My philological life

Galina Zykova: Valentin Evgenievich, have students changed over the last 10 years?

Valentin Khalizev: As always, there are strong, neutral and useless. The strong have become stronger. They are formed in a more favorable environment. It’s funny to think who was the idol in the 60s and 70s... Now strong students have more independence and earlier humanitarian maturity.

The main problem is that many are either placed in the position of an objective need to earn money, or have succumbed to the inertia of the general pursuit of wealth. Now there is a utilitarian attitude towards life, towards education in particular. For me, students are divided into two categories: some have it written on their faces: “teach me something,” and others say, “oh, leave me alone.” There are more of the latter. They choose what gives them money and status. In the 3rd, even 4th year, they refocus on linguistics - sometimes not because it is more interesting to them, but because they have a better chance of earning a living.

G.Z.: There is a lot of talk about the archaic nature of traditional programs or, conversely, about the danger of the collapse of systematic education. What do you think of it?

IN . Kh.: I’ll tell you about the course I taught in literary theory. My desire to correlate different scientific concepts of the twentieth century meets with different reactions. Some are interested and even grateful (“You are good at straightening our brains”), while others are irritated: “Why know outdated theories? Why read Gadamer’s article “Reason and Myth” if there are “Mythologies” by R. Barthes? Why dive into into the character sphere, to talk about the refraction of existence by the authors, if the only reality in literature is language?” Anything beyond the work of Barthes and Derrida is perceived by orthodox postmodernists as an extra burden.

G.Z.: What special lecture courses are you currently teaching - besides the usual general one on literary theory?

V.Kh.: Over the past 7-8 years, I have ventured to announce courses dedicated to general humanitarian categories - “value”, “personality”, “culture”, “civilization”, “creativity” (in a broad sense, not reducible to the field of art) , "picture of the world", "myth". Students have a poor command of these concepts, without which you cannot take a step.

I finally made a textbook on the theory of literature, I can refer students to it, and devote lectures to these general humanitarian concepts and the history of our science. But this is my private initiative; it is not recorded in the curriculum.

G.Z.: Perhaps it would be desirable to make such courses mandatory for all departments of the faculty?

V.Kh.: Of course. It is necessary to talk about different points of view on the concepts of value, personality, worldview, etc., to create an aura of free and reasonable self-determination.

G.Z.: Are there any gaps in the university program?

V.Kh.: The problem is with the teachers. The situation needs to be changed so that the lecturer at Moscow University is focused on lectures, and not on extra work.

The level of teaching would improve if the dean's office introduced a constant system of surveying students and analyzing their opinions on the courses taken - and these opinions would be taken into account when distributing the lecture load.

Well, then - tutoring. For some it has more worthy forms, for others it is completely bad, but still it would be better if it did not exist at all. rightly said As M.L. Remneva a year and a half ago: students know more than we do that not everything is going well in the entrance exams. One cannot expect good from such knowledge.

G.Z.: What discipline would students have to study in, say, a formal school? It turns out that there is no such discipline in the program.

V.Kh.: We talked and talked about the history of literary criticism and forgot. In my 4th year I asked literary critics about formal school - they couldn’t name a single name. Previously, it was impossible to talk about the history of science for ideological reasons, but now the opportunity has arisen.

G.Z.: Students in the Romance-Germanic department, it seems, have such lectures? G.K. Kosikov is reading. Why do only Romano-Germans listen to this? After all, for Russian scholars, the ancient aesthetics that Kosikov talks about, or, say, the Bible , which A. N. Gorbunov talks about to the Romano-Germans , are no less important.

V.Kh.: Because Gorbunov and Kosikov cope with their courses. Georgy Konstantinovich is literary critic #1 at our faculty. But entrust the department of the history of Russian literature - who will lead it?

G.Z.: Why entrust? There is a brilliant specialist, let him read to everyone.

