Antichrist in the USSR?

Vyacheslav Ivanov about the novel by Friedrich Gorenstein, a special kind of book

To that Satan with the business card of Professor Woland visited Moscow in the late 20s, thanks to the talent of Mikhail Bulgakov, almost no one has doubts ... But did the Mozer of the god Antichrist have lived in the USSR from 1933 to the early 50s (that is, during the years of Stalin's reign)? Frederick Gorenstein in his novel “Psalm” is no less talented in this.

The novel "Psalm" was written by 43-year-old Gorenstein, a mature writer, in Moscow in 1975, i.e. 42 years ago. For the first time, a separate book was published in Munich in 1986. Readers of the USSR were able to get acquainted with him in the magazine version in October only in 1991 /1992. The preface to this first publication of the novel was written by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov.

The publication of his text is devoted to the memory of an outstanding linguist and encyclopedist.

Yuri Veksler

About the novel by Friedrich Gorenstein "Psalm"

First of all, the reader’s warning: Friedrich Gorenstein’s novel “Psalm” belongs to the number of books of a very special kind, the construction of which does not submit to any previously established rules. The writer himself discovered this new way of writing and techniques that contribute to him. Therefore - and for other reasons, which later - the novel is not read easily. This can be especially said about the pages overloaded with the thoughts of the heroes and the author, often from those who think of their heroes indistinguishable. The whole novel is one long -unfolding author's thought. For her embodiment, she needs parables. The actors of these parables are quite real people, in the description of which, like the situation, the most simple everyday little things are not missed. But the novel from this does not become realistic. That is why, finding in some obsessively repeated places his discrepancy between the reality known to me, I cannot reproach the author of this: he did not give the vow to follow this reality. Rather, the opposite: the novel emphasizes miracles or at least the oddity of what is happening in it. In fact, the action of all five parts -alms of the novel is built around the creature of the mythological - Antichrist, which, using the power given to him, suddenly disappear from enemies or instantly hit them. The fact that in the last of the parables the Antichrist works as a janitor is a successfully found realistic detail: after all, in that literary institute, which is capacious and grotesquely outlined in the last part of the novel, the great writer Andrei Platonov serves as a janitor, whose obvious influence appears in Psalm, especially in the image of children. Over the past twenty years, we are accustomed to see almost the most outstanding of the talented young poets or philologists who make up their lives by the work of a stoker or an elevator. What is the difference from them Gorensteinsky janitor-antihrist? They all belong to the oddities of the world where the novel arose.

Friedrich Gorenstein with Psalom in his hands. 1986

If we, to satisfy those readers who did not want to deal with the literature, completely created by Nanovo, wanted to enter Gorenstein’s novel in the literary environment of our century, then, most likely, we could think about partial resemblance to the magical realism of Vargas Llos, or Garcia Markes, or with Kafka's novels. But just a comparison with Kafka will show one important difference. Like Gorenstein, the Old Testament also influenced the Kafka as a literary work. But Kafka adopted primarily the very style of biblical allegories. And it is not for nothing that Gorenstein quotes the Bible so many times: he tries to follow the very letter of the Old Testament text. His composition, in his construction, is sometimes close to theological. The method of which (with the exception of the last part is the final) in the novel says and thinks the Antichrist is completely unusual. He does not think, but God tells him through one of the prophets.

Of the psychological research of recent years (I mean the book of an American psychologist and historian Janez culture), we know that biblical stories conveyed the essence of the conversation with God who was in the soul of each of the prophets, but was important for the whole society. Only by means of prophets could it speak with God. Obviously, for each of the prophets, this conversation was the same reality as for any of us a conversation on the phone. Gorenstein makes a creature with such Old Testament psychology the hero of his novel. But the numerous conversations of the Antichrist retelling in the novel with God are all given quotes from the Old Testament. Gorenstein is afraid of inaccuracies, robs his own imagination. The method of quoting another canonical text is common in the Bible. Here Gorenstein is faithful to her style, so different from the manner of modern novelists.

