Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The life and extraordinary adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin by Vladimir Voinovich : a commentary and… Thomson, Sandra Mary 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A1 T54.pdf [ 21.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094988.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094988-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094988-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094988-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094988-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094988-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094988-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094988-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094988.ris

Full Text

THE L I F E AND EXTRAORDINARY ADVENTURES OF PRIVATE IVAN CHONKIN BY VLADIMIR VOINOVICH: A COMMENTARY AND EXPLICATION by SANDRA MARY THOMSON B.A . j Lakehead U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 B.Ed . j Lakehead U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f W a t e r l o o , 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n t he Department of S l a v o n i c S t u d i e s We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f i r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1981 (T) Sandra M. Thomson, 1931 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ) The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075. Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT Vladimir Voinovich is the freshest satirical voice in Russian literature in the past f i f t y years. He has been called the new Gogol and his honest re-examination of his country's past has forced him into exile to West Germany. His novel, The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of  Private Ivan Chonkin, is a satire of the idiocy of Stalinist times. It shows a slice of society from its lowliest representative, Ivan Chonkin, to its highest, Joseph Stalin. The authorial intent is to show the natural man in unnatural circumstances. Chonkin is the norm in this satire. He is the honest, natural, real man that Voinovich has described in various interviews as his favourite literary type. Standing opposed to the conventional hero of socialist realism fiction, Chonkin is the end of a line of Voinovich's own kind of positive hero that began in his early stories. Chonkin is of f i c i a l idiocy's final undoing. The purpose of satire is to criticize targets that are not fictions, but representations of reality that are, or should be, obvious to the reader. In Chonkin Voinovich critically portrays various realia of the Stalin era, puncturing various myths and fictions. The novel's various characters represent mutilating aspects of the Stalinist regime in the 1930s and 1940s. The author successfully uses low burlesque to ridicule these satiric targets. Each of the chapters in the thesis identifies satirical targets and explicates them in the light of the appropriate historical, political, intellectual, or economic events. These realia may be immediately i i i iv recognizable to the older, more astute Russian readers who have survived Stalin. They are not recognizable nor is their impact fully understood by the common reader either in the Soviet Union or in the West. Ccnseg^jently, this fact alone justifies my attempt at a ocramentary and explication of Voinovich's masterful satirical portrayal of Stalinist Russia. Supervisor: Dr. Michael Futrell TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i INTRODUCTION 1 NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 35 Chapter 1. THE STAKHANOVITES: LIUSHKA MIAKISHEVA 40 NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 59 2. THE CHILDREN OF THE THIRTIES: LESHA BUKASHEV .. 61 NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO 80 3. THE JEWS: MOISEI STALIN 82 NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 112 4. FORCED LABOUR: LESHA ZHAROV, THE INSTITUTE 116 NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 152 5. THE COMMUNIST PARTY: REVKIN, K I L I N , BORISOV, IARTSEV, STALIN 157 NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 193 6. THE SECRET POLICE: MILIAGA, THE INSTITUTE, SMERSH 196 NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX 240 7. THE COUNTRYSIDE: GOLUBEV 244 NOTES TO CHAPTER SEVEN 278 8. LYSENKO: GLADYSHEV 281 NOTES TO-CHAPTER EIGHT 337 v v i 9. RED ARMY, WORLD WAR I I , AND CHONKIN 346 NOTES TO CHAPTER NINE 402 CONCLUSION . 407 NOTES TO CONCLUSION 419 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 421 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o expr e s s my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my a d v i s o r , Dr. M i c h a e l F u t r e l l , whose encouragement, i n s i g h t , and a s s i s t a n c e were i n v a l u a b l e . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank the v a r i o u s members of my committee: P r o f e s s o r s T u r n e r , P e t r o , Busza and Czaykowski. A s p e c i a l note o f a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. P e t e r P e t r o who re a d t h i s work c l o s e l y and made v a r i o u s h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s . A f i n a l note of a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. C a r l P r o f f e r who took time from h i s v e r y busy schedule t o be my e x t e r n a l r e a d e r . On 28 and 29 May 1981 I met and i n t e r v i e w e d V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h i n S e a t t l e . I am g r a t e f u l f o r h i s k i n d words o f s u p p o r t , the s i n c e r e i n t e r e s t he showed i n my work, and h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o d i s c u s s h i s n o v e l w i t h me. I would l i k e t o extend my thanks t o the two people who a r r a n g e d t h a t meeting, Mary F r i s q u e and C a r o l P e a r c e . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank the s t a f f i n the I n t e r -l i b r a r y Loans o f f i c e and J a c k M c i n t o s h , the S l a v i c B i b l i o g -r a p h e r f o r t h e i r h e l p . To F r a n c i n e D e s r o s i e r s I e x p r e s s my thanks f o r t y p i n g t h i s t h e s i s q u i c k l y , e f f i c i e n t l y and c h e e r f u l l y . And, f i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o e x p r e s s my deepest g r a t i t u d e t o my Mother, my Aunt S t e l l a , and my Grandmother A l e k s a n d r a w i t h o u t whose c o n t i n u o u s f i n a n c i a l and moral support t h i s work would have been n e i t h e r s t a r t e d nor completed. v i i INTRODUCTION Many S o v i e t prose w r i t e r s who b e g i n t h e i r c a r e e r s as c o n v e n t i o n a l w r i t e r s r e a c h a d e c i s i v e p o i n t i n t h e i r c a r e e r s i n t h e i r f i f t i e s . When they r e a c h those mature and f u l l e s t y e a r s of t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y , a number f i n d themselves h a v i n g t o make a c r u c i a l d e c i s i o n : t o c o n t i n u e w i t h i n the S o v i e t l i t e r a r y e s t a b l i s h m e n t o r t o make a break w i t h i t and f i n a l l y w r i t e the n o v e l they have always wanted t o w r i t e . One o f the b e s t examples i s V l a d i m i r N i k o l a e v i c h V o i n o v i c h . H i s bi o g r a p h y r e v e a l s what happened t o the man w i t h a model S o v i e t w r i t e r ' s background (working c l a s s , s e r v i c e i n the army) who i n December 1980 found h i m s e l f e x p e l l e d from the S o v i e t Union because of h i s uncompromising views and h i s n o v e l , Z h i z n ' i neobychalnye p r i k l i u c h e n i i a s o l d a t a Ivan Chonkina (The L i f e and E x t r a o r d i n a r y Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan C h o n k i n ) . V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h was born on 26 September 1932 i n 2 what was the n c a l l e d S t a l i n a b a d . I n an i n t e r v i e w g i v e n i n Moscow and p u b l i s h e d i n the West i n 1975 V o i n o v i c h d e s c r i b e d h i s c h i l d h o o d and e d u c a t i o n : I was born i n Dushanbe and a f t e r w a r d s l i v e d i n v a r i o u s p l a c e s . My f a m i l y moved c o n t i n u a l l y . D u r i n g the war i t was v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o stu d y . I f i n i s h e d the f i r s t c l a s s b e f o r e the war; i n the second and t h i r d c l a s s e s I l e a r n t a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g . Then I l e f t the f o u r t h c l a s s i n which I s t u d i e d f o r two months, and then I d i d n ' t study a g a i n . From c h i l d h o o d on I worked on the c o l l e c t i v e farm, t h e n I went t o the t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l i n Zaporozhe. I f i n i s h e d t h i s s c h o o l , worked as a c a r p e n t e r and then went i n t o the army. - 2 -I completed the sixth and seventh classes at evening school. I served four years i n the army and when the end of my 'term', was near, I began to consider what I would do af t e r leaving the army.J O r i g i n a l l y the young man did not consider l i t e r a t u r e as a profession. His father was a jo u r n a l i s t and a poet and translator. The work his father did seemed to Voinovich hopeless and useless. But, nonetheless, after leaving the service, Voinovich began to write: The only profession I had was that of a carpenter. At least i n the army I was a mechanic. I hadn't the least i n c l i n a t i o n to work as a carpenter; I didn't l i k e this profession at a l l . I started to consider whether there was a job for which one didn't need an extensive t r a i n i n g . I joined a theatre group and t r i e d to go on the stage, but did not succeed. I t r i e d drawing, but did not succeed at that either. I t r i e d to write and began writing poems. I wrote a t e r r i b l e poem and sent i t to the army journal. To my amazement the army journal printed i t . Afterwards I wrote some more but nothing else was published. But I had decided ...^ When he finished his service i n the army, Voinovich began to write and to fe e l l i k e a writer. He f e l t , he says, "a great need to say something, but I didn't myself yet know what that was."^ At f i r s t his poems were not accepted for publication, but after a while some were published i n a l o c a l newspaper i n the Crimea. With this small success Voinovich decided to go to Moscow and attempt to enter the L i t e r a r y Institute i n the c a p i t a l . He was refused admission, was told that he had f a i l e d the entrance competition. To stay on i n Moscow and get a residence permit proved to be d i f f i c u l t . To get work he joined an organisation outside of Moscow which - 3 -was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e p a i r i n g the r a i l w a y . A f t e r a w h i l e he s e t t l e d i n Moscow, where he worked as a c a r p e n t e r on a b u i l d i n g s i t e and j o i n e d the W r i t e r s ' Union. He managed t o p u b l i s h a l i t t l e i n newspapers and i n a magazine. A y e a r a f t e r h i s i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o the L i t e r a r y I n s t i t u t e , i n 1957 he a p p l i e d a g a i n . H i s second r e f u s a l came about as a r e s u l t o f h i s surname: ... I was not a c c e p t e d because my f a m i l y name appeared s u s p e c t - they d e c i d e d I had a J e w i s h surname. I have a J e w i s h mother, but a c c o r d i n g to my p a s s p o r t I am R u s s i a n , a l t h o u g h I d i d n ' t w r i t e t h a t i n my a p p l i c a t i o n because I s a i d t o m y s e l f : ' I f I am s u i t a b l e t h e y w i l l t a k e me anyway, r e g a r d l e s s of t h a t . ' And because I d i d n ' t w r i t e a n y t h i n g , they d e c i d e d t h a t V o i n o v i c h was a J e w i s h name. D He was ne v e r t o l d t h a t he was not b e i n g a d m i t t e d because o f h i s supposed J e w i s h name. He was even i n f o r m e d t h a t he had passed the e n t r a n c e c o m p e t i t i o n . But some time l a t e r he l e a r n e d t h a t t e n people w i t h s u s p e c t names had been t a k e n out and t h a t t h e i r poems had been re-examined and they had been r e f u s e d a d m i s s i o n i n t o the i n s t i t u t e . V o i n o v i c h , however, was a c c e p t e d i n t o t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g c o l l e g e where he s t u d i e d f o r a y e a r and a h a l f . There he began w r i t i n g what would become h i s f i r s t p u b l i s h e d prose e f f o r t : "My zdes' zhivem" (We l i v e h e r e ) . He l e f t the c o l l e g e t o work i n a r a d i o s t a t i o n where he c o n t i n u e d w r i t i n g s t o r i e s and began w r i t i n g songs. One song from t h a t p e r i o d became almost the o f f i c i a l hymn f o r the cosmonauts: "14 minut do s t a r t a " (14 Minutes U n t i l Launch Time ). Every time S o v i e t cosmonauts went i n t o space they sang t h a t song. Khrushchev sang i t from the p l a t f o r m of the L e n i n mausoleum when he g r e e t e d the cosmonauts, N i k o l a e v and P o p o v i c h . I t was pub-l i s h e d and a r e c o r d made of i t . V o i n o v i c h ' s song made him famous and t h i s fame may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s b e i n g a b l e t o p u b l i s h h i s f i r s t s t o r y i n the j o u r n a l N o v y i m i r . "My zdes' zhivem" was p u b l i s h e d i n the f i r s t i s s u e o f 1961 and s e c u r e d V o i n o v i c h a p l a c e : " I t was t h e n , you might say, t h a t I e n t e r e d our l i t e r a t u r e . " ' ' I n 1963 two more s t o r i e s were p u b l i s h e d i n N o v y i m i r , "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" ( I Want t o be Honest) and " R a s s t o i a n i e v p o l k i l o m e t r a " (A D i s t a n c e of H a l f a K i l o m e t e r ) , b o t h v e r y p o p u l a r and e a r n i n g V o i n o v i c h much p r a i s e from h i s f e l l o w w r i t e r s and much o f f i c i a l abuse i n the p r e s s . The o f f i c i a l abuse may have a r i s e n from o t h e r than l i t e r a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s . V o i n o v i c h c l a i m s t h a t "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" was w r i t t e n i n the s p i r i t of s o c i a l i s t r e a l i s m , d e s p i t e a t t a c k s made on i t . H i s problem was the s p i r i t o f the t i m e : a f r e e z e i n c u l t u r a l p o l i c y . L o o k i n g back on t h i s t i m e , V o i n o v i c h n o t e s : At t h a t time I l y i c h e v was a d v i s i n g Khrushchev.' S h o r t l y b e f o r e t h a t S o l z h e n i t s y n had been p u b l i s h e d - i n the second i s s u e of N o v y i M i r f o r 1963. H i s f i r s t work had been p u b l i s h e d i n the e l e v e n t h i s s u e o f 1962, i n November. I n December came the a f f a i r a t the Manege, and t h e n i n March 1963 t h e r e was a c o n f e r e n c e of i n t e l l e c t u a l s j u s t a t the time my s t o r i e s appeared. I l y i c h e v a t t a c k e d them.9 The s c r e e n v e r s i o n of "Khochu b y t ' chestnym", f o r which -5-V o i n o v i c h had w r i t t e n the s c r i p t , was banned - though l a t e r i t was s t a g e d q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l l y . From 1963 t o 1967 he p u b l i s h e d n e x t t o n o t h i n g . I n 1967 the s t o r y "Dva t o v a r i s h c h a " was p u b l i s h e d i n No v y i m i r ; i t was V o i n o v i c h ' s compromise: I thought I would be l e f t i n peace f o r a w h i l e because the s t o r y had n o t h i n g s p e c i a l about i t . I had t a k e n the t r o u b l e t o w r i t e i t w e l l , but a t the same time I d i d not c r i t i c i s e our s o c i e t y o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . At f i r s t the s t o r y got a f r i e n d l y r e c e p t i o n from the c r i t i c s , t h e r e were good r e v i e w s i n the newspapers and M o s f i l m r e q u e s t e d me t o w r i t e a f i l m s c r i p t . 1 0 The f r i e n d l y o f f i c i a l r e c e p t i o n was not t o l a s t f o r l o n g ; i n F e b r u a r y 1966 V o i n o v i c h s i g n e d a l e t t e r i n defence of S i n i a v s k i i and Daniel' . The two w r i t e r s were on t r i a l and the i n t e l l i g e n t s i a saw a r e t u r n t o the p a s t . A f t e r the t r i a l a number o f w r i t e r s met w i t h the judge and asked him v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s . I n a l l innocence V o i n o v i c h o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s a l : w r i t e r s would s t a n d s u r e t y f o r S i n i a v s k i i and Daniel'. S i n c e a c r i m i n a l c o u l d , i f c o n v i c t e d , be t a k e n on by a c o l l e c t i v e t h a t would s t a n d s u r e t y f o r him and r e - e d u c a t e him, V o i n o v i c h e x p e c t e d t h a t h i s s u g g e s t i o n would be a c c e p t a b l e i n the case of S i n i a v s k i i and Daniel' . The sugges-t i o n was r e j e c t e d o u t r i g h t by the a u t h o r i t i e s but t a k e n up by o t h e r w r i t e r s . A l e t t e r appeared w i t h V o i n o v i c h ' s p r o p o s a l and was s i g n e d by s i x t y - t h r e e w r i t e r s . A l l those who s i g n e d the l e t t e r were l a t e r summoned b e f o r e the a u t h o r i t i e s and accused o f s u p p l y i n g "ammunition f o r b o u r g e o i s propaganda" but t h e r e were no d i r e c t p r o s e c u t i o n s . -6-I n 1968 V o i n o v i c h s i g n e d a l e t t e r i n defence o f G i n z b u r g and Galanskov. L i k e a l l the s i g n a t o r i e s V o i n o v i c h now s u f f e r e d r e a l p e r s e c u t i o n . Both h i s p l a y s were banned; a book which was about t o be p u b l i s h e d by S o v e t s k i i P i s a t e l ' was a l s o banned; f i v e f i l m s c r i p t s he had w r i t t e n were banned. He was t o l d : '"Renounce your s i g n a t u r e and e v e r y t h i n g w i l l be a l l r i g h t . Your p l a y w i l l be shown - you have a good p l a y Two F r i e n d s , a good p a t r i o t i c p l a y . We need t h i s p l a y , but we cannot p u b l i c i z e you i f you f e e d b o u r g e o i s p ropa-11 ganda.'" V o i n o v i c h r e f u s e d and ha r d times began f o r him, a time when he c o u l d not even earn a l i v i n g . He was p u z z l e d why he was p u n i s h e d , however, more s e v e r e l y than any o t h e r s i g n a t o r y t o the G i n z b u r g - G a l a n s k o v l e t t e r . He was b e i n g hard p r e s s e d t o e i t h e r renounce h i s s i g n a t u r e o r he would not be a l l o w e d t o ea r n a l i v i n g as a w r i t e r any more. And then someone t o l d him: ' W e l l , you have p l a y s r u n n i n g and these p l a y s b r i n g i n r a t h e r a l o t o f money when they a r e r u n n i n g . And i f your p l a y s a re r u n n i n g , o t h e r p e o p l e ' s p l a y s c a n ' t r u n and you are t a k i n g the money out of t h e i r p o c k e t s . And t h a t ' s the o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n and i t ' s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i d e a s o r p r i n c i p l e s . That's t h e r e a s o n f o r banning y o u r p l a y s . ' 1 2 By 1970 the s i t u a t i o n had improved. H i s p l a y s were g r a d u a l l y a l l o w e d back i n t o some t h e a t r e s and a book was t o be p u b l i s h e d by the S o v e t s k i i P i s a t e l ' p u b l i s h i n g house. At t h i s t i m e , however, h i s n o v e l Z h i z n ' i neobychainye  p r i k l i u c h e n i i a s o l d a t a Ivana Chonkina had been c i r c u l a t i n g - 7 -i n samizdat. An extract from the novel appeared, without Voinovich's permission, i n the emigre journal Grani i n Germany. As a result a l l his books and plays were banned. Work became impossible to obtain: "Even when I was offered a mediocre l i t e r a r y job somewhere i n the provinces, a telephone c a l l or a l e t t e r came without f a i l from Moscow to say that this was prohibited. " ^ The publication i n Grani had been e n t i r e l y against Voinovich's w i l l and caused him no end of problems: I got into a very complicated si t u a t i o n because i n such a case one has to issue an o f f i c i a l protest through our press. That i s always somewhat humiliating because one i s obliged to express opinions which are not one's own. And I would not consent to i t , just as I had not consented to renouncing my signature on the l e t t e r . But I was personally i n a d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . My mother was i l l and i n hospital and I thought she was dying. I didn't know what I would l i v e on and therefore I made a compromise. I wrote a l e t t e r and was t o l d : "Write just two lines i n the l i t e r a r y newspaper and afterwards we w i l l allow everything and your plays w i l l be performed." And I thought: "To h e l l with i t , why should I suffer just because Grani printed my work without asking me?" 1 4 But the persecutions continued. For example, Mosfilm Studio proposed to enter into a contract with Voinovich for a f i l m s c r i p t . The general manager of the studio, however, refused to confirm the contract: "'No, we can't draw up a contract 15 with Voinovich because he must show his p o l i t i c a l face.'" The manager repeated what Voinovich was told everywhere, that he must do something to show that he was a genuine Soviet person who i s devoted to the Party and the government -- 8 -w i t h o u t t h a t a s s u r a n c e he would not be p u b l i s h e d anywhere. D u r i n g a l l t h i s time V o i n o v i c h s t i l l had a c o n t r a c t w i t h the P o l i t i c a l P u b l i s h i n g House ( P o l i t i z d a t ) t h a t he had s i g n e d p r e v i o u s t o the G r a n i e p i s o d e . V o i n o v i c h had agreed to do a book about Vera F i g n e r . The book, Stepen' d o v e r i i a  ( p o v e s t ' o Vere F i g n e r ) , d i d not encounter any d i f f i c u l t i e s ( V o i n o v i c h assumes t h a t a d e c i s i o n t o p u b l i s h was made i n the C e n t r a l Committee) and appeared q u i c k l y . A second book, P o v e s t i , a l s o appeared; c o n c e r n i n g i t s appearance, V o i n o v i c h commented: "And when my o t h e r book [ i . e . , P o v e s t i ] had s t a y e d a t the p u b l i s h e r s f o r some y e a r s and they had t a k e n out e v e r y t h i n g t h a t I wanted t o put i n and put i n e v e r y t h i n g t h a t I d i d n ' t want put i n , t h e r e were no problems w i t h t h a t book e i t h e r . " x ^ As V o i n o v i c h ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the a u t h o r i t i e s i n c r e a s e d , so d i d h i s p u b l i c p r o f i l e . I n 1973 he r e f u s e d t o s i g n an o f f i c i a l l e t t e r of S o v i e t w r i t e r s c r i t i c i z i n g A n d r e i Sakharov. I n October of the same y e a r V o i n o v i c h p r o t e s t e d the f o u n d i n g o f "The A l l - U n i o n C o p y r i g h t Agency" (Vsesoiuznoe agenstvo po a v t o r s k i m pravam) by the S o v i e t government. I n a l e t t e r t o the agency's p r e s i d e n t , B o r i s P a n k i n , V o i n o v i c h responded t o an i n t e r v i e w g i v e n by P a n k i n and p u b l i s h e d i n 17 L i t e r a t u r n a i a g a z e t a on t h e 26 September 197 3. V o i n o v i c h asked two q u e s t i o n s : why has t h i s agency been founded? ( t o p r o t e c t c o p y r i g h t abroad) and who would be most concerned about p o s s i b l e i n f r i n g e m e n t of h i s c o p y r i g h t abroad? -9-" L o g i c a l l y , " V o i n o v i c h argued, "those whose works are e x t e n s i v e l y p u b l i s h e d here [ i . e . the West] - f o r i n s t a n c e , A. S o l z h e n i t s y n , V. Maksimov, Ac a d e m i c i a n A. Sakharov and o t h e r such ' d i s s i d e n t s ' , i f you w i l l pardon t h i s f a s h i o n a b l e term. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e s e a r e t h e p e o p l e one would expect t o f i n d on your f o u n d i n g c o u n c i l . However, as soon as I l e a r n e d t h a t the c o u n c i l would be headed by Comrade S t u k a l i n , I i m m e d i a t e l y 18 d i s c a r d e d my f i r s t s u p p o s i t i o n s . " About those w r i t e r s who would be members of the agency, V o i n o v i c h o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n : "On the one hand, i t i s r e a s s u r i n g t o l e a r n t h a t the c o u n c i l w i l l be composed of such major c r e a t i v e t a l e n t s as G. Markov, Y. Verchenko, S. S a r t a k o v , e t a l . On the o t h e r hand, i t i s not q u i t e c l e a r why t h e s e w r i t e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r s h o u l d suddenly e v i n c e such e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o n c e r n f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of c o p y r i g h t . I mean, i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t any f o r e i g n p u b l i s h e r would want t o i s s u e p i r a t e e d i t i o n s o f 19 t h e i r works." The sarcasm c o n t i n u e d i n the next paragraph of V o i n o v i c h ' s l e t t e r : The s t r a n g e s t thoughts f l a s h e d t h r o u g h my mind. I even wondered, f o r a moment, i f perhaps, w i t h o u t my h a v i n g n o t i c e d i t , t h e s e a u t h o r s had suddenly produced unprecedented l i t e r a r y m a s t e r p i e c e s which were i n imminent danger of d i s s e m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h s a m i z d a t , or p u b l i c a t i o n by Possev o r maybe even G a l l i m a r d . Or perhaps they had rushed t o the defence of c o p y r i g h t t h r o u g h sheer a l t r u i s m . 