The failed coming

About the book of Dmitry Bykov "The Thirteenth Apostle"

The book of Dmitry Bykov about Mayakovsky evokes mixed feelings - as, however, almost all other works of this prolific author. He writes well, and it is pleasant to read it, but often it is very difficult to agree with him. It has long been said: the inability to find and tell the truth not to atone for any ability to tell a lie. I do not mean that Bykov consciously says a lie, then there would be nothing to discuss. But Bykov strongly interfere with several false ideas that had mastered them; One of these ideas is an understanding of the Russian revolution as a bright promise. And all the subsequent troubles of Russia came from the fact that the revolution failed, died, someone destroyed it. Meanwhile, these troubles are precisely caused by the revolution itself, which was a colossal, apocalyptic breakdown. This is like in a joke: the autopsy showed that the patient died of autopsy.

It was bad that the revolution ended, but the fact that it ended briefly-and since the 29th year she went again, exterminating the last remnants of material existence

The revolution was a cultural, social and anthropological pogrom. It was a ruin, unrest, the death of Russian land. So she was taken by all Russian cultural people-even those who, at first with the idea of the revolution, associated some hopes. One can even say that they wanted to see the revolution in the tones of the thorgic ones as the transformation of being, the creation of a new sky and the new earth. We saw the revolution as an exit to a certain new cosmic anon. This was utopian, utopian consciousness sees the revolution not as a socio-political liberation, but as overcoming earthly captivity, cosmic transformation. In Russia, this mood was held and found a brilliant expression among Platonov, who, however, this triumphant utopia is represented in the images of hell. But it is interesting that people who nourished these the thorgic hopes faster than others figured out the true character of the revolution, immediately saw its unbearable abominations. Even Merezhkovsky, more than others shouting about the immanently religious character of the Russian revolution. The fact that the revolution itself led to a breakdown of utopian hopes and wishes does not want to accept bulls, his patient is still alive. Moreover, Bykovov has a completely unforgivable myth - about the bright enthusiasm of the Soviet thirties, this is the march of enthusiasts - a strange blindness among such a knowledgeable and sharp -eyed person.

Only two major poets - Blok and Mayakovsky welcomed the revolution in this expected quality of the total alteration of being. This was suicide for them. The block died first, having previously shut up, and Mayakovsky held out for another twelve years, while sharply reducing the poetic quality. Apocalyptic fantasies are murderous primarily for the science fiction writers themselves.

The most famous episode: Passing by the restaurant that newly opened after the NEP and hearing the sounds of the Romanian orchestra from there, Blok told the satellite: this is the end, nothing else will be. Mayakovsky, who saw Murlo Meshcino, began to say the same and almost then Mayakovsky, who saw behind the revolution. The Bolsheviks did not build a new life, but restored the old, and in a worsened quality. But today we cannot but ask: what is essentially bad in restaurants with Romanian music compared to the rational herring of "military communism"? What is bad in the bourgeois itself, preoccupied with the well -being of your own family, and not progressive humanity? It was bad that the revolution ended, but the fact that it ended briefly-and since the 29th year she went again, exterminating the last remnants of material existence. The disappointment of poetic natures and the base essence of being is not an argument against being. It is better to live than to die for a violent death or to be subjected to total humiliation all your life. Revolutionaries are primarily life -related.

And it cannot be said that Bykov does not understand this. He understands this perfectly - both about the revolution and about Mayakovsky. For example, he writes:

“He dreamed of as a block about the end of the terrible world, and received his return in a grabbed and simplified world. He dreamed of the flood, of the new humanity and in these dreams, I must admit that he just coincided with the Russian revolution; but why it is? Yes, because his worldview is based on a simple demand: since this world does not accept me, let it die . The world, in which dullness, greed and lust dominate.

Or again:

"Mayakovsky is truly unthinkable outside the aggressive self -affirmation, and in this he coincides with the revolution, which itself is most often determined apophatically - through enemies ... After the revolution, Mayakovsky was worse than before. B to - he had at least hope for the revolution."

