studied voice under Belloli and composition theory under Z. Dehn. In the 1820’s, he was well known among music lovers in St. Petersburg as a singer and pianist. From 1837 to 1839 he was choirmaster of the Court Choir. Glinka visited Italy (1830-33), Berlin (1833-34, 1856-57), Paris (1844-45, 1852-54), Spain (1845-47), and Warsaw (1848 and 1849-51). Mastery of native and world music traditions, the influence of progressive ideas that spread during the Patriotic War of 1812 and the preparation for the Decembrist Uprising, and contact with outstanding literary figures, including A. S. Pushkin and A. S. Griboyedov, as well as ties with artists and critics, contributed to the broadening of the composer’s outlook and the development of the innovative aesthetic principles of his creative work. Realistic and based on folk influences, Glinka’s creative work influenced the entire course of Russian music.
In 1836 the St. Petersburg Bolshoi Theater presented Glinka’s historical, heroic-patriotic opera Ivan Susanin. In spite of the fact that the opera reflects the concepts of political orthodoxy that were imposed on the composer (the libretto was composed by Baron G. F. Rosen in a monarchist spirit, and it was entitled A Life for the Tsar at the insistence of the court), Glinka managed to emphasize the folk basis of the opera by glorifying the peasant-patriot and proclaiming the greatness of character, the courage, and the unswerving steadfastness of the people. In 1842, the premiere of the opera Ruslan and Liudmila was held in the same theater. This work combined colorful images of Slavic life with the fantasy of fairy tales and vivid expressions of the national culture of Russia with oriental motifs. (In this work the foundation for orientalism in Russian classical opera was laid.) Having injected new meaning into the playful, ironic, youthful poem by Pushkin, which was the basis for the libretto, Glinka sought above all to impart majestic images of ancient Rus’ and the bogatyr spirit and to incorporate broad and emotionally rich lyrics into the work. Glinka’s operas laid the foundation for and indicated the course of the development of the classic Russian opera. Ivan Susanin is a folk music tragedy on a historical topic, with an intense, effective musical-dramatic development. Ruslan and Liudmila is an enchanting opera-oratorio, with a regular alternation of large-scale and self-contained scenes for vocal and symphonic performance, and it is dominated by epic and narrative elements. Glinka’s operas confirmed the world significance of Russian music. In the field of music for the stage his incidental music to N. V. Kukol’nik’s tragedy Prince Kholmskii (produced in 1841 at St. Petersburg’s Aleksandrinskii Theater) has great artistic value.
Glinka’s music is characterized by its comprehension of life in all its diversity, the presentation of artistic images in a pointed and clear manner, masterful architectonics, and the spirit of a bright affirmation of life. His orchestral writing, which combines transparent and impressive sounds, is brightly picturesque, with splendor and abundant color. His masterful orchestration was more fully revealed in his music for stage (the overture to Ruslan and Liudmila) and his symphonic pieces. The Valse-Fantaisie for orchestra (originally for piano, 1839; orchestral versions, 1845, 1856) is the first example in classical music of the Russian symphonic waltz. His Spanish Overtures (Jota aragonesa, 1845, and Summer Night in Madrid, 1848, 2nd ed., 1851) laid the foundation for the incorporation in international symphonic music of musical elements from Spanish folklore. The scherzo for orchestra Kamarinskaia (1848) synthesizes the wealth of Russian folk music with the highest achievements of professional craftsmanship.
The lyrics of Glinka’s vocal music are distinguished by the harmonious feeling they convey. Diverse in form and themes, they incorporate elements of Russian song culture—the basis for Glinka’s melodies—as well as Ukrainian, Polish, Finnish, Georgian, Spanish, and Italian motifs, intonations, and genres. Glinka’s art songs to Pushkin’s words are outstanding. Among them are “Do Not Sing Thy Songs of Georgia, My Beauty, in My Presence,” “I Remember the Wonderful Moment,” “Fire of Longing in My Blood,” and “Night Zephyr.” He also wrote art songs to words by Zhukovskii (the ballad “The Midnight Review”), Baratynskii (“Do Not Tempt Me Needlessly”), and Kukol’nik (“Doubt” and the cycle of twelve art songs Farewell to St. Petersburg). Glinka wrote nearly 80 works for voice and piano (art songs, songs, arias, and canzonets), as well as vocal ensembles, études, exercises, and choruses. He is also the author of chamber-instrumental ensembles, including two string quartets and the Trio Pathétique for piano, clarinet, and bassoon (1832).
Subsequent generations of Russian composers, who enriched Russian national music through innovations in content and expressive techniques, were faithful to Glinka’s basic artistic principles. It was under his immediate influence as a composer and voice teacher that a Russian vocal school took shape. Singers who took vocal lessons from him and prepared opera parts and chamber repertoire with him included N. K. Ivanov, O. A. Petrov, A. Ia. Petrova-Vorob’eva, A. P. Lodii, S. S. Gulak-Artemovskii, and D. M. Leonova. A. N. Serov wrote down Glinka’s Remarks on Instrumentation (1852, published in 1856). Glinka left his memoirs (Memoirs, 1854-55, published in 1870).
WORKS
Literaturnoe nasledie, vols. 1-2, Leningrad-Moscow, 1952-53. (Vol. 1: Avtobiograficheskie i tvorcheskie materialy; vol. 2: Pis’ma i dokumenty.)
REFERENCES
Kuznetsov, K. A. Glinka i ego sovremenniki. Moscow, 1926.
Asafev, B. (Igor’ Glebov). Glinka, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1950.
Serov, A. N. Izbrannye stat’i, vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
M. I. Glinka: Issledovaniia i materialy. Edited by A. V. Ossovskii. Leningrad-Moscow, 1950.
M. I. Glinka: Sbornik materialov i statei. Edited by T. Livanova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Kann-Novikova, E. M. I. Glinka: Novye materialy i dokumenty, fases. 1-3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950-55.
Odoevsikii, V. F. Izbrannye muzykal’no-kritiche skie stat’i. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
Stasov, V. V. Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. 1. Moscow, 1952.
Asafev, B. V. Izbrannye trudy, vol. 1. Moscow, 1952.
M. I. Glinka: Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva. Compiled by A. Orlova. Moscow, 1952.
Larosh, G. A. Izbrannye stat’i o Glinke. Moscow, 1953.
Glinka v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Edited by A. A. Orlova. Moscow, 1955.
Livanova, T., and V. Protopopov. Glinka [vols. 1-2]. Moscow, 1955.
Tsukkerman, V. “Kamarinskaia” Glinki i ee traditsii v russkoi muzyke. Moscow, 1957.
M. I. Glinka: K 100-letiiu so dnia smerti, 1857-1957. Edited by E. Gordeeva. Moscow, 1958.
Pamiati M. I. Glinki. Moscow, 1958.
Protopopov, VI. “Ivan Susanin” Glinki: Muzykal’no-teoreticheskoe issledovanie. Moscow, 1961.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by B. S. SHTEINPRESS)
A. S. DARGOMYZHSKY (1813-1869)
“Dargomyzhskii, Aleksandr Sergeevich. Born Feb. 2 (14), 1813, in the village of Troitskoe, in present-day Belev Raion, Tula Oblast; died Jan. 5 (17), 1869, in St. Petersburg. Russian composer.
Dargomyzhskii studied voice, piano, and violin. His first compositions (art songs and piano pieces) were published in the late 1820’s and early 1830’s. His meeting with M. I. Glinka at the beginning of 1835 was of decisive importance for his musical development. During 1837–41, Dargomyzhskii wrote his first opera, Esmeralda (based on V. Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame; premiere in 1847, Moscow), which reflected the romantic tendencies characteristic of his early creative work. In the 1840’s he wrote some of his best art songs, including “I Loved You,” “Marriage Celebration,” and “The Night Zephyr.” His major work is the opera The Mermaid (based on the dramatic poem of the same title by Pushkin; premiere in 1856, St. Petersburg).
In the late 1850’s, Dargomyzhskii’s social activities on behalf of music took on broad dimensions. In 1859 he was elected to the committee of the Russian Music Society. It was at this time that he became close to a group of young composers that would subsequently gain fame as the “Russian Five.” He also worked on the satirical journal Iskra (later on Budil’nik as well).
In the 1860’s Dargomyzhskii turned to the symphonic form and wrote three orchestral pieces based on folk themes: Baba-laga, or From the Volga to Riga (1862); Kazachok (1864); and Fantasy on Finnish Themes (1867). In 1864–65 he made a trip abroad (he had been abroad for the first time in 1844–45), in the course of which some of his works were performed in Brussels. In 1866 he began work on the opera The Stone Guest (based on a work by Pushkin), with the aim of creating the first opera to have as its text a literary work taken in complete and unchanged form. This work remained uncompleted. As willed by the composer, C. Cui finished the first scene and N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov wrote the instrumental arrangement for the opera (premiere in 1872, St. Petersburg).
Dargomyzhskii, along with his predecessor Glinka, laid the foundations for a national Russian school in classical music. He developed the folk-based, realistic principles of Glinka’s music and enriched them with new features. His creative work reflected the tendencies of the critical realism of the 1840’s, 1850’s, and 1860’s. In a number of works (The Mermaid and the songs “The Old Corporal,” “The Worm,” and “The Titular Counselor”) Dargomyzhskii treated the theme of social inequality with great acuity. His lyrics are characterized by detailed psychological analysis and the revelation of complex spiritual contradictions. He favored dramatic forms of expression. As he himself stated, his goal in The Mermaid was the artistic embodiment of the dramatic elements in the Russian national character. His propensity for dramatization manifested itself frequently in his vocal lyrics as well (the art songs “I Am Sad,” “It’s Boring and Sad,” “I Still Love Him,”). Dargomyzhskii created a concrete and individualized image through the reproduction of natural speech inflections in his music. His motto was summed up in the words: “I want sound to be a direct expression of words. I want truth.” In its most radical form this principle was realized in the opera The Stone Guest, which is based almost exclusively on melodized recitative. The young generation of composers that came to the fore in the 1860’s set a high value on Dargomyzhskii’s innovations in realism, bold presentation of the social problems of Russian reality, and humanism. M. P. Mussorgsky, who artistically was closest of all to Dargomyzhskii, called him a great teacher of musical truth.
WORKS
lzbr. pis’ma. Moscow, 1952.
REFERENCES
A. S. Dargomyzhskii (1813–1869): Avtobiografiia, Pis’ma, Vospominaniia sovremennikov. Petrograd, 1921.
Serov, A. N. “Rusalka: Opera A. S. Dargomyzhskogo.” In his book lzbr. stat’i, vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Pekelis, M. Dargomyzhskii i narodnaia pesnia: K probleme narodnosti ν russkoi klassicheskoi muzyke. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
Pekelis, M. A. S. Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, vol. 1. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by IU. V. KELDYSH)
“Borodin, Aleksandr Porfir’evich. Born Oct. 31 (Nov. 12), 1833, in St. Petersburg; died there on Feb. 15 (27), 1887. Russian composer and chemist.
Borodin was the illegitimate son of Prince L. S. Gedianov. At birth he was registered as the son of the prince’s peasant servant Porfirii Borodin. In 1856 he graduated from the Medical Surgical Academy. He became a doctor of medicine in 1858. During the 1860’s, Borodin engaged in scientific, pedagogical, and public activity in St. Petersburg. In 1862 he became adjunct professor, in 1864 staff professor, and in 1874 director of the chemical laboratory at the Medical Surgical Academy. In 1877 he became an academician. He was one of the organizers and teachers (from 1872) of an advanced educational institution for women—the Women’s Medical Courses.
In the 1850’s, Borodin began to write songs, piano pieces, and chamber instrumental ensembles. In 1862 he made the acquaintance of M. A. Balakirev and joined the Balakirev circle (the Mighty Bunch). Under the influence of Balakirev, V. V. Stasov, and other members of the circle, Borodin’s musical and aesthetic views were definitively formed. He developed an independent mature style as a composer under the influence of M. I. Glinka, an adherent of the Russian national school of music. Borodin’s creative legacy is comparatively small, but it represents an extremely valuable contribution to the treasury of Russian musical classics. Borodin was a member of the progressive intelligentsia of the 1860’s, and his compositions clearly express the themes of the greatness of the Russian people, love for the native land, and love of freedom. His music is distinguished by its epic breadth, its boldness, and, at the same time, its deep lyricism.
Borodin’s most important work is the opera Prince Igor, which is a model of the national heroic epic in music. Because of his deep involvement in scientific and pedagogical work, Borodin wrote slowly. Borodin worked on the opera over a period of 18 years but did not finish it. (After Borodin’s death N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov and A. K. Gla-zunov completed the writing and orchestration of the opera using the author’s notes; it was performed in 1890 in the Mariinskii Theater in St. Petersburg.) The opera is distinguished by its monumental unity of images, the power and range of the folk choral scenes, and the vividness of its national local color. Prince Igor developed the traditions of Glinka’s epic opera Ruslan and Liudmila. Borodin was one of the creators of the Russian classical symphony and quartet. His First Symphony (1867), which appeared at the same time as the first models of this genre by Rimskii-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky, laid the foundation for the heroic epic tendency in Russian symphonies. Borodin’s Second (Bogatyrs’) Symphony (1876) is the pinnacle of Russian and world epic symphonies. Borodin’s quartets (the first, 1879, and the second, 1881) are among the greatest creations in the chamber instrumental genre. The composer was also a fine artist in chamber vocal music. The model of his vocal lyrics is the elegy “For the Shores of Your Distant Homeland,” set to Pushkin’s words. Borodin was the first to introduce images from the Russian heroic epic as well as the liberating ideas of the 1860’s into the romance (“The Sleeping Princess,” “Song of the Dark Forest,” and others). Borodin also wrote satirical humorous songs, including “Arrogance.” His compositions are characterized by a deep insight into the structure of the Russian folk song and the music of the peoples of the east (Prince Igor, the symphonies, the symphonic picture In Central Asia).
Borodin’s vivid original music influenced Russian and foreign composers. The Soviet composers S. S. Prokofiev, Iu. A. Shaporin, G. V. Sviridov, A. I. Khachaturian, and others have continued the traditions of Borodin, which have great importance for the development of the national musical cultures of the peoples of Transcaucasia and Middle Asia.
Borodin was the author of more than 40 works on chemistry. He was a student of N. N. Zinin, and his doctoral dissertation was On the Analogy Between Phosphoric and Arsenic Acid in Chemical and Toxicological Terms. He worked out an original method for producing bromine-substituted fatty acids by means of the action of bromine on the silver salts of acids. He obtained the first organic fluoride compound—benzoyl fluoride (1862). Borodin studied acetal-dehyde and described the aldol and the aldol condensation reaction.
WORKS
Pis’ma, issues 1–4. Edited by S. A. Dianin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1927–50.
REFERENCES
Aleksandr Porfir’evich Borodin: Ego zhizn’, perepiska, i muzykal’nye stat’i. St. Petersburg, 1889. (With a foreword and bibliographical essay by V. V. Stasov.)
Khubov, G. A. P. Borodin. Moscow, 1933.
Il’in, M., and E. Segal. Aleksandr Porfir’evich Borodin. Moscow, 1953.
Dianin, S. Borodin: Zhizneopisanie, materialy i dokumenty, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1960. (Bibliography.)
Sokhor, A. Aleksandr Porfir’evich Borodin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965. (Bibliography.)
Figurovskii, A. N., and Iu. I. Solov’ev. Aleksandr Porfir’evich Borodin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950. (Contains a bibliography and list of Borodin’s works on chemistry.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
M. A. BALAKIREV (1837-1910)
“Balakirev, Milii Alekseevich. Born Dec. 21, 1836 (Jan. 2,1837), in Nizhny Novgorod; died May 16(29), 1910, in St. Petersburg. Russian composer, pianist, conductor, musical and social figure. Born into the family of a civil servant from the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry).
Balakirev studied with the pianist A. Diubiuk and the conductor K. Eisrich in Nizhny Novgorod. His musical development was promoted by his friendship with the writer and musical critic A. D. Ulybyshev. From 1853 to 1855, Balakirev was an auditor in the mathematics department of the University of Kazan, and in 1856 he made his debut in St. Petersburg as a pianist and conductor. The formation of his aesthetic tastes and ideological position was greatly influenced by his friendship with the critic V. V. Stasov. Under Balakirev’s direction a musical circle variously known as the “New Russian School of Music,” the “Balakirev Circle,” or the “Mighty Bunch” (in English “The Five”) was formed in the early 1860’s. In 1862, Balakirev, together with the choir director G. Ia. Lomakin, organized the Free Music School in St. Petersburg, which became both a cradle of mass musical education and a center for propagating Russian music. From 1867 to 1869 he was chief conductor of the Russian Musical Society.
Balakirev helped to popularize the operas of M. I. Glinka. In 1866 he conducted the opera Ivan Susanin in Prague; in 1867 he directed the Prague production of the opera Ruslan and Liudmila.
The late 1850’s and the 1860’s were a period of intense creative activity for Balakirev. His compositions of those years, including the Overture on Three Russian Themes (1858; second version, 1881), a second overture on three Russian themes, 1,000 Years (1862; in a later version becoming the symphonic poem Rus’,1887, 1907), and the Czech overture (1867; in its second version becoming the symphonic poem In Bohemia,1906), developed the traditions of Glinka and clearly reflected the characteristic features and style of the New Russian School, in particular its reliance on genuine folk song. In 1866, his collection Forty Russian Folk Songs for Voice and Piano was published; it was the first classical model for the reworking of folk songs.
In the 1870’s, Balakirev left the Free Music School, stopped writing and giving concerts, and broke with the members of the circle. In the early 1880’s he resumed his musical activity, but it had lost its militant “60’s” character. From 1881 to 1908, Balakirev was again the head of the Free Music School, and at the same time (1883–94) became the director of the Court Choir.
The central theme in Balakirev’s work is the people. Folk images and pictures of Russian life and nature permeate the greater part of his work. Also characteristic of Balakirev is his interest in themes of the East (the Caucasus) and in the musical cultures of other countries (Polish, Czech, Spanish).
Balakirev’s basic sphere of work is instrumental music (for symphony and piano); he worked primarily in the field of symphonic program music. The best example of Balakirev’s symphonic poems is Támara (c. 1882, after Lermontov’s poem of the same name), built on original musical themes suggesting landscapes and folk dances. The birth of the genre of the Russian epic symphony is linked with Balakirev’s name. The conception of Balakirev’s first symphony dates back to the 1860’s (fragments appeared in 1862, the first part in 1864, and the symphony was finished in 1898.) His second symphony was written in 1908.
Balakirev was one of the creators of an original Russian keyboard style. The best of his compositions for piano is the eastern fantasy Islamei (1869), combining vivid beauty and original folk-genre coloring with virtuoso bravura.
Balakirev’s romances and songs occupy a prominent place in Russian vocal chamber music.
REFERENCES
Perepiska M. A. Balakireva s V. V. Stasovym. Moscow, 1935.
“Perepiska N. A. Rimskogo-Korsakova s M. A. Balakirevym.” In N. Rimsky-Korsakov, Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska, vol.5. Moscow, 1963.
“Pis’ma M. A. Balakireva k M. P. Musorgskomy.” In M. P. Musorgskii, Pis’ma i dokumenty. Moscow-Leningrad, 1932.
Perepiska M. A. Balakireva s P. I. Chaikovskim. St. Petersburg,1912.
Kiselev, G. M. A. Balakirev. Moscow-Leningrad, 1938.
Kandinskii, A. Simfonicheskie proizvedeniia M. A. Balakireva. Moscow, 1960.
M. A. Balakirev: Issledovaniia i stat’i. Leningrad, 1961.
M. A. Balakirev: Vospominaniia i pis’ma. Leningrad, 1962.
Balakirev: Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva. Compiled by A. S. Liapunova and E. E. Iazovitskaia. Leningrad, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
MODEST MUSSORGSKY (1839-1881)
“Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich. Born Mar 9 (21), 1839, in the village of Karevo, now in Kun’ia Raion, Pskov Oblast’; died Mar. 16 (28), 1881, in St. Petersburg. Russian composer. Member of the Russian Five.
Mussorgsky spent his childhood on his parents’ estate. In his autobiography he wrote: “an acquaintance with the spirit of the life of the people was the principal impetus behind my musical improvisations even before I learned the most elementary rules of playing the piano.” When he was six years old, Mussorgsky began to study music under the guidance of his mother. In 1849 he enrolled in the Peter and Paul School in St. Petersburg, and from 1852 to 1856 he studied at the Cadet School of the Guards. At the same time, he took music lessons from the pianist A. A. Herke. In 1852 his first composition was published—”The Cadet,” a polka for piano.
In 1856–57, Mussorgsky became acquainted with A. S. Dargomyzhskii, V. V. Stasov, and M. A. Balakirev, who profoundly influenced his general and musical development. Under Balakirev’s guidance he began to study composition seriously. Deciding to devote his life to music, he retired from military service in 1858. In the late 1850’s and early 1860’s, Mussorgsky wrote a number of art songs and instrumental works that revealed the special features of his creative individuality. From 1863 to 1866 he worked on the opera Salammbô (based on Flaubert’s novel; unfinished), which was outstanding for the dramatic quality of its mass scenes drawn from the life of the people.
By the mid-1860’s, Mussorgsky had developed a realistic world view close to the ideas of the revolutionary democrats. Addressing himself to current, socially relevant subject matter from the life of the people, he created songs and art songs based on words by N. A. Nekrasov, T. G. Shevchenko, and A. N. Ostrovskii, as well as on his own texts (for example, “Kali-stratushka,” “Eremushka’s Lullaby,” “Peasant’s Lullaby,” “The Orphan,” and “The Seminarist”). These works revealed his gift for portraying everyday life, as well as his ability to create vividly characteristic human figures. A rich, lush tone color distinguishes the symphonic picture Night on Bald Mountain (1867), which was inspired by folk tales and legends. The unfinished opera The Marriage (1868, based on the unaltered text of N. V. Gogol’s comedy) was a bold experiment in which the vocal parts were based on the direct re-creation of the intonations of human speech.
All of these works may be regarded as preparation for the creation of one of Mussorgsky’s greatest works—the opera Boris Godunov (based on the tragedy by A. S. Pushkin). The original version of it (1869) was not accepted for staging by the management of the imperial theaters. A revised, drastically cut version was produced at the Mariinskii Theater in 1874. During the 1870’s, Mussorgsky worked on Khovanshchina, a grandly conceived “folk musical drama” about the revolts of the strel’tsy (semiprofessional musketeers) at the end of the 17th century (libretto by the composer; begun in 1872). The idea for the work was suggested to the composer by V. V. Stasov. From 1874 to 1880, Mussorgsky also worked on the comic opera Sorochintsy Fair, which was based on a short story by Gogol. At the same time, he created many other works, including the song cycles Sunless (1874) and Songs and Dances of Death (1875–77) and the piano suite Pictures From an Exhibition (1874).
During the last years of his life Mussorgsky suffered from deep depression, caused by lack of public recognition of his creative art, loneliness, and day-to-day and financial hardships. He died in poverty at the Nikolaevskii Military Hospital. Khovanshchina, which he left unfinished, was completed by Rimsky-Korsakov. A. K. Liadov, and C. A. Cui were among those who worked to complete Sorochintsy Fair. In 1896, Rimsky-Korsakov finished a new version of Boris Godunov. During the Soviet period D. D. Shostakovich completed another revision and reorchestration of Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina (1959). A variant of Sorochintsy Fair was written by V. Ia. Shebalin (1930).
A great humanist, democrat, and lover of truth and justice, Mussorgsky wished to serve the people with his creative work. He presented sharp social conflicts very forcefully and created powerful images of the people rising up and fighting for their rights. However, he was also an astute psychologist gifted with profound knowledge of the human soul. In the musical dramas Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina unusually dynamic, colorful mass scenes of popular life are combined with portrayals of the diversity of individual traits and presentations of the psychological profundity and complexity of individual characters. In subject matter drawn from the Russian past, Mussorgsky sought an answer to the burning questions of his own time. While working on Khovanshchina, he wrote to Stasov: “The past in the present —this is my task.” Even in his lesser works, Mussorgsky proved himself to be a dramatist of genius. Some of his songs are brief dramatic scenes that focus on a vital, three-dimensional human character. By paying attention to the intonations of human speech as well as to the melody of Russian folk songs, Mussorgsky created a profoundly original, expressive musical idiom distinguished by its sharp, realistic characterization, as well as by the refinement and complexity of its psychological nuances. His creative art greatly influenced many composers, including S. S. Prokofiev, D. D. Shostakovich, L. Janaček, and C. Debussy.
WORKS
Literaturnoe nasledie. Compiled by A. A. Orlova and M. S. Pekelis [books 1–2]. Moscow, 1971–72.
REFERENCES
Stasov, V. V. Sobranie statei o Musorgskom i ego proizvedeniiakh. Moscow-Petrograd, 1922.
Musorgskii. [Stat’iiissledovaniia], vol. 1: Boris Godunov. Moscow, 1930.
M. P. Musorgskii: K 50-Ietiu so dnia smerti: Stat’i i materialy. Moscow, 1932. (Contains a bibliography.)
Tumanina, N. M. P. Musorgskii. Moscow-Leningrad, 1939.
Asaf’ev, B. V. Izbr. trudy, vol. 3. Moscow, 1954.
Orlova, A. Trudy i dni M. P. Musorgskogo: Letopis’zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1963.
Khubov, G. Musorgskii. Moscow, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by IU. V. KELDYSH)
PYOTR TCHAIKOVSKY (1840-1893)
One of the greatest composers in history.
“Tchaikovsky, Petr Il’ich. Born Apr. 25 (May 7), 1840, in a settlement by the Kamsko-Votkinsk Plant, Viatka Province (now the city of Votkinsk, Udmurt ASSR); died Oct. 25 (Nov. 6), 1893, in St. Petersburg. Russian composer.
The son of a mining engineer, Tchaikovsky studied at the St. Petersburg School of Jurisprudence from 1850 to 1859 and served in the Ministry of Justice from 1859 to 1863. In 1861 he began attending the music classes at the St. Petersburg branch of the Russian Society of Music; the classes were reorganized as the St. Petersburg Conservatory in 1862. Tchaikovsky studied theory under N. I. Zaremba and composition under A. G. Rubinstein and graduated with honors from the conservatory in 1865.
From 1866 to 1878, Tchaikovsky was a professor at the Moscow Conservatory, where he taught composition, harmony, and orchestration; among his students was S. I. Taneev. Needing instructional materials, he translated several works on music theory and wrote a textbook, Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony (1872).
Tchaikovsky’s first works of music criticism were published in 1868. As music reviewer for the Moscow newspapers Sovremennaia letopis’ and Russkie vedomosti from 1871 to 1876 he fought in behalf of realism in Russian music. Tchaikovsky’s artistic and social interests led to friendships with N. G. Rubinstein and the critics N. D. Kashkin and G. A. Larosh; he also became acquainted with L. N. Tolstoy, A. N. Ostrovskii, and actors at the Malyi Theater, notably P. M. Sadovskii. His links with progressive artistic and ideological trends of the 1860’s were fostered by contacts with members of the Russian Five during private trips to St. Petersburg.
Tchaikovsky began to flourish as a composer in his Moscow period, from 1866 to 1877, during which he composed the Symphony No. 1 (Winter Daydreams, 1866), the Symphony No. 2 (1872; revised version, 1879), and the Symphony No. 3 (1875) and began work on the Symphony No. 4. In addition, he composed several program works for orchestra, including the fantasy overture Romeo and Juliet (1869; second version, 1870; third version, 1880) and the symphonic fantasies The Tempest (1873) and Francesca da Rimini (1876).
During this period Tchaikovsky also wrote the Concerto No. 1 for Piano (1875); Sérénade mélancolique, for violin and orchestra (1875); Variations on a Rococo Theme, for cello and orchestra (1876); and three string quartets (1871, 1874, and 1876). Other important works from the Moscow period are the operas The Voyevoda (1868), Undine (1869, destroyed by Tchaikovsky in 1873), The Oprichnik (1872), and Vakula the Smith (1874; second version entitled Cherevichki, 1885), the ballet Swan Lake (1876), incidental music to A. N. Ostrovskii’s play The Snow Maiden (1873), art songs, and compositions for piano, including the cycle The Seasons (1876). In addition between 1868 and 1872 he transcribed for piano duet 50 Russian folk songs from the collections of K. P. Vil’boa and M. A. Balakirev and edited a collection of Russian songs compiled by V. P. Prokunin.
In the fall of 1877, Tchaikovsky traveled abroad, where he continued to work on the Symphony No. 4 (1876–77) and the opera Eugene Onegin (1877–78), which was staged at the Moscow Conservatory in 1879 through the efforts of the conservatory’s students and at the Bolshoi Theater in 1881. The financial support of N. F. von Meek, whom Tchaikovsky never met but with whom he carried on an extensive correspondence between 1876 and 1890, enabled him to devote full time to composition. Until 1885 he lived alternately abroad—in Switzerland, Italy, and France—and in Russia, usually with his sister A. I. Davydova at the estate of Kamenka in the Ukraine.
Works of this second period include the operas The Maid of Orleans (1879) and Mazeppa (1883), the cantata Moscow (1883), the 1812 Overture (1880), Capriccio italien (1880), three orchestral suites (1879,1880, and 1883), the Concerto for Violin (1878), the Piano Trio (1882, dedicated to the memory of N. G. Rubinstein), the Piano Concerto No. 2 (1880), and the Piano Sonata in G major (1878). These works show the diversity of Tchaikovsky’s creative interests and his mastery of a wide range of styles and genres.
