Brooke - Sov Musicians and The Great Terror - 2002

Soviet Musicians and the Great Terror
Author(s): Caroline Brooke

Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 3 (May, 2002), pp. 397-413
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/826483
Accessed: 28-07-2019 21:19 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/826483?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Europe-Asia Studies
This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Sun, 28 Jul 2019 21:19:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Carfax Publishing
4 wl Taylor & Francis Group
Vol. 54, No. 3, 2002, 397-413
Soviet Musicians and the Great Terror
CAROLINE BROOKE
'WELL, WE'LL PUT THIS CASE ASIDE. Don't let's trouble the musicians'. Wit
words to the Leningrad composer Yurii Shaporin (1887-1966), uttered
Stalin dismissed the case of the operetta composer Nikolai Strel'nikov (18
who had recently been arrested.1 This remark may seem surprising i
of subsequent events. The musical world became the initial target of
formalism campaign in the early part of 1936, when Dmitrii Shostakovic
75) opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk was attacked in Pravda, and the discu
in the wake of this incident were to dominate musical society over s
months.
While the anti-formalism campaign clearly had a major impact on S

posers and musicians, and was a particularly traumatic period for Sh
personally, it is important not to confuse this episode with the later per
Yezhovshchina or Great Terror. Many writers on this subject have tended
that an atmosphere of all-pervasive fear and suspicion had already de
Soviet society at the time of the anti-formalism affair, but this view is
Although it would be naive to suppose that all of the speeches delivered d
anti-formalism debates of 1936 constituted the expression of views freely
transcripts of these meetings nevertheless indicate that the opportunity
exchange of opinion was far greater at this stage than it would beco
following year.
The anti-formalism campaign has been well served by historians.3 R
seeking to retread old ground, this article will focus on the subsequent p
around the time of the Zinov'ev-Kamenev trial of August 1936, when the a
in Soviet public life began to darken and freedom of expression became v
more restricted. A key feature of this period in Soviet musical life is the
public attacks that was levelled against institutions and individuals. Form
of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians, leading figures i
posers' Unions, professors from Moscow Conservatoire and members of t
and republican arts administrations all came under fire at this time-as, o
did Dmitrii Shostakovich. The motivations for-and significance of-th
criticisms brought against these people will be analysed below. The emigr
Jury Jelagin stated in 1951 that 1937 saw 'an easing of the depressing at
which had prevailed since the spring of 1936' and argued that musicians in
'protected ... against many serious difficulties which beset all other Sovie
ISSN
ISSN 0966-8136
0966-8136print;
print;ISSN
ISSN
1465-3427
1465-3427
online/02/030397-17
online/02/030397-17
? 2002
? 2002
University
University
of Glasgow
of Gla
DOI: 10.1080/09668130220129533
398 CAROLINE BROOKE
The
Theaim
aim
of this
of article
this article
is to document
is tothe
document
vicissitudes the
of Soviet
vicissitudes
musical life of
during
Soviet musical lif
the
theTerror
Terror
era and
erathereby
and thereby
to test whether
to test
or not
whether
Jelagin wasor
correct
not in
Jelagin
his assessment.
was correct in his ass
The
TheRapmovshchina
Rapmovshchina
The
Theplenum
plenumof theofCentral
the Central
Committee Committee
of the Communist of Party
the held
Communist
in February-Party held in Feb
March
March 1937
1937
witnessed
witnessed
calls by Stalin
callsand
byMolotov
Stalinfor andworkers
Molotov
to exercise
forvigilance
workers to exercise v
in
inlooking
lookingout for
outsigns
forthat
signs
enemies
that
might
enemies
be at work,
might
as wellbe
as at
an exhortation
work, asfrom well as an exhorta
Zhdanov
Zhdanov for for
greater
greater
criticismcriticism
and 'democracy'
andin'democracy'
local-level organisations.
in local-level
This call organisations.
had
hadrepercussions
repercussions
in the musical
in theworld,
musical
and conferences
world, and were conferences
convened in orderwere
to convened in
discuss
discuss thethe
shortcomings
shortcomings
of a number ofofa institutions.
number of institutions.
The
Thearrest
arrest
of the
ofliterary
the literary
critic and former
critic leader
and offormer
the Russian
leader
Association
of the of Russian Associ
Proletarian
Proletarian Writers
Writers
(RAPP), Leopold
(RAPP), Averbakh,
Leopold in April
Averbakh,
1937, coincided
in April
with the
1937, coincided
fifth
fifth anniversary
anniversaryof the Central
of the Committee
CentralResolution
Committee
of 23 April
Resolution
1932 whichof
had23 April 1932 w
ordered
ordered the the
abolition
abolition
of the 'proletarian'
of the 'proletarian'
arts organisationsarts
such organisations
as RAPP and its such as RAP
musical
musical counterpart,
counterpart,RAPM.5 His
RAPM.5
arrest sparked
His arrest
off a debate
sparked
on the off
wholeasubject
debateof on the whole su
the
theproletarian
proletarian artisticartistic
organisations,
organisations,
together with near-universal
together with condemnation
near-universal
of condem
their
their former
formerleaders.
leaders.
An editorial
Anineditorial
Sovetskaya in muzyka
Sovetskaya
in May 1937muzyka
drew attention
in May 1937 drew a
to
tothetheneed
need
to maintain
to maintain
the struggle
the against
struggle
the 'remnants'
against of the
RAPM, 'remnants'
while taking of RAPM, whil
care
care to to
distinguish
distinguish
betweenbetween
those former those
activists
former
who hadactivists
reoriented their
whoworkhadand
reoriented their
recognised
recognised theirtheir
previousprevious
errors, anderrors,
those-likeand
the former
those-like
leader of
theRAPM,
former
Lev leader of RAPM
Lebedinsky
Lebedinsky (1904-92)-who,
(1904-92)-who,
it was claimed,
it was
had failed
claimed,
to do so
had
and failed
were allegedly
to do so and were
acting
acting as agents
as agents
of the of
Trotskyist
the Trotskyist
Averbakhovshchina
Averbakhovshchina
in music.6 in music.6
An
Anopenopen
meeting
meeting
of the Moscow
of theComposers'
MoscowUnion Composers'
began on 14Union
May 1937 began on 14 Ma
with
with a report
a report
by Viktor
by Viktor
Gorodinsky
Gorodinsky
(1902-58), the then
(1902-58),
head of the
theKul'tpros
then head of the K
Music
Music Sector,
Sector,
in which
in he
which
attacked
hethose
attacked
former RAPMovtsy
those former
who hadRAPMovtsy
taken five who had take
years
years to to
recognise
recognisetheir mistakes
their andmistakes
were onlyandnow were
coming only
forward nowwithcoming
self- forward w
criticism.7
criticism.7 He lauded
He lauded
the achievements
the achievements
of Soviet music ofoverSoviet
the previous
musicfiveover the previ
years,
years, butbut
drewdrew
attention
attention
to the needtoforthe
further
needstruggle
for further
against former
struggle
RAPM against former
elements
elements whowho
were, were,
he claimed,
he hindering
claimed, thehindering
work of the Composers'
the work Unions.
of the
He Composers' Uni
focused
focused his his
criticism
criticism
in particular
in particular
on Lebedinsky,oncharacterising
Lebedinsky, the former
characterising
RAPM the forme
leader's
leader's speech
speech
delivered
delivered
during theduring
anti-formalism
the anti-formalism
discussions held in thediscussions
Moscow held in the
Composers'
Composers' UnionUnion
in February
in February
1936, in which
1936,
Lebedinsky
in which
had called
Lebedinsky
on composershad called on com
to
tostudy
studyand and
learn learn
from the from
works the
of theworks
RAPM composer
of the Davidenko,
RAPM composer
as 'openly Davidenko, as 'o
revanchist'.8
Lebedinsky himself-evidently thrown into a panic by the sudden turn of events
and aware of the potential dangers facing him following Averbakh's arrest-gave a
two-hour speech at the May 1937 meeting, in which he offered fulsome self-criticism
and declared his wholehearted agreement with the sentiments expressed by Gorodin-
sky. Such a belated recognition of past mistakes did little, however, to placate his
critics. Lebedinsky was roundly attacked, both during the meeting and in later press
reports, for his conduct over the preceding five years and his previous failure
decisively to reject the policies which had been pursued by RAPM. His claim that he
had only recently come to understand the full significance of the 1932 resolution was
received with little sympathy by the other participants at the meeting, with one report
stating that they reacted 'with indignation' to his assertion that it was only after the
SOVIET MUSICIANS AND THE GREAT TERROR 399
unmasking
unmasking of of
Averbakh
Averbakh
that he
that
had he
finally
hadrealised
finallythe
realised
erroneous
thenature
erroneous
of the natur
political
political line
line
which
which
had been
had pursued
been pursued
by RAPM. byHisRAPM.
self-criticism
His self-criticism
was described in
was descri
Sovetskoe
Sovetskoe iskusstvo
iskusstvo
as a purely
as a purely
'formal'formal
penitance',
penitance',
and several and
otherseveral
former other
RAP- former
Movtsy
Movtsy were
werealsoalso
criticised
criticised
at thisat
time
thisfortime
their for
failure
their
to dissociate
failure themselves
to dissociate thems
publicly
publicly from
fromtheir
their
earlier
earlier
views.9views.9
Nadezhda
Nadezhda Bryusova
Bryusova
(1881-1951),
(1881-1951),
who hadwho
beenhad
a member
been aofmember
the Moscow
of the Mosc
Conservatoire
Conservatoire RedRed
Professors'
Professors'
cell during
cell the
during
1920s the
and an
1920s
activist
andinan
RAPM,
activist
spokein RAPM,
up
up in
indefence
defenceof Lebedinsky
of Lebedinsky at this at
meeting.
this meeting.
She described
Shehow
described
it had been
how heritwish
had been he
to
to give
giveher
her
musical
musical
activity
activity
a political
a political
foundation
foundation
which had led
which
to herhad
involvement
led to her invol
with
withRAPM
RAPM in the
in the
firstfirst
place, place,
and while
andshewhile
had now
shecome
had tonow
recognise
come andto regret
recognise and
the
theerrors
errorsmade
made
by that
by that
organisation,
organisation,
she still maintained