2 0 With C h o n k i n - l i k e i n n o c e n c e , V o i n o v i c h uncovered the b a s i c h y p o c r i s y i n h e r e n t i n VAAP by f o l l o w i n g i t s t e n e t s t o t h e i r * l o g i c a l end. For example, he noted t h a t one o f the agency's -10-main tasks w i l l be "to further the mutual exchange of authentic 21 achievements i n various f i e l d s of human creative endeavour." Would the agency take on i t s e l f , he asked, the d i f f i c u l t task of determining authenticity, a task that usually takes years or centuries? What would the c r i t e r i a be? Would the works of Solzhenitsyn be considered "authentic" or only those of Comrade Verchenko? Voinovich continued with a consideration of authors' copyright i n the West. In his interview Pankin had stated that the agency was necessary because i t was '"bothersome and uneconomical" for individual writers to worry about matters pertaining to t h e i r copyright. Reading between the lines Voinovich made a knowledgeable guess that i t would also become extremely "bothersome" for any author whose works were published i n the West without the intermediary of VAAP. Any author who published abroad would become a criminal and his "protection" would be the same kind given to any other Soviet criminal: In consequence of t h i s , i t would be quite l o g i c a l to start immediate proceedings to have both the Lefortovo and Butyrka prisons placed under the d i r e c t supervision of your agency. The necessary number of guards and police dogs should also, naturally, be placed at your disposal. There you could intern not only a great number of r e c a l c i t r a n t writers, but also quite a few of those who i n h e r i t t h e i r rights.^2 Voinovich's tone was a mix of irony and t r u t h - t e l l i n g because the response to r e c a l c i t r a n t writers usually has been prison. He continued i n a pose of innocent bewilderment: i f the agency i s ostensibly a s o c i a l organization and not a government -11-department would not i t s foreign trade, which f a l l s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the government, be viewed as criminal a c t i v i t y ? "How," then he asked, "could the agency possibly protect anyone else, being i t s e l f , as i t were, 'subject to protection'? 23 This p o s s i b i l i t y surely deserves thought." The l e t t e r included a fantastic and yet at the same time honest suggestion. The true meaning of the agency would be indicated, Voinovich o f f e r s , by a s l i g h t modification of i t s name: As your agency intends to decide a r b i t r a r i l y when, where, and i n what conditions to. allow publication of a given work or even to forbid i t s publication, this 'legal' aspect of the agency's powers should be indicated i n the name of the agency. Therefore, I suggest that i n future your agency should be known not as VAAP (All-Union Copyright Agency) but VAPAP -the Ail-Union Agency for the Appropriation of Copyright. A l l this involves i s the addition of one l i t t l e l e t t e r - but how i t helps the true meaning to come through. 4 Pursuing this l i n e of thought Voinovich ended by suggesting that the agency also appropriate the author's authorship. VAAP might then become the sole author of every-thing and anything written by Soviet writers and be responsi-ble for a l l ideological and aesthetic content of these works. Voinovich's suggestion, of course, would mean that the agency and, hence, the government would be responsible for anything written by a r e c a l c i t r a n t writer (or "dissident") and would fin d i t s e l f i n the odd position of turning against i t s e l f for " i t s " writings. Voinovich refused to acknowledge the Copyright Agency because he saw i t as a way t o expand c e n s o r s h i p , not o n l y i n the S o v i e t Union but a l s o i n t o the West. I f the Agency wanted t o defend h i s r i g h t s , he d e c l a r e d , they s h o u l d b e g i n by d e f e n d i n g them i n the S o v i e t Union: " I f they c o u l d defend my r i g h t s here t h e n I would perhaps t r u s t them t o r e p r e s e n t my r i g h t s i n the West as w e l l . I have a law y e r i n the West 25 who defends my r i g h t s as an author. V o i n o v i c h , however, had been warned by the W r i t e r s ' Union t h a t i f he d i d a n y t h i n g e l s e wrong he would be e x p e l l e d . H i s l e t t e r i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the f o u n d i n g o f VAAP c i r c u l a t e d from hand t o hand i n the S o v i e t Union and e v e n t u a l l y reached the West where i t was p r i n t e d i n D i e Welt. He was e x p e l l e d from the W r i t e r s ' Union i n F e b r u a r y 1974, a week a f t e r A l e k s a n d r S o l z h e n i t s y n was d e p o r t e d on 13 F e b r u a r y . V o i n o v i c h d i s p u t e s the common b e l i e f t h a t h i s own e x p u l s i o n was a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f S o l z h e n i t s y n ' s d e p o r t a t i o n : But i t was the o p p o s i t e way round: they d i d n ' t want t o e x p e l me j u s t then because they had o b v i o u s l y r e s o l v e d t o say: "We have chased S o l z h e n i t s y n out now and remained as one s i n g l e , s t a b l e f a m i l y . We have condemned him, we have v a r i o u s w r i t e r s who make m i s t a k e s a t t i m e s , we put them back on the r i g h t p a t h , e t c . , but we have none l i k e S o l z h e n i t s y n , we have chased him out and now e v e r y t h i n g i s a l l r i g h t w i t h us.' For t h a t r e a s o n they d i d n ' t want t o e x p e l me.26 On the day he was f i n a l l y e x p e l l e d the s e c r e t a r y o f the W r i t e r s ' Union (a former NKVD g e n e r a l , V o i n o v i c h n o t e s ) t e l e p h o n e d V o i n o v i c h t o ask him t o a t t e n d a meeting t o d i s c u s s h i s r e c e n t b e h a v i o u r . A g a i n he took a s t a n d ; he r e f u s e d t o attend and instead wrote a l e t t e r explaining why he would not come to the meeting and why he did not necessarily want to 27 stay i n the Writers' Union. Voinovich offered three reasons because i t was to take place i l l e g a l l y , i . e . behind closed doors and he had no desire to participate i n i l l e g a l a c t i v i -t i e s ; because he and the Union had opposing opinions and, therefore, no basis for any discussion; and, because the secretariat was not a democratically elected body and had no authority over Voinovich i n questions of c r e a t i v i t y or morality. Except for two or three, there are no real writers i n the Writers' Union. The t y p i c a l Union member, Voinovich continued, i s a bureaucrat who produces " c i r c u l a r s written i n the form of novels." His plays and poems are handed out as l i t e r a r y models, but the i r quality i s judged according to the author's o f f i c i a l position. He i s a so-called patriot whose "colourless boring compositions" earn him as much or more than the entire kolkhoz he so extravagantly praises. At the same time he either steals party funds, s e l l s government property for his own p r o f i t , or channels co-operative funds into his own savings account. Yet, he i s never expelled from the Union for any of these crimes. The one crime that w i l l lead to expulsion, according to Voinovich, i s the "honest word." He says: You only need to say one honest word (or at times just to keep s i l e n t when everyone i s y e l l i n g his head off) for every possible sort of punishment to follow at once: the book you have been working -14-on for years i s stopped and the type broken up, your play i s banned, and the f i lm for which you wrote the s c r i p t i s put on the s h e l f . And th is i s followed by u t t e r l y prosaic pennilessness.28 A l l Voinovich wanted from the Wri ters ' Union i s that they not come between him and his readers and viewers. Unlike the majority of Union members Voinovich ac tua l ly has been a worker. Attacks in the name of workers d id not int imidate him and he proposed that instead of a closed-door meeting the Union hold an open meetings of wri ters and workers. At th is type of meeting he dared the Union to l i e about h is being an imper ia l i s t shark or an agent of fore ign i n t e l l i g e n c e se rv ices . The l i e i s the Union's greatest weapon, the one used to dr ive the greatest of a l l c i t i z e n s out of the Soviet Union, Aleksandr Solzheni tsyn. Voinovich ended his l e t t e r in outrage: "You think the whole crowd of you together w i l l be able to f i l l h is p lace . You are mistaken! The places i n our great Russian l i t e r a t u r e are not yet determined by you. And not a s ingle one of you w i l l manage to creep even into the las t rank." The l e t t e r s igna l led the end of Voinovich 's prospects for pub l ica t ion in the Soviet Union. Nor could he o f f i c i a l l y write for anyone e l s e . The day a f ter he was expel led from the Wri ters ' Union he received a telegram saying that he had been taken into the PEN Club though PEN membership was both a hindrance and a he lp , he has dec lared. Despite h is image as a "d iss ident" wr i te r , Voinovich - 1 5 -sees himself as a completely a p o l i t i c a l person - perhaps the Russian term "inakomysliashchii" (other-thinking) better describes him. He has said: I have never held l i t e r a t u r e to be a part of p o l i t i c s . Many people here who administer art believe that l i t e r a t u r e i s a form of p o l i t i c a l propaganda. This view was always foreign to me. I took care to write within the framework of p o s s i b i l i t y inasmuch as I am a r e a l i s t . I did not have experimental aspirations, which are not well received here, and I didn't want any c o n f l i c t with the powers-that-be. But i t turned out that way: when you write - the better you write, the less chance there i s of publication.30 He did not w i l l i n g l y concern himself with p o l i t i c s but the imprisonment f i r s t of S i n i a v s k i i and Daniel', Ginzburg and Galanskov, and then BukovskLimade i t d i f f i c u l t for him not to protest. Once he began to protest he was subjected to o f f i c i a l punishment. The change i n the regime's leadership also hardened his outlook: In Khrushchev's time the degree of freedom for l i t e r a t u r e was s u f f i c i e n t for me personally. I talked with a writer at that time and we discussed what we would write i f there was complete freedom and I said: "I would write the same as I write now." Since then, however, some time has passed. I have more complicated and serious pretensions now. I can no longer go on saying what I was saying then. That may have been a l l I wanted to say then, but today I want to say considerably more, and I have considerably fewer p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 3 1 Free l i t e r a t u r e , he declared, i s to be found i n samizdat. Chonkin, one might r e c a l l , denied publication i n the o f f i c i a l press, f i n a l l y found i t s readership by c i r c u l a t i n g i n samizdat. Voinovich's professional l i f e was not so troubled i n the b e g i n n i n g . Indeed, a t f i r s t g l a n c e i t would appear t h a t he had a r e l a t i v e l y easy e n t r y i n t o S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e . A month a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n o f h i s f i r s t s h o r t s t o r y i n Novyi m i r , f o r example, V l a d i m i r T e n d r i a k o v h a i l e d h i s appearance w i t h an a r t i c l e i n L i t e r a t u r n a i a g a z e t a e n t i t l e d " S v e z h i i 32 g o l o s - e s t ' ! " L a t e r t h a t same y e a r i n an a r t i c l e i n Voprosy l i t e r a t u r y V o i n o v i c h was r e f e r r e d t o a s , " j u d g i n g by h i s f i r s t s h o r t s t o r y , one o f the most t a l e n t e d of the young 33 prose w r i t e r s . " V o i n o v i c h a l s o had h i s d e t r a c t o r s . I n 1963, f o r example, the c o n s e r v a t i v e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c , G r i g o r i i Brovman, c a l l e d V o i n o v i c h t o t a s k i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d " G r a z h d a n s t v e n o s t ' a v t o r a i g e r o i a " (The C i t i z e n - n e s s o f the 3 A-a u t h o r and h i s h e r o ) . " Brovman s e t the tone f o r h i s remarks when he reminded young w r i t e r s t h a t "an a c t i v e s o c i a l p o s i t i o n denotes above a l l an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the more i m p o r t a n t themes of c o n t e m p o r a n e i t y , the k n o t t y q u e s t i o n s o f l i f e o f a 35 s o c i e t y b u i l d i n g communism He a l s o reminded them t h a t as good S o v i e t a u t h o r s they s h o u l d t u r n t o the t e n e t s o f s o c i a l i s t r e a l i s m t o s o l v e any of t h e i r c r e a t i v e problems^ V o i n o v i c h ' s "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" comes under a t t a c k f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o p o r t r a y p o s i t i v e heroes - the v e r y a s p e c t t h a t l a t e r would so endear Chonkin t o i t s Western c r i t i c s . " R a s s t o i a n i e v p o l k i l o m e t r a " i s c h a s t i s e d f o r V o i n o v i c h ' s f a i l u r e t o show the new, S o v i e t v i l l a g e . Brovman 1s s u g g e s t i o n , of c o u r s e , was t h a t n e i t h e r V o i n o v i c h nor h i s heroes have -17-s u f f i c i e n t c i t i z e n - n e s s . Some t h r e e y e a r s l a t e r Brovman a g a i n r e t u r n e d t o d i s c u s s V o i n o v i c h i n h i s book, Problemy i g e r o i he sovremennoi p r o z y , where a g a i n ^ f a u l t e d him f o r c r e a t i n g l e s s -3 6 t h a n - p o s i t i v e heroes i n the t r a d i t i o n of s o c i a l i s t r e a l i s m . V o i n o v i c h ' s e a r l y s t o r i e s found a more s y m p a t h e t i c c r i t i c i n Lev A n n i n s k i i . I n a c o l l e c t i o n o f c r i t i c a l a r t i c l e s c u r i o u s l y e n t i t l e d I a d r o orekha (The K e r n e l of the n u t ) , A n n i n s k i i d evoted a s e c t i o n t o a d i s c u s s i o n of "My zdes' 37 zhivem." A n n i n s k i i l o c a t e d V o i n o v i c h ' s i n t e r e s t i n " t h a t p r o f o u n d and a u t h e n t i c l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l which l i e s a t the b a s i s of h i s e x i s t e n c e . " V o i n o v i c h , he w r o t e , has a f e e l i n g f o r the a u t h e n t i c and the r e a l l i f e t h a t l i e s below i l l u s i o n . F i f t e e n y e a r s l a t e r G e o f f r e y H o s k i n g echoed A n n i n s k i i ' s remarks when he d e s c r i b e d Chonkin as the s e a r c h f o r the a u t h e n t i c s e l f . I n 1968 V o i n o v i c h had s t i l l n ot f a l l e n t o t a l l y from o f f i c i a l g r a c e and he made h i s one and o n l y appearance i n a S o v i e t e n c y c l o p a e d i a , the Ezhegodnik b o l ' s h o i s o v e t s k o i e n t s i k l o p e d i i , i n a o n e - l i n e r e f e r e n c e t o h i s s h o r t s t o r y 3 8 "Dva t o v a r i s h c h a " (Two Comrades). I n the fo r e w a r d t o h i s a n t h o l o g y , Putem v z a i m n o i  p e r e p i s k i , V o i n o v i c h h i m s e l f commented on h i s e a r l y y e a r s i n S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e . He took i s s u e w i t h "a c e r t a i n emigre c r i t i c [who] r e c e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g I had p u b l i s h e d b e f o r e Chonkin c o u l d have been p u b l i s h e d i n any S o v i e t j o u r n a l i n c l u d i n g Molodaya G v a r d i a and K r o k o d i l . That i s -18-39 not q u i t e t r u e . " While h i s f i r s t s t o r y , "My zdes' zhivem" d i d not have the same t r o u b l e b e i n g p u b l i s h e d as d i d h i s l a t e r s t o r i e s , even i t a t t r a c t e d n e g a t i v e c r i t i c i s m because, t o quote one r e v i e w e r , i t "adhered t o an a e s t h e t i c a l i e n t o u s , 40 o f r e p r e s e n t i n g l i f e , 'as i t i s ' . " "Dva t o v a r i s h c h a " was c a l l e d i d e o l o g i c a l l y h a r m f u l , a n t i - s o c i a l i s t , and p o r n o g r a p h i c , w h i l e "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" r e c e i v e d h a r s h c r i t i c a l r e v i e w s i n the newspapers and p e r s o n a l l y from L e o n i d I l ' i c h e v , chairman of the newly o r g a n i z e d I d e o l o g i c a l Commission of the P a r t y C e n t r a l Committee. Other e a r l y s t o r i e s never were p u b l i s h e d . I n the West V o i n o v i c h a t t r a c t e d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n b e f o r e YMCA P r e s s p u b l i s h e d Chonkin i n 1975. "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" appeared as " I want t o be Honest" i n a c o l l e c t i o n of r e c e n t R u s s i a n prose t r a n s l a t e d by Andrew R. MacAndrew and 41 p u b l i s h e d i n 1965. Deming Brown mentioned b o t h "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" and "Dva t o v a r i s c h a " i n a survey o f contempo-r a r y S o v i e t w r i t e r s e n t i t l e d " S o v i e t R u s s i a n F i c t i o n : Changes, C h a l l e n g e s , and F r o z e n P r o p o s i t i o n s . " G e o f f r e y H o s k i n g , who would become Chonkin's most p e r c e p t i v e r e v i e w e r i n the Times  L i t e r a r y Supplement, d i s c u s s e d "Khochu b y t ' chestnym" i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "The Search f o r an Image i n Contemporary S o v i e t F i c t i o n . I n 1975 the I t a l i a n j o u r n a l , R o s s i i a , p u b l i s h e d an i n t e r v i e w w i t h V o i n o v i c h i n which he d i s c u s s e d h i s views on l i t e r a t u r e , h i s t o r y , and h i s own w o r k . ^ V o i n o v i c h t a l k e d i n some l e n g t h about h i s f a v o u r i t e h e r o : the n a t u r a l man -19-("chelovek estestvennyi"). This i s a man who, regardless of his age, looks at the world each time anew. He speaks i n a pl a i n language and does not fear that his opinions w i l l appear f o o l i s h to anyone else. The natural man i s dogmatism's undoing. Voinovich made an analogy to Andersen's well-known ta l e , "The Emperor's New Clothes" i n which only a c h i l d w i l l say out loud that the king, i s naked. The people f i n a l l y acknowledge that the c h i l d i s r i g h t , but thi s truth, i n i t s turn, becomes the new dogmatism. Again a c h i l d i s needed, Voinovich continued, to speak the truth: my goodness, good people, the king was clothed long ago! Voinovich has frequently been accused of portraying fools ("duraki") or making his heroes into f o o l s . He disagreed: "Attempting to depict natural people, I portray 45 t h e i r natural reactions to events." Voinovich prefers to create eccentrics ("chudaki"), those people who have kept i n themselves a c h i l d i s h quality. Every grown person, he argued, has a b i t of c h i l d within. Some people fear .-this c h i l d i s h quality, fear how i t w i l l make them appear i n the eyes of others. The natural person, on the other hand, never hides the c h i l d within and, as a r e s u l t , appears eccentric. Chonkin comes to mind as Voinovich discussed f o o l s , eccentrics, and natural men. He described his hero as follows: I have been writing a novel for many years about a simple Russian s o l d i e r , Ivan Chonkin. He i s also an eccentric. But he does not play at anything. A litt l e - e d u c a t e d peasant lad he f a l l s into complicated circumstances. He i s natural because he speaks -20-p l a i n l y his ideas, not fearing to lose anything i n the opinion of those around him. The opinion of those around him about him i s so low that he can allow himself to speak any foolishness which sometimes i s offered to nonplus those people who appear clever. His own opinion of himself i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y high. This i s a man who always f u l f i l l s his obligations. I wanted to show the simple Russian man. For some time I have been attracted by the popular character. This i s not Shveik nor i s i t Terkin. Shveik and Terkin are active heroes, Chonkin i s passive. He stands where he i s placed and stands to that time when they r e l i e v e him. But he stands u n t i l the end as required of him. The image comes from f o l k - t a l e s . This i s Ivanushka-durachokwho does everything inopportunely. This i s a man who, one would say, is necessary to no one, but who proves necessary to everyone. This i s an adventure novel. 4& The interviewer's l a s t question centered on the meaning of l i t e r a t u r e . In his answer Voinovich returned to the question of heroes at one point. Some people f e e l that l i t e r a t u r e should create ideal heroes, images worthy of imita-tion. (These are the demands of the party and such established c r i t i c s as Brovman.) Voinovich f e l t that such creations are l i t e r a t u r e ' s l a s t task. Writers of less-than-the-highest-class create such images and readers of less-than-the-best-type need them as examples. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Gogol' never created such heroes; unstated, but understood, i s the idea that neither w i l l Voinovich. Voinovich told the interviewer from Rossiia that he had been working for many years on a novel about a soldier c a l l e d Ivan Chonkin. The novel i s usually dated from 1963, 47 but i t was begun much e a r l i e r . It began as Voinovich's f i r s t attempt at writing a short story. The idea came from a conversation he overheard between two women. The f i r s t woman told the second that l i f e was d i f f i c u l t ; she l i v e d with her son who was a hooligan. L i f e was p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t without a husband and her husband had died during the war. He had been a colonel ("polkovnik"). Voinovich listened to this woman, looked at her, and decided that she was lying -that she never had a husband and that she had never been married to a colonel. There were many women i n Russia who had never married and these women pub l i c l y blamed the war for the i r unmarried state. For some i t was a legitimate excuse, for others i t was a j u s t i f y i n g explanation. Having overheard this snatch of conversation Voinovich went home and wrote his f i r s t story. The story was about an unmarried woman who l i v e d i n a v i l l a g e . The evening before WWII broke out she attended a dance, met a sol d i e r , brought him home, and spent the night with him. The next day the Germans invaded Russia, war broke out, and the soldier was ca l l e d to the front. The woman began to await l e t t e r s from him because th e i r night together had been an important event for her and she expected him to write s i m i l a r l y to her. She waited and waited, but no l e t t e r s appeared. In the story the reader never learns why the soldier never wrote; perhaps he forgot about her or perhaps he died i n battl e . So she began to write l e t t e r s to herself. She worked at the v i l l a g e post-office so that after she wrote a l e t t e r she postmarked i t as well. At f i r s t she showed the -22-l e t t e r s to no one, but i n a v i l l a g e , where everyone knows everything, her neighbours soon learned that she was writing l e t t e r s to herself. They laughed and demanded she read what "he" had written to her. At f i r s t she refused but eventually she became accustomed to reading these l e t t e r s and i n winter when there i s l i t t l e to do about the v i l l a g e women would gather to hear her l e t t e r s . The womenfolk enjoyed the l e t t e r s , laughing and crying at what the postmistress' soldier had written to her. The women became so used to l i s t e n i n g to these l e t t e r s that they could not manage without them. There was i n the v i l l a g e a woman who actually received l e t t e r s from a real husband at the front. She demanded of the women why they preferred to fool themselves and l i s t e n to the post-mistress' l e t t e r s when she could read l e t t e r s to them from a real husband. Yours, they told her, writes poorly; but hers writes very well indeed. The postmistress, Niura, was at a loss as to what to write i n these l e t t e r s and made up a l l sorts of events at the front. She also awarded her soldier decorations and eventually made him a colonel i n the Soviet Army. When the war ended and husbands returned home to t h e i r wives, Niura's s o l d i e r , of course, did not return. So she wrote herself an announcement informing herself that her husband had died a hero's death during the war. The soldier had l e f t a photo behind. There were people after the war who t r a v e l l e d through the v i l l a g e s making large p o r t r a i t s out of these photos and for t h i r t y rubles Niura had a large p o r t r a i t made -23-from h e r photo and t h a t o f the s o l d i e r . She asked the photog-r a p h e r t o p a i n t i n medals and d e c o r a t i o n s on the s o l d i e r ' s u n i f o r m , so t h a t i n her p o r t r a i t she was p o r t r a y e d w i t h a c o l o n e l . V o i n o v i c h ended h i s s t o r y a t t h i s p o i n t . The o r i g i n a l s t o r y was m i s l a i d and l o s t . I n the meanwhile V o i n o v i c h wrote o t h e r t h i n g s but d e c i d e d t o r e t u r n t o h i s o r i g i n a l i d e a and w r i t e a second s t o r y on t h i s theme. T h i s time he i n t e n d e d t o make the s o l d i e r the hero o f the s t o r y and t o show what happened t o t h a t s o l d i e r . V o i n o v i c h r e c a l l e d t h a t when he h i m s e l f was a s o l d i e r i n P o l a n d he was w a l k i n g t h r o u g h a m i l i t a r y camp when he was approached by a horse t i e d t o a c a r t . However, no one was r i d i n g the h o r s e . L o o k i n g u n d e r neath the c a r t he saw a s o l d i e r l y i n g between the wheels, sound a s l e e p . The next time V o i n o v i c h saw the s o l d i e r and asked who he was, he was t o l d t h a t he was Chonkin. The name so a t t r a c t e d V o i n o v i c h t h a t he d e c i d e d t h a t a t some time t o w r i t e something w i t h Chonkin as i t s h e r o . F i r s t o f f i c i a l n o t i c e of The L i f e and E x t r a o r d i n a r y  Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan Chonkin came i n 1963 when the October i s s u e of No v y i m i r announced the works s l a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n i n the j o u r n a l i n 1964. V o i n o v i c h ' s n o v e l was announced as " Z h i z n ' Ivana Chonkina" and was d e s c r i b e d as a s t o r y about s o l d i e r s i n the S o v i e t Army. As V o i n o v i c h d e s c r i b e d i n h i s i n t e r v i e w i n the Index on C e n s o r s h i p , h i s s t o r i e s had j u s t begun t o appear when Khrushchev i n 1963 a t t a c k e d the l i b e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l s . Not u n t i l 1967, when -24-"Dva t o v a r i s h c h a ' appeared, was V o i n o v i c h a l l o w e d t o p u b l i s h a g a i n i n the o f f i c i a l S o v i e t p r e s s . The L i f e and E x t r a o r d i -n a r y Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan Chonkin, meanwhile c i r c u l a t e d i n s a m i z d a t . I t s f i r s t appearance i n p r i n t was i n 1969 i n the R u s s i a n emigre j o u r n a l , G r a n i , p u b l i s h e d i n Germany. The e d i t o r s p u b l i s h e d the f i r s t p a r t , i n t r o d u c i n g i t as the b e s t s a t i r i c a l work c r e a t e d i n R u s s i a n l i t e r a t u r e i n the l a s t 48 f i f t y y e a r s . The n o v e l f i n a l l y appeared i n book form i n 1975, p u b l i s h e d by YMCA P r e s s i n P a r i s . P a r t s One and Two o n l y were p u b l i s h e d . The f i r s t E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n came out i n 1977, t r a n s l a t e d by R i c h a r d L o u r i e and p u b l i s h e d i n New York by F a r r a r , S t r a u s , and G i r o u x . A paperback e d i t i o n was p u b l i s h e d by Penguin Books a y e a r l a t e r . Two more p a r t s of the proposed f i v e r e c e n t l y appeared i n 1979, a g a i n from YMCA P r e s s , under the s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d t i t l e , P r e t e n d e n t na p r e s t o l : novye p r i k l j u c h e n i i a s o l d a t a Ivana Chonkina ( P r e t e n d e r t o the Throne: the New Adventures o f P r i v a t e Ivan C h o n k i n ) . V o i n o v i c h i s a t p r e s e n t w r i t i n g a t h i r d volume. Both the R u s s i a n e d i t i o n of Chonkin and i t s E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n were g r e e t e d e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y i n the West. Some t h i r t y a r t i c l e s , m o s t l y book r e v i e w s i n v a r i o u s newspapers and j o u r n a l s , have been w r i t t e n t o date about the n o v e l . A few d e s e r v e c l o s e a t t e n t i o n . The f i r s t l o n g r e v i e w , some t w e n t y - e i g h t pages, 49 appeared i n K o n t i n e n t . V i o l e t t a I v e r n i devoted the major p a r t o f her a r t i c l e t o d i s c u s s i n g the c h a r a c t e r s , one by one, -25-t o see how w e l l they p l a y what she terms the "Rules of the Game", i . e . the r u l e s of b e h a v i o u r i n o r d e r t o s u r v i v e and even p r o s p e r i n S t a l i n i s t R u s s i a . Chonkin i s the hero because he does not p l a y the Game and does not know the r u l e s . Another v a l i d p o i n t I v e r n i r a i s e d was the a t t i t u d e t o the "word." Under the S o v i e t regime the a t t i t u d e toward the word-a s - s u c h has changed d r a m a t i c a l l y and the word has changed from b e i n g a means o f c o n v e y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o become a symbol. F o l l o w i n g the K o n t i n e n t r e v i e w was an o t h e r l o n g book r e v i e w i n t h e August 1975 i s s u e o f Posev, w r i t t e n by V o i n o v i c h ' s f r i e n d and f e l l o w w r i t e r , Naum K o r z h a v i n . " ^ He p o i n t e d out t h a t what i s b e i n g d i s c u s s e d i n the n o v e l was brought t o l i g h t a t the XXth and X X I I t h P a r t y Congresses. But today the " c u l t of p e r s o n a l i t y " and the events connected w i t h i t a r e t r e a t e d as i f they had never e x i s t e d . But t h e n , as K o r z h a v i n n o t e d , even between the two con g r e s s e s t h e r e was the p r e t e n s e t h a t the t e r r o r had e x i s t e d but t h a t l i f e had not been t e r r o r i z e d . K o r z h a v i n c a l l e d t h a t t e r r o r the main hero of the n o v e l . V o i n o v i c h , he d e c l a r e d , had g i v e n a f u l l p i c t u r e o f the S t a l i n i s t p e r i o d and i t s l o g i c (a l o g i c t h a t has not d i e d but r a t h e r has r e t u r n e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s ) . Most r e v i e w e r s t h a t f o l l o w e d mentioned t h a t Chonkin was not a p o s i t i v e hero but a new type c r e a t e d by V o i n o v i c h . Most agreed w i t h G e o f f r e y H o sking t h a t Chonkin d e s c r i b e s "the i n a u t h e n t i c e x i s t e n c e f o r c e d on everybody by an o v e r -5 1 b e a r i n g system o f a u t h o r i t y , . . . " Both the r e v i e w e r f o r Time magazine and the r e v i e w f o r the New York Times Book Review noted t h a t V o i n o v i c h ' s h e r e s y was a l a c k of s u f f i c i e n t s e r i o u s n e s s about one of the l e a d i n g heroes of S o c i a l i s t 52 R e a l i s m , the Red Army. Edward Crankshaw c o n t i n u e d the i d e a i n h i s r e v i e w : "Mr. V o i n o v i c h t r e a t s a l l s o r t s of s a c r e d 53 cows w i t h c h e e r f u l and u n f a i l i n g d i s r e s p e c t . " B a r r y E. L e w i s , i n h i s a r t i c l e i n World L i t e r a t u r e Today, made the p o i n t a t the b e g i n n i n g and the end of the a r t i c l e t h a t "Chonkin c o u l d o n l y come a f t e r the c a t h a r t i c d e n u n c i a t i o n of S o l z h e n i t s y n had exhumed the s p e c t e r of 54 S t a l i n i s m . " V o i n o v i c h ' s s u s t a i n e d comic s a t i r e o f the p o l i t i c a l h y p o c r i s y t h a t was the essence of S t a l i n i s m , Lewis added, i s the f i n a l e x o r c i s m of the s p i r i t o f S t a l i n i s m . I n h i s most r e c e n t book on contemporary R u s s i a n l i t e r a -t u r e , G e o f f r e y H o s k i n g c o n t i n u e d h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f Chonkin t h a t began i n h i s i n i t i a l book r e v i e w f o r the Times L i t e r a r y Supplement. H o s k i n g r e p e a t e d h i s e a r l i e r s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the leads S o v i e t s o c i e t y i n the n o v e l r an i n a u t h e n t i c e x i s t e n c e . To t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n he added a n o t h e r : S o v i e t s o c i e t y as a f a n t a s y . V o i n o v i c h , H o sking p o i n t e d o u t , i s h i m s e l f ambiguous about whether h i s s t o r y i s r e a l i t y o r a f a n t a s y o r b o t h from the f i r s t sentence of the n o v e l : " I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o say d e f i n i t e l y whether i t a l l r e a l l y d i d happen o r n o t , because the i n c i d e n t which s e t the whole a f f a i r i n motion . . . happened i n the v i l l a g e o f Krasnoe so l o n g ago t h a t t h e r e a r e p r a c t i c a l l y no e y e w i t n e s s e s l e f t . . . I've c o l l e c t e d -27-everything I've heard on the subject and added a l i t t l e some-thing of my own as well, i n fact maybe I've added a l i t t l e more than I heard." Hosking argued that "On one l e v e l , what Voinovich i s doing i n Chonkin i s showing up one set of fantasies, inhumane and harmful, and trying to replace them with another set, more gentle, f r u i t f u l and humane."^^ With his insistence on the use of term "fantasy" Hosking f a i l e d to go further and point out that most of the "fantasies" i n the novel are grounded i n the r e a l i a of S t a l i n i s t Russia. Only one c r i t i c r e a l i z e d that the novel's impact depended on i t s being understood i n i t s proper h i s t o r i c a l setting. At one point i n his a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Vladimir Voinovich and the Comedy of Innocence" Robert C. Porter discussed a scene i n the second part of the novel i n which the l o c a l paper refuses to announce the German invasion but instead devotes columns to lessons i n etiquette. He noted that "In the context of the novel this may seem l i k e l i t t l e more than good f e u i l l e t o n ; i t takes on a serious and grotesque aspect when one r e c a l l s the lack of psychological and m i l i t a r y preparation with which the Red Army faced operation Barba-r o s s a . " ^ Nonetheless, this one sentence was not t y p i c a l of the a r t i c l e . E a r l i e r Porter argued that Chonkin might just be accommodated, as were I l f and Petrov's writings, " i f i t were read as a b i t i n g s a t i r e on peasant backwardness, the shortcomings of c o l l e c t i v i s a t i o n , and Russia's unpreparedness for war i n 1941," though Porter did add the disclaimer that -28-even i f the n o v e l were p u b l i s h e d o f f i c i a l l y i n the S o v i e t u n i o n , c o n v e n t i o n a l S o v i e t l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m would f a i l t o come t o terms w i t h i t . " ^ R u s s i a n l i t e r a t u r e s i n c e WWII has seen some t r u t h f u l d e p i c t i o n o f S o v i e t s o c i e t y . K o n s t a n t i n Simonov's war n o v e l s ( Z h i v y e i mertvye [The L i v i n g and the Dead , 1959]or S o l d a t a m i ne r o z h d a i u t s i a [They Are Not Born S o l d i e r s , 1963-64] ) , G r i g o r i i B aklanov's I i u l ' 41 goda ( J u l y 1941 , 1965), and V a s i l i Bykov's Mertvym ne b o l ' n o (The Dead F e e l No P a i n , 1966)are o n l y f o u r examples out of many t h a t p o r t r a y the e x c e s s e s and i n j u s t i c e s of the S t a l i n i s t p e r i o d . Many of the " v i l l a g e " w r i t e r s , b e g i n n i n g w i t h O v e c h k i n , d e s c r i b e d the problems t h a t s t i l l b eset the c o u n t r y s i d e more than a genera-t i o n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v i s a t i o n . The "young p r o s e " w r i t e r s (the group t o which the e a r l y works of V o i n o v i c h belong) p r e s e n t young people i n the p r o c e s s o f d i s c o v e r i n g t h e m s e l v e s , a d i s c o v e r y i n no way d i r e c t e d by t h e P a r t y o r P a r t y i d e a l s . H o s k ing argued t h a t "Some w i l l f i n d i t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the c e n s o r s h i p s h o u l d p e r m i t r e c o g n i z a b l y t r u t h f u l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the r e c e n t S o v i e t p a s t " and then goes on t o p o i n t out t h a t most c e n s o r s h i p t a k e s p l a c e not by the s t a t e but by the w r i t e r s , by e d i t o r i a l b o a r d s , and v a r i o u s commissions o f t h e 58 W r i t e r s ' Union. The s t a t e d e f i n e s what i s unmentionable and the p a r t y s e t s g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s and l i m i t s . From time to t i m e , i n a most u n p r e d i c t a b l e f a s h i o n , the p a r t y w i l l s t e p i n t o s t o p what i t views as e x c e s s e s by c e r t a i n a u t h o r s . -29-W r i t e r s , l i k e S o l z h e n i t s y n , M a k s i m o v , V o i n o v i c h , and Z i n o v ' e v , f o r example, have been stopped when t h e i r " e x c e s s e s " made them u n a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e i r f e l l o w w r i t e r s i n the U n i o n and t o the P a r t y . The f o u r mentioned above, the most r e c e n t b e i n g V o i n o v i c h , are e x i l e s from the S o v i e t Union. C o n s i d e r i n g the proposed p u b l i c a t i o n announced i n Novyi m i r i n 1963,what were V o i n o v i c h ' s e x c e s s e s ? Or were t h e r e any? I f t h e " l i b e r a l " atmosphere i n 1963 had c o n t i n u e d would Chonkin have been s e r i a l i z e d i n N o v y i mir? I f V o i n o v i c h had not s i g n e d l e t t e r s i n support o f v a r i o u s people l i k e S i n i a v s k y , Daniel's, S o l z h e n i t s y n , and Sakharov, would Chonkin have been p u b l i s h e d i n the S o v i e t Union? There may be o t h e r r e a s o n s . The v a r i o u s n o v e l s r e f e r r e d t o above re-examined the S o v i e t p a s t i n a s e r i o u s l i g h t . S a t i r e , on the o t h e r hand, c r i t i c i z e s t h r o ugh r i d i c u l e and the r i d i c u l o u s appears comic t o the r e a d e r . To l a u g h a t something i s t o deny i t any s e r i o u s i m p o r t . As B a r r y Lewis has o b s e r v e d , Chonkin I s w r i t t e n i n a c a r n i v a l t r a d i t i o n "whose g a i e t y i l l u m i n a t e s 59 e v e r y page." S a t i r e a l s o s e t s up norms of b e h a v i o u r . V o i n o v i c h ' s s a t i r e r e v o l v e s around i t s c h a r a c t e r s , a l l of whom r e p r e s e n t some S t a l i n i s t i d e a o r i n s t i t u t i o n . The e x c e p t i o n i s the h e r o , Chonkin (and N i u r a ) . The S t a l i n i s t i d e a - the p o s i t i v e , S o c i a l i s t R e a l i s t hero - a g a i n s t w h i c h Chonkin i s t o be compared i s i n t r o d u c e d i n the n o v e l ' s b e g i n n i n g by the n a r r a t o r : "'. . . wasn't the a u t h o r a b l e t o t a k e from l i f e a r e a l m i l i t a r y hero - t a l l , w e l l - b u i l t , -30-d i s c i p l i n e d , a top student i n m i l i t a r y and p o l i t i c a l training?' He could have, of course, but didn't manage. A l l the champions were grabbed up and so I got Chonkin." Chonkin emerges by the novel's end as the norm: the honest, natural, real man that Voinovich described as his favourite type i n the Rossiia interview. Chonkin, however, no matter how much recent Russian l i t e r a t u r e has broadened the concept of the positive hero, i s not a permissible type Of hero. Chonkin, i n a word, i s an "excess ." purpose of satire i s to c r i t i c i z e and " i t should be obvious to the reader what i t i s that i s c r i t i c i s e d . . . . The targets of s a t i r e are not f i c t i o n s . They or the objects they represent exist or existed i n the realm of r e a l i t y . In s a t i r e , the f i c t i o n a l constructions have d e f i n i t e referents i n the real world. The i l l u s i o n of f i c t i o n i s inevitably 6 0 broken as the reader recognizes the s a t i r i c target." In The L i f e and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin the s a t i r i c a l targets have d e f i n i t e referents i n the real world of S t a l i n i s t Russia. Since the novel i s b a s i c a l l y a novel of characterizations, the targets may be linked to a p a r t i c u l a r character, so that the following groupings emerge: If s a t i r e demands norms, i t also has targets. The stakhanovism - Liusha Miakisheva camps - Lesha Zharov a n t i - s e m i t i s m - Moishe S t a l i n t r i a l s and a r r e s t s - J r . L i e u t e n a n t Bukashev c o l l e c t i v e farms - Ivan Golubev Communist P a r t y - B o r i s o v , K i l i n , R e v k i n Lysenko - Kuz'ma Gladyshev s e c r e t p o l i c e - A f a n a s i i M i l i a g a and t h e " I n s t i t u t e " Red Army & WWII - L t . C o l o n e l L a p s h i n , G e n e r a l Drynov, Chonkin's r e g i m e n t , Chonkin An argument, perhaps, c o u l d be made f o r any one of the above-mentioned s a t i r i c a l t a r g e t s b e i n g the most i m p o r t a n t i n the group. As h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i a t hey a l l r e p r e s e n t some m u t i l a t i n g a s p e c t of the S t a l i n i s t regime i n the 1930s and 1940s. However, they a re not g i v e n e q u a l weight w i t h i n the n o v e l . T h e i r appearance i s i n d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n t o the l e n g t h o f the appearance o f the c h a r a c t e r r e p r e s e n t i n g them. Some t a r g e t s and t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r s appear o n l y once i n s h o r t scenes ( l i k e L i u s h a M i a k i s h e v a , Lesha Zharov, and the Two T h i n k e r s ) . Some appear i n r a t h e r extended scenes, l i k e Moishe S t a l i n , and t h e n d i s a p p e a r from the n o v e l . The war as a b a t t l e - f r o n t never appears - t h i s i s not a war n o v e l i n the sense t h a t Simonov's n o v e l s a r e . The war i s never i n the f o r e g r o u n d , but i t shapes the events of the n o v e l , s p e c i a l l y the Second P a r t . The n o v e l i s o r g a n i z e d as a s e r i e s o f anecdotes t o l d by the n a r r a t o r as he and Chonkin -32-witness various events and encounter various characters. Satires i n general are episodic i n structure and, though i n the Second Part of the novel the reader senses a more rigorous plot development, the novel as a whole appears as a loose arrangement as Voinovich moves from one l e v e l of Soviet s o c i -ety to another, introducing and, i n some cases, devastating i t s various representatives. In the organisation of my discussion of s a t i r i c a l targets I have chosen an ascending order of importance of the characters within the novel, leaving the main characters - l i k e Golubev, Miliaga, Gladyshev, and Chonkin - for the l a s t chapters. The s u b - t i t l e of this d i s s e r t a t i o n describes i t as a commentary and explication. The various chapters w i l l i d e n t i f y the target, describe and explain what event or person or i n s t i t u t i o n i s being s a t i r i z e d , and then comment on how that s a t i r e i s achieved i n the novel. In this way various characters and scenes i n Chonkin w i l l be examined i n the l i g h t of the appropriate h i s t o r i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l , or economic events i n Stalin's regime. These r e a l i a might be immediately recognisable to the older, more astute Russian reader, survivors from that time, but not to the common reader, I would argue, i n either the Soviet Union or the West. Western readers, for the most part, w i l l read Chonkin i n tran s l a t i o n . Voinovich himself has said that those who read his novel i n t r a n s l a t i o n may understand i t s essence — the relationships between people. In general, however, he feels - 3 3 -that readers i n one country would find i t d i f f i c u l t to understand those experiences through which people i n another 6 2 country have l i v e d . This d i s s e r t a t i o n attempts to f i l l those kinds of gaps. In each generation the Soviet Union needs, l i k e the proverbial wheel, to be rediscovered i n i t s true essence by the West. One of the most successful myths taken up by the West has been the one that portrays the Soviet Union as a peaceful and progressive country, building socialism, and slowly achieving, with some setbacks, the f i n a l goal of communism. A'successful propaganda machine, both i n t e r n a l l y and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , sweeps mistakes under the rug. Khrushchev's speech to the XXth Party Congress on Stalin's crimes, however, opened the way to a flood of memoirs and stories about those very crimes. Solzhenitsyn led the way with "Odin den' Ivana Denisovicha" (One Day i n the L i f e of Ivan Denisovich). In his subsequent works, s p e c i a l l y the massive Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn began, i n e f f e c t , to give his people back th e i r history, to remember for them those things the authorities would l i k e as not have them f o r -get. In many ways Voinovich i s a part of that remembering. Nadezhda Mandelshtam remembered for years af t e r her husband's death i n the camps, but she could never say i n print what had happened u n t i l her memoirs appeared i n the West. Chonkin too had to appear i n the West f i r s t and then be smuggled back into the Soviet Union to j o i n the ranks of the u n o f f i c i a l -34-h i s t o r i e s of the Soviet Union. Since December 1980 Vladimir Voinovich has been i n the West and many commentators have wondered about his future as a writer. He has said recently that his readers are i n the Soviet Union and he w i l l continue writing for them. A writer needs to imagine an ideal reader and Voinovich imagines his reader there, i n the Soviet Union. Unlike other Russian writers who have emigrated Voinovich has no intention of trying to write, for example, l i k e an American writer. He w i l l only write about those things he knows about. Chonkin's adventures w i l l f i n d t h e i r way, by various means, to Voinovich's readers i n the Soviet Union. Voinovich has no fear of losing his audience: "Oni tarn est' - d a , i mnogo est'" (They are there and there are many of them). NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1 Carl Proffer, "The Immediate Past and Future of Russian Literature," Department of Slavonic Studies, Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 26 February 1981. 2 The c i t y has seen three names changes i n this century: u n t i l 1921 i t was ca l l e d Diushambe, from 1929 to 1961 i t was cal l e d Stalinabad, and after "de-Stalinization," i t was re-named Dushanbe. 3 Vladimir Voinovich, "I am a r e a l i s t , " Index on  Censorship, IV, No. 2 (1975): 49. A part of this interview was published i n German i n Die Zeit, 17 January 1975 and i n Russian i n Russkaia mysi', 27 February 1975. ^Voinovich, P- 49. "Voinovich, P- 49. ^Voinovich, P- 50. 7Voinovich, P- 51. ^Voinovich, P- 51. ^Voinovich, P- 51. Leonid Ilichev was Khrushchev's adviser on ideol o g i c a l and c u l t u r a l matters. "Thirty Years of Moscow Art,", an exhibition including modern and some abstract art, was held at the Manege' Gallery i n Moscow at this time. Khrushchev attended, was outraged by what he saw and had the exhibition closed. This incident marked a turning point i n cu l t u r a l policy and a s h i f t away from l i b e r a l i s a t i o n . gazeta Voinovich, p. 51. Vomovich, p. 52. 12 Voinovich, p. 52. Voinovich, p. 54. Voinovich, p. 54. The 14 October 1970, p. 9. "^Voinovich, p. 54. Voinovich, p. 54. -35--36-17 An E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s l e t t e r i s i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r v i e w with V o i n o v i c h p u b l i s h e d i n Index on Censorship, IV, No. 2 (1975): 52-53. The o r i g i n a l Russian v e r s i o n has been p u b l i s h e d i n V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , Putem vzaimnoi  p e r e p i s k i ( P a r i s : YMCA Press, 1979), pp. 245-48. 18 V o i n o v i c h , "I am a r e a l i s t " , p. 52. 19 V o i n o v i c h , p. 52. Voinovich's i t a l i c s . ^ V o i n o v i c h p. 52. 21 V o i n o v i c h , p. 52. 22 V o i n o v i c h , p. 53. 23 V o i n o v i c h , p. 53. 2 4 Vo i n o v i c h , p. 53. 25 V o i n o v i c h , p. 57. ^ V o i n o v i c h , p. 56. 27 An E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n of the l e t t e r i s i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r v i e w with V o i n o v i c h p u b l i s h e d i n Index on Censorship, p. 55. The o r i g i n a l Russian v e r s i o n has been p u b l i s h e d i n V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , Putem vzaimnoi p e r e p i s k i ( P a r i s : YMCA Press, 1979), pp. 249-51. 2 8 V o i n o v i c h , "I am a r e a l i s t , " p. 55. 29 V o i n o v i c h , p. 55. 30 V o i n o v i c h , "I am a r e a l i s t , " p. 56. During h i s i n t e r v i e w w i t h the KGB i n May 1975 V o i n o v i c h d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as " a p o l i t i c a l " and , to h i s i n t e r v i e w e r ' s amazement, added " l i k e Chekhov." See V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , " P r o i s s h e s t v i e v 'Metropole'." Kontinent, No. 5 (1975): 67. 31 V o i n o v i c h , "I am a r e a l i s t , " p. 57. 