Alexander Nikolaevich Arkhangelsky: interview. Timur Kibirov, warrior cats and an open relationship with literature

“Pravmir” begins publishing a series of lectures from a series of meetings in memory of the director of the Library of Foreign LiteratureEkaterina Yurievna Genieva . Opens this cyclelecture by Alexander Arkhangelsky, read in the main hall of the Library of Foreign Literature on December 13.

Prophecy« Dunno on the Moon», « cockroach» And« Old Man Hottabych»

I’m somewhat embarrassed, because it’s one thing when a person who has been involved in the world since infancy talks about the books that shaped him. great culture what Katya Genieva was like. It’s a completely different matter when a person from the most ordinary family, not connected with the life of the culture by birthright, talks about it. Here, either, one must be disingenuous by listing those books that should shape a person - that is, tell not about oneself. Or tell it like it is, but then it will turn out strange...

I honestly tried, like a bore, to analyze. It's not about “I'm good or bad.” This is about how the era that befell me passed through me, as I am, through the circle to which I belong. It is clear that different people of my generation will have different stories. But in some ways they will coincide.

I spoke about what kind of books should shape a person in the form of a school textbook on literature from 5th to 9th grade, which we did together with Tatyana Smirnova over the past 7 years. It has just been published in an edition of ten copies - for examination, since we do not yet know whether it will go to school. Everything is correct there, there are those books that should form a personality.

But “should” and “formed” are not the same thing. My reading life turned out to be a wild mixture; I myself was horrified when I began to remember. I wonder why this is so, what books actually shape reality, what bridges can be built from strange and incomprehensible books to those you can’t live without, how it all fits together.

I will now read from the school textbook Marina Ivanovna Tsvetaeva’s poem “Books in Red Bound”:

From the paradise of childhood life
You send me farewell greetings,
Friends who haven't changed
Bound in worn red.

A little easy lesson learned,
I used to run to you immediately,
- It's too late! - Mom, ten lines!..
But, fortunately, mom forgot.

And then Mark Twain, this is heaven, because young Tsvetaeva has already faced betrayal. Gold versus darkness. If anyone has seen these books in red binding - they are exactly like that, these are the famous books of Markus Wolf, a series of thick red books with a golden edge, golden initial letters on the cover - and this heavenly gold remains in Tsvetaeva’s memory.

Where does my reading childhood begin, my “red-bound books”? A good, worthy start. The first two books that I remember are “Fairy Tales” by Pushkin and “Poems” by Pushkin. Detgiz editions are both wonderful. One without notes, and the second with small essays about each poem.

After that there was Gaidar. He's a great writer, no matter what we think Soviet power And Soviet literature. The trouble is that I started reading it not with “The Blue Cup,” as befits a good, real reader, but with the story “School,” which is outstanding in skill but monstrous in meaning. It describes such a young terrorist who does not spare the enemy. I took this as a good, correct model of life behavior. I really liked that 17-year-old Arkady Golikov burst into villages captured by bandits, dealt with them, and spared no one.

How one can build a bridge from Pushkin to Gaidar, to “School” and “The Fate of a Drummer”, I cannot explain now, in hindsight. How does Pushkin’s humanistic ideal and pathos civil war can they coexist in one unfortunate head? But they got along.

The books that, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, plowed me up were “Vasek Trubachev” and “Trubachev’s Detachment is Fighting” by Valentina Oseeva. These are books about pioneer heroes, which, firstly, are poorly written, and secondly, they have a rigid ideological scheme built in them. If I add that at home, for some reason unknown to me, there was Yuri Valentinovich Trifonov’s first book, “Students,” of which he was then rightly ashamed (and there were no others worthy of his talent), and the story of how students fight against rootless cosmopolitans, I’m very I liked it - the picture will be almost complete.

But, returning to the books about pioneer heroes, I cannot say that reading them turned out to be completely useless. These books prepared me for something. When I came to Church in my first year of college, I began reading the lives of people—something strangely familiar was discovered in them. Because by design the book is about young heroes, from the young drummer to Valya Kotik and Vaska Trubachev, are a parody of hagiography.

A feat that is the norm of life, an enemy that surrounds you on all sides. Only instead of an internal enemy, there is an external enemy. And the fact that I started not with hagiographies, but with ugly pioneer literature parodying the hagiographic tradition, on the one hand, helped to accept the structure of the hagiographic narrative, which is structured fundamentally differently than the usual novel, and on the other hand, it became a kind of proactive antidote. There was no temptation to read the life as a directly historical source, which cannot be approached critically - either in its entirety or not at all. If in a story about a pioneer it is possible to ideologically adjust life material to a ready-made answer, why can’t this be done in a story about a saint? You need to keep your distance.

After all, spiritual literature, like everything most important in the world, is very dangerous. All the talk about the book bringing only heavenly light into the world is not true. The book brought everything into the world.

The Gutenberg era provoked both the rise of education and monstrous ideological clashes, which sometimes turned into massacres. Therefore, everything that is most important is also the most dangerous.

But let's go back to childhood. The period of good Soviet children's literature has begun, through which the entire generation has passed. This is primarily Dragunsky and Nosov. Then there was Deniska’s party and Nosov’s party. I'm more likely from Nosov's party. My friend, who for a short time went to my circle at the Palace of Pioneers, Lenya Klein, who gives wonderful lectures on literature and runs the “Klein Library” at Silver Rain, in one of his programs finally explained to me what the fundamental difference between the structure Dragunsky's plot and Nosov's plot. Nosov’s story always begins like this: “When Mishka and I were left alone at home...”, and Dragunsky’s: “When dad and I went together to...”. And Klein said with a laugh that this is the difference between a Jewish and a Russian family.

Dragunsky's stories are excellent, include them in any anthology, they are exemplary, they are forever. But the “home alone” plot seemed closer to me. It coincided with my feeling of life, just like three brilliant tales Nosov “Dunno in the Flower City”, “Dunno in the Sunny City” and “Dunno on the Moon”. Only later did it dawn on me that these were writer’s jokes. Because sunny city– this is Solntsevo on the way to Peredelkino. And his other book, “Vitya Maleev at school and at home,” was apparently written in Maleevka, in the writers’ village. But then I seriously read all this. And it turned out to be useful. First of all, Flower City is such an idyll. Normal life of normal kids alone with nature. The sunny city is a utopia, completely communist. And “Dunno on the Moon” is the first contact of a Soviet child with the world, as they said, pure.

Moreover, speaking seriously, “Dunno on the Moon” warned us in advance about how financial pyramids work. What Donut on the Moon does is a typical pyramid. “Society of Giant Plants” is a classic MMM scheme, and those who carefully read Nosov later did not go to hand over money to the Chara bank and did not take it to Mavrodi. I'm hardly joking. When Mavrodi appeared, I had a fairly serious conversation with three people who believed him. They didn’t just take their money, but believed that this was people’s capitalism, what they dreamed of. All three are from the previous generation. Everyone is wonderful, everyone is smart. They just didn’t read “Dunno on the Moon” at a tender age, and this is a generational difference.

The book turned out to be very accurate, important and useful, as children's literature can often be. And the fact that they contain toys with adult content, we understand only later. Just as we learn that the first publications about Dunno appeared in the magazine “Periwinkle” a few weeks before Stalin’s death.

In general, a separate topic is the “adult ears” that stick out from Soviet children's books. Like the same quote from Trotsky’s accusatory article, sewn into Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky’s “Moidodyr”: “and shame on unclean chimney sweeps” - this is a direct quote from Trotsky, where he tells children’s writers that such writers have shame and disgrace. The same as with "Crocodile". You feel in your skin that this is not a child's thing. But it is also childish at the same time. This is an amazing property of great children's literature (unlike “Vaska Trubachev”).

Soviet power drove great writers into the niche of children's literature, and they realized themselves there. One niche was left where it was possible to write about the pre-revolutionary past without necessarily denouncing it. Because this is childhood positive hero– not a fighter, and so on.

It lives with you and then opens up like a flower. It grows in you. And thanks to new knowledge, he begins to blossom...

« Flowers of Francis of Assisi», « Doctor Zhivago» and Yogi Ramacharaka

And then there was an instantaneous leap in good literature. I don't understand why it happened. As you can see, my taste in childhood was specific. I just know exactly why I started reading Dostoevsky. I started skipping school. Left home with school bag, rode the bus to the Kyiv metro station, got on the roundabout, rode and read. You know, if you want to teach children to read, let reading for them become something that is in some sense scary, interesting and dangerous. It's scary that they'll catch you and find out that you're playing truant, for example. It is dangerous that they will be kicked out of school. Another motivation appears. And then the machine starts and you start reading. After that, for some reason, I read “The Pickwick Papers.” Why them, and not “Oliver Twist” or something more age-appropriate, I don’t know. But I really liked it.

