Under the oak, centuries

" - Solzhenitsyn did not just leave, but called to start the war. - It is unworthy to repeat the slander. - Your late husband was a difficult figure."

The polemic of Natalia Solzhenitsyna with Yuri Polyakov - the event is bright, but substantially uninteresting. It happens. Well, in fact, what is there to discuss if the chief of the "literature" is lying how the writer's widow in a short open letter convinces him in slander. And he, unable to object on the merits, responds with some completely hopeless stupidity. “I,” the chief edges objects, “rather believe the 5th management of the KGB, which I would not risk the chopping in the current geopolitical reality” - and go understand what he has in mind and why he does not dare to take risks. One gets the impression that the secret police dictates all these lines, as well as the general direction of the newspaper that has long been ruined by him.

Another thing is interesting.

The hostility to Solzhenitsyn, originating in the party-gaban and in a bumble writing environment half a century ago, is experiencing, so to speak, Renaissance. For example, that Zakhar Zakhar Prilepin spoke much more talented to Polyakov and much more talented to Polyakov and much more talented. Nothing, they say, to young men thinking about living, to study this "collection of camps." And the Soviet government did not like the Bucky, and therefore the writer had to "leave", according to Polyakov. I would compose the truth - who would condemn him, right?

However, today the situation does not seem to be too favorable to the account of accounts with the literary Vlasov. The fact is that Solzhenitsyn Solzhenitsyn is discord. There is Alexander Isaevich Early, thaw, humanistic - the idol of the intelligentsia and blood, for the time being, the secret enemy of the Bolshevik state. There is Solzhenitsyn from the times of emigration - a passionate fighter with communist soundtracks and with our pluralists - that is, with the intelligentsia. And there is a late Isaich, Isaich Triumph, who, even under Gorbachev, dictating how to equip Russia , explained with the fury of a genuine pertress to Ukrainians who own both Crimea and Donbass. The writer is the state, the secret interlocutor of Putin, a supporter of the death penalty, recognized by the classic authorities, who is ordered to take place at school.

So they even a little dissident - both Prilepin and Poles. However, the point of view of the author of Sanka does not cause special complaints: it is simply not aware that the “gulag” is based not on tales, but on the stories of the surviving convicts and on the personal prison experience of Solzhenitsyn himself. But the editor -in -chief encroaches on the holy.

Polyakova is concerned about the inappropriateness of "the fraud of excitement in connection with the approaching century" classic, while the decree on the celebration of this dubious anniversary was signed by Vladimir Vladimirovich himself, entrusting Medvedev "to form the organizational committee for the preparation and conduct of the celebration." Where Polyakov boldly refused to enter, and now he argues not only with Natalia Dmitrievna, but also writes his own, suffered “letter to the leaders”. Like, Andropov and Bobkov and Toptuns from the Five could not be mistaken, and why should we celebrate the anniversary of the anti -Soviet, who "actually called the Americans to start a war against the USSR." Let Obama and Barrosa celebrate such anniversaries.

In the end, he still slightly blackmail Natalia Solzhenitsyn. “It is your humble servant,” the widow informs the Widow, “published on the pages of“ LH ”the angry rebuke of Solzhenitsyn“ to the darkens ”, who attributed his cooperation all with the same KGB, probably in revenge“ 200 years together. ”The most expressive word“ probably ”in which some doubt is concluded. Either he was indeed collapsed, either the Jewish The topic, you know, is not fully investigated, but we can dig up with the fifth control veterans, which will not lie in the current geopolitical reality.

The question arises: who will win this dispute? On the one hand, the widow of the great writer, who is patronized by Putin himself. On the other hand, this geopolitical reality with its TV and a state -forming press of the type of "literature" or "culture", where Poles publish his denunciation. For the reality is such that the president does not fully correspond to it by draining Novorossia or imposing the cult of Solzhenitsyn’s personality, while "the" cult figure is clearly not sculpted from it. " In short, change your mind, comrade president, until it’s too late, and not that “the authorities will always see the potential for the next“ swamp ”.

It is said, although illiterate, but very bold. Putin and Solzhenitsyn as involuntary organizers of the next marsh of disagreements - this plot is cleaner than the "Apothegia". Similarly, it is somehow scary even for Yuri Polyakova.

I have no doubt, however, that the editor -in -chief for his free thought will not suffer and his verbal duel with Natalia Solzhenitsyna will end in a draw. That is, everyone will remain with their own opinion. Poles will still be faithful to the Old Soviet ideals. He will be awaited by a difficult test: the chief expense will have to observe the murders in his heart to observe the fuel -pile, as well as the anniversary celebrations dedicated to the "complex figure." However, taking away the soul, he will probably speak out more than once on a given topic. And for the widow of the writer, this person, as we can assume, will forever be a liar and bastard. Which is also sad, in your own way.

It is bitter to realize that the liar and the bastard, as in former times, defeat Solzhenitsyn triumphantly. And he can no longer answer. And what would he answer now, when the history of the state is written on its covenants and the one whom he compared with Stolypin collects the original lands and how does the people unite?

It was worth living with Alexander Isaevich such a life, to survive and in exile, and to achieve world recognition, and to see firsthand how the authorities in Russia builds the future according to the plans and borders drawn to them - and to reveal the most patriotic of newspapers and find out that the country was essentially not a penny. That he is again a traitor and the “most rotten from the corpses”, as he called the writer's authorities, again stomp on his books, on the most important of his books. In the newspaper "Culture" and in "Literary", where the "discussion" is now being started about Solzhenitsyn, who is again branded with shame and called to be thrown out of school textbooks. True, they can still answer them, and they will publish the answer, but only in order to insult him again. And then another question arises, the most hopeless: was it worth dreaming of such Russia and bringing its triumph in his works? It is better not to rush with the answer.