anecdotes about Stalin published by A. Krikmann there are several variations of
the story УThe State Leaders criticize the poem Mukha-mukha, tsokotukhaФ
(Krikmann 2004: No. 136). This anecdote about ChukovskyТs tale and the reaction
to it of different Soviet and Russian leaders from Lenin to Putin is probably
based on actual events that took place in the 1920s. Its direct source can be
found in the stories about literary misfortune of this tale (as well as other
tales written by Chukovsky) that was considered ideologically wrong by the
Soviet censors. Most likely, they were told by Chukovsky himself who described
to the circle of friends how he and some other writers (for instance, Marshak)
had to plead with the officials to prove that there was no ideological
implications. These stories were projected into one of anecdoteТs models based
on cumulative effect (the first version). It is significant that the Soviet
leadersТ reaction to the tale as it is presented in the anecdote perfectly
corresponds with the official criticism recorded by Chukovsky.
This interrelation between
historical reality and the narrative mechanics of anecdote is further
demonstrated by another version of this story where Chukovsky is replaced by
Mikhalkov (the second version). This replacement has a definite semantic
motivation (which should not be mistaken for a sufficient explanation why it
occurs) and, at the same time, it follows the logic of folklore where the
actions of one character can be easily transferred on another, provided that
they both belong to the same category of historical (or mythological) personae.
In our case this process is facilitated by the fact that the authors who write
for children are less individualized in public consciousness than the ones who
work in СseriousТ genres. Replacing Chukovsky by Mikhalkov, the anecdote draws
on such aspects of the latter reputation as a plagiarist and a cynical writer of
the Soviet hymn that he kept changing according to political demand. It is a
unique occasion when a Soviet writer became the hero of an anecdote cycle even
with a limited (mostly professional) circulation. Thanks to MikhalkovТs
reputation the second version of the anecdote has a different message that the
anecdotes about Stalin published by A. Krikmann, there are several versions of
the plot УThe leaders of the country criticise the poem УMukha TsokhotukhaФ
(УThe Buzzing FlyФ, or УFly-a-Buzz-BuzzФ)Ф
(Krikmann 2004: No. 136). It should be pointed out that despite their structural
compliance with the conventions of the anecdote genre, these texts differ from
similar forms of modern folklore in that they are longer, consist of more
sections (4 to 7) and exhibit a higher degree of compositional complexity (see
the table in the Annex). In all these cases, their structure is a reverse of the
pattern known as УThe house that Jack builtФ in which every new episode involves
a deletion of the last section rather than an addition of a new one, as, for
example, in the following nursery rhyme: УOn a ship called POBEDA [victory] /
after dinner [OBEDA] / there happened a BEDA [a misfortune]:/ EDA [food] was
stolen. / Did you do that? DA [yes]Ф (here, however, the front section rather
than the tail one is cut off). I. Amroyan (2005: 139Ц140) terms this device УdecumulationФ.
It is quite rare in oral tradition.
version recorded in 1983 should most likely be considered the starting point.
Its thematic source was apparently the story of persecution of K. ChukovskyТs
tales in the 1920s. The censorship crackdown began as early as 1922, soon after
the creation of the Glavlit
(The Main Administration for Literary and Publishing
Affairs). The following line in УMoidodyrФ
[УWash СEm CleanФ, literally УWash
till holesФ] was edited out:
УOh, God, what has happened? Why is everything around usЕФ (Chukovsky
1991: 219, 496). Later, the Glavsotsvos (The Main
Committee on Social Upbringing and Political Education of the PeopleТs
Comissariat for Education) denounced this tale as Уan
insult to chimney sweepsФ. A
group of 29 writers supported this charge and wrote an open letter to Maxim
Gorky about that. The tale УCrocodileФ was also criticized as an
Уallegorical representation of KornilovТs mutiny,Ф although this work has
appeared a year before the actual event. In 1925, the members of the Komsomol (
The Communist Union of Youth) came up with the initiative to replace in the
childrenТs performance of the УMoidodyrФ line УAnd the dirty chimney sweepsЕ,Ф
which was presumably hurting the feelings of chimney sweeps, with the words УAnd
everyone who is dirty...Ф (Chukovsky 1991: 332). In 1927, the GUS (The State
Academic Council of the PeopleТs Comissariat for Education) Ц and personally N.K.
