Первый Всeсоюзный Съезд советских писателей. K некоторым историко-теоретическим проблемaм советской драматургии и социалистического реализма

Abstract

The significance of the First Nation-Wide Congress of Soviet Writers in the literary life of the country has been repeatedly stressed in works concerning the history of Soviet literature. Yet, for various reasons, the materials from this Congress have till now not been analyzed in detail, thus, a current evaluation of the Congress” role in the development of Soviet literature and of its contribution żo the theory of socialistic realism were impossible. By the middle of the thirties, socialistic realism became a new artistic conception objectively expressing the tendencies of development and a *demand for revolutionary Art”. Integral tendencies included by this creative conception were completed in an organie way by building up an artistic synthesis, which encouraged the writers to a fuller presentation of reality together with its vital differentiations and contradictions. This conception guided literature towards the attainment of a penetrating philosophic generalization permeated with philosophical and political presuppositions or that epoch, a task of socialistic literature which up till now has not been accomplished in a general sense. Little, too, is known of the contributions the Congress made toward the development of Soviet dramatic Arts. Increasing interest in «molecular” processes occuring in the life of the nation, the *existence” of socialism (direction of the psychological drama), appeared simultaneously with the determination of creating a monumental form of drama. A constant demand for socialistie tragedies and comedies also became apparent. Some defined but simplified theories of the so-called "potisive comedy” (Kirshov, Uzovskii, and others) were brought up at the Congress in connection with the development of lyrical comedy at the beginning of the thirties. A notion of stressing the form of high ranking «ąccusatory” Soviet comedy was opposed these tendencies. Actual tasks of Soviet dramaturgy in the Arts and philosophy directed the common interest of dramatists — with regard to the essence of the drama and laws governing it — toward Shakespeare, whose dramatic writings were described at the Congress as "full of passion, superb thoughts, and profound emotional experiences”. Tendencies leading towards new artistic researches characterized the First Congress. The whole course of it, its creative atmosphere permeated with criticism, and especially its theoretical achievements, decidedly discredited arguments of some West European experts of literature, and socialist countries” critics bend on revisionism, who attempted and are still trying to present the Congress as a turning point, and the beginning of regressive tendencies in Soviet literature and Arts. The discussions at the Congress proved that an organizational unity of writers does not result at all in uniform creations or in erasing the writers' individuality, neither does it limit their initiative or impedes innovative dynamism and experimental researches, on the contrary it could become the foundation necessary to secure the impetus of Soviet literature. The Congress confirmed once again that the presuppositions of the cultural policy of the Party (fruitful, as was later proven) which had been elaborated in the middle of the twenties (especially the literary-political principle of complete freedom in creative researches (!) and consequently endorsed in the Statute of the Soviet Writers Association, shall remain valid. During a discussion — concerning the socialistic realism theory — on the state of Soviet dramaturgy symptoms of a narrowing comprehension of artistic gradation (V. Kirpotin, especially in the case of conventional forms) were brought into focus together with a wide perspective on a variety of artistic forms. By the second half of the thirties these problems reached a climax and were canonized in pure realistic knacks or forms of expression strictly conforming to true life happenings. A notion by A. Bushmin, a Soviet literature expert, who endeavoured to belittle the role and significance of artistic forms in the aesthetics of socialist realism, proved there were still many misunderstandings in attempts to explain these problems. Yet, already in the twenties and thirties A. V. Lunacharskii— in agreement with his conception of realism as a "wide category” — recognized both principles (i.e. the "realistic" and 'stylistic”) as equal, organic foundation of realistic art. Lunacharskii saw the future of socialistic art in creative developments shaped by these two stylistic determinants. Some of the writers and politicians at the Congress (A. Fadeiev, N. Nikitin, N. Bukharin) argued in favour of the wide conception of socialistic realism. The problem of basic pathos in Soviet literature (common links between affirmative and critical forms found at the beginnings of Soviet literature) which, because of mechanical treatment, and a till now rather neglected antinomy between critical and socialistic realism, appeared to be another complex theoretical matter. And yet these eritical points were recognized already 30 years ago, at a time when theoretical premisses had been formulated for the first time and the principles of socialistic realism tentatively brought into focus, but only now, after passing through a period of dogmatism, have they been acknowledged by literary theory. Summing up the Past, the participants of the First Congress iniciated at that time a new period of development in Soviet literature. Courageous perspectives capable of guiding literature to new artistic achievements were opened up. But the Congress must not be judged only for not being able to actualize in full all positive cultural and political accomplishments or theoretical achievements during the subsequent period of development in Soviet literature and Arts; certain vulgar and dogmatic presuppositions of the socialistic realism theory have caught on.