she still maintained
that some of that
its initiatives
some of its ini
had
hadbeen
beenpositive.
positive.
Speaking
Speaking
about Lebedinsky,
about Lebedinsky,
she stressed
she
hisstressed
youth at thehis time
youth of at the t
the
theCultural
CulturalRevolution,
Revolution,and blamed
and blamed
herself and
herself
other and
senior
other
colleagues
seniorfor colleagues
their f
'uncritical
'uncritical acceptance
acceptance
of the
ofharmful
the harmful
policies of
policies
RAPM'. of
SheRAPM'.
describedShe
how,
described
even ho
after
afterthe
theliquidation
liquidation
of RAPM,
of RAPM,
Lebedinsky
Lebedinsky
had failed had
fullyfailed
to understand
fully totheunderstand
'political the
destructiveness'
destructiveness' of the
of path
the which
path which
had beenhad
followed
beenby
followed
that organisation
by thatand
organisati
consequently
consequently hadhad
failed
failed
to restructure
to restructure
his work his
along
work
the 'correct'
along the
lines.'correct'
It was only
lines. It w
now,
now,she
shesaid,
said,
thatthat
the Averbakh
the Averbakh
group ingroup
literature
in literature
had been unmasked,
had been thatunmasked,
he had that
finally
finallycome
come
to understand-with
to understand-with
horror-how
horror-how
what he had
what
regarded
he had
as merely
regarded as m
'innocent
'innocent mistakes'
mistakes'
had in
had
fact
inbeen
factcontaminated
been contaminated
with the 'poison'
with ofthe
Averbakh
'poison'
and
of Averb
Trotsky. 1?
The final resolution passed by this meeting was published in the July edition of
Sovetskaya muzyka. It was scathing in its criticism of Lebedinsky, declaring that his
failure over five years to offer public criticism of the activities of RAPM during the
Cultural Revolution had 'supported factional moods among former RAPMovtsy,
which obstructed the implementation of the historical resolution of the Central
Committee of the Party (of 23 April 1932)'. Lebedinsky's belated recognition of his
errors had failed to satisfy the meeting, and it was resolved to hold him responsible
before the party for his political errors. The composer and former RAPMist Viktor
Belyi (1904-83) was also criticised for his failure to condemn Lebedinsky's speech
of February 1936, although his activities within the Moscow Composers' Union and
his creative work since 1932 were praised. As far as Bryusova was concerned, the
Conservatoire party cell was instructed to investigate her activity, in the light of her
previous failure to criticise RAPM policy in musical education."1
While it is possible to distinguish an element of revenge in some of the enthusiastic
attacks launched against former RAPMovtsy at this time-the association had, after
all, made life extremely difficult for a number of composers during the 1928-32
period-what is more significant about this episode is how rapidly it fizzled out. No
serious consequences were to follow for Lebedinsky or Bryusova or any of their
erstwhile comrades-in-arms. Indeed, one could well argue that the Moscow Com-
posers' Union was simply going through the motions of scapegoating Lebedinsky as
a politically correct gesture in response to the Averbakh affair. The defence of a
beleaguered composer-Lebedinsky-by one of his more senior colleagues-
Bryusova-and the fact that no untoward consequences were to follow for any of the
indicted parties were notable features of this episode, and these were themes that
would recur during the months that followed.
400 CAROLINE BROOKE
Criticism
Criticism of of
the the
Composers'
Composers'
Unions Unions
The
TheComposers'
Composers' Unions,
Unions,
whichwhich
had beenhad
set been
up in 1932
set up
and in
were
1932
intended
and were
to unite
intended t
all
allmembers
members of the
of the
profession
profession
under a under
single umbrella,
a singlehadumbrella,
long beenhad
the target
long been
of the
criticism
criticism from
fromtheirtheir
members.
members.
In the fevered
In theatmosphere
fevered atmosphere
of Soviet public
oflife
Soviet
in public
1936-37
1936-37 this
this
criticism
criticism
becamebecame
increasingly
increasingly
vocal as meetings
vocal aswere
meetings
held to discuss
were held to
deficiencies
deficiencies in the
in the
workwork
of theof
unions
the and
unions
to putand
forward
to put
recommendations
forward recommend
for
reform.
reform. It It
would
would
appear,
appear,
therefore,
therefore,
that manythat
composers
many took
composers
advantagetook
of the
advanta
political
political climate
climate
of the
of time
the to
time
pushto
forpush
improvements
for improvements
in their working
in their
lives. working liv
Almost
Almost simultaneously
simultaneouslywith the
withattack
theonattack
Shostakovich
on Shostakovich
in Pravda, theincomposer
Pravda, the co
Vissarion
Vissarion Shebalin
Shebalin
(1902-63)
(1902-63)
had published
had published
an article in
anSovetskoe
article in
iskusstvo
Sovetskoe
in which
iskusstvo
he
heargued
argued that
that
the the
Moscow
Moscow
Union was
Union
failing
was itsfailing
members.
itsObsession
members. withObsession
organisa- with
tional
tionalquestions,
questions,
he declared,
he declared,
was diverting
was diverting
attention from
attention
the realfrom
needs the
of Soviet
real needs o
composers,
composers, andand
the the
unionunion
was doing
waslittle
doingto support
little toyoung
support
composers
youngor to
composers
promote or to
new
newSoviet
Soviet
works.12
works.12
The
Thediscussions
discussions which
which
were held
were during
held theduring
anti-formalism
the anti-formalism
campaign in the campaign
spring in th
of
of 1936
1936 gave
gave
riserise
to further
to further
criticism
criticism
of the Composers'
of the Composers'
Unions, whichUnions,
were blamed
which we
for
forfostering
fosteringan environment
an environmentinimicalinimical
to the development
to the development
of healthy andof constructive
healthy and con
criticism
criticism of of
workworkamongamong
colleagues.
colleagues.
A plenumAofplenumthe Moscow
of the
UnionMoscow
held in April
Union held i
1936
1936accepted
acceptedthatthat
the Union
the Union
had 'losthad
its role
'lostasits
a leading
role as
ideological
a leading centre'
ideological
in the centr
musical
musical world,
world,and and
acknowledged
acknowledged
the needthe for need
seriousfor
restructuring.'3
serious restructuring.'3
Such
Suchrestructuring
restructuring was not
wasforthcoming
not forthcoming
in the short
in term,
the short
however,
term,
and further
however, and
critics
criticsofofthethe
union
union
emerged
emerged
from thefromwoodwork
the woodwork
during two meetings
during two of Moscow
meetings of
composers,
composers, held
held
in December
in December
1936 and1936
in April
and 1937.
in April
Along 1937.
with general
Alongcriticisms
with general cr
from
frommembers
members concerning
concerning
the lackthe
of meaningful
lack of meaningful
creative activity
creative
conducted
activity
by theconducte
Moscow Union, Platon Kerzhentsev, the head of the All-Union Arts Committee
(under Sovnarkom), denounced organisational weaknesses within the union. He
argued that the work of both the union board and the party cell left much to be
desired, and that the union as a whole was failing in its duty to help composers in
their creative work.14
The resolutions passed at these meetings were damning in their criticism. Kerzhen-
tsev, in his summing up of the December 1936 meeting, described the Moscow Union
as 'inert' and in serious need of reform, and the participants at the April meeting laid
a hefty share of the blame for the unsatisfactory work of the Moscow Union at the
door of its chairman, Nikolai Chelyapov (1889-?1937). It was resolved that fresh
elections should be held to the Union Presidium-which had long since out-run its
period in office-and that the leadership of the union should be strengthened with the
introduction of the post of organisational secretary.15
The scapegoating of Chelyapov was taken a step further in June 1937, when an
article appeared in Izvestiya giving an account of the meeting which had taken place
in the Moscow Union the previous month at which the former RAPM leadership had
been 'unmasked' as having promoted factionalism within the union. This article laid
a 'huge share of the blame' for the disintegration in union affairs on Chelyapov,
who-it was claimed-had become so detatched from the union that he only dropped
in to visit it two or three times per year. Deprived of adequate leadership, the article
went on, the union had come to be dominated by former RAPM leaders, who had
instituted
instituted a regime
a regime
of favouritism,
of favouritism,
promoting
promoting
works by and
works
offering
by and
support
offering
to theirsuppor
friends
friends and
and
supporters,
supporters,
while while
denying
denying
such assistance
such assistance
to other members.16
to otherLater
members.16
in the L
month
montha meeting
a meeting of the
of Moscow
the Moscow
Composers
Composers
Union boardUnion
'relieved
board
Chelyapov
'relieved
of his
Chelyapo
duties'
duties'andand
appointed
appointed
Nikolai
Nikolai
Chemberdzhi
Chemberdzhi
(1903-48) as
(1903-48)
interim chairman
as interim
untilchairman
fresh u
elections
elections could
couldbe held.17
be held.17
In
In October
October1937
1937an anonymous
an anonymous
letter was
letter
sent was
to Molotov
sent to byMolotov
a group ofby composers
a group of co
expanding
expanding on on
thethe
points
points
made made
in the Izvestiya
in the Izvestiya
article. It pointed
article.out
It that
pointed
'around
out
four
that 'ar
months
months have
have
passed'
passed'
sincesince
the article
the article
appeared,appeared,
'but no radical
'butchanges
no radical
have taken
changes have
place
placeinin
music
music
institutions'.
institutions'.
On theOn
subject
the of
subject
the alleged
of the
Rapmovshchina,
alleged Rapmovshchina,
the authors th
wrote that
the discussion about RAPM was conducted [in May] UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
ENEMY CHELYAPOV, who adroitly helped the RAPMovtsy ... evade full exposure and
destruction, using his post as chairman of the Composers' Union ... After the article in
Izvestiya, Chelyapov rejected all of the accusations made ... at a special session of the
Presidium of the Composers' Union ... however, he decided to remove himself, insistently
recommending as his successor N. CHEMBERDZHI. (capitals in original)18
Chemberdzhi himself was accused of seeking to infringe Soviet democracy by