And then I was terribly lucky. I ended up in the Moscow Palace of Pioneers and Schoolchildren. Moreover, I didn’t go to study literature at all, but to a drawing club, and at the same time I signed up for a literary club, because, as befits a teenager, I wrote poetry. It was 1976, eighth grade. I wrote, but did not read. It never occurred to me that I would read poetry. I wanted to do some more serious things. But I ended up in a circle led by Zinaida Nikolaevna Novlyanskaya, a wonderful psychologist who has been involved in the psychology of children’s creativity all her life. It was a breakthrough into another world.

A few words about school textbooks, by the way. Supporters of a unified school textbook on literature say that Soviet time there was one textbook, and nothing, they grew up... But you can grow up under a fence. It does not follow from this that we must necessarily go under the fence. However, the most significant thing lies elsewhere: although there was no variability in the school, there was a network of Palaces of Pioneers and Schoolchildren around the school throughout the country, where the program was compiled individually by the teacher each time, and censorship was much less strict than at school. There was no Tsvetaeva, Akhmatova, or Pasternak at school. And they were in the circle. At school there was a subject called “iso-muso”, children draw posters for peace and sing “now a birch, now a rowan.” And to the circle you could bring to class David Tukhmanov’s just released album “In the Wave of My Memory”, discuss modern music on good poems from Nicolas Guillen to the vagants in Levick's lively translation.

And here I return to the idea that Ekaterina Yurievna Genieva constantly preached.

Communication about books is no less important than reading books. The library is a meeting place about books. This is not a theory, it is true. This is a life practice.

And then I was incredibly lucky. I got hooked on Pasternak. It was impossible to get his books. There was a collection in 1961, there was a collection in 1965 from the “Poet's Library”, with a foreword by Sinyavsky. Maybe one or two books came out. And I wanted to collect everything. When you love someone, you want to be with the one you love all the time. So I started collecting everything I could. I reprinted and bound it myself.

By chance I met a wonderful reader, Dmitry Nikolaevich Zhuravlev. There was such a separate acting specialization in Soviet times, a separate acting school, starting with Yakhontov, continued by Yakov Smolensky. From my point of view, the best of the readers was Dmitry Nikolaevich Zhuravlev. He started out as a stage artist. Fortunately, this happens, a person realized in time that here he is a genius, and here he is just a talent. And he went to where he is a genius. Dmitry Nikolaevich read in such a way that you entered the text. It was not just reading, but living it with you.

I met him in grades 9-10, at the Gosteleradio holiday home. My mother worked at a children's radio as a typist and took a permit. We somehow suddenly started talking, I started asking him about Pasternak, he felt that although the interlocutor was a schoolboy, he knew something. He became interested in talking. And he was friends with Pasternak, was part of his closest trusted circle, was one of those who took part in the famous first reading of Doctor Zhivago, either from Livanov or from Yudina.

But Doctor Zhivago was banned then. This is another important factor. For God's sake, don't misunderstand me to mean that I yearn for the times of prohibition or that I think that something can be censored in order to promote reading. In no case. It’s just a medical fact - when you read a forbidden book, the acuity of perception is different. This is to talk about danger as an important element of culture. So, Dmitry Nikolaevich allowed me to see Pasternak’s letters from the time of Doctor Zhivago. Firstly, it is through one handshake. Secondly, you are holding in your hands these letters and brilliant poems from this novel... This is still the closest thing to me of what Pasternak did in literature.

These were such long notebook sheets on which verses from the novel were written in a flying, swift, “Pushkin” handwriting with a characteristic curl, in purple ink. At the same time, Pasternak has many options, but he didn’t strike much in the whites. He wrote the version on a separate piece of paper, cut it out with scissors and glued it to the side so that the previous version would not disappear. It’s like in children’s books, you flip through the pictures so that they turn into cartoons. And this was a completely different entrance into literature, as for an initiate, one.

Then Zhuravlev brought me to the house of Svyatoslav Teofilovich Richter, I visited there several times. Including at the evening, which was organized by Richter in his apartment on the top floor, at the Nikitsky Gate. At the evening dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Pasternak's death. This was in May 1980. Richter performed a symphony by Cesar Franck in memory of Pasternak. In honor of Pasternak, an exhibition of paintings that Richter collected was organized. There, for the first time in my life, I saw Mondrian not in a museum, but in an apartment.

And that's how it suddenly begins. It’s as if you are entering a mysterious enfilade, doors begin to open, one after another, and then further and further and further...

So, about Doctor Zhivago and the poems from the novel. For many in my generation, the path to Christianity began with The Master and Margarita. I also read this novel, quite early, in the ninth grade: my mother got hold of the Moscow magazine from 1967 somewhere. But for me, the path to faith still began with "Doctor Zhivago". And specifically from poetry. Did I understand everything after reading this in 9-10 grade, no, but the main thing was clear. Yuri Zhivago, as a hero, lost his life. But as a poet he won his life. Everything that did not happen in his real life, everything that he missed in his real life was felt and lived in poetry.

It is in poetry that he lives his real life around Christ and with Christ. Everything there is correlated with Holy Week. All life turns into a metaphor for Holy Week. Moreover, in the first poem, “Hamlet,” where those famous words “carry this cup past” are heard, we still have before us theater Hall, not the Garden of Gethsemane. Yes, this is a tragedy, but a conventional one, the darkness of the night is pointed at the hero, but these are a thousand binoculars, not a thousand stars! It's a game. High, but a game. And so begins the entry of the artistic man inside big plot tragedy of personal choice. And at the exit from the cycle, in the last poem, in front of him is the Garden of Gethsemane, not a conventional theatrical space, but a real path to the cross - “To me for judgment, like the barges of a caravan, centuries will float out of the darkness.” And those binoculars, sparkling in the darkness of the auditorium, suddenly turn into the lights of these future barges, the lights of centuries that float out of the darkness. From the auditorium to the Garden of Gethsemane - this cycle is human life.

I don't know if it's right to fiction brought someone somewhere. I don't know, but it happened to me. This started me turning my brain in a different direction. For some, the same thing happened with Pushkin. One wonderful priest, now deceased, Father Vyacheslav Reznikov, whom I met when I came to Obydenka, to the Church of the Prophet Elijah the Ordinary, told me how in his youth he began to write a book about Pushkin. He had a lot of time, he sat in the Izvestia building on Tverskaya. If anyone remembers, there used to be a ticker in which news appeared before it appeared on the pages of newspapers. He sat upstairs and filled in this news from time to time. He had a lot of time. And so he began to read Pushkin and write a book about him. He wrote and wrote, and eventually became a priest.

Then, as befits a person of our generation, during the Afghan war, I began to read Eastern mystics. I have the book of Yogi Ramacharaka before my eyes, but I don’t remember what it’s about. Next - Krishnamurti, mystical experiences, all kinds of astrals, very exciting, but all this was catastrophically not enough for me. You want to eat, and they offer you dry food. And you haven't eaten for a long time. It’s delicious, there’s no harm from the dryers, but you won’t get enough of them. And then I began to walk in circles around the church, not knowing which way to approach it. Another psychologist, Alexander Aleksandrovich Melik-Pashaev, helped me a lot here. And so he took me by the hand and led me along without imposing anything. There was no such thing as “tomorrow we are going to be baptized.” Do you want answers to your questions? Let's read and talk. This is not an order from the army of arts, this is freedom. There are two endless themes from Pasternak’s book, by the way - freedom and faith.

It's time to read other books. On the one hand, I went to college and became interested in the 19th century. And began to despise modern literature as such. She, they say, is unworthy, and we only read what has been proven. Generally speaking, this is nonsense. I don’t know what’s worse: reading Oseyeva or priestly despising the unworthy “contemporary” literature.

Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev said that a person who kneels before literature will never be a writer. You cannot kneel before literature; it is either alive or not alive.

But what to do. We stood on our knees.

If the name of Averintsev came up, then in my student years his “Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature” had a tremendous impact on me. In general, books of literary criticism should not produce a revolution in the soul. They must systematize knowledge about the subject, clarify it, and provide understanding. Relatively speaking, try to understand “Ulysses” if you and Katya Genieva have not had a clarifying conversation before. Or you haven't read Joyce Again. But “The Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature” was not written to clarify the situation. And even in order to somehow incomprehensibly include you in the process of living the story. I still remember some quotes, although this book is from 1977. Now I’ll try to reproduce: “Self-expanding outward dense existential self-concentration.” I still remember it.

It is clear that this is a spiritual treatise based on literature. But the book was incredibly important precisely in this capacity. There was no way I could become an expert in Byzantine literature, I cannot distinguish early Byzantine from late, and I gave up learning Greek at the alpha purum stage. But the book was about something else. It was about why and how we build our relationship with God and with the culture of faith.

Then I met Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev, while studying in my last year at the institute, and for about nine months I borrowed from him great interview for "Questions of Literature". The work went something like this. He answered the question for three hours, then said: “You’ll write the wrong thing anyway, I’d rather write it myself.” I came to his house, sat opposite him, and he typed the answer on a typewriter for another three hours. But I could almost whole year visit him. Well, as I understand now, torment.

