Diktat and Dialogue in Stalinist Culture: Staging Patriotic Historical Opera in Soviet Ukraine, 1936-1954 Author(S): Serhy Yekelchyk Source: Slavic Review, Vol

Diktat and Dialogue in Stalinist Culture: Staging Patriotic Historical Opera in Soviet Ukraine, 1936-1954 Author(s): Serhy Yekelchyk Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 597-624 Published by: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2697347 . Accessed: 25/05/2014 06:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. 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 [email protected].

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Diktatand Dialogue in StalinistCulture: StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1954

SerhyYekelchyk

Decades ago, a highlyreadable emigrememoir aptly labeled Stalinistcul- turalpolicy the "tamingof the arts."' Reinforcingthe dominanttotalitar- ian paradigmaccording to which Sovietsociety was the passiveobject of an all-powerfulstate, this catchy image became popular in the Cold War west.During the 1970s, the "revisionist"generation of westernscholars began questioningthe orthodoxview of Stalinistculture. For example, Vera Dunham suggestedthat the middle-classvalues apparentin the lit- eratureof matureStalinism might reflect a "Big Deal" between the bureaucracyand the culturaltastes of the new Soviet "middle class,"while Sheila Fitzpatrickmaintained that even in the heydayof Stalinism,some prominentintellectuals held positionsof "culturalauthority," enabling themto influencethe course of culturallife.2 These suggestions,however, illuminatedthe social backgroundof the culturalprocesses rather than theirinner dynamics. During the last three decades, western scholars have made use of publishedsources to refinethe revisionistmodel of Stalinist culture.3Nonetheless, until recently,the unavailabilityof the partyar- chiveshas delayeda comprehensiveconceptual reassessment of relations between power and culture in the Stalin period. The question of how the pronouncementsof partyleaders, decisions of local bureaucrats,the creativework of intellectualsand artists,and the reactionof audiences in-

The firstdraft of thispaper was presentedat the annual conventionof the AmericanAs- sociationfor the Advancement of SlavicStudies in Boca Ratonin September1998. 1 would like to thankthe criticsof the originaltext: Mark Baker, David Brandenberger,John-Paul Himka,Marko Pavlyshyn,Karen Petrone,and KevinPlatt, all of whom contributedvalu- able suggestionsfor revision. The finalversion of thisessay, however, owes much ofits form and contentto the commentsof the SlavicReview's anonymous reviewers and to the edi- torialcounsel of Diane Koenker.Peter Klovan and MyroslavYurkevich have aided me with the stylisticediting of the finaldraft. My studies and researchat the Universityof Alberta were made possible by twogenerous fellowships,the Izaak WaltonKillam Memorial Doc- toralFellowship and the Ivan LysiakRudnytsky Memorial Doctoral Fellowshipin Ukrain- ian Historyand PoliticalThought. 1. Iu. Elagin, Ukroshchenieiskusstv (New York,1952). 2. See Vera S. Dunham, In Stalin' Time:Middleclass Values in SovietFiction, with an in- troductionby Jerry F. Hough (Cambridge,Eng., 1976); Sheila Fitzpatrick,"Culture and Politicsunder Stalin: A Reappraisal,"Slavic Review35, no. 2 (June 1976): 211-31, re- printedin substantiallyrevised form as "CulturalOrthodoxies under Stalin"in her TheCul- turalFront: Power and Culturein RevolutionaryRussia (Ithaca, 1992), 238-56. 3. See, forexample, Katerina Clark, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual(Chicago, 1981); Boris Groys,The TotalArt of Stalinism: Avant-garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond,trans. Charles Rougle (Princeton, 1992); Peter Kenez, Cinemaand SovietSociety, 1917-1953 (Cambridge,Eng., 1992); Regine Robin, SocialistRealism: An ImpossibleAesthetic, trans. CatherinePorter (Stanford,1992); Richard Stites,Russian Popular Culture: Entertainment and Societysince 1900 (Cambridge,Eng., 1992); and JeffreyBrooks, ThankYou, Comrade Stalin!Soviet Public Culture from the Revolution to Cold War (Princeton, 2000). SlavicReview 59, no. 3 (Fall 2000)

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 598 SlavicReview

teractedto shape everyday"cultural production" under Stalinism,espe- ciallyoutside Moscow and Leningrad,remains open. Moreover,although Russian historiansnow enjoy unprecedented access to unique archival sources,their vision of Stalinistcultural policy is stillframed in termsof the state'sdiktat and "control."4 The authorities'diktat, in theform of periodiccampaigns against various "deviations"and close ideological supervisionof major projects, seemed to be the most spectacularfeature of Sovietcultural life. Never- theless,interpreting cultural production under Stalinismexclusively in termsof the party's ideological dominion over the terrorized intelligentsia is simplistic.The researcher'strue challenge is to recoverthe exact role playedby the Moscow hierarchy,local functionaries,and artisticelites in shapingStalinist culture. This paper proposes to analyzeStalinist cultural productionas a complex amalgamof the state'sdiktat and the "dialogue" betweenthe bureaucracyand the intelligentsia.Mikhail Bakhtin has ar- gued thatall textsare organizedas a "dialogue"that takes account of their perceptionin a given society.At the same time,audiences can "read" a textselectively, thus negotiatingits meaning and enteringinto dialogue withthe cultural producers.5 Taking Bakhtin's theory a stepfurther, Fredric Jamesonhas shown,in his analysisof seventeenth-centuryAnglicanism, thatthe constantrepetition of hegemonicdiscourse indicates the impos- sibilityof achievingcomplete cultural hegemony in anysociety. Although we often"hear" onlyone hegemonicvoice, the hegemonic discourseal- waysremains locked in dialogue withsuppressed counterdiscourses. This is made possible by whatJameson calls the unityof a shared code -a shared language and a common set of assumptions.6This concept opens up a new way to studythe strategiesof resistancewithin the officialdis- course thatenable varioussocial or ethnicgroups to negotiatethe meaning of the officiallanguage in order to defendtheir own interests.7 The state'sdiktat in Stalinistculture was limitedby the irregularchar- acterof the centralauthorities' administrative interference. Although the periodicMoscow-initiated ideological campaignsundeniably defined the

4. See, forexample, Leonid Maksimenkov,Sumbur vmesto muzyki: Stalinskaia kul'tur- naia revoliutsiia1936-1938 (Moscow, 1997), where the valuable archivalfindings often contradictthe author'straditionalist conclusions. 5. It is significantthat Bakhtindeveloped the notion of dialogism in the Stalinist SovietUnion. Much of his workcelebrated unofficial resistance to the authoritativedis- courses thatattempt to limitthe polysemousimpulses of language. Since meaningscan- not be fixedand made absolute,the hegemonicquest fororder and stabilityis frustrated bythe persistentresidual otherness of subversion,irresolution, and ambiguity.See M. M. Bakhtin,The Dialogic Imagination: FourEssays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, ed. Michael Holquist (Austin,1981); V N. Voloshinov,Marxism and thePhilosophy of Lan- guage,trans. Ladislav Matejkaand I. R. Titunik(New York,1973); Michael Holquist,Dia- logism:Bakhtin and His World(New York,1990). 6. FredricJameson,The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a SociallySymbolic Act (Ithaca, 1981). 7. Significantly,the studyof the social historyof Stalinismis developingin the same conceptual direction.Stephen Kotkin has recentlyargued that workerscame to share Stalinismas a "civilization"through "positive integration" into officialsociety by learning to "speak Bolshevik"and enteringa subtle,if unequal, negotiationwith the system.See Stephen Kotkin,Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization(Berkeley, 1995).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 599 general directionof literatureand the arts,the partyleadership did not exercisetotal control over culturalproduction even afterthe late 1930s. High-levelpolicy decisions interfered sporadically and oftenconfusingly withcultural life far away from Moscow, whereas local functionarieshad considerableautonomy in determiningthe limitsof what was ideologi- callyacceptable and unacceptable.In fact,the everyday"party line" in So- vietUkrainian culture was formulated,negotiated, and maintainedby republican bureaucratsand membersof the intelligentsiathemselves. They could eitherundermine or reinforcethe Moscowpolicy, and more often than not, the intellectuals'dialogic responseswere alreadyinfused with deferenceand servility.Following the authorities'lead or actingon their own,critics, poets, and composersevaluated theirpeers' workaccording to theirown understandingof standardsof Stalinistideology and aesthet- ics. Withor withoutMoscow's approval, local ideologues and intellectuals alike did not hesitateto denounce various "errors"and to develop brief and often confusingpronouncements from the center into full-blown ideological campaigns.At the same time,by expressing their opinions in the shared "Bolshevik"political language, the artisticcommunity could successfullynegotiate the meaningof SovietUkrainian culture with local functionaries.The Ukrainianintelligentsia skillfully used the officialdis- course of "ethnicflowering" to maintainthe rightsof the indigenoushigh culture,and both the republicanpolitical and artisticelites relied on the rhetoricof the "authenticcultural tradition" to defend theircultural domain againstMoscow's centralizing efforts. Although scarce, the surviving evidenceindicates the active role thatcontemporary Ukrainian audiences mayhave playedin their"dialogue" with the culturalproducers. The need to reviseour viewof Stalinistcultural life does not end here. Even the mostinsightful western cultural historians have usuallylimited theirstudies to developmentsin Moscowand, at best,Leningrad, neglect- ing both the culturaldynamics of Russian provincesand the factthat at least halfof the Sovietpeople belonged to non-Russiannationalities and consumed-together with or instead of Soviet Russian culture-the worksof theirnative culture. Far removedfrom Moscow, local political bodies offeredan additional forumfor "negotiations"between the authoritiesand the intelligentsia.Moreover, contrary to a famousSoviet slo- gan, both the formand the contentof national culturesunder Stalinism representedan alternativeavenue of self-identificationfor the audiences.8 The architectsof "socialistnational cultures"never quite succeeded in separatingtheir constructs from the old "bourgeois-nationalist" culturesof the same nationalities.The goal of creatinga "healthy"eth- nolinguisticSoviet Ukrainian culture not identifiedwith the non-Soviet Ukrainianultimately proved unattainable.9In theirfrustration, the au- thoritieslaunched periodic campaigns against "nationalistdeviations,"

8. Here I agree withYuri Slezkine. See his provocative"The USSR as a Communal Apartment,or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,"Slavic Review 53, no. 2 (Summer1994): 414-52, here 447. 9. Ronald GrigorSuny has examined the Sovietideal of "healthy"ethnolinguistic na- tionhoodin TheRevenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and theCollapse of the Soviet Union (Stanford,1993), 111-12.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 600 SlavicReview but republicanbureaucrats and indigenousintellectuals shaped the extentof thosecampaigns at leastas much as the Moscowfunctionaries did. This interpretationcontrasts sharply with those of contemporaryschol- ars in the non-Russiansuccessor states, who unproblematicallydemonize Moscow and its viceroys.Thus, Ukrainian culturalhistorians routinely concentrateon theblack deeds oflosif Stalin and his envoys,who are pre- sumed to have successfullyterrorized the Ukrainian intelligentsiaand made it complywith the official"party line." 10 This paper willoffer a dif- ferent,more complicatedpicture of Stalinist"cultural production" in the mostpopulous non-Russianrepublic of the SovietUnion. Conceived as a deconstructionof the traditionalview of Stalinistcul- turallife, this article also tellsa storyof itsown. It is the storyof the making of SovietUkrainian historical opera fromthe late 1930s to the mid- 1950s,of editingand stagingclassical Ukrainian operas under Stalinism, and of multiplesocial "dialogues"in the artisticportrayal of the past." A look at thegenre of historicalopera is particularlyrewarding for a student of Stalinistcultural paradigms. The role of historicalopera in the Euro- pean national revivalsof the nineteenthcentury inextricably tied this genre to the emergenceof modern national identitiesand mythologies. The reinstatementof traditionalsocial hierarchiesand culturalvalues in the SovietUnion duringthe mid-1930spushed the "bourgeois"art of opera to the foreground.The state-sponsoredrehabilitation of patrio- tism,national pride, and Russian national heroes was another aspect of the same "Great Retreat."'92The genre of historicalopera affordeda unique opportunityto combine the Stalinistquest for monumentalism, respectability,and "classics"in thearts with the system's new regard for the Russiannational past and culturalheritage. Scholars have shownthat Rus- sian classicalopera, both tunefuland patriotic,made a spectacularcome-