Krupskaya who was the chair of the childrenТs literature committee -- banned two
poems, УDoctor AybolitФ [Doctor Oh, it hurts] and УThe CrocodileФ. KrupskayaТs
scathing article in the УPravdaФ newspaper about ChukovskyТs УCrocodileФ (1928)
precipitated a total prohibition on the publication of all of his childrenТs
books. The ban was followed by a full-scale campaign against Chukovsky himself
and everything he represented: УWe should point our rifles at Chukovsky and the
likes of him because they promote the petit-bourgeois ideology [Е] Chukovsky
never mentions [Е] the organization of childhood by means of collectives of
childrenЕФ (Sverdlova 1928: 92Ц93);
his books breed superstition and fears (Resolution
1929: 74), etc.
severe ideological attacks were directed against УMukha TsokotukhaФ Ц a tale
particularly favoured by the author. Even 20 years later, remembering his early
poetic might in a later hour of depression, he placed УMukha TsokotukhaФ before
his other works (Chukovsky 1994: 181). УThe bloodiest battle was over УMukha
TsokotukhaФ: Уa bourgeois book, Philistinism with its preserves, the merchantТs
way of life, a wedding, a name day, a mosquito dressed as a hussarЕФ According
to the Gublit (The Provincial Department of Literary and Publishing Affairs),
Уthe fly is the princess in disguise and the mosquito is the prince in
disguiseФ, Уthe illustrations are indecent: the mosquito is portrayed standing
too close to the flyФ, Уshe is smiling way too teasinglyФ, Уthey are flirtingФ (Chukovsky
1991: 344, 450). The tale undermines childrenТs faith in the triumph of the
collective, expresses sympathy for the kulaksТ [affluent peasantsТ] ideology
(УThe horned beetles are wealthy peasantsФ), praises Уpetit-bourgeois virtues
and the accumulation of wealth,Ф and (together with УThe Giant RoachФ and УThe
CrocodileФ) provides Уfalse image of the animal and insect worldsФ (Resolution
1929: 74). The critics adopted the following slogan: let us protect our children
from alien influences! We should replace misleading fictional tales with simple
and true stories about real life and real nature.
anecdote the accusations levelled at УMukha TsokotukhaФ
conform to the letter and spirit of the above-mentioned political-ideological
charges (themselves quite anecdotal): УWhy go to the market and not to the
cooperative? This is a political error (spoken with the characteristic LeninТs
burr)Ф; УWe do not have money lying around on the streets (spoken with the
StalinТs characteristic Georgian
accent)Ф; УIf everyone walks across fields, there will be no corn in our
countryФ; УWe are counting every single gram of gold, and you have a fly
flitting around with a gilded tummyФ). To all intents and purposes, the
anecdotal tradition views this tale castigated by high-ranking Soviet officials
as Уunpleasing to the ruling eliteФ and as Уbeing in need of rehabilitationФ.
diaries (1991: 344, 406, 411,426Ц427), Chukovsky described his attempts to cut
through the red tape. He had to turn to publishers and various censorship
authorities (Gublit, GUS, etc.), to A.V. Lunacharsky (he Уintroduced us trotting
out the usual cliché to the girl: СDo you now who that is? ItТs Chukovsky.Т It
turned out that the family of the PeopleТs Commissar of that very department
which was supposed to battle against Chukovsky was also infected with that
malady) and, finally, to Krupskaya. Her scathing article appeared in the
УPradvaФ newspaper soon afterwards.
there is a strong probability that all these episodes could have been
transformed into the plot in question after having been mapped onto the
productive matrix of jokes about Lenin, Stalin, KhrushchevЕ (Stalin,
Khrushchev, BrezhnevЕ; Khrushchev, Brezhnev, GorbachevЕ, etc. (see,
e.g., Krikmann 2004: No. 2)) within the framework of which each leader entering
the narrative fabric behaves in a way consistent with his folkloric image.
half a century separating the anecdote from the prototypical events does set
certain limitations on determining the nature of the relationship between them.
The record has been dated at 1983, and the appearance of the Secretary General
Andropov in the final plot section supports this dating, at least as far as the
latest version of the anecdote is concerned. It is not ruled out that in the
1940s the memory of these events could have been reawakened by the resumed
persecutions of ChukovskyТs tales following the publication of the 14.08.1946
decree of the Central Committee regarding the magazines УZvezdaФ and УLeningradФ
(Pradva, 21.08.1946). This time, the criticism was targeted at the tale about
Bibigon (1945): Уabsurd and bizarre incidents [Е] naturalism, primitivismФ (Krushinsky
However, the most likely source of the legend that gave rise
to the anecdote was Chukovsky himself who at different times used to tell his
acquaintances about the circumstances surrounding the official persecution of
УMukha TsokotukhaФ, the attacks on which were particularly painful for him (Уmy
most cheerful, most melodious, most felicitous workФ (Chukovsky 1991: 344)). The
anecdote could have emerged in the way indicated above in the process of further
folklorization of the initial legend.
consider the next version (No.2) recorded twenty years later Ц in the year of
MikhalkovТs 90th anniversary (i.e. in 2003).
does not mention Lenin, but the succession of Kremlin rulers is extended to
include Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin. It is obvious that Mikhalkov could not go
to Lenin, but the point here was hardly to try and avoid that kind of
anachronisms. They are excusable in an anecdote, for example: УChukovsky comes
to AndropovФ (No. 1; ChukovskyТs life and AndropovТs tenure as Secretary General
did not coincide in temporal terms), or: УStalin died, so did Chukovsky.
Mikhalkov comes to Khrushchev aloneФ (No.2; in fact, Chukovsky died 16 years
later than Stalin did and, thus, was a contemporary of not only Khrushchev, but
Brezhnev as well).
replacement of one character with another is a natural process in folklore: the
actions of one person are attributed to another who belongs to the same УclassФ
of historical (or mythological) figures. In the given case, this process is
facilitated by the fact that the authors of childrenТs poems are generally
perceived as being less individualized and are, consequently, less stick to
oneТs memory than the authors of УhighФ literature. This is substantiated by the
existence of version No. 3 in which the poet is unnamed, but the text of УMukha
TsokotukhaФ is retained (without it, the anecdote would not have been possible).
УIt is impossible to recognize whether it is Marshak, or Mikhalkov, or Barto, or
a dozen of second-rate men of letters and a hundred of third-rate
ones,Ф observes a critic likening such works to УauthorlessФ poetry; Chukovsky,
though, according to him, did not belong to the above-mentioned plethora of
writers (Yakovlev 2001: 6).
the deletion of Chukovsky and the introduction of Mikhalkov instead resulted
from the subsequent development of the topic of the anecdote ending with the
phrase: УChukovsky was completely forgotten.Ф This deletion has a much deeper
semantic motivation behind it than the mere variation mechanism at work and has
to do with the persona of anecdotal Mikhalkov who now
becomes the main character in the plot in question. In other words,
the replacement of Chukovsky with Mikhalkov and not with, say, Marshak or Barto
is not accidental. It is here that the story about the rulers reading УMukha
TsokotukhaФ acquires certain additional, although not immediately obvious,
all, it should be pointed out that anecdotes about Sergey Mikhalkov constitute a
relatively rare case in which the protagonist of the anecdote sequence is not a
statesman (for instance, the leader of the country like Stalin, Khrushchev,
Brezhnev) or a popular film character (Chapaev, Stirlitz), but a man of letters,
albeit a very famous one. Mikhalkov is unique in this respect: apparently, he is
the only Soviet writer who had the honour of becoming the subject of a whole
series of anecdotes. Two reservations should be noted, however. Firstly, these
texts were known almost exclusively in literary circles, outside of which they
were simply incomprehensible. Secondly, in terms of both content and structure,
they are very much akin to a Уhistorical anecdote,Ф i.e. to a short informal
account of an incident in the life of a particular character, often suffused
with humorous overtones. In this sense, they constitute a certain intermediate
form between the historical anecdote and the modern folkloric joke.
about Mikhalkov cannot be understood outside literary circles because they are
based on the long-established reputation of this writer (see, e.g.: Goryaeva
1998: 279, 281; Kaverin 1989: 416Ц417; Koval 1998: 256, 259) and are
classifiable as inside knowledge not only in oral tradition (УhearsayФ), but
also in literary criticism and even in certain works devoted to the theory and
history of literature. The characteristics that make up his folklorized image
have not lost their relevance in the course of many decades and constitute the
motivational backbone of the anecdotes.
