PLANS TO PURIFY LITERATURE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20675, 13 March 1937, Page 11 (Supplement)

PLANS TO PURIFY LITERATURE

SCOPE OF SOVIET PLAN COMEDY OF CAUSES REVEALED The Soviet “Literary Encyclopaedia,’’ consisting of 14 volumes, compiled over a period of 10 years, is the first major casualty in the campaign to “purify” Soviet literary criticism. This comprehensive work (says “The Christian Science Monitor”), to which hundreds of Soviet critics contributed, has been discarded, partly because it contains praise of contemporary writers of the wrong political views, and partly because it speaks patronisingly of some of the great Russian classical poets, dramatists, and novelists. Until this year, Soviet critics have felt bound to point out defects in prerevolutionary and foreign “bourgeois’* writers because of their “class origins” or the allegedly demoralising effects of Capitalist society. Last autumn the Kremlin abruptly decided that standard writers must be judged on their merits, and this involved repudiation of a large part of the literary criticism published since the revolution. That the reorganisation of Soviet criticism will be thoroughgoing is indicated by the decision to withdraw from circulation the “Literary Encyclopaedia,” compiled with so much expense and trouble. The Communist newspaper “Pravda.” declared: “This Encyclopaedia, which derides and depreciates the literary inheritance of the Great Russian people, and which reproduces the unclean writings of counter-revolutionary Trotskyists, has no place on Soviet bookshelves.” The first intimation of the new attitude in Soviet criticism came a few months ago. when the Kremlin’s allpowerful Art Committee withdrew from production the comic opera “Titans.” for which the Soviet “poet laureate,” Demyan Bedny, had written a new libretto. The librettist was accused of distorting history by ridiculing the popular heroes of medieval Russia and of minimising the constructive role in Russian history of the Christianising period, which brought Russia into contact with the superior culture of the Byzantine Empire. Having thus revised Communist “ideology,” the Kremlin’s “moulder of thought” began to investigate Soviet publications. They discovered that the “Literary Encyclopaedia” depreciated such Russian writers of genius as Pushkin. Gogol. Ostrovsky, and Lomonosoff. Discussing Pushkin, the “Encyclopaedia” declared: “From Pushkin we can learn how to talk in the language of his class.” “Pravda” now asks: “Who is this critic, thus to patronise the man whom Lenin himself considered the creator of our literary language?” As another horrible example “Pravda” cited the "Encyclopaedia’s” statement that "the soil which produced Gogol is that of the petty landlords he describes.” The abrupt change of the Communist approach to literature has thrown all Soviet critics into confusion. They have not yet made up their minds whether they are now free to criticise all “bourgeois” writers according to their merits, or whether they must still qualify in some respects the talents of noh-Sovlet writers because they were not born in the “working class.” One thing is made very clear, however: Soviet writers who have had any contact with opposition Communist groups must be condemned, whatever the merits of their writings seem to be. One reason why the "Literary Encyclopaedia" is being withdrawn is that it contains approving references to several Communist writers who have since been executed, exiled, or disgraced. The 1931 volume of the “Encyclopaedia," for example, describes as “valuable and important” the writings of Leo Kameneff, who was executed last August. In another volume, as "Pravda” pointed out, “Leon Trotsky is mentioned in the same breath as Lenin.” Apparently, party leaders desire to forget that Trotsky and Lenin were “mentioned in the same breath” by all Soviet publications for many years after the revolution.

The present “purification” of Soviet literary criticism appears to treat with more respect the talented pre-revolu-tionary writers of Russia as well as those of foreign countries; secondly, to ignore completely or to dismiss with scorn the writings of all contemporary Communist writers who have become involved at any time in opposition to the victorious party faction now in power.