10. See L.A. Shevchenko,"Kul'turno-ideolohichni protsesyv Ukraini u 40-50-kh rr.," Ukrains'kyiistorychnyi zhurnal, 1992, no. 7/8:39-48; Shevchenko, "Kul'turaUkrainy v umovakhstalins'koho totalitaryzmu (druha polovyna40-kh-pochatok 50-kh rokiv),"in V M. Danylenko,ed., UkrainaXX st.: Kul'tura,ideolohiia, polityka (Kiev, 1993), 1:119-30; V I. lurchuk,Kul'turne zhyttia v Ukrainiu povoienniroky: Svitlo i tini(Kiev, 1995); 0. V Zam- lyns'ka,"Ideolohichni represiiv haluzi hul'turyv Ukraini u 1948-1953 rr.,"in V M. Danylenko,ed., UkrainaXX st:Kul'tura, ideolohiia, polityka (Kiev, 1996), 2: 144-56. 11. This paper uses the followingabbreviations for the names of the Russian and Ukrainian archives:RTsKhIDNI (Rossiiskiitsentr khraneniia i izucheniia dokumentov noveisheiistorii; renamed Rossiiskiigosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii in March 1999), TsKhSD (Tsentrkhraneniia sovremennoi dokumentatsii), GARF (Gosu- darstvennyiarkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii), RGALI (Rossiiskiigosudarstvennyi arkhiv liter- atury i iskusstva),TsDAHO (Tsentral'nyiderzhavnyi arkhiv hromads'kykh ob"iednan' Ukrainy),TsDAVOV (Tsentral'nyiderzhavnyi arkhiv vyshchykh orhaniv vlady i derzhav- noho upravlinniaUkrainy), and TsDAMLM (Tsentral'nyiderzhavnyi arkhiv-muzei litera- turyi mystetstvaUkrainy). 12. The rehabilitationof Russian patriotismand traditionalcultural values in the mid-1930sis the subjectof Nicholas S. Timasheff,The Great Retreat: The Growth and Decline of Communismin Russia (New York,1946); Dunham, In Stalin'sTime; Robert C. Tucker, Stalinin Power:The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941 (New York,1990); Fitzpatrick,The CulturalFront; and D. L. Brandenbergerand A. M. Dubrovsky,"'The People Need a Tsar': The Emergence of National Bolshevismas StalinistIdeology, 1931-1941," Europe-Asia Studies50, no. 5 (July1998): 873-92.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 601 back on the Soviet scene from 1935 to 1937. The rehabilitationof the genrereached itsapogee in 1939,when the Bolshoi lavishlyproduced the canonical tsaristpatriotic opera, MikhailGlinka's Ivan Susanin,which had remained untouchable for twenty-twoyears after the revolution.With a heavilyedited libretto,Susanin became theStalinist patriotic spectacle, an unprecedentedlypompous celebrationof Russian national pride.'3 Yet the studentsof the "GreatRetreat" in Stalinistideology and culturehave generallyignored the factthat this transformationoccurred in a multi- national state. The non-Russiansdid not simplyjoin the Muscovitesin singingpaeans to "big brother."Instead, the non-Russian composers turnedto refurbishingor writingtheir own patrioticoperas in order to glorifytheir own national traditionsand glorious pasts. Late in the war and especiallyafter 1945, the promotionof local ethnicpatriotism in the artsbecame increasinglysubordinated to the glorificationof the "great Russian people" and the "friendshipof peoples."'14 Nevertheless,the re- sultingcultural hybrid allowed ample room fordifferent "readings."

The Quest for Grand HistoricalOpera In March 1936, hundredsof Ukrainianactors, musicians, artists, and writers arrivedin Moscowfor the dekada(ten-day festival) of Ukrainianart.'5 During thisgrandiose exhibitionof the culturalachievements of Soviet Ukraine,the Kiev Opera performedin the Bolshoi in the presenceof the Politburoand the cream of the Sovietstate and artisticelite. The Kievans broughtto Moscowtwo classical Ukrainian works based on folkmelodies, Semen Hulak-Artemovs`kyi'scomic masterpiece,The ZaporozhianCossack beyondthe Danube (1863), and MykolaLysenko's lyrical operetta Natalka fromPoltava (1889), along with a classic Russian work,Nikolai Rimskii- Korsakov'sSnow Maiden (1882). Performancesat theBolshoi proveda success, earningthe companythe Order of Lenin. (This was the firsttime a theatercompany had ever received the highestSoviet award.'6) Never- theless,Pravda mildly criticized the Kievansfor attempting to turnthe hu- morous ZaporozhianCossack into a "grandopera" by adding a new third act, "Atthe Sultan'sPalace," whichwas entirelywritten by the Sovietcom- poser VolodymyrIorysh. 17

13. A. A. Gozenpud, Russkii sovetskiiopernyi teatr (1917-1941): Ocherkistorii (Leningrad,1963), 212-19, 252-64; BorisSchwarz, Music and MusicalLife in SovietRussia, 1917-1981, enl. ed. (Bloomington,1983), 122; Tucker,Stalin in Power,554, 570-71. 14. On the rise of the "friendshipof peoples" paradigmin Soviethistory writing, see LowellTillett, The Great Friendship: Soviet Historians on theNon-Russian Nationalities (Chapel Hill, 1969). 15. See the extensivecoverage of the dekada in Pravda,11-25 March 1936. 16. Afterthe 1936 dekada, some Leningrad artistsreportedly complained that Ukrainianshad receivedawards as part of a politicalcampaign to exalt "ethnics"rather thanbecause theymerited them. See Sheila Fitzpatrick,Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in ExtraordinaryTimes: Soviet Russia in the1930s (NewYork, 1999), 167- 68. This would not ex- plain, however,the simultaneouspromotion of the Kiev Opera's leading conductor,Arii Pazovskii,first to the artisticdirectorship of the KirovOpera in Leningradand thento the analogous post at the Bolshoi. 17. Pravda,13 March 1936, 4.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 602 SlavicReview

The Moscow authoritiesfavored the idea of producing a classical Ukrainian patrioticopera that would provide Soviet Ukrainianswith a trulyimposing representation of theirheroic past-just as Ivan Susanin had done forthe Russians-and even of stagingsuch a workin Moscow. Duringthe dekada Kievansreported in Pravdathat they were revising and editinga classicUkrainian historical opera, MykolaLysenko's Taras Bul'ba. Withinweeks of thisannouncement, the head of the All-UnionCommit- tee forthe Arts,Platon Kerzhentsev,reported to Stalin thatthe Bolshoi Theater's Second Company was also planning to produce Taras.'8The "founderof Ukrainianmusic," Lysenko, left this sole Ukrainianclassical historicalopera unrevisedand only partlyorchestrated at his death in 1912. Based on NikolaiGogol"s famous novella about the Cossacks' struggle againstthe Poles, Taraswas good subjectmatter for a grand patriotic opera,while the work's anti-Polish animus was entirelyconsonant with the tone of Sovietprewar propaganda.'9 The Kharkivand Kiev operas produced Tarasseveral times during the 1920s,but the unfinishedopera did not long remainin theirrepertoire. In anycase, the previousproductions of Taras,with their constructivist settings, eurythmic choral movements, and panoramasof firstFive-Year Plan constructionsites in the finalewere hardly in keeping with the High Stalinistvision of traditionaland magnificentclassical spectacle.20 In April1937, less thana yearafter the dekada, the KievOpera stolea march on the Muscovitesby premieringTaras as a Ukrainiangrand historicalopera. The republic'sleading composers,Lev Revuts'kyiand Borys Liatoshyns'kyi,polished and orchestratedthe score, while the premier Ukrainianpoet, Maksym Ryl's'kyi,. edited thelibretto. In Lysenko'sversion, Tarasended witha Cossack assaulton the Polish fortressof Dubno. losyf Lapyts'kyi,the directorof the lavish1937 production,chose to be faithful to Gogol"s story,however, closing the opera withthe scene in whichthe CossackColonel Bul'ba is burnedalive by the Poles. (Immolationon stage was, of course,a traditionaland effectiveoperatic device.) Althoughthis monumentalfive-act opera lasted fiveand a halfhours, it was enthusias- ticallyreceived in Kiev and duringthe company'stour in Leningrad in May.2'Soviet Ukrainiansseemed to have recovered the missinglink of their"great tradition," required by the High Stalinistidea of a "nation."22 High policysoon interferedin a confusingfashion, however. When the Great Purge sweptaway the entireUkrainian leadership in the au-

18. Pravda, 23 March 1936, 4 (Kievans preparing Taras); RTsKhIDNI, f. 17 (TsK VKP[b]), op. 163, d. 1103,11.144-46 (Kerzhentsev). 19. Similarobservations have been made about the 1939 productionof Ivan Susanin at the Bolshoi. See Bojan Bujic, "Anti-PolishPropaganda and RussianOpera: The Revised Versionof Glinka'sIvan Susanin,"European History Quarterly 15, no. 2 (April 1985): 175- 86. The Kharkivopera companystaged Tarasin 1924 and the Kiev companyin 1927 and 1928. 20. See Iu. 0. Stanishevs'kyi,Ukrains'kyi radians'kyi muzychnyi teatr: Narysy istorii (191 7- 1967) (Kiev,1970), 63-67. 21. See the collectionof reviewsand newspaperclippings in TsDAMLM, f. 71 (N. V Smolich), op. 1, spr. 38, and M. Stefanovych,Kyivs'kyi derzhavnyi ordena Lenina akademich- nyiteatr opery i baletaURSR im. T H. Shevchenka:Istorychnyi narys (Kiev, 1968), 138-41. 22. Slezkine,"The USSR as a CommunalApartment," 446- 47.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1 936-1 954 603 tumn of 1937, "enemy sabotage" was uncovered in all fields previously supervised by the chairman of Ukrainian Committee for the Arts,Andrii Khvylia.On 24 October, the Pravda critic G. Khubov used the tragic finale of Taras to dismiss the work, which, he claimed, had "earned the praise and approval of the vile enemy of the people, Khvylia,"as an "antipopular production [antinarodnyispektakl']" exuding the "spiritof doom." Signifi- cantly,the officialnewspaper did not accuse the producers of "Ukrainian nationalism" or of unduly fosteringnational sentiment. Rather, theywere guilty of the "cynical glorification of Polish interventionists"and of in- sufficientUkrainian patriotic fervor.23 Hurriedly transferredfrom the Bolshoi, the company's new artisticdirector, Nikolai Smolich, soon found himself in a difficultsituation when the republican leadership put pressure on him to produce a new, more patriotic version of the only Ukrainian classical historical opera. Smolich himself felt like an outsider in Ukrainian artisticcircles. He disliked Ly- senko's music and had grave doubts about staging the opera in a language he did not understand well, especially in an unfamiliar cultural and political milieu: [Taras Bul'ba] was considered a Ukrainian classic, although Rimskii- Korsakovassessed it with laconic causticityin his Chronicle.Without even having seen the previous production,before assimilatinglocal tastes, trends,and conditions,it was quite difficultand even dangerousfor me to approach thistask. However, the circumstancesand mysituation left me no choice. I began by planning a new redaction,eliminating "antipopular"aspects, and shaping the action along more logical and gen- erallymore patrioticlines. When I submittedthis sketch to the Glavlit, the council memberscalled me a "miracle-worker."24 Lysenko's draftscontained enough material for at least two grand operas. To make way for more scenes of popular revolt, however, the producers edited out significantepisodes of the romantic subplot, as well as arias that had won public favor. Ending with a rather inconclusive musical depiction of the Cossack assault on the Polish fortress,the 1939 redaction of Taras proved ideologically acceptable. Audience reaction considerably influenced the company's repertoire policy, however. Although the company's manager, Mykola Pashchyn, claimed "great success" for Taras in print,at a later closed-door meeting he acknowledged that between 1937 and 1941, the Kievans had performed Taras only 83 times: "thatis how un- popular were those redactions."25 At about the same time, Ukrainian intellectuals began rehabilitating their prerevolutionary "great ancestors." During the late 1930s and early