appointing a commission to conduct a purge of the Composers' Union without first
calling a general meeting.
Chelyapov was named as an 'enemy of the people' in a list circulated by the Arts
Committee in the autumn of 1937, and he disappeared at around the same time.'9
Fresh elections to the leadership of the Moscow Composers' Union were eventually
held in April 1938 and Reingol'd Glier (1875-1956) was elected as the new chairman
of the Union Board.
Similar meetings of the Leningrad Composers' Union were held on a number of

occasions over the course of 1937. As in Moscow, composers complained that the
atmosphere within the union was unfriendly and that the review evenings organised
by the union were of little positive assistance to them in their work. Organisational
matters also came under scrutiny: the chairman of the union, Boris Fingert, had been
incapacitated by illness for the previous four years, the two secretaries, Iokhel'son and
Kessel'man, were overworked, while other members of the union board never
attended meetings. The board had got into the habit of taking important decisions
without a quorum, and some speakers noted the survival of elements of LAPM policy
in the work of the Union. In July 1937 a new board was elected to the Leningrad
Union, and Isaak Dunaevsky (1900-55), Mikhail Glukh (1907-73), Mikhail Gnesin
(1883-1957), Khristofer Kushnarev (1890-1960) and Vladimir Shcherbachev (1889-
1952) were elected by this board to form the new Presidium.20 Shcherbachev would
act as chairman of the union board initially, to be replaced subsequently by
Dunaevsky.2'
Composers generally can be said to have benefited from the changes brought about
as a result of the attacks levelled against the Composers' Unions in 1936-38. Having
previously been chaired by party bureaucrats, both of the main branches of the
Composers' Union were now headed by practising composers. Dunaevsky asserted in
a speech delivered to an open meeting of the Leningrad Union that following the 1937
elections a more friendly atmosphere had been created and the new discussion club
402 CAROLINE BROOKE
had
hadbeen
been
a great
a great
success.22
success.22
Further restructuring
Further restructuring
of the unions wouldof
follow
theinunions
1939 would follow
with the first moves taken to create an All-Union institution which would unite Soviet
composers across the whole of the USSR, although the first All-Union Congress of
Soviet composers would not in fact be held until the dark days of 1948.
Denunciations of institutions and individuals
Private denunciations were a notable feature of the Terror, particularly during the
second half of 1937. People would denounce their neighbours and colleagues for a
number of reasons: out of fear for their own safety, from a sense of duty, and
sometimes out of envy or malice. The anonymous letter to Molotov cited above not
only attacked Chelyapov and Chemberdzhi but also drew attention to the enemies it
alleged were at work in the state music publishing house Muzgiz. Former RAPMovtsy
were said to have been operating within Muzgiz for more than 10 years, and to have
ensured that their own work was published while music by other composers was
rejected. 'All possible abuses thrive within Muzgiz', the writers asserted, 'including
those founded on MUTUAL FAVOURS', and 'as a result, it is impossible to get hold
of the necessary musical literature for the 20th anniversary of the October Revol-
ution'. Enemies were also said to have infiltrated the specialist musical press and the
music sector of the radio. The authors called on Molotov to intervene to conduct a
'radical purge of the whole of the musical front of RAPMovtsy, hangers-on an

formalists ... WHO CONSTITUTE TO THIS DAY THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF PARTY ACTIVISTS', and to organise a commission
occupy itself with the elimination of the harmful consequences o
conducted by these enemy groups in Soviet musical life. (capital
original)23
A number of individual professors in Moscow Conservatoire came under fire at this
time, although, as had been the case with the former RAPMovtsy, their careers were
not irreparably damaged. The composer Genrikh Litinsky (1901-85) became a target
of political denunciation during 1937. A former activist in the Prokoll movement, he
had never joined RAPM and in 1932 he became the head of the Department of
Composition at Moscow Conservatoire.24 Despite his previous connections with the
'proletarian' music movement, however, Litinsky's work in the 1930s was considered
to belong to the experimental and modernist school current at the time in Western
Europe. Litinsky did write a number of works in the 1930s which were based on
themes taken from the folk music of various Soviet national groups-a Dagestan
Suite for orchestra and a quartet on Turkmen themes-but these cut no ice with his
enemies. In 1934 Sovetskaya muzyka had devoted a lengthy article to Litinsky's work,
titled 'Against Formalism in Music', in which it was argued that his music was
incomprehensible in its modernist complexity and that he had come under the spell
of bourgeois formalist trends in Western European music.25 The fact of this article's
existence made Litinsky something of an obvious target in 1937.
Litinsky failed to speak at the initial meetings of the anti-formalism campaign, and
was criticised because of this. Indeed, the resolution passed by the Moscow Com-
posers' Union after its discussion of the Lady Macbeth affair even mentioned Litinsky
as one of the composers who, along with Shostakovich, had been responsible for
propagating
propagating formalist
formalist
music music
in the Soviet
in theUnion.26
SovietHisUnion.26
speech at the
Hismeeting
speechheld
at by
the meeti
the
theConservatoire
Conservatoire composition
composition
faculty in
faculty
March 1936
in March
was reported
1936inwas
the reported
press in in the
decidedly
decidedly ominous
ominoustones:tones:
he was he
said was
to have
saidoffered
to haveno genuine
offered self-criticism
no genuine and self-crit
to
tohave
have displayed
displayed
a distinct
a distinct
lack of understanding
lack of understanding
of the significance
of theof the
significance
Pravda of
editorials.
editorials. TheThe
bombshell
bombshell
was dropped
was dropped
in Septemberin 1937,
September
when an 1937,
Arts Committee
when an Arts C
ruling
ruling ordered
orderedthat that
he be he
dismissed
be dismissed
from the faculty.
from the He was
faculty.
attackedHe
in the
waspress
attacked
as in t
an
an'unrepentent
'unrepentent and persistent
and persistent
formalist',
formalist',
an 'untalented
ancomposer',
'untalentedand someone
composer',
to and s
whom
whom thetheeducation
education
of young
of young
composerscomposers
could not safely
could be not
entrusted.
safely Hebewasentrusted.
said H
to
tohave
havecreated
created
an unhealthy
an unhealthy
atmosphere
atmosphere
within the faculty,
within tothe
have
faculty,
cultivatedto have
'favourites',
'favourites', and and
to have
to adopted
have adopted
a hostile attitude
a hostiletowards
attitude
students
towards
from thestudents
rabfak.27from th
One
Oneofof Litinsky's
Litinsky's students,
students,
Mikhail Mikhail
Dushsky (1913-42),
Dushsky the(1913-42),
author of athe
'politically
author of a 'po
harmful'
harmful' andand
'counter-revolutionary'
'counter-revolutionary'
symphonysymphony
about Makhno's
about
bandits
Makhno's
in the band
Ukraine,
Ukraine, Veter
Veter
s Ukrainy,
s Ukrainy,
was alsowas
expelled
alsoatexpelled
this time.28
at this time.28
Further
Further Conservatoire
Conservatoire
scandals
scandals
were to follow
were intothe
follow
wake ofinthe
the Litinsky
wake affair.
of the Litins
In
InDecember
December 19371937
a meeting
a meeting
of professors
of professors
and studentsandwas students
convened inwas orderconvened
to
discuss
discuss the
the
conduct
conduct
of Professor
of Professor
Turovskaya,
Turovskaya,
who had beenwho a teacher
had of been
singing
a teacher
for of s
many
manyyears.years.
She She
was accused
was accused
of having
ofencouraged
having encouraged
an atmospherean of atmosphere
toadying and of toad
obsequiousness
obsequiousness amongamong
the students,
the students,
and of having
and damaged
of having theirdamaged
voices and their
their voices an
health
health through
through her incorrect
her incorrect
and harmful
and teaching
harmful methods.29
teaching Onmethods.29
this occasion, and
On this occ
at
at aasubsequent
subsequent meeting
meeting
held onheld
9 January
on 9 1938,
January
participants
1938,noted
participants
that the lack
noted
of that th
communist vigilance within the Conservatoire and deficiencies in the teaching of
political education to Conservatoire students had led to a situation where enemies
could carry on their work unchecked. Attention was also drawn to the political
illiteracy and inertia of many Conservatoire professors, and to the alleged 'wrecking'
and 'sabotage' being conducted by some students and staff. Examples of this included
students who disrupted their lessons, professors who ignored works by Soviet
composers in their teaching plans, and young prize-winners who arrogantly refused to
take part in the general concert activity of the Conservatoire.30 The vocal faculty of
the Conservatoire also lost its dean, Kseniya Dorlyak (1882-1945), at this time, as it
was brought to the attention of the Arts Committee that she came from a family of
hereditary aristocrats and had a number of connections with enemies of the people.3'
What is particularly striking about these demotions in Moscow Conservatoire is
their temporary nature. Litinsky was reinstated from 1939 and Dorlyak remained a
professor in the Conservatoire despite losing her post as dean. Again, it seems as
though the purges in the musical world constituted little more than gesture politics.
The directors of musical institutions became another clear target for denunciation
during the Terror, and a significant number of such officials fell foul of their
employees in one way or another. The Hungarian conductor Eugene Szenkar
(1891-1977) was denounced by a group of 'arts workers' in a letter sent to the Arts
Committee, in which Szenkar was reported to have made inflammatory statements
against Soviet power and against Stalin himself, and to have held openly anti-semitic
attitudes. It was alleged that he had refused to perform the 'Internationale' in
Khar'kov, calling it an 'unmusical work', and had insulted his audiences: he was
quoted as having said 'these Russian pigs don't understand classical music' in the
interval of one of his concerts.32 Another musician who faced denunciation by his
colleagues was the artistic director of the opera house in Odessa, Yakov Grechnev,
404 CAROLINE BROOKE
who
whowas
wasaccused
accused
of slandering
of slandering
the partythe
leadership,
partyobstructing
leadership,
the obstructing
careers of th
musicians
musicians from
from
working-class
working-class
backgrounds,
backgrounds,
and trying toand
'emasculate
trying ... the
to 'emasculate
political ... t
essence
essence andand
classclass
content'
content'
of Ivan Dzerzhinsky's
of Ivan Dzerzhinsky's
(1909-78) opera(1909-78)
Tikhii Don when
opera Tikh
it
it was
wasproduced
produced
in Odessa.33
in Odessa.33
A generalAmeeting
generalof employees
meeting ofofthe
employees
opera house of
heldthe opera
in
inJune
June 1937
1937
resolved
resolved
that hethat
shouldhe
be should
removed be
from
removed
his post and
from
banned
hisfrom
post and ban
working
working in other
in other
theatres.
theatres.
They forwarded
They forwarded
their proposals
their
to theproposals
Ukrainian Arts
to the Ukrai
Administration
Administration for further
for further
action.34 action.34
An Arts Committee list issued in the autumn of 1937 named a number of leaders
or former leaders of central musical institutions as having been responsible for
conducting 'harmful and subversive work'. As well as Chelyapov, the list included
Arkad'ev, the head of the Narkompros Art Department, the initial chairman of the
Moscow Composers' Union in 1932 and, from 1936, the director of the Moscow Arts
Theatre, Pshibyshevsky, the head of the Narkompros Music Sector, who had acted as
temporary director of Moscow Conservatoire during the Cultural Revolution period,
Gisin, the head of the Philharmonia department of the Arts Committee Music Board,
Kulyabko, the director of the Moscow Philharmonia, together with his deputy
Mel'nikov, the directors of the philharmonias in Stalingard, Sverdlovsk and Georgia,
the directors of the Minsk and Saratov Conservatoires, and a number of others.35
Rather than levelling specific accusations at particular people, the memorandum
adopted a scatter-gun approach, setting out a series of examples of the kinds of
'harmful activity' perpetrated by these enemies. They were accused of putting their
own people into jobs within their institutions, of obstructing the implementation of the
party's music policy, of failing to promote Soviet music and support talented young
performers, of striving to keep their proteges in 'formalist positions', and of
disrupting measures designed to strengthen the work of their institutions by diverting
state funds and other methods of sabotage. In order to counteract some of the effects
of the harmful policies pursued by these saboteurs, the Arts Committee resolved to
increase the amount of Soviet music performed in concerts and to encourage the
participation of young musicians in Soviet concert life. It was in pursuit of this aim
that a dekada, or 10-day festival, of Soviet music was organised in the winter of 1937,
which was intended to provide a decisive rebuff to the theory that Soviet music was
not popular with Soviet audiences.36 Investigations were conducted into the financial
mismanagement of various local arts administrations, philharmonias and Composers'
Unions, and foreign conductors were expelled from the country.37
Despite the colourful language in which the memorandum had been written, these
recommendations hardly seem to be the stuff of which Great Terror is made. The
individuals named in the list were for the most part functionaries rather than
musicians and, as such, were bound to be vulnerable to attack both from above and
from below during this time of licensed denunciation.
Non-Russian musical life

