First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers. to be sovereigns

The first congress of Soviet writers took place from 17 to 30 August 1934. This truly significant event was preceded by the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", from which it followed that numerous writers' organizations were to unite into one, consisting of writers who fully "support the platform of Soviet power." The authorities wanted to unite people who were completely different in worldview, creative methods and aesthetic inclinations.

The venue for the First All-Union Congress of Writers was the Column Hall of the House of the Unions. For such a solemn event, it was necessary to decorate the room, after a few debates, it was decided to hang portraits of the classics of literature in the hall. What immediately became the reason for the irony of the evil-tongued writers:

Enough space for everyone
Who is on the podium, who is on the ground,
And who is just on the wall!
So, for example, I'm upset everyone,
The fact appeared to us as in a dream -
At the department of Tolstoy Alyosha,
Leo Tolstoy is on the wall.

One of the delegates of the First Congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR A. Karavaeva recalled the opening day of the forum: “On a sunny August morning in 1934, approaching the House of Unions, I saw a large and lively crowd. Amidst the chatter and applause - just like in the theater - someone's young voice was heard, which energetically called: “Comrade delegates of the First Congress of Soviet Writers! As you enter this hall, don't forget to raise your historical mandate!... The Soviet people want to see and know you all! Call, comrades, your surname and show your delegate card!
According to mandate data, among the delegates of the First Congress of Writers of the USSR, men predominated - 96.3%. The average age of the participants is 36 years. The average literary experience is 13.2 years. By origin, in the first place came from peasants - 42.6%, from workers - 27.3%, working intelligentsia 12.9%. Of the nobles, only 2.4%, ministers of worship - 1.4%. Half of the delegates were members of the CPSU(b), 3.7% of candidates for membership of the CPSU(b) and 7.6% of Komsomol members.
The number of prose writers among the congress participants was 32.9%, poets - 19.2%, playwrights - 4.7%, critics - 12.7%. Children's writers - 1.3% and journalists - 1.8%.
The national composition of the congress is also curious. Russians - 201 people; Jews - 113; Georgians - 28; Ukrainians - 25; Armenians - 19; Tatars - 19; Belarusians - 17; Uzbeks -12. Representatives of another 43 nationalities were represented by 10 to one delegates. There were even Chinese, Italians, Greeks and Persians.
In addition to the speeches of venerable and not very writers, the Soviet authorities provided for their "engineers of human souls" (by the way, one of the popular aphorisms of the First Congress of Soviet Writers, authorship is attributed to Yu. Olesha) and material wealth.

Meals for the congress participants were centralized and free of charge for the delegates. It was organized in the premises of the restaurant on Bolshoy Filippovsky Lane. The cost of daily meals for writers (breakfast, lunch and dinner) was 35 rubles.

For the movement of delegates and organizers of the First All-Union Congress of Writers, 25 cars, 6 buses for collective trips, 5 trucks for transportation were allocated. All delegates were given the right to use public transport in Moscow free of charge. For breakfast, lunch and after dinner, the delegates were transported centrally. We also booked seats on the railroad for the return journey.

The authorities also took care of the cultural program for the delegates. Theater tickets were purchased, film screenings were organized, evenings of national literatures, excursions, dinner with academicians and scientists were organized. All the writers who arrived at their First Congress were photographed for free. They were issued newspapers and presented with specially issued congress magazines.

So, the comrades "at the top" quite responsibly could summarize: "The party and the government gave the writer everything, taking away from him only one thing - the right to write badly."

The authorities demonstrated their concern for the writers devoted to it and their generosity. In turn, the writers demonstrated outward unity and consolidated their habit of doublethink. A big deal called the First Congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR took place.

Tatiana Voronina

The beginning of the 1930s for the USSR meant that Soviet power had existed in the country for 15 years already and had strengthened quite thoroughly, despite the catastrophic famine of 1933, the excesses and "excesses" of collectivization. Before the eyes of dumbfounded Europe and America, caught in an unprecedented economic crisis, the industrial might of the USSR was growing. In the United States, which treated Soviet Russia with contempt, under the blows of the Great Depression and growing social protest, they recognize the Soviet Union and establish diplomatic relations with it. Europe regurgitated the economic crisis with fascism. It smelled like a new world war.

Within the communist party, the supporters of Trotsky, the world revolution, all the wings of pre-revolutionary revisionist social democracy, the irresponsible leftist rebellion, biding its time for Zionism, all these Bukharins, Zinovievs, Radeks, pushed aside from the first and dominant places, were preparing for revenge. In the country, a line was drawn towards national, internal supports, most of the leaders began to understand that in the upcoming battle with the world of fascism and non-national capital, we cannot count on the help of the world proletariat, but must rely on our own people, on our own economy, on our own history. , to their own culture. During the revelry of the People's Commissariat for Education, where N.K. Krupskaya, the "singer of noble estates" Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and other "non-proletarian" writers were expelled from school libraries. But at that time, a group of leaders of the country gave a signal to the mass, millionth edition of the classics of Russian literature, creating libraries for schoolchildren, peasants, Komsomol members, Red Army soldiers from the works of N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, A. Pushkin, N. Nekrasov, M. Lermontov, I. Krylova. Pushkin flooded the country in 1937, and imagine what would have happened if in those years, when Russia had made a genuine cultural revolution and when millions of people had overcome illiteracy, she would have received American comics, detective stories of today's ladies, horror literature, violence as a reading , pornography? At this point, no Oleg Koshevoy and Zoya Kosmodemyansky would have grown up in the country for the world war.

A line began to be drawn towards the revival of historical traditions, an orientation towards the victories of the Russian people over foreign invaders. The red devils, revolutionaries of all epochs, the Communards made room, giving way to Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Peter I. There was a letter from the leaders of the country (Stalin, Zhdanov, Kirov) stating that it is necessary to show respect for the history of the country, its real historical personalities, its military, scientific, cultural achievements. True, this was all a little later. But already in 1933-34 this manifested itself in the preparation and holding of the First Congress of Writers. Thus, the 1st Congress of Soviet Writers became an ideological battlefield for many forces, and not only those that were inside the country. A considerable part of Russian writers, not accepting the platform and actions of the Soviet government, or simply falling into the maelstrom of historical events, left Russia. For many years, Russian literature in exile retained the spirit, style, and image of Russian classics. Among them were stars of the first magnitude (I. Bunin, I. Shmelev, I. Ilyin). Due to age reasons, it gradually faded away, someone returned to their homeland (A. Tolstoy, I. Kuprin, M. Gorky). On the territory of Soviet Russia, as it seemed to many, literature in the national Russian sense would never be revived. Yes, and from where? When the leaders of those who declared themselves "proletarian" writers did not accept any continuity and proclaimed: "In the name of our Tomorrow - we will burn Raphael, \\ We will destroy museums, we will trample the flowers of art ..." Merciless "proletarian" writers, genuine "violent zealots" only for themselves appropriated the right to be considered representatives of literature. All these Averbakhs, Lelevichs, Bezymenskys, Libedinskys, Utkins, Yermilovs crucified any attempts to think nationally, peer deeply into life, make it the subject of artistic reflection, the search for truth. Everything was subordinated to the idea of ​​a world revolution, the idea of ​​destroying the old world “to the ground” and throwing it into the future. They did not notice the outstanding stories of M. Sholokhov, spoke through their teeth about the superior artistic talents of L. Leonov, V. Shishkov, calling them "fellow travelers" with contempt.

The main road of literature was in the hands of the RAPP, VOAPP, MAPP - the so-called proletarian organizations of writers. They created, or seized, almost all literary and socio-political publications, they, brandishing a club of criticism, beat up all the recalcitrant, non-standard, trying to create national literature. As it was reminiscent of the 80-90s, when the whole society and, of course, literature were driven into the mainstream of "democracy", they forced non-pops to join the "true civilization". It's amazing how chips and slogans have changed, but the methods of "frantic zealots" do not change, dressing up either in proletarian clothes, or in liberal, or in democratic ones.

As I understand it, in those 30s, in the depths of power, many societies thought about the fate of Russia, looked for strategic and tactical moves for its revival, without raising the question of restoring the pre-revolutionary system. Of course, you can talk a lot about this, but this is a special study in which there cannot be one color, because the historical tasks at each period of time faced the country and the authorities in their own way, taking into account world events, and they had to be answered non-standard and often fateful. Society was then heterogeneous, there were many people who were the basis of the pre-revolutionary system. There were among them those who were ranked among the exploiters, some among the poor, the proletarians. Although by 1936 it was declared in the Constitution of the equality of all people. In the 1960s, I met with one prominent scientist who scolded communism and power with might and main. I cautiously asked: “Your whole chest is covered with orders, you are a laureate of the State Prize and you scold communism so much, why?” “Well, what, I scolded the authorities even in the 30s, but when I realized that there was a war ahead, that no one would save Russia there, in the West, I decided to strengthen the Fatherland and create new equipment.” I think that this mood was typical for many people in the 30s.

And for writers who had talent, realistic "travelling" was a characteristic path in the literature of that time. The "realists" of power could not fail to notice this. The first warning to the "frantic zealots" was in 1932 the party resolution "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", according to which it was decided to liquidate the association of proletarian writers and unite all writers supporting the platform of Soviet power into a single Union of Soviet Writers. M. Gorky, who is considered the initiator of such a decision, nevertheless spoke out in support of the RAPP, which, in his words, "unites the most literate and cultured party writers." Apparently, the idea to unite writers and overcome the bacchanalia of groupings arose in the leadership of the country, and first of all in Stalin. There is no doubt that this was also dictated by the desire to adapt the literary organization to national needs and general party tasks. But behind this, one could also see an attempt to curb the "violent zealots" in culture, which constituted the second Trotskyist-Bukharin echelon.