23. Pravda,24 October 1937, 6. 24. TsDAMLM, f. 71, op. 1, spr. 20, ark. 206. Glavlitwas the Sovietcensorship office. In 1895,Nikolai Rimskii-Korsakov wrote about Tarasas follows:"In KievI metwith my for- merstudents Ryb and the composerLysenko. At Lysenko's I ate dumplingsand listenedto excerptsfrom his TarasBulba. Didn't like it-Taras Bulba,that is, not the dumplings."N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov,Letopis' moei muzykal'noi zhizni (Moscow, 1955), 197. 25. M. P. Pashchyn,"Nash tvorchyiraport," Festyval' opernoho i baletnohomystetstva: 24 bereznia-7kvitnia [1941] (Kiev, 1941), 9; TsDAMLM, f. 573 (Natsional'na opera Ukrainy),op. 1, spr. 171, ark. 2.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 604 SlavicReview

1940s,Russians saw their"heroic past" and tsaristheroes such as Peterthe Great,Aleksandr Nevskii, and Ivan the Terriblerestored to theirprevious dignitythrough the effortsof the best Soviethistorians, writers, and film directors,who acted on directinstructions from the Politburo.26Similarly, Ukrainianswitnessed the reinstallation of their "founding father," Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi,the Cossack hetman who had created the firstmodern Ukrainianpolity and, convenientlyenough, presided over its union with Muscovyin 1654.27Oleksandr Korniichuk wrote a playabout the hetman in 1938, and Ihor Savchenkodirected a film,Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi (1941). Both workswere awarded Stalin Prizes. This was soon followedby the rehabilitationof Danylo of Halych, the thirteenth-centuryruler of the Galician-VolhynianPrincipality, who foughtthe Tatars,Poles, and Teu- tonic knights.He was added to the canon of national heroes as the Ukrainian equivalent of Aleksandr Nevskii.Khmel'nyts'kyi and Prince Danylo belonged to the old tsaristpantheon of great men, but, oddly enough, no operas about them had been writtenduring the tsaristera, makingit impossiblefor the Sovietauthorities to have themrevised and solemnlyperformed. Meanwhile, both Ukrainian bureaucratsand intellectualscame to realize that Korniichuk'saward-winning play about Khmel'nyts'kyiwas potentialmaterial for a representativehistorical opera. The Ukrainian composer KostiantynDan'kevych set Korniichuk'splay to music in 1938 and, accordingto his biographer,became interestedin writingan opera on the subject as earlyas 1939. However,the managementof the Kiev Opera had a much biggercelebrity in mind. In 1939, the companyan- nounced that the premierSoviet composer, DmitriiShostakovich, had agreed to writesuch an opera, based on Korniichuk'slibretto.28 While Shostakovichproduced nothing (in fact,he never wroteanother opera after the 1936 denunciation of Lady Macbethof the MtsenskDistrict), Dan'kevychwaited patiently for his hour to strike. During the patrioticwartime fervor of 1942, the republicanauthorities planned to commissionthe writingof twoheroic national historical operas,Danylo of Halych and BohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi,29 but work apparently nevermoved beyond the planningstage. When the CentralCommittee's 1946 decree "On the Repertoireof Drama Theatersand Measuresfor Its Improvement"inspired a campaignagainst historical topics in the theater throughoutthe Sovietnational republics, the Ukrainianideologues could

26. See Timasheff,The GreatRetreat, 167-76; Bernd Uhlenbruch,"The Annexation of History:Eisenstein and the Ivan GroznyiCult of the 1940s,"in Hans Gunther,ed., The Cultureof the Stalin Period (New York,1990), 266-87; Maureen Perrie,"The Tsar,the Em- peror, the Leader: Ivan the Terrible,Peter the Great and AnatoliiRybakov's Stalin," in Nick Lampertand Gabor T. Rittersporn,eds., Stalinism:Its Nature and Aftermath:Essays in Honorof Moshe Lewin (London, 1992), 77-100. 27. Howeveroutdated, the best surveyof the changingSoviet views on Khmel'nyts'kyi remains John Basarab, Pereiaslav1654: A HistoriographicalStudy (Edmonton, 1982), 162-213. 28. See M. Mykhailov,Kostiantyn Fedorovych Dan'kevych: Narodnyi artyst SRSR (Kiev, 1964), 15, 75 (Dan'kevych); Stanishevs'kyi,Ukrains'kyi radians'kyi muzychnyi teatr, 177 (Shostakovich). 29. TsDAHO, f. 1 (TsKKP[b]U), op. 23, spr.441, ark. 5zv.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 605

not findmuch to denounce in drama.They resolved to broaden thescope of theirofficial statements on the theaterto include opera, a genre tradi- tionallypreoccupied with the past. The UkrainianCentral Committee resolution "On the Repertoireof Drama and OperaTheaters of the Ukrain- ian SSR and Measures towardIts Improvement"criticized the republican opera companiesfor not havingstaged a singlenew opera on a Sovietsub- ject duringthe previousthree years.30 Even so, the local authoritieshad onlyone composerto denounce for"preoccupation with the past," namely MykolaVerykivs'kyi, the authorof a lyricalopera on a themefrom Taras Shevchenkoand severalsymphonic works on historicalsubjects. In frus- tration,the ideological secretaryof the Ukrainian Central Committee, Kost' Lytvyn,set himselfto criticizethe librettiof unwrittenoperas workssubmitted to therepublican competition for best operatic libretto.3' The ill-fatedpremiere of the revivedTaras Bul'ba came just a month afterthe decree. The 1946 redactiondid not differmuch fromthe 1939 version.This time,however, Ukrainian opera critics,composers, and art- istshastened to imputeevery imaginable shortcoming to theuntimely historicalopera. The reviewersannounced thatTaras failed to create "an im- pressionof Ukraine sufferingunder the yoke of the Polish lords,"for in act 1, Bul'ba and other Cossackswere seen to be drinkingtoo cheerfully in the orchard. The colonel himselflooked "inactive"and the whole opera "unfinished."32Still, the Stalin Prize Committeesent twoMoscow composers,Reinhold Gliere and IuriiShaporin, to reviewthe production. As Shaporin confided to Smolich, the composers had prepared a very positiveassessment, but neitherthe republican "government nor theCen- tralCommittee gave theirsupport" to the nomination.33 For the next twoyears, with but a single exception,no composer at- temptedto workon a historicalopera in Ukraine. The exceptionwas a professorat the Kiev Conservatory,Mykhailo Skorul's'kyi, who had received his musical education before World War I and apparentlyhad neveradjusted to the changingSoviet ideological prescriptionsfor musical works.In 1948,Skorul's'kyi completed a grandhistorical music drama, Svichka's Wedding,which clearly imitated Wagner's musical language. Given the unofficialban on the "Hitlerite"Wagner in the postwaryears, Skorul's'kyicould consider himselffortunate that his opera was never staged.34Although in Ukraine the 1948 campaign against"formalism" in

30. Emphasisadded. The resolutionwas publishedin Literaturnahazeta, 12 October 1946, 2; Radians'kemystetstvo, 15 October 1946, 1; Iu. Iu. Kondufor,ed., Kul'turnebudivnyt- stvov Ukrains'kiiRSR: Cherven'1941-1950: Zbirnykdokumentiv i materialiv (Kiev, 1989), 271-76. 31. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 1, spr. 729, ark. 149 (Lytvyn);Radians'ke mystetstvo, 1 October 1946, 1, and 15 October 1946, 1 (Verykivs'kyi). 32. TsDAMLM, f. 146 (M. P. Stefanovych),op. 1, spr. 203, ark. 1-15 (typescriptsof negativereviews); f. 573, op. 1, spr. 46 (contemporarycritical discussion); TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.3653, ark. 165-70 (latercomments containing valuable insightsinto the causes of the 1946 fiasco); Radians'kemystetstvo, 4 December 1946, 3 (dismissivereview). 33. TsDAMLM, f. 71, op. 1, spr. 20, ark. 270. As a professorat the Kiev Conservatory from1913 to 1920, Gli&retaught both Revuts'kyiand Liatoshyns'kyi. 34. L. Arkhimovych,Shliakhy rozvytku ukrains'koi radians'koi opery (Kiev, 1970), 290; M. Mykhailov,M. A. Skorul's'kyi:Narys pro zhyttia i tvorchist' (Kiev, 1960), 71.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 606 Slavic Review musicfocused on the prominentsymphonist Borys Liatoshyns'kyi, the local authoritiesand culturalfigures ritualistically repeated the old accusa- tionsagainst Verykivs'kyi, himself no modernist,but presumablyguilty of "idealizingthe past."35After the thirdunsuccessful revival of Taras Bul'ba in 1946, Ukrainian composers seeminglyabandoned their attemptsto create (or recreate) a national historicalopera. In those years,the Kiev Opera twice(in 1947 and 1949) planned guestperformances in Moscow. Both times the republican functionaries"postponed" the tours indefi- nitely- the second timefor the explicitreason thatthe last redactionof Taras remained "unsatisfactoryfrom an ideological and artisticpoint of view."36A strangeimpasse ensued: on the one hand, officialideology dic- tatedthat Ukrainians create a fullydeveloped high culture,including patriotichistorical operas, and Moscow indicated no dissatisfactionwith Ukrainianhistorical operas after1937. On the otherhand, therepublican functionariesremained unsupportiveof any attemptto portraythe nation'spast, and local composersthemselves shied awayfrom problematic historicaltopics.

The Dialogic Dimensionsof CulturalProduction Smolich's unpublished memoirs provide extraordinarydetails of the strugglesand negotiationswithin an artisticcommunity allegedly terrorized and completelycontrolled by the party,as well as betweenthe intelligentsiaand the local authorities.Smolich's scorn for Lysenko'smusic soon antagonizedhis Ukrainiancolleagues, who stronglyidentified them- selveswith the promotionof indigenoushigh culture.Two episodes from the Kiev Opera's residence in Irkutskand Ufa duringthe war illustrate the point well. First,after consuming hard liquor at a party,the premier Ukrainianpoet and the company'sdramaturge, Maksym Ryl's'kyi, point- edlyannounced to Smolich that "Ukrainianculture was older and more developed than Russian,that this was particularlytrue of music,and that Rimskii-Korsakovwas not fitto hold a candle to Lysenko."On another occasion, Smolich publiclysuggested that Taras mightbe improvedby a new orchestration.The company'sleading bass, Ivan Patorzhyns'kyi, "turnedpale and, twistinghis mouth,sharply announced, 'If you,Nikolai Vasil'evich,treat the Ukrainian classics thisway, you are not fitto head Ukraine'sleading theater.'37 The remainderof Smolich's tenureat the KievOpera was markedby perennial clashes with Ryl's'kyi, Patorzhyns'kyi, and others over politicallysensitive questions of national musical heri- tage. At one point immediatelyafter the war,Smolich complained to the firstsecretary of the UkrainianCommunist Party, Nikita Khrushchev, that he could not workamong "people withnationalistic tendencies.... Then Khrushchevdelicately interrupted me and said in a confidentialtone: 'Do

