Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky meaning of the surname. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky: posthumous roll call

In January 1894, young Ivan Bunin (who at that time tried to be a devout Tolstoyan) visited the author of Anna Karenina in Khamovniki. Bunin conveys the speech of his interlocutor as follows:

“Do you want to live a simple life, working life? It's good, just don't force yourself, don't do it uniform from it, in every life you can be a good person..." [i][Tolstoy 1978, 234].

There is something very familiar in these words.

In the February issue of “A Writer’s Diary” for 1877, referring to the just published “Anna Karenina” (specifically, the conversation between Stiva and Levin on a hunt - “about the distribution of property”), Dostoevsky writes: “Yes, in essence, there is no need to even distribute certainly estates, - for every inevitability here, in the matter of love, it will be similar to uniform , to the rubric, to the letter... You must do only what your heart tells you: if it tells you to give up your property, give it away, if it tells you to go work for everyone, go, but even here, don’t do it like other dreamers who directly take up the wheelbarrow: “ They say, I’m not a gentleman, I want to work like a man.” The car again uniform "[Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 25, 61].

However, if he forgot Dostoevsky’s article, they will hasten to remind him of it.

In the October days of 1910, the wife of V.G. Chertkova forwards Tolstoy a letter from his former secretary N.N. Gusev. Gusev notes that in recent years a lot has been written about Dostoevsky in literature and he “has been presented as the greatest and most perfect teacher of the faith.” Therefore, he, Gusev, “after the novels, it was very interesting to get acquainted with those writings of Dostoevsky, where he speaks on his own behalf.” He “expected a lot” from “A Writer’s Diary,” but alas, “he was severely disappointed. Everywhere Dostoevsky presents himself as an adherent of the people's faith; and in the name of this popular faith, which he, I dare to think, did not know<...>he preached the most cruel things, like war and hard labor.” Next, Gusev remembers Dostoevsky’s words about “Anna Karenina,” “in the last part of which Lev Nikolaevich then still expressed his denial of war and violence in general.” From the “Diary of a Writer,” Gusev unexpectedly learns for himself “that Dostoevsky was an ardent advocate of resisting evil through violence, argued that shed blood is not always evil, but can also be good...” [Tolstoy 1928-1958, 58, 554-555] . And Gusev cites “the most terrible passage from this terrible article” - fantastic scene, which Dostoevsky conjectured when talking about “Karenina”:

"Let's imagine<...>Levin is already standing in place, there (that is, in Bulgaria, where the Turks committed a massacre of civilians. - I.V.), with a gun and a bayonet (“why would he take such a dirty trick?” - Gusev adds “on his own behalf”), and two steps away from him the Turk is voluptuously preparing to gouge out the eyes of a child who is already in his hands with a needle... What would he do? - No, how can you kill! No, you can't kill a Turk! “No, he’d better gouge out the child’s eyes and torture him, and I’ll go to Kitty.”

Gusev reports that he was “horrified” when he read the following lines from the one whom many Russian intellectuals now consider their spiritual leader: “What can I do? Is it better to let your eyes be pierced, so as not to somehow kill the Turk? But this is a perversion of concepts, this is the stupidest and crudest sentimentalism, this is ecstatic straightforwardness, this is the most complete perversion of nature.” Gusev is also not satisfied with the practical conclusion made by the author of the “Diary”: “But the eyes of babies should not be allowed to gouge out, and in order to stop crime forever, it is necessary to free the oppressed for good, and snatch the weapons from the tyrants once and for all” [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 25, 220-222].

After reading Gusev’s letter, Tolstoy wrote to Chertkova on October 23: “A strange coincidence happened. I, having forgotten everything, wanted to remember the forgotten Dostoevsko<го>and took to read Take<ев>Karamaz<овых>(I was told that<то>This is very good). I started reading and I can’t overcome my disgust at the anti-art, frivolity, antics and inappropriate attitude towards important subjects. And here is N.N. writes something that explains everything to me” [Tolstoy 1928-1958, 89, 229].

This is almost verbatim! - coincides with the words of another Nikolai Nikolaevich - Strakhov, who in 1883 wrote to Tolstoy - about his work on the biography of Dostoevsky - “I struggled with the disgust that was rising in me...” [Tolstoy, Strakhov 2003, 652].