The date of the congress was postponed several times, and it opened on August 15, 1934. He opened it and made a keynote speech by A.M. Bitter. By this time, he had finally returned to the Soviet Union, “squeezed out” by the crisis and fascism from Europe. Of course, one can be skeptical and critical of the First Congress of Writers, which nevertheless unfolded the panorama of the active, growing, diverse literature of the country. Did he show all available forces, did he name all worthy names? No, naturally. The Rappovshchina did not give up its positions, the Trotskyist-Bukharinist opposition gave its battle at the congress. One can attribute all the "excesses" to Stalin, but one must not forget that apart from A. Gorky, N. Bukharin (on poetry, poetics, and the tasks of poetic creativity) and K. Radek (on world literature and the tasks of proletarian art) delivered the main reports. But it was N. Bukharin who, back in 1927, published the famous “Evil Notes” with the defeat of Sergei Yesenin. After that, for almost 30 years, Yesenin disappeared from publishing plans, school textbooks and anthologies. He was merciless towards Mayakovsky. Good connoisseur of poetry! Just as peremptory was K. Radek, who built a number of poets close to his heart. These oppositionists to Stalin formed their own literary opposition and wanted to form their own recognized line of poets and leaders who were close to them in spirit. They used M. Gorky to put pressure on Stalin and Zhdanov. Of course, all this may look like a purely political congress kitchen. Yes, and this is also true. But still lined up and the literary component. Such well-known writers as A. Gorky, F. Gladkov, V. Ivanov, L. Leonov, P. Pavlenko, L. Seifulina, A. Serafimovich, N. Tikhonov, A. Fadeev, K. Fedin, M. Sholokhov, I. Ehrenburg. A. Shcherbakov was elected from the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). And the conversation about literature, about artistic creativity, about folk origins, about history, about talent, about language took place, despite the loud proletarian rhetoric of the Rappovites. What are the words of M. Gorky worth: “the beginning of the art of the word is in folklore. Collect our folklore, learn from it, process it... The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of our present creativity”?

Most of the writers left under the patronage of the Trotskyist-Bukharin leadership. Of course, the Writers' Union was largely subordinate to the state and the party leadership, but there was a certain scope, conditions for creativity, and especially material supports (suffice it to recall the Literary Fund formed in those years, a considerable number of rented dachas built in Peredelkino, the House of Creativity, the House of Writers, the publishing house " Soviet writer”, etc.).

Many probably managed to forget that before the Great Patriotic War the Union of Writers of Russia did not exist. There was the Union of Soviet Writers created by Alexei Maksimovich Gorky, which had republican branches in all Soviet republics except Russia. Such a strange situation was a consequence of the policy laid down back in the post-revolutionary 1920s by Trotsky and his comrades-in-arms, who dreamed of a world international and hated everything Russian. The Russian people, who selflessly bore the burden of the development of our state on their shoulders, found themselves in a disadvantaged position. Other national formations that were part of the USSR developed, their national culture and self-consciousness were maintained, and in the Russian Federation there was not only no writers' union, the Academy of Sciences, but even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which for that time was simply amazing. Russian self-consciousness not only did not develop, but, on the contrary, was oppressed, considered chauvinistic, nationalistic, although in relation to other peoples of the Soviet Union, this was called the development of national self-consciousness and national culture.

But after the war, the attitude towards the Russian people began to change. The Russian people showed their selflessness, their fundamental essence of the state-forming people, it was the Russian people who made the main contribution to the Victory, and it was the Russian people who died the most in the war. The turning point, probably, was the historical toast of Generalissimo Stalin “to the great Russian people”. The revival of Russian self-consciousness in the USSR has its roots in the Great Victory. On this wave in 1957-1958 the Union of Writers of the RSFSR was created - now the Union of Writers of Russia. It was headed by the outstanding Russian writer Leonid Sobolev (by the way, what is surprising! - non-partisan). In the first years of activity, the creation of regional branches of the Union, the formation of governing bodies, the reunification of writers into a single social organism took place. At the same time, the spiritual and ideological component of the activity of the SP of Russia also crystallized. And although it was not possible to reflect it in any resolutions of the congresses or program documents, Vladimir Soloukhin’s book “Vladimirskie proselki” published in 1957 carried a powerful charge of Russian ideology. It was then that a group of writers appeared who were not afraid to pronounce and write the words Rus, Russia, Russian ... In essence, the created Union of Writers of the RSFSR became the only legally operating organization that came to the defense of Russians in the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev, with his agitated policy, did much harm to the Russian people himself, and his entourage, which included such odious personalities as Adzhubey and Ilyichev, who built a national policy according to the pre-war model, differed in the same way. In addition, Nikita Khrushchev had a negative attitude towards the generation of victors. We remember how he dealt with Marshal Zhukov, how he was afraid of the military who had won the war. Patriotism then was clearly not held in high esteem, the Orthodox Church was subjected to special persecution. During the reign of Khrushchev, more Orthodox churches were destroyed than in the 20-30s. After Khrushchev was removed from his posts for vulgarity and voluntarism in politics, it became easier to breathe.

It so happened that by the beginning of perestroika, the Russian revival movement came up somewhat confused and disunited, and therefore lost the “battle for the minds” of the “perestroikas” and the Liberal Lamas-Westerners. But by 1994, the Union of Writers of Russia, already cleansed of anti-Russian sentiments, at its congress proclaimed our main principles:

Follow the traditions of classical Russian literature;

Affirm realism as the main artistic direction;

affirm morality;

Fight for the purity of the Russian language;

Be sovereigns.

From that moment, one might say, the third stage in the history of the Writers' Union of Russia began, when our creative union became a union of like-minded writers united by the idea of ​​Russia's spiritual revival.

When President Putin presented me with the Order of Honor in the Kremlin in 2005, I thanked him and said that I consider this order “an award to the Union of Writers of Russia, which strives to continue the traditions of Russian classical literature, moral and spiritual literature, to the Union, which stands on guardian of the Russian language, the languages ​​of the peoples of our country. The nation is preserved, even if its economic basis is completely changed. The nation is preserved if the state structure changes, even if the state disappears. But if the language disappears, the nation ceases to be such. What remains is population growth. We evaluate today's award as the concern of society and the authorities for the Russian language, for our spiritual bond, for the moral basis of literature.”

We are working in many areas, but the main thing we strive for is for our Union to always participate in creative actions for the good of the Fatherland. We are co-founders of the All Peaceful Russian People's Council, headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. I am the Deputy Head of the World Russian People's Council. The Writers' Union of Russia has been actively participating in the organization and work of the Councils since the moment of its formation - since 1993. At each of them, we consider the main, most burning issues of the life of the Russian people - spiritual revival, the problems of the Russian language, the Russian national school, the health of the nation, Orthodoxy, the position of Russians in the world at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. Round tables are constantly held with the participation of the clergy, writers, representatives of patriotic circles, and the intelligentsia.

Nowadays, the intervention of the authorities in the literary business is not so noticeable, but the economic dictate is much tougher and more relentless. All the Houses of Creativity (with the exception of Peredelkino) worked out and created, including at the expense of writers' funds, were confiscated, publishing houses became private, and writers lost any social status, because the Law on Creative Unions, despite the promises of all legislators, has not yet been accepted. They are trying to take away the house of Russian writers.

Nevertheless, Russian literature exists. Seven and a half thousand writers are united in the Union of Writers of Russia, which considers itself to be the successors of the traditions of Russian classical literature, to people of a sovereign and moral position that does not discard the achievements of realistic and honest literature of Russian abroad, Russian Soviet literature. And in this sense, the first congress of Soviet writers in 1934 is a historically important milestone, forcing us to remember the complexity of the path of Russian literature, to clearly see the efforts that have been and are being made by many to lead it away from the path of serving the people and their Fatherland.

Valery Ganichev

I Congress of Soviet Writers

Antipin V.

How long do we cover the case -

Begin, brothers, boldly.

One two three four five

And in order to discipline

Women, schoolchildren, men,

Let's sit down to write.

Volume written, fry another

And then we will pour the river.

And on each signature

"Proletliterature".

(“Materials for the First Congress of Writers”)

In August 1934, the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers took place in Moscow, which laid the foundation for the Writers' Union of the USSR (SSP) - a single creative public organization of the country's writers. In the entire history of the existence of the Union of writers' congresses, there were not so many - only 9. It is quite understandable why 20 years passed between the I and II congresses, and the subsequent ones met with a certain regularity - at least once every 5 - 6 years. Everything that the authorities wanted to convey to the writers was said at the First Congress, and there was no need to hold a second such event in the era of Stalin's strict ideological control over society. The SSP was called upon to reduce the creative aspirations of writers to a common denominator, reducing the professional principles of activity to the only permissible power - to "socialist realism".

Meanwhile, the question of the relationship between the authorities and representatives of the artistic intelligentsia, including writers, the need and degree of their organizational and ideological design does not lose its sharpness and debatability even today, because in modern Moscow alone there are eight writers' organizations, the effectiveness of which seems to be very controversial. .