But for the same reason, the psychological portrait of the Antichrist is much less distinct than a drawing depicting other heroes. In the plan and performance of the novel there is a clear inequalism of male and female roles. Women prevail. The first two stories, partly - as the author himself notes - repeating each other, are told on behalf of the heroines - ordinary girls. In the first part-caliting, Maria skillfully asks for alms, making feeding for her sick younger brother Vasya. The story of the Mary-Mary girl reaches Platonic cruel power.

The place in the novel, where the feelings of the girl Mary, who were lost in the snow field at the Andreevka station, belongs to almost the best in the book

Annushka from the second parable reminded something to the main character-the Antichrist-Mary from the first part, even if two girls did not look like each other. The Antichrist was sent “to the wicked girl Annushka, after a kind girl, the pubal girl Mary ...” Partly reminiscent of each other and their stories: Annushka turned out to be confused in the death of her brother Vova, like Maria, that her brother Vasya disappeared. But the internal similarity of the two young women is especially clear in the vertices of their grief: “Annushka cried loudly in a dream, because in a dream she was at home, and no one could forbid her. But Annushka was crying in reality, because in reality she was in German slavery. This was the same cry of the heart from which the Lord occasionally rewards the unreasonable and which, in the field at the Andreevka station in 1933, was crying Maria, a small harlot. Through this God's crying then Mary rose, without words she read the instruction of the Lord and without reason she realized what was given through the mind to the prophet Isaeh. ”

The place in the novel, where the feelings of the girl Mary, who were lost in the snow field at the Andreevka station, belongs to almost the best in the book. Gorenstein does not lose hardness in the expression of his understanding of Mary (as Annushka later). According to him, “from Mary, her own soul and her mind were separated by an endless space, but a silent heart, devoid of God's gift of the word, her heart was next to her, and she cried, having no words or concepts, but only the sounds devoid of meaning.” The thought of a word that exists somewhere for every person, but can remain unsolved to him, is especially clearly expressed by Gorenstein in the next parable, which refers to the city handsome and drunkard Pavlov, who never found his personal word. Maybe Gorenstein describes such people, separated from the word and from the mind of an infinite space.

Unlike the poetic and soulful images of the main heroines of the five parables and the portraits of many male characters are one -dimensional in them in the same living and impressive sketches of other female characters. Often they are grotesque, like images of the drunkard Pavlov and his drinking companions. But such provincial lumpen still manage Gorenstein, who is two or three well-aimed strokes (often purely physiological) for their characterization. Attempts to draw a portrait of an intellectual are much weaker.

The most unsuccessful way in Psalm seems to me Alexei Iosifovich Ivolgin. His portrait is ideological through and through, the author needs him only in order to illustrate his idea. And here, unexpectedly, Gorenstein discovers - it is where his idea, it would seem, is opposite to the official Soviet - his involvement, albeit a special kind, traditions of socialist realism, under which I mean the average style of Soviet prose. That is why in the description of the life, suffering and death of Ivolgin so much stretched and even false. Gorenstein is by no means a political writer, and his attempt to move on to a direct political satire remains clearly unsuccessful.

Gorenstein is by no means a political writer, and his attempt to move to a direct political satire remains clearly unsuccessful

But it is hardly much better than the image of the old man of Ilovay, with whom the widow of Ivolgin Claudius associated her life. Isn't her prudence at first, then the inability throws a shadow on her satellites? After all, Gorenstein’s men are clearly secondary compared to heroines and sometimes (like Grisha, raping Mary in the first parable) only to awaken feelings in heroine; Then they disappear, a novel under construction in female images does not need them.

But there is an even more serious reason for Gorenstein’s failure in the image of Ivolgin and Ilovaisky, and much more young intellectuals and their conversations in the last parable, the action of which takes place in Moscow, and, moreover, in such a remarkable place as the Tretyakov Gallery. Gorenstein resolutely fails intellectuals and their conversations. When Ilovaysky recalls with friends of youth in the country, one of them has details of their church education and when students of the Literary Institute start a dispute between themselves, the novel is approaching the failure, which is only a large writer, especially in Russian literature.

