Brodsky, Proffer and freedom of speech

Alexander Genis: Today, our conversation with Alexei Tsvetkov will be devoted to a topic that never leaves our programs - Brodsky. Everything related to Joseph Brodsky is insanely interesting for all Russian -speaking people, wherever they live.

You know, Alexei, I once had such a case, a letter from the audience came, they wrote: “We listen to your programs with the whole workshop-we turn on the computer, work and listen. Everything is very interesting, just tell me why you all the time mention some Brodsky, is it your relative?”

So I thought that maybe a relative could really? In any case, the position of Brodsky in the Russian consciousness, in Russian society, in Russian literature, in the Russian literary process absolutely exclusively. I judge this because Brodsky’s myth is changing and constantly growing. Now no one says that Brodsky is a parasite, as once, no one will say that Brodsky is a small-town poet, as it was in my time, but the search for such a version of Brodsky, which suits many. On the one hand, Brodsky is cosmopolitan, Brodsky, who lives outside countries and peoples, a poet who finds out his relationship with eternity and language, and not with people.

On the other hand, a new myth of Brodsky, Brodsky-Imper, has recently appeared, Brodsky-Russian patriot, Brodsky-Ukraine, which, of course, is based on the notorious verses for the independence of Ukraine. And here is a recent addition: Brodsky as a scoop.

I was interested in one publication, and I suggest making it the reason for our conversation. The fact is that relatively recently two books of Profors appeared. First Allenda Proffer. I was directly related to this, because I advised the Publishing House "Corps" to publish this book, it was decided within one evening, so in Russian it came out earlier than in English. The book was very popular. Ellanda came to Moscow, in St. Petersburg, everywhere she was met by Ura, she was shocked by how much Russian people were interested in everything that was connected with Brodsky, and with her too. And then another book was published, this time Karl Profer, his posthumous notes, which were not published during his lifetime, where it was also about Brodsky. Both books aroused an acute reaction, on the one hand - interest, on the other hand, some trembling, because these books are unpleasant, there are unpleasant things written about Brodsky. And so the review of the writer Sergeyev appeared in the magazine "Prosodia" called "Karl Proffer and memorial strategies." I will give a long quote from this material, it seems to me that it will be a good expenditure for our conversation:

"The first thing that catches the eye when you read these memoir notes is a feeling of the author’s intellectual equality and his hero. And it is felt all the more complete because the Proforter retells a lot of political disputes in a very unexpected context. He is only interested in the judgments that allow us to understand the nature of the social representations of Brodsky and his friends, for example, with surprise, he discovers with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise, with surprise. That almost none of them are ready to accept the freedom of speech unconditionally, these conversations showed the memoirist that the ontological difference lies between him and his Russian friends, which are not people with “Western thinking”, living in the USSR with “anti -Soviet thinking”, which is mirroring Soviet thinking without actually changing the observation of the professional. The rod of his notes about Brodsky, communicating with Brodsky and his friends, saw a living life that he comprehended as a person "from the side", seeing what slipped away from the gaze of his Soviet contemporaries. "

Alexei, you are not just a witness to these events, but a participant, you, like me, knew both Karl Proffer and Ellande Proffer and Brodsky, we are familiar with this environment. Therefore, it seems to me that it is important to remember how it was and what can be said here. This is the same episode with a dispute and freedom of speech, have you almost present at the same time?

Alexey Tsvetkov : No, I was not present. A similar episode happened to me, but it was thanks to these memoirs that I put it in a logical framework.

Alexander Genis: Let's start first: where were you, where were the professional and what happened?

Alexey Tsvetkov: The fact is that for some time before graduate school I worked in the publishing house "Ardis". Once I came to work, the publisher was in the basement of the house of Profferov. Karl sat in the living room, talked with one of his students. It was about freedom of speech. They talked about the fact that there were risks associated with freedom of speech that encourage her to limit it, but there is unconditional freedom of speech. He suddenly looked at me and said: "And what do you think is more important?" I must say, I did not think about this subject at all then, but scratched my head and said: "Of course, freedom of speech." I understand that he liked it. But having learned that it was in his hands a trial stone for everyone, I now realized what he had in mind. I can’t say that I had a lot of thought work when I gave this answer, although now I can explain why I answered, now, of course, I will answer this way.