Communication with the author is no less important than reading books. Just as Dmitry Zhuravlev or Richter are people for whom Pasternak is not a book taken from the shelf, but a friend, so Sergey Averintsev is a person for whom World culture- this is the air he breathes, the space within which he exists.

But from people we return to books.

The second book, which was incredibly important for me in the process of searching for myself and my faith, is photocopy of the Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov).

This book is written fundamentally differently than classical hagiographies, which are coldly closed, and differently than today’s, snotty and tearful ones. There is no cold, no snot. This is a story. With deep faith, but without trying to replace the documentary basis... This is very important, because it is modern. And then suddenly you find out that the icon at the entrance to Obydenka, in the Church of Elijah the Ordinary on Ostozhenka, where you go, was painted by the Hieromartyr Seraphim, on it is Christ in full height. She is still there. And then you find out that he was shot, that he is a new martyr. Then you learn more complex things. And unpleasant for a person with my views. About the fact, for example, that it was Seraphim (Chichagov) who blessed the first meeting of the “Union of the Archangel Michael” and gave a welcoming speech. But you are already mature enough not to hide from a controversial story.

If I were very young and romantically excited, I would slam the door and turn away - both from Chichagov and from his wonderful book. And if someone had told me, a beginner, that the famous “conversation about the purpose of Christian life” by the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov himself was first published by Sergei Nilus in the second part of the book “Great in Small”, where the first part is “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “...Thank God I didn’t know. And when I found out, it was already too late to slam the door. Because it gradually dawned on me that there was no distilled pure history, which you really want to get involved with when you read “Vitya Maleev at school and at home” or books about pioneer heroes, does not happen. There is a complex, intricate, inextricable fabric of living life, and you must deal with this contradictory life, otherwise it will be dishonest. And culture and life presuppose, above all, honesty.

The third book, which turned out to be very important for me, but for reading which some of my humanitarian friends slightly despised me, is “Frank stories of a wanderer to his spiritual father”. They were despised because they were engaged in good and serious literature. And this, in general, is amateurish literature. But the book is good, an important book about spiritual quests in the 19th century. Only later, thanks to this book, you read in a different way “The Flowers of Francis of Assisi,” which was published by Father Sergius Durylin, who had not yet accepted the priesthood. And then you suddenly realize that “My Sister is Life” by Pasternak and “Flowers” have something in common. And suddenly everything begins to tie up, intertwine... And one after another, things are revealed that might not have been revealed to you if your life had turned out differently.

And finally, you come to the main Russian book. Despite the fact that I love Pushkin most of all, of course, this "War and Peace". I honestly read the novel at school, as expected. I even liked some of it. But then, having matured, I reread it, and since then I have been rereading it regularly. I don’t remember how many times, I think it’s already 12. And every time it’s different. Moreover, while I don’t read it, I willingly swear. Everything is wrong, everything is made up. Barclay de Tolly was not a dry German. He was a Scot, his family came from Riga, he spoke Russian very well, unlike the head of the Russian party opposing him, Bennigsen, who did not know a word of Russian at all. Speransky is not like that, Alexander I is not like that, the real Napoleon is by no means an idiot. But all this ends the very minute when you open the first chapter, where Anna Pavlovna Scherer’s salon... And away we go. You were pulled into this pool like a sliver of wood.

This is not a novel. Russian literature at its best claims to be not literature. The novel "War and Peace" is intended to explain everything. There is no question that War and Peace should not answer. And what explains everything to us? Myth. And this book is structured like a myth, it has the structure of a myth. From the smallest speck of dust to the structure of the cosmos at all levels - answers have been given to everything. A real myths, when they are retold not by Kuhn, but by Gasparov or Golosovker, especially his “Tales of the Titans” - this is a nightmare, it should not be given to children, it is worse than Afanasyev’s fairy tales without processing. But this is not yet inside the myth. Because when you dive and swim, it’s completely different.

So Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy is outraged until you fall into his clutches. Got it? That's it, you are completely captive. You have no more questions.

At the same time, I came across dissident literature much less often than I would like. Later I had to get it. I actually read “The Gulag Archipelago” almost in 1989 for the first time. Vladimir Ivanovich Novikov, a wonderful literary critic, gave me a pocket edition the size of a matchbox. And this is also a separate adventure - that feeling of opening access.

Timur Kibirov, warrior cats and an open relationship with literature

Having started with one extreme, when there is no gap between Oseeva and Pushkin’s fairy tales, I ended with the other extreme, when, apart from Pushkin and the endless series of literature thrown back into the past, nothing exists at all.

It was necessary to find some kind of connection between the past and the present. For me and for many humanities scholars of my generation, this connection was suddenly provided by the poet Timur Kibirov. He gave me back the opportunity to read modern literature without this idiotic arrogance. There is no insurmountable gap between the great literature of the 19th century century and today. He explained this to me well with his poems, imbued with a living connection with the classics.

The first text by Kibirov, which I read, is still dear to me, although the author, apparently, does not like it and does not include it in reprints of his collections. In 1990, the Riga newspaper Atmoda first published his poem “Message to L. S. Rubinstein.” It fell into my hands, and I realized that I could read modern poetry. That this is living, good and at the same time high poetry.

There is a wagtail on the path.
There is a Kursk nightingale in the grove.
Lev Semenych! You're not Russian!
Leva, Leva! You are a Jew!

At least I'm an ordinary Chuchmek,
Sorry, you're a Jew!
Why are we crying indecently?
over your Russia?

Over our Russia,
over your path,
over Lethe, Lorelei,
and Onegin's stanza.

So, thanks to Kibirov, I went to that part literary life, where it was possible not to contrast the classics with modernity, but to perceive modernity as its living continuation.

Returning to the thought of bad literature, with which my somewhat confused improvisation began, I begin to think that it should play some role in the life of a growing child. We had these pioneer heroes. And my children read a series of novels about warrior cats. Both are a nightmare from the point of view of good, normal literature. But both of them trigger some kind of mechanism of reader interest. This works at some point. The main thing is that warrior cats and pioneer heroes do not stay with you forever, so that you take a step up.

But at a certain stage, arrogance is more dangerous than reading bad literature. Kneeling before literature is more dangerous than a familiar attitude towards it.

Therefore, oddly enough, in the life of one person “Dunno on the Moon” and “The Magic Mountain” can play a comparable role. It’s clear where Nosov is and where Thomas Mann is. But I am a reader, within whom there is a place for both Nosov and Thomas Mann. Because neither the moon nor the magic mountain can hide from real history. It will still pick it up and return it here. We will still be here, inside this space.

Then I went into literary criticism for a while, and the third shift in my reading life began. The confusion of everything with everything gave way to an arrogant reverence for the classics; the arrogant veneration of the classics gave way to a reading of the modern; modern reading has become too enthusiastic.

In addition, if you undertake to write about other people's books, you must read them to the end. And this greatly spoils relations with literature.

Only withdrawal from criticism could free one from these bonds. Today I’m with literature, you know, as they write on social networks: “in an open relationship.” If I want to, I finish reading it, if I don’t want to, I don’t finish reading it.

Questions

– Were there any believers in your family?

- I'm typical soviet child from a typical Soviet family. My great-grandfather on the Russian side was a priest in Yelets, in the Resurrection Cathedral. Next is the gap. For the time being, my mother was an unbeliever and was very afraid when I started “practicing.” My great-grandmother, who also lived with us, was an active non-believer. My experience of going to church rather turned my mother away. Because I went to church, but in life I was a jerk. But when her grandchildren appeared, they quickly converted her. Mom passed away as a church person.

– Alexander Nikolaevich, first of all, thank you very much for your wonderful story. You showed these three literature textbooks. This has already started. Do you have many competitors with these textbooks? And what are your chances?

– These are 12 books, 2 for each year. The textbook for the 10th grade has been in school for a long time, but it has been updated and redone. And the new ones are from grades 5 to 9, ten parts that we have been doing for the last seven years together with my classmate Tanya Smirnova. She is the director of the Orthodox gymnasium “Obraz” near Moscow, in Malakhovka.

I'll tell you a little about this. When a person has worked for seven years and the work is finished, he cannot help but think about it. When we started this work, we were aware that although we sympathize with each other, we do not agree on everything. But a school cannot be a school only for liberals or only for conservatives; she is for everyone. There should be nothing in it that will be completely rejected by one or the other. That's why we didn't let each other go over the edge.

The main thing that unites us is a focus on creativity. We carry out creative tasks throughout all textbooks, following the old principle: “from a little writer to a big reader.” However, no ratings for creative works. Creativity cannot be priced. This task is always voluntary. But you have to try. We go through tongue twisters - write a tongue twister. We're going through a bard's song - try to write it.

Creating part after part, we tested everything in schools, and very different ones: in the European gymnasium in Moscow, there is such a very good private gymnasium, and in the Orthodox gymnasium “Obraz” near Moscow. Some things will work better here, some there, but we don’t have the right to tear the school apart. Therefore, it was difficult for Tanya to write a little detachedly about things related to faith, but I had to write dispassionately about freedom. In the end, I think it turned out to be a pretty good job. We did it honestly. After all, seven years is a period that allows something to be corrected, clarified, or completed.