After 1885, Tchaikovsky took up residence near Moscow, moving to Klin in 1892. Once again he became active in the music world. He was often in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and he took part in the musical life of those cities, especially in the activities of the Russian Society of Music—he was elected director of the society’s Moscow branch in 1885—and the Moscow Conservatory. The premiere of the opera Cherevichki in 1887 at the Bolshoi Theater marked the beginning of his career as a conductor, which lasted until 1893. Although he conducted mainly his symphonic works, he also conducted his operas in Russia and abroad. His work was highly regarded; in 1892 he was elected a corresponding member of the French Académie des Beaux-Arts, and in 1893 Cambridge University awarded him an honorary doctorate in music.
Tchaikovsky composed a number of remarkable works between 1885 and 1893 in which tragic themes, as in the operas The Sorceress (1887) and The Queen of Spades (1890), the program symphony Manfred (1885), the Symphony No. 5 (1888), and the Symphony No. 6 (Pathétique, 1893), alternate with scores in which light and joy triumph, as in the ballets The Sleeping Beauty (1889) and The Nutcracker (1892), the opera Iolanta (1891), and the orchestral suite Mozartiana (1887).
Tchaikovsky’s music, a landmark in realistic art, constitutes together with the works of A. S. Pushkin, L. N. Tolstoy, and A. P. Chekhov one of the supreme achievements of Russian culture. Tchaikovsky and the leading members of the Russian Five make up the pleiad of classic Russian composers who are the legitimate successors to the traditions of M. I. Glinka. Central to Tchaikovsky’s work, which often reached genuinely tragic heights, was the theme of man’s fierce struggle for the right to happiness. A sensitive lyric psychologist, he offered profound insights into man’s inner world.
Tchaikovsky was deeply interested in the masterpieces of Dante, Shakespeare, Pushkin, Byron, N. V. Gogol, and A. N. Ostrovskii, as well as the events and color of various historical periods; he also found his subject matter in scenes from the life of the people, a wide variety of human characters, images of nature, the romantic atmosphere of fairy tales, and the child’s view of the world. At the same time, he always concentrated on his own feelings, which he expressed with unparalleled accuracy.
Tchaikovsky made use of the rich store of artistic devices to be found in the great musical classics, but the primary source of his richly melodic musical language, which was not only strikingly democratic but innovative in its lyric and dramatic power, was the Russian folk song—particularly the folk chorus—and the Russian popular art song. Tchaikovsky embodied moods, characters, and philosophic reflections in their dialectically complex, and often contradictory, continuous unfolding and development against a broad, pictorial background suffused with a life-affirming enthusiasm.
One of the greatest of symphonic composers, Tchaikovsky is a worthy successor to L. van Beethoven. His symphonic thought is clearly revealed in a variety of works in his extensive and multifaceted legacy, in which vocal and instrumental genres continually enrich one another, especially the operas and symphonies. Of the ten operas, those based on the works of Pushkin deserve a special place. In Eugene Onegin, which contains lyric scenes and constitutes a new type of opera, the composer realized his ideal of an “intimate but powerful drama.” The Queen of Spades, a vocal-symphonic tragedy, is matchless in its psychological profundity.
Tchaikovsky’s orchestral works, both program and nonprogram compositions, are distinguished by their significant content and, at the same time, accessibility of expression. The last three symphonies are true “instrumental dramas.” Tchaikovsky’s three ballets, into which he introduced the principles of the symphonic drama, mark a new stage in the history of the ballet. His concerti (particularly the First Piano Concerto), chamber works, and numerous (104) art songs have achieved popularity.
The great humanistic art of Tchaikovsky, which has inspired many composers of the late 19th and the 20th centuries, has been an inexhaustible source of lofty realistic traditions for progressive musical art. The music of Tchaikovsky has achieved world renown. The Moscow and Kiev conservatories, the theater of opera and ballet in Perm’, and a concert hall in Moscow have been named in honor of Tchaikovsky. The international Tchaikovsky Competition has been held in Moscow since 1958. There are Tchaikovsky museums in Klin and Votkinsk; a museum of Pushkin and Tchaikovsky is located in Kamenka.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–62. Moscow, 1940–74. Vols. 2–16:
Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska. Moscow, 1953–78 (ongoing publication).
REFERENCES
Chaikovskii, M. Zhizn’ P. I. Chaikovskogo, vols. 1–3. Moscow-Leipzig, 1900–02.
Dni i gody P. I. Chaikovskogo: Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940.
Chaikovskii i teatr: Stat’iimaterialy. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940.
Chaikovskii na moskovskoi stsene: Pervye postanovki v gody ego zhizni. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940.
P. I. Chaikovskii na stsene Teatra opery i baleta im. S. M. Kirova: Sb. statei. Leningrad, 1941.
Iarustovskii, B. Opernaia dramaturgiia Chaikovskogo. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Kashkin, N. D. Izbr. stat’i o P. I. Chaikovskom. Moscow-Leningrad, 1954.
Asaf’ev, B. V. Izbr. trudy, vol. 2. Moscow, 1954.
Kremlev, Iu. Simfonii P. I. Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1955.
Slonimskii, Iu. P. I. Chaikovskii i baletnyi teatr ego vremeni. Moscow, 1956.
Zhitomirskii, D. Balety Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1957.
Protopopov, V., and N. Tumanina. Opernoe tvorchestvo Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1957.
Muzykal’noe nasledie Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1958.
Dombaev, G. S. Tvorchestvo P. I. Chaikovskogo v materialakh i dokumentakh. Moscow, 1958.
Nikolaeva, N. Simfonii P. I. Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1958.
Tumanina, N. V. Chaikovskii i muzukal’nyi teatr. Moscow, 1961.
Tumanina, N. V. Chaikovskii: Put’ k masterstvu. Moscow, 1962.
Tumanina, N. V. Chaikovskii: Velikii master. Moscow, 1968.
Iakovlev, V. V. Izbr. trudy o muzyke, vol. 1. Moscow, 1964.
Al’shvang, A. P. I. Chaikovskii, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1970.
Tsukkerman, V. Vyrazitel’nye sredstva liriki Chaikovskogo. Moscow, 1971.
Vospominaniia o P. I. Chaikovskom, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1973.
Larosh, G. A. Izbr. stat’i, fasc. 2: P. I. Chaikovskii. Moscow, 1975.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. N. BRIANTSEVA)
N. V. LYSENKO (1842-1912)
“Lysenko, Nikolai Vital’evich. Born Mar. 10 (22), 1842, in the village of Grin’ki, present-day Globino Raion, Poltava Oblast; died Oct. 24 (Nov. 6), 1912, in Kiev. Ukrainian composer, conductor, teacher, and folklorist. Founder of a national music school.
Lysenko graduated from the university in Kiev in 1864. From 1867 to 1869 he studied piano and composition at the Leipzig Conservatory. During the years 1874 to 1876 he completed his training at the St. Petersburg Conservatory under the direction of N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov. He collected and rearranged Ukrainian folk songs, formed choral groups, and popularized Ukrainian folk songs.
In 1904, with the financial aid of progressive elements in society, Lysenko opened in Kiev the Musical Drama School (from 1918, the N. V. Lysenko Higher Musical Drama Institute), where many prominent Ukrainian artists later studied.
As a composer, Lysenko was a staunch follower of the Mighty Five and in his work he applied the realistic principles of the Russian school of music to Ukrainian folk music. He wrote about 20 works for the musical theater; these works laid the foundation for Ukrainian operatic art. Lysenko’s works include the operas Christmas Eve (2nd version, 1882, Kharkov) and The Drowned Woman (1885, Kharkov; based on the plot of May Night by N. V. Gogol), and the musical comedy Sailors of the Black Sea Fleet (1872). His opera Natalka Poltavka (1889, Odessa; based on I. P. Kotliarevskii’s work), which is built around adaptations of folk songs, was immensely popular. The height of Lysenko’s operatic art is his heroic and romantic opera Taras Burl’a (1890; produced in 1924; based on the novella of the same name by Gogol). The opera Aeneid (1911, Kiev; based on a work by Kotliarevskii) is a merciless satire on tsarist autocracy.
Lysenko worked in diverse genres. He wrote the cycle Music for T. G. Shevchenko’s “Kobzar’,” which incorporates diverse vocal genres, ranging from songs to large-scale musical drama scenes. He composed many art songs and music to lyrics by I. Franko (including the hymn The Eternal Revolutionary, a response to the revolutionary events of 1905-07), L. Ukrainka, A. Olesia, M. Staritskii, H. Heine, and A. Mickiewicz. He also wrote adaptations of folk songs, works for chamber instruments, and studies on Ukrainian folk music.
WORKS
Kharakterystyka muzychnykh osoblyvostei ukrainskykh dum y pisen’, vykonuvanykh kobzarem Veresaiem. Kiev, 1955.
Narodni muzychni instrumenty na Ukraini, 2nd ed. Kiev, 1955.
Pro narodnu pisniu i pro narodnist’ v muzytsi. Kiev, 1955.
Lysty. Kiev, 1964.
REFERENCES
Gozenpud, A. N. V. Lysenko i russkaia muzykal’naia kul’tura. Moscow, 1954.
Lysenko, O. N. Mikola Lysenko: Vospominaniia syna. Moscow, 1960.
Arkhimovych, L., and M. Gordiichuk. M. V. Lysenko. Kiev, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
N. A. RIMSKY-KORSAKOV (1844-1908)
“Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai Andreevich. Born Mar. 6 (18), 1844, in Tikhvin; died June 8 (21), 1908, at Liubensk, his estate, near Luga (present-day Pskov Oblast). Russian composer, teacher, director, public figure, and author of works on music.
Rimsky-Korsakov came from the nobility. After graduating from the Naval Cadet School in St. Petersburg in 1862, he sailed to Europe and to North and South America on the clipper ship Almaz. From 1859 to 1860 he took lessons with the pianist F. Kanillé. In 1861 he became a member of the Russian Five. Under the guidance of M. A. Balakirev, who greatly influenced his artistic work, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote his Symphony No. 1 (1862-65; revised edition, 1874). During the 1860’s, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote about 20 romances for voice; many symphonic works, including the symphonic poem Sadko (1867; final version, 1892) and the Symphony No. 2 (Antar, 1868; later referred to as a suite; final version, 1897); and the opera The Maid of Pskov, based on L. A. Mei’s drama (1872; final version, 1894).
During the 1870’s, Rimsky-Korsakov considerably expanded his activities, serving as a professor at the St. Petersburg Conservatory from 1871, an inspector of bands for the Naval Administration (1873–84), director of the Free School of Music (1874–81), and assistant director of the Court Chapel (1883-94). In 1882 he became the head of the Beliaev circle. He conducted operatic and symphonic performances.
During these years the direction of his work was, in many respects, determined by his deep ties with the progressive intellectual and artistic currents of the 1860’s, which inspired his lively interest in Russian folklore, especially its earliest period. Rimsky-Korsakov compiled the collection One Hundred Russian Folk Songs (1876, published in 1877) and harmonized the Russian songs collected by T. I. Filippov (Forty Songs, published in 1882). His passion for the beauty and poetry of folk customs was reflected in the opera May Night (after N. V. Gogol, 1878) and especially in The Snow Maiden (after A. N. Ostrovskii, 1881), one of his most inspired and poetic compositions, as well as in the later operas Mlada(1890) and Christmas Eve (after Gogol, 1895). Rimsky-Korsakov wrote most of his symphonic works during the 1880’s, including Legend (1880), the Sinfonietta on Russian Themes (1885), the Spanish Capriccio (1887), the Scheherezade suite (1888), and the Russian Easter Festival overture (1888).
In the second half of the 1890’s, Rimsky-Korsakov’s work became extraordinarily intense and diverse. After completing the operatic by Una (folk epic) Sadko (1896), in which he created a colorful contrast between epic scenes of Novgorod life and fantastic underwater scenes, Rimsky-Korsakov concentrated on man’s inner world. His striving for deeper lyric expressiveness is revealed in his romances for voice (1897–98) and in the operas Mozart and Salieri (1897, based on A. S. Pushkin’s text) and the Boyarina Vera Sheloga (the prologue to The Maid of Pskov, 1898). The opera The Tsar’s Bride (1898, after Mei), an intensely expressive drama based on a bygone era, most fully reveals the composer’s aspiration to greater lyricism. With its understated, conventional theatricality and stylized elements reminiscent of an illustrated broadside, the opera The Tale of the Tsar Saltan (1900, based on Pushkin’s poem) was close to the new tendencies in 20th-century art. The spirit of the times was given an original twist in the majestic, patriotic opera The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevronia (1904), which posed lofty moral and philosophical problems. An acutely contemporary sociopolitical orientation marked two fairy-tale operas: Kashchei the Immortal (1901), with its idea of liberation from despotic oppression, and The Golden Cockerel (1907, after Pushkin), a merciless satire on tsarist autocracy.
Although it was profoundly original, Rimsky-Korsakov’s work developed classical traditions. He was close to M. I. Glinka in his harmonious perception of the world, his subtle artistry, his perfect mastery, and his firm reliance on folk tradition. The most characteristic features of his creativity are revealed in works associated with fairy tales, folk fantasy, the poetry of the Russian countryside, and colorful pictures of the life of the people. These themes revealed his remarkable pictorial and representational gift, as well as the freshness and special purity of his sincere, warm, and somewhat contemplative lyricism. Rimsky-Korsakov’s style was strikingly national. He used authentic folk themes in his works and integrated folk-song intonations in his own melodies. He made many innovations in harmony and instrumentation, significantly expanding and enriching their coloristic possibilities. His harmonies and orchestral timbre were distinguished by color, brilliance, and a wealth of nuances.
Rimsky-Korsakov worked chiefly in opera. His 15 operas are unusually diverse in dramaturgical, compositional, and stylistic executions. The composer’s interest in folk art genres explains the prevailing epic tendency in his operas. The bylina (folk epic), tale, and legend inspired his work, providing themes and ideas and helping him to understand and to convey the world view and ideals of the people and their faith in the triumph of good and justice. Although Rimsky-Korsakov regarded singing as the foundation of operatic expression, he assigned the orchestra a tremendous role in his operas. It acts as an important or even as the principal means of conveying the musical dramatic development. Often, the composer wrote independent symphonic pictures for the orchestra—for example, “The Blue Sea,” written as an introduction to the opera Sadko, and the entr’actes “Three Wonders” and “The Battle of Kerzhenets,” from The Tale of the Tsar Saltan and The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh.
Rimsky-Korsakov’s symphonic compositions include genre works that continue the traditions of Glinka and develop folk themes (Fantasia on Serbian Themes and Spanish Capriccio), as well as program compositions with a primarily pictorial or fairy-tale content (Sadko and Antar), which were typical of the Russian Five. Most of Rimsky-Korsakov’s symphonic works were based on the principle of contrasting independent, fully developed images. This explains his predilection for the overture and the suite.
Rimsky-Korsakov’s works are among the most brilliant achievements in the history of Russian culture. He influenced Russian and foreign music not only through his compositions but also through his selfless editorial work, which made possible the publication of many Russian masterpieces and had an enormous impact on the music world. Among the works edited by Rimsky-Korsakov were Dargomyzhskii’s The Stone Guest, Borodin’s Prince Igor, and Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina. With M. A. Balakirev and A. K. Liadov, he prepared Glinka’s operatic scores for publication.
Rimsky-Korsakov was extraordinarily important as a teacher. As the head of a large school, he trained more than 200 students, including A. K. Glazunov, A. K. Liadov, M. M. Ippolitov-Ivanov, A. S. Arenskii, N. Ia. Miaskovskii, N. V. Lysenko, A. A. Spendiarov, M. A. Balanchivadze, and J. Vĭtols. Some of his students played important roles in the development of the professional music of the peoples of the USSR. Rimsky-Korsakov’s textbooks on harmony and orchestration were, to some extent, a summary of his teaching. His autobiography, My Musical Life (1909), which covers one of the most important periods in the development of Russian music, is a valuable historical document.
In 1944 a museum was opened in Tikhvin in the house where the composer was born (the Rimsky-Korsakov Museum House).
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1-50. Moscow-Leningrad, 1946–70. (Publication in progress.)
REFERENCES
Rimskii-Korsakov, A. N. N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, fases. 1-5. Moscow, 1933-46.
Asaf’ev, B. (Igor’ Glebov). N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov (1844-1944). Moscow-Leningrad, 1944.
Asaf’ev, B. (Igor’ Glebov). Simfonicheskie etiudy. Leningrad, 1970.
Iankovskii, M. Rimskii Korsakov i revoliutsiia 1905 goda. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Rimskii-Korsakov: Issledovaniia, Materialy, Pis’ma, vols. 1-2. Moscow, 1953–54. (Musical legacy.)
Gnesin, M. F. Mysli i vospominaniia o N. A. Rimskom-Korsakove. Moscow, 1956.
Iastrebtsev, V. V. N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov: Vospominaniia, vols. 1-2. Leningrad, 1959–60.
Danilevich, L. V. Poslednie opery N. A. Rimskogo-Korsakova. Moscow, 1961.
Solovtsov, A. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo N. A. Rimskogo-Korsakova, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1969.
Kunin, I. N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo v vospominaniiakh, pis’makh i kriticheskikh otzyvakh. Leningrad, 1974.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by O. B. STEPANOV)
Russian composer, conductor, professor at the St. Petersburg Conservatory (1899), in 1905-1928 as its director. People’s Artist of the Republic (1922). The elder brother of the entomologist and traveler Dmitry Glazunov.
D. A. CHERNOMORDIKOV (1869-1947)
Russian composer, pianist, writer, diplomat, music teacher and music critic. Member of the CPSU(B) since 1905)
SERGEI RACHMANINOFF (1873-1943)
“Rachmaninoff, Sergei Vasil’evich. Born Mar. 20 (Apr. 1), 1873, on the estate of Oneg (Semenovo?), present-day Novgorod Raion, Novgorod Oblast; died Mar. 28, 1943, in Beverly Hills, Calif.; buried in Valhalla, near New York. Russian composer, pianist, and conductor.
Rachmaninoff came from the gentry. He began to play the piano at the age of four or five, studying with his mother and with A. D. Ornatskaia. In 1882 he became a pupil of V. V. Dem-ianskii at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. In 1885 he went to the Moscow Conservatory, where he studied piano with N. S. Zverev and A. Siloti and composition with S. I. Taneev and A. S. Arenskii.
As a student, Rachmaninoff composed a number of pieces, including the art song “In the Silent Night” and the Concerto No. 1 for piano and orchestra (1891; second edition, 1917). He graduated from the Moscow Conservatory courses in piano (1891) and composition (1892, winner of the gold medal). To meet the requirements for the diploma in composition, he composed the one-act opera Aleko (libretto by V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, based on A. S. Pushkin’s narrative poem The Gypsies and presented in 1893 at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow).
Among the works composed by Rachmaninoff in the 1890’s are Piéces-Fantaisies (including the Prelude in C sharp minor) and Moments musicaux for piano (1896); the Suite No. 1 for Two Pianos (1893); the symphonic fantasy The Rock (1893); the Elegiac Trio (in memory of P. I. Tchaikovsky, 1893); the Caprice bohémien for orchestra (1894); the Symphony No. 1 (1895); and more than 20 art songs, including “Spring Waters.”
Rachmaninoff was a conductor with the Private Opera of Moscow (1897–98), where he met F. I. Chaliapin, and with the Bolshoi Theater. He also conducted symphonic concerts sponsored by the Circle of Russian Music Lovers (1904–06).
From 1900, Rachmaninoff appeared regularly in concerts as a pianist and as a conductor in Russia and abroad. He toured a number of European countries between 1907 and 1914 and the USA and Canada in 1909–10. From 1909 to 1912 he participated in the Russian Music Society, serving as an inspector for the board of directors. From 1909 to 1917 he was associated with the Russian Music Publishing House.
Among the works composed by Rachmaninoff during the first two decades of the 20th century are the Concerto No. 2 (1901) and Concerto No. 3 (1909) for piano and orchestra, the Symphony No. 2 (1907), the symphonic poem The Isle of the Dead (based on themes in a painting by A. Boecklin, 1909), the operas The Miserly Knight (based on a work by Pushkin, 1904) and Francesca da Rimini (based on Dante), and the cantata The Spring (1902). Also among his works from this period are The Bells, a poem for orchestra, chorus, and soloists (1913); the Vesper Mass for a cappella chorus (1915); four series of art songs and a sonata for cello and piano (1901); the Suite No. 2 for Two Pianos (1901); two sonatas (1907, 1913); and 23 preludes and 17 études for piano (1911, 1917).
In December 1917, Rachmaninoff went on tour in Scandinavia. In 1918 he settled in the USA. From 1918 to 1943 he concentrated on giving piano recitals in the USA and Europe. He composed only a few new works: the Concerto No. 4 for Piano (1926) and the Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini for piano and orchestra (1934), three Russian folk songs for orchestra and chorus (1926), the Variations on a Theme by Corelli for piano (1931), the Symphony No. 3 (1936), and the Symphonic Dances (1940). He contributed the proceeds from his concerts during 1941–42 to the Soviet Army.
Rachmaninoff was one of the most important musicians of the turn of the 20th century. His art is distinguished by its true-to-life quality, its democratic orientation, and its sincere, emotionally full artistic expression. Rachmaninoff followed the best traditions of classical music, especially Russian traditions. His music combines a keenly lyrical sense of an era of tremendous social upheavals with images of his homeland. Rachmaninoff created inspired musical pictures of the Russian landscape. In his work, the passionate outburst of irreconcilable protest coexists with peaceful contemplation, trembling apprehension with decisive force of will, and gloomy, tragic brooding with ecstatic hymns.
Rachmaninoff’s music, which possesses an inexhaustible wealth of melody and polyphony, shows the influence of the Russian folk song and certain features of the znamennyi chant (Russian church melodies). One of the unusual foundations of his musical style is an integral combination of the breadth and freedom of melodic inspiration with rhythmic energy. The transformation of bell-like sonorities lend national color to Rachmaninoff’s harmonic language. Rachmaninoff developed the achievements of Russian lyrical dramatic and epic symphonic composition. The theme of the homeland, which is central to the composer’s mature works, is most fully embodied in his major instrumental compositions, especially the second and third piano concerti. In his late works, the theme of the homeland takes on a lyrical, tragic tone.
As a pianist, Rachmaninoff was the equal of F. Liszt and A. Rubinstein. Phenomenal technique, sonorous tone, and flexible, forceful rhythmics were subordinate in his playing to highly spiritual, graphically vivid expression. Rachmaninoff was also one of the most important operatic and symphonic conductors of his time.
REFERENCES
Asaf’ev, B. V. S. V. Rakhmaninov. [Moscow] 1945.
S. V. Rakhmaninov: Sb. statei i materialov. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
S. V. Rakhmaninov i russkaia opera: Sb. statei. Moscow, 1947.
Molodye gody S. V. Rakhmaninova, Pis’ma, Vospominaniia. Leningrad-Moscow, 1949.
Ponizovkin, Iu. Rakhmaninov—pianist, interpretator sobslvennykh proizvedenii. Moscow, 1965.
Briantseva, V. Fortepiannye p’esy Rakhmaninova. Moscow, 1966.
Briantseva, V. Detstvo i iunost’ Sergeia Rakhmaninova, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1972.
S. V. Rakhmaninov v Ivanovke: Sb. materialov i dokumentov. Voronezh, 1971.
Keldysh, Iu. Rakhmaninov i ego vremia. Moscow, 1973.
Vospominaniia o Rakhmaninove, Sost. Z. Apetian, vols. 1–2,4th ed. Moscow, 1974.
Pamiati S. V. Rakhmaninova (collection of reminiscences). New York, 1946.
Rachmaninoff’s Recollections Told by Oscar von Riesemann. London-New York, 1934.
Bertensson, S., and J. Leyda. Sergei Rachmaninoff: A Lifetime in Music. New York, 1956.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. N. BRIANTSEVA)
S. F. LIUDKEVICH (1879-1979)
“Liudkevich, Stanislav Filippovich (also Stanislav Pilipovich Liudkevich). Born Dec. 12 (24), 1879, in Jaroslaw, Poland. Soviet composer, theorist, teacher, and music figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1969) and doctor of music studies (1908, Vienna).
Liudkevich was director of the N. V. Lysenko L’vov Higher Music Institute from 1908 to 1914 and taught music theory there from 1919 to 1939. He was a professor and departmental chairman at the L’vov Conservatory from 1939 to 1972. His works include the opera Dovbush (1955) and several large-scale cantatas, notably the cantata-symphony Caucasus (1905-13) and Testament (1934, revised 1955), based on texts by T. G. Shevchenko. Both works received the T. G. Shevchenko Prize (of the Ukrainian SSR) in 1964. Liudkevich has also composed symphonic poems, a sinfonietta, chamber music and other instrumental pieces, choral works, and songs. He has written musicological and publicistic works, compiled and edited musical editions, and collected folk songs. His participation in the revolutionary-democratic movement of the Western Ukraine shaped the ideological orientation of his work and art. Liudkevich has been awarded two orders.
REFERENCES
Zahaikevych, M. S. P. Liudkevich. Kiev, 1957.
Shtunder, Z. “Muzycnno-fol’klorystychna diial’nist’ S. Liudkevicha.” In Ukrains’ke muzykoznavstvo, 1967, issue 2.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. L. GOSHOVSKII)
N. Y. MYASKOVSKY (1881-1950)
Russian and Soviet composer, music teacher and critic, musical and public figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1946). Laureate of five Stalin Prizes (1941, 1946 twice , 1950, 1951). Doctor of Arts (1940). One of the greatest symphonists of the first half of the 20th century, who created 27 symphonies in 1908-1949.
He earned the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1926; in connection with the 60th anniversary of the Moscow Conservatory)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1941) – for Symphony No. 21
-Order of Lenin (1943)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1946)
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) – for string quartet No. 9
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) – for a concerto for cello and orchestra
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for sonata No. 2 for cello and piano
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1951) – for Symphony No. 27 and String Quartet No. 13 (posthumously)
“Miaskovskii, Nikolai Iakovlevich. Born Apr. 8(20), 1881, in Novogeorgievsk, present-day Modlin, Poland; died Aug. 8, 1950, in Moscow. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the USSR (1946). Doctor of the arts (1940).
Miaskovskii was the son of a military engineer. He received his education in a cadet corps. He studied music from childhood. From 1899 to 1902, Miaskovskii studied at the Military Engineers’ School, after which he served in the military in Moscow and St. Petersburg until 1908. At the same time, he studied music theory under R. M. Glière and I. I. Kryzhanovskii. In 1911, Miaskovskii graduated from the composition class of the St. Petersburg Conservatory, where he studied under A. K. Liadov and N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov. It was at the conservatory that Miaskovskii’s lifelong friendship with S. S. Prokofiev began. Also at that time, Miaskovskii’s works began to be performed in concert and to be published; these works included his First Symphony (1908), his Sinfonietta (1910), the symphonic parable Silence (1909), two string quartets, a sonata and other pieces for piano, and a number of vocal works.
In 1911, Miaskovskii became a music critic for the Moscow journal Muzyka (Music). His article “Beethoven and Tchaikovsky” (1912) was of particular importance.
Early in World War I, Miaskovskii was mobilized and served at the front. The composer later asserted that impressions of the war served to elucidate his musical ideas (Fourth and Fifth symphonies, 1918). After the Great October Socialist Revolution, Miaskovskii worked on the Naval General Staff. In 1921 he was demobilized, and he went to live in Moscow.
Miaskovskii, one of the most authoritative Russian musicians, worked for the new society from the very first years of Soviet power. In 1919 he went to work in the music publishing house of the People’s Commissariat for Education. From 1932 to 1948, Miaskovskii was a member of the organizational committee of the Union of Soviet Composers. In 1921 he became a professor at the Moscow Conservatory, where he trained about 70 composers, including V. Ia. Shebalin, A. I. Khachaturian, D. B. Kabalevskii, V. G. Fere, and G. G. Galynin.
Miaskovskii was one of the major symphonic composers of modern times, producing 27 symphonies and a number of other works for symphony orchestra. Miaskovskii’s work is characterized by an independent interpretation of classical traditions; a diversity of treatment reflecting themes, images, and emotions of modern reality; complexity and seriousness in his musical thought; a tireless searching for the new; frequent, but extremely free, treatment of folk themes; and high artistry. Almost every one of his symphonies poses a new creative problem. Especially noteworthy are the songlike themes of the Fifth Symphony, the tragic themes of the Sixth (1923), the heroic themes of the 16th (1936); the lyrical themes of the 21st (1940; State Prize of the USSR, 1941) and the 27th (1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1951); and the 19th Symphony (1939), a work for wind orchestra.
Miaskovskii composed a number of works for chamber ensembles, most notably 13 string quartets, of which the Ninth won the State Prize of the USSR in 1946 and the 13th won the State Prize in 1951. Miaskovskii’s orchestral concerti—for violin (1938) and for cello (1944; State Prize of the USSR, 1946)—were composed in close collaboration with Soviet performers.
Miaskovskii’s other works include nine piano sonatas; two cello sonatas (the second won the State Prize of the USSR in 1950); vocal works, including the cantatas Kirov Is With Us (words by N. S. Tikhonov, 1942) and The Kremlin by Night (words by S. A. Vasil’ev, 1947); cycles of art songs to words by E. A. Baratynskii, K. D. Bal’mont, Z. N. Hippius, Viach. I. Ivanov, A. A. Blok, F. I. Tiutchev, A. A. Del’vig, M. Iu. Lermontov, S. P. Shchipachev, and R. Burns; popular songs; and choruses. He was awarded the Order of Lenin.
