Akhmatova-2007

Tamara Kataeva. Anti-Akhmatova. - M: Evoinfo Publishing House, 2007. - 560 p. ISBN 5-87532-070-2

Regarding Tamara Kataeva Anti-Akhmatov and my response to it in an interview with Dmitry Bykov, a lot of things have been expressed on the air, on the network and paper. Like a person who at one time brewing this demiological porridge, I periodically want to make clarity into business, but nothing better than repeating some of what was written ten years ago. Not because I was already so very smartly smart, but because the WHO is still there.

"The Akhmatovsky cult ... turned out to be more durable than the Leninsko-Stalinsky ... In addition to the undoubted greatness of Akhmatov’s poetry ... Akhmatova’s success is facilitated by the strongest extraovitative factors that collect a variety of layers of fans under its banners.

The liberals of roads of her opposition halo, believers - her Christianity, patriots - Russianness, pro -communists - purity of the questionnaire from anti -Soviet actions, monarchists - her image of the empress and all her imperial -cosel nostalgia, men - femininity, women - courage, elitisms of mental labor - its scholarship, esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity and esotericity. SELF-MADE aristocracy, a wide reader-simplicity, meaningfulness, as well as the semi-east appearance and surname, impressing the entire Russian-speaking ethnic group of mixed Slavic-Truco-Ugrofin origin.

For the consolidation of the post-Soviet society, the continuity of the appearance of the poet-woman, who has blossomed under the sign of the Silver Age, rejecting the emigration, which has survived the bulging and other trials of two post-revolutionary decades, gaining a new vote during the years of the Patriotic War, not broken in the years of 1946 and subsequent years, which survived Zhdanov and Stalin, gradually, gradually. Having returned public recognition during the years of the Khrushchev thaw, which survived it, but already in the status of a semi -official - "outbound" - a plenipotentiary of Russian -Soviet culture, and after death, as is found in Russia, which has tasted no overstated glory. "

The reader of these seemingly anniversary notes, of course, has long and bewildered their disrespectful-sex tone. But to polemicize in prose with the verses of the great poet - a matter, as you know, is hopeless. What are we talking about? The object of my ... removal is not so much Akhmatova’s poetry as such as the whole Akhmatov myth as a whole and that, so to speak, the AAA Institute, which is a modern way of its existence. And in the background, the material of this sociocultural phenomenon of the revision of the mentality of Homo Sovieticus, familiar to me by observations over a wide range of friends and colleagues - typical addressees of Akhmatova, are subjected to revision.

Of course, I am aware of the sacred unacceptability of my position from the point of view of the mythological space that are in question. This taboo is invariably manifested when they familiarize themselves with my project - in their unanimously indignant, although internally conflicting reactions. Some proceed from rather approximate ideas about Akhmatova, others are informed to the teeth, but more or less agree that: firstly, nothing of the kind; secondly, but how - it could not be otherwise; Thirdly, so what is the better; Fourth, this should not be done and even more so to write about it; fifthly, who does not know this - all this has long been known ... Such a set of reactions is not surprising, since the power of dominant opinions is by no means in their argument, but in their adoption ...

To Akhmatova, perhaps, as a little to anyone else, the formula of life and poetry is one. The key contradiction should be sought not in the correlation dignity of the personality and poetry of Akhmatova, but in the fundamental difference between art and life. In general, this difference is obvious and trivial (it is one thing to empathize with Raskolnikov, the other is to “bend the old women” yourself), but life -making is a difficult borderline incident, and in the case of an revered poet it tends to be consumed. A lover of poetry is naturally sweetly euthanized. The same is true for the poet’s fan - it is not difficult to deceive him, he is glad to be deceived. As Akhmatoved’s acquaintance told me, my “revelations” of Akhmatova does not bother him - he ... to his liking, the artist’s obscure burrows , and he does not object to the charismatic genius to capture and enslave him. I remember how I myself, having once been to Akhmatova’s society, enthusiastically, like the legion of the memoirists, wrote that she made the impression of the empress. She really - and, as we now know, very skillfully - produced, but if you think about it, this cliche is not so harmless. For some reason, a Russian man longs for them to be manipulated and commanded.

... In the light of the day ... the manipulative secrets of rule fade somewhat. For a long time, I could not explain the ritual-mythological nature of his reactions for a long time to one fan of Akhmatova (natural-scientific profile): what does the “mythological” interfere with if all his ideas about Akhmatova are consistent and is quite satisfied? It was not far to walk behind the counterimer - I told him that, he probably considers Akhmatov to the widow of Gumilyov, that although it was closer to the truth than the appointment of Fotieva for the role of Lenin’s widow (which Stalin threatened Krletskaya’s obstacle), but still not a legal fact (breaking up with Akhmatova on her initiative in 1918, Gumilyov married A.N. Engelhardt), but now), but now It is ... myth. Being the sixtieth-lover and a connoisseur of evidence, my interlocutor recognized the existence of a problem. However, the other in his place could well persist, saying that in the highest sense of Akhmatov, it was still the widow of Gumilyov (as well as Blok and Pushkin) and generally the better for myth -making and worse for facts. The life -making projection of poetic rhetoric in everyday reality inevitably creates the actual scissors - either funny, then miserable, then grotesque "(" Anna Akhmatova - fifty years later "," Star ", 1996, # 9).

"My experiment on the cleansing of Akhmatova’s perception of the cult shell does not pretend to be a supermanding" objectivity ". On the contrary, I set myself a completely" moralistic "task (introducing ridicule from the postmodern camp) - exposing the same imperious myth to another hypostasis. Roughly speaking, I try from the worship of the Russian public, including the intelligent. The Akhmatovsky kingdom, its modern forms and power to generally derive the danger of the restoration of the monarchy or the quasi -Soviet regime of a strong hand (I don’t know which of the evils would be less).

The dream of the monument did not leave Akhmatov in the mature years ... I will quote from the "Requiem" (1940):

And if someday in this country
They will conceive a monument to me to erect
I give an agreement on this.
But only with a convent - do not put it
Not near the sea where I was born ...
Not in the royal garden at the cherished stump ...
And here, where I stood for three hundred hours
And where the bolt was not opened for me ...
And let from motionless and bronze eyelids
How tears flowing down snow flowing,
And let the pigeon in the distance be in the distance,
And the ships walk quietly along the Neva.

Akhmatova, in poetry and in life, willingly posed against the backdrop of a copper horseman and St. Petersburg palaces, will clearly see the bronze eyelids of his own statue. True, in the context of her most “folk” poem (A. Naiman), she chooses a place that tends to her with a gurgha and gurt , but still does not refuse monumental material and background. Moreover, even her sacrificial bosses & shy; she puts on a common fate into a favorite figure of a female self-will: the choice of a place is built according to the formula "I do not want this and that, but only that."

In the constant era, the lifetime requirements of the monuments began to need reservations. Thomas Opuskin, parody of Gogol and, wider, the figure of the Russian author, the habit, exclaims: "I don’t need monuments! In my hearts, erect a monument to me!" Mayakovsky ... Before his death, the very idea of ​​personal sculpture as bronzes of multi -pounds and marble mucus debugs and implies hope only on separate glands of lines (1930). As a result, despite all his gigantism, the application for the monument is more modest in him Akhmatovskaya. Pasternak, as if there is no hint of thought about the monument - except about the abandonment of traces and gaps - in fate, and not among papers.

The most radical rejection of “bronze” was a success to Mandelstam, who thought of his monument in the form of a pit - gaping, not a ledge: and therefore this street or, more faithfully, this pit is called by this Mandelstam (1935). This is all the more interesting that Mandelstam shared with Akhmatova acmeistic orientation to tangible artifacts, cultural monuments, etc. But in the future, he left neoclassist poetics, while Akhmatova continued to develop it and even find in its framework the images compatible with the official-patriotic ideology (for example, “Nox. Statue“ Night ”in the Summer Garden, 1942).

Thus, the Akhmatov solution and this problem turns out to be ... dictated by its personal and poetic mythology, eloquently tune in monumentalism of "culture-two". Accordingly ... and her poetry as a whole turns out to be a classic monument of her era, unsurpassed by the scale of the pressure of power on a person and by the fortress of his response steel hardening. Being, as far as one can judge today, the great, it will most likely “remain”, and if he “eats up”, then, of course, not a saturated employee of the Institute of Literary Criticism, but, as usual, a burd from eternity. In anticipation of the final verdict of this institute of institutes, Akhmatova’s poems are not forbidden to love, whether for their seriously difficult coquetry or despite him ”(from the response to the opponent,“ Star ”, 1997, # 4).