"I just don't like geniuses"

Naum Korzhavin in "Alphabet of dissent"

Ivan Tolstoy: It cannot be said that Naum Korzhavin was some particularly prominent human rights activist that he was a dissident, that he was an activist in the civilian sense, but of human rights, dissident and activism in the Soviet Union, of course, in the form in which all this happened if not Naum Korzhavin and his literature. What for you, Andrey, Korzhavin, and when did you meet this figure?

Andrei Gavrilov: I met this figure, as with the poet, quite early. I remember very well that I read his poems in some completely innocent reprint simply because it was impossible to get his book, but for a long time he became my favorite poet. Moreover, not the verses that now quote, which compose songs, namely the love lyrics of Korzhavin, which simply struck me. I dreamed of getting his collection. He had one collection, if I am not mistaken, was released in Soviet times, in 1963, under the name "Years". By the time I began to be interested in books and began to visit the Bukinistic stores, a lot of time has already passed, because of some facts of Korzhavin’s biography, his books were already withdrawn, it was completely impossible to get the book. I was fantastically lucky. I once managed to see how the merchant of one Bukinistic store puts aside the book “Years”, I grabbed it and ran to the box office to pay these thirty or fifty cents, not letting it out of my hands. In short, Korzhavin was for me for a long time, first of all, a brilliant, wonderful poet. And much later, I met his publicist, articles, notes, interviews. This already came later - through Tamizdat, "continent", "enemy voices". And my interest in them was caused primarily because it was an interview, articles and publications of my beloved poet.

Ivan Tolstoy: I have to say that the name of Korzhavin is very later for me, I did not know who it was and did not read it. You came across his journalist, I - absolutely no, you came across a collection of his poems, I have never come across, and in my environment no one held this book in my hands. Otherwise, it would somehow reach, after all, people say, and children's ears catch everything that is worn in the air. But I myself knew two lines of Korzhavin, and I heard a few more lines, but they were not attached to this name. I knew from an early age, from twelve years, two lines:

What bitch woke Lenin?

To whom it interfered that the child is sleeping?

I heard others, I repeat, anonymously:

And horses - everyone jumps and jump.

And the huts are burning and burning.

Poems were disappointed with their straightforces

And every student was clear what was meant. That's more, nothing more with Korzhavin was connected with me. As the emigrant books and Western magazines read, it became clear what kind of figure, which was partly more interesting for me, and partly some disappointment came. Because these lines, especially “which bitch woke Lenin?”, Which sounded terribly whilly and journalistic, turned out to be, perhaps, its brightest lines, not without reason they quoted them. And on the other hand, they disappointed with their straightening. Maybe this is my disaster - dislike of journalistic poetry, as well as in general to a straightforces in art. That is, until a certain age, in a certain state, in a certain civilian perspective, you are interested in directness, whipeness and rigidity, you are interested in evil. This is the need, maybe age, your social status, resentment in your own biography. Evil is interesting because they do not fake, do not offer you pink glasses, throw an iron verse in the face of power and tyrants.

But after you get acquainted with other ways of self -expression, self -reservation, you understand that there are soft forms. If you choose between Avtokhanov and Evgenia Ginzburg, I always preferred Eugene Ginzburg. If you choose between Shalamov and Solzhenitsyn, I chose Solzhenitsyn. Although after he learned about the recall of Varlam Shalamov about Solzhenitsyn (as a "lacquer of Soviet reality"), it became funny and my sympathy was partially transferred to Varlam Tikhonovich too.

Nevertheless, the softness of the position was very attracted, it was attracted not by a straightforwardness, but by imagery. The images of Korzhavin seemed to me too straight, and sometimes primitive. Was it, Andrey, you have some doubt here in the gift of Naum Moiseevich?