“Not this, not that!..” - Dostoevsky clutched his head and repeated in a “desperate voice”, reading Tolstoy’s letter to Countess A.A. a few days before his death. Tolstoy, where her correspondent outlined his new faith[Tolstoy, Tolstaya 1911, 26]. “Not that, not that!” - Tolstoy could exclaim (and practically exclaims) when leaving Yasnaya Polyana (or rather, from life) and reading “on the road” sunset novel by Dostoevsky.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the main thing, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy reveal amazing similarities.

On May 29, 1881, Tolstoy writes in his diary: “Conversation with Fet and his wife. Christian teaching unenforceable. - So it's nonsense? No, but it's not feasible. - Have you tried to perform it? - No, but it’s impossible” [Tolstoy 1928-1958, 49, 42].

That is, for Tolstoy, Christianity is not an abstract theory, but a kind of “guide to action”: it should be applicable to all phenomena of real life without exception. (He is precisely the one “trying to perform.”) But, according to Dostoevsky, is this not what a person should be guided by, not only in his everyday behavior, but, so to speak, in the world arena? Christian consciousness must be brought into all spheres of existence: only in this way will the Testament be fulfilled.

“No,” writes the author of “A Writer’s Diary” (in the same February 1877 issue, where we're talking about about Tolstoy), - it is necessary that the same truth, the same truth of Christ, be recognized in political organisms, as for every believer. At least somewhere this truth must be preserved, at least one of the nations must shine. Otherwise, what will happen: everything will become darkened, confused and drowned in cynicism” [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 25, 51].

The Gospel commandments must become the “constitution” of this world: otherwise this world is doomed. So suddenly converge art worlds Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.

Meanwhile in artistic experience of his older contemporary Tolstoy could have discovered even more unexpected stories. Talking about the properties of Russian national character, the author of “The Karamazovs” unknowingly points out some fundamental features of the personality of the “furious Leo”.

Alyosha Karamazov tells Kolya Krasotkin the opinion of “one foreign German who lived in Russia”: “Show me<...>to a Russian schoolboy a map of the starry sky, about which until then he had no idea, and tomorrow he will return this map to you corrected.” “No knowledge and selfless conceit - that’s what the German wanted to say about the Russian schoolboy,” comments Alyosha [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 14, 502].

Of course, the author of A Study in Dogmatic Theology is far from a schoolboy. Before you start “correcting the map” (whether The World History, religion, Shakespeare etc.), he tries to study the subject most carefully. But the impulse is characteristic. The “revision of the universe” is carried out without sacred awe and worship of authorities; they look at the “map” with a clear, unclouded gaze. It is not for nothing that the above story evokes complete delight in Alyosha’s young interlocutor: “Bravo, German!<...>Conceit - let it be, it comes from youth, it will be corrected<...>but also an independent spirit, from almost childhood, but also courage of thought and conviction<...>But still the German said it well! Bravo, German!

“Bravo, German!” - we could exclaim, attributing his observation no longer to a hypothetical Russian schoolboy, but to Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy himself. “Correcting the map” - strictly Russian trait, which, by the way, convinces us social practice XX century.

And in his religious rebellion, Tolstoy has something to rely on.

In the “Diary of a Writer” of 1873, Dostoevsky cites the story of a certain elder confessor about a village boy who crawled to him on his knees: he, by his own admission, committed the greatest sin - at the instigation of his friend, he held the sacrament in his mouth, took it out of the temple and, putting it in the garden on a pole, he began to take aim with his gun. But just as he was about to shoot, the Crucified One appeared to him on the cross, and he “fell unconscious with the gun.”

Dostoevsky says that the mentioned blasphemers (the instigator and the perpetrator) represent “two folk type, V highest degree depicting to us the entire Russian people as a whole.” What is this that so amazed the author? national trait? “This is, first of all, the oblivion of any measure in everything<...>the need to reach over the edge, the need for a freezing sensation, to reach the abyss, hang halfway into it, look into the very abyss and - in special cases, but very often - throw yourself into it like a crazy person upside down" [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 21, 33 -35].

Tolstoy in no way recognizes himself as a desecrator of sacred objects. He will never “crawl” to the elder with contrition and repentance. (Although after leaving, already in Optina, there will be cut circles around the cell of Elder Joseph - in the hope of a meeting). He “throws himself into the abyss” with full consciousness of his own rightness, with the hope that this is the outcome worthy of every thinking person. He, says Dostoevsky (not about Tolstoy, of course, but about his “village Mephistopheles”), “comes up with unheard-of audacity, unprecedented and unthinkable, and in its choice an entire people’s worldview was expressed” [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 21, 37].