35. Radians'kemystetstvo, 18 February 1948, 2; Literaturnahazeta, 4 April 1948, 2, and 27 May 1948, 1. 36. See TsDAMLM, f. 573, op. 1, spr. 144, ark. 15 (1947), and spr. 93, ark. 52-53 (1949). 37. TsDAMLM, f. 71, op. 1, spr. 20, ark. 237, 241.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 607 you think I am in a differentsituation, surrounded by differentpeople?"' Nevertheless, he gave the embattled artistic director valuable tactical advice-to join the party in order to obtain advance information about the intrigues within the company's partygroup.38 Of all the problems creating controversyat the Kiev Opera, the issue of staging Russian classical operas in Russian best underscored the "nego- tiability"of High Stalinistculture. Since the 1920s, producing Russian and west European operas in the various national languages had remained an important symbol of the "flowering"that major non-Russian cultures were said to be experiencing in the Soviet Union. Ukrainian intellectuals considered the linguistic "nativization"of the previously Russian opera theaters one of the most obvious gains of the Ukrainization campaign of the late 1920s.39But performingIvan Susanin and Eugene Oneginin Ukrainian caused displeasure among numerous Russian and Russified professionals residing in Ukraine. According to Smolich, immediately before the war, the Central Committee's new chief of the Department of Culture, a certain I. Lysenko, inquired about the possibilityof reinstatingthe Russian libretti of Russian classics because of the "popular demand among Kievans." (As one may conclude from this inquiry, Comrade Lysenko was not related to the famous composer and staunch nationalist Mykola Lysenko.) As Smolich heard later from Comrade Lysenko's successor, Kost' Lytvyn, and from the chairman of the Ukrainian Committee for the Arts, M. P. Kompaniiets', discussion of this issue was halted by Mykola Bazhan, a prominent Ukrainian poet and translator who served during the war as deputy premier in charge of culture.40 After the company returned to Kiev in 1944, Khrushchev raised the language question once again. Speaking to Smolich in the presence of three other key members of the Ukrainian Politburo, he complained that the Central Committee was receiving numerous letters demanding the production of Russian classics in Russian: "Perhaps this is right. This is what is being done in other republics and [other] Ukrainian cities. Is [returningto Russian] possible theoretically,and how much time would it take?" It would appear that Smolich supported the idea wholeheartedly. When he left Khrushchev, the matter seemed decided. The next day, together with the Ukrainian composers Revuts'kyiand Liatoshins'kyi,Smo- lich attended a partyat the Ryl's'kyis.There, Kompaniiets' broke the news about the forthcominglanguage reformat the Kiev Opera. As Smolich de- scribed it, Ryl's'kyireacted immediately: He jumped to his feet,saying: "Whatis this?Does Ukrainenot have the rightto possessat least one opera theaterof its own?Would Russian or foreignoperas be staged in the language of the originalsomewhere in Spain or France? I will call NikitaSergeevich [Khrushchev] at once." 38. Ibid., ark. 270zv-271. 39. See George 0. Liber,Soviet Nationality Policy, Urban Growth, and IdentityChange in theUkrainian SSR, 1923-1934 (Cambridge,Eng., 1992), 112, 176; MyroslavShkandrij, Modernists,Marxists and theNation: The UkrainianLiterary Discussion of the 1920s (Edmon- ton, 1992), 92. 40. TsDAMLM, f. 71, op. 1, spr.20, ark. 216, 272.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 608 Slavic Review

However,since it was late, Ryl's'kyi'swife kept him fromdialing. [Ryl's'kyi]concluded, "Tomorrowwe willall protestto NikitaSergee- vich.And as foryou, Nikolai Vasil'evich[Smolich], I volunteerto teach you literaryUkrainian within several months. You willmanage itquickly." Afterthis, no additional instructionson stagingRussian operas in Russianwere handed down,and everythingwas leftunchanged.4' The republican authorities returned to the language question many times, without ever resolving it. In Kiev, western operas continued to be staged in Ukrainian without provoking much public discontent. Meanwhile, the 1950 audit of the leading companies revealed that the Odessa and Kharkiv operas each performed eleven Russian classics in Russian that season, including in both cases Ivan Susanin, PrinceIgor, The Tsar' Bride,Eugene One- gin, and The Queen ofSpades. In L'viv,a western Ukrainian citypresumably sensitive to the rights of the national culture, most Russian operas were staged in Russian, while such a signature Stalinistspectacle as Ivan Susanin was sung in Ukrainian.42 Interestingly,Susanin was the most popular Rus- sian classical opera in L'viv. In 1950, the average attendance at Russian- language productions of Eugene Onegin and The Queen of Spades was 550, or about 100 percent of the "plan," while attendance at the Ukrainian- language production of Susanin was 970, or 180 percent of the "plan."43 (Aside from improved comprehension, almost a nonissue for educated western Ukrainians, these attendance figures suggest that at least part of the public was boycotting productions in Russian.) Only one company, the Kiev Opera, presented all Russian classical operas in Ukrainian translation, which some visitingMoscow critics considered an affrontto Rus- sian culture. In 1952, Igor' Belza, an inspector from Moscow, found it outrageous that the Kiev company had staged The Queen of Spades, Ivan Susanin, and Eugene Onegin in Ukrainian. Although Belza did not object to the quality of Ryl's'kyi'stranslations, he questioned the very need for Ukrainian libretti: "Whycould one not use the Russian text and, indeed, the text by [Aleksandr] Pushkin?"44 Nevertheless, the practice of performing the Russian classics in Ukrainian remained, at least in Kiev. The Ryl's'kyis,Patorzhyns'kyis, and Bazhans proved their ability to exploit the official discourse of ethnic "flowering"to defend their cultural domain.

By the late 1940s, both the republican authorities and the local artistic elite came to understand that they should resolve the impasse involving

41. Ibid., ark. 272zv.Today, to be sure,Russian classicaloperas are customarilyper- formedin Russianin bothFrance and Spain. It should be remembered,however, that staging operas in the language of the originalis a relativelyrecent innovation in the west. 42. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2051, ark. 176-77 (audit); RGALI, f. 962 (Vsesoiuznyi komitetpo delam iskusstvpri SoveteMinistrov SSSR), op. 11, d. 560,11.51-53 (Susaninin L'viv).The ostensibleaim of the 1950 auditwas to ensurethat Ukrainian opera companies were complyingwith the rule on performingRussian operas in Ukrainian translation. Nevertheless,the republicanofficials did not seem overlyconcerned about poor compli- ance on the partof opera companies outsideKiev. 43. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2015, ark. 185. 44. RGALI,f. 962, op. 11, d. 558,1.82. Of course,"Pushkin's text" did not referto Ivan Susanzn.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 609 national historicaloperas, ifonly to displaythe "flowering"of Ukrainian cultureto outsiders.In a manner characteristicof the idiosyncraticand confusinglate Stalinist"dialogue" between the partyhierarchy and the local elites,the impetusprompting them to startworking on a Ukrainian historicalopera came unexpectedly,indirectly, and ratherenigmatically. To reconstructthe event,we have onlya stenographicrecord of the amus- ing remarksmade byKompaniiets' at a meetingat the Committeefor the Artsin Moscowsometime in the early1950s. The storygoes as follows.In May 1948, the Sovietpresident, Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, visited Kiev. Known for his love of opera, Voroshilovasked Khrushchevto arrange for him to attend performancesby two prominentUkrainian singers, Mariia Lytvynenko-Vol'hemutand Ivan Patorzhyns'kyi,whom the marshal rememberedfrom the 1936 dekada. For the marshal'sbenefit, the Kiev Opera changed its schedule on short notice to put on Hulak- Artemovs'kyi'sThe Zaporozhian Cossack with Patorzhyns'kyi and Vol'hemut. Deeply moved bythe performance,Voroshilov issued an invitationto the Kievans:"Come to Moscow."After he left,the Ukrainianideologues and artisticelite plungedinto a feverishdiscussion of what to do. "Korniichuk was thereand, properlyspeaking, that [commentby Voroshilov] became the impetusto writeBohdan Khmel%nyts'kyi, forwe needed to bringsome- thingto Moscow; one could not go up againstthe Bolshoi Theater with Faust,Ivan Susaninor TheTsar's Bride. We needed to bringnational art- national in formand socialistin content."Significantly, with the postwar cult of the "elder Russian brother"on the rise, the Ukrainianside pre- ferredwriting a new workcelebrating the union withRussia to revivinga classicalTaras Bul'ba that did not explicitlyconform to the rhetoricof the "friendshipof peoples." In twomonths, the resourcefulKorniichuk produced a verse librettoof BohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi co-authored with his wife, Wanda Wasilewska.In July,the press reported that the composer Kos- tiantynDan'kevych was alreadyworking on the score.45 AlthoughVoroshilov's spur-of-the-moment invitation did not specify any date, the republican functionariesand culturalfigures turned the writingof Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi into an affairof state.As soon as the Odes- san Dan'kevychcompleted the firstdraft of the score on 27January1950, he telegraphedthe news to both the second secretaryof the republican Central Committee,Oleksii Kyrychenko,and the secretaryfor propaganda, Ivan Nazarenko. As early as 15 February,the newspapers announced thatthe firstaudition of the score at the UkrainianState Com- mitteefor the Arts was a success.By August, the finalversion of the score was ready.46Bohdan turned out to be a grandhistorical opera, a workhav- ing littlein common withthe conventionsof twentieth-centurywestern

45. RGALI, f. 962, op. 11, d. 558, 11.21, 48, 17. At the time,Kompaniiets' served as head of theAdministration of Theatersat the UkrainianCommittee for the Arts. The first draftof the librettocan be found in TsDAMLM, f. 435 (O. Ie. Korniichuk),op. 1, d. 297. On Dan'kevych,see Radians'kemystetstvo, 28July 1948, 3. 46. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2041, ark. 1 (telegramto Nazarenko), and spr. 2051, ark. 1 (telegramto Kyrychenko);Radians'ke mystetstvo, 15 February 1950, 3 (firstaudition), and 23 August1950, 3 (score ready).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 610 SlavicReview musicaltheater. Although the workwas based on national motifs,it imi- tatedthe formand dramaticstructure of nineteenth-centuryRussian and westEuropean operas. Bohdanalso contained directmusical quotations. Glinka's"Glory" from Ivan Susaninreverberated as the themeof the Mus- coviteambassador and sounded again in the finale.The plot, based on Korniichuk'sown play,developed againstthe backgroundof the Cossack war withPoland, ending withthe decision to ask the tsarfor protection (but not withthe act of union itself).Both Ukrainiannewspapers and in- ternalmemos characterizedthe Kiev premiereof BohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi in January1951 as a true "populardrama," a greatsuccess.47 An opportunityto take up Voroshilov'sinvitation and bringthe Kiev Opera to Moscowsoon presenteditself. By February 1951, the republican and centralbodies were alreadyplanning a new dekada of UkrainianArt in Moscowfor the comingsummer. The directivesissued by the republican Committeefor the Artsenvisaged a tripleaim forthe dekada: (1) to demonstrate"the Ukrainian people's deepest love and gratitudeto their father,comrade, and teacher-the leader of the peoples, Comrade Stalin";(2) to reflectthe floweringof SovietUkrainian culture, "socialist in contentand nationalin form";and (3) to manifestthe deepest love and devotionto "theelder brother-the greatRussian people."48 Every draft of the Moscowrepertoire of the KievOpera includedBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi and The ZaporozhianCossack.49 Although no officialdocument mentions this,Stalin apparentlyexpressed a desire to see TarasBul'ba duringthe Ukrainiandekada. This presumablyverbal request could not be accom- modated in time,and our onlysource forit is a chance remarkmade by the Ukrainian directorMar"ian Krushel'nyts'kyiin 1952: "We failed to fulfillComrade Stalin'swish to bringTaras Bul'ba for the dekada."50 On 27 May 1951, the entirePolitburo of the Ukrainianparty's Central Committeeattended the performanceof Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyiin Kiev. Propaganda SecretaryIvan Nazarenko and the nominal Ukrainianpres- ident, the chairman of the republic's Supreme Soviet,Mykhailo Hre- chukha,joined the lesser administratorson the followingday to discuss the changes thathad to be made before takingBohdan to Moscow.The membersof the Politburofelt that four and a halfhours was too long for an opera, but theywere reluctantto cut anything,suggesting instead that even more ideologicallycorrect statementsbe inserted into Bohdan's lengthyarias. Most of all, however,the local hierarchsconcerned themselves withappearances and good impressions.They suggestedputting