REFERENCES
Livanova, T. N. Ia. Miaskovskii: Tvorcheskii put’. Moscow, 1953.
Spravochnik-putevoditel’ po simfoniiam N. Ia. Miaskovskogo. Compiled by V. Vinogradov. Moscow, 1954.
N. Ia. Miaskovskii: Sobranie materialov, vols. 1–2, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1964.
Ikonnikov, A. Khudozhnik nashikh dnei: N. Ia. Miaskovskii. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
IGOR STRAVINSKY (1882-1971)
“Stravinsky, Igor Fedorovich. Born June 5 (17), 1882, in Oranienbaum (now the city of Lomonosov); died Apr. 6, 1971, in New York; buried in Venice. Russian composer and conductor. Son of the singer F. I. Stravinsky.
At an early age Stravinsky became acquainted with Russian literature, painting, theater, and music. He began playing the piano at the age of nine, and at 18 he began his own study of the theory of composition while studying law at St. Petersburg University (1900–05). In 1902 he began musical studies with N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, whom he called his spiritual father. The Scherzo Fantastique and the fantasy Fireworks for orchestra (both 1908) were Stravinsky’s first works to attract attention. Stravinsky was greatly helped by S. P. Diaghilev, organizer of the Russian Seasons Abroad in Paris. It was for Diaghilev’s ballet that he composed The Firebird (1910), Petrouchka (1911), and The Rite of Spring (Le Sacre duprintemps; 1913), which gained the composer world fame. Beginning in 1910, Stravinsky lived alternately in Paris and Switzerland and at his wife’s estate in Russia. He settled in Switzerland in 1914 and in France in 1920. In 1939 he moved to the USA and became a US citizen in 1945. He conducted concert tours abroad, performing his own works and, occasionally, compositions by M. I. Glinka and P. I. Tchaikovsky. These tours became more frequent after World War II. In 1962, Stravinsky performed in composer’s concerts in the USSR.
At the beginning of his career, Stravinsky was influenced by Rimsky-Korsakov, M. P. Mussorgsky, and Tchaikovsky; he accorded Tchaikovsky’s music high regard even in his later years. C. Debussy exercised a short-lived but strong influence on Stravinsky. Stravinsky was especially interested in Russian folklore, which left its mark on the composer’s Russian period of composition. Next to The Rite of Spring, the central work of these early years was the choreographic cantata The Wedding (Les Noces; 1914–23), which the composer described as “choreographic Russian scenes with singing and music to folk texts from the collection of P. Kireevskii.” Stravinsky turned to folk texts, folk subjects, and the melodiousness of the folk tradition and from these developed an original creative idiom that was bright, explosive, and dynamic. This idiom contributed to a renewal of the Russian national intonational style. At the same time, the everyday music of the modern city also found expression in Stravinsky’s works. Elements of archaic and everyday music were interwoven in The Soldier’s Tale (Histoire du soldat, “a tale of a deserting soldier and the devil”; 1918), a ballet pantomime with narrator. Here, as in another ballet pantomime with singing, The Fox (Reynard; 1916), Stravinsky drew his subject from a Russian folktale. Stravinsky established a new kind of musical stage work, characteristic of present-day conventional theater, by combining various theatrical devices. For example, he incorporated singing into ballet and used oral recitation to elucidate musical performances.
Stravinsky’s shift toward neoclassicism was first evident in Pulcinella, a ballet with singing (based on music by G. B. Pergo-lesi; 1920). The transition was consolidated in his Octet for Wind Instruments and his Concerto for Piano and Wind Instruments (both 1923). Stravinsky continued in this style until the early 1950’s. Russian themes gave way to those of classical mythology and biblical texts, and the composer concentrated less on vocal music and more on instrumental works. (For his vocal compositions Stravinsky had mainly used Latin and, sometimes, French texts.) This trend diminished the influence of the composer’s Russian origins, although Stravinsky contended: “I have spoken Russian all my life. I think in Russian and have a Russian style. Perhaps it is not immediately evident in my music, but it is ingrained in it, in its hidden nature” (Komsomol’skaia pravda, Sept. 27, 1962, p. 4).
The works Stravinsky composed in this period demonstrated his assimilation of devices and techniques of the European baroque, ancient contrapuntal techniques, and the melodies of Italian bel canto. The composer’s brilliant artistic individuality was able to combine a heterogeneity of styles. Nonetheless, in the late 1930’s, signs of crisis can be seen in Stravinsky’s works, and there was an uncertainty and vacillation in his intellectual striving. Stravinsky’s finest works composed between the 1920’s and the early 1950’s include the opera-oratorio Oedipus Rex (1927), the allegorical ballet The Fairy’s Kiss (Le Baiser de lafée, based on music by Tchaikovsky; 1928), Symphony of Psalms (1930), the Concerto for Violin and Orchestra (1931), the Concerto for Two Pianos (1935), two symphonies (1940, 1945), the ballet Orpheus (1947), and the opera The Rake’s Progress (1951).
In the late 1940’s and the 1950’s, Stravinsky’s creative technique underwent another change—a turn to the twelve-tone technique of A. Schönberg. However, Stravinsky used this compositional technique modulated by his own tonal thinking. His choice of themes became much narrower, and religious images and subject matter predominated. His Mass for Horns and Orchestra (1948) marked a turning point. His music became more severe and acerbic, often self-consciously complex. Vocal-instrumental works to Latin and English texts were predominant. Stravinsky’s most significant compositions included the cantata Canticum sacrum ad honorem Sancti Marci nominis (1956), the ballet Agon (1957), and Requiem Canticles (1966). Stravinsky’s last composition was an adaptation of two songs by H. Wolf for chamber orchestra (1967).
Stravinsky is also the author of literary works, mainly autobiographical. In them he treats certain questions of musical aesthetics in a highly controversial manner, offering subjective evaluations and interpretations. Chronicle of My Life was translated into Russian in 1963 and Dialogues and a Diary in 1971.
REFERENCES
Glebov, Igor’ [Asaf’ev, B. V.]. Kniga o Stravinskom. Leningrad, 1929.
Iarustovskii, B. M. I. Stravinskii, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1969.
Druskin, M. S. I. Stravinskii: Lichnost’. Tvorchestvo. Vzgliady. Leningrad-Moscow, 1974.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. S. DRUSKIN)
I. S. STEPOVOI (1883-1921)
“Stepovoi, Iakov Stepanovich (real surname, Iakimen-ko). Born Oct. 8 (20), 1883, in Khar’kov; died Nov. 4, 1921, in Kiev. Ukrainian composer and publicist.
Stepovoi graduated from the St. Petersburg Conservatory in 1909. He taught at various St. Petersburg Gymnasiums from 1909 to 1912 and at the Kiev Conservatory from 1917 to 1919. From 1912 to 1914 he worked as an editor of the Moscow journal Muzyka, and later he became head of the music department of the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Ukrainian SSR.
Stepovoi’s brilliant talent and mastery of his art are evident in his vocal works, especially his romances, which are filled with revolutionary spirit; notable examples include “The Stonecutters” and “My Land.” Stepovoi also wrote short works for piano and choral arrangements of Ukrainian songs.
REFERENCES
Stepanchenko, G. V. Kompozytor lakiv Stepovyi. Kiev, 1974. Mykhailov, M. “Ia. S. Stepovyi (Iakymenko).” In Istoriia ukrains’koi dozhovtnevoi muzyky. Kiev, 1969. Pages 571–84.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. A. KREIN (1883-1951)
Russian Soviet composer and musical figure of Jewish origin. Brother of composers David and Grigory Kreinov.
He received the following awards:
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1934)
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1940)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
K. A. KUZNETSOV (1883-1953)
Konstantin Alekseevich Kuznetsov. A Soviet Russian musicologist and lawyer. Professor at the Moscow Conservatory. Master of Laws (1913), Doctor of Art History (1943), Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1946).
M. F. GNESIN (1883-1957)
Russian and Soviet composer, teacher, musicologist, musical public figure, music critic. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1927). Laureate of the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946). Doctor of Arts (1943). Professor (1925). Brother of Evgenia, Elena, Maria, Elizabeth, Olga, Grigory Gnesins.
He received the following awards:
-Glinka Prize – for the vocal cycle “From Modern Poetry” op. 5 (1912)
-Glinka Prize – for the symphonic dithyramb “Vrubel” (1913)
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1927)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1945)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the fantasy sonata for piano and string quartet
B. V. ASAFIEV (1884-1949)
Russian and Soviet composer, musicologist, music critic, teacher, public figure, publicist. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1943). People’s Artist of the USSR (1946). Winner of two Stalin Prizes. One of the founders of Soviet musicology.
He earned the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1933)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1938)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1938)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1943) – for many years of outstanding achievements
-Two Orders of Lenin (1944, 1945)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1946)
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow”
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1948) – for the book “Glinka”
S. S. ABRAMOVICH (1884-1964)
“Samosud, Samuil Abramovich. Born May 2 (14), 1884, in Tbilisi; died Nov. 6, 1964, in Moscow. Soviet conductor. People’s Artist of the USSR (1937).
Samosud graduated in 1906 from the Tbilisi Music School. He subsequently studied in Prague with H. Wihan, in Paris with P. Casals, and at the Schola Cantorum. From 1917 to 1919 he served as conductor of the Mariinskii Theater; from 1918 to 1936 he held the posts of principal conductor and musical director of the Leningrad Malyi Opera Theater. Samosud directed the premieres of the operas The Nose (1930) and Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (1934) by Shostakovich and The Quiet Don (1935) by Dzerzhinskii. He was principal conductor of the Bolshoi Theater from 1936 to 1943 and of the Stanislavsky-Nemirovich-Danchenko Musical Theater in Moscow from 1943 to 1950.
Samosud’s repertoire included Virgin Soil Upturned by Dzerzhinskii (1937), Ruslan and Liudmila (1937, new stage edition) and Ivan Susanin (1939; State Prize of the USSR, 1941) by Glinka, and Taras’ Family by Kabalevskii (1947, 2nd edition 1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952). Samosud also presented Prokofiev’s War and Peace (1946, Leningrad Malyi Opera Theater; State Prize of the USSR, 1947). He founded and directed the USSR State (All-Union) Radio Orchestra (1953–57) and the USSR State (All-Union) Radio and Television Opera Symphony Orchestra (1957).
Samosud was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and various medals.
REFERENCE
Sovremennye dirizhery. Moscow, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
I. A. SHAPORIN (1887-1966)
“Shaporin, Iurii Aleksandrovich. Born Oct. 27 (Nov. 8), 1887, in the city of Glukhov, in what is now Sumy Oblast; died Dec. 9, 1966, in Moscow. Soviet composer, teacher, and figure in the music world. People’s Artist of the USSR (1954).
The son of an artist, Shaporin graduated from the faculty of law at the University of St. Petersburg in 1913. In 1918 he graduated from the Petrograd Conservatory, where he had studied composition with N. A. Sokolov, orchestration with M. O. Shteinberg, and score reading with N. N. Cherepnin. An important influence on Shaporin was his meetings with A. A. Blok, to whose poetry he often turned in his own works. From 1919 to 1934, Shaporin was a music director and composer at various theaters in Leningrad.
In 1936, Shaporin took up residence in Moscow. In 1939 he began teaching at the Moscow Conservatory, where he was made a professor the following year; among his students were G. A. Zhubanova, E. F. Svetlanov, A. G. Fliarkovskii, R. K. Shchedrin, and R. M. Iakhin. Shaporin became secretary of the Composers’ Union of the USSR in 1952.
In his finest compositions, Shaporin further developed the tradition of the Russian musical classics. Important historical events of the past and present are reflected in his large-scale works, which are notable for their epic scope; these include the opera The Decembrists (1953), the symphony-cantata The Field of Kulikovo (1939; libretto by Blok, with additions by M. L. Lozinskii; State Prize of the USSR, 1941), and the oratorios Tale of the Battle for the Russian Land (1944, words by various authors; State Prize of the USSR, 1946) and While the Bird of Prey Circles (1963). These works, imbued with a lofty patriotic ardor, are characterized by the use of a broad musical canvas and a realistic interpretation of literary source material. The images and themes of Shaporin’s sole symphony (1932) are associated with revolutionary events. The suite The Flea (1926) is based on music composed for a dramatic version of N. S. Leskov’s novella The Lefthanded Smith and the Steel Flea.
Shaporin, a master of vocal music, continued the tradition of the art song established by P. I. Tchaikovsky, S. I. Taneev, and S. V. Rachmaninoff in his song cycles set to the poetry of such writers as A. S. Pushkin (1937), Blok (Distant Youth, 1939), and F. I. Tiutchev (The Heart’s Memory, 1958). Particularly well known are such art songs as “The Incantation,” “Under the Blue Sky,” “Autumn Holiday,” and “At Evening the War Became Silent” and his adaptations of the folksongs “Nothing Is Fluttering in the Field” and “The Barge Haulers’ Song” (State Prize of the USSR, 1952). In addition to ballads for voice and orchestra set to words by I. A. Bunin, Blok, M. V. Isakovskii, and K. M. Simonov, Shaporin composed choral works, two piano sonatas, and incidental music for theater and motion pictures. He also wrote articles on music. Shaporin was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Grosheva, E. lurii Shaporin. Moscow, 1957.
Levit, S. Iu. A. Shaporin. Moscow, 1964.
Martynov, I. Iu. Shaporin. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. M. IAKOVLEV)
N. A. GRINCHENKO (1888-1942)
“Grinchenko, Nikolai Alekseevich. Born Apr. 22 (May 4), 1888, in Kiev; died Nov. 27, 1942, in Ufa. Soviet musicologist and folklorist. Honored Art Worker of the Ukrainian SSR (1941).
In 1912, Grinchenko graduated from the Kiev Music Academy in E. A. Ryba’s class on the theory of composition, and in 1920 he graduated from the department of history and philology of the University of Kamenets-Podol’sk. From 1925 to 1934 he taught the history of music at the Kiev Institute of Music and Drama, and from 1934 to 1937 he was a professor at the Kiev Conservatory. He was a research fellow of the Institute of Ukrainian Folklore of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR from 1938. A researcher and expert on Ukrainian folk creativity, Grinchenko was the author of many theoretical works and works devoted to the art of N. V. Lysenko, N. D. Leontovich, K. G. Stetsenko, and Ia. S. Stepovoi.
WORKS
Istoriia ukrains’koi muziki. Kiev, 1922.
Vibrane. Kiev, 1959.
REFERENCE
Hordiichuk, M. M. “M. O. Hrinchenko.” Narodna tvorchist’ ta et-nohrafiia, 1957, no. 4.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
D. S. VASILIEV-BUGLAI (1888-1956)
Dmitry Stepanovich Vasiliev-Buglai, Soviet composer. One of the first authors of Soviet song, master of choral music, collector of folk songs. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1947). Winner of the Stalin Prize, third degree (1951).
A. N. VERTINSKY (1889-1957)
Alexander Nikolaevich Vertinsky, Soviet pop artist, film actor, composer, poet and singer, winner of the Stalin Prize II degree (1951).
S. S. PROKOFIEV (1891-1953)
“Prokofiev, Sergei Sergeevich. Born Apr. 11 (23), 1891, in Sontsovka, now the village of Krasnoe, Krasnoarmeisk Raion, Donetsk Oblast; died Mar. 5, 1953, in Moscow. Soviet composer, pianist, and conductor. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1947).
The son of an agronomist, Prokofiev began to study music at the age of five under the supervision of his mother. In the summers of 1902 and 1903 he studied under R. M. Glière, who came to Sontsovka to give him lessons.
By the time Prokofiev entered the St. Petersburg Conservatory (1904), he had composed four operas, a symphony, two sonatas, and piano pieces. In 1909 he graduated from the conservatory’s class in composition, which was taught by A. K. Liadov, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, and J. Vĭtols. He graduated in 1914 from the classes in conducting and piano, having studied under N. N. Cherepnin and A. N. Esipova, respectively. Prokofiev’s lifelong artistic friendship with N. Ia. Miaskovskii began during their years at the conservatory.
Prokofiev developed as a composer during a contradictory, complex period marked by an intensive quest for new themes and expressive means in all the arts. Although he paid close attention to new trends and felt their influence to some extent, Prokofiev also strove for independence and originality. During the prerevolutionary decade he composed in virtually every genre. Many of his compositions were for piano, including two concerti (1912; 1913, second version 1923), four sonatas, cycles (Sarcasms and Visions fugitives), and toccatas. In addition, during this period he wrote two operas (Magdalen, 1913, and The Gambler, based on a story by F. M. Dostoevsky, 1915–16; second version, 1927), as well as the ballet The Buffoon (1915–20), the Classical Symphony (the Symphony No. 1, 1916–17), the first concerto for violin (1921), and choral and vocal chamber works.
The characteristic features of Prokofiev’s artistry were already evident in this early period—an active attitude toward life, optimism, energy, and a strong will. In his works there is a broad range of themes and images, from the delicate lyricism of art songs with words by A. A. Akhmatova (1916) to the strained expressiveness of The Gambler, from the pictorial, poetic quality of The Ugly Duckling, a fairy tale for voice and piano (1914), to the elemental power of the orchestral Scythian Suite (1914–15); and from the pointed grotesqueness of the Sarcasms to the fairy-tale jesting of the ballet The Buffoon. From 1908, Prokofiev appeared regularly as a pianist and conductor, performing his own works. In the spring of 1918 he traveled to the USA by way of Japan. His stay abroad lasted 15 years, instead of the few months he had originally intended. During the first four years he traveled in America and Europe (primarily France), participating in the production of his stage works and taking on a greatly expanded concert schedule. He lived in Germany in 1922 and in Paris from 1923.
Prokofiev’s years abroad were marked by an active interest in theatrical genres. Among the operas dating from this period of his career are The Flaming Angel (1919–27), an expressive drama based on a novel by V. Ia. Briusov, and The Love for Three Oranges (1919), a comic opera based on a work by C. Gozzi. Prokofiev had outlined a plan for The Love for Three Oranges before he went abroad. Inspired by his creative collaboration with S. P. Diaghilev, who staged The Buffoon in 1921, Prokofiev created new ballets for Diaghilev’s troupe—The Steel Trot (1925) and The Prodigal Son (1928). In 1930 he wrote the ballet On the Dnieper for the Grand Opera in Paris.
Prokofiev’s most important instrumental works of this period were the fifth sonata for piano (1924), the third and fourth symphonies (1928, 1930–47), and the third, fourth, and fifth piano concerti (1917–21, 1931, and 1932). The composer’s creativity declined during the last years of his stay abroad, and his long isolation from his homeland became evident in his work. “Russian speech must sound in my ears; I must speak with people of my flesh and blood so that they may return to me what I lack here: their songs, my own songs” (Sergei Prokof’ev: Stat’i i materialy, 1965, p. 377).
Prokofiev toured the USSR in 1927 and 1929 and in 1932 decided to return to his homeland for good, joining those who were actively engaged in building Soviet musical culture. Beginning in 1933, he gave lessons in composition for a number of years at the Master School at the Moscow Conservatory. His work flowered during this period, enriched by significant new themes and lofty humanist ideas. In the ballet Romeo and Juliet (1935–36), an outstanding achievement of Soviet and world art, the composer created images of Shakespearean depth and realistic power. The opera Semen Kotko, which was based on V. P. Kataev’s story I Am the Son of the Working People (1930), boldly and in many respects successfully resolved the difficult problem of assimilating contemporary themes in an operatic work. During the prewar years compositions for the theater and motion pictures held an important place in Prokofiev’s work. The composer collaborated with the greatest Soviet directors—V. E. Meyerhold, A. Ia. Tairov, and S. M. Eisenstein. Among Prokofiev’s most significant works was the music for the motion picture Alexander Nevsky, which served as the basis for the cantata of the same name. Turning to popular historical and patriotic themes, the composer revealed and strengthened the national foundation of his work. This foundation was vividly revealed in subsequent works, such as the cantata The Toast (1939, based on folk texts) and the music for the motion picture Ivan the Terrible (1942–45; a ballet based on M. I. Chulaki’s version of the score was staged in 1975 at the Bolshoi Theater). During the 1930’s, Prokofiev also wrote works for children, including songs, a collection of piano pieces entitled Children’s Suite (1935), and Peter and the Wolf (1936), a symphonic tale for narrator and orchestra—a witty, lively, graphic work that acquaints children with the timbres of various instruments.
Prokofiev attained a new level of creativity in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, when he began working almost simultaneously on a series of compositions: a sonata for violin and piano, three sonatas for piano (the sixth, seventh, and eighth), the lyric comic opera Betrothal in a Monastery (based on R. B. Sheridan’s play The Duenna), and the ballet Cinderella (State Prize of the USSR, 1946). The completion of most of these works was delayed by the Great Patriotic War. Prokofiev’s opera War and Peace (1941–52, based on L. N. Tolstoy’s novel) is his most important work of the war years, as well as one of the central works of his career and the greatest achievement of Soviet operatic art. The theme of war was also reflected in other works, including the seventh piano sonata (1939–42; State Prize of the USSR, 1943) and the fifth and sixth symphonies (1944 and 1945–47). Prokofiev’s last opera, The Story of a Real Man (1947–48, based on a work by B. N. Polevoi), was also associated with the theme of war.
During the postwar years Prokofiev’s work was characterized by particular clarity, classic harmony, and wise simplicity. Light lyrical or fantastic images became increasingly important in his work (the ninth sonata for piano, 1947, and the sonata for cello and piano, 1949). The themes of childhood and youth continued to attract the composer’s attention, as is evident in the vocal symphonic suite Winter Bonfire (1949) and the oratorio Guarding the Peace (1950; texts by S. Ia. Marshak), both of which were awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1951; the ballet The Stone Flower (1948–50, based on tales by P. P. Bazhov); and the seventh symphony (1951–52), for which Prokofiev was awarded the Lenin Prize in 1957. (He was the first Soviet composer to receive this honor.)
In 1946, Prokofiev was awarded the State Prize of the USSR for the fifth symphony, the eighth sonata for piano, and the music for the first part of the motion picture Ivan the Terrible. He won the State Prize of the USSR again in 1947 for his first sonata for violin and piano.
Prokofiev is important in the history of Soviet and world music as an innovative composer who created a profoundly original style and forged his own expressive means. Activity and energy were, to the highest degree, characteristic of his work. The epic principle prevailed in his creative work. Striking individuality was characteristic of his melodies, which were inspired, profound, and, at the same time, internally restrained and crystalline. Prokofiev’s close ties with the traditions of Russian music and with composers such as M. P. Mussorgsky, A. P. Borodin, and N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov became more and more evident as his work developed. His keen powers of observation made him one of the foremost masters of the musical portrait, in which he combined physical characterization with psychological insight. This gift predetermined the primary role of the stage genres in Prokofiev’s work. The composer strove for realism on the stage and tried to transcend the static quality and conventionalities of opera and ballet. He significantly strengthened the role of pantomime in ballet, and in opera he rejected verse librettos, replacing them with prose texts. He substantially enriched the vocal expressiveness of opera, making extensive use of recitation based on a flexible imitation of the intonations of speech.
The full exploitation of the drama’s range was characteristic of Prokofiev’s operas. For example, War and Peace combines features of the lyric, psychological drama and the heroic folk epic. Prokofiev’s piano works are an important part of his artistic legacy. These works, which revealed his pianistic art in a distinctive manner, were marked by structural sharpness of form and texture, clarity of resonance, an instrumental treatment of the piano’s timbre, and resilient, energetic rhythm. Prokofiev’s proclivity for epics was reflected in his symphonic works (symphonies, overtures, and suites) and vocal symphonic works (oratorios and cantatas), most of which were characterized by objectivity, a narrative tone, and dramatic art based not on the clash between contrasting images but on their juxtaposition.
Prokofiev’s work constitutes an epoch in world music of the 20th century. New trends in music were launched by the originality of his musical thought and by the fresh, distinctive quality of his melodies, harmonics, rhythmics, and instrumentation. Prokofiev powerfully influenced the work of many Soviet and foreign composers. Between 1955 and 1967, 20 volumes of his collected musical compositions were published.
Prokofiev was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.
WORKS
Avtobiografiia. Moscow, 1973.
REFERENCES
Igor’ Glebov [Asaf’ev, B. V.]. Sergei Prokof’ev, Leningrad, 1927.
S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1961.
Cherty stilia S. Prokof’eva (collection). Moscow, 1962.
Sabinina, M. “Semen Kotko” i problemy opernoi dramaturgii Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1963.
Rogozhina, N. Vokal’no-simfonicheskie proizvedeniia S. Prokof’eva. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Rogozhina, N. Romansy i pesni S. S. Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1971.
Sergei Prokof’ev: Stat’i i materialy, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1965.
Kholopov, Iu. Sovremennye cherty garmonii Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1967.
Slonimskii, S. Simfonii Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1964.
Tarakanov, M. Stil’ simfonii Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1968.
Tarakanov, M. “Spisok literatury po teme ‘Prokof’ev.’” In the collection Muzykal’nyi sovremennik, fasc. 1. Moscow, 1973.
Aranovskii, M. Melodika S. Prokof’eva. Leningrad, 1969.
Stepanov, O. Teatr masok v opere S. Prokof’eva “Liubov’ k trem apel’sinam.” Moscow, 1972.
Blok, V. Violonchel’noe tvorchestvo Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1973.
Soroker, Ia. Kamerno-instrumental’nye ansambli S. Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1973.
Del’son, V. Fortepiannoe tvorchestvo i pianizm Prokof’eva. Moscow, 1973.
Nest’ev, I. Zhizn’Sergeia Prokof’eva, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1973.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by O. B. STEPANOV)
P. D. GERMAN (1894-1952)
Soviet songwriter, publicist.
L. O. UTYOSOV (1895-1982)
Russian Soviet pop artist, singer, reader, conductor, orchestra leader, entertainer, actor. People’s Artist of the USSR (1965).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1942)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” (1945)
-Two orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1945, 1980)
-Medal “For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” (1946)
-Medal “In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow” (1947)
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1947)
-Medal “In memory of the 250th anniversary of Leningrad” (1957)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1958)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1965)
-Medal “Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945” (1965)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor. In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich -Lenin” (1970)
-Medal “Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945” (1975)
-Order of the October Revolution (1975)
-Medal “Veteran of Labor” (1976)
M. M. SOKOLSKY (1896-1977)
Russian Soviet musicologist and music critic.
A. G. NOVIKOV (1896-1984)
“Novikov, Anatolii Grigor’evich. Born Oct. 18 (30), 1896, in Skopin, present-day Riazan’ Oblast. Soviet composer and public figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1970). Member of the CPSU since 1952.
From 1921 to 1927, Novikov studied composition under R. M. Glière at the Moscow Conservatory. In the 1920’s and 1930’s he directed amateur (including army) choruses. From 1930 to 1943, Novikov was artistic director of the vocal ensembles of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, All-Union Radio, and other organizations. Almost all of his more than 500 songs, settings of lyrics by Soviet poets, deal with contemporary patriotic civic themes. His most popular songs include “Russia” (lyrics by S. Ia. Alymov), “Roads” (lyrics by L. I. Oshanin), “Hymn of the Democratic Youth of the World” (1947; lyrics by L. I. Oshanin; First Prize at the World Festival of Democratic Youth and Students in Prague), “Vasia-Vasilek” (lyrics by S. Ia. Alymov), and “March of the Communist Brigades” (lyrics by V. T. Kharitonov).
Novikov’s music is distinguished for its Russian melodies, dynamic rhythms, and genuine mass appeal. Novikov has written musical comedies, including The Left-handed Smith and the Steel Flea (1957), A Special Task (1965), The Black Birch (1969), and Vasilii Terkin (1971).
Novikov served as chairman of the All-Russian Choral Society (1958). He was a deputy to the fifth through eighth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. He received the State Prize of the USSR (1946, 1948) and has been awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and a number of medals.
REFERENCE
Polianovskii, G. Anatolii Novikov. Moscow, 1971. (Contains references.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
J. A. KHAIT (1897-1966)
Soviet composer, author of many works (among them the music for the song “Air March”).
I. O. DUNAEVSKY (1900-1955)
“Dunaevskii, Isaak Osipovich. Born Jan. 18 (30), 1900, in Lokhvitsa, in present-day Poltava Oblast: died July 25, 1955, in Moscow. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1950). Son of an office worker.
Dunaevskii graduated from the Kharkov Conservatory in 1919, where he studied violin with I. Iu. Akhron. He studied composition with S. S. Bogatyrev and worked as a composer and conductor in Kharkov drama theaters. From 1924, Dunaevskii lived in Moscow, where he directed the music section of the Theater of Satire. One of the creators of Soviet operetta, he wrote 12 works in this genre, including The Wooers (staged in 1927) and The Golden Valley (presented in 1937), which created memorable portraits of Soviet youth. Without rejecting the traditions of neo-Viennese operetta represented by E. Kálmán and F. Lehár, Dunaevskii pioneered new forms, interweaving operetta and Soviet popular songs and folk art. In his works the composer introduced grand ensembles, well-developed finales, and orchestral episodes. In the operetta Free Wind (staged in 1947), Dunaevskii expressed for the first time in this genre the theme of the struggle for peace. Among his best operettas are also The Clown’s Son (staged in 1950) and White Acacia (staged in 1955).
