Table Of ContentCopyright by
Deming B. Brown
1952
AMERICAN AUTHORS IN SOVIET RUSSIA:
1917-1941
By
Deming Bronson Brown
Submitted in p artial fulfillm ent
of the requirements fo r the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy,
Columbia University
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Chapter Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
I, THE PUBLICATION OF AMERICAN LITERATURE IN
RUSSIA FROM 191? TO 1 9 ^ 1 ................................................. 10
I I . AMERICAN LITERATURE OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING
THE CIVIL W A R ........................................................................... 60
I I I . AMERICAN LITERATURE FROM THE CIVIL WAR TO THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY........................................................... 127
IV. AMERICAN LITERATURE SINCE 1900: UPTON SINCLAIR 229
V. JACK LONDON AND 0. HENRY.............................. 293
VI. SHERWOOD ANDERSON AND THEODORE DREISER . , . 6 i-
~ '
V II. SINCLAIR LEWIS........................................................................... JI22
V III. JOHN DOS PASSO0 AND ERNEST HEMINGWAY . . . . ^51
IX. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 537
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . ...................................................................... 5^5
11
INTRODUCTION
This study 00011)11168 a survey of the pu b licatio n of
American lite ra tu re in the Soviet Union w ith an in v estig atio n
of the Soviet criticism which has been devoted to much of th at
lite ra tu re . The f ir s t chapter considers the publication from
1917 to 19^1. The next two chapters are concerned w ith pre-
Soviet American lite ra tu re in the USSR, and follow the chronol
ogy of American h isto ry . (In the case of those w riters in
th is group who were known in R ussia before the October Revolu
tio n , background m aterial is provided fo r the purpose of com
paring pre-Soviet reputations w ith Soviet re p u ta tio n s.) The
follow ing fiv e chapters consider the p u b licatio n , reputation
and criticism of eight of the most prominent tw entieth-century
American authors in Russia in the Soviet period. The conclud
ing chapter contains a summary of the findings of the f ir s t
eight chapters and an evaluation of these findings.
The aims of the in v estig atio n are (1 ) to determ ine the
kinds of American lite ra tu re which were made available to So
v ie t readers during the period under study; (2) to d isclo se
the a ttitu d e s of Soviet c ritic s in regard to a sig n ifican t
segment of th a t lite ra tu re and (3 ) to determ ine, so fa r as
p o ssib le, the reactions of Soviet readers to th a t lite ra tu re
and to the p ictu re of American culture which i t rep resen ts.
I t is hoped th a t these findings w ill contribute to our general
1
2
understanding of th e impact of American c iv iliz a tio n on
Russian c iv iliz a tio n .
The extent to which the p u blication of a booh in the
Soviet Union is an in d icatio n of popular demand, or m erely the
re s u lt of a policy decision w ithin the publishing hierarchy
is unknown, and the answer probably v aries w ith the Individual
instance. The ch ief governing facto r in publishing decisions
in the Soviet Union since 1928, and to a great extent even
before th a t year, has been the w ill of the Communist P arty.
The a ttitu d e s of the P arty a t any given tim e do not necessari
ly correspond w ith those of the Soviet people, and i t is clear
th a t P arty decisions frequently run counter to popular se n ti
ment. Yet i t can be presumed th a t Soviet p u b lish ers, w hether
under War Communism, the NEP, or the Five Year Plans, have not
made a p ractice of issu in g books which are not read, and th a t
the re -issu in g of a work of American lite ra tu re is generally
a response to public enthusiasm .
On th e other hand, i t cannot be concluded th a t the
absence of an American work from Soviet bookshelves is an in
d icatio n of publie apathy toward th a t work. The fa ilu re of an
American book to appear in Russian tra n sla tio n , or to achieve
more than one ed itio n once i t has been published, can be the
re su lt of several facto rs p ecu liar to the Soviet scene, and
the preference of the reading public is only one of these..T he
fa c t th a t throughout the whole Soviet period, publishing has
been subject to varying degrees of cen tralized d irectio n and
oensorship would in d icate th a t p ublication s ta tis tic s can
3
show only those enthusiasm s among the reading public which
the co n tro llers of Soviet publishing have allowed to develop.
