CA PROPAGANDA PERSPECTIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 35
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 5, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 8, 1969
• Content Type: REPORT

25X1 C1 Ob
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHTApproved Flor. Reese 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
ov.LET WRITERS' UNION ACTION
NEV YORXIt-E'S
3.9 October 1969
Moscow Writers
Giovanni Grazzini, a wellknoen kennel journalist, re-
?cently visited the U.S.S.R. to ;
study literary life there. His
reports in Corriere della Sera,
'Italy's !kneet'. daily, greatly
? impressed Italian hitellectuals,
mainly those of Communist
,..persuasion. Grazzini does noti.
add anything new to what we;
.know from other 'sources, but
he paints a few colorful dee;
-tails. Like many other special.
travelers he was welcomed by.;
the officials of the Writers'
. Union. They smiled, offered'
vodka and refreshments, but
told the inquisitive guest that
?;none of the poets and novelists:
; be wished to interview were-
?availaishe one was ill, the sec-
ond on vacation, the third on
.a neirieion and the fourth did'
not answer the telephone.
Grz,?..zini, however, was offered'
the opportunity to converse
with any of the 42 secretaries':
: of the Union and particularly
with Konstantin Voronkov, one
of the leading members and as
views noes the eminence grin
of the. Executive Board.
LITERARY GAZETTE, No. 4 6
Moscow, 12 November 1969
Mime, clednnels
Grazzini succeeded in gathering
nonofficial information. The
Writers Union, he reports, is a
!huge bureaucratic machine with
5,000 members. Only a third are
party members, but the Union
is controlled and maneuvered'
by the Central Committee of
Zheeparty and supervised by
ecurity officials. It is one of
.the numerous Soviet super-,
structures congealed by immo-,
tility and torpor. It conies to
lie only when instructed to:
...Vilify some persona non grata
a ad to inveigh against liberals.;
?I he latest example is the pres-'
sore exerted .by the Board on',
TVardovsky, editor of Novy -
Ii r, urging him to resign. It
. reduced Solzhenitsyn to si-!
'lance. and In the past expelled
frsm ? its ranks Aklusiatova,
Psstern k, Zoslichenko and
other prominent writers. ? ?
No less interesting is Graz-,
zi A's disclosure of the methods
used by the authorities to limit
th s distribution of works by::
th.! "undesirables." Last year:
,lea ding bookshops in Moscow .
re .eived but 30 copies of a:
co lection of poems by the high.:
.ly? popular Oltudzhava. They ,
-V" f.170 not even put on sale, for_l
tilt clerks grabbed them for e.
thunselves and friends. Censor- '
'1?0 begins at the writer's desk:
CHRONICLE
IN THE WRITERS' UNION OF THE RSFSR
the author, living in the (leaden
ing atmosphere of restrictions
wonders what he should cut oi
change to save his work from
; the claws of the authorities
; Then come sessions with the
.editor of the magazine to which
he brings his corrected mann-
.script for serialization, ses-
sions of fighting and bar-
?gaining for adjectives, hidden
meaning, negative characters
and unsuitable, non-optimistic
endings. When it comes to pub-
lishing the work in book form,
the invisible censors of Glavlit
? (the Ministry of Culture and
? the Ideological Commission of
the Party Central. Committee
? which have their representa-
tives on every editorial board)
? inform the author through
Intermediaries that ? his novel'
or poem is untimely and that
it would be safer to post-
? pone its printing?for months,
; or for years. Very often
I books announced as being'
about to appear are stopped at,
the last moment and never;
reach the bookstores. This sus-
pension is one of the most
frequent and efficient devices,
used by the mysterious watch.1
dogs?,mysterious because the,
? authors never meet them.' U
CPYRGHT
A meeting of the Ryazan writers organization devoted to-the tasks of
strengthening ideological and educational work has been hid. In their speeches the
Meeting particpants emphasized that under.the'conditions of F:xacerbated ideological
,struggle in the modern world every,Soviet: writer had increased responsibility for his
creativity and public behavior. ' ? ?'
In this. oonnection the meeting participants raised the question of Ryazan writers
organization member A. Solzhenitsyn. The meeting unanimously noted' that X. Solzhenitsisn
behavior was of an antisocial nature and fundamentally .contradicted the principles and :.:.
?
tasks formulated' in the USSR Writers Union 'statute'. '
As is known, in recent years the name and works of A. Solzhenitsyn have been actively
employed by inimical bourgeois propaganda for slanderous campaigns against our country* -
However, .A1 Solzhenitsyn not only did net express his attitude' toward this campaign,
?.publicly but, in spite of the criticism of .the Soviet 'public -And the repeated '
recommendations Of .the USSR Writers Union, by certain of his actions and. statements he
,.esentially helped to inflate the anti-Soviet racket aroundiihiminame..'
Proceeding from this, the meeting of the.Ryazan writers%organitation reaOlved to exc111461
A. Solzhenitsyn from the USSR' Writers Union..
- ,
the RS24R Writers. Union board secretariat of the Speen writers
organization.
1
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
LITENERdloirrelease 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9 CPYRGHT
12 Novembr,r 1269
.XPOHVIKA ?
B C0103E....
:IITICATEAE.
PCOCP
? io6psiiitisr-4Y*4
acteifi inacsienheitell, ? opr.a--
sP?51.014,. 810.**94?406..:.(34Aialis?
:tam lessees*, : wastiletco:so.cmi,
" T 1011614011 p66mi YNieTelit:?"",
seewsi.,ntiAeepaksinn,, MTO.I?.,.
iycnomox Ki6ocrpestueiies? sAsei`
./
*oncineie4soil.6op1.614 sl"cosos...?
? ?
.meauem ? hope 403pacTeei? ?oi?e.;
"
.118TCTIFIONHOelle iteNt40rO.COSIT`?.
caoro-nscarens ? se case ?mop-
N o6u4ecirsiiiiette?noss-?.
'I ' ' r ?
.? *, ? t . : t
fi;? aTo9; Cs saw y4acmistic-co4;.
ioripos 0.
Pii3IINC,M0b1 nactfreno-A.
apOsesausii A. Coius?
Ce6psioni:
? OfMOT14110,' 'TO
me At CONMONNNblile
',MOHO
iCICOA
i#114104
Arfati
ISAS
inicsrr ?asfitodutecvseetnoll. Xs.
piafep. N I sopa. npofmso-
pessr npsittninam H 311,484614
e4:.opmyri14p0s6iuti:44. s..Yriase
Cotosa nears/mil ?CCCP.
? Kinc...aseecfmo:. s poensAsan
rogia mhts w -co.itetnui
CONN(OHNNblHel 10114101:10
,nonbspoici spasc4e6t!ort 6YP^
styssactil nponaraeaoil. Ann .
'N110110THNLIOCKOR samnseem. npce.
A. CaAsethisiole'.'N'ti'foniqip, )41
moc14a3pp;rtz6tulyn.olsqefq :0T?
NONIONNI 'IC :sroal.itahtnaiii,ii;11
taiestieiPS H. 'lCpHTH?'COIeT"
:c.0";?11 P?Iii?STI"."6".P *10'
acatpirrub!st paito4eitit6ton
?'n Sian ti C ? es.
KotopwMH !c,scomf.t.4',4efie-Ti:HS.M11
,N assisnetiitii..*;nO .ciiitectity,
.? ? ? "-
leocoacreosan pasaysstve 8*.
THCODATCROili wymbiza. soispyr
'csooroatattiaa.. ? ? t
? ' .1?Icxeaii"Harsiero, 'ce.'6psam*
.P/138FICKOA n,ecaienbcaoft: tipra?
14143641414 ? nocraeoserio v.11015100
NNib A. Constieittitaiss:sta
se:micafsnoil'ccce...
tesperspotsf ...npsonsuits
nacirrenefi? PCOCP
sepAwn petuenti?,. P1436NCKOR
OpflINN3A4N14e
CPYRGHT
NEW YORK TIMES
11 November 1969
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
Solzhenitsyn Is Reported Expelled by Writers Union of
? Soviet life should be presented
By JAMES F. CLARITY
Apectal to Ile New York Timm
MOSCOW, Nov. 10 ? Alek-
by a writer. The conservatives
emphasize the need for con-
structive idealization of life
the liberals insist that a
wn r must have freedom to
crit ize shortcomings in the
syst m.
. Solzhenitsyn's expulsion
fro the Russian Republic's un-
Ton ollowed his reported re
mo 1 a week ago from the
me bership of the union local
In t le city of Ryazan, where
he 1 es.
R moved From His Local
R liable sources said the ex-
puts on by the union of the
Rus tan Republic would be offi-
ciall announced later this
Wee
T e reasons for Mr. Soz-
heni yn's repoft.-.4 exp uslon
)
fro the P4azan local were
said to include publication of
his orks abroad, failure to
help young, writers and a nega-
tive portrayal of Soviet life in
his riting.
thor of "The First Circle" and
"The Cancer Ward," was re-
liably reported to have been
expelled today from the writers;
union of the Russian Republic.
The reported expulsion is not
expected to affect Mr. Solzhe-
nitsyn's professional life since
his works have been barred in
the Soviet Union in any case
since 1966 on the ground that
they are hypercritical of Soviet
life.
However, the step is certain
to be interpreted in literary.
circles as an additional effort
by conservatives in the writers
union to intensify their struggle
against liberals. Mr. Solzhenit-
syn, whose works circulate in
illegally reproduced manuscript
form, is thy hero of many in-
tellectuals. and liberal. writers.
Essentially, the conservative-
liberal struggle centers on how
the Russign Republic
The novelist assailed the
writers union in 1967 for al-
legedly blocking Pu ilication of
"The Cancer Ward" in the So-
viet Union. He said that novel
and "The First Circlt had sub-
sequently been published in the
West without his permission.
In 1967, Mr. S plzhenitsyn
also called on the iturth Con-
gress of Soviet Writers to ap-
prove a resolution calling for
the end of literary censorship.
Mr.. Solzhenitsyn wrote to
the congress that censorship
"Imposes a yoke on our litera-
ture and gives peopk. unversed
in literature control over writ-
ers."
"Literature that s not the
'breath of contempon ry society,
that dares not transmit the
pains and fears of that society"
has no value, he wrote. Be-
cause of censorshik, he said
later. "my work has been final-
1 smothered, gagget and slan-
t/
? He first appeared on the
literary scene in 1962 with the
publication of "A Day .in the
Life of Ivan Denisovich, which
depicted life in a Stalinist labor
camp. Subsequently he pub-
lished a few short stores in
Novy Mir, the liberal literary
monthly.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn, who spent'
leight years in prison cami-g
under Stalin, has drawn heavily
on his experiences in his writ-
ing, which deals to a large ex-
tent with the Stalin era.
Although he has little hope
of seeing his work published in
the Soviet Union, he is said to
have completed . a sequel to
"The. First Circle," titled "The
Archipelago of Gulag." Gulag
is the acronym for the agency
that supervised Soviet labor
eamps`under Stalin.
The writer is known to be
working on a new novel deal-
ing with the period leading up
' to the Bolshevik Revolution of
1917. ? '
2
? Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
LE MONDE, PARIS
13 November 1969
Before Being Expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union
ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF HIS ACCUSERS
Moscow--Literaturnaya Gazeta, weekly publication of the
Writers' Union, confirmed Wednesday morning that the writer
Alexander Solzhenitsyn has been expelled from that organization.
The decision was made by the Ryazan branch. Solzhenitsyn found
himself reproached for conduct "of an anti-social character radi-
cally opposed to the principles and to the tasks set forth in
the statutes of the Writers' Union of the USSR. Literaturnaya
Gazeta added that "his works have been used by bourgeois propa-
ganda to lead a calumnious campaign against our country." The
expulsion has been ratified by the Russian Republic (RSFSR)
section of the Writers' Union.
It is known that the campaign to expel Solzhenitsyn began dur-
ing a meeting in Moscow of the party cell of the Soviet Writers'
Union (Le Monde, 7 November). On 4 November, in the afternoon,
the Ryazan section met in the presence of the writer. The latter
was summoned to Moscow for a meeting of the RSFSR section of the
Writers' Union two days later. Notified at the last minute, he
was not able to attend and the decision to confirm his expulsion
was therefore taken in his absence. It is known only that Mr.
Alexander Tvardovsky, editor in chief of the review Novy Mir, de-
fended him.
It was therefore at Ryazan that the case was heard. No steno-
graphic account was made during the meeting of 3 November. Never-
theless, very precise evidence is available which makes it possible
to know fairly exactly what was said. Although the account which
we report cannot be guaranteed to be the literal transcript of the
words spoken by each of the participants, it may be considered as
faithfully reproducing the substance of the principal statements.
As may be seen, they need no commentary.
The novelist Franz Taourine, representing the Writers' Union of the
Russian Republic (RSFSR), opened the debate by reporting to those present on
the decisions of his organization concerning the reinforcement of ideologi-
cal educational work in connection, he particularly noted, with the defection
of Anatoly Kuznetsov. He cited the cases of the writers Kopeliev, Lydia
Chukovskaya, the poet-singer Bulat Okudzhava and Solzhenitsyn. Since the
latter is a member of the Ryazan section, it is his case which was to be
especially examined. Six members out of seven were present at the meeting.
Several local writers spoke. We summarize their statements.
FIRST WRITER: "We must make our self-criticism. It is I who recommended'
Solzhenitsyn. However, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich aroused my
suspicions.
"After the reviews by Simonov and Tvardovsky, we ceased to diseuss it.
We hoped that Solzhenitsyn would become the ornament of our Ryazan branch.
This hope was disappointed. He has not taken part in our work, has not
helped the young authors, has not attended our meetings; he cut himself
off from us. Of course, we do not know his latest works; we have not read
them. But they go against what we write ourselves."
SECOND WRITER: "I agree entirely. The preceding speaker spoke well."
3
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
THIRD WRITER: "If it is not to help the young people, what good is it
to belong to the Writer' Union? The story One Day in the Life of Ivan Denis-
ovich is written in black colors. And Matryona's Home? Where did he see this
solitary woman whom nobody helps? Where does he publish his works? What are
they about? We know nothing about it."
FOURTH WRITER: "'hesitate. There is a pendulum swinging. It goes from
one extreme to the other. Once Yesenin was thus vilified;, then he was praised
to the skies. Remember 1946 [the time of Zhdanovism]. It is difficult for
me to sort out; today Solzhenitsyn is expelled and afterwards he will be re-
integrated. I do not want to participate in that."
FIFTH WRITER:. "If my work was utilized abroad as a weapon, what would
I do? I would go ask for advice from the organization of writers. But Sol-
zhenitsyn has isolated himself."
BLACK COLORS
THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL PUBLICATIONS: "Solzhenitsyn blackens everything.
He has a black inside."
Then Alexander Solzhenitsyn gets the floor: "Regarding help to the young
writers: no one has ever submitted manuscripts to me for review. There is
no stenographic record of this meeting, notes are being taken catch as catch
can.
"I wish to relieve the conscience of the first speaker: he did not recom-
mend re; he only gave me a questionnaire to fill out.
"I have always kept the Ryazan branch informed about my letters: to the
Writers' Union, to the Writers' Congress in May 1967, etc. I even proposed
that it discuss Cancer Ward. It did not wish to. I have proposed public read-
ings; they were not authorized. Mir absence from meetings? I live in a dacha
in the suburbs of Moscow and it is not always convenient for me to come.
After the publication of 1112_221y in the Life of Ivan Denisovich it was sug-
gested that I move to Moscow; I refused: the noise of the capital could dis-
turb me in my work. Recently I asked to move to Moscow; Ilyin, secretary of
the Moscow section, did not assent.
"What haven't I answered? The article in Literaturnaya Gazeta which con-
trasted Kuznetsov to me as an example of good behavior? [Footnote: On 26 June
1968 the Literaturnaya Gazeta cited as an example Anatoly Kuznetsov, who sued
a French translator of Continuation of a Leeend, and who fled last summer to
London.] It was an anonymous article and I did not need to reply. It called
into question even my rehabilitation, it told lies about my novels. It claimed
that The First Circle was a virulent calumny of our reality. ?But who has proved
this? People have not read this novel and yet they speak of it.... How did
Literaturnaya know The Feast of the Con uerors [a play written by Sol-
zhenitsyn when he was in a concentration camp j? How did it hear about this
play when the sole copy was taken from my office by the security service?"
Confiscated Letters
"I reject certain of my works. It is about those that you are speaking.
There are others which I ask to be published; you do not mention them.
_
"Should I reply to the secretariat of the Wirters' Union? I have answered
all its questions. It has not answered any of mine, not even after my.letter
to the congress. They hid it under a bushel basket.
4.?.7
"Let us speak of Cancer Ward. In September 1967 I warned the secretariat
of the Union that the novel was circulating in the country and could get abroad.
I asked that it be quickly published in Novy Mir. The secretariat preferred to \
wait. In the spring .of 1968 I wrote to Literaturnaya Gazeta,to Le Monde and
to lqInita to forbid the publication of Cancer Ward and to deny all rights to
western editors'. The letter was not permitted to go to Le Monde, although it
was registered. I had entrusted the letter to l'Unita to the Italian critic
14
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Vittorio Strada. The customs confiscated it; but I managed to convince the
customs officers to send it to l'Uhita for publication. Which l'Unita did
in June. The Literaturnaya Gazeta was still waiting. For nine weeks, from
21 April to 26 June, it hid my letter from the public. It was waiting until
Cancer Ward was published in the West. When the book was published by
Mondadori, the Milan editor, in a horrible Russian edition, then Literaturnaya
published my letter, accusing me of not having protested sufficiently energeti-
cally. If it had made my letter known in time that dgmarche might have been
useful. The proof is that the American editors refused to bring out the book
when they became aware of my. refusal."
THE CHAIRMAN: "Your speaking time is up."
ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN: "It is not a matter of my speaking time, but of
my, life."
THE PRESIDENT: "How much time do you want?"
Solzhenitsyn asks for ten minutes. He is given three. He continues:
"I asked the Ministry of Communications to put an end to this banditry.
The secretariat did not forward to me any of the messages of felicitations
which it received from abroad for me on fiftieth birthday. My mail is used
with cynicism. I am accused of blackening reality, but in what theory of ,
knowledge is the reflection more important than the object reflected? Perhaps
in a philosophy of fantasy, but not in dialectical materialism. What is be-
coming important is not what we do, but what people say about it.
"Someone spoke about the swing of the pendulum. Its oscillations from
one extreme to another do not concern me alone. They will not succeed indef-
initely in hushing up the crimes of Stalin, in going against the truth. Be-
cause these are crimes committed against millions of human beings and they
demand exposure. What moral influence on the youth is exercised by the fact
of dissimulating them? Youth is not stupid, it understands.
"I do not disavow one line, not one word, of ny letter to the Congress
of Writers [in May 1967]. In it I said: vI am at peace; I know that I will
fulfill my duty as a writer in every circumstance and perhaps after my death
with more success, more authority than during my lifetime. No one will suc-
ceed in barring the road to truth and I am ready to die in order that it may
go forward.' Yes, I am ready to die, not merely to be expelled from the Union
of Writers. Vote. You are the majority, but don't forget that the history
of literature will be interested in today's meeting."
"Why are you published abroad?" he was asked.
ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN: "Tell me first: why am I not published at home?"
THE REGIONAL SECRETARY OF THE PARTY FOR PROPAGANDA: "Let us drop the
discussion there. You deny the leading role of the party. Everybody is in
step with it but you."
THE WRITER FRANZ TAOURINE: "The secretariat of the Union for tAe RFSFR
is going to examine your case. The important thing is that you have not struck
back at the enemy. No one can bring you to your knees. This meeting is an
attempt to help you to free yourself from all that which the West has loaded
upon you. The writer Fedin has moreover implored with all the authority of
his great age: give in, strike back at the West."
At the end of the meeting the expulsion was decided upon. It was adopted
by five votes for, one (Solzhenitsyn) against.
Alain Jacob
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 :,CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
LE MO 9
.1.
13 Nov'
' II
tekg?9For liaa-qii699/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
De notre corresp. partic. CPYRGHT
ALAIN JACOB
AVANT D'ETRE EXCLU DE L'UNION DES tCRIVAINS SOVIEIEQUES
filexarurhe SoDrilisyne u1.*Ite les argamen2s
de ses accuscat`temcs
CPYRGHT
Mrser.r.11
ite.at.. air a a?ata ,a?
domadaire de l'Union des ocrivains. confirme mer-
credi matin que Fecrivain Alexandre Soljenitsyne
a ete exclu de cella organisation, La decision a
eta prise par la section de Riazan. Soljenitsyne
s'est vu reprocher une conduite ? de caractere an-
tisocial radicalement opposes aux principes at aux
titches formulees dans les slatuts de l'Union des
Ocrivains d'U.R.S.S. a. La ? Literatournaya Gazeta
ajoute quo a ses oeuvres ont eta utilisees par la
propaganda bourgeoise pour mener une campagne
calomnieuse centre noire pays a. L'expulsion a ate
ratifiee par is section do l'Union des ecrivains de
la Republique russo (R.S.F.S.R.).
On salt que la campagne pour l'exciusion do
Soljenitsyne a cemfnence lois dune reunion a
Moscou de la cellule du pari de l'Union des ecri-
vain: d'U.R.S.S. (.2. Monde du 7 novembre). Le
4 novembre. dans l'apres-midi. se reunit la section
de Riazan, en presence de Ficrivain. Celui-cl fut
convoque le surlendemain a Moscou pour la reu-
nion de la section de l'Union des icrivains de la
R.S.F.S.R. Prevenu au dernier moment. il ne put y
assister et la decision de confirmer son exclusion
fut done prise en son absence. On salt soulement
que M. Alexandre Tvardovsky, reclacteur en chef
de la revue ? Novy Mir e. prit sa defense.
Vest donc a Riazan que la cause Jut entendue.
Aucun compto rendu stenographique no fut etabli
au cours de In reunion du 4 novembre. On dispose
.neanmoins a son sujet de lemoignages tras precis
qui permettent de savoir asses exacternent co qui
Jul dit. Bien que les propos quo nous rapporlons
no puissent etre garantis comme la transcription
litterale des paroles prononcees par chacun des
participants. ils peuvent etre consideres comm.) rm.
produisant fidelement la substance dos principales
'interventions. On verra qu'ils pouvent so passer
do commaetaiaa.
CPYRGHT
? Le romrincier Franz Taourine,
:reptentant l'Union des ecrIvains
de la ouvre lc clebrit en
informant, l'assistance des WTI-
:Mons de son organisation sur e
renforcement du travail d'ecluc
tion ideoloelque en liaison, expl
;que-t-U notainment, avec In d
fection de l'ecrivain Anat
.1Couznetsov, II cite les cas d
ecrivains Kopeliev, Lydia Tcho
kovskaia, du poete chansonnl
Boulat Olcoudjava et de Soljent
sync. Comme eclul-ci est memb
de In section de Mann, c'est s
CAS qul va etre specialement ex
mine; Six membres sur sept de
section asslstent i la seen
Plusieurs ecrivains beaux pre
nent alors la parole. Nous res
mons leurs Interventions.
PREMIER, ECRIVAIN.? ? No s
; devons faire notre autocritiqu
C'est mot qui at recommande So
-jean :sync. journeti diva
Denissovite.h avait pourtant even
riles soupcons.
Apra les Comptes rendus
Simonov et Tvardovsky, no
avons cesse den discuter. No
esperions que Soljenitsyne d
3;lenctralt l'ornement de noti
section de Ittazan, Cet espoir
ete decu. It n'a pas pris part
nos travaux. n*a pas aide le
jeunes animas, n'assistait pas
nos reunions II s'est coupe d
nous. Nous ne connaissons cotta
pas ses dernieres ceuvres nou
ne les axons pas Ines. Mats ell
vont a l'encontre de cc que nou
ecrivons nous-maines.
. SECOND FCRIVAIN. ? J
? Sins tout a fait ceaccord. Le pre
cedent orai eur a bien pane.
? TROISIENIE ECRIVAIN. ?
cc West pour alder les jetmes.
quoi bon appartenir a l'Union de
ecrivains ? Le recit tine jolinic;
divan Denissoriteli est &Tit are
des contours noires. Et /a Maisoi
de lilatrlona ? OU a-t-11 vu cett
famine solitaire qua persona
? 00 publie-t-11 ses ceu
vies ? De quoi y est-ii queN.Ion
Nous Wen savons lien.
QUATRIEME ECRIVAIN.
J'h?te. .11 y ii. un mouvemen
de balaineer. On va dun extreme
l'au [re. J ;Wis. on a ainsi ereint
Essenine ; pais oil ea poste an.
Imes. Rappelee-voits encore 194
irepoque du jdanovisme). 11 m'es
diffielle de denieler ; aujourd'hu
on exclut Soljeilltsyne, ct apre
on VII lc reintegres. Jo ne you
pas participer a
CINQUIENIE ECRIVAIN. ?SI
mon crairre elalt utilise? comm
twine par l'etranger. eminent in
conduireisele ? J'Irats deinande
Mused a l'organisation des ic
'mins. Or Soljenitsyne scat isol
Si
r
a
Des couleurs noiresCPYRGHLTs leftres confisquees
LE DIRECTEUR DES EDI.
TIONS LOCALES. ? Soljepit
%mut.. 11 a rinterieui
noir. (Sic.)'
Alexandre Soljenitsyne obtlen
alors In parole : a A propos de
l'aide aux jeunes : on no m'a
;lama's soumis de manuscrits
pour en rendre compte. -It .n'y a
pas de stenographic de in pre-
Bente reunion, on prend des notes
vaille que vaille.
Jo veux soulager la' conscience
du premier orateur : ii no m'a
pas recommande : 11 m'a sonic-
ment donne un questionnaire it
remplir.
J'al toujours mis la section de
Riazan au courant de mes lettres:
l'Union des ecrivains, an
congres des ecrlvains en mai 1967,
etc. Jo lui at propose meme de
discuter du Pavillon des caned-
seta. Elle n'a pas voulu. J'al
propose des lectures publiques
on ne les a pas autorisees. Mon
absence aux reunions ? J'habite
Inc datcha dans la banlieue de
Moscou et Ii no m'est pas toujours
:ommorie de venir. Apses In pu-
311cation d'Une journde divan
Denistovitch, on m'a propose de
krnenager Moscou j'ai refuse: ,
,e bruit de la capitate pouvalt me i
'Tener dans mon travail. Recem-
nent, j'ai demande a m'Installer
Moscou Dine. secretaire de In
section de Moscou. n'a pas ac-
epte.
A clued n'ai-je pas repondu ?
A l'article de la Literatournaya,
cazeta, qui m'opposalt 1Couz-
setsov Comma exemple de bonne
I ondulte ? (1). C'etalt un article
nonyme et je n'avals pas I re-
pondre. On y mettalt en doute
jusqu'a ma rehabilitation, on y
ecrivalt des mensonges sur mes
romans. On y racontait que le
Premier cerele etalt une vlrulente
calomnie de notre realite. Mats
till l'a demontre 7 On n'a pas In
oe roman et on en parte... Corn-
lent is Literatournaya Gazeta
connait-elle le Festin des vain-
cueurs (piece (sera? par Solje-
r itsyne quand 11 Unit en camp
de concentration) ? Comment
n,-t-elle eu communication de
tte piece alors que l'unique
exemplaire a. ete prls dans mon
hireau par In silrete ?
(1) Le 28 Juin 1908, is Ltteratour-
?aye Gateta eitait en exemple
Xouzneteov. qui 'trait poursuivt
en justice un traducteur /rancid.%
ot? Suite dune ligcnde, et qui west
rshigi4 rote dernier C Londree.
Je lejette certaines de mes
ceuvres. C'est d'elles que l'on
sarle. Ii yen a d'autres que je
lemande de publier ; on les pass
zous silence.