The Terror is well known to have struck the local authorities in the non-Russian
republics particularly hard, and the musical world was no exception to this broad
picture. A change in the priorities of Soviet nationalities policy can be charted from
around the middle of the decade, when the perceived danger of local 'bourgeois
nationalism'
nationalism' came
came
to beto
regarded
be regarded
in policy-making
in policy-making
circles as more
circles
of a threat
as more
to the
of a th
stability
stability of of
thethe
USSR
USSR
than that
thanofthat
Greatof
Russian
Great Chauvinism.38
Russian Chauvinism.38
The years of the
The y
Terror
Terror saw
sawa great
a great
manymanyaccusations
accusations
of bourgeois
of bourgeois
nationalism levelled
nationalism
at members
levelled
of at m
the
thearts
artsbureaucracies
bureaucraciesin thein
non-Russian
the non-Russian
republics and,
republics
if the Arts
and,Committee
if the Artsreports
Commit
on
onthethesubject
subject
were were
to betobelieved,
be believed,
regional regional
and republican
and arts
republican
administrations
arts administr
and
music
musicinstitutions
institutionswerewere
almostalmost
totally saturated
totally saturated
by enemies by of the
enemies
people. of the people
During
During the
the
period
period
1937-38
1937-38
regularregular
reports of
reports
counterrevolutionary
of counterrevolutionary
sabotage and sabo
Trotskyist
Trotskyist activities
activities
in these
in these
organisations
organisations
appeared inappeared
the Arts Committee
in the Arts
bulletins.
Committee
The
The'enemies'
'enemies'working
workingin these
in institutions
these institutions
were said to
were
be 'distorting
said to be
the'distorting
Leninist- the
Stalinist
Stalinist national
national
policy'
policy'
by ignoring
by ignoring
works byworks
Russian by
andRussian
Soviet composers
and Soviet
in their
composer
concert
concert plans,
plans,
propagating
propagating
factionalism
factionalism
among young
among
musicians,
young failing
musicians,
to offer failin
sufficient
sufficient encouragement
encouragement
and support
and support
to young to
composers
youngincomposers
their regions
inortheir
repub-
regions
lics,
lics,hindering
hinderingthe the
development
development
of national
of music
national
in their
musicregions
in their
by seeking
regions
to isolate
by seekin
it
it from
fromthe
the
'art'art
of the
of great
the great
RussianRussian
people' and
people'
from Soviet
and from
art in general,
Soviet art
and in g
'undermining
'undermining in every
in every
possible
possible
way theway
greatthe
international
great international
ties of the brother
ties of
peoples
the brot
of
of the
theSoviet
Soviet
country'.
country'.
Spies and
Spies
assassins
and assassins
were said to
were
havesaid
infiltrated
to havevarious
infiltrat
ensembles
ensembles andand
conservatories,
conservatories,
with the
with
Don Cossack
the Don choir
Cossack
from Azovo-Chernomor'e
choir from Azovo-Ch
reportedly
reportedly having
having
included
included
a wholea terrorist
whole terrorist
group that group
had plotted
thattohad
assassinate
plottedtheto assa
Soviet
Sovietleadership
leadership
during
during
the choir's
the choir's
trip to Moscow.39
trip to Moscow.39
In
In addition
additionto general
to general
charges
charges
of isolationism,
of isolationism,
'enemies' in'enemies'
the Tadzhik,
inAzer-
the Tadzh
baidzhani and Uzbek republics were also accused of seeking to hold back the
development of music in their republics by attempting to block the introduction of the
Western system of musical notation. It was argued that such a policy was deeply
regressive and would serve to obstruct the drive to record folk melodies and would
preserve these non-Russian musical traditions in an archaic, primitive state.40 In
Kirgizia bourgeois nationalists were reported to have been trying to obstruct the
development of Kirgiz music. It was claimed that they had denied musicians the
opportunity to study the European and Russian classical legacy, and had attempted to
preserve Kirgiz music in a backward form by opposing the introduction of modem
methods of voice training and European instruments. They had allegedly argued that
singing with an open throat was a national characteristic, and that Kirgiz folk
melodies would be distorted and lose their beauty if they were played on European
instruments.4' The official government line, put forward by Kerzhentsev in December
1936, stated that orchestras of folk instruments were an important part of non-Russian
musical life, but that it would be quite wrong to regard such instruments as superior
to the violin or the oboe.42 The Ukrainian Composers' Union was another institution
which faced accusations of attempting to keep their national music in a primitive
state: union officials were said to have discouraged composers from working on
adaptations or elaborations of folk songs, arguing that this technique would only spoil
the original work.43
A purge of the Ukrainian party organisation was launched in March 1937 and
charges of bourgeois nationalism were levelled at a great many leading party officials.
Bourgeois nationalism was also said to be rife in the world of Ukrainian opera, where
theatres were failing to produce any Russian-language operas.44 A report on an
investigation into Kiev opera house, conducted in 1937, revealed that unsatisfactory
leadership, indifference to the creative interests of performers, lack of serious work
406 CAROLINE BROOKE
on
on political
politicaleducation,
education,
toadying
toadying
and petty
and intrigues
petty intrigues
had all served
had to
all'create
servedfavour-
to 'cr
able
ablesoil
soilfor
for... [the
... [the
development
development
of] ... reactionary
of] ... reactionary
bourgeois bourgeois
nationalist tenden-
nationa
cies'.45
cies'.45TheThe production
production of the
ofUkrainian
the Ukrainian
composer composer
N. Lysenko's
N. (1842-1912)
Lysenko's opera
(1842
Taras
TarasBulba
Bulbain in
KievKiev
opera
opera
househouse
was said
wasto said
have distorted
to have distorted
the work inthe
suchwork
a wayin s
as
as to
topromote
promote Polish
Polish
nationalism.
nationalism.
The fact
Thethat
fact
the that
Polish-born
the Polish-born
First Secretary
First
of the
Secr
Ukrainian
Ukrainian Communist
Communist Party,
Party,
S.V. Kosior,
S.V. Kosior,
praised the
praised
work the
at a plenum
work at of athe
plenum
Kiev
party
partyobkom
obkom in September
in September was reported
was reported
back to the
backleadership
to the leadership
in Moscow andin was
Mosco
doubtless
doubtless noted
noteddowndown
in evidence
in evidence
againstagainst
him.46 The
him.46
Ukrainian
The Ukrainian
Radio Committee
Radio also
Com
became
becamethe thesubject
subjectof anofofficial
an official
inquiryinquiry
at this time,
at this
after
time,
reports
after
werereports
published were
in
Pravda
Pravdaalleging
alleging that,
that,
amongamong
other other
misdeeds,
misdeeds,
the Kiev the
radioKiev
station
radio
had station
broadcasthada
programme
programme of of
funeral
funeral
marches
marches
on theon
daytheon which
day on Zinov'ev
whichand Zinov'ev
KamenevandhadKamene
been
sentenced,
sentenced, a day
a daythatthat
should
should
ratherrather
have beenhave
onebeen
for celebration.47
one for celebration.47
The
Thescale
scale ofof
thetheTerror
Terror
in theinnon-Russian
the non-Russian
republicsrepublics
was very extensive
was very and
extensiv
the
brief
briefexamples
examples of its
of impact
its impact
in theinmusical
the musical
world cited
world
abovecited
can scarcely
above cando justice
scarce
to
to this
thissubject.
subject.
It isItnonetheless
is nonetheless
worth worth
noting that
noting
manifestations
that manifestations
of bourgeois o
nationalism
nationalism could
could
be-and
be-and
were-uncovered
were-uncovered
in musicin
just
music
as much
justas as
in much
other as
spheres
spheresofof
life
life
at this
at this
time.time.
Shostakovich
Most of the victims of the Terror surveyed in this article so far have been musical
administrators rather than practising musicians. What of the impact of the Terror on
the most notorious musical victim of the anti-formalism campaign, Dmitrii
Shostakovich? Shostakovich went through a difficult period over the two years
following the attack on his work in January 1936. Immediately after the appearance
of the two articles in Pravda, Shostakovich went separately to see Kerzhentsev and
his long-standing patron, Marshal Tukhachevsky, in order to discuss his situation with
them. In his report of this meeting to Stalin and Molotov, dated 7 February 1936,
Kerzhentsev described how Shostakovich had come to see him 'on his own initiative'.
Shostakovich asked whether it would be advisable for him to write a letter of some
kind, in public recognition of his 'formalist errors' of the past, and was informed that
such a letter would only be of political significance if it were accompanied by a
change in the direction of his creative work. 'I indicated to him', wrote Kerzhentsev,