Andrey Gavrilov: In no case. Because it was precisely these lines that some kind of “bitch woke Lenin”, and regarding the fate of a Russian woman, who “horses-everyone jumps and jump”, for me were never most interesting or most important in the work of Korzhavin, in his poetic work. Now we will not talk about journalism. Because, as I said, I was struck by his soft lyrics, his honest love lyrics, some images. How can you convey the physical sensation of the body of a loved one in verses, while remaining in absolutely chaste frames? For me, this was talent, what attracted me first of all.

I was struck by his soft lyrics, his honest love lyrics

Yes, regarding the fact that “you can’t wake anyone in Russia,” you probably are right, these lines also came across to me, obviously, first of all, they were in hearing, it was like a litmus -piece piece of paper. You understood what we were talking about or not; You knew who it was or not; You are generally in this circle or you will stagger in horror from these lines. There were many such litmus pieces of paper: it was quotes from the Strugatsky, it was Okudzhava phrases. All of anything, until the "gulag" appeared, where there was no longer up to lakmus papers, where everything had to be said directly. By the way, in this case, the "gulag" is more harsh and therefore a little less interesting for me than the prose of Shalamov.

You see, we evaluate the same thing in different ways. Korzhavin had few poetry collections. The 1963 collection, which was called the "Years", published in Moscow, then, if I am not mistaken, in his entire life two or three collections were published abroad - "times", "plexus", and almost all. All the rest of his poetry was published, for example, in the Continent. And in order to read Korzhavin’s poems, it was necessary to pick up the “continent”, which was not very easy, it was not easy to find it, it was not easy to find it from people who inspired confidence, and at the same time you read everything that was right there, to the left, to, after. In short, I perceived Korzhavin’s poems in the general context of this magazine, if it was a “continent”.

And then they brought me, knowing my interest, the number of the "continent" with the Holdka article Korzhavin, dedicated, in particular, Ernesto Che Guevara. And here I had an absolute revelation, because I, educated by Soviet propaganda, in childhood, especially, I perceived some things as a given that is not discussed. For example, Dneproges is the victory of our industry. It could not have occurred to me that we still need to ask ecologists. Or the channel "Moscow - Volga" is what makes Moscow a port of five seas. And still, that at the same time they flooded cities and villages. It was even outside the imagination. And for me there was an Ernesto Che Guevara, about whom I knew that he might not have been right, but he was an honest, pure revolutionary, who put his life for those beliefs that, perhaps, I did not share, but, nevertheless, he followed them all his life. And so this article of Korzhavin falls into my hands, which describes the appearance of Che Guevara and his fighters from the point of view of that Latin American peasant, who was forced to feed, drink, give them money, support them for the very mythical idea of universal happiness through the armed proletarian revolution. And for the first time I read this article, I suddenly realized that here I was deceived and by any hero, the Savior of mankind, Don Quixote had never been to Che Guevar. That is why I then appreciated the journalism of Korzhavin after that. Being not in everything with him, I always read it carefully. And then, of course, this famous story is a scandal related to Brodsky, an article by Korzhavin, dedicated to Brodsky, and everything that was around this. This also attracted attention.

There was never any hero, the Savior of Humanity, Don Quixote,

Ivan Tolstoy: I must say at least a few words about his biography. Naum Korzhavin, nee Mandel, was born in 1925 in Kyiv. His grandfather was a tsadik, and his father was a bindingman. Mother worked as a dentist. He studied at Ukrainian secondary school. He did not fight due to extreme myopia (in the later years he was almost blind). In 1945 he entered the Moscow Literary Institute, and in 1947 he was arrested. In particular, he was charged with poems written back in 1944, these are the same:

We can string the lines
More complicated, simpler,
But no one will call us
To Senate Square.

And what views you
They tried to spill out
General Miloradovich
He does not recognize Kakhovsky.

Let the little things be bits you
More often the most frequent,
But they will not pry
The names of the accomplices.

We will not be crowned ...
And in wagons, snow,
Real women
They will not go after us.

What an interesting roll call, is it not true, with the verses of Galich, with the "Petersburg romance"? Did Alexander Arkadievich know the poems of Korzhavin about Senate Square, did he not from here when he wrote his romance?