Devaisele repondre au scare-
ariat de l'Union des ecrivains '
l'al repondu I toutes ses ques-
ions. Il no l'a fait pour aucune
des miennes, pas meme apres mc
/etre au congres. On l'a mist
ions le boisseau.
Parlons du Pavillon des cance-
1 eit.r. En septembre 1967, j'ai pre-
renu le secretariat de l'Union gut
Li roman circulait clans to pays
qt pouvait passer it l'etranger. J'al
c emande qU'on le public rapide-
nent clans NaVY'llIir. Le secreta-
rat a prefere attendre. Au prin-
temps de len, fat emit it In
literatournaya Gazeta, an Monde
l'Unita pour interdire in pu-
blication du Pavillon des cance-
T'UX et denier tous droits aux
eliteurs occidentaux. On n'a pas
ii isse passer In lettre au Monde.
a ors qu'elle kelt recommandee.
J avals confle an critique italien
Vittorio Strada In lettre it l'Unita.
lit douane l'a confisquee, je suis
pirvenu it convaincre les doua-
n ors de l'envoyer I rUnita pour
pyblication. Ce que l'Unita a fait
ea juin. La Literatournaya Gazeta
tendait toujours. Pendant neuf
scmaines, du 21 avril au 26 juin,
el'e a cache ma lettre au public.
E lc attendait que Pavillon des
ci nctireux fa nubile en Occident.
Lorsque le Byre est sorti chez
libndadori, l'editeur milanals,
dr. ns une horrible edition russe,
al irs la Literatournaya Gazeta a
pt bile ma lettre, en m'accusant
de n'avoir pas asses energique-
m int proteSte. Si elle avait fait
connaitre ma lettre I temps. cette
darnarche aurait pu etre utile. La
pr-uve en est que les editeurs
americains ont renonce I sortir le
Byre quand us ont cu connais-
sa ice de mon' ref us. ?
PRESIDENT DE SEANCE.
- , Votre temps de parole est
ep Ilse..
ALEXANDRE SOLJENITSYNE.
? II no s'agit pas de temps de
pa 'ole mals de la vie.
LE PRESIDENT. ? Combien de
teraps demandez-vous ?
E-oljenitsyne demande cllx ml-
nu es. On lui en accorde trots. 11
poarsuit :
? J'ai demande an mlnIstere
des communications do metre tin
ter Tie A. cc bilgandage. Le secre-
tar at ne m'a transmls aueUri des
avait recus de Vetranger it mon
nom pour mon einem:11;0,16111e an-
nlyercalre. Ma correspondanc,i est
utiIis e avec cynisme. On in'actuse
de noircir itt reallle, mats clans
quell( theorie de la connsissence
le relict a-t-il plus d'importance
quo 'objet refleto 7 Peut-Cit re
clans tine philosophic du fan-
tasme mats pas clans le =Oda-
lisme dialectique. Co qui devient
Impor ant cc West pas cc que
nous faisons. mats cc qu'on en
dit.
On n parte de niouveinent. de ?
balani ler. Ses oscillations d'un
extreme it l'autre no me cancer-
nent pas soul. On no reussira
pas Inch:liniment it tame les cri-
mes cc Stallne, it alter a l'en-
contre de In verite. Car co sont
des cr :nes commis sur des mil-
lions Wares. at exigent In
hunter. Quelle Influence morale
exerce sur lit jeunesse to fait de
les distimuler ? La jeunessa: West
pas st.apide, elle comprencl.
Je IL. route pas lila ligne, pas
1m mei; de ma lettre an congres
des eci ivains (en mai IDOL J'Y
disais ?le suis tranquille: je
sais ipso je remplirat mon decoir
d'flerirain en Mutes eireonstances
et pem-etre apres 'nut mart avec
plus the succes. plus d'autortld
(The de mon vivant.. Personitt. ito
parriendra it hearer la route it fa
verge. of je suLc vitt a mourir
pour (pectic (trance.? Out, c Slli3
pret it mourn., et pas seulement
A etre l'Unlon des earl-
veins. 'fotez. Vous eles Ia majo-
rite. mats n'oublitz pas come l'his-
telre d la litterature ifinteres-
sera it la s?ce d'aujourd'inii. ?
? Pourquoi vous public-1,0n I
retraniz,ir ?. lui demande-t-on. /
ALEXANDRE S 0 LJ ENIT-
SYNE. ? ?Repondez d'abord :
pourqual no me publle-t-on pas
chez mc I ?
LE SECRET/ORE REGIO-
NAL A LA PROPAGANDE DU
PARTI. ? haissons-tit In discus-
slon. IR us Inez le rOle dlrigeant
dim prirti Tons marchent du mettle
pas qua lu& et pas vous.
L'ECIIIVAIN FRANZ TAOU-
RINE. ? Le secn;tariat de l'union
de in R.S.F.S.R. va examiner
votre cas. L'essentiel. c'er.t quo
vous n'avez pas Tlposti7! it l'enne-
mi. Pers.anne no veut vous mettre
it genou C. Cette reunion est tine
tentative pour vous alder it vous
delivrer de tout co dont l'Occi-
dent vous a charg?L'krivaln
Mine vous a pourtane Implor4
avec rat torite de son grand age
,edez. 1'1 105105 1 l'Occident.
A 'Ism de la raanion, l'exclu-;
;Ion est decidee. Elle est adoptae
.3ar cinn yob( pour, une (Solje-i
.iltstirupi_
?Messages de ?I:Negations gull
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : cIA-RDP79 01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGERA,ppsfayeAgsw Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
15 November 1969 CPYRGHT
Solzhenitsyn, in Protest Letter,
Terms Soviet a 'Sick Society'
By JAMES F. CLARITY
specie to The Neve York Times
t MOSCOW, Nov. 14 ? Alek-
aandr t. saiznenitsyn, the
aUthor of "The First Circle"'
e"
and The Cancer Ward," has
bitterly described the Soviet,
union as a "sick society."
The 5I-year-old Soviet
author, who was expelled from
the writers union four days ago
also castigated those who ex,-
polled him for their "hate-
vigilance." In a leter writen
Monday to the writers union of
the Russian Federated Repub-
lic and made available toclayi
by acquaintances, Mr. Solzhen-
itsyn said that his expulsion,
from the local writers union
In Ryazan had been approved
by the parent writers union
before he had a chance to de-
2rehd himself.
"The blind lead the blind,"
Mr. Solzhenitsyn said in the
letter. "In this time of crisis
of our seriously sick society,
you are not Ale to suggest
anything constructive, anything
good, only your hate-vigilance.
Shamelessly flouting your own
constitution you expelled me in
feverish haste and in my ab-
sence, without even sending me
a warning telegram, without
even giving me the four hours
to travel from Ryazan [to Mos-
cow] to be present."
"Was it more convenient for
you to invent new accusations
,against me in my absence? "
The leter continued. "Were you
afraid that you would have to
give me 10 minutes to reply?
Your watches are behind the
times. The time is near when
every one of you will try to
find out how you can scrape
your signatures off today's re-
solution.
The letter marked the first
time Me, Solzhenitsyn, con-
sidered by many literary critics
as the greatest living Soviet!
novelist, has answered his
enemies or criticized the Soviet
Union in two years. In 1967, he
proposed that the writers union
ban -literary censorship and at-
tacked union officials for block-
ing the publication of his
works in the Soviet Union.
Neither "The Cancer Ward"
nor "The First Circle" has been
published here. Both books be-
came best sellers in the West.
The last Solzhenitsyn work
published here was a short
story in the magazine Novy
i
Mir n January; 1966.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn was ex-
pelled from the local union in
Ryazan, 110 miles southeast of
Moscow, last week during a
meting at which he was pres-
ent. On Monday, the action was
approved by the secretariat of
the Russian Republic union, in
effect stripping him of official
status As a writer. ,
Mum a na7ptra thp
New York Times
15 November 1969
,
, Letter of Soviet writer
official newspaper, said the ex-,
pulsion was the result of the
author's failure to stem anti-
Soviet criticism centering
around his name and works.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn became the
hero of many Soviet liberals
and Intellectuals in 1962 with
the publication of his short
novel, "A Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich," which de-
picted life in a Stalinist prison
camp. "The Cancer Ward' and
"The First Circle" are caustical-
ly critical of Stalin and au-
thoritarian aspects of the So-
viet political system.
Since his 1967 attack on
censorship and on certain
union officials, however, he
had remained silent. He con-
tinued to write, but without
serious hope, according to
friends, that his work would
be published here.
In his letter to the writers
union, Mr. Solzhenitsyn also de-
fended two writers, whose ex-
pulsions are reportedly being
considered by the union. They
are Lev Kopolev, a critic who
specializes in foreign litera-
ture, and Lydia Chukovskaya,
the daughter of Komei Chu-
kovsky, the translator and writ-
er of children's books who died
two weeks ago.
Both have signed protests
against official harassment and
the imprisonment of Soviet
writers. In 1967, Mr. Solzhenit-
syn reportedly wrote his anti-
censorship appeal in Mr. Chu-
kovsky's home. In the letter to
the writers union, Mr. Solzhen-
itsyn said Mr. Kopolev was ap-
parently threatened with expul-
sion because he had disclosed
the proceedings of a secret,
meeting.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn asked , the
union why such meetings were
necessary.
"The enemy is listening,
that's your answer," Mr. Sol-
zhenitsyn said in the letter.
"These eternal enemies are the
basis of your duties and of your
existence. What would you do
without your enemies? You
would not be able to live with-
out enemies. Hate, hate no less
evil than racism, has become
your sterile atmosphere."
"Just the same," the letter,
continues, "it is time to re-
member that the first thing to
which we belong is humanity,
and humanity is separated from
the animal world by thought
and speech, and they should
naturally be free. If they are
fettered, we go back to being
animals.
ePoOhel to The New York rums
MOSCOW, Nov, /4?PoIlowing is th text of a
eln ei. Munduy LO th writers union o fetter
Re-
public by the author Alchsandr I. solz enitsyn after his
l Russian Re-
ae ?tli n '
expulsion from the organization. The letter was made ?
available here by acquaintances of the author.
' let anyone read you. -
Shamelessly flouting your They are also driving Lev
own constitution, you have4 Koplev [a critic specializing
expelled me in feverish haste' in foreign literature] to ex-
and in my absence, without * pulsion ? a front-line war
even sending me a warning veteran, already having
telegram, without even giving served a 10-year jail term
me the four hours to travel , although innocent. Now, if
from Ryazan to be present. f
You have demonstrated open". you please, he is guilty of
ly that the decision preceded standing up for those whoare hounded, of going around
the deliberations. Was it more;
talking about a holy secret
convenient for you to invent - .
of violating a cabinet confi-
new accusations against me
,in my absence? Were you
afraid that you would have
to give die ten minutes to
? reply? I am forced to sub-'
stitute this letter. i
, Your watches are behind
the times. They are running
:enturies slow. Open your
neavy expensive curtains.. .macy? Secret talks, secret
You do not even suspect that: incomprehensible appoint.
dawn has risen outside. It is ments and reshuffles, that the
no longer that deaf, dim time , ,masses would know and,
of no exit that it was when judge everything openly?
:jou expelled [Anna],Akhma-: A Sterile Atmospheie
' ova. It is not even that
1 imid, frigid time when you
d houted [Boris] Pasternak,
dut. Wasn't that shameful :
(non& for you? i
? Do you want to compound
II The day Is near when
every one of you will try to
f nd out how you can scrape;
your signatures off today's
resolution. The blind lead the
blind. You don't even notice',
t iat you are cheering for the
s de you have declared your-e.
6 ef against. In this time of'
c -Isis of our seriously sick
>ciety you are not able to
suggest anything construc-
tive, anything good, only your
b de-vigilance. Your , obese
a tides crawl about Your '
nindless works more flab- .
b ly. But there are no argu-
ments. Only voting and ad.
, ministration.
dence with an influential per-
son.
Why do you conduct such
conversations which you have
to hide front the people?
.Were we not promised 50
,years ago that there would
never again be secret diploe
Another Letter
' Thus neither[Mikhail]
. Sho-
1cov nor all of you put to-fl gether dared to answer the,
, famous letter of Lidiya Chu.:
kovskaya, pride of Russian
' essayists.
[Miss Chukovskaya, wrote
the novel "The Deserted
' House," describing life in the
Stalin era. Her letter to Iz-
vt.stia, on the 15th anniver-
sary of Stalin's death in 1953, ?
? catled for an end to "the '
.canspiracy of silence.")
For her the administrative
placers are being prepared.
.How could she dare to allow
he- unpublished book to be
read? Since the higher levels
home decided not to print
y0.1, crush yourself, :choke
yourself. Dein't exist. Don't
"The enemy is listening,"
That's your answer. These,
? eternal enemlts are the basis
of your existence, What)
would you do without your
enemies? You would not he
able to live without your,
enemies. Hate, hate no less;
evil than racism, has become
your sterile atmosphere. But
in this way the feeling of at
whole and single mankind is'
being lost and its perdition is
being accelerated.
?, And if tomorrow the ice of.
the Antarctic melted and all,
of us were transformed intof
'drowning mankind, then into
whose nose would you stuff
the class struggle? Not to
mention even when the rem-:
.narits of ma-legged creatures
will roam the radioactive
earth and die.
Just the same, it is time to
remember that the first thing
we belong to is humanity.
And humanity is separated ?
from the animal World by
thought and speech and they! /
should naturally be free. If
they are fettered, we go back
to being animals.
Publicity and openness,
honest and complete?that is
the prime conditirm for the
health of every society, andi
ours too. The man who does,
not want them in our country
is indifferent to his father...!
land and thinks only about
his own gain. The man who,
does not want publicity and
openness for his fatherland:
does not want to cleanse it.
of its disease, but to drive
them inside, so they may rot'
there:
7
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
Les Aivikprobtfe11For Release 1999g119102GIECTA-RDP79-01194A000500020001 tpyRGHT
16 November 1969
L
A %rct
. ussia: new assa 011 1ivien 17-71
RICHARD RESTON
MOSCOW
The question in this country is, 10
:-think or not to think.
Russians like to believe 'they ale
creating a new breed of man, and
maybe they are. If they succeed, thst
system may yet perfect the absence.
of thought, the world's first nor-
For this, his accusers charged hint
-With . a "black" and "antisocial"-
attics de. After serving ? 12 ? years in
'forced labor camps and exile, Sol-
zhenitsyn must wonder at the
cruel ,y ? of a system that requires '
militi ry and political power to deal
with :he minds of men.
,
The question is, why? Why must
this cmntry crush its most celebrat-
? thinking human being. ;ed writer in a manner similar to the
No doubt the task will be difficult. 'way Soviet tanks flattened the
But the Russians have long shown a.
persistence that is sometimes
lying.
Unfortunately for those who rule
this "progressive revolution," there
are still Men with the talent, the
courage and the intellect of Alexan.
der I. Solzhenitsyn, Russia's most
famous contemporary novelist. .
reformist ideas of Prague mose 'hew
a year ago?
The answer lies in the enormous'
insect: rity of a Communist dictator-
ship. Like any other' authoritarian.
regime, it thrives on mental obe-
diences, on a docile intellectual
comm inity, on a lack of personal
initiat ve and on the police power.
Selatenitsyn and other doubting necessary to work the rigid Will of a
intellectuals present a problem in a few at the top. ' ?
society of right-thinkers. And when
the Soviet state has a problem, it
works hard to eliminate it.
Solzhenitsyn was tried and found
guilty at an inquisition conducted.
by his own colleagues in recent,
days. The sentence was expulsion
from the Soviet Writers Union, a
move that insures the indefinite,
suppression of his works. His only.
crime was to have written about
past and present wrongs in a
country he loves and wishes to,
Improve.
The Solzhenitsyn case proves the
weakness, not the ? strength, of
Soviet society. It reveals a crisis of
confidence in a system frightened of,
'any c issenting idea, that might
prove contagious: Such ideas ancl,
the people- behind them must be
muzzle 1 and squashed. This country..
would rather suppress its problems,
than debate' them.
Wha , the, system . has done to
Solzher itsyn?and worse .to many:
others like him?perpetuates not u
revolut onary philosophy, but k
t.t1.41.1wary one.
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, London CPYRGHT
16 November 1969
SoIzhenitsy
'clan
LEXANiii1.SOLZe
? HENITSYN, 'generally .
considered Russia's greatest
living writer, is believed to
he 'in imminent danger
of arrest and trial.
: This follows his courageous
letter to the official Soviet
Writers' Union protesting against
his unconstitutional expulsion
from the organisation last
ofr
'co
er
STEPHEN CONSTANT
Comm unist Affairs Staff
To his, accusers, the 51-year-old
author said he is prepared.to accept
death in defense of the truth. He
conceded that his fellow writers
were 'in the majority, but reminded
them that the history of literature
will record their vote to censor thee
beliefs of others.
The author's eloquence clearly had
little effect on those who sat in
judgment. ?
Solzhenitsyn's ? two latest novels,
"Cancer ? Ward": and "The First
Circle," have never been published.
in the Soviet Union. They are both,
best Sellers in the West. He has had,
Virtually, nothing published .in this
country since 1062, when 'he rose to"
fame with "One Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich," a savage condem-
' nation of life in a Stalinist labor
'Camp.
The West thinks of niodern Russia
as a changing society ' and. nation.
The physical changes are' here. It is
another kind of change that Is
missing. Where are the changes that
have to do with the spirit and
!character of a country and system
such as this? .
"In Russia, the ruling power,
unlimited as it is, has an extreme
.fear of censure, or of extreme frank-
ness. ,
"All Russians and all who wish to
live in Russia impose on themselves
'unconditional silence. Here, nothing
is said, but everything is known. . .
to think, to discern, is to become
suspect."
The words were written July 12,
1839, in the book "Journey for Our
Time," based on the Russian jour-
nals of the Marquis de Custine.
They fit ? Russia today perfectly.
and, after Solzhenitsyn, one won-.
tiers ? whether the difference of
centuries means very.much in this
country.
CPYRGHT
?
The letter said the Sov et
Writers' Union was part of a
"very sick society." Copies of
the letter were circulated amo tg
Mr. Solzhenitsyn's friends in
Moscow and were seen by Weit-
ern newspaper correspondentt-
Notwithstanding the bitter,
noble passion in defence af
freedom conveyed by his letter,
Mr.' Solzhenitsyn's? persecutors,,
led by the K.G.B. (Soviet seer t
police), may now push their vi
dictiveness so far as to accuse
him of spreading anti-Soviet pr ?
paganda.
fleavy sentences
Article 70 of the Crimint I
C.'ode of the Russian Federatio
makes it possible for anyon )
who writes or says anything
aven mildly critical of the Soviet
;ystem, to be sentenced to a
maximum of seven years in a
about camp, then five years is..
nnn nn
The notorious Anita provide.'
a thin legal disguise for the
suppression of anyone who
' thinks differently from the
4egime. The main and most
: Famous victims of this harbor-
! ms Article are 'the writers Sin.
iavsky and Daniel.
Both are, serving labour camp
ientences, of seven and five
wears respectively. Other recent
ictims arc Mr. Yuri Galanskov
even years labour camp) and
Mr. Alexander Ginzburg (five
years labour camp).
Both Were 'accused of slander-
g the regime, whereas they
NJ' merely distributed mildly
beral. writings:
'Appalling conditions
If Mr. Solzhenitsyn were to
be sent to a concentration camp
ik would amount to murder. At
51 his health is extremely deli-
cate, mostly because he suffered
severely during his eight years
is a hard labour camp in Stalin's
time.
Few of his friends believe he
could survive the appalling con-
ditions of the Potma camp, 300
miles east of Moscow. Mr.
Gerald Brooke, the London
lecturer, was there. The con-
ditions were described recently
in "My Testimony," by Mr:
Anatoly Marchenko,
Mr. Solzhenitsyn knew what
risks he was running in-.writing
his letter. The courage he dis-
played was such that observers
at hist thought the letter was
a provocation by the K.G.B., cir-
culated to provide it with a
flimsy excuse for "legal action."
But the letter, in. its passion,
sincerity and sophistication,
clearly exceeds the capacity of.
the average K.G.B. mind. , ,
Conference defied
Mr. David Whittaker; a for-
mer chairman of the Writers'
Guild of Great Britain, said in
London yesterday the Soviet
Writers' Union iv 1 gone against
a unanimous resolution of the
international Writers' Guild July
Conference in -/Loscow.
All delegates at the con-
ference, including the Soviet
, representative, declared they
were "opposed to any form et
suppression of humanist and
democratic ideas exprczsed by a
writer in accordance with his
conscience." ?
? Mr. Whir.aker, who was at the
conference, considers the Soy!:t
Union must, reinstate.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn, or cease 'to
belong ? to. ?the International'
Write, Guild. ?
Approvea ror Keiease iu9uluviu6 : L;lik-KUI-qU-UllU4AUUUOUUUZUUU1-U
CPYRG14.fr,rpproved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
CIEISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
18 Novoriber 1969
-altural reformers' ideas :stifled
By Eric Bourne
Special correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor
Prague'
writers' and artists' livelihoods depend) is
to be withdrawn from the artistic unions
because of their continued refusal to rescind
last year's statements denouncing the So-
Alexander Solzhenitsyn has joined Milo-'
van Djilas as a prominent literary figure
internationally recognized but expelled from,
the cultural life of his own Communist-
governed 'country. -
His expulsion from the Soviet Writers'l
Union was not unexpected. Since 1962, when
his celebrated novel about Russian prisons
camps came out, he has not been allowed
to publish anything of note.
Two subsequent novels ' were printed in
the ',West, happenings which formed the
basis for the charges on which he was ex-
pelled.
'For Mr. Djilas it is also anything but new.
to have his work ostracized at home. But,:
in the Yugoslav case, the latest move against'
his writing sits ill .in the one Communist
state which has an established role of con-
sistent liberalization.
Views confirmed
In its effect, it is a Confirmation of Mr.
Djilas's view?set forth in his latest book,,
"The Unperfect Society"--of the latter-day,
problems of the Communist world whose
predominantly "old guard" conservative
leaders comprehend no other remedy but
a blind tightening up of cultural controls
'against the forces striving for reform.
? Since the Russians' fright over the turn
of events here in the early part of last
year, the return to unequivocal control has;
been evident in Russia and in all the states
of the Communist area.
Oetside the Soviet Union it has been most,
marked in Czechoslovakia in the year now.
elapsed since the 1968 invasion.
At the Soviets' behest, all the new free-
doms of expression briefly installed during
the Czechoslovak "spring" were annulled.
Eight months of freedom of the press was.
ended.
Since the complete take-over by the?
mainly "conservative" leadership last Sep-
tember, party policy in culture and the
'creative arts has become as sternly un--
compromising as it now is in the Soviet
Union. t
At least one well-known writer identified
with the Dubcek reform movement has been
told that a recently completed book cannot
be published. A Polish play .has just been
taken off as an "incitement" to dissenting
opinion. Distinguished Czech films of last
year have been quietly removed from dis-
tribution, though still being screened be-
fore capacity audiences.
In some cases awards for liberally minded
.film work picked .out by film and television
critics has been officially repudiated.
*Weeklies suppressed -
Government recognition (on which state.
subsidies and other benefits vital to .many;
L\ invasion.
The lively literary and political weeklies
of ;968 remain suppressed, Their staffs are
,am mg the several hundred journalists dis-
missed ? and in some cases still languishing
witheout other employment ? in the total
pure of the information and cultural
;mecria.
[even prominent, journalists were ei-,
'pent(' from the Czechoslovak Communist
Par y Nov. 14 for breach of party statutes,',
Reu ers reports.
? '[The seven, all well-known reformist
coluoinists during the 1968 libertdization era;
werc expelled following a meeting of the,
disci plinary commission of the party central-
corn mittee.
? [The party decision said the journalists:
gray dy threatened the international policy,
of the party and by their activities cow-,
tributed to the deterioration of relations,
with socialist countries.
[M?.anwhile, Czechoslovak television for;
mallr announced that the entire Communist
Party organization in its studios has been'
repla :ed. Commentators in both radio and;
television played a big role in promoting'
the 1 beralization program under former
party leader Alexander Dubeek. Most of'
them have lost their jobs or are . working',
. behind the scenes.]
Els( where in Eastern Europe, literature,:
ilm, nd theater have all tended to show
nose circumspection since Russia's inter-.
' ventioa against the "liberal" movement
here.
Ever in Romania, where only the most
roes trends to more freedom of expres-,
sion had begun to emerge, the party line on
aulture and ideology has been stiffened again,
rece it months.
The atest sign of this was the abrupt
termini tion last month of a series of out.;
.sx,Icen articles in a Romanian weekly.'
!Drakes applied
? The :losure followed a warning from,
R mnani in party leader Nicolae Ceausescu'
:in September, aimed at writers and editors
?rwho we re allegedly paying insufficient at-1
ltion too ideology.
3ut Ftpmania is to some extent an evolv-
ing sock ty, however slowly it goes. In the
present drcumstanc?it seems natural for
its leaders to proceed cautiously.
'Yugoslavia? is already a highly evolved so-.
cie y where. from time to time?usually
because if the requirements of Belgrade's.
sensitve relations with Moscow?Marshal;
:Tito has tried to put the brake on.
Slch is the case now, begun with an un-
timely "a lti?Soviet" article (agairist the in.
.:vasion here) printed in a Belgrade fort.;
.nigi-tly on the very eve of Soviet Foreign
Minister Andrei A. Gromyko's September,
visit,to
9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02.: CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001 -9
LE MONDE, Paris
19 November 1969
THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF FRENCH WRITERS PUBLISHES
A DECLARATION pN THE SOLZHENITSYN AFFAIR
"The exclusion of Solzhenitsyn from the Union of Soviet Writers ...
constitutes in the eyes of the entire world a monumental error which is not
limited to harming the Soviet Union but helps confirm the opinion of
socialism which its enemies propagate," the directing committee of the
National Committee of Writers (C.N.E.) states in a communique.
In this protest, signed notably by Jean-Paul Sartre, Elsa Triolet,
Vercors, Jacques Madaule, Arthur Adamov, Aragon, Jean-Louis Bory, Michel
Butor and Christiane Rochefort, the CNE poses a question: "Is it really
necessary that the great writers of the USSR be treated like noxious
beings? This would be completely unbelieveable if it were not clearly
evident through their example that, with the singular complicity of certain
of their colleagues, it is not only the writers as a whole, but in a more
general way the intellectuals that they are trying to terrify, to dissuade
from being anything other than soldiers marching in step.... How could we
have believed that today, in the homeland of triumphant socialism, that
that which not even a Nicolas II would have thought of doing to Chekhov,
when he freely published his Sakhalin, would be the fate of a writer who is
the most characteristic of the great Russian tradition, Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
once already a victim of the Stalinist repression and whose essential crime
is to have survived?
"Is it necessary to tell our Soviet confreres ... that they should re-
call that the signature of certain of their predecessors confirming similar
expulsions was too often a blank check given to the hangman? We still wish
to believe, as in the time of the furies unleashed by a jury which dared
crown the greatest Russian poet then living (Pasternak -Ed.), in the top
leadership of this people to whom we owe the dawn of October and the defeat
of Hitlerian fascism, there will be found persons capable of understanding
the evil being done and of not letting it be carried out," concluded the
statement.
In the issue of Lettres Frangaises which contains this statement, Mr.