Now as for the competitors. I would really like there to be as many of them as possible. In general, I am a supporter of variability in school, especially because this end-to-end network of pioneer houses no longer exists as an alternative system. At the same time, I understand perfectly well that the textbook itself can only concrete the bottom. That is, draw the bottom line - this, dear student, is the limit beyond which you will no longer go down. You may be lucky with your teacher, or unlucky, but you will still learn something. But the main figure is the teacher, who can doubt that.

Secondly, I make video lessons specifically so that they can later be attached to the textbook. There are 52 lessons recorded on the interneturok.ru resource. You can divide it up exactly for a year, watch one per week.

Thirdly, we are thinking about what the electronic version of the textbook should look like.

But these are all our plans. But the reality is this: the state proceeds from the fact that there should be few educational lines, a maximum of three for each subject. It’s understandable why there is such a desire for a single textbook. Because literature and history are considered a surrogate for ideology. Let me remind you that we have a Constitution that prohibits a single ideology. I emphasize: not an ideology, but a single ideology. Ideology cannot be banned; banning ideology is also an ideology. But a single ideology is prohibited in our country. Therefore, they are looking for some left-wing moves, experiencing the illusion that it is possible to form a single ideology based on history and literature. In fact, it’s clear how it will end: the situation “we write two, three in our mind” will arise again. You will have one textbook, the teacher will put it on the table, and you will work from your notes.

– Please tell me what is from English and American literature did you get hooked on what influenced the formation of you as a person?

- Dickens, due to circumstances beyond my control. I had this green 30-volume edition. There were books in the house, but they were collected in a rather strange way, according to what principle - I don’t understand very well. Gentleman's set. Shakespeare, as it should be, with difficulty, read Faulkner in his youth, I bought it somewhere from a second-hand bookseller. Yes, that’s probably all for the time being.

– What are you reading now? Last book you read? What guides you? when do you decide for yourself what to read?

- Well, I probably have the last one unread, because recent months I didn't live. 12 parts of the textbook are almost 4000 pages of layouts, reconciliations, clean sheets. Therefore, I read almost nothing (except for the Big Book nominees), I just accumulated books on the table.

What has accumulated? Came out new novel Franzen's "Sinlessness". I finally bought John Coetzee’s unread novel “The Childhood of Jesus.” IN in electronic format- Yanagiharu. I promise to read it.

– What are the names of modern writers in your textbook?

– In our school, until the 9th grade, there is no historical logic; it is simply not yet formed in the child’s mind. Therefore, we first talk about texts, and then about eras. In the 8th grade, historical logic gradually and carefully begins. And in the 9th year it is already a historical and literary course. Fortunately, I didn’t do a textbook for 11th grade. Therefore, I will not quarrel with the entire Writers' Union.

We followed a different principle. There, of course, there are samples of teenage literature, and “Sugar Baby” by Olga Gromova, and “Correction Class” by Ekaterina Murashova... In addition, we included pieces from modern writers when it rhymed with the classics. Suppose we take, when “Tristan and Isolde” and “The Tale of Peter and Fevronia” are on, a piece from Vodolazkin’s “Lavr”, because it fits there perfectly. And in a book that is not very close to me, Zakhar Prilepin’s novel “The Abode,” there is an inspired piece about my grandfather, and this piece just begs to be paired with Gorky’s “Childhood.” And then there are endless parallels. Conventionally, we read the poem “The Bullfinch” by Derzhavin and then Brodsky’s “On the Death of Zhukov.” We read “The Grasshopper” by Lomonosov and then “The Grasshopper” by Zabolotsky. In the 9th grade we have “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”, and then there is Shukshin’s story “Exam”, where a student submits to the professor a story about “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”. Or in connection with Pushkin there is a piece from Tynyanov about Derzhavin’s arrival. Besides, Samoilov, of course, suits Pushkin. And this is a living network that is woven inside.

– How do you feel about Karen Shakhnazarov’s proposal to study only Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov?

- With a great teacher - at least one author, at least one work. On average, this is not a serious conversation. First, we will not understand anything in these six works if we do not know myths, folklore, Western literature, and Eastern literature. We just won't understand them. Shakhnazarov simply never taught at school and, it seems to me, he last saw children for quite a long time.

But the question can be turned in the other direction. Is it conceivable to study all literature 2nd half of the 19th century century through "War and Peace"? Conceivable. Because, firstly, you have read quite a lot, and secondly, when you read “War and Peace”, you can go into other texts? Yes, we’ve reached a plot twist that allows you to escape into the conventional “Thunderstorm,” and then “The Thunderstorm” is more understandable as a parallel. Then they came back. And so on. You have the whole year as a core. But this is the teacher's choice. You need to trust the teacher much more. Good teacher doesn’t give Shakhnazarov any advice on how to make a movie. Why on earth should a director advise a teacher on how to conduct a literature lesson?

Reference

Alexander Arkhangelsky– Russian literary critic, literary critic, publicist, TV presenter, writer. Candidate philological sciences. Born in Moscow in 1962.

After graduating from Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. Lenin (1984) and defending his dissertation (1989), worked on children's radio, in the magazine "Friendship of Peoples", as a scientific consultant for "Questions of Philosophy", interned at the University of Bremen (1991), Free University of West Berlin (1994), was a visiting professor at the University of Geneva (1992–1998). Taught cultural history, media communications in Russian universities. Full professor at the Higher School of Economics. Author of more than 15 books.

Author and presenter television projects, among which author's program“Against the Current”, 1992–1993, RTR; “Chronograph” on the “Russia” channel, 2002; cycle documentaries"Memory Factories: Libraries of the World." Since 2002, he has been the author, presenter and director of the information and analytical program of the Kultura TV channel “Meanwhile,” transformed in 2004 from a magazine format into an intellectual talk show.

Finalist television award"TEFI" (2005), laureate of the Moscow Union of Journalists (2006).

Prophecy« Dunno on the Moon», « cockroach» And« Old Man Hottabych»

I’m somewhat embarrassed, because it’s one thing when a person who was involved in great culture from infancy, like Katya Genieva, talks about the books that shaped him. It’s a completely different matter when a person from the most ordinary family, not connected with the life of the culture by birthright, talks about it. Here, either, one must be disingenuous by listing those books that should shape a person - that is, tell not about oneself. Or tell it like it is, but then it will turn out strange...

I will now read from the school textbook Marina Ivanovna Tsvetaeva’s poem “Books in Red Bound”:

From the paradise of childhood life
You send me farewell greetings,
Friends who haven't changed
Bound in worn red.

A little easy lesson learned,
I used to run to you immediately,
- It's too late! - Mom, ten lines!..
But, fortunately, mom forgot.

After that there was Gaidar. He is a great writer, no matter what we think about Soviet power and Soviet literature. The trouble is that I started reading it not with “The Blue Cup,” as befits a good, real reader, but with the story “School,” which is outstanding in skill but monstrous in meaning. It describes such a young terrorist who does not spare the enemy. I took this as a good, correct model of life behavior. I really liked that 17-year-old Arkady Golikov burst into villages captured by bandits, dealt with them, and spared no one.

How one can build a bridge from Pushkin to Gaidar, to “School” and “The Fate of a Drummer”, I cannot explain now, in hindsight. How can Pushkin's humanistic ideal and the pathos of the civil war coexist in one unfortunate head? But they got along.

But, returning to the books about pioneer heroes, I cannot say that reading them turned out to be completely useless. These books prepared me for something. When I came to Church in my first year of college, I began reading the lives of people—something strangely familiar was discovered in them. Because by design, books about young heroes, from the young drummer to Valya Kotik and Vaska Trubachev, are a parody of hagiography.

After all, spiritual literature, like everything most important in the world, is very dangerous. All the talk about the book bringing only heavenly light into the world is not true. The book brought everything into the world.

Dragunsky's stories are excellent, include them in any anthology, they are exemplary, they are forever. But the “home alone” plot seemed closer to me. It coincided with my feeling of life, as did Nosov’s three brilliant fairy tales “Dunno in the Flower City”, “Dunno in the Sunny City” and “Dunno on the Moon”. Only later did it dawn on me that these were writer’s jokes. Because Sunny City is Solntsevo on the way to Peredelkino. And his other book, “Vitya Maleev at school and at home,” was apparently written in Maleevka, in the writers’ village. But then I seriously read all this. And it turned out to be useful. First of all, Flower City is such an idyll. Normal life of normal kids alone with nature. The sunny city is a utopia, completely communist. And “Dunno on the Moon” is the first contact of a Soviet child with the world, as they said, pure.

The Soviet government drove great writers into the niche of children's literature, and they realized themselves there. One niche was left where it was possible to write about the pre-revolutionary past without necessarily denouncing it. Because this is childhood, the positive hero is not a fighter, and so on.

It lives with you and then opens up like a flower. It grows in you. And thanks to new knowledge, he begins to blossom...