How and on what principles should writers be united, is any organization necessary at all if literary work is purely individualized? To answer this question, it is necessary to turn to the study of the history of the SSP, especially at the time of its creation, while carefully tracking the organizational, ideological and other, up to the material, aspects of the activities of this organization.

Indeed, one can often find references in the scientific literature to the First Congress of Soviet Writers and its significance for the actual restructuring of the entire literary process in the USSR. However, there are practically no works devoted to the congress itself.

It should be noted that, on the whole, domestic historical science has accumulated a sufficient number of studies, both fundamental and devoted to individual issues of the organization of the literary process in the USSR.

In accordance with the generally accepted historiographic tradition, several periods can be distinguished in the development of plots related to the activities of the SSP and the congresses of Soviet writers in historical literature.

Period 1 - from the mid-1930s to the early 1950s. The historiography of the Soviet literary process after the unification of writers in the SSP was mainly descriptive. The party leadership was recognized by him as unmistakable and true. The role of I. Stalin personally in the formation of the literary process was emphasized.

II period - from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. Changes in the attitude towards the literary process and the role of the party and state leadership in it occurred in historical and literary works immediately after the death of I. Stalin. But, at the same time, the main ideological guidelines were not removed.

It was stated that “... the cult of I. V. Stalin caused considerable damage to artistic creativity. In some novels, plays and poems, in contradiction with historical truth, the significance and role of I.V. Stalin was exaggerated beyond measure. His subjectivity in the evaluation of works of art was also noted, which led to biased criticism of works of art. The good names of some writers who had been unfairly criticized were restored: “... now we can talk about the mistakes or delusions of honest Soviet writers, and not about the insidious machinations of enemies of the people.” But the role of the party in shaping the literary process was still assessed as undeniably positive and progressive; as before, the main function of the party in relation to the literary process was considered educational.

A. Romanovsky's Ph.D. thesis "From the history of the preparation of the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers", written in 1958, was devoted mainly to the preparation of the congress, but nothing is said about its course. The work is written in line with the concepts and approaches characteristic of the time of its creation.

III period - from the middle of 1960 to the middle of the 1980s. The authors of historical and literary works of this period noted the insufficient coverage of the literary process of 1930-1940 in historical literature, but the real reasons for this phenomenon were not disclosed.

The interference of the party and the government in creative activity was explained by "objective" reasons (for example, the complexity of the international situation). The main leitmotif of historical works was that there were distortions in literary policy caused by the activities of I. Stalin, but in general, socialist art continued to develop: “The cult of personality could not change the very nature of the new artistic method associated with the public processes of socialist reality and artistic development, but he caused tangible damage to literature. But if you take a closer look, then: “... and in artistic creativity and even in its theoretical understanding, which did not stop even in those years, one can find a rather sharp struggle between two trends: a dogmatic one that fetishized certain provisions of the method of socialist realism, guided by opinions and tastes Stalin, on the one hand, and creative, developing the high traditions of Russian literature and Soviet literature of previous periods, responding to the demands of life, on the other. In general, the idea seems to be fair even in our time, but it is derived from the wrong premise, that what was valuable and highly artistic in the literature of the period under review existed not thanks to the method of socialist realism, but contrary to it, and developed based on the talent of writers, and not on the wise party leadership.

In general, the tone of historical and literary works was optimistic: “The ideological maturity and high professionalism of the bulk of workers in literature and art were manifested in the fact that they relatively quickly figured out the fallacy of the “conflict-free theory”, successfully fought against formalism, on the one hand, and naturalism - with another" .

In the same period, a number of articles were published devoted to the 40th and 50th anniversary of the congress, but most of them were of a small volume. For the most part, these were articles not from the central press, but from such regional publications as Literary Georgia, Siberian Lights, Ural, and others.

IV period from ser. 1980s to the present day. Works of a more general nature began to appear, in which the literary process was not considered in detail, but, nevertheless, they also contained some theoretical conclusions on the problem. For example, in the collection Our Fatherland, the provisions are put forward that the functions of workers in the spiritual sphere in a totalitarian society are reduced to an apology for the existing system, that direct ideological oppression was established over artists, that the Secretariat of the SSP was the conductor of the party line in relation to writers.

There is a work that explores the interaction of Stalinism and art in general, this is the book by E. Gromov "Stalin: power and art." It is of an overview nature and concerns the relationship of I. Stalin with all the creative intelligentsia at different stages of his life. The monograph is distinguished by the consistency of value judgments; for its creation, previously unpublished documents from hard-to-reach archives were used. The author comes to the following conclusion: “There is no doubt, and under him, works of a high aesthetic level appeared. […] But in the end, Stalin brought Soviet art to the deepest crisis.” Despite the undoubted value of this work, it is necessary to note the author's passion for the subjective factor in the development of the historical process. Undoubtedly, this factor influences history, but its influence should not be exaggerated, much less absolutized.

Undoubtedly, the contribution that D. Babichenko made to the study of the literary process of the period of Stalinism. He was the first to analyze the interaction between politics and the literary process in the period under review from new methodological positions. The author introduced many new documents into scientific circulation and gave them a detailed commentary and critical assessment.

However, the undoubted abundance of general works on literary creativity in the USSR nevertheless does not add up to a complete picture, leaving a lot of questions for researchers. So, for example, the questions of the material support of writers, their way of life, as well as the history of the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, remained very little studied.

The source base of the article can be divided into several groups:

1 - Letters from officials of the Organizing Committee of the SSP to higher organizations. These letters cover a wide range of issues related to the organization and holding of the congress, since all aspects of this event had to be agreed with higher authorities.

2 - Responses to the preparation and holding of the congress. Among them, the special reports of the secret political department of the Main Directorate of State Security of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR (GUGB NKVD of the USSR), published in the collection "Power and Artistic Intelligentsia" for the first time, are of particular value. It is these special messages that help to understand the true moods of the congress participants during and after its completion. The same group of sources includes an underground leaflet found at the congress, which convincingly shows that there was no unanimous support for the Soviet government declared at the congress. This group also includes documents published by L. Vakhtina and L. Wolfsun. These are satirical poems and epigrams dedicated to the upcoming congress. They were handed over in a sealed envelope to the handwritten department of the GPB, and then, by virtue of their content, were handed over to the NKVD authorities. On this fact, a criminal case was launched. Unfortunately, the researchers who found this curious document failed to find out who the author of the poems was and what his fate was. These verses do not represent any artistic value, but they give an idea of ​​the attitude of a part of the public towards the upcoming congress.

3 - Orders and instructions for the material support of the congress. The documents of this group are contained in the fund of the Union of Writers of the USSR (No. 631) of the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI). From them we can learn the smallest details of the life of the writers who came to the congress and the scope of this event.

4 - Memoirs of contemporaries of the congress. The disadvantages of this group of sources are well known. These include subjectivism and the desire to exaggerate one's own role in the event. But without such documents it is impossible to understand the atmosphere of those years, to feel the "flavor of the era."

5 - Periodicals. Unfortunately, the documents of this group are not very informative, since the congress was given a one-sided enthusiastic assessment in the periodical press, the articles in different publications were of the same type. The coverage of the congress in the press was mainly limited to the publication of transcripts and short interviews with the participants of the event.

Preparations for the congress of Soviet writers began after the well-known Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” was adopted on April 23, 1932. According to the document, numerous writers' organizations were united into one, which was supposed to consist of writers who fully "support the platform of Soviet power."

On May 7, 1932, the Decree of the Orgburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “Practical measures to implement the decision on the restructuring of writers' organizations” was published. Initially, the congress was planned as an event controlled by the party: “From the first steps in preparing the congress, the party firmly took the reins of government into its own hands. Repeatedly meetings of the top leadership of the country were held personally by Stalin with the participation of his inner circle (Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, etc.) [...] They not only controlled from the outside every step of the writers, but were even introduced into the structure of the Organizing Committee (I. Gronsky, V. Kirpotin , head Agitprop of the Central Committee A. Stetsky, A. Shcherbakov, who after the congress will become the staff organizing secretary of the joint venture, without being any writer, A. Zhdanov, who will make speeches at the congress on behalf of the Central Committee) ".

On May 15, 1932, literary organizations published a letter in Pravda stating that a congress of writers was convened and that an Organizing Committee was required to prepare it. In this regard, the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Writers for the RSFSR was approved by the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on May 17, and it was decided to create similar committees in other republics.

On May 26, the Leningrad Organizing Committee of the Writers' Union began its work. Its presidium included R. Braese, L. Martynov, N. Tikhonov, M. Slonimsky, M. Kozakov, N. Svirin, A. Prokofiev, N. Nikitin and D. Lavrukhin.

In order to approve the governing bodies of the future union and develop its Charter, it was decided to convene the First Congress of Soviet Writers.

The All-Union Organizing Committee was established on August 16, 1932. On the basis of an agreement between the organizing committees of the Union republics, it included: the entire composition of the Organizing Committee, eight representatives from the Organizing Committee of Ukraine, four from the Organizing Committee of the BSSR, six from the Organizing Committee of the ZSFSR, seven from the Organizing Committee of Central Asia, a total of 50 people. M. Gorky remained the honorary chairman, I. Gronsky the chairman, V. Kirpotin the secretary. In November 1932, it also included L. Subotsky, A. Makariev, V. Ermilov, L. Averbakh. Under the Presidium, a working unit was created, which carried out all the operational work. The executive secretary of the communist faction was first I. Gronsky, then P. Yudin. In total, the Organizing Committee included 26 people. During the entire period of the Organizing Committee's work, three plenums and several all-union meetings were held.