Dunaevskii’s talent was most brilliantly revealed in the music for the films Jolly Fellows (1934), Three Comrades (1935), The Goalkeeper (1936), The Circus (1936; State Prize of the USSR, 1941), The Children of Captain Grant (1936), Volga-Volga (1938; State Prize of the USSR, 1941), The Radiant Path (1940), Spring (1947), and The Kuban’ Cossacks (1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951). The composer was one of the originators of Soviet cinematic musical comedy, making music one of the main components of film dramaturgy.
Dunaevskii’s songs are a landmark in the history of Soviet songwriting. They are imbued with optimism and faith in life and belief in the triumph of free labor. His “Song of the Homeland” (from the film The Circus) has been chosen as the theme song of Soviet National Radio. Dunaevskii’s style developed on the basis of urban vocal and instrumental popular music and is closely, related to operetta and jazz. The composer created a new type of popular song—marching songs, whose main characteristics are dynamic, lively rhythms and generally major tonality (for example, “March of the Jolly Fellows,” “Song of Kakhovka,” “Sports March,” “Song of the Gay Wind,” and “March of Enthusiasts”). Songs that are stylistically similar to the marching songs are “Railways and Pathways” and the “Song of the Road.” Dunaevskii’s lyric songs are often close to lyric popular art songs (for example, songs from the films The Goalkeeper, The Seekers of Happiness, and Volga-Volga). The song “Fly, Pigeons” expressed lyrically the striving of men to prevent expansionist wars. Dunaevskii composed waltz songs (“An Evening of Waltz,” “The School Waltz,” “Silence,” and “Do not Forget”). He also composed ballets and music for dramatic presentations. His work influenced many Soviet composers. Dunaevskii was a deputy to the First Convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and he has been awarded two orders and various medals.
REFERENCES
lankovskii, M. I. O. Dunaevskii. Leningrad-Moscow, 1940.
Danilevich, L. I. O. Dunaevskii. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Pen, A. I. Dunaevskii. Moscow, 1956.
Chernov, A. Isaak Osipovich Dunaevskii. Moscow, 1961.
I. O. Dunaevskii (collection of articles). Moscow, 1961.
Mikheeva, L. I. O. Dunaevskii. Leningrad, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. V. DANILEVICH)
V. G. ZAKHAROV (1901-1956)
“Zakharov, Vladimir Grigor’evich. Born Oct. 5 (18), 1901, in a mining camp near Bogodukhov Gorge, Donbas; died July 13, 1956, in Moscow. Soviet composer and musical figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1944). Became a member of the CPSU in 1944.
In 1927, Zakharov graduated from the Don Conservatory in Rostov-on-Don, having studied in the composition class. From 1930 to 1933 he worked for Radio Moscow. In 1948 he became a secretary and board member of the Union of Com-posers of the USSR. From 1932 to 1956, Zakharov was the musical director of the Piatnitskii Russian Folk Chorus; he wrote his songs for this group. An outstanding expert in Russian folk music, Zakharov created an individual style of polyphonic song, which embodied a vivid folk quality yet was acutely contemporary. Most of Zakharov’s songs were written to words by M. V. Isakovskii and A. T. Tvardovskii. Their broad scope of imagery ranges from the severe, extremely dramatic, and heroically solemn to the impetuously merry and tenderly lyrical. His songs include “Through the Green Expanses,” “Through the Village,” “Oh! My Mists, My Mists,” “Through the White Snow,” “July Nights, You Are Beautiful,” “A Russian Beauty,” “Hail to the Soviet Power,” “Seeing Her Home,” and “And Who Knows Why.” Zakharov also wrote numerous choral arrangements of Russian folk songs. He won the State Prize of the USSR for his songs in 1942 and 1946 and for his concert activity in 1952. He was also awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Briusova, N.Vladimir Zakharov. Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
Livanova, T. N.V. G. Zakharov. Moscow, 1954.
Livanova, T. N.Vladimir Grigor’evich Zakharov: Kratkii ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1962.
KovaP, M. “V. G. Zakharov i russkaia narodnaia pesnia.”Sovetskaia muzyka. 1961, no. 3.
Vospominaniia o V. G. Zakharove. [Moscow, 1967].” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. M. TSYPIN)
V. I. SHEBALIN (1902-1963)
“Shebalin, Vissarion Iakovlevich. Born May 29 (June 11), 1902, in Omsk; died May 28, 1963, in Moscow. Soviet composer, pedagogue, and public figure. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1947); doctor of the arts (1941).
In 1928, Shebalin graduated from the Moscow Conservatory, where he had studied composition under N. Ia. Miaskovskii. Shebalin’s music, which is pictorial in nature, communicates an ideological message and affirms a lofty and positive ideal; it develops the traditions of the Russian classics and is characterized by its noble use of melody, which often recalls the lyric and epic songs of Russian folklore.
Shebalin composed the operas The Taming of the Shrew (based on the play by Shakespeare; 1957, Bolshoi Theater) and Sun Over the Steppes (concert performance, Moscow, 1959), the musical comedy Bridegroom From the Embassy (1942), and the cantata Moscow (1946; words by B. V. Lipatov; State Prize of the USSR, 1947). An important composition is the dramatic symphony Lenin (1931; revised version, 1959), scored for narrator, soloists, chorus and orchestra; the work is based on V. V. Mayakovsky’s narrative poem Vladimir Il’ich Lenin.
Shebalin is also known for his five symphonies, violin concerto (1940), and chamber music, including nine string quartets, of which the most famous is the String Quartet No. 5, on Slavic Themes (1942; State Prize of the USSR, 1943). His other works include art songs, choruses, music for motion pictures and plays, and arrangements of Russian folk songs. An important part of Shebalin’s oeuvre are his completed versions of Russian and Ukrainian musical classics, such as the operas Sorochintsy Fair by Mussorgsky and The Zaporozhian Cossack Beyond the Danube by Gulak-Artemovskii and Glinka’s Symphony on Two Russian Themes.
Shebalin became a professor at the Moscow Conservatory in 1935 and served as its director from 1942 to 1948. In addition to the Czech composer V. Kučera, his students included L. M. Auster, E. V. Denisov, K. Kh. Kuzham’iarov, A. A. Nikolaev, A. N. Pakhmutova, V. R. Tormis, T. N. Khrennikov, and K. S. Khachaturian. Shebalin was chairman of the administrative board of the Moscow organization of the Composers’ Union of the USSR in 1941 and 1942 and served as a deputy to the second convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. Shebalin was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
WORKS
Literaturnoe nasledie: Vospominaniia, perepiska, stat’i, vystupleniia. Moscow, 1975.
REFERENCE
Vissarion Iakovlevich Shebalin: Stat’i, vospominaniia, materialy. Moscow, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. M. BLOK)
ARAM KHACHATURIAN (1903-1978)
“Khachaturian, Aram Il’ich. Born May 24 (June 6), 1903, near Tbilisi; died May 1, 1978, in Moscow; buried in the pantheon of Yerevan. Soviet composer, conductor, teacher, and public figure. People’s Artist of the USSR (1954). Hero of Socialist Labor (1973). Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR (1963). Member of the CPSU from 1943.
Khachaturian began studying music at the age of 19 at Gnesin’s Music Technicum, graduating from both the cello class and M. F. Gnesin’s composition class in 1929. In 1934 he graduated from N. la. Miaskovskii’s composition class at the Moscow Conservatory. While still at the conservatory, he composed a number of works that attracted the attention of the music public: the Song-Poem for Violin and Piano (1929), the Toccata for Piano (1932), and the Trio for Piano, Violin, and Clarinet (1932). Khachaturian achieved his first major success with the Symphony No. 1 (1934) and concerti for orchestra and piano (1936) and orchestra and violin (1940). These works, while enriching Soviet music with new expressive means derived from the diverse musical traditions of the peoples of the Soviet East, at the same time exhibit the more progressive theoretical-aesthetic and technical principles of modern symphonic composition.
Khachaturian’s works reflect his joyous perception of life, passionate temperament, outstanding mastery of polyphony, and virtuosity in orchestral composition. Permeated with the fervent affirmation of all that is beautiful, they are characterized by bold contrasts between tensely dramatic and highly lyrical episodes and by colorful harmony and orchestration.
During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), Khachaturian composed the Symphony No. 2 (1943), a heroic-tragic epic embodying the patriotic idea of the people’s liberation struggle; he also composed the ballet Gayane (1942; first version entitled Happiness, 1939), whose story is also associated with the theme of struggle for the happiness of the homeland (he later composed three suites based on the ballet’s music). In 1947 he wrote a one-part symphonic poem for full symphony orchestra, organ, and 15 additional trumpets, representing a triumphant festive ode to the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution.
In 1954, Khachaturian completed work on the score of the monumental ballet Spartacus, in which the composer’s dramatic skill found full expression; three symphonic suites based on the ballet are now part of the standard repertoires of many orchestras. In the 1960’s he composed a triad of orchestral concerti— the Concerto-Rhapsody for Violin (1961), the Concerto-Rhapsody for Cello (1963), and the Concerto-Rhapsody for Piano and Orchestra (1968)—all vividly manifesting the improvisational quality characteristic of Khachaturian’s works. In the 1970’s he composed the Sonata-Fantasy for Cello (1974) and the Sonata Monologue for solo violin (1975).
Khachaturian’s other works include the orchestral works Solemn Poem (1950), Overture of Greeting (1958), and Ode to the Memory of Vladimir Il’ich Lenin (1949); three concert arias for high voice with orchestral accompaniment (1971); songs and romances; and pieces for wind orchestra and piano, including a sonata (1964), and Recitatives and Fugues (1928–72).
Khachaturian wrote music for a number of Moscow theatrical productions, including Lope de Vega’s Widow of Valencia (1940), Lermontov’s Masquerade (1941; a suite based on the music for the play gained enormous popularity on the concert stage), Pogodin’s The Kremlin Chimes (1942), and Shakespeare’s Macbeth (1955) and King Lear (1958). He also composed music for various films, including Pepo, Zangezur, Person Number 217, Admiral Ushakov, The Ships Storm the Bastions, Othello, The Battle of Stalingrad, and Vladimir Il’ich Lenin. He composed the state anthem of the Armenian SSR (1944).
Khachaturian turned to conducting in 1950, conducting performances of his own works in many cities of the USSR and foreign countries. In 1950 he also began teaching composition at the Moscow Conservatory and at Gnesin’s Institute, becoming a professor in 1951. His students included A. la. Eshpai and M. L. Tariverdiev. Khachaturian became secretary of the Composers’ Union of the USSR in 1957.
Khachaturian was a deputy to the fifth convocation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He was an honorary member of several foreign academies of arts and a member of the Soviet Peace Committee. He received the Lenin Prize (1959), the State Prize of the USSR (1941, 1943, 1946, 1950, 1971), and the State Prize of the Armenian SSR (1965). He was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Khubov, G. N. Aram Khachaturian: Eskiz kharakteristiki. Moscow, 1939.
Khubov, G. N. Aram Khachaturian, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Shneerson, G. M. Aram Khachaturian. Moscow, 1958.
Asaf’ev, B. Ocherki ob Armenii. Moscow, 1958. Pages 30–32.
Shostakovich, D. “Iarkii talant.” Sovetskaia muzyka, 1959, no. 6.
Chebotarian, G. M. Polifoniia v tvorchestve Arama Khachaturiana. Yerevan, 1969.
Aram Khachaturian: Sb. statei. Compiled by G. Geodakian. Yerevan, 1972.
Tigranov, G. G. Balety Arama Khachaturiana, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1974.
Aram Il’ich Khachaturian: Sb. statei. Compiled by S. Rybakov. Moscow, 1975.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. M. SHNEERSON)
E. A. MRAVINSKY (1903-1988)
“Mravinskii, Evgenii Aleksandrovich. Born May 22 (June 4), 1903, in St. Petersburg. Soviet conductor; People’s Artist of the USSR (1954), Hero of Socialist Labor (1973).
Mravinskii graduated in 1931 from the Leningrad Conservatory, where he had studied conducting under N. A. Mal’ko and A. V. Gauk. From 1932 to 1938 he was the conductor at the S. M. Kirov Theater of Opera and Ballet. In 1938 he became the principal conductor of the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra, which under Mravinskii’s direction has joined the ranks of the world’s finest orchestras.
Mravinskii is among the greatest of the present-day masters of the art of conducting. Central to his repertoire are the symphonies of Beethoven, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, and Honegger. Mravinskii’s significant achievements are linked with his interpretation of works by Soviet composers. Many works by D. D. Shostakovich, including his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth symphonies, received their first performance under Mravinskii’s direction, as have works by S. S. Prokofiev, A. I. Khachaturian, and a number of Leningrad composers.
Mravinskii’s conducting is noted for its scope of conception, clarity of artistic aim, balance between intellectual and emotional elements, and polish and perfection. In 1936–37 and again from 1961 he has taught at the Leningrad Conservatory, since 1963 with the rank of professor. He toured Europe and North America, the first time in 1946. Mravinskii won first prize at the All-Union Conducting Competition in 1938. He has also won a State Prize (1946) and a Lenin Prize (1961). He has been awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and a number of medals.
REFERENCES
Bogdanov-Berezovskii, V. Sovetskii dirizher. Leningrad, 1956.
“K 70-Ietiiu Mravinskogo.” Sovetskaia muzyka, 1973, no. 6.
Bialik, M. “Rytsar’ muzyki.” Muzykal’naia zhizn’, 1973, no. 12.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
MATVEI BLANTER (1903-1990)
“Blanter, Matvei Isaakovich. Born Jan. 28 (Feb. 10), 1903, in Pochep, Chernigov Province. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1965).
Blanter studied in the music colleges of Kursk and Moscow and took lessons in composition from G. E. Konius. From 1921 to 1933 he worked in various theaters as a composer and director of their music divisions. One of the masters of the Soviet popular song, he wrote “Katiusha,” which achieved worldwide popularity, and the songs “The Partisan Zhelezniak,” “Song of Shchors,” “Good-bye, Cities and Huts,” “In the Frontline Forest,” “My Loved One,” “Under the Balkan Stars,” “Nothing Better Than Apple Blossom,” and “The Birds of Passage Are Flying,” among others. Blanter’s songs have been written to the words of M. Golodnyi, V. Lebedev-Kumach, K. Simonov, A. Surkov, M. Svetlov, and other poets. More than 20 songs were written in collaboration with the poet M. Isakovskii. Blanter composed several operettas, including On the Shores of the Amur (1938; produced in 1939 at the Moscow Operetta Theater), as well as music for shows, films, and radio productions. He was awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1946, the Order of the Badge of Honor, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Zak, V. Matvei Blanter. Moscow, 1970.
Sokhor, A. Russkaia sovetskaia pesnia. Moscow, 1959. (See name index.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by N. ZELOV)
“Meitus, Iulii Sergeevich. Born Jan. 15 (28), 1903, in Elizavetgrad, present-day Kirovograd. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the Ukrainian SSR (1973); Honored Art Worker of the Turkmen SSR (1944). Member of the CPSU (1954).
Meitus graduated from S. S. Bogatyrev’s composition class at the Kharkov Institute of Musical Drama in 1931. He composed 13 operas, including Abadan (coauthor A. Kuliev, 1943, Ashkhabad, 2nd version, 1973), Leili and Medzhnun (coauthor D. Oviaza, 1946, Ashkhabad), The Young Guard (1947, Kiev; 2nd version, 1950, Leningrad; State Prize of the USSR, 1951), Stolen Happiness (1960, L’vov), The UVianov Brothers (1967, Ufa), Anna Karenina (1970), laroslav the Wise (1973, Donetsk), and Richard Sorge (1974). He also wrote the Turkmen Sym-phony, five suites, symphonic poems, works for choir and orchestra and for instrumental ensembles, numerous romances and ballads, and music for films. He has been awarded two orders and a number of medals.
REFERENCES
Malyshev, lu. V. lu. S. Meitus. Moscow, 1962.
Bas, L. lulii Meitus. Kiev, 1973.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
G. N. POPOV (1904-1972)
“Popov, Gavriil Nikolaevich. Born Aug. 30 (Sept. 12), 1904, in Novocherkassk; died Feb. 17, 1972, in Repino. Soviet composer. Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1947) and the Karelian ASSR (1959).
Popov studied at the conservatory in Rostov-on-Don. From 1922 to 1930 he attended the Leningrad Conservatory, where he studied pianoforte under L. V. Nikolaev and composition under V. V. Shcherbachev. He composed six symphonies (1932–69). The second symphony, Motherland, from the film score for She Defends the Motherland (1943), was awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1946. His other works include the vocal-symphonic poem Bylina About Lenin (1950); a number of works for violin, piano, and string orchestra; choral works; and the cantata Be Glorious Native Party (1952).
Popov’s film scores are well known. The films he wrote music for include Chapaev (1934), She Defends the Motherland (1943), The Front (1943), The Great Turning Point (1945), Unfinished Novella (1955), Poem of the Sea (1958), and Tale of Fiery Years (1961).” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
D. B. KABALEVSKY (1904-1987)
“Kabalevskii, Dmitrii Borisovich. Born Dec. 17 (30), 1904, in St. Petersburg. Soviet composer, teacher, and public figure. People’s Artist of the USSR since 1963, doctor of the arts since 1965, and full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR since 1971. Member of the CPSU since 1940.
Kabalevskii completed N. Ia. Miaskovskii’s course in composition (1929) and A. B. Goldenweiser’s course in piano (1930) at the Moscow Conservatory. He has been a professor there since 1939. Between 1940 and 1946 he was editor in chief of the journal Sovetskaia Muzyka. Since 1954 he has been a member of the collegium of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR. In 1952 he became secretary of the Union of Soviet Composers, in which he also heads the commission on the musical and aesthetic education of children and young people. Since 1969 he has headed the Council on Aesthetic Education under the Presidium of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR. Kabalevskii has been a member of the Council of Directors of the International Society for Music Education since 1961 and its honorary president since 1972. Since 1953 he has been a member of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace. In performances of his own works, he appears both as a pianist and as a conductor.
Most of Kabalevskii’s work draws upon contemporary socially significant themes. He frequently turns for inspiration to Soviet youth and children, as in three of his concerti—the Concerto for Violin (1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1949), the Concerto for Cello No. 1 (1949), and the Concerto for Piano No. 3 (1952), as well as cantatas, children’s songs, and piano pieces. His work is strongly lyrical, with cheerful tones, a clear, songlike quality, joyous vitality, fervor, and humor. At the same time he captured in music the tragic events of the Great Patriotic War (1941–45) in such works as the opera Taras’Family (1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951), based on B. Gorbatov’s novella The Unvanquished and depicting the struggle of the Soviet people against the fascist invaders. In the opera Colas Breugnon (1937; revised version 1968, Lenin Prize, 1972), based on R. Rolland’s novella, a lyrical theme blends with an unfolding of social conflict. Kabalevskii also composed the operas In the Fire (formerly Near Moscow, 1943), Nikita Vershinin (1955), and The Sisters (1969).
Kabalevskii has done much work in symphonic and cantata-oratorio music. He has written four symphonies (1932, 1933, 1934, 1956), a number of concerti—three for piano (1929, 1936, 1952), one for violin (1948), and two for cello (1949, 1964)—the suite for chorus and orchestra Peoples Avengers (1942), the cantata The Leninists (1959), and the Requiem for soloists, two choruses, and orchestra, with words by R. Rozhdestvenskii (1963; Glinka State Prize of the RSFSR, 1966). His chamber works include two string quartets (No. 2, 1945; State Prize of the USSR, 1946) and 24 preludes for piano. He has also written music for a number of films and plays. Kabalevskii was a deputy to the seventh and eighth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He is a corresponding member of the Academy of Arts of the German Democratic Republic (1970), honorary professor at the Conservatory in Mexico City (1959), and vice-president of the British Workers’ Choral Society (1950). He has been awarded two Orders of Lenin and two other orders, as well as medals.
WORKS
Izbrannye stat’i o muzyke. Moscow, 1963.
Pro trekh kitov i mnogoe drugoe: Knizhka o muzyke. Moscow, 1970.
REFERENCES
Grosheva, E. D. Kabalevskii. Moscow, 1956.
Abramovskii, G. D. Kabalevskii. Moscow, 1960.
Danilevich, L. Tvorchestvo D. B. Kabalevskogo. Moscow, 1963.
Glezer, R. V. D. B. Kabalevskii. Moscow, 1969.
Nazarevskii, P. D. B. Kabalevskii: Notograficheskii i bibliograficheskii spravochnik. Moscow, 1969.
Pozhidaev, G. A. D. B. Kabalevskii: Rasskazy o zhizni i tvorchestve.
Moscow, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. V. DANILEVICH [11–246–4; updated])
M. A. GRINBERG (1904-1968)
A musical and public figure of the USSR, a member of the Union of Composers of the USSR (1937).
B. E. KHAIKIN (1904-1978)
Russian Soviet conductor, teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1972). Laureate of three Stalin Prizes (1946, 1951, ?).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1937)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1939)
-Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1940)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for staging the opera performance “Iolanta” by P. I. Tchaikovsky (1943) on the stage of LMATOB
-Stalin Prize of the first degree (1946) – for conducting the opera performance “The Maid of Orleans” by P. I. Tchaikovsky (1945) on the stage of the LATOB named after S. M. Kirov
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1947)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1951) – for conducting the opera performance “The Taras Family” by D. B. Kabalevsky on the stage of the LATOB named after S. M. Kirov
-Medal “In memory of the 250th anniversary of Leningrad” (1957)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1972)
-Order of the October Revolution (1974)
-Honorary diploma of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR (1976)
D. D. SHOSTAKOVICH (1906-1975)
A leading Soviet composer, one of the greatest composers of the 20th century.
Reviews and criticisms of Shostakovich:
-Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (opera) was criticized harshly in a Pravda editorial “A Mess instead of music” (Socialist realist painting in the Stalin era, p. 18)
-The Limpid Stream (opera) was also criticized (cf. Bland, Stalin and the arts)
-The 4th symphony: Shostakovich withdrew it from public after criticism of his other works. Not performed until 25 years later. (cf. Bland, ibid.)
-his works made during the revisionist period were often bad quality (Bland, ibid.)
-9th symphony received criticism (Ebon, World Communism Today)
–Ballet Falsity (critique of “The Bright Stream” (ballet)) (1936)
“Shostakovich’s gutter opera Katerina Izmailova which was criticized and banned in the 30s has not only been staged again but made into a technicolour wide-screen film and sent abroad to be shown. The New York Times, mouthpiece of U.S. monopoly capitalism, expressed its appreciation on this occasion and the Soviet revisionist ruling clique, intoxicated by such an unexpected favour, bragged about it and accepted it as an honour.” (How the Soviet revisionists carry out all-round restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R, p. 39)
-The 5th symphony is regarded as his best work, a response to correct criticism (cf. Bland, ibid.)
-The 7th symphony also received praise (D. Shostakovich, The Muse and Guns)
Shostakovich received 5 Stalin prizes:
-In 1941 for Piano Quintet
-In 1942 for the Symphony No. 7
-In 1946 for Piano Trio No. 2
-In 1950 for Song of the Forests and the score for the film The Fall of Berlin
-In 1952 for Ten Poems on Texts by Revolutionary Poets)
“Shostakovich, Dmitrii Dmitrievich. Born Sept. 12 (25), 1906, in St. Petersburg; died Aug. 9,1975, in Moscow. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the USSR (1954); Hero of Socialist Labor (1966); doctor of the arts (1965). Member of the CPSU from 1960.
The son of an engineer, Shostakovich graduated from the Leningrad Conservatory, where he studied piano with L. V. Nikolaev until 1923 and composition with M. O. Shteinberg until 1925. In 1927 he received an honorable mention at the First Chopin International Competition for Pianists in Warsaw. He subsequently gave concerts at which he performed his own compositions. In 1937 he began teaching composition at the Leningrad Conservatory, where he became a professor in 1939; from 1943 to 1948 he taught at the Moscow Conservatory. Among his pupils were R. S. Bunin, A. D. Gadzhiev, G. G. Galynin, O. A. Evlak-hov, K. A. Karaev, G. V. Sviridov, B. I. Tishchenko, K. S. Khachaturian, and B. A. Chaikovskii. He became a secretary of the Composers’ Union of the USSR in 1957 and of the Composers’ Union of the RSFSR in 1960; from 1960 to 1968 he was first secretary of the Composers’ Union of the RSFSR.
Shostakovich, whose work represents a high point in 20th-century music, invariably turned to socially important themes and images and rendered the most important aspects of contemporary life. His music combines epic scope and psychological profundity, the emotional power of a crusading artist and a highly refined, intimate lyricism. Several of Shostakovich’s works reflect the global conflicts of the modern age and give expression to the clash between the world of victorious socialism and the world of reaction and oppression. Particularly important to the composer were the themes of war and peace and the struggle against fascism: to images of evil and aggression he counterposed the will and reason of the Soviet people and a faith in the ultimate victory of light over darkness. Shostakovich’s works, which affirm the ideals of Soviet humanism, are imbued with a boundless sympathy for man and his sufferings.
Symphonic works distinguished by a sense of high drama occupy a central place in Shostakovich’s oeuvre. The varied musical development in these works is marked by sharp conflicts and contrasts and by the free hand with which the composer worked out his themes: Shostakovich often rethought his musical ideas, and the same theme sometimes embodies totally contrasting aspects of life. Shostakovich, an innovator in the tradition of M. P. Mussorgsky (with whom he felt a special affinity), J. S. Bach, Beethoven, and Mahler, created his own profoundly original style. The individuality of his music is strikingly apparent in its tonal structure and harmony. Shostakovich modified the harmonic systems of classical Russian music to create his own harmonic idiom. An oustanding polyphonist, he reinterpreted the fugue and passacag-lia, made extensive use of polyphonic devices to develop musical themes, and restructured the symphony and sonata cyclic forms, whose component parts he fashioned anew to suit his own needs. Shostakovich used the interplay of orchestral timbres to great expressive effect. The principles of symphonic composition are evident in his chamber music.
Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 1 (1925), like several of the symphonies to follow, gained worldwide recognition. Subsequent compositions, such as the Symphony No. 2 (October Symphony, 1927), the Symphony No. 3 (First of May Symphony, 1931), and the ballets The Golden Age (1930) and Bolt (1931), reflect a search for new directions. In certain works, notably the opera The Nose (after N. V. Gogol, 1928), Shostakovich showed a predilection for satire, humor, and the grotesque.
In the opera Katerina Izmailovna (or Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, 1932; new version, 1963), which marks the beginning of the composer’s mature period, the tragic vein, so important in all Shostakovich’s works, is combined with social satire. The Symphony No. 4 (1936) and Symphony No. 5 (1937)—particularly the latter—established the principles of Shostakovich’s mature symphonic style. Of the Fifth Symphony the composer wrote: “The subject of my symphony is the development of the individual. It was precisely man, with all his sufferings, that I saw as the focal point of this work” (Vecherniaia Moskva, Jan. 25, 1938, p. 3). Other compositions of the 1930’s are the Symphony No. 6 (1939), the Concerto No. 1 for Piano and Orchestra (1933), Twenty-four Preludes for Piano (1933), the ballet The Limpid Stream (1935), and the String Quartet No. 1 (1938).
The Quintet for Piano and Strings (1940; State Prize of the USSR, 1941), a work imbued with a poetic lyricism, is one of Shostakovich’s most harmonious compositions. Shostakovich worked on the Symphony No. 7 (Leningrad Symphony; State Prize of the USSR, 1942) in the besieged city of Leningrad. The symphony, which depicts the Soviet people’s heroic struggle against fascism, became a musical monument of the war years and played an important role in rallying the world against fascism. Images from the Great Patriotic War also appear in the Symphony No. 8 (1943), a work of enormous tragic power, and in the Trio No. 2 for Violin, Cello, and Piano (1944; State Prize of the USSR, 1946), the String Quartet No. 3 (1946), and songs and choruses from this period. Shostakovich returned to the war for subject matter in such late works as the String Quartet No. 8 (1960), dedicated to the victims of war and fascism.
The Symphony No. 10 (1953), which reflects the composer’s concern about the fate of the world, is distinguished by its profound psychological insight. The oratorio Song of the Forests (words by E. A. Dolmatovskii, 1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1950) depicts socialist labor. The monumental cycle Twenty-four Preludes and Fugues for Piano (1951), which communicates a variety of emotions and moods ranging from high tragedy to carefree gaiety, from epic heroism to moving lyricism, adds to the tradition of Bach a distinctly Russian character.
Other notable postwar works are the Symphony No. 9 (1945), the Violin Concerto No. 1 (1948), and the song cycle From Jewish Folk Poetry (1948, set to traditional poems). In this period Shostakovich’s fondness for historical and revolutionary subjects became evident. His Ten Narrative Poems for A Cappella Chorus (set to words by revolutionary poets, 1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952) is dedicated to the struggle of the proletariat in the early 20th century. Works in a similar vein include the Symphony No. 11 (1905 Symphony, 1957; Lenin Prize, 1958) and the Symphony No. 12 (1917 Symphony, 1961), dedicated to V. I. Lenin; these compositions are notable for their striking musical idiom and are imbued with the traditional spirit of the revolutionary song. The Russian past also found expression in the symphonic poem for voice and orchestra The Execution of Stepan Razin (words by E. A. Evtushenko, 1964; State Prize of the USSR, 1968).