47. Radians'kemystetstvo, 31January 1951, 1; Literaturnahazeta, 8 February1951, 3 (the quotationis fromthe second article);RGALI, f. 962, op. 2, d. 2336,1. 13, and op. 3, d. 2306, 1. 6. Even such a discriminatingand culturedsinger as BorysHmyria genuinely liked the role of Colonel Kryvonis.After reading the score in October 1950, he immediatelywrote to a friend:"A good role-both forsinging and acting."In February1951, he again char- acterized thisrole as "significantboth musicallyand artistically."See TsDAMLM, f. 443 (B. R. Hmyria),op. 1, spr.58, ark. 105, 108. 48. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2050, ark. 3. 49. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2050; RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, dd. 2306, 2336. 50. TsDAVOV,f. 4763 (Komitetu spravakhmystetstv URSR), op. 1, spr. 360, ark. 25; TsDAMLM,f. 573, op. 1, spr. 171, ark. 25.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 611 the prettiestgirls in the firstrow of the chorus,including more pictur- esque scenery,making the hetman'sstudy more luxurious,and rollingout a finer carpet before the tsar's ambassadors. "President"Hrechukha, whose impromptuspeeches were alwaysentertainingly illiterate, asked: "Whyare all the Cossacks dressed so badly?One mightthink that they were poor." Significantly,nobody objected, while Dan'kevychhimself made an argumentfor "the element of pomp thatis requiredfor historical veracity."Nazarenko expressedthe partyline on BohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi in the mosttelling words: "It is our signature[koronna] performance.... We wantthis opera, afterbeing approvedfor staging, to become an opera for everyone."'5'The secretaryfor propaganda did not utterthe bourgeois-soundingphrase "Ukrainiannational opera," although thatis ap- parentlywhat he had in mind.

Mechanisms of Criticism and Self-Criticism The dekada of Ukrainian Art opened in Moscow on 15June 1951. In the evening, the firstperformance of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi(in Russian) took place at the Bolshoi Theater. Nazarenko's daily reports to First Secretary Leonid Mel'nikov, which for some reason were sent by the 'VCh," the secure high-frequency telegraph channel used by the Soviet military command duringthe war,allow us to reconstructthe sequence of events blurred in other sources by the subsequent criticismof the opera. Naza- renko considered the Moscow premiere a success. Stalin, Viacheslav Mo- lotov, Georgii Malenkov, Lavrentii Beriia, Voroshilov, Lazar' Kaganovich, and Khrushchev were present from beginning to end. The public ap- plauded after many arias, clapping enthusiasticallyand shouting "bravo" after the finale. On 17 June, the Kievans repeated Bohdan to a less blue- ribbon audience, which "received [the opera] warmly,much better than on the 15th." Altogether, the company performed Bohdan four times, The Zaporozhian Cossack thrice (the Muscovites reportedly complained that threetimes was not enough), and The Tsar'sBride twice. All threeoperas werebroadcast by all-union radio and televisionat least once. On the last day of the dekada, 24 June, Nazarenko concluded that Bohdan had "earned the approval of the metropolitan audience" and ordered that se- lected arias from the opera be included in the final concert.52 This account mysteriouslypasses overin silence a criticalremark that appeared in Pravda on 16June. Afterdiscussing the launch of the dekada and the merits of Bohdan, the unsigned article, entitled "The Opening of the Dekada of Ukrainian Art in Moscow," announced: Its virtuesnotwithstanding, the opera has serious shortcomings,stem- ming primarilyfrom the weak libretto(written by W. Wasilewskaand 0. Korniichuk).

51. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 1875, ark. 47-94, esp. ark. 73 (Hrechukha), 88 (Dan'kevych),and 75 (Nazarenko). 52. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2428, ark. 3-85. Compare the officialchronicle of the decade in Pravda, 16-28June 1951, and in Dekada ukrains'kohomystetstva u Moskvi 15-24 chervnia1951 r.: Zbirkamaterialiv (Kiev, 1953).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 612 SlavicReview

One of the majordrawbacks of the librettois thatit departsfrom historical truth.It does not reflectthe strugglebetween the Ukrainian people and thePolish gentry, the enemycamp is not shownon stage,and the Polishgentry is not depicted,but hidden fromthe spectatorfor some reason. Anotherserious drawback.The eventsportrayed in the opera take place during the Ukrainian people's war for independence from the Polish gentry,yet the spectatordoes not see a singlebattle scene in this production. The opera also has other drawbacksthat will be exposed in due course.53

This critique, which apparently emanated from the highest partyleadership, was published in Pravda the morning after the performance. It seems to have been writtenafter the final curtain (toward midnight), in the short time available before the newspaper went to print in the early morning hours. To those who read the review,it might have appeared that the attack on Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyiwas nothing more than an isolated low- key critique of insignificanterrors in an otherwise laudable work. It might have seemed, furthermore,that the critics simply wanted to tone down the anti-Polish animus of the opera by specifyingthat the Cossacks fought the Polish gentryand not the "fraternal"Polish peasantry. As there were no other signals from above after the premiere, the middle-level bureaucracy remained somewhat confused. Bohdan was not banned immediately after its firstperformance in Moscow. Moreover, as we have seen, Nazarenko effectivelyignored Pravda's intervention, pro- claiming the performance a success and planning to include excerpts from the opera in the festival'sfinal concert.54 The all-union television channel showed Bohdan in full on 15 June but canceled The Zaporozhian Cossackon the next day, citing technical problems, but probablyjust play- ing it safe ideologically.55However, the all-union government went ahead with awards and honors for Ukrainian artists.56 On 26June, the Union of Soviet Composers held a conference to review the works performed during the dekada. Although some participants

53. Pravda,16June 1951, 1. 54. As both the printedprogram of the concertof 24June 1951 and the transcriptof the televisioncoverage attest,no arias fromBohdan were performedthat evening.The archivalmaterials do not revealwho overruledNazarenko on thismatter or when the decision occurred. See TsDAMLM, f. 146, op. 1, spr. 215, ark. 1-3zv (program); GARF, f. 6903 (Komitetpo radioveshchaniiui televideniiupri Sovete MinistrovSSSR), op. 26, d. 21, programlisting for 26June (thisfolder has no continuouspagination). 55. GARF,f. 6903, op. 26, d. 21, programsfor 15 and 16 June. Interestingly,the recordshows that Bohdan was supposed to end by11:30 P.M. on 15Junebut continuedun- tilmidnight. 56. On 30 June, Orders of Lenin were conferredon MykhailoHryshko (Bohdan) and MykhailoRomens'kyi, who sang the role of the Muscoviteambassador in Bohdan. Dan'kevychreceived the Order of the Red Banner for Labor, while Honored Artistof UkraineBorys Hmyria (Colonel Kryvonisin the opera) skippeda step in the hierarchyof Sovietactors to attainthe highestrank of People's Artistof the SovietUnion. See Pravda, 1July 1951, 1-2.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 613

repeatedPravda's criticisms, the discussiondid not turninto a denunciation. The Moscow criticsnoted thatBohdan had an effective"operatic" subject,that "the opera [had] considerablematerial for voice, and thatof high quality,which immediately attract[ed] the attentionand interestof the listener."They foundfault with the plot,with devices borrowed from the "old romanticopera," with too many (five) arias forBohdan and too few (one) ensembles-although the musicologistV Kukharskiipointed out that Boris Godunovalso has no ensembles. In the end, Dan'kevych thanked the participantsand announced that he, togetherwith Kor- niichukand Wasilewska,would prepare a new redactionof the opera.57 On 2 July,however, Pravda unexpectedlyfired a devastatingideologi- cal salvo withan editorial"Against Ideological Distortionsin Literature." This long articlewas ostensiblydevoted to just one "distortion,"Volody- myrSosiura's short poem "Love Ukraine" (1944), whichappeared in Rus- sian translationin the Leningradjournal Zvezda (1951, no. 5). Written duringthe patrioticfervor of 1944, the poem was now accused of glorify- ing "some primordialUkraine, Ukraine in general,"rather than Soviet Ukraine. In an aside, the articleannounced that,in addition to the ill- fatedpoem, the ideological workof the Ukrainianparty's Central Com- mitteedisplayed other serious shortcomings. One of themwas thefaulted librettoof BohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi. The article triggereda comprehensive campaign of ideological purificationin the republic,complete withde- nunciationsof "nationalistdeviations" in all areas and genres of creative activity.Writers, artists, composers, and partyfunctionaries all repented their"ideological blindness." The campaignreached a high point in No- vember,when the plenarymeeting of the republicanCentral Committee set the seal on the unmaskingof nationalismin the arts.58 While the ideological offensivein Ukrainewas just beginning,Pravda intervenedagain on 20Julywith an equallylong editorial,"On the Opera Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi."Even then the newspaper did not classifythe opera's shortcomingsas "nationalistic,"however, nor did it demand a betterportrayal of the Russian "elder brother."The articlepraised the opera's subjectand music,as well as the singers'performances. Yet it also repeated the earlier commentsof the Politburobox and developed the criticalpoints in greaterdetail: no proper depiction of the enemies, no sufferingof the popular masses,no battles,and no more than one duet. Moreover,Khmel'nyts'kyi was too staticand the plot was too traditional.59 As the followinganalysis will show, Ukrainian functionaries and intellectuals themselvesdeveloped the critiqueof Bohdan,interpreting the pro- nouncementsfrom Moscow to mean thatthe opera was guiltyof insuffi- cientlyglorifying the eternalRussian-Ukrainian friendship.

57. TsDAMLM,f. 661 (Spilka radians'kykhkompozytoriv Ukrainy), op. 1, spr.130. To be sure,Boris had some ensembles,but apparentlynot enough forthe 1950s notion of a classicalopera. 58. Pravda,2July 1951, 2. See YaroslavBilinsky, The Second Soviet Republic: The Ukraine afterWorld War II (New Brunswick,1964), 15-17; VolodymyrBaran, Ukraina1950-1960-kh rr.:Evoliutsiia totalitarnoi systemy (L'viv, 1996), 60- 65. 59. Pravda,20July 1951, 3-4.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 614 SlavicReview

Meanwhile,the campaignagainst Bohdan Khmeltnyts'kyi proceeded accordingto the well-establishedrules of the Stalinistideological game.60 Dan'kevychwrote a penitentialletter to Pravda,promising, together with Korniichukand Wasilewska,to eliminateall the opera's faults.At a meeting of the Union of SovietWriters of Ukrainehastily convened in the last daysofJuly, Korniichuk acknowledged his "errors"and those of his wife. He then concentratedon denouncing Sosiura and Ukrainian writers workingin the historicalgenre for their supposedly inappropriate infatu- ation withthe national past.6'The FirstSecretary of the Ukrainianparty organization,Leonid Mel'nikov,diligently reported to Moscow on the measures taken against the newlydiscovered ideological deviation.On 27July,the republican Central Committee hurriedly adopted a resolution condemningits own negligenceand dulyrepeating all the criticalpoints made in Pravda'seditorial "Against Ideological Distortionsin Literature." Mel'nikovimmediately couriered the resolution to Stalin'sdeputy for partyaffairs, Georgii Malenkov. Two weeks later, the republican party chiefwrote to Stalin,reporting on the course of the ideological campaign in Ukraine.A subtlebut importantshift of emphasiscould be detectedin these documents:while Pravda spoke of the poor depictionof "historical truth"in one opera and the failureto stresslove forSoviet Ukraine in one poem, the republican bureaucratsread larger ideological significance betweenthe lines.In his reportto Stalinof 14 August,Mel'nikov regretted that the Ukrainianleadership had overlooked "attemptsto portraythe historicalprocesses in Ukraineas separatefrom the historyof the peoples of the USSR."62Generally, the ideological ralliesheld in the republicre- jected the "harmfulobsession" with the Ukrainianpast and culturein favor of glorifyingthe eternalfriendship with the greatRussian people. At the Novemberplenary session of the republicanCentral Commit- tee, Mel'nikovannounced thatPravda's articlesrepresented valuable as- sistancefrom Moscow's Central Committee "and fromComrade Stalinin person."This applied especiallyto BohdanKhmeltnyts'kyi, which the members of the Ukrainian Politburohad "heard and discussed,but proved unable to uncoverits vices." Korniichuk again reproachedhimself, Wasi- lewska,and Dan'kevych(absent owing to illness) for the opera's grave shortcomings.63"President" Hrechukha announced in his untranslatably macaronicUkrainian: "This deviation from contemporary topics and pot- teringabout in those historiesof ancienttimes-it should be considered a certainmanifestation of nationalism."64

