Speaking names. Speaking surnames in the works of Russian writers of the 19th century
During his lifetime, Mayakovsky had many affairs, although he was never officially married. Among his lovers there were many Russian emigrants - Tatyana Yakovleva, Ellie Jones. The most serious hobby in Mayakovsky’s life was an affair with Lilya Brik. Despite the fact that she was married, the relationship between them remained long years. Moreover, for a long period of his life the poet lived in the same house with the Brik family. This love triangle existed for several years until Mayakovsky met the young actress Veronica Polonskaya, who at that time was 21 years old. Neither the age difference of 15 years, nor the presence of an official spouse could interfere with this connection. It is known that the poet planned a life together with her and insisted in every possible way on a divorce. This story became the reason for the official version of suicide. On the day of his death, Mayakovsky received a refusal from Veronica, which provoked, as many historians say, a serious nervous shock that led to such tragic events. In any case, Mayakovsky’s family, including his mother and sisters, believed that Polonskaya was to blame for his death.
Mayakovsky left suicide note the following content:
"EVERYONE
Don’t blame anyone for the fact that I’m dying and please don’t gossip. The deceased did not like this terribly.
Mom, sisters and comrades, forgive me - this is not the way (I don’t recommend it to others), but I have no choice.
Lilya - love me.
Comrade government, my family is Lilya Brik, mother, sisters and Veronica Vitoldovna Polonskaya. –
If you give them a tolerable life, thank you.
Give the poems you started to the Briks, they will figure it out.
As they say - “the incident is ruined”, love boat crashed into everyday life
I am at peace with life and there is no need for a list of mutual pains, troubles and insults.
Happy stay
VLADIMIR MAYAKOVSKY.
"Wonders and Adventures" 2/95
MAYAKOVSKY: “Who, I shot myself. This is bent!
Valentin Skoryatin
There is hardly a person in Russia who has not read or heard about tragic end Mayakovsky. So, school years We were instilled and are still instilling in our children only one thought about the naturalness of the poet’s suicide on the basis of his complicated love relationships, complicated by creative failures, nervousness, and also long-term ill health. Many of the poet's friends supported the stingy official version, who considered the motive for suicide to be “personal reasons.”
Announced on the day of the poet’s death, it actually turned the investigation onto the formal path of stating this conclusion, leading him away from the answer: “and numerous questions. The detailed development and “maintenance” of this version was practically undertaken by literary historians, who were under the vigilant supervision of censorship, introduced by the authorities a few hours after the shot and operating - already behind the scenes - to this day.
The writers' arguments boiled down to a list of facts, the totality of which allegedly led Mayakovsky to suicide: in the fall of 1929, the poet was denied a visa to France, where he was going to marry T. Yakovleva; at the same time he received news of the marriage of T. Yakovleva herself; the painful condition was aggravated by the rejection of his “Bath” by criticism; in April 1930, the poet’s personal relationship with V. Polonskaya, whom the poet loved and with whom he wanted to start a family, broke down; and most importantly, Mayakovsky left a suicide letter, where he explained the reasons for his voluntary death.
About 25 years ago, journalist Valentin Skoryatin began collecting facts about Mayakovsky’s biography related to his death. When the materials accumulated, he suddenly saw that in the poet’s dying chronicle there were many gaping voids that required at least some kind of explanation. Here he is, following the logic of the facts that have already been reliably established, to fill in what is missing... From that moment on, the search for Valentn Ivanovich took on the character of a real independent investigation - independent of any department and focused on the only goal - to reach the truth.
Not being able to order Valentin Ivanovich a summary article based on the results of his investigation (he died in May 1994), we are publishing this material, prepared on the basis of his book, which has not yet been published. V. Skoryatin carried out colossal journalistic work, for which he received the Prize of the Union of Journalists of the USSR in 1991. The importance of his research is clear from the words of the American professor Albert Todd, expressed at the Russian-American symposium on Mayakovsky: “In both Russia and America, many classified documents and annoying unanswered questions suggest: the real truth was distorted and hidden. Outstanding work, recently done by Russian researcher Valentin Skoryatin... makes us look at the version of Mayakovsky’s suicide in a new way.”
DID MAYAKOVSKY REALLY WANT TO GO TO PARIS?
Skoryatin’s doubts regarding the poet’s voluntary death began with the absence of any serious evidence of his refusal to obtain a visa for a trip to Paris, which was supposed to end in marriage with T. Yakovleva.
It should be noted here not only special role Lily Brik in disseminating this version, but also the special goal that she pursued. The fact is that living together The relationship with the poet completely satisfied the Brikovs, since it gave many noticeable material advantages. Therefore, the Briks did not want to let Mayakovsky go from them - after all, his intention to start his own family would lead to a mandatory departure. Therefore, when Mayakovsky goes to Nice in October 1928 on a date with his two-year-old daughter Ellie and her American mother Elizaveta Siebert (Ellie Jones), the sister of the alarmed L. Brik (Elsa) introduces Mayakovsky to the beautiful emigrant from Russia Tatyana Yakovleva. She is not going to return to her homeland, and Mayakovsky will never stay abroad either. And flirting with T. Yakovleva, according to L. Brik, will distract the poet from his father’s worries.
But as soon as the poet falls in love seriously and he has a firm intention to connect his life with T. Yakovleva, Briki, after Mayakovsky’s arrival in April 1929, from Paris to Moscow, introduces him to “22-year-old spectacular V. Yablonskaya, an actress of the Moscow Art Theater.
“Mayakovsky’s sudden passion,” writes Skoryatin, “seemed to push T. Yakovleva into the background and precluded marrying her. This turn suited the Brikovs quite well. Polonskaya in Moscow. If something unexpected happens, there is an opportunity to hint at the possible publicity of her relationship with the poet.” After all, V. Polonskaya was married to actor Yanshin.
Mayakovsky begins to understand that his love for T. Yakovleva has no future, and on October 5, 1929, he sends his last letter to Paris.
The trip to Paris lost its meaning for Mayakovsky for another reason. On October 11, 1929, L. Brik received a letter from his sister Elsa, which said that “Yakovleva... is marrying a viscount.” Let us note two details: Lily Brik’s intention in bringing this information to the poet, which was unpleasant for him because V. Paul and her husband were in the room, and also the fact that Elsa in the letter is significantly ahead of the events.
Therefore, when Skoryatin checked archival documents, he was not surprised by what he discovered: Mayakovsky did not write an application for a visa and did not receive any refusal. This means that this situation in no way could influence the poet’s mood in the spring of 1930 and did not give him a reason for serious experiences, which, as it was believed, led him to the tragedy of April 14.
In the spring of 1930, Mayakovsky was upset by an ideological disagreement with the REF, a boycott of his former comrades-in-arms at his exhibition, and experienced a failure with “Bathhouse”. And then there’s a severe sore throat, possibly the flu. He does not hide his discomfort, striving to be in public more often in order to overcome his sad mood. To some he seemed gloomy at that time, to others he seemed broken, to others he seemed to have lost faith in his strength. Skoryatin notes that “these fleeting observations, later combined with speculation and rumors, turned into a strong support for the official report of suicide.”
At this time, Mayakovsky becomes more and more attached to Veronica Polonskaya and connects his entire future with her. This was not the first time he decided to “build a family,” but he always encountered stubborn resistance from Lily Brik, who used feminine tricks, tricks, and hysteria—and Mayakovsky retreated. It was a strange life for the three of us... In the spring of 1930, he decided to separate from the Briks at all costs, feeling a huge craving for normality. own family. After all, if he were Brikami, he would, in essence, be lonely and homeless. Relations with V. Polonskaya force him to act. On April 4, he contributes money to the housing cooperative RZHSKT named after. Krasin (after the poet’s death the Briks will move there) asks V. Sutyrin (from FOSP) for help with an apartment in order to leave the Briks before they return from abroad. But I didn't have time...
On the evening of April 13, Mayakovsky went to visit V. Kataev. Polonskaya and Yanshin were also there. We