55 years ago, October 23, 1958 Boris Pasternak awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for the novel Doctor Zhivago. This work is now included in school curriculum, but during the author’s lifetime the novel brought him not only fame, but also problems with the authorities.
1. In the Soviet Union, they refused to publish Doctor Zhivago. Pasternak sent the manuscript of his novel to the literary and artistic magazines “New World” and “Znamya”, as well as to the almanac “Literary Moscow”, but none of the publications decided to publish it.
As a result, the novel was published in Italy, in Milan - according to literary historian Ivan Tolstoy (grandson of the writer Alexei Tolstoy), publication was facilitated by the American CIA.
Oleg Menshikov in the film "Doctor Zhivago". Film adaptation 2005. Photo: Still from the film
2. The Nobel Prize was awarded to the writer with the wording “for significant achievements in modern lyric poetry, as well as for continuing the traditions of the great Russian epic novel.” However, the USSR authorities (led by Khrushchev) the work was considered anti-Soviet and was indignant - as a result, the author was forced to refuse to receive the prize.
The Nobel diploma and medal were handed over to the writer’s son 31 years later - this happened in 1989, after the writer’s death.
3. “I haven’t read it, but I condemn it!” - this is exactly what the writer said about the novel “Doctor Zhivago” Anatoly Sofronov at a meeting of the board of the Union of Writers of the USSR, when the case of Boris Pasternak was considered. And it was under this name that the campaign to “scourge” the writer went down in history: his “treasonous” book, anti-Soviet and published abroad, was condemned by the entire Union - from newspapers and television to workers in factories.
Still from the film "Doctor Zhivago". Film adaptation 2002. Photo: Still from the film
4. The novel is accompanied by poems by the main character - Yuri Andreevich Zhivago. One of them (“Winter Night”) Alla Pugacheva turned it into a song (in her performance the song is called “The Candle Was Burning”).
5. There is still no consensus on where the main character’s surname came from. If you believe Olga Ivinskaya, the writer’s friend and muse, Pasternak once came across a cast-iron sign on the street with the name of the manufacturer, Zhivago, “and decided that let him be like this, unknown, coming from either a merchant or a semi-intelligentsia environment; this man will be his literary hero.” According to the testimony of the poet and prose writer Varlama Shalamova, Pasternak himself spoke about his character like this: “Even as a child, I was amazed and excited by the lines from the church prayer Orthodox Church: “Thou art truly the Christ, the son of the living God.” I repeated this line and childishly put a comma after the word “God.” The result was the mysterious name of Christ “Zhivago”. But I was not thinking about the living God, but about his new name, accessible only to me, “Zhivago.” It took my whole life to make this childhood feeling a reality - to name it after the hero of my novel.”
“I haven’t read Pasternak, but I condemn him.”
It is customary to mock this phrase, and indeed a lot of people mocked it. Probably no less than “there is no sex in the USSR.” The second phrase turned out to be fake. Isn't the first one fake?
For a long time I thought that no, it’s not fake. Everything is logical: to judge, you must first read it. Then I suddenly caught myself thinking about the vagueness of the terms in the phrase. Judging by the breadth of their variations, it is quite possible to say that I have not read either Rezun, Fomenko, or Solzhenitsyn, but I definitely condemn them.
Indeed, from Fomenko I read only the first hundred pages of “Introduction to General Chronology” (or whatever this book is called?), from Rezun only quotes from his books in all sorts of “Antirezuns,” and from Solzhenitsyn nothing at all. At the same time, I have no doubt: the works of these authors are complete and fatal crap.
And secret knowledge was suddenly revealed to me. You don't have to read anyone to know what he writes. And this knowledge is already quite enough to condemn ideas– it wasn’t the quality of Pasternak’s text that was condemned (although I read this Pasternak – it’s not that it’s a complete mess, but the Nobel Prize was clearly for adherence to the general line of the Washington party was awarded). To know, it is enough to hear opinions, read quotes and reviews, or articles in newspapers. The knowledge will not be absolutely reliable. But even reading will not give absolutely reliable knowledge - you can always misunderstand or misinterpret.