So, “unheard-of audacity” is also a Russian mental property. But if “below” it appears as wild mischief, temptation and deliberate blasphemy, threatening eternal destruction, then “above” (in Tolstoy) is conscious religious free-thinking (a kind of manifestation of freedom of conscience), which serves as a tool for achieving the truth. The initial impulse of these impulses is different; Moreover, moral motivations are incomparable. However, both there and here familiar picture the starry sky is called into question.

But posthumous roll call Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are not limited to this. The first critic of Tolstoyism seems to be seeing something that the inhabitants of Yasnaya Polyana are not yet aware of.

In the novel “Demons” the “distressed writer” - intellectual Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky leaves the house of General Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina, with whom he had high , that is, an exclusively spiritual relationship and where he thrived for twenty years in bliss and relative peace. This one is for him desperate step- a break with an established and comfortable existence, a moment of truth, a transition to another life full of meaning.

At the same time, Stepan Trofimovich is a tragicomic figure.

It has been rightly noted that the artistic situation reproduced in the novel “Demons” in 1872 in some way anticipates (in a parodic, grotesque, ironically reduced form) those dramatic events, which the world witnessed in the year 1910.

“The Last Wandering of Stepan Trofimovich” is the title of the chapter in “The Possessed”, which tells about the departure of Verkhovensky Sr.

“...He,” says the novel about Stepan Trofimovich, “even with the clearest awareness of all the horrors awaiting him, would still have gone out to high road and walked along it! There was something proud here that delighted him, in spite of everything. Oh, he could have accepted Varvara Petrovna’s luxurious conditions and remained at her mercy “comme un mere hanger-on”! But he did not accept mercy and did not stay. And so he himself leaves her and raises the “banner of a great idea” and goes to die for him on the high road! This is how he must have felt; this is exactly how his action should have seemed to him” [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 10, 480].

Of course, such rapprochements are of a purely formal nature: there is a huge distance between the “last wanderings” of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy and Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky. All the more surprising is the roll call of seemingly small and random details, “accessories”, provisions, plot moves: in the context of “ideological departure” all this takes on symbolic meaning. So, Stepan Trofimovich, trying to unwind, takes into his ascetic pilgrimage such a necessary thing as an umbrella. Tolstoy, upset that he had forgotten in Yasnaya Polyana a nail brush (a break with the past does not necessarily imply a change in hygiene habits), asks, along with the equally forgotten second volume of The Brothers Karamazov, to send him this item. Stepan Trofimovich “goes out into the world” with forty rubles in his pocket; the amount seized by Tolstoy (50 rubles) is not much more.

But the main thing is that both fugitives are terrified of being chased - of being pursued by the women they left behind. Tolstoy, covering his tracks, changed trains and even purchased a ticket only while already in the carriage. Stepan Trofimovich “was afraid to take the horses, because Varvara Petrovna could visit and detain him by force, which she probably would have done, and he probably would have obeyed and - goodbye then great idea forever." In the end, the pursuers overtake the pursued - with the difference, however, that General Stavrogina is caring for the sick Stepan Trofimovich and closes his eyes, and Countess Sofya Andreevna will admitted only when the agony begins.

And further. “Oh, we will forgive, we will forgive, first of all we will forgive everyone and always,” exclaims Stepan Trofimovich, who has gone on the run. - Let's hope that they will forgive us too. Yes, because everyone and everyone is guilty before the other. Everyone is to blame!..” [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 10, 491] Before leaving, Tolstoy is going to write “There are no guilty people in the world” [Goldenweiser 2002, 580].

Unlike Tolstoy, Stepan Trofimovich is an old atheist. He meets a woman bookseller who offers him the Gospel. “With the greatest pleasure,” replies Verkhovensky Sr. - Je n"ai rien contre l"Evangile, et...” . The Sermon on the Mount is read aloud to him, and he is completely satisfied with its content (“Do you really think that this not enough!"). And he himself is ready to willingly sell these “beautiful books.” “The people are religious, c"est admis, but they do not yet know the Gospel. I will explain it to them... In an oral presentation, you can correct the mistakes of this wonderful book..." [Dostoevsky 1972-1990, 10, 486-497].