« Flowers of Francis of Assisi», « Doctor Zhivago» and Yogi Ramacharaka

And then there was an instant leap into good literature. I don't understand why it happened. As you can see, my taste in childhood was specific. I just know exactly why I started reading Dostoevsky. I started skipping school. He left home with his school bag, rode the bus to the Kyiv metro station, sat on the roundabout, rode and read. You know, if you want to teach children to read, let reading for them become something that is in some sense scary, interesting and dangerous. It's scary that they'll catch you and find out that you're playing truant, for example. It is dangerous that they will be kicked out of school. Another motivation appears. And then the machine starts and you start reading. After that, for some reason, I read “The Pickwick Papers.” Why them, and not “Oliver Twist” or something more age-appropriate, I don’t know. But I really liked it.

A few words about school textbooks, by the way. Supporters of a single school textbook on literature say that in Soviet times there was one textbook, and nothing, they grew up... But you can grow up under a fence. It does not follow from this that we must necessarily go under the fence. However, the most significant thing lies elsewhere: although there was no variability in the school, there was a network of Palaces of Pioneers and Schoolchildren around the school throughout the country, where the program was compiled individually by the teacher each time, and censorship was much less strict than at school. There was no Tsvetaeva, Akhmatova, or Pasternak at school. And they were in the circle. At school there was a subject called “iso-muso”, children draw posters for peace and sing “now a birch, now a rowan.” And in the circle you could bring to class David Tukhmanov’s just released album “In the Wave of My Memory”, discuss modern music based on good poetry from Nicholas Guillen to the vagants in Levick’s lively translation.

And here I return to the idea that Ekaterina Yurievna Genieva constantly preached.

Communication about books is no less important than reading books. The library is a meeting place about books. This is not a theory, it is true. This is a life practice.

And that's how it suddenly begins. It’s as if you are entering a mysterious enfilade, doors begin to open, one after another, and then further and further and further...

It is in poetry that he lives his real life around Christ and with Christ. Everything there is correlated with Holy Week. All life turns into a metaphor for Holy Week. Moreover, in the first poem, “Hamlet,” where those famous words “carry this cup past” are heard, we still see a theater hall, and not the Garden of Gethsemane. Yes, this is a tragedy, but a conventional one, the darkness of the night is pointed at the hero, but these are a thousand binoculars, not a thousand stars! It's a game. High, but a game. And so begins the entry of an artistic person into the big plot of the tragedy of personal choice. And at the exit from the cycle, in the last poem, in front of him is the Garden of Gethsemane, not a conventional theatrical space, but a real path to the cross - “To me for judgment, like the barges of a caravan, centuries will float out of the darkness.” And those binoculars, sparkling in the darkness of the auditorium, suddenly turn into the lights of these future barges, the lights of centuries that float out of the darkness. From the auditorium to the Garden of Gethsemane - this cycle is human life.

I don’t know if it’s right for fiction to lead someone somewhere. I don't know, but it happened to me. This started me turning my brain in a different direction. For some, the same thing happened with Pushkin. One wonderful priest, now deceased, Father Vyacheslav Reznikov, whom I met when I came to Obydenka, to the Church of the Prophet Elijah the Ordinary, told me how in his youth he began to write a book about Pushkin. He had a lot of time, he sat in the Izvestia building on Tverskaya. If anyone remembers, there used to be a ticker in which news appeared before it appeared on the pages of newspapers. He sat upstairs and filled in this news from time to time. He had a lot of time. And so he began to read Pushkin and write a book about him. He wrote and wrote, and eventually became a priest.

It's time to read other books. On the one hand, I went to college and became interested in the 19th century. And he began to despise modern literature as such. She, they say, is unworthy, and we only read what has been proven. Generally speaking, this is nonsense. I don’t know what’s worse: reading Oseyeva or priestly despising the unworthy “contemporary” literature.

Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev said that a person who kneels before literature will never be a writer. You cannot kneel before literature; it is either alive or not alive.

But what to do. We stood on our knees.

Then I met Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev, while studying in my last year at the institute, and for about nine months I interviewed him extensively for “Questions of Literature.” The work went something like this. He answered the question for three hours, then said: “You’ll write the wrong thing anyway, I’d rather write it myself.” I came to his house, sat opposite him, and he typed the answer on a typewriter for another three hours. But I could visit him for almost a whole year. Well, as I understand now, torment.

Communication with the author is no less important than reading books. Just as Dmitry Zhuravlev or Richter are people for whom Pasternak is not a book taken from the shelf, but a friend, so Sergei Averintsev is a person for whom world culture is the air he breathes, the space within which he exists.

But from people we return to books.

If I were very young and romantically excited, I would slam the door and turn away - both from Chichagov and from his wonderful book. And if someone had told me, a beginner, that the famous “conversation about the purpose of Christian life” by the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov himself was first published by Sergei Nilus in the second part of the book “Great in Small”, where the first part is “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “...Thank God I didn’t know. And when I found out, it was already too late to slam the door. Because it gradually dawned on me that there is no distilled, pure history that you really want to delve into when you read “Vitya Maleev at school and at home” or books about pioneer heroes. There is a complex, intricate, inextricable fabric of living life, and you must deal with this contradictory life, otherwise it will be dishonest. And culture and life presuppose, above all, honesty.

This is not a novel. Russian literature at its best claims to be not literature. The novel "War and Peace" is intended to explain everything. There is no question that War and Peace should not answer. And what explains everything to us? Myth. And this book is structured like a myth, it has the structure of a myth. From the smallest speck of dust to the structure of the cosmos at all levels - answers have been given to everything. But real myths, when they are retold not by Kuhn, but by Gasparov or Golosovker, especially his “Tales of the Titans,” are a nightmare, they should not be given to children, they are worse than Afanasyev’s fairy tales without processing. But this is not yet inside the myth. Because when you dive and swim, it’s completely different.

So Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy is outraged until you fall into his clutches. Got it? That's it, you are completely captive. You have no more questions.

Timur Kibirov, warrior cats and an open relationship with literature

It was necessary to find some kind of connection between the past and the present. For me and for many humanities scholars of my generation, this connection was suddenly provided by the poet Timur Kibirov. He gave me back the opportunity to read modern literature without this idiotic arrogance. There is no insurmountable gap between the great literature of the 19th century and that of today. He explained this to me well with his poems, imbued with a living connection with the classics.

There is a wagtail on the path.
There is a Kursk nightingale in the grove.
Lev Semenych! You're not Russian!
Leva, Leva! You are a Jew!

At least I'm an ordinary Chuchmek,
Sorry, you're a Jew!
Why are we crying indecently?
over your Russia?

Over our Russia,
over your path,
over Lethe, Lorelei,
and Onegin's stanza.

So, thanks to Kibirov, I entered that part of literary life where it was possible not to contrast the classics with modernity, but to perceive modernity as its living continuation.

But at a certain stage, arrogance is more dangerous than reading bad literature. Kneeling before literature is more dangerous than a familiar attitude towards it.

In addition, if you undertake to write about other people's books, you must read them to the end. And this greatly spoils relations with literature.

Questions

– Were there any believers in your family?

– I am a typical Soviet child from a typical Soviet family. My great-grandfather on the Russian side was a priest in Yelets, in the Resurrection Cathedral. Next is the gap. For the time being, my mother was an unbeliever and was very afraid when I started “practicing.” My great-grandmother, who also lived with us, was an active non-believer. My experience of going to church rather turned my mother away. Because I went to church, but in life I was a jerk. But when her grandchildren appeared, they quickly converted her. Mom passed away as a church person.

The main thing that unites us is a focus on creativity. We carry out creative tasks throughout all textbooks, following the old principle: “from a little writer to a big reader.” However, no marks for creative work. Creativity cannot be priced. This task is always voluntary. But you have to try. We go through tongue twisters - write a tongue twister. We're going through a bard's song - try to write it.

Thirdly, we are thinking about what the electronic version of the textbook should look like.

– Please tell me what from English and American literature fascinated you, what influenced the formation of you as a person?

– What are you reading now? Last book you read? What guides you? when do you decide for yourself what to read?

– Well, I probably have the last one unread, because I haven’t lived in recent months. 12 parts of the textbook are almost 4000 pages of layouts, reconciliations, and blank sheets. Therefore, I read almost nothing (except for the Big Book nominees), I just accumulated books on the table.

What has accumulated? Franzen's new novel, Sinless, has been released. I finally bought John Coetzee’s unread novel “The Childhood of Jesus.” In electronic form - Yanagiharu. I promise to read it.

– What are the names of modern writers in your textbook?

– How do you feel about Karen Shakhnazarov’s proposal to study only Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov?

But the question can be turned in the other direction. Is it conceivable to study all the literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century through War and Peace? Conceivable. Because, firstly, you have read quite a lot, and secondly, when you read “War and Peace”, you can go into other texts? Yes, we’ve reached a plot twist that allows you to escape into the conventional “Thunderstorm,” and then “The Thunderstorm” is more understandable as a parallel. Then they came back. And so on. You have the whole year as a core. But this is the teacher's choice. You need to trust the teacher much more. A good teacher does not give Shakhnazarov advice on how to make a movie. Why on earth should a director advise a teacher on how to conduct a literature lesson?