60. Whichis not to saythat the games themselveswere ideologically coherent. See an excellentrecent study:Alexei Kojevnikov,"Rituals of StalinistCulture at Work:Science and the Games of IntrapartyDemocracy circa 1948," Russian Review57, no. 1 (Janu- ary1998): 25-52. 61. Pravda,24July 1951, and Literaturnahazeta, 26July 1951, 4; TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2424, ark. 5-76 (Korniichuk,esp. ark. 13-14, on his own mistakes). 62. RTsKhIDNI,f. 17, op. 133, d. 311,11.34-39 (26July1951); TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 24, spr.785, ark. 61-67 (14 August1951). 63. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 1, spr.976, ark. 12, 18-20 (Mel'nikov),227-29 (Korniichuk). 64. Ibid., ark. 208: "Tse ukhylianniavid suchasnykhtem i koposhinniav tsykhisto- riiakhdrevnosti-tse tezh slid rozhlaiadatyiak svoieridnyiproiav natsionalizmu."

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1 936-1 954 615

Reinventingthe Classics At the November1951 plenarysession, First Secretary Mel'nikov offered the intensificationof partypropaganda as a universalremedy for "ideological distortions."However, he also proposed a more specificprescrip- tionfor Ukrainian opera. Predictably,the first secretary suggested turning to contemporarysubjects but also recommendedreviving the classics,es- peciallyAleksei Verstovskii's long-neglected Askol'd's Tomb, a nineteenth- centuryRussian opera set in ancientKiev. Lysenko's Taras Bul'ba had "not yetbeen presentedin its trueform," while the worksof Petro Sokal's'kyi, that "Ukrainianfollower of Glinka, [who was also] close to the Mighty Five,"had been completelyforgotten.65 But the classicswere by no means a safe haven. Even the politically harmlessand genuinelyentertaining Zaporozhian Cossack (1863) caused the Ukrainianfunctionaries and artisticelite a good deal of trouble.The storyis worthelaborating upon, since it once again highlightedthe "dialogue" and compromisesinherent in Stalinistcultural production. On 11 October 1950, thejubilee fivehundredth performance of the opera in Kiev was broadcast throughoutthe Soviet Union. AlthoughThe Zaporo- zhian Cossackwas performedin Ukrainian,sensitive bureaucratic ears in Moscowdetected several ideological heresies.The opera's plot concerned Cossackswho fled to Turkish-controlledterritory after Catherine II ordered the destructionof the Zaporozhian Host in 1775. Aftersome hu- morous and romanticadventures, which are actuallycentral to the plot, the Sultan allowsthe Cossacksto returnhome in the finale.To a Moscow official,all thiswas a "slanderousstory." Moreover, it was discoveredthat the "bourgeoishistorian" Mykola (Nikolai) Kostomarov,who wrote the dialogue forHulak-Artemovs'kyi's opera, had "distortedhistorical reality." In particular,Kostomarov portrayed the Cossacks as mercenariesof the Sultanand made the main character,Ivan Karas',boast of bloodyCossack victoriesover theArnauts, who unfortunatelyturned out to be the ances- torsof the fraternalmodern-day Albanians. The librettoinappropriately representedthe Sultan as a magnanimousruler, friendly to the Cossacks, while "in reality,the Cossackshad been returnedto theircountry thanks to the interventionof the Russian ambassadorin Turkey."It appeared, furthermore,that although Soviet censorshiphad banned the Russian textof TheZaporozhian Cossack's libretto in 1948, the Kiev,Kharkiv, L'viv, and Odessa opera companieswere continuingto use a slightlyedited version ofan old Ukrainiantext, presumably because ofa bureaucraticerror.66 Meanwhile,and also in October 1951, the Stanislavskiiand Nemiro- vich-DanchenkoMusical Theater in Moscow premieredThe Zaporozhian Cossack"in a new Russian translationby G. Shipov."The newspapersad- vertisedthe new redactionas "preparedon the basis of historicaldocu- ments."67A closer look at the new Russianlibretto, approved by the cen- 65. Ibid., ark. 77-82. 66. RTsKhIDNI,f. 17, op. 132, d. 419,11.219-21. 67. Radians'kemystetstvo, 24 October 1951, 4. The party'sCentral Committeere- quested a copy of the librettofor review and approvedit. See RTsKhIDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 419,11.222-52.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 616 SlavicReview

sorsfor publication and stagingthroughout the Soviet Union threemonths afterthe premiere,reveals heavy-handedediting and rewriting.What Ukrainianbureaucrats and intellectualspresented as their"first national opera," Shipovrechristened "popular musicalcomedy." He introduceda negativeCossack character,the clerkProkop, as ifto set offthe new posi- tiveone-the Russianambassador who singsthe aria "The hour of liber- ation approaches."Throughout the libretto,Shipov skillfullycast asper- sions on the Turksand made the Cossacks complain of theirlife in the Ottomanempire. To improveHulak-Artemovs'kyi's work, he also included severalof the mostpopular Ukrainianfolk songs as additionalarias.68 The "musicalcomedy" ran in Moscow withconsiderable success for two and a halfyears until the Ukrainiansecretary for propaganda, Ivan Nazarenko,attended a performanceduring one of his visitsto the capital in April1953. The theater-lovingUkrainian ideologue stormedout of the house in indignationand immediatelysubmitted a reportto the Central Committeeof the CommunistParty of the SovietUnion. The production, he wrote,had "littlein common withthe authenticversion presented in Ukrainiantheaters." The inclusionof new and improbablecharacters, togetherwith well-known folk songs absent from the originalscore, turned the Moscowproduction into the "crudestfalsification of thewidely known and beloved opera." Applyingthe officialrhetoric of "authenticity"to this Ukrainianoperatic classic,Nazarenko demanded nothingless than the banning of the new Russian libretto.But the Moscow functionaries justifiedthe company'sright to "adjust"(podvodit') classical opera by re- ferringto theprecedent of Russian works Ivan Susanin,Boris Godunov, and Khovanshchinain the Bolshoi. At the same time,the CentralCommittee's functionariesalso saw the stagingof twodifferent versions of TheZaporo- zhian Cossack-one in Ukrainianin Ukraine and another in Russian in Russia-as inappropriate.They suggestedthat ajoint commissionbe ap- pointed to workout a standardsynopsis and libretto.69 Nonetheless,the archivespreserve no traceof such a commission.Ten monthslater, the artisticdirector of the Kiev Opera referredat the local meetingto certain"discussions about a macaronicapproach to the classics"provoked by the Moscow productionof TheZaporozhian Cossack, but thatwas all.70Nazarenko's motivation bears closer scrutiny.He was surely aware of the variousadjustments made in the opera's librettoand score by Ukrainian companies. In the mid-1930s,when Nazarenko served as secretaryfor propaganda of the Kharkivoblast party committee, the local companymade Ivan Karas' curseCatherine II and PrinceGrigorii Potem- kin,who had ordered the destructionof the Zaporozhian Host. During the 1936 dekada in Moscow,the Kievans'Karas' also condemned that"op-

68. RGALI,f. 962, op. 11, d. 613,11.1- 47. The censorshippermit stamp no. Sh-00125, dated 30January1952, is on 1. 1. 69. TsKhSD, f. 5 (TsK KPSS), op. 17, d. 445, 11.35-38. As an example of the "Ukrain- ian reading"of TheZaporozhian Cossack, Ryl's'kyi wrote in 1949 about the "loftypatriotism thatpermeates this opera fromfirst note to last."See TsDAMLM, f. 146, op. 1, spr. 192, ark. 2. 70. TsDAMLM,f. 573, op. 1, spr. 216, ark.5.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 617

pressorof the ZaporozhianHost," Potemkin, although apparently not the tsarina.This cue was,of course, absent from the originallibretto and soon disappearedfrom the textwith the rehabilitationof the Russianstate tra- ditionin the late 1930s.7'In 1934-36, the Kiev Opera staged TheZaporo- zhianCossack with the additionalthird act, "Atthe Sultan'sPalace," written especiallyfor that production. Even thepostwar Ukrainian "authentic version"was subjectto minorideological editingfrom time to time,of which Nazarenkomust have been aware. In otherwords, the secretaryfor propaganda was defendingnot so much the "authenticity"of Ukrainiancul- turalheritage as the exclusiveright of local ideologues, poets, and musicians to edit "their"classics. Significantly,the clash betweenMoscow and Kiev concerningThe Za- porozhianCossack ended in an implicitcompromise. The Stanislavskiiand Nemirovich-DanchenkoTheater staged the "new"version of the opera, in whichthe Russian ambassadorliberated the Cossacks,while the Ukrain- ian companies stuckto the traditionalplot, withthe Sultan performing thisfeat. Ryl's'kyi made only twochanges to the libretto,eliminating the mentionof the Arnautsand makingone episodic characterhint that the Cossackshad receivedletters from Muscovy.72 Yet in thatsame year,1951, when the Kiev Film Studios commencedwork on the filmversion of The ZaporozhianCossack, which would be seen in everycorner of the Soviet Union, Ryl's'kyihad to produce a verydifferent script. Although the Rus- sian ambassadordid not put in an appearance, the overturewas accom- panied by the followingexplanatory text: "Realizingthat Russia would supportthe Cossacks' demands and thatthe Zaporozhianswere preparing an armed mutiny,the TurkishSultan was forcedto allow themto re- turnto theirhomeland." In thisscript, Ivan Karas' markshis firstappear- ance withthe announcementthat "we and the Muscovitesare of the same faithand blood, so perhapswe willattain a betterlife together." (Ironically, just before making this importantideological pronouncement,Karas' complainsabout havinga terriblehangover and drinkshard liquor.) Fur- thermore,even theSultan acknowledges that "it is noteasy to ruleover [the Cossacks].They have a mightydefender." 73 The KievFilm Studios released the filmin the summerof 1953, thusgiving birth to a thirdversion of the popular opera, a strangehybrid of the Kiev and Moscow productions.74 Desperate for more "classics,"republican bureaucrats examined the mostpromising candidate for revival, Verstovskii's Askol'd ' Tomb,with dis-