V.Kh.: I remember the times of my youth - eerie times, but then leading experts read: Pinsky , Pospelov, A.N. Sokolov, the antique scholar Radzig . They were recognized models for young lecturers. This tradition has been largely lost.

G.Z.: Valentin Evgenievich, since when did it become possible to say what you want at lectures?

V.Kh.: The prohibitions weakened imperceptibly from year to year. At all times, when I looked through the notes of my lectures from 3-5 years ago, I always noticed: this is not necessary, this needs to be added.

The turning point was the establishment of Bakhtin in the second half of the 60s. Likhachev’s speeches at the turn of the 70s and 80s, “Notes about the Russian,” are very dear to me . In the 90s, there was a stream of publications of things that were previously unthinkable to say out loud. For me, the difference between what happened in Stalin’s times and what happened during the Thaw and post-Thaw periods is enormous. And there is obviously a colossal difference between what happened in the first post-thaw times - and in the 60s - 80s. Changes occurred steadily, we existed in this world and were somehow defined.

Here's an example. 1955 or 1956, meeting of the department of history of Russian literature (then the meetings were open, students often came to them). One of the teachers, speaking on a general topic, mentioned Renoir and Cezanne . was sitting in front of me Mark Shcheglov , he turned around and, smiling, said: “Think about the names that were heard!” Now it’s even difficult to imagine how much we didn’t know, what we hadn’t heard about, how severely limited we were in our ability to talk to students about what we knew and thought.

With your questions, you are further urging me to implement one plan - a memoir called “Fifty Years in the Circle of Philologists.” Would you like a few more shots that are preserved in my memory?

1st or 2nd year, 1949, on the stage of the Art Theater the anti-cosmopolitan “Green Street”. A speaker at a Komsomol meeting says how disgracefully such and such a group acted - they refused to go to the screening. My classmate, later children's writer L. Shvarts-Lilina, says in a low voice: “And they did the right thing by not going.” A Komsomol activist sitting nearby goes to the podium: “Do you know what Schwartz-Lilina said...” She is immediately reprimanded.

Another shot. 1st year student, secretary of the Komsomol bureau of the faculty, now living Yu. Petryakov, before the meeting, approaches my classmate and asks how he feels about Yesenin and Mayakovsky . Starkov innocently replies that he likes Yesenin better. After this, Petryakov speaks from the podium about weak ideological preparation and cites Starkov as an example.

And here is the most terrible memory. Komsomol meeting in the Communist Auditorium. 1951 A member of the bureau informs that three students of our course have been repressed. It was Kostya Bogatyrev and two other people. One of them was beaten to death 3-4 weeks after his arrest. The speaker uttered banal words about the need to strengthen ideological and educational work, and the worst thing was unprecedented silence in the huge hall of the Communist Auditorium. I remembered this silence for the rest of my life.

G.Z.: Why were they arrested?

V.Kh.: I think for the dissemination of Pasternak’s poems . A few weeks before his arrest, Valya Rozov said to me: “Do you want to read Pasternak’s unpublished poems?” And he gave me “Candle” and a couple more poems. I read it, gave it to my parents and closest friend to read, and returned it; at that time it had not yet occurred to me to rewrite and distribute the “sedition.”

G.Z.: Please tell us about your students.

V.Kh.: I’ll tell you about people whose communication left a mark both on my “philological life” and, I hope, on their destinies. My first graduate was A. Abakumova (graduated in 1959, she is no longer alive), V. Tyupa (late 60s), I. Pankratova (Muravyova), A. Esin, E. Abelyuk, M. Epstein, O. Litvak (70s), S.Martyanova (Sirotkina), S.Sheshunova , G.Romanova, I.Moteyunaite (80s), I.Nesterov, E.Volkova, S.Kuznetsova (90s). , A. Zorin, E. Shklovsky, I. Surat, O. Mayorova, I. Popova, N. Melnikov worked under my leadership A. Nemzer (I name only those who turned out to be “noticeable”). I’m not sure that my influence on them was significant, although the relationship remained good.