Pierre Daix, editor-in-chief of the weekly, reports a conversation he had
at the beginning of the month with the Czech writer Vladimir Brett. The
latter wished to protest against the aricles by Aragon on the situation in
Prague. Mr. Daix replied that his publication did not want to meddle in the
internal affairs of a foreign country, but for reasons of principle he
pointed out that the questionnaire of the Ministry, of Education organizing
systematic informing did the greatest harm to the movement. His interlocutor
indicated that he had learned of the existence of.this questionnaire through
the article by Aragon, which did not prevent him from claiming that Lettres
Frangaises was very badly informed by the emigres. Mr. Daix concluded the
conversation with these words:
"We are well informed in the West by the different newspapers and the
radios on what goes on in your country. We can compare the different reports
and verify them with a critical spirit. If your comrades still think that
the news of what goes on in your country is a matter of personal and private
relations and -- why not? -- of secret services, then it is because they
have a very narrow, backward conception of news, (to say the least), which
had well-known consequences in the 1950's."
10
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
LE MONDE, Paris
19 November 1969
CPYRGHT
Le Comite national des ecrivains francais
publie tine declatation sur l'affaire Soljenitsyne'
L'exclusiOn de Soljenitsyne de
-l'Union des ecriva ins sovieti-
Ques (...) constitue aux yeue du
.:monde entier une erreur moan-
mentate qui ne se borne pas
.nuire 4- l'Union sovietique mais
? contribue d confirmer Vopinion
. du socialisme gu'en propa gent
ses ennemis ?, affirme dans un
communiqu?e comite dlrecteur
Idu Comite national des ecrivains.
Dans cette protestation, signee
notomment par Jean-Paul Sartre,
' Elsa Triolet, Vercors, Jacques
Madaule, Arthur Adamov, Ar-
gon, Jean-Louis Bory. Michel
Butor et Christiane. Rochefort, le
C.N.E. pose la question :e Faut-
ii vraiment que les grands den-
veins de l'U.R.S.S. soient traites
? comme des etres nuisibles? Cela
verait parfaitement incomprehen-
sible si Von ne voyait d'evidence
,qu'en etc, avec la complicite sin-
guliere de certains de ieurs
?Confreres, ce sont non seulement
les ecrivains dans leur ensemble
mais de 'aeon plus generale les
intellectuels quo'n cherche
'epouvanter, 4 dissuader d'etre
autre chose quo des soldats mar-
chant au pas de parade (...). Coin-
meat aurions-nous pit crolre
qu'aujourd'hui, dans la patrie,du
"socialisme triomphant, ce que
n'avait memo pas songe 4 faire
-us Nicolas If centre Tchekhov,
publiant livrement son Sakhallne,
serail le sort de l'ecrivain. le plus
caracteristique de la grande tra-
dition russe, Alexandre Solje-
nitsyne, une lois d? victime de
la repression stalinienne et dont
le crime essentiel est d'y avoir
survecu?
? Faut-il dire 4 nos confreres
sovietiques (...) gulls devraieht
_se rappeler quo la signature de
certain& de Ivies devanciers
confirmant des exclusions sem-
blables a ete trop souvent le
blanc-seing donne au bourreau ?
Nous voulons encore croire que,
comme au temps des coleres de-
chainees par un jury qui avait
use couronner le plus grand poete
russe alors vivant (1), dans les
hauts conseils de ce peuple.a qui
nous devons raurore d'Octobre et
Zn defaite du fascisme hitlerien,
il se trouvera des gees capables
de comprendre le mat fait et de
no pas le laisser eaccomplir
conclut is declaration.
*
Dans le numero des Lett res
francaises qui contient cette de-
claration, M. Pierre Daix, redac-
teur en chef de l'hebdomadaire;
rend compte d'une conversation
qu'il a eue au debut du mois avec
l'ecrivain tcheque Vladimir Brett.
Celui-ci entendait protester contre
les articles d'Aragon.sur is situa-
tion a Prague. M. Daix a repondu
que son journal ne voulait pas se
meter des affaires interieures d'un
pays etranger, mais que pour des
raisons de principe ii relevait que
le questionnaire du ministre de
l'education organisant la deletion
systematique faisait in plus grand
tort au mouvement. Son interlo-
cuteur a indique qu'll avait appris
par l'article d'Aragon l'existence
de ce questionnaire, ce qui ne l's
pas empeche d'affirmer que les
Lett res francaises etaient tres mal,
informees par des emigres. M. Daix
a conclu la conversation par ces
mots :
? Nous sommes bien informes
en Occident par les differents
journaux et les radios sur ce qui
se passe dans votre pays. Nous
pouvons comparer les differentes
_informations et les verifier avec
esprit critique. Si vos camarades
en.sont encore 4 s'imaginer que
Vinformation sur ce qui se passe
? chez eons est al 'etre de relations
personnelles et privees et, Nur-
quoi pas? de services secrets, alone
? c'est qu'ils oat de l'information
? la conception etroite, arrieree,
pour ne pas dire plus, qui a en
les consequences qu'on salt dans
les annees 50. s'
? (1) 11 Vega de Pasternak M.D.
'
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGF-Kpproved for Release 1999/09/02 :1,CykaNtnal,194A000500020001-9CPYRGHT
DAILY TELEGRAPH, London 26 NoVenber 1969
20 November 1969
PEN ASKS FOR'fie
1.1.SQ11 orExl
nat. 4:14-led.
rile 'Author
SOLZHENITSYN,
RESTORATION
By Our Communist ,Affaira
, Correspondent .
M. T Ir pies1.
dent of the international writers?
organisation. RE N yesterdae
Wailed fo. Mr .IConstantin
Perlin, secretary of tho Soviet
Writers' tInione to restore ? the
writer, Alexander Solzhenitseno
to memberehip of the union. His
expulsion from the union woe
announced last week. ? .?
In a ,enhle sent yeisterdae to
nloscow. M. Emmanuel said he
WRS " appalled and shocked " at
the treatment of Mr Solzhenitsyn
whom he deecribied as " that
great and. universally? respected
"We beg you to intervene
persnnally and eresiore him to
membership, thus combating the
much deplored and prolonged
eersecetioni of one of mit most
eminent cones guesee' the eve.
seen said. Mr Ro er TernaSe
ex e ell ti ve 'vice-preei den t, :Ott
,of. )
Internatirinal ' Writers' ,Gund,
also , cabled Moecow veSter(lav
armealine for Mr So1z1ienitft".4
restoration in membership. 41
CPYRGHT- NEW YORK TINES
23 November 1969
- 7 IN SOVIET PROTEST
- SOLZHENITSYN CURB'
MOSCOW, Nov. 22 (UPI).
Vil 1.,1/111.:0,-,....a C
asked the Soviet writers' union
to reconeider its expulsion of
Alcksandr Solzhenitsyn, the
Russian author.
The .union expelled him two
weeks ago on the ground that
his writings were too _critical of
Soviet life and his refusal to
dissociate himself from the
furor his novels -."The Cancer
Ward" and "The First Circle"
. ereeted in tee West.
Literary sources said seven ?
writers bad made individual
representations e to The ? unione
leaderShip."The included Bulate
Okudzhava, Yuri V. Trifonov..
Vladimir F. Tendryakov and
C.:decay Y. Baklanov, the sources ?
said.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn has the
right to appeal the -expulsion,
but hns been reluctant to do
so because of the likelihood of
rejection. He has filed a letter
of protest pleading for freedom
of expression in the Soviet ?
Union and calling Soviet soci-
ety "gravely sick." .
By Anthony Astrachan
Washington Poet Foreign Servie#
MOSCOW, Nov: 25?Threats
of exile and jail were visible
between the lines of a new 1
Writers' Union attack on
elist Alexander Solzhenitsyn
today.
Tess, the Soviet news
agency, published a reply
from the secretariat of the
Russian Federation Writers'
Union to an open letter by
Solzhenitsyn that repelled the
West ten days ago lent has not
been published here.
The secretariat's "report"
will appear in the new issue
Wednesday of Literaturnaya
Gazeta, the organ of the par-
ent-Soviet Writers' Union.
The report says Solzhenit-
syn lied when he claimed he
had neither been invited nor
been sent a telegram summon;
ing him to the meeting of the
secretariat that confirmed his
'expulsion from the union.
It escalates the attack on
Solzhenitsyn. Formerly, he
wa5 charged with refusing to
disassociate himself from "the
anti-Soviet fuss around his
name" abroad. Now, it is sug-
rested that he and his wOrk
themselves are anti-Soviet.
This could open the novella
to prosecution under Article
70 of the Russian Republic's
criminal code, which gives a
maximum sentence of seven
.years in prison followed by
five years' ' exile (from the
home district) to persons con-
victed of anti-Soviet agitation
and propaganda.
Solzhenitsyn, 51, wrote "One
Day in the Life of Ivan Deni-
sovitch," which gave Soviets
their first picture of life in a
Stalin prison camp?a life Sol-
zhenitsyn knew from years in-
side. It was published with Ni-
kita Khrushchev's , blessing..
Solzhenitsyn's "The First Cir-
,cie" and "Cancer Ward," pub-
lished in the West, are known
here only through the undene
ground circulation of typed;
copies.
, The novelist was expelled'
,from the Writers' Union Nov.,
10 and wrote hie open letter a
few days later. .
The secretariat reply said
the novelist "did not stand up
against ,the use of his name
and his works by bourgeois
1 propaganda for a. campaign
of slander against our country
. . . Moreover, in his actions
and statements he actually
joined ? hands with those who
are coming out against the So.
et social system?'
The report also called his
open letter "a proof of his .
direct transition to positions
hostile to the cause of social
-
Ism."
Finally, the report said, 'No-i
body is going to hold Solzein
enitsyni and prevent him from
going away even if he desires
to go where hie anti-Soviet
works and letters are received
such delight."
Solzhenitsyn has never
shown any desire to go any-
where except "some quiet cor-
nee of Russia." His love for his
country is apparent to West-
ern readers in every work. His
determination to stay seems to
contrast with the defection of
Anatoly Kuznetsov in the eyes
of some Russians anti many
foreigners. Kuznetsov went to
Britain on a pretext, defected
and has since been fiercely
critleal of the Soviet Union. ,
Solzhenitsyn's a.p parent
thirst for Russia makes some
,Observers link him to Boris
Pasternak, a writer of differ-
ent style and subject. Khrush-
chey threatened Pasternak
with expulsion from the So-
viet Union. Pasternak replied
that exile would be worse for
him than death, and was al-
owed to stay until he died.
Solzhenitsyn's open letter
referred to the time the Writ-
ers' Union expelled Pasternak
and asked?- "Was that not
shame enough for you?"
The last writer to be ex-
pelled from the Soviet Union,
.fulfilling his own desires, was
Valcry Tarsis, a writer of
lesser stature. He was allowed
to leave in February, NM
In a relnted development
today, 'Constantin Fedin, first
secretary of the Soviet Writ-
ers' Union, sent this reply to
David Carver, General Secretary a the PEN elute, who had
cabled him about Solzhenit-
syn's ? expulsion from the
union:
"I regard your telegram as
unprecedented interference in
;the internal affairs of the
lWriters'. Union of the USSR
;for which the observance of
its rules lies exclusively
within its competence." '
The Soviet Union is not a
member of PEN.
12
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHTpp
A roved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
TEE WASHINGTON POST Friday, Nov:28. 1969
Soviets I prison Signer of ghts Appeal
CPYRGHT
Weehlnatota Pot Fortin Service
MOSCOW, Nov. 27?A So-,
vitt engineer was sentenced
to three years in prison yes-
terday on charges that in-
cluded his signing an appeal
to the U.N. Commission on
litiman Rights last May, it
was learned today.
Genrikh A Runyan was
formally convicted of diffus-
ing fabrications defaming
:the Soviet state and social
..system, dissident sources
said In a new letter to U.N.
, Secretary General U Thant.
The maximum sentence
' on that charge is three.
, years. The indictment was
switched from a more seri-
ous original accusation of
making anti-Soviet propa-
ganda and causing agitation,
which carries a seven-year
maximum sentence. The,
sources offered no explana-
tion of this.
? They did say the charge
covered three specifications:
Signing the May appeal to
the U.N., which charged that
the Soviet gOverziment vb-..
lated human rights; protest-,
Ing the treatment of former.'
Maj. Gen. Pyotr Grigorenko,
arritr3ted last May in Taal).
kent and later sent to a psy-
. chin ric institution, and say-
ing publicly that anti-Semi-
?tism existed in the Soviet
'Unic n. The one-day trial was
held in Kharkov.
Az earlier dissident letter
desc dhed Altunyan as a
man whose main goal in life
was to be readmitted to the
,Corn nunist party, from
whict he was expelled two
year: ago, "because Leninist
.principles and ideas are his
life's driving force."
,Tbz new letter to Thant
was dgned by nine members'
of the Initiative Group for
the Defense of Civil Rights
in tie Soviet Union. The
grout found 54 signers for
its N. ay appeal and 46 for
the one in September. Its
'exist( nee is known to only a
handiltil of Soviet citizens.
Dis ddent sources said
four *f the group's original
15 mi mbers are in niison or
mentz 1 home; while two
more.-,-mathematician Alex-
ander Lavut and biologist
Serge Kovalev?were dis-
missed Tuesday from their
IViosce w University teaching
posts.
Soviet authorities are pre-
sumed to have other ways of
showing their concern with
dissidents besides arrests,
psychiatric commitments
and dismissals. Western
newsmen wondered this
week if an example of one
of those ways had surfaced.
A letter appeared in some
mailboxes purporting to
come from one A. Rozen, ad-,
dressed to Pyotr Yaldr, the
best-known member of the.
Initiative group.
The letter said the writer
had refused to sign a letter
originated by Yakir on the,
eve of thefl 23d congress of
the Soviet Communist Party-,
in 1966 and addressed to the
Central Committee. It said
Pozen had refused to sign,
other letters in defense of
protesters Yuri Galanskov,?
Alexander Ginsburg and An-
atoly March enko, all serving'
prison terms. ?
It then blamed Yaldr for
allowing the underground.
Chronicle of Current Events
and letters .and appeals to .t
:-?
be published abroad, with-h
out the consent of the sign-
ers. It particularly men-
tioned publication in the,
emigre journal Posey, which
It called "a loudspeaker of..
the notorious NTS." NTS h
an anti-Soviet organization
In Western Europe.
The letter also said tin,
writer had first disbelieved,
but later come to believe,
stories about Yakir's drink
ing, philandering and lead-
ing a colleague's daughter
into orgies. It also called
'Yakir's associate, Alexander
Yesenin-Volpin (son of the
late Soviet poet Sergei Yesa,
enin), a victim of serious
mental disease.
The letter may, of course,
be genuine.
?
But it reminded some ob-
servers of earlier attempts
to confuse the readers of
Samizdat, an underground'
, typed publication, with doc4
uments emanating not from
dissidents or bona fide writ-'
ers but from sources linked
to the secret police. Such,
papers do not usually go di.:
met to Western correspond-
ents, however, as this one',
:did.
NEW YORK TIMES
5 December 1969
16 Western Intellectuals Score
Soviet Attacks on Solzhenitsyn
CPYRGHT
A letter condeming the ex-
pulsion of ? Aleksandr I.
Solzhenitsyn from the Soviet
writers union is being sent
to Moscow over the signa-
tures of 16 intellectuals, in-
cluding Arthur Miller, Jean-
Paul Sartre and Carlos Fuen-
tes.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn has been
under attack in the Soviet
'union, where his works have
not been published since
1966. Two of his books, "The
First Circle" and the Cancer
Ward," have been published
in the West. Both have been
banned in te Soviet Union.
, The letter was framed by
Mr. Miller, who is the vice
president of PEN, the interna-
tional writers organization.
It said in part:
"We reject the conception
that an artist's refusal. to
humbly accept state censor-
ship s in any sense criminal
in a civilized society, or that
publication by foreigners of
his books is ground for per-
secuting him.
It also said: "We sign our
names as men of peace de-
claring our solidarity with,
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's de-
fense of those fundamental
rights of the human spirit
which unite civilized people
everywhere."
The other signatories to
the letter selected because of
their acceptance and popu-.
larity within the Soviet
Union, included the follow-
ing American writers:
Charles Bracelen Flood,
John Updike, John Cheever,
Truman Capote, Richard Wil-
bur Mitchell Wilson, Kurt
Vonnegut and Harrison E.
Salisbury.
The other signers were
Igor Stravinsky, Yukio Mis-
chime, Gtinter Grass, Hein-
rich Boll and Friederich Dilr-
renmatt:
In a letter last week to
Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin,
Bertrand Russell said that the
expulsion "is in the interest'
of neither justice nor the good'
name of the? Soviet Union.",
13
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA7RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
II. BACKGROUND
PROBLEMS OF COMMUNISM
September/October 1968
EDITORS' NOTE: Soviet writers and intellectuals
have long struggled for a relaxation of the stringent
censorship laws under which they have labored ever
since Glavlit (Main Administration for Literary Af-
fairs and Publishing) was established on June 6, 1922.
But not wail May 1967 were the Soviet authorities
presented with a demand for the total and unqualified
abolition of this reprehensible institution. The demand
came from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of One Day
in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, in the form, of an open
letter to the Fourth USSR lVriters' Congress, and its
repercussions?overwhelming support from fellow-
: writers and a concerted campaign of harassment
- launched against Solzhenitsyu by the regime in collab-
oration with bureaucrats from the Union of Writers?
arc traced in the documents reproduced below. The
documents tell a remarkable story of a distinguished
writer and free human spirit refusing to bow to the
pressures, the cajolements, the abuse, the threats and
intimidations of a police regime. His novel The First
Circle (now published in English, German, and
Italian), which deals with the special penal institutions
provided by Stalin for politically objectionable mem-
bers of the technical intelligentsia, has been sup-
pressed, as well as his other novel dealing with the
Stalinist era, Cancer Ward (recently printed in Eng.
A. L' Affaire Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn to the Fourth Congress of
Soviet Writers
To the Presidium and the delegates to the Congress, to
members of the Union of Soviet Writers, and to the
editors of literary newspapers and magazines:
Not having access to the podium at this Congress, I ask
that the Congress discuss:
I. The no longer tolerable oppression, in the form of
censorship, 'which our literature has endured for decades,
and which the Union of Writers can no longer accept.
Under the obfuscating label of Glavlit, this censorship--
which is not provided for in the Constitution and is there-
fore illegal, and which is nowhere publicly labeled as such
?imposes a yoke on our literature and gives people 'un-
versed in literature arbitrary control over writers. A sur-
vival of the Middle Ages, the censorship has managed,
Methuselah-like, to drag out its existence almost to the
2Ist century. Of fleeting significance, it attempts to ap-
prnpriate to itself the role of unficeting time?of separat-
ing good books from bad.
Our writers are not supposed to have the right, are not
endowed with the right, to express their cautionary judg-
ments about the moral life of man and society, or to ex-
plain in their own way the social problems and historical
experience that have been so deeply felt in our country.
Works that might express the mature thinking of the
people, that might have a timely and salutary influence on
the realm of the spirit or on the development of a social
conscience, are proscribed or distorted by censorship on
the basis of considerations that arc petty, egotistical, and
?from the national point of view?shortsighted. Out-
standing manuscripts by young authors, as yet entirely
unknown, are nowadays rejected by editors solely on the
ground that they "will not pass." Many members of the
lish by two publishers). On June 26, 1968, Litera-
turnaia gazeta denounced him for his "demagogic
behavior," for "attacking the fundamental principles
that guide Soviet literature," and for "maliciously
slandering the Soviet system," warning him?and one
of his supporters, the venerable writer V. Kaverin
(see Doc. 67)?to cease their "anti-Soviet" activities.
But Solzhenitsyn remains unmoved, his behavior serv-
ing as an inspiration to many others in the literary
community?as borne out by Documents 71and 72.
The address by Svirsky refers explicitly to Solzheni-
tsyn; and it surely is significant that Voznesensky's
bold attack on what may be termed the "literary bu-
reaucracy" came shortly after Solzhenitsyn's plea for
the abolition of censorship. The final document (No.
73) is an impassioned defense of underground litera-
ture and underground writers in general. It was written
in 1966 by Yuri Galanskov, whose long record of
activities (including the drafting of a program for a
"World Union of Partisans of General Disarmament"
in 1961, an attempt to organize an apolitical youth
club in 1962, and a unique one-man demonstration
three years later in front of the US Embassy in Moscow
against American intervention in the Dominican Re-
public) ended in January 1968, when he was impris-
oned for "subverting Soviet authority."
[Writers'] Union, and even many of the delegates. at this
Congress, know how they themselves have bowed to the
pressures of the censorship and made concessions in the
structure and concept of their books?changing chapters,
pages, paragraphs, or sentences, giving them innocuous
titles?just for the sake of seeing them finally in print,
even if it meant distorting them irremediably. It is an
understood quality of literature that gifted works suffer
1..ino,,t1 dkastrously front all these diStortions, vhik un.
talented works are not affected by them. Indeed, it is the -
best of our literature that i published in mutilated form. --
! Meanwhile, the most CerISOriOU I abels---??"ideologicall y ?
;harmful." "depraved," ;ind- 80 forth?are prOving short-
;lived and fluid, lin fact] are. changing before our very'
;eyes. Even Dostoevsky, the pride of world litt?rature, WilS ,
int one time not published in our country Imlay his:
Rvorks are not published in full); he Wag VXCinded from'
the school curriculum, made unacceptable for reading,
rind .reviled. For how many years was Ycsenin considered -
"counterrevolutionary"? --he was even- subjected io
4nison term because Of his books, Wasn't Maiakovsky
'called "an anarchistic political hooligan"? For decades
I he immortal poetry of Aklimatova was considered anti- \
:Soviet. The first timid printing of the dantirg Tsvetaeva
t en years age was declared a "gross political error." Only
:after a delay of twenty to thirty years were Bunin,
iltilga-
kuv, and Platonov returned to us. Inevitahly, Mandel-
Voloshin, Gurnilev and Kliuev will follow -in that
line---not to mention Alie recognition, at some time or,
'other, of even Zamiatin and Remisov. ?
A decisive moment fin this process] vomes with the
death of a troublesome writer. Sooner or later after that,
he is returned to us with an "explanation of I his] errors."-.
Frr a long time the name of Pasternak could not be pro-'
;nouneed out loud; but then he died, and 'since then his
!books have appeared and his verse is even quoted at.
4-eren1onies.
Pushkin's words are really coming true: "limy are
.capable of loving only the dealt".
- But the -belated. publicatiOn of bonkq and "authoriza-
[rehabilitation) of names does not make up for
either the social or the artistic losses suffered by ()lir
? I
3.4
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
wolde 41,04111(1.1re of these mom:Irons delays and
the stippre,.sion ?of artktic conscience. fin fact. there
were writers in the l')20's Pilniak, Platunov. Mandel-
:slut:Mu 'Who elillod attention at a very. early stage to the
nf the cult lof personality] and the peculiar.
trait,; of Stalin's character; but these writers were A-.
Ilcnced and destroyed instead of being listened to.)
Iit-
''raurf' dnvelon in between thy. eati,goriw; of "per-
)71itted" and "not permitted," "alma this you may write"
land "along this you may not." Literature that is not the
!breath of contemporary society, that dares not transmit:
ithe pains and fears of that :,(wiety, tltat does not warn in;
:tittle against threatening T1101.711 111341 social dangers
literature :does not deserve the name of literature; it is;
niuty fau'aule. Such literatuure 111F,IN the confidence of its
iown people, and its published works are used as waste-i
ptiper instead of being read.
Our literature has lost the leading role it played at the
.ren(I of the At u?entnry and the beginning of this one, and
it has lot the, brilliance of experimentation that dis.
tinguished it in the .1920's. To the entire world the literary
lI fe of our country now appears immeasurably more
!colorless, trivial and inferior than it acttially is Intl
than it would be if it were not confined pod hemmed in..
:Thu. losers are both our country in world public opinion
and world literature itself. If the world had access to
.all the uninhibited fruits of our literature, if it were
enriched by our own spiritual experience? the whole ar- -
tistie evolution of the world would move along in a dif-,
l'erent way, acquiring a new stability and attaining even:
:a new artistic threshnid.
I propose that ,the Congress adopt a resolution which
would dernund and ensure the abolition of all censorship,
.open or hidden, of all fictional writing, and which would
release publishing houses from the obligation to, obtain -
authorization for the publication of every printed page.!
ill. The ditties of the Union towards its members,
Theso duties are not elearly formulated in -the statutes
,of the Union of Soviet Writers -(undcr "Protection of -
copyrights" and "Measures for the protection of other'
trights of writers"), and it is sad to find that for a third
iof a ceniury the Union has not defended either the "other"'
riglits or even the copyrights of persecuted writers.
Many writers have been subjected dming their lifetime
to alunse and slander in the press and from rostrums with- ,
?Ittt being afforded tlte physical possibility of replying.:
ore than that, they have been exposed to violence and
)iersonal persecution (Bulgakov, Aklimatova, Tsvetaeva,.
Pasternak, Zosbehenko, Platonov, Aleksandr Grin, Vassili -
Grossman).flsc Ilnion of Writers not only did not make
its W11 publications available to these writers for pur-
?poses of reply and justification, not oily did not come out
in their defense, hut. through its leadership was always -
first among the persecutors. Names that adorned our
- 'poetry !if the 20th century found themselves on the list of -
'those expelled from the Union or not even admitted to it
in the first place. The leadership of the Union cravenly -
ialtandoncil to their distress those for whom persecution
]ended in t_;exile, labor camps, and death (Pavel Vasi)ev,
.Mandelshia iii. Art cm 'Vesely, Pilniak, I b I, Tabidze,
Z.liboloisky. and others). The list must be cut off at "and
uuthers," We learned after the 20th Party Congress that
there were more than 600 writers whom the Union had
1.o1e1iently handed over to their fate in prisons and camps..
Ilotvever, the roll is men longer, and its tattled-up end
cannot 11nl will not ever be read by our .eYes. It ,contains
the names of yming prose-writers and poils whom we may
have known only accidentally through personal encounters
and whose talents were crushed in camps before being
,alde to blossom, whose writing's never got further than the
- MCI'S of the state security service in the days of Yagoda,'
-Yeihov, Ilu?ria and Abakumov? ,
There is no historical necessity for the newly-elected
leadership of the Union to share with its predecessors the:
respumsibility for the past.
I propose that all guarantees for the defense of Union .
members sitbjected to slander and unjust persertaion be
ielearly formulated in Paragraph 22 of the Union statutes,
'so that past illegalities will not he repeated.
If the ( mi gr' orb. not remain indifferent to what I
have sttid. I ab-o nsk that it emi,ider the interdictions and
perzeetitions to which I myself havn been stibjeeted.
1) ft will soon be two years since the state security
authorities took away from me my novel, The First Circle
(comprising 35 authors' sheets ravtorskie 1151yl),1 thus
'preventing it from being submitted to publishers. Instead,
!ill my own lifetime, against my will and even without my
knowledge, this novel has been "published" in an un-
natural "closed" edition for reading by an unidentified
select eh-de. My novel has rthusl become available to
literary officials but is being concealed from most writers.
I have been unable to obtain open discussion of the novel
within writers' associations and to prevent misuse and
2) Together with this novel, my literary papers dating
back 15-20 years, things that were not intended for pub-
lication, were taken away from me. Now, tendentious
excerpts from these papers have also been covertly "pub-
lished" and are being circulated within the same circles.
The play, Feast of the Conquerors, which I wrote in verse
from memory in camp, where I went by a four-digit num-
ber?and where, condemned to die by starvation, we
were forgotten by society, no one outside the camps com-
ing out against [such] repressions?this play, now left
far behind, is being ascribed to me as my very latest work.
3) For three years now, an irresponsible campaign of
slander has been conducted against me, who fought all
through the war as a battery commander and received
military decorations. It is being said that I served time as
a criminal, or surrendered to the enemy (I was never a
prisoner-of-war), that I "betrayed" my country and
"served the Germans." That is the interpretation being
put now on the eleven years I spent in camps and in exile
for having criticized Stalin. This slander is being spread
in secret instructions and meetings by people holding
official positions. I vainly tried to stop the slander by
appealing to the Board of the Writers' Union of the
RSFSR and to the press. The Board did not even react,
and not a single paper printed my reply to the slanderers.