Therefore, the premises and logic of the phrase are not at all in the seemingly correct statement “to condemn, you need to read”, but in something completely different: in the veiled “Parsnips are cool, you can’t condemn him.” Moreover, Pasternak’s coolness is not proven, but declared. To realize his coolness, it is not necessary to read it. And if you have already read it, consider that you have thereby proven its coolness. Don't you dare doubt it. Solzhenitsyn, by the way, is cool according to exactly the same principle. A priori . Well, those who condemned them were obviously mistaken and mistaken. Same a priori . Along with the entire Soviet system. The fact that some of them have not read these authors is only a reason to dig in: after all, even if they had read, they would still have condemned them, then they would have been mocked no less.
No one has the right to condemn a writer at all. He seems to have a presumption of absolute innocence. Especially if he really writes well (which, in my opinion, does not apply to Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn. The second, of course, does not apply much more strongly than the first). If the author writes well, then no one has the right to condemn him... Some people think...
In fact, a person usually doesn’t have much time to get acquainted in detail with absolutely every Vasya Pupkin, someone considered a great writer. On the other hand, that same great Vasya Pupkin may pose a direct or indirect danger to this person here and now. That is, convicting Vasya may be downright necessary. For this purpose (it is now obvious) it is not at all necessary to carefully read Vasya’s complete works.
Detailed description:
It is argued that in the USSR in relation to a certain liberal ( not only and not even so much liberal, but also belonging to one always and by all well completely unfounded unloved nationality--- ) the writer was uttered the phrase “I haven’t read the writer’s book, but I condemn it,” the phrase is cited as an example of the denseness of the Soviet proletariat.
Examples of use:
I haven’t read it, but I condemn it! - according to various sources, Part a phrase heard in 1958 at a meeting of the board of the Union of Writers of the USSR when considering the case of Boris Pasternak, who was accused of publishing abroad the “anti-Soviet” novel “Doctor Zhivago” deceased fagot .
Reality:
The exact quote “I haven’t read it, but I condemn it” is not recorded anywhere.
The closest in form and conditions of the myth are the words of A.V. Sofronov at the all-Moscow meeting of writers on October 31, 1958 [ Transcript of the all-Moscow meeting of writers. October 31, 1958], where he quotes the Chilean writer Delmag:
"It sometimes seems to us that outside Moscow, outside the Soviet Union, there is little interest in the details of our literature. It turns out that this is not the case. Even there, in this small Chilean city of Valparaiso, the writer Delmag was very thoroughly informed about some of the events of our literature. So, he told me: “You are behaving strangely with Boris Pasternak, he is your enemy.” I didn’t read the book then and I haven’t read it now. I say: “You know, this is a very strange man, mistaken, with a false philosophy, we consider him somewhat of a holy fool.” He says: “Come on, what a holy fool he is! He is not a holy fool at all. He's all his political program- denial program October Revolution- stated very clearly, in great detail and very harmful for you, because this book (and it was distributed before receiving Nobel Prize for the past year and a half, mainly in English and even in Russian) has been causing harm here and is the banner of anti-Soviet propaganda.”"
However, since then the phrase has always been used only in context: “I haven’t read the novel, but I think it’s bad.”
This once again confirms that any quote can be unrestrictedly castrated in such a way as to change its meaning to the opposite. And do it so elegantly that only true connoisseurs will notice that the patient was standing in front of a fan. "
There is also another source that may be suitable as the basis of the myth.
"Literary Newspaper", November 1, 1958:
"FROG IN THE SWAMP
What kind of opportunity? Newspapers write about some Pasternak. As if there was such a writer. I still knew nothing about him, I had never read his books. And I love our literature - both classical and Soviet. I love Alexander Fadeev, I love Nikolai Ostrovsky. Their works make us strong...
We have many good writers. These are our friends and teachers. Who is Pasternak? Readers of his works can see that he did not like the October Revolution. So this is not a writer, but a White Guard. We, Soviet people, know for sure that after the October Revolution the human race rose up....
Let's say the frog is unhappy and still croaks. And I, a builder, have no time to listen to her. We're busy. No, I haven't read Pasternak. But I know: literature is better without frogs.