This does not mean th at those enthusiasms are not genuine.
R ather, i t means th a t they are not the kind of enthusiasm s
which might be expected to develop in a hypothetical free
market*
Subject to the above q u alificatio n s, th is study w ill
examine q u an titativ e trends in the publication of American
lite ra tu re , in an attem pt to determ ine the degree of popular
ity which th a t lite ra tu re as a whole has enjoyed in d iffe re n t
periods of Soviet development from 1917 to 19^1. Close a tte n
tio n w ill be paid to the selectio n of authors and schools of
authors fo r publication w ithin sp ecific periods. P articu lar
a tte n tio n w ill be paid to 'the growth and decline of the re
p u tatio n s of individual authors, as indicated by the number,
choice, and size of ed itio n s of th e ir works published over the
years. Likew ise, trends in respect to the themes and subject
m atter of the American lite ra tu re which is selected fo r pub
lic a tio n w ill be examined. The re su lts w ill be considered as
a P a rtia l ind icatio n of the preferences of the Soviet public
in respect to American lite ra tu re . A lso, they w ill show trends
in Soviet publishing policy concerning American lite ra tu re .
But more im portantly, they w ill show what has been read, and
w ill th erefo re suggest the p ictu re of American lif e which has
been av ailab le, through American lite ra tu re , to Soviet readers
w ithin given periods.
The focus of a tten tio n in respect to lite ra ry criticism
w ill “be su b stan tially the same as th a t in respect to publica
tion* The criticism of Individual American w riters w ill be
examined to determ ine the re la tiv e evaluations accorded them
in successive periods by Soviet criticism as a whole. Where
th ere seems to be no clear consensus among Soviet c ritic s ,
major areas of disagreem ent w ill be defined. On a b asis of
these fin d in g s, the constants in the Soviet c ritic a l approach
to American lite ra tu re w ill be pointed out, and the variables
w ill be discussed in term s of the h isto ric a l and cu ltu ral
trends they m anifest. F in ally , the opinions of lite ra ry c ri
tic s w ill be considered in term s of the evaluations of authors
and schools which are indicated by publication fig u res.
The aim in combining a study of publication w ith a
study of criticism is to find out what works of lite ra tu re are
lik e d and why they are lik ed . Beyond th a t, the aim is to shed
lig h t on the workings of a cu ltu re, and th is can be done most
c le a rly in terms of p attern s of ideas and im pressions. There
fore an attem pt is made to reconstruct in its essen tials the
p ic tu re of America which the Soviet reader must derive from
reading sp ecific authors.
I t should be stressed , however, th at such an attem pt
is founded not only on a knowledge of what has been published,
but also on the assumption th a t lite ra ry c ritic s in the Soviet
Union try , at le a st to a certain extent, to follow , as w ell as
to guide the in clin atio n s of the reading p u b lic. There is a l
ways a g u lf between lite ra ry c ritic s and the public in any
country, and there is ample reason to believe th a t in the
5
Soviet Union th at gulf Is wide. N evertheless, the function
of the lite ra ry c ritic In the Soviet Union, p a rtic u la rly since
the inception of the Five Year P lans, has "been a p ecu liarly
d id actic one, and lik e a ll functionaries In the fie ld of So
v ie t a rts , he Is under a p a rtic u la rly strong obligation to
keep Informed as to the current ta ste s and asp iratio n s of the
pu b lic. His w ritings are tendentious, and he Is expected to
mould public ta s te , but he Is also expected to be -practical
In the ap p licatio n of h is Ideas. This Im plies th at he Is ob
lig a te d to make Judgments which w ill be meaningful not only
to a,sm all co terie of lite ra ry p ro fessio n als, but also to the
broad public.