32 V l a d i m i r Tendriakov, " S v e z h i i golos - e s t ' ! " , L i t e r a t u r n a i a gazeta, 25 February 1961, p. 3 33 V. K a r d i n , "'Vechnye voprosy' - novye otvety," Voprosy l i t e r a t u r y , V, No. 3 (1961): 25-48. The short s t o r y i n q u e s t i o n i s "My Zdes' zhivem," Novyi mir, No. 1 (1961): 21-71. 34 B. Brovman, "Grazhdanstvenost' av t o r a i g e r o i a , " Moskva, No. 6 (1963): 197-203. 35 Brovman, p. 198. My t r a n s l a t i o n . 3 6 G. Brovman, Problemy i g e r o i sovremennoi prozy: k r i t i c h e s k o e obozrenie (Moskva: Khudozhestvennaia l i t e r a t u r a , 1966), pp. 202-06. 37 L. A n n i n s k i i , Iadro orekha: k r i t i c h e s k i e o c h e r k i (Moskva: S o v e t s k i i p i s a t e l ' s , 1965), pp. 116-23. 38 Ezhegodnik b o l ' s h o i s o v e t s k o i e n t s i k l o p e d i i , 1968 (Moskva: Sovetskaia e n t s i k l o p e d i i a , 1968 ) , p~. 98 . 39 V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , Putem vzaimnoi p e r e p i s k i ( P a r i s : YMCA Press, 1979). Quote taken from E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n by Richard L o u r i e , In P l a i n E n g l i s h (New York: F a r r a r , Straus, Giroux, 1979), p. i x . 40 T L o u r i e , p. i x . A 1 Andrew R. MacAndrew, ed. and t r a n s . , Four S o v i e t  Masterpieces (New York: Bantam Books, 1965). Besides V o i n o v i c h , the c o l l e c t i o n i n c l u d e s Vladimov's "The ore;" Aksenov's "Halfway to the Moon," and Kazakov's "The Kabiasy Imps." 42 Deming Brown, " S o v i e t Russian F i c t i o n : Changes, Challenges, and Frozen P r o p o s i t i o n s , " i n Contemporary  European N o v e l i s t s , ed. S i e g r i e d Mandel (Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968), pp. 3-38. A- 3 G e o f f r e y Hosking, "The Search f o r an Image of Man i n Contemporary S o v i e t F i c t i o n , " Forum f o r Modern Language St u d i e s , II (1975): 349-65. 44 V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , "0 sovremennosti i i s t o r i i , " R o s s i i a , No. 2 (1975): 228-39. R o s s i i a began p u b l i s h i n g i n 1974 and p u b l i s h e s a r t i c l e s on Russian i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e i n Russian, I t a l i a n , and French. The j o u r n a l i s e d i t e d by V i t t o r i a Strada, an e s s a y i s t , c r i t i c , and p r o f e s s o r of Russian at the U n i v e r s i t y of Venice. Strada, by the way, was the model f o r the c h a r a c t e r Benito Spada, the I t a l i a n communist, i n Vsevolod Kochetov's n o v e l , Chto t y khochesh? (1964). See S t u a r t Hood, "Comrade Bulatov's I t a l i a n Journey," Survey, Nos. 74-75 (Winter-Spring 1970): 175-84, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n f o r the debate between Strada and Kochetov about t h i s n o v e l . ^"Voinovich, "0 sovremennosti i i s t o r i i , " p. 231. 46 V o i n o v i c h , "0 sovremennosti i i s t o r i i , " p. 231. My t r a n s l a t i o n . -38-47 Personal i n t e r v i e w with V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , 29 May 1981. 4 8 G r a n i , No. 72 (1969): 3-82. 49 V i o l e t t a I v e r n i , "Komediia nesovmestimosti [A Comedy of I n c o m p a t i b i l i t y ] ," Kontinent, No. 5 (1975): 427-54. "^Naurn Korzhavin, "Stolknovenie s t i k h i i [A C o l l i s i o n of Elements],"" Posev, No. 8 (1975): 50-58. 5 1 G e o f f r e y Hosking, "The Good S o l d i e r Chonkin," Times  L i t e r a r y Supplement, 23 January 1976, p. 93. 52 R. Z. Sheppard, "Kievstone Cops," Time, 3 January 1977, pp. 61-62. Theodore S o l o t a r o f f , " T h e T i T e and E x t r a -o r d i n a r y Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan Chonkin," New York Times  Book Review, 23 January 1977, pp. 4, 7, 24, and 26. 53 Edward Crankshaw, "I van the T e r r i b l e r" The Observer Review, 20 March 1977, p. 29. 54 Barry E. Lewis, " V l a d i m i r Voinovich's Anecdotal S a t i r e : The L i f e and E x t r a o r d i n a r y Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan Chonkin," VJorld L i t e r a t u r e Today, 52,No. 4 (1978): 544-60. "^Geof f r e y Hosking, Beyond S o c i a l i s t Realism: S o v i e t F i c t i o n Since "Ivan D e n i s o v i c h " (London: Granada P u b l i s h i n g , 1 9 8 0 ) , p. 1 4 6 . 5 6 R. C. P o r t e r , " V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h and the Comedy of Innocence," Forum f o r Modern Language S t u d i e s , XVI, No. 2 ( A p r i l 1980)1 IU6~. 5 7 P b r t e r , p. 100. 58 Hosking, Beyond S o c i a l i s t Realism, p. 199. 59 Lewis, p. 549. 6 0 Peter Petro, "Four Twentieth Century S a t i r e s : Novels of Hasek, Bulgakov, O r w e l l , and Vonnegut," D i s s . U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a 1978, p. 25. One might add that i n Russian-l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l the f i c t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s have d e f i n i t e r e f e r e n t s i n the r e a l world, a f a c t r e c o g n i z e d by both those who c r e a t e t h a t l i t e r a t u r e and those who c r i t i c i z e i t here and i n the S o v i e t Union. The statement a l s o holds true f o r more-or-less r e a l i s t i c works l i k e Chonkin and f a n t a s t i c novels l i k e Aleksandr Zinov'ev's Z i i a i u s h c h y e vysoty. -39-G i l b e r t Highet, The Anatomy of S a t i r e (1962; r p t . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972) , p. 206. 6 2 Personal i n t e r v i e w with V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , 29 May 1981. 6 3 Personal i n t e r v i e w with V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , 29 May 1981. CHAPTER ONE THE STAKHANOVITES: LIUSHKA MIAKISHEVA Work has always been a major theme f o r S o v i e t w r i t e r s . The i n d u s t r i a l or p r o d u c t i o n novel of the 1920s and 1930s showed man i n h i s workplace: h y d r o - e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s , b l a s t furnaces, r o l l i n g m i l l s , r a i l r o a d s , and so f o r t h . The c h a r a c t e r s i n these novels were i n v o l v e d i n d e v e l o p i n g or p e r f e c t i n g some i n d u s t r i a l process or product or attempting to i n c r e a s e the output of t h e i r p l a n t . C h a r a c t e r s were judged by t h e i r a t t i t u d e to t h e i r work and t h e i r f e l l o w workers. The p o s i t i v e hero i n s p i r e d h i s f e l l o w workers to g r e a t e r f e a t s by h i s example of d e d i c a t i o n , hardwork, and s o c i a l s e n s i b i l i t i e s . The novel showed the c h a r a c t e r s , i n c l u d i n g backward peasants and o c c a s i o n a l l y members of the p r e - r e v o l u t i o n a r y i n t e l l i g e n t -s i a , awakening to the wider s o c i a l meaning of work. The novel's main purpose was to show the value of work i n forming the psychology of the true Soviet worker. Fedor Gladkov's So v i e t c l a s s i c , Cement (1925) was a model f o r the p r o d u c t i o n novels that f o l l o w e d . One of the best, perhaps, was V a l e n t i n Kataev's Vremia Vpered! (Time Forward, 1932). I t d e s c r i b e s the b u i l d i n g of the huge m e t a l l u r g i c a l p l a n t at Magnitogorsk i n the U r a l s . The novel t e l l s the s t o r y of an attempt by a brigade of workmen to break the world's time r e c o r d f o r pouring co n c r e t e . The n o vel s u c c e s s f u l l y captures the tempo and mood -40--41-of these men as they prepare for their competition. Voinovich has his own record-setting worker i n The L i f e and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin. In a few short chapters i n the second part of the novel the reader meets Liushka Miakisheva, the milkmaid heroine of labour. A clever and bold woman, she i s a credit to her native v i l l a g e where she i s a favourite daughter. No longer a kolkhoznik, nevertheless, she retains a l l the cunning and shrewdness ch a r a c t e r i s t i c of most v i l l a g e r s i n the novel. She has returned to her native v i l l a g e to urge her fellow c i t i z e n s to do their part for the war e f f o r t . In the episode Voinovich s a t i r i z e s one feature of the S t a l i n i s t period: the Stakhanovite, the shock-worker who, the state myth declares, changed the pace of work by destroying outdated work norms. Voinovich also shows the reader an example of how the word-as-such l o s t i t s meaning i n S t a l i n i s t times when he describes the labour a labour heroine does. Liushka's i n i t i a l appearance i s set i n Gogolian terms. She i s "an enormous backside covered i n dark blue material" emerging from a car door. She has arrived at the kolkhoz i n an MK jeep, a symbol of power and p r o v i n c i a l - l e v e l officialdom that causes surprise i n the v i l l a g e people and unease i n the kolkhoz au t h o r i t i e s . When she emerges from the jeep she i s immediately recognized and her name, the narrator t e l l s his reader, rustles through the crowd l i k e the sound of "dry leaves ." As she walks toward the kolkhoz o f f i c e the crowd -42-of v i l l a g e r s parts respectfully for her. When she seats herse at the chairman's desk, K i l i n , the kolkhoz partorg, turns the conversation to S t a l i n . K i l i n supposes that Liushka and S t a l i have tea at least once a day together. To Golubev's question as to what S t a l i n i s l i k e , Liushka answers, afte r a fast sidelong glance at the reporters, that he i s simple, modest, and very sympathetic. Golubev, apparently taken aback by her answer, repeats her l a s t epithet with questioning i n his voice. Then he asks how S t a l i n looks. Liushka answers that he looks good and then breaks into tears because "It's so hard for him right now. Having to think for us a l l himself (p. 165). Liushka i s a shrewd woman with a fine sense of using the si t u a t i o n at hand to her own advantage, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that helped her to achieve fame i n i t i a l l y , as her biography goes on to i l l u s t r a t e . Her description of S t a l i n , for example, i s to l d less to answer Golubev's question than to impress the retinue of reporters who follow her everywhere and record her every word. This description, therefore, i s as much a product of calcu l a t i o n as she herself i s . Her biography describes how the Liushka Miakisheva the reader has just met was created from a v i l l a g e milkmaid. Her biography gives the narrator the opportunity to give a tongue-in-cheek history of both Liushka and the Miakishevite movement. A clever peasant,she learned quickly how to advance herself. Before c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n , she was -43-a young g i r l who l i v e d with her poor peasant f a m i l y , working as a farmhand i n the summer and spending winters on the stove because she had n e i t h e r f e l t boots nor pants. Without c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n she would never have become famous because the " h a l f - d e a d " cow on her farm d i d not g i v e r e c o r d y i e l d s . The cow, i n f a c t , soon became of no use to the would-be-famous milkmaid; because of skimpy f e e d i n g i t became " e n t i r e l y " dead. At t h i s p o i n t i n time Liushka was saved from a s i m i l a r end by c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n because she was one of the f i r s t to r e g i s t e r f o r the kolkhoz. She was given cows t h a t had once belonged to kulaks and, though they were not very c o - o p e r a t i v e "no po i n e r t s i i prodolzhali d o i t ' s i a o b i l ' n o . " Though fame d i d not come immediately when she j o i n e d the kolkhoz, many t h i n g s d i d : shoes, n i c e c l o t h e s , a husband, and a P a r t y c a r d . When heroes of labour ("peredoviki i u d a r n i k i " ) appeared, the n a r r a t o r t e l l s us "by a l l accounts" Liushka f e l l i n t o t h i s category. Her achievements at f i r s t appeared only i n the l o c a and r e g i o n a l p r e s s . N a t i o n a l fame came when a r e p o r t e r wrote a s e n s a t i o n a l a r t i c l e about her; though, the n a r r a t o r notes, he wrote i t "based on her own words, or e l s e he made the whole t h i n g up" (p. 166). Liushka's achievement was the abandoning of the t r a d i t i o n a l method of m i l k i n g cows f o r a new and more e f f i -c i e n t way: "to grab f o u r teats at the same time, two i n each hand" (p. 166). She then gave a speech at the Kremlin, met with S t a l i n , and pledged to teach her method to a l l -44-milkmaids, assuring him that everyone of them could learn i t because "every milkmaid's got two hands" (p. 166). From that time on Liushka's career as a working milkmaid was over and her career as a public figure began. One of the f i r s t signs of her new career was that from that time on Liushka was never to be found on her own kolkhoz. She was always on the move, taking part i n the Supreme Soviet or attending a conference or receiving a delegation of English dockworkers, chatting with the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger or being presented with a decoration i n the Kremlin. The reader wonders what any of this has to do with milking cows. Great fame came to Liushka: newspapers wrote about her, the radio talked about her, newsreels filmed her, the magazine "Ogonek" printed her photo on i t s cover, and soldiers wrote l e t t e r s of marriage proposal to her. A t y p i c a l day was an exhausting one: racing to her native v i l l a g e to have her photograph taken milking a cow, then a session at the Academy of Agriculture, a meeting with writers, a speech before the veterans of the Revolution and so on. The reader s t i l l wonders what any of this has to do with milking cows. Reporters followed her everywhere, writing sketches, a r t i c l e s , and songs about her, always with her so that even she began to believe they existed just to write about her and to photograph her. Liushka's example gave r i s e to a MiakLshevite movement that grew very popular. Miakishsvites f i l l e d government bodies, -45-wrote f o r newspapers, and appeared on the movie screen. But, as the n a r r a t o r p o i n t s out, there was no one l e f t to m i l k the cows. Apparently heroines of labour, the reader l e a r n s , do not labour. Liushka and the M i a k i s h e v i t e movement r e c a l l the Stakhanovite movement of the l a t t e r p art of the 1930s. The Stakhanovites modelled themselves on A l e k s e i Stakhanov, a c o a l miner who, on 31 August 1935 cut 102 tons of c o a l i n s i x hours, exceeding the e x i s t i n g s h i f t quota by f o u r t e e n times. Much l a t e r i t was r e v e a l e d that the management had allowed Stakhanov to concentrate s o l e l y on c u t t i n g and had gi v e n him a group of a s s i s t a n t s . At the beginning, however, Stakhanov's achievement was presented as a h e r o i c f e a t of l a b o u r worthy of s e r v i n g as a model to a l l Soviet workers. The movement q u i c k l y spread to other i n d u s t r i e s . Other Stakhanovites appeared: A l e k s e i Busygin i n the automobile i n d u s t r y , P e t r Krivonov i n the r a i l w a y i n d u s t r y , E v d o k i i a and M a r i i a Vinogradova i n the t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y , and M a r i i a Demchenko and Praskovia A n g e l i n a i n a g r i c u l t u r e . The movement was not without d i r e c t i o n from above. In a speech on 4 May 1935 S t a l i n had c a l l e d f o r an i n c r e a s e i n i n d u s t r i a l output. He demanded a speed-up i n the work-rate. A l e k s e i Stakhanov appeared to provide the example. V i c t o r Kravchenko, at one time a p l a n t manager i n the Sov i e t Union, d e s c r i b e d Stakhanovism as "a m i r a c l e made to order f o r the Kremlin i n launching a new r e l i g i o n - the -46-r e l i g i o n of speed-up." It was a deceit, one i n which Kravchenko i n his role as a plant superintendent, had to parti c i p a t e : In the end, i n my own sub-plant I was obliged to resort to a r t i f i c i a l speed-up which, i n my heart, I considered a crime against the machine and workers a l i k e . On d i r e c t orders from the Party Committee, I regrouped my labor, putting the best workers, foremen and engineers into one s h i f t . Then we selected the best tools and materials, se t t i n g them aside for the special s h i f t . Having thus stacked the cards, we gave the signal for the specious game to s t a r t . At eleven o'clock one evening, with reporters and photographers present, the "Stakhanovite" s h i f t got under way. As expected i t " o v e r f u l f i l l e d the normal quota by 8 per cent. There were flaming headlines. Congratulations arrived from o f f i c i a l s i n the c a p i t a l . Everyone breathed more f r e e l y -we had diverted the lightning. As the responsible technical leader I was given a l o t of c r e d i t . ^ The drive to speed up labour involved s t r a i n and tension. Defective goods resulted from workers more concerned with setting records within t h e i r work-shifts than with the quality of their product. A second consequence was the destruction of machinery, ruined as workers operated lathes, looms, furnaces, d r i l l s and so forth at a furious pace. A t h i r d consequence was a wedge driven between workers and technical s t a f f . Administrators, engineers, and technicians were blamed for any lags i n production on the pretense that they were sabotaging the new s o c i a l i s t production and f a i l i n g to provide proper Stakhanovite working conditions. Some were dismissed, many were arrested. A f i c t i o n was created for the general public: scheming managers were holding up workers eager to -47-step up p r o d u c t i o n and break o l d norms. The new records set by f o r c e d speed-ups soon became the norms f o r every worker. Kravchenko d e s c r i b e s what happened at h i s p l a n t : I t was not long before the worst m i s g i v i n g s of the workers came t r u e . Peremptory orders a r r i v e d to r e v i s e the "norms" of p r o d u c t i o n , on which wages were based, upward by 10 to 20 per cent. I t was nothing more than a roundabout order to exact 10 to 20 per cent more work f o r the same wage. In my p l a n t , of f i f t e e n hundred men, perhaps two hundred q u a l i f i e d as Stakhanovites or speed-kings. For the others the r e v i s i o n of norm meant simply a s e r i o u s cut i n e arning power. The general resentment was s i l e n t , s u l l e n , unmistakable. To add i n s u l t to i n j u r y , the new norms had to be presented and accepted by the workers "themselves," not only " v o l u n t a r i l y " but e n t h u s i -a s t i c a l l y . The f a r c e was played out i n a s e r i e s of meetings.3 P a t r i o t i c d e v o t i o n d i d p l a y some p a r t i n the Stakhanovite movement. The movement d i d e n l i s t communist and more s o c i a l l y conscious workers. But motives were not unmixed. The American j o u r n a l i s t , Eugene Lyons, who i n t e r -viewed many workers d u r i n g h i s stay i n the S o v i e t Union i n the 1930s, d e s c r i b e d the s e l f i s h motives that were a l s o i n v o l v e d : Udarniki [shock-workers] became a class apart on any job, compensated for th e i r brigadiering by extra rations, p r i o r i t y i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e f i c i t goods, f i r s t claim on new housing space, and other p r i v i l e g e s . Their children were the f i r s t to receive milk or places i n the schools. The best vacation resorts were set aside for t h e i r use. Shops on Moscow's p r i n c i p a l streets began to display luxuries l i k e boots and t e x t i l e s with placard announcing "For sale to -48-u d a r n i k i o n l y " 1 They became a s o r t of a r i s t o c r a c y w i t h i n l a b o r . 4 The Stakhanovites were not w e l l loved by t h e i r f e l l o w workers. They were people who c u r r i e d favour with the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and f o r c e d down wages by s e t t i n g new standards of speed.^ Was Stakhanovism s u c c e s s f u l as a s t a t e f i c t i o n ? Lyons answered: "That i t d i d not s u f f i c e to s t i m u l a t e the best e f f o r t s of the workers may be judged from the f a c t t h at u l t i m a t e l y the Kremlin had to appeal more d i r e c t l y to the motives of self-aggrandizement through o l d - f a s h i o n e d goads of personal i n i t i a t i v e l i k e p iece work, bonuses f o r b e t t e r work and 'docking' f o r i n f e r i o r work."^ Among kolkhoz workers Maria Demchenko gained fame as the i n i t i a t o r of a mass movement of k o l k h o z n i k i who s t r o v e to achieve h i g h h a r v e s t y i e l d s of sugar b e e t s . 7 From 1930-1936 she was f i e l d - t e a m l e a d e r at the Comintern Kolkhoz i n the G o r o d i s h c h e n s k i i d i s t r i c t . At the Second A l l - S o v i e t Congress of Kolkhozniki-Shock Workers i n 1935 she committed h e r s e l f to c u l t i v a t e not l e s s than 500 centners [1 centner = 100 kilograms] of sugar beets per h e c t a r e . She s u c c e s s f u l l y c a r r i e d through her promise, o b t a i n i n g 523.7 centners per hect a r e . Demchenko's i n i t i a t i v e turned i n t o , a c c o r d i n g to the Great S o v i e t Encyclopaedia, "a powerful s o c i a l i s t compe-t i t i o n , " t a k i n g the name "The F i v e Hundred Centner-ers." Fedor Belov, once a chairman of a c o l l e c t i v e farm, had d e s c r i b e d the F i v e Hundreds campaign as he witnessed i t -49-i n the years 1935-1939. He begins by n o t i n g , r e m i n i s c e n t of Kravchenko, that "the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the kolkhoz was o b l i g e d to render them [the F i v e Hundred Centner-ers] g a s s i s t a n c e . " He gives an example: . . . i n 1936 a woman squad-leader on our farm undertook to r a i s e 1,000 centners of sugar beets from one he c t a r e . A p a r t i c u l a r l y good p i e c e of l a n d was a l l o t t e d to her squad, s p e c i a l q u a n t i t i e s of f e r t i l i z e r s were prov i d e d , three manurings were made, and so on. Not onl y the kolkhoz but the e n t i r e r a i o n watched over t h i s squad; the agronomists never l e f t the area where i t worked, and durin g the dry days the area was a r t i f i c i a l l y watered. The achievement of a r e c o r d harvest of beets c o u l d not be managed, however, without c o n s i d e r -able connivance. Since i t soon became ev i d e n t that 1,000 centners of beets would not be obtained from the s i n g l e h e c t a r e , the board of managers of the kolkhoz, on orders from the r a i o n , made up the missing centners from the communal area. As a r e s u l t , the squad "grew" 1,017 centners of beets from one h e c t a r e . The woman was rewarded with an appointment as deputy of the o b l a s t ' e x e cutive committee. Belov adds a f i n a l note: "The r a i o n press made much of these people, and they were widely p r a i s e d and a d v e r t i s e d as the vanguard of s o c i a l i s m . When c o l l e c t i v e farmers read i n the papers about new 'records,' they only smile; they know how these records and these 10 Stakhanovites are c r e a t e d . " Despite a l l Stakhanovite e f f o r t s i n d u s t r i a l output i n the S o v i e t Union lagged behind that of other l e a d i n g i n d u s t r i a l i s e d n a t i o n s . The average S o v i e t worker was not t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y advanced and output was low. The Stakhanovite -50-speed-up brought pressure to bear on the rank and f i l e worker to increase production. The average workers had to keep up with norms set by Stakhanovites working under prepared conditions and not concerned with either machinery or the end product. Under these special conditions the Stakhanovite e s s e n t i a l l y performed a stunt. Like Belov's sugar-beet grower, the Stakhanovite usually performed a miracle of pro-duction within a given period of time, became a "labour hero," and then was promoted to a managerial or party position. Alexei Stakhanov and Mariia Demchenko could be considered r e a l - l i f e models for Liushka Miakisheva. But where history records the movement's expl o i t a t i o n of human labour, Voinovich uses the h i s t o r i c a l event to create a gentle humour. The reader laughs at the description of a " h a l f -dead" cow that becomes "e n t i r e l y dead"; at the use of the vulgar term "to p u l l on teats" ("dergat' korovu za soski") rather than the usual "to milk" ("doit'"); at Liushka running about to various meetings, a l l of them unrelated to being a milkmaid; at the narrator's describing Liushka's renown by repeating her name i n short simple sentences, as i f i n an advertisement; at Liushka f i n a l l y believing that the ever present reporters were created for her sake; and the reader laughs at the Miakishevite movement that grew and produced p o l i t i c i a n s , writers, and actresses, but no milkmaids. Voinovich's main s a t i r i c a l targets of t h i s episode c a l l f o r t h the most laugher. The targets are two-fold: -51-St akhanovism ( i n the Miakishevite-movement s t o r y ) and the war ( i n Liushka's speech). In both i n s t a n c e s V o i n o v i c h evokes a g e n t l e H o r a t i a n humour at what are p o t e n t i a l l y e x p l o s i v e i s s u e s : the e x p l o i t a t i o n of human labour and the blunders of S t a l i n ' s n e a r - s i g h t e d f o r e i g n p o l i c y . The author makes of Liushka a humorous c h a r a c t e r and her appearance i n the novel an amusing d i v e r s i o n from the main a c t i o n c e n t e r i n g on the Chonkin-Niura-Golubev-Gladyshev group. Though the t a r g e t s of the s a t i r e are h i s t o r i c a l l y s e r i o u s ones, the o v e r a l l e f f e c t i s s t i l l a comic one because of Liushka's behaviour, language, and her biography. Liushka's speech i s her l a s t appearance i n the n o v e l . F i r s t she t r i e s to e x p l a i n away the S t a l i n - H i t l e r Pact (23 August 1939), a t r e a t y that made S o v i e t annexation of the B a l t i c s t a t e s i n June 1940, as w e l l as B e s s a r a b i a and Bukovina p o s s i b l e i n J u l y 1940 and extended S o v i e t i n f l u e n c e i n t o Poland (September 1939) and Y u g o s l a v i a ( A p r i l 1941). While S t a l i n looked to h i s own p l a n s , H i t l e r was assured of a war fought o n l y on one (Western) f r o n t and time to prepare f o r a second (Eastern) f r o n t . H i t l e r ' s d e c i s i o n to a t t a c k the S o v i e t Union (31 J u l y 1940), h i s i s s u e of d i r e c t i o n f o r p l a n "Barbarossa" (12 November 1940), and h i s orders f o r troop c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n the East (18 December 1940) took plac e as S t a l i n extended the borders of h i s S o v i e t empire. H i t l e r ' s a t t a c k on the S o v i e t Union on 22 June 1941 caught S t a l i n by s u r p r i s e . S t a l i n had been sent warnings from C h u r c h i l l , from -52-S o v i e t i n t e l l i g e n c e about German troop movements on the border s i n c e the e a r l y s p r i n g , and from Richard Sorge, a S o v i e t spy s t a t i o n e d i n Tokyo - but he had decided to pay no heed. Only on 3 J u l y , almost two weeks a f t e r the i n v a s i o n , S t a l i n made a r a d i o appeal to the Soviet people, a d m i t t i n g that the Soviet Union was i n mortal danger. He denied t h a t the S o v i e t Union (or, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , he h i m s e l f ) had made a s e r i o u s mistake when i t had concluded a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. He argued that the year and h a l f of peace had given the S o v i e t Union time to make m i l i t a r y p r e p a r a t i o n s . He appealed to the n a t i o n a l and s o c i a l consciousness (as w i l l L i u s h k a ) . He d i d not admit, however, t h a t the pact had allowed Russia to make s u b s t a n t i a l t e r r i t o r i a l gains between 1938 and 1940 nor that the Soviet m i l i t a r y was i n a poor s t a t e of p r e p a r a t i o n to meet the German invad e r (nor w i l l Liushka mention these weaknesses). Liushka, the p r i d e of the v i l l a g e as w e l l as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the government, had been sent to Krasnoe to e x p l a i n away any c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and urge the k o l k h o z n i k i to support the war e f f o r t . In t h i s r o l e she i s an agent of the government's p r e v a r i c a t i o n s . She appears i n the v i l l a g e not to d i s c u s s the circumstances of the German i n v a s i o n and the Soviet d e c l a r a t i o n of war, but to put the i s s u e s i n t o a simple form and to make a simple appeal: " ' E v e r y t h i n g f o r the f r o n t , e v e r y t h i n g f o r v i c t o r y ! ' " (p. 169). The v i l l a g e milkmaid who became a labour heroine proves -53-a l s o to have l e a r n e d how to d e l i v e r a speech e f f e c t i v e l y . She begins to speak q u i e t l y and simply ("tikho i po-domashnemu"). Her speech s t a r t s with c o n v e n t i o n a l o f f i c i a l phraseology: "'A great misfortune has come down on us a l l . A treacherous enemy has attacked our country without d e c l a r i n g war. I t wasn't so long ago they were p r e t e n d i n g to be our f r i e n d s . ' " (p. 168). Liushka then i n t r o d u c e s a p e r s o n a l note: '"Two years ago I was i n Moscow and I had a chance of s e e i n g t h e i r Ribbentrop up close.'" [Ribbentrop was i n Moscow as the German s i g n a t o r y to the non-aggression Pact] and she adds personal i n s u l t : " ' I ' l l t e l l you the t r u t h , he d i d n ' t make much of an impression on me. Not much to l o o k a t , s o r t of l i k e our, l e t ' s say [here the n a r r a t o r p o i n t s out that she had a l r e a d y prepared the comparison] our Stepan F r o l o v , except of course, with a l i t t l e more on the b a l l . ' " (p. 168). Liushka forwards the n o t i o n that a l l along the S o v i e t l e a d e r -ship were aware that the Nazis planned to b e t r a y the S o v i e t s because once Kliment V o r o s h i l o v had whispered i n her ear, as Ribbentrop was making a t o a s t : "'Liushka, don't t h i n k he's a l l that f r i e n d l y , he's got a stone behind h i s back and you should see the s i z e of i t . ' " (p. 168). She makes a c l i c h e d o f f i c i a l appeal: "'Men, women, now, when misfort u n e i s a l r e a d y upon us, there's nothing l e f t to do but c l o s e ranks around our Party and around the person of Comrade S t a l i n . ' " (p. 168). Comic r e l i e f comes with Liushka's spat with the photographer who attempts to photograph her i n mid-speech, -54-but she q u i c k l y r e t u r n s to her speech, i n f a c t to the very words with which she had stopped ("every l a s t drop of t h e i r blood") and to her o f f i c i a l appeal: " ' E v e r y t h i n g f o r the f r o n t , e v e r y t h i n g f o r v i c t o r y ! ' " The second p a r t of Liushka's speech i s devoted to women and to t h e i r proposed c o n t r i b u t i o n to the war e f f o r t . Before she speaks to the womenfolk she pauses, appears to c o l l e c t her thoughts, and then continues with her speech. Liushka f o r e s e e s what w i l l be t h e i r a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l l o t : "'But while they [men] are away w e ' l l be l e f t here by o u r s e l v e s . I t won't be easy. T h e r e ' l l be the c h i l d r e n and y o u ' l l have to c l e a n and cook and wash at home and look a f t e r your gardens and not f o r g e t the kolkhoz e i t h e r . Whether we l i k e i t or not, each of us has to do the work of two or three now.'" (p. 169) (Liushka, however, does not go on to e x p l a i n how much d i f f e r e n t her f o r e c a s t d i f f e r s from the present work l o a d the women c a r r y d u r i n g peacetime.) She urges the women to work on the kolkhoz "'For o u r s e l v e s and f o r our men. We've got to see t h i s t h i n g through and we w i l l . ' " (p. 169),"and urges the men i n c o n v e n t i o n a l war r h e t o r i c , to f i g h t i n the b a t t l e f i e l d : "'Men, go to the f r o n t ! Do your duty as men, defend our country from the foe u n t i l there's not a s i n g l e one of them l e f t . And don't you be worried about us. We'll take your p l a c e . . . ' " (p. 169). Liushka i s not only c h a r a c t e r i z e d by what she says but a l s o by what she does. Not only her words but a l s o her actions are a source of humour. Her f i r s t appearance i n the novel i s as an "enormous backside (ogromnyi zad) backing i t s way out of a jeep; then the rest of her appears and she i s introduced as the "the backside's owner." She rushes into the crowd to drag out her husband and to intimidate him, f i r s t by ordering him to wipe egg off his face before he kisses her and then by wrinkling her nose at the smell of tobacco on him and commenting on i t s a t t r a c t i v e "masculine" smell. When Liushka defends Egor before her brother's charge that her husband sleeps with a horse now that she i s away, the reader suspects that she does i t more for the i n s u l t done her than her husband. Liushka covers a wide gamut of emotions and expressions (and one suspects, theatrics) whenever she speaks. To K i l i n and Golubev she poses her question i n a brisk, cheerful and business-like voice when she asks about the kolkhoz's a f f a i r s . When she speaks about S t a l i n she i s pensive at the start and then suddenly breaks into tears. She checks to see that her retinue of reporters takes note of her appropriate bearing and enthusiastic descriptions of the Leader. When she speaks to the kolkhozniki she presents her prepared speech with a l l the proper gestures. Liushka shouts at the photographer who t r i e s to photograph her and then t e l l s him to take his pictures from the side, a br i e f and comic entr'acte i n the midst of her appeal to the kolkhozniki to give th e i r a l l to the war e f f o r t . If Liushka's biography has not already -56-suggested to the reader the probable hypocrisy i n her motives for giving this speech, this b r i e f incident — when a photograph supersedes the war i n importance to the speaker — f i n a l l y does. Like a true "star" she makes her speech, climbs into the jeep, and immediately drives o f f . Often a name provides some insight into a character and Liushka's name i s a good example. O r i g i n a l l y from Lukiia meaning " s v e t l a i a " the name originated i n the Latin "lux" meaning " l i g h t . " Liushka's married surname, Miakisheva, i s taken d i r e c t l y from the adjective "miagkii" meaning "mild, gentle." Consider how the images her name conjures contradict the image Liushka has presented as a character: a large woman who intimidates husband and kolkhoz authorities, and gives speeches about the war e f f o r t . Perhaps the best clue to Liushka's character i s own name, her maiden name, Plecheva. It suggests the big and strong (physically as well as psychologically) woman that i s Liushka Miakisheva. Voinovich provides Liushka with a language that successfully characterizes her v i l l a g e background and upbringing. Her speech diverges from the norm i n many ways: use of colloquialisms, diminutives, i n t e r j e c t i o n s , e n c l i t i c s , and phonetic d i s t o r t i o n s . Colloquialisms abound i n her language: "lopat'" ("to gobble up," a vulgarism), "raspivat'" ("to drink"), "kak" (for "kogda"),"ikhnii" (instead of "ikh"), "muzhichonka" (for "muzhik"), "pobashkovityi" ("sharp, -57-c l e v e r " ) , "pazukha" ("bosom"), " s g o t o v i t 1 " ("to cook, to make"), " p r i b r a t ' " ("to put i n o r d e r " ) , " p o s t i r a t ' " ("to do a l i t t l e washing"), " p r i g l i a d e t 1 " ("to look a f t e r " ) , " t e p e r i c h a " ("now"), "supostatov" ("foes"); as w e l l as c o l l o q u i a l i n t e r j e c t i o n s "nu" (which Liushka a l s o makes i n t o a verb, "nukat'"), "uzh," and "okh." Li u s h k a uses d i m i n u t i v e s , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of peasant speech: "ruchkaV "muzhichonka," " t e p e r i c h k a , " and the name "Stepka" (as w e l l as her own name, Liushka, which i s a d i m i n u t i v e of L u s i a ) . Phonetic d i s t o r t i o n s are found i n her speech: " k a z h n y i " f o r "kazhdyi" ( t w i c e ) , "symat'" f o r "snimat'," " r o b i a t a " f o r " r e b i a t a " , and " v y d i u z h i t 1 " f o r "vyderzhat'" ( r e c a l l i n g w i t h i n the d i s t o r t i o n the c o l l o q u i a l i s m " d i u z h i i " meaning "stalwart" and so i n t e n s i f y i n g the image w i t h i n the v e r b ) . She uses the e n c l i t i c " - t o , " a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of spoken language: "A uzh i a - t o po tebe kak skuchala, peredat' ne mogu. Kak-to, tarn, dumaiu, suprug moi ..." (p. 150). She a l s o uses the word "baba" (three t i m e s ) , a d i s d a i n f u l , as w e l l as peasant, term f o r "woman" and "muzhik," a c o l l o q u i a l term f o r "man." The s u b s t a n t i a l peasant c o l o r i n g of Liushka's language p o r t r a y s her as s t i l l a v i l l a g e r , d e s p i t e her c a r e e r or her t r a v e l s i n "higher spheres." W i t h i n i t s few pages the Liushka episode presents the two main themes of Voinovich's n o v e l . In Chonkin the reader meets f i c t i o n a l i z e d r e - c r e a t i o n s of the o f f i c i a l f a n t a s i e s of the S t a l i n i s t p e r i o d . These f a n t a s i e s , based on s t a t e f i c t i o n s or state myths, mutilated l i f e for the average Soviet c i t i z e n . One example of a state f i c t i o n i n this episode i s the notion that Soviet workers were s t r i v i n g of the i r own f r e e - w i l l to overtake outdated work-norms. The fantasy was c a l l e d Stakhanovism. There were those, however, who could learn "the rules of the game" and take advantage of o f f i c i a l delusions. Liushka r e c a l l s the Stakhanovites who performed t h e i r stunt once and then went on to national fame, material rewards, and new careers - careers t o t a l l y removed from th e i r o r i g i n a l work-place. The second theme concerns the language of the time. O f f i c i a l attitudes to the language encouraged old words to lose th e i r meaning. Liushka provides an example: she i s a labour heroine who does not labour. Liushka i s a w i l l i n g agent of delusion as she explains away pacts with the newly-discovered enemy and replaces awareness of the vulnerable m i l i t a r y p o s i t i o n of the country by demands for support for S t a l i n , an increased harvest and volunteers for the front. Liushka has learned to work the system and i t s delusions to her own personal advantage. NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE """Vladimir V o i n o v i c h , The L i f e and E x t r a o r d i n a r y  Adventures of P r i v a t e Ivan Chonkin, t r a n s . R i c h a r d L o u r i e (New York: F a r r a r , Straus and G i r o u s , 1977), p. 163. A l l subsequent r e f e r e n c e s to the novel w i l l be found i n the t e x t of the d i s s e r t a t i o n . L o u r i e ' s t r a n s l a t i o n , with o c c a s i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s , has been the source f o r the E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n s . Quotations i n Russian are from Zhi z n ' i  neobychainye p r i k l i u c h e n i i a s o l d a t a Ivana Chonkina ( P a r i s : YMCA Press, 1975) . 2 V i c t o r Kravchenko, I Chose Freedom: the Personal  and P o l i t i c a l L i f e of a Soviet O f f i c i a l (New York: Charles S c r i b n e r ' s Sons, 1946) , p. 188. "Udarniches t v o " (shock-worker movement) preceded the Stakhanovite movement, though as an all-encompassing term the former i n c l u d e s the l a t t e r . Adam Smith d e s c r i b e s the "udarnik" movement as he witnessed i t i n the e a r l y t h i r t i e s . Smith and h i s wife went to the S o v i e t Union as e n t h u s i a s t i c supporters of the regime. They gave up t h e i r American c i t i z e n s h i p , s o l d t h e i r p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s , and gave away a l l but a few hundred d o l l a r s . The "udarnik" movement was j u s t one of the S o v i e t experiences that d i s i l l u s i o n e d them and l e d to t h e i r r e t u r n to the U n i t e d States w i t h i n three years. Smith wrote: To become a udarnik meant to be l a t e l e s s than three minutes i n one month, to f i l l out the r e q u i r e d speed-up programme, to attend every meeting and demonstration, to c o n t r i b u t e toward a l l Government-sponsored r a f f l e s , funds and l o a n s , to belong to a l l the r e q u i r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s , to vote without q u e s t i o n f o r a l l p a r t y measures, to v o l u n t e e r one day's a d d i t i o n a l labour each month, and i n g e n e r a l to be a l o y a l , submissive and u n t i r i n g s l a v e a g a i n s t whom no v i g o v o r (complaint) was r e g i s t e r e d by the foreman. A udarnik was u s u a l l y one who c o l l e c t e d funds f o r the p r e s s , For r e l i e f , defence, the P a r t y , or good roads, e t c . , o u t s i d e of h i s r e g u l a r work. The udarniks were u s u a l l y the smoothest b o o t l i c k e r s . The f a c t o r y was f u l l of these o f f i c i a l f a v o u r i t e s who wandered about a i m l e s s l y doing n o t h i n g . I found that the s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g mechanics who knew the trade very r a r e l y h u m i l i a t e d themselves i n t h i s way. I t was u s u a l l y those who were t e c h n i c a l l y incompetent who sought t h i s method of g a i n i n g favour. Udarniks were e n t i t l e d to speedy promotion, and were not docked when they were s i c k . A u d a r n i k -59--60-secured s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n when l o o k i n g f o r lo d g i n g s . He was e n t i t l e d to f i r s t c a l l f o r vac a t i o n s to the S a n a t o r i a , f o r c l o t h i n g , shoes, candy, f r u i t or other l u x u r i e s i n the magazin (general s t o r e ) as w e l l as low-priced t h e a t r e t i c k e t s . I found t h i s method of f a v o u r i t i s m on the one hand, and s l a v e - d r i v i n g on the other f a r more e x a c t i n g and p e r n i c i o u s than anything I had ever experienced i n the United S t a t e s . See Adam Smith, I was a So v i e t Worker (London: R. Hale, 1937), pp. 61-62. ~ ~~~ 3 Kravchenko, p. 189. ^Eugene Lyons, Assignment i n Utopi a (New York: Har-cou r t , Brace and Co., 1937) , p~! 208. ^Lyons, p. 209. ^Lyons, p. 209. 7 B o l ' s h a i a s o v e t s k a i a e n t s i k l o p e d i i a , 3rd ed. (Moskva: Sovetskaia e n t s i k l o p e d i i a , 1972), V I I I , 86. Q Fedor Belov, The H i s t o r y of a S o v i e t C o l l e c t i v e Farm, t r a n s . Irwin F i r e s t o n e and Anna Vakar (New York: F r e d e r i c k Praeger, 1955), p. 17. 9 B e l o v , p. 17. Belov, p. 17. CHAPTER TWO THE CHILDREN OF THE THIRTIES: LESHA BUKASHEV A good e v o c a t i o n of the temper of S t a l i n i s t times i s found i n a b r i e f scene i n the f i r s t p a r t of the n o v e l . In t h i s scene V o i n o v i c h presents h i s hero, Chonkin, speaking to the f i v e - y e a r - o l d daughter of the v i l l a g e p a r t o r g , K i l i n . Chonkin asks the l i t t l e g i r l who she loves more, mamma or papa. " S t a l i n , " she r e p l i e s and then runs o f f i n embarrass-ment. Chonkin admits to h i m s e l f that " S t a l i n a on po-svoemu tozhe l i u b i l . " (p. 65). The c h i l d who loves S t a l i n b e t t e r than parents was a s u c c e s s f u l achievement of the S t a l i n i s t r e i g n . These c h i l d r e n were r a i s e d i n a p e r n i c i o u s s t a t e f a n t a s y t h a t taught them to l o v e S t a l i n as the " F a t h e r " of the S o v i e t peoples while d e s t r o y i n g the very f a t h e r s and mothers of these c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the great t e r r o r of the 1930s. The s t a t e ' s agent was the school system, i n c l u d i n g i t s a n c i l l a r y youth o r g a n i z a -t i o n s l i k e the Pioneers and the Komsomols. T h i s system attempted, and i n many cases succeeded i n t e a c h i n g young people to d i s t r u s t t h e i r own parents. I n t r o d u c i n g a S o v i e t t e x t on e d u c a t i o n , George S. Counts noted t h a t i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e "to e n t i t l e , not only the present work, but a l s o the e n t i r e program f o r the r e a r i n g of the young i n the S o v i e t Union, 'I Want to be L i k e -61-2 S t a l i n . ' " Counts found that the l o y a l t y to S t a l i n t h a t was being i n c u l c a t e d i n the young a very d i s t u r b i n g f e a t u r e s i n the textbook: . . . the Russians are b u i l d i n g i n the minds of the young a p e r f e c t l y f a n t a s t i c l o y a l t y to S t a l i n and the Communist Party. T h i s a s s e r t i o n r e q u i r e s no documentation whatsoever f o r anyone who has the s l i g h t e s t knowledge of Soviet education. S t a l i n ' s p i c t u r e hangs i n every classroom and S t a l i n ' s name i s invoked at every g a t h e r i n g or assembly of c h i l d r e n or youth. He i s c o n s i s t e n t l y p o r t r a y e d i n h e r o i c p r o p o r t i o n s , the embodiment of a l l t h a t i s wise and good, the a r c h i t e c t of both the c i v i l and m i l i t a r y triumps of the time. G r a d u a l l y he has come to overshadow L e n i n , as w e l l as Marx and Engels. A l l harsh and u g l y f e a t u r e s of h i s l i f e have been completely expunged from the r e c o r d . The young hear not a word of p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m of h i s c h a r a c t e r or l e a d e r s h i p . They hear only p r a i s e s without s t i n t . 3 W r i t i n g i n the B o l s h e v i k i n December 1946, V.N. M i k h a i l o v s t a t e d that "the p r i n c i p a l r o l e i n the e d u c a t i o n of the youth must be played by the propaganda of the S o v i e t S t a t e . " 4 The school played a r o l e i n the s e r v i c e of the S t a t e . In the 17th February 1934 c i r c u l a r to headmasters of primary and secondary schools i n the RSFSR are found the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : "The p a r t y , and p o l i t i c a l - i d e o l o g -i c a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l questions, w i l l form the c e n t r e of study i n a l l c l a s s e s on the b a s i s of the m a s t e r l y r e p o r t of Comrade S t a l i n . . . . Above a l l , the r o l e of the Communist Party and the person of the great l e a d e r of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l p r o l e t a r i a t , Comrade S t a l i n , must be s t r e s s e d . " ^ Note that S t a l i n and the Party are i n t i m a t e l y a s s o c i a t e d and that one i s i d e n t i f i e d with the other. The Party i s S t a l i n and S t a l i n - 6 3 -i s the Party. The young were i n s t i l l e d with a b l i n d and unswerving loy a l t y to S t a l i n and the Party. This l o y a l t y , George Counts said, i s "one of the major r e a l i t i e s of the Soviet Union and i n the world. Indeed this may be the key to that under-standing of Russia about which so much i s said t o d a y . T h i s kind of l o y a l t y was also the kind demanded i n an army, so that whatever orders were given - even i f they contradicted previous ones - were followed. The Soviets b u i l t a mentality i n t h e i r people that w i l l make any change i n policy possible without serious c r i t i c i s m or loss of support. Policy would be accepted because i t had been endorsed by S t a l i n and the Party. 7 Lessons, lectures, games, and free time were organized and coloured so that the c h i l d would worship the regime and, above a l l , the Leader. Adam Ulam argued that indoctrination, however, cannot e n t i r e l y explain the worship of S t a l i n among children. S t a l i n , said Ulam, was a great teacher: He had a f e e l i n g for the psychology of his people such as i s seldom given to an outsider. He knew how to evoke that blend of idealism, romantic craving, and b r u t a l i t y which i s often t y p i c a l of the young. . . . He appealed to t h e i r need for action and enthusiasm, and he did i t without H i t l e r ' s t h e a t r i c a l i t y and without Mao's grotesque exaggerations. Unlike Mao, S t a l i n knew how to prevent young people's censoriousness of t h e i r elders from turning into undisciplined hysteria. He encouraged his own cult but was careful to make himself appear as an executor of the Party's w i l l and as Lenin's pupil. Like every great teacher, he had a g i f t for s i m p l i c i t y and a passion for d e t a i l . He not only remade his -64-country, he reeducated his people, and i t has been Russia's tragedy that i n the twenty years since his death the impact of his teaching has not worn o f f . ^ The pedagogical text introduced above devoted a section to the love children f e e l for their mothers and fathers. Nowhere do the authors suggest that devotion to S t a l i n contra-dicts f i l i a l devotion. The t i t l e "mother," the text t o l d i t s readers, i s so honourable i n the Soviet Union as to have become established as a state t i t l e , "Mother-heroine." With the t i t l e "father," however, "we address the Great S t a l i n when we wish to express to him the f e e l i n g of f i l i a l nearness and of love and respect.""