71. S. Hulak-Artemovs'kyi,Zaporozhets' za Dunaiem,Kharkivs'kyi akademichnyi teatr opery ta baletu: Sezon 1935-36 r. (n.p., n.d.), 10; Zaporozhets'za Dunaiem:Postava Der- zhavnohoakademichnoho teatru opery ta baletaURSR, Kyiv, Hastrol' u Moskvi11-21 bereznia 1936 roku (n.p., 1936), 52. The copyof the originallibretto from the 1860s can be found in TsDAMLM,f. 1106 (I. S. Patorzhyns'kyi),op. 1, spr. 22, ark. 166-94, here 172. 72. TsDAMLM, f. 573, op. 4, spr. 17, ark. 17 and 25. Compare the 1949 librettoin TsDAMLM,f. 146, op. 1, spr. 192, ark.5-39. Interestingly,after Ukrainian independence, the KievOpera restoredsome elementsof TheZaporozhian Cossack's original score, including the referencesto God-but not the Arnauts.The 1951 prohibitionof Moscow ideologues was stillin forceas late as May 1999. 73. TsDAMLM,f. 1106, op. 1, spr. 22, ark. 1-166, here la, 9-10, 21. 74. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 3268, ark. 29 (released inJuly1953).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 618 SlavicReview

appointingresults. The workrequired an entirelynew librettoand exten- sive editingof the score to fitthe Stalinistideal of programmaticgrand historicalopera. The same applied to Sokals'kyi'slittle-known Siege of Dubno (1878), also based on Gogol"s Taras Bul'ba. The functionaries of the UkrainianCommittee for the Artseven unearthedthe librettoof Vladimir Aleksandrov'smusical play Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi(1892). Al- thoughno musicalscore survived,and Aleksandrovwas betterknown for havingsued the prominentUkrainian writer Mykhailo Staryts'kyi for pla- giarismthan as a dramatistin his own right,Nazarenko took timeto read the textattentively. The secretaryfor propaganda even made a couple of thoughtfulremarks in the margins-for example, "These are veryforce- ful and importantwords," beside the sentence "Gloryto the Russian people, gloryto the Russiantsar!" or "important"next to the description of takinga solemn oath to the tsar.75 As late as August 1954, The ZaporozhianCossack and Lysenko'slyrical Natalkafrom Poltava remained the only twoUkrainian classical operas in the repertoireof the KievOpera. While the newspaperslabeled the situa- tion "intolerable"and published long listsof "forgottentreasures," the twooperas withtheir unsophisticated plots were probablymore than ad- equate to satisfythe public interestin celebratingaccessible ethnic music. Khrushchevlistened to TheZaporozhian Cossack with delight during his visit to Kievin October 1953, resultingin an elevationof the company'sfinan- cial status.76Yet neither The Zaporozhian Cossack nor Natalkaoffered an ap- propriatelyserious, programmatic, and magnificentdepiction of the nationalpast. The quest fora national historicalgrand opera continued.As otheroptions fell away, the authoritiesreturned to the familiardilemma of eitherreviving Taras Bul'ba or revisingBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi. In late 1951, the Kiev Opera was feverishlypreparing yet another revivalof Tarasfor the 1952-53 season. The managementintended the premiereboth to markthe one hundredthanniversary of Gogol"s death (1952) and to satisfythe need fora "classicalspectacle [thatwould] con- stitutethe jewel of our repertoire."A brigade of leading Ukrainianwrit- ers,composers, and theaterdirectors examined the productionhistory of TarasBul'ba, as well as the differentversions of the score and libretto.All agreed that the opera needed a new imposingand "optimistic"finale, probablydeveloping Lysenko's original ending, with the Cossacksstorm- ing the Polish fortress.Maksym Ryls'kyi complained about Ostap's aria, "Whathave you done?" sung over the body of his dead brother,the trai- torAndrii. When someone in the audience termedthis episode "ideolog- icallyharmful," the poet shoutedin puristicfervor, "This is an Italianaria. What is the need of it?"But Ostap's "non-Ukrainian"bel canto aria was one of the partsof Lysenko'soriginal score mostbeloved by the public, and themusicians successfully defended it. In theend, themanager of the

75. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 3266, ark. 117, 120-27 (Askol'd'sTomb), 119 (The Siege ofDubno), and spr. 3265, ark. 96-138 (Aleksandrov'slibretto; Nazarenko's quoted notes are on ark. 133 and 136). 76. Radians'kemystetstvo, 11 August 1954, 1 ("intolerablesituation"), 2 ("forgotten treasures");TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 24, spr. 3528, ark. 21-22 (Khrushchevat the opera).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 619

Kiev Opera, Pashchyn,informed the gatheringthat Lev Revuts'kyiwas to be chargedwith the finalpolishing of the score, and Ryl's'kyiwith the libretto.77 Nevertheless,during the same meetingon 15 January1952, several Ukrainianintellectuals expressed serious reservations about the revivalof TarasBul'ba. The theaterdirector Mar"ian Krushel'nyts'kyi suggested that "afterPravda's article about Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi,we should be in no hurry"with Taras. The leading Kievan specialiston nineteenth-century Russianliterature, Professor Nina Krutikova,cautioned thatthe "motifof unityof the Russian and Ukrainian peoples should be clearlyheard in yourredaction." 78 The Ukrainianbureaucrats, who had initiallypressured the companyto produce Tarasin timefor the Gogol' anniversary,imme- diatelyrelented. On the day afterthe meeting,the company'sleading bass-baritone,Borys Hmyria, wrote to a friendin Kharkiv:"I cannot help tellingyou the astonishingnews. Yesterday, it was decided to haltwork on TarasBul'ba and proceed to stageBoris Godunov. How do you like that?"79

The UltimatePatriotic Opera Mindfulof the imminentthree hundredthanniversary of Ukraine'sre- union with Russia (January1954), the republican authoritiesresolved byearly 1952 to make Bohdana priority.But Korniichuk,Wasilewska, and Dan'kevychhad not yet completed the revisions.The Kiev Opera then proceeded to determinethe amount of workthat would be required on Taras,with the understandingthat "should the theaterreceive the score of BohdanKhmel%nyts'kyi," thiswork would be halted.80However, Bohdan again became the center of attentionin mid-April1952, when the All- Union CentralCommittee finally issued its approvalof the new libretto. In fact,Korniichuk and Wasilewskahad produced a new librettoas early asJanuaryof thatyear, but severalexhaustive discussions of the textat the republicanWriters' Union, the Academyof Sciences, the Committeefor theArts, and the Composer'sUnion-both beforeand afterthe Moscow resolution-took months,as each resultedin dozens of minor critical commentsand new revisions.The firstdraft of the new librettocontained a new act 1, scene 1 portrayingthe execution of Cossack rebels and the

77. TsDAVOV,f. 4763, op. 1, spr. 360, ark. 1-55 (Ryl's'kyion ark. 50); TsDAMLM, f. 573, op. 1, spr. 171, ark.2-56. 78. TsDAMLM, f. 573, op. 1, spr. 171, ark. 23, 47. 79. TsDAMLM,f. 443, op. 1, spr.58, ark. 115-16. Previously,the UkrainianCommit- tee forthe Arts had wantedthe KievOpera to renewTaras for the 1951 dekada in Moscow. The managementavoided the issue, arguing that only Patorzhyns'kyicould sing Taras and thathe was too busywith other roles. See TsDAMLM,f. 573, op. 1, spr. 141, ark.5. In fact,the republicanartistic elite was simplyreluctant to become involvedwith the much- criticizedwork. The prominenttheater artist Oleksandr Khvostenko-Khvostov openly told the company'sdirector that "he would not like to be held responsiblefor this spectacle." See TsDAMLM, f. 573, op. 1, spr. 171, ark. 4. Afterthree more yearsof heavyediting, the Kiev Opera finallyproduced a successfulTaras Bul'ba in 1955. See TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.3653, ark.165-70; TsDAMLM,f. 573, op. 4, spr.26; op. 1, spr.241, ark.10-22; spr.250, ark. 3- 4zv;E. N. Iavors'kyi,"Taras Bul'ba ": OperaM. Lysenka(Kiev, 1964). 80. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2773, ark.97-98.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 620 SlavicReview people's sufferingunder the yoke of the Polish lords. Anotheraddition showed the Polish gentryhatching its evil plans and Cossacksstorming a Polishcastle in act 2, scene 2. Finally,the fraternal Don Cossacksappeared on the scene, and a whole new fourthact depicted the PereiaslavCouncil of 1654 as the apotheosisof eternalfriendship with the Russianpeople.8' Criticalcomments on the draftlibretto in Ukraine revealedjust how unanimouslyrepublican officials and intellectualshad "developed"Mos- cow'svague critique.The apparatusof the UkrainianCentral Committee, in particular,demanded more depictionof fraternalassistance from the Russian people (the librettistsdecided to show the arrivalof a cartwith Russianweapons). The quoted listof flaws also includedsuch gemsas "the word 'Ukraine' is used too often"and "Bohdan'saria showshimrr as a weak man withno will."82"Starless Night," the Hetman'saria thatopens the second scene of the firstact, caused Korniichukand Wasilewskavery consid- erable difficulty.All criticsagreed thatit was Dan'kevych'sgreatest musical achievement.But the textof the anguishedsoliloquy did not correspond to the critics'idea of what the great militaryleader should be thinking about beforethe decisive battle. During the discussion, the playwrightand head of the republican commissionon theatricalrepertoire, Oleksandr Levada, shouted, "This is a decadent aria!" and contrastedit with the "optimistic"aria sung by Prince Igor in captivity.The composer Pylyp Kozyts'kyiand the writerIurii Dol'd-Mykhailyksupported him. Salvaging the well-turnedmusical fragment,Korniichuk and Wasilewskarewrote the aria at least twice.83Less subtly,the Ukrainian reviewerssuggested changing the last words of the final chorus from "Glory to Bohdan Khmelfnyts'kyi!"to "Glory to the Russian people!" whichwas dulyimple- mented. Nevertheless,the UkrainianComposers' Union stilldemanded "a more powerfulrepresentation [of the Ukrainianpeople's] strivingto unitewith the greatRussian people."84 In late March 1952, threeexperts on the artsat the CentralCommit- tee in Moscow,Vladimir Kruzhkov, Boris Tarasov,and Boris Iarustovskii, finallyexpressed theiropinion of the new librettoof Bohdan.They felt thatthe "directclash of the Ukrainianpeople withthe Polish gentry"was stillnot dramatizedappropriately. Echoing the criticismsfrom Ukraine, theyalso wantedto see "thetheme of theunity of the Russianand Ukrain- ian people" developed further.All in all, the revieweffectively killed the new redaction of the opera. The chief ideologue, Mikhail Suslov,for-

81. TsDAMLM, f.435, op. 1, spr.305 (manuscriptchanges to the libretto);TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2747 (printedcopy from the archiveof the CentralCommittee, datedJan- uary 1952); TsDAVOV,f. 4763, op. 1, spr. 357, ark. 2-5, 44; TsDAMLM, f. 435, op. 1, spr. 304, ark. 1- 8 (outlineof changes); N. Pirogova,Opera "Bogdan Khmel%nitskii " K Dankevicha: Poiasnenie(Moscow, 1959), 8-9. 82. TsDAMLM, f. 435, op. 1, spr.2012, ark. 5-6, 8. 83. See TsDAMLM, f. 673, op. 4 (10), spr. 16, ark. 19 (old text); TsDAMLM, f. 146, op. 1, spr. 194, ark. 22, and TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2851, ark. 23 (new text). 84. TsDAMLM, f. 435, op. 1, spr. 1959, ark. 25 (Levada), 31 (Kozyts'kyi),57 (Dol'd- Mykhailyk),15 (Composers' Union); TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2851, ark.23 (second draft of the aria submittedto the Ukrainian Central Committee); TsDAVOV,f. 4763, op. 1, spr.357, ark.95 (concludingwords).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1 936-1 954 621 warded both the new librettoand the commentsof the three criticsto Molotov. Surprisingly,the latter disagreed. Molotov replied that Kor- niichuk and Wasilewskahad "generally"succeeded in reworkingthe libretto,while the critique made byKruzhkov, Tarasov, and Iarustovskii"ex- aggeratedits shortcomings."The librettoneeded to be abridged,hence Molotovrecommended "not becoming obsessed with [implementing] the suggestionsof the three."After reading thisreply, Suslov made his own commentson the marginsof the report.In additionto the demand to develop the notion of Russian-Ukrainianunity, he noted: "One should not permitthe obtrusivenessthat would be feltif one wereto followthese suggestions." On 15-16 April, Central Committee secretariesMalenkov, Khrushchev,and Ponomarenko read the file and agreed with Suslov's proposal to proceed withcompleting the score of the opera, to be fol- lowed byits "auditionand discussion."85 The supportiveattitude of the highestleadership may be ascribed to two considerations,pragmatic and strategic.On the one hand, the Ukrainian ideological purge of 1951 had passed, and the increasingly influentialKhrushchev probably wanted to avoid a new blow to the republic thatwas his powerbase. Furthermore,Korniichuk and Wasilewska were knownto have strongpersonal connectionsin the Soviethierarchy. In February1952, Korniichukannounced at the UkrainianCommittee forthe Arts that he and hiswife planned to bringthe new librettoto Mos- cow themselves"in order to receivea 'blessing'for the work there."86 On the otherhand, the Politburohad never accused BohdanKhmel'tnyts'kyi of seriousideological faultsto beginwith, and the searchfor "nationalist errors"in an opera thatglorified the union withRussia was actuallyinitiated by the Ukrainian functionariesand intellectualsthemselves. The "dialogue" betweenthe authoritiesand the intelligentsiadid not necessarily undermineideological hegemony.The local elitescould be more "Stalin- ist" than the Soviet hierarchy.The partyleadership could not have banned (nor did it intend to ban) all non-Russianhistorical operas as a genre,for that would have contradictedthe "flowering"of the Sovietna- tional cultures.In thiscase, the diktatof the partyhierarchy overruled a more conservativeconsensus among the reviewersand experts. On 3 November1952, a select 115 Ukrainianbureaucrats, scholars, writers,and composers attended a privateperformance of Bohdan.The next day,they offered final minor suggestionson waysto stressthat the Cossacks had foughtthe Polish lords but not the Polish peasants, on choreography,and on the appropriatenessof kissing the crossin act 4. On 15 November,the Politburoof the republicanCentral Committee gath- ered at the theaterat 11:00 A.M. fora finalcheck of the opera's ideologi-

