2 The novel appeared serially in Znamja and Komsomolskaja pravda between 1943-45. The plot is based on documentary evidence gathered by the Central Committee of the Komsomol, and then given to Fadeev. Fadeev visited the Krasnodon area himself, questioned the people there, and only then proceeded with his writing. For further details see K. Zelinskij, “Fadeev, A.,” Novyj mir, No. 2 (1947), 190 Google Scholar.

3 It is possible that an open declaration may have been necessary because the Party itself was reversing its previous stand, and because the story was already so well known by most Soviet citizens who had either read the novel, or seen the stage adaptation of this work. For a discussion of the problems involved see Vera Aleksandrova, “Chistjat vernejshikh,” Socialisticheskij vestnik, No. 1 (1948), 15-16. “Posmertnye ispytanija [Molodoj|gvardii],” Socialisticheskij vestnik, Nos. 1-2 (1952), 21–23 Google Scholar.

4 Kostylev's trilogy had its beginnings in the late thirties, and therefore anticipated the work of his more talented contemporaries such as A. N. Tolstoj's drama, Ivan the Terrible and Eisenstein's movie version of Ivan the Terrible. Book I, Moscow on the March (Moskva v pokhode) was begun in 1938, completed in 1940, and published serially in the magazine October in 1942 before appearing in book form in 1944. The remaining volumes The Sea (More) 1945, and A Stronghold on the Neva (Nevskaja tverdynja) 1947, were not serialized. The entire work was published as a unit in 1948. The discussion on the pages that follow is based on the three volume edition, Ivan Groznyj (Moskva, Voenizdat, 1948).

5 Wipper's Ivan Grozny]’ was first published in the early 1920's, rewritten and republished first at Tashkent in 1942 (the year in which Kostylev's novel appeared in October), and later appeared in several subsequent editions.

6 This came about as a result of the decision on higher Party levels that the oral epic tradition was not the product of the upper classes, but of the common people. See Platon|Kerzhencev, “On the Falsification of the Historical Past,” International Literature, No. 5 (1937), 76–83 Google Scholar.

7 Barghoorn, F., “Stalinism and the Russian Cultural Heritage,” Review of Politics, No. 2 (1952), 180 Google Scholar. This may indeed have been the case during the forties when some of the better writers turned to the theme of Ivan the Terrible, but it seems very doubtful that Stalin would have entrusted a first venture into this thematic field to such a man as Kostylev.

8 Kostylev, V., “Budushchie knigi,” Literaturnaja gazeta, April 7, 1945 Google Scholar.

9 In his directions to actors who were to stage his drama, The Death of Ivan the Terrible, Tolstoj wrote, “Ivan's jealous suspiciousness and his unbridled temperament impel him to break and to destroy everything which seems an obstacle to him, everything which in his opinion, can undermine his power, the retention and strengthening of which is the aim of his life.” Graf A. K.|Tolstoj, “Proekt postanovki na scenu tragedii Smert’ Ioanna Groznago,” Polnoe sobranie sochinenij (St. Petersburg, 1907), n,519 Google Scholar.

10 S. M.|Petrov, “Sovetskij istoricheskij roman,” Literatura v shkole, No. 10 (1949), 22 Google Scholar. In 1934, when the critic Raissa Messer condemned A. N. Tolstoj's short story about Peter the Great, “Peter's Day,” she condemned it because A. N. Tolstoj treats Peter as a man “whose cruelties are akin to the fanatic actions of Ivan the Terrible.” It is evident that Ivan's name could hardly be used in such comparisons today. See Messer, Raissa, “Tolstoj i problema istoricheskogo romana,” Literaturnyj kritik, No. 5 (1934), 90 Google Scholar.

11 Karamzin tells us that with the death of Anastasija Ivan “was deprived not only of his wife, but also of his virtue… .” Karamzin, N. M., Istorija gosudarstva rossijskago (St. Petersburg, 1892), VIII, 195 Google Scholar.