FILIPP VASILTSOV, senior excavator operator"
The meaning of both quotes: “I haven’t read Pasternak’s books, but actions/political views I condemn Pasternak"
It is quite possible to form an objective opinion about a person without reading his works of art.
Another example:
Moreover. During the trial of I. Brodsky, according to the transcript of the meeting of the Secretariat and members of the Party Bureau of the Leningrad Branch of the RSFSR SP dated December 17, 1963:
ETKIND: Brodsky --- brilliant the poet and he are being persecuted for being a Jew, and this case was concocted by anti-Semites. It is clear that Brodsky is being judged as a parasite without any reason.
TOROPOVA: Witness Etkind, have you read Brodsky’s poems?
ETKIND: Personally, I haven’t read Brodsky’s poems and don’t know them. But I think he's brilliant. The poetess Grudinina told me a lot about him. I believe her and that’s why I defend Brodsky in court. Why he didn’t study and wasn’t a member of groups and sections, I don’t know. And work is his business. If he wants, he works, if he wants, no, let him do whatever he wants.
Those. in fact there was a REVERSE quote: " I haven’t read it, but I praise it".
(and personally, in this context, what seems most interesting to me is the nationality of witness Etkind ---)
PS: But clinical liberals, sincerely indignant at the facts " It is not enough to fully quote the Lights of Liberastia“(like, eat as much shit as we deem necessary, maybe you’ll be imbued with the Dimacratic Ideal) they consider the self-assigned privilege to distort statements they don’t like to be just as natural.
ZZY: Well, a couple of links to the topic.
Recently, the CIA declassified documents from which it follows that agents of this intelligence agency purposefully promoted Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago”... “This book should be published in mass circulation, in maximum quantity editors for subsequent active discussion by the world community, and also nominated for the Nobel Prize,” says one of the spy instructions...
Thanks to a secret CIA program, the novel “Doctor Dead” (as the readers themselves quite rightly called this graphomaniac - I don’t know a single person who would read it to the end) was distributed with a circulation of about 10 million copies around the world, and after some time was awarded Ig Nobels...
Personally, this news did not cause any surprise to me, since both ours (and world literature) has long been captured by the eternal privatizers and they don’t reward anyone for nothing. If the author of this opus had not been the Jew Pasternak, but some Russian Petrov, he would not have seen the prestigious prize like his ears...
In addition, we should not forget about the information war, which in the world around us does not subside for a minute. With the help of dissident words, the United States tried to destroy the USSR and, unfortunately, they succeeded very well. That’s why any award, then or now (take, for example, Zvyagintsev’s “Leviathan” nominated for an Oscar, where he paints his homeland with the blackest colors) is a purely political decision...
Look who received the same Nobel Prizes in Literature: Solzhenitsyn, who fled to the West, with his monstrously cumbersome “Gulag Archipelago”, all of whose “dignity” lies only in its extreme anti-Sovietism. It is completely impossible to read it. Heavy syllable, confused thoughts... It seems that he deliberately distorted the Russian language, wanting to load his reader as much as possible. Or maybe he simply didn’t own the “great and mighty”...
Next comes Brodsky - a rare Russophobe and troublemaker, whom his fellow tribesmen present for some reason as “the greatest Russian writer”... Still, the clever Kuprin correctly noted: “Every Jew is born into the world with the destined mission of being a Russian writer”... Akhmatova is like that spoke about the special operation to expel Brodsky from the USSR: “What a biography they are making for our Redhead! It’s as if he hired someone on purpose”...
Thank God, now we know the real reason so-called “genius and greatness” of all these Brodsky-uglies... And it is simple to the point of banality - it turns out that it is the Zionists and Tsrushniks who decide who and when to make “the best in literature”... In a word, I have not read Pasternak (due to his prosaic lack of talent) but I condemn ...
P.S. The other day, Belarusian writer Svetlana Alexievich became another laureate of the prestigious Nobel Prize in Literature. It would seem that we should rejoice at this fact - not so many Slavic masters of words were and are recognized by the arrogant West (despite the fact that Russian literature was and remains the best in the world), but still there is one point that turns me away from the freshly baked classic ... The fact is that Alexievich (judging by her numerous interviews) is a convinced Russophobe who puts Soviet Union on a par with Nazi Germany and opposing (as it puts it) “Russia’s seizure of Crimea”...