85. RTsKhIDNI,f. 17, op. 33, d. 369, 11.14-24. Molotov'snote is on 1.20, the decision on 11.22-24. By 1952, the ailing Stalinhad fullyentrusted Malenkov with running everyday partybusiness. As the partyarchives reveal, Malenkov normally circulated documents among the othersecretaries of the CentralCommittee (Stalin was not included,although he was probably consulted verballyon major questions); decisions were reached by consensus. 86. TsDAVOV,f. 4763, op. 1, spr.357, ark.44.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 622 SlavicReview cal acceptability.By then, some of theplot lines had undergoneconfusing metamorphoses,but the zealots of operaticform were satisfiedwith "two duets and several distinctensembles with chorus,"even if these made Bohdanalmost unbearably long. The membersof the Politburowere sat- isfiedas well,perhaps also because theyattended a privatematinee per- formanceand did not have to sitin the theaterpast midnight.87 The KievOpera presentedthe new redaction of Bohdan on thelast two daysof its 1952-53 season, 21 and 22June,but the Ukrainiannewspapers reported the premiere in an unusually laconic manner.88Finally, on 27 September1953, the Kiev Opera opened its new season withBohdan. This time,with the old friendof the KievOpera, Khrushchev,installed as FirstSecretary of the CentralCommittee of the CommunistParty of the SovietUnion, the republicanauthorities indulged in unreservedglorifi- cation of the work.The flood of lengthyreviews promptly announced a "greatachievement" of the SovietUkrainian musical theater.89The subsequent lavishcelebration of the PereiaslavTreaty's tercentenary in May- June 1954 cemented the opera's place in the canon of Soviet Ukrain- ian culture.The Kharkiv,Odessa, and Stalino opera companies staged Bohdan-reportedlywith phenomenal success-in the springof 1954. In May;the Kiev Opera went to Moscow again forthe dekada of Ukrainian art and presentedBohdan, Prince Igor, and Natalkafrom Poltava.90 Soviet televisionbroadcast Bohdan live fromthe Bolshoi on 10 May.Dan'kevych made the introductorycomments, claiming that the Kievanshad come to the Bolshoi to express"the feelings of brotherlylove and boundless grat- itude" to the Russianpeople. The opera was also repeatedlybroadcast in full on all-union and republican radio and released on gramophone disks.The festiveconcert to celebrate the three hundredthanniversary of the union in Kiev included no less than threearias fromDan'kevych's work. The composer himselfbecame a People's Artistof the Soviet Union.91

The lack ofreliable sources makes it difficultto reconstructthe role of the audience in its "dialogue"with cultural producers. Tens of thousands

87. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 2775; TsDAVOV,f. 4763, op. 1, spr. 356 (discussionon 4 November);TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.2773, ark.165, 167 (the logisticsof twoclosed performances),165-66 (summaryof opinions). 88. Radians'kemystetstvo,24June 1953, 1; Literaturnahazeta, 25June 1953, 3 (premiere). 89. Radians'kemystetstvo, 30 September 1953, 3 (Bohdanas season opener); 14 Octo- ber 1953, 3; and Literaturnahazeta, 1 October 1953, 3, and 29 October 1953, 2 (reviews). Apparently,Khrushchev did not attenda performanceof Bohdan during his visit to Kievin October 1953. As noted earlier,he definitelywent to see TheZaporozhian Cossack and pos- siblyindicated his generalapproval of the theater'swork. 90. TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr. 3632, ark. 20-22; TsDAVOV,f. 5116 (Ministerstvo kul'turyURSR), op. 4, spr.19, ark. 1-2 (Bohdanproduced in Ukrainiantheaters); TsKhSD, f. 5, op. 17, d. 402,1. 71; TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 24, spr. 3504, ark. 24; TsDAVOV,f. 5116, op. 4, spr. 15, ark.44, and spr.20, ark. 1-7, 25. 91. GARF,f. 6903, op. 26, d. 39 (televisionprogram and transcriptsfor 10 May-no pagination);TsKhSD, f.5, op. 17, d. 402,11.76-77 (all-unionradio); TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 30, spr.3631, ark.25 (republicanradio); spr.3633, ark.47-54 (gramophonedisks); spr. 3632, ark. 180-86 (major concert in Kiev to celebrate the anniversary);Radians'ke mystetstvo, 17 November1954, 1 (Dan'kevych'saccolade).

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions StagingPatriotic Historical Opera in SovietUkraine, 1936-1 954 623 of SovietUkrainians attended performances of BohdanKhmel%nyts'kyi, and millionsheard the opera on radio. Yetnobody carried out an objectivein- dependent poll of the listenersin 1954 to determinejust how they"read" this culturalproduct. In January1954, the Paris correspondentof the Ukrainiane&migre newspaper Novyi shliakh (Toronto) was allegedlytold byvisitors from Soviet Ukraine: "One mustbuy ticketsto the Kiev Opera threeor fourweeks in advance to attendBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi. The public enthusiasticallyapplauds the excellentUkrainian settings and costumes; Ukrainiansserving in the militarygreet the Cossack bannersloudly. And the whole house listensas if in a trance to Bohdan's boring aria on the need to "reunite"[with Russia]."92 Although some Canadian informants deemed thispassage importantenough to reportit to the SovietAll-Slavic Committee,which supervisedcontacts with foreign Slavs,93 the emigre newspaper'sinformation is not corroboratedby any othersource. Read- ing both the Soviet archivaldocuments and the press of the time,one mightjust as easilyarrive at the conclusion thatBohdan was popular pre- ciselybecause it embodied the idea of a union of Russiansand Ukraini- ans. The archives,however, shed interestingnew lighton the extentof the opera's popularity.The attendance records of the Kiev Opera for 1954 show that Bohdan was the absolute public favorite:the company per- formedit thirty-sixtimes that season and sold a totalof 52,768 tickets,giv- ing an averageaudience of 1,466 people. That same season, the company performedthe "official"Russian patriotic opera Ivan Susanineight times fora totalof 6,950 listeners(an averageof 869 at each performance),Boris Godunovseven timesfor a totalaudience of 7,183 (an average of 1,026), and Carmennine times for a total audience of 9,894 (an average of 1,099).94 These statisticsare convincing:Bohdan enjoyed unprecedented popu- larityin Ukraine.How manylisteners craved a Ukrainianpatriotic opera, and how manythe authorities"organized" to hear a new and topical musical workabout the Russian-Ukrainianfriendship, is open to discussion. But forall practicalpurposes, Bohdan did become theUkrainian national historicalopera for the 1950s. Whateverits intended propaganda mes- sage, the operaticsynthesis of the representationof the nation'spast with the grand spectacle and ritualof theatricaltradition filled an important

92. Novyishliakh, 15 January1954, 4. The referenceto Bohdan's "boring"aria on the need forreunification seems to add some credibilityto the story.Indeed, twoof the hetman'sarias were devoted to thissubject. 93. GARF,f. 6646 (Slavianskiikomitet SSSR), op. 1, d. 356,11.14-18. 94. RGALI, f. 2329 (Ministerstvokul'tury SSSR), op. 3, d. 168,1. 35ob. Only a rarity, Puccini's Tosca,surpassed the record average attendance: 2,959 people showed up at a mere twoperformances of thisopera in Kiev.A generalstatistical survey of all Sovietopera companiesin 1954 revealedthat seven theaters-Kiev and six othersmaller oblast houses, all of themin Ukraine-staged 129 performancesof Bohdanfor a totalof 136,123specta- tors,an average of 1,055. No Russianclassical opera enjoyed such an average attendance unionwide that year. Ivan Susanin, staged by all the largesttheaters, came close, with 15 theaters,126 performances,and 128,276 patrons (1,018). EugeneOnegin, The Queenof Spades,and other classicslagged farbehind. The mostfrequently performed opera on a Sovietsubject, Iulii Meitus'sThe Young Guard, incidentally also a workby a Ukrainiancom- poser,scored 9-87-49,980 (574). See RGALI,f. 2329, op. 3, d. 111, 11.1-3.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 624 SlavicReview institutionalniche among thevehicles of the nationalimagination. While Bohdan'scontent duly glorified the "elderbrother," the opera also exalted the heroic Cossack past and the liberationof the homeland fromforeign oppression.Thus, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi offered Ukrainian listeners the ex- perience of identifyingwith their heroic national ancestors.In an angry and touchingletter to Khrushchev,Mykhailo Hryshko, unhappy with critics' commentsabout his "static"portrayal of Bohdan, expressedthis sense of belongingto a historicalcommunity. The singerhad read the scholarly books,chronicles, and historicalnovels, sometimes almost feeling as ifhe were meetingKhmelfnyts'kyi's colonels on the street.Hryshko thought of himselfas "a son of [his] people, in whose veinsruns the blood of ances- torswho passed into eternityand dreamtof seeing theirFatherland free and independent."95The studentsof a small-townschool wroteto Kor- niichukin 1954 thathis playBohdan Khmel%nyts'kyi "teaches us to love and be proud of our people, who defended theirindependence in arduous struggle."96It was preciselythe possibilityof such a selective"reading" of non-RussianSoviet representations of the nationalpast thatundermined the principalmessage of the Russian-dominated"friendship" encoded in the authoritativediscourse. The productionof patriotichistorical operas in SovietUkraine underscored the lack ofuniformity-indeed, the abundance of irregularities- in Stalinistculture. The Moscow authoritiessought to achieve totalcon- trol over cultural production,but their effortswere frustratedby the relativeautonomy of the local bureaucracyand intellectuals.In their"dialogue" withMoscow, the republicanelites sometimesdemonstrated ex- tremeservility by inflatingideological campaignsand pushingfor more denunciations.At other times,they skillfully exploited the Stalinistlin- guisticcode in defenseof theircultural domain. In both cases, the local functionariesand the intelligentsiaacted as historicalagents who shaped the verynature of Stalinismby negotiatingthe meaning of the official discourse.

95. TsKhSD, f. 5, op. 17, d. 445, 11.85-86. Amusingly,there is everylikelihood that Hryshkomet BorysHmyria (Colonel Kryvonis)regularly on Pasazh Street,where both men lived. 96. TsDAMLM, f. 435, op. 1, spr. 1302, ark. 1-2.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions