Vladimir VASILIEV

Sholokhov and the Nobel Prize: history of the issue

The names of the Nobel Prize laureates were announced by the Committee in print on October 15, 1965. A month later, on November 16, in a conversation with Swedish journalists, Sholokhov noted that “the award of the Nobel Prize to him was to a certain extent a surprise,” and during a press conference in Stockholm, as one of the Scandinavian newspapers wrote, “he even allows himself joke about it” and agrees with the statement that he receives the Nobel Prize “thirty years late.”

The idea of ​​Sholokhov as the most worthy candidate for the Nobel Prize was first heard in the foreign press, in particular in Swedish newspapers, in 1935, when Quiet Don was not yet completed, but its author was already known as a “world famous”, “world writer” ”, and the novel - “Soviet “War and Peace””. Finished in 1940, “Quiet Don” could not be considered by the Swedish Academy as a work worthy of the Nobel Prize due to political considerations related to the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939–1940. The turning point in the fight against Nazi Germany, and subsequently the decisive contribution to the victory over fascism in World War II, significantly raised the global authority of the Soviet Union, and the name of Sholokhov, as an undisputed Nobel laureate, again became one of the dominant ones in assessments of the achievements of world literature of the 20th century . “In the field of literature,” wrote Literaturnaya Gazeta in 1946, “in recent years, M. Sholokhov, a writer who is well known and loved in Sweden, has been repeatedly nominated.” However, the Cold War, which especially intensified in the world in 1948–1953 and took on new, more sophisticated forms since the mid-50s, left a powerful imprint on the state of everyday world humanitarian thought, which descended to elementary propaganda Sovietology. “The Western reader,” wrote H. McLean and W. Vickery about this time, “gained an idea of ​​Soviet literature not from... Soviet literature itself, or even from critical reviews. His idea of ​​Soviet literature consisted of newspaper articles... about the events of Moscow literary life... In the West, we tend to discuss rather... the social behavior of Soviet writers... than to talk about the aesthetic merits or style of their work... Genuinely literary works... served for us most often as sources for sociological conclusions. Literature in the proper sense did not interest us” (Maclean H. and Vickery W. The Year of Protest. New York, 1956. P. 4, 28). A similar mindset was expressed in the awarding of the Nobel Prizes in 1953 to the English Prime Minister W. Churchill (for literature), the father of the Cold War (speech in Fulton in 1946), and the former US Secretary of Defense General of the Army J. Marshall, one one of the active initiators of the militaristic revival of West Germany and US hegemony in Europe. In the next volume of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, published hot on the heels of this event, it is noted: “...the awarding of No[bel] prizes, especially for literary works and activities in favor of peace, is often determined by the political interests of reactionary circles.”

The ideological preferences of the Swedish Academy were too obvious, and it seems far from accidental that the Nobel Committee, in the spirit of objectivity and impartiality, decided to weaken the impression of the emerging practice in awarding prizes and turned to the oldest Russian writer, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences S.N. Sergeev-Tsensky with a request to propose a candidate for the Nobel Prize “no later than February 1954.”

“Responding to your appeal,” Sergeev-Tsensky wrote to the Nobel Committee, “I consider it an honor to propose the Soviet writer Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1953. A full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Mikhail Sholokhov, in my opinion, as well as in the recognition of my colleagues and the reading masses, is one of the most outstanding writers of my country. He is world famous as a great artist of words, masterfully revealing in his works the movements and impulses of the human soul and mind, the complexity of human feelings and relationships.

Hundreds of millions of readers around the world know Sholokhov’s novels “Quiet Don” and “Virgin Soil Upturned” - highly humanistic works, imbued with deep faith in man, in his ability to transform life, make it bright and joyful for everyone.

“Quiet Don”, “Virgin Soil Upturned” and other works of Sholokhov, according to the information at my disposal, were published in the USSR before January 1, 1954 in 412 editions in 55 languages. The total circulation of publications is 19,947,000 copies. Sholokhov's books have been translated into dozens of foreign languages ​​and published in large editions. All this testifies to their extraordinary popularity and usefulness for humanity.

Coming from the common people, from a family of Don Cossacks, Mikhail Sholokhov lives among his fellow countrymen. He closely connects his creativity with the life and interests of ordinary Soviet people. In their lives and struggles, he draws material for his works, and among them he finds the heroes of his books. In his works of art, he raises questions that most concern our contemporaries.

Sholokhov’s novel “Quiet Don” is generally recognized as a classic work of Soviet literature. This is an epic about the Don Cossacks in the turbulent years - 1912–1922. It poses great moral and humanistic problems - about the paths of human development, about the fate of entire classes and individuals. In excellent realistic paintings, the writer reveals the light and dark sides of life. It shows the struggle against social evil for the triumph of the bright principles of life. Love and hatred, joy and suffering of the heroes are described by Sholokhov with great insight, knowledge of life and sympathy for man.

In the novel “Virgin Soil Upturned,” Sholokhov truthfully and with captivating artistic skill shows the restructuring of the old way of peasant life by the collective farm Cossacks. He reveals the high moral qualities of the Soviet peasant - the source and basis of his unprecedented feat in creating a new way of life based on collective farming.

Mikhail Sholokhov is one of those major Russian writers who continue and develop the best achievements of Russian classical literature and create excellent examples of realistic art.

The work of Mikhail Sholokhov undoubtedly serves the progress of mankind and the strengthening of friendly ties between the Russian people and the peoples of other countries.

I am deeply convinced that it is Mikhail Sholokhov who has an advantage over other writers for receiving the Nobel Prize.

Please accept my assurance of my deepest respect for you.
Full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences S. Sergeev-Tsensky.”

The proposal of the Nobel Committee to Sergeev-Tsensky was first discussed in principle, starting with the board of the Writers' Union and ending with the Central Committee of the CPSU - to accept it or not, to use it “for a publicly motivated refusal to participate to some extent in the work of this public organization with the exposure of this an organization that is an instrument of warmongers, or for the motivated nomination of one of the writers as an active fighter for peace” (B.N. Polevoy - M.A. Suslov, January 21, 1954). When the issue was resolved in favor of the latter consideration, a discussion of the candidacy, in particular Sholokhov, and agreement on the text of the letter motivating his nomination began in the same order. Finally, the Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee at a meeting on February 23, 1954 decided:

"1. Accept the proposal of the Union of Soviet Writers of the USSR to nominate the writer M.A. Sholokhov as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1953.

2. Agree with the text of the response of the writer Sergeev-Tsensky to the Nobel Committee at the Swedish Academy presented by the Union of Soviet Writers...

3. Submit for approval by the Presidium.”

Some time later, the Nobel Committee responded to Sergeev-Tsensky’s submission, dated March 6, 1954: “The Nobel Committee of the Swedish Academy accepted with interest your proposal to award the Nobel Prize to M.A. Sholokhov.

Because proposals must come to us no later than February 1st, Your proposal has reached us too late to be discussed for the current year.

However, Sholokhov will be nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize for 1955,” that is, in 1956 (emphasis added - V.V.).

In the response of the Nobel Committee, attention is drawn to a very noticeable emphasis on the formal side of resolving the issue. The Committee’s proposal to the Soviet academician stated that a candidate for the prize should be submitted “no later than February” (see above). The last words cannot be understood or interpreted except during the month of February, and not by February 1st. In other words: Sergeev-Tsensky was delayed in answering for some two or three days, and, as they say in such cases, if there was good will, the formal moment could be easily overcome.

The postponement of Sholokhov's candidacy to 1956 cannot but lead one to believe that the Swedish Academy has already decided on the 1955 Nobel Prize. It was received by the Icelandic writer H. Laskness, the author of the notes “Russian Fairy Tale” filled with faith in the socialist transformation of life (1938; visited the USSR twice in the 30s), laureate of the International Peace Prize (1953), who, having visited the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin in October 1953, began to move away from sharp criticism of bourgeois social relations.

The expectation that Sholokhov would receive the Nobel Prize in 1956 did not materialize - it was awarded to the Spanish modernist poet J. Jimenez (1881–1958).

The issue of awarding Sholokhov the Nobel Prize became aggravated again in connection with the publication of B. Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago” abroad. Rejected by the editors of Soviet magazines and publishing houses, the novel was transferred by its author abroad in May 1956 and, translated in great haste, was first published on November 15, 1957 in Italian, then - before the end of the year - it was published in English, Norwegian, French and German languages. Read by the world progressive public in an unprecedented rush and receiving enormous press, Doctor Zhivago, unknown to anyone in the original language until August 24, 1958, was nevertheless accepted by the Nobel Committee for discussion as a work of the “great Russian epic tradition” (although, according to the precise definition of D.S. Likhachev, this is “not even a novel”, but “a kind of autobiography", and a lyrical autobiography. Even the reasonable statements of Sovietologists that “Pasternak’s novel, not published in the USSR... in a certain sense, is not at all can be considered as a work of Soviet literature,” turned out to be easily surmountable and of no significant significance (see: Maclean H. and Vickery W. The Year of Protest, 1956. R. 3).

Since Pasternak’s novel represented Russian Soviet literature at its highest achievement for the first time in history, a sharp political struggle unfolded around the candidate for the Nobel Prize, the superior forces in which, at least in the form of listing only newspapers and magazines and other means of operational information, cannot be accounted for. . “Recently, in the Swedish Pen Club, which unites a significant part of the writers,” wrote the secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers G.M. to the Central Committee of the party. Markov April 7, 1958, - a discussion of possible candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature took place. Four candidates were discussed: Sholokhov, Pasternak, Pound, Moravia. The discussion had the character of a referendum. The absolute majority of the discussion participants spoke in favor of Sholokhov. Prince Wilhelm, who exercises patronage over the Pen-Club, also cast his vote for Sholokhov. Thus, Swedish cultural figures who are favorably disposed towards us consider Sholokhov’s chances for the prize to be real.

At the same time, Erik Asklund and Sven Stork, citing their personal connections with people well informed about the Swedish Academy, which awards the prize, told us that among the highest circles of this academy there is a definite opinion in favor of Pasternak, and we are talking about a possible division of the prize between Sholokhov and Pasternak.

Wishing that justice would prevail in relation to Sholokhov, our Swedish friends expressed wishes to intensify the fight for Sholokhov. The Soviet press could provide significant assistance in favor of Sholokhov. Facts and examples about Sholokhov’s international popularity, about his wide popularity in the Scandinavian countries would play a positive role, as they would strengthen the position of Sholokhov’s supporters. Obviously, other measures cannot be ruled out, in particular, speeches by the most prominent foreign and Soviet cultural figures on this issue in various press organs of Scandinavian and other countries.”

The struggle over candidates for the Nobel Prize coincided with a change in strategy in waging the Cold War between the West and the United States against the East, Asia and “barbarism.” If earlier it was waged against socialism in general and as a whole, now its character has taken on more sophisticated and specific forms. Its goal was to count on the split of the new social system from within, to divide the “monolith” into “pieces”, to divide the single socialist camp into true believers and those opposed to them, and societies into groups of “mossy reactionaries” and dissidents, into people slavishly committed to “ dilapidated values”, and free individuals and “personalities”. As D. Kennedy formulated a new task in the war against communism when taking office as US President: “There is no point in talking about massive retaliation, by doing this we are only strengthening the red bloc. Now we should look for ways to split this bloc” (Kennedy J.F. The strategy of Peace. New York, 1960. P. 44). In accordance with the “new thinking”, B. Pasternak’s novel “was used as a psychological weapon in the Cold War” (Brown E. Russian Literature since the Revolution. New York, 1973. P. 273).

In this situation, the position of Sholokhov the communist could not be other than that formulated in the note by the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L. Ilyichev and the head of the culture department of the Central Committee of the party D. Polikarpov dated October 21, 1958: “... if Comrade Sholokhov is awarded the Nobel Prize prize for this year along with Pasternak, it would be advisable that, as a sign of protest, Comrade Sholokhov demonstratively refused it and declared in the press his reluctance to be the laureate of a prize, the award of which is used for anti-Soviet purposes...” (Center for the Storage of Contemporary Documentation, f. 5, op. 36, d. 61, l. 52).

The realistic assessment by some Western critics of the artistic merits of the novel “Doctor Zhivago” did not influence the choice of the Swedish Academy and was lost in a host of outright political praise and ideological enthusiasm. Long before the announcement of the Nobel Prize winner, the French weekly Ar wrote in its issue of January 29, 1958: “It is not so much the literary as the political significance of Doctor Zhivago that brought it to the forefront.” “Pasternak became famous in the West even before they became acquainted with his work,” echoed Le Figaro Literary. Pasternak’s novel, noted Gustav Gerling in the West German Merkur, “can by no means be considered a completely successful work: it is populated by figures with a very poorly defined psychology, chaotic in construction.” A Dutch bourgeois newspaper saw nothing in Doctor Zhivago except “affection, literary clumsiness, strained symbolism and wasteful use of characters.” “It seems to me,” admitted the French critic Andre Rousseau, “that Pasternak’s realism... is very close to banality and even vulgar naturalism. Be that as it may, in this case you don’t feel the irresistible force with which great works usually capture us...” V. Nabokov called the novel “Doctor Zhivago” “painful, mediocre, false,” and Graham Greene called it “clumsy, crumbling like a deck of cards.”

Rare reasonable voices were drowned out, however, by powerful pathetic rhetoric: “The stagnation of Soviet literature lasted... until the appearance of Doctor Zhivago in 1958” (Guerney B. An Anthology of Russian Literature in the Soviet Period from Gorki to Pasternak. New York, 1960. P. XXII); “the novel stands in brilliant solitude”, “a bestseller in Europe”, “the voice of a different Russia” (Slonim M. Russian Soviet Literature: Writers and Problems. New York, 1964. P. 228, 230); “Nobel Prize against communism” (signature under the portrait of Pasternak in the Viennese newspaper “Neue Kurir” in the issue on the eve of the announcement of the Nobel laureates), etc.

“We could partially imagine and understand the reaction of the Soviet public to the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Pasternak for the novel “Doctor Zhivago” (in 1958. - V.V.), - reasoned W. Vickery, - if we could imagine our indignation and accusations of disloyalty that could flare up in the USA against some well-known American writer who wrote a book on an extremely sensitive topic, due to which it was refused to be published in the USA , and the author sent the manuscript to the USSR, and then received the Lenin Prize for Literature...” (Vickery W. The Cult of Optimism: Political and Ideological Problems of Recent Soviet Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963. P. 93–94 ).

While in France in April 1959, Sholokhov, when asked by a correspondent of the Parisian daily newspaper France-Soir about his opinion about the Pasternak case (meaning the exclusion of the author of Doctor Zhivago from the Writers' Union and his refusal of the Nobel Prize. - V.V.), “gave an all the more remarkable answer because several Soviet diplomats listened to him without detecting any reaction”: “The collective leadership of the Union of Soviet Writers lost their cool. Pasternak’s book “Doctor Zhivago” should have been published in the Soviet Union instead of banning it. Pasternak should have been defeated by his readers instead of being brought up for discussion. If we acted this way, our readers, who are very demanding, would have already forgotten about it. As for me, I believe that Pasternak’s work as a whole is devoid of any significance, except for his translations, which are brilliant. As for the book “Doctor Zhivago,” the manuscript of which I read in Moscow, it is a formless work, an amorphous mass that does not deserve the name of a novel.”

Without resorting to a political assessment of Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago,” Sholokhov indirectly reproached the Swedish Academy for neglecting the artistic side of literature, which at one time, at the dawn of the awarding of the Nobel Prizes, which lay claim to world recognition, was pointed out in a rather sharp form by the largest Swedish writer August Strindberg: “...let's get rid of the masters who do not understand art when they undertake to judge it. And if necessary, let’s give up Nobel money, dynamite money, as they are called” (quoted from: Kozhinov V. The Nobel Myth // Diary of a Writer, 1996, March–April. P. 8).

A few days before the official announcement of the next Nobel laureate in 1964, the French writer and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre sent a letter to the Swedish Academy in which he refused the prize and asked to award it to some other artist. When the Nobel Committee announced his name as a laureate, the writer, through the Swedish embassy in Paris, for the second time decisively rejected such high recognition, citing his long-standing vow not to receive any awards and not to associate himself with the Nobel Foundation and Committee, obliging him to profess certain political and public views and sympathies. “Under current conditions,” said Sartre, “the Nobel Prize objectively looks like an award either to Western writers or to obstinate people from the East. For example, it was not crowned with Pablo Neruda, one of the greatest poets in America. There was never any serious talk about Louis Aragon, who, however, fully deserves it. It is regrettable that the prize was awarded to Pasternak before Sholokhov, and that the only Soviet work awarded the award was a book published abroad...” (“Literary Gazette”. 1964. October 24. P. 1).

Charles Snow and Pampela Hansford Johnson spoke with words of support for Sholokhov’s candidacy for the award. “We are convinced,” they wrote, “that Sholokhov’s works have great and lasting value. This is what we think and ask the Nobel Committee to address precisely this side of the problem. It is clear that the novel as an artistic form is now being debated incessantly, and there is no consensus on how the novel should develop in the future<···>In our opinion... Sholokhov created a novel that, in its own way, is the best for an entire generation. This is “Quiet Don”. Sholokhov’s other works may not be on the same level, but “Quiet Don” is a realistic epic worthy of “War and Peace.” If not as great as “War and Peace”, insofar as it does not have that work of self-consciousness, however, worthy of comparison with “War and Peace”. And this work is much more tragic than “War and Peace”. It is significant that the most significant and most recognized work of Soviet literature depicts the sad death of the main characters, with the exception of a child whose life glimmers like a spark of hope. It is worth comparing the endings of “War and Peace” and “Quiet Don”. In one case, the family happiness of Pierre and Natasha, in the other - Grigory Melekhov, persecuted, on the verge of death, who came, perhaps for the last time, to see his son” (IMLI RAS Archives, f. 520, op. 1, no. 62 ).

Charles Snow proposed to the Institute of World Literature in the person of its director, his longtime friend I.I. Anisimov to nominate Sholokhov for the Nobel Prize and prepare materials about the writer (biography, bibliography, justification). “Each of the awards,” writes D. Urnov, “is motivated by a special formulation. The Nobel Prize is awarded not for individual works, but for some exceptional feature of the whole work. So, Kipling received for “masculinity of style.” Hemingway - “for his influential stylistic mastery.” Sholokhov’s formulation developed by itself: “Uncompromising truthfulness.”

Do you think it’s theirs (Nobel Committee. - V.V.) will it get through? - asked Ivan Ivanovich (Anisimov. - V.V.), looking through and signing the relevant papers” (Bolshoi Ivan: Book about I.I. Anisimov. M.: Pravda, 1982 (Ogonyok Library, No. 22). P. 41).

Sholokhov was awarded the Nobel Prize, as stated in the laureate’s diploma, “in recognition of the artistic strength and integrity which he showed in his Don epic about the historical phases of the life of the Russian people”.

In the summer of 1965, in order to clarify the attitude of Soviet writers to the fact (if it happened) of awarding the Sholokhov Prize, the vice-president of the Nobel Committee visited Moscow. “Recently in Moscow,” Sholokhov wrote to the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev on July 30, 1965, was vice-president of the Nobel Committee.

In a conversation at the Writers' Union, he made it clear that this year the Nobel Committee would obviously discuss my candidacy.

After Jean Paul Sartre’s refusal (last year) to receive the Nobel Prize with reference to the fact that the Nobel Committee is biased in its assessments and that he, this committee, in particular, should have awarded the Nobel Prize to Sholokhov long ago, the visit of the vice-president cannot be assessed differently, like intelligence.

Just in case, I would like to know how the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee will react if this prize is awarded to me (contrary to the class beliefs of the Swedish committee), and what will my Central Committee advise me?<···>At the end of August I will be going to Kazakhstan for 2-3 months, and would be glad to have news before leaving.” The letter sets out the opinion of the Department of Culture of the CPSU Central Committee: “...the award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Comrade. Sholokhov M.A. It would be fair recognition on the part of the Nobel Committee of the world significance of the work of an outstanding Soviet writer. In this regard, the department sees no reason to refuse the award if it is awarded.” Here is the resolution-conclusion: “Agree with the department’s proposals. P. Demichev, A. Shelepin, D. Ustinov, N. Podgorny, Yu. Andropov” - and reference: “Comrade. Sholokhov M.A. reported 16.VIII.65. G. Kunitsyn.”

“What else can justify
life and work of each of us,
if not the trust of the people, not the recognition of
what are you giving to the people...
The Motherland has all its strength and abilities.”

M. A. Sholokhov.

On December 10, 1965, the Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to M. A. Sholokhov (1905 - 1984) in Stockholm.

Russian writer Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov was born on the Kruzhilin farm in the Cossack village of Veshenskaya in the Rostov region, in southern Russia. In his works, the writer immortalized the Don River and the Cossacks who lived here and defended the interests of the Tsar in pre-revolutionary Russia and opposed the Bolsheviks during the Civil War.

The idea of ​​Sholokhov as the most worthy candidate for the Nobel Prize was first heard in the foreign press, in particular in Swedish newspapers, in 1935, when Quiet Don was not yet completed, but its author was already known as a “world famous”, “world writer” , and the novel - “Soviet “War and Peace””. Finished in 1940, “Quiet Don” could not be considered by the Swedish Academy as a work worthy of the Nobel Prize for political reasons.

Medal awarded to a Nobel laureate

In 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre refused the Nobel Prize, explaining, among other things, his personal regret that Sholokhov was not awarded the prize. It was this gesture of Sartre that predetermined the choice of the laureate in 1965.

Swedish Academy building

Despite the apparent lack of bias of the Nobel Prize, dictated by the philanthropic instructions of Nobel himself, many “left-wing” political forces still see obvious politicization and some Western cultural chauvinism in the awarding of the prize.

It is difficult not to notice that the vast majority of Nobel laureates come from the USA and European countries (more than 700 laureates), while the number of laureates from the USSR and Russia is much smaller. Moreover, there is a point of view that the majority of Soviet laureates were awarded the prize only for criticism of the USSR.

But this is a completely different story, let’s take a break from politics and look at photographs from the award ceremony for M.A. Sholokhov on December 10, exactly 50 years ago, as well as other photographs of the writer and everything connected with the name of the Nobel laureate:

Mikhail Sholokhov in the building of the Swedish Academy before the award ceremony.

The Sholokhovs before receiving the Nobel Prize.

Nobel laureates, Stockholm, December 1965. Far right - Mikhail Sholokhov

In the evening of the same day, a banquet was held in honor of the Nobel laureates, which was a record in all respects. In the hall designed for 850 guests, tables were set for 1,292 people. The holiday was served by 200 waiters, cooks and other personnel.

2000 red carnations and mimosa. Golden candlesticks served as table decoration. On the table there were bags of cigarettes and matches specially prepared for smokers with a portrait of A. Nobel. Sholokhov had a special glass and Russian cigarettes.

The royal family and Nobel laureates traditionally had to eat on gold service.

The dinner was accompanied by melodies by Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Offenbach, Gluck, Koch, Frimm, and Janihira.

Sholokhov at the Soviet Embassy in Stockholm

In his speech during the awards ceremony, the writer said his goal was to "exalt a nation of workers, builders and heroes." Sholokhov is the only Soviet writer who received the Nobel Prize with the consent of the USSR authorities.

The Nobel Prize ceremony for M. A. Sholokhov on December 10, 1965 (footage from a documentary about the writer)

M.A. Sholokhov and King Gustav Adolf of Sweden at the Nobel Prize ceremony

Gustav Adolf VI, who presented the prize to the Soviet writer, called him “one of the most outstanding writers of our time.” Sholokhov did not bow to the king, as prescribed by the rules of etiquette. Some sources claim that he did this intentionally with the words: “We, Cossacks, do not bow to anyone. In front of the people, please, but I won’t do it in front of the king...”

Mikhail Alexandrovich during the Nobel Prize presentation in 1965

Sholokhov's speech made a great impression on the audience. The difficulty of understanding Russian speech for the audience was removed by the fact that envelopes with a translation of the laureate’s speech were distributed in advance to those invited to the celebration.

The final words of his speech were especially memorable: “I would like my books to help people become better, to become purer in soul, to awaken love for a person... If I succeeded in this to some extent, I am happy.”

Mikhail Sholokhov was born on May 11 (24), 1905 in the Kruzhilin farmstead (now Rostov region) in the family of an employee of a trading enterprise.

The first education in Sholokhov’s biography was received in Moscow during the First World War. Then he studied at a gymnasium in the Voronezh province in the city of Boguchar. Having arrived in Moscow to continue his education and not being admitted, he was forced to change many working specialties in order to feed himself. At the same time, in the life of Mikhail Sholokhov there was always time for self-education.

The beginning of a literary journey

His works were first published in 1923. Creativity has always played an important role in Sholokhov's life. After publishing feuilletons in newspapers, the writer publishes his stories in magazines. In 1924, the newspaper “Young Leninist” published the first of Sholokhov’s series of Don stories, “The Birthmark.” Later, all the stories from this cycle were combined into three collections: “Don Stories” (1926), “Azure Steppe” (1926) and “About Kolchak, Nettles and Others” (1927).

Creativity flourishes

Sholokhov became widely famous for his work about the Don Cossacks during the war - the novel “Quiet Don” (1928-1932).

Over time, this epic became popular not only in the USSR, but also in Europe and Asia, and was translated into many languages.

Another famous novel by M. Sholokhov is “Virgin Soil Upturned” (1932-1959). This novel about the times of collectivization in two volumes received the Lenin Prize in 1960.

From 1941 to 1945, Sholokhov worked as a war correspondent. During this time, he wrote and published several stories and essays (“The Science of Hate” (1942), “On the Don”, “Cossacks” and others).
Sholokhov’s famous works are also: the story “The Fate of a Man” (1956), the unfinished novel “They Fought for the Motherland” (1942-1944, 1949, 1969).

It is worth noting that an important event in the biography of Mikhail Sholokhov in 1965 was the receipt of the Nobel Prize in Literature for the epic novel “Quiet Don”.

last years of life

Since the 60s, Sholokhov practically stopped studying literature and loved to devote time to hunting and fishing. He donated all his awards to charity (the construction of new schools).
The writer died on February 21, 1984 from cancer and was buried in the courtyard of his house in the village of Veshenskaya on the banks of the Don River.

Chronological table

Other biography options

Biography test

Almost no one can answer all the questions on the test, so check your knowledge of Sholokhov’s short biography.

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov (1905-1984) - Soviet writer, one of the classics of Russian literature, Nobel Prize laureate and academician. He was born on May 11 (24), 1905 on the Kruzhilin farmstead, now in the Sholokhov district of the Rostov region. He spent his entire life in his native village, occasionally moving to other cities for a while.

Childhood and youth

The mother of the future writer, Anastasia Chernikova, was a peasant orphan. Before the wedding, she was a maid for a landowner, after which the girl was forcibly married to the Cossack Kuznetsov. But they did not love each other, and soon the peasant woman ran away to Alexander Sholokhov. He was born in the Ryazan province, served as a clerk, and was in charge of the procurement office of the Don Food Committee. Mikhail was an illegitimate son; according to documents, his father was Anastasia’s husband. And only in 1912, after his death, the lovers got married, then Alexander was able to “adopt” his own child.

In 1910, the family moved to the Kargin farm. There Sholokhov studied at a parochial school, after which he entered the gymnasium. But the young man managed to complete only four classes due to the outbreak of the revolution; he studied from 1914 to 1918. Later he completed tax courses and was an inspector. During the Civil War, Misha served as a volunteer in the food detachment. He was also appointed as an adult literacy teacher.

In parallel with his work, Mikhail participated in the creation of the newspaper “New World” and played in performances of the Karginsky People’s House. He even composed two plays for this institution, maintaining anonymity. They were called “An Extraordinary Day” and “General Pobedonostsev”.

Moving to Moscow

When Misha turned 17 years old, he decided to move to Moscow. Since 1922, the prose writer lived there, worked as a loader, mason and accountant. But he was always drawn to literature, so in his free time he attended classes at the Young Guard club. In the fall of 1923, Sholokhov’s feuilletons “Test” and “Three” were published in the printed publication “Youthful Truth”. The following year, readers were able to read his story “The Birthmark.”

After a successful debut, the writer published several more of his works, later all of them were included in the collections “Don Stories” and “Azure Steppe”. In many ways, he was helped by Alexander Serafimovich, who wrote the preface to one of the prose writer’s books. They met in 1925, and until the end of his days Sholokhov was grateful to his friend for his support. He considered him one of the first teachers in his life.

Subsequently, Mikhail received an education. He graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University and the Faculty of History and Philosophy of Rostov University. At Lomonosov Moscow State University, he met his future wife Maria, the daughter of a Cossack ataman. She studied philology, and after receiving her diploma she became the prose writer’s personal secretary.

Main novel

In 1924, Mikhail Alexandrovich returned to his homeland. There he marries Maria Gromoslavskaya. Their marriage lasted until the death of the writer; four children were born into the family. They lived in the village of Karginskaya, and in 1926 they moved to Vyoshenskaya. At the same time, the prose writer begins work on his most famous novel, Quiet Don. It described the fate of the Cossacks during the war years; the work consisted of several parts.

In 1928 and 1929 The first two books of the epic were published. They were published in the publication “October”. The third part appeared only a few years later, because there was a publication ban by the government. This is due to the fact that the novel sympathetically depicts the participants in the anti-Bolshevik uprising. In 1932, readers were able to familiarize themselves with the third book; two years later, Mikhail finished writing the next part. But he was under enormous pressure; the work had to be rewritten several times. In 1940, the last part of the fourth book was published.

It was “Quiet Don” that became firmly entrenched in world and Russian classics. It has been translated into many languages. This novel combines several storylines and is considered one of the most striking examples of socialist realism. Maxim Gorky and Alexander Serafimovich highly appreciated Sholokhov’s work, starting with the first book of the epic. They wrote rave reviews and supported their colleague in every possible way.

Simultaneously with the epic, another important novel by the prose writer was released. It was called “Virgin Soil Upturned”, the plot was based on the history of the 25-thousander movement. The first volume was published in 1932. The second part was temporarily lost, and only after the war was it published. This work was included in the school curriculum, its appearance became an important event in the literary life of the country. Also in the 30s, Sholokhov often wrote articles about culture and literature.

Years of war

During the Great Patriotic War, Mikhail Alexandrovich worked as a war correspondent. He collaborated with the publications Pravda and Krasnaya Zvezda. During this period, his stories “The Science of Hate”, “On the Don”, “On the Smolensk Direction” were published. In 1941, the novelist received a State Prize, for which he bought four rocket launchers for the army.

Sholokhov also begins to publish chapters from a new novel called “They Fought for the Motherland.” The final version of the book appeared only in 1969. The writer burned the manuscript, so only some chapters remained for readers. In 1975, the book was filmed by Sergei Bondarchuk.

Social activity

After the end of the war, the writer intensively engaged in social work. He joined the World Congress of Scientific and Cultural Workers. Sholokhov was also a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and in 1934 he was admitted to the Writers' Union. He also participated in the World Peace Council. Thanks to the prose writer, the movement “Union of Cossacks of the Don Army Region” was organized.

In parallel with this, Mikhail continues to write. In 1956, the essay “The Fate of Man” was published. In 1965, the prose writer received the Nobel Prize for the epic “Quiet Don”. He donated these funds to build a school in his home village. He was also awarded in different years the Stalin Prize, the Lenin Prize, the Literary Sophia Prize and the International Peace Prize. Sholokhov was an honorary doctor of philological sciences at Leipzig and Rostov universities. In Scotland he was elected Doctor of Laws.

In the last ten years of his life, the prose writer wrote practically nothing. Visitors from all over the world regularly came to his home village who wanted to communicate with the writer. He suffered two strokes and diabetes, after which metastases began to appear in his throat. On February 21, 1984, Sholokhov died of laryngeal cancer.

In Soviet times, many domestic writers were repressed for anti-Soviet agitation: in the first years of Bolshevik rule, masters of words were put against the wall, and later they were sent to maximum security camps for 5–10 years.

In the 50s, the Nobel Committee nominated Boris Pasternak for the Literature Prize 7 times. In 1958, the writer was finally awarded this honor, but terrible persecution at home forced the genius to refuse the award.

Soviet spies in Sweden found out that among the candidates then there was Stalin's personal favorite Mikhail Sholokhov. Diplomats persistently hinted to the Swedes that the leadership of the USSR would highly appreciate the award of the Nobel Prize to him, but they refused.

Pasternak Nobel Prize

The literary award awaited Mikhail Alexandrovich until 1965. He and his family were released from the country for the award ceremony, but in Stockholm the writer almost caused an international scandal, expressing his disrespect for the ceremony procedure and himself King Gustav VI Adolf.

After the failure of 1958, Khrushchev took Sholokhov on a trip to Western countries to increase the writer's authority among the local public.

In France, Mikhail veiledly followed the leadership line, speaking humiliatingly about Pasternak’s work: “ The leadership of the Union of Soviet Writers lost their cool. It was necessary to publish Pasternak’s book “Doctor Zhivago”..."

It was necessary for Pasternak to be defeated by his readers... I believe that Pasternak’s work as a whole is devoid of any significance, except for his translations, which are brilliant.”

Sholokhov time

When the Nobel Prize in Literature went to him, Sholokhov reacted very unemotionally to this event: “ October 15, 1965 was a successful day in every way. This morning I finished a chapter that was hard for me. Then, while hunting, he shot down two geese with two shots. And in the evening I learned that I had been awarded the Nobel Prize».

There were admirers of the talent of the Soviet writer in the West. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a socialist, showed sympathy for the USSR and in 1964 refused the Nobel Prize. Then he stated the following:

« It is regrettable that the Nobel Prize was awarded to Pasternak, not Sholokhov, and that the only Soviet work to receive the prize was a book published abroad and banned in its home country».

Cossacks do not bow to kings

At the ceremony itself, Sholokhov was instructed how to behave, but this did not help. The winners were awarded by King Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden. The writer pointedly did not bow to him.

Mikhail later explained his actions as follows: “We Cossacks do not bow to anyone. In front of the people, please, but in front of the king, I won’t, that’s all.”. The only confusing thing is that neither Sholokhov nor his ancestors were Cossacks.

Using the prize money, the novelist and his family toured Europe and Japan. In West Germany, he bought a Mercedes, which was driven to his village of Veshenskaya. He gave part of the money to build a library in his homeland.

Together with Akhmatova

At the time of receiving the prize, the Soviet laureate practically did not write. The literary silence, with a few vague glimpses, lasted almost until his death in 1984.

In the service of the regime

In 1966, Sholokhov again showed his loyalty to the regime, completely criticizing all supporters of the writers Sinyavsky and Daniel, with whom the dissident movement in the USSR began:

« If only these young men with a dark conscience were caught in the memorable 1920s, when they were judged not based on strictly demarcated articles of the Criminal Code, but guided by revolutionary legal consciousness. Oh, if only these werewolves would have received the wrong punishment!»

Mikhail Aleksandrovich also joined the general persecution of another Soviet writer and Nobel Prize winner Solzhenitsyn, who was credited with trying to “ cause distrust in the peaceful Soviet state».

In turn, Solzhenitsyn claimed that Sholokhov stole the manuscripts of the Cossack writer Fyodor Kryukov, from which he wrote “Quiet Don.”

Literary silence

In the last years of his life, the writer learned the hard way what censorship is. The 1969 novel “They Fought for the Motherland,” sent to him for editing, was significantly cut down, cutting out all criticism of Stalin’s repressions. Then the writer said in his hearts: “I’ll write something else that will make Solzhenitsyn seem like one of their own.”.

Mikhail accused the leadership of the USSR of literary downtime. One day, in the restaurant of the Central House of Writers, he got drunk and began ranting: “ Stalin received me at any time. Khrushchev himself actually came to see me in Veshenskaya. And this one...»

The writer died of laryngeal cancer in 1984. He was buried in the courtyard of his home in Veshenskaya, on the banks of the Don. Earlier we wrote about the children of the untimely deceased Sergei Yesenin.