During this period Shostakovich continued to use a broad range of images and varied subject matter. He turned to humor and satire once again in the musical comedy Moscow, Chere-mushki (1958) and the song cycle Satires (1960, words by Sasha Chernyi).
In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Shostakovich composed vocal instrumental suites to poems by A. A. Blok (1967) and M. I. Tsvetaeva (1973). The vocal work Suite on Verses by Michelangelo (1974), summing up several major themes of the composer’s work, registered a protest against evil and injustice and affirmed the creative triumph and immortality of the artist. The principles of the vocal-instrumental suite are combined with operatic elements in the symphonies for voice and orchestra: Symphony No. 13 (1962, words by Evtushenko) and Symphony No. 14 (1969, words by Garcia Lorca, G. Apollinaire, W. K. Küchelbecker, and R. Rilke), an enormously profound and emotionally powerful treatment of the theme of life and death, a subject that is central to such works as the Symphony No. 15 (1971) and the late string quartets. The Sonata for Alto and Piano (1975) marks the end of Shostakovich’s creative output.
Shostakovich, who composed music for more than 35 motion pictures, including The Youth of Maksim (1935), The Return of Maksim (1937), The Vyborg Side (1939), The Man With a Gun (1938), and Hamlet (1964), was a pioneer of Soviet motion-picture music. He adapted several of his film scores for concert performance, notably Golden Mountains (1931), The Young Guard (1948), and The Gadfly (1955). Several songs by Shostakovich for motion pictures have achieved great popularity. He wrote music for the stage and prepared new orchestral versions of Mussorgsky’s operas Boris Godunov (1940) and Khovanshchina (1959). His articles include “Thoughts on the Road I Have Traveled” (1956).
The music of Shostakovich, whose compositions are among the classic works of the 20th century, is of tremendous importance for Soviet and international music.
Shostakovich was a deputy to the sixth through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He was a member of the Soviet Peace Committee (1949), the Slavic Committee of the USSR (1942), and the International Peace Committee (1968). He was an honorary member of Sweden’s Royal Academy of Music (1954), Italy’s Saint Cecilia National Academy (1956), and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (1965).
Shostakovich was awarded honorary doctorates by Oxford University (1958), Northwestern University in Evanston, 111. (1973), and France’s Académie des Beaux-Arts (1975). He was a corresponding member of the Academy of Arts of the German Democratic Republic (1956) and the Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts (1968), a member of Great Britain’s Royal Academy of Music (1958) and the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (1959) and an honorary professor at Mexico’s National Conservatory. He served as president of the USSR-Austria Society (1958). A recipient of the International Peace Prize (1954), Shostakovich was awarded three Orders of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
REFERENCES
Martynov, I. D. Shostakovich. Moscow-Leningrad, 1946.
Cherty stilia D. Shostakovicha: Sb. teoreticheskikh statei. Moscow, 1962.
Danilevich, L. Nash sovremennik: Tvorchestvo Shostakovicha. Moscow, 1965.
Sabinina, M. Simfonizm Shostakovicha: Put’ k zrelosti. Moscow, 1965.
Sabinina, M. Shostakovich-simfonist: Dramaturgiia, estetika, stil. Moscow, 1976.
Dmitrii Shostakovich: Sb. Moscow, 1967.
Khentova, S. Molodye gody Shostakovicha. Leningrad-Moscow, 1975.
D. Shostakovich: Stat’i i materialy. Moscow, 1976.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by L. V. DANILEVICH)
V. A. DAVYDOVA (1906-1993)
“Davydova, Vera Aleksandrovna (married name Mchedlidze). Born Sept. 17 (30), 1906, in Nizhny Novgorod, now Gorky. Soviet Russian mezzo-soprano and teacher. People’s artist of the RSFSR (1951) and honored artist of the Georgian SSR (1944). Member of the CPSU since 1951.
Davydova graduated from the Leningrad Conservatory from the class of E. V. Devos-Soboleva in 1930. She made her debut in 1929 at the Leningrad Theater of Opera and Ballet. From 1932 to 1956 she was a soloist at the Bolshoi Theater of the USSR. In 1959 she began teaching at the Tbilisi Conservatory, becoming a professor in 1964.
Davydova is a brilliant representative of the Soviet vocal school and has created realistic and truthful characters. Her roles include Liubava in Rimsky-Korsakov’s Sadko (State Prize of the USSR, 1950), Marfa in Mussorgsky’s Khovan-shchina (State Prize of the USSR, 1951), the title role in Bizet’s Carmen, Amneris in Verdi’s Aida, Aksin’ia in Dzer-zhinskii’s The Quiet Don, Nilovna in Zhelobinskii’s The Mother, and Grunia in Chishko’s The Battleship Potemkin. Davydova has performed abroad. A deputy to the second and third convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, she has received the State Prize of the USSR for concert performances (1946) and has been awarded two orders and various medals.
REFERENCES
Vera Aleksandrovna Davydova. Moscow, 1953.
“V. A. Davydova.” In Bol’shoi Teatr SSSR. Moscow, 1958.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. P. SOLOVYOV-SEDOI (1907-1979)
Stalin prize winning Soviet pianist and composer.
He received the following awards:
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1943) – for the songs ” Evening on the road “, “Song of vengeance”, “Play, my button accordion”
-Order of the Red Star (1945)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1947) – for the songs ” It’s time to go-road …”, ” We haven’t been at home for a long time …”, “A guy is riding a cart …”, “The nights have become bright …”
-Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1956)
-People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1957)
-Three Orders of Lenin (1957, 1971, 1975)
-Lenin Prize (1959) – for the songs “On the Road”, “Milestones”, “If only the guys of the whole earth”, “March of Nakhimov”, ” Moscow Evenings “
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1967)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1975)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Medal “For Valiant Labor. In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin”
-Medal “In memory of the 250th anniversary of Leningrad”
-Medal “Veteran of Labor”
A. P. BUBNOV (1908-1964)
“Bubnov, Aleksandr Pavlovich. Born Feb. 20 (Mar. 4), 1908, in Tbilisi; died June 30, 1964, in Moscow. Soviet artist. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1954). Corresponding member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1954). Studied at the Moscow State Higher Institute of Art and Technology (1926-30).
Bubnov was mainly a painter of everyday life and a historical painter. The work of Bubnov’s mature period is characterized by a broad pictorial manner, cheerful harmony of color, and a striving to express new and significant features of popular life in the depiction of the everyday phenomena of Soviet reality.
His works include Oktiabriny—early postrevolutionary custom, instead of a christening, at which a child was given its name (1936, Ul’ianovsk Art Museum), Morning on Kulikovo Field (1943-47; State Prize of the USSR, 1948), Evening in the Plown Field (1959-60)—both in the Tret’iakov Gallery, In the Field (1959-60; Russian Museum, Leningrad), Autumn (1961-62; T. G. Shevchenko Kazakh Art Gallery, Alma-Ata), and illustrations to the works of N. V. Gogol, T. G. Shevchenko, A. S. Pushkin, and others.
REFERENCE
Akimova, I. A. P. Bubnov. Moscow, 1956.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. I. MURADELI (1908-1970)
“Muradeli, Vano Il’ich. Born Mar. 24 (Apr. 6), 1908, in Gori; died Aug. 14, 1970, in Tomsk, buried in Moscow. Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the USSR (1968). Member of the CPSU since 1942.
In 1931, Muradeli graduated from the Tbilisi Conservatory, where he studied composition with S. V. Barkhudarian and conducting with M. M. Bagrinovskii. He completed his studies at the Moscow Conservatory under the guidance of B. S. Shekhter and, subsequently, N. Ia. Miaskovskii. Muradeli began his career as a conductor; from 1942 to 1944 he served as head and artistic director of the Central Ensemble of the USSR Navy. From 1939 to 1948 he was chairman of the USSR Music Fund, and from 1959 to 1970, chairman of the board of the Moscow Division of the Composers’ Union of the RSFSR. Muradeli was a prominent exponent of Soviet music. His best works are imbued with patriotic and civic motifs and deal with important problems of contemporary life.
Muradeli wrote the operas A Great Friendship (1947; 2nd version, 1960) and October (1962), the operettas The Blue-eyed Girl (1966) and Moscow-Paris-Moscow (1968), two symphonies (1938, 1945), and many songs, including “Hymn to Moscow,” “Hymn of the International Student Union,” “The Party Is Our Helmsman,” “The Song of the Fighters for Peace,” “Russia—My Native Land,” and “Buchenwald Tocsin.”
Muradeli received the State Prize of the USSR in 1946 and 1951. He was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and a number of medals.
REFERENCE
Sezhenskii, K. Vano Muradeli. Moscow, 1962.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
“Chulaki, Mikhail Ivanovich. Born Nov. 6 (19), 1908, in Simferopol’. Soviet composer, teacher, and figure in the music world. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1969). Member of the CPSU since 1943.
In 1939, Chulaki graduated from the Leningrad Conservatory, where he had studied composition with V. V. Shcherbachev. From 1937 to 1939 he was associated with the Leningrad Philharmonic Society, first as director and later as artistic director. He was deputy chairman of the Committee for the Arts of the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1951 and 1952 and assistant head of the Central Board for the Arts under the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 1952 to 1955.
Chulaki was with the Bolshoi Theater from 1955 to 1959 and from 1963 to 1970, first as director and later as artistic director. He began teaching at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1933, and in 1948 he accepted a teaching post at the Moscow Conservatory, where he was named a professor in 1962.
Chulaki’s finest works are the ballets The Tale of the Priest and His Worker, Blockhead (1940), based on the narrative poem by A. S. Pushkin; The False Fiancé (1946), based on the play by C. Goldoni; and Youth (1947), based on themes from N. A. Ostrovskii’s novel How the Steel Was Tempered. Other notable works are the Symphony No. 2 (1945), Symphonic Concerto (1959), and the orchestral work Songs and Dances of Old France (1959). In addition to articles on music, Chulaki has written the book Instruments of the Symphony Orchestra (1950), which has been reprinted many times.
Chulaki was a deputy to the sixth and seventh convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. He received the State Prize of the USSR in 1947, 1948, and 1950. Chulaki has been awarded three orders and various medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
E. A. KAPP (1908-1996)
Estonian Soviet composer. People’s Artist of the USSR (1956). Hero of Socialist Labor (1978). Laureate of three Stalin Prizes of the second degree (1946, 1949, 1952).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the Estonian SSR (1942)
-Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946) – for the opera The Fires of Vengeance (1945)
-Four Orders of the Red Banner of Labor (1946, 1965, 1968, 1983)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1949) – for the ballet “Kalevipoeg” (1948)
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1948, 1950, 1977)
-People’s Artist of the Estonian SSR (1950)
-Two orders of Lenin (1950, 1978)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1952) – for the opera The Singer of Freedom (1950)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1956)
-Hero of Socialist Labor (1978)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1988)
-Prize of the Estonian National Cultural Foundation (1993) – for life merit.
I. I. DZERZHINSKY (1909-1978)
“Dzerzhinskii, Ivan Ivanovich. Born Mar. 27 (Apr. 9), 1909, in Tambov. Soviet composer. Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1957). Member of the CPSU from 1942.
Dzerzhinskii studied at the Leningrad Conservatory under P. B. Riazanov and B. V. Asaf ev. He composed ten operas, most of which are based on the works of Soviet writers—for example, M. A. Sholokhov’s The Quiet Don (1935, Leningrad Malyi Opera Theater) and Virgin Soil Upturned (1937, Bolshoi Theater), P. P. Vershigora’s The Prince-lake (1947, S. M. Kirov Theater of Opera and Ballet, Leningrad), and V. N. Azhaev’s Far From Moscow (1954, Leningrad Malyi Opera Theater). Dzerzhinskii’s most popular opera, The Quiet Don, is characterized by the theme of public revolutionary outcry and the creative use of Russian folklore and popular Soviet songs. Dzerzhinskii is the author of art songs, most of which are marked by distinctive melody, sincerity, and a simplicity and clarity of intonational harmony. His program music includes the song cycles Northern Songs (lyrics by A. Churkin, 1934), First Love (lyrics by A. Fat’-ianov, 1943), The Stray Bird (lyrics by V. Livshits, 1946), The New Village (lyrics by A. Churkin, 1948; State Prize of the USSR, 1950), Native Land (lyrics by A. Fat’ianov, 1949), and The Northern Accordion (lyrics by A. Prokofiev, 1955). Dzerzhinskii also wrote musical comedies, symphonic works (including three concerti for piano with orchestra), instrumental pieces, and scores for plays and films. He has been awarded the Order of Lenin and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.
REFERENCE
Berliand, E. “Tvorchestvo I. Dzerzhinskogo.” Sovetskaia muzyka, 1948, no. 9.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by G. M. TSIPIN)
V. V. ZHELOBINSKY (1912-1946)
Valery Viktorovich Zhelobinsky. Soviet composer, pianist, teacher. Recipient of the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1939).
SVYATOSLAV RICHTER (1915-1997)
“Rikhter, Sviatoslav Teofilovich (also S. T. Richter). Born Mar. 7 (20), 1915, in Zhitomir. Soviet pianist. People’s Artist of the USSR (1961); Hero of Socialist Labor (1975).
Rikhter first studied music with his father, who was a pianist and organist. From 1933 to 1937 he was concertmaster of the Odessa Theater of Opera and Ballet. In 1934 he gave a recital in Odessa. Between 1937 and 1947 (with interruptions), he studied with G. G. Neigauz at the Moscow Conservatory. He began performing in the USSR in 1940, and since the mid-1950’s he has appeared in many countries.
Rikhter is one of the outstanding pianists of our time. His playing bears the mark of a brilliant artistic individuality; it has great substance and is permeated with an exceptional power of imagery and the unyielding quality of his creative will. It demonstrates a brilliant technique and a wealth of tonal colors. Rikhter’s repertoire encompasses almost all styles, ranging from compositions by J. S. Bach to those of Debussy, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. He also performs in ensembles.
In 1945, Rikhter won first prize at the Third All-Union Competition of Musicians in Moscow. He has been awarded the State Prize of the USSR (1950) and the Lenin Prize (1961).
REFERENCES
Mil’shtein, la. “Sviatoslav Rikhter.” Sovetskaia muzyka, 1948, no. 10.
Del’son, V. Sviatoslav Rikhter. Moscow, 1961.
Neigauz, G. Ob iskusstve fortepiannoi igry, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1967.
Rabinovich, D. Portrety pianistov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by IA. I. MIL’SHTEIN)
GEORG OTS (1920-1975)
Soviet Estonian singer of pop, opera and operetta (lyrical baritone). People’s Artist of the USSR (1960). Laureate of two Stalin Prizes (1950, 1952), State Prize of the USSR (1968) and the State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1975).
He received the following awards:
-Order of the Badge of Honor (1950)
-Stalin Prize of the second degree (1950) – for the performance of the title role in the opera performance “Eugene Onegin” by P. I. Tchaikovsky
-Stalin Prize third degree (1952) – for playing the role of Paul Runge in the film “Light in Koordi”
-Honored Artist of the Estonian SSR (1952)
-Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1956)
-People’s Artist of the Estonian SSR (1957)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1960)
-State Prize of the USSR (1968) – for concert programs 1965-1966 and 1966-1967
-Order of Lenin (1970)
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1975)
-Grand Prize “KinoWatson” (Russia, posthumously, 2008).
-International award for the development and strengthening of humanitarian ties in the countries of the Baltic region “Baltic Star” (posthumously) (Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, Union of Theater Workers of the Russian Federation, Committee on Culture of the Government of St. Petersburg, 2014)
A. A. BABADZHANIAN (1921-1983)
“Babadzhanian, Arno Arutiunovich. Born Jan. 22, 1921, in Yerevan. Soviet composer and pianist. People’s Artist of the USSR (1971). Member of the CPSU since 1956.
Babadzhanian graduated from the Yerevan Conservatory in 1947 and from K. N. Igumnov’s class at the Moscow Conservatory in 1948. His style was influenced by S. V. Rachmaninoff and A. I. Khachaturian. He composed the romantic Heroic Ballade for Piano and Orchestra in 1950, which earned him the State Prize of the USSR in 1951. His Sonata for Violin and Piano (1959), Cello Concerto (1962), Six Pictures for Piano (1965; State Prize of the Armenian SSR, 1967), and other works are distinguished by expressive musical language. Babadzhanian composes popular songs and film scores. He has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and various medals.
REFERENCES
Grigorian, A. A. Babadzhanian. Moscow, 1961
T’ashch’yan, S. S. Arhno Babajanyan. Yerevan, 1961.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
He received the following awards:
5th prize at the World Festival of Youth and Students in Prague (1947) – for three piano pieces “Prelude”, “Vagharshapat Dance” and “Tokatta”
Stalin Prize, third degree (1951) – for “Heroic Ballad” for piano and orchestra (1950)
Honored Artist of the Armenian SSR (1956)
Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1956)
People’s Artist of the Armenian SSR (1962)
State Prize of the Armenian SSR (1967)
People’s Artist of the USSR (1971)
First prize at the World Song Contest in Tokyo (1974) – for the song “Ferris Wheel”.
Order of Lenin (1981)
State Prize of the Armenian SSR (1983 – posthumously)
VELJO TORMIS (1930-2017)
Estonian Soviet composer, folklorist, musical ethnographer (collector of Finno-ugric folk art), teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1987). Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR (1974).
He received the following awards:
-Honored Artist of the Estonian SSR (1967)
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1970) – for 5 vocal cycles for the mixed choir “Estonian Calendar Songs”
-State Prize of the Estonian SSR (1972) – for the music for the film “Spring”
-State Prize of the USSR (1974) – for works for choirs “Lenin’s Words”, “The Ballad of Maaryanmaa”, “Iron Spell”
-People’s Artist of the Estonian SSR (1975)
-Order of Friendship of Peoples (1980)
-Annual Music Prize of the Estonian SSR (1980, 1986)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1987)
-Honorary Citizen of Kuusalu Municipality (1991)
-G. Ernesaks Foundation Prize (choral music) (1993)
-Estonian State Prize for Culture (1995)
-Order of the State Emblem, 3rd class (1996)
-Estonian National Cultural Endowment Award (1998) – Lifetime Achievement Award
-Knight of the coat of arms of Tallinn (2000)
-Art Prize of the Baltic Assembly (2000)
-Estonian State Prize for Culture (2002) – for lifetime achievement
-Estonian State Prize for Culture (2005) – for the production of “Estonian Ballads” (together with T. Kaljuste , P. Jalakas, A. Suzuki, E. Tarmo and R. Aus)
-Estonian Thought Award (Rahvusmõtte) from the University of Tartu (2005)
-Honorary citizen of Vigala parish (2006)
-Music Award of the Estonian Music Council (2009)
-Order of the State Emblem, 1st class (2010)
-Riho Päts School Music Foundation Prize (2010)
-Tallinn Film Festival Dark Nights Award (2015) – Lifetime Achievement Award
-Prize of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia in the field of culture (2016)
HENDRIK KRUMM (1934-1989)
Estonian Soviet opera singer (tenor), teacher. People’s Artist of the USSR (1980).
He received the following awards:
-Prize of the Estonian Theater Union (1968) – for the role of Manrico in the opera Il trovatore by G. Verdi
-Honored Artist of the Estonian SSR (1968)
-People’s Artist of the Estonian SSR (1974)
-People’s Artist of the USSR (1980)
-Prize to them. Georg Ots (1983)
-Musical Theater Award (1988)
-Order of the Badge of Honor
PAINTING (and graphic art)
I. N. NIKITIN (1690-1742)
“Nikitin, Ivan Nikitich. Born circa 1690 in Moscow; died 1742. Russian portrait painter. One of the founders of Russian secular painting.
Nikitin studied under J.-G. Tannauer (?) in St. Petersburg. He was sent by Peter I to Italy, where he studied in Venice and Florence from 1716 to 1719. Nikitin’s early portraits reveal a departure from the conventional devices of the parsuna (Russian designation of 17th-century secular portraiture) and an attempt to accurately convey the characteristic features of the sitter (Portrait of Anna Petrovna, Heir to the Throne and Portrait of Tsarevna Natal’ia Alekseevna, both before 1716, Tret’iakov Gallery).
During his mature period, the 1720’s, Nikitin succeeded in clearly bringing out the character of his sitter and faithfully rendering the texture and color of objects. His sensitive palette consisted primarily of golden brown tones. Examples of the artist’s mature works in the Russian Museum in Leningrad are the Portrait of Peter I (circular), Peter I on His Deathbed (1725), and Portrait of S. G. Stroganov (1726).
In 1732, Nikitin was arrested for libel against Feofan Prokopovich; he was exiled to Tobol’sk in 1737. Nikitin died en route from exile to Moscow.
REFERENCE
Savinov, A. N. “I. N. Nikitin.” In Russkoe iskusstvo: Ocherki o zhizni itvorchestve khudozhnikov. Moscow, 1952.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
I. K. AIVAZOVSKY (1817-1900)
“Aivazovskii, Ivan Konstantinovich (also I. K. Gaivazovskii). Born July 17 (29), 1817, in Feodosiia; died there on Apr. 19 (May 2), 1900. Russian painter, master of seascapes.
The son of an Armenian petty trader, Aivazovskii studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1833 to 1837 with M. N. Vorob’ev and the French seascape artist F. Tanner. An academician at the Academy of Arts from 1845, a professor from 1847, and an honorary member from 1887, he was also a member of many European academies. Traveling widely, he lived in Feodosiia from 1845. By the 1840’s, Aivazovskii earned worldwide fame with the heightened emotions of his paintings, evincing pathos and heroism, and with the precision and quickness of his brush. Aivazovskii’s art is distinctive in its romantic depiction of the immense and turbulent power of the sea, of fiery sunsets, of moonlight sparkling on the waves, and of courageous people struggling against the sea (The Ninth Wave, 1850, Russian Museum, Leningrad). An eyewitness of the Black Sea Fleet military maneuvers, Aivazovskii dedicated many paintings to the great exploits of Russian sailors. These include The Battle of Çeşme and The Battle of Navarino, both done in 1848 and now hanging in the Aivazovskii Feodosiia Picture Gallery. The heightened intensity of Aivazovskii’s palette was gradually superseded by a striving for unity of tone. In his best later works, such as The Black Sea (1881, Tret’iakov Gallery), which are restrained in color, Aivazovskii uses fine gradations of chiaroscuro for a more precise and realistic rendering of sea expanses and the movement of water and light. The creator of about 6,000 paintings, unequal in artistic quality, he also did drawings and watercolors.
REFERENCE
Barsamov, N. S. I. K. Aivazovskii. Moscow, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. V. VERSHCHAGIN (1842-1904)
Great democratic Russian painter.
“Vereshchagin, Vasilii Vasil’evich. Born Oct. 14 (26), 1842, in Cherepovets, Novgorod Province; died Mar. 31 (Apr. 13), 1904, in Port Arthur, when the battleship Petropavlovsk blew up. Russian artist who specialized in painting battle scenes.
Vereshchagin studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1860-63) under A. T. Markov, F. A. Moller, and A. E. Beideman, as well as in J. L. Gérôme’s studio in Paris (1864-65). He traveled a great deal around Russia, in the countries of Western Europe, and also in Syria, Palestine, India, Japan, and the USA. Vereshchagin took part in the conquest of Central Asia, in the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78), and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05). He painted his pictures, for the most part, on the basis of sketches and studies from nature, executed at the time of the events in which he himself was a participant, or during his travels. In striving to reflect as fully as possible the truth of events, Vereshchagin combined his paintings into thematic series—for example, the Turkestan Series (1871-74), the Balkan Series (1877-78 and the 1880’s), and a series on the theme of the Patriotic War of 1812 (1887-1904). The democratic tendency of his creative art brought Vereshchagin close to the peredvizhniki (“the wanderers,” a progressive art movement). In his works, for the first time in the Russian battle-scene genre, the romantic depiction of military clashes gave way to philosophically profound insights concerning war; in Vereshchagin’s treatment the battle-scene genre was transformed into the genre of battles and history. Having rejected the false heroics, conventions, and parade-ground quality of academic battle painting, Vereshchagin showed the cruel and bloody everyday routine of war and the countless sufferings borne by the people (for example, After the Failure [Conquered Men], 1868, Russian Museum, Leningrad, and After the Attack: Dressing Station Near Plevna, 1881, Tret’iakov Gallery). In order to see and truthfully record the most unvarnished picture of war, Vereshchagin went on dangerous military operations several times. Nevertheless, he did not understand the true social nature of war. Since he did not know the true methods of struggling against war, Vereshchagin at times condemned it from a pacifist viewpoint. His best works subject predatory wars to sharp criticism from the democratic point of view. It is to Vereshchagin’s enormous credit that he was the first in the history of battle-scene painting to depict soldiers as the main force of military events and to show their courage and hard work in his patriotically spirited paintings (for example, the triptych entitled All Quiet at the Shipka Pass!, 1878-79, location unknown). While he opposed wars of conquest (The Apotheosis of War, 1871-72, Tret’iakov Gallery) and unmasked feudal barbarism and religious fanaticism (The Ceremonial Triumph, 1872, also at the Tret’iakov Gallery) and colonialism (The Suppression of the Indian Uprising by the British, c. 1884), Vereshchagin did show both the courage and the moral force of the people as they fought against invaders (for example, the painting from the series on the Patriotic War of 1812 entitled Keep Away—I’ll Take Care of Him, 1887-95, Historical Museum, Moscow). Vereshchagin did a great deal of work in the field of ethnographic-genre and landscape painting (Cavalryman in Jaipur, after 1874-76, Tret’iakov Gallery; A Zirianin, 1893-94, Russian Museum; In the Mountains of Alatau, 1869-70, and The Taj Mahal Mausoleum in Agra, 1874-76—both in the Tret’iakov Gallery). In Vereshchagin’s works documentarily exact description is combined with meticulously worked-out composition, precise drawing, and a vivid graphic quality in the solution of pictorial problems. The conventional devices of academic painting, which Vereshchagin gradually outgrew during the course of his creative career, gave way to his efforts to truthfully depict objects of the world under conditions of natural light and open air.
In an attempt to propagate his antimilitaristic ideas by means of his works, Vereshchagin arranged exhibitions of his paintings in the cities of Europe and America. Vereshchagin was also active as a writer and a publicist. His creative art, which met with ardent approval from the democratic world community, was subjected to constant attacks by reactionary groups in Russia and other countries.
WORKS
Na voine v Azii i Evrope: Vospominaniia. Moscow, 1894.
Perepiska V. V. Vereshchagina i V. V. Stasova. Moscow, 1950.
REFERENCE
Lebedev, A.K. V. V. Vereshchagin. Moscow, 1958 (Contains a list of Vereshchagin’s written works, a list of his paintings located in museums of the USSR, and a detailed bibliography.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. M. DATUNOV)
ILYA REPIN (1844-1930)
“Repin, Il’ia Efimovich. Born July 24 (Aug. 8), 1844, in Chuguev, in present-day Kharkov Oblast; died Sept. 29, 1930, in Kuokkala, Finland (present-day Repino, Leningrad Oblast). Russian artist.
In late 1863, Repin, the son of a military settler, studied under R. K. Zhukovskii and I. N. Kramskoi in St. Petersburg at the Drawing School of the Society for the Promotion of the Arts. From 1864 to 1871 he attended the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. Repin studied on a stipend in Italy and France from 1873 to 1876, and in 1878 he joined the Society of Wandering Art Exhibitions (the peredvizhniki—a progressive art movement). Repin became a member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts in 1893.
During his student years, Repin became close friends with V. V. Stasov and with I. N. Kramskoi and other members of the Artists’ Artel. The Artists’ Artel greatly influenced Repin, who went on to become an ardent supporter of the aesthetics of the revolutionary democrats.
In the 1860’s, Repin worked on student academic projects. At the same time, independent from the academy, he worked on portrait paintings, genre paintings, and drawings. A number of his academic works devoted to mythological and religious themes are noted for lifelike images and expressive psychological characterizations (The Resurrection of Jairus’ Daughter, 1871, Russian Museum, Leningrad). The artist’s talent, keen powers of observation, and passionate temperament were evident even in his earliest portraits (Portrait of V. E. Repin, 1867, Tret’iakov Gallery; Portrait of R. D. Khloboshchin, 1868, Russian Museum; Portrait of V. A. Shevtsova, 1869, Russian Museum). Also evident in these early portraits was Repin’s skillful rendering of pose and gesture to achieve vivid characterization. In 1871–72, Repin produced a large group portrait, Slavic Composers (Moscow Conservatory), in which he introduced genre elements to enhance the natural grouping of the subjects.
In the early 1870’s, Repin emerged as a democratic artist, supporting the principles of narodnost’ (close ties to the people) and struggling against academic art that was removed from everyday life. Repin traveled to the Volga, where he observed the boatmen. After a lengthy period of preliminary sketching he painted The Volga Boatmen (1870–73, Russian Museum)—a profound and vivid portrayal of the boatmen’s life. The painting exposes the exploitation of the people and, at the same time, affirms their hidden strength and ripening protest. Repin conveyed the great inner beauty and the unique, individual features of his toil-weary subjects. This painting represented a new phenomenon in Russian painting. A genre work of monumental character and a generalization of modern life, it not only revealed the contradictions of reality but also recognized the positive force of society, that is, of the common people. The painting’s strong modeling and breadth of scope were also innovative.