On the contrary, slander against me from rostrums has
intensified and become more vicious within the last year,
making use of distorted material from my confiscated
papers, and I have no way of replying.
4) My novel, Cancer Ward (comprising 25 author's
sheets), the first part of which was approved for publica-
tion by the prose department of the Moscow writers'
organization, cannot be published either by chapters?
rejected by five magazines?or in its entirety?rejected
by Novyi mir, Zvezda, and Prostor.
5) The play, The Reindeer and the Little Hut, ac-
cepted in 1962 by the Sovremennik Theater, has thus far
not been approved for performance.
6) The screen play, The Tanks Know the Truth; the
stage play, The Light That is in You; [a group of] short
stories entitled The Right Hand; the series, Small Bite?
[all these] cannot .find either a producer or a publisher.
7) My stories published in Novy i mir have never been
reprinted in book form, having been rejected everywhere
?by the Soviet Writer Publishers, the State Literature
Publishing House, and the Ogoniok Library. They thus
remain inaccessible to the general reading public.
8) I have also been prevented from having any other
contacts with readers [either] through public readings of
my works (in November 1966, nine out of eleven sched-
uled meetings were cancelled at the last moment) or,
through readings over the radio, Even the simple act of
giving a manuscript away for "reading and Copying" has
now become a criminal act (ancient Russian scribes were
,permitted to do this five centuries ago).
Thus my work has been finally smothered, gagged, and
slandered.
In view of such flagrant infringements of my copyright
and "other" rights, will the Fourth Congress defend me?
yes or no? It seems to me that the choice is also not with-
out importance for the literary future of several of the
delegates.
I am of course confident that I will fulfill my duty as
a writer under all circumstances?even more successfully
15
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
and more APJAFRYPOoE9felitPtli? 9,9(9.9 /0 2 :
time. No one can bar the road to truth, and to advance
its cause I am prepared to accept even death. But may,
it be that repeated lessons will finally teach us not to stop,
the writer's pen during his lifetime?
At no time has this ennobled our history.
A. I. SOLZHENITSYN
May 16, 1967.
"Author's sheets" are printed pages, each containing 40,000
.typographical characters, used in the Soviet Union for com-
'puting the author's fee.--Ed.
Antokolsky to Demichev
To Comratle P. N. Demichev, Secretary of the CPSU
Central Committee
'Dear Piotr Nilych!
Like other delegates to our congress, I too have received,
the famous letter written by Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhe-
nitsyn, and it has perturbed me, as it has several other
comrades.
As an old writer and a Communist, I feel obliged to
,share my feelings with you.
I consider Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a writer endowed,
tAritit rare talent, a rising hope of our realistic literature,
Ian heir to the great and humanistic traditions of Gogol,
Le,v Tolstoy and Aleksei Maksimovich Gorky. We ought
.to cherish such contributors to our culture. Criticism of
.those works of Solzhenitsyn which have been published
hasshocked me because it is biased, unjust and un-
convincing.
The ban on Solzhenitsyn's manuscripts, described in
'detail in his letter, strikes one as an incredible occurrence,
'unworthy of our socialist society and our Soviet state. It,
is all the more dreadful in view of the fact that the same
thing happened several years ago to the manuscript
the second part of the novel by the late Vassili Grossman. -
Is it possible that such reprisals against the manuscripts
of our writers are threatening to become a custom sanc-
tioned by law in our country?
This cannot and must not happen!
Such savagery toward works of art is incompatible-with-
our fundamental laws and unthinkable in any normal:
human community.
If Solzhenitsyn's works contain controversial and un:.
clear elements, if political mistakes have been discovered
in them, they should be submitted to the public for open
discussion. Writers have many opportunities to do this.
I have worked in the field of literature for 50 years.
:I have written .many books and lived out my life, a life.
full of vicissitudes. I have experienced periods of burn-,
ing anxiety for the fate of our entire literature, and some-
times for various comrades: Bulgakov,?Pasternak, Titsian
"rabid le I reeall the names of those who were close to-
me.
!laving lived out my life, I would never have thought
:that such -anxiety would recur in the evening of my days,.
and on the eve of the great and glorious anniversary!:
, If a Soviet writer is compelled to turn to his fellow,
writers with a letter like Solzhenitsyn's, this means that,
iwe iire all morally responsible to him and to our own
readers. If he cammt tell his readers the truth, then T too,
'old writer that I am, have no right to look my readers.
straight in the eye.
n.d. ANTOKot.sKY
Solzhenitsyn to Writers' [Won
To the Secretariat of the Board of the Union of Writers
of the USSR?All Secretaries
CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Even though suppiirted by mere than a hundred writers,
my letter to the Fourth Cong.ress of the IInion of Writers
has been neither published nor answered. The only thing
that has happened is that rumors are being. spread in
Order to assuage public opinion. These rumors- -highly
'uniform and evidently coming from a centralized source?
'aver that Cancer Ward and a book of [my] stories are
lbeing printed, But as you know, this is a lie.
; In a conversation with me on June 12, 1967, ['some of
the-.1 secretaries of the Board of the Union of Writers of
Markov. K. Voronkov, S. Sartakov, and
if? Sobolev----declared that the Board of the Union of
Writers 'deemed it a duty to refute publicly the base
slander that has been spread about me and my military
;record. However, not only has this refutation failed
:to materialize, but the slanders continne: at in
meet logs, at activist meetings, and at seminars. a new
batch of fantastic nonsense is being dissemituded about
e.g.,1 that I have run oil to the Republic of Arabia.
or to England (I would like to assure the slanderers that
it is rather they who will lie doing the running). Promi-
mem pCISOIIS persistently express their regret OW I did
riot dif! in the camp, that I was liberated. (Invidentally,.
.immediately following Iran Denisovich, the same regret
:was voiced. This boa is now being secretly withdrawn
from circulation in [public] libraries.)
' These same secretaries of the Board promised at least'
ito "examine the question" of [approving] publication of:
roy latest novel, Cancer rard. nut in the spfice of three
months---ene-fourth of a year-- no progress has been made.
fi-1 this direction either. During these three months,.
42 secretaries of the Board have been unable to make an
'evaluation of the novel or to make a recommendation as
.to whether it should be published. The novel has been in
this same strange and equivoval state- no direct pro-.
hibition, no direct permission:--for over a year. since the
summer of 1966. While the journal.Noeyi mir would now.
like to publish the story, it lacks the permission to do so..
Dors the Seeretariat believe thin i my novel will silently
disappear as a result of these endless delays, that I will
cease .to exist, and that !therefore] the Secretariat will
not have to decide whether to include it or exclude it from.
-Soviet literature? While this is going on, the book is
being read avidly everywhere. At the behest of the read-
ers, it has already appeared in hundreds of typewritten'..
.copies. At the June 12 meeting T apprised the Secretariat .
.that we should make haste to publish the novel if we
'wish to see it appear first in Russian, that under the
.circumstances we cannot prevent its unauthorized ap-
pearance in the West.
After the senseless delay of many months, the time has
,come to state that if the latter does happen, it will clearly
:be the fault (or perhaps the wish?) of the Secretariat
the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR.
I insist that my story be published without delay.
SOLZHENITSYN
September 12, 1967
63. Secretariat Meeting with Solzhenitsyn
Proceedings of dtiession of the Secretariat of the
Union of Soviet Writers, September 22, 1967
The session was attended by approximately 30 secre-
taries of the Union of Writers and by Contrade Mcicntiev
of the Cultural Department of the Central Committee.
K. A. Frilin was chairman. The session, which discussed
letters written by Solzhenitsyn, started at 1:00 p.m. and
ended after 5:00 p.m.
FtanN: I have been shaken by Solzhenitsyn's second \
letter. Ills claim that things have come to a standstill '
seems to me to be without foundation. I feel that this has
been an insult to our collective. By no means is three and
:a half months a long time to spend examining his mann-
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 . CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02: CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
script, I. have sensed something in the nature of a threat
I in Ow letter]. This strikes me as offensive! Solzhen?
,itsyn's second letter seems to urge us to take up his mann-
.,cripts in all haste told to publish them immediately. The
'second letter continues the line of the first, hut the first,
IriftE!ipoke more concretely and with more fervor Aunt.
the fate of the writer, while the second, I feel, was ofTen-.
Hive. Where do we stand with regard to the complex ques-
tion of publishing Solzhenitsyn's things? None of us
denies that be is talented. [Yet] the tenor of the letter:
veers in an iMpermissible direction. His letter is like tt
,11,11) in ,;the face: it is as if we are reprobates and not
presentatives of the (;reative intelligentsia. In the final!
HnalysiA, be himself is slowing down the examination of
the que`stion with these demands, I did not find the idetii-
of literary comradeship in his letters. Whether we wanti
to or not, today we must get into a discussion of So1zhen-1
. Itsyn'sTworks, but it seems to me that generally speaking
.;we should discuss the letters.
. Solzhenitsyn requests permission to say a few words
(f1,e,i,t the till biort of discussion. fir reads a written
tortetnent:
It has become known to me that in preparation for the
discussion of Cancer Ward, the secretaries of the Board
were instructed to read the play, Feast of the Conquerors,
which I myself have long since renounced; I have not even
read it for ten years. I destroyed all copies of it except
the one that was confiscated and that has now been re-
produced. More than once I have explained that this play:
was written not by Solzhenitsyn, member of the Union of:
Writers, but by nameless prisoner Sh-232 in those distant!
.years when there was no return to freedom for those
.arrested under the political article, at a time when no one,
:in the community, including the writers' community,i
:either in word or deed spoke out against repression, even,
.when such repression was directed against entire peoples.,
I now bear just as little responsibility for this play as
.many other authors bear for speeches and books they wrote
in 1949 but would not write again today. This play hears
the stamp of the desperation of the camps in those years
when man's conscious being was determined by his social
'being and at a time when the conscious being was by no
means uplifted by prayers for those who were being
persecuted. This play bears no relationship whatsoever
.to my present works, and the critique of it is a deliberate
departure from a businesslike discussion of the novel,
Cancer Ward.
' Moreover, it is beneath a writer's ethics to discuss a
work that was seized in such a way from a private apart-
ment. The critique of my novel, The First Circle, is a,
separate matter and should not be substituted for a,
critique of the story, Cancer Ward.
KORNEICHTIK: I have a question to put to Solzhenitsyn.
How (hies he regard the licentious bourgeois propaganda
that his ffirst] letter evoked? Why doesn't he dissociate
himself from it [the propaganda]? Why does he put up
with it in silence? How is it that his letter was broadcast
over the radio in the West even before the congress
started?
Fedin calls upon Solzhenitsyn to reply. Solzhenitsyn
replies that he is not a schoolboy who has to jump up to
answer every question, that he will deliver a statement
like the others. Fedin says that Solzhenitsyn can wait
until there are several questions and then answer them all
at the same time.
BARUZDIN : Even though Solzhenitsyn protests against the
discussion of Feast of the Conquerors, we shall have to
discuss this play whether he wants to or not.
SALYNSKY: I would like Solzhenitsyn to tell us by whom,
when, and under what circumstances these materials were
removed. Has the author asked for their return? To,
whom did he address his request?
Fcdin asks Solzhenitsyn to answer these questions.
Solzhenitsyn repeats that he will answer them when mak-
ing his statement.
FEDIN: But the Secretariat cannot begin the discussion
until it has the answers to these questions.
VOICES: If Solzhenitsyn wants to refuse to talk to the
Secretariat at all, let him say so.
SOLZHENITSYN : Very well, I shall answer these questions.
It is not true that the letter was broadcast over the radio
in the West before the congress: it was broadcast after
the congress closed, and then not right away. (The follow-
ing is verbatim:) Very significant and expressive use is
made here of the word "abroad," as if it referred to some
higher authority whose opinion was very much cherished.
Perhaps this is understandable to those who spend much
creative time traveling abroad, to those who flood our
'literature with sketches about life abroad. But this is alien
to me. I have never been abroad, but I do know that I
don't have time enough left in my life to learn about life
there. I do not understand how one can be so sensitive to
opinion abroad and not to one's own country, to pulsing
public opinion here. For my entire life I have had the
soil of my homeland under my feet; only its pain do I
hear, only it do I write. -
Why was the play, Feast of the Conquerors, mentioned
in the letter to the congress? This is apparent from the
letter itself: in order to protest against the illegal "pub-
lication" and dissemination of this play against the will
of the author and without his consent. Now, concerning
the confiscation of my novel and archives. Yes, I did
'write several times beginning in 1965 to protest this matter
,to the Central Committee. But in recent times a whole
;new version of the confiscation of my archives has been
'invented. The story is that Teush, the person who was
keeping my manuscripts, had some tie with another per-
son who is not named, that the latter was arrested while
going through customs (where is not mentioned), and
that something or other was found in his possession (they
do not say what) ; it was not something of mine, but they
decided to protect me against such an acquaintanceship.
Al! this is a lie. Teush's friend was investigated two years
ago, but no such accusation was made against him. The
items I had in safekeeping were discovered as a conse-
quence of [police] surveillance, wiretapping, and an
eavesdropping device. And here is the remarkable thing:
barely does the new version (of the confiscation] appear,
than it crops up in various parts of the country. Lecturer
Potemkin has just aired it to a large assemblage in Riga;
and one of the secretaries of the Union of Writers has
passed it on to writers in Moscow, adding his own inven-
tion?that I supposedly acknowledged all these things at
the last meeting at the Secretariat. Yet not a single one
of these things was discussed. I have no doubt that I will
soon start getting letters from all parts of the country
about the dissemination of this version.
?VoicE: Has the editorial board of Novyi mir rejected or
accepted the novel, Cancer Ward?
AnoumomuNov: What kind of authorization does Novyi
mir require to print a story, and from whom does it come?
TVARDOVSKY: Generally, the decision to print or not to
print a particular thing is a matter for the editorial board
to decide. But in the situation that has developed around
this author's name, the Secretariat of the Union must
decide.
VORONKOV: Not once has Solzhenitsyn appealed directly
to the Secretariat of the Union of Writers. After Solzhen-
itsyn's letter .to the congress, some of the comrades in the
Secretariat, expressed the desire to meet with him, to
answer questions, to talk [with him] and help. But after
the letter appeared in the dirty bourgeois press and
Solzhenitsyn did not react in any way. . .
TVARDOVSKY [interrupting]: Precisely like the Union of
Writers! a
VORONKOV: . . . this desire died. And now, the second
letter has come. It is written in the form of an ultimatum;
it is offensive and a disrespect to our writers' community.
Just now Solzhenitsyn referred to "one of the secretaries"
who addressed a party meeting of Moscow writers. I wre,
that secretary. I To Solzhenitsyn!: People were in a hurry
to inform pm but they did a had job of it. A, to the con-
,fi,eation of your things, the inly thing I mentioned was
that you had admitted at the last Meeting that the con-
fiscated items were yours and that there had been no
search made of your lum.e. Naturally, after yoUr letter
to the Congress, we ourselves asked to read nil your
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : dirA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
works. But you should not be so rude to your !mothers
in labor and writing! And you, Aleksandr 'frifonovich,
1Tvardovskyl. if..-you consider it, necessary to print ibis
story, and if the author accepts your corrections, then go,
iahead and print it yourself: why should the Secret ad at
be involved?
'rvAtnh And what happened in the case of Bek? 1,
The Secretariat was also involved then and made its
i.ceornmenriations, hut all the same nothing was published.:
:Voturotov: What interests me most of all now is the eivie;
liorsipli Solzhenitsyn: Why doesn't he give answer to the.
:malicious bourgeois propaganila? And why does he treat:
rts as he does?
Mrsimeor: I have a question, too. How can he possibly
write in his letter: "Prominent persons persistently ex-
press regret that I did not die in the camp? What right
does .he have to write such a thing?
t
Stimueov: And by what channels could the letter have
reached the West?
;Perlin risks Solzhenitsyn to answer these questions.
!Sor.znENE7sYN: What other things have been said abotit!
nitt? A person who right now occupies a very high posi-
tion publicly declared that. he is sorry he was not one of
the trinnivirate that sentenced me in 1915, that he would'
,have sentenced me to be shot then and there! Here Fat
the Secretariat] my second letter is interpreted as an
:ultimatum: either print the story, or it will be printed in
.the But it isti`t / who ttreseols this ultimatum to thel
'Stwretarint ; life presents this ultimatum to put and me ,
both, f write that T am disturbed by the distribution of the
:story in hundreds? this is an approximate figure?in
hundreds of typewritten copies.
Ilow did this come about?
SoLzItENITsYN: My works are disseminated in one way
Only: people persistently ask to read them, and having
received them to read, they either use their spare time or
their own fonds to reprint them and then give them to ;
,
Oilers to read, As long us 11 year ago the entire Moscow
'seetionI of the Writers' Union" read the first part of the
story. and I am: sorprised that Comrade Vormkov said
here that they didn't know where, to get it and that they
asked the KGB. About three years ago my "short stories"
Or poetry, in prose were disseminated just as rapidly:
barely had T given them to people to read when they
:quiekly reached various cities in the Union. And then
the editors of Not mir reco,ived a letter from the West ;
rom whitdi we learned that these stories had already been
published there.' IIt was in order that such a leak might
not befall Cancer Word that T wrote my insistent letter to
the Secretariat. I am no less astonished that the Seem- ;
lariat could fail to react in some way to my letter to the
congress before the West did. And how could it fail to
respond to all the slander that surrounds me'? Comrade
Voronkov used hero the tomuirkahle expiession "brothers
in wiiiing,aod !ahoy." Well, the fact of the matter is that
tlu?e brothers in writing anti labor have for two and a.
half yeais calmly watched me being oppressed, perse-.
euted, and slandered. . .
,TvAnoovsKv: Not everyone has been indifferent.
SorznENITsvN: . . and newspaper editors, also like)
,brothers, emitribitte to the web of falsehood that is woven
around me by not publishing ,my denials. (Verbatim):
not speaking about the fact that people in the camps
tire not allowed to read my book. It was banned in the
ettinps, searches for it were conducted, and people were
put in punishment cells for reading it even during those
mlinths when all the newspapers were loudly acclaiming
Day in the Life of Iron Denisorieh and proMising that
."this will not happen again." But in recent times, the
:book is secretly being withdrawn from libraries outride
Ithe vamps] as well. I have received letters from various
places telling me of the prohibition against circulating
t Iii' book: the order is to tell the readers that the book,
is in the bindery, that it is out, or that there is no access
In ( where the book is kept!, and to refusc!
to circulate it. Here is it letter recently received from the,
Krasnogvardeiskii Rrgion in the Crimea:
In the regional library, I was confidentially told (I am an
:activist in this library) of an order that your books be:
. removed from circulation. One of the women worket s. in
the library wanted to present me with A Day in a journal'
newspaperas a souvenir, since the library no longer
:needs it, but another woman immediately stopped her
,rash girl friend: "What are you doing, you mustn't!
f.)tice the book has been assigned to the Special Section,'
it is dangerous to make a present of h."
I am not saying that the book ling been removed from
all libraries; here and there it can still be found. Butt
people corning to visit me in Riazan were unable to get
nty book in the [Ninth Oblast Reading Room! They were
given various excuses but they did not get the book. . . .
Tin. circle of lies becomes over wider, knowing no limits,
even charging me with having lit-in taken prisoner end
having collaborated with the Germans, But that's not the
end of it! Tb is summer, in the political education schools,
e.g., in Bolshevo, the agitators were told that I had fled
to the Republic of Arabia and that I had changed my
citizenship. Naturally, all this is written down in note.
'books and is disseminated one hundred times over. And
this took place not more than a few miles from the capi-
tal! Ilene is another version. In Solikamsk (1'0 Box ?
Major Sliestakov declared that I had Iled to England
ou a tourist visa. 'Phis is the deputy for pit irfil affairs--
who dares disbelieve him? Another time, the same man
stated: "Solzhenitsyn has linen forbidden to write of-
ficially." Well, at least here he is closer to the truth.
The following is being said about me from the rostrums:
"He was set free ahead of time, for no reason." Whether,
there was any reason can be seen in the court decision of
the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, Rehabilita-
tion Section. It has been presented to the.Seeretariat. . .
TvAttoovsxv:. It also contains the combat record of Officer
Solzhenitsyn.
Strrztir.misvtst: And the expression "ahead of time" is
used with great relish! After the eight-year sentence, I
served a month in deportation prisons, but of course it is
.ronsidered shameful to mention such a petty detail. Then,
;without being sentenced, I was permanently exiled, I
spent three years in exile with that eternal feeling of
doom. It was only because of the 20th Congress that I
was set free?and this is called "ahead Of time!" The
expression is so typical of the conditions that prevailed in
the 1949-53. period: If a man did not die beside a camp
rubbish heap, if he was able even to crawl out of the
camp, this meant that he had been set free "ahead of
time"?after all, the sentence was for eternity and any-
thing earlier was "ahead of time."
Former Minister Semichastny, who was fond of speak-
ing on literary issues, also singled me out for attention
more than once.. One of his astonishing, even comical
accusations was the following: "Solzhenitsyn is materially
supporting the capitalist world; else why doesn't he claim
his rights [i.e., collect his fee] from someone or other for
his well-known book?" Obviously, the reference was to
Ivan Denisovich, since no other book of mine had been
published [at that time]. Now if you knew, if you had
read somewhere that it was absolutely necessary for me
. to wrest the money from the capitalists, then why didn't
you inform me about it? This is a farce: whoever collects
fees from the West has sold out to the capitalists; who-
ever does not take the fees is materially supporting them.
And the third alternative? To fly into the sky. While
Semichastny is no longer a minister, his idea has not died:
lectures of the All-Union Society for the Dissemination of
Scientific Information have carried it further. By way of
example, the idea was repeated on July 16 of this year by
Lecturer A. A. Freifeld at the Sverdlovsk Circus. Two
thousand persons sat there and marveled: "Wljat a crafty
bird, that Solzhenitsyn! Without leaving the Soviet Union,
without a single kopek in his pocket, he contrived to sup-
port world capitalism materially." This is indeed a story
to be told at a circus.
We had a talk on June 12, right here, at the Secretariat.
It was quiet and peaceful. We seemed to make some
progress. A short time passed, and suddenly rumors were
rampant throughout all of Moscow. Everything that ac-
tually took place was distorted, beginning with the fabri-
cation that Tvardovsky had been shouting and waving his
fist at me. But everyone who was there knows that nothing
like that took place. Why these lies, then? And right now
we are all simultaneously hearing what is said here, but
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 :1'1A-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
where is the guarantee that after today's meeting of the
Secretariat everything will not be distorted again? If you
really are "brothers in writing and work," then my first
request is that when you talk about today's session, don't
fabricate and distort things.
I am one person; my slanderers number in the hunt
dreds. Naturally I am never able to defend myself, and
I never know against whom I should defend myself. I
wouldn't be surprised if I were declared to be an ad-
herent of, the geocentric system and to have been the first
to light the pyre of Giordano Bruno.8
SALYNSKY: I shall speak of Cancer Ward. I believe that
it should be printed?it is a vivid and powerful thing. To
be sure, it contains descriptions of diseases in pathological
terms, 'and the reader involuntarily develops a phobia
about cancer?a phobia which is already widespread in
our century. Somehow this [aspect of the book] should
he eliminated. The caustic, topical-satirical, style should
also be eliminated. Another negative feature is that the
destinies of almost all the characters are connected with
the camp or with camp life in one form or another. This
may be all right in the case of Kostoglotov or Rusanov,
but why does it have to be applied to Valim, to Shulubin,
and even to the soldier? At the very end we learn that
he is no ordinary soldier from the army, that he is a camp
guard. [till] the basic orientation of the novel is to dis-
cuss the end of the difficult past. And now a few words
about moral socialism Ca concept expounded in the novel].
In my opinion, there is nothing so bad about this. It -
would be bad if Solzhenitsyn were preaching amoral
socialism. If he were preaching national socialism or the
Chinese version of national socialism?it would be bad.
Each person is free to form his own ideas on socialism
and its development. I personally believe that socialism
is determined by economic laws. But of course there is
room for argument. Why not print the story then?
(He subsequently calls upon the Secretariat to issue a
statement decisively refuting the slanders against
Solzhenitsyn.)
SlmoNov: I do not accept the novel, The First Circle, and
oppose its publication. As for Cancer Ward,I am in favor
of publishing it. Not everything in the story is to my
liking, but it does not have to please everyone. Perhaps
the author should adopt some of the comments that have
been made, but naturally he cannot adopt all of them. It
is also our duty to refute the slander about him. Further,
his book Of stories should be published. The foreword to
the latter book would be a good place in which to publish
his biography, and in this way the slander would die out
of its own accord. Both we and he himself can and must
put an end to false accusations. I have not read Feast of
the Conquerors, nor do I desire to do so, since the author
doesn't wish it.
TVARDOVSKY: Solzhenitsyn's position is such that he can-
not issue a statement. It is we ourselves, the Union, who
must make a statement refuting the slander. At the same
time, we must sternly warn Solzhenitsyn against the in-
admissible, unpleasant way in which he addressed the
congress. The editorial board of Novyi mir sees no reason
why Cancer Ward should not be printed, naturally with ?
certain revisions. We only wish to receive the Secretariat's
approval or at least word that the Secretariat does not
object. (He asks Voronkov to produce the Secretariat's
draft communique which was prepared back in June.)
Voronkov indicates that he is in no hurry to produce
tlu? communique. During this time voices are heard: They
still haven't decided. There are those who are opposed!
Fitnist: No, that isn't so. It isn't the Secretariat that has
to print or reject anything. Are we really guilty of any-
thing? Is it possible, Aleksandr Trifonovich, that you feel
guilty?
TVARDOVSKY (quickly, expressively): I?? No.
FED1N: We shouldn't search for some trumped-up excuse
to make a statement. Mere rumors don't provide sufficient
grounds for doing so. It would be another matter if
Solzhenitsyn himself were, to find a way to resolve the
situation. What is needed is a public statement by
Solzhenitsyn himself. [To Solzhenitsyn:] But think it
over, Aleksandr Isaevich?in the interest of what will we
be publishing your protests? You must protest above all
against the dirty use of your name by our enemies in the
? West. Naturally, in the process you will also have the
opportunity to give voice to some of the complaints you've
uttered here today. If this proves to be a fortunate and
tactful document, we will print it and help you. It is pre:
cisely from this point that your acquittal must proceed.
and not from your works, or from this bartering as to how
many months we are entitled to examine your. manuscript
--three months? four months? Is that really so terrible?
It is far more terrible that your works are used there, in
the West, for the basest of purposes.
(Approval expressed among members of the Scare-
:
KOH NEICIIIIK: We didn't invite you here to throw stones
)11. you. We summoned yen in order to help you mit of
this trying and ambiguous situation. You were asked
questions but you declined to answer. By our works we
are protecting our government, our party, our people.
Here you have Sarcastically referred to tritis abroad as if
they were pleasant strolls. We travel abroad to wage the
We return home from abroad., worn out and
exhausted but with the feeling of having done our duty.
Don't think that I was offended by the comment concern--
ing travel sketches. I don't write them. I travel on the
littSiness of the World Peaee Connell. We know that you
suffered a great deal, but you are not the only one, There
weremany other comrades in the camps besides you. Some
were old Communists. From the camps they went to the.
front.- Our past consists not of acts of lawlessness alone;
it here were also acts of heroism ?but you didn't notice the,
;latter. Your works consist only of accusations. Feast of
"the Conquerors is malicious, vile, offensive! And this foul
thing is disseminated, and the people read it! When were
you imprisoned? Not in 1937. In 1937 we went through
'a great deal, hut nothing stopped ns! Konsi ant in Al A-
sandrovich was right in saying that you must speak out
-publicly and strike out against Western propaganda. Do:
battle against the Gies of our nation! Do you realize that
thermonuclear weapons exist in the world and that despite
all our peaceful efforts, the linited States may employ
them? 'How then can we, Soviet writers, not be soldiers?
