affairs.) In Moscow, these developments strengthened the position of the "conservative" Soviet leaders and prompted Khrushchev, in his fight to remain in power and conserve the Soviet bloc and Russia's leadership of it, to put an end to a development which, known as "the Thaw," had brought a degree of liberalization in post-Stalin policies.

3. Ferment Among Russian Intellectuals

"The Thaw," the phrase used to describe the political climate of the early post-Stalin era, came from the title of a novel by Ilya Ehrenburg. Ehrenburg, a writer sensitive to the changing course and usually playing a semiofficial role, depicted, in his otherwise undistinguished novel, the new, milder climate and the end of repressions. The Thaw was followed by a number of other books written in a freer spirit and sometimes containing bold criticism of the conditions that had prevailed under Stalin's "Socialism." Even the tenet of "Socialist realism" seemed to be coming in question. Similar developments prevailed during the years 1954-56 in the fields of history and philosophy.

The politically significant literary event of 1956-57 was a new novel by Vladimir Dudintsev, Not By Bread Alone. The unfavorable reception of the book by the press and its condemnation by the Communist party marked the end phase of the "thaw." In the book

A school teacher turned inventor, by name Lopatkin, invents a new method for casting drain pipes. Lopatkin, a lone wolf, is frustrated at every turn in trying to get his invention adopted, although it will save the government millions of rubles. His bureaucratic boss, Drozdov, blocks his way, as do the ministries involved. But Drozdov's wife falls in love with Lopatkin and helps him; so does an elderly crackpot individualist inventor. Lopatkin almost starves, but against a variety of gross obstacles pushes doggedly ahead with his invention. He is eventually accused of betraying state secrets, and is packed off to a labor camp in Siberia.89

Mention of Siberian "labor camps" in Soviet novels, up to then taboo (except when the writer was to praise the humanitarian setup of the camps) was now permitted; it served to stress the improvement in the general atmosphere.

.. But one of the judges on the military court that convicted him [Lopatkin] is an honest man, and helps to clear his name. He is released from imprisonment, and at last his invention is adopted and put to use, after a rival machine, supported by Lopatkin's bureaucratic rivals, is proved to be a failure. Lopatkin and the former Madame Drozdov marry and presumably live happily ever after, but Drozdov, the villain, becomes a vice minister. Even so, this ending is apt, artistically effective, and true to Soviet life.40

Gunther, op. cit., p. 288.

The significance of the novel and the boldness of its author were seen in the fact that

The hero is an individualist, who, when down on his luck, calmly lives on borrowed money instead of working. Moreover (horror of Soviet horrors) he sleeps with another man's wife, and other women express interest in his person. The thesis that a good Communist has no room for a personal life is challenged, and the hero wins through in the end, without being forced to give up his principles. One of the most significant lines of the book is spoken by Lopatkin toward the end, when he emerges from incarceration. "Somebody who has learned to think can never be deprived of freedom." Also the presentation of Drozdov shows up a familiar Soviet type for what it is-the man who makes unscrupulous use of Communism to satisfy and expand his own ruthless ego and ambition.*1

Published at the end of the "thaw" era, Dudintsev's novel provoked conflicts in Soviet literary circles and Communist-controlled writers' organizations:

Hundreds of literary meetings took place to discuss Not By Bread Alone, and thousands of agitated words were printed about it. In the end Dudintsev was rebuked, but was not otherwise punished as far as I know... Dudintsev, who must be a resolute character, refused to accept rebuke. One report of the meeting condemning him said that "he brushed aside all criticism in a demagogic speech." People can (sometimes) express themselves in the Soviet Union. Then an astonishing thing happened. No other personage than Mr. Khrushchev leaped into the struggle, and attacked the book for being "slanderous.” 42

In three speeches before meetings of Soviet writers in May and July 1958, Khrushchev tried to restore the predominant role of the Communist party in literature and art-a Stalinist principle that was assailed and negated by many during the "thaw" era. Though repudiating Stalin's extremes, Khrushchev said:

... The Soviet people reject equally such an, in effect, slanderous work as Dudintsev's book "Not By Bread Alone" and such cloyingly sweet films as "Unforgettable 1919" and "Kuban Cossacks."

Unfortunately, there are among our workers in literature and the arts advocates of "creative freedom" who desire us to pass by, not to notice, not to subject to principled appraisal and not to criticize works that portray the life of Soviet society in a distorted fashion. It appears to these people that the guidance of literature and the arts by the party and the state is oppressive. They sometimes oppose this guidance openly; more often, however, they conceal their feelings and desires behind talk of excessive tutelage, the fettering of initiative, etc.

We assert openly that such views run counter to the Leninist principles of the party's and state's attitude to questions of literature and the arts."

“Ibid., pp. 288, 289.

Ibid., p. 289.

Pravda, August 28, 1957, p. 4.

The tenet that independence of literature from the Communist party is an evil was emphasized by the Soviet leader:

One of the primary principles is that Soviet literature and art must be indissolubly linked with the policy of the Communist party, which constitutes the vital foundation of the Soviet system.

