Translated material
Names are not the point
I open a newspaper, which I consider sane and even attractive. I’m reading a response from a fairly well-known universal writer (about five years ago he was called “young”) about the publication of Merezhkovsky’s book “The Secret of Three. Egypt - Babylon." Note - as in the best houses of Philadelphia: a quote from Svyatopolk-Mirsky at the beginning; “Platonic dialectics of number in the interpretation of A.F. Losev" is mentioned; about the author’s style, it was reported that he was deprived, they say, of “artistic meat”. Sympathy for the late Merezhkovsky is indicated. And all would have been fine if the reviewer had not reported that “The Secret of Three” was “republished in Russia for the first time.” No, I’m not talking about a dubious verb (the author clearly wanted to say “published for the first time”) - I’m talking about the fact that the book published by Eksmo was published in 1999 as part of the collected works of Merezhkovsky (“Republic”) with a circulation of 5 thousand. copies (which is slightly more than 3100 of the new edition). I don’t remember whether there were Russian embossings of “The Secret of Three” before. But the work “The Mystery of the West” included in the same volume. Atlantis - Europe” was published back in the early 90s, I remember clearly. Meanwhile, the cheerful observer calls her “Jesus the Unknown” (the collection of “Respublika” opened with him in 1996, circulation - 10 thousand; not to mention the fact that at the turn of the 80s and 90s the magazine “October” published this work for almost more than a year) “not yet reissued.” And he accompanies this nonsense with an exclamation point. Shame on anyone who suspects a PR campaign here (for the benefit of Eksmo) - the author just wants to shout out: you are stagnant in ignorance, but I’m cool - I’ve read foreign books! Just in case, I inform all interested parties: “Republic” has already released almost all the major opuses of the late Merezhkovsky.
I open a literary magazine. In my opinion, the best in Russia. I’m reading an article by a previously unknown author, about whom it says: “an active participant in election campaigns, in 1991 and 1996 he worked in the election headquarters of B.N. Yeltsin, assistant to G.V. Starovoitova at the Constitutional Conference.” I remember the unforgettable: Look, collective farmer, worker and private owner! / I am an active participant in all recent wars! It’s nice, I would read with interest how a “member of the independent association of political strategists” fought with enemies for a just cause , only he writes not at all about how a body was chopped into small pieces , but about how our national history is clouded with myths . All. From the 9th century (or even from the 9th BC) to recent days. Unlike Mr. writer, I am not an all-knowing political strategist or even a historian, but a literary critic. But my modest knowledge is enough to unconditionally call the “revelatory” opus a wild mishmash of truisms, dubious hypotheses and pure nonsense. I will turn to only one episode - the Decembrist one. “Why are the five hanged men considered “main”?” - the author asks pathetically, firmly believing that no one can think otherwise, although such a thesis cannot be found in any (even official Soviet!) work. “The mediocre poet K. Ryleev was not at Senateskaya, and is clearly not suitable for the role of inspirer; moreover, from the very beginning of the investigation he began to actively betray his comrades.” One can argue about the strength of Ryleev’s poetic gift, but it is absolutely indisputable that his exaltedly civil poems were very popular, that he had a “charismatic” personality, that in organizing the uprising (in particular, for these reasons) he played a key role (Ryleev’s apartment was the headquarters conspirators) and that on December 14, Ryleev was on Senate Square, although he left it before the cannon fire. As for giving evidence, exactly the same can be said about the overwhelming majority of the Decembrists under investigation. “The killer of Honored General M. Miloradovich P. Kakhovsky is generally an almost random person.” Kakhovsky was indeed cast in the role of the regicide (by Ryleev, who “is not suitable for the role of inspirer”) late, but he was not an “accidental” participant in the events. And his shot at Miloradovich was one of the key events of that day - it would be surprising not to execute Kakhovsky (no matter how we feel about the death penalty in general), it would be surprising to forget him (no matter how we feel about military coups). "P. Pestel did not take part in the uprising and was arrested long before the uprising...” Yep, December 13th. And they arrested him, presumably, for his beautiful eyes, and not for “Russian Truth” and the active organization of a future uprising. “... and Lieutenant M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin was practically punished for “resistance to the authorities” - expressed (I would add) in the rise of the Chernigov regiment to revolt. That very real, supposedly unknown (to whom?) uprising, which Mr. writer contrasts with the stand on Senate Street. And he considers it to be S. Muravyov-Apostol’s case. I wonder what would have happened to this already arrested lieutenant colonel - and not a colonel, as the “demystifier” calls him - if Bestuzhev-Ryumin had not been around? It is no less interesting why the five hanged men are opposed by “truly honored people” - S. Volkonsky (completely “Pestel’s man”), I. Sukhinov (involved in the conspiracy by Muravyov-Apostol and Bestuzhev-Ryumin), the Bestuzhev brothers (both Alexander and Nikolai , and Mikhail did not think of themselves separately from Ryleev)? Believe me, I haven’t exhausted this episode either, and the political strategist still has a damn cloud of them. All performed at the same level.
Ignorance is distressing, but I confess that ambition is even more depressing. If you remove all the errors from the article, but leave its truisms and mentoring tone intact, essentially nothing will change. The author firmly believes that he is surrounded by ignoramuses whose eyes need to be opened. Having uttered at the beginning of the opus “The average Russian does not know the history of his country well,” the writer repeats this thesis on every occasion, molding the “average Russian” into a complete idiot. But, firstly, you can learn about the views of the “average Russian” not out of thin air, but only from sociological studies, to which the author has no references (I think there is no data). Secondly, even if the result of these studies turns out to be sad (let’s say), it is far from a fact that the ideas of the “average Russian” about our history will turn out to be worse than the ideas of the “average German” (French, New Zealander) about the history of the corresponding countries. And if so, then all the speculation about our “unpredictable past” is not worth a penny. Thirdly and most importantly: what does the “average Russian” have to do with a magazine that has a circulation of five thousand, that is, it is not addressed to the masses and has selected its audience? Are they going to teach me - and other regular and devoted readers of the said magazine - some sense? I believed that the editors had the best opinion of us. Or are we being invited to make fun of the “average” ignoramuses?
Thank you, I don't want to. The author of a short note about “The Secret of Three,” the author of a long article about “myths and cliches,” and many writers similar to them, of course, are free to boast of exaggerated “education,” ring the bell without looking at the calendar, and treat potential readers as fools. I (we) cannot baptize children with them. But from publications that I am accustomed to respect and consider as my own, I (and not only me) have the right to demand basic respect. Which cannot be replaced by talk about the “right to experiment”, “the effect of provocation” and “debatability”. They argue about tastes, but not about the multiplication tables.