Soi.ziieNt'rsvN I have repeatedly declared that it is tbs.
honest to discuss Feast of the Conquerors,.and I demand
that thiS argument be excluded from our discussion.
StatKov: You .can't stop everyone from talking.. -
KoztlEvNitcov: The long time lapse. between the receipt
of Solzhenitsyn's letter and today's discussion is in .fart
'an expression of the seriousness with which the, Seen%
lariat approaches the letter. If we had discussed it at the
time, while the impact was still hot, we would have treated
it more severely and less thonghtfolly. Wt. ourselves de-?-
cided to find out Jost what kind of anti-Soviet manuscripts
these were, and we spent a good deal of time reading
them. The in service of Solzhenitsyn has been eon-
firmed by relevant documents; yet we are not now dis-
cussing the officer but rather the writer. Today, for the.
first time, I have heard Solzhenitsyn renounce the libelous .
depiction of Soviet reality in Frost of the Conquerors, but
?I Still cannot get over my first impression of this play.
For me, this moment of Solzbuttitsyn's renunciation of
? Feast of the Conquerors .still- does not jibe with tiny pet's
caption of the play. Perhaps this is because in both ThA
? First Circle and Confer hard there Is a feeling of the'
? same vengeance for past suffering. And if it is a question
? of the fate of these works, the author should remember
? that he is indebted to the organ that discovered him;
Some time ago. I was the first to express apprehension
rimer! n "Marritont?s I irm,r." 4 We spent time ending
your gray manuscript, which you did not even venture to
give to any editorial board. Cancer n7ard Aut.:es revulsion
from the abundance of naturalism, from the surfeit of all
:manner of horrors. All the same, its basic orientation is
not medical, but rather u-ocial And it is apparently
,from this that the title of the work is derived. In your
? second letter, you demand tire publication of your story.
.which still requires further work. Is such a demand
;worthy of a writer? All of our writers willingly listen to?
the opinions of the editors and do not hurry them.
? Sot.zttENtTsvx: (Verbatim.) Despite my explanations and
? objections, despite the utter senselessness of discussing a
work written 20 years ngo, in another era, in an ineom.
parably different situation, by a different person?a work,
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : aA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
moreover, which was never published Or read by anyone,
.and WaS stolen from a drawer-----siime of the speak.
,ers have concentrated their attention on this very .work.,
This is much more senseless than?e.g., at the First Con-
gress of \Vriters?rebuking Maksim Gorky for "Untimely
',...l'houghis" or Sergeev-Tserisky for the osragovskie cor-'
r.esporalenee,5 which hwl been published a good 15 years
:earlier. Kr neichuk has stated here that "such a thing
Was never happened and will not happen in the history
Russian literature." Precisely!
(-.)7.1,:itov: The letter to the Congress proved to be a po-
litically irresponsible act. First of all, the letter reached:
our enemies. It contained things that were incorrect..
./amito in was put in the same heap together with unjustly.
;repressed writers, As regards the imblication of Cancer
ft we ran make an agreement. with Noryi mir that the
;thing be;iirinted only if the manuscript is corrected and
it he corro4iiorisi are discussed. There remains some other
very important work to be done. The story is uneven in
There aro good and bad points in it. Most ob-
Jcetionable is the penchant for sloganeering aad earica-
tures, I would ask that quite a number of things be
:deleted, things which we sintply do not have time to dis;
'cuss now, The philosophy of moral socialism does not-
helong merely to the hero. One senses that it is being:
+fended by the author. This cannot be lwrmitted.
StiaKiiv: I, too, have read Feast of thr Conquerors. The
Mood of it is: "be damned, the whole lot of you!" Tlic
same mood pervades Cancer Word as well. Having suf.:.
fermi so much, you had a right to In angry as a humrm-
Aleksandr Isaevieh, lila after all ymi arc also a
writer! I have known Communists who were sent to,
camps, but this in no measure affected her world-view.
NO, your story dors not approach fundamental problems
in philosophical terms, but in political terms, And then
there is I the reference to] that idol in the theater square,
I:wn though the monument to Marx had not Yet been
erected at that time.
If Caneer 1kard were to he published, it would be used
against us, and it would be more dangerous than Svet-
lana's memoirs. Yes, of course it would be well to fore.
-stall its publication in the West, but that is difficult. For
oxample, in recent times I have been close -to Anna:
ruirceyna Akhnintova. I know that she gave (her poeml
"Requiem" to several people to read.n It WaS passed
around for several weeks, and then suddenly it was
?printed in the West. Of course, our reader is DOW SO
,dVsielopcd and so sophisticated that no measly little book
is going to alienate him from communism. All the same,
the works of Solzhenitsyn are more dangerous to us than '
:those of Pasternak: Pasternak MIS a man divorced from ;
Ill. while Solzhenitsyn, with his animated, militant, ideo-
logical temperament, is a man of principle. We represent
the first revolution in the history of mankind that has:
changed neither its slogans nor its banners. "Moral so-
is a philistine ibtir://wr..nyil socialism. It is old
and primitive, and (speaking in the direction of Salynsky)
I don't understand how anyone could fail to understand,
this, how anyone could find anything in it.
SALYNSKY: I do not defend it in the least.
,Rtualicov: Solzhenitsyn has suffered from those who have.
Wandered him, but he has also suffered from those who;
have heaped excessive praise on him and have ascribed,
qualities to him that he does not possess. H Solzhenitsyn
is renouncing anything, then he should renounce the title,
of "continuer of Russian realism." The conduct of
Marshal Rokossovsky and General Gorbatov is more hon-
est than that of his heroes.7 The source of this writer's?
energy lies in bitterness and wrath. As a human being,
,one can understand this. [To Solzhenitsyn:] You write,
that your things are prohibited, but not a single one of ,
your novels has been censored. I marvel that Tvardovsky
asks permission from us. I, for example, have never asked
the Union of Writers for permission to print or not to
print. (He asks Solzhenitsyn to heed the recommendations
of Novyi mir and promises page-by-page comments on
Cancer Ward from "anyone present.")
BARUZDIN: I happen to be one.of those who from the start
has .not been captivated by the works of Solzhenitsyn.
20
"Matriona's House" was already much weaker than the
first thing [One Day in the Life of Ivan Derzisovich]. And
The First Circle is much weaker, so pitifully naive and
primitive are the depictions of Stalin, Abakttmov and
Poskrebyshev. But Cancer Ward is an antihumanitarian
work. The end of the story leads to the conclusion that
"a different road should have been taken." Did Solzhen-
itsyn really believe that his letter "in place of a speech"
would be read [from the rostrum of] the congress? How
many letters did the congress receive?
VORONKOV: About 500.
BARUZDIN: Well! And would it really have been possible
to get through them in a hurry? I do not agree with
Riurikov: it is proper that the question of permission be
placed before the Secretariat. Our Secretariat should
more frequently play a creative role and should willingly
advise editors.
ABDUMOMUNOV: It is a very good thing that Solzhenitsyn
has found the courage to repudiate Feast of the Con-
querors. He will also find the courage to think of ways
of carrying out the proposal of Konstantin A leksandrovich
[Fedin]. If we publish his Cancer Ward, there will be
still more commotion and harm than there was from his
first letter [to the Congress]. Incidentally what's the
meaning of [the expression] "sprinkled tobacco into the
eyes of the Rhesus monkey---just for the hell of it?" Why
the "just for the hell of it"? This is against our entire
style of narration. In the story there are the Rusanovs
and the great martyrs from the camp?but is that all?
And where is Soviet society? One shouldn't lay it on so
thick and make the story so gloomy. There are many
tedious passages, turns, and naturalistic scenes?all these
should be eliminated.
ABASIIIDZE: I was able to read only 150 pages of Cancer
Ward and therefore can make no thoroughgoing assess-
ment of it. Yet I didn't get the impression that the novel
should not be published. But I repeat, I can't make a
thorough assessment. Perhaps the most important things
are farther on in the book. All of us, being honest and
talented writers, have fought against embellishers even
when we were forbidden to do so. But Solzhenitsyn tends
to go to the other extreme: parts of his work are of a
purely essayist, expose nature. The artist is like a child,
he takes a machine apart to see what is inside. But
genuine art begins with putting things together. I have
noticed him asking the person sitting next to him the
name of each speaker. Why doesn't he know any of us?
Because we have never invited him. The proposal of
Konstantin Aleksandrovich was correct: let Solzhenitsyn
himself answer, perhaps first of all for his own sake.
BROVKA: In Belorussia there are also many people who
were imprisoned. For example, Sergei Grakhovsky was
also in prison for 20 years. Yet he realized that it was
not the people, not the party, and not Soviet power that
were responsible for illegal acts. The people have already
seen through Svetlana's notes?that fishwife twaddle?
and are laughing at them. But before us stands a gen-
erally acknowledged talent, and therein lies the danger
of publication. Yes, you feel the pain of your land, even
to an extraordinary degree. But you don't feel its joys.
Cancer Ward is too gloomy and should not be printed.
(Like all preceding and subsequent speakers, he supports
Fedin's proposal that Solzhenitsyn himself speak out
against the Western slander concerning his letter.)
YASIIEN: The author is not tortured by injustice; he is
rather poisoned by hatred. People are outraged that there
is such a writer in the ranks of the Union of Writers. I
would like to propose his expulsion from the Union. He
is not the only one that suffered, but the others under-
stand the tragedy of the time better. The hand of a master
is discernible in Cancer Ward. The author knows the sub-
ject better than any physician or professor. As for the
siege of Leningrad, he now blames "still others" besides
Hitler. Whom? We don't know. Is it Beria? Or today's
outstanding leaders? He should speak out plainly. (All
the same, the speaker supports Tvardovsky's courageous
decision to work on the story with the author, [remarking
that] it can then be shown to a limited number of people.)
KEPBABAEV: I read Cancer Ward with a feeling of great
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
dissatisfaction. Everyone is a former prisoner, everything
is gloomy, there is not a single word of warmth. It is
downright nauseating to read. Vera offers the hero her
home and her embraces, but he renounces life. And then
there is [the remark,:l "twenty-nine weep and one laughs"
I?how are we to understand this? Does this refer to the
Soviet Union? I agree with what my friend Korneichuk
said. Why does the author see only the black? Why don't'
I write about the black? I always strive to write only
about joyful things. It is not enough that he has repu-
diated Feast of the Conquerors. I would consider it coura-
geous if he would renounce Cancer Ward. Then I would.
'embrace him like a brother.
SHARIPOV: I wouldn't make any allowances in his case--- .
I'd expel him from the Union. In his play, not only every.
thing Soviet but even Strvorov is presented negatively. I
completely agree: let him repudiate Cancer .Ward. Our ?
republic has reclaimed virgin and disused lands and is
proceeding to score one success after another.
NOVICIIENKO: The letter with its inadmissible appeal was
sent to the congress over the head of the formal addressee:
I approve Tvardovsky's stern words that we should de-
cisively condemn this kind of conduct. I disagree with the
principal demands of the letter: it is impossible to let
everything be printed. Wouldn't that also mean the publi-
cation of Feast of the Conquerors? Concerning Cancer
Ward, I have complicated feelings. I am no child, my
time will come to die, perhaps in an agony like that
:-;olzhenii!-yri`e, heroes. Dm then !he trucial issue
will be: Ilow is your conscienve? What are your moral:
reserves? If the novel had been confined to these things,
:I would have considered it necessary to publish it. But -
'there was the base interference in our literary life-- the:
caricatured scene with Rusanov's daughter, which is no(
congruent with our literary traditions. The ideological and ?
:political sense, of moral socialism is the negation of
All these things arc completely un.:
tiereptalile to is, to our society and to our people. Even;
this novel were put into some kind of shape, it would
not be a novel of socialist realism, In it only an ordinary
Jammetera work.
1,11.sits:ov: This has been a valuable discussion. (The
.iftrolcer mars that he has fust returned from Siberia,
!where he spoke before a mass oudipnee fire times.) I must
'y iii:tt flOVillertt did Solzhenitsyn's name create any par-,
tit:oho- stir. In one place only was a note submitted to me.'
ask:your forgiveness, hut this is exactly the way it Was .
written: "Jost when is this Dolzhenitsyn [sic!] going to
stop reviling Soviet literature?" We await a completely
clear answer from Solzhenitsyn to the bourgeois slander;
:we await his statement in the press. lie must defend his
;honor as a Soviet writer. As for his declaration with
regard to Feast of the Conquerors, he took a load off ray
mind. I view Cancer Ward in the, same light as Sorkov
'does. After nil, the thing does have some worth on some
kind. of practical plane. But the social and political set-
tings in it are,. utterly unaceeptable to me. Its culprits
remain nameless. What with the excellent collaboration
that has been established between Notyi otir and
Aleksandr Isaevich, this story can be finished, even-
though it requires very serious work. But of course it ?
:would lie impossible to put it into print today.- So what
next? Let me suggest some] constructive advice: That
-Aleksandr Isaevich prepare the kind of statement for the
press that we talked about. This would be very good just
on the eve of the holiday. Then it would be possible to'-
issue some kind of eommuniqw.: from the Secretariat. All'
the sane, T still consider him our comrade. ..But, Aleksamir
T.saevich, it's your faith and no one else's that we-find our-
selves in this complicated situation. As to the suggestions
:concerning expulsion from the Union --given the condi-
tions of comradeship that tire snpposed to prevail, we
'shoold not be unduly 'hasty.
Sotzussorsvst:I have already spoken out against the'
dksossion f Feast of the Conquerors several times today,
but I shall have to do so again. In the final analysis, ?I can?
yeloike all of you for not being adherents of the theory of
development, if you seriously believe that in twenty years'
time and in the face of a complete change in all circum-
stances, it man does not change. But I have beard an even
rnore serious thing hero: Korneichuk. liaruzdin anti some-
one else mentioned that "the people arc reading Feast of
the Conquerors. as if this play was hieing disseminated,-
shall now speak very slowly; let my every word be taken
:down accurately. If Feast of tlte Conquerors is being
widely _circulated or printed, I solemnly declare that the
,full responsibility lies with the organization whieh had
the only remaining copy- one not read by anytines-and
:used it for "1)10)1h:ohm"' of the play during my lifetime
!arid against my will: it is this organization that is dis-
seminating the play! For a year and a half, I have re-
peatedly warned that this is very dangerous. T imagine
that there is no reading room there, that one is banded
the play and takes it home, But at home there are soils
and daughters, and desk drawers are not always locked.
.I had already issued a warning before, and I am issuing
:it again today!
Now, as to Cancer Ward. I am being criticized for the,
very title [of the story], which is said to deal not with a
-medical case. but with some kind of symbol. I reply that
this symbol is indeed harmful, if it can be perceived only
;by a person who had himself experienced cancer and all
the stages of dying. The fact is that the subject is spe.
cifically and literally cancer, ra subject] which is avoided
;in literature, but which those who are stricken with it
iknow only too well from daily experience. This includes
your relatives?and perhaps soon someone among those
present will be confined to a ward for cancer patients, and
then he will understand what kind of a "symbol" it is..
I absolutely do not understand why Cancer rard is
accused of being anfihumanitarian. Quite the reverse is
;trim--life conquers death, the past is -conquered by the
future. By my very nature, were this not the case I would
,not have undertaken to write it. But I do not believe that
:it is the task of literature, with respect to either society -
or the individual, to conceal the truth or to tone it down.
Rather, I believe that it is the task of literature to tell
people the real, truth as they expect it. Moreover, it is not
the task of the writer to defend or criticize one or another
mode of distributing the social product, or to defend or
.criticize one or another form of government organization.,
The task of the writer is to select more universal and'.
eternal questions, [such as] the secrets of the Inman
heart:and conscience, the confrontation between life and.
.death, the triumph over spiritual sorrow, the laws in the
history of mankind that were born in the depths of time )
immemorial and that Will cease to exist only when the sun
ceases to shine.
I ant disturbed by the fact that [some] Comrades sirm
ply did not read certain passages of the story attentively,
and hence formed the wrong impressions. For example,
?"twenty-nine weep and one laughs" was a popular camp
saying addressed to the type, of person who would try to
go to the head of the queue. Kostoglotov comes out with
this saying only so that he may be recognized, that's- all.
?And from this people draw the conclusion that the phrase
:is supposed to apply to the entire Soviet Union. Or the
case of "the Rhesus monkey." She appears twice lin the
story], and from the comparison it becomes clear that this
evil person who spills tobacco in people's eyes is meant
to represent Stalin specifically. ?And why the protest over;
,mY "just .for the hell of it?" If "just for the hell of it" \
.does not apply, does that mean that this war normal or \
'necessary?
Surkov surprised me. At first I couldn't even under-
stand why he was talking about Marx. Where does Marx
:corme into my story? Aleksei Aleksandrovich,- you are a
poet, a man with sensitive artistic taste, yet in this case
your imagination played a dirty. trick on you,. You didn't.
'grasp the meaning of this scene, Shubin cites Bacon's
'ideas and employs his terminology. He says "idols of the
market," and Kostoglotov tries to imagine a marketplace,
and in the center a gray idol; Shubin says "idols of time
heat and Kostoglotov pictures an idol inside a theater
--but that doesn't work, and so it must be an idol in a
.theater square. How could you imagine that this referred
to Moscow and to the monument to Marx that had not yet
-even been built? .
21
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Comrade Surkov said that only a few weeks after
[Akhmatova's) "Requiem" had been passed from hand
to hand, it was published abroad. Well, Cancer TFard
(Part I) has been in circulation for more than a year.
And this is what concerns me, and this is why I am
hurrying the Secretariat.
? One more piece of advice was given to me by Comrade
Riurikov?to repudiate Russian realism. Placing my hand
on my heart, I swear that I shall never do it.
,Rtuntkov: I did not say that you should repudiate Rus-
sian realism hut rather [that you should repudiate] your
;role as it is interpreted in the West.
SOLZIIENITSYN: Now concerning the suggestion of Kon-
stantin Aleksandrovich. Well, of course I do not welcome
,it. Publicity is precisely what I am relentlessly trying to
attain. We have concealed things long enough?we have
:had enough of hiding our speeches and our transcripts
under seven locks. Now, we had a [previous] discussion
.of Cancer Ward. The Prose Section decided to send a
itranscript of the discussion to interested editorial boards.
Some likelihood of that! They have hidden it; they barely
'agreed to give me, the author, a copy. As for today's
:transcript, Konstantin Aleksandrovich, may I hope to
, receive a copy?
Konstantin Aleksandrovich asked: "What interest would
be served should your protests be printed?" In my esti-
mation, this is clear: the interest of Soviet literature. Yet
!it's strange that Konstantin Aleksandrovich says that I
should resolve the situation. I am bound hand and foot
and my mouth is closed?how am I to resolve the situa-
tion? It seems to me that this would be an easier matter
for the mighty Union of Writers. My every line is sup-
; pressed, while the entire press is in the hands of the
Union. Still, I don't understand and don't see why my
letter was not read at the congress. Konstantin Alek-
sandrovich proposes that the fight be waged not, against
the causes but rather against the effects and against the
i furor in the West surrounding my letter. You wish me to
print a refutation?of what, precisely? I can make no
statement whatsoever concerning an unprinted letter. And
most important, my letter contains a general part and a
'personal part. Should I renounce the general part?? Well,
the fact is that I am still of the same mind as I was then,
and I do not renounce a single word. After all, what is
:the letter about?
Voters: About censorship.
SOLZHENITSYN: You haven't understood anything if you
think it is about censorship. This letter is about the des-
tiny of our great literature, which once conquered and
captivated the world but which has now lost its standing.
In the West, they say: the [Russian] novel is dead, and
we gesticulate and deliver speeches saying that it is not
dead. But rather than make speeches we should publish
novels?such novels as would make them blink as if from
a brilliant light, and then the "new novel" would die down
and then the "neo-avantgardists" would disappear. I have
no intention of repudiating the general part of my letter.
Should I then declare that the eight points in the personal
part of my letter are unjust and false? But they are all
just. Should I say that some of the points [I protested ,
about] have already been eliminated or corrected? But
not one of them has been eliminated or corrected. What,
then, can I declare? No, it is you who must clear at least
a little path for such a statement: first, publish my letter,
issue the Union's communiqu?oncerning the letter, and
indicate which of the eight points are being corrected.
Then I will be able to make my statement, willingly. If
you wish, you can also publish my statement today con-
cerning Feast of the Conquerors, even though I neither
understand the discussion of stolen plays nor the refuta-
tion of imprinted letters. On June 12, here at the Secre-
tariat, I was assured that the communique would be
printed unconditionally, and yet today conditions are
posed. What has changed [the situation]?
My book Iran Denisovich is banned. New slanders con-
tinue to be directed at me. You can refute them, but I
cannot. The only comfort I have is that I will never get
a heart attack from this slander because I've been hard-
ened in the Stalinist camps.
FENN: No, this is not the proper sequence. You must
make the first public statement. Since you have received
so many approving comments on your talent and style,
you will find the proper form, you can do it. Your idea
of our acting first, then you, has no sound basis.
TVARDOVSKY: And will the letter itself be published in
this process?
FEDIN : No, the letter should have been published right
away. Now that foreign countries have beat us to it, why
should we publish it?
SOLZHENITSYN : Better late than never. So nothing will
change regarding my eight points?
FEDIN: We'll see about that later.
SOLZHENITSYN: Well, I have already replied and I hope
that everything has been accurately transcribed.
SURKOV: You should state whether you renounce your
role of leader of the political opposition in our country?
the role they ascribe to you in the West.
SOLZHENITSYN: Aleksei Aleksandrovich, it really makes
me sick to hear such a thing?and from you of all per-
sons: an artist with words and a leader of the political
opposition? How does that jibe?
Several brie/ statements follow, demanding that Sol-
zhenitsyn accept what was said by Fedin.
VOICES: Well, what do you say?
SounestersvN: I repeat once again that I am unable to
provide such a statement, since the Soviet reader would
have no idea as to what it is all about.
1 A novel by Aleksandr Bek was reportedly first approved,
'then rejected, for publication in the May 1968 issue of Novyi
iftir. (See Biographic Notes.)?Ed.
2 Four prose poems by Solzhenitsyn were published in The
New Leader (New York), Jan. 18, 1965.?Ed.
A 16th-century philosopher, burned by order of the In-
quisition for disputing a number of ecclesiastical dogmas, in-
cluding the concept of a geocentric universe.?Ed.
An English translation appeared in Encounter (London),
May 1963.?Ed,
5 Gorby's column, "Untimely Thoughts," which appeared in
the paper Novaia zhizn (Petrograd) during 1917-18, criticized
the Revolution as "premature" and warned that Lenin's poli-
cies could result in a return to "barbarism" and "oriental
despotism." Sergeev-Tsensky also expressed initial misgivings
about the Revolution, though in time he wrote with growing
optimism of the Soviet era.?Ed.
6 The poem was dedicated to the memory of Stalin's victims;
it appeared in the Soviet Union in heavily-censored form.?Ed.
?1 General Gorbatov's memoirs have appeared in English un-
der the title Years of My Life, New York, Norton, 1967.?Ed.
? 8 A reference to the 50th anniversary of the October. Revolu.,
tion.?Ed.
Ziminnin on Solzhenitsyn et al.
NOTE': The following are excerpts from remarks made
hy M. Zimianin, Editor-in?Chiel of Pravda. during a
private meeting with Soviet journalists at Leningrad in
Ortobcr 1967,
Recently there has bren a great deal of slander in the
;Western press against several of our writers whose works
have played into the hands'of our enemies. The campaign
hy the Western press in defense of [Valern Tarsia ccaSpl
only when he went to the West. where it became rvidt\nt /
that he was not in his right mind.
At the moment.. /11(.1:s:twirl Solzhenitsyn occupies an
'important place in the propaganda of capitalist govern-
lfels also a psycholor,ically unbalanced person, a
,schiznplirenic. Formerly he had been a prisoner and,
justly or unjustly. was subsequently subjected to repres-
;sinus, Now lir takes his revenge againOt. the government
?through his literary works. The only topic he is aide to
write about is life in a concentration ramp. This topic has
become an obsession with him. Solzhenitsyn's works are
aimed against the Soviet regime, in which he finds only
sores and cancerous tumors. Ile doesn't see anything posi-;
;tire in our society.
? I have occasion to read unpublished works in the course
of my duties, and among them I read Solzbenitsyn's play, ?
Feast of the Conqueror.. Thei play is about repressions
-againat those returning from the front. it is genuine anti-
S.oViet literature. In the old flays, people were even im-
priaened for works of this kind.
22
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
We obviously cannot poltlish;his works. Solzhenitsvn's
deman4 that Ave do $,:o cannot be honored. If he writes
stories tvhielt correspond to tli interests of our !,ticiply,
:then his works will be pnblished. He will not he deprived,
of his bread nod hotter. Solzhenitsyn is a leacher of phys.
is; let him teach, lic very much likes to make public-
:speeches and often appears hefore various audiences to:
;read his works. Ile has been given such opportimilies,
'Ile considers himself a literary genius.
Among the other names which come up quite often in;
the Western pre5z,,,, one most not forget 1Yrivgenil Yevtu-:
henkii and f Andrei" Vozne,ensky. We have heantiful
)metry and a great many poets who write wonderful
;poems. But in the West they basically recognize only
two because they find in their works passages worth
,using in their propaganda. We, of course, cannot con-
sider the works of these poets to be anti-Soviet like those
of Solzhenitsyn. They write good patriotic works, too,'
;They are not that young any longer, although everyone
thinks of them as being young; their works, however, lack
;the necessary pihit heal maturity. That is why they some.:
;times play into the !muds of our enemies. I know them
;and have spoken with them ahout this. But they also
;conklitiir thene-ives geniuses.
Take Yetaushenko. Revently, during a closed meeting,.
he was criticized by ISergeil Pavlov, the Secretary of the
:Conti al Committee of the VIKSM (Komsomol). So )1ev-
lituslitinko replied in words which were four times more
!powerful, ten linaiis more powerful. made fun of
;Pavlov in ii poem. In this way, he branded him forever.
Then there i the tale of VoznesenskY. Last year he
; went pi the 1A; be read hi, poetry there in (tont of large
Ile ltad a great success and also profited fi-
tumeially. Ile was getting ready to ro nit a tour of Ameri?
can cities again this year. his trip war already arranged;
it. was publicized in the USA, and his visa was reserved at ;
the American Embassy. At this time the war in the
-Middle East broke out. Our relations with the USA de-s
;teriorated. The- board of administration of the Writers';
;Union clearly hinted to Voznesensky that it would he bet-
ter for him not .to go to the USA at that time. Simul-
taneously. the administration told the American Embassy;
that the poet was ill.
; What did Voznesensky do? I came to the office on Mon.
:day morning and glanced through my mail. There was a:
!letter from Voznesensky accusing the Writers! Union.
trileplioned hint at home. I was told that he had left and,
:that his destination was unknown. I telephoned the Cert-;
Cominittee. They answered that they, too, had
rc-
ci a letter from Voznesensky and that they also had!,
;telephoned him at home but had not. been able to locate'
Ii im: One day went by, then another. No Voznesensky:
Then suddenly I learned that the BBC :had broadcast
;Voznesensky's letter to Pravda'. Ile did not appear until
;a week later. Apparently Inc had been sitting it out at a'i;
:dacha on the outskirts of Moscow. I invited hint to come
iand see me. Ile denied having given the letter to Western;
journalists.