that he should free himself from the influence of certain obliging critics like Sollertinsky,
who encourage the worst aspects of his work, created under the influence of Western
expressionists. I advised him to follow the example of Rimsky-Korsakov and go around the
villages of the Soviet Union recording the folk songs of Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and
Georgia, and then select from them the hundred best songs and harmonise them.
Kerzhentsev also suggested that it would be wise for Shostakovich to send any future
opera or ballet libretti to the committee in advance of starting work on the music, and
to experiment by having individual movements of his works performed to audiences
of workers and kolkhozniki during the process of composition.48 Shostakovich had
been acquainted with Tukhachevsky for a number of years by this time, and it was
entirely natural for him to have sought advice from friends in high places at this time
of personal crisis. According to Shostakovich's friend the literary critic Isaak
Glikman-who
Glikman-who alsoalso
mentions
mentions
the meeting
the meeting
with Kerzhentsev-Tukhachevsky
with Kerzhentsev-Tukhachevsky
wrote a wr
letter
lettertoto
Stalin
Stalin
on Shostakovich's
on Shostakovich's
behalf.49
behalf.49
The
Thewithdrawal
withdrawalof Shostakovich's
of Shostakovich's
fourth symphony
fourth symphony
from performance
from performance
in the
autumn
autumn ofof
1936,
1936,
while
while
it wasitstill
was instill
rehearsal,
in rehearsal,
came aboutcame
after about
the intervention
after the ofinterve
officials
officials from
from
the the
Leningrad
Leningrad
party organisation
party organisation
and from the
andLeningrad
from the Composers'
Leningrad Com
Union.
Union.According
According
to the
to memoirs
the memoirs
of Glikman,
of Glikman,
who had been
whopresent
had been
at thepresent
rehearsals,
at the re
'one
'onefine
fineday,
day,
Iokhel'son,
Iokhel'son,
the secretary
the secretary
of the Composers'
of the Composers'
Union, appeared
Union,
at a appear
reheasal
reheasal with
with
a leading
a leading
figurefigure
from Smolnyi,
from Smolnyi,
Yakov Smirov,
Yakovfollowing
Smirov,
which
following
the which
Philharmonia
Philharmonia director
director
I. M. I.
Renzin
M. Renzin
asked D.D.
asked
[Shostakovich]
D.D. [Shostakovich]
to come to histooffice'.
come to his o
Renzin
Renzinhad hadbeenbeeninformed
informed that the
thatwork
theshould
work beshould
withdrawn,be withdrawn,
and requested andthat requeste
Shostakovich
Shostakovich himself
himself
refuserefuse
to allowtothe
allow
performance
the performance
to go ahead, toso as
gotoahead,
avoid the
so as to a
need
needtoto useuse'administrative
'administrative measures'.50
measures'.50
Contemporaries
Contemporaries
offered differing
offered explana-
differing ex
tions
tionsfor forthethedecision
decision
to withdraw
to withdraw
the symphony,
the symphony,
citing the inability
citing the
of the
inability
conductor of the c
(Fritz
(FritzStiedry)
Stiedry) to understand
to understand the music,
the or
music,
a strike
orona the
strike
part on
of the
theorchestra,
part of thebut orchest
these
thesewerewere clearly
clearly
attempts
attempts
to explain
to explain
why Shostakovich
why Shostakovich
himself might himself
have wished
might have
to
to prevent
prevent thethe performance
performance of the of
work.5'
the work.5'
Although Although
the decision the
was decision
presented towasthepresente
public
publicasas if if
it had
it had
beenbeen
takentaken
voluntarily
voluntarily
by Shostakovich-a
by Shostakovich-a
short announcement
short announcem
to
that
thateffect
effect appeared
appearedin Sovetskoe
in Sovetskoe
iskusstvoiskusstvo
on 11 December-in
on 11 December-in
fact it is clearfact
that it is clear
Shostakovich
Shostakovich withdrew
withdrew the work
the only
work under
onlypressure
underfrom pressure
local party
from officials.52
local party offic
The
Themusicologist
musicologist Lyudmilla
LyudmillaMikheeva
Mikheeva
has presented
has presented
this decisionthis
in andecision
interesting
in an inte
light:
light:inin herher view,
view,
the local
the party
local party
officialsofficials
were in factwereacting
in fact
in Shostakovich's
acting in Shostakovi
best
interests
interests at at
thethetime,
time,
because
because
the symphony
the symphony
did not fitdidin with
not the
fit standard
in withsocialist
the standard
realist
realistformula
formula and and
would would
almostalmost
certainly
certainly
have givenhave
rise to
given
renewed
riseattacks
to renewed
on the attacks
composer.53 It seems more plausible, however, to assume that the local party
organisation was guarding its own back, rather than acting purely from altruistic
motives: it would have been extremely risky for them to allow a high-profile premiere
of a new large-scale work by a discredited composer to go ahead at this time.
Shostakovich's friendship with Tukhachevsky was to cause him problems in the
following year, as the marshal was arrested in May and executed in June 1937 on
charges of spying for Nazi Germany. At some point in the spring of 1937 it appears
that Shostakovich was called in for questioning by the NKVD about his relationship
with Tukhachevsky. The evidence for this incident is somewhat limited: the composer
Venyamin Basner (1925-) recalled in an interview how Shostakovich had described
it to him several years after the event, and Solomon Volkov also claims to have been
told about the incident by Shostakovich, although he did not include the story in
Testimony.54 In Basner's account Shostakovich described how he had emphasised to
the investigator that he and Tukhachevsky had never discussed politics together, only
music.
The dangers of having connections with Tukhachevsky could be seen all too clearly
in the fate of the director of the Moscow Philharmonia, Nikolai Kulyabko, who was
'unmasked' himself in the summer of 1937. Kulyabko's connections with
Tukhachevsky went back to before the revolution and he had been responsible for
recommending Tukhachevsky for party membership in 1918.55 Appointed to his pos
in the Philharmonia early in 1936, he became the subject of an Arts Committee
investigation after only a year in the position. In a letter to Andreev in the party
Central Committee, dated 17 April 1937, Kerzhentsev wrote that Kulyabko's work in
408 CAROLINE BROOKE
the
thePhilharmonia
Philharmoniahad proved
had proved
totally unsatisfactory,
totally unsatisfactory,
that he had failed
thatto he
fulfil
hadhisfailed to
concert
concert plan,
plan,
antagonised
antagonised
performers
performers
and alienated
andaudiences.
alienatedIn June
audiences.
1937, in In Jun
immediate
immediate response
response
to theto
Tukhachevsky
the Tukhachevsky
affair, he was
affair,
dismissed
he from
was dismissed
his post.56 At
from his
aa discussion
discussionorganised
organised
later inlater
the month
in the
bymonth
the Philharmonia
by the party
Philharmonia
cell it was party
revealed
revealed that
that
Kulyabko's
Kulyabko's
party card
party
had card
been returned
had been to him
returned
during the
to exchange
him duringof the e
party
party documents
documentsconducted
conducted
the previous
the year,
previous
after his
year,
trustworthiness
after his trustworthiness
as a party
member
member hadhad
beenbeen
guaranteed
guaranteed
by Tukhachevsky.57
by Tukhachevsky.57
His name appeared
His on
name
the afore-
appeared on t
mentioned
mentioned list list
of enemies
of enemies
of the people
of thewho
people
had been
whooperating
had been
in Soviet
operating
music in So
institutions
institutions thatthat
was issued
was issued
later in later
the year,
in and
theheyear,
was later
andarrested.58
he was later arrested.58
The musicologist Nikolai Zhilaev (1881-1938) was another associate of
Tukhachevsky who suffered as a direct consequence of this connection. Zhilaev had
been on close terms with the Tukhachevsky family since before the revolution, and
kept a portrait of his friend in his room, which he refused to take down, even after
the marshal's arrest. He himself was arrested in November 1937, charged with
working with Tukhachevky as a German spy, and shot in January 1938.59
Although Shostakovich was not called in for any further interrogations by the
NKVD, his standing in the musical world of Leningrad was adversely affected in the
summer of 1937 by his perceived links with enemies of the people. In a letter to
Kerzhentsev dated 11 July 1937 Shostakovich complained that his candidature for the
elections to the new governing board of the Leningrad Composers' Union had been
struck off by Iokhel'son, on the grounds that he had too many dubious connections
among his family and friends. Several members of his family had been arrested,
including his brother-in-law, Vsevolod Frederiks, and his mother-in-law, Sofiya
Varzar. His sister Mariya had been exiled to Frunze. His acquaintance with
Tukhachevsky had also been raised by Iokhel'son as a problematic factor, and
Shostakovich responded, in his letter to Kerzhentsev, by describing their relationship
in the following terms:
I have known Tukhachevsky for about eight years. During all the time of our acquaintance
he has been to my place four or five times and I have visited him about ten times. It could
not be considered a close comradely acquaintance. All the more so, because we always
visited one another in the company of other guests, for lunch or dinner and so on. He was
a great music lover, and all of our conversations touched exclusively on this subject.
In his reply to this letter Kerzhentsev wrote that in his view Shostakovich should
seek to rehabilitate himself by redirecting his energies towards his creative
work.60
Shostakovich's fifth symphony was composed between April and July 1937 and
received its premiere in Leningrad on 21 November, under the baton of the conductor
Evgenii Mravinsky (1903-88). It was received with enthusiasm by the Leningrad
audience: Lyubov' Shaporina, wife of the composer Yurii Shaporin, noted in her diary
that 'the whole audience leapt to its feet and erupted into wild applause-a
demonstration of their outrage at all the hounding poor Mitya has been through'.61
Suspicions that this might indeed have been the reason for the symphony's astonish-
ing success were aroused within the Arts Committee. According to the conductor
Aleksandr Gauk, Shatilov, the head of the Arts Committee Music Department, tried
to turn Kerzhentsev against the work and presented it as 'a minor success, contrived
by
by friends
friendsof of
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
who had
whogone
hadtogone
Leningrad
to Leningrad
especially for
especially
this purpose'.62
for this purp
The
Thehead
headofof
thethe
Leningrad
Leningrad
Philharmonia
Philharmonia
at the time,
at the
Chulaki,
time,recalled
Chulaki,
in a recalled
later article
in a later
the
theattempts
attemptsmade
made
by Arts
by Arts
Committee
Committee
bureaucrats
bureaucrats
to presentto
thepresent
symphony's
the success
symphony's
as
as somehow
somehow pre-arranged.
pre-arranged.
They They
were convinced
were convinced
that the audience
that the must
audience
have been
must have b
hand-picked
hand-picked in in
advance.63
advance.63
Despite
Despitethe
the
symphony's
symphony's
success
success
with the
with
public
theand
public
several
andfavourable
several reviews
favourable
in revie
the
thepress-many
press-manycritics
critics
wrote
wrote
in tones
in of
tones
approval
of approval
about the about
'new path'
thewhich
'new path'
Shostakovich
Shostakovich hadhad
chosen
chosen
for himself-some
for himself-some
of his colleagues
of his colleagues
were less enthusiastic.
were less enthusia
Both
BothGeorgii
GeorgiiKhubov
Khubov
and Isaak
and Isaak
Dunaevsky
Dunaevsky
were critical
wereofcritical
the flood
ofofthe
praise
flood
whichof praise
the
thework
workreceived
received
and and
calledcalled
for a more
for ameasured
more measured
approach: Dunaevsky
approach: described
Dunaevsky it descri
as
as aa'hullabaloo,
'hullabaloo,even
even
... a psychosis'
... a psychosis'
which could
which serve
could
no constructive
serve no constructive
purpose pu
either
eitherfor
forthe
the
author
author
or the
orwork
the work
itself.64
itself.64
Chulaki
Chulakialso
also
relates
relates
another
another
intriguing
intriguing
incidentincident
connectedconnected
with the history
with of
thethis
history o
particular
particular work
workin Leningrad.
in Leningrad.
The symphony
The symphony
unsurprisingly
unsurprisingly
generated considerable
generated consid
interest
interestwithin
withinthethe
Leningrad
Leningrad
party party
organisation,
organisation,
and it wasand
decided
it was
to arrange
decided a to arran
special
specialperformance
performance for party
for party
workers.
workers.
Chulaki Chulaki
provides an
provides
entertaining
an entertaining
description desc
of
of his
hisaltercations
altercations
withwith
the party
the party
officialofficial
responsible
responsible
for organising
for this
organising
concert:65
this
she concer
refused
refusedtoto permit
permita programme
a programmemade upmade
entirely
up entirely
of symphonic
of symphonic
works, and demanded
works, and dem
that
thatthe
thesecond
second
halfhalf
include
include
'something
'something
for the for
people',
thesuch
people',
as a popular
such asfolk
a popula
ensemble.
ensemble. The
The final
final
programme
programme
included
included
a Chaikovsky
a Chaikovsky
overture and
overture
Shostakovich's
and Shostakov
symphony
symphony in in
thethe
first
first
half,half,
followed
followed
by the Moiseev
by the folk
Moiseev
dance folk
ensemble
dance
after
ensemble
the aft
interval.66
interval.66 It It
waswas
apparently
apparently
following
following
this performance
this performance
that the description
that theofdescription
the
work
workasasanan'optimistic
'optimistic
tragedy'
tragedy'
was first
wascoined.67
first coined.67
The
Themajority
majority of of
Soviet
Soviet
musicians
musicians
played played
no part no
in denouncing
part in denouncing
their colleagues,
theiror colleague
participated
participated only
only
to the
to extent
the extent
of mouthing
of mouthing
platitudesplatitudes
at union meetings
at unionor in
meetings
the or i
press.
press.Most
Mostdiddid
their
their
best best
to keep
to their
keepheads
their
below
heads
thebelow
parapet,
theand
parapet,
immersed and imm
themselves
themselves in in
their
their
work.
work.
ThereThere
were, however,
were, however,
some prominent
some prominent
figures in the
figures
musical
musicalworld
worldwho
who
werewere
prepared
prepared
to speak
toout
speak
in support
out inofsupport
their arrested
of their
colleagues.
arrested coll
In March 1938 Glier and Nikolai Myaskovsky (1881-1950), both of whom were
highly respected professors at Moscow Conservatoire and held offices within the
Composers' Union, wrote a joint letter to Kalinin, the chairman of the Supreme
Soviet, in which they requested that a review be made of the case of the modernist
composer Aleksandr Mosolov, who had recently been sentenced to eight years in the
Gulag under Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code for counter-revolutionary activi-
ties. Even though Mosolov had been expelled from the Composers' Union in
February 1936 after taking part in a drunken brawl and had gained further notoriety
for his alleged 'Bohemian' activities in Turkmenia, his former teachers were prepared
to plead his case to the authorities, emphasising his 'outstanding creative abilities',
noting his recent turn towards realism in his work, and affirming that they had never
observed in him anti-Soviet tendencies of any kind. Mosolov was released in August
1938, following a review of his case, and his sentence was altered to a five-year ban
on living in Moscow, Leningrad or Kiev.68 Glier was also responsible for initiating
a joint letter, signed by a number of conservatoire professors, which was sent to the
authorities in 1940 in an effort to discover the outcome of Nikolai Zhilaev's trial and
sentencing. They described their former colleague as 'one of the greatest authorities'
410 CAROLINE BROOKE
in
in the
thefield
field
of of
composition
composition
theory,
theory,
and saidand
thatsaid
his absence
that hiswas
absence
a 'grievous
wasloss'.
a 'grievo
Zhilaev
Zhilaevhadhadbeen
been
executed
executed
two years
two previously.69
years previously.69
For
Forthe
themost
mostpart,
part,
members
members
of theof
musical
the musical
profession
profession
sought to carry
sought
on their
to carry
normal
normalworking
working lives
lives
in the
inabnormal
the abnormal
conditions
conditions
of 1936-38.
ofDifferent
1936-38.strategies
Different str
were
wereadopted:
adopted:some
some
composers
composers
studiously
studiously
avoided all
avoided
involvement
all involvement
in any of thein a
meetings
meetings held
held
during
during
this this
period,
period,
even toeven
the extent
to the ofextent
drawingofcriticism
drawing onto
criti
themselves:
themselves: others
others
participated
participated
to the to
extent
the of
extent
repeating
of repeating
the standard
the
cliches
standard
of the clich
period
periodatatmeetings
meetings or in
orthe
inSoviet
the Soviet
press. Some
press.
musicians
Some musicians
may indeed may
have accepted
indeed hav
the
therhetoric
rhetoric of of
enemies
enemies
and have
and been
havekeen
beento keen
take the
to opportunity
take the opportunity
to rectify what
to rect
they
theysawsaw
as as
thethe
abuses
abuses
perpetrated
perpetrated
by saboteurs.
by saboteurs.
Others clearly
Others
tookclearly
advantage
took
of the
advant
situation
situation and
and
used
used
the the
various
various
meetings
meetings
held in the
heldComposers'
in the Composers'
Unions or the
Union
conservatories
conservatories to denounce
to denounce
their their
colleagues,
colleagues,
hoping thereby
hopingtothereby
further their
to further
own th
careers.
The tone of the discussions held among musicians seems to have become somewh
more constrained from around the second half of 1936 and into 1937. While certain
participants-Lebedinsky, for one-had felt free to express their own opinions during