I will allow myself a comparison that will seem surprising to many. Inability to portray an intellectual Gorenstein resembles Solzhenitsyn. Both large prose writers, whose compositions will remain in our literature, with their ability to depict ordinary people (in Solzhenitsyn it is usually men and old women, like Matrena, in Gorenstein -most of all girls and girls), intellectuals are much less interesting. And here again we have to think about the tradition of socialist realism. The intellectuals - the old man of Ilovay with his discussions about Christ or the student of the Literary Institute Andrei with his discussions about Moses - needs Gorenstein primarily or almost exclusively for the expression of the thoughts that occupy him. That is why their image is one -dimensional than portraits of provincial drunkards. When in the fifth parable of these latter, as a student of the Somov Literary Institute and Vasya’s suicide, they meet with Andrei, the author has more colors for drunken hooligans than for Andrei's thoughts about the god of Andrei.

But Gorenstein would not be a major writer if he had prevented him from portraying urban educated people, only a tendency adopted from the literature of the previous years to turn heroes into ideological schemes. This tradition has much more serious sources and parallel phenomena in the literature of our century.

Boris Khazanov correctly notes Gorenstein's dependence on Dostoevsky

Boris Khazanov correctly notes Gorenstein’s dependence on Dostoevsky, with whom the author of Psalm is so violently arguing. Not recognizing Dostoevsky (and all of Russian literature) the famous Czech writer of our time Kunder in his wonderful essay on the novel genre focuses mainly on the Central European tradition of the philosophical novel. Among the writers of the German language, Kunder is especially noted by Kafka, Musiel and Broch.

“Psalm”, undoubtedly, belongs to this tradition. But in contrast, say, Gorenstein is not limited to philosophical parables in the Old Testament mood, he wants to explain - or even drive into the head? --- The reader with his philosophy with perseverance resembling the monological obsession of Leo Tolstoy (Dostoevsky, thanks to his dialogical diversity, was not so tense one-sided). Several favorite ideas of Gorenstein are repeated in the novel many times. The main ones concern Russia and Jewry, on the one hand, Christianity and Judaism - on the other.

Boris Khazanov rightly also speaks of Gorenstein’s obsession with Russia. Gorenstein does not just follow the Russian literary tradition, so much meaningful for him: Pushkin is mentioned more than once in the novel as a high embodiment of a genius, Gorenstein and proper words were found to evaluate the biblical poems of language. Gorenstein, like all truly Russian writers, is sick with Russia, its painful history and vast geography (from which, by the way, the attractive features of Russian women were associated for Gorenstein; because they had to populate such vast spaces, hence their ability to continue the genus and the gift of carnal love).

In Russian history, especially the latest, Gorenstein is worried about the theme of the relationship between Russia and Jewry, which was turned primarily to Russian (or East Slavic; we are talking about Ukraine starting with Shevchenko) anti -Semitism. I will not argue with his exaggeration, understandable with passion for any dispute. More than once in his novel there are Russian or Ukrainians, repeating the old anti -Semitic statement that Jews had killed Christ (as if he were not a Jew himself; in fact, this simple truth is often forgotten, but not in the novel of Gorenstein). I undertake to prove that in Russian villages, until recently they still existed, there was no anti -Semitism (including this understanding of Christ's death); He appears mainly with declared urban residents. They were a nutrient medium for the Black Hundreds in Russia and for the Nazis in Germany. But in the twentieth century. Anti -Semitism has become, if not commonly fought (we recall how few votes “memory” and representatives of its ideology, like Shafarevich, received in the recent democratic elections in Russia), then very noisy and attracting attention. Even worse, city lumpen, with the support of the security officers from the beginning of the century, participated in the pogroms, and at the end of the Stalin time, after the murder of Mikhoels, there were clear manifestations of state anti -Semitism. The so-called “struggle against cosmopolitanism” in 1949, and the “case of doctors”, which imposed its stigma for the winter of 1952-1953, also memorize me. I find the painful trace of these two outbreaks of official anti -tank against people of Jewish origin in the novel Psalm. Probably, in some ways my youthful impressions coincide with those that I reconstruct the author of the novel, judging by his text. But I experienced an insurmountable shame for the fact that all this was done by the state on behalf of Russia (then --- and the USSR), while Gorenstein, of course, thinks about the sufferings of people who are related to him by birth and faith.