^ F i l i a l love and respect was intended only for the Leader, only for S t a l i n . Ronald Hingley offered a reason why 11 S t a l i n found i t necessary to redirect children's devotion. By the mid-thirties Soviet c i t i z e n s were under harsh constraints - but to S t a l i n himself they seemed inadequate. His s i t u a t i o n was s t i l l vulnerable to an assassin's b u l l e t , a m i l i t a r y coup, or an unfavourable vote ( s t i l l t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible) i n the Politburo or Central Committee. He could never be sure that he had insured his system and his person against a l l possible threats while there remained i n the Soviet Union any established and cohesive i n s t i t u t i o n -however thoroughly S t a l i n i z e d - that could turn against him. Constantly "reconstructing, refreshing and reforming," S t a l i n s t i l l found i t necessary to destroy each new organi--65-zation as soon as i t achieved a degree of cohesion. Stalin's own interests were best served when a l l human associations were prevented from acquiring s t a b i l i t y and e s p r i t de corps. His range included not only the Politburo but also the individual family. Within the family, therefore, t r a d i t i o n a l t i e s would be broken and a l l l o y a l t i e s redirected to S t a l i n . Thus l i t t l e g i r l s would declare a love for S t a l i n greater than for t h e i r parents. Voinovich plants the scene between Chonkin and K i l i n ' s daughter between a description of his hero's domestic concerns and his conversation with the v i l l a g e " s c i e n t i s t , " Gladyshev. In i t s e l f the exchange i s b r i e f enough to be missed by a casual reader - the l i t t l e g i r l i s not a major character and the short chat appears to have l i t t l e influence on Chonkin's behaviour. K i l i n ' s daughter i s , moreover, not of school-age and a t y p i c a l , being the l o c a l partorg's c h i l d . What makes the scene and the child-character important i s that they prepare the reader, however b r i e f l y , for another c h i l d i n the second part of the novel - Junior Lieutenant Bukashev. Junior Lieutenant Bukashev appears i n i t i a l l y as adjutant to the regimental commander, Colonel Lapshin. When Bukashev admits to having studied German i n school - though he remembers l i t t l e of i t - he i s sent to interview the "German" prisoner, Captain Miliaga of the Soviet secret police. After questioning the prisoner, Bukashev, too -66-e x c i t e d at the prospect of the next day's b a t t l e to s l e e p , w r i t e s a l e t t e r to h i s mother. In t h i s l e t t e r the reader sees K i l i n ' s daughter some f i f t e e n years l a t e r . The l i t t l e g i r l who loves S t a l i n more than e i t h e r parent i s now the young man (teenage boy) who loves S t a l i n more than h i s f a t h e r . Bukashev's f a t h e r was a r r e s t e d when h i s son was i n the 12 e i g h t h grade. His f a t h e r was a d i r e c t o r f o r one of the n a t i o n ' s l a r g e s t m e t a l l u r g i c a l p l a n t s . Though a C i v i l War hero with an i n s c r i b e d saber from the A i l - R u s s i a n C e n t r a l Executive Committee, the e l d e r Bukashev was accused of being a spy working f o r the P o l i s h s e c r e t p o l i c e . He l a t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had wanted to put one of the l a t e s t - m o d e l M a r t i n open-hearth furnaces out of commission. The 1930s were a decade of t r i a l s i n S t a l i n i s t R u s s i a . Voinovich's e l d e r Bukashev r e c a l l s many r e a l - l i f e managers, o f f i c i a l s , t e c h n i c i a n s , engineers, economists, and so on, who were t r i e d and sentenced on tenuous and o f t e n f a b r i c a t e d charges: 1. June 1928: the Shakhtyi t r i a l wherein both f o r e i g n and Russian t e c h n i c i a n s admit f a n t a s t i c a c t s of sabotage; 2. 1929: t r i a l s i n camera of U k r a i n i a n t e c h n i c i a n s , o f f i -c i a l s of the waterways and f o r e s t s , o f f i c i a l s of the Food Commissariat and r a i l w a y engineers; 3. Spring 1930: t r i a l s of the " I n d u s t r i a l P a r t y " wherein the group i s accused of sabotaging S o v i e t i n d u s t r y and f a c i l i t a t i n g an Anglo-French m i l i t a r y i n t e r v e n t i o n a g a i n s t the S o v i e t government; 4. March 1931: t r i a l of the Mensheviks; -67-5. March 1933: t r i a l s of high o f f i c i a l s of the People's Commissariat of A g r i c u l t u r e wherein the accused admit r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l the setbacks i n a g r i c u l t u r e f o r the previous three years; 6. A p r i l 1933: Metro-Vickers t r i a l wherein e i g h t e e n e n g i -neers, i n c l u d i n g a number of B r i t i s h c i t i z e n s , are accused of sabotage; 7. December 1934: without a t r i a l one hundred and seventeen l e a d i n g Leningrad Communists are executed and n i n e t y are condemned to f o r c e d labour f o l l o w i n g the a s s a s s i n a t i o n of S e r g e i K i r o v , number two man i n the P o l i t b u r o and, i n the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of some, the l e a d i n g contender f o r the p o s i t i o n of Leader; 8. August 1936: t r i a l of the " S i x t e e n " wherein Zinoviev Kamenev, Smirnov and other prominent l e a d e r s of the R e v o l u t i o n confess to v a r i o u s crimes i n c l u d i n g sabotage, c o n s p i r a c y , p r o v o c a t i o n , and t e r r o r i s m ; 9. November 1936: t r i a l of nine r e g i o n a l p a r t y l e a d e r s i n N o v o s i b i r s k who are charged w i t h conduct i n i m i c a l to the St a t e ; 10. January 1937: t r i a l of the " P a r a l l e l C e n t r e " wherein Piatakov, Radek, Muralov, Sokolnikov and other l e a d e r s of the R e v o l u t i o n confess to every c o n c e i v a b l e crime; 11. June 1937: t r i a l i n camera of Generals Tukhachevskii, I a k i r , Putna, Eidman , Primakov, Verk, Uborovich and Feldman , a l l prominent heroes of the C i v i l War, who confess to espionage; 12. J u l y 1937: t r i a l i n camera i n T i f l i s of Mdivani, Kovtaradze, and Okudzhava, a l l v e t e r a n l e a d e r s of the B o l s h e v i k movement i n Georgia; 13. 1937: t r i a l i n camera of the judges at the t r i a l of the g e n e r a l s , f o l l o w e d by the t r i a l of the judges of these judges; 14. March 1938: t r i a l s of the "Twenty-One," the s o - c a l l e d "Right-wing T r o t s k y i t e s , " i n c l u d i n g Rykov, Bukharin K r e s t i n s k i i , and R a k o v s k i i , a l l l e a d e r s of the R e v o l u t i o n ; j o i n i n g them i n the dock were Iagoda, L e v i n , and o t h e r s . A l l those who were put on t r i a l were found g u i l t y and sentenced, some to be shot and many to hard labour i n the camps i n S i b e r i a . -68-Th e above l i s t of t r i a l s i s not exhaustive nor does i t indicate the thousands of men and women arrested and sentenced (and often shot) without t r i a l . The Bukashev story i s t y p i c a l and found again and again i n memoirs from the period. The circumstances of the arrest are t y p i c a l : the arrest occurred at night; a number of armed men come to arrest Bukashev; the apartment i s thrown into shambles as feather beds and pillows are ripped apart, furniture smashed and crockery broken; a neighbour i s used as a witness - he, l a t e r , i s also arrested. The accused, l i k e many of his r e a l - l i f e counterparts, has a seemingly glorious ( p o l i t i c a l ) past: Bukashev had been a decorated C i v i l War hero. He was also a p o l i t i c a l l y astute man who was not surprised by his arrest. The elder Bukashev 1s lack of surprise ( " ' I ' l l get i t . It's for me'"), his calm, his confession of attempted sabotage - a l l these items added up to g u i l t i n young Lesha Bukashev's mind. Two things tormented him: Later those words "Its for me," became, i n Bukashev's mind, the strongest evidence against his father. They meant that he knew he was g u i l t y because an innocent man would not be capable of such a fe e l i n g , (p. 291) But there was just one thing Lesha found d i f f i c u l t to accept - why had his father wanted to put that p a r t i c u l a r furnace out of commission? Could he r e a l l y have thought the loss of t h i s one furnace would cause the entire Soviet state to collapse? If he had concealed his true nature from the Party, the people, and, f i n a l l y , from his own family, so c l e v e r l y and for so long a time, he couldn't have been that stupid. And he'd had much greater opportunities for sabotage. No, Lesha could -69-make no sense out of any of i t and i t was precisely that which tormented him most of a l l . (pp. 291-92) Sabotage - which i s what Lesha's father was charged with committing - was a common charge i n the t h i r t i e s . As 1 A-Robert Conquest has pointed out, sabotage was a well-established Soviet S t a l i n i s t f i c t i o n . It was a crime especially created to try i n d u s t r i a l i s t s and engineers or anyone with access to relevant machines. It was also a crime that could be invested with t r a d i t i o n , so that a group of saboteurs on t r i a l could be linked to any other group of saboteurs from an e a r l i e r period. Conquest, however, i l l u s t r a t e d the essential absurdity of the concept of sabotage as a p o l i t i c a l weapon: The very word, with i t s implications of peasants throwing clogs into machinery, i s a f a i r description of what i s almost invariably an i n d i v i d u a l and i l l i t e r a t e protest. The only re a l exception i s to be found i n large underground movements i n occupied countries i n time of war, operating with the sympathy of most of the population. In those circumstances, on the one hand, i t becomes possible on a f a i r l y wide scale; and on the other, i t becomes, or at least appears, a genuine contribution to the defeat of the enemy. In peace-time, a small conspiracy could scarely hope to achieve any p o l i t i c a l r e s u l t whatever by such means. In any case plotters working to remove the p o l i t i c a l leadership by ter r o r would hardly dissipate t h e i r forces, or run the extra r i s k of discovery, for l o c a l and indecisive actions of this type. Nor had any previous conspiracy of the sort ever done so. The i l l o g i c of the accusations was not the sort of consideration to stop S t a l i n , and over the following years sabotage became the theme of a mass purge at a l l l e v e l s . 1 ^ Lesha does not recognize the inherent inanity of the -70-charges a g a i n s t h i s f a t h e r . With the l o g i c at a c h i l d ' s command, Lesha has l i t t l e understanding of the S t a l i n i s t p o l i c y . The r i d i c u l o u s a c c u s a t i o n p l u s f i l i a l l o y a l t y should have l e d him to a b e l i e f i n h i s f a t h e r ' s innocence. Because he i s K i l i n ' s daughter, however, o l d e r by twelve to f i f t e e n y ears, he has been prepared by the S t a l i n i s t regime d u r i n g those years to accept not h i s f a t h e r ' s innocence but r a t h e r h i s g u i l t . T herefore he wri t e s to h i s mother on the day before h i s f i r s t b a t t l e about "the s t a i n of shame f o r c e d on us by your former husband, my former f a t h e r . " V o i n o v i c h presents i n Lesha Bukashev an i n t e r m e d i a t e stage i n the success of the S t a l i n i s t r e a r i n g of c h i l d r e n -c i t i z e n s . The l o g i c a l end i s the c h i l d who not only b e l i e v e s a parent g u i l t y , but who a l s o w i l l denounce a parent to the Sov i e t a u t h o r i t i e s . The d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of f a m i l y l o y a l t y was 16 a conscious S t a l i n i s t aim. S t a l i n wanted, as w e l l , not only submission from f a m i l y members but a l s o c o m p l i c i t y . The r e s u l t was a S o v i e t c h i l d - h e r o , P a v l i k Morozov. A f u l l biography i s found i n the second e d i t i o n of the Great S o v i e t  E n c y c l o p a e d i a : when a Pioneer o r g a n i z a t i o n was c r e a t e d a t h i s s c h o o l , Morozov was chosen as chairman of the detachment. The Pioneers l e d an a c t i v e s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t the k u l a k s . Morozov denounced h i s f a t h e r who had been u n t i l t h a t time (1930) chairman of the v i l l a g e s o v i e t but who had f a l l e n under the i n f l u e n c e of kulak r e l a t i v e s . Morozov informed the chairman of the pa r t y raikom o r g a n i z a t i o n that the e l d e r -71-Morozov had s e c r e t l y s o l d f a l s e documents to e x i l e d k u l a k s . At the subsequent t r i a l P a v l i k branded h i s f a t h e r as a t r a i t o r . When the kulaks encouraged the peasants not to give up t h e i r g r a i n t o the a u t h o r i t i e s , the En c y c l o p a e d i a continues, P a v l i k urged the v i l l a g e r s not to comply and along with poor peasants took p a r t i n the s e i z u r e of the kul a k s ' g r a i n . He and h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n of Pioneers helped the communists with t h e i r p o l i t i c a l work among the v i l l a g e r s . The kulaks sought revenge and on 3 September k i l l e d P a v l i k along with h i s younger brothers i n the f o r e s t . The murderers 17 were captured, the entry concludes, and shot. A martyr's death f o r P a v l i k , the So v i e t b o y - s a i n t and S o v i e t j u s t i c e f o r h i s k i l l e r s . The N a z i s , with whom the Bo l s h e v i k s are o f t e n compared, 18 a l s o have a c h i l d - h e r o . Herbert Norkus was twelve years o l d when as a H i t l e r Youth member he was sent on 26 January 1932 w i t h other members to post advertisements. Confronted by a group of Communists, Norkus was the onl y one unable to make h i s escape. Stabbed r e p e a t e d l y and h i s face badly m u t i l a t e d he was dragged i n t o an a l l e y and l e f t to d i e . Norkus became, l i k e Morozov, an example f o r other d e d i c a t e d c h i l d r e n w i t h i n h i s r e s p e c t i v e youth movement - though, i n comparing the two heroes, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Norkus' fame r e s t s on dying at the hands of h i s p o l i t i c a l enemies, while Morozov's, on dying at the hands of h i s f e l l o w S o v i e t v i l l a g e r s who were l e d , i n some accounts, by e i t h e r h i s own uncle or grandfather. H i t l e r , l i k e S t a l i n , made a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to destroy f a m i l y t i e s and to d e s t r o y the n o t i o n of the e x i s t e n c e of a p r i v a t e l i f e . H. W. Koch, meeting the p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n that i d e o l o g i c a l t r a i n i n g was beyond the i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y of a c h i l d , quoted as an example the answer h i s f o u r - y e a r - o l d daughter had g i v e n when asked who was the bravest man: "You and H i t l e r . " He concludes: "This answer c h a r a c t e r i z e s the i n n e r l i f e of the coming g e n e r a t i o n even i n i t s most tender age. I t i s no longer l i m i t e d to the f a m i l y and c l o s e environment. Of course the f a t h e r s t i l l occupies the foreground, but behind him and the f a m i l y , to t h i s young eye, the community of the Volk becomes v i s i b l e , and the mighty f i g u r e of the Fiihrer stands out. And with t h i s e a r l y glimpse of Fiihrer and Volk comes e q u a l l y e a r l y the w i l l f o r the s o c i a l v i r t u e s , which determine 19 the value of the human being f o r the n a t i o n a l community." An attachment to the Fiihrer and the Volk would have been the dominant f a c t o r i n the shaping of a Norkus as an attachment to S t a l i n and the Party was i n the shaping of a Morozov. In S t a l i n i s t times a huge campaign was waged to t u r n 20 c h i l d r e n i n t o s p i e s and denunciators. Molot of 28 August 1933 r e p o r t e d on the e f f o r t s of a teacher to teach her students to unmask "wreckers" ( i . e . s a b o t e u r s ) : "What would you do to d i s c o v e r the s t e a l e r s of wheat?" "I would keep my eye on everyone. . . . Even i f i t were my f a t h e r or my mother whom I saw s t e a l i n g wheat, I should immediately denounce them to the -73-p o l i t i c a l s e c t i o n . " Pronia K o b i l i n a was h e l d up f o r emulation by Pravda, 20 May 1934, a f t e r denouncing her mother as a " s t e a l e r of S o c i a l i s t goods": You are a c r u e l wrecker of the kolkhoze; Mother, you are a b i t t e r enemy. And s i n c e you do not love the kolkhoze I can no longer l i v e with you. Mania Nomiatova, a Young Pioneer, was another pro d i g y of So v i e t v i r t u e . F i r s t she denounced her br o t h e r f o r s l a u g h t e r i n g a c a l f , then her mother f o r having whipped her f o r denouncing her b r o t h e r . Though she was h e l d up as a model at school f o r the emulation of her f e l l o w p u p i l s , they expressed i n d i g n a t i o n r a t h e r than enthusiasm f o r her a c t i o n s . A n t i r e l i g i o z n i k , October 1934, d e c l a r e d : " T h i s and other f a c t s e q u a l l y opprobrious show how necessary i t i s to e x p l a i n to c h i l d r e n the d i f f e r e n c e between Communist m o r a l i t y and bourgeois m o r a l i t y . " Komsomolskaia Pravda, 18 September 1935 p r a i s e d the Young Communist Maksimov who was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n sending h i s f a t h e r to p r i s o n f o r f i v e years f o r embezzlement. Returning home the young man found h i s mother i n t e a r s i n s t e a d of r e j o i c i n g ; the newspaper a t t a c k s those who f e e l a repugnance at spying and d e n u n c i a t i o n . W i l l i a m Henry Chamberlin, a j o u r n a l i s t with long experience i n S t a l i n ' s R u s s i a , r e p o r t e d : "Cases when c h i l d r e n denounce t h e i r own parents are common and are always mentioned w i t h approbation i n the S o v i e t p r e s s . Thus i n the s p r i n g of 1934 a T a r t a r -74-schoolgirl named Olya Balikina informed the l o c a l authorities that her father and some other peasants were taking for th e i r own use grain which belonged to the c o l l e c t i v e farm. This offense, under the notorious Law of August 7, exposed those who were g u i l t y of i t to the death penalty. Olya was held up as example of young Soviet virtue and, as a reward, was transferred at state expense from her v i l l a g e school to 21 a model school i n the c i t y of Kazan." Not a l l children were Morozovs nor Kobilinas nor Nomiatovs nor Maksimovs nor Balikinas. Just as there are degrees of s i n i n Dante's H e l l , there were degrees of c h i l d -denunciators i n Stalin's Russia. A step away from the children who denounced on their own i n i t i a t i v e - denunciations that led to a parent's arrest - were the children who denounced and repudiated once the arrest was made by the authorities. Eugene Lyons, a j o u r n a l i s t who was an i n t e l -ligent witness to many events i n S t a l i n i s t Russia, gives an instance of t h i s sort of repudiation: The revolution and i t s chaotic aftermath had loosened the bonds of family l o y a l t i e s , yet even to Russians there must have been something obscene i n the performance [Shakhtyi sabotage t r i a l ] . The obscenity was raised to a p i t c h of horror when, immediately aft e r being betrayed by a brother, Andrei Kolodoob heard his own son demanding his death. A l e t t e r from the twelve- or thirteen-year-old K y r i l , published i n that morning's Pravda, was read into the record: I denounce my father as a whole-hearted t r a i t o r and an enemy of the working cl a s s . I demand for him the -75-se v e r e s t p e n a l t y . I r e j e c t him and the name he bears. H e r e a f t e r , I s h a l l no longer c a l l myself Kolodoob but Shakhtin. In l a t e r years the Kremlin came to a l t e r i t s views on f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s . [Witness the change i n the tone of the a r t i c l e on Morozov i n the t h i r d e d i t i o n of the Great S o v i e t E n c y c l o p a e d i a . ] It was to preach once more the importance of blood t i e s and the beauty of domestic l o y a l t i e s . 2 2 C h i l d r e n i n other t r i a l s s i m i l a r l y urged death f o r t h e i r f a t h e r s . Two years l a t e r i n 1930 at the " I n d u s t r i a l P a r t y " t r i a l , Lyons witnessed another d e n u n c i a t i o n : " S i t n i n [one of the accused], f a t - f a c e d and o i l y , was the one whose young son had demanded h i s death before the t r i a l . T h i s was by now a s t a n d a r d i z e d p i e c e of business i n important show t r i a l s . 'My f a t h e r i s to me a c l a s s enemy, nothin g more,' young S i t n i n t o l d the press and h i s words were p u b l i s h e d as an 23 example to S o v i e t youth." In 1952, a t the time of the s o - c a l l e d "Doctors' P l o t , " S t a l i n c a l l e d f o r a t i g h t e n i n g of Party d i s c i p l i n e . "As always on the eve of i n t e n s i f i e d r e p r e s s i o n , " Ronald H i n g l e y w r i t e s , "there were yet more s t r i d e n t demands f o r v i g i l a n c e . . . . Even the c l o s e s t f a m i l y t i e s must not be p e r m i t t e d to impede watchfulness, Pravda dinned i n t o i t s r e a d e r s , adding that everyone must l e a r n to prevent h i s n e a r e s t and d e a r e s t from f a l l i n g i n t o p o l i t i c a l e r r o r s and crimes. A s i m i l a r c l a i m - t h a t l o y a l t y to S t a l i n must transcend love of w i f e , husband, c h i l d r e n and parents - had been made r e p e a t e d l y i n the l a t e 1 9 3 0 s . " 2 4 -76-Lesha Bukashev d i d not spy on h i s f a t h e r nor r e p o r t him to the S o v i e t a u t h o r i t i e s nor denounce him a f t e r h i s a r r e s t . Lesha d i d accept, however, h i s f a t h e r ' s g u i l t as 25 d e c l a r e d by the S o v i e t s t a t e . He d e s c r i b e s i t as "the s t a i n of shame" which only honour on the b a t t l e f i e l d might wash away. Lesha i s a young o f f i c e r who, by S t a l i n i s t r u l e , should not have a t t a i n e d that p o s i t i o n . As he w r i t e s to h i s mother: "Mummy dear, perhaps you w i l l condemn me f o r c o n c e a l i n g the t r u t h about my f a t h e r when e n t e r i n g o f f i c e r s ' t r a i n i n g s c h o o l . I know I acted cowardly, but I d i d n ' t see any other way out. I wanted to defend the motherland along w i t h my people and was a f r a i d I would not be permitted to . . ." (p. 292). Lesha's ruse r e c a l l s a r e a l - l i f e son of a famous man who a l s o concealed h i s name i n order to enter the armed f o r c e s . Vsevolod B l i u k h e r was the son of the Far E a s t e r n Army Marshal, V. K. B l i u k h e r , who had been a r r e s t e d and shot i n 1938. Vsevolod was s i x t e e n when h i s f a t h e r was a r r e s t e d . The boy was sent to an i s o l a t e d camp and r e l e a s e d only i n 1941 when the war broke out. At that time he was d r a f t e d , c o n c e a l i n g 26 h i s infamous name. He d i d w e l l . Bukashev onl y hopes to do as w e l l . V o i n o v i c h g i v e s h i s reader a scene i n which the n a r r a t o r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the events of the e l d e r Bukashev's a r r e s t should l e a d to the c o n c l u s i o n that he was innocent of the charge of "wrecking" or sabotage. At the same time V o i n o v i c h a l s o presents a c h a r a c t e r f l y i n g i n the face of the reader's conclusions by accepting his father's g u i l t . The s i t u a t i o n i s i r o n i c and Lesha Bukashev emerges from i t , at best as a sympathetic character, at worst as a f o o l . Voinovich described his character as a young man with a romantic v i s i o n of l i f e . He would eventually have changed, 27 perhaps even becoming a dissident. Previous to the l e t t e r - w r i t i n g scene Bukashev i s if-involved Aa sl a p s t i c k , comic scene with Captain Miliaga during which they both think they have contacted the German enemy and behave accordingly. Lesha i s also preparing for his " f i r s t b a t t l e " at dawn the next morning. The dramatic irony of the s i t u a t i o n - he goes to b a t t l e , as the reader i s well aware, not the Germans, but Chonkin, Niura, and t h e i r prisoners who are the l o c a l secret police - lacks the grimness of the description of the arrest of the elder Bukashev. Lesha's unformed, schoolboyish s c r i p t , his c h i l d i s h epistolary salutations ("Moia milaia, slavnaia, dorogaia mamul'ka," "Mamochka dorogaia," "Mamochka," and "moia dorogaia mamulia") and his youth and naivety also make him an appealing, as well as comic, character. His goodness i s stressed i n his decision not to rebuke the sentry he sees smoking on duty: "What moral right do I have to rebuke a man twice as old as me?" (p. 293) The morality of a s i t u a t i o n concerning a stranger seems more apparent to Lesha than the intimate sit u a t i o n concerning his own father. The s a t i r e i n the scene revolves around Lesha's relationship with his parents. He believes the state's f i c t i o n that there are "wreckers and saboteurs." He also believes that his father was one of them. As just mentioned, Lesha can see the morality i n a s i t u a t i o n concerning a stranger far better than i n the one concerning his own father. The s a t i r e here also arises from the juxtaposition of duty (in other context, beyond reproach) and human nature (mother love). Lesha has swallowed the rhetoric of war propaganda and writes to his "mummy" i n tones made even more ridiculous by the reader's knowledge of who the "enemy" i s : "'Take comfort i n the thought that your son, Junior Lieutenant Bukashev, gave his young l i f e for the motherland, for the Party, for the great Stalin.'" (p. 290). Bravery and courage were demanded of the Soviet people, s p e c i a l l y i t s young, during the war. Child-heroes inspired such post-war works as Aleksandr Fadeev's Molodaia gvardiia. Real child-heroes, such as Shura Tsekalin and Zoia Kosmodemianskaia,who died at the hands of the Nazis, were 2 8 held up as worthy examples. Lesha i s eager to be a hero, even to die for the Fatherland, the Party, and the Great S t a l i n . He wants to go into battle l i k e the r e a l Soviet soldiers shouting: "For the Fatherland, for S t a l i n ! " The would-be hero wants to enter one fantasy having just l e f t another. Lesha wants to die for S t a l i n having learned to believe that his father also had to die for S t a l i n . Lesha i s a victim of a fantasy but the next chapter w i l l h i g h l i g h t a -79-t r i c k s t e r for whom everyone and anyone might be a victim. NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO Pedagogy was w r i t t e n by two S o v i e t educators, B. P. Yesipov and N. K. Goncharov and p u b l i s h e d i n 1946 by the M i n i s t r y of Education of the RSFSR. See George S. Counts, i n t r o . and t r a n s . Day Co., 1947), p I want to be l i k e S t a l i n (New York: 4T_ John "Counts, p. 26. ^Counts, p. 25. ''Quoted i n Suzanne Labin, S t a l i n ' s R u s s i a , t r a n s . V i c t o r G o l l a n c z L t d . , 1949), Edward F i t z g e r a l d (London: p. 296. 