I told him that he might get oft with a reprimand the:
;first time, but if he ever did it again, he would be ground
to dust. I myself would see to it that not a trace of him:
;remain-led.
Some thought that we should have published his letter.,
'and given him an answer. But why make this sordid story;
.;a wine of general discussion? ;
Writer' t.lnicua to Solz,lunitplyn
.1l.etterl No. 3142
!To: Comrade 'A. I. Solzhenitsyn
,November 25. 1967
Dear ,Aleksandr Tsaevichl
; At the meeting; of the Secretariat of the Board of the:
;Union of Writers of the USSR on September 22 of this
:year, at which your letters were discussed, in addition to'l
sharp criticism of your act, the comrades expressed the
well-intentioned thought that you should have sufficient
time to reflect carefully on all that was discussed at the -
Secretariat and only then make a public statement clarify-
ing your position on the anti-Soviet campaign surrounding
your name and your letters that has been launched by hos-
:tile foreign propaganda. Two months have passed.
The Secretariat would like to know what decision you.
have reached.
Respectfully,
N. VORONKOV
(On behalf of the Secretariat)
Secretary, Board of the Union.
of WI 'tiers of the IISSR
Solzhenitsyn to Writers' Union (2)
[There are a number of things] I am unable to
understand from your (letter) No. 3142 dated November
25, 1967:
1) Does the secretariat intend to defend me against the
slander (calling it unfriendly would be an understate-
ment) which has been going on without interruption for
three years in my homeland? (New facts: On October 5,
1967, at a very crowded assemblage of listeners at the
House of the Press in Leningrad, the editor-in-chief of
Pravda, Zimianin, repeated the tiresome lie that I had
been a prisoner of war, and he also tried the old trick
used against those who have fallen from grace in announc-
ing that I am a schizophrenic, and that my labor camp
past is an obsessive idea. The MGK (Ministry of State
Control) also set forth new false versions to the effect that
I allegedly "tried putting together in the army" either a
"defeatist" or a "terrorist" organization. It is incompre-
hensible why the military collegium of the Supreme Court
did not detect this in my case.)
2) What measures did the secretariat take to nullify
the illegal ban on the use of my published works in li-
braries and the censorship decree prohibiting any mention
of my name in critical articles? (Voprosy literatury ap-
plied this ban even to . . . a translation of a Japanese
article. At the University of Perm, sanctions were invoked
against a group of students who sought to discuss my
published works in their academic review.)
3) Does the secretariat wish to prevent the unchecked-
appearance of Cancer Ward abroad, or does it remain in-
different to this menace? Are any steps being taken to
publish excerpts from the novel in Literaturnaia gazeta,
and (to publish) the whole novel in Novyi mir?
4) Does the secretariat intend to appeal to the govern-
ment to join the International Copyright Convention? Do-
ing so would enable our authors to obtain reliable means
of protecting their works from foreign pirating and shame-
less commercial competition.
5) In the six months since I sent my letter to the
[Writers'] Congress, has circulation of the unauthorized
"edition" of excerpts from my papers been discontinued,
and has this "edition" been destroyed?
6) What measures has the secretariat taken to return
to me these papers and the novel, The First Circle, which
they impounded, apart from giving public assurances that
they already had been returned (Secretary Ozerov, for
instance) ?
7) Has the secretariat accepted or rejected K. Simo-
nov's proposal to publish a volume of my stories?
8) Why is it that, to date, I have not received for my
perusal the September 22 stenographic report of the meet-
ings of the secretariat?
? I would be very grateful to have an answer to these
questions. ,
December 1, 1967
A. SOLZHENITSYN
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : e3
lA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Kaverin to Fedin
OPEN LETTER
To Konstantin Fedin:
. We have' known each other forty-eight years, Kostia.
We were childhood friends. We have the right as friends
,to judge one another. It is more than a right, it is an
obligation. Your former friends have pondered more than
once what motives could have prompted your behavior in
'those unforgettable events in our literary life which
'strengthened some of us but transformed others into
'obedient Intreacrats far removed from genuine art.
Who doesn't remember, for example, the senseless and
:tragic history of Pasternak's novel, which did a great deal
of damage to our country? Your involvement in that affair
,went so deep that you were forced to pretend that you
'didn't know of the death of the poet who had been your
:friend and had lived alongside you for 23 years. Perhaps
,the crowd of thousands that accompanied him, that car-
ried him on outstretched arms past your house, was not
'visible from your window. How did it happen that you not
only did not support Literaturnaia Moskva, an anthology
that was indispensable to our literature, but crushed it?1-
After all, on the eve of the meeting of 1500 writers in the
cinema actors' building, you supported its publication.
With an already prepared and dangerously treacherous
speech in your pocket, you praised our work without find-
ing even a trace of anything politically undesirable in it.
This is far from everything, but I do not propose in this
letter to summarize your public activities, which are
'widely known in writers' circles. Not without reason, on
the 75th birthday of Paustovsky, [the mention of] your
name was greeted with complete silence. After the ban-
ning of Solzhenitsyn's novel Cancer Ward, which had al-
ready been set in type by Novyi mir, it will not surprise
me if your very next appearance before a wide audience
of writers is received with whistles and foot-stamping.
Of course, your position in literature should have pre-
pared us to some degree for this staggering fact. One must
go very far back to discover the very first point at which
the process of spiritual deformation and irreversible
change began. For years and years it went on beneath
the surface and did not come into any striking contradic-
tion to your position?a position which at times, although
one could not exactly approve of it, could somehow be
explained in historical terms. But what is pushing you
along that path now, with the result that once again our
literature will suffer gravely? Don't you understand that
the mere act of publishing Cancer Ward would relieve the
unprecendented tension in the literary world, break down
the undeserved distrust of writers, and open the way for
other books that would enrich our literature? A. Bek's
superb novel, which was first authorized and then for-
bidden although unconditionally approved by the best
writers in the country, just lies there in manuscript form.
So do the war diaries of K. Simonov. One could scarcely
find a single serious writer who does not have in his desk
a manuscript that has been submitted, deliberated upon,
and prohibited for unclear reasons that exceed the bounds
of common sense. Thus, behind the scenes of the imagi-
nary Nvell-being proelaimed by the leadership, a strong,
orig,inal literature is growing?the spiritual treasure of
the country which it (the country) urgently and keenly
rp.fals. Don't you really see that our tremendous histori-
eal experience demands its own embodiment I in litera-
ture I. and that you are joining forces with those who, for
the sake of their own well-being, are trying to halt this
:inevitable process?
But let's return to Solzhenitsyn's novel, There is now
no editorial board or literary organization where it is not
bring said that [Georgi I Markov and (Konstantin] Vo-:
ronkov were for the publication of the novel, anti that the
typesetting was broken it only bt?eatise you spoke out
against it. This means that the novel will re.
! main in thousands of (separate) pages, passing from hand
to hand and selling, it is said, for a good sum of money.
It also means that it will be published abroad. We will be
giving it away to the reading public of Italy, France, Eng-
land and Western Germany; that is to say, the very thing
that Solzhenitsyn himself repeatedly and energetically
-protested against will occur.
Perhaps there ran lie found in the leadership of the
Writers' Union people who think that they vill be punish-
ing the author by giving his book away to foreign pub.
lishers. They tvill punish him by [giving him] a world-
wide notoriety which our opponents will use for political
'ends. Or do they think that Solzhenitsyn will "mend his
ways" and begin to write in another way? This is ridicu-
lous in reference to an artist who is a rare example, who
persistently reminds us that we are working in the literary
tradition of Chekhoy and Tolstoy.
But your path has still another meaning, too. You are
taking upon yourself a responsibility, apparently without
realizing its immensity and significance. A writer who
-throws a noose around the nevi( of another writer is one
'whose place in the history of literature will be deter-
:mined not by what be himself may have written, but by
what was written by his victim. Perhaps without even
suspecting it yourself, you will become the focus of hos.
I ndignation and resentment in literary circles.
This can he altered only if you foul in yourself the
strength and courage to repudiate your decision.
You undoubtedly understand how difficult it is for me
to write you this letter. But I do not have the right to
:keep silent.
V. KAVEION
January 25, 1968
t Two volumes of the libthillogy Literaturnant lifostml ap,
.peared in late 1956 and early 1957. See Hugh Mel,ran and ,
Wrilter N. Vickery (eds.). The Year of Protest - 10.56, New
:York, .Vintage Ittissinn Library, 1961, for translations of most
of the contents.?Ed.
Solzhenitsyn to Literaturnaia gazeta
I have learned front a news story published in Le Monde
on April 13 that extracts and parts of my novel, Cancer
Ward, are being printed in various Western Countries. and. -
that the publishers- Mondadori (Italy) and The Bodley
head (England)?are already fighting over the copyright
to this novel?since the USSR does not participate in the
Universal Copyright Convention--despite the fact that the
:author is still living!
I would like to state that no foreign publisher has re-
ceived front me either the manuscript olthis novel or per./
mission to publish it. Thus I do not recognize as legal any
'publication of this novel without Tay authorization, in the
present or the future, and I do not grant the copyright to
anyone. I will prosecute any distortion of the text (which
is inevitable in view of the uncontrolled duplication and
distribution of the manuscript) as well as any unauthor-
ized adaptation of the work for the einem& or theater.1
already know from my own experience that all the
translations of One bay in the Life. of Ivan Denisovich -
were spoiled by haste. Evidently the same fate awaits
Cancer Ward as well. But besides money, there is
literature.
A. S'OLZTIENITSYN
April 21, 1968
Before this letter was published in Literaturnairt gazeta on
.June 26, 196F1, it had already -appeared in L'Unita (Rome)
on June 4.. In the latter version, this particular sentence read
as follows: "All distortions of the text (which are inevitable
in view of the uncontrolled duplication and distribution of the
manuscript) are harmful to me; I denounce and forbid any
arbitrary adaptation of the work for the cinema or theater."
24
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
and must not become the plunder of foreign publishing
houses.
Solzhenitsyn to Writers uml Newspapers
To: The Secretariat of the Union of Writers of
the USSR
The journal Noryi mit
1,iteraturnala gazetn
Members of the Union of Writers
At the editorial offices of Noryi mit I was shown the,
.ifollalwing] telegram:
11M110177. Frankfort-am-Main. Ch 2 9 16.20. Tvarticn,-
Noryi oar. This is to inform you dint the Commit-
:tee of State Security, acting through Victor Louis, has
sent Mee more copy of Cancer Word to the West, in murder
'thus to block its pubtkation in Noryi anir. Accordingly
Iwo have derided to publish this witrk immediately, Tint
!editors of On. jourttal
,I shoulillike to protest, both against the publication [of
the wcarkkiii Grani and against the actions of V. Louis,
;hut the tuf.bid and provocative nature of the telegram
requires. ifist of all, the clarification of the following:
! I Whether the telegram was actually sent by the edi-
tors of the journal Grata or whether it was sent by a
rtictition, person (this can be established through the
iiiternational telegraph system; the 'Moscow telegraph
:office can wire Frankfurt-am-Main).
2) Who is Victor Louis, what kind of person is he, of
:what country is he it citizen? Did he really take a copy
of Cancer Ward omit of the Soviet Union, to whom did he
_Rive it, and where eb,c, are they threatening to publish it?
Furthermore, what does the Committee of State Security, ?
have to do with this?
If the Secretariat of the Writers' Union is interested in
establishing the truth and in stopping the threatened pub-:
lication of Cancer Ward in Russian abroad, I believe that
:it will help to get prompt answers to these questions.
? This episode compels us to reflect on the terrible and
dark avenues by 'which the manuscripts of Soviet writers:
can reach the West. It constitutes an extreme reminder to
,us that literature must not be brought to such a state
where literary works become a profitable commodity for
any scoundrel who happens to have a travel Visa. The
works of our authors must be printed in their own country
CPYRGHT
TIME
27 September 1969
SOLZHENITSYN
'April 18, 1968
Solzhenitsyn to Writers
To the Members of the Union of Writers of the USSR:
? Almost a year has passed since I sent my unanswered
question to the Writers' Congress. Since that time, I have
written to the Secretariat of the Union of Writers and have
been there three times in person. Nothing has changed
to this very day: my archives have not been returned, my
books are not being published, and my name is inter-
dicted. I have urgently informed the Secretariat of the
danger of my works being taken abroad since they have
been extensively circulated from hand to hand for a long
time. Not only did the Secretariat not assist in the pub-
lication of Cancer Ward, which had already been set up
in type at Novyi mir, but it has stubbornly acted against
such publication and even hindered the Moscow prose
section from discussing the second part of the story.
A year has passed and the inevitable has happened:
recently, chapters from Cancer Ward were published in
the [London] Times Literary Supplement. Nor are fur-
ther printings precluded?perhaps of inaccurate and in-
completely edited versions. What has happened compels
me to acquaint our literary community with the contents
of the attached letters and statements, so that the position
and responsibility of the Secretariat of the Union of Writ-
ers of the USSR will be clear.
The enclosed transcript of the Secretariat's meeting of
September 22, 1967, written by me personally, is of course
incomplete, but it is absolutely accurate and will provide
sufficient information pending the publication of the entire
transcript.
SOLZHENITSYN
Enclosures:
1. My letter to all (42) secretaries of the Writers'
Union dated September 12, 1967.
2. Transcript of the session of the Secretariat, Septem-
ber 22, 1967.
3. Letter from K. Voronkov, February 25, 1967.
4. My letter to the Secretariat, December 1, 1967.
THE WRITER AS RUSSIA'S CONSCIENCE
For a country to have a great writer is
like having another government. That's
why no regime hers ever loved great writ-
ers,.only minor ones.
?Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
The First Circle
CPYRGHT
I:i masters of the Kremlin have
.; long been troubled by the challenge
3f great writers. When Tolstoy spoke
out against famine or religious perse-
cution in 19th century Russia, his voice
so carried around the world that the
czars took heed. In the early years of
Communist rule, Maxim Gorky wielded
his renown to save and protect
people, until he died a myste-
rious demi\ probably arranged
by Stalin, Boris Pasternak con-
stituted an invisible government
that the regime could never quite
overthrow. Khrushchey could
make Pasternak give up his No-
bel Prize, but no one could erase
the proAoliiifcs-,g,6 0. his =is,
For Release 1
9
.terwork, Doctor Zhivago: "They
only ask you- to praise what you
hate most and to grovel before
!what makes you most unhappy."
The authority of the writer ;
has always .been immense in 1
-Itussia, particularly when his t
'tune abroad was such that the
,:remlin had to think twice be-
'ore destroying him. Under des-
)otism, the writer's voice can
issume resonances unknown in
he freer societies of the West.
Without formal institutions
.hrough which protest can be ex- ;
)ressed, it is often only the writ-
er who can dare to ask the ques-
tions and articulate the agonies
of millions So long as he is
not cut down, he contains in
his own person the alternative !
to unthinking obeisance, the Wit- !
.ness that conscience and courage
still 'count.
The man who, above all oth,
99/09/02 CIA7RDP79-01
els; fulfills this dangerous role
in Soviet society today is Al- -
.exander Solzhenitsyn, Russia's greatest
living prose . writer. The world knows
him largely through a single work, One
Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,
:his short, searing novel of life in-Sta-
lin's labor camps.
? To his friends, he is a vigorous, bur-
ly, bearded man with a booming voice?
possessed equally by his love for Rus-
sia and his passion for freedom. To the
Stalinists, his enemies, he is the arch-
accuser, the self-appointed prosecutor,
blackening Russia's name abroad. His
!works blaze ,with the indignation of a
man who knows his enemy: he spent
eleven years in prison, slave-labor camp%.
and exile. His hooks, as one of the es-
tablishment's tame writers once charged,
are "more dangerous for us than those
of Pasternak. Pasternak was a man de-
tached from life, while ,Solzhenitsyn is
combative, determined." In a time of
unprecedented dissent in Russia, - Sol-
194A000500020001 -9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-gpyRGHT
zhenitsyn stands at the moral center of
the movement to cleanse Russia of the
spirit of Stalinism. His role is sym-
bolic, since he himself is not an activist
but a loner, atrial except where his
.own works arc involved. But he un-
derstandl as well as any of Russia's .
'great wirer-dissenters of the past what
he is aut. He could be speaking of ?
himself;'? "One can build the Empire -
State Building, discipline the Prussian,
army, raise the official hierarchy above,
the throne of the Almighty, yet fail to-
overcomp the unaccountable spiritual
superiority of certain human beings."
Chairi-Letter Effect. Those lines have.
not been published in the Soviet Union.
But .they arc nonetheless read and
passed from hand to hand in .vainiz-
dal,* the readers' answer to Soviet cen-
sorship. Manuscripts arc copied and re-
copied laboriously by typewriter, since
any mechanical reproduction, even
mimeograph, is illegal. Eventually the
chain-letter effect produces literally
thousands of surreptitious editions of ai
,work. St4C:1 copies of the -manuscripts:
of Solzhenitsyn's two most recent nov-
els have inevitably reached the West.:
This fall a flurry of competitive edi-
tions are coming out in Europe and.
the U.S., over Solzhenitsyn's hitter and
"repeated public protests and disavowals.
? One is his novel The First Circle, rushed
into print by Harper & Row in a trans-
Iation that is Often unreadable and.
ometimes ludicrously inaccurate. It will
,also appear as a Book-of-the-Month
Club selection in November. In the orig-
- inal, The First Circle is Sotzbenitsyn's.
- masterwork, a scathing, ironic
portrayal of life in Russia in
1948 and its concentric circles
of hell expanding out from Sta-
lin, who has never been. made
so frighteningly real. Next
month, Coffins of London is-,
bringing out a far better trans-
lation of The Fits! Circle.t
The second novel is Cancer
Ward, based on the author's own
struggle with cancer. It employs
the famiiiar device of .the hos-
pital as microcosm of a sick
world. Versions are being pub-
lished in Britain by the. Hadley
Head and in the U.S. by Far-
rar, Straus St. Giroux and Dial
Press. The appearance of these
works is a literary event of the
first magnitude?and inevitably
a major political event as well. -
Solzhenitsyn's role in the con-
sciotisness?and conscience?of
Russia began with One Day,
which was published in 1962
on Khrushchev's order, for po-
litical reasons of his own. The.
book quickly took on an in-
dependent life. In cutting away
the barbed wire of myth, in
piercing the silence around the
Stalin era, the book opened up
the first frank discussion not
only of the Soviet past but Us
present and future.
Essentially, Freedom. That
book, and all of Solzhcnitsyn's life and
* Literally. "self-publishing," a pun on Gosiz-
tiag% the acronym for State Publishing House,
t Times quotations ZIN taken from the Collins
edition.
work, place him at the passionate focal
point of thc major issue that inflames,
dissent and frightens the men in thc:
"Kremlin today. The issue is Stalinism?
the "past that is clawing to pieces our!
present days," as Soviet Writer Lydia
rChukovskaya expressed it in a letter
which circulated underground earlier this
year.
Russia's present masters do not rule
like Stalin; the camps of which Sol-
zhenitsyn writes are mostly gone. But
more and more Russians arc beginning
to realize that these men did share com-
plicity in Stalin's crimes. And thousands
of ordinary Russians were touched by
because they let friends, neighbors,
,and members of their own families be
?taken away in the night without pro-
-testing. Could anything have been done
:to stop Stalin's police? Probably not.
But there is the larger, guilt-laden-
!problem of explaining to oneself how:
this could have happened in a revo-
'.1ti1ionary state created to end, in theo-
ry. the inhumanity of man to man. For,
'this Russia, Solzhenitsyn's novels are
-both painful and healing. They expose
every layer of Stalinist repression. And
they arc addressed, above all, to Russiat
and her people. Solzhenitsyn's.world is
-
one of almost private Russian- concern,
and. grief, which no Westerner may
lightly enter or vulgarize in glib anti-
Communist terms. Those who have not
been through the agonies of the camps,
the shocks of alternating liberalization:
and repression can scarcely ?pass judg-
ment. This is why Solzhenitsyn did not
want his work published abroad, lest it.
he abused for political purposes. But
-
Solzhenitsyn brings the reader, any
reader, closer to the truth. Essentially,
. his books are about freedom?includ-
ing the freedom that sometimes .can be
lound only - when a man has been
stripped of everything. ?
Solzhenitsyn knows exactly that free-
dom: all his work is intensely auto-
biographical, and large parts were even
composed in his head and memorized
during the years that took him through
every circle of the Stalinist hell before ?
casting him loose, sick with cancer. Sol-
zhenitsyn tells it photographically, with
the careful interlocking of closely ob-
served detail. and with total recall .that
stretches back to childhood.
Only Stalin Stood - to Gain. Sol-
zhenitsyn was born in 1918. in Kis...
Jovodsk, a spa in the mountains of the
central Caucasus, when the Bolshevik
revolution was barely a year old ? and
civil war was raging. He grew -up in
South Russia, in Rostov-on-the-Don.
His father, an office worker, died while
Alexander was still a boy, as Stalin's re-
pressions were beginning. Gleb Ncrzhin,
.a prisoner who is a counterpart of Sol-
zhenitsyn in The First Circle, recalls
that "he had been twelve when he first
opened the huge pages of lzvestia and
had read about the trial of some en-
gineers accused of sabotage. The young
Gleb did not believe a?word of .it; he
did not know why, but he. saw quite
clearly that it was all a pack of lies. Sev-?
:eral of his friends' fathers were en-
:.gineers and he simply could. not imag-
Inc people like that sabotaging things;
their job. was building things."
Solzhenitsyn took a degree- in math-
ematics and physics from the University
of Rostov in 1941; during his last two
;years at the university, he was also tak?-
-;ing a correspondence course at the In.
;stitute of Philosophy and Literature in
1Moscow. For a time he was stage-struck
rtricl wanted to become an actor. When
he failed his tryouts, he then dreameo
of being a playwright. Friends rcpor
that he still loves to do imitations?
with uproarious gusto and very badly
.His three plays, all unpublished, are
said to he poor theater.
Mosier and Busybody. Solzhenitsyi.
and his wife Natalya had not long been
married when war broke out. He joint
the army in 1941, got himself trans.
ferred to artillery school, graduated in
1942 and was sent to the front.
Solzhenitsyn commanded a battery
at the Leningrad front and was twice
decorated. Near the end of the war, Sol
zhenitsyn and a friend in another uni
discussed how badly Stalin was con .
ducting the war?and how -badly he
wrote the Russian language. Foolishly
they continued such comments in let
ters, lightly disguising their reference:
to Stalin by calling him khozyain
"master," or balabos, an Odessan Yid.
.dish slang word meaning "busybody.'
smEitsii* read the letters. In Februar r:
:of 1945, having fought his way throttgii
Poland and into East Prussia, Sol-
zhenitsyn war arrested, interrogated.,
:beaten, and taken to the Greater Lytt?
byanka prison in Moscow.
Consigned to Umbo. Solzhenitsyn
entered that hell whose torments hi;
novels describe. One of Stalin's noto? -
rious three-man tribunals sentenced hin
without a hearing to eight years. Ha'
was first put to work laying the par.
(met flooring of a Moscow apartmen.
buildimz for secret police officials. Twen -
ty years later, when some of the apart.
ments had been turned over to high .
ranking scientists, Solzhenitsyn was in
vited to visit a friend in that
-building. He was proud to scover tha
his floors did not squeak.
. Solzhenitsyn believes that his. math.
ematics saved him: he was next sent?tc
Mavrino, a prison research institute out. -
side Moscow. Mavrino is the setting ol
The First Circle. The title comes iron.
Dante's Inferno, where the first circk
of hell is peopled by the great men ol
antiquity?Horner, Socrates, Plato?
who, too valuable to he thrown intc
the pit, were consigned to limbo. May- .
rino is an institute carrying out kctt re/
search projects, and as a prison It, i.
bearable. There is meat. There is sonic
comfort. There arc even women. Ye
this is still slave labor of the mihd, .and
transfer to the labor camps can happen
at the whim of an "administrative
decision." -
Into four days at .Mavrino a dozen
parallel lives arc laid. The characters
arc borne along on the conveyor belts
of terror. They arc tormented by prob-
lems of conscience, and .by the knowl-
edge that if they make the moraily
right choice?to support a friend, to op-
* The counterintelligence organization pots.).
ularized by Ian Fleming. Its name is an acro-
nym from the Russian words for "death to
spies." The man who denounced Solzhenitsyn
was Alexei Romanov, now chairman of the
State Cinematography Committee.
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 :glA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A00050002089VGHT
posc., a tooitsh order?they will be
crushed in the machinery.
Innokenti Volodin, an effete young
.Russian diplomat, phones a warning. to
:a friend, i$ tracked down by the secret
:police witb the aid of a "voiceprinter"
:devised al the prison's laboratories.'
iAware that the police may be after.
:him, he Moves through the upper ech-,
f.:1ons of Moscow; his fears alternate':
- :with moments of euphoric hope, coun-
terpointing the luxurious world around'
;him. Seized and taken to Lyubyanka,
in three brilliant matter-of-fact chapters
he begins to be stripped down to the
'inner core of his being. Thus begins
:the process by which, in Solzheuitsyn's
?,cnortil order, the most perceptive pris-
oners have learned to be free men.
- The descriptions are chilling: "It was
'there, on the steps of the last flight of
stairs, that Innokenti noticed how deep-
ly the ste,s were worn. He had never
. seen anything like it in his life before.
From the edges to the center they were
worn down in oval concavities to half.
their thickness. Ile shuddered. How
many feet must have trodden them in
30 years, how many footsteps must have:
scraped over them to wear out the.
.stone to such a depth! Of every two
who had passed that way one had been':
a warder, the other?a prisoner."
' Another major protagonist is I,cv Ru-
bin, the philologist who develops the
'voiceprinter. Though a prisoner, he is
still a convinced Communist. With sym-
pathy and remarkable subtlety, Sol-
zhenitsyn makes clear the process of.
-self-brainwashing by which such a mitn
can sustain,. such a moral paradox?and.
:can even convince himself that it is right
.and his duty to help .trap Volodin and
'condemn him to the labor camps.
(deb Nerzhin, in many ways a stand-
'in for Solzhenitsyn himself, makes an
'opposite choice to Rubin's. By refusing
'to work on a new bugging device, he
condemns himself to Siberia. He is the
character Most conscious of the par-
adox that pervades the novel: that in
Stalin's Russia only those in prison are -
truly free to be honest with one an- -
other. "When you've robbed a man of
everything he's no longer in your power
I?he's free again."
? The prison themes that were pre-
witted with piercinc, simplicity in One
-Day here return with a sweep that the
author himself has described as poly-
phonic. IC is in its references to the ?
labor camps, "the Auschwitzes without .
ovens" as Dissenter Alexander Ginzburg
called them, that The First Circle is-.
most harrowing. Solzhenitsyn writes of
:one of these camp complexes as "a king-
dom bigger than France." Each camp
bore a bucolic code name such as Lake
Camp, Steppe Camp, Sandy Camp.
"You'd think there must be some great,
unknown poet in the secret police, a
new Pushkin," writes Solzhenitsyn.
"He's not quite up to a full-length'
poem, but he gives these wonderful
poetic names to concentration camps."
These passages obviously parallel Sol-
zhenitsyn's own experiences; after hiSi
years .in Mavrino, he was sent to such
-
a camp in Kazakhstan, part.of a corn-
iplcx called Karlag, which was indeed
as large as France. So many prisoners
, were in the camps that it was widely
fantasied among them that no free men
were left outside.
The prisoners were not expected to
survive. Yet Solzhenitsyn also knows,
as he says in The First Circle, that "de-
scriptions of prison life tend to overdo
the horror of it. Surely it is more fright-
ening when there are no actual hor-
rors; what is terrifying is the unchang-
ing routine year after year. The horror'
.is forgetting that your life?the only
'life you .have?is destroyed, is in your -
willingness to forgive even some ugly
swine of a warder, is in being obsessed
with grabbing a big hunk of bread in
the prison Mess or getting a decent set
of underwear when they take you to:
the bathhouse."