From the very beginning, the Organizing Committee decided to hold the congress on a grand scale, but it was difficult to determine at first how exactly to organize it, what events to hold on a national scale, so the opening date of the congress changed several times. So, in September 1932, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a decision to postpone the congress until mid-May 1933, followed by a decision of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to convene a congress in June, and finally, a decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to open the congress August 15, 1934.

M. Gorky, who returned from emigration in May 1933, played a special role in the preparation and holding of the congress.

Informal meetings of writers were arranged at his apartment. One of them was attended by many writers who had more independent views, not very pleasing to the authorities. But a trial balloon was thrown before her: on October 20, 1932, a meeting with communist writers took place. On it, I. Stalin justified the need to create a new writers' organization: “You [the Rappovites] nominated and praised your own, sometimes put forward beyond measure and beyond their merits, hushed up and poisoned writers who did not belong to your group, and thereby pushed them away from you , instead of bringing them into our organization and helping them grow […]

Right next to you, a sea of ​​non-Party writers grew and multiplied, whom no one directed, whom no one helped, who were homeless.

Already by March 1933, a number of events were held in preparation for the congress: two plenums of the All-Union Organizing Committee, a discussion of creative issues was launched in the press, an exhibition of fiction was opened in Moscow, a departure of teams of writers to various regions of the country was organized, etc.

In the memorandum of the Secretary of the All-Union Communist Party (b) faction of the Organizing Committee I. Gronsky to the secretaries of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I. Stalin and L. Kaganovich dated March 16, 1933, an approximate “order of the day” was described, which included an introductory speech by M. Gorky on the tasks facing before the Union of Soviet Writers, a political report (the speaker was to be appointed by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks), a report by the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Writers of the USSR (the speaker was to be I. Gronsky), a speech on the tasks of Soviet dramaturgy and on the charter of the Union of Soviet Writers, a report of the mandate commission and elections of the board of the union and the revision commission.

I. Gronsky proposed to preliminarily approve the abstracts of reports and resolutions, for which the speakers were obliged to provide the texts of their reports in advance.

The number of congress participants was also determined: “We propose to establish the norm of representation for the congress, based on the total number of congress delegates, at 500-600 people, i.e. one delegate from ten members of the union (according to preliminary estimates, the union will have 5,000 members).

All these proposals were taken into account and implemented.

In May 1933, work on the preparation of the congress stalled due to the long illness of I. Gronsky, he was replaced by A. Fadeev for the time being, with V. Stavsky introduced to the Secretariat to help him.

Despite this, the head of the department of cultural and educational work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks A. Stetsky considered it unreasonable to postpone the start of the congress, as he reported in a memorandum to the secretaries of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated May 22, 1933, since some preparatory work was carried out by the Organizing Committee already held, the issue of the structure of the union was resolved, and the abstracts of the reports were almost ready.

On July 15, 1933, an all-Union meeting of the chairmen of the organizing committees of the republics took place. Before it began, the Communist Fraction gathered all the Communists to talk about the shortcomings in the work of the Organizing Committee. A. Fadeev made a big speech, noting that there was group action, that writers were striving for unification, with the exception of L. Averbakh. V. Stavsky noted that the work of the Organizing Committee shows the features of administration.

On August 15 of the same year, M. Gorky spoke at a meeting of the Presidium of the organizing committee with a proposal to present at the congress a theoretical report on the essence of socialist realism and on raising the question of creating the history of factories and plants.

On December 1, 1933, the Evening Working Literary University was opened, in the same year the Gorky Literary Institute began its work.

In general, numerous events were timed to coincide with the opening of the congress, designed to draw public attention to it, arouse the interest of the population in fiction, and even entertain the delegates who arrived at the congress. So, for example, on May 15, 1934, an exhibition of fiction opened in Moscow. It is housed in two pavilions of the Gorky Central Park of Culture and Leisure. The exhibition consisted of 11 sections with a very broad theme: there was an introductory hall that showed the role and importance of fiction in the revolutionary movement, there was a hall demonstrating how the classics of Marxism-Leninism used fiction, the next hall showed how their activities are reflected in fiction and folklore, another one showed the role of the writer in the life of the Soviet country.

Another preparatory event was the departure of brigades of writers to various regions of the country, its purpose was to prepare local writers' organizations for the congress. M. Gorky was the initiator of these trips. Similar events have already been held before, for example, the trip of the writers' team to Turkmenistan and the trip of N. Tikhonov, P. Pavlenko and V. Lugovskoy to Dagestan, during which Suleiman Stalsky's "Homer of the 20th century" was "discovered", which subsequently performed with resounding success at the congress.

There is an opinion of V. Baranov that before the congress the authorities wanted to demoralize M. Gorky, as they were afraid that in addition to a prepared and tested speech, he would be able to decide on bold statements that run counter to official guidelines. Therefore, the researcher put forward a version that the death of the son of the proletarian writer M. Peshkov, which happened on May 11, 1934, was a premeditated murder. Be that as it may, due to the condition of the Petrel of the Revolution after the death of his son, the congress was once again postponed, this time until mid-August 1934.

Aleksey Maksimovich himself interrupted his participation in the preparation of the event and on July 12-21 made a trip on the steamer "Klara Zetkin".

Numerous gifts came to the congress, which was a distinctive feature of that time (recall the anniversary of I. Stalin, which took place later, in 1949). One of the contemporaries of the congress, the future writer P. Likhodeev recalled: “... there was also a gift from our school - a secondary school in the town of Stalino, Donbass.

It was an address in a red velvet folder. […] We wrote on paper in gold letters: the first congress of Soviet writers in the history of mankind. We were very proud of these words, because they anticipated the words of Maxim Gorky, who said that this was the first congress of writers of the Soviet socialist republics in the entire centuries-old history of literature. […]

Our art teacher drew a portrait of Maxim Gorky in a folder. I remember that Gorky turned out badly, and one could recognize him only by his mustache and sinewy neck.[…]

I don't remember who wrote the calligraphy of the address. But I remember it was a girl. She was chosen at a pioneer gathering, her merits were discussed, emphasizing discipline and good behavior, as well as a promise to pull herself up in mathematics and physics. And we made a solemn promise that this girl will catch up by the beginning of the new school year, and we will help her. We stood behind her, watching that the golden ink did not drip into a golden blot. And when the ink splattered, the girl cried and took a new sheet of drawing paper, starting over.

This address was signed in gold letters by excellent students and social work activists. The girl did not sign. She was neither an activist nor an honors student […]” .

The Hall of Columns of the House of the Unions was chosen as the venue for the congress, and it was necessary to decorate the premises accordingly. V. Kirpotin recalled a curious fact: “Already on the verge of opening, the question suddenly arose of how to decorate the Column Hall of the House of the Unions, intended for the country's first all-Union writers' forum. I did not want to repeat the usual patterns. But some absolutely fantastic projects were also unacceptable. At the last meeting, which took place in Stetsky's office, without asking for a word, in one sentence I proposed to hang portraits of the classics in the hall. Stetsky stood up, shook my hand - the issue was resolved. Writers on this occasion were ironic:

Enough space for everyone

Who is on the podium, who is on the ground,

And who is just on the wall!

So for example, I'm upsetting everyone,

The fact appeared to us as in a dream -

At the department of Tolstoy Alyosha,

Leo Tolstoy is on the wall.

In the house of the Unions, some activities were carried out to prepare the premises for the congress. The Column Hall of the House of the Unions, where all the work of the writers' congress was to take place, was artistically decorated and radio-equipped. The main reports and speeches of writers were to be broadcast on the radio. Soyuzkinochronika was supposed to film the work of the congress. A film group was allocated - a team of cameramen and illuminators. Filming was to be carried out in two versions - for sound films and for silent films. Separate speeches at the congress were to be recorded on radio tape. Everything for these events was prepared in advance.

Even before the start of the congress, when most of the delegates had already arrived, they were given a small questionnaire designed to help the organizers better build writers' leisure time:

“Dear comrade!

During the congress, it is planned to organize a number of meetings, excursions, screenings of plays and films.

The cult commission asks you to underline the events listed below in which you would like to take part. Among the proposals were excursions to the metro construction (descent into the mine), to the plant. Gorbunov, at the automobile plant named after Stalin, to the airport (airplane flights), to the construction of the Moscow-Volga Canal, to the exhibition "Our Achievements", to the motor-technical part named after Malinovsky and to the Kremlin. Meetings were planned with scientists (academicians), with architects (to get acquainted with the plan of the new Moscow), with foreign writers. The delegates were supposed to visit theaters and watch performances of the plays "Wonderful Alloy" by V. Kirshon and "Fighters" by B. Romashov, as well as cinemas and watch a number of films ("Pyshka", "Three Songs about Lenin", "The Rise of a Man", "Merry Guys").

On the opening day of the congress (August 17, 1934), a huge crowd gathered in front of the House of Unions wishing to see famous writers with their own eyes. Even the congress delegates themselves struggled to squeeze through the crowd. One of the delegates A. Karavaeva recalled this day: “On a sunny August morning in 1934, approaching the House of the Unions, I saw a large and lively crowd. Amidst the chatter and applause - just like in a theater - someone's young voice was heard, which energetically called: “Comrade delegates of the First Congress of Soviet Writers! As you enter this hall, don't forget to pick up your historical mandate! Who, what delegate, and from where did he come to the congress... The Soviet people want to see and know you all! Call, comrades, your last name and show your delegate card!” This energetic young man sonorously repeated each writer's surname twice, and the audience greeted the appearance of a new delegate with friendly applause.