Brazilian edition "Psaloma", 2017

Is the curse of anti -Semitism in fact in Russia and the Russians with such an indelible spot, how can one think by reading Roman Gorenstein? I would like to answer this negatively (although, I admit, this thought tormented me as Russian in those terrible years and continued to torment later, causing an almost physiological disgust about the characters from the “memory” and Shafarevich fake under them). Gorenstein’s attitude towards Russia is partly reminiscent of the attitude to Jewry Rozanov. In some of his fragments, Rozanov approaches anti -Semitism, sometimes the terrible, in others (or even the same) reveals a gravity to Jewry, fascinity of Judaistic rites, especially associated with Jews. So Gorenstein is simultaneously fascinated by the female Russian principle, with such force, they are sung by them, and is obsessed with hatred of Russian anti -Semitism (historically, I insist on this, quite justified, although in some obsessive repetitions in the novel I find exaggeration). The novel returns to the topic of hatred and curse that his hero carries - Antichrist. The curse, which, through Annushka (playing here the mythological role), the Antichrist sends Germany, unconditionally spreads to all times. In Russia, the hatred and curses of the Antichrist extend, if I correctly understand the “psalm”, rather not on all its inhabitants-Russian, but on those kind of actuates who met in the path of Antichrist Dan to die for himself. This curse, not always associated with Dan, also refers to the traitors-priests, like an Ivolgin or as the son of Antichrist Vasya, who suffered from unbridled anti-Semitism and hanging soon after he learned about his origin.

The most puzzling part of philosophical or historiosophical reasoning in the novel is a constantly repeated leitmotif of the opposition of Judaism as a true religion of historical Christianity, against which the heroes of Gorenstein and the author himself have many objections. Christ himself is thought by them as one of the Hebrew prophets, and to the extent that his original teaching continues Moses, Gorenstein is ready to accept him or at least reckon with him. But in the subsequent Christianity or Christian church, he will be a fall from the ancient faith, partially explained by him of the corrugated Greek influence.

Советский официальный атеизм для Горенштейна продолжает ложь христианской церкви

Из пятой притчи видно, что часть этих богословских рассуждений (мне самому часто кажущихся не только неверными, но и бесконечно растянутыми) родилась из модных религиозных споров в московских интеллигентских компаниях 1960-х годов. Списаны с натуры, хотя, может быть, и поверхностно плакатны, иконы, заменившие на иных стенах портреты Сталина. Советский официальный атеизм для Горенштейна продолжает ложь христианской церкви; поэтому смена одной лжи другой понятна. Соблазн излишне легкого увлечения православием (а в недавнее время, уже после написания романа, - и нового его огосударствливания) очевиден. Для того чтобы это заметить, не нужно быть писателем такого высокого класса, как Горенштейн. Но было бы нелепо из этих злоупотреблений христианством делать далеко идущие выводы об его исконной природе.

Меня как историка религии и культуры смущает несколько примитивный дуализм философии Горенштейна. Как отчетливо он формулирует в пятой притче, мир для него (как и для некоторых древнееврейских мыслителей) состоит из пар противоположностей. Оттого и герой его романа - Антихрист - мыслит себя как прямое противоположение своему Брату - Христу. Но если продумывать эту мысль до конца, то сюжет романа кажется недодуманным и ущербным. Что сделал Дан на всем протяжении романа, чтобы реализовать свою мифологическую миссию? Ведь в романе он скорее воплощает архетип Дон-Жуана, рождающего детей (иногда его достойных, как Андрей, иногда недостойных и продающих религию отца, как Вася) от нескольких русских женщин.