Unfortunately, the years fly by, but in our prosaic and completely predictable world nothing changes: just as the CIA officers supported and promoted outright anti-Sovietists and Russophobes (like Pasternak and Brodsky), they continue to do so... It is clear that if Alexievich wrote about the tragedy of the residents of Donbass , she will not see this prize - the Nobel Prize, like thirty pieces of silver, is given only for betrayal. This means that the next literature laureates from our country may well be such writers (sorry, writers) as Shenderovich or Svanidze...
In March 1958, a delegation from the Writers' Union went to Sweden. Here the long-circulated rumors about Boris Pasternak's nomination for the Nobel Prize were confirmed.
ON THE TOPIC
A month later, the Soviet ambassador to Sweden received a telegram intended to influence the Nobel Committee: the ideological commission of the CPSU Central Committee reported that the Soviet Union would highly appreciate the award of the Nobel Prize to Mikhail Sholokhov, and the nomination of Pasternak would be perceived as an unkind act towards the Soviet public.
By the end of the year, information appeared in the Swedish press that the Academy was still inclined to give the prize to Pasternak. To avoid a scandal and deprive the Western press of the opportunity to make a fuss about the novel Doctor Zhivago, banned in the USSR, the Writers' Union proposed urgently publishing the work in a small edition.
However, in the culture department this proposal was considered inappropriate; they were already closely involved in developing a secret program of action in the event that the prize was awarded to Pasternak.
Finally, in October it was officially announced that the writer was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Pasternak sent a telegram to the Swedish Academy: “Endlessly grateful, touched, proud, surprised, embarrassed.” In the Union, the flywheel of persecution of Boris Pasternak was immediately launched.
Moscow Radio commented on this event as follows: “Awarding the Nobel Prize for the only work of average quality, which is Doctor Zhivago, is a political act directed against the Soviet state.” The Nobel Committee was accused not only of political interests, but also of inciting the Cold War.
The first response in the Soviet press was a devastating article in Literaturnaya Gazeta. In it, Pasternak received the role of bait on the rusty hook of anti-Soviet propaganda carried out by the West. This was followed by a publication in Novy Mir, in which it was announced that the magazine would not publish the novel Doctor Zhivago. Main reason was that the book is filled with the spirit of rejection of the socialist revolution.
Pasternak was summoned to a meeting of the Writers' Union, which insisted on depriving him of Soviet citizenship. It didn’t come to this, but the writer was expelled from the trade union by a majority vote. The wording of this decision read: “for actions incompatible with the title of a Soviet writer.”
After this wave of insults and humiliation, Pasternak decided to refuse the prize, sending a corresponding telegram to Stockholm. However, there was no reaction to this from the Soviet authorities. The first secretary of the Komsomol Central Committee, Vladimir Semichastny, supported the idea of expelling Pasternak from the country.
Meanwhile, the press continued to mock the writer. Literaturka published letters from individual readers allegedly coming from all over the country - a certain strong voice Soviet people, outraged by the shameful libel "Doctor Zhivago".
Among those expressing anger and contempt was senior excavator operator Philip Vasiltsov: “No, I haven’t read Pasternak. But I know: literature without frogs is better.” Oil worker Rasim Kasimov from Baku echoed him: “As an ordinary Soviet reader, I was deeply outraged by the political and moral decline of Pasternak. There is and cannot be a place for people like him among Soviet writers.”
Accusatory rallies took place in workplaces, institutes, factories, and creative unions, where collective insulting letters were drawn up demanding punishment for the disgraced writer, poet and translator.
In April 1960, the hounded Pasternak began to feel the external symptoms of a fatal illness: the dirty campaign declared against him weakened his health and accelerated developing cancer lungs. A month before his death, at the beginning of May 1960, in anticipation of his imminent death, the writer asked his friend for confession.
Hundreds of people came to Boris Pasternak's funeral. Despite the disgrace, Naum Korzhavin, Bulat Okudzhava, Andrei Voznesensky, Kaisyn Kuliev stood at the master’s coffin...