Mikhalkov as an epigone and a plagiarist. УIn
the beginning, the childrenТs writer M<ikhalkov> was an epigone of S. Marshak
and K. ChukovskyФ (Kazak 1996: 265). He began his career as a playwright by
dramatizing УThe Prince and the PauperФ by Mark Twain (Mikhalkov 1938), the
first edition of which featured the following acknowledgement on the title page:
Sergey Mikhalkov. Tom Canty. A Comedy in 3 Acts and 6 Scenes (inspired
by Mark Twain). It is fully reflective of the Soviet tradition of belittling
the authors of re-written literary proto-texts (A. Tolstoy, L. Lagin and
others). The issue of plagiarism is particularly relevant in respect of the USSR
anthem. УA hearing of the new version of the anthem soon took place. This time,
the anthem contained a direct plagiarism
from the welcome address of Уthe Belarusian peopleФ to the ruler at the XVIII
party congress: УWe procured our armour in battlesЕФ etc.Ф (Antonov-Ovseenko
(quoted in Shchuplov 2000); here and hereafter my expanded spacing Ц S. N.). In
the 1950s it was rumoured that Mikhalkov exploited Уliterary slavesФ who helped
him create his dramatic works. Nowadays, this reputation is still alive. For
example, Mikhail Antonov, a journalist on the Kultura radio station, starts his
presentation of the DVD called УNew Adventures of Puss in BootsФ (27.07.2006,
20.15) with the following words: УIs it
correct to call Mikhalkov a plagiarist?Ф.
Mikhalkov edges Chukovsky out of the list of leading childrenТs authors and
becomes his antithesis. ChukovskyТs diary of
1947 contains the following entry: УThey used to say: УChukovsky, Marshak and
othersФ, then: УMarshak, Chukovsky and othersФ, then: УMarshak, Mikhalkov,
Chukovsky and othersФ, then: УMarshak, Mikhalkov, Barto, Kassil and othersФ
(Chukovsky 1994: 181). The existence of such rolls was
a fact of literary life at that
time (УWho used to be a real hit? /Lev Kassil, Marshak, Barto. /Who shoaled in
the editing houses? /Lev Kassil, Barto, MarshakФ). Unfortunately, I do not
remember the author of these humorous and, probably, anti-Semitic verses, so I
will just recite them from memory.) Another УfactФ
was the marginalization of Chukovsky after the persecution campaign of 1946. The
writing trade was well aware of that, sharing this
knowledge by word of mouth. Mikhalkov was, of course,
by far not the only one who edged Chukovsky out. However, as can be concluded
from the above-mentioned diary entry (made Ц and this is quite important Ц
before the crackdown on cosmopolitism), Mikhalkov came higher on that list,
and then, as the next step, ChukovskyТs surname was excluded. One can be almost
certain that the entry features extracts from various critiques, speeches, etc.
rather than random combinations of names. In this sense,
it should be quite representative.
play УLaughter and TearsФ (1945; in later editions knows as УA Funny DreamФ as
well as the screenplay to the 1958 film УNew Adventures of Puss in BootsФ based
on the same plot) contains a parody of Chukovsky. In the play, Krivello/Brigella,
a secret villain Уof the
suit of spades,Ф is tormenting an unhappy prince with his horrible stories:
УTerrible-looking monsters / caught a poor child / and started beating him up
mercilessly / and started smothering and drowning himФ Ц cf. Chukovsky: УBring
me, you animals, your children / I am going to eat them tonight for dinner / [Е]
No mother will ever agree to give / her beloved child / to a voracious monster /
so that he could torment the poor baby!Ф (УThe Giant RoachФ); УThe ugly stuffed
monster / bared its teeth / [...] The monster jumped up to her / and
grabbed poor Lyalechka...Ф (УThe CrocodileФ). Let us recap
the old charges leveled against ChukovskyТs tales: Уbreeding superstition and
fearФ (Resolution 1929: 74). It should be noted that MikhalkovТs play about the
secret villain Brigella and his horrible stories appears shortly before another
eruption of persecution against Chukovsky, and this can hardly be viewed as poor
coincidence (for more detail, see Stroganov 2005).
The text written by Mikhalkov with a co-author and sent for
approval to Stalin can be nothing else but the anthem of the USSR.
The history of the creation of the USSR anthem (1943) is one of the central
themes in MikhalkovТs Уanecdotal eposФ. Interestingly, Mikhalkov himself
authored some of those versions (Zhovtis 1995: 18Ц21; Shchuplov 2000; Soboleva
2005: 13). The submission of УMukha TsokotukhaФ for consideration in turn to
Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin, reveals
not only the motif of the heroТs immortality (Уakin to a character in the
Russian folktale [Е] MikhalkovФ (Poryadina 2002: 287)), but also the farcical
version of the plot about repeated opportunistic alterations of the anthem (УHe
owes his career success to the fact that he adjusted childrenТs poems in
accordance with the shifts of the party line, be it StalinТs, KhrushchevТs,
BrezhnevТs or GorbachevТs ruleЕФ (Kazak 1996: 265)). This is indirectly
substantiated by the ending of the anecdote (awards granted by Putin), as well
as by the anecdotal YeltsinТs remark (in response to another attempt to publish
УMukha TsokotukhaФ): УWe are in no need of
poetsФ (No. 2) Ц cf. УAt the end of 1993, the President of the Russian
Federation Boris Yeltsin issued a decree that M. I. GlinkaТs piano piece
without lyrics called УThe Patriotic SongФ musically edited by B. Diev
should be adopted as the anthem of the Russian Federation [Е] As a result, the
Russian anthem existed without lyrics
for more than 10 yearsФ (Soboleva 2005: 19).
elimination of the co-author (УMikhalkov alone
[Е] Chukovsky has been forgottenФ).
The legend has it: УIn half a year
they [the authors of the lyrics of the anthem] were summoned to Stalin. Then,
there were six more
meetings without Registan, because Stalin said that he would take care of
the political aspect himself ЕФ (Shchuplov 2000). In reality, Mikhalkov is the
sole author of only the last version of the anthem (the so-called УPutinТsФ
version of 2000). In BrezhnevТs version of 1977 the name of (the by that time
late) Registan was still retained (Soboleva 2005: 19). It is possible to detect
a certain correspondence between the motifs of getting rid of a co-author (Registan
in the story with the anthem, Chukovsky in the anecdote about УMukha TsokotukhaФ)
in the apotheosis of MikhalkovТs oeuvre during PutinТs rule.
To sum up,
the literary anecdote about УMukha TsokotukhaФ which the author submits for
consideration to the Soviet rulers (from Lenin to Putin) is apparently based on
the actual literary situation of the 1920s. Its direct sources seem to be the
accounts of the rejection of this work (as well as of other ChukovskyТs tales)
by the Soviet ideological authorities as well as the accounts of the attempts of
the author himself and some other men of letters (Marshak in particular) to cut
through the red tape in order to solve the matter. The reshaping of such
accounts occurs within the framework of the productive anecdote pattern: the
Kremlin rulers are successively introduced into the narration and figure there
in accordance with their established anecdotal images. The cumulative plot that
thus arises (version 1) does not run counter to the mechanism of creation of the
modern folkloric anecdote, but is somewhat more complex and cumbersome than the
usual oral forms.
motivation behind the replacement of Chukovsky with Mikhalkov in the given plot
is just as strong (version 2). Again, it happens in total compliance with the
folkloric variation mechanism, although cannot be accounted for exclusively by
it. The replacement occurs as an action within the plot and is quite important
in itself: the theme brought up in the second episode (УMikhalkov aloneЕФ) is
resolved only in the very end (Уand Chukovsky was forgottenФ). Apparently, the
traits invariably attributed to Mikhalkov in literary circles and making up his
folklorized image are actualized here providing the motivational backbone:
Mikhalkov as a plagiarist, a court poetaster re-writing his verses to suit the
fickle political climate (interestingly, it was precisely due to this fact that
MikhalkovТs works underwent at least two censorship attacks: in 1947 for
mentioning Tito Уin a positive contextФ and in 1960 for mentioning him in a
negative one (Blum 2003: No. 227, 326)); Mikhalkov as a cynical careerist
addressing his texts to the powerful and through that pursuing his own goals. It
is this reputation that makes Mikhalkov the hero of a whole anecdote series and
gives Version 2 of the plot in question an entirely new resonance as compared to
Dedicated to MikhalkovТs 90th anniversary.
Mikhalkov and Chukovsky wrote a poem together.
Ivanovich Chukovsky comes to Lenin. УVladimir Ilyich, I wrote a poem and
would like to publish it now.Ф Ц УRead it out.Ф Ц УThe Buzzing Fly /
with a gilded tummy / was walking across the field / and found some
money. / The Fly went to the market / and bought a samovar there...Ф Ц
УWait, wait, wait, Comrade Chukovsky. Why did she go to the market and
not to the cooperative? This is political error. I want you to rewrite
comes to Stalin. УJoseph Vissarionovich, I wrote a poem and would like
to publish it now.Ф Ц УWell, read it out.Ф Ц УThe
Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy / was walking across the field / and
found some money...Ф Ц УWait, wait, wait, Comrade Chukovsky. There is
no money lying around along the roads in our country. I want you to
rewrite this poem.Ф
come to Stalin for approval and start reading the poem out loud: УThe
Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy / was walking across the field / and
found some money...Ф Ц УIn what sense did she find some money?Ф asks
Stalin. УThere is no money lying around along the roads in our
country. Your poem wonТt do!Ф
comes to Stalin and brings a poem along: УThe
Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy / was walking across the field / and
found some money...Ф Stalin: УAre you implying that we have banknotes
with the portrait of the leader lying around on the fields?!Ф
Chukovsky comes to Khrushchev with the same request and starts reading:
УThe Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy / was walking across the
field...Ф Ц УWait, wait, wait, Comrade Chukovsky. If everyone starts
walking across fields, there will be no corn there. Rewrite the poem.Ф
died. As did Chukovsky. Mikhalkov comes to Khrushchev alone
and says: УI wrote a poem but could not publish it while Stalin was
it out!Ф Ц УThe Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy / was walking across
the field...Ф Ц УIn what sense was she walking across the field? One
should not walk across fields. We grow corn there! No, this poem wonТt
comes to Khrushchev: УThe Buzzing Fly...Ф Khrushchev: УNo, no, no. Why
is your fly hanging around on kolkhoz fields? It will trample the corn
Chukovsky comes to Brezhnev with a new version of his poem: УThe Buzzing
Fly / with a gilded tummy...Ф Ц УWait, wait, wait, Comrade Chukovsky.
We are counting
every single gram of gold, and you have a fly flitting around with a
Rewrite the poem.Ф
Khrushchev is removed from his office. Mikhalkov comes to Brezhnev and
wrote a poem but could not publish it while Stalin and Khrushchev were
alive.Ф Ц УRead it out!Ф Ц УThe Buzzing Fly / with a gilded tummy...Ф Ц
УWho are you hinting at with this Сgilded tummyТ? No, this wonТt
comes to Brezhnev. Brezhnev: УWhat do you mean by Сgilded tummyТ?!
Why do our heroes of socialist labour remind you of flies?!Ф
Chukovsky comes to Andropov. УYuri Vladimirovich! I cannot publish my
poem. Please help me!Ф Ц УWell, read it out.Ф Ц УThe Buzzing FlyЕФ [In
Russian, Tsokotukha sounds similar to УTseKaФ Ц abbreviation for
СCentral CommitteeТ] Ц УWhat did you say about Tseka?!Ф
Brezhnev died. Mikhalkov comes to Andropov: УI wrote a poem but could
not publish it while Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were alive.Ф Ц
УRead it out!Ф Ц УThe Buzzing FlyЕФ Ц УWhat do you mean by Tseka? Why
are you writing about Tseka? No, that wonТt do!Ф
comes to Andropov: УThe Buzzing Fly...Ф Andropov: УWait, wait, wait.