Роман в большой степени построен вокруг идеи плотской любви как проклятия. А другой любви герои романа почти не знают, Роман и в этом принадлежит при всех своих библейских стилистических особенностях, делающих описания эротических сцен столь своеобразными, именно нашему веку. Над героями, хотя они нигде не упоминают Фрейда, витает проклятие либидо как самой непреодолимой силы, покоряющей и мифологического Антихриста (иногда почти кажущегося ее воплощением), и простых смертных, особенно женщин, чью психологию с таким мастерством воссоздает Горенштейн. Нагота женского тела, насилие над женщиной, надругательство мужа над любовником описаны Гореиштейном с силой, на которую, вероятно, его вдохновило чтение Ветхого Завета. Именно взгляд издалека, не подсматривание в щелку делают эти сцены романа шедеврами прозы ХХ в. Мне кажется, что Горенштейну благодаря его метафизически жесткому письму удалось одному избежать той инфантильной пошлости гимназического увлечения полом, которой так долго страдала наша самиздатская (а потом и тамиздатская) проза, противопоставившая себя оскопленному ханжеству социалистического реализма.

В непреклонной четкости физиологических подробностей, в неуклонном следовании психологической истине Горенштейн, как и в своей монологичности, напоминает Льва Толстого. О Толстом же напоминают части романа, где автор удачно использует толстовский прием остранения, заглядывая далеко за мнимую поверхность явлений - прямо в их суть. Я думаю, что много поколений читателей будут возвращаться к поразительному по силе описанию Литературного института, как его в финале видит Андрей Копосов: «Конференц-зал был увешан кусками литературы всех времен и народов, именно отдельными организмами, извлеченными из тела. Андрей долго думал, на что похожи эти тесно покрывшие все четыре стены стенды с обложками книг, классики прошлого и того, что теперь именуется классикой и попросту книгами первого, второго, третьего сорта. Вокруг были лозунги-цитаты, великие слова на красном холсте, великие профили и силуэты. И понял Андрей - это литературная анатомичка, морг для отдельных частей тела. Заспиртованные цитаты и обложки, что-то вроде печени, легких, рук и ног в банках со спиртам. Части тел в спирте менее имеют отношения к человеку, чем камень на улице или ветка дерева. Камень и ветка дерева более похожи на живого человека, чем его собственная печень или легкие, из него вынутые. Так же далеки от литературы и эти куски литературы в литературной анатомичке. да и во всем этом заведении есть что-то медицинское, научное, где литература выглядит подопытным существом, кроликом, которого мучат исследованиями, где литературе уготовлена роль жертвенная во имя людского благополучия согласно гуманным принципам социалистического реализма».

В лучших своих частях, подобных только что процитированной, роман Горенштейна поднимается над любой прикладной ролью -- в том числе религиозной, философской или историософской - которой привычно подчинялась русская проза. И та необычность формы и жанра романа, с характеристики которой я начал, -- свойство этой подлинной свободы автора, нелегко им завоеванной; ведь для этого ему пришлось преодолеть (пусть иногда не до конца) и традицию социалистического реализма, и дешевую публицистичность многого в тогдашней подпольной самиздатской (и тамиздатской) прозе. Роман Горенштейна иногда по построению напоминает самые спорные стороны лучших книг последней половины века. Обилие случайных встреч и совпадений (особенно в последней части) заставляет вспомнить о «Докторе Живаго», сплетение реалистических деталей и мифологических мотивов и героев уводит к «Мастеру и Маргарите». Но все эти (и другие, приведенные выше) сопоставления необязательны. Горенштейн несравним. Это большой мастер со своими взлетами, иногда (на мой взгляд, столь же большими) неудачами, неровный, мятущийся, мощный, воплощающий в своем поколении боль и силу великой русской прозаической традиции, которой он принадлежит неотрывно.

Иванов Вяч. Sun. [Предисл. к публ. ром. Ф. Горенштейна «Псалом»] // Октябрь. 1991. №10