The Judgments of the c r itic , however, are also re
quired to be in close harmony w ith th e current o ffic ia l ideo
lo g ic al Hlin e ,M as determ ined by the Communist P arty. P a rti
cu larly in the years since 1932, I t has been im possible for a
c r itic to publish, fo r any appreciable length of tim e, opinions
which c o n flic t w ith current P arty views. This has undoubtedly
meant th a t, in many Instances, the utterances of c ritic s re
fle c t opinions which the P arty wants to estab lish among the
p u b lic, ra th e r than the opinions which the pu iaic curren tly
holds.
I t is probable, nev erth eless, th at the frame of re fe r
ence which the c ritic applies in discussing American lite ra tu re
is shared by the general p u b lic, and tb at the c r itie 8s p ictu re
of America is su b stan tially the same as. th at of the public fo r
which he w rites. For the Soviet public is certain ly not allowed
6
to read American lite ra tu re in an ideological vacuum. Many
Soviet readers, lik e readers in any country, probably do not
trouble them selves w ith book reviews and lite ra ry eritio ism .
There are, however, other Inducements fo r in terp retin g American
lite ra tu re along the lin e s th a t lite ra ry c ritic s striv e to
estab lish . To the extent th at the sources of public opinion
in the USSR, suoh as the p ress, radio and the vast ag itatio n al
apparatus of the Communist P arty, Influence the Soviet c i ti
zen, i t can be presumed th at the Soviet reader adopts a bias
th a t is essen tially Blm ilar to th a t of the lite ra ry c r itic in
hlB approach to American cu ltu ral h isto ry .
There are several facto rs which might be expected to
lend homogeneity to Soviet criticism of American lite ra tu re .
F irst of a ll, pre-revolutionary p o litic a l, economic and cul
tu ra l rela tio n s between the two countries established in the
minds of Russians a tra d itio n a l image of America which was
p a rtia lly carried over into Soviet criticism . I t can be
assumed th a t certain basic ingredients in th is image were
shared by a ll c ritic s . Second, p o litic a l, economic and cul
tu ra l rela tio n s during the Soviet period would have engendered
common a ttitu d e s in a ll c ritic s , regardless of the ideological
framework in which these rela tio n s were viewed. But the most
Im portant facto r making fo r homogeneity was the adoption of
Marxism as a national In te lle c tu a l d iscip lin e. As applied in
the Soviet Union, th is d isc ip lin e, u n til recent years, has
perm itted a certain fle x ib ility in c ritic a l approach, so th a t
criticism w ithin the period under discussion never became
7
com pletely stereotyped. N evertheless, the trium ph of Marxism
as a single guiding Ideology was a re la tiv e ly sw ift one, and
every c ritic had sooner or la te r to adopt it in order to con
tinue functioning.
■Despite the M arxist constants, a fu ll consideration of
the Soviet approach must involve atten tio n to a complex and
changing p attern of p o litic a l, social, end esth etic ideas.
There was actu ally very l i t t l e of a s ta tic nature in Soviet
lite ra ry criticism from 1917 to 194-1 • The abundance of c r iti
cal schools (p articu larly In the tw enties), the Inevitable
clash of Ideas among M arxists them selves In th e ir attem pts to
work out esth etic p rin cip les, and the alignment and realig n
ment of cu ltu ral forces during the Soviet period, n atu rally
found re fle c tio n in the outlooks of individual c ritic s . An
equally im portant facto r was the growing Influence of the Com
munist Party I ts e lf on Soviet cu ltu ral a ffa irs. During the
period to 1928, the P arty was prom inently Involved in lite ra ry
questions, but its ro le was most frequently th at of referee In
the disputes between lite ra ry factio n s. Beginning in 1928,
however, the Party undertook sharp Interference both in the
production of domestic lite ra tu re and In the publication and
criticism of foreign lite ra tu re w ithin Soviet borders. By
1932, these increasing controls affected not only M arxist
lite ra ry theory in its broad usage, but also the concrete ap
p lic atio n of the Judgments of Individual c ritic s on sp ecific
workB of lite ra tu re . F urther, the Party "line" on sp ecific
ideas and issues was subject to change in terms of a sh iftin g
