Matushkin - The Writers' Union is a completely voluntary organization. There are people who are published, but are not members of the Union. The Charter of the Union directly states: the Union unites like-minded people, who build communism, give it all creativity, who follow socialist realism. And then Solzhenitsyn has no place in the writers' organization, let him create separately. As bitter as it may seem, I must say: you and I, A. I., have different paths and we will have to part with you.

Nikolai Rodin (member of the Union of Writers, Kasimov, urgently brought to this meeting in a sick state to create a quorum): - Vasily Semyonovich said so that there is nothing to add. If we take the Charter of the Union and compare the civic activities of Alexander Isayevich with it, we will see great discrepancies. After Vasily Semyonovich, I have nothing to add. He did not fulfill the regulations, did not reckon with our Union. It happens that there is no one to give the manuscript of a novice writer for review, and Solzhenitsyn did not review. I have big claims against him.

Sergey Kh. Baranov (member of the Union of Writers, Ryazan) - This is a very serious question and it is timely raised by the board of the Writers' Union. We in the Union must know each other's souls well and help each other. But what will happen if we scatter to the corners, who will educate the youth? Who will lead the literary circles, of which we have many in production and in educational institutions? Vasily Semyonitch was right to touch upon the question of A. I. We do not know his work, we do not know his work. At first, there was a lot of hype around his works. And I personally have always seen solid black colors in "Ivan Denisovich". Or "Matryona's Yard" - where did he see such a lonely woman with cockroaches and a cat, and so that no one helped - where to find such a Matryona? I still hoped that Alexander Isayevich would write things that the people needed. But where does he publish his things, what are they about? We don't know. You need to raise your opinion of yourself and of each other. Solzhenitsyn has broken away from the organization, and we will obviously have to part with him.

Solzhenitsyn asks permission to ask one general question to the comrades who spoke, the chairman refuses.

Evgeny Markin (member of the Union of Writers, Ryazan) - It is the hardest for me to speak, the hardest of all. Looking the truth in the eye - we are talking about the stay of Alexander Isayevich in our organization. I was not yet a member of the Union at the time when you received it. I am in a depressed state for the following reason: an unprecedented swing of the pendulum from one amplitude to another. I worked as a contributor to Literature and Life at a time when Solzhenitsyn was receiving unprecedented praise. Since then, on the contrary: I have never heard such harsh opinions about anyone as about Solzhenitsyn. Such extremes then affect the conscience of the people who make the decision. Let's remember how Yesenin was vilified, and then they began to exalt him, and now someone would like to drown him again. Let us recall the harsh judgments after 1946. It is the most difficult for me to understand this now. If Solzhenitsyn is expelled now, then accepted, expelled again, accepted again - I do not want to participate in this. Where then will those who have left the discussion today find a second appendix? And we have big ulcers in our organization: members of the Union are not given apartments. For two years, our Ryazan writers' organization was commanded by the crook Ivan Abramov, who was not even a member of the Union, he hung political labels on us. And with Anatoly Kuznetsov I studied together at the Literary Institute, intuition does not deceive us, we did not like him because he was a hypocrite. In my opinion, the articles of the Charter of the Union can be interpreted ambiguously, this is a double-edged sword. But, of course, I would like to ask Alexander Isayevich why he did not take part in public life. Why didn't he speak in our press about the hype that the foreign press raised around his name, didn't he tell us about it? Why did Alexander Isayevich not try to properly explain and popularize his position? I have not read his new works. My opinion about A. I.'s stay in the Writers' Union: he did not belong to the Ryazan writers' organization. I completely agree with the majority of the writers' organization.

Nikolai Levchenko (member of the Socialist Party, Ryazan) - Basically, the previous comrades covered the issue. I would like to put myself in A.I.'s place and imagine how I would behave. If my work were put into service abroad, what would I do? I would come to my comrades for advice. He isolated himself. I join the majority.

Povarenkin - For many years, A. I. was separated from the Writers' Union. He did not come to the re-election meetings, but sent telegrams: "I join the majority" - is this a principled position? And Gorky said that the Writers' Union is a collective body, it is a public organization. A. I., apparently, joined the Union for other purposes, in order to have a writer's card. The ideological qualities of his works do not help us to build a communist society. It blackens our bright future. He himself has a black inside. Only our ideological opponent could show such a wingless person as Ivan Denisovich. He placed himself outside the writers' organization.

Solzhenitsyn again asks permission to ask a question. He is offered to speak instead. After hesitation, the question is resolved.

Solzhenitsyn asks the members of the Writers' Union, who reproached him for refusing to review manuscripts, for refusing to speak to literary youth, to name at least one such case.

The speakers are silent.

Matushkin - A member of the Writers' Union should actively work according to the charter, and not wait for an invitation.

Solzhenitsyn: I regret that our meeting is not being shorthanded, that careful notes are not kept. And yet it may be of interest not only tomorrow and even later than in a week. However, there were three stenographers working at the Secretariat of the Union of Writers of the USSR, but the Secretariat, declaring my notes tendentious, could not or did not dare to present the stenographic record of that meeting.

First of all, I want to remove the stone from the heart of Comrade Matushkin. Vasily Semyonitch, let me remind you that you never gave me any recommendation, you, as the secretary of the SP at that time, brought me only blank forms of questionnaires. At that time of excessive praise, the secretariat of the R.S.F.S.R. was in such a hurry to receive me that it did not allow me to collect recommendations, did not allow me to be received at the primary Ryazan organization, but received me himself and sent me a congratulatory telegram.

The charges that have been brought against me here are divided into two very different groups. The first concerns the Ryazan organization of the SP, the second concerns my entire literary fate. As for the first group, I will say that there is not a single substantiated accusation. Our secretary, Comrade Safonov, is absent here. And I informed him of my every social step, of every letter I wrote to the Congress or to the Secretariat, on the same day, and always asked him to acquaint all the members of the Ryazan Writers' Union, as well as our literary youth, with these materials. Didn't he show them to you? Is it of his own unwillingness? Or because he was forbidden by Comrade Kozhevnikov, who is present here? Not only did I not avoid creative contact with the Ryazan Writers' Union, but I asked Safonov and insisted that my "Cancer Ward", discussed in the Moscow Writers' Organization, should certainly be discussed in the Ryazan Writers' Association, I have a copy of the letter about this. But for some reason, the "Cancer Ward" was also completely hidden from the members of the Ryazan SP. I also always expressed my readiness for public speeches - but I was never allowed to take part in them, apparently for fear of something. As for my alleged arrogance, this is ridiculous, none of you will remember such an incident, not a phrase like this, or an expression on your face, on the contrary, I felt extremely simple and comradely with all of you. It is true that I was not always present at the re-election, but the reason is that most of the time I do not live in Ryazan, I live near Moscow, outside the city. When Ivan Denisovich had just been published, I was strongly urged to move to Moscow, but I was afraid to disperse there and refused. When a few years later I asked for permission to move, I was refused. I applied to the Moscow organization with a request to register me there, but its secretary V. N. Ilyin replied that this was impossible, that I had to be a member of the organization where I was registered according to my passport, and it did not matter where I actually lived. Because of this, it was difficult for me to sometimes come to re-elections.