G.Z.: How do you maintain relationships with former students?

V.Kh.: Sometimes this is co-authorship, but the main thing is live communication, correspondence, telephone conversations, including with those who are far from Russia. Conversations - not only on philological topics. I can’t imagine my existence without this.

The closest students were provincials; there could be no talk of any attempts to keep them in the faculty.

Not everyone who worked with me is like-minded. In my environment - and I am glad of this - there are people of different orientations. I can tell you a fable, it happened in the 70s. Lena Kuznetsova comes to me (she was then preparing “The Poetry of Tyutchev’s Pleiad” with Kozhinov) and says: “But Vadim Valeryanych believes that with Shevyrev we need to bend the stick as much as possible in his favor...” Then Andrei Zorin comes and says, how to bend the stick somewhere else, in the opposite direction... I asked Andrey: why are bends needed at all? He was confused. In judgments about all sorts of overreaction, I see a tribute to pseudo-scientific mythology. I came up with this definition: myth is synecdoche multiplied by hyperbole.

I have developed the closest intellectual contact with Svetlana Alekseevna Martyanova, she is an associate professor at Vladimir University, now working on her doctorate, I am her consultant, and it all started with practical classes in the 1st year. I appreciate what she has done and her capabilities very highly.

G.Z.: But your influence on Nemzer from the outside is very noticeable. Let's say, what he likes in prose, how he feels about Akhmatova ...

V.Kh.: Well, it’s not for me to judge this. fulfills the task of a literary guide A. Nemzer , I think, better than anyone. But, unfortunately, he took the path of compromising silence about what the so-called villagers are now doing. You can agree with Rasputin or not, but he is still a significant figure. Here is "Izba" - a wonderful story of the late 90s ("Roman-newspaper", # 1 for 1999). In the collection "What to tell the crow?" (Kurgan, 1995) several serious stories written in the 90s. Argue, please. And here there is no dispute - a figure of silence.

G.Z.: Nemzer doesn’t talk about many things - not just about villagers... And who, besides Nemzer, is interesting to you as a literary critic?

V.Kh.: For example, Valentin Kurbatov from Pskov. He writes about exactly what we tend not to notice.

G.Z.: Do you talk to students about Rasputin?

V.Kh.: No, and not because I’m afraid, but because I won’t meet a response and, perhaps, I’ll even further set myself against what I wanted to win over. The listener must be prepared for the conversation. But I don’t see this yet. Let my students do what is close to them. I don’t consider it desirable to impose my own, although I am convinced that I can and even should compare their interests and positions with my own. Open-minded students respond to such “dialogical coexistence.”

Here Ukhtomsky avoided promoting his theory of “dominance on another person,” which had a religious meaning. And not because he feared for himself. In 1926, he refused to give lectures in his native Rybinsk, citing the fact that in the city there were no listeners capable of understanding him: “I am not sure that it would be useful to speak to the end while the prevailing mood <i.e. atheism> will not become obsolete in its own self-affirmation." Wise words!

G.Z.: The speeches of Rasputin (as well as Belov) in recent years have turned against them - there was too much hatred in them . Although I am a philologist, I have no desire to read them anymore.

V.Kh.: I can understand the origins of your opinion. And I don’t like everything in their journalism (for example, Rasputin’s words about Yesenin and Sholokhov as the only major figures in Russian literature of the twentieth century - however, later he partly corrected himself, paying tribute to Andrei Platonov). But imagine a hypothetical monologue spoken a hundred years ago: “ Dostoevsky in “The Diary of a Writer” allowed himself arrogant, offensive, completely indecent words addressed to people of other nationalities. Therefore, I have no desire to read him.” How would you react to a person who, for high moral reasons, refused to read The Brothers Karamazov ?

