About Gorenstein and others

Benedict Sarnov: The first publication of a literary interview 2012

The literary critic Benedict Sarnov (1927–2014) wanted to write about the work of Friedrich Gorenstein, but did not have time. Maybe because for him the object was too complicated. In 2011, he agreed to write a short preface for a series of Gorenstein’s books at the ABC publishing house. He said: "I will write briefly, personally and nevertheless commonly." But then he refused, since the publisher was in a hurry, he wanted the text by the time to which he, as it seemed, could not have time. But the interview, thank God, managed to give.

At the very beginning of the conversation that took place at Benedict Mikhailovich at home, I told him the following story: in the process of working on the film about Gorenstein, I found his interview with filmmaker Savva Kulisha. There, Kulish represents Gorenstein and says: "The famous Russian writer ..." Suddenly, Gorenstein with an ironic smile corrects him and says: "Tell me better Russian -speaking." And this is Gorenstein, who all his life defended his right to be called a Russian writer! What led him, so to speak, to the "surrender of positions"? The outcome of Jewry from Russia and other CIS countries, what? Sarnov laughed, and for a long time then did not stop smiling.

- This term was invented, of course, our Nazi-showers. I once talked with one lady from the "Literary Newspaper", who grabbed with me about this, when I said that I could not understand this ... What does the Russian -speaking mean? Are you interested in what? The writer genes, his blood, what? What is behind this concept? And I said: well, here Fazil Iskander. Of course, he is a Russian writer, what doubts? A good writer, with a good Russian language. The Russian writer, like Babel and as Mandelstam. And she says: "But Chingiz Aitmatov?"

You see, I say, Genghis Aitmatov is really another matter. He writes in his native language, and then translates himself. This is a completely different matter. For him, the Russian language is not the language in which he creates. He simply owns them so much that he himself can translate. And as far as I know from the editorial cuisine, from the Novomirites who printed him, they were busy with him ...

He, Frederick, I thought, I think, to emphasize this ... There he has such a semicomic character in Berdichev, the son -in -law of Racheli, whom she hates. He walked there, and his frostbitten finger was amputated, remember? So she says about him that “he is already in the next world, thank God” ( Sarnov laughs ). Here, he said to everyone to himself: “I am Khussian! Khussian!” ... [ I did not know how to pronounce “P”. - RC ]. And so Friedrich, apparently, really did not want these Jewish complexes to stand behind him, as they say, "with the pathos of the severing" ... I can only explain this.

It is necessary to be concerned about terms, because the writer can be great and not ingenious, ingenious and not great, but genius is a certain special substance

He was close and was friends with my friend Lazar Lazarev. And moreover, Lazarus was the keeper of all his underground works. And Lazarus with his permission (and Lazarus was, I must say, a very clear person in this sense) gave me some of his manuscripts, in particular, the novel "Place", which then shocked me. And when Friedrich found out about this, he somehow began, apparently, to list me not just in the circle of caps of caps, but in a closer, or something, circle ...

- What, in your opinion, is Gorenstein’s contribution to literature?

- Well, you know, I generally appreciate Frederick Gorenstein very highly, in some respects above almost all of my contemporaries, although there are many writers among his contemporaries with wonderful, large and loved ones. For clarity, for the guideline, I will call and Grossman (well, this is the older generation), and from contemporaries and almost peers - this is Voinovich, this is Iskander, these are Dombrovsky ... The writers are large. But Gorenstein, in my opinion, is the only one in this series in whom I see the features of genius ...

You see, here in this kind of definitions it is necessary to apply for terms, because the writer can be great and not ingenious, ingenious and not great, but genius is a certain special substance ... This is what lies outside of understanding, that which is close to the concept of a miracle. And Gorenstein, of course, is the only one (I repeat, these are all large writers), the only one, or, perhaps, in this sense you can compare Iskander - who is busy with problems, I would say ... cosmic. Cosmic and worldviews, such as the place of man in the universe ... That is, here he (I will not talk about the scale) on the tasks that he sets for himself, compare with such giants as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky ... Well, Chekhov is another ... Of course, there are no writers who would not think about God, about the immortality of the soul ... This is all the case, but not what is not true. It tormented, tormented, - Chekhov, in this case, - he was more earthly ... And the writer is great, nevertheless ... So, Gorenstein is like this.

His fate always worried me. I remember about the mid-sixties (when was the “House with a Tower? In 1964?) We spoke with one friend, physicist, but a very humanitarian warehouse, who was interested in literature, lived with poetry (it happens with physicists).“ Well, as you imagine, he asked me, and when it collapses, let's say, the Soviet government, at any case Here will come freedom, absolute freedom, absolute freedom of expression and self-expression for the artist ... I have the impression that all the current literature will somehow go to the periphery, the side of the road ... And there will be completely new, unknown people who are now sitting there and write something somewhere there ... their "imperishable" ( Sarnov smiles.-RS ), and I know, not very thoughtful. He said: "No, you know, I think that these will be the same people .... The same Iskander, Voinovich, Aksyonov, Dombrovsky ... (I called the poets of several, in particular, Slutsky, Samoilov, Korzhavin), the same people that we know now ... But they will reveal before us [ in a new way. -RS] ... they will write new books ... and they will take out of the bins are those books that we are now unknown, but they will be ... the only writer, I said, which you do not know now, and which will certainly enter the top ten, if it doesn’t even surpass it, this is Friedrich Gorenstein. ”-“ And who is this? ”I say this is the author of one story,“ a house with a turret, ”was printed a year and a percentage of a year and a half Back in the magazine "Youth". And here's the story ... You know how Pushkin says: “He recognized me immediately ( correctly -“ per minute. ” - RS .), Based on this story, the scale of talent was visible, and the talent force ... The brightness of the talent and the scale of talent. But of course, according to this story, it was impossible to predict such major things as“ Place ”, as“ Atonement ”, as a“ psalm ”...

Benedict Sarnov

Here Bulgakov said about himself: "I am a mystical writer." I don’t know how seriously he was about this. Because in his mysticism (I mean his “Masters and Margarita”, he wrote quite realistic things, I consider him the artistic peak “Theatrical Roman”, but this is my opinion, this is not the point), so, in his mysticism there is some kind of deliberate, but some kind of humorous, satirical paint ... I have all this, I have more and more. I will not say scale already, but I don’t see directions around, and, of course, he is an amazing phenomenon in this sense ...

Well, and as it always happens with such people, he is not understood, not open yet, underestimated ... I remember how deeply I struck me, and even outraged the awarding of the first [ Russian. - RS ] "Boker". There, so the alignment was like that ... I remember not all. I remember who received - Kharitonov. A good writer and a very cute, lovely, intelligent man, he got this first Russian “booker” and there were two major writers in the short list: Gorenstein (the largest) and Petrushevskaya. She is not as scale as Gorenstein, but nevertheless ...

- There was also Makanin ...

For Gorenstein, Dostoevsky was, if some kind of landmark, then rather an opponent, an antagonist, you understand ...

- Makanin, yes, but he is not so large ... But Gorenstein is a giant. "Place". He was represented by the novel "Place" there. He also has failures, but a “place” is a fundamental thing. And the novel “Place” was presented, nominated for this award ... Well, inferior to him, but also, of course, a large talent, a large writer, who, perhaps, did not fully realize himself and justified those [ entrusted to it by others. - RS ] hopes ... this is Petrushevskaya ... However, neither she nor he ... there was then in the jury of Ellanda Proffer. A charming lady and a wonderful person who, with his deceased husband, created one of the most remarkable Russians ( Sarnes smiles. - RS ) ... If you like, Russian -language book publishing in America and generally in the West. She was at that time in Moscow, because there was a "booker". We were familiar with her earlier, in Moscow once, during the life of Karl, and in America also met. And she (it was, in my opinion, with Voinovich) when it came to speech [ about the context of the prize. -RS ], asked (me): "Who do you think?"

I say: "There is no doubt for me, of course, Gorenstein!" And she, you know, Snobka shrugged, and said dismissively: "But Dostoevsky has already written" Demons "!" I say: "Well, Ellanda, let's even say that this is so, and that Gorenstein wrote" demons "of the twentieth century ... also a lot. It is enough to ... in any case for" Boker " - more than enough." But in fact (although, of course, “demons” are remembered here and cannot help but remember), but in fact this book is not [ Epigen. - RS ] ...

Here, say, about Grossman’s novel, the great novel “Life and Fate”, a very significant work ... We can say about him that he is ... well, not an epigon, but a follower, a successor to Tolstoy ... And you can’t say this about Gorenstein. He is not an epigon, and not a successor, and not a follower ...

For Gorenstein, Dostoevsky was, if some kind of landmark, then rather an opponent, an antagonist, understand ... But nevertheless, this is not even the point. The fact is that "place" is a completely independent novel, and in it, if anything is related to Dostoevsky ...

This is how Bunin hated Dostoevsky and said: “It all went from him. It was to blame, it was he who created all this rot, and she pulled to the surface - these are the Bolsheviks, this revolution, you understand” ... that is, he attached to this very meaning of Demiurge, who creates a person ... not reflecting the historical process, but there is some kind of fantasy, but there is some grain, but there is a kind of grain, but there is some grain. Truth. So, this refers to Gorenstein to the fullest ... In this novel, “The place” he is this underground rotten Russia, so to speak, all the ugliness and all the nightmares of the then -born then, and, perhaps, even not yet born Russian fascism, which we see today in all its glory, he guessed it. Where did he get it from? I don't know. It was, and I did not know that, but did he know? May be. But I think that mainly he got it, like Dostoevsky of his Stavrogin, his Petrush Verkhovensky, Kirillov took his himself out ... So he was all these characters. This is the fruit of his fantasy, this, as they say, is the release of his soul, his psyche ... This is what I call genius.

Although I repeat how every big writer has (with the exception of, perhaps, Pushkin, who has no bad verses ... Well, the ingenious block had bad verses ... There is nothing to say about Mayakovsky, and he is a genius, how many nonsense he hung up, these agents ...), and Frederick also had failures ...

Solzhenitsyn is not such a large writer as Gorenstein

But then you know, this linguistic giftedness is also a miracle. This is his appeal to the language of the XVII, XVIII century, this is generally amazing. This man who spoke in life, in everyday life with a Jewish accent ... And here is such perfect possession, such penetration into a living fabric of the Russian language.

You know, at the beginning of the twentieth century there was such a discussion about Jews in Russian literature. I no longer remember who participated there, although I have been lifting up, I can remember ... I remember only one thing - Korney Ivanovich, then the young Korney Ivanovich. And they are all unanimously-and the one who imagined,, as they say, the Jewish side, and Korney Ivanovich, who represented, so to speak, Russian criticism, they all converged to one thing, which really, Jews in Russian literature somewhere on the periphery, on the side of the road, that they still do not speak the Russian language as their relatives, to come in full and even more to enter the place, and even more to come in and even more to enter the place. To take a place, well, not dominant, but in the forefront of Russian writers, and that this is still infinitely far away ... They referred to painting, where Levitan was already, say, to the music where the Rubinsteins brothers were ... and said that with literature, unfortunately, it did not work ...

This happened when he had already published or had to soon publish his book “Stone” to Mandelstam ... But in general, in short, within the same generation, such luminaries of Russian literature of Jewish origin appeared, like Mandelstam, Pasternak, like Babel, finally ... the same Grossman ... This is how it happens. And the same miracle happened to Frederick Gorenstein. And, of course, in the high sense of the word, he, of course, is a Russian writer. If only because no one gave it, he did not show us the Russian one that he showed ... and so artistically convincing, such a real one, for all its phantasmagoricity, is such ... that, you know, I don’t know who can be compared with here ...

- Our conversation takes place the day before the presentation of your book “Solzhenitsyn’s phenomenon”, and I will not resist the question: what would you say if you compared two names - Gorenstein and Solzhenitsyn, worldview, writers?

- First of all, I must say that, in my opinion, Solzhenitsyn is not such a large writer as Gorenstein. Solzhenitsyn in general ... Well, he is an amazing, phenomenal person. His role and his mission, and his significance is difficult to overestimate. But as a writer, he was very overestimated ... You know how it happens in Russia at all ... Like Dostoevsky at Nekrasov’s funeral, not thinking so, but wanting to flatter the youth who rage there, compared him with Pushkin, said that he was standing next to Pushkin - Nekrasov, then the voices were heard “not nearby, but higher!” ... This is higher with Solzhenitsyn. I read the diaries of Shmeman here, who then experienced the most important disappointment in him ... Well, "he is above Pushkin, he is above Tolstoy, the great writer of the Russian land ..." - the reasons are understandable, but they will be very widened as a writer. "Ivan Denisovich" is a wonderful thing, and novels (although they are with failures) - "in the first circle" and the "cancer" - things are wonderful ... Well, "the wheel" - there is nothing to say, it is unreasonable ...