Solzhenitsyn's account of the fate of,
'prisoners' wives is the most sorrowing
part of The First Circle. His cool re-,
alism is sulfused with a rush of per-
sonal grief as he describes Gieb Ner-
zhin's Nadya: waiting outside prisons,
for a glimpse of her husband, allowed:
rare letters and rarer visits, herself per-
secuted whenever her relationship to a,
prisoner is discovered?and, finally,
driven to divorce in self-defense. (Sok',
zhenitsyn's own wife, Natal ya, divorced:
him at his urging while he was in pris?
on. She remarried and bore two
chil-
dren, but after his release she divorced
her second husband and rejoined him
inhis Siberian exile.) The book's anger.
never falters, but there is control as,
well: Solzhenitsyn secs these characters
with a cold and merciless clarity that
lets each one burn in his own flame.
There is also some wild black hu-
mor, notably one episode that is a hit-
ter comment on the outside world's,
long gullibility about Soviet Russia.,
Two prisoners invent a fantatiy, about
visit by Eleanor Roosevelt to Moscow's!
-Butyrki Prison, just after the war.
mates are washed in "Lilac Fairy" soap,
offered wigs to cover their shaved heads..
Their cells are temporarily transformed
into elegant salons with . foreign mag-
azines on their coffee tables. When Mrs.'
Roosevelt picks out zit random a man:
and asks what he is being punished
for, the prison governor ?replies that he...
was a Gestapo agent who burned down
a Russian village, raped Russian girls
and murdered innumerable Russian ba-
bies. "Wasn't he sentenced to be :
hanged?" exclaims :Eleanor. "No," is
the straight-faced reply. "We hope to re-
form him."
To Banish Kapitalizrn. Solzhenitsyn
is a rare master of the Russian. language
?not the debased, impenetrably for-
mula-ridden Russian produced by two
decades of ?Stalinist newspapers, school-
books and speeches. but the rich moth-
er Russian that calls on all the ancient,
all the regional. and all the poetic re-
sources of that difficult, plastic language.
Ivan Dcnisovich's speech is essentially
free of foreign-derived words, as is the -
entire book. One of the prisoner-sci-
entists in The First Circle insists on
at-
tempting what he Calls "plain speech,".
in which non-Russian words arc ban-
ished, even if puzzling archaisms must
be substituted. For example, he replac-
es the Latin-root word kap/to/iv)z with
the Old Russian word for usury, ro/-
stositenstvo (literally. "moneybaggism").
Solzhenitsyn himself has proposed that
Russian be purified in this way. His
strongly held views on language not
only contribute great power and con-
trol to his writing but are also typical
of other attitudes that pervade his Work
and his life: he is profoundly attached.
to all things traditionally Russian. is in-
deed a patriot of an -old-fashioned kind.
,an instinctive Slavophile 'who distrusts
all things Western.
. Irreparably Deluded. Solzhenits?t
:escaped his prison hell on March 5,
1953, when he was released after serv-
ing his eight-year sentence. On the first
day of his freedom, the local radio car-
ried the bulletin announcing Stalin's
death. Even though out of the camp,
still had to live in exile in Siberia.
'He began putting down on paper the
stories he had worked over in his mind
during his Imprisonment.
While in prison he had undergone a
rough-and-ready operation for cancer.
,The disease now became acute again.
?Near death, he made his way to a hos-
'pit al in Tashkent. where the tumor was
arrested. The experience gave rise to
Cancer Ward, a weaker book than his
:others. Yet the book rises toward the
'end to Solzhcnitsyn's most direct state-
ment of the complicity of everyone in
'.the guilt of the past: "It's shameful,
.why do we take it calmly until we our-
selves or those who are close to us arc
stricken? . ? . If no one is allowed for
decade after decade to tell it as it is,
the mind becomes irreparably deluded,
and finally it becomes harder to com-
prehend one's own compatriot than a
man from Mars."
- Though his cancer was arrested by
modern methods, he has an abiding nos-
talgia for old Russian peasant remedies,
,and a distrust of ?medical intervention
as destructive of the organic relation of
man to nature. He was officially re-
habilitated in 1957. He found a job
teaching mathematics in Ryazan, 120.
miles southeast of Moscow. It was hard-
er finding a house. Finally he built one
atop a garage, using three walls of sur-
rounding buildings for his own walls.
and adding a front and a roof.
? There he continued to write. One
Day went through four drafts, becoming
leaner and simpler in each. The agony
of One Day conies from the spectacle
of a simple man, laboring and suffering
with naive good humor, and all for
nothing. For Russian readers this ag-
ony is redoubled. Russians have always
loved innocents in literature, and the
carpenter Ivan is a peasant innocent in
direct -descent from Tolstoy's Platon
Karataev in War and Peace. His meek-
ness is in jarring contrast to the deg-
?radation of the camp?where an extra
howl of mush makes a day "almost
happy," and where your most important
possessions arc your felt boots, a spoon
you made from aluminum wire, a nee-
dle and thread hidden in your cap.
? In the fall of 1962,aan editorial as--
sociate put the manuscript of One Day ?
in with a portfolio of others for the cdi--
tor in chief of the literary magazine
Novy Mir, the adept establishment lib-
eral Alexander Tvardovsky. He took
the manuscripts home to read in bed,'
'tossed them one by one aside. Then he'
'picked up Solzhenitsyn's novel and read
.ten lines. As he later told a friend, "Sud-
denly I felt that 1 couldn't -read it like
this. I had to do something appropriate
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 :26IA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
to the occasion. So I got up. I put on -
my best black suit, a white shirt with ;t
starched collar, - a lie, and my good
shoes. Then I sat at my desk and read
'a new classic," Tvardovsky sent the
manuscript to Khrushchev,
The Silence, No other first novel has
,ever had such an exclusive private print-
ing, or such an exclusive first audience.
Khrushchev wanted to use the hook ;is
weapon in his own power st?ruggle,
with the hard-liners, Mikhail Suslov,
and Fro l Kozlov. By Khrushchev's or-H
,-der, the script was set in type and 2W
copies were run off on the Swedish-
built presses the Kremlin reserves for
H,state documents. The copies were dis-:
tributed 10 members of the Presidium.
iThen, at Khrushchev's summons, the-
iPresidium met. The members sat at a'
long table, each with his copy of the-
ilovel in front of him. Khrushcbev came .
He was greeted by silence, ?
? "Comrades: it's a good book, isn't
-
it!"
He was answered by silence.
"There's a Russian proverb, 'Silence-
-is consent.' " He strode directly out.
The silence clid not last. The top of
the Soviet hierarchy erupted into con- -
troversy over Khruslichev's plan to pub-
:lish the hook, but at his direct autho'?
. . .
1.rzation the novel appeared in the No-
vember issue of Navy Mir. The 95O00-
Copy press run sold out within days, as
idid the 100,000 copies in book form
Ithat quickly followed: by now, millions
id Russians have read it, although it is
:no longer in bookstores -and is gradu."
:ally disappearing from library shelves.
Unmakable Signal. One Day was
?the high point in a year of unpar-
allelett triumph for Russia's liberals in
the arts. The euphoria came to an
abrupt end soon after. The failure of
,Khrushehev's Cuban missile adventure
Was the last in a series of catastrophes
in foreign and domestic policy that put.
him under increasing pressure from po'-
,Iitical opponents. Freeze-and-thaw was.
replaced by steadily deepening freeze. -
-,Khrush4hev began a partial rehabili-
tation or Stalin that his successors con-
'tinued and added to.
The unmistakable signal of what was
in store for the liberals came in May
of 1965, when Brezhnev cited Stalin,
who had become virtually an unperson,
favorably in a public speech. A day .
later, Stalin's picture flashed on Mos-
cow television screens for the first time-.
:in nine years. The initial effect was to
;arouse and unify the liberal intelligen-
:tsia as 6ever before, a unity that has
IrgcIy Managed to hold through the en- ?
'suing crackdown.
A large number of the dissenters are,
like Solzhenitsyn, writers. But artists,
'critics, musicians, lawyers, mathemati-
cians have also joined ranks with the
? - ,writers to protest any return to the'
moral squalor of Stalinism. Particularly
limportant has been the willingness of
:noted scientists, such as Andrei
Sakharov, who helped build the Soviet
II-bomb, to speak out (TIME, Aug. 2).
Among the dissenters and their au--
-dience there are, of course. all shadcs.
of protest. Some arc mainly concerned.'
with the quick elimination of censor-
ship. At the other extreme, there arc a
few so dissatisfied with the entire So-
viet Communist system that they want.
it overthrown. But in general, the dis-
writers share three basic aims. They
want full exposure of the crimes against
the .Sovict people during the Stalin,
era. They want the regime. to halt the re-
habilitation of Stalin and the restoration
of Stalinist methods. Finally, they are
outraged at the illegality of the re-
gime's tactics against them: the con;
finement of dissenters in lunatic asy-
lums, the searches and seizures of pri-
vate papers, the arrests for circulating
manuscripts or for demonstrating peace-
fully in public assembly. -
Their argument ? is that such things
are a violation of the Soviet consti-
tution. Their tactic is essentially an ap-
peal to law, and that in itself rcp--
. resents an advance over the days of
Stalin, when such a protest would have
been meaningless. That it is not en-
tirely meaningless now is demonstrated,
by the fact that the secret police arc.
also concerned with fabricating cases:
that they can prop up in a Soviet:
court. The KGB effort to peddle Sol-,
zhenitsyn's manuscripts abroad is a-
search for a pretext to arrest him. Sta-
lin's police never required pretexts for
anything they did.
Throughout all this, Solzhenitsyn
tried to get his works published in Rus-
sia. When, after a long battle, permis-
sion was refused to print Cancer Ward,
he -stormed furiously out of the Novy
Mir office. A clerk who had helped
him wrap -up the -huge manuscript re-
ported his movements to the secret po-
lice, who later seized the book at the .
house of a friend to whom Solzhenitsyn
had given it for safekeeping..
The first political show trial since Sta-
lin's death took place ill February of
1966. Two novelists; Aritt%i Sloyavsky,
and Ynli 1):1111ei, WeIC chi with cir-?
eulating "anti-Soviet" ppt Frt,t;tn(Itt alter
the)' had sent their novels tltrotid to be.
-published (tinder .he pelt names Abrar*
Tertz and Nikolai Arzhak). They werel
condemned, under Article 70 of the
-
Criminal Code of the Russian Republis.,-
for "dissemination of slanderous inven-?
lions" with the purpose of "subverting
-
the Soviet regime." Since then, an even
more general law has been passed
removing the .need to prove subversive
-
purpose. Sinyavsky got seven years'.
hard labor, Daniel five. Their judge'.
-later received the Order of Lenin. But
petitions and letters in the writers'.
support were signed by hundreds of
intellectuals. ?
The forces of repression counterat-
tacked. The then head of the KGB Vla-.?
dimir Semichastny told a meeting of
the Central Committee: "If you will per-
mit me to arrest 1,000 to 1,200 of the
most active members of the intelligen-
. .
tsia, I will guarantee absolute tranquil-
lity within the country." He was given
at least a partial mandate. A few months
later, his men quietly rounded up some
1.50 to 300 intellectuals in Leningrad.,
A new, sinister note crept into the c11arg7,j
cs: "Conspiracy. to armed. rebellion:4'
The secret police claimed to bave
smashed an underground terrorist 'net-
work, extending to arrests of related
.groups in Sverdlovsk and several towns .
in the Ukraine.
In September 1967, Solzhenitsyn had. '
,a direct confrontation with about 30.
functionaries of the Writers"- Union,:
_headed by the regime's literary spokes-
man. Konstantin Fcdin. Solihenitsyn
charged anew that his manuscripts _had?
28
been stolen by the KGB, that publi-
cation of Cancer Ward in Navy Mir
had been held up so long that there
was danger of samizdca copies making
their way West. "All my life is here,"
he said, "the homeland?I listen only,
to its sadness, I write only about it."
Fedin demanded that "you must.
above all, protest against ? the dirty use
of your name by our enemies in the
West." One writer told Solzhenitsyn to
his face that "Cancer Ward makes you
throw up when you read it," and urged
Solzhenitsyn to follow the critic's own
example: "I always try to write, only
about happy things." Replied Solzhen-
itsyn: "The task of the writer is' to
treat universal and eternal themes: the
-
mysteries of the heart and conscience,
the collision between life and death,
the triumph over spiritual anguish." He
told his accusers with bitter humor that
he knew very well what such views
could mean for him. "I am alone, .my?
slanderers are hundreds," he said. "Nat-
urally I will never succeed in defend-
ing myself, and I cannot know in ad-
vance of what I will be -accused.
they say I am a supporter of Coper-
nicus' solar system, and that I set the
fire that burned Giordano Bruno at the
,stake, I will not he very surprised."
In the next Moscow trial, four young
people, including Intellectual Alexander
-,G inzburg. were charged with circulating
:underground publications. "I love my
!country," Ginzburg said, "and I do not,
.wish to see its reputation damaged by.
,the iatest uncontrolled activities of the
-
KGB." During the five-day trial, sym-
- pathizers gathered outside the court-
room. A letter to "world public opin-
ion" condemning the "witch trials" as'?
!"a wild modkery of justice no better.
than the purge trials of the I 930s" was
circulated by Mrs. Yuli Daniel. and Pa-
vel Litvinpv, grandson of Stalin's For-.
? eign Minister and one of the most .dar-
ing of the dissidents. Shivering so badly,
in the January weather that her friends
. had to hold her to keep her warm, La-
risa Daniel was asked why, when her
husband was already in a labor camp,
she ? was there. Said she: "I cannot do
-otherwise." Ginzburg, got five years'
hard labor; as the defense lawyers left
the courtroom for the last time, people'
In the -crowd pinned red carnations on
, them.
' Then, on March 29, in the first pro-
nouncement on cultural policy by a
top. leader since Khrushchev's fall,
Brezhnev attacked "the abominable
deeds of these -double-dealers," the in",
tellectuals who had protested the writ-
ers' trials, and promised that "these
- renegades" would be punished. Another.
'trial was held in Leningrad, with 17 in-
tellectuals convicted on the bizarre and
dearly fabricated charge of conspiracy
to _replace the Soviet government with
a democracy uncle; the Russian Or-
thodox Church. Mass expulsions from
the Writers and Artists Unions began;
?this meant loss of jobs and apartments.
Among those expelled was Solzhenit-
.syn's close friend from camp days, the
critic Lev Kopelev. Even scientists were
suddenly no longer immune. Some, top
mathematicians who signed petitions
?:were thrown out of the party. In the So;
vict Union's finest research center, the
largely self-governing scientific city of
Akadcmgorodok in Siberia, there has
been a threatening crackdown on mod-
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A00050002000i-u
ern art.
In the 20-month wave of protests,
many dissidents had exposed themselves
to view while -the KGIt waited and
watched. In April the roundup began.
Several hundred protesters were pulled
in and interrogated. Some were Put
into asylums and jails. On Aug. 25, in
!what may well be the last public dem-
onstration of its kind, a small group un-
furled banners on Red Square, demand-
ing OFF CZECHOSLOVAK IA and
declaring SHAME ON THE OCCUPIERS.
They were arrested. Among them: Pa-
vel and, Larisa Daniel.
Plausible Case. Last week Alexander
Solzhenitsyn was still a free man. He
is rarely glimpsed in Moscow. He is an
:irreverent individualist. He wears good
!clothes, bought with the East European
-royalties of One Day, but in haphazard
!combinations: round fur hat, shiny:
!green Finnish car coat, smart imported
;trousers and enormous Soviet-made
leather clodhoppers. At a bus stop in
Moscow, Where people arc chronically
short of small coins for the ticket ma-
chines, he will give out dozens of five-
kopeck pieces, laughing exuberantly.
?But at his back, the shadow of the ,
camps lingers. Once, after handing in
,his coat at a Moscow restaurant, he !,
,showed the claim check sadly to his :
:companion. "I shall never escape that
:number." It was 232, the same number
he had borne in the labor camps.
! The appearance of his hooks in the !
?West has put him in an extremely.dan-
!gerous position. KG 3 agents have ped-
dled some of his manuscripts. If the
K*G.ti were to fabricate a plausible case
that Solzhenitsyn has had a part in, get-
ting the works abroad, he might be
tried on the same charge of distributing:
"anti-Soviet literature" that was used:
against Sinyavsky and Daniel.
. As recently as April 21, Solzhenitsyn.
again protested against the publication,
of his banned works abroad. This time
he singled out the British publisher, the
Bodley Head, which together with Far-
rar, Straus & Giroux had publicly
claimed that they had authorization
from an "accredited representative" of
the author. Harper & Row has made a
similar claim for The First Circle. In a
letter to Moscow's Literatarnaya Gazeta
and to French and Italian newspapers,
Solzhenitsyn denied that any foreign.
publishers obtained the manuscript of
Cancer Ward, or authorization to pub-
lish it, from him. "I have already seen,
how all the translations of One Day
were spoiled because of haste. Evidently.
this fate also awaits Cancer Ward. But.
over and above money, there is liter-
ature too."
Professor Kathryn, Feuer, head of
the Slavic department at the University
of Toronto, has put the case most tact-
fully against those Western publishers,
who are claiming authorization. "How
tragic, if accustomed ,to operating in k
free society, they have misjudged the sit-1
,nation and arc playing into the ,hand.'
;of Solzhenitsyn's enemies while think-1
ing to serve freedom and literature. Sol-
zhenitsyn has already done more. than
most men for both causes. If he must,
!be sacrificed, we in the West should at
. least leave him free to choose his own.
martyrdom." To which. can be added
.only the hope that the worldwide re-
spect for his work, iaid attention to his
danger, will help somewhat to protect'
;Alexander Solzhenitsyn?as Pasternak
:was similarly protected?from the Sta-
linists' determination to punish him for,
:his great talent and raw courage.
The intellectuals' dissent should not
be overestimated. Russia's millions are
by and large indifferent to the issues
that unite the intelligentsia. Only a few
hundred people at most have been hold,
enough to demonstrate; only a few thou-
sand at most have written letters or
signed petitions.
The Brutal Showdown. Recently, dis-
senters in Russia have sounded the
alarm that a return to mass terror is at
hand. So far, however, the leaders have
confined themselves to selective terror
in an attempt to silence the most out-
spoken writers and intellectuuls and to
curb their influence on public opinion.
Still, the regime finds itself in an im-
possible dilemma. Without a return to
mass police terror, new voices will be
,raised in dissent as soon as others are
'stilled. But the regime knows too that
the cost of restoring Stalin's terror
would be incalculably high. It would re-
verse the effect of all Soviet policies de-
signed to bring Russia into competition,
with the modern world, by destroying
the individual initiative of every Soviet.
citizen, from the simple worker to the
great scientist who is crucial to the de-
velopment of Soviet technology. And,
perhaps most important, the powerful
secret-police organization needed to im-
pose terror might well devour the po,
Utical leaders who had revivm it.
a
29
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGH1Approved For ReleasTe/1999/09102 DGIA-liklaP790k1194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
1;ZI Y011,X
Sopter.h.;:r 1762
CPYRGHT
Books of The Times .
The Bars Are Never Invisible
By THOMAS LASH
TUE FIRST CIRCLE. R.) Al :and Sof:hsnit
iVii, Tresswatrit from she Russian hv Thomas.
P. Whitney. StO pages. Ilariscr. $1.0.
}Lilt nis second novel to appear In ?
English, Alekeandr Solzhenitsyn ha;
returned to that unique institution
that Soviet Russia has bequeathed to 20th,
century civilization: the penal slave lab?
camp. But the difference between his cur
rent book and "One Day in the Life of Ivar
Denisovich" Is profound. In scale alone il
Is the difference between Tolstoy's "Death ol
Ilyiteh" and "War and Peace,"
sitayortiLeueis hie eenten.p: ler Stalie cat-
not be measured, suggests himself that it is
the structure of society that is rotten, not
one s rand in it.
One of the most sympathetic characters.
in the book is a peasant whose allegiance
is neldter to governments nor leaders but
to his own kin and to the land. And the
centre character, Gleb Nerzhin, asking him-
self ir the depths of his despair what he
can do. answers, "One must try to temper,
to cut to polish one's soul as to become a
human being."
A Place of Humiliation
In the earlier book, Mr. Solzhenitsyn con- "The First Circle," not yet published in '
demned a system; in this one he condemns' Russia and not likely to be very quickly.
a society. The reader of "One Day" almost keeps a middle voice throughout. It is full
felt that matters could be better if condi- of the most delicate nuance and shading,
tions weer not so h. if the code were 'yet it 's of a contrapuntal richness, it is a
more humane. " l'irst Circle" he' book of great sadness with deep veins of
leave no doubt te . . order of society humor. In ? one chapter, in a mock trial,
that breeds the evii he te. describing. Prince Igor of Borodin's opera is dealt So-
viet justice after returning from the camp
of the Polootsians. Another describes the
visit a a famous American lady to a Potern-e
kin vi lage prison.
What helps make the book so moving and
effectiee is that the camp he describes is
not on: that abuses the prisoners physically
or one in which conditions are on the sur-
face intolerable. It is a special camp for
? men of intellect: scientists, mathematicians,
te.chnioians of great skill. And they, are
and the guilty ere all .equal in this chain- ; brough: together in a suburb of Moscow,
mail Jurisprudence. Men are imprisoned for along svith other prisoners and civilians to
"intent" to betray or "failure" to inform. I work At specified projects. A man who
The aim of such a system is not justice makes a special contribution might even
but order. ?be freeel.
The time of the novel is December, 1949 Yet t is a prison still because the men
and some will say that all this is due to are humiliated psychologically in dozens
one man, Stalin. But a system that allows of ways; they are subjected to the petty
no dissent, no opening for redress or ap- tyranny of every sadist-minded supervisor.
peal, that allows the scum of humanity to and th 7 know in their hearts that they
come to the top, that depends for justice never will be freed.
on the whim and stability of one man is The buses may seem small but they are
a monstrous horror to contemplate. Solzhe- abrasive. Letters are held back or allowed
They Are All Equal
It does not matter one whit whether the
overseer Is decent and well-intentioned like
Reitman or petty and insecure like Shikin
or high 'up in the Soviet heirarchy like
Abakurnov or a lowly informer like Sirom-
kha, the system grinds them all down.
Those who confess and collaborate with
their accusers, those who hold out because
they have nothing to confess, the innocent
LONDON OB6ETIN:la
10 November 1963
?
be read only, no retained; no Intimate wora
. is allowed to come from the outside. At
most one visit a year of thirty minutes'
. duration is allowed. At the meeting, holding
hands or kissing is not permitted.
. n t heart-searing chapter In as groat A
piece of writing as this reviewer has come
across Nerzhin and his wife sit apart in the
prase= of a guard and try to convey
their noughts and feelings by talking corn-
monplres. Solzheniesyn's iron control over
? this c apter would be enough to indicate
the hij h level of his talent.
Security-TS:olden Bosses
The system itself battles against success.
Impossible target dates are set because each
man wants to please his superior. The ad-
? ministrators are so security-ridden that the
? smooth operation of every project if: halted
by an insane but unrelenting search for
sabotetrs and enemies of the state and
fatherl; nd. In this maelstrom of incompe-
tence, mistrust and petty cruelty, each man
tries tc mark off his corner or peace.
Mr. Zolzhenitsyn's characterizations are
peerles! : a philologist, who thinks himself
a communist still and justifies his Incarcer-
ation, but who thinks all the others are
guilty; a mathematician .of.. the highest
achieve nent who denounced Stalin and had
become a special ward of the secret pollee;
a physicist, specializing in optics, who re-
fuses to work on a secret camera because
he will not work on anything that puts
more p:ople into jail. There are assorted'
guards, informers, secret police, civilian
workers?all caught up in. the fate of the
special camp.
In its humanity and knowledge of human.
suffcrin z? "The First Circle" does not admit
of criticism. Anything one could 'say would'
be paltry. It is the fate of Russian novels
to be political. And "The First Circle" is
overwhelmingly so. But it Is also a come
passion: to commentary on the human con-
dition. It is at once classic and contempo-
rary. Reading it we know that it has been
with us for years, just as we know that
future g :mations will read It with wonder
and with awe.
esknommoms??????
CPYRGHT
masterpiece. from Russia
by EDWARD CRANKSHAW
TUE FIRST CiI2C1,r, lty Alexander Solzhenitsyn translated by
Michael Citiebon 42s)
THIS immease 4:pie of the ewes
side of Soviet life in Stalin's elosiost
years is liehted for me ley endlessiy
Ploslina llaree of rewehilinh-
What hae to he asked is
whether the illumination is such
that it illuminates and throw
into a eoherem pettern of
relief the ehapes of ad unknown
and 1.,%ntaqi," \wild so that tho'e.
who h,oe not Iven that way may
it, in h uord; work h..
n?wel? The ooening i% meek and
rareeed. But very soon the author
colk.ets his greai forces and then
there i% no looking heels. Aiter
ream rk abh: books from, the depths
of Stalin's leussie. Solehertitsyn
nee produced an unqualified
ma?terpieee.
The central truth of the boot.
...the truth about a huge countr)
dominated by the Kremlin ark' the
.1.iintanka prison ta medieval fortress
and converted insurance boalsiing):
a ..ouotry %%ult. at the relevant Nriod,
betueen lU and IS lilimna souls
Its 1.1.bk?Ur-:.1Mr%; ? lansIscape in
which. Over great areas, it uas
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : ccIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
povible to tell as one p.;i5eJ through
:tss hieh of the gang labour-
inc the %sire fences. Mere
prisoners and which were free
uorkeri?is ehlYaSi.lii117, in Its Cirtii.
lid the centre is by no means the
uho:e. That is to say. all Solthen-
a's chLieJCWA. St:J.01.
eonditioned by this inhuman land-
smpe ; but for the durAtion of the
narretivc they are. prisoners and
%enter% and their friends coniae.
pertly insulated (corn a. They inhabit
speCial pr.son ssita.n a prison. or are
in some ssas gronneeted ssah it. AIL
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A0005000fiffRgHT
with a soltta'ry ea.:co:Nan. have come
in from Ow. Frct Irso..is;..10 or
111.4Y at Scr MC.r.Writoc thross aalto
them. The ao*,iary cacept.on
%nada himaeit, ill and old on a sofa in
the Kremlin. For Solzhenitsyn, holder
than Tolstoi with Napoleon. has,
dared to put this character. living.
into the limbo he created. Dared
not in face of Soviet anthority:
Solzhenitsyn. after years of prison,
must be long past caring what
happens to him at the hands of
administration men. Oared, muelt
more importantly, to go the whole
hoz in imagination, to seize the logia
of his compulaion, to declare, in
effect. that it is no good collino to life
the ;hosts !Of shattered and corrupted
millions without unveiling the
Medusa had?an old man on a sofa
?and, in so doing, facing the risk ,of
deatroying the whole illusion.
It is not destroyed. And s.o we can.
return to our Viral Circle, the cosy
lirstCirde of Da-ni-ea-hell, where wise
men and philosophers caeltided foam
Grace drag out a secluded eternity.
It is a special prison for scientists and
teehnicians called in from the killing
drudgery, hunger and cold of ordin-
ary labour-comps and put to work
on. such projects as a special
scramblin; ttesice for Satin's per-
sonal use and a very special invert-
tion. a new toy for the MVD. to
codify. or fingerprint. the human
voice. so that a kw words spoken on
the telephone in a diaguised tone may
'ee taped and analy.e.d. the speaker
infallibly identified.