Hatred of the world headed for itself, sadism became masochism with the limit in suicide

But what hope of what revolution can a person can talk about, who is self -determined through enemies who hates being? Bykov perfectly sees the inconsistency of these provisions. He writes that Mayakovsky’s suicide was a way out of this impasse.

Here, a rather elementary psychological mechanism acted: hatred of the world was introjected, headed for itself, sadism became masochism with the limit in suicide. But he wants to make this individual psychology of bulls, almost a religion - and strips solemn phrases: Mayakovsky’s revolver was the same as the cross in Christianity, Christ will be crucified for all, Pushkin was killed for all of us, Mayakovsky shot us for all of us. He refers to Borges, who said that the suicide of God is one of the most important plots. But is it possible to mix love for the world and humanity and the willingness to crucify with hatred for people and the world? And this topic in Bykov can be turned like this: defend Mayakovsky, but do not glorify the revolution. For the revolution was that Mayakovsky killed - because he himself was a revolution, a tremendous self -integration of her negative forces. This, of course, is greatness - but nowhere, so to speak, leading.

Bykov’s book is called the “Thirteenth Apostle” - just like the recent book of Karl Kantor - an eccentric Marxist, who saw a Christ -like figure in Mayakovsky. Is it not from here that the main inspiration of the Bykovsky interpretation of Mayakovsky comes?

There is one in Bykov’s book that is especially encouraging to understand the plot, which paradoxically illuminates the whole situation. He writes a lot about Mayakovsky's lifetime critics, most of course, of of course, about the famous clash of Lef with Polonsky, but also about Zelinsky, Shengeli, Talnikov. He does not have enough words to contempt for these people, he makes them the main illustration of Mayakovsky’s tragedy. They, they say, felt the mood at the top, where the revolutionaries were replaced by bureaucrats who were by no means inclined to love or defend Mayakovsky. But this plot can be understood differently and much more interesting: these people did not so much feel something as they hoped for something. They hoped, strictly speaking, to Termidor, by no means inclined, in the manner of Trotsky, to condemn the Termidorian rebirth of the revolution. Therefore, Mayakovsky irritated them with his used Jacobinism. Alas, these people were mistaken, Termidor was by no means strengthened, but moved to the Great Fracture, the second revolution of 1929.

In this long -standing dispute, the current reader is inclined to take the side of critics, by no means Mayakovsky. These people, simply put, had no suicidal intentions, they wanted to live. Can I condemn for this? And there is no need, for example, to ask: criticizing Mayakovsky, did Cornelius Zelinsky prepare his later betrayal of Pasternak? I am not inclined to such Calvinist predestination. God with Him, with Zelinsky, but the most respectable George Schengeli of bulls scolds even indecently. Meanwhile, it is clear that, having called the Mayakovsky Lumpen Mean and the simulator of proletarian ideology, he simply showed Mayakovsky that two can play in this game-two.

Bykov’s book has one strange feature: digging and smearing all “texture” about Mayakovsky - for example, listing and describing all his beloved - he surprisingly speaks little about his poetry. He likes to give negative reviews about her. He himself says that Mayakovsky wrote about Lily and Lenin in one manner of hyperbolic rhetoric. Having written surprisingly little about the masterpieces of Mayakovsky, he praises the booth of the Mr. Buff and the “overcoat” poem “good!”, About which Shklovsky said: gold can be painted in any color, except for gold. Mayakovsky cried in response. Well, he is sorry.

It seems that Bykov wrote his book in order of a certain projecting introspection, that he conjures some of his own demons. It is time to say, he himself looks like Mayakovsky by some features: he himself left poetry to the scripture of newspaper verses-something like the current growth windows, also loves pop performances, he himself is distinguished by the increased performance, which Mayakovsky correctly called the neurotic. This, of course, is not a rebuke to the author, because it has long been said that every portrait is always a self -portrait. But the point is not in Bykov, but in his hero. Do not make a Christ -like figure out of it. He does not stand the name of the Antichrist or, forgive the Lord, the strangler of Judah. It should be called the fallen angel of Russian poetry.

Bykov’s book will be useful for everyone who know about Mayakovsky less than the author.