But, in principle, Solzhenitsyn, of course, is, first of all, a writer who turns out to be good and even higher than good, wonderful, great, when he writes about the experience ... But as soon as he began to write this first novel “August Fourteenth”, it was already clear that this is not his ... But, of course, there is a hand, there is still power, interest in the topic, especially when this chapter is already worried about it already. The Jewish line, this is clear everything ... That is, I do not want to smell it, so to speak, the role and literary meaning, but ... not mystical, with all his Orthodoxy, not cosmic, purely earthly, to a greater extent, a politician and figure, and in general, a person obsessed with his great mission ... The only thing that brings them closer to [ Solzhenitsyna and Gorenstein. - RS ], this is the pathological, rotten, bordering (passing this line) Russian nationalism, which Gorenstein so talentedly revealed in this novel "Place" with fascism. But Solzhenitsyn, of course, in this sense is not a material for comparison, but as if the object of the ego ... He himself, in the end, fell into this stench at the end of his life at all. So this point of contact is very unpleasant for Solzhenitsyn ... No, Gorenstein, you see, this is a special, of course, phenomenon. This is not even clear how [ it arose. -RC ] on this Soviet field: we are still all the atheists ... Solzhenitsyn Orthodoxy is, of course, a pure linden. After all, he declared himself Orthodox, but what is it really there? There are more showers ... In general, I cannot forget this theater gesture, which he crossed the Twardowski coffin. This is all, like Galich’s - "it's all red to the public."

Well, you remembered the "Report of the football match" ...

No, for Frederick this “psalm” is a thing that absolutely reflects his consciousness, there is no literature ... For Bulgakov Woland, this is also a reality, but ... Antichrist of Gorenstein is really some kind of mystical figure ... Woland ...-not without reason they all guess, who it is: Stalin or Berry. In fact, of course, this is nonsense, this is not anyone else like Satan, but nevertheless [ there is present there. - RS ] This element of satire and exposure and correlation of the Soviet anthill with the axis of the coordinates, which for Bulgakov is Christianity ... Bulgakov did not lie when he said that he was a mystical writer. It's just in his nature, in his nature. He is still partly related to family traditions. The father was in any way involved in the spiritual rank, was not tonsured, but still taught at the Theological Academy ... But Frederick was more expressed stronger ...- Benedict Sarnov believed.

Sarnov’s opinion about Gorenstein was formed long before our meeting with him. Оно, в частности, было изложено им в 2007 году в материале журнала "Знамя"… Если же говорить о тех, чьи имена безусловно останутся и в истории отечественной литературы, и в сознании читателя, то у меня сразу возникают в памяти совсем другие книги. Прежде всего "Чонкин" Владимира Войновича, “Сандро из Чегема” Фазиля Искандера, “Остров Крым” Василия Аксенова, романы “Место” и “Псалом” Фридриха Горенштейна, проза и драматургия Людмилы Петрушевской, “Москва – Петушки” покойного Венедикта Ерофеева. Я был поражен, когда узнал, что первой Букеровской премии в России не удостоились ни Горенштейн, ни Петрушевская, хотя оба этих автора попали тогда в “шорт-лист”. При всей моей симпатии к лауреату первого русского “Букера” Марку Харитонову я счел тогда и считаю сейчас это решение жюри огромной ошибкой.

Оказавшись в Москве в феврале 2014-го по поводу премьеры горенштейновского "Бердичева" в театре имени Маяковского, я позвонил Сарнову с намерением пригласить его на премьеру. Ответила жена Бенедикта Михайловича, которая сообщила, что он в больнице с переломом шейки бедра. Больше мне, к сожалению, не довелось ни увидеться, ни поговорить с Сарновым. 20 апреля 2014 года он скончался.