A collection of poems released by "Sowing" in Frankfurt-on-Maine, 1981

Andrei Gavrilov: I don’t know if I never thought about whether Korzhavin Galich was familiar. I think that they were, because it is more or less than one circle, but I do not hear any evidence.

Ivan Tolstoy: For about seven years, Korzhavin spent in exile, but he was able to finish the Mountain College. After rehabilitation, he was published in Moscow magazines, released the only book of poems in 1963, and defended Sinyavsky, Daniel, Ginzburg and Galanskov. Emigration in 1973. Korzhavin settled in Boston, repeatedly performed in the programs of Radio Liberty with verses and journalism. Since the late 80s, he came to Russia several times, in Moscow his two-volume memoirs "in the temptations of the bloody era" came out. The two -volume ends chronologically in 1957, Hungary and the consequences of Hungarian events.

It seems to me that Korzhavin does not exist outside some funny, anecdotal, absurd stories about himself. I remember what they once told, I don’t remember who belongs to the authorship of this story about how the speeds differ when you get abroad, into emigration, what is the movement of time in Russia. Naum Korzhavin went to exile. Okudzhava came to say goodbye to him. He climbed the elevator to him, but the elevator stuck between the floors. Okudzhava sits in the elevator, Korzhavin does not know where Bulat Shalvovich Bulat. It turns out, by a sense that Okudzhava is in the elevator. Korzhavin needs to be on the aircraft, the time is running out, a taxi below. He says goodbye to Okudzhava through the elevator shaft, not seeing each other, sends his mental embrace, receives oncoming farewell from him and flies to America. The plane lands in America (he probably stayed somewhere in Italy, but by joke-reaches America). Korzhavin calls his friends that he flew to Boston. "How is Okudzhava?" - "Okudzhava is sitting in the elevator," they answer him from Russia. Nothing is changing, everything is still, in Russia it is necessary to live for a long time, as you know.

Another joke about Korzhavin. This is Sergey Dovlatov, his book "Branch", semi-inventive-semi-recealist memories of one of the emigrant Slavic congresses.

"On the eve of one literary conference, I was warned:

- The main thing, do not offend Korzhavin.

- Why should I offend him?

- Because Korzhavin will offend you himself. And you, God forbid, are flapping and offend him. Do not do this.

- Why will Korzhavin offend me?

- Because Korzhavin offends everyone. You are no exception. Therefore, do not respond. Korzhavin is terribly vulnerable.

- I'm also vulnerable.

- Korzhavin - especially. Do not offend him ...

The conference began. Korzhavin's performance lasted four minutes. The first phrase, Korzhavin offended all American Slavists. He said:

- I am not writing for the Slavists. I write for normal people ...

Then Korzhavin offended the whole city of Leningrad, saying:

- Brodsky is a talented poet, albeit a Leningrader ...

Then he uttered a few crooks to Tsvetkov, Limonov and Sinyavsky. Well, of course, he touched me. I do not want to remember exactly how. In general, it turned out that I was a river and a plot. Well, Voinovich stood up. Voinovich said:

- Let Emka apologize. Just let him apologize as it should. And then I know Emu. Ema apologizes like this: "Sorry, of course, but you are shit."

Here are the biography of Naum Korzhavin, whom friends called Ema, is full of such anecdotal stories.

Andrei Gavrilov: It seems to me that since we mentioned this, the very time has come to tell a little about the problem of Korzhavin - Brodsky and why this caused such a lively response at one time, as it is customary to say, “the reading public”, so, is more likely from an unreadable public. Again, from the point of view of Korzhavin.