Tolstoy will soon ask himself such a task: it is he who will try - in writing and in detail - to “correct the mistakes of this wonderful book.” And even after his departure, had he remained alive, he would hardly have given up oral preaching, which was more accessible to the popular understanding. (“I will be useful on the highway,” says Stepan Trofimovich.)

Once upon a time, the author of “The Village of Stepanchikova” humorously depicted some of Gogol’s features in the image of the hanger-on despot Foma Opiskin. It was a pretty brutal retrospective parody. Completing “Demons,” he could not imagine that life itself, many years later, would mockingly take advantage of his novel plot and that the tragicomedy generated by his imagination would turn into a great world drama - also not without a comic shade.

Obviously, V. Rozanov was right when he asserted that “all the Dobchinskys from all over Russia came running to Tolstoy’s coffin, and, except for the Dobchinskys, there was no one there; due to the crowded crowd, they didn’t let anyone in there yet. So “Tolstoy’s funeral” at the same time turned out to be an “exhibition of the Dobchinskys” ...” (quoted from: [Rozanov 2004, 56]).

Alas, this is true. And yet the deaths of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are key points Russian stories. One can even say that both of them, in a certain sense, completed it - and with opposite signs.

Dostoevsky died shortly after the Pushkin holiday in Moscow (which turned out to be nothing more than a “pre-parliament” that united almost the entire spectrum of existing social forces). In an atmosphere of intense constitutional hopes, Dostoevsky’s dull voice sounded from the first national rostrum: “Humble yourselves, proud man, and above all, break your pride. Humble yourself, idle man, and first of all work in your native field...” The call was addressed not only to the terrorist underground, but also to the “terrorist” government, which also seemed to be a kind of “proud man.”

The farewell of the author of “A Writer’s Diary”, unprecedented in scope - when all political forces, from conservatives to radicals, bowed their banners - was a clear signal sent by society “from the bottom up”: a historical compromise is possible. The death of Dostoevsky seemed to materialize this social illusion, opening up the prospect of a peaceful exit from the deepest national crisis, from the bloody confusion at the turn of the 1870s - 1880s (see: [Volgin 1986]).

The regicide of March 1, 1881, which took place a month after the death of Dostoevsky, dashed these hopes.

On the other hand, the stunning death of L.N. Tolstoy in November 1910, in front of the whole world, and the subsequent churchless, emphatically opposition the funeral marked the collapse of the traditional formula “poet and king” (replaced with another, uncompromising one: “poet or Tsar"), the final break between society and power. According to its historical and philosophical content Tolstoy’s departure is the exact opposite of the “death event” of 1881: it became a harbinger of the coming national catastrophe.

But in both events there was a common - deep - meaning. The funerals of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were the first attempts at self-organization civil society , which in the second case excommunicated both the state and the Church.

Literature

Volgin 1986 - Volgin I.L. Last year Dostoevsky: historical notes. M., 1986.

Goldenweiser 2002 - Goldenweiser A.B. Close to Tolstoy: Memoirs. M., 2002.

Dostoevsky 1972-1990 - Dostoevsky F.M. Full collection Op. in 30 t. L., 1972-1990.

Makovitsky 1979 - Literary heritage. T. 90. “Yasnaya Polyana Notes” by D.P. Makovitsky. M., 1979. Book. 3.

Rozanov 2004 - Rozanov V.V. Miniatures. M., 2004.

Tolstoy 1928-1958 - Tolstoy L.N. Full collection Op. in 90 volumes. M., 1928-1958.

Tolstoy 1978 - L.N. Tolstoy in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 1978. T. 2.

Tolstoy 2010 - Tolstoy L.N. The Last Diary. Diaries, notebooks 1910 M., 2010.

Tolstoy, Strakhov 2003 - L.N. Tolstoy - N.N. Strakh.Complete collection correspondence. T. 2. Ottawa, 2003.

Tolstoy, Tolstaya 1911 - Tolstoy Museum. T. 1. Correspondence of L.N. Tolstoy with gr. A.A. Tolstoy. 1857-1903. St. Petersburg, 1911.

Notes

These considerations were first presented in our report “Gogol and Dostoevsky,” read at the Gogol Festival in Paris on April 2, 2009.

On June 6, 1910, pianist Goldenweiser, who was visiting Yasnaya Polyana, recorded the following words from Tolstoy: “Today I again received a long and very clever (I think English) letter, and again there is the same child who is being killed before my eyes. I always say: I lived 82 years and never saw this child that everyone tells me about.<...>Yes, finally, who is stopping you from protecting him with your body when you see such a child?..” [Goldenweiser 2002, 315]. Does this mean some kind of collective, “common” child - or is it still a “child of Dostoevsky”?

It is interesting to compare this letter from Tolstoy with the note of his doctor Dushan Makovitsky dated September 21, 1908: “Today I continued to read the second volume of the biography of L. N. Biryukov. Dostoevsky's criticism of Anna Karenina had a strong impact. I told L.N. about it, he wanted to read it and said: “Dostoevsky - great person"" [Makovitsky 1979, 206]. That is, apparently, in 1910, this criticism was no longer news for Tolstoy. It is surprising that at the time of the appearance of the "Diary" with an article about "Anna Karenina" this was undoubtedly important for The text of him and his correspondents was not reflected in Tolstoy’s correspondence (for example, with Strakhov). As often happened with Tolstoy, his reaction could depend on his mood, on the moment.

How (French).

I have nothing against the Gospel, and... (French).

It's set (French).

All these people, no matter what their deeds and creations are called, essentially have no life at all, that is, their life does not represent being, does not have a certain shape, they are not heroes, artists, thinkers in the sense in which others are judges, doctors, shoemakers or teachers, no, their life is an eternal painful movement and excitement, it is unhappy, it is tormented and torn to pieces, it is terrible and meaningless. Unless we consider as meaning just those rare events, deeds, thoughts, creations that flare up above the chaos of such a life.
Hermann Hesse

G. Hesse, Steppenwolf
Dostoevsky, Notebooks
Ibid
Stankevich, Timofey Nikolaevich Granovsky
Ibid.
Ibid.
Dostoevsky, Complete Works, letter to Strakhov
P.V. Annenkov, Idealists of the thirties, op. based on the collection “N. P. Ogarev in the memoirs of his contemporaries", p. 127, M., Khud. Lit, 1989

Dostoevsky, Complete Works, Maykov's letter to Dostoevsky
Dostoevsky, "Demons"
Ibid.
Ibid.
Dostoevsky, Diary of a Writer
Dostoevsky, "Demons"
Dostoevsky, Diary of a Writer
Dostoevsky, "Demons"
Dostoevsky, Diary of a Writer
Ivask, “The Rapture of Dostoevsky”
Dostoevsky, Diary of a Writer

STEPAN TROFIMOVICH

STEPAN TROFIMOVICH - central character novel by F.M. Dostoevsky “Demons”. The main, although not the only, real prototype The famous Russian liberal Western historian, friend of A.I. Herzen, Timofey Nikolaevich Granovsky (1813-1855), appeared at S.T. Verkhovensky. The source of information about the historian, whom the writer did not know personally, was N.N. Strakhov’s review of A.V. Stankevich’s book “T.N.Granovsky” (1869), published in Zarya. On February 26 (March 10), 1869, Dostoevsky wrote to Strakhov: “I need this little book like air, and as soon as possible, as the material necessary for my composition”; however, in the sketch with which Dostoevsky began work on the novel (February 1870), the features of the liberal idealist were parodied. “Life-long pointlessness and instability in his gaze and feelings”, “thirst for persecution and loves to talk about those he suffered”, “shed tears here and there”, “cries for all his wives - and gets married every minute” - these are the touches to the portrait a pure Westerner, “who completely overlooked Russian life” and whom the author of the novel (conceived as a political pamphlet on nihilists and Westerners) made morally responsible for Nechaev’s murder, for his monstrous son, the scoundrel Petrusha. “Our Belinskys and Granovskys would not have believed it if they had been told that they were Nechaev’s direct fathers. It is this kinship and continuity of thought that developed from fathers to children that I wanted to express in my work,” Dostoevsky explained in a letter to the heir to the throne, A.A. Romanov. Being a generalized portrait liberal Westerner 40s, S.T. combines the features of many people of this generation - Herzen, Chicherin, Korsh and even Turgenev.