Alexander ARKHANGELSKY - writer, journalist, literary critic, professor at the National research university « graduate School economy", author, presenter and director of the information and analytical program "Meanwhile" on the TV channel "Culture". Winner of the TEFI television award (2005) and the Moscow Union of Journalists award (2006). Author of more than a dozen books. Member of the Presidential Council Russian Federation on culture and art.

For some time now, Alexander Arkhangelsky has become OURS. In 2012, he was included in the NEFU Council for the Development of Humanitarian Knowledge. And now we hope to see Alexander Nikolaevich more often. Although he has already been to Yakutsk three times. First he became a guest of Ysyakh, then he came with Vitaly Mansky (both brought their films: Mansky - “Iconoscope”, Arkhangelsky - “Heat”), then he took Vladimir Mirzoev with his “Boris Godunov” as his traveling companions, and he himself showed the Yakut audience the film “Exile” . Alexander Herzen."

At the meeting, when I asked Alexander Nikolaevich for an interview, I promised that I would ask not about politics, but about culture - that’s the only thing that interests me. But... Life made its own adjustments.

I think that those who are at least a little familiar with Arkhangelsky’s work do not need to talk about his religious beliefs. This person is not one of those who hide their instability and uncertainty in faith behind the formulation “faith is an intimate matter”; he testifies to it openly. And he does it brightly, wisely, without imposing anything on anyone, he simply shares the treasure that he himself has found. We will talk with Alexander Arkhangelsky about pressing topics that concern all Russians, regardless of their religious or atheistic beliefs.

The only task

– The Orthodox Church today has come under the gun not only of critics, they are literally aiming at it, some with an ax and some with a saw... Acts of vandalism have swept Russia. I will not ask you the first of the two sacramental questions “who is to blame?” I ask: what should I do?

– Of course, we need to protect the Church, but different eras protection must be different. There are times when you need to stand up with your chest. In the revolutionary and post-revolutionary years, people sacrificed themselves in order to save not only the Church as a whole, but also each individual church. They tried to prevent the bell from being thrown down and the iconostasis to be destroyed - and they paid for it with their own lives. In one second they became martyrs, their past, their sins burned, and they turned from ordinary people in the saints.

In another era, defending the Church meant sacrificing one’s reputation, and sometimes even one’s human conscience. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh has a story about his meeting with Metropolitan Nikolai Krutitsky, one of the main promoters of the Soviet in the church world. Father Anthony (then a simple priest in London) sent a telegram to Bishop Nicholas, who had arrived in the British capital for a trade union congress on behalf of the Peace Committee: “I ask you not to cross the threshold of my church, since you have arrived for political reasons.” Unexpectedly, Metropolitan Nicholas replied: “Father, you are right, I bless you to always tell the truth.” After which they finally met and had a long conversation with this seemingly deeply Soviet hierarch who agreed to lie. And Father Anthony realized that Vladyka Nicholas’s entire life was dedicated to ensuring that the Church remained alive, simply physically survived in this monstrous world. He understood everything, was left completely alone, without the slightest support from people with whom he personally sympathized, doomedly communicating with those who were alien to him. And this, by the way, is also protection. At that time it was impossible to do otherwise.

If we look at what is happening here and now, we will have to admit: yes, a part of society, primarily the educated, living in major cities, began to treat the Church no longer warily, but almost hostilely. There are a lot of half-crazy people who are ready - some to insult verbally, some even with actions.

What should the Orthodox community do in these circumstances? Demand the immediate introduction of a law to protect the feelings of believers? From whom? From the police, from the army, from the FSB? From atheists, from Muslims? It seems to me that we have taken an unacceptable path - not in general, but today. We bowed to the state so that it could use its whip to protect us from those who do not love us, say nasty things about us, sometimes do them, but do not threaten our life, service, faith...

When we turn to the authorities with a demand to punish those who do not love us, we, firstly, only increase their number, and secondly, we give the state the opportunity to begin persecuting us later on for the same reasons. Any priest who says what he thinks about sectarians or Islamists will fall under the law, which we, with the help of politicians, are pushing through. If not such Christianized (at least not hostile to the Church) politicians come to power as today, but left-wing figures (not “Zyuganov’s low-fat”, but “natural”), they will use these same laws in order to drive us away.

Today, defending the Church does not mean inviting costumed Cossacks hung with homemade medals, but calmly testifying to how beautiful faith in Christ is, how life-loving, how humane and God-loving Orthodox tradition. And about the fact that educated person exactly the same for the Church as the uneducated; that it does not divide people into classes and estates at all, since it addresses the soul; that there is a precious grain for her in every person; that she loves even her enemies and blesses - not for sin, of course, but for the overcoming of evil to occur in their souls.

We have one path - to become a little different, so that when people look at us they don’t think: “Well, they’re Orthodox...” This is the main and, perhaps, the only defense today. Yes, we are obliged to firmly defend our views, we should not be embarrassed when they laugh at us, or offended when they scold us. On the contrary, it is useful - and let them scold, even unfairly! You can think about it: maybe there is some truth in the accusations, maybe you need to take this as an opportunity and become better.

– But what to do with those who cut down crosses or chop down icons in the church, as in Veliky Ustyug?

– There is ordinary criminal law for this. It seems to me that no separate laws should be adopted to protect church people. Well, as a maximum, you can introduce an “additional coefficient” for crimes if they are aimed at sacred objects. But just don’t talk about offended “feelings.” We just need to testify about Christ, then we will have good feelings.

Split over trifles

– You wrote in LiveJournal that “n and the Pusyas split us into a majority that is for the trial, and a minority that is against.” This is much more painful for me - an internal crack. Why do we, Orthodox Christians, have so much aggression towards those who think differently? How deep are the contradictions within the Church, in your opinion?

– This is a much more important problem for us, church people, than how outsiders treat us. And here I completely share your disappointment; every time I read the Orthodox Internet, I get upset. It feels like there is no greater enemy for an Orthodox person than an Orthodox person who thinks a little differently. I'm not talking about dogmatic differences now. There, perhaps, some severity is useful, and then with a slight dose of condescension.

And when it comes to political positions or views on life, or about the understanding of this or that event, is this why we begin to hate each other? Does anyone seriously think that Christ will bless us with this internal hatred over such trifles as politics, economics and social issues?

We are different. And in their social manifestation they are always partial. Well, let's say, hand on heart: is it possible to be, say, a liberal, while remaining a humane person, and not demand certain things? social programs to support the disabled, children, the elderly? Of course not! And, being a person of leftist views who demands justice in distribution, is it possible not to understand that self-development of an individual is possible only in conditions of freedom and readiness to be responsible for one’s own destiny, if one has health, strength, education, etc. for this? Of course not!

Because of third-rate issues, we begin to clash, and with such passion, as if we were already talking about Last Judgment. And thereby we demonstrate to others that there is nothing to love us for, that we are not only the same as them, but sometimes even worse, angrier. We say that the enemy of the human race does not sleep, but we ourselves willingly serve him with our malice, hatred and mutual accusations, and I repeat: because of secondary issues.

The fact that there is no logic in this is absolutely clear; it is worth reading the endless accusations against Orthodox liberals! Well, my friends, we are a minority of a minority, a fraction of a percent within the church environment. If we cause such terrible troubles (although I don’t believe it), maybe then the body is sick, since such a small group of people can cause such colossal damage? Or you're blind! And for us, in turn, how long can we fight with Orthodox conservatives? Yes, there are things of principle: for example, the question of justifying human sacrifices made under the Stalinist regime, which, for example, Father Alexander Shumsky admits; It's impossible to fraternize here. But this doesn’t mean that nothing connects us with other conservatives?

People are different. We are united by the main thing - Christ, the Cross, which burns at the center of human history. As long as we look at him, there is nothing wrong with us spiritual sense words will not happen. But I have the feeling that we have all averted our eyes and are looking at each other instead of Christ.

– Father Alexander Volkov, head of the Patriarch’s press service, calls not to wash dirty linen in public. Others believe: if we ourselves do not criticize ourselves and the hierarchy, then this is what will destroy the Church. But I see the truth of both. We had the opportunity to experience first-hand a situation where incriminating evidence against a bishop (no matter whether it was genuine or fake) was leaked to the media. He was overgrown with so much dirt, abomination, lies, hatred that the “victory” turned out to be very bitter. They replaced our bishop, but how difficult it is for a new bishop to create in an atmosphere of mistrust! By denouncing ourselves, we seduce others. Is not it so? And how then to fight evil within the Church?

“It seems to me that if we specially sweep, pack rubbish in transparent bags and take it out for everyone to see, then this will not do anything good. But if we don’t clean and take out the trash from the house at all, we will become covered in dirt. There should be neither a voluptuous focus on the bad, nor a refusal to discuss it (at least within one’s own circle). Both are equally dangerous.

