"From the blocks"

Solzhenitsyn in disputes about Russia and the intelligentsia. New release "Alphabet of dissent"

Ivan Tolstoy: The famous collection was published in Paris at the Imka Press publishing house in 1974.

Andrei Gavrilov: This is a collection that I first heard from the programs of Western radio, then he fell into my hands in the form of a book, I still remember a dark green half-soft cover. This is a collection of articles that, as it seemed, continued the line of the collections of “milestones” and “from the depths”, de Profundis. I did not know that before the “milestone” there was still a collection of “problems of idealism”, the almanac of articles on the problems of the intelligentsia, the future of Russia. This is a collection in which the rather famous people at that time took part - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Igor Shafarevich and others. It was still far from the moment when the paths of the dissidents would be dispersed in different directions, and Shafarevich was perceived by me as a person from the same stream to which, for example, Andrei Sinyavsky belonged. Now I am talking about this with horror, because for me there are no two more different people who went opposite ways, but at that time I believed that there is a common stream of people who are fighting against the Soviet government with their books, articles, thoughts. I read the whole collection, I did not understand everything, many aesthetic and ethical research, the religious considerations of the authors were alien and incomprehensible to me. I was struck by the article "Education" Solzhenitsyn and the article "Russian Fate" by F. Korsakov. This is the most human article in this collection, which talked about the spiritual path of the author, and not just about what path Russia should choose. This is how I took this collection in 1975–76.

Ivan Tolstoy: Yes, you met him early. He fell into his hands very late, but partly the articles from him, excerpts, the statements began to come quite early, but I did not unite them together and did not understand what the collection was dedicated in general. And as I read, I began to invent what the name of this collection could have the predecessors. The fact that the collection “from the depths” existed, which was published in 1918 by a microscopic circulation and practically did not spread in those years (its authors were mostly exterminated culturally, they fell into emigration and the collection was reprinted only in 1967 in Paris by the Imka Press Publishing House), I did not know by age. But Solzhenitsyn, of course, knew. If he did not fall into his hands of the 1918 collection, then in his reissue of 1967 (the circulation was large, and the book penetrated the Soviet Union), of course, he came to him, and therefore the name "from the blocks" echoes the name "from the depths". It even seemed to me that the two lines of Akhmatova could inspire Solzhenitsyn this title.

From under which ruins I say,

From under which I scream the collapse!

How to ease the grief

Under the arches of the fetid basement.

I will pretend to be silent in winter

And the eternal forever shut the door,

And yet they will recognize my voice,

And yet he will be believed again.

These are lines from her famous poem "The Inscription on the Book", Leningrad, 1959.

It seems to me that the thought of this poem is echoing with that moral, worldview conviction of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that they will still recognize his voice and still believe him. But the point is not a roll call of the names, not where this collection came from, but in what idea is contained in the articles. His ideas here, of course, are different, there is an article by Melik Agursky “Modern Social and Economic Systems and their Prospects”, and Igor Shafarevich, whom you mentioned, is “Solvent, and Solzhenitsyn’s article“ Reporting and Self-restraint as a category of national life ”, and Mikhail Polivanov’s article“ The direction of the change ”, and the Korsakov you did (for this. Felix Svetov disappeared by the pseudonym)-“Russian fates”, and the article by Evgeny Babanov “The split of the Church and the World”, and Vadim Borisov is “National Renaissance and Personal Nation”, and once again Shafarevich-“Does Russia have a future?” And the most famous article of the collection is Solzhenitsyn's article "Education".

Participants in the collection "from the blocks". Photos from the first edition, 1974

What is this book, how should it be understood as a whole? Soon after Alexander Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the USSR, this book was sent to print, and in November 1974, nine months after its exile, it was published. Alexander Isaevich arranged a press conference in Zurich on November 11, 1974, having guided and conspired with his friends and colleagues, who for the most part remained in Moscow, that there would be two press conferences-one will be held in Moscow, in a private way two days before, and the next two days in Zurich, open, for correspondents of the whole world, with broadcasting. On the waves of Radio Liberty, a direct broadcast was arranged, and this program was preserved in the text. Solzhenitsyn talks about the appointment of this collection, and the main idea that he conducts at a press conference is the one that fights in the modern world is not a world against war, but two other categories-the world is not opposed by a military threat, but a threat of immorality, and, translating the discussion of modern worldview problems from the political and moral plane, Solzhenitsyn raises the conversation to a completely new level, and Solzhenitsyn. To the level where it is very difficult for people to agree among themselves.