It is impossible to tolerate such grave shortcomings in the work of the Moscow branch of the Writers Union, which should set an example for the unions of creative workers in other cities. We hope that the writers themselves, with the aid of the party organizations, will probe the causes of these shortcomings and take steps to correct matters.**

These principles were applied in the case of Boris Pasternak and his novel, Doctor Zhivago. A strictly independent writer, known as a nonCommunist, the Soviet poet, translator and novelist quietly wrote this major work during the last Stalin and early post-Stalin years. The novel dealt with the civil war era in Russia, the fighting, horror, and chaos; but the author was objective in picturing the "Whites," the guerrillas, the everyday life, and the prevailing misery and want; his implicit appeal was for a return to Christian ethics. Soviet publishers, accustomed to presenting anti-Bolsheviks as vicious creatures, were uncertain whether or not to publish the book. The magazine Novyi Mir rejected it in 1956. Still expecting that his novel would be published in Russia, Pasternak submitted it also to an Italian publisher, Feltrinelli. When the Union of Soviet Writers condemned the novel, it requested Feltrinelli to hold up publication. The novel was published in Italy in 1958 and was translated into many languages. In October 1958 the Swedish Academy awarded it the Nobel Prize for Literature. The author's first reaction was one of gratitude in his message to the Academy he said he was "immensely thankful, touched, proud, astonished, and abashed." A storm, initiated by various Communist party groups, began to brew in Moscow:

Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders sat near by as Vladimir Y. Semichastnyi, chief of the Young Communist League, called on the poet to emigrate to his "capitalist paradise."

Television showed more than 12,000 youngsters at a mass rally cheering as Mr. Semichastnyi described Mr. Pasternak as a "pig" who, by "dirtying" the place in which he eats and lives, has done what "even pigs do not do."

Mr. Pasternak, he said, is the proverbial "bad sheep" that appears "even in the good herd." 45

New York Times, October 30, 1958, pp. 1, 2.

If he wanted to emigrate, said the speaker,

I am sure that neither our public nor the Government would create any obstacles.“

The campaign against Pasternak continued for a certain time.

The Moscow section of the Soviet Union of Writers has petitioned the Government to strip "the traitor Pasternak" of his citizenship and expel him from the country.

Eight hundred critics and writers were said to have approved the petition unanimously.

Among other things they said: "No honest person, no writer, none who are loyal to the ideals of peace and progress will ever shake the hand of him who has betrayed his homeland and his people." 47

Pasternak decided to renounce the Nobel Prize. In his second message to the Swedish Academy, he said:

In view of the meaning given to this honor in the community to which I belong, I should abstain from the undeserved prize that has been awarded to me. Do not meet my voluntary refusal with ill-will.48

On November 1, the government, disregarding Pasternak's new message to Stockholm, announced:

In the event that Pasternak should wish to leave the Soviet Union permanently, the Socialist regime and people he has slandered in his antiSoviet work, "Doctor Zhivago," will not raise any obstacles. He can leave the Soviet Union and experience personally "all the fascinations of the capitalist paradise." 49

Pasternak then wrote a letter to Khrushchev:

I am tied to Russia by birth, by life and by work. I cannot imagine my fate separated from and outside of Russia.

*

Whatever my mistakes and errors, I could not imagine that I should be in the center of such a political campaign as has started to be fanned around my name in the West.

Having become conscious of that, I informed the Swedish Academy of my voluntary renunciation of the Nobel Prize.

Leaving my motherland would equal death for me. And that is why I ask that you do not take this final measure in relation to me.

With my hand on my heart, I can say that I have done something for Soviet literature and can be useful to it in the future, 50

t

The violent anti-Pasternak campaign continued, however, and the author decided to make a retreat. In a letter to Pravda, dated November 6, he said:

I accepted the award of the Nobel Prize as a literary distinction. I rejoiced at it and I expressed this in the telegram addressed to the secretary of the Swedish Academy.

But I was wrong. I had reason to make such a mistake because I had already been nominated as candidate for it approximately five years ago, i.e., before my novel existed.

After the end of the week when I saw the scope of the political campaign around my novel, I realized myself that this award was of a political measure, which has now resulted in monstrous consequences, and on my own initiative, without being compelled by anybody, sent my voluntary refusal.

I have never had the intention of causing harm to my state and my people.$1

At the same time the author had to say, "I regret:

The editorial office of Novy Mir warned me that the novel might be understood by readers as a work directed against the October Revolution and the foundations of the Soviet system. I did not realize this, and I now regret it.

Indeed, if one were to take into consideration the conclusions emanating from a critical appraisal of the novel, it would appear that in my novel I am allegedly maintaining the following erroneous principles. I am supposed to have alleged that my revolution is a historically illegal phenomenon, that the October Revolution was such, and that it brought unhappiness to Russia and the downfall of the Russian intelligentsia.

It is clear to me that I cannot endorse such clumsy allegations. At the same time, my work, which has received the Nobel Prize, gave cause to this regrettable interpretation, and this is the reason why I finally gave up the prize.52

The letter, a painful sacrifice for this proud and independent Soviet writer, was accepted as a sign of repentance on the part of Pasternak and no repressive measures were taken against him.

Boris Pasternak died at home on May 30, 1960.

4. End of Collective Leadership

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union continued to grow in size after Stalin's death. From a reported 6,882,145 members at the time of the Nineteenth Congress (October 1952), the membership grew to 7,215,505 in February 1956, the date of the Twentieth Congress, and