Alexander Genis: Then we will try to ask this question again, because now he has very sharply stood on the agenda in America. This is due to a huge discussion associated with 'Hate Speech', "Hate Speech." It is about whether it is possible to somehow limit freedom of speech if this word sows discord, if this word sows hatred? We know that more recently there were excitements in Berkeley. This is one of the most liberal universities in America and one of the best universities in the world. A person with his right views should have performed in him - Milo Yannopoulos, the students were extremely dissatisfied with this, unrest began. More than a hundred police officers participated in the protection of the campus, one hundred thousand dollars to the university cost measures to prevent riots and so on. It was then that the question arose of how absolutely freedom of speech is.

Alexey Tsvetkov: The person you are talking about, he is not just right -handed views, he, of course, is extremist of the right views, he is a racist, an anti -feminist, he is a provocateur.

Alexander Genis: I specifically listened to his public performances. This is a curious personality, he is open, an Englishman, an intellectual, a beautiful man and a jester - by nature of his shared. I looked at how he behaves with the audience, how he answers questions. The whole point of these meetings with the public is to provoke scandals and enjoy them. It cannot be taken seriously, but, nevertheless, Berkeley's students did this.

Alexey Tsvetkov: The fact is that the jester or not the jester, but these are extremist views.

But in fact, the danger, in my opinion, is much more. Because in many universities, including the presenters, students now do not want to hear what is unpleasant for them. That is, for example, the teacher very often should give such warnings to students: now I will talk about unpleasant. If you want, come out. It means that he can talk about slavery, about racism, about rape, and generally about some troubles that were in history. In addition, various kinds of minorities, and there are a lot of them and all with their interests, are grouped and oppose the fact that people who do not belong to them generally discuss their problems. Jews have nothing to do with it, but, for example, if I am not a Jew, then I should not talk about Jewish problems or about the Holocaust. If I am not an African American, then I, of course, should not talk about slavery. Moreover, there is an even more vicious concept - the approval of culture. If you composed, for example, a story from the life of America of the 18th - early 19th centuries, and described in it the feelings of slaves, then they tell you that you have no right to do so because you are white. That's where these brakes go.

Alexander Genis: I heard this about you and me. Someone wrote that we have no right to judge Russia, because we do not live there. Interesting, but we can talk about ancient Rome, in which no one lives. New York Times, a liberal newspaper, which, of course, opens against such a soldier as Milo Yannopoulos, but at the same time an article was recently printed there that minorities should have the right to their word. And one of the most depressed minorities of American universities is conservative professors, who, of course, are in the minority, but we must also listen to them. All this seems completely obvious - everyone should have the right to vote. But let's go further, say, the Stalinists in Russia should have the right to express their love for Stalin, how is this done now in Russia?

Alexey Tsvetkov: The fact is that liberal values, they are not national, they say, one for this country, the other for another. If I believe that the Stalinist has the right to speak with his views in the United States, in the same way he has the right to speak with them in Russia and Bangladesh.

Alexander Genis: But for example, in Germany you cannot speak with Nazi views - this is illegal.

Alexey Tsvetkov: I think that in a sense it is possible. There, some things are prohibited, for example, Nazi symbolism, which also relate to freedom of speech, and in principle, the denial of the Holocaust is prohibited. But tell me, who are these experts who will sit and sort ideas for Nazi and not Nazi, communist and not communist?

Alexander Genis: This is generally quite simple. I just came from the Baltic tour, was in three capitals of the Baltic countries, in all of them both Nazi and communist symbolism are prohibited - it is simply prohibited by law. Where is freedom of speech? So it is not absolute?

Alexei Tsvetkov: In America, it, fortunately, is almost absolute. The first amendment to the Constitution forbids Congress to adopt any laws related to freedom of speech, to the freedom of religion, to basic freedoms. This does not mean that there are no restrictions that the court establishes this amendment. If your word can lead to an immediate crime, then it cannot be pronounced. Suppose you can’t scream in the Fire theater. You can not incite the crowd, which stands with knives and torches, to smash bad people. Everything else is possible.

Alexander Genis: All this is very difficult to determine. This is what the Supreme Court is doing, which constantly decides how the first amendment correlates with the constitution. In particular, I specifically asked what kind of restrictions the freedom of speech has. They change all the time, all the time new phenomena appear. For example, the Internet is the Supreme Court in the process of clarifying relations between the first amendment with the Internet. So, you know, what is the main restriction? You cannot provoke a person, standing with him face to face.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Something about this I said.

Alexander Genis: You can tell anything, but you cannot provoke a person with aggressive words, because the words are equated with action. But here, of course, the problem, because what to call aggressive words. There is a curious reservation there: if you, for example, have provided your aggressive words with a disarming smile, then this is changing the situations. In short, it is very difficult. And how did Brodsky solve this problem? In the dispute of Profer and Brodsky, whose side are you on?

Alexei Tsvetkov: Naturally, if I am on the side of Brodsky, I will have to admit that Proffer, who is not right, defending unconditional freedom of speech, and I am wrong. But I did not change my views. Why did we all leave for America? To be honest, I did not think about welfare, although for me any step was a step upstairs. In Russia, I often had a difficult financial situation, sometimes there was no roof over my head, sometimes there was no food enough. All these problems completely disappeared. One of my first works was a janitor in the city of Jonkers, this is such a suburb of New York. For this I was supposed to be a tiny apartment, it was converted from some pantry, everything was there, and in my opinion, $ 400 of salary. I ate this money, dressed and managed to buy books. Then, of course, I have other requests, of course. But what struck me from the very beginning, that everything can be said, everything can be read. Since then, this is my main enthusiasm and a horse. I will not allow, more precisely-thank God, the founding fathers did not allow me to decide to anyone what thought is allowed to me and which is not allowed. Because a thought that is prohibited to say, prohibited thought. In the Soviet Union, we could think that we want, we only could not say it. No, I will decide for myself. I did not authorize anyone and the authors of the Constitution did not authorize anyone to decide which speech was allowed and which was not. In other states, however, other constitutions.

Alexander Genis: It is known that the American constitutional attitude to freedom of speech is the most unconditional in the world. In other countries, in Canada, in France, in many countries with ancient traditions of democracy are much more restrictions. But America is least inclined to limit freedom of speech in the world.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Yes, of course. That is, such things, for example, people go out with swastikas at the demonstration, they raised Nazi flags - this, of course, is an unpleasant thing. On the other hand, the organization is such as the American Union of Civil Freedom, the primordially left -wing organization, was founded in order to protect the protesters against participation in the First World War, mainly left -wing, socialists, but it becomes protecting the extreme right parties, including Nazis. And for this it receives reproaches from its own functionaries who oppose such protection.

Alexander Genis: But are you playing for?

Alexey Tsvetkov: I play for.

Alexander Genis: Why was Brodsky against?

Alexey Tsvetkov: In the end, this comes down to the fact that bad people cannot be given freedom because they will win us. I met this very often. I personally did not take such conversations with Brodsky, but I knew the Profer, and I knew Profer, and I completely trust him in this sense, it was such that many of our compatriots believed that there are things for which freedom of speech can be done.

Alexander Genis: That is, freedom of speech is not an absolute value?

Alexey Tsvetkov: Not that there are values more freedom of speech, but that there are values in whose favor it should be applied.

Alexander Genis: Alexei, I would like to know your opinion about Proferov’s memoirs in the context of other memories of Brodsky. We all knew Brodsky, we all read about Brodsky, we can all compare our impressions with the impressions of the Americans Profors. It seems to me that it is very important that they are Americans, not our compatriots. What do you say about this?

Alexey Tsvetkov: I don’t think I read the library, but I know, for example, “Talking with Brodsky” Solomon Volkov and Losev’s book, his biography. I must say that Losev is an academic scientist, but his book is completely not academic. Firstly, I want to say that I am very good about Brodsky, and I just adore Losev both as a poet and as a person.

Alexander Genis: We were all friends with Losev.

Alexey Tsvetkov: We were friends with Losev, so we know who we are talking about. Nevertheless, I open this book and literally on the third page I see: he reads me some notation, he tells me that you should understand from the very beginning, that we are talking about a brilliant poet. I closed this book, and did not open it anymore. I do not perceive such biographies from a kneeling pose. And Proffer writes about this in his memoirs, in notes. I would designate this genre as "the life of wonderful people." Already one word "wonderful" implies that we will not pay attention to their indecent sides. From the very beginning, it is necessary to warn that this is a good person. Now, of course, various nonsense have appeared, almost doctors Goebbels are released in this series. But in principle, the Russian biography genre is like this. We see in the paintings of medieval saints, and their biographers stand, kneeling with their hands with their hands.

Alexander Genis: That is, you want to say that ZhZL is a hagiography of a kind. And the books of Proferov in this context?

Alexei Tsvetkov: Professors relate to Brodsky simply as a person. Firstly, they are quite with love to him, they put it, which a lot of people do not understand, a lot of effort on him. Probably, people get the impression that he left and then he was met with orchestras, raised with flowers and carried. No, he fell into this unfortunate vein, like all of us, and there was completely disoriented, as, in fact, can be seen from the memoirs of Helland. Profors raised a lot of other people to his ears to immediately achieve his visa, so that he was interviewed.

Alexander Genis: So that he meets a dress - this is unusually important, he was the first poet of the English world.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Yes, and for Brodsky to receive the work of a professor at one of the best universities in America, in which I studied in graduate school, Michigansk. At the same time, he did not have secondary education, and in America they also do not take from the street. As a result, everything turned out. That is, these people have done a lot for him. Я их знал очень хорошо, видел каждый день, потому что я работал в этом издательстве. Они, собственно, и меня вытащили откуда-то из Сан-Франциско, благодаря им я поступил в аспирантуру в университете. Когда я там работал, мы много веселились, у нас были вечеринки, я очень полюбил этих людей. Я прекрасно понимаю их взгляды, они не могли относиться к Бродскому иначе, как просто к равному. Иногда заспоришь в том же "Фейсбуке" и натыкаешься на возмущенное: кто они такие по сравнению с ним. На самом деле они ого-го по сравнению с кем угодно. Эти люди вытащили со дна огромный пласт русской литературы, а не только Бродского, хотя бы Саша Соколов.

Александр Генис: Те сто прекрасных книг, которые напечатали Профферы, останутся в русской литературе. Я считаю, что им надо поставить памятник рядом с Красной площадью возле первопечатника Ивана Федорова.

Но вот еще одна цитата из той статьи, с которой мы начали наш разговор, с рецензии на Профферов:

"Теперь можно предположить, что же, собственно, задело Бродского в этих мемуарах: впервые в жизни он увидел себя со стороны взглядом равного человека, – и то, что он увидел в этом зеркале, оказалось для него нестерпимо: вместо западного интеллектуала, каким он мнил себя в своём воображении, он увидел себя абсолютно советским человеком (то есть анти-советским, что одно и то же – ибо принципы мышления одинаковы). Это шло полностью вразрез с мемориальной стратегией самого Бродского, в результате чего поэт и совершил такой странный и недальновидный шаг, как попытка запрета публикации мемуаров Проффера".

Ваши комментарии?