What did you say about Tseka?!Ф
Andropov died. Mikhalkov comes to Gorbachev and says: УI wrote a poem
but could not publish it while Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov
were alive.Ф Ц УRead it out!Ф Ц УThe Buzzing Fly...Ф [In Russian slang
the expression Уunder the flyФ refers to being drunk] Ц УWhat do you
mean by being drunk! We are fighting against alcoholism here! No, that
Soviet Union collapses. Mikhalkov comes to Yeltsin and says: УI wrote a
poem but could not publish it while Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev,
Andropov and Gorbachev were alive.Ф Ц УWe do not need poets
Putin becomes president. Mikhalkov comes to him and says: УI wrote a
poem but cannot publish it.Ф Ц УRead it out!Ф Ц УThe Buzzing Fly / with
a gilded tummy / was walking across the field / and found some money. /
The Fly went to the market / and bought a samovar there.Ф Ц УWhat a
wonderful poem!Ф Putin gave Mikhalkov a medal for promoting the market
economy, investors, Russian industry and mineral resources of gold, oil
and gas. Chukovsky was forgotten, however.Ф
(2005). ѕовтор в структуре фольклорного текста (на материале русских,
болгарских и чешских сказочных и заговорных текстов) [Repititions in the
Structure of a Folkloric Text (with Reference to Russian, Bulgarian and Czech
Tales and Charms)]. ћосква: √–÷–‘.
(2003). «апрещенные книги русских писателей и литературоведов.
»ндекс советской цензуры с комментари€ми
Books by Russian Writers and Literature Scholars in 1917Ц1991: the Index of the
Soviet Censorship with Comments]. —анкт-ѕетербург:
—ѕб гос. ун-т культуры и искусств.
(1998). √лавлит и литература в период
Ђлитературно-политического брожени€ в —оветском —оюзеї
and Literature in the Times of Literary and Political Ferment in the Soviet
Union]. ¬опросы литературы,
1998, No. 10, pp. 276Ц320.
Zhovtis, A. (1995). Ќепридуманные
анекдоты. »з советского прошлого
From the Soviet Past].
Kaverin, V. (1989).
ћосква: ћосковский рабочий.
Kazak, V. (1996).
Ћексикон русской литературы
XX века [Russian Literature Lexicon
of the 20th C.]. ћосква:
Krikmann, A. (2004).
Stalinist Ц »нтернет-анекдоты о —талине
Ц Internet Humour about Stalin.
(1998). Ђя всегда выпадал из общей струиї. Ёкспромт,
[УI have always stood out against the background.Ф An Improvisation Prepared by
Life]. ¬опросы литературы,
1998. No. 6, pp. 227Ц272.
ќ Ђ рокодилеї . „уковского [On ChukovskyТs УCrocodileФ]. ѕравда,
Krushinsky, S. (1946). —ерьезные
недостатки детских журналов [Serious Shortcomings of ChildrenТs Magazines].
(1938). “ом энти. омеди€ в 3-х действи€х, 6-ти картинах (по мотивам ћарка
“вена) [Tom Canty.
A Comedy in 3 Acts and 6
Scenes (Inspired by Mark Twain)]. ћолода€ гварди€,
1938, No. 7, pp. 58Ц85.
Poryadina, M. (2002).
ƒве вещи несовместные
[Two Incompatible Things].
Ќовое литературное обозрение,
2002, No. 6, pp. 282Ц287.
Resolution (1929) =
ћы призываем к борьбе с
(–езолюци€ общего собрани€ родителей ремлевского детсада)
[We Call for a Fight against
Chukovsky and Everything He Represents (Resolution adopted by the general
meeting of parents of the Kremlin kindergarten)].
1929, No. 4, p. 74.
Sverdlova, N. (1928).
[On Chukovsky and Everything
He Represents]. расна€ печать,
1928, No. 9Ц10, p. 92 ff.
(2005). »з истории отечественных государственных гимнов
from the History of Domestic National Anthems].
Stroganov, M. (2003).
„уковский и —.
ћихалков в литературной полемике
[K. Chukovsky and S. Mikhalkov in Literary Debates].
—татьи по русской литературе и антропологии детства
Collection: Articles on Russian Literature and Child Anthropology].
(1991). ƒневник 1901Ц1929
ћосква: —оветский писатель.
(1994). ƒневник 1930Ц1969
ћосква: —оветский писатель.
Shchuplov, A. (2000).
ак создавалс€ гимн
(јпокрифы советских времен)
[The Creation of the Anthem
(Apocrypha of the Soviet Times)]. Ќ√.
24.02.2000 (No. 7).
(2001). –азверни назад кон€!
Your Horse Around!]. Ќ√.
16.08.2001 (No. 30), p. 3.