In Leningrad writer circles, the news about the assistance rendered by the Soviet government to the son of the writer Saltykov-Shchedrin has spread with unusual speed and has been discussed and commented upon at length. The story of this assistance so interested writer circles that for a time it pushed aside all other urgent matters for the literary world, becoming in the full sense of the word the sensation of the day. The story of the assistance was transmitted each time in one version or another, with only insignificant variations in the details, moreover individual writers, desiring to clarify the circumstances of the matter more precisely, have checked the report they were given with Saltykov himself.

The fact of assistance to Saltykov-Shchedrin's son has been commented upon among the mass of fellow traveler writers highly sympathetically; moreover, this fact is invariably linked with the Party's attitude toward the intelligentsia. This fact in and of itself showed yet again the change in policy toward the intelligentsia in the direction of increased softening.

Fellow traveler Kozakov said the following on this topic:

“Now it is becoming generally known that such stories as this Saltykov one and the somewhat earlier Bulgakov one are far from chance facts and have occurred in connection with Stalin's recognition of the old intelligentsia's great significance in the country's cultural life. And although Stalin must overcome the hostility toward the intelligentsia among many members of the TsK who have kept their old leaven still, Stalin is maintaining his line stubbornly and decisively.”

The writer A. N. Tolstoy says:

“I admire Stalin and find myself more and more feeling enormous respect for him. My personal conversations with Stalin have convinced me that this is an exceptionally straightforward man. Other mistrustful smart alecs try to present the Saltykov story as another dirty trick by the Bolsheviks. But after all, this simply cannot raise any question of some specially conceived bribe to someone. Saltykov is a useless wreck, and help for him can only be explained by the fact that Soviet Russia cares about the memory and services of its great men.”

The literary critic Medvedev:

“Stories like this Saltykov one betray facts, however strange it might seem at first glance, of a second defining feature of Stalin, who is above all a most decisive and stern politician: his essence as a great liberal and patron in the best sense of that word. Every day we hear about a conversation between Stalin and some writers, or about some assistance rendered at his instruction to one among many writers. In Stalin, literature and writers have a great friend.”

Simultaneously with the revelation of the character of the broad exchange of opinions on the assistance to Saltykov it emerged that individual writers, noting the unusual effect of various writers' appeals to Com. Stalin (Zamyatin's trip abroad, the Bulgakov story, etc.) themselves decided to make a few requests to him. The writers Eikhenbaum, N. Radlov, and Zoshchenko suggested appealing personally to Com. Stalin for permission to travel abroad. The children's writer K. Chukovsky, who, in connection with Krupskaia's article, was no longer being published, for permission to publish, the writer Tynianov with a request to sway the critics so that the latter would stop persecuting him, etc.

In connection with the conversations noted, a story was conveyed, meanwhile, about the writer Pilnyak using a letter to Com. Stalin to get a halt to the persecution started against him and the publication in the c[entral] o[rgan] Pravda of a letter of apology, as well as permission for another trip abroad.

Among right-wing writers in the salon of Ivanov-Razumnik in particular, the news of the assistance rendered to the son of the writer Saltykov-Shchedrin was met with great mistrust and commented upon quite maliciously.

Ivanov-Razumnik, Shishkov, and Petrov-Vodkin expressed the following point of view on this topic:

“In all these stories one hears the motifs of an oriental despotism. All these stories have to be compared to the terrible importance and power every word Stalin utters has, which makes his power significantly mightier than the power of even the most unlimited oriental despot, for there power is material, physical, whereas here on top of this is power over minds, over the slightest manifestation of free thought. In connection with this all these conversations about fairytale transformations in the fates of individual people at a single word from the leader take on a special characteristic historical meaning.”