During his years in Italy and France, Repin became acquainted with the art of Western Europe. His most important work of this period is Parisian Café (1874–75, Monson’s Collection, Stockholm), which captures the distinctive features of Parisian life and shows the keen eye of the artist. In France, Repin painted Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom (1876, Russian Museum), a work fraught with reminiscences of the artist’s homeland. More successful were Repin’s landscapes of this period, which represent an important step forward in the artist’s mastery of plein-air painting (Horse for Stone-hauling in Velay, 1874, A. N. Radishchev Art Museum, Saratov; The Road to Montmartre, 1876, Tret’iakov Gallery).
Upon his return from abroad, Repin went to Chuguev, where he hoped to find themes and images for new works by associating with the common folk. His portraits of peasants painted there are marked by striking characterization (The Peasant With the Evil Eye, 1877, Tret’iakov Gallery; The Timid Peasant, 1877, Gorky Art Museum). Portrait of an Archdeacon (1877, Tret’iakov Gallery) depicts a commanding individual full of rugged strength.
In the late 1870’s and the early 1880’s, Repin devoted himself to themes from peasant life, first in Chuguev and then in Moscow (Seeing Off the Recruit, 1879, Russian Museum; Vechornitsy[Evening Gatherings of Village Youth], 1881, Tret’iakov Gallery). Some of his sketches and paintings, such as In the District Office (1877, Russian Museum), reveal the social conflicts of post-Reform village life. These works served as preparation for a painting that would reflect Russian life of Repin’s time and that would deal with the theme of the common folk in the broadest possible way.
The painting Religious Procession in Kursk Province (1880–83, Tret’iakov Gallery) depicted post-Reform Russia, with its complex social fabric and variety of life. Repin provided sharp characterizations of the members of a large procession, which includes a woman of the landowning class, a retired soldier, a tax farmer, priests, beggars, pilgrims, and a large crowd of common people. The procession reflects a feeling of boundless elemental strength. Religious Procession in Kursk Province is an epic about the poverty and oppression of the common people and their longing for a better life. It also expresses the arrogance of the gentry and other “masters” of the village. The work is both a stinging exposé of the vileness of the existing order and a eulogy of the people—oppressed and deceived and yet great and mighty. The painting’s strictly organized composition and realistic technique reveal Repin’s mastery of his art. Conveying an atmosphere of fresh air and brilliant sunlight, Repin achieved extraordinary scenic realism.
In 1882, Repin settled in St. Petersburg. The late 1870’s and early 1880’s were the artist’s most fruitful creative period. Exhibitions of his best works, which were imbued with the ideas of the liberation of the people and the struggle against the autocratic order, were major events in the artistic and social life of Russia. In the 1880’s Repin dedicated many of his works to the revolutionary movement. Sympathizing with the revolutionaries and viewing them as heroes in the struggle for the people’s happiness, Repin created a virtual gallery of positive images, which faithfully reflected both the strengths and weaknesses of the raznochinets (educated nongentry) revolutionary-democratic movement. A major work of this period is the cycle of paintings in the Tret’iakov Gallery including the three works Refusal to Confess (1879–85), The Arrest of a Propagandist (1880–92), and The Unexpected (1884–88).
In The Unexpected, the central work of the cycle, Repin portrays the homecoming of a political exile. The central image of the painting renders the tragic fate of the revolutionary. Repin depicts a broad range of emotions in his painting of the hero being greeted by his mother, wife, and child. The compositional structure of the painting, having the clarity that is necessary for a monumental canvas, is governed by the psychological relationships between the subjects. The painting is saturated with light and air, which Repin conveyed with pure, bright colors of a harmonious palette. In depicting the heroic and elevated in the lives of ordinary people, Repin imparted to genre painting an importance that had previously belonged only to historical painting.
Repin painted his best portraits in the 1870’s and 1880’s. These works reflect the artist’s democratic beliefs, love for humanity, and deep interest in psychology. Repin’s numerous portraits and his genre paintings recorded the essential features of Russian life. The portraits reflect a keen social awareness and say much about their era. Particularly noteworthy are Repin’s portraits of V. V. Stasov (1873 and 1883), A. F. Pisemskii (1880), M. P. Mussorgsky (1881), N. I. Pirogov (1881), P. A. Strepetova (1882), A. I. Del’vig (1882), and L. N. Tolstoy (1887). (All the above-mentioned portraits are in the Tret’iakov Gallery except the later portrait of Stasov, which is in the Russian Museum.)
Repin’s skill as a draftsman was fully developed by the 1880’s. Particularly noteworthy are the artist’s portrait drawings from this period. The pencil drawings The Girl Ada (1882, Tret’iakov Gallery) and Nevsky Prospect (1887, the Russian Museum) are marked by a free technique and the rendering of life’s diversity and beauty. Between 1880 and 1910, Repin often worked as an illustrator.
Repin was a master of the historical painting. Problems arising in the present provoked his interest in the past. He was attracted to dramatic themes and to strong personalities whose fates were linked with important historical events (Tsarina Sofia, 1879, Tret’iakov Gallery). The painting Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan (1885, Tret’iakov Gallery), an expressive portrayal of the force of passions, is a denunciation of despotism. Repin’s last significant historical work was The Cossacks of Zaporozh’ye Write a Letter to the Turkish Sultan (1878–91, Russian Museum), whose hero is a freedom-loving people courageously defending their interests.
In the 1890’s, Repin experienced a creative crisis and temporarily broke with the peredvizhniki. His articles and letters led his contemporaries to believe that he had recanted the ideas of the democratic aesthetic. However, by the late 1890’s, Repin returned to his previous stance.
Except for isolated successes, Repin produced no works in his late period that were equal to those of the 1870’s and 1880’s. His best works of the 1890’s and early 1900’s are vivid portraits, usually of strong creative individuality (Portrait of Eleonora Duse, charcoal, 1891, Tret’iakov Gallery). Also noteworthy are the portrait studies for the monumental group portrait Solemn Session of the State Council (with the artists I. S. Kulikov and B. M. Kustodiev, 1901–03, Russian Museum). The studies are marked by sharp social characterizations and pictorial simplicity.
Repin’s work, profoundly national and intimately linked with the advanced ideas of his era, represents one of the pinnacles of Russian democratic art.
From 1894 to 1907, Repin taught at the Academy of Arts. He was the academy’s rector in 1898 and 1899. His pupils included I.I. Brodskii, I. E. Grabar’, D. N. Kardovskii, and B. M. Kustodiev. From 1899 until his death, Repin lived on his estate, Penaty. In 1917 the area in which Repin’s estate was located became part of Finland. (Kuokkala belonged to Finland until 1940.) While living in Finland, Repin did not break his ties with his homeland and dreamed of returning to the USSR.
Repin was buried on his estate, and a memorial museum was opened there in 1940. There is also a memorial museum in Chuguev. A monument to Repin (bronze and granite, sculptor M. G. Manizer, architect I. E. Rozhin) was unveiled in Moscow in 1958.
WORKS
Dalekoe blizkoe, 6th ed. [Moscow] 1961.
Repin, I. E., and I. N. Kramskoi. Perepiska. Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
Repin, I. E., and V. V. Stasov. Perepiska, vols. 1-3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948–50.
Repin, I. E., and L. N. Tolstoy. Perepiska, vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
REFERENCES
Repin (articles and materials), vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948–49. (Khudozhestvennoe nasledstvo….)
Fedorov-Davydov, A. A. I. E. Repin. Moscow, 1961.
Liaskovskaia, O. A. I. E. Repin, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1962.
Grabar’, I. E. I. E. Repin, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1963–64.
Novoe o Repine. [Leningrad, 1968.]
Based on materials in the article by A. A. FEDOROV-DAVYDOV and D. V. SARAB’IANOV, 2nd ed., Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. I. SURIKOV (1848-1916)
“Surikov, Vasilii Ivanovich. Born Jan. 12 (24), 1848, in Krasnoiarsk; died Mar. 6 (19), 1916, in Moscow. Russian painter of historical scenes. Member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1893).
Surikov, the son of cossacks, studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1868 to 1875 under P. P. Chistiakov. Even as a student he attempted to overcome the conventions of academicism in historical painting by introducing details of everyday life into his works, by creating a concrete historical atmosphere through the skillful rendering of architecture, and by arranging human figures in a natural manner. Notable examples of his early works include The Princely Court (1874, Tret’iakov Gallery, Moscow) and The Apostle Paul Explains the Dogmas of Faith Before King Agrippa (1875, Tret’iakov Gallery).
In 1877, Surikov settled in Moscow. He traveled extensively in the ensuing years, making several trips to Siberia and traveling to the Don (1893), the Volga (1901–03), and the Crimea (1913). He also visited Germany, France, and Austria in 1883 and 1884, as well as Switzerland (1897), Italy (1900), and Spain (1910). He joined the Society of Wandering Art Exhibitions in 1881 and was a member of the Union of Russian Artists.
Surikov was passionately interested in life in old Russia. Dealing mainly with the complex social changes in Russian history, he strove to find answers to the troubling questions of contemporary life by looking into the past. Surikov produced his most significant works in the 1880’s: The Morning of the Strel’tsy Execution (1881), Menshikov in Berezovo (1883), and The Boiarynia Morozova (1887), all of which are housed in the Tret’iakov Gallery. With the depth and objectivity of a discerning historian, he revealed the tragic contradictions of history, the logic of historical progression, the tribulations that tempered the Russian people’s character, and the struggle of historical forces in Russia’s past, especially in Petrine times, during the 17th-century religious schism, and during the years of the peasant movements.
The principal role in Surikov’s works is played by the struggling, suffering, and triumphant common people. Surikov’s arrangement of infinitely varied, vivid social types on canvas created a composition of genuine symphonic harmony. Depicting the rebellious forces that seethed in the people, he was fascinated by the strong men and women of Russia’s stormy history. The best known of these are the red-bearded strelets in The Morning of the Strel’tsy Execution, who is filled with fierce resolution and an unbreakable spirit of resistance, and the boiarynia Morozova, imbued with religious fervor and fanatical conviction. Surikov also masterfully conveyed the squares and streets of old Moscow and their crowds and expressed deep love for the ideal beauty of folk art in his depictions of clothing, utensils, embroideries, murals, and wood carvings.
Surikov’s monumental paintings feature innovative modes of composition, in which the movement of a crowd, gripped by a complex range of emotions, expresses the profound inner meaning of an event. Surikov attained remarkable harmony with the pure, rich colors of his plein air paintings. The color scheme, the rhythm of areas of color, and the texture and direction in which the paint was applied all serve to intensify psychological characterizations, while the colors themselves at times attain an almost symbolic meaning.
After the death of his wife in 1888, Surikov became severely depressed and abandoned painting. However, after overcoming his despondency following a trip to Siberia in 1889 and 1890, he painted The Taking of the Snow-town (1891, Russian Museum, Leningrad), which captures the boldness, vigorous health, and high spirits of the Russian people.
In his historical paintings of the 1890’s, Surikov turned to new themes, portraying the people as an integral force free of tragic internal disunity, achieving heroic deeds for the glory of the homeland. In The Conquest of Siberia by Ermak (1895, Russian Museum), Surikov’s concept of “two forces meeting” is revealed in the bold spirit of the cossack army and the unique beauty of the physical types, dress, and ornaments of the Siberian tribes. Suvorov Crossing the Alps (1899, Russian Museum) glorifies the courage of Russian soldiers.
The vitality, passion for life, and inner strength of the Russian people are characteristic of Surikov’s historical paintings of the 1890’s. These traits are clearly expressed in his portraits of the same period, for example, Siberian Beauty, a portrait of E. A. Rachkovskaia (1891, Tret’iakov Gallery). In the reactionary years, Surikov remained true to democratic traditions and in 1909 and 1910 worked on Stepan Razin (begun 1903, Russian Museum). He also often worked in watercolor, primarily executing landscapes. Surikov’s patriotic, truthful paintings, which were the first to powerfully depict the people as a moving historical force, marked a new stage in the history of world art. The Moscow Art Institute has been named in honor of Surikov. Krasnoiarsk has a house-museum in his honor, as well as a monument to him (bronze and granite, 1954, sculptor L. Iu. Eidlin and architect V. D. Kirkhoglani).
REFERENCES
V. I. Surikov. Moscow, 1960. [Album. Introductory article by N. G. Mashkovtsev.]
V. I. Surikov. Moscow, 1963. [Album. Introductory article by D. Sarab’ianov.]
Kemenov, V. S. Istoricheskaia zhivopis’ Surikova, 1870–1880-e gg. Moscow, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
I. I. LEVITAN (1860-1900)
“Levitan, Isaak Il’ich. Born Aug. 18 (30), 1860, in Kybartai, in present-day Vilkaviskis Raion, Lithuanian SSR; died July 22 (Aug. 4), 1900, in Moscow. Russian landscape painter. Son of a minor railroad official.
In the early 1870’s, Levitan settled in Moscow. From 1873 to 1885 he studied under A. K. Savrasov and V. D. Polenov at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. In 1884 he first exhibited his works with the Society of Wandering Art Exhibitions (the peredvizhniki —a progressive art movement); he became a member of the peredvizhniki in 1891. Levitan joined the Munich Secession in 1897. Between 1898 and 1900 he took part in the exhibitions held by the journal Mir iskusstva (World of Art). In 1898, Levitan became a teacher at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, where his pupils included P. I. Petrovichev and N. N. Sapunov. He painted in the Crimea (1886 and 1899), in the Volga Region (1887–90), in Finland (1896), and in Italy, France, and Switzerland (1890, 1894, 1897, and 1898).
Levitan’s careful study of nature and idealization of the commonplace reflect the influence of Savrasov. His works combine elements from the plein air painting of Polenov and the masters of the Barbizon school. In the early 1880’s, Levitan gradually replaced the detailed, narrative treatment of motifs and the limited, at times gloomy palette of his early works with broader brushwork, the depiction of the subtle states of nature and the atmosphere, and the emotional unity of forms (An Autumn Day: Sokol’niki, 1879). The series of studies executed by Levitan during this period demonstrate the artist’s transition to a palette consisting of subtle gradations of tone (The Footbridge: Savvinskaia sloboda, 1884, study).
Having enriched his palette while working in the Crimea, Levitan discovered the grandeur of the vast Volga landscape— a subject which became one of his principal themes (Evening on the Volga, 1888). In his works of the late 1880’s he achieved clarity and balance of composition and precision of spatial designs that are inextricably connected by balanced color scheme (Evening: Golden Ples and After the Rain: Ples, both 1889). Levitan painted “mood” landscapes, in which depictions of nature serve as reflections of the spiritual states of man. Nature is poetically transformed and spiritualized by man’s invisible presence. An image of nature is conveyed to the viewer, along with a wide range of universally understood associations and experiences that are either disturbing or lyrically intimate.
Levitan gradually became more interested in painting landscapes that embodied the intrinsic and characteristic features of Russia’s natural scenery than those depicting a specific place. Filled with traditional folk concepts, these works reflect thoughts, feelings, and moods understood by the artist’s contemporaries. In intonation they particularly resemble the lyrical prose of A. Chekhov (Vesper Chimes and By the Still Waters, both 1892).
The theme of the road and its beckoning power, which subsequently became one of Levitan’s central themes, first appeared in the work Vladimirka (1892). In this painting, Levitan expressed his social philosophy by depicting the road tramped by those exiled to Siberia for hard labor. Many of Levitan’s paintings from the 1880’s and 1890’s, with their suffusion of light, transparency of pure colors, and internal dynamics, are to some degree reminiscent of impressionism (The Birch Grove, 1885–89; March, 1895). In the artist’s large compositions these qualities serve as a means of achieving a cheerful clarity of color, which is combined with a precise delineation of form (Fresh Wind: The Volga, 1891–95; Golden Autumn, 1895).
In the 1890’s, Levitan’s painting, in keeping with the common stylistic experiments of Russian artists of that time, was marked by a tendency toward greater generalization and by a two-dimensional, decorative, sharply outlined resolution of composition. The artist also tended to dramatize his landscape (Above Eternal Peace, 1894; Dusk: The Haystacks, 1899; Summer Evening, 1900 —all in the Tret’iakov Gallery).
The unfinished painting The Lake: Rus’ (1900, Russian Museum, Leningrad), an epic and monumental symbol of the homeland, reflects the artist’s striving for a synthesis of imagery and style during his last years. Levitan’s art marked an epoch in the development of Russian landscape painting and greatly influenced the next generation of landscape painters.
REFERENCES
I. I. Levitan: Pis’ma, dokumenty, vospominaniia, Moscow, 1956.
Isaak Il’ich Levitan: Katalog vystavki…. Moscow, 1960.
Fedorov-Davydov, A. A. Isaak Il’ich Levitan: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. A. KALMYKOV)
ARKADY RYLOV (1870-1939)
Arkady Alexandrovich Rylov. Well known symbolist who painted some Socialist Realist works too.
I. E. GRABAR’ (1871-1960)
“Grabar’, Igor’ Emmanuilovich. Born Mar. 25. 1871, in Budapest; died May 16, 1960, in Moscow. Soviet painter and art historian; People’s Artist of the USSR (1956). Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1943) and the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1947).
Grabar’ studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1894 to 1896 with V. E. Savinskii, N. A. Bruni, and I.E. Repin, and in Munich at the A. Azhbe School (1896–98; after it was reorganized into the school of A. Azhbe and Grabar’ in 1898, he taught there). He made many journeys to the countries of Western Europe and visited the USA, Egypt, and Turkey. He worked in St. Petersburg beginning in 1889 and in Moscow beginning in 1903. He was a member of the World of Art group and the Union of Russian Artists. His early works showed the influence of art nouveau (for example, Lady With the Dog, 1899, in the Tret’iakov Gallery). From 1901 to 1908, I. Grabar’ painted cheerful, sundrenched landscapes, distinguished by their unusually emotional response to Russian nature, and his painting style gradually developed out of a creative assimilation of the principles of impressionism (September Snow, 1903; White Winter: Rooks’ Nests, 1904; Blue Skies in February, 1904; and March Snow, 1904, all in the Tret’iakov Gallery). During the same period. Grabar’ painted a number of still lifes. Seeking to convey in them the infinite diversity and changeable play of the light along with the beauty and poetry of man’s material environment, Grabar’ painted with thick, impasto brush strokes, using a method similar to that of neo-impressionism (The Chrysanthemums, 1905. and The Uncleared Table, 1907. both in the Tret’iakov Gallery). Beginning in 1906, the decorative principle was intensified in his landscapes (a series of studies entitled Frosty Days, 1906, in the Yaroslavl-Rostov Historical-Architectural Repository and Museum of Art). In 1905 and 1906 he participated in the publication of the revolutionary satirical magazines Zhupel (Bugbear) and Adskaia pochta (The Devil’s Post). Between 1909 and 1914 a hospital (the present-day Zakhar’ino Sanatorium) designed by Grabar’ was constructed outside of Moscow. In 1890, Grabar’ began writing articles on art criticism (from 1899, in the magazine Mir iskusstva).
On the initiative and under the guidance of Grabar’, the first scholarly History of Russian Art was published (vols. 1–6. 1909–16). Grabar’ was the editor and the author of the most important articles. He played an important role in disseminating scholarly principles of art criticism in Russia (which attained their apogee during the Soviet period) and organizing a complex method for studying the history of art in the context of the total development of national culture and social thought. In the prerevolutionary period Grabar’ did research on the works of Russian artists that culminated in a number of monographs. From 1913 to 1925 he was in charge of the Tret’iakov Gallery, which he reorganized on scientific principles in 1914–15, publishing a catalog in 1917. After the Great October Socialist Revolution, Grabar’ became one of the organizers and curators of monuments of art and antiquity, a founder of Soviet museum science and restoration, and the initiator of Central Restoration Studios (director 1918–30, and scientific instructor from 1944). His activities as a restorer and scholar led to the discovery and study of many works of ancient Russian art from the 11th to 14th centuries (mainly icons and large-scale wall paintings on monuments) and laid the basis of his scientific historical works. In his landscape painting of the Soviet period, the spontaneity ana emotionality of impressionism was supplanted by the desire to create a generalized and finished image of the nature of his homeland (A Clear Autumn Evening, 1923, and A Sunny Winter Day, 1941, both in the Tret’iakov Gallery). After the 1920’s, Grabar’ painted portraits of Soviet cultural figures (portraits of N. D. Zelinskii, 1932. and of S. S. Prokofiev at work on the opera War and Peace, 1941, both in the Tret’iakov Gallery; of M. V. Morozov, Γ934, in the Kursk Picture Gallery; and of S. A. Chaplygin, 1935, in the Abramtsevo Estate Museum). He also painted pictures on historical and revolutionary subjects: V. I. Lenin by the Direct Line (1933) and Peasant Petitioners Received by V. I. Lenin (1938; both in the V. 1. Lenin Central Museum. Moscow). During the Soviet period. Grabar’ published a number of monographs and articles on Russian art. He was the editor and one of the authors of a History of Russian Art (vols. 1–13, 1953–69). He was director of the Art History Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (from 1944). He taught at Moscow University (a professor from 1921), the Moscow Art Institute (director from 1937 to 1943), and the Institute of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture of the All-Russian Academy of Arts (director from 1943 to 1946). He was a recipient of the State Prize of the USSR in 1941, and was also awarded two Orders of Lenin, two other orders, and medals.
WORKS
I.I. Levitan: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1913. (In cooperation with S. Glagol’.)
Repin, vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1937.
Moia zhizn’: Avtomonografiia. Moscow-Leningrad, 1937.
V. A. Serov. Moscow, 1965.
O drevnerusskom iskusstve. Moscow, 1966.
O russkoi arkhitekture. Moscow. 1969.
REFERENCE
Podobedova, O. I. I. E. Grabar’. Moscow [1964]. (Contains a complete list of I. E. Grabar’s works.)” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by V. M. PETIUSHENKO)
V. A. KUZNETSOV (1874-1960)
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kuznetsov Russian and Soviet artist, Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1953). Member of the Academy of Artists of the Russian Federation, member of the Union of Artists of the USSR.
P. V. KUZNETSOV (1878-1968)
“Kuznetsov, Pavel Varfolomeevich. Born Nov. 5 (17), 1878, in Saratov; died Feb. 21, 1968, in Moscow. Soviet painter. Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1928).
From 1897 to 1903, Kuznetsov studied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture under K. A. Korovin and V. A. Serov. One of the organizers of the Blue Rose exhibition in 1907, he was also a member of the World of Art (Mir iskusstva) and the Four Arts associations. Between 1917 and 1937 and between 1945 and 1948 , Kuznetsov taught at Vkhutemas-Vkhutein (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios-Higher Art and Technical Institute), the Moscow Institute of Fine Arts, and other institutes.
Strongly influenced in the first years of the 20th century by V. E. Borisov-Musatov, Kuznetsov was interested in the motifs of dreams and visions. In the mixture of reality and fantasy, in flat and linear rhythms, and in a shimmering palette, he strove to find a pictorial analogy to literary and musical symbolism (The Blue Fountain, tempera, 1905, Tret’iakov Gallery). Kuznetsov made a number of trips to the Trans-Volga Region and Middle Asia in the late teens and early twenties of this century, hoping to discover in the primitive nomadic life the age-old integrity of life and the harmony between man and nature. Afterward he created his Steppe or Kirghiz series, which included the paintings Mirage in the Steppe and Evening in the Steppe (both in tempera, 1912, Tret’iakov Gallery). These paintings are imbued with a contemplative tranquillity and are brightly illuminated; decorative generalization is combined with subtle gradations of tone.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s, Kuznetsov continued his search for decorative and monumental forms. In his easel paintings he used techniques of mural painting; the works The Shepherds’ Rest (1927, Russian Museum, Leningrad) and Mother (1930, Tret’iakov Gallery) were both executed al secco. Kuznetsov’s works of these years were often devoted to the transformed life of the Soviet East. While preserving the poetic system of images, Kuznetsov imparted to his compositions a greater dynamic quality and specificity in terms of space and time and endowed the human figures with vital immediacy (for example, Sorting Cotton, 1931, Tret’iakov Gallery). Kuznetsov painted numerous landscapes of the Crimea, Armenia, the Moscow region, and the coast near Riga. He also executed still lifes and portraits. In addition to his work in the areas of monumental painting and set design, he was a graphic artist (for example, the series of lithographs Hilly Bukhara and Turkestan, both 1923).
REFERENCES
Romm, A. G. P. V. Kuznetsov. Moscow, 1960.
[Alpatov, M. V.] P. V. Kuznetsov. Moscow [1972].” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by D. V. SARAB’IANOV)
A. M. GERASIMOV (1881-1963)
Aleksandr Mikhailovich Gerasimov. A leading Soviet painter. Stalin Prize winner (1941).
A. A. EXTER (1882-1949)
Soviet Russian and French avant-garde artist of Jewish origin. Worked in the styles of cubo-futurism and suprematism In addition to painting, she was engaged in graphics, design, and was a theater artist. One of the founders of the Art Deco style.
I. I. BRODSKY (1883-1939)
Soviet socialist realist painter, taught by Ilya Repin. Order of Lenin recipient, Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR (1932).
V. E. TATLIN (1885-1953)
Russian and Soviet painter, graphic artist, theater designer and artist. One of the leading representatives of the Russian avant-garde, the founder of constructivism.
“Tatlin, Vladimir Evgrafovich. Born Dec. 16 (28), 1885, in Moscow; died there May 31, 1953. Soviet painter, graphic artist, and stage designer.
Tatlin studied under V. A. Serov and K. A. Korovin at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture in 1902–03 and 1909–10 and attended the Penza Art School from 1904 to 1909. From 1918 to 1921 he taught at the Moscow Vkhutemas (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios) and from 1927 to 1930 at the Moscow Vkhutein (State Higher Arts and Technical Institute). He taught at the Petrograd Academy of Arts from 1921 to 1925 and at the Kiev Art Institute from 1925 to 1927.
Denying realistic representation in art, Tatlin originally worked in the styles of cubism and futurism, as seen in The Model (1913, Tret’iakov Gallery, Moscow). In Soviet times, however, he tended more toward constructivism. He designed structures of glass, metal, and wood in the 1920’s and abandoned his experimentation with formal art, which had led him only to the blind alley of abstract art. He designed consumer goods for mass production and participated in the production arts movement. Tatlin helped introduce modern design in the USSR, creating plans for the ornithopter Letatlin (“Flying Tatlin,” 1930–31, Museum of the History of Aviation, Moscow), as well as furniture, ceramic ware, and clothing. He also designed a monument to the Third International (tower of iron, glass, wood; not preserved). He designed more than 80 theatrical productions, including Ostrovskii’s Comedian of the 17th Century (1935, Second Moscow Academic Art Theater) and A. A. Kron’s Distant Reconnaissance (1943, Moscow Academic Art Theater).” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
S. V. GERASIMOV (1885-1964)
Sergey Vasilyevich Gerasimov. Soviet painter.
GEORGY SAVITSKY (1887-1949)
One of the founders and ideologists of the revolutionary Russian Artists Association (AHRR), and a member of the Society of realist artists. At the end of the 1930s Savitsky worked on dioramas and panoramas (“Storm of Perekop”, 1934-38), battle scenes, and large panels for pavilions of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition.
During the Great Patriotic War (1941-1942) the artist took an active part in the production of short-run stencil posters “TASS Windows”, and was a member of the editorial board. Georgy Savitsky became the winner of the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1942) for political posters and caricatures in “Windows of TASS”. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1942), Member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1949). He taught at the Moscow Art Institute (1947-1949).
Russian and Soviet painter, sculptor and theater artist, Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1968), portrait master.
A. M. RODCHENKO (1891-1956)
“Rodchenko, Aleksandr Mikhailovich. Born Nov. 23 (Dec. 5), 1891, in St. Petersburg; died Dec. 3, 1956, in Moscow. Soviet designer, graphic artist, photographer, and theatrical and motion-picture set designer.
Rodchenko studied at the Kazan School of Art from 1910 to 1914. In the late 1910’s he exhibited his abstract compositions. He soon abandoned painting entirely and turned to production art. Rodchenko was one of the organizers of Inkhuk (Institute of Artistic Culture). From 1920 to 1930 he taught at the Moscow Vkhutemas (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios) and the Moscow Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute) as a professor of the department of woodworking and metalwork-ing; he developed special training programs for designers. As a theoretician, Rodchenko shared the contradictory goals of constructivism; he had been one of the founders of this movement in 1921. He subsequently supported LEF and actively collaborated on the journals LEF (1923–25) and Novyi LEF (1927–28). He supported the October group and was its member from 1928 to 1932.
Rodchenko’s practical art was much more fruitful and versatile. During the 1920’s his designs were applied to the newly emerging public facilities centers; his choice of materials and expressive devices were based on the principle of economy. He designed the workers’ club and its furnishings, which were exhibited at the Exposition des Arts Décoratifs in Paris in 1925. From 1923, Rodchenko worked a great deal in book and journal graphic art. In addition to the publications of LEF, he designed other journals, including Zhurnalist and SSSR na stroike. He was one of the first to utilize photomontage, which he did in V. V. Mayakovsky’s About This, published in 1923. Rodchenko designed 12 more of Mayakovsky’s books. Like Mayakovsky, Rodchenko was among the first masters of Soviet advertisement.
The distinguishing characteristics of Rodchenko’s graphic art were a clarity of concept and execution, vivid coloration, and an extreme laconism of images. The juxtaposition of lettering and images was also effective and creatively precise. Examples of his work are posters with texts by Mayakovsky and the posters for the motion pictures Cine Eye by Dziga Vertov (1924) and Battleship Potemkin by S. M. Eisenstein. During the 1920’s, Rodchenko frequently worked in the theater and motion pictures; he designed, for example, the furniture and costumes for the production of Mayakovsky’s play The Bedbug at the V. E. Meierkhol’d Theater in Moscow in 1929.