Here you, Andrei, characterizing the collection, were not accidentally said that it is difficult for you to agree with many in this collection both then and now. It seems to me that this was due precisely with the fact that Solzhenitsyn proposed to transfer the conversation into an ethical angle, where how many people, so many opinions. Can you say what thoughts of this collection seem to you both relevant and interesting, and deserving today's discussion? What is alive in the collection "from the blocks", in your opinion?

Andrei Gavrilov: Firstly, when some moral and ethical problems rise, they are very rarely dying, and many of the problems that seemed or were relevant in 1974 remain relevant now. It is quite difficult for humanity to understand moral and ethical problems once and for all. For example, I remember how I was struck by the polemic with Chaadaev, whom by that time I already had the happiness to read, whose views were extremely close to me, and suddenly people with respected names are pounced on him, since his views are unacceptable for them. At that time I did not have such a moral and ethical baggage that would allow me to figure out all this, I had to get through the jungle of correspondence discussions of people whose intellectual luggage was much higher than mine. The problems remained. Here you open at random: "We are all the time from the White Leaf, we invent bicycles, indifference and disrespect for our own wealth - not evidence of the latitude of nature, but unforgivable ignorance, and there is no more strength, he will have enough to be touched." Or: “Not knowing anything about culture, we with the Khlestakovsky ease dissecting its living body, swear by the names of Rublev, Pushkin, Dostoevsky and Blok, while denying the Holy Sergius of Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarov, Optina Elders and Father Pavel Florensky, without which the creature of the true genius of their contemporaries is fully impossible.”

Almost any message of this collection may be a reason for discussions, controversy of today's day

Almost any message of this collection may be a reason for discussions, controversy of today. When I now re -read this collection, I was struck by one thing that could not hit then. The article Solzhenitsyn "Education" traces the idea of the need to repent the people, nation. At that time, it was read as another dissident text, the depth of the need for repentance was not always clear and not always felt, despite the fact that Solzhenitsyn could, quite possible, in order for his texts to be clearer, to bring West Germany as an example, which was repented for what was happening during the Second World War. So, ten years passed after the collection “From under the blocks”, the film “Repentance” was shot, where the same idea, the idea of repenting the people, the country, and each individual person is traced. Only now, in 2018, re-reading the collection “from the blocks”, I compared these two events-the great film by Abuladze, who turned the consciousness of so many people in our country, and the wonderful article by Solzhenitsyn, which prepared so many so that the idea of repentance is not completely alien. I have never seen anywhere in the comparison of these two works - "education". Solzhenitsyna and “repentance” of Abuladze, and suddenly I thought that I, perhaps, was the first to compare it.

Ivan Tolstoy: Yes, the article "Education" seems immortal to me, there are a lot of copies broken around it, it contains a charge of such criticism, such an accusation, such directly protopop-Avvakumov's indignation, that people who considered themselves this article who attributed themselves to the heroes of this article, albeit negative, had to undoubtedly be offended and remembered by Alexander Isaevich. And it was from this article that the allegations of the accusation, his rejection, ended, which ended with the name of his "Orthodox Ayatollah." I am not going to judge these nicknames, I'm about what is in the core of his article. What is an “education” and why could someone be dissatisfied with it? Solzhenitsyn contrasts the education - intelligentsia. Education is not an intelligentsia. And what is the intelligentsia, from his point of view? This is a very interesting historiosophical issue that cannot be resolved in the program, because it is necessary to approach this with large quotes, to weigh, show who judges, but the essence of historical - and Solzhenitsyn in this case is right - this is what is reduced to this. The intelligentsia is not at all equal to the cultural layer, in Russia the intelligentsia is not the category of people who multiplied and strengthened culture, was engaged in creative affairs and what was subsequently understood, especially after the revolution, as the cultural work of white collar or creators of the beautiful.