At the congress, in addition to writers, workers and peasants spoke, meetings were held with the authors of the book “The Snub-nosed Base” from Irkutsk (the poet Ivan Molchanov-Sibirsky was at the head of their delegation), with TsAGI workers who designed the Maxim Gorky aircraft, with railway workers, with metro builders , with the workers of the Sacco and Vanzetti pencil factory, as well as a trip to the Moscow-Volga canal.

The coverage of the congress in the press was rather monotonous and boring. So, in Literaturnaya Gazeta, the coverage was limited mainly to the publication of transcripts of the congress, photographs of participants and interviews with them. Vechernyaya Moskva published short reports on the progress of the congress and small interviews with its participants, the whole pathos of which consisted in statements about the grandeur of what was happening.

However, without wide coverage in the press, the congress could not have had the ideological influence that was supposed by the authorities, therefore, already on August 21, a resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On strengthening the coverage in the press of the meetings of the All-Union Congress of Writers” appeared, where the newspapers Pravda and Izvestia » were obliged to place the speeches of speakers from national literatures in full or at least two-thirds. These publications were allowed to make 4 or 2 "tabs" for the entire duration of the congress.

However, writers still managed to add variety to boring newspaper publications. For example, Yu. Olesha and Val. Stenich composed a comic poem "Moscow in those days was Hellas":

Among the marble in the Hall of Columns

Fifteen days we sat

Noisy, buzzed our first congress. […]

It's time, already disheveled, sweaty,

Ran into the presidium of Kirpotin,

A walrus is already swimming,

In the meeting room Olga Forsh […]

And suddenly - the whole hall instantly froze,

And suddenly - applause thunder,

Camera eyes crossed

On the appeared, on it.

And he, in an incredible light

jubilant spotlights,

brushes aside these

Epithets, Jupiters,

From honors, from praise,

Like a storm splashing again

The hand that Lenin pressed

The hand that wrote "Mother"! […]

And a target for many photographs

A record of unheard-of beauty,

On Oscar-Maria Graf

Incredible panties!

The whole building is screaming,

The crowd stands with its mouth open, -

Panties adorn Maria,

But Oscar... on the contrary! […]

And like "Aurora" at night on the Neva

Went to gloomy bridges

So enters Vsevolod Vishnevsky,

Threatening countless enemies

Barely drives his eyes

Dragging his legs, breathing a little ...

Where, brothers, in a fat body

Such a tender soul? […]

Bukharin caught cues,

Demyan Bedny noticed

And blessed to descend into the grave.

But no matter how hard he tried,

And no matter how weaving the thread of the report,

He could not Poor Demyan

Cover oblivion with a shroud. […]

Moscow in those days was Hellas,

Multiplied by communism!

Before the congress, there were political tasks. It was intended to demonstrate the unity of Soviet writers in support of communist ideology.

Therefore, even before the start of the congress, in the spring of 1934, the secret political department of the GUGB of the NKVD of the USSR began to draw up regular (about once every 2-3 days) special reports. They were prepared by the heads of the NKVD departments, and the information they provided was in stark contrast to the bravura articles in the newspapers and subsequent eyewitness accounts published later in the Soviet press.

The special message dated August 12 contained a description of the delegations arriving at the congress (the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, the delegation of Eastern Siberia, etc.). As it turned out, among the delegates were former Social Revolutionaries, anarchists, nationalists. Some of them created anti-Soviet works in the past and fought against the Soviet authorities. The close attention of the NKVD bodies to the congress delegates was quite understandable in this context.

Of course, the participants in the congress could not but feel the artificiality of what was happening. The authorities wanted to unite people who were completely different in worldview, creative methods and aesthetic inclinations. This is possible in case of respect for those who think and create differently. However, this mutual respect did not exist until very recently. Now, by order from above, the writers were supposed to “make friends”: “Everyone has a vague feeling of awkwardness. Yesterday everything was more organic. RAPP was RAPP, fellow travelers were fellow travelers. The first used administrative methods in the struggle, the second were indignant. And so everyone was offered to make peace and was seated at the same table, and everyone is embarrassed by this administrative well-being. In the podium, Pasternak is next to the former leaders of the RAPP. When the name of Mayakovsky is called, everyone will certainly applaud. Malraux speaks, shaking his head, no, throwing his head back, suffering from a tic. A huge fat Austrian or German wanders around the foyer, in short trousers with straps, in thick knee-length stockings with a perplexedly angry expression on his face. […] Ehrenburg speaks of trust in writers. Gorky, resembling his portraits, perfectly, strictly dressed, in a bluish shirt, fashionable in those days, with an excellent tie, either shows up in the presidium, or disappears, and it seems to me that he is embarrassed, although he is the soul of the events taking place.

During the work of the congress, an episode occurred that, for obvious reasons, did not receive wide publicity in Soviet times. The fact is that an underground leaflet was discovered at the congress. On this occasion, on August 20, a note was drawn up by the deputy head of the secret political department of the GUGB of the NKVD of the USSR, G. Lyushkov, G. Yagoda, in which he reported on the fact that took place at the congress and reported on the measures taken to detect the author.

The leaflet was written in block letters in carbon copy and distributed among the participants of the congress by mail. It was written on behalf of a group of Soviet writers and addressed to foreign colleagues. The authors admitted that their group was small, while explaining this by the fact that other honest people were intimidated: “Even at home, we often avoid speaking as we think, because in the USSR there is a circular system of denunciation.” They urged not to believe what was said at the congress and to start a fight against “Soviet fascism […] You are in fear of German fascism - Hitler is not terrible for us, he did not cancel the secret ballot. Hitler respects the plebiscite […] For Stalin, these are bourgeois prejudices.”

Meetings of communist delegates, where the participants were warned of the danger of group moods, played an important role in the political preparation of the congress. That is why: "Everyone tried, as best they could, to overlap each other with the ideological presentations, the depth of posing creative questions, the external finishing of speech."

And during the congress, the Presidium Communist Group did not doze, even when the communist poets, headed by A. Bezymensky, decided to “work through” Bukharin at the congress because of his “current judgments and previous mistakes”, their intention was condemned, declaring the inadmissibility of preliminary group meetings and political generalizations.

The effectiveness of such warnings is evident from the following episode: “Fyodor Gladkov invited Kirilenko and other Ukrainian writers (mostly communists) to 'drink tea'. The meeting did not take place, as the invitees decided that they could be accused of groupism, the need to combat which was pointed out to them in the sharpest form at the meeting of the delegation.

Still, it was difficult to prevent informal meetings of writers - not all of them were skeptical about the congress, many experienced an emotional upsurge, and someone just wanted to take the opportunity to talk with colleagues who would then be difficult to see. P. Brovka recalled: “We, young people, then had many unforgettable meetings. We enthusiastically watched the old people, listened to them, and in the evenings we gathered at someone’s hotel room, or even in a small restaurant basement on Tverskaya [...] ” .

Here is another recollection of an informal meeting during the work of the congress, it belongs to Savva Golovanivsky: “After one of the meetings, the delegates did not disperse for a long time - they crowded on the sidelines and had a heated discussion.

I remember that when I went out into the street, A. I. Bezymensky approached me and quietly asked me to come to him at eight o'clock: other comrades would also gather. The author of the memoirs was somewhat late for the meeting. When he arrived, he realized that he was not at dinner, as he expected, but at an impromptu meeting. There were D. Bedny, I. Kulik, A. Zharov, A. Surkov, A. Prokofiev, M. Svetlov, S. Kirsanov and others with whom S. Golovanivsky was not familiar. They discussed creative issues.

Political conversations were nevertheless conducted on the sidelines of the congress, becoming known to the authorities thanks to informers.

Criticism of the work of the congress was carried out by the delegates both "right" and "left". For example, Semenko remarked: “And we sit and applaud like clockwork soldiers, while the true artists of the word, fighters for national culture, rot somewhere in the swamps of Karelia and in the dungeons of the GPU.”

Criticism from completely different positions sounded from the lips of Pyotr Oreshin: “What can be expected from Bukharin if he proclaims the meaningless and meaningless Pasternak as the first poet. It is necessary to lose the last remnants of reason in order to proclaim formal trinkets as the basis of poetry. And the fact that the struggle is in full swing all around, that the revolution continues - they completely forgot about it. The words of M. Shaginyan are also noteworthy: “His report [Gorky] at the congress is incorrect, not correct, by no means Marxist, this is Bogdanovism, these are Gorky’s constant mistakes. Gorky is an anarchist, raznochinets, populist, moreover, a populist-philistine, not from the peasants ... ".

In a letter from A. Zhdanov to I. Stalin, one can read the following lines: “The Congress is praised by everyone, even the incorrigible skeptics and ironists, of whom there are so many in the writing community.” But in the first days of the congress, its organizers had serious concerns about its work, since it began with reports that the authors read out, turning the congress into a boring procedure, so many delegates wandered around the corridors.

The newly appointed head of the SSP A. Shcherbakov, having visited the congress, made the following entry in his diary: “It was half an hour at the congress. Gone. Nauseous."

When the debate began, there was a revival, the halls were packed to capacity.