Indeed, the thread of the %tory.
fragile. but armoured with imay? is
provided by er.e. furious cathusiaarri
. of a small group of prisoners losing
'Iliernaelve. in a scientific proldern. the
$0:11;ion of which is to atrenathen the
weapons of their jailers and end in
the undoing of a hope(ul. normally
selfish, normally corrupt. member of
:the, DcW Soyiet ifire whoryielded,
an impulse of generosity loll left ii
voice-prints. As the net closes in
him we are able to move outsideII
prison and penetrate into tho set;
regarding world of the post-war /taut
booraemaie which had so man.
shocks in store.
This is a far bigger ennvns this
anything Solzhenitsyn has NM tr.
attempted. ? It ?Illas all the qualitit
of that miniatine masterpiece cl
ordinary labour-comp life, 'One Da.
in the Life of -Ivan Denianvich: ais
of the sprawling 'Cancer Ward.' '
offers the same landscape of tionsrinit
which includes jailers. :is well 1,
prisoners, piiliee generals Is well a;
cooks and floor-sweepers, privilege
as aye!! as nifteasts,
well as simple souls -vittlies
vices uverlaNang, yet in some mimeo
bus way sorted out into an ordvei
,s.seetrunt. At eachi end of the %ins
Iron). near?villains and near....iint0
in betwcsit. in superabundant varlet:,
the rest, oh in the grand Kowa'
manner, rather larger. more arts
late. more demonstrative than life.
. I have never gone along with w'm
seems to he a widt,spread idea
the violencen'of the twentieth eentorl
forbid treatment by novelists, poen
painters; they are Ica) big for
frame, it is said. It depends on ill:
frame. All that has seemed to me
be lacking is acnius. Here it cones
to us from a country whose rule*,
have anurht. who still liolf-hcaric4I'd
seek, to destroy the mind.
A word 5bout. the translation. M
Gisybiln. iike Snlalienitsyn himself
'watches around at the beginisinr
but as the narrative zathara strerwt
so the iiii044tOr 6144 tO VCA
occan.ion.
CPYRGHT
BALTImoa: SUL;
27 OCLOber 1960
CPYIRPHTSPlendid Solzhen.itsyn
'11:F ruzsr CIRCLE. By Al.'
cksevidr I. Solzhenitsyn. SSO
pl.ges. Bruner & Row. $I0.
publication of this out
f: standing novol by a mar
at-lin M the' Oleat rod' Yevgeny'
.YeatuFhenko has called "the
or.ly living classic writer it,
:11i.ssia" is .a literary and pro
lit:cal event of the first rna&N;
nitiale. ??? ? ?
In his compelling epic Sol.'
zhenitsyri, the author of "Ono
Day in the Life of Ivan Deni,
sovich," takes an the whole o'
Stalinist Soviet society, usily.,
a penal institute as its micro
coma. The First Circle o
Dante's lied here is the Ma
yr:no Special Prison, a scien
titre research institute locate(
In suburban Moscow, staffec
by political prisoners singlec
out for their talents as physi
cists, mathematicians, electri
cal engineers, and other var
!dies of scientists and lean'
dans.
This sharnshko, which ir -
prison jargon means "a sink.
ter enterprise based on bluf
or deceit," is luxurious it
comparison to other prisons
and the brutal labor camps at
the North. The prisoners or
"zekcs" are fed, cleaned, bed-
ded, and entertained just well
enough to insure their produc.,
tivity. Itut always they exist
with the knowledge that a
jailor's whim or an informer's
greed can topple them from
their perch on the edge of the
abyss and propel them to the
depths of the Inferno. So viv-
idly and authentically does
the author portray this latent
terror that the reader himself
ceinges from the aura of sad-
sm. corruation. and arbitror
kuusuce. Approvea
CPYRGHT
' Brilliant Depiction
The time' span of the nave
Is hot a fow days in Decern.
bet-, 1949. The plot?the pris.
oners' ru ih against Stalin's
deadline A) invent a voice
scrambler and voice-identifi-
cation tee unique?is, although
rich in dramatic suspense,:
secondary to the brilliant de?
piction of he characters, each
se sharply realized that the:
guide to tie dramatis pus?.
nee at the beginning of the
book proves . to be unneces-
.sary.
Among the memorable pris-
oners are Lcv Rubin, a Jew. .
isli intellectual and Commu-1
nist who, despite his unjust
imprisonment, staunchly de-
fends sochlism and willingly, '
contributes his talents to aid.
the system's nefarious ends;
Dmitri Sologdin, Rubin's idea-
'logical ant igonist, who is con.:
slimed wi h hatred for his
jailors and determined to buy
'freedom, 1.,:ith his scientific
knowiedge; the engaging and
mischievou Ruskn Doronin, a
nail who is doomed as a dou-.
ble agent within the prison;,
Marion Ge.asimovich, who is
tormented by his wife's de-'.
dine, yet cruses the special
job of der!loping a bugging
device then gh it might have
led to his f ?cedont; and Spiri.:
don Ycgoi au, the janitor,'
'whose. simrlicity enables him'
to endure his lot.
The chart cter of Glob Net.
. ;
howev r, commands our
attention mast, for not only is
he Solzheaitsyn's fictional
counterpart, but he crystal..
lizes the pradox which is' ?
* '
?
quite often' lacking in free.
di"; and conversely, "a,
? (risoner) you've taken every-
lb rig away from is no longer'
in your power. He's free all
over again," Although the.
br Ilia.nt mathematician is'
sh pped off to an appalling'',
la Kir camp in Siberia, he de-,
Frts fearlessly, for "it's not
th: sea that drowns you, it's.
th: puddle."
'Ye see the roots of this
pulicular kind of liberation
in the tangential story .of In-
no1;csay Volodin. art ' effete
yaing diplomat who is arrest-
ed for having phoned a warn-
in; to a friend.
As -he makes his 'rounds
th ough the upper echelons of
hrocritical Moscow society
Nodin is consumedwith the
fe. r of impending arrest..
W' en it comes, he panics at
thi thought of torturous inqui-
sitons. But after a horrifying.
nirlit in the Luhyanka Pepin,
du-ing which he is syster
ly, humiliatingly subie,sed.
to a. series of will-breaking
igr ominies, Volodin emerges.
frcer in mind and stronger in
sp rit than he has ever' been*
in is life. ? :
7/ie Oppressed
'Imo and again Solzhcrilt-
sy s demonstrates that It' is.
no the prisoners who are-the
op )ressed, but the oppressors:
th mselves. From the minor
institute guards to the prison'
ciirectors of security to the
awesome Minister of State
Ahlannou?cach gUazds' his
adiwicic fearfully, always
cot scious that he owes hislifo
and soul to the next oneltp
d
"fir 8
auttisko
here at the top of his pyrartid.
of fear: paranoid, wive ul,
and terrorized by approach ng.
ddith. So, in his fortified?i% in-
dowless night workroom
plans' new. purges, new Ass ts...
sinations? greater monume ttS
to himself. ? -
Only a man who has
self experienced the repr ,s-.-
sion and brutality of the S Oa'
lin era could wrilo such 'in
intense and scathing hither-
ment. In Solzheniis,n,
then a twice-decorated .?Yi-
year-old artillery captain in
-East Prussia, with .a universi-
ty degree in mathematics :led
physics, was arrested . oad
sentenced for derogatory 'e-
marks about "the man w tit
the mustache" written in a
letter to a friend. After elotn
years of 'forced labor cartTs
and exile, he was exonerated
,and freed.
Mcmorize-4 Storks ; ? /
In prison Solzhenitsyn trit n?
tally composed, edited, .old ?
*memorized * whole storirs:
only after his release was to
'able to put Ahem down ? In
paper. Except for "One D iy
in the Life. of Ivan Denisr v.
ich" and three short stork 5,
Solzhenitsyn's work bias be ?a ?
banned by Soviet
Yet 5.000 copies of "T le
First Circle" and anoth
novel, "Cancer Ward," a'e
reputedly circulating lhroaklt
the Soviet Union. Entire tnaroe,
useripLs were painstakinly
typewritten by dedicat d
anonymous readers. This pi*.
nornenon is potent testimo y
.to the esteemed, albeit da
gerous, por,ition. Solthenits,r6
holds as Russia's - most ylgot7
50"YEIVADV.Ivnty..
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
Wahl NOON STAR
22- Septcaber 1968 ?
xarnmung Prisqtru. Li{Fre in
Mosc?* m ?11
? . By DAY THORPE,'
absiCtft ot no Sur
'TIM FIRST CIRCLE. A novel
; ? by Aleksandr I. Solzhenit-
' ; zyn. Teensleted frora the
? Russian by Thomas P. White.
? Y. Ifarreer la Row. ee )
; pages: $10.
Hernia', was not the first o ?
'only mdia.: who thought of th
world of a prison. But fat ?
'people, I believe, have founa
prison a normal and eve
bearable domicile as have the
Russians, before and after the
revolution. "The First Circle'
is a story of prison life it
Ziloscow ? in le.IO, written by
LO?yeer.old mathematiciar
who spent the years from IN:
to If..56 in prison for the crimc
of having made a derogatory
remark about Stalin in a lettet ?
to a friend.
Aleksendr Solzhenitzyn, '
thought by many Russians as
their greatest living writer
Ila rrison Salisbury quotes the
poet Vevgeny Veyttishenlco as
saying last summer that he
"is our only living classic"),
has written three novels, only
one of which has been pub-
lished in Russia, although the
others circulate secretly in
typewritten copies. "One Day
,in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
was published in leG2 on the
intervention of hIhnishchey as
part of the official reaction
against the Stalinist terror.
13ut 'Me First Circle," also
laid in the time of Stalin, Is as
anathema to the present re-
gime as the books of 'e'uli Dan-
iel and Abram Tertz. These
two writers were instrumental
in having their manuscripts
smuggled out of Russia; there
is no evidence that Solzhenit-
zyn was a party to the escape
of his book. It is to he hoped
that this technically will keep
him out of the labor camp in
which Daniel and Tdrtz are
incarcerated, but the Soviets,
like most tyrants, find it Lu'
compatible to sterilize dissent
by disregarding it.
The prison which is the
neate of the novel is not a
place of physical brutality or
torture. It is a "sharashka,"
a word derived, the translator
4115 us, from a Itussiaz slang
CA,11 CSS Oa Maan k, a sinister
enterprise based on bluff or.
deceit. In the novel the genesis
anoitneral characteristics of
this k nd of prison are made
clear; "All these sherashkas
were tatted in IO30 when they
sentenced the engineers of the
?Proir,ary' on the charge of;
conspiring with the British,'
and Caen decided to see how;
much work they'd produce in
prison. The leading engineer
of the first sharashka was
Leonid lionstantinovich Ram-
zin. The experiment was suc-
cessful Outside prison it was
impossible to have two big
engine !rs or two major scien-
tists in one design group. They
would fight over who would
to Russia ff he were not an
undercover. agent for the capi-
talists?
Working with the prisoners
are the "free" inmates of the
prison. Although nominally fele,
low scientists and assistants,
they are in fact spies for the
secret police. A police state
depends upon its police to ap-
proximately the same extent
as a democracy depends upon
its voters. If people simply'
got tired of voting for one or
another of indistinguishable
candidates, the whole system
would quickly disinte;Tate; if
every inhabitant of a police
state xlid not have a spy at his
back a no less disastrous re-p
t action would ensue.
get tht name, the fame, the ,f Fear is ubiquitous, the wit-
Stalin Prize, and one would versal emotion of everyone in
invaria aly force out the other.
That's why outside prison all
design DMus consist of a col-
orless group around one bril-
liant lead. But in a sha-
rashka: Neither money nor
fame tareatens anyone. Niko-
lai Nik laich gets half a glass
the book. The prisoners suffer
from it the least. Having lost
hope, no longer with illusions,
they can bear the incessant
'humiliations, the constant
.searching, the sowings (torn ?
ell outside contact, somehow
purged even of fear. But the
rest of the hierarchy, from the
of sour cream and Pyotr Pe-
, informers, the spies, the
trovich gets the same ration, guards, the jailers, up to Sta-
A doze i academic lions live
lin himself, is always torment.
togethet peacefully in one den
cd by a very real fear of
because they've nowhere else death. The system corrupts
to go. l's a bore to play chess. .those in authority far more
or smell; What about invent.: 'indelibly ? than the prisoners.
ing soraething? Let's. A lot' 'themselves. . t
has boars created that way. The story concerns the state.
That's tie basic idea of the endeavor to invent a voice:
sharashka."
? . ?
?11 i? "fingerprinting" apparatus ?
So to tile sharashka are sea- a machine that can compare a
tenced ll sorts of brilliant taped telephone conversation
? with a filed record of millions
-men, mincers and scientists? ?
of voices, classified as to
all esscntially innocent of
, pitch, inflection, and other'
uTongdoi g, as are inhabitants
characteristics, and so identify
of Dante s first circle in hell, the speaker. Stalin has de.
One, abut whom the book rnanded it, and the scientists'
centers; Is. like his creator, could produce it if they were;
a math matician although not invariably hampered by,
only 30 years old.
The mst cruel and irolic
Ile Impossible deadlines and
ustificati I for imprisoning a ot}, '
I .er interferences of the bu.
4 N
man in a sharashka is thatphe?
reaucracy.
*.
was a Russian soldier cap- ? *
tured by the Germans and a Solzbenitiyn has been corn.
POW in Germany. TJpon his pared to Tolstoy and Dostoy-
release_ vIly meulti 1 Muria avskofIA thiLlabgarfralartoLei Li
people and elemental power f f
Ns style. The comparison Is
by no means, ceptious. Ver'
'few novels rd type of "The
First Circle" escape the (law;
of the angry and embittered
writer; few do not seem ste-.
reotyped and propagandistic ;
few are not essentially elabo-
rations of a theme the reacle ?
has memorized in the initial
twenty pages. "The First Cir-
dc," on the contrary, Is a
masterpiece, a great work 0'
art, the prose lean and poll.
ishcd, the. dialogue ;away:
convincing. Solzhenitzyn doe:
not try wildly to convince hi:
reader of the truth of his
picture?he paints almost dis.
passionately the picture and
. allows conviction to possess
the reader unforced. Some fie'
tion, no matter how true to
fact, cannot be read as fiction ?
but only as a 'thesis. "The
"First Circle" is not only an
account of degraded humen-
ity; it Is also, abstractly con-
sidered, a great novel.
? Three scenes are extraordi-
nary even In a book of such a,
high level of magnificence. /
The meetirig of Stalin with
Abakunsov, minister of State ?
Security, is impregnated with
the fright of both men ?
Abakumov fears Stalin, Stalin
is prey to a scarcely less per-
vasive fear of his nemesis.
There is a wonderful scene In
which Nerzhitn, the leading
character of the novel, is.
granted' a thirtS'-minute met-
ing with his wife. Though nei-
ther cea talk about life inside
or life outside, the two com-
municate by indirection and
allusion. The greatest chaplet%
of the book is an impromptu \
parody of a Soviet trial, In
which the prisoners convict of
treason the 12th.century an-
tioaal. hero, Prince Igor. It is
very funny, highly amusing. It
is a fine eXamplo of how life.
follows art. Solzhenitzyn fin-
Ished his book 'in 1:44, but hce
found his Materiel in that nark.
Ael?lesit Waal of 1067. ? ? er
? f
32
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
TIMES Li ratay SUPPLEMENT
I4ndono 29 august. 1968
RTAL CSILS
CPYRGHT
ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN: Cancer Ward. Translated by Nicholas Bethell and David Burg. 338pp. Bodley
Head. 30s.
.'.wheri he had been interned, for the hospital that all incurable case,
:severai. years for not being " enthu- have to be mercilessly discharged
Siastic ' about Stalin. the . corridors are -almost .impassabli,
The only consolation for the care- because they are packed with beds.
n ...that ? don't ,fit in. the wards?the doe-
'free and innocent who are struck down
b the .0b "?or b the equally tors. never take a lunch hour; expose
" -
themselves to many more X-rays than
would be considered safe even for the
patients, then return home to do the
housework, waiting in arduous Soya
jet food queues on the way. Yet none
of this appalling, usually anonymous
and unrewarded sacrifice is made, to
appear false. .
? - "
11 .0 man never became hes
of the real facts of Soviet life,Only would never get to know his .own
Rusanov and Oleg know these; Rusa.- ? ,limitations." Solzhenitsyn has pre-
nov because he knows how power is sumed to give Soviet fiction a? per-
really- manipulated in the Soviet spective. that modestly . recognizes
'Union. and Oleg because experience them. Vladimir .Tendryakov and
has taught him what its effect can be ;Nosily.' Aksyonov have, ? among
others, shown a great deal of the
. seamy side, of Soviet life in their
novels?the inefficiency, the compla-
cent selfishness of the bureaucrats,
the dishonesty and violence that exist
in all countries but that arc not often
admitted . in the .U.S.S.R.---and. that
Solzhchitsyn does the same is nothing
new. ?Also, his romantic ' erotic
scenes could ; - only have been
that . opcople live by their idea- .written by a Soviet -writer ;as
logical principles and by the interests . Rusanov's forthright daughter says
of their -society." Yet -even - this (she hopes to become'. an Mimi
Marxist adaptation ' of -.Tolstoy's poet). "Combined With really pro-
gressive ideological thinking [erotic-
ism] ? adds. -a certain richness. of
flavour " to literature : and what.
eroticism 'means here, is a mixture of,
occasional earthiness with the shy
contemplation of -1' yellow-haired
angels ','?'the nurses. . ? ? ,
Cancer Ward is, of course, a novel
difficult to separate from the circum-.
Stances in which it was 'written, and,
therefore hard to judge.' It is easy to
point to its frequent lazy imprecis
sions: " Her neck was neither too
thin nor too fat. too short nor too
long, but just right for her figure "!
is the sort of uninformative descrip-.
lion in which the novel abounds, But -
it is impossible to forget that to. write
Cancer Ward .was itself an act of
heroism, as Was Solzhcnitsyn's rebel'
lious letter to the Writers' .Congress -
last year. ? Solzhenitsyn has been
reported as saying that he is less..
afraid or dying of the cancer that he.
himself has been -suffering from for
nearly fifteen years than Of being
killed " accidentally ". by the
At any rate, that Cancer Ward was,
i '
refused publication in the Sdviet
Union s disturbing not leu?st because
its events relate entirely- to . the years'
of the ".personality cult ".' When--
and if?it is published there we will
know that: the SoViet: J.inion has, to
"-
its eternal good, ? come'. some way
;to Iearnine its " own nn,i1.4ipng 00
Cancer Ward is overwhelmingly ?to '
the minutest clinical detail-- a novel
about cancer. Cancer, dominates the
:life of every character -701e patients,
:.the patients' relatives, the doctors and
nurses. Every character therefore is
linvolved with the threat or presence
- of death, in impudent contradiction
nf the wide-eyed, immortal optirn-
jsm of 'official Soviet ideology. ? -
The cancer ward in which the hero,
Oleg Kostoglotov, has been interned
has six beds. in these beds there lie
not so much people as sarcomas of
the nasal cavity, turnOUrs of the spinal
medulla, hypernephromas, lethal
melanoblastomas. The tumours
sometimes attach thenvielves?with sar-
donic aptness. ? A lecturer in philo-
-.sophy has cancer of the larynx., An
'effusive ex-womanizer is attacked ?
-through the longue that had "lied
..to hundreds of women &'cattered all
over the place that he wasn't married.
- that he had no children, that ,he'd
be hack in a week and 'they'd start
rbuilding a house". A tumour -has
assaulted the neck of perhaps the
.:most infamous apparawhik to have
appeared in Soviet .fiction, Pavel
2.Nikolayevich Rusanov. In the good
,,old days. in. 1937-38, Rusanov had
not been above " denouncing" an
innocent neighbour in order to get
more room space t ? "The whole
balcony would then be theirs the
children were growing up." ? it is for
his children above all that Rusanov
has schemed, cringed and fawned his.
way up all his life but he has done it
also for his lovingly devoted wife,
..always .ready to help him wield such
impressive self-delusion that he firmly
believes himself to be an honourable
?and . dutiful servant of the state.
He is a man more meekly double-
faced than aggressively Cruel t but his
brilliant career. with its-solidly porn-
'pons middle-class pretensions. has
led dozens of men, women and even
children off to the ? concentration
camps.. ?; . . '? "
. Up to a point, then, cancer in
,Cancer Ward has a function similar
Ito that of Death in a medieval mys-
tery play. In its own good time it
strikes down the brazen optimists and
. the rotten bullies of Soviet society.
:But it strikes down the innocent too.
four-year-old child has no idea that
on her tiny lip she might already be
t)caring the heavy: mask of death .. .
she chattered away like a bird, stretching
;out her hands to the nickel-plated parts
of the [X-rayl apparatus and, enjoying
'the shiny world around her. ,./ ? ,
?In Oleg's ward there is one boy in
twenties, one in his teens.. And
'Oleg himself, only thirty-four,. came
:here straight, from a lallour camp
'redoubtable Stalin for that matter?
is one which is firmly' rooted in Rus-
sian literature: that suffering
(whether through illness or through,
injustice) makes a better man of you.
The average Soviet ? citizen. ?jives
in an ? unthinking stupor, un-
aware not only of the tumorous
'skull beneath all .men's skin but also
on innocent men.. Camp and can-
cer, then..giVe you a dignified know-
ledge of what life's about:
It is no coincidence that Many 'of
?
the patients in the ward are reading
a book of fables ky Tolstoy. ".What
.do men' live by?. "he title 'of the
book .asks. Rusanov answers like a
parrot:' ".There's no' difficulty about
maxim that men live by love has lost
all meaning for people like Rusanov.
In a socialist society collective in-
terests are of course anyway just a
rationalization of the personal in-
terests of the capitalist structure that
went before, Solzhenitsyn' s book
often outrageously attempts to sug-
gest standards of behaviour where the
'whole concept' of interest has ceased
to exist, and where goodness comes
naturally, with no thought of reward.
In , some ,.waYs ' Cancer Ward is
an example of what socialist realism
might have become if it had been al-
lowed to develop naturally from its
roots?.in the nineteenth century, in
Tolstoy in particular. In spite of the
pervading gloom, a large proportion
of its characters arc in fact monumen-
tally disinterested exponents of Soviet
heroism. Cancer Wahl is' teeming
with " positive.characters ". There's a
twenty-seven-year-old geologist 'with
a deadly melanoblastoma in his leg,
still determined to prove in the eight'
, ?
months.of life left to him 'that you
..can discover deposits of polymetallic
.ore by looking for radioactive water.
Then there are Dr., Gangart and Dr.
'Dontsova. ? both outstanding ex-
amples sof heroic Soviet. womanhood,
;struggling, 'with no thought for them-
..sertvcs, to cope in the most appalling
conclitioris. There. are so few beds in
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
ApPEWRWr Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9
NANCi ;ESTER CliA MIAN
20 September 1968 ..
How we see suffering.
CANCER WARD, by Alexander -
Solzhenitsyn, translated by
Nicholas Bethel! and David
Burg (The Bodley Head. 30$).
-'" by Raymond Wiazna
CPYRGHT
Is a translation of the
A first part of Soldenitsyn's
novel "Cancer Ward?' A trans-
lation of the second part will
follow. /t is a difficult work
to judge, in its present form.
Its qualities are obvious, and
are what would he expected
from the author of "One Day
In the Life of Ivan Denis?.
vich." The inherent situation
?there a labour camp, here the
cancer wing of a hospital in.
Soviet Asia?is arresting and
Isolated, The writing within
this dominating situation is an
Intensely detailed observation;
without major development.
There is no fixed point of
view in this part of "Cancer
Ward!' It begins with the
arrival of a minor adminis-
trator, Rusanov, who has a large
tumour on his neck and is put
In the cancer wing. We see
the place through his eyes: an
observation of others who are
suffering in this old, over-
crowded hospital. Ile with-
out sympathy and sees people
In ugly ways. The intrinsic!
suffering and the ugliness of
exposure are seen through a.
mind which is .in part shocked
by the terrible physical thing
that has happened to him, in
part accustomed to a distaste
and contempt for others, an
habitual but now disturbed con-
scieuaness of his own privileged
poeition, which we would know
as a class feeling and which is
in fact a familiar viewpoint In
some Western fiction of this
kind.
It then moves to his neigh- "
bour, Oleg Kostoglotew, 'a poli-
tical prisoner now in perpetual
exile, who has been brought
In almost dead but who is res-
ponding to radiation treatment. .
This other mind, which becomes !
dominant in the novel, is in a '
different way bitter: seeing as
much of suffering and exposure,
with that inevitable observa-
tion which comes from being
shut up with it; politically
sceptical at a depth which takes
over from ordinary politics antl.
becomes a whole crisis of belief
but also, with his returning'
energy, capable of seeing what
Rusanov never sees?the
humanity of the others, the end-
less and selfless work of the
'doctors and nurses, the good-
ness of ordinary life and experi.
:ence. as against the obsession,
.with social position and
material success of Rusanov.
These contrasted viewpoints,
and the suffering that is seen
through them, are the basic
success of the novel. But there
Is a problem of construction
beyond this. -Towards the end
of this part, especially, though'
briefly elsewhere, the novel
moves to see the same scene
?through yet other eyes, in what
Is really, in its brief develop-
ment, a series of sketches, and
1.t. ends with an obviously staged
1
,a16eUISSIOn of sincerity in.
'literature; the tension between
UAL, the uncomfortable truth
of th present and the doctrine
of i agining, within this, the
seeds of a different life.
thus a difficult novel to
read, et alone to judge. What'
tc'e with Kostoglotov, or
with e nurse Zoya, or the
docto Dontsova and Gangart,
.is of urse painful, in so much
suffer rig, death. humiliation of
the y, but life flows in this,
ecieepl involved and felt. To
.see th Rusanov is sickening.,
and i is only relatively late
that ti e novel succeeds in defin-
ing hi distorted consciousness:-
:not o ly the -self-pity, the con.'
'tempt for others, but these as
the w akness which has made
and e firmed him as that kind
of a iinistrator ; a cold.
,fright ed, self-interested mani-
pulate of others, in the name
of a sy em. And by that time,
in fac we have also got what
.connea s but is sickening in his
.consci isness the naked ugli-
ness o others who are suffering
and she disturb one's own
stiffed g.
"Ca cer Ward" has not been
publis d in the Soviet Union,
and 1. is reported that Sol.
.ehenits n Is in very serious
;politic, I trouble. There are
:only t ree things to say. First.
-thatlf t came from almost any
author, anywhere, with no
.extern, political or commercial
.impetu , it would have some
.diflicul in getting published
It Is no difficult to Imagine the
welled ? reports and reviews of
what suld be called its mor-
bidity. Second that (as so
often i these cases) it is a
work o literature; not, I think,
a majo work, but important.
.deeply elt, authentic. Third. ?
that th view of life it sup-
ports ad the view it succeeds
an exp.i sing are distinguished
by val es which belong to a
profoun ly democratic human-
ism; in alarxist literary terms,
a critic 1 realism ; which it is
a?lvvays ?ossible socialism may
develop beyond, but which it
could ever, in any ? circum-
stances, exclude. '
It is, that is to say, only
Rusano or his quite common-
place b rgeois equivalent, who
would event this book being
publish or try to harm Its
author. If anyone Insists on
that -identification, that is
his priv ege.: but the voice that
matters, the voice I have heard
in othe Russian writers, is
Eosin! ov harsh from the
ufferin in which we are all
nvolvecl trying to learn to live
with g,1 I people, and for the
beauty if the earth. wanting
o help and to tell the truth
..hough U the bitter complex].
:ies of Istory. It is then as
a Soviet writer, and not as an
t-xploite exile or self-exile, that
?e nee I Alexander Solzhenite
yn. I ry to send him that.
word, a d to let others, who.
viii d we. overhear. It,.
Approved For Release 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01194A000500020001-9