During the 1930’s, Rodchenko worked primarily as a photographer and book designer. His numerous photographic works combine an austere documentary quality and a tactile depiction with a compositional expressiveness and chiaroscuro resolution. Many of his works were done in collaboration with his wife, V. F. Stepanova (1894–1958). During the 1940’s and 1950’s, Rodchenko was a news photographer and an artist for the Museum of the Revolution of the USSR and the House of Technology in Moscow.
REFERENCES
Abramova, A. “A. M. Rodchenko.” Iskusstvo, 1966, no. 11.
Volkov-Lannit, L. Aleksandr Rodchenko risuet, fotografiruet, sporit. [Moscow, 1968.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by R. O. ANTONOV)
S. V. RYANGINA (1891-1959)
Serafima Vasilyevna Ryangina, Soviet painter. Trained under Dmitry Kardovsky. Member of the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR) since 1924. Ryangina’s famous “Higher and Higher” (1934) received contemporary criticism from Izvestiya for making Socialist Construction seem too easy, like a picnic.
P. D. KORIN (1892-1967)
“Korin, Pavel Dmitrievich. Born June 25 (July 7), 1892, in Palekh; died Nov. 22, 1967, in Moscow. Soviet painter. People’s Artist of the USSR (1962). Became a member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR in 1958.
Korin, the son of a peasant icon painter, studied under K. A. Korovin and S. V. Maliutin at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture from 1912 to 1916. His long friend-ship with M. V. Nesterov and A. M. Gorky greatly influenced his creative development. Korin headed the restoration workshop of the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts from 1932 to 1959. In collaboration with his brother A. D. Korin (born 1895) and others, he restored paintings in the Dresden Picture Gallery. Korin’s own works are characterized by the spirituality and boldness of images, the orderliness and clarity of design, the integrity of plastic forms, and the intense saturation of color.
From the late 1920’s to 1940, Korin worked on the canvas The Rus’ Left Behind (including the studies Skhimnitsa, 1930, and Father and Son, 1931—both in the Tret’iakov Gallery), in which he endeavored to create a figurative epic of the old Russia that was becoming part of the past. In the landscape painting My Country (1928, 1947, Tret’iakov Gallery), Korin created a lyrical image of his native countryside.
Beginning in the late 1930’s, Korin was principally interested in depicting his contemporaries—representatives of the Soviet artistic intelligentsia. He imparted to his portraits images of purposeful people, full of intellectual tension. These qualities are reflected in his portraits of L. M. Leonidov (1939), M. V. Nesterov (1939), and N. F. Gamaleia (1941), which are all in the Tret’iakov Gallery. In 1963, Korin was awarded the Lenin Prize for his portraits of M. S. Sar’ian (1956), R. N. Simonov (1956), the Kukryniksy (1958), and R. Guttuso (1961); these portraits are also in the Tret’iakov Gallery.
From 1941 to 1945 and during the postwar period, Korin executed works that were filled with the fervor of the war years and with the invincible spirit of the Russian people. These works include the triptych Alexander Nevsky (1942—43, Tret’iakov Gallery) and a series of portraits of Soviet military leaders. Korin’s principal monumental works, which were created in the 1950’s, include the mosaic plafonds in the KomsomoPskaia-koPtsevaia subway station (1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952), the stained glass in the Novoslobodskaia subway station (1951), and the mosaic in the new Smolenskaia subway station (1953) in Moscow. He also designed a mosaic for Moscow State University (1952).
REFERENCES
[Zotov, A.] Pavel Korin. . . . [Album.] Moscow, 1961.
Mikhailov, A. Pavel Korin. [Moscow, 1965.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
VIKTOR DENI (1893-1946)
Soviet graphic artist, cartoonist, one of the founders of the Soviet political poster. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1932).
A. A. PLASTOV (1893-1972)
Arkady Alexandrovich Plastov. Stalin Prize winner (1946).
B. V. IOGANSON (1893-1973)
“Ioganson, Boris Vladimirovich. Born July 13 (25), 1893, in Moscow; died there Feb. 25, 1973. Soviet painter. People’s Artist of the USSR (1943); member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1947). Hero of Socialist Labor (1968). Member of the CPSU from 1943.
Ioganson studied under N. A. Kasatkin, S. V. Maliutin, and K. A. Korovin at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture from 1912 to 1918. He was a member of the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR) from 1922 to 1931. He taught at the Leningrad I. E. Repin Institute of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture from 1937 to 1961, becoming a professor there in 1939. He began teaching at the Moscow V. I. Surikov Arts Institute in 1964. Ioganson was the vice-president of the Academy of Arts of the USSR from 1953 to 1958 and was its president from 1958 to 1962. He was the first secretary of the board of the Union of Artists of the USSR from 1965 to 1968. He became the editor in chief of the encyclopedia Art of the Countries and Peoples of the World in 1962.
Ioganson develops the traditions of Russian realist painting of the second half of the 19th century in his work. His genre paintings of the late 1920’s are characterized by clear composition and vivid colors. They are distinguished by the detailed narration and the concrete social characterization of figures typical of the paintings of the members of the AKhRR. Ioganson’s paintings, such as A Soviet Court (Tret’iakov Gallery, 1928) and The Workers’ Faculty Is on the Go (also known as The Students, Kiev Museum of Russian Art, 1928), convey the everyday lives and work of the Soviet people and aspects of the new Soviet life.
In the 1930’s, Ioganson turned to revolutionary and historical themes. These themes appear in the paintings The Interrogation of Communists (Tret’iakov Gallery, 1933) and At the Old Urals Factory (also known as Demidov’s Urals, Tret’iakov Gallery, 1937; State Prize of the USSR, 1941). By personifying opposing class forces engaged in dramatic conflict, Ioganson strives for genuine historicism of content and for the embodiment of the heroic enthusiasm of the revolutionary struggle in these pictures. His carefully worked-out compositions are based on the juxtaposition of figures belonging to opposing sides. His emotional, painterly brushwork is marked by a wealth of color hues and by coloristic unity. Both composition and brushwork are subordinated to the task of the psychological characterization of valiant Communists.
In 1950, Ioganson and two collaborators painted V. I. Lenin Addresses the Third Komsomol Congress (Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1951). Ioganson was a delegate at the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Congresses of the CPSU. He was awarded three Orders of Lenin, the Badge of Honor, and various medals.
WORKS
Za masterstvo v zhivopisi: Sb. Moscow, 1952.
REFERENCES
B. V. Ioganson. Moscow, 1969. (Exhibit catalogue.) [Sokolova, N.]B. V. Ioganson.[Leningrad, 1969.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. I. KUZNETSOV (1894-1975)
Alexander Ivanovich Kuznetsov senior artist in the Technical Committee of the Main Quartermaster Directorate of the Red Army, designer of many Soviet military insignia and medals.
A. A. DEYNEKA (1899-1969)
“Deineka, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. Born May 8 (20), 1899, in Kursk; died June 12, 1969, in Moscow. Soviet painter. People’s Artist of the USSR (1963). Member of the Academy of Arts from 1947; vice-president of the Academy of Arts from 1962 to 1966. Hero of Socialist Labor (1969). Member of the CPSU from 1960.
Deineka studied at the Moscow State Higher Arts and Technical Studios from 1920 to 1925 under V. A. Favorskii and I. I. Nivinskii. He was a member and founder of the Society of Painters. During the early period of his career (1920’s) he worked primarily as a graphic artist for magazines. Even then the themes and images that are typical of Deineka’s work as a whole began to take shape in his painting and drawing. Turning to the motifs of industrial labor, engineering, urban life, and sports, he sought to express the attitude of the new Soviet man. Deineka’s almost monochromatic works of the 1920’s are distinguished by expressive monumental forms, dynamic composition based on the contrast of planes, volumes, and different spatial schemes, and a graphically clear style of painting. His generalized images of workers subject to the rhythm of labor—sometimes solemn and strained, sometimes violent—as well as the engineering logic of the openwork designs and the artist’s own techniques personify a new era in the life of the country. During this period Deineka created his best work on a historical revolutionary theme, the painting The Defense of Petrograd (1928, Central Museum of the Armed Forces of the USSR, Moscow), which expresses the stern heroism of the Civil War of 1918–20.
Lyric motifs often appear in Deineka’s work of the 1930’s (Mother, 1932, Tret’iakov Gallery). The subjects, the dynamic rhythm, and the pictorial resolution of his works of this period, which are filled with sun and light, communicate the enthusiasm of the first five-year plans and an awareness of the joy of life and the constructive labor of the Soviet people. Deineka’s works on the theme of sports acquire great social specificity by personifying the strength and physical and spiritual health of Soviet society and Soviet man (Donbas: Lunch Break, 1935, Art Museum of the Latvian SSR, Riga; Future Pilots, 1938, Tret’iakov Gallery). His works based on impressions of a tour of the USA, France, and Italy during 1934–35 are outstanding for keen observations and social characterizations (A Street in Rome, 1935, Tret’iakov Gallery).
During the Great Patriotic War Deineka created a picture imbued with heroic enthusiasm (The Defense of Sevastopol’, 1942, Russian Museum, Leningrad), as well as stern, dramatic landscapes (The Outskirts of Moscow, November 1941, 1941, Tret’iakov Gallery). In the postwar period he turned again to the themes and images that he had emphasized in the 1920’s and 1930’s (By the Sea, 1956–57, Russian Museum). Deineka’s monumental painting is closely related to his other paintings in its themes and graphic structure. Among his monumental paintings are a panel and murals in the Central Theater of the Soviet Army (1940) and at the Exhibition of the Achievements of the People’s Agriculture (1957), mosaics on the ceilings of the Mayakovsky (1938–39) and Novokuznetskaia (1943) subway stations in Moscow, the mosaic frieze in the foyer of the Palace of Congresses in the Moscow Kremlin (1960–61), and the mosaics A Fine Morning and The Hockey Players (1959–1960) and Red Guard and The Milkmaid (1962), for which he received the Lenin Prize in 1964. Deineka created many graphics (two series, both done in watercolor gouache: Sevastopol’, 1932–34, Tret’iakov Gallery and Russian Museum; and Moscow in Wartime, 1946, Tret’iakov Gallery). He executed posters (Physical Culture, 1933) and illustrations and created works of sculpture.
After 1940, Deineka taught as a professor at a number of schools, including the Moscow State Higher Institute of Art and Technology (1928–30), the Moscow Polygraphic Institute (1928–34), the V. I. Surikov Moscow Art Institute (1934–46 and 1957–63), the Moscow Institute of Applied and Decorative Art (1945–52; director, 1945–48), and the Moscow Architectural Institute (1953–57). Deineka has been awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
WORKS
Iz moei rabochei praktiki. Moscow, 1961.
Uchites’ risovat’. [Compiled with K. A. Aleksandrov, L. V. Gudskov, et al.] Moscow, 1961.
REFERENCES
Matsa, I. L. A. Deineka. Moscow, 1959.
A. A. Deineka. [Katalog vystavki]. Moscow, 1969.
Kopečný, D. A. Dejneka. Prague, 1961.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. N. IABLONSKAIA)
V. P. YEFANOV (1900-1978)
Vasily Prokofiyevich Yefanov. Stalin Prize winner (1950).
P. V. WILLIAMS (1902-1947)
Pyotr Vladimirovich Williams, Soviet painter, graphic artist, set designer and theater designer. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1944). Winner of three Stalin Prizes of the first degree (1943, 1946, 1947). Recipient of the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and Medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”.
Y. PIMENOV (1903-1977)
Yuri Pimenov. Great artist of Stalin era. In the revisionist period became increasingly less political.
F. P. RESHENITKOV (1906-1988)
Fyodor Pavlovich Reshetnikov. Stalin Prize winner (1949, 1951).
TARAS GAPONENKO (1906-1993)
Taras Guryevich Gaponenko. Stalin Prize, People’s Artist of the USSR, People’s Painter of the RSFSR, Honored art worker of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Order of Friendship of Peoples
P. T. MALTSEV (1907-1993)
“Mal’tsev, Petr Tarasovich. Born Dec. 4 (17), 1907, in Mariupol’, now Zhdanov. Soviet painter. People’s Artist of the USSR (1974).
Mal’tsev studied at Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute) from 1924 to 1930. Known for his paintings and dioramas on military-historical subjects, he is the leading master of the M. B. Grekov Studio of War Artists. His works include Guard Ships on Expedition (1947, Donetsk Art Museum), The Exploit of Red Navy Sailor Ivan Golubets (1946, Central Naval Museum, Leningrad), The Assault on Sapun Hill (1958, Central Museum of the Armed Forces, Moscow), and the diorama Suvorov’s Alpine Campaign (1952, Suvorov Museum, Leningrad).
Mal’tsev has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and various medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. I. LAKTIONOV (1910-1972)
“Laktionov, Aleksandr Ivanovich. Born May 16 (29), 1910, in Rostov-on-Don; died Mar. 3, 1972, in Moscow. Soviet painter and graphic artist. People’s Artist of the RSFSR (1969); member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1958).
Laktionov studied under I. I. Brodskii at the Academy of Arts in Leningrad from 1932 to 1938. He taught at the Institute of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture in Leningrad from 1936 to 1944 and at the Moscow Correspondence Pedagogical Institute from 1967 to 1970. He became a professor at the latter institute in 1968. Laktionov primarily executed genre paintings and portraits. His painting Letter From the Front (1947, Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1948) is particularly well known. In this work the artist conveys the experiences of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45.
Laktionov was noted for his mastery and precision in drawing. He had the rare ability to convey accurately and concisely the appearance of the real world. However, in a number of works, this facility prevented him from penetrating the essence of what he portrayed. His works include Portrait of V. I. Kachalov (charcoal, 1940, Tret’iakov Gallery), Self portrait (1945, Tret’iakov Gallery), Portrait of Cosmonaut V. M. Komarov (1967, Tret’iakov Gallery), Moving Into a New Apartment (1952, Donets Art Museum), and Secure Old Age (1958–60). A recipient of the I. E. Repin State Prize of the RSFSR in 1971, Laktionov was also awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and several medals.
REFERENCES
Iagodovskaia, A. “Chto vidit khudozhnik.” Tvorchestvo, 1958, no. 3. Osipov, D. M. A. Laktionov. [Moscow, 1968.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
B. I. PROROKOV (1911-1972)
“Prorokov, Boris Ivanovich. Born Apr. 26 (May 9), 1911, in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, present-day Ivanovo; died Sept. 19, 1972, in Moscow. Soviet graphic artist. People’s Artist of the USSR (1971); corresponding member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1954). Became a member of the CPSU in 1945.
From 1929 to 1931, Prorokov studied under D. S. Moor and P. Ia. Pavlinov at the Moscow Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute). He worked for the newspaper Komsomol’skaia pravda (1931–38) and for the magazines Smena (1929–37) and Krokodil (from 1938). During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), Prorokov participated in the heroic defense of Khanko Peninsula and was a member of the press corps at the front.
Between the late 1940’s and 1970, Prorokov produced his most important works—thematic series of drawings that resemble posters in format. These works are devoted to the people’s struggle for peace and against imperialist aggression and reaction and social and racial inequality. The drawings are publicistic in character and filled with emotion. They integrate techniques of drawing, poster art, and caricature. Movement and gestures are dynamically rendered, and there are vivid tonal contrasts.
Prorokov’s works include the series There She Is, America! (sepia and india ink, 1948–49, Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1950), For Peace (india ink, 1950, Tret’iakov Gallery), and Mayakovsky on America (india ink, gouache, water-color, chalk, pastel, and bronze, 1951–54, Tret’iakov Gallery). The last series and the drawings Truman’s Tanks Down to the Sea Bottom and The American Gendarmes in Japan from the series For Peace earned Prorokov the State Prize of the USSR in 1952. Later series include This Must Not Happen Again (india ink, tempera, watercolor, and pencil; 1958–59; Russian Museum, Leningrad; Lenin Prize, 1961) and The Struggle (oil, pastel, watercolor, and gouache; 1969–70; Voronezh Oblast Museum of Fine Arts).
Prorokov was awarded two orders and various medals.
REFERENCE
Kisliakova, I. V. Boris Prorokov. Moscow, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. G. KUZNETSOV (1919-1974)
Anton Georgievich Kuznetsov, Soviet painter, Honored Artist of the Bashkir ASSR.
SCULPTURE:
S. T. KONENKOV (1874-1971)
“Konenkov, Sergei Timofeevich. Born June 28 (July 10), 1874, in the village of Karakovichi, in present-day El’nia Raion, Smolensk Oblast; died Oct. 9, 1971, in Moscow. Soviet sculptor. Became a member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR in 1954. People’s Artist of the USSR (1958); Hero of Socialist Labor (1964).
Konenkov, the son of peasants, studied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture under S. I. Ivanov and S. M. Volnukhin from 1892 to 1896 and at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1899 to 1902 (from 1916, a member). A participant in the World of Art (Mir iskusstva) exhibitions, he was also a member of the Union of Russian Artists.
In Konenkov’s early narrative and genre works (The Stone Hammerer, bronze, 1898, Tret’iakov Gallery), he depicted the difficult life of the Russian people and their drive to fight for freedom. This striving is also evident in several of his later works, which are characterized by an artistic search for monumental, generalized images (Samson, plaster of paris, 1902, not preserved).
Having participated in the revolutionary events of 1905 in Moscow, Konenkov sculpted several generalized and symbolic portraits of people involved in the revolution (Ivan Churkin’Worker-Fighter of 1905, 1906, Museum of the Revolution of the USSR, Moscow; The Atheist, sandstone, 1906, F. V. Sychkov Mordovian Picture Gallery, Saransk).
Beginning around 1905, Konenkov’s work was noted primarily for the use of motifs from Russian folk wood sculpture and of images from folklore and fairy tales (Stribog, wood, 1910, Tret’iakov Gallery; Eruslan Lazarevich, wood, 1913, Serpukhov History and Art Museum). Konenkov also incorporated into his work the theme of the classically perfect, harmonious man’a theme that was reminiscent of classical and Renaissance art but also closely tied in with the artist’s search for national aesthetic and ethical ideals (Nike, 1906; The Young Girl, 1916—both in marble, in the Tret’iakov Gallery). During this period, Konenkov also sculpted a number of portraits and portrait compositions of great musicians of the past, including Bach (marble, 1910, the N. F. Mikuli collection, Moscow) and Paganini (several variants).
During the first years of Soviet power, Konenkov helped to implement the plan of monument propaganda (the use of monuments as a means of propaganda). V. I. Lenin was present at the unveiling of Konenkov’s memorial plaque To Those Killed in Action in the Struggle for Peace and Brotherhood of Peoples (colored cement, 1918, Russian Museum, Leningrad). Konenkov also did the sculptural group Stepan Razin and His Throng (wood, 1918–19, Russian Museum).
Between 1924 and 1945, Konenkov lived in the United States, where he primarily sculpted portraits (A. M. Gorky, bronze, 1928, Gorky Museum, Moscow; /. P. Pavlov, plaster of paris, 1930, Russian Museum; F. M. Dostoevsky, plaster of paris, 1933, Russian Museum). From the late 1940’s to 1970 he executed a large number of portraits marked by psychological insight and completeness of modeling; these portraits include Ninochka (1951, Russian Museum), Nicos Beloyannis (1951, A. N. Radishchev Saratov Art Museum), M. P. Mussorgsky (1953, Gorky Art Museum), and Self-portrait (1954, Tret’iakov Gallery; Lenin Prize, 1957)-—all executed in marble. During this period, Konenkov created a number of small-scale and monumental sculptures (The Free Man[Samsori], plaster of paris, 1947, Russian Museum; the sculptural groups and reliefs at the Theater of Music and Drama in Petrozavodsk, cement and bronze, 1953–54). A recipient of the State Prize of the USSR in 1951, Konenkov was also awarded two Orders of Lenin and a medal.
WORKS
Slovo k molodym. Moscow, 1958.
REFERENCES
Kamenskii, A. Konenkov. [Moscow] 1962.
Kravchenko, K. S. T. Konenkov. [Moscow, 1967.]” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by A. A. KAMENSKII)
S. D. MERKUROV (1881-1952)
“Merkurov, Sergei Dmitrievich. Born Oct. 26 (Nov. 7), 1881, in Aleksandropol’ (now Leninakan, the Armenian SSR); died June 8, 1952, in Moscow. Soviet sculptor; specialist in monuments. People’s Artist of the USSR (1943); member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR (1947). Member of the CPSU from 1945.
Merkurov studied at the Academy of Arts in Munich from 1902 to 1905. Until 1909 he worked in Paris. His creative development was complex. Both his early works, which display an elevated symbolism and, at times, elements of stylization in the art nouveau style, and his mature works, which more faithfully reproduce the human personality, are marked by an artistic search for great social content. Striving to create a heroic image, he turned to monolithic pieces and sometimes to a rather static composition, thus intensifying the monumental character of his work.
Among Merkurov’s works are a statue of F. M. Dostoevsky (granite, 1911-13; erected in 1918) and a monument to K. A. Timiriazev (granite, 1922-23), which were erected in Moscow in accordance with Lenin’s plan for monument propaganda. He also created the high relief The Execution of the Twenty-six Baku Commissars (granite, 1924-46; erected in 1958 in Baku), the group of statues Death of the Leader (granite, 1927-47; erected in 1958 in Gorki Leninskie), and the monument to Stepan Shaumian in Yerevan (granite, 1931). Merkurov designed and executed the statue of V. I. Lenin on the Moscow Canal (granite, 1937), as well as the statue of Lenin in the Hall of Conferences in the Great Kremlin Palace in Moscow (marble, 1939) and the statue of J. V. Stalin at the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow (granite, 1939-40), both of which were awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1941. He also designed the statue for the J. V. Stalin Monument in Yerevan (forged copper, 1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951). From 1944, Merkurov was the director of the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. He was awarded the Order of Lenin and two other orders, as well as various medals.
WORKS
Zapiski skuVptora. Moscow, 1953.
REFERENCE
[Tikhanova, V.] S. D. Merkurov. [Album.] Moscow, 1958.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
VERA MUKHINA (1889-1953)
“Mukhina, Vera Ignat’evna. Born June 19 (July 1), 1889, in Riga; died Oct. 6, 1953, in Moscow. Soviet sculptor. People’s Artist of the USSR (1943). Became a member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR in 1947.
Mukhina studied in Moscow under K. F. Iuon and I. I. Mashkov from 1909 to 1912 and in Paris under E. A. Bourdelle from 1912 to 1914. In 1909 she became a resident of Moscow. Mukhina taught at the Moscow Higher School of Industrial Arts from 1926 to 1927 and at Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute) from 1926 to 1930.
Mukhina’s early works, somewhat influenced by cubism, soon developed elements of monumentality and plastic simplicity (The Piéta, clay, 1916, not preserved). After the October Revolution of 1917, the artist helped implement Lenin’s plan of monument propaganda (model of a monument to N. I. Novikov, clay, 1918, not preserved). In the 1920’s, Mukhina designed monuments that were romantic and expressive of stormy movement (monument to V. M. Zagorskii, 1921; Flame of the Revolution, 1922–23 —both in plaster of paris, Museum of the Revolution of the USSR, Moscow) and smaller sculptures, with pronounced contours that express inner strength (The Wind, 1926–27, The Peasant Woman, 1927—both in bronze, Tret’iakov Gallery).
Beginning in the 1930’s, Mukhina modeled her works in greater detail, combining an understanding of the properties of her medium with a true-to-life rendering of her subject. As a portraitist, Mukhina sometimes exaggerated her sitter’s most distinctive features (Portrait of S. A. Kotliarevskii, bronze, 1929, Tret’iakov Gallery), but more often created typifications, generalized images of her contemporaries (Portrait of S. A. Zamkov, marble, 1935, Tret’iakov Gallery). At the same time, the artist never lost a sense of immediacy toward her subject.
In the 1930’s, Mukhina became increasingly involved in problems of artistic synthesis. The work which best reflects this interest is the 24-meter-high sculptural group The Worker and the Female Kolkhoznik, which topped the Soviet pavilion at the Paris World’s Fair of 1937 (at present it stands at the northern entrance of the Exhibition of the Achievements of the National Economy of the USSR, Moscow; stainless steel, 1935–37; State Prize of the USSR, 1941). The work’s diagonal composition reflects the upward rhythm of the building that serves as its pedestal (architect B. M. Iofan). The monument’s spatially differentiated forms are unified by a feeling of impetuously accelerated movement, resulting in compositional harmony and a light silhouette. The figures of a young man and a young woman, carrying a hammer and sickle, became not only an epic work of socialist realism but also a world-famous symbol of the new society on the road to communism.
Mukhina’s works of the period leading up to the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 included a monument to M. Gorky, permeated by the revolutionary and romantic spirit of the writer’s early works (architects V. V. Lebedev and P. P. Shteller, bronze and granite, 1938–39; erected 1952, in the city of Gorky), and the decorative group Bread, whose harmoniously graceful, “singing” rhythms reflect the physical and spiritual beauty of the laboring people (bronze, 1939, Tret’iakov Gallery).
During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, Mukhina worked primarily as a portraitist. She never failed to show a connection between national destiny and the personality of her subjects, thus making it possible to grasp the heroic fervor of the time. With stark realism she depicted Soviet soldiers (B. A. Iusupov and I. L. Khizhniak, both plaster of paris, 1942; bronze, 1947; Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1943). She also did portraits of scientists and cultural figures (Surgeon N. N. Burdenko; plaster of paris, 1943; bronze, 1947; Tret’iakov Gallery; and Academician A. N. Krylov, wood, 1945, Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1946). Mukhina produced a generalized symbolic image of a Soviet girl, expressing hatred of the enemy and an unconquerable faith in victory (The Girl Partisan, plaster of paris, 1942, Bekhzad Republic Museum of History, Local Lore, and Fine Arts, Dushanbe; bronze, 1951, Tret’iakov Gallery).
After the war, Mukhina once again took up monumental sculpture. She carried out I. D. Shadr’s design of a monument to Gorky in Moscow (with N. G. Zelenskaia and Z. G. Ivanova, architect A. M. Rozenfel’d, bronze and granite, 1951; State Prize of the USSR, 1952). She also collaborated on the many-figured composition We Demand Peace! (with N. G. Zelenskaia, Z. G. Ivanova, S. V. Kazakov, and A. M. Sergeev; plaster of paris, 1950, Russian Museum, Leningrad; State Prize of the USSR, 1951) and on a monument to P. I. Tchaikovsky in Moscow (with Zelenskaia and Ivanova, architect A. A. Zavarzin, bronze and granite, from 1945; unveiled in 1954).
Seeking to enrich the artistic vocabulary of Soviet art, Mukhina often presented her theories on sculpture, experimented with new materials, and developed a technique of polychromatic sculpture. An extremely versatile artist, she decorated exhibitions, made industrial drawings, and designed clothes, textiles, porcelain (the statuette of S. G. Koren’ in the role of Mercutio, 1949) and theatrical costumes (sketches of costumes for Sophocles’ Electra, 1944, E. Vakhtangov Theater, Moscow). Mukhina was among the initiators of the movement to improve Soviet artistic glassware and worked in this field from 1938 to 1953 (Woman’s Torso, 1929–52). Her drawings, which with an economy of means render the various forms of nature, have an artistic importance all their own.
Mukhina was awarded two orders and various medals. The Leningrad Higher School of Industrial Arts was named after her in 1953.
WORKS
Khudozhestvennoe i literaturno-kriticheskoe nasledie, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1960.
REFERENCES
Ternovets, B. Vera Mukhina. Moscow-Leningrad, 1937.
Abolina, R. V. I. Mukhina. Moscow, 1954.
Klimov, R. “Tvorcheskie iskaniia. K voprosu ob evolutsii khudozhestvennogo mirovozzreniia V. I. Mukhinoi.” Iskusstvo, 1959, no. 12, pp. 12–22.
Suzdalev, P. K. Vera Mukhina. Moscow, 1971.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by I. M. SOKOLOVA)
M. G. MANIZER (1891-1966)
“Manizer, Matvei Genrikhovich. Born Mar. 5 (17), 1891, in St. Petersburg; died Dec. 20, 1966, in Moscow. Soviet sculptor. People’s Artist of the USSR (1958). Became a member of the CPSU in 1941. Brother of G. G. Manizer.
Manizer studied under V. E. Savinskii at the Stieglitz Central School of Drafting in 1908 and 1909. He attended the School of Drawing of the Society for the Promotion of the Arts from 1909 to 1911 and the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1911 to 1916. At the academy he studied under V. A. Beklemishev.
Manizer helped implement the plan of monument propaganda (for example, the relief The Worker, cement, 1920-21, Petroskii Passaze Department Store, Moscow). In 1926 he became a member of AKhRR (Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia). Manizer taught at the Leningrad Academy of Arts (1921-29, 1935-41, 1945-47), the Moscow Institute of Applied and Decorative Art (1946-52), and the Moscow Art Institute (from 1952). In 1947 he became the vice-president of the Academy of Arts of the USSR.