Dear Kitty, I am writing to you at the presidium table in the Hall of Columns (on the stage). Marietta Shaginyan has just spoken, delivering a wonderfully meaningful speech. Yesterday I chaired the evening meeting, and then at 12 o'clock at night there was an evening meeting with the Georgian delegates, Kolya Tikhonov and I read our translations, and I went to bed at 5 o'clock in the morning, so now I am completely sleepy. In the evening we dined with Garrick and Paolo in a restaurant. […] I want to go home all the time, […] but it’s impossible for me to go. Yes, and it would be stupid: just the opening of the congress (the first days) scared us away with its boredom; it was too solemn and formal. And now one day is more interesting than the next: the debate has begun. Yesterday, for example, Korn[ey] Chukovsky and I. Ehrenburg spoke with great success and very interestingly. In addition, it is inconvenient for me to leave before the report of Bukharin and Tikhonov.

But not everyone enthusiastically accepted what was happening. It is not difficult to determine the mood of the deputies based on the special reports of the secret political department of the GUGB of the NKVD of the USSR. M. Prishvin noted "unbearable boredom", P. Romanov - "excellent boredom and bureaucracy", P. Roskov dubbed the congress a "sleepy kingdom", I. Babel - "literary memorial service". Yes, and B. Pasternak eventually revised his general attitude towards the congress: “Pasternak said that he used to have high hopes for the congress - he hoped to hear at the congress something completely different from what the speakers devoted their speeches to. Pasternak was waiting for speeches of a more philosophical content, he believed that the congress would turn into a meeting of Russian thinkers. Maxim Gorky's speech seemed to him lonely at the congress. […]

I am deadly dejected,” he repeated several times. “You understand, it’s just deadly!” .

It is important to note that, even in the opinion of A. Zhdanov, the communist writers spoke at the congress much paler, grayer than the non-party ones. True, he did not agree with the opinion expressed by M. Gorky that the communists did not enjoy any authority among writers.

One of the most important issues of the congress was the development of national literatures and their interaction with Russian. Initially, this issue was not on the agenda, but then reports on Ukrainian, Belarusian, Georgian, Tatar and other national literatures were personally included in the plan by M. Gorky. And then I. Stalin himself intervened in the matter. Here is Beso Zhgenti's evidence of this: “However, the plan worked out in advance suddenly and radically changed. During his stay in Moscow, M. Toroshelidze was invited by I. V. Stalin, who wished to get acquainted with the provisions of the report intended for reading at the congress. Upon his return to Tbilisi, M. Toroshelidze urgently gathered the then leadership of the Union and told us in detail about the content of this conversation […].

How? Will you tell the congress that only after the October Revolution did the Georgian people acquire the possibilities of creativity, and until then they had not created anything in the field of culture? […] Tell the Georgian writers on my behalf that if they cannot do something similar to what our predecessors created in the field of culture and literature, let them at least be able to show this heritage. You should start your report at least with Shota Rustaveli, if not from an earlier period.

I. Stalin's wish was put into practice, the congress devoted a lot of time to the problems of national literatures. After the congress, a mass translation of the works of national writers into Russian began, and Russians into the languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR.

A. Kartsev wrote quite accurately about the political significance of the congress: “With whomever I talked about the congress, everyone agreed, first of all, that it was, for the most part, politics. The political results of the congress are enormous, especially abroad, an impressive spectacle.

However, from a political point of view, despite all the efforts of the authorities, the congress was held imperfectly. If outwardly the writers were united on a single platform of socialist realism, then inwardly they were far from unanimity.

For writers, the congress was also a kind of vanity fair. They closely monitored who and in what capacity they would invite to the congress, who would be elected to the presidium, and so on. They saw this as evidence of recognition by the authorities of their merits.

Even those who in ordinary life did not strive for external success could not resist and took part in the "competition". So, at the beginning of the congress, E. Polonskaya was in a depressed mood. The fact is that for the writers of Leningrad, a few delegate tickets were allocated to the congress. The writers' organization of the city on the Neva knew that the poetess did not care much about the "table of ranks", but other writers might be offended if they were given a guest ticket instead of a delegate ticket. E. Polonskaya took this calmly, but when on the first day of the congress she wanted to enter the hall, she was stopped and sent through another entrance to the choir stalls. Everything would be fine if the poetess were not next to her students, recent listeners of literary circles who received a full ticket. She burst into tears from resentment, but then Sun saw her. Ivanov and led her into the hall. Later, the writer got a full-fledged ticket for his old friend.

Writers listened carefully to each other's speeches and watched their actions, trying to understand how a particular word or action could affect their position in the literary hierarchy. E. Schwartz recalled: “Nikulin teased him about Olesha’s performance: “And you took off your socks and showed the audience underpants - but what did you achieve? They elected you to the audit committee, just like me.

It reached the point of absurdity, colleagues jealously watched that they were all drawn the same number of times ... cartoonists: “Every day, reports on the congress were printed in the newspapers. Our cartoonists have arrived. Antonovsky's caricatures were especially famous. And I learned with delighted surprise that some Muscovites complained to the presidium of the congress that Antonovsky always portrays his own people, and bypasses them, Muscovites. This complaint even consoled me with its frankness. Everything was taken into account at the congress: who, in what hotel, who was called where, who was given the floor and who was not, and even caricatures were taken into account. Invisible ranks, orders and awards were as real as a table of ranks.

It is impossible not to say about the material aspects of the congress. It was held from August 17 to 30, 1934 in the Hall of Columns, accommodating about 1,600 people. The cost of operating the hall was 3,500 rubles per day. Together with the cost of decorating the building, the amount amounted to about 54,000 rubles.

Meals for the congress participants were centralized and free of charge for the delegates. It was organized in the premises of the restaurant on Bolshoy Filippovsky Lane. The cost of daily meals for writers (breakfast, lunch and dinner) was 35 rubles. Thus, it was planned to spend 262,500 rubles on meals for the delegates during the congress. After a meeting with A. Stetsky (July 21, 1934), the cost of daily meals was increased to 40 rubles, so food costs increased to 300,000 rubles.

To better organize the work of the restaurant, an “Instruction for the delegates responsible for nutrition of the 1st All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers” was developed. According to this document, the delegates were given service coupon books, which were registered and could not be transferred to another person. At the entrance to the restaurant, a control was established, which had the right to check the presence of a delegate ticket. In case of loss of the book, it was necessary to inform the responsible for nutrition and receive temporary coupons. Lost books are cancelled. Delegates were required to hand in their coupon books upon departure. Expired coupons were considered invalid.

Meals were made strictly according to the schedule: breakfast from 8 to 11 hours 30 minutes, lunch was held in two shifts (from 15 to 16 hours 30 minutes and from 16 hours 30 minutes to 18 hours), dinner from 22 hours to 1 am.

A notice was posted in a prominent place in the restaurant stating that all complaints should be addressed to the food officer.

An additional paid buffet was organized in the House of the Unions to serve the delegates and the presidium.

In exceptional cases (delayed meetings, excursions, etc.), the meal schedule could be changed in agreement with the food officer.

Even before the start of the congress, on August 16, B. Pasternak wrote to his wife: “I think that the most time […] will take here the food for which I have already received a coupon and which cannot be neglected, because it is free […] and good, but where something on Tverskaya. E. Schwartz recalled the food at the congress: “Lunches, breakfasts and dinners during the entire congress were fed free of charge in a restaurant on Tverskaya […]. An orchestra played in the restaurant, everything looked pompous like a restaurant, only alcoholic drinks were not served. Yes, even during the day. In the evening, I remember, they drank at their own expense.

25 cars, 6 buses for collective trips, 5 trucks for transportation were allocated to organize the transfer of delegates and organizers of the congress. All delegates were given the right to use public transport in Moscow free of charge for the duration of the congress. For breakfast, lunch and after dinner, the delegates were transported centrally. Seats were also booked on the railroad for the return journey.

A few months before the congress, an agreement was concluded with the Hotel Management for 350 beds in the Bryansk hotel, but then the number of beds was increased by 150 and the hotel was replaced. Now the delegates had to live in the Great Moscow Hotel (Grand Hotel) - 100 people, in the hotel Rossiya (House of the East) - 150, Union - 100 and in the 3rd House of the Central Executive Committee - 150.

The expenses for the cultural program were also significant. Theater tickets were purchased in advance, screenings of films were organized for all delegates. Evenings of national literatures, excursions, dinner with academicians and scientists were arranged. All delegates were photographed for free. They were issued newspapers and presented with specially issued congress magazines. For all these activities, 38,400 rubles were spent.

Many of the delegates were in Moscow for the first time, others had already visited it, but for most of them a trip to the capital was not only an opportunity to visit the cultural center of the country, but also to purchase scarce goods that were not available in the outback (and not only there).

The organizers of the convention understood that one of the "threats" to the convention was the departure of writers for shopping in the shops of the city. Then queues will replace them attending meetings. Therefore, we decided to make the supply of delegates centralized - they could all shop in a specialized store No. 118. I must say that such events were not new for Soviet trade workers, so in the same way, for example, the supply of Chelyuskin heroes was organized in the same store.

This store sold stock goods (ready-made dresses, shoes, knitwear) in the amount of 7500 rubles, as well as goods of other groups: cotton and silk fabrics, rubber products, 300 Moscow gramophones (326 rubles each), 100 Gatchina gramophones, 8000 gramophone records, 50 bicycles, 200 pocket watches. One of the happy buyers was E. Schwartz, who bought a gramophone with records in the dispenser.