Memories of Naum Korzhavin, Tominar. Moscow, Zakharov, 2007

Ivan Tolstoy: You mean the article by Naum Moiseevich “Genesis” of the style of advanced genius, as Korzhavin called it. This article is interesting, but leaving a very dual sensation. On the one hand, Korzhavin wittily noted Brodsky’s behavior, and not only Brodsky, with his installation on the undoubted genius, inherent in all underground activities of all underground, “second literature”, and the second literature. In general, those people who could not go out and fight the Hamburg account with those who pursued them and, on the other hand, the advantage when you do not need to go out to some artificial ristor and measure with swords, because you are absolutely convinced of your rightness, for the writer, for the composer, for the composer, for what you are sure and convinced, to defend his own, to defend his own. The truth in the face of the first secretary of the Union of Writers, but on the other hand, the fragmentation and absence of a clear, articulated Hamburg account leads to the fact that "well, old man, you are a genius!" then geniuses, of course, do not exist.

Nevertheless, Brodsky was distinguished by the fact that almost everyone was considered a genius, envied, but also revered. Brodsky’s genius is absolutely undeniable for me, and the position of Naum Korzhavin, in this article denying Brodsky’s genius, is a little ridiculous. It is witty, sometimes producing, but basically, in my opinion, the article is aimed at the cult of Brodsky, and not at himself. Very often, the audience annoys us. How many annoy the novel “Master and Margarita” not because this is a bad romance, but because those people who understand nothing in literature, and transfer this irritation to the brilliant work of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov. Here it is a little to see me and is suspected in the event of a conflict of Korzhavin and Brodsky. Korzhavin, in my opinion, is more hated by the cult. He is a poet himself, and when another poet, and even younger by age, is extolled for those merits that, from the point of view of Korzhavin, he doesn’t have (simply sits and writes casual, from the point of view of Korzhavin, poems, writes in poem, which Naum Moiseevich is not like and alien ...) and now he will declare a genius, and everything that is no longer stirred up. brilliant in advance. Therefore, "leading genius," says Korzhavin.

In my opinion, this is deeply unfair. And the nature of this is that they have not only different temperaments, but also different aesthetics. Korzhavin, as I have already said, a person with poetics and aesthetics of a straightening, here his aesthetics passes into ethics, because art, they say, should serve as good and eternity, as Naum Moiseevich believed, which means that there is to grimace and hide behind some complex images, complex metaphors, we must speak all directly. Say, love poems:

Ancient song.

She is a thousand years old:

He loves her

And she is not.

Is it possible to imagine Brodsky writing such verses in a terrible dream? I think it is impossible.

Andrey Gavrilov: Can I kill you? "The blind goes through the square ..." - the absolute roll call in clarity and even in the poetry of these lines. Another thing is that in Brodsky this remained far in the past, at the beginning of his creative career, in his youngest verses, the earliest, which he did not seek to especially publish later. And Korzhavin adhered to such a poetic worldview constantly, until the end of his days. But you can imagine such lines.

Ivan Tolstoy: Okay, imagine.

Andrei Gavrilov: Here, it seems to me, it should also be noted such a detail that they have a very similar biography. Each sat down on poems, one under Stalin, the other later - under Khrushchev. Sorry, did not sit down, thank God, was exiled, expelled from his city. Then each of them was in exile, and everyone is not of their own free will.

Memories of Korzhavin, Tomskoye. Moscow, Zakharov, 2007

I do not quite agree with the point of view that Korzhavin was led by some offense or annoyance. It seems to me that the whole noise around this scandal is somewhat exaggerated. Я бы сказал, что те люди, которые объявляли Бродского гением, не очень его читая, это те же люди, которые набросились на Коржавина. По большому счету вы правильно отметили, что статья Коржавина, при всей критике, которая там содержится в адрес Бродского, направлена не против Бродского-человека, это надо сразу подчеркнуть, там не выражено никаких сомнений в том, что Бродский – порядочный человек. Может быть, сомнения в том, как он себя подает, но это уже относится к творческой стороне его натуры. Но нигде не написано, что он негодяй, предатель или изменник. Потому что не все наши слушатели читали эту статью.

Там идет спор именно двух поэтов. Когда я недавно перечитывал эту статью, я вспомнил, что Лев Николаевич Толстой не любил Шекспира. И единственная реакция – ну и что? Коржавину не нравятся стихи Бродского. So what? Возможно (кстати, я не встречал обратной точки зрения), Бродскому не нравятся стихи Коржавина. So what? Два поэта могут придерживаться разных точек зрения на творчества, на поэзию. So what? Неужели всем так нравится, когда все поют хором?

Другое дело, что те, кого Коржавин, со свойственной ему прямотой и резкостью, практически изничтожил, то есть хор поклонников, такой греческий хор, который стоит вокруг Бродского и поет ему постоянную осанну, они, конечно, почувствовали себя оскорблёнными. Кстати, нужно сказать, что когда в одном из интервью, говоря об этой истории, Коржавина спросили, неужели ему все не нравится у Бродского, он вдруг ответил, что ничего подобного, есть потрясающие стихи у Бродского. "Ты забыла деревню, затерянную в болотах…" – привел он в качестве одного из примеров.

По-моему, весь смысл статьи выражен одной фразой Коржавина: "Я гениев только не люблю". Это то, с чего вы начали, он не любит, когда начинают разбрасываться этими ярлыками. Я об этом заговорил и предложил вам вспомнить эту историю только потому, что она до сих пор еще жива в общественном сознании, но, с моей точки зрения, она уже давно принадлежит истории литературы, не больше.

Иван Толстой: Андрей, мне кажется, что мы с вами немножко ушли в сторону и забыли самое главное. Наша программа называется "Алфавит инакомыслия", и вот об инакомыслии Коржавина мы, по-моему, не очень отчетливо сказали. Я хотел бы вот что произнести. В чем такое послевкусие после чтения стихов и публицистики Наума Моисеевича? Мне кажется, это послевкусие выражается в том заряде энергии, которую ты получаешь. Огромная вовлеченность Коржавина, которую справедливо назвать гражданственностью. После чтения Коржавина невозможно просто вяло отложить книгу, зевнуть и пойти чаю попить. Нет, он будит сознание, глаза горят после этого, мозг чешется. У него явно выраженная, благодаря этой энергии и гражданственности, позиция интеллигента. А настоящий интеллигент, верный морали, принципам своим, это и есть инакомыслящий в советских условиях. Если ты преследуешь и соблюдаешь свои моральные принципы, ты уже инакомыслящий. I'm wrong?

Андрей Гаврилов: Вы абсолютно правы, и хочу напомнить, что когда мы с вами были у Наума Коржавина дома, в Бостоне, он уже не очень хорошо себя чувствовал, он был практически слеп, но энергия, которая из него начинала фонтанировать, когда речь шла о близких ему материях, была просто поразительной. Человек, которой не мог просто взять и успокоиться, о чем бы речь ни шла. И вот эта его энергия, конечно, передавалась и нам с вами, как слушателям в тот момент, но и читателям, конечно, тоже.

Иван Толстой: Я хочу сказать еще несколько слов о последнем этапе жизни Наума Моисеевича. Он выпустил очень известный свой двухтомник воспоминаний "В соблазнах кровавой эпохи", большой том поэм и стихотворений "Начальник творчества". Коржавин получил два специальных приза: специальный приз "За вклад в литературу" премии "Большая книга" в 2006 году и Национальную премию "Поэт" в 2016-м. В России, по-моему, это высшая заслуга. Скончался Наум Моисеевич в доме у своей дочери в Северной Каролине в 2018 году.

Неужели наша программа обойдется без музыки сегодня?

Андрей Гаврилов: На стихи Коржавина написано немало песен, уж тем более относительно того, надо было будить Ленина или нет, но, честно говоря, мне представляется, что это тот случай, когда песни не соответствуют по уровню стихам Наума Коржавина. Я не помню особенно удачных примеров. Поэтому в качестве музыки я сегодня предлагаю послушать песню, посвященную Коржавину. Вероника Долина в своем альбоме "Любая любовь" записала песню, которая называется "К Коржавину". Все песни этого альбома начинаются с предлога "к", то есть это любовь к кому-то. И вот эта песня – объяснение в любви к Науму Коржавину.

(Song)