5, Quoted i n Labin, pp. 296-97 'Counts, p. 26. 8 Counts, p. 26. Labi n , p. 296. Adam B. Ulam, S t a l i n : The Man and His Era (New York: 389-39. V i k i n g Press, 1973), pp 10 Counts 74. 11, Man and Legend , p. 286. "Ronald Hingley, Joseph S t a l i n : (London: Hutchinson and Co. L t d . , 1974[ 12 The e l d e r Bukashev was a r r e s t e d when h i s son was i n the e i g h t h grade, i . e . about t h i r t e e n - y e a r s - o l d . He has attended h i g h school ( i . e . completed the t e n t h grade) and o f f i c e r s ' t r a i n i n g s c h o o l . His s c r i p t i s s t i l l c h i l d i s h . Lesha, t h e r e f o r e , i s between seventeen and twenty years o l d . Lesha i s w r i t i n g at the war's beginning, i . e . 1941. Thus the a r r e s t took plac e some time between 1934 and 1937. 13 of the T h i r t i e s , rev. s p e c i a l l y Appendix F, ed. (New " E a r l i e r York: C o l l i e r Books, 1973), So v i e t T r i a l s , " pp. 730-40. 14-Conquest, p. 222. "^Conquest, p. 222. 16-Conquest, p. 378. -80--81-17 B o l ' s h a i a s o v e t s k a i a e n t s i k l o p e d i i a , 2nd ed. (Moskva: Sovetskaia e n t s i k l o p e d i i a , 1954), XXVIII, 310. The t e x t of the Morozov a r t i c l e i n t h i s e d i t i o n i s 269 words long and i s accompanied by a photo. Twenty years l a t e r , i n the t h i r d e d i t i o n , the t e x t of the Morozov entry has been shortened to 73 words and the photo has been omitted. C o n s i d e r i n g the f a c t that form i s o f t e n as much an i n d i c a t o r of S o v i e t a t t i t u d e s as i s content, the obvious c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t the Morozov e t h i c has been abandoned, or at l e a s t s o f t e n e d , i n p o s t - S t a l i n i s t R u s s i a . 1 R H. W. Koch, The H i t l e r Youth: O r i g i n s and  Development, 1922-45 (London: Macdonald and Jane's, 1975), p. 82. 19 Koch, p. 41. 20 The f o l l o w i n g examples are found i n L a b i n , pp. 362-63. 21 W i l l i a m Henry Chamberlin, Russia's Iron Age (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, & Co., 1934), p. 235. 22 Eugene Lyons, Assignment i n U t o p i a (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co."^ 1937) , pl 127. 23 Lyons, p. 373. 24 H i n g l e y , p. 416. My i t a l i c s . 25 The e l d e r Bukashev confesses h i s g u i l t . C o n f e s s i o n s , as Robert Conquest's The Great T e r r o r d e s c r i b e s , were obtained through the use of b e a t i n g s , s t a r v a t i o n , d e p r i v a t i o n of s l e e p , as w e l l as p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s s u r e s , such as f a m i l y denunciations and b l a c k m a i l . 2 6 Conquest, p. 620n. 27 P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w with V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h , 29 May 1981. Counts, p. 129. CHAPTER THREE THE JEWS: MOISEI STALIN In "V krugu druzei" (Circle of Friends), the chapter of Chonkin Voinovich withheld from publication, the reader encounters the two characters representing Kaganovich and Voroshilov engaged i n f i s t i c u f f s . The cause: Voroshilov has c a l l e d Kaganovich a "zhid" ("kike"). S t a l i n stops the f i g h t and orders Voroshilov to r i d himself of his Russian chauvinis by reading a l l Stalin's works on the n a t i o n a l i t i e s - question. He warns Kaganovich, however, "'. . . you didn't behave ri g h t either. You Jews do nothing but furnish anti-Semitism with ammunition by your appearance and provocative behaviour. I'm getting t i r e d of struggling with anti-Semitism; at some point I ' l l get fed up.'" 1 The o f f i c i a l state f i c t i o n declares that the Jews have been completely assimilated into Soviet l i f e . As a result Jews are depicted as ethni c a l l y neuter. They have no 2 problems or aspirations that result from t h e i r Jewishness. Anti-Semitism does not concern o f f i c i a l Soviet l i t e r a t u r e . As Maurice Friedberg has pointed out: Because the prerevolutionary period i s the only one i n Russian history during which the existence of anti-Semitism i s , while minimized, at least acknowledged, Soviet l i t e r a t u r e can treat the subject with some degree of truth. Things change abruptly as we move from Russia of the Tsars to the Soviet era. From now on the problem's -83-e x i s t e n c e i s not only minimized, o f t e n i t i s simply denied. Unless the c a r r i e r s of a n t i - S e m i t i s m can be shown as being c l e a r l y beyond the S o v i e t a u t h o r i t i e s c o n t r o l - e.g. members of enemy armed f o r c e s - the problem's presence i s merely wished away or passed over i n premeditated s i l e n c e . 3 The Jew as a l i t e r a r y c h a r a c t e r has had an uneven r e c e p t i o n i n S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e . E a r l y S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e produced Jewish c h a r a c t e r s who were f r i g h t e n e d , p a s s i v e , u s u a l l y e l d e r l y , and o f t e n sympathetic or a c t i v e Communist 4 supporters. F u l l - b o d i e d Jewish c h a r a c t e r s appear only i n the works of Isaac Babel.^ Jewish v i l l a i n s reappear with the i n t r o d u c t i o n i n 1922 of the New Economic P o l i c y . In the " i n d u s t r i a l " novels of the e a r l y 1930's there were p o s i t i v e Jewish heroes, but they were Jews i n o r i g i n only and t h e i r names or a d i s c r e e t r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r p a r e nts' "Jewish" occupation or address only could i d e n t i f y them as Jews. The l i t e r a t u r e of the war years d e p i c t e d Jews who fought and d i e d f o r the Motherland, but p o r t r a y e d them f i r s t and foremost as S o v i e t c i t i z e n s and Communists. 7 P o s t - S t a l i n S o v i e t w r i t i n g o f f e r s both more " r e a l i s t i c " p o r t r a y a l s of Jewish c h a r a c t e r s , as w e l l as a v a r i e t y of Jewish v i l l a i n s . Despite the c a l l f o r g r e a t e r s i n c e r i t y i n l i t e r a t u r e s i n c e S t a l i n ' s death, p o s t - S t a l i n l i t e r a t u r e ' s 9 p o r t r a i t of the Jew d u r i n g the war p e r i o d i s i n c o n s i s t e n t . A "thaw" would see some candor, while a " f r e e z e " would see a r e v e r s i o n to the S t a l i n i s t model. A few w r i t e r s , however, have mentioned the h i t h e r t o taboo subject of wartime S o v i e t -84-10 anti-Semitism. Chonkin o f f e r s a Jewish hero and an a n t i -Semitic o f f i c i a l j u s t a f t e r war was d e c l a r e d i n 1941. What the reader encounters i s not war-time a n t i - S e m i t i s m but t y p i c a l Russian anti-Semitism. With every evidence of s i n c e r i t y , a S o v i e t diplomat once e x p l a i n e d to an American h i s t o r i a n t h a t the word " a n t i -Semitism" means i n Russian only the k i l l i n g , b e a t i n g , j a i l i n g , and g h e t t o i z a t i o n of Jews, not the m i l d e r forms of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and contempt that word now i n c l u d e s i n 11 E n g l i s h . T h e r e f o r e , the diplomat continued, there i s no anti - S e m i t i s m i n the USSR. The o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e to a n t i -Semitism i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n an episode i n I l f and Petrov's n o v e l , The Golden C a l f , wherein one of the c h a r a c t e r s t e l l s a f o r e i g n r e p o r t e r that i n the So v i e t s t a t e there are Jews, but no Jewish problem. There i s a problem and a s e r i o u s one. The Harvard U n i v e r s i t y ' s Russian Research Centre i n t e r v i e w e d S o v i e t refugees i n 1950-1951 and found a h i g h 12 frequency of s t e r e o t y p i n g of Jews. Approximately t h r e e -quarters of the respondents b e l i e v e d Jews to have d i s t i n c t i v e personal g r o u p - t r a i t s : 1. Jews occupy a p r i v i l e g e d and favored p o s i t i o n i n S o v i e t s o c i e t y . 2. Jews are b u s i n e s s - and money-minded. 3. Jews are c l a n n i s h and help each other. 4. Jews are a g g r e s s i v e and "pushy." 5. Jews are s l y , c a l c u l a t i n g , and m a n i p u l a t i v e , and know how "to use a s i t u a t i o n . " 6. Jews are d e c e i t f u l , d ishonest, u n p r i n c i p l e d , i n s o l e n t and impudent. 7. Jews don't l i k e to work hard. 8 Jews are cowards and serve only i n the r e a r of the armed f o r c e s 9. Jews have a d i s t i n c t i v e physiognomy and accent 10 Jews don't d r i n k and don't f i g h t , 11. Jews are smart and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y o r i e n t e d . 12. Jews are devoted to t h e i r f a m i l i e s and take a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 13. Jews make good musicians and d o c t o r s . 14. Jews are r e l i g i o u s (some c a l l e d them r e l i g i o u s " f a n a t i c s " ) . H e drick Smith, w r i t i n g t wenty-five years l a t e r , noted these 13 same a t t i t u d e s i n present-day S o v i e t R u s s i a . Anti-Semitism was a common f e a t u r e of T s a r i s t R u s s i a , e s p e c i a l l y i n Jewish Pale of Settlement, t h a t area i n western Russia where most Jews were compelled to l i v e . Pogroms, whether o f f i c i a l l y sponsored or spontaneous l o c a l o u t b u r s t s , were frequent. The year 1881 saw a s e r i e s of pogroms that evoked an i n d i f f e r e n t or even approving a t t i t u d e on the p a r t of some Russian r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s . They saw the pogroms as an a u t h e n t i c mass p r o t e s t and the prelude to a broader movement, h o p e f u l l y the r e v o l u t i o n i t s e l f . A commentator on the s u b j e c t wrote i n Narodnaia v o l i a : "The Party cannot take an i n d i f f e r e n t , l e t alone n e g a t i v e , a t t i t u d e towards a genuinely popular movement. The French R e v o l u t i o n had i t s excesses, but i t s 14 le a d e r s d i d not t h e r e f o r e r e p u d i a t e i t . " The r e v o l u t i o n a r y -es -86-a l s o p u b l i s h e d p r o t e s t s a g a i n s t the v i o l e n c e and upbraided the r i o t e r s , but the censure was m i l d . Avrahm Yarmolinsky contends that d u r i n g the second h a l f of the n i n e t e e n t h century 15 extreme r a d i c a l i s m was sometimes t i n g e d with a n t i - S e m i t i s m . On 30 August 1881 the e x e c u t i v e committee of Narodnaia v o l i a i s s u e d to the U k r a i n i a n s a p r o c l a m a t i o n which j u s t i f i e d and p r a i s e d the pogroms (The U k r a i n i a n s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the v i l l a g e s , have a r e p u t a t i o n f o r being the most a n t i - S e m i t i c of any of the n a t i o n a l groups i n the S o v i e t Union, a r e p u t a t i o n t h a t dates from w e l l before the R e v o l u t i o n ) : Good people, honest U k r a i n i a n people! L i f e has become hard i n the Ukraine, and i t keeps g e t t i n g harder. The damned p o l i c e beat you, the landowners devour you, the k i k e s , the d i r t y Judases, rob you. People i n the Ukraine s u f f e r most of a l l from the k i k e s . Who has s e i z e d the la n d , the woodlands, the taverns? The k i k e s . Whom does the peasant beg with t e a r s i n h i s eyes to l e t him near h i s own land? The k i k e . Wherever you look, whatever you touch, everywhere the k i k e s . The k i k e curses the peasant, cheats him, d r i n k s h i s blood. The k i k e s make l i f e unbearable. Though some of the group's f o l l o w e r s d i s a g r e e d with the l e a f -l e t , Narodnaia v o l i a , i n October 1881, i s s u e d a statement d e c l a r i n g that the proclamation represented the o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n of the e x e c u t i v e committee: "We have no r i g h t to respond h o s t i l e l y or even i n d i f f e r e n t l y to a t r u l y popular 17 movement i . e . the pogroms." The l e a f l e t was i m p l i c i t l y disavowed i n the l e a d i n g a r t i c l e i n Narodnaia v o l i a i n February 1882. A year l a t e r , however, the U k r a i n i a n s were urged by the P a r t y to r e c a l l t h e i r g l o r i o u s a n c e s t o r s who had d r i v e n the Jews and the gentry out of the Ukraine with 18 f i r e and sword. In the summer of 1883, the P a r t y ' s e x e c u t i v e committee i s s u e d a proclamation t h a t blamed the Jews f o r the pogroms and condemned the a u t h o r i t i e s f o r p u t t i n g 19 them down by f o r c e . Another p u b l i c a t i o n d e c l a r e d : "We do not t h i n k that the d i s o r d e r s w i l l achieve t h e i r end but we r e j o i c e i n the e d u c a t i o n a l e f f e c t s of such occur r e n c e s . . . . Let us remind o u r s e l v e s that the French R e v o l u t i o n , too, began with massacres of Jews ( T a i n e ) . I t i s a sad f a t e , which i s 20 ap p a r e n t l y unavoidable." Lev Deutsch, w r i t i n g to Peter Lavrov, summarized the i s s u e : r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s must f i g h t f o r r a c i a l e q u a l i t y , but the peasants would say th a t the s o c i a l i s t s had not only k i l l e d the Tsar but si d e d w i t h the Jews. Though he p e r s o n a l l y found the s i t u a t i o n d i s t a s t e f u l he f e l t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s were f i r s t to the Party and i t s i n t e r e s t s , r a t h e r 21 than to h i s f e l l o w Jews. Jewish r a d i c a l s were, i n many cases, d i s i l l u s i o n e d by the a n t i - S e m i t i s m they found i n the r e v o l u t i o n a r y movement. Many l o s t t h e i r b e l i e f i n s o c i a l i s m as a s o l u t i o n to the Jewish q u e s t i o n and, i n s t e a d , d i s c o v e r e d a new s o l i d a r i t y with f e l l o w Jews. Plekhanov's wife r e c a l l e d t h a t "Deep down i n the so u l of each one of us there was a sense of hurt p r i d e and i n f i n i t e p i t y f o r our own, and many of us were s t r o n g l y tempted to devote o u r s e l v e s to s e r v i n g our i n j u r e d , 22 h u m i l i a t e d and persecuted people." Pavel A k s e l r o d summed up the l e s s o n s of the pogroms f o r Jewish s o c i a l i s t s i n an -88-unfinished and unpublished pamphlet he had started to write for Chernyi peredel's press: Long accustomed to the idea that there was r e a l l y no such thing as a Jewish people, that Jews were merely a group of Russian subjects who would l a t e r become a group of Russian c i t i z e n s , that Jews could not be segregated s o c i a l l y or c u l t u r a l l y from the "native" population, the Jewish s o c i a l i s t i n t e l l i g e n t s i a suddenly realized that the majority of this Russian society did, as a matter of f a c t , regard the Jews as a separate nation and that they considered a l l Jews - a pious Jewish worker, a p e t i t bourgeois, a moneylender, an assimilated lawyer, a s o c i a l i s t prepared for prison or deportation - as kikes, harmful to Russia, whom Russia should get r i d of by any and a l l means.23 After one hundred years Akselrod's verdict s t i l l holds true. The revolution o f f i c i a l l y decried anti-Semitism, following the example set by Lenin - but the t r a d i t i o n continued. In November 1926, Mikhail K a l i n i n , the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, made a frank admission that " . . . Russian i n t e l l i g e n t s i a perhaps [ i s ] more a n t i -2 4-Semitic today that i t was under Tsarism." Pravda, i n February 1929, reported frequent instances of anti-Semitic incidents. In Dagestan, for example, i n the twenties, the ancient accusation that Jews use the blood of children (in this instance, Moslem children) for r i t u a l purposes provoked 25 a l o c a l pogrom and then a public investigation. Merle Fainsod found considerable evidence i n the 2 6 Smolensk archives of popular anti-Semitism i n the twenties. The "Jewish bourgeoisie" was the Smolensk peasants' label for 27 Soviet ru l e . The archives give a number of examples where -89-the l o c a l p o p u l a t i o n l i n k e d the Jews with the Communists i n t h e i r d e n u n c i a t i o n s of the Soviet regime. These peasants were se a r c h i n g f o r someone to h o l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i f f i c u l t times t h a t had b e f a l l e n Smolensk. Rampant anti - S e m i t i s m developed i n the 1930s, growing ever more v i c i o u s as the decade progressed, i n t e r r u p t e d only by a few years of n a t i o n a l u n i t y d u r i n g and immediately a f t e r 2 8 the war. From the l a t e t h i r t i e s and e a r l y f o r t i e s d i s c r i m i -n a t i o n a g a i n s t Jews became an i n t e g r a l p a r t of o f f i c i a l s t a t e 29 p o l i c y i n p r a c t i c e , d e s p i t e o f f i c i a l pronouncements. During the three years of the N a z i - S o v i e t Non-Aggression Pact (1939-1941) Jews were dismissed from t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . According to H i t l e r , S t a l i n t o l d the German F o r e i g n M i n i s t e r i n the f a l l of 1939 that S o v i e t Jews would be ousted from l e a d i n g p o s i t i o n s the moment s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i f i e d non-Jews 30 cou l d be found. The comment bears the marks of both d i p l o m a t i c gesture and inherent a n t i - S e m i t i s m . W i l l i a m Korey argued that o f f i c i a l a n t i - S e m i t i s m "must c l e a r l y be seen as a f u n c t i o n of i n t e r n a l developments beginning i n the l a t e t h i r t i e s and c o n t i n u i n g i n t o the 31 f o r t i e s . " He o f f e r s two i n t e r n a l developments as reasons: f i r s t , a deepening Russian n a t i o n a l i s m , b o r d e r i n g on xenophobia, accompanied by an unleashed Russian chauvinism; second, the e r e c t i o n of a t o t a l i t a r i a n s t r u c t u r e t h a t c o u l d not t o l e r a t e genuinely autonomous or co r p o r a t e s o c i a l u n i t s -e s p e c i a l l y the Jews whose r e l i g i o u s , c u l t u r a l , emotional, and -90-32 o f t e n f a m i l y t i e s transcended n a t i o n a l boundaries. Korey b e l i e v e d that Hannah Arendt's theory - t h a t t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m r e q u i r e s an " o b j e c t i v e enemy" who i s the " c a r r i e r of subversive t e n d e n c i e s " - i s a p p l i c a b l e i n the S o v i e t i n s t a n c e . In the So v i e t system i n which only p l o t s and c o n s p i r a c i e s may defeat " s c i e n t i f i c a l l y planned programmes,"the Jew i s 33 c o n v e n i e n t l y c a s t i n the r o l e of scapegoat. During World War I I , r e i n f o r c e d to some degree by Nazi propaganda, a n t i - S e m i t i s m found numerous e x p r e s s i o n s . These have been d e s c r i b e d i n A n a t o l y i Kuznetsov's Babyi i a r , I I ' i a Erenburg's memoirs, and i n the accounts of S o v i e t p a r t i s a n u n i t s . Nazi attempts to i n c i t e l o c a l pogroms met with l i t t l e success i n the S o v i e t Union and only i n the Ukraine, a t r a d i t i o n a l hotbed of anti-Semitism, were some c o l l a b o r a t o r s f o u n d . ^ 4 Returning Jewish army veterans and refugees found i n the post-war S o v i e t Union a d i s t i n c t l y h o s t i l e popular o p i n i o n i n many p l a c e s . T h i s a t t i t u d e was i n t e n s i f i e d no doubt by the o f f i c i a l a n t i - c o s m o p o l i t a n campaign which was d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t 35 the Jews from 1949. Latent popular sentiment was r e v e a l e d d u r i n g the "Doctors' P l o t " i n 1953 when a group of d o c t o r s , mainly Jews, were accused of p o i s o n i n g or k i l l i n g prominent Soviet l e a d e r s . An American j o u r n a l i s t , H a r r i s o n S a l i s b u r y , v i s i t e d Moscow i n A p r i l 1953, s h o r t l y a f t e r S t a l i n ' s death when the " P l o t " was r e v e a l e d to be a hoax f a b r i c a t e d by the se c r e t p o l i c e . He found many Muscovites who b e l i e v e d the " P l o t " and who would provide i n s t a n c e s of other untrustworthy Jewish d o c t o r s . The depth of popular a n t i - J e w i s h f e e l i n g that b u r s t f o r t h i n the f i r s t three months of t h a t year l e d S a l i s b u r y to conclude that the Russian people have a " t e r r i b l e , t e r r i b l e need . . . f o r a scapegoat, f o r some one or some people on whom to p i l e the blame and the g u i l t f o r 3 6 the h o r r o r s of the S t a l i n epoch." D e s p i t e o f f i c i a l d e n i a l s few o u t s i d e r s s t i l l doubt that a n t i - S e m i t i s m continues to play a great r o l e i n the p o s t -37 S t a l i n e r a . The Jew, f o r example, became the v i l l a i n d u r i n g the campaign a g a i n s t economic crimes d u r i n g 1961-1964. The State was concerned about the extensive b l a c k market a c t i v -i t i e s , b r i b e r y , currency s p e c u l a t i o n , and s t e a l i n g of p u b l i c p r o p e r t y and i n May 1961 decreed an e x t e n s i o n of the d e f i n i t i o n of economic o f f e n c e s and r e i n t r o d u c e d the death pe n a l t y f o r such o f f e n c e s . The campaign was conducted on the propaganda l e v e l with a f u r i o u s i n t e n s i t y . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission of J u r i s t s found that the number of Jews sentenced to long p r i s o n terms or executed was " g r e a t l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e to t h e i r number as a m i n o r i t y group" and t h a t "an i n s i d i o u s and sometimes s u b t l e propaganda campaign" a g a i n s t Jews 3 8 c h a r a c t e r i z e d the press coverage. The Commission demon-s t r a t e d t h at a n t i - S e m i t i s m was c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d with the economic o f f e n c e s campaign. During the campaign, i n October 1963, the U k r a i n i a n Academy of Sciences i n K i e v p u b l i s h e d Judaism Without -92-39 Embellishment Trofim Kichko. Complete with cartoons of Jews with hooked noses, the book depicted Judaism as a b e l i e f which promoted hypocrisy, bribery, greed, and usury. After international protest the Central Committee i n A p r i l 1964 published a censure of the Kichko work stating that the book "might be" interpreted i n the s p i r i t of anti-Semitism. Yet other anti-Semitic works appeared. In 1963 A. Osipov published Catechism Without Embellishment which stated that God recommends to Jews to practise real r a c i a l discrimination against other f a i t h s . 4 ^ In Moldavia Soviet authorities published Contemporary Judaism and Zionism by F. S. Maiatskii in 1964 (just a f t e r the Kichko censure appeared) using as sources materials prepared during the Doctors' Plot of 1953 to suggest li n k s between Zionism, Jewish bankers, and Western 41 in t e l l i g e n c e agencies. Written i n Ukrainian and Moldavian (and not Russian or Yiddish, the language of the l o c a l Jews) these books cannot be dismissed as examples of ongoing Soviet a n t i - r e l i g i o u s propaganda. The propaganda c l e a r l y was aimed at the general population of these two republics and could only stimulate or reinforce strong t r a d i t i o n a l currents of a n t i -c 42 Semitism. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev admitted to a group of French S o c i a l i s t parliamentarians that anti-Semitism s t i l l existed i n the Soviet Union, a remark l a t e r repeated by Politburo 43 member, Anastas Mikoian. Premier Kosygin, i n July 1965, c r i t i c i z e d the existence of anti-Semitism i n the Soviet Union and the party newspaper Pravda recognized the extent of a n t i -Semitic prejudices i n a rare e d i t o r i a l on 5 September 1965 i n which Lenin's demand for an unceasing struggle against anti-Semitism was r e c a l l e d . 