In connection with the congress, the store was refurbished and re-registered, a special pass to the store was issued, and a special procedure for the purchase of goods by delegates was established.

Already after the start of the congress, its organizers decided to arrange a farewell banquet, for which the Presidium of the congress turned to the director of the restaurant trust Tolchinsky with a request to arrange a banquet on September 1 in the Hall of Columns for 800 delegates and guests at the rate of approximately 150 rubles. per person. For this purpose, the Trust of Restaurants was transferred 120,000 rubles.

It should be noted that money for the congress was given generously, but it was still not enough. The estimate of the Organizing Committee, approved by the Plenum of the Budget Commission, provided for the costs of holding the Congress in the amount of 866,800 rubles. However, the Balance Commission reduced the amount of expenses to 250,000 rubles. But then a decision was made to significantly expand the norm for the representation of writers at the congress and to invite a number of foreign writers. In this regard, the Organizing Committee of the SSP asked the Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V. Kuibyshev to allocate an additional 577 thousand rubles for the congress and 278594 rubles for the organization of the exhibition for the congress.

On May 27, 1934, the Council of People's Commissars decided to release, in addition to the estimate approved for holding the congress and organization, 400 thousand rubles from the reserve fund of the Council of People's Commissars. And on the opening day of the congress, another 200,000 rubles were allocated "for the expenses of convening a congress of writers."

The organizers did not pay out of their own pocket, so they were not interested in the rational use of funds and did not skimp on additional costs. There is a curious document that clearly reflects their mismanagement, drawn up in the name of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V. Molotov, a member of the Organizing Commission of the Congress V. Stavsky:

“The Organizing Committee of the SSP for holding the 1st All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers received 250 thousand rubles from the USSR People's Commissariat of Finance on the budget, 400 thousand rubles were received from the reserve fund of the Council of People's Commissars. in June and 200 tr. in August. In total, 850 thousand rubles were received for the congress.

The congress was supposed to end on August 25, but due to the postponement of the opening from 15 to 17 and the expansion of the forum, it ended only on August 30.

The actual costs of holding the congress according to the concluded agreements are approximately 1,200 thousand rubles.

Thus, to cover all expenses for the congress, the Organizing Committee of the SSP now lacks 295,000 rubles.

Since the main expenses of the Organizing Committee for the organization of the Congress fall on the payment of food for delegates, the payment of hotels, daily allowances and travel expenses, the delay in providing the Organizing Committee with the missing funds will inevitably lead to a delay in paying the most urgent and necessary expenses.

Thus, the costs of the congress amounted to an amount equal to the average annual wage of 754 workers.

During the work of the congress, some financial abuses were committed. Based on archival documents, we can talk about one of them. In 1934, the director of the House of Soviet Writers (DSP) committed an abuse, which later became traditional for the leaders of this institution, by giving himself and other employees of the administration a bonus from the funds allocated for the congress. In 1936, this violation was pointed out by inspector Bystrov, and the director had to give written explanations. In them, he pointed out that during the work of the congress, the DSP did "a lot of work on organizing evenings, concerts and meetings, mainly at night, after the end of the congress sessions," for which, in fact, it was written out to all workers who took part in work at night premium. It was issued by order No. 42-a on the chipboard of September 5, 1934 instead of paying bonuses. The payment was made by the assistant to the executive secretary Krutikov from the funds allocated for the congress. The director himself was given compensation in the amount of a monthly salary of 800 rubles. At the same time, by order signed by the director on the same date, compensation was issued to 14 employees of the House of Writers in the amount of a monthly salary. In addition, at the meeting of the working troika of the board of the DSP, 10 people were awarded for shock work (6 with money, and 4 with gratitude). The director received another 350 rubles, and his deputy - 300.

On March 3, 1936, the Secretariat of the Board took place, at which the issue of gross violations of financial and budgetary discipline was discussed, such as insufficient paperwork, non-compliance with the rules for accounting for the special fund and its spending, excess of available bonus funds. As a result, the director of the DSP E. Chebotarevskaya was reprimanded, the deputy director of the DSP Krylov and the chief accountant Serov were released from work. The secretariat decided to ban any bonuses to the directorate of the DSP without agreement with it.

In this regard, the statement of A. Shcherbakov is interesting: “[...] In this case there is no criminal case, there is no one to bring to court, but it is necessary to put things in order in the House of the Writer, there is no unity of command. Tov. Lyashkevich does not have the right to dispose of your money, if he acts incorrectly, you can disobey […] ".

There were other abuses as well. R. Levin (Deputy People's Commissar of Finance) wrote to V. Molotov: “The exceptionally high costs of organizing an exhibition at the Central Park of Culture and Culture, which cost 337 thousand rubles, attract attention.” . But, apparently, the authorities did not want to wash dirty linen in public and the investigation of possible financial violations was never undertaken.

Obviously, the authorities tried their best to please the congress deputies. For them, excellent conditions for those times were created. It is unlikely that many of the provincials who arrived at the congress could even afford to come to Moscow without a business trip, and even if they did, they certainly would not be able to settle in such fashionable hotels in which they lived. The writers were paid for the journey both ways. So they didn't have any travel expenses.

If we try to restore cultural events at the congress, their schedule looked like this:

August 18 - a holiday dedicated to the Aviation Day was held in the afternoon, in which 500 delegates and 100 guests took part, in the evening the delegates visited the summer gardens and theaters, the writers watched the performances "The Violet of Montmartre", "Woman and the Sea", "Day and Night".

August 20 - an excursion to the planetarium was organized, a screening of the film "New Enthusiasts" was held.

The writers were well fed at the congress (especially at the farewell banquet). If the average cost of a worker's lunch was 84 kopecks, an employee in an institution - 1 ruble. 75 kopecks, and lunch in a commercial restaurant cost 5 rubles. 84 kop. , then the cost of meals for delegates was 40 rubles. in a day. The farewell banquet of the writers was truly royal, since the menu was at the rate of 150 rubles per person. It seems that in ordinary life the writers did not eat like that.

True, the plentiful table did not make the event fun: “After the congress, a big banquet was arranged. Tables stood both in the hall and around the hall in the galleries, or whatever you call them. I was sitting somewhere at the end, behind the columns. There were vague rumors - that, they say, if the banquet goes decently and decorously, then members of the government will come. However, the banquet took a completely different turn. […] when Alexei Tolstoy, going out on the stage, tried to say something or force someone to listen, they did not pay attention to him. […] Not only Tolstoy - they no longer listened to each other. Then it was said that Gorky shouted at Tolstoy: "Get off right now," when he stepped onto the stage. There was no semblance of a cheerful dinner in their midst. […] For me, the final banquet evoked an even clearer feeling of the inorganic, lawlessness of what was happening than the previous days. Everyone scattered around the foyer. Played jazz. Others danced. Others preached.

I managed to find one more memory of this event: “They say that it was very drunk. That some cut-throat poet hit Tairov, cursing him first as an “esthete” […]” .

Most researchers of the life of the thirties of the last century declare a severe shortage that prevailed in our country at that time. The delegates were given the opportunity to purchase the necessary goods. If a worker's family member accounted for about 9 meters of fabric per year, mostly chintz, 40 cm of wool, less than a pair of leather shoes and one galosh, then the writers were able to more than cover this norm by making a purchase in a special store.

In the same store, the writers were also able to purchase household items that an ordinary family practically did not buy (their costs amounted to about 1 ruble per person per month, the same amount as was spent on buying soap).

51 rubles were spent on the cultural expenses of the delegates. 80 kop. per person. It is unlikely that such expenses could be afforded by an ordinary worker, whose average salary was 125 rubles. or a teacher whose salary was 100-130 rubles.

Ilya Ehrenburg, recalling (thirty years later) those days, admitted that he was preparing for the congress like a girl for the first ball. This is the skeptic Ehrenburg. So what to say about others! Ehrenburg ended his memoirs about this "first ball" in this way: They chose the board, approved the charter. Gorky declared the congress closed. The next day, janitors with brooms raged at the entrance to the Hall of Columns. The holiday is over. The meaning of this conclusion is clear: the holiday has died down, harsh everyday life has begun. But whatever you say, it was still a holiday!

In fact, however, the holiday was completely fake. And it was clear to many of its participants even then. In the book Power and the Artistic Intelligentsia, to which I have already referred more than once, among the many documents covering the course of the congress, the following is also published:

"Special message of the secret political department of the GUGB of the NKVD of the USSR

"On the course of the All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers. Writers' responses to the work of the Congress".

Here are just a few of those responses.

Everything was so smooth that I was overcome by a simply manic desire to take a piece of shit or dead fish and throw it at the presidium of the congress.

This is at the level of emotions.

And the very essence of what was happening was expressed by one of the oldest Russian writers of the time - A. Novikov-Priboy:

There comes a period of final bureaucratization of literature. The main goal of this pompous state event was to seize the disobedient freelance writers, to nationalize literature, to make it manageable.

It was not possible to completely cope with this task immediately. It took years, even decades. Stalin, who once threw the famous slogan - "We have no irreplaceable ones", when D.A. Polikarpov, a party functionary appointed to lead the writers, complained to him how difficult it was to work with them (one drinks, the other is a womanizer, the third fancies himself a genius and does not obey any orders), replied:

"At the moment, Comrade Polikarpov, we cannot provide you with other writers. If you want to work, work with these."