the anti-formalism discussions, the atmosphere was to change as arrests began to
escalate, and musicians responded by toning down their public statements to fit the
prevailing climate. By holding general meetings of 'criticism and self-criticism' and
offering up scapegoats from among their own numbers, musicians were demonstrating
their loyalty to the regime and their willingness to toe the party line. It was in this
way that members of the musical profession were able-by and large-to shield
themselves in order to get on with their working lives in peace.
The victims of the Terror in the musical world almost universally fall into
the category of administrators. Most, if not all, of these people would have been
party members, many of them were Old Bolsheviks, and as such were peculiarly
vulnerable to arrest at this time. In a society in which workers were turning
against their bosses, the bosses in the musical world were the bureaucratic elite of
philharmonia and conservatoire directors and arts administration officials. Among
the Old Bolsheviks from the arts world who fell victim to the Terror one would
have to include not only Chelyapov and Kulyabko but also their administrative
superiors, Kerzhentsev, who would lose his job in January 1938, and Bubnov, the
commissar for enlightenment, who was executed in 1937 as part of the purge of his
commissariat.
Musicians themselves, however, got off lightly. It is important to note that the
musical profession as a whole was not affected by the Terror to anything like the
same extent as many other groups in Soviet society. Although writers seem to have
been one of the targets of attack and members of the non-Russian creative intelli-
gentsia certainly suffered disproportionately at this time, the conclusions of Getty and
Chase, from their analysis of patterns of repression among the Soviet elite, demon-
strate that 'the risk for the creative intelligentsia [of arrest] was even lower than that
for all other miscellaneous groups'.70 There were no high profile musical victims of
the Terror, and even those who were scapegoated in public often suffered no lasting
ill-effects. Whether this was-as Jelagin saw it-a result of governmental awareness
'that music could be a weapon for improving its international relations' or simply
demonstrated that music was not a major priority for the regime, it appears with
hindsight
hindsight that
that
Stalin's
Stalin's
comments
comments
to Shaporin
to Shaporin
in 1935 cited
in at
1935
the beginning
cited at the
of this
beginning
article
articlemight
mightin the
in the
long long
run, perhaps,
run, perhaps,
have beenhave
a statement
been aof statement
policy. of policy.
University
University of of
London
London
II am
amgrateful
gratefulto John
to John
Barber,
Barber,
Neil Edmunds,
Neil Edmunds,
Laurel E. Fay,
Laurel
DavidE.Saunders
Fay, David
and anSaunders
anonymous
and an ano
reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
1 M. Rutman, 'Melodiya dlya dvoikh', Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, 7 November 1998, p. 10.
I am grateful to John Barber for passing on this reference.
2 Boris Schwarz asserts that the anti-formalism campaign took place at the same time as the purges,
and Ian MacDonald claims that the attacks on Shostakovich happened 'at a time when outcasts were
being packed off to Siberia in scores of thousands every month' (Boris Schwarz, Music and Musical
Life in Soviet Russia (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1983), p. 124; Ian MacDonald. The New
Shostakovich (London, Fourth Estate, 1990), pp. 103-104).
3 See in particular Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary
Russia (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1992), chapter 8; and Leonid Maksimenkov, Sumbur vmesto
muzyki: Stalinskaya kul' turnaya revolyutsiya, 1936-8 (Moscow, Yuridicheskaya Kniga, 1997).
4 Jury Jelagin, Taming of the Arts (New York, Dutton, 1951), pp. 225-226.
5 The RAPM had come to dominate Soviet musical life during the period of the first five-year plan
(1928-32). For further details of RAPM organisation and activities see Neil Edmunds, 'Music and
Politics: The Case of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians', Slavonic and East European
Review, 78, 1, January 2000, pp. 66-89; and Amy Nelson, 'The Struggle for Proletarian Music: RAPM
and the Cultural Revolution', Slavic Review, 59, 1, Spring 2000, pp. 101-132.
6 'Likvidirovat' ostatki rapmovshchiny', Sovetskaya muzyka (hereafter SM), 1937, 5, pp. 10-15.
Sovetskaya muzyka was the monthly journal published by the Union of Soviet Composers.
7 Kul'tpros was the Department for Cultural and Enlightenment Work of the party Central
Committee.
8 V. Gorodinsky, 'O RAPM i rapmovshchine', Sovetskoe iskusstvo (hereafter SI), 17 May 1937,
p. 5.
9 A. Kut, 'Do kontsa vykorchevat' rapmovshchinu', SI, 29 May 1937, p. 4; 'Sobranie Moskovskikh
kompozitorov', Muzyka, 16 May 1937, p. 4.
10 Text of Bryusova' s speech at an open party meeting in the Composers' Union, April 1937, RGALI
(Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva), f. 2009 (Bryusova), op. 1, ed. khr. 48.
11 'Protiv rapmovshchiny i formalizma', SM, 1937, 7, pp. 5-8. Lebedinsky was lucky to escape so
lightly: his colleagues in the literary world were not so fortunate. He died in 1992.
2 V. Shebalin, 'O soyuze kompozitorov', SI, 29 January 1936, p. 3. For details of the early history
of the Unions of Composers see Caroline Brooke, 'The Development of Soviet Music Policy, 1932-41',
PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1999, pp. 51-57.
13 'Plenum soyuza kompozitorov', SI, 30 April 1936, p. 4.
14 For further details of these meetings see 'Stenogramma soveshchaniya v komitete s Moskovskimi
kompozitorami o rabote Moskovskogo otdeleniya soyuza kompozitorov', RGALI, f. 962 (Arts
Committee), op. 3, ed. khr. 107 (December 1936); 'Rech' predsedatelya komiteta na aktive soyuza
kompozitorov o rabote soyuza', RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 268; and 'Obyvatel'shchina vmesto
tvorcheskogo rukovodstva', Muzyka, 16 April 1937, p. 2. See also Brooke, pp. 192-194.
15 'Rezolyutsiya aktiva soyuza sovetskikh kompozitorov', SM, 1937, 5, p. 106.
16 A. Volozhenin, 'V Moskovskom soyuze kompozitorov', Izvestiya, 27 June 1937, p. 3.
17 'V pravlenii Moskovskogo soyuza sovetskikh kompozitorov', Muzyka, 6 July 1937, p. 1.
18 Chemberdzhi had been a founding member of RAPM. Letter to Molotov from composers and
musicians, October 1937, RGALI, f. 2954 (Gnesin), op. 1, ed. khr. 885, 1. 16.
19 'Spravka: o prinyatykh meropriyatiyakh po likvidatsii posledstvii vreditel'stva v muzykal'nykh
uchrezhdeniyakh soyuza', RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 190,11. 47-50.
20 For the discussions in Leningrad see 'Dela i dni', B. Valer'yanov, 'V soyuze Leningradskikh
kompozitorov', Rabochii i teatr, 1937; 8, pp. 47-49; S. Fainshtein, 'Sobranie kompozitorov Leningrada',
Muzyka, 6 July 1937, p. 3 and 16 July 1937, p. 2.
21 'Sobranie Kompozitorov v Leningrade', Muzyka, 16 July 1937, p. 2; I. V. Golubovsky (ed.),
Muzykal' nyi Leningrad, 1917-57 (Leningrad, 1958), p. 297.
22 RGALI, f. 2062, op. 1, ed. khr. 573,11. 19-20. He remarked that the improved atmosphere could
not be put down solely to the acquisition of a billiards table.
23 RGALI, f. 2954, op. 1, ed. khr. 885,1. 16.
412 CAROLINE BROOKE
24
24The
The Prokoll
Prokoll
(Proizvodstvennyi
(Proizvodstvennyi
kollektiv) had
kollektiv)
been a group
hadof been
students
a group
from the
of Moscow
students from
Conservatoire
Conservatoire Faculty
Faculty
of Composition
of Composition
who had formed
who an had
association
formed in an
1925association
which soughtin to 1925 whi
collectivise
collectivise the the
process
process
of composition.
of composition.
The Prokoll The
was closed
Prokoll
downwasin 1932.
closed down in 1932.
25
25A.A.A.A.
Ostretsov,
Ostretsov,
'Protiv'Protiv
formalizma
formalizma
v muzyke: (ovtvorchestve
muzyke: G. (o Litinskogo)',
tvorchestve SM, G.
1934,
Litinskogo)'
4,
pp. 6-26.
26 'Rezolyutsiya obshchego sobraniya kompozitorov i muzykovedov', SM, 1936, 2, insert between
pp. 8-9. The other composers mentioned were Gavriil Popov (1904-72) and Aleksandr Mosolov
(1900-73).
27 Rabochie fakul'tety (workers' faculties) offered a fast-track entrance to higher education.
28 Ya. Solodukho, 'Na kompozitorskom fakul'tete MGK', Muzyka, 26 September 1937, p. 2;
'Chuzhaki v konservatorii', SI, 23 September 1937, p. 3.
29 R. Zverina, 'Chuzhaki v Moskovskoi konservatorii', SI, 29 December 1937, p. 6.
30 R. Zverina, 'Na partiinom sobranii v Moskovkoi konservatorii', SI, 12 January 1938, p. 1.
31 According to Jelagin she had been a lady in waiting at the royal court before the Revolution
(Jelagin. The Taming of the Arts, pp. 133-134). Shatilov letter to Kerzhentsev, January 1938, RGALI,
f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 190, 11. 19-20.
32 Szenkar had moved to the Soviet Union after the Nazi rise to power and worked in the Khar'kov
Philharmonia and later in Mineral'nye Vody in the Caucasus. Letter to the head of the Arts Committee