12 Such statements merely repeat the material to be found in historical, publicistic, and critical articles of the war period. See Wipper, R., Ivan Grozny (Moscow, 1947), p. 48 Google Scholar; Bakhrushin, S. V., Ivan Grozny] (Moskva, 1945), p. 88 Google Scholar; V. Percov, “1'isatel’ i ego geroj v dni vojny,” Oktjabr', Nos. 5-6 (1944), 162; S. Petrov, “Ivan the Dread by Kostylev,”, V. International Literature, No. 4 (1945), 164 Google Scholar.

13 One of Peter's contemporaries actually recorded some statements by Peter the Great which are very similar to Kostylev's account in his novel.

14 In this instance Kostylev does not follow Wipper who states quite emphatically that “the sons of Germany had not the slightest conception of companionship, or of a common fatherland.” Wipper, , op. cit., p. 142 Google Scholar.

15 I.Polosin, in his introduction to the Russian translation of Staden's work, notes that Staden was nothing more than an adventurer, a typical hero of the picaresque novel. I. Polosin, “Zapadnaja Evropa i Moskovija v XVI veke,” in Staden, Heinrich von, O Moskve Ivana Groznogo (Leningrad, 1925), p. 53 Google Scholar.

16 In the concluding pages of the 3rd edition of his book, Wipper makes the claim that the Germans published their own edition of Staden's work (by Fritz Epstein, Hamburg, 1930) in order to present German scholars with additional proof of the physical unfitness and the cultural incompetence of the Slavonic race in general, and of the Russian people in particular. “In Fascist Germany, Staden's Memoirs became a book of the day, a prophecy and a program for the future.” R. Wipper, , Ivan Grozny, 3rd ed., J. Fineberg, tr. (Moscow, 1947), p. 246 Google Scholar.

17 Polosin notes that in 1561 Ivan was trying to restore some phases of the Livonian order, and that Fiirstenberg was called to Moscow for conferences, but that he refused the offer. Staden also tells this story. Staden, , op. cit., pp. 45, 88 Google Scholar.

18 Volumes of the 1948 edition will be indicated by the Roman numerals I, II, III. The magazine Oktjabr’ will be designated by the abbreviation Ok, followed by the year, issue, and page number. The first book edition of Book I in 1944 is to be designated by the abbreviation 44N, Book II by 45N, and Book III by 47N. Books I, II, and HI were first published in book form by Goslitizdat, Moskva, in 1944, 1945, and 1947 respectively.

19 Borodin, S., “Ivan Groznyj,” Literatura i iskusstvo, May 15, 1943 Google Scholar. Borodin also accused Kostylev of slandering the Russian people, of taking his cues from “certain writers of Western orientation” because he had described some of the Russians in most unflattering terms. This statement was the basis of a bitter exchange between Kostylev and Borodin. Kostylev, in his answer, made it clear, that after all, the people he had described so unflatteringly were spies and traitors, and therefore had nothing in common with the Russian people. The passages in question were not eliminated from subsequent editions. On the contrary, the same techniques were utilized much more extensively in the novel. Kostylev's letter of protest is to be found in the following: Kostylev, V., “Pis'mo v redakciju,” Oktjabr', Nos. 8-9 (1943), 262 Google Scholar.

20 Kostylev, V., “Pis'mo v redakciju,” op. cit., p. 263 Google Scholar; S. Platonov gives material which indicates that Ivan disregarded etiquette when dealing with foreigners, and that on occasion he would speak to them in private at some rendezvous to decide very important matters which were formally approved at an official audience somewhat later. Platonov also tells of the familiar manner with which Ivan treated some of the Englishmen such as the explorer Jenkinson, for example. Platonov, S. F, Moskva i zapad (Berlin, 1926), pp. 26-29, 33 Google Scholar.

21 A. N. Tolstoj wrote Books I and II of his novel between 1929 and 1934. It is interesting to note that when he began writing Book III in 1945, he made his hero remarkably similar to the Ivan of Kostylev's revised version. In order to make Books I and II fit in with his new portrayal of Peter, he also began a revision of these first volumes. His death interrupted this work.