But none other than he himself created this situation, in which the promise of Colonel Skalozub "to give the intellectuals" in Voltaire "sergeant major" came true:

He will build you in three lines,

And if you squeak, it will instantly calm you down! This same Polikarpov was appointed to the role of such a sergeant major. And can he be blamed for coping with this role in accordance with his ideas about how it should be performed:

"Polikarpov established a regime of terror. Everything that does not coincide with his taste is mercilessly cut, removed, forbidden." Polikarpov behaves especially outrageously at the party bureau of the Union of Soviet Writers, at party meetings, at meetings of the board of the SSP. Everywhere - his word, his tone are indisputable. Personal taste, personal evaluation of works become the law. Here's yesterday. Polikarpov holds board meetings with the asset. The nomination of works for the Stalin Prizes is being discussed. Polikarpov prepared a list in advance. If the speakers do not say what he wants, he begins to shout, interrupt them with the rudest remarks, deprive him of the word. Outraged Tvardovsky, whom Polikarpov allowed himself to shout at as a boy, leaves the meeting. Polikarpov interrupts the debate when he pleases, shouting, poking at writers known throughout the country as a gendarme. No, really, there was no such situation even under the notorious Averbakh! front. History of political censorship 1932-1946. Collection of documents ". M., 1994. P. 186.)

Polikarpov, who in his zeal surpassed the "notorious Averbakh", Stalin nevertheless removed from the leadership of the writers. He understood that in such a delicate and complex matter as fiction, there must be irreplaceable people. And it is necessary to handle these "irreplaceable" "as far as possible" delicately. Stalin acted cautiously, at first he tried not to irritate anyone in particular. Therefore, "proletarianism" for some time still retained its significance. Some Chumandrin, now unknown to anyone, sat in the presidium of the congress, and M.A. Bulgakov did not even receive a guest ticket. But next to Chumandrin on the podium were B.L. Pasternak and A.N. Tolstoy. Stalin still needed "irreplaceable" ones, and it never occurred to him that anyone could be appointed the country's chief writer - even Chumandrin. But - the process has begun. And thirty years later, it was already easy to appoint any party functionary as the main writer of the country. Which is what was done.

When Georgy Mokeevich Markov suddenly felt unwell at some writing congress, Hero of the Soviet Union V. Karpov quickly jumped up from the presidium to the podium and, delicately taking Georgy Mokeevich aside, took his place and read the report to the end, thereby asserting himself as the new, next head writer. And no one protested "not even surprised" But I got carried away and ran far ahead.

rental block

I Congress of Soviet Writers - Congress of Lessons

On August 17 - September 1, 1924, the 1st Congress of Soviet Writers took place in the Hall of Columns in Moscow - an event both significant and mysterious ...

A line of national, internal support was being built in the country. Most of our leaders began to understand that in the upcoming battle with the world of fascism and capital, we cannot count on the help of the world proletariat, we must rely on our people, our economy, history, culture.

Meanwhile, the People's Commissariat for Education, where N.K. Krupskaya tried to rule, “expelled” Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and other “non-proletarian” writers from school libraries. But the patriotic group of the country's leaders gave the signal to publish the classics of Russian literature in millions of copies, to create libraries for schoolchildren, peasants, Komsomol members, Red Army soldiers from the works of N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, A. Pushkin, N. Nekrasov, M. Lermontov, I. Krylov.

Books of Pushkin's works filled the country in 1937.

Historical traditions were revived, forging the character of the Russian people as victorious over foreign invaders.

Revolutionaries of all epochs made room, giving way to St. Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Peter the Great. In a letter from the leaders of the country - Stalin, Zhdanov, Kirov - it was said that the history of the country and its heroes must be respected: the military, scientists, cultural figures.

The 1st Congress of Soviet Writers became an ideological battlefield for many forces, and not only within the country. A considerable part of Russian writers, not accepting the actions of the Soviet government in the maelstrom of historical events, left Russia. For many years, Russian literature in exile retained the spirit, style, and image of Russian classics. Among them are the great I. Bunin, I. Shmelev, I. Ilyin.

Someone returned to their homeland (A. Tolstoy, I. Kuprin, M. Gorky). On the territory of Soviet Russia, as it seemed to many, literature would never be revived. The leaders of those who declared themselves "proletarian" writers did not accept any continuity and proclaimed: "In the name of our Tomorrow - we will burn Raphael, we will destroy museums, we will trample the flowers of art ..." Merciless "proletarian" writers, genuine "violent zealots" only for themselves appropriated the right to be considered representatives of literature. All these Averbakhs, Lelevichs, Bezymenskys, Libedinskys, Utkins, Yermilovs crucified any attempts to think nationally, peer deeply into life, make it the subject of artistic reflection, the search for truth. Everything in literature was subordinated to the idea of ​​a world revolution, the annihilation "to the ground" of the old world and a throw into the future. They did not notice the outstanding stories of M. Sholokhov, they spoke through their teeth about the talent of L. Leonov, V. Shishkov, calling them with contempt "fellow travelers".

The main road of literature was in the hands of the RAPP, VOAPP, MAPP - the so-called proletarian organizations of writers. They seized almost all literary and socio-political publications, brandishing a club of criticism, beat up all the recalcitrant, non-standard, trying to create a national literature.

Society was then heterogeneous, there were many people who were the basis of the pre-revolutionary system. And although by 1936 the Constitution declared the equality of all people, in reality this was not the case.

The first warning to the "frantic zealots" was in 1932 the party resolution "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", according to which it was decided to liquidate the association of proletarian writers and unite all writers supporting the platform of Soviet power into a single Union of Soviet Writers. M. Gorky, who is considered the initiator of this decision, nevertheless spoke out in support of the RAPP, which, in his words, "unites the most literate and cultured party writers."

The congress was opened on August 17, 1934 by A. M. Gorky with his report. By this time he had finally returned to the Soviet Union. Of course, one can be skeptical and critical of the First Congress of Writers, but it nevertheless unfolded the panorama of the active, growing, diverse literature of the country. Did he name all the worthy names? No, naturally. Rappovshchina did not give up its positions, the Trotskyist-Bukharinist opposition gave its "battle" at the congress.

One can attribute "excesses" to Stalin, but one should not forget that, in addition to A. Gorky, N. Bukharin (on poetry, poetics and the tasks of poetic creativity), K. Radek (on world literature and the tasks of proletarian art) delivered the main reports. But it was N. Bukharin who, back in 1927, published the famous "Evil Notes" about Sergei Yesenin. After that, for almost 30 years, Yesenin disappeared from publishing plans, school textbooks and anthologies. Bukharin was also merciless towards Mayakovsky. K. Radek was just as cruel to Russian poets.

They wanted to form their own line of recognized poets and leaders who were close to them in spirit. M. Gorky was used to put pressure on Stalin and Zhdanov. But the conversation about literature, art, folk origins, Russian history, talent and language still took place, despite the loud proletarian rhetoric of the Rappovites. M. Gorky said: “The beginning of the art of the word is in folklore. Collect our folklore, learn from it, process it... The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of our present creativity.”

The Union of Writers was to a large extent subordinated to the state and the party leadership, but the conditions for creativity, material support were given to the writers.

Option 2.

The first congress of Soviet writers took place from 17 to 30 August 1934. This truly significant event was preceded by the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", from which it followed that numerous writers' organizations were to unite into one, consisting of writers who fully "support the platform of Soviet power." The authorities wanted to unite people who were completely different in worldview, creative methods and aesthetic inclinations. The venue for the First All-Union Congress of Writers was the Column Hall of the House of the Unions. For such a solemn event, it was necessary to decorate the room, after a few debates, it was decided to hang portraits of the classics of literature in the hall. What immediately became the reason for the irony of the evil-tongued writers: There was enough space for everyone Who was on the podium, who was in the stalls, And who was just on the wall! One of the delegates of the First Congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR A. Karavaeva recalled the opening day of the forum: “On a sunny August morning in 1934, approaching the House of Unions, I saw a large and lively crowd. Amidst the chatter and applause - just like in a theater - someone's young voice was heard, which energetically called: “Comrade delegates of the First Congress of Soviet Writers! As you enter this hall, don't forget to raise your historical mandate!... The Soviet people want to see and know you all! Call, comrades, your last name and present your delegate card! ”According to mandate data, among the delegates of the First Congress of Writers of the USSR, men predominated - 96.3%. The average age of the participants is 36 years. The average literary experience is 13.2 years. By origin, in the first place came from peasants - 42.6%, from workers - 27.3%, working intelligentsia 12.9%. Of the nobility, only 2.4%, clergy - 1.4%. Half of the delegates are members of the CPSU(b), 3.7% of candidates for membership of the CPSU(b) and 7.6% of Komsomol members. The number of prose writers among the congress participants was 32.9%, poets - 19.2%, playwrights - 4.7%, critics - 12.7%. Children's writers - 1.3% and journalists - 1.8%. The national composition of the congress is also curious. Russians - 201 people; Jews - 113; Georgians - 28; Ukrainians - 25; Armenians - 19; Tatars - 19; Belarusians - 17; Uzbeks -12. Representatives of another 43 nationalities were represented by 10 to one delegates. There were even Chinese, Italians, Greeks and Persians.

We have the largest information base in RuNet, so you can always find similar queries

This material includes sections:

Theme and idea, the sharpness of the conflict and the artistic features of the play