A quarter of a century ago, at a banquet after a conference in Donetsk, the late Sapogov made a toast: “To those who are worse off than us.” They didn’t pay attention to this, everyone was having fun, Z.S. Paperny set the tone with brilliant jokes. The next day I thanked Vyacheslav Alexandrovich for his toast. With a sad smile and somehow very confidentially, he said: “No one responded to my words yesterday, they simply weren’t heard.” What now? Rasputin never tires of talking about those who are “worse off than us.” And at the very utterance of the name of this extraordinarily talented writer, we frown with disgust and wrinkle the bridge of our nose (remember Pasternak?).

I have a sharply negative attitude towards two ideological complexes. I really don’t accept ideas about Russian and Western European culture being hostile to each other, about the fatal separation of people of different nations. We need to look for areas of agreement. But I don’t accept the concept that is obviously the highest American-Western European civilization no less harshly. For me, the sacred idea is equality of cultures. And now in some publications they trample one thing, in others they trample the opposite. Both lines are indecent. But the majority of the metropolitan intelligentsia sees only one indecency, and does not really notice the other - and therefore I am in the opposition. "UFO" and "Our Contemporary" are similarities to each other. Although in each of these publications there is something that should not be discarded. It is a pity that they are not dissociated from what is not proper - each in its own way. For example, the late Dmitry Balashov is a very interesting and serious writer, but the fact that he almost called for armed struggle is terrible. Rasputin, as far as I know, is similar did not say , despite the harshness of the denial of what was happening, a denial that I share to a very large extent.

I was shocked when, after the October 1993 events, Okudzhava said that he was happy when they shot at parliament. It’s not nice to talk about the dead like that, but Okudzhava for this (although I love his old song, now half-forgotten, about Lenka Korolev). I couldn’t forgive

G.Z.: Apart from Rasputin, what else is missing from the public consciousness?

V.Kh.: First of all, what Bakhtin, following Solovyov, called moral philosophy and what I prefer to call morally oriented philosophy of life. In Russia it is Bakhtin (especially the early one), Ukhtomsky and Prishvin, later - Yu.N. Davydov and G.S. Batishchev, in foreign countries - Lossky, P. Sorokin, N.S. Arsenyev , in the West - M. Sheler, A Schweitzer, D. Bonhoeffer, and most importantly, the leader of French personalism, E. Mounier. By the way, it is not mentioned in the current review works. This is a post-Nietzschean branch that dissociated itself from the polarization of superman and humanity. As Bunin said: every living person deserves attention. This is incomprehensible to both American pragmatism and neo-Christian, Berdyaev-type existentialism, much less Sartre’s atheistic existentialism.

The closeness of Mounier and a number of German thinkers to Russian philosophers confirms my deep conviction that Russia and Western Europe should and can talk amicably and on equal terms. They don’t always want to communicate with us this way.

Ukhtomsky has a wonderful phrase: “It is quite possible that most modern theories will turn out to be nonsense.” Its meaning is still relevant today. There are too many people who like to dig holes that humanity does not need between nations, confessions, civilizations, eras, between following tradition and a creative attitude, people and intelligentsia, etc.

Efforts are needed to critically comprehend currently influential views. There is no need to assent to what is in the air. I have developed a formula: what is truly relevant is what is rarely talked about. I am not a philosopher, but over the past 10 years, I have developed my own scale for assessing the importance of thinkers of the 20th century, purely preliminary, but mine.

G.Z.: How did the names of these philosophers enter your horizons?

V.Kh.: My philological life in the first half of the 90s was marked by work on the legacy of the little-known writer, critic, publicist, local historian and religious philosopher Alexei Alekseevich Zolotarev (1879-1950). I wrote several articles (some of them co-authored with the great-niece of the writer A.N. Anikovskaya ), published a number of his texts, among which I think the most significant is “On Hegel and Hegelianism” 1 . Here Zolotarev resolutely opposes Darwin, Nietzsche and Marx en masse. The article was written in the 40s. How much courage it took to entrust these thoughts to paper and save the text!