S.T., whose story begins and ends the novel, belongs to the galaxy of famous figures of the 40s who received European education and who managed to shine in the university field at the very beginning of their careers; “by a whirlwind of coincidental circumstances,” however, his career was destroyed, and he found himself in provincial town- first in the role of tutor to the general’s eight-year-old son, and then as a hanger-on in the house of the despotic patroness General Stavrogina. S.T. is presented in the novel as the father of the “demon” Petrusha (see article: PETER Verkhovensky) and as the educator of the “demon” Stavrogin. Gradually, the liberal idealist descends to cards, champagne and club idleness, regularly falling into “civil sorrow” and cholera: for twenty years he stood before Russia as “reproach incarnate” and considered himself persecuted and almost exiled. With the arrival of his son, whom he almost did not know (since he gave him up to his aunts from an early age), a relaxed esthete and a capricious, absurd, empty person (as General Stavrogina attests to him), a sense of honor and civil indignation flares up in him, a relaxed esthete and a capricious, absurd, empty person. On literary festival in favor of governesses S.T. fearlessly defends highest values (“without bread... humanity can live, without beauty alone it is impossible, because there will be absolutely nothing to do in the world!”), giving battle to the utilitarians and nihilists. However provincial society booed and ridiculed the “ridiculous old man”, his finest hour turned into shame and defeat. He no longer wants to remain a hanger-on and leaves the patroness’s house with a small suitcase, an umbrella and forty rubles; at the inn high road To the “Russian wanderer” a wandering book-seller reads the Gospel story about the healing of a demon-possessed Gadarene man. “My immortality,” the excited S.T. is convinced, “is necessary because God will not want to do injustice and completely extinguish the fire of love that once kindled for him in my heart. And what more expensive than love ? Love is higher than being, love is the crown of being...” S.T dies enlightened, recognizing his spiritual responsibility for the nihilists, for Shatov, for his son Petrusha, for Fedka Katorzhny, who was once given up as a soldier to cover a gambling debt: emotional drama

"Knight of Beauty" ends on a high tragic note. The image of S.T., according to most critics, belongs to Dostoevsky. The writer's contemporaries compared S.T. with “Turgenev’s heroes in old age” (A.N. Maikov). “In the image of this pure idealist of the 40s there is the breath and warmth of life. He lives so directly and naturally on the pages of the novel that he seems independent of the author’s arbitrariness,” believed K.V. Mochulsky. “The image of S.T. written not without irony, but not without love. There is in him a false heroic pose, and a noble phrase, and the excessive touchiness of a hanger-on, but there is also genuine nobility and patheticness in him. civil courage"- noted F.A. Stepun. “This is Dostoevsky’s most grandiose hero,” argued Yu.P. Ivask, “and isn’t he closer to the Knight of Lamanche than the quixotic Christ Myshkin! S.T., a big spoiled child, babbles his Russian-French phrases until the very end and, without knowing it, joins in Great Thought, but to Christ himself." S.T. expresses in the novel ideas close to the author, and by the will of the author he is the interpreter of the Gospel epigraph to “Demons”.

L.I.Saraskina

Literary heroes. - Academician. 2009 .

See what "STEPAN TROFIMOVICH" is in other dictionaries:

Stepan Trofimovich Golenev Date of birth 1917 (1917) Place of birth Dolgogusevskaya village, Belorechensky district, Krasnodar region Date of death ... Wikipedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Barchuk. Anatoly Barchuk Birth name: Barchuk Anatoly Trofimovich Date of birth: November 16, 1939 (1939 11 16) (73 years old) ... Wikipedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Morozov. Wikipedia has articles about other people named Morozov, Pavel. Pavlik Morozov ... Wikipedia

Prudnikov, Ales Belor. PRUDNIKA Alexander Trafimavich Aliases: Ales Uskhodni Belor. Ales Uskhodni Date of birth: April 14, 1910 Place of birth: village. Old Dedin, Klimovichi povet, Mogilev province, Russian empire Date of death... Wikipedia

A service list of articles created to coordinate work on the development of the topic. This warning does not apply to informational articles, lists and glossaries... Wikipedia

Soviet tank crews awarded the title of Hero Soviet Union Main articles: Tank forces Russian Federation, List of Heroes of the Soviet Union During the Soviet-Finnish and Great Patriotic Wars there were more than a thousand tank soldiers... ... Wikipedia

Main articles: Tank forces of the Russian Federation, List of Heroes of the Soviet Union During the Soviet-Finnish and Great Patriotic Wars, more than a thousand tank soldiers were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union, and 17 of them twice ... Wikipedia

To improve this article, it is desirable?: Find and arrange in the form of footnotes links to authoritative sources confirming what has been written. Rework the design in accordance with the rules for writing articles... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Demons. Demons ... Wikipedia