Of course, internal church conversations are needed. And the priest should have the opportunity to speak out, and the congregation should have the opportunity to talk with the priest at a parish meeting, not a formal one, but a live one. There should be no absolute secrecy among bishops, priests, or laity, because no matter how much they close themselves off or hide their shortcomings, they will still come out. And only they will come out, no one will pay attention to the good.

Not a luxury, but a means...

– When a priest or monk rushes through Moscow at night in a super-expensive sports car owned by the Maltese consul, it is a temptation. Everyone is discussing whether Abbot Timofey was drunk. I fully admit that he is telling the truth when he claims that he was sober. But that’s not the point! We need to behave more modestly! It seems to me that if the parish council had had the opportunity to talk to their rector, having seen his tempting habits, this public shock could have been prevented.

There are different circumstances. For example, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov) drives an expensive Audi car, given to him by a parishioner. But he travels three to four times a week to the Ryazan region, where he has collective farms, which his father, the rector, takes care of. This luxury is absolutely understandable to me, because you will get stuck on the road at night in a cheap car, and what...

- I totally agree! My friend, the bishop’s driver, is suffering terribly with the old Volga, which is already driving the third bishop and which is literally crumbling, as Anna Vasilyevna says. And what's good: every time she is afraid that she will not take the ruler to the temple, airport or Government House on time!..

– We must decide within ourselves: when it is really necessary, then we remove the issue of high cost. It is simply a way to best carry out your activities.

We need to fight not with those who condemn the Church, but with ourselves, so that this does not happen. “They are denouncing us!” And they do it right.

And you also need to be careful with gifts. The monk doesn’t care what kind of watch he has on his wrist: be it expensive or plastic. They gave it as a gift and put it on. But people who earn a lot and want pure heart If you present your favorite priest with something expensive, you must remember that we live in a very poor and unfair country, and their gift can become a temptation for others. If it is necessary for life, for business, that’s a different story.

– Taking a critical position on many internal church issues, you at the same time say: “I don’t know what should happen, what this or that priest, this or that hierarch needs to do for me to escape from the Church.” What keeps you in SUCH a Church?

– Bishop Anthony of Sourozh has a reasoning about why it belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church, that is, “Moscow”, “red”, in the terminology of emigrants. He says that the Church is Mother. And no matter what state she is in, you need to be with her. And especially if she is not in better position and she is rightly condemned, stay with the Mother and accept the reproach with her.

Although I really don’t like the situation, I don’t see that all the evil that flashes on the television screen will prevail in our Church. I know that a huge number of priests and bishops live fundamentally differently, so that O The majority of the clergy and a significant part of the episcopate will never even allow in their thoughts such formulations as church speakers sometimes allow themselves on television. There is a different life there, and the most important thing in it is Christ. And while Christ is inside the Church, where can we run?

Yes, emotionally it is often not very comfortable. Maybe because I’m in Moscow - this city is not the kindest. It’s not like it was in the late 70s and early 80s. The Soviet priests - beaten, frightened by the authorities - were afraid of many things, and among other things - to alienate the believer, to push him out of the Church with their careless behavior. And, since they were beaten, they were kind-hearted. For a beaten person they give two unbeaten ones! There was more sincerity and understanding in them, and there was almost no pseudo-senile clergy, when they break a personality and completely rule over it. This human thing has become much less. But within the Church is Christ!

Bad Citizens

– You said that coming to the Church could begin “as an escape from politics,” but those who met the real Church “found joy in Her, after which they forgot about the existence of politics.” And today you participate in political rallies, your journalistic appearances on the Internet cause heated debate... Why are you doing this? Has your joy faded? How do you manage not to lose your peaceful spirit?

- It doesn’t work! Every now and then I lose him, then I look for him again, run after him: “Come back, I won’t do it again!”

There are different policies. I spoke about the one that existed under Soviet rule. There was only one way for a Christian to take part in it without entering into a deal with his conscience: to become a dissident, that is, to fight the authorities. Or - not to accept it, to put it out of brackets. I deeply respect those who became dissidents, but I never felt that this was my path. The Church of that time saved people like me from dead, cold and absolutely inhumane politics.

Today politics, for all its imperfections, despite the fact that we see signs of a deep moral illness, is still more complex. And she should study in different forms possible without losing your conscience. For me, it is like a set of keys for different pipes for a plumber. In one case, you need to act by going to rallies, and in the other, you need to take part in matters in which the authorities are involved. Politics is not a goal, but a means.

If I see that the government is falling into a pre-totalitarian state, then I must remind it at a rally that a layer of people has matured with other goals, objectives, ideas about the structure of the country and the world. And if you need to fight to save the museum-reserve, or raise the question: why are the salaries of only librarians subordinate to the Ministry of Culture raised, then I go to the Council for Culture. I am not giving any political subscriptions.

And journalism... If you see a brewing social abscess, it needs to be pierced. Let it sprinkle you with pus, but the disease will not grow in the social body.

– Many people don’t understand how different Political Views can people of the same faith exist? But this is reality! Can you explain it?

“Christ told us: “To Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God what is God’s.” Both conservative and liberal, United Russia member and monarchist, if they are Christians, must understand that in the case of their party “registration” we are not talking about eternal principles, but about temporary social settings. This is a rational choice: how best to organize common life in this era. Questions of the first, but not the highest order.

Yes, we Christians are bad citizens! That is, we are good citizens because we try to do all our work honestly, but we are bad because we always have a more important Boss who will never be elected by the electorate.

– In the West, there are Christian Democratic parties, we have individual politicians who, adhering to democratic views, profess Orthodoxy, but they are rather outcasts - both in the camp of Democrats and in the camp of the Orthodox... Is this insurmountable?

- We do not know. This is true today, but it is unknown how it will be tomorrow. Let us still realistically assess the Western situation: yes, in the post-war period, Christian Democratic parties of various types played a huge role in Europe. Today, almost everything remains that way only in name, but in reality it is a management tool, nothing more.

We don’t have any parties at all. " United Russia" is a voting mechanism. There is only one real party (which, I must say, is extremely alien to me) - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, because it inertly continues the path that began in the party era. Everything else is temporary associations of citizens.

If there was a Christian Democratic party in Russia, I would probably support it and could even participate in it, but great faith that it will arise, no. It seems to me that the world has entered a different era. Temporary associations of citizens that resolve pressing issues have become a reality. Remember the “blue bucket movement” in Moscow, when they fought against flashing lights: people took part in a real case, but the issue was resolved, and they went their separate ways. But only, alas, on movements and associations political system you can't build it.

The main and only thing

- Or maybe it’s not necessary? Even if there is such a party, it will not change the world! Maybe those who say: “There is no need for politics at all, the world cannot be saved from sin anyway, we will save ourselves” are right...

– Firstly, do not confuse the main thing and the only thing. Yes, the main task of any Christian is salvation. But she's not the only one. There are many smaller tasks, and if we are assigned here and now on this earth, we must solve them. Or, please, into hermits, into deserts and other feats.

Bishop Anthony of Sourozh told one of the young priests, who complained that he did not want to watch plays or read books, and in general Seraphim of Sarov was illiterate, but became a saint: “If you are capable of becoming a saint, you can be illiterate.” I would answer those who reason like this: if you are saving thousands around you with your prayer, don’t think about anything else! If you are not sure that your prayer is so strong, think, maybe it’s worth doing something with your hands, your head, and joint civic action.

People are not only spiritual and physical beings, but also social ones. We must understand: no matter what we do, there will be no heaven on earth. But some of our actions can bring hell closer, or they can push it further. German Christians, who pretended that fascism did not affect them because they prayed, are responsible for bringing hell closer to the borders of the entire world.

The same can be said about Russia... Therefore, our joint social actions should protect us from the stinking breath of hell. And there will definitely be no heaven. You just need to humbly understand the scale of the task.

– Do you have a super task when you host TV shows, teach, write books, make films: to do a good job, but in such a way that it will be at least a little bit for the salvation of souls? Is it possible to separate the professional from the Christian?

– I don’t have a good answer to your question.

- Give me the bad one!

– It seems to me that professional and religious should not be confused. In the profession you just need to live, and if you are a Christian, then no matter what you do, something Christian will appear in your actions. It is not necessary to say words, it will simply be seen: is there a reflection in you, in what you do? eternal life at least some distant, distant one, or not. This, it seems to me, is the only criterion of Christianity in the profession.

– At a meeting with Bishop Roman, I remember you said what you wanted: if we were real, we would prefer to hire Christians, because they are honest, hardworking, obligatory...

– When trains with political prisoners began to arrive at Solovki after 1929, the local camp authorities really valued Christians, because they could be assigned to the accounting department, where they would not confuse the numbers, to the kitchen, where they would not steal food, and in general they would behave Honestly. But the era of the camps, thank God, is behind us.