4 4 Soviet s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s were aware of the character of the problem. In the September 1966 issue of Novyi mir the sociologist I. Kron published an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Psikhologiia predrassudka" (The Psychology of P r e j u d i c e ) . 4 ^ It discussed the "socio-psychological roots of ethnic bias" i n the United States. At the a r t i c l e ' s end, however, the author suggested that the Soviet Union also had a n a t i o n a l i t y problem. Prejudices had not disappeared e n t i r e l y , Kron warned, and when d i f f i c u l t i e s arose these prejudices would again make themselves known and influence backward sections of the i . . 46 population. Kron's forecasts were proven true by the o f f i c i a l Soviet reaction to the Six Day War between Israel and Egypt i n June 1967. The Soviet authorities unleashed a v i o l e n t a n t i - I s r a e l and a n t i - Z i o n i s t campaign i n the media, climaxed by the t r i a l s 47 of Jews during 1970-1971. The I s r a e l i s were equated with the Nazis and the attacks against the Zionists had a n t i -Semitic undertones. During the seventies this v i r u l e n t o f f i c i a l campaign continued with support from the neo-n a t i o n a l i s t (or "New Right") c i r c l e s . One of i t s results was an increase i n the number of Jews who applied to emigrate to the West. 48 -94-Academician Andrei Sakharov i n 1968 used the phrase " z o o l o g i c a l k i n d of anti-Semitism" to c h a r a c t e r i z e the t h i n k i of S t a l i n i s t b u r eaucrats, the NKVD, and S t a l i n h i m s e l f . T h i s e s p e c i a l l y p r i m i t i v e and v i r u l e n t form of Jew-baiting, maintains the famous p h y s i c i s t , has not been d i s p e l l e d , The h i s t o r i a n , Andrei Amalrik, has d e s c r i b e d a f e a t u r e of c u r r e n t S o v i e t thought that expresses "extreme scorn and h o s t i l i t y toward e v e r y t h i n g non-Russian." The i n t e g r a l elements of t h i s new Great Russian n a t i o n a l i s m , he adds, are " n a t i o n a l enemies," of which Amalrik l i s t s two: the Chinese 49 and the Jews. A l b e r t E i n s t e i n once observed t h a t "a people a n a t i o n , i s l i k e a t r e e which i s born w i t h i t s own shadow." The "shadow" of the Russians, he p o i n t s out, i s a n t i -c .... 50 Semitism. The State o f t e n attempts to p r o f i t from popular a n t i -Semitic sentiments. J u s t prior to h i s e x p u l s i o n from the Soviet W r i t e r s ' Union i n 1969 S o l z h e n i t s y n was the s u b j e c t of a campaign of s l a n d e r . Zhores Medvedev has d e s c r i b e d one approach: "At an i d e o l o g i c a l l e c t u r e g i v e n i n a Moscow p u b l i s h i n g house, the speaker c r i t i c i z e d S o l z h e n i t s y n and r e f e r r e d to him c o n t i n u a l l y as ' S o l z h e n i t s e r . ' A note was passed to him from the audience p o i n t i n g out t h a t he was mispronouncing the w r i t e r ' s surname. The l e c t u r e r r e p l i e d to the note by s a y i n g : 'No, i t ' s not a mistake. The person known to you as S o l z h e n i t s y n i s r e a l l y S o l z h e n i t s e r and he's 51 a Jew.'" Had the speaker convinced h i s audience that -95-S o l z h e n i t s y n was a Jew, he would have been d i s c r e d i t e d . Overt and c o v e r t Soviet a n t i - S e m i t i s m concerns many of Russia's i n t e l l e c t u a l s and has r e s u l t e d i n a p h i l o - S e m i t i s m that i d e n t i f i e s the cause of the i n t e l l e c t u a l s w i t h that of the Jews. Consider, f o r example, the theme of E v g e n i i Evtushenko's poem, "Babyi I a r " or Andrei S i n i a v s k i i ' s c h o i c e of a Jewish pseudonym, Abram T e r t s . A n t i - S e m i t i s m i s a l s o a popular s u b j e c t i n samizdat or d i s s i d e n t S o v i e t l i t e r a t u r e , i n the w r i t i n g s of both Jewish and non-Jewish authors. V l a d i m i r V o i n o v i c h has h i m s e l f s u f f e r e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n because of h i s supposedly Jewish surname. He d i s c u s s e d the i n c i d e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w r e p o r t e d i n Russkaia mysl' ( P a r i s ) , 27 February 1975. D e s c r i b i n g to the i n t e r v i e w e r s the two r e f u s a l s f o r h i s admission i n t o the L i t e r a t u r e I n s t i t u t e i n Moscow (once i n 1956, then i n 1957), he s a i d : "'They d i d not accept me because of my s u s p i c i o u s surname: was i t not Jewish?' The i n t e r v i e w e r s ask: 'So, you and your f a t h e r ' s surname i s not i n the l e a s t Jewish?' 'My mother i s a Jew, but a c c o r d i n g to my passport I am a Russian. And the surname i s indeed not Jewish [but S e r b i a n ] . But i t resembles a Jewish name: V o i n o v i c h . . . Rabinovich [a name u s u a l l y used i n a n t i - S e m i t i c S o v i e t anecdotes] . . . " Of course t h i s was not t o l d him o u t r i g h t . Only a f t e r some time d i d V o i n o v i c h d i s c o v e r that ten h o l d e r s of ' s u s p i c i o u s ' surnames, that number i n c l u d i n g him, were withdrawn from the number of past i,52 competitions. -96-V o i n o v i c h made b r i e f r e f e r e n c e to a n t i - S e m i t i s m i n h i s 53 short s t o r y , "Khochu byt' chestnym." The hero, Zhenia Samokhin, keeps on h i s n i g h t - t a b l e a p i c t u r e of Rosa, h i s one true l o v e . No woman has been the equal of the eighteen-year o l d g i r l he met i n Kiev at the beginning of 1941 when they were both young students. He f e l l i n love w i t h her because, as he remembers, she was young, b e a u t i f u l , smart, good, and u n u s u a l l y s e n s i t i v e and tender. When the Germans invaded Kiev, f o r some reason Rosa d i d not leave the c i t y . The reader can guess the r e s u l t ; the n a r r a t o r has i d e n t i f i e d her as a Jew (her "elongated f a c e " , her name). The n a r r a t o r confirms the reader's s u s p i c i o n s i n the next sentence: "The mass grave [of Jews] at Babyi Iar i s probably hers as w e l l " . In a long scene i n Chonkin V o i n o v i c h c o n f r o n t s S o v i e t a n t i - S e m i t i s m . He presents h i s reader w i t h a Jewish t r i c k s t e r f i g u r e who i s capable of r e v e r s i n g the u s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n to c r e a t e an i n s t a n c e of a n t i - G e n t i l i s m (or "anti-goyism," i f you wish) that i s both funny and c r u e l . The episode i s b u i l t on a simple p l o t : M o i s e i (Moisha) S t a l i n , an o l d Jewish shoemaker, attempts to s e l l boot-tops one Sunday morning at the market i n Dolgov. He i s stopped and questioned by S v i n t s o v , a subordinate member of "The Right P l a c e " (Kuda nado), a l s o known as "The I n s t i t u t e " -both p l e a s a n t enough euphemisms f o r the S o v i e t s e c r e t p o l i c e . M o i s e i ' s answers provoke S v i n t s o v to a r r e s t him while the crowds shout t h a t a spy has been found. M o i s e i spends the -97-night i n prison and meets the Captain of "The Right Place," Afanasii Miliaga, the next morning. The reader learns the d e t a i l s of the arrest when Miliaga attempts to interrogate Moisei. What ensues, however, i s not an interrogation but a verbal jousting match. Consider the opponents by t h e i r " t a l k i n g " names. Miliaga i s a surname from the "prostorechie"(popular speech, common parlance) "miliaga" ("sweet, nice, sympathetic fellow; sweet being"). The s u f f i x "-iaga" (or "-aga") appears i n a number of Russian words categorized as "prostorechie" or "razgovornoe slovo" (colloquial word): for example, "pobrodiaga," "serdiaga ," "trudiaga," "deliaga," "koniaga." "parniaga," "khitriaga ," "simpatiaga," "prostiaga " s t i l i a g a , " "bedniaga." ^ 4 In reference to people, the "-iaga" s u f f i x gives a f a m i l i a r tone that i s s l i g h t l y pejorative as well as s l i g h t l y affectionate. The s u f f i x also contradicts the l e x i c a l meaning of the stem so that a "prostorechie" that refers to a person i s i t s e l f a one-word oxymoron. Miliaga i s a good example, wherein the "-iaga," i n i t s e l f contradictory, disparages the " m i l y i . " Miliaga i s assisted from time to time by Sergeant Klim Svintsov ("swinish"). Standing opposed to these two characters i s Moisei Solomonovich S t a l i n . The old shoemaker c a l l s to mind the b i b l i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l figures whose names he c a r r i e s : Moses, the B i b l i c a l leader who brought the I s r a e l i t e s out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, received the Ten Commandments from -98-God, and gave laws to the people; Solomon, the son of David and king of Israel i n the tenth century, B.C. who b u i l t the f i r s t Temple and was noted for his wisdom; and S t a l i n , the cruel Soviet tsar. Moisei S t a l i n represents power, strength, and purpose. Even before the sparring begins, the contestants appear not to be equally matched and the best bet i s not the young captain from The Institue. In the above-mentioned interview i n Russkaia mysl' Voinovich dismissed the notion that he was a Jew. The episode between Miliaga and Moisei S t a l i n , however, c a l l s to mind t y p i c a l "Jewish" humour. Robert A l t e r pointed out "that Jewish humour deflates the awesomeness of suffering: i t not only shrinks inevitable pain to the dimensions of a 'world of homey p r a c t i c a l r e a l i t i e s ' but conceives of i t as 'incongruous with dignity'; the re s u l t i s that an 'aura of r i d i c u l e ' succeeds i n r e l i e v i n g sad hearts and overburdened s h o u l d e r s . " J a m e s Feibleman described the archetypical Wandering Jew: "The alternation of impudence and cringing i s exactly that of the Wandering Jew, whose differences have caused him to be so unjustly kicked about and whose a b i l i t i e s have been so extravagantly praised that the speedy change from an impudent to a cringing attitude has come to be of necessity a part of his equipment. He l i v e s either i n the Ghetto or i n a palace; he i s either a second-class c i t i z e n or the master of history. Thus he constitutes a sort of l i v i n g s a t i r e on his own times, t h e i r habits, customs and -99-5 6 i n s t i t u t i o n s . " A l t e r and Feibleman bring forward insights into Jewish humour that are important to keep i n mind i n a discussion of the Miliaga-Moisei episode i n Voinovich's novel: Jewish humour "deflates the awesomeness of s u f f e r i n g , " provides an "aura of r i d i c u l e , " and gives the reader a hero capable of making "the speedy change from an impudent to a cringing attitude [that] has come to be of necessity a part of his equipment." Moisei manages to maintain dignity throughout the episode. Voinovich succeeds i n providing an aura of r i d i c u l e to a deplorable h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n (Soviet anti-Semitism) by juxtaposing i t to a humorous l i t e r a r y s i t u a t i o n : anti-Gentilism. Moisei i s , moreover, a novel kind of Wandering Jew. Rather than cringing he i s an e n t i r e l y impudent, i f not arrogant, hero. The cringing i s l e f t to Moisei's opponent. Above I described t h i s episode as a verbal joust between Miliaga and Moisei. As i n a joust or almost any game, the issue between the captain and the shoemaker i s control, i . e . who w i l l control the match and eventually topple his opponent and be master. As i n a chess-game, t h e i r match proceeds i n moves and countermoves, each move precipitated by that of the opponent. The episode, the actual meeting between Captain Miliaga and Moisei S t a l i n , begins with an unexpected and apparently anti-Semitic remark on the part of the narrator: "The door flew open. Nudged by Svintsov, a poorly dressed elderly old -100-man whose n a t i o n a l i t y c o u l d be t o l d at a s i n g l e glance entered the o f f i c e . " (p. 199). Continuing i n t h i s key - and r e c a l l i n g the Harvard Study t h a t showed respondents b e l i e v e d Jews to have d i s t i n c t i v e p e r s o n a l g r o u p - t r a i t s - the o l d man, having been d e s c r i b e d as a p h y s i c a l type, i s then c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a l i n g u i s t i c type, h i s m i s p r o n u n c i a t i o n i d e n t i f y i n g him as a Jew: - Z d g a v s t u i t e , n a c h a l ' n i k ! - s k a z a l on, ne v y g o v a r i v a i a , bykvy " r . " - Z d g a v s t u i t e , z d g a v s t u i t e ! -ubrav r u k i za spinu, p o s h u t i l n a c h a l ' n i k . (p. 181) M o i s e i , who had approached the c a p t a i n w i t h h i s hand extended i n an a f f a b l e gesture had by that gesture and by speaking f i r s t i n d i c a t e d that he regarded h i m s e l f as an equal to the c a p t a i n . The a t t i t u d e i s somewhat unusual f o r a man who the day before had been a s s a u l t e d by the c a p t a i n ' s subordinate and who had spent the n i g h t i n p r i s o n . The l i n g u i s t i c mimicry mocks Moisei who n e u t r a l i z e s and r e t u r n s the o f f e n s e by ask i n g the c a p t a i n i f he belongs to the same n a t i o n a l m i n o r i t y as does M o i s e i . The c a p t a i n i s not offended and answers i n the ne g a t i v e . M o i s e i , however, has the l a s t word: "'You can't mean i t ! ' The p r i s o n e r threw up h i s hands. 'And such an i n t e l l i g e n t l o o k to your f a c e ! " (p. 199). The e n t i r e episode i t s e l f i s broken i n t o a number of s i m i l a r scenes. In each M i l i a g a expects t o be i n c o n t r o l but l o s e s i t t o M o i s e i who always has the f i n a l word, u s u a l l y a derogatory one. The i n i t i a l scene a l s o i s a synopsis of the -101-entire episode, at the end of which a vi c t o r i o u s Moisei w i l l be escorted through the door by a frightened and humiliated Miliaga. The opening mutual teasing takes a more serious tone when Miliaga introduces the Institute into the conversation. In an attempt to gain control i n the i r match, Miliaga t r i e s to frighten Moisei: "'That means that you think ending up here i s even worse than f a l l i n g i n front of a car. I can see that you are a very i n t e l l i g e n t man and I l i k e how you evaluate your s i t u a t i o n so accurately!" (p. 200). Moisei's reply i s that of an equal recognizing his opponent's move and his motive: "'I understand you . . . I understand you very well!" (p. 200). Moisei then takes the i n i t i a t i v e and demands that Svintsov be dismissed, r e f e r r i n g to the sergeant as "etot i d i o t . " Then he instructs Miliaga to ask Svintsov why he started pestering the old man at the market. When Svintsov refuses to answer, Moisei w i l l i n g l y offers to t e l l his story and "almost f l a t t e r e d " sees that Miliaga w i l l write his story down on forms. The attack on Svintsov and the drawn-out story are merely t a c t i c s used by Moisei to delay the climac t i c point: the revelation of his surname. Moisei spins out his tale before he admits Svintsov arrested him i n reaction to the former's surname. Even this admission i s drawn out for a l l i t s shock value: -102-. . . 'And i f he doesn't l i k e my l a s t name...' 'What i s your l a s t name?' i n t e r r u p t e d M i l i a g a , h i s pen p o i s e d above the document. 'My l a s t name i s S t a l i n . ' (p. 202) His name, however, i n M i l i a g a ' s e s t i m a t i o n i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the o l d shoemaker's madness and earns M o i s e i a blow from Sv i n t s o v t h a t lands the o l d man on the f l o o r , b l e e d i n g from the nose. Mo i s e i i s n e i t h e r cowed nor s i l e n c e d by the blow. He knows that he has the trump card and that the game w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be h i s . He f o r e c a s t s M i l i a g a ' s f i n a l h u m i l i a t i o n : "'Why are you t a l k i n g so h a r s h l y to me? You can't even begin to imagine what's going to happen when you look at my papers. Y o u ' l l l i c k my blood o f f the f l o o r with your tongue, you and your i d i o t too. Then I ' l l walk over to you, p u l l down my pants, and you and your i d i o t w i l l k i s s my r e a r end.'" (p. 203). In an unexpected and u n t y p i c a l move, the o l d Jewish shoemaker counters p h y s i c a l abuse with v e r b a l abuse. As f o r M i l i a g a , at t h i s p o i n t i n h i s joust with M o i s e i , he i s ahead and winning. At t h i s p o i n t he has achieved h e i g h t s a l l the b e t t e r to f a l l from when the o l d man's trump card i s play e d . The Immediate r e a c t i o n to Mo i s e i ' s r e p l y i s another blow from S v i n t s o v that knocks the o l d man o f f h i s f e e t and knocks h i s dentures out of h i s mouth to break i n t o two pi e c e s a g a i n s t the doorjamb. Only then do S v i n t s o v and M i l i a g a begin the search f o r Moisei's documents. T e r r o r , as M o i s e i had p r e d i c t e d , catches M i l i a g a when he opens the passport: -103-F a i n t l y d i s g u s t e d , the c a p t a i n opened the passport and co u l d not b e l i e v e h i s eyes. Perhaps f o r the f i r s t time i n h i s l i f e the smile s l i p p e d from the c a p t a i n ' s f a c e . I t suddenly seemed dark i n the o f f i c e , and he switched on h i s desk lamp. The l e t t e r s , p a i n s t a k i n g l y t r a c e d out i n the I n d i a ink of the bureaucracy, were dancing about i n f r o n t of Milyaga's eyes and he was t o t a l l y unable to order them. S l a t i n , S a t l i n , S a l t i n . . . No, there was no way around i t , S t a l i n . S t a l i n , M o i s e i Solomonovich. Could he r e a l l y be a r e l a t i v e ? The c a p t a i n s h i v e r e d . He could a l r e a d y see h i m s e l f up ag a i n s t the w a l l . Oh, my God, what's going on here! Of course, and wasn't S t a l i n ' s f a t h e r a shoemaker! (p. 204) With t e r r o r a l s o comes a temporary madness ("For a short time M i l i a g a simply went out of h i s mind . . . ") and then a f a l l to the depths of s e r v i l i t y . M i l i a g a admits M o i s e i * s advantage when he h e s i t a t i n g l y asks "'You . . . he s a i d swallowing h i s s a l i v a , 'you . . . he l i c k e d h i s l i p s . . . 'You are S t a l i n ' s papa?'" (p. 205) . With t h i s q u e s t i o n out i n the open M i l i a g a has f o r f e i t e d the game, one he never had a chance of winning. M o i s e i w i l l always win because he i s a S t a l i n and i n S t a l i n ' s R ussia to hold S t a l i n ' s name even beats h o l d i n g a l l the aces. M o i s e i has h i s opponent down and savours h i s moment of v i c t o r y . He can only express h i s d e l i g h t i n coarse and v u l g a r terms: He s t r u g g l e d to h i s f e e t , sat down across from the c a p t a i n , and looked him i n the eye. "So, scared now, you b a s t a r d ? " he asked with m a l i c i o u s joy. " S i t down, you b a s t a r d , a hundred sores on your head. Now where am I going to get t e e t h l i k e t hese?" (p. 205) M i l i a g a i s saved from complete h u m i l i a t i o n by a -104-" l i f e - s a v i n g " f l a s h of memory. Though Moisei has not i n fact said that he i s Joseph Stalin's father and only that his son made his dentures, he understands that Miliaga fears that he is father to th e i r Leader - and le t s him flounder i n his fears. But Miliaga r e a l i z e s that: If this was Stalin's father, that meant that S t a l i n himself should be named Joseph Moiseyevich. But, a f t e r a l l , Stalin's name was . . . his name was . . . Miliaga found himself t o t a l l y unable to r e c a l l the beloved leader's patronymic. "I'm sorry," he began i n d e c i s i v e l y , "but i t seems to me that Stalin's papa's l a s t name wasn't S t a l i n . And Solomon wasn't his f i r s t name eithe r . " The captain was gradually regaining control of his f a c u l t i e s . "And so just why are you trying to pass yourself off as Comrade Stalin's papa?" (p. 206) Miliaga thinks he has regained control over the si t u a t i o n because he has exposed the old shoemaker's ruse, but i t i s too late i n the game and Miliaga w i l l never best his opponent now. The l a s t part of the episode between Miliaga and Moisei describes the old man's f i n a l v ictory over the young captain, exposing Moisei's talents as a very capable confidence man. Because he rea l i z e s he has triumphed, Moisei has the temerity to expose his "con" and to continue to play i t out to i t s f u l l advantage. Moisei quite readily admits that his son i s Z i n o v i i S t a l i n , a dental technician i n Gomel, Belor u s s i a . ^ 7 In answer to this Miliaga becomes pl a y f u l again and c a l l s i n Svintsov. Moisei, growing worried, r e a l i z e s he must explain -105-to Miliaga what should have been apparent to the captain: "You're not going to c a l l that i d i o t back i n here?" said S t a l i n , beginning to get worried. "You know, I don't advise you to do i t . You're s t i l l a young man, you've got everything ahead of you. Why should you ruin your career? Listen to an old man's advice." "I've already listened to you." The captain smiled. "So l i s t e n some more. I won't charge for my advice. I only want to t e l l you that i f anyone finds out you arrested S t a l i n and beat him up, even i f i t wasn't that S t a l i n , or even his father, but just p l a i n S t a l i n , my God, you couldn't begin to imagine what'11 happen to you!" (p. 206) The captain r e a l i z e s that the old man might be right and dismisses Svintsov as soon as he appears. Moisei explains that he comes by his name r i g h t f u l l y , being the grandson of a steel factory owner. The g i s t of the entire episode i s then reviewed when Miliaga says of the name: "'But a l l the same, i t ' s an awkward coincidence.'" to which Moisei answers: "'Awkward for you, but quite comfortable for me!" (p. 207). The captain knows he has been bested. He tears up the minutes of the interrogation and throws them i n the waste-basket. He extends his hand to Moisei and announces his pleasure on making his guest's acquaintance. Miliaga has admitted f i n a l defeat. Moisei, i n return, presses his advantage and asks for the return of his boot-tops and a permit for the repair of his dentures at the d i s t r i c t poly-c l i n i c . Moisei's vi c t o r y i s immediately r e f l e c t e d i n Miliaga's -106-behaviour d u r i n g the former's b r i e f r e p a r t e e with Kapa, the I n s t i t u t e ' s s e c r e t a r y . When she contemptuously suggests that perhaps the I n s t i t u t e should send M o i s e i to a h e a l t h r e s o r t , M o i s e i answers that he p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e s the r e s o r t s i n the Crimea but f e a r s the Germans w i l l be there soon. Baring her a n t i - S e m i t i c f e e l i n g s Kapa notes that "'The Germans would cure you a l l r i g h t . ' " M o i s e i , secure i n h i s name, r e t u r n s d e r i s i v e remark f o r d e r i s i v e remark, with a p p r o p r i a t e sighs and moans, ending by saying: . . . b i t t e r l y that i f she d i d n ' t change her c o n v i c t i o n s she too would have to k i s s h i s " r e a r end." However, before beginning the ceremony, she would have to wipe her l i p s . "Because of my w i f e , T s i l i a , " he e x p l a i n e d . "She's very j e a l o u s . And i f she catches s i g h t of any l i p s t i c k , t h e r e ' l l be h e l l to pay, such t r o u b l e i n the f a m i l y . " (p. 208) M i l i a g a only smiles and urges a bewildered Kapa to complete the necessary forms. S e v e r a l minutes l a t e r the c a p t a i n accompanies the o l d man to the gate of the I n s t i t u t e "kak samogo pochetnogo g o s t i a . " (p. 191). At the gate the two men meet Mo i s e i ' s wife, T s i l i a , and she has the f i n a l word i n a f i n a l gesture of " a n t i -58 Gentilism." The n a r r a t o r t e l l s the reader that T s i l i a i s accustomed to w a i t i n g and f i l l s the time r e c i t i n g names "of the great men her people had given the world. . . . 1... Marx, Spinoza, L i n c o l n , T r o t s k y , Sverdlov, R o t h s c h i l d ...'" 59 (p. 209). T s i l i a i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n M o i s e i ' s " i n t e r e s t i n g young man," i . e . M i l i a g a , when she d i s c o v e r s that he i s not -107-Jewish. Not only i s she not i n t e r e s t e d , she s c o l d s her husband f o r h i s "bad h a b i t s " : "Where d i d you get that bad h a b i t of yours? As soon as we come to a new p l a c e , r i g h t away you s t a r t up with the goyim. Can't you f i n d y o u r s e l f any other k i n d of company?" (pp. 209-10) The l a s t scene with T s i l i a exposes Moi s e i ' s confidence game. T s i l i a , s u r p r i s i n g l y enough, knows where her husband i s (much to the c a p t a i n ' s s u r p r i s e when he i s t o l d t h i s by M o i s e i ) . The n a r r a t o r t e l l s the reader that she was s i t t i n g on the bench by the I n s t i t u t e ' s gate h o l d i n g her purse and s t a r i n g s t r a i g h t ahead: "You c o u l d t e l l at once that w a i t i n g was her nor