The intelligentsia is a special term (who came from Peter Boborykin), which denoted the active part of society, roughly speaking, revolutionaries or social activists. Intellectuals are those who challenged the injustices of royal life. The intelligentsia was a ranging, noble, and aristocratic, and peasant, these were people united by public burning, it was an active part of a society that fought for justice, defending not its career, skip interests and did not strive for the heights of culture, it strove for justice and not for itself, for society, for everyone, for the people.

In order to be an intelligent, it was not even necessary to even know the alphabet (although this is impossible simply, but theoretically the intellectual could not know the alphabet, because conscience has nothing to do with education). This part of society before the revolution was not cultural and not religious. There was almost no religious intelligentsia, before the revolution, at least - as the authors of the famous collection of Milestones thought. Solzhenitsyn says that the intelligentsia, which grew after the arrival of the Soviet regime, is an intelligentsia, which inflated the spirit of freedom, justice, the desire to establish a fair, equal to all society, there is almost no such intelligentsia.

Solzhenitsyn says that the intelligentsia, which grew after the arrival of the Soviet regime, was eliminated by the spirit of freedom

What is there? Indeed, on every corner they speak under the Soviet government about the existence of the intelligentsia. No, the intelligentsia has turned into an education, these are carriers of culture, knowledge or creative potential, but they are not an intelligentsia. And since the Soviet intelligentsia values this self -name, then for it it was an insult, an offensive nickname - that they say, not intellectuals, but educators. But here it was simply necessary to understand the historical roots of this term. The contributions arose, as often happens, due to terminological confusion. An intelligent person wants to be an intellectual, he wants to be called that. If he does not raise the rise and does not enter into civil battles for justice, then from the point of view of Solzhenitsyn - he dies as an intellectual, from the point of view of his own - he remains an intellectual. This was a stumbling block of this article, and since the situation in today's Russian society is largely reminiscent of the one that was forty -five years ago during the release of this collection, I boldly call this article immortal, and every curious person should read it in order to argue, and maybe agree with its arguments.

Andrei Gavrilov: This is very echoing with the point of view of Alexander Zinoviev, whom we discussed in the previous issue of the "alphabet of dissent", since it may not be so sharp, but an ironic or sarcastic attitude to the intelligentsia is very echoing with Solzhenitsyn's point of view. And Solzhenitsyn emphasized this position more than once, and “living not by lies” - these are arrows or stone in the garden of those who called themselves intelligentsia in Soviet times.

Ivan Tolstoy: Andrey, is there some kind of musical expression of this topic? Can you decorate or switch attention with something, but stay within the framework of the topic under discussion?

Andrei Gavrilov: I really want to take the name "from the blocks", recall the beginning of the 1970s, see what kind of music sprouts made out of the blocks, but this is the topic of serious musical and sociological research. I went on a different path, I called Zoe Feliksovna Light, the daughter of that very F. Korsakov, and asked: if we talk about him and about music, what thoughts immediately come to mind, that the first? And Zoya Feliksovna answered me that one of the favorite works of Felix Svetov (F. Korsakova) was the song of Bulat Shalvovich Okudzhava "Pirate lyric". And this is interesting. We can say that the work of Okudzhava, like other bards, these are the sprouts of something human in music, in the song, which found a response in the souls of many people, which made it from under the blocks of official Soviet musical propaganda.

(Song)

Ivan Tolstoy: One could safely call Bulat Okudzhav not an educator, but a true intellectual, especially when you are convinced of such the most important philosophical, artistic and ethical rollings that you hear in the lyrics of his songs.

Andrei Gavrilov: Probably the last thing that could have occurred to me with the word "education" is the surname of Bulat Okudzhava. For me, he has always been an example of intelligence and intelligentsia.