Алексей Цветков: В России Бродский еще до того, как он стал лауреатом Нобелевской премии (по крайней мере, в том кругу, который о нем знал), был культовой фигурой. Когда он встретился с Профферами, которые к нему так не относились, может быть к нему так не относились и другие, я не знаю, у него было много друзей, он приобрел много друзей в американской литературе, которым было любопытно с ним общаться. Но эти люди не писали о нем мемуаров, а у Профферов был профессиональный интерес, они, собственно говоря, любили русскую литературу, но они могли писать только так, как они ее видели, у них не было этой позы, о которой я сказал. Естественно, Бродский, как любой из нас, собственно, оказавшись за границей, был сильно дезориентирован, а потом все стало складываться к благополучию его, вот и премия, поэт-лауреат Соединенных Штатов, известные друзья, которые дорожили этим знакомством. Но были и эти люди, Профферы, которые видели его в неудобном для него положении может быть. С любым из нас в жизни случается такая вещь, никто из нас не совершенен, Бродский не совершенен, я не совершенен, вы не совершенны. Я не понимаю, как можно было пригрозить судом человеку, который для тебя столько сделал. Если бы это были какие-то письма, вроде истории известной с довлатовскими письмами, тогда понятен рычаг юридический, каким можно за это зацепиться. Но не позволить человеку, угрожать судом за то, что он напишет то, что он думает... Причем ничего злого он там о нем не написал.

Александр Генис: Алексей, у каждого русского поэта есть свое отношение к Бродскому. Когда мы живем рядом с гением, то с ним надо либо спорить... Например, Вера Павлова, я ее однажды спросил, как она относится к Бродскому, она говорит: "Разные профессии у нас". Она ответила примерно так же, как Бродский ответил про Евтушенко. "Бродский, – сказал Вера, – писал длинные стихи, а я короткие – и это принципиальная разница". Что, между прочим, остроумно и довольно верно. Важно, что с Бродским можно либо спорить, либо ему подчиниться, что делают многочисленные эпигоны Бродского. А как решили этот вопрос вы?

Алексей Цветков: Во-первых, Вера тогда должна еще сильнее упрекнуть Пушкина, то есть он уж совсем другой профессии.

Впервые его стихи я услышал еще в Москве на его выступлении, по-моему, в МЭИ, они меня впечатлили, но не поразили. Поразила меня его первая публикация в "Континенте" и потом, когда я уже попал в "Ардис", мне дали два сборника, которые там вышли: "Часть речи" и "Конец прекрасной эпохи" – вот это меня поразило по-настоящему. С молодости у меня была не такая уж дурная привычка: я приходил в экстаз всегда, когда видел стихи, которые мне очень нравились. Я помню свое впечатление от Бродского, оно было очень ярким. Но я к тому времени уже взял у тех, у кого я собирался брать, все, что мне было нужно.

Александр Генис: У Заболоцкого, например.

Алексей Цветков: Например, у Заболоцкого, у Мандельштама, даже у Пастернака, к которому я сейчас гораздо прохладнее отношусь. Это был совершенно другой багаж. Поэтому я Бродскому не подчиняюсь. Я сейчас не отношусь с таким энтузиазмом к стихам Бродского, сколько времени прошло, у нас меняются вкусы, и не он один. Дело в том, что мы с ним очень разные, мы с ним антиподы. Он холодный и кажется мне с годами еще охладевающим. А я человек другой: могу и рубашку порвать.

Александр Генис: Ну и что же все-таки попало в ваши стихи от Бродского?

Алексей Цветков: Вот:

* * *

я провел вместо бродского семь лет в вольере

носил вериги но оступился в вере

семенил в колесе семья-работа

рвался к финишной положив на старость

по капле выдавливал из себя идиота

exegi monumentum чему осталось

на ничьей полосе половинкой в сумрак

цикл посущественней чем смена суток

вкусил экскурсантом на сан-микеле

дружбы в граните с кем не смог в теле

скоро буду рад и такой встрече

разница слаба эпигон или гений

где от нас остается часть речи

но уже никакое из местоимений

возложил к подножию сто лир и muratti

память праху о предстоящем брате

слева в сумраке совсем как покойник

стартовал с ямба пересел на дольник

различаю на слух где чехи где словаки

был у китса в риме у лесьмяна в польше

здесь верны только женщины и собаки

я любил обеих но кошек больше

у кого над островом крыша в звездах

врос загробно в адриатический воздух

после бродского как и после бога

остается воздух и это много