Music Department from 'Arts Workers', RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s., ed. khr. 24, 11. 10-11.
33 Dzerzhinsky's opera had been praised by Stalin, who went to see the work at the Bolshoi on 17
January 1936 (Brooke, pp. 169-170; Fitzpatrjck, pp. 186-187).
34 Information from the Ukrainian Arts Administration, RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s., ed. khr. 24, 11.
39-41 and 151. Grechnev was later reported to be working in a theatre in Perm. His eventual fate is
unknown.
35 'Spravka: o prinyatykh meropriyatiyakh po likvidatsii posledstvii vreditel'stva v muzykal'nykh
uchrezhdeniyakh soyuza', RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 190,11. 47-50.
36 See also Kerzhentsev's letter to Stalin and Molotov concerning this dekada, December 1937,
RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s., ed. khr. 21,11. 176-178.
37 With the exception of Oskar Fried.
38 The Russian language was made a compulsory subject of study in Soviet schools in 1938, and
propaganda began to refer to the Russians as the 'first among equals'. A new slogan of 'Soviet patriotism'
also came into use at this time (Gerhart Simon, Nationalism and Policy towards the Nationalities in the
Soviet Union (Boulder, Westview Press, 1991), pp. 148-150).
39 'Dokladnaya zapiska o metodakh vreditel' skoi deyatel'nosti vragov naroda v iskusstve', RGALI,
f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 410,11. 13-24; 'Izgnat' burzhuaznykh natsionalistov iz sovetskoi muzyki', Muzyka,
26 September 1937, p. 1. Arts Committee officials assumed that ties of international brotherhood would
be particularly strong among musicians from the republics of the Caucasus: See 'O deyatel'nosti
upravleniya po delam iskusstv pri SNK Gruzinskoii SSR v oblasti muzykal'noi raboty', Byulleten' VKI,
1938, 2, pp. 13-15.
40 'Izgnat' burzhuaznykh natsionalistov ...', Muzyka, 26 September 1937, p. 1.
41 RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 410, 1. 17; V. Vlasov & V. Fere, 'Razoblachat' posledyshei
burzhuaznykh nationalistov!', SI, 17 October 1937, p. 3.
42 Platon Kerzhentsev, 'O muzyke', Pravda, 4 December 1936, p. 4.
43 A. Breskin, 'V soyuze sovetskikh kompozitorov Ukrainy', Muzyka, 26 December 1937, pp. 4-5.
44 RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 410, 1. 16.
45 G. Khubov, 'Dela Kievskoi Opery', RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s, ed. khr. 21.11. 133-136 at 1. 134.
46 Letter, L. Mekhlis to Stalin, Molotov and Ezhov, 22 October 1937, RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s, ed.
khr. 21, 11. 137-138. Kosior retained his post in the Ukraine until January 1938. He was later tried and
executed in February 1939. See Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (London,
Hutchinson, 1990), p. 247; also Serhy Yekelchyk, 'Diktat and Dialogue in Stalinist Culture: Staging
Patriotic Historical Opera in Soviet Ukraine, 1936-54', Slavic Review, 59, 1, Fall 2000, pp. 597-624.
47 This was felt to be quite inappropriate to the occasion. See G. Pevzner, 'Kto rukovodit
radioveshchaniem na Ukraine', Pravda, 9 July 1937, p. 6.
48 Letter, Kerzhentsev to Stalin and Molotov, 7 February 1936, RGALI, f. 962, op. 10s., ed. khr.
14, 1. 16. This document has been published in T. M. Goryaeva (ed), Istoriya sovetskoi politicheskoi
tsenzury: dokumenty i kommentarii (Moscow, Rosspen, 1997).
49 I. Glikman, Pis'ma k drugu: Dmitrii Shostakovich-Isaaku Glikmanu (Moscow, DSCH, 1993),
p. 317.
50 Glikman, pp. 12-13. Memoirs are not, of course, the most reliable sources of information, but
Glikman's story is believable.
51 See for example A. V. Gauk, Memuary, izbrannye stat'i, vospominaniya sovremennikov
(Moscow,
(Moscow,Sovetskii
Sovetskii
Kompozitor,
Kompozitor,
1975),1975),
p. 223;p.
D.223;
A. Tol'stoi,
D. A. Tol'stoi,
Dlya chego
Dlya
vse eto
chego
bylo:
vsevospominaniya,
eto bylo: vospomin
(St
(St Petersburg,
Petersburg,1995),
1995),
pp. pp.
107-108.
107-108.
52
52 'Khronika',
'Khronika',SI,SI,
11 11
December
December
1936,1936,
p. 4, stated
p. 4, stated
that 'Shostakovich
that 'Shostakovich
has requested
hasthe
requested
Leningradthe Leni
Philharmonia
Philharmonia that
thathis his
fourth
fourth
symphony
symphony
be removed
be removed
from performance,
from performance,
since it in no
since
way itcorresponds
in no way cor
to
to his
hispresent
present
creative
creativeconvictions
convictions
and represents
and represents
for himfora stage
him which
a stage
he has
which
left far
he has
behind'.
leftThe
farfact
behind'. Th
that
thatthethesymphony
symphony waswas
withdrawn
withdrawn
underunder
pressure
pressure
does not,does
of course,
not, ofdisprove
course,thedisprove
proposition
thethat
proposit
members
membersofof the
the
Philharmonia
Philharmoniaorchestra
orchestra
had disliked
had disliked
or even opposed
or eventheopposed
work. the work.
53
53 L.
L.Mikheeva,
Mikheeva, Zhizn'
Zhizn'
Dmitriya
Dmitriya
Shostakovicha
Shostakovicha
(Moscow,(Moscow,
Terra, 1997),
Terra,
pp. 1997),
196-197.pp. 196-197.
54
54 Elizabeth
Elizabeth Wilson,
Wilson,
Shostakovich:
Shostakovich:
A LifeARemembered
Life Remembered
(London, (London,
Faber and Faber
Faber, 1994),
and Faber,
pp.
pp. 124-125;
124-125;D. D.
Feofanov
Feofanov
& A.&Ho.
A. Shostakovich
Ho. Shostakovich
Reconsidered
Reconsidered
(London, Toccata
(London,Press,
Toccata
1998),Press,
p. 182. 1998),
55
55 N.
N.N.
N.Kulyabko,
Kulyabko,'Ya 'Ya
rekommendoval
rekommendoval
ego v partiyu',
ego v partiyu',
in Marshal
in Tukhachevskii:
Marshal Tukhachevskii:
Vospominaniya
Vospomi
druz'ei
druz'eii isoratnikov
soratnikov
(Moscow,
(Moscow,
1965),
1965),
pp. 26-30.
pp. 26-30.
56
56 Letters,
Letters, Kerzhentsev
Kerzhentsev to Andreev,
to Andreev,
17 April
17 1937
April
and1937
9 June
and1937,
9 June
RGALI,
1937,
f. 962,
RGALI,
op. 10s.,
f. 962,
ed. op. 10
khr.
khr.21,
21,11.
11.
1-3.
1-3.
Kerzhentsev
Kerzhentsev wrote
wrote
that his
that
decision
his decision
to sack Kulyabko
to sack Kulyabko
had been based
had in
been
partbased
on thein part
'information
'information wewehave
have
aboutabout
his closeness
his closeness
to Tukhachevsky'.
to Tukhachevsky'.
57
57 R.
R.Zverina,
Zverina,'Direktor'
'Direktor'Kulyabko',
Kulyabko',
SI, 23 SI,
June231937,
Junep.1937,
5. p. 5.
58
58 RGALI,
RGALI,f. f.962,
962,
op. op.
3, ed.
3, khr.
ed. khr.
190, 11.
190,47-50.
11. 47-50.
59
59 Irina
IrinaVinokurova,
Vinokurova,'Trizhdy
'Trizhdy
rasstrelyannyi
rasstrelyannyi
muzykant',
muzykant',
Muzykal'naya
Muzykal'naya
akademiya, akademiya,
1996, 1, 19
pp. 79-84.
60 Letters, Shostakovich to Kerzhentsev, 11 July 1937, Kerzhentsev to Shostakovich, 14 July 1937,
RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, ed. khr. 331,11. 82-85.
61 Veronique Garros et al. (eds), Intimacy and Terror: Soviet Diaries of the 1930s (New York, The
New Press, 1995), p. 356.
62 Gauk, p. 129. Gauk, who was one of the party of Muscovite musicians who had travelled to
Leningrad to hear the work, recalled how he was able to convince Kerzhentsev that Shatilov's
information was unreliable.
63 M. I. Chulaki, 'Segodnya rasskazhu o Shostakoviche', Zvezda, 1987, 7, pp. 189-194 at p. 190.
Chulaki tried and failed to assure them that tickets had been sold through the box-office in the normal
way.
64 S. Khentova, Shostakovich: zhizn' i tvorchestvo, 2 vols (Leningrad, 1985), 1, p. 459.
65 This matter was, of course, very far from entertaining at the time, and Chulaki relates how
Dunaevsky, the then chairman of the Leningrad Composers' Union, was later questioned about whether
or not he considered Chulaki to be a 'saboteur'.
66 Chulaki also relates how one of Shostakovich's friends (he implies, rather than states, that it was
the writer Mikhail Zoshchenko) came rushing up to Shostakovich in the foyer after the performance of
Chaikovsky's Francesca da Rimini overture crying 'Mitia, I always believed that you could write
beautiful and melodious music!' (Chulaki, p. 192). The whole article is reprinted in Wilson, pp. 132-138.
67 Khentova, p. 455.
68 I. Barsova (ed.), 'Iz neopublikovannogo arkhiva A. V. Mosolova', SM, 1989, 7, pp. 80-92 and
1989, 8, pp. 69-75, at pp. 70-72.
69 Vinokurova, 'Trizhdy rasstrelyannyi muzykant', pp. 83-84.
70 J. Arch Getty & Roberta T. Manning, Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1993), p. 243.

Brooke - Sov Musicians and The Great Terror - 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brooke - Sov Musicians and The Great Terror - 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soviet Musicians and the Great Terror

Author(s): Caroline Brooke

Soviet Musicians and the Great Terror

While the anti-formalism campaign clearly had a major impact on S

Chemberdzhi himself was accused of seeking to infringe Soviet democracy by

Similar meetings of the Leningrad Composers' Union were held on a number of

Denunciations of institutions and individuals

'radical purge of the whole of the musical front of RAPMovtsy, hangers-on an

Non-Russian musical life

You might also like