Manizer primarily did bronze monumental sculptures. He was greatly influenced by the tradition of the late academic school, and his works are marked by ideological timeliness and the realistic generalization of images. Manizer’s best-known works include the monuments to V. Volodarskii (unveiled in 1925) and the victims of January 9, 1905 (1931) in Leningrad, to V. I. Lenin (1925), V. I. Chapaev (1932), and V. V. Kuibyshev (1938) in Kuibyshev, to T. G. Shevchenko in Kharkov (1935) and Kiev (1938), to V. I. Lenin (1940; State Prize of the USSR, 1941) in Ulianovsk, and to I. P. Pavlov (1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1950)in Riazan’. Manizer also did a statue of Zoia Kosmodem’-ianskaia (bronze, 1942, Tret’iakov Gallery; State Prize of the USSR, 1943) and a number of bronze statues and sculptural groups for the V. I. Lenin Moscow Ploshchad’ Revoliutsii subway station (1936-39) and Izmailovskii Park (1944). He sculptured numerous portraits. Manizer was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Star, and various medals.
WORKS
Skul’ptor o svoei rabote, vols. 1-2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940-52.
REFERENCE
Ermonskaia, V. V. M. G. Manizer. Moscow, 1961.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by M. L. NEIMAN)
“Kazakov, Matvei Fedorovich. Born in 1738 in Moscow; died Oct. 26 (Nov. 7), 1812, in Riazan’. Russian architect; one of the founders of classicism in 18th-century Russian architecture.
From 1751 to 1760, Kazakov studied in D. V. Ukhtomskii’s architectural school in Moscow. Between 1763 and 1767 he worked under P. R. Nikitin in Tver’, where he took part in the drafting of a plan for the city and built the Itinerary Palace for Catherine II. From 1768 to 1774, Kazakov assisted V. I. Ba-zhenov in the planning of the Great Kremlin Palace in Moscow. During this time he mastered the use of classical forms and proportions; this mastery was particularly important in his later work.
Kazakov’s designs demonstrate an organic combination of large-scale urban design, practical planning, and lofty architectural forms. He developed various types of residential and civic buildings, with which he organized great municipal spaces. In this way he did much to define the architectural appearance of Moscow in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Such buildings also determined the scale and character of Moscow’s later construction. Kazakov’s works include the Senate building (1776–87), which now houses the Supreme Soviet and the Council of Ministers of the USSR and in which a large-diameter domed roof was first used in Russia. He also built the university building (1786–93, rebuilt by D. I. Gilardi); the Golitsyn (1796–1801) and the Pavel (1802–07) hospitals; and the manor houses of Demidov (1779–91), Gubin (1790’s), and Baryshnikov (1797–1802). These buildings all display careful composition both from the street and from within. The arched gateways, the widely separated wings, and the wrought-iron open-worked fences facing the center of the street create a vista of the main building situated behind a broad courtyard. The central part of the building, characterized by domes, grand porticoes, and simple, clear design, is massive and imposing. The smooth, severe exterior walls are complemented by a few carefully designed and graphically clear details, such as cornices and window backhands, which create a calm, solemn rhythm.
Integral and modeled architectural forms predominate in Kazakov’s centrally planned structures. These buildings include the Church of the Metropolitan Philip (1777–88), the Voznese-nie Church (1790–93), and the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian (1791–1803) in Moscow, as well as the mausoleum (1784–1802) in Nikolo-Pogoreloe in present-day Smolensk Oblast.
The expressiveness and ceremonial festivity of Kazakov’s interiors are achieved by the introduction of a grand scale (the Hall of Columns of the House of Trade Unions, Moscow), by the use of sculpture (the Senate and university buildings), and by the use of monumental painting (the “Gilded Rooms” of the Demidov house). Kazakov remained a classicist, although he designed some structures in a pseudo-Gothic style. The basis of these structures remained classical; pre-Petrine and Gothic decorative elements were used only to adorn the facades (the Petrovskii Palace in Moscow, 1775–82; now the N. E. Zhukovskii Air Force Academy).
From 1800 to 1804, Kazakov supervised the drafting of general and “facade” plans (“bird’s-eye view”) of Moscow. He also completed a series of 13 architectural albums devoted to the most important buildings erected by himself and other architects in Moscow. A gifted draftsman, Kazakov mastered the technique of architectural drafting, etching, and drawing. In his graphic work he devoted a great deal of attention to the expression of the volumes of buildings. He was a master of genre drawing, which was then emerging as an art form. Kazakov’s work as a graphic artist includes the drawings Amusement Pavilions atKhodynka Field in Moscow” (1774–75, india ink and pen) and The Construction of Petrovskii Palace (1778, india ink and pen)—both in the A. V. Shchusev Museum of Architecture in Moscow. He also drew views of the Kolomna Kremlin (1778, india ink and pen; now in the Russian Museum, Leningrad).
Kazakov organized an architectural school within the Department of Kremlin Construction. Among his pupils were I. V. Egotov, A. N. Bakarev, I. G. Tamanskii, M. M. Kazakov, R. R. Kazakov, and O. I. Bove.
REFERENCES
M. K. (Matvei Matveevich Kazakov). “O Matvee Fedoroviche Kazakove.” Russkii vestnik, 1816, no. 11.
Bondarenko, I. E. Arkhitektor Matvei Fedorovich Kazakov (1738–1813). Moscow, 1938.
IPin, M. A. “Fasadicheskii plan Moskvy M. F. Kazakova.” In the collection Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo, [fasc] 9. Moscow-Leningrad, 1959.
Arkhitekturnye aVbomy M. F. Kazakova. (Prepared for publication and with text and commentary by E. A. Beletskaia.) Moscow, 1956.
Vlasiuk, A. I., A. I. Kaplun, and A. A. Kiparisova. Kazakov. Moscow, 1957.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by E. A. BELETSKAIA)
I. V. ZHOLTOVSKY (1867-1959)
“Zholtovskii, Ivan Vladislavovich. Born Nov. 15 (27), 1867, in Pinsk, present-day Brest Oblast; died July 16, 1959, in Moscow. Soviet architect. Honored Scientist and Art Worker of the RSFSR (1932) and honorary member of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelorussian SSR (1947).
Zholtovskii studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1887–98) and in 1909 received the title of Academician of Architecture. In his early works he skillfully employed Renaissance compositional devices and architectural motifs, as exemplified in two Moscow buildings, the former Horse Racing (Skakovoe) Society building on Skakovaia Avenue (1903–05) and the former A. Tarasov residence on A. Tolstoy Street (1909–10).
Zholtovskii’s work greatly expanded in scope in the Soviet period. In 1918–23 he helped draw up the plan for the rebuilding of Moscow, and he prepared the master plan and designed a number of the pavilions of the All-Russian Agricultural and Cottage Industry Exposition in Moscow (1923). Using the forms of classical architecture he designed the State Bank building in Moscow (1927–29), the Government House (present-day agricultural institute) in Makhachkala (1927–28), the apartment house on Fiftieth Anniversary of October Square in Moscow (1933–34), and the CPSU municipal committee building in Sochi (1934–36). He also designed apartment houses on Lenin Prospect (1949; State Prize of the USSR, 1950) and those near Smolensk Square (1950) and on Mir Prospect (1957), as well as the Moscow racetrack (1951–55).
Zholtovskii was an outstanding architectural theoretician and teacher. In 1938 his translation of the full text of Palladio’s treatise appeared, and he subsequently published a number of theoretical works. From 1953 to 1959 he headed the school of architecture at the Mosproekt Institute. He was awarded the Order of Lenin, three other orders, and medals.
REFERENCE
I. V. Zholtovskii. Introduction by G. D. Oshchepkov. Moscow, 1955.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, article by K. V. USACHEVA)
I. S. KUZNETSOV (1867-1942)
Ivan Sergeevich Kuznetsov. A Russian Soviet architect.
V. N. SEMENOV (1874-1960)
“Semenov, Vladimir Nikolaevich. Born Jan. 8 (20), 1874, in Kislovodsk; died Feb. 1, 1960, in Moscow. Soviet architect and city planner.
In 1898, Semenov graduated from the St. Petersburg Institute of Civil Engineering. From 1908 to 1912 he worked in England. Semenov was a professor at the Moscow Higher Technical School from 1920 to 1930, at the Moscow Vkhutemas-Vkhutein (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios-Higher Art and Technical Institute) from 1921 to 1930, and at the Moscow Architectural Institute from 1930 to 1941.
The chief architect of Moscow from 1930 to 1934, Semenov directed the formulation of a general plan for the city; the plan was officially approved in 1935. The architect’s other projects included the design and construction of a garden city, (1933–36) near Prozorovskaia station (now the station of Kratovo of the Moscow-Riazan’ railroad line), the planning of the Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo region and the Caucasian Mineral Waters region (1933–36), the general plan for Kislovodsk (1934, with other architects), and the general plan for the restoration and development of Rostov-on-Don (1944–45, with other architects). The last two projects have not been completed. Semenov was awarded two orders and various medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. A. SHCHUKO (1878-1939)
“Shchuko, Vladimir Alekseevich. Born July 5 (17), 1878, in Tambov; died Jan. 18, 1939, in Moscow. Soviet architect and theater artist.
Shchuko studied with L. N. Benois at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts from 1896 to 1904. He became an academician of architecture in 1911. Shchuko’s best works are marked by a creative application of the principles of classical architecture and a search for simple forms closely related to the new types of public buildings and new equipment. In the prerevolutionary period he designed Building No. 63–65 on Kirov Prospect (formerly Ka-mennoostrovskii Prospect) in Leningrad (1908–11) and the Russian pavilion at the International Exhibition in Rome (1911).
Shchuko’s major projects during the Soviet period were done in collaboration with V. G. Gel’freikh. They include the monumental entry to Smolny (1923–25), the architectural part of the monument to V. I. Lenin at Finland Station in Leningrad (1926), the M. Gorky Drama Theater in Rostov-on-Don (1930–35), the new building of the V. I. Lenin Library of the USSR (1928–40, Moscow), the Bol’shoi Kamennyi Bridge (1936–38, Moscow, with participation by M. A. Minkus), the main pavilion of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition (1939, Moscow), the Government Building of the Abkhaz ASSR in Sukhumi (1932–39), and the viaduct in Sochi (1936–37, with others).
Shchuko also was a theater artist. He designed the set and costumes for the Starinnyi Theater in St. Petersburg in 1907 and for various theaters in Leningrad from 1919 to 1932. He also was the set and costume designer for a production of Boris Godunov at the Malyi Theater in Moscow in 1937. Shchuko was an accomplished graphic artist and watercolorist (V. A. Shchuko Album: Drawings and Watercolors, Moscow, 1940).
REFERENCES
Minkus, M. “Vladimir Alekseevich Shchuko.” Arkhitektura SSSR, no. 1. 1939.
Kaufman, S. A. Vladimir Alekseevich Shchuko. Moscow, 1946.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
P. F. ALESHIN (1881-1961)
Pavel Fedotovich Aleshin, Soviet architect and teacher. Full member of the Academy of Architecture of the Ukrainian SSR (1945-1958), honorary member of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the Ukrainian SSR (since 1958), Doctor of Architecture (since 1946).
I. A. GOLOSOV (1883-1945)
Soviet constructivist and ‘post-constructivist’ architect.
LEV RUDNEV (1885-1956)
“Rudnev, Lev Vladimirovich. Born Mar. 1 (13), 1885, in Novgorod; died Nov. 19, 1956, in Moscow. Soviet architect.
In 1915, Rudnev graduated from the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, where he had been a student of L. N. Benois. He was a professor at the Academy of Arts in Leningrad from 1922 to 1948 and at the Moscow Architectural Institute from 1948 to 1952. Rudnev participated in Lenin’s program of monument propaganda, producing such works as the monument To the Fighters for the Revolution at the Field of Mars in Leningrad.
Rudnev’s best works are characterized by simple, massive forms and by the modernization of the classical orders. His works in Moscow include the M. V. Frunze Military Academy (1937) and the administrative buildings on Marshal Shaposhnikov Street (1934–38) and Frunze Esplanade (1938–55). All three projects were designed in collaboration with the architect V. O. Munts. Rudnev also worked on the building complex of Moscow University on Lenin Hills (1949–53; with architects S. E. Chernyshev, P. V. Abrosimov, A. F. Khriakov, and others; design awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1949). Other works include the House of the Government of the Azerbaijan SSR in Baku (with Munts; completed in 1952) and the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw (with other planners; 1952–55). Rudnev received three orders and various medals.
REFERENCE
Arkhitektor Rudnev. Moscow, 1963.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. G. HELFREICH (1885-1967)
“Gel’freikh, Vladimir Georgievich. Born Mar. 12 (24), 1885, in St. Petersburg; died Aug. 7, 1967, in Moscow. Soviet architect and Hero of Socialist Labor (1965).
Gel’freikh studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1906-14) under L. N. Benois. As a student he began to work with V. A. Shchuko. From 1918 to 1939 they were the architects of a number of public buildings in Leningrad (the colonnade at Smolny, 1923-25), Moscow (the new building of the Lenin Library of the USSR, 1928-40), and Rostov-on-Don (the Gorky Drama Theater, 1930-35). In 1935 he began to take an active part in reconstructing the capital. Gerfreikh, V. A. Shchuko, and M. A. Minkus were involved in the construction of bridges (the Bol’shoi Kamennyi, 1936-38). Gel’freikh also participated in designing the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition (1939) and subways—the ground-level lobby of the Novokuznetskaia station, 1943-44, which he planned with I. E. Rozhin, and the Elektrozavodskaia subway station, 1944, for which he won the State Prize of the USSR in 1946. He and M. A. Minkus were the architects of the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Smolensk Square, 1948-52, for which they were awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1949. From 1950 to the 1960’s, Gel’freikh directed the creation of architectural ensembles on Smolensk Square and Kutuzov Avenue, as well as the construction of the Kuntsevo, Fili-Mazilovo, and Rublevo housing developments. He was a professor at the Leningrad Academy of the Arts during 1918-35 and at the Moscow Higher School of Industrial Arts during 1959-67. Gel’freikh was awarded two Orders of Lenin and five other orders, as well as medals.
REFERENCE
Pekareva, N. “Vladimir Georgievich Gel’freikh.” Arkhitektura SSSR, 1960, no. 6, pp. 51-54.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. M. VLADIMIROV (1886-1969)
Soviet painter, graphic artist and architect.
N. A. MILIUTIN (1889-1942)
Soviet communist politician and city planner.
“Miliutin, Nikolai Aleksandrovich. Born Dec 8, 1889, in St. Peterburg; died 1942. Soviet statesman. Member of the Communist Party from 1908.
The son of a fisherman, Miliutin was a worker. From 1910 he engaged in party work in the trade unions. He was a member of the board of the union of trade and industrial employees in 1913, and from 1914 to 1915, secretary of the hospital mutual aid fund at the Putilov Plant. In 1916 he was drafted into the army, where he continued to carry on revolutionary work. He was a member of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917. In July of that year a regimental tribunal sentenced him to be shot, but he was freed by his company. At the time of the suppression of the Kornilov revolt Miliutin commanded the Red Guard of the Moscow-Narva District and directed the defense of the main sector on the approaches to Petrograd. He participated in the storming of the Winter Palace in October 1917. In December. 1917 he returned to trade union work. A member of the collegium of the People’s Commissariat for Labor and of the Smaller Council of People’s Commissars from 1918, Miliutin served in 1920–21 as plenipotentiary extraordinary of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and of the Council of Labor and Defense for Orel and Voronezh provinces and as deputy people’s commissar for food of the Ukrainian SSR. From 1922 to 1924 he was deputy people’s commissar for social security of the RSFSR; from 1924 to 1929, people’s commisar for finance of the RSFSR; in 1929, chairman of the Smaller Council of People’s Commissars; and from 1930 to 1934, deputy people’s commissar for education of the RSFSR. He was head of the RSFSR Central Board for Expanding Cinematic Facilities from 1935 to 1937. Miliutin was a delegate to the Twelfth as well as to the Fourteenth through the Sixteenth Party Congresses.
REFERENCE
Tolstov, I. “N. A. Miliutin.” In Geroi Oktiabria, vol. 2. Leningrad, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
EL LISSITSKY (1890-1941)
Soviet Russian Jewish artist and architect. One of the founders of suprematism but later switched to socialist realism.
K. S. MELNIKOV (1890-1974)
“Mel’nikov, Konstantin Stepanovich. Born July 22 (Aug. 3), 1890, in Moscow. Soviet architect. Honored Architect of the RSFSR (1972).
Mel’nikov graduated from the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture in 1917. He taught at the Moscow Vkhutemas (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios) from 1921 to 1925, Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute) from 1927 to 1929, and the Moscow Architectural Institute from 1934 to 1937. He has also taught at the V. V. Kuibyshev Moscow Institute of Civil Engineering (from 1951; professor) and the All-Union Correspondence Institute of Civil Engineering (from 1960). Mel’nikov was a member of the Asnova (Association of New Architects).
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, Mel’nikov designed new types of public buildings and other structures and was one of the first to propose the idea of transforming internal space. His works are marked by dynamic, expressive forms and by bold, sometimes paradoxical design solutions. Examples of Mel’nikov’s architecture in Moscow are the Makhorka wooden pavilion at the First All-Russian Exhibition of Agriculture and Cottage Industry (1923), the I. V. Rusakov Club (1927-29), the architect’s house on Krivoi Arbat Lane (1927-29), and the club of the Burevestnik Factory (1929).
REFERENCES
Lukhmanov, N. Arkhitektura kluba. Moscow, 1930.
Gerchuk, lu. “Arkhitektor Konstantin Mel’nikov. “ArkhitekturaSSSR, 1966, no. 8.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
G. P. GOL’TS (1893-1946)
“Gol’ts Georgii Pavlovich. Born Feb. 22 (Mar. 6), 1893. in Moscow; died there May 27, 1946. Soviet architect and stage and set designer.
In 1922. Gol’ts graduated from the Moscow Vkhutemas. From 1925 to 1931 he was a member of the Society of Contemporary Architects, and he designed a number of buildings in the constructive style, including the spinning factory at Ivanteevka. Moscow Oblast (1927–28). He took an active part in the reconstruction of Moscow and designed the building complex of the Vsekokhudozhnik Factory (1933–41), the Ust’inskii Bridge (1937–39; together with other architects), the locks and pumping station on the lauza River (1937–39), and the house at 22 Lenin Prospect (1939–40), for which he received the State Prize of the USSR in 1941. In these designs he creatively employed Renaissance and Russian classical architectural elements. Gol’ts drew a number of plans for the reconstruction of cities destroyed during the Great Patriotic War, including Smolensk (1944–46).
Gol’ts’ theatrical productions include The Find by E. Ia. Tarakhovskaia (1924) and The Pickaninny and the Monkey by N. I. Sats and S. G. Rozanov (1927). staged by the Moscow Children’s Theater. In these productions highly grotesque character portrayals and stylized, fantastic scenery, executed in the manner of a child’s drawing, are combined with clever stage set designs.
REFERENCE
Tret’iakov, N. Georgii Gol’ts. Moscow, 1969.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
NIKOLAI KOLLI (1894-1966)
“Kolli, Nikolai Dzhemsovich (Iakovlevich). Born Aug. 5 (17), 1894, in Moscow; died there Dec. 3, 1966. Soviet architect.
In 1922, Kolli graduated from the Moscow Vkhutemas (State Higher Arts and Technical Studios). From 1935 to 1951 he was the chairman of the board of the Moscow Division of the Union of Soviet Architects. He taught at the N. E. Bauman Moscow Higher Technical School from 1920 to 1941 and at the Moscow Institute of Architecture from 1931 to 1941. Kolli collaborated in the design of a number of structures at the All-Russian Agricultural and Cottage-industry Exhibition in Moscow (1923), the main buildings of Dneproges, residential areas in the city of Zaporozh’e (1927–32), the Central Cooperative Alliance (Tsentrosoiuz) building on Kirov Street in Moscow (now the Central Administration of Statistics of the USSR, 1928–35, with Le Corbusier), and the Kirov and Paveletskaia-kol’tsevaia subway stations (1944–49). He was awarded three orders and various medals.
REFERENCE
“Arkhitektor N. Ia. Kolli.” Arkhitektura SSSR, 1964, no. 12.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. G. MORDVINOV (1896-1964)
“Mordvinov, Arkadii Grigor’evich (real name, A. G. Mordvishev). Born Jan. 15 (27), 1896, in the village of Zhuravlikha, in present-day Pochinki Raion, Gorky Oblast; died July 23, 1964, in Moscow. Soviet architect. Became a member of the CPSU in 1919.
In 1930, Mordvinov graduated from the civil engineering department of the N. E. Bauman Moscow Higher Technical School. He was a member of the All-Russian Society of Proletarian Architects from 1929 to 1932, the chairman of the Committee for Architectural Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 1943 to 1947, and the president of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR from 1950 to 1955.
Mordvinov introduced mass production of residential buildings in Moscow (on Gorky Street, 1937–39; on Bol’shaia Kaluzhskaia Street, now beginning of Lenin Prospect, 1939–40— State Prize of the USSR, 1941). Mordvinov’s other works in Moscow include the Hotel Ukraina (with V. K. Oltarzhevskii and others, 1957; the design was awarded the State Prize of the USSR in 1949), the planning and construction of the central part of Novye Cheremushki city raion (in collaboration with others, 1956–64), and the layout and building of Komsomol Prospect (in collaboration with others, 1958–65). The architect was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and various medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
K. S. ALABYAN (1897-1959)
“Alabian, Karo Semenovich. Born July 14 (26), 1897, in Elizavetpol’ (now Kirovabad), Azerbaijan SSR; died Jan. 5, 1959, in Moscow. Soviet architect. Member of the CPSU since 1917. Vice-president of the USSR Academy of Architecture (1949–53). Graduated from the Higher State Art and Technical Institute in 1929. Founder of the All-Russian Society of Proletarian Architects (VOPRA). Managing secretary of the Soviet Architects’ Union (1932–50).
Alabian’s early work was in the spirit of constructivism (apartment house in Yerevan, 1929–30, and others). In his later years he turned to the classical heritage (Soviet Army Theater in Moscow, 1934–40) and to the traditions of Armenian architecture (Armenian SSR Pavilion at the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow, 1939 and 1954). With B. M. Iofan, he designed the USSR Pavilion at the World’s Fair of 1939 in New York. His work in city planning includes the general plan for the restoration of Volgograd (1945, with N. Kh. Poliakov and others) and the planning of the residential complex of Khimki-Khovrino in Moscow (under construction since 1962). He was a deputy to the first and second convocations of the USSR Supreme Soviet and was awarded two orders and medals.
REFERENCE
Karlik, L. B. Karo Alabian. Yerevan, 1966.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. I. ZABOLOTNYI (1898-1962)
“Zabolotnyi, Vladimir Ignat’evich. Born Aug. 30 (Sept. 11), 1898, in the village of Karan’, in the present-day village of Trubailovka, Pereiaslav-Khmelnitskii Raion, Kiev Oblast; died Aug. 3, 1962, in Kiev. Soviet architect. Became a member of the CPSU in 1944.
Zabolotnyi graduated from the department of architecture of the Kiev Institute of Art in 1928. He began teaching there in 1927, becoming a professor in 1940. He also taught at the Kiev Engineering and Construction Institute from 1934 to 1941 (as a professor from 1940). He was president of the Academy of Architecture of the Ukrainian SSR from 1945 to 1950. Zabolotnyi designed the plans of the cities Krivoi Rog, Cherkassy, Kremenchug, and Dneprodzerzhinsk from 1929 to 1933. His principal works include the Palace of Culture of the metallurgical plant (Dneprodzerzhinsk, 1932), the buildings of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR (Kiev, 1936-39, State Prize of the USSR in 1941), and the Ukrainian Cooperative Union (Kiev, 1955-57, in collaboration with others). He was awarded two Orders of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals.
REFERENCE
Hrachova, L. M. Arkhitektor V. I. Zabolotnyi. Kiev, 1967.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
A. K. BUROV (1900-1957)
“Burov, Andrei Konstantinovich. Born Oct. 2 (15), 1900, in Moscow; died May 7, 1957, in Moscow. Soviet architect, scientist, and inventor. Doctor of technical sciences (1952).
Burov studied at the Moscow State Higher Arts and Technical Studios from 1918 to 1925 under the Vesnin brothers. He studied architecture in the United States (Detroit, 1931) and in Europe (Italy, Greece, France, in 1925 and 1936). He was a member of the Society of Soviet Architects. His early works were constructivist (pavilions at the All-Russian Crafts and Agricultural Exhibition in 1923). Later, working with old Russian and classical architectural forms, he gave special attention to color and fine details (interiors in the Historical Museum, 1937; the facade of the Architects’ Club in Moscow, 1940). Under his leadership a series of designs were created for apartment houses made of large blocks (on Bolshaia Polianka, Valovaia, and other streets in Moscow, 1939-41) and of large panels (1948-49). He developed a technique for the manufacture of synthetic extrastrong materials and designed a series of buildings made with them (1956). He taught at the Moscow Institute of Architecture (1936-38) and at the Graduate Institute of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR (1934-56). He was awarded the Badge of Honor and medals.
WORKS
Ob arkhitekture. Moscow, 1960.
Steklovoloknistye anizotropnye materialy i ikh tekhnicheskoe primenenie. Moscow, 1956. (Jointly with G. D. Andreevskaia.)
REFERENCES
“Tvorchestvo A. K. Burova.” Arkhitektura SSSR, 1958, no. 7, pp. 13-22.
Zhukov, K. V. “Andrei Burov.” In the collection Sovetskaia arkhitektura, no. 18. Moscow, 1970.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
V. N. SIMBIRTSEV (1901-1982)
Simbirtsev, Vasilii Nikolaevich. Born Jan. 1 (14), 1901, in St. Petersburg. Soviet architect. People’s Architect of the USSR (1975). Member of the CPSU since 1961.
“Simbirtsev graduated from Moscow State Higher Arts and Technical Institute in 1928. From 1929 to 1932 he was a member of the All-Russian Society of Proletarian Architects (VOPRA). He taught at the Volgograd Institute of Municipal Engineers during the years 1955-59. His most important contribution was his collaboration on the rebuilding of Volgograd and on the design and construction of individual districts and buildings, including Heroes’ Memorial Avenue, Fallen Warriors Square, the Oblast Party School (now a medical institute, 1950; State Prize of the USSR, 1951), and the esplanade (1952–53). Simbirtsev served as chief architect of the reconstruction work from 1944 to 1959. He also collaborated on the design of the Central Theater of the Soviet Army in Moscow (built 1934–40) and on the construction of the residential district of Vtoraia Rechka in Vladivostok (1960’s). Simbirtsev has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor and various medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
I. N. SOBOLEV (1903–1971)
Ivan Nikolaevich Sobolev, a Soviet architect.
I. I. FOMIN (1904-1989)
Soviet architect. Doctor of Architecture (1943). People’s Architect of the USSR (1971).
He received the following awards:
Order of Lenin (1957)
Order of the Badge of Honor (1966)
People’s Architect of the USSR (1971)
Order of Cyril and Methodius, 1st class (1973, Bulgaria)
Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1974)
Order of Friendship of Peoples (1984)
L. M. POLYAKOV (1906-1965)
“Poliakov, Leonid Mikhailovich. Born Aug. 8 (21), 1906, in St. Petersburg; died June 21, 1965, in Moscow. Soviet architect. Became a member of the CPSU in 1948.
From 1923 to 1929, Poliakov studied with I. A. Fomin at the Higher Art and Technical Institute in Leningrad. He taught at the Moscow Architectural Institute from 1945 to 1965 and at the Moscow Higher Industrial Arts School from 1958 to 1965. From 1948 to 1950 he served as chief architect for the city of Sevastopol’, a post he held later, from 1958 to 1965, at the Gidropro-ekt Institute.
Attracted to a variety of aesthetic solutions for his structures, Poliakov sometimes disregarded functional requirements. His works in Moscow include apartment houses on the Arbat and Spiridon’evskii Lane (both 1933–35); the Kurskaia (1938), Ok-tiabr’skaia (1949, State Prize, 1950), and Arbatskaia (1953) subway stations; and the Hotel Leningradskaia (1949–53). In Sevastopol’ he designed the building complex on Nakhimov Avenue (1948–51). He also designed the structures surrounding the V. I. Lenin Volga-Don Ship Canal (1952). Poliakov was awarded the Order of Lenin, two other orders, and medals.” (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979)
Source: Science and Life, 1962, issue 4. Translated by Herrkomm.
The living is characterized by assimilation and dissimilation, in other words, the living is inherent in the need to eat; nonliving things do not have this property. This is where all the differences between living and non-living come from.
Although all biological processes pass only through corresponding physical and chemical movements and transformations, nevertheless, all these movements, each occurring separately according to the laws of physics and chemistry, are subject to the characteristics and essence of living things.
Chemistry, physics and other sciences about inanimate things, for example, geology, were and are necessary prerequisites for the study of life. Therefore, biology is extremely interested in the ever-increasing development of scientific knowledge about inanimate nature. For the development of biological science, the progress of biophysics and biochemistry is especially important.
But this does not mean at all that biology is the chemistry and physics of living things. Unfortunately, often chemists and physicists, instead of studying more and more the chemistry and physics of living bodies, try to replace biological laws, for example, the laws of heredity, with physical and chemical laws and thereby reduce biology to chemistry and physics. In fact, the study of the chemistry and physics of living things, as already mentioned, is, although the most important, still only a prerequisite for the development of biological sciences for the discovery of objective biological laws.
Biological science is a system of biological laws according to which the organic world lives and develops. Knowledge and skillful use of these laws makes it possible to develop various methods of controlling living bodies in the most diverse areas of practical human activity.
ML-Theory 