“Bourgeois Muddle”: Why Soviet Censorship Banned Korней Chukovsky’s “The Mуха-Цокотуха”

One of the most popular children’s poems known by every child today was under suspicion from Soviet officials and educators at the moment of its birth. Korney Chukovsky’s “The Mуха-Цокотуха”, written in 1923, did not just fail to reach readers immediately — it was officially banned by censorship and subjected to devastating criticism from the highest authorities. Why did such an innocent story about a fly finding a coin and throwing a birthday party provoke such anger in the party circles? And how did this little masterpiece survive in the face of ideological pressure?

First Publication and Immediate Scandal

In 1923, Korney Chukovsky first read his new tale to friends and acquaintances. The audience was delighted: rhythmic lines, vivid images, catchy rhymes — it seemed that this was the perfect reading for little ones. However, the first attempt to publish “The Mуха-Цокотуха” encountered an insurmountable obstacle. The Provincial Department of Literature and Publishing (Gublit), which performed the functions of censorship, categorically refused to grant permission for publication. A record of Chukovsky’s conversation with a Gublit employee, Lyudmila Bystraya, who explained to the writer that the illustrations to the tale were “improper”: the mosquito is too close to the fly, they “flirt.” “As if there is a child so corrupt that the proximity of the fly to the mosquito would provoke licentious thoughts,” Chukovsky wrote with bitterness. But this was just the beginning.

In 1924, the tale finally saw the light of day — but under the altered title “Mukhina’s Wedding” and with cuts. However, this version did not satisfy the ideological guardians either. The real campaign against “The Mуха-Цокотуха” unfolded later, involving not ordinary censors, but the most influential figures in Soviet pedagogy and politics.

The Attack of Kryukovskaya: “Chukovskism” as an Ideological Enemy

The main accuser of Korney Chukovsky was Nadezhda Konstantinovna Kryukovskaya, the widow of Lenin. She was not just the wife of the leader — she stood at the origins of the Soviet system of public education and upbringing. Her opinion on children’s books carried enormous weight. Kryukovskaya unleashed a fierce attack on Chukovsky, calling his tales “nonsense” and “disrespect to the child.” She claimed that Chukovsky’s works were not just useless but harmful because they “do not reflect Soviet life.”

Even in the ranks of party critics and editors, a special term emerged — “Chukovskism.” This word denoted all the writer’s work that was considered alien to the proletarian ideology. Kryukovskaya and her supporters blamed Chukovsky for the fact that “The Mуха-Цокотуха” “undermines children’s faith in the triumph of the collective,” it expresses “sympathy for kulak ideology,” it praises “petty bourgeois-ness and kulak accumulation.” It seems that where can one find kulaks in a children’s tale about a fly and a mosquito? However, Soviet educators were able to read between the lines even of what was never there.

“Bourgeois” Birthday and Suspicious Wedding

One of the most absurd points of the accusation was the word “name-day.” Lyudmila Bystraya, the deputy head of Gublit, explained to Chukovsky that a name-day was a “bourgeois celebration.” In the new Soviet society, where the church was separated from the state and old traditions were declared relics of the past, any mention of a name-day was perceived as an attempt “to keep the dying and outdated forms of life on the surface.” A name-day is not just a birthday but a festival associated with the Orthodox calendar, with the name of a saint. Therefore, everything associated with it automatically fell under suspicion.

But the critics went further. The name-day in “The Mуха-Цокотуха” ends with a wedding — and this also caused an angry reaction. “Literary Gazette” saw the happy wedding of the mosquito and the ant as “idealization of pettiness.” One critic wrote: “What do these verses say? About the power of money.” Indeed, the tale begins with the fly finding a coin and going to the market — so, according to the ideologues, the tale teaches children “kulak accumulation” and glorifies private property. In a country building communism, this was unforgivable.

Collective Letter from the Kremlin Kindergarten

The climax of the persecution was a collective letter published in 1929 in the journal “Preschool Education.” It was signed by “parents of children at the Kremlin kindergarten.” These were not ordinary people — they represented the elite of Soviet society, and their voice was extremely weighty. In the letter, they called for “fighting against Chukovskism” and declared that all of Chukovsky’s tales were not just bad but harmful to children. They accused the author of developing superstition and fears in his books, praising “petty bourgeois-ness and kulak accumulation,” and giving “incorrect representations of the world of animals and insects.”

For Chukovsky, this was a terrible blow. In his diary, he wrote: “So, my ‘Crocodile’ is banned, ‘The Mуха-Цокотуха’ is banned, ‘The Antishka’ will be banned not tomorrow but today.” One after another, his works fell under the censorship pressure, even “Barmaley” and “Aibolit.”

Political Subtext: The Mosquito, the Fly, and Suspicious Allusions

What gave special piquancy to the situation was that the censors saw a political subtext in the characters of the tale. According to Bystraya, Komarik was a “disguised prince,” and the fly was a “princess.” This already sounded like anti-Soviet propaganda: princes and princesses are symbols of monarchy, the old world that was destroyed by the revolution. It turned out that Chukovsky, without wanting to, was propagating “bourgeois” values and idealizing the old order.

An anecdote was circulating among the people about how Chukovsky tried to publish “The Mуха-Цокотуха,” coming for approval to each of the leaders. Lenin stopped him: “In the Soviet Union, a fly cannot go to the market!”; Stalin was upset that money was lying around on the collective farm field; and Andropov interrupted before he could read the first line: “What-what do you have there about the Central Committee?!” This anecdote, like any sharp folk creation, accurately reflected the absurdity of Soviet censorship, capable of seeing counter-revolution even in an innocent children’s tale.

“The Mуха-Цокотуха” Survives and Becomes a Classic

Despite all the bans and persecution, “The Mуха-Цокотуха” survived. In 1927, the tale was published under its modern title. Later, with the easing of censorship pressure in the 1960s, it was printed in mass quantities and entered the golden fund of children’s literature. Today it is hard to imagine that this cheerful, mischievous, musical tale was once considered “bourgeois muddle” and a weapon of the ideological enemy.

The history of “The Mуха-Цокотуха” is a story of how literature can withstand the pressure of the system, even when it seems that all doors are closed. Chukovsky did not rewrite his tales to please the censorship, did not cross out “suspicious” beetles, and did not replace “name-day” with “birthday.” He simply continued to write — for children, for eternity, for those who can hear joy, fantasy, and kindness in poetry. And today, when we read to little ones about the Mуха-Цокотуха and her brave savior-combatant, we do not even suspect that this little book had to go through hell to get into our hands.

Permanent link to this publication: