Stalin's Library: A Dictator and His Books

‘My father did not care for poetical and deeply psychological art,’ wrote Svetlana, who was herself a literature student. ‘Yet about Dostoevsky he once said to me that he was a ‘great psychologist’. Unfortunately, I did not ask him what he had in mind – the profound social psychology of The Possessed or the analysis of human behaviour in Crime and Punishment.’⁴⁶

Zhdanov’s deputy, Dmitry Shepilov, recalled that one day the boss called him into his office and told him Stalin was concerned that Soviet commentary was neglecting Dostoevsky’s politics and social philosophy. ‘As Dostoevsky saw it,’ Zhdanov quoted Stalin saying,

there is an element of the satanic and the perverse in each of us. If a man is a materialist, if he does not believe in God, if he – oh horror! – is a socialist, the satanic element wins out, and he becomes a criminal. What an abject philosophy. . . . No wonder Gorky called Dostoevsky the ‘evil genius’ of the Russian people. True, in his best work Dostoevsky described with stunning power the lot of the humiliated and injured, the savage behaviour of those in power. But for what? To call upon the humiliated and injured to struggle against evil, oppression, and tyranny? Far from it. Dostoevsky called for the renunciation of struggle; he called for humility, resignation, Christian virtue. Only that, according to him, could save Russia from the catastrophe of socialism.⁴⁷

Like all memoirs, Shepilov’s story should be treated with caution but politics was always to the fore in Stalin’s judgements of great writers. The year 1952 was the centenary of Gogol’s death, and his life and works were widely commemorated in the USSR. The principal speaker at a celebration meeting in the Bolshoi Theatre in March 1952 told his audience that Marx, Lenin and Stalin approved of Gogol because he was a ‘great ally in the struggle to oppose with ruthless satire all the forces of darkness and hatred, all the forces hostile to peace on earth’. That same day a Pravda editorial declared, in words assumed to be Stalin’s, that ‘Soviet literature is the herald of a new communist morality. Its duty is to paint life in all its diversity and to unmask ruthlessly all that is stagnant, backward and hostile to the people. We need our Gogols and Shchedrins!’ These words were echoed by Georgy Malenkov in his report to the 19th party congress in October 1952 – a speech heavily edited by Stalin: ‘We need Soviet Gogols and Shchedrins who, with the fire of their satire, would burn everything which is undesirable, rotten and dying, everything which retards our progress.’⁴⁸

STALIN’S PRIZES

Another source for Stalin’s views on literature are the deliberations on the award of the state prizes that bore his name. Established in 1939 in honour of Stalin’s sixtieth birthday, more than 11,000 Stalin prizes for scientific, technological and artistic works and achievements were awarded to individuals or groups between 1941 and 1955 (when the award was replaced by the Lenin Prize). Writers, poets and playwrights were the recipients of 264 of these awards. The prizes were prestigious, and lucrative: the top category of award earned the recipient a 100,000-rouble bonus. Most important, the award of a prize signalled that the work in question had the approval of the highest levels of the party and state. In theory, the prizes were awarded on the basis of recommendations by independent committees composed mainly of academics and practitioners. In practice, the awards process was subject to political interference by Stalin and the Politburo. This was particularly true of the work of the Committee on Literature and Art.⁴⁹

Discussion of nominated works usually took place in Stalin’s office: ‘Stalin was probably better prepared for the meetings than anyone else,’ recalled Shepilov. ‘He was always a close reader of current literature, and found time to go over everything of any artistic, social or economic significance.’ Confident as well as diligent, Stalin once asked a group of writers what they thought of this plot line: ‘She’s married, has a child, but falls in love with another man. Her lover does not understand her and she commits suicide.’ Banal, replied the writers. ‘With this banal plot,’ Stalin retorted, ‘Tolstoy wrote Anna Karenina.’

Stalin’s views on works of art oscillated between stressing the importance of political considerations when making awards and insisting on high artistic standards. Among the writers he championed during these discussions were Konstantin Fedin, Alexander Korneichuk, Mikhail Bubennov, Vera Panova, Fedor Panferov, Nikolai Tikhonov, August Jakobson and Semen Babaevsky.⁵⁰