Whatever we do, we must try to ensure that it is honest work. There are things that are incompatible with preaching. On television, for example, I am only a presenter, moderator, and mediator. I am calling people completely different - both those who are disposed towards Christianity and those who are hostile to it. My task: to give everyone the opportunity to speak out and help the viewer to self-determinate. Of course, there is still a humanitarian super-task, but it has not been identified. And, besides, it should not cause rejection among different people. You just need to proceed from the fact that there is a humanitarian dimension to the world and it is more important than the pragmatic one.

Of course, writing novels is closer to my soul, and here I open up more, but again I don’t preach. It’s bad when a writer, instead of talking about people, their pain and suffering, about the world around him, begins to “screw” some “correct” things into the reader’s brains.

– Please tell us about your teaching activities. you understand modern youth? And she you? When you talk about faith, do you understand?

– I teach at the Faculty of Media Communications - this includes journalism, management, and the creation of convergent editorial offices... The Higher School of Economics is a pragmatic institution, but not a single profession, and especially journalism, is impossible without an established worldview. This is not only a business, but also a social mission.

My teaching tasks do not include preaching; I must teach young people to think independently and make professional, creative decisions. But if they come out to talk on their own, I always respond.

I hope I understand the students in many ways; it seems to me that some very important shift has occurred in the last two years: they have become not only pragmatists, but also people for whom a moral point of reference is incredibly important. How does this relate to morality, honesty, and the performance of professional duty? Questions that were very rarely asked in previous years. The new generation asks them more and more often.

Are they religious? For the most part, no. But the first step away from narrow pragmatics has already been taken. Do they understand me? It seems to me that they treat me well.

Different Yakutia

– What are your impressions of Yakut students? Are they different from Muscovites?

– The meetings in Yakutsk were successful and unsuccessful. I consider the unsuccessful ones to be formalized, in large classrooms, where students were herded and they sat frozen. Where young people themselves came, albeit in smaller numbers, everything was good and lively. I think if Moscow students are forcibly driven away, they will also be indifferent. And in informal communication, those who want to open up.

And then, what are Moscow students? They are from all over Russia. Moscow is a region of regions, a city of Varangians, visitors, more energetic than others, because the most active people come here from everywhere, ready to take into account other people's experiences and learn from each other. It's a pretty tough city. Your parents are far away, if you don’t stand up on your own, no one will do it for you, you have to beat them with your paws.

Photo by Archpriest Sergius Klintsov

– I can’t resist asking about the feelings from meetings with Bishop Roman, the Yakut clergy and believers...

– This is one of the most joyful episodes in history. last years. I speak from the heart, not because you represent Yakutia and I want to say something nice.

Lately there have been bishops different generations- from Bishop Panteleimon (Shatov) to Theophylact (Kuryanov), - which are distinguished by a new quality. In them, religious service and human openness are combined. This is what Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) calls “hierarchy with a human face.” Such bishops feel that they are church authorities and must make decisions, sometimes be strict, but remain at the same time open people. It seems to me that this is what it is big chance Church: when it becomes more of this kind of bishops, in whom there is a sense of power, and an associated sense of responsibility, and a simple open human feeling.

You asked: how to protect the Church. Among other things, do not be afraid to talk to people who are far from her or, at least, hesitant. See them not as enemies, but as people of God you have met along the way.

I felt in the Yakut diocese, in communication with Bishop Roman, the priests around him, and the parishioners who came to our discussions, this bright, joyful feeling. It doesn’t happen everywhere, but, oddly enough, it has become more common in recent years.

The meeting of design with life

– What does discussing your films and books give you? Or is this just a publicity stunt?

– From an advertising point of view, this gives almost nothing. Well, they will sell 100 copies of the book in Yakutia after my trip... The costs for it are higher than financial results at times: it’s like hammering nails with a microscope! This gives something different.

When a person writes and even films (although in to a lesser extent), he sits locked up and communicates with himself, with his inner world and he has no feeling feedback. To some extent, concentration and abandonment of fuss are useful. But in the end, you can turn into a mirror of yourself - a dangerous state.

Therefore, after finishing work, it is very important to look into the eyes of those to whom you were addressing. This does not mean that you will necessarily agree with other people’s assessments. But you will feel whether there is a nerve. Even if irritation is not important. You cannot move on if you have not felt whether your previous plan has come true: whether the book is written well or poorly, whether it is alive or dead. Everything that you experience as your mistake, you will try to correct in next book. This is the meeting of design with life.

– Do you think that you don’t?management, andthe author himself must develop new strategies for reaching the reader, the viewer, and actually set up an experiment on yourself: you are trying to promote your books via the Internet. Please tell us about it.

– The market for paper books around the world falls annually by 6-7%. This means that sooner or later we writers will be forced to come to the electronic space. And in Russia, where there are such distances, roads and price markups when moving from the center of the country to distant regions, if you want to reach the reader, learn to live in the digital space!

Therefore, before the release of the paper version, I decided to sell my new novel “Museum of the Revolution” on the Internet for 2.5 months on legal resources. This is very difficult, because in Russia there is no habit of buying electronic books, films, music. Up to 90% of books are downloaded from pirated resources. There are almost no large Russian legal electronic stores - three or four: LitRes, Ozon, Veksler... Publishing houses are not very interested in doing this, because they make little money from electronic books. So I took the “electronic” rights and started selling my book myself, so that other writers, and maybe publishers, could follow me.

In a month we sold about 850 copies, which is very good. We'll see how this affects paper book: will it hinder or help. An e-book costs 100 rubles, and a paper book will be four times more expensive.

I created a website on which there is an appeal to readers, fragments of the novel, a piece of video, addresses of stores where it is sold, there is even an appeal to pirates, whom I suggest not to touch my book until January.

– Why such deadlines?

– In January, I myself will put up a free version on my website for those who cannot pay. I want people who don’t have money to have the opportunity not to take stolen goods, but to act honestly. I myself was a boy from a poor family...

And retribution and chance

– I read an excerpt from the novel “Museum of the Revolution” in LiveJournal - and it just gave me chills: a prophecy about the present times, even though they are still sawing crosses, not the supports of churches. Futuristic grotesque has become a reality. Maybe you can make a forecast for the future?

– To be honest, four years ago, when I was coming up with a plot, I was thinking: how to bring it to a denouement without superimposing events on reality so that they would be completely phantasmagorical. And he came up with an episode with cutting down pillars under the temple. But what seemed absolutely incredible suddenly turned out to be reality. It's not about me - our life has begun to allow forms that previously seemed completely crazy. I am deeply upset that my story coincided with reality.

Now no one will start a world war, but the problems will not disappear, and somewhere a dam will break. We will face trials, in what forms, I don’t know, but we must be prepared for them. I think this is both payback and an opportunity. We will still have to build the world in accordance with our ideals. You can talk as much as you like about money, the market, pragmatics, the world does not create all this. Only ideas that we have agreed to consider as ours create and change the world.

– Thank you, Alexander!

Irina DMITRIEVA

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Professor at the Faculty of Communications, Media and Design, National Research University Higher School of Economics. In the past, he was the author and presenter of the television programs “Against the Current” and “Chronograph”. Since 2002 - author and presenter of the “Meanwhile” program. Co-founder of the Academy of Russian Contemporary Literature. Author of scientific and popular science books “The Poetic Tale of A. S. Pushkin” Bronze Horseman“” (1990), “Conversations about Russian literature. The end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century" (1998), "Heroes of Pushkin. Essays on Literary Characterology" (1999), collections of literary criticism ("At the Main Entrance", 1991), journalistic articles. Author of prose books “1962. Epistle to Timothy" (last edition - 2008), "The Price of Cutting Off" (2008), "Museum of the Revolution" (2012), etc. The book "Alexander I" went through several editions in Russia, translated into French and Chinese languages. Author of school textbooks, methodological manuals, reading books on literature. Author of the films “Memory Factory: Libraries of the World”, “Department”, “Heat”, “Intellectual. Vissarion Belinsky", "Exile. Alexander Herzen" and others.

The wrong hero of our time

How Lermontov, having written a novel in two parts, deceived Nicholas I and other readers

The Return of Philosophy

Who, how and why began to study philosophy in Stalin's time - a quarter of a century after its traditions were destroyed

Palace under the hood

How graduates of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University created a territory of freedom in the magazine - the mouthpiece of the communist parties in the early 1960s

Incredible Institute

How in a Soviet academic institute they read leading bourgeois newspapers, studied theater, the hippie movement and modern Western philosophy

The noose tightens

How soviet tanks, which entered Prague in 1968, put an end to previously existing opportunities to engage in humanities

In front of the barrier

What philosophers have done for schoolchildren, deaf-blind people, for literature, cinema and to change the world

Victory and disappointment

What did Soviet philosophers give the world: awareness of the impossibility of changing reality or a revived language of philosophizing?

Zabolotsky. "Passerby"

How a poet stretched out a moment, overcame death and wrote a mysterious poem in the simplest words

Trifonov. "House on the Embankment"

How Trifonov stepped over his conscience, then mercilessly condemned himself, and at the same time comprehended the mechanisms of political terror