In my appeal to Zolotarev’s heritage there is a lot of very personal stuff. There was a chain of random coincidences.

In 1987, my uncle, Alexander Sergeevich Nifontov, my mother’s brother, a historian, died. While sorting through his archive, I discovered a letter whose author I did not recognize. A letter addressed to me, my brother and my parents, written in 1948, when my grandmother died.

Soon after this, I received from the Russian Writers dictionary for review an article about Zolotarev, who was the head of the gymnasium circle in Rybinsk when my mother was in high school (1916-1919). In our house, Alexey Alekseevich was already an old man; I was 17-18 years old at the time; I didn’t have enough reason to communicate with him. Having received the article for review, I naturally treated it informally, and I had to revise it (the author was unwell).

Threads have been drawn to the history of philosophy of the twentieth century. I began to “dig” Ukhtomsky even before the books published in recent years appeared (Ukhtomsky was a close friend of Zolotarev, they are fellow countrymen). I began to read Prishvin’s diaries, it went, it went - and then it came to Mounier.

And the story with the letter ended like this. When I saw Alexey Alekseevich’s handwriting in RGALI, I immediately remembered it. When I got home, I found it and read it. It turned out that I received a letter addressed to people close to me and to myself, which spoke about our duty to remember the dead, 40 years later. And I saw in this “micro-event” a certain good sign - a call addressed to me from a half-forgotten past, a kind of assignment.

G.Z.: Was Zolotarev published in the 20-40s?

V.Kh.: It was impossible.

G.Z.: And how did he exist?

V.Kh.: Nothing. He was in absolute poverty, living with the help of his former students and relatives.

G.Z.: They didn’t touch him?

V.Kh.: They were exiled in 1930. He was a very active public figure in Rybinsk and a local historian on an all-Russian scale. In 1933 he was released, before that he wrote a letter to E.P. Peshkova, asking for help to register in Moscow. They were friends with Gorky, then the great writer abandoned him (they met in 1928 and did not agree). Zolotarev received a residence permit, spent the last 15 years in Moscow, led a semi-wandering life - either he would go to one of his friends in Rybinsk or Uglich, or somewhere else... He lived without a pension, without earnings - and studied the history of Russian culture and philosophy . The articles “The Bogatyr Estate” (about the Russian clergy) and “Faith and Knowledge” 2 are interesting . In addition, a number of unfinished works. But given his lifestyle, it’s surprising that he managed to do this too.

G.Z.: Valentin Evgenievich, does Russian philosophy exist?

V.Kh.: Yes. It is rich and diverse. We are now fixated on Berdyaev, Merezhkovsky, Rozanov, and besides them there was a lot more at the beginning of the last century: S.A. Askoldov, for example. The ones that interest me most are the semi-nameless ones. mean anything to you Does the name Meyer ? In my opinion, the most serious thing that has been written about Goethe’s Faust in the twentieth century is his “Reflections on Reading Faust,” published in Paris.

G.Z.: Was it not reprinted here?

V.Kh.: No. He is not suitable in the modern situation. Meyer, Askoldov, Ukhtomsky, Prishvin and his diary still remain outside of work on the history of philosophy.

G.Z.: What kind of ideological filter is this? It seems that there is a lot of colorful and different things, sometimes you even wish there was at least some kind of censorship...

V.Kh.: I think there is a filter. Here's an example. The university has a textbook publishing house. One day the Faculty of Philosophy called me and invited me to publish something. I suggested approximately what I just talked about. Wrapped up. For what reasons, I don’t know, but I’m inclined to think that it’s due to the dissonance of my characters with what was included in the clip.

Notes:

1 "Questions of Philosophy", 1994, # 5.

2 The latter was published together with Khalizev’s article “One of the Kitezhans” - “Continent”, vol. 82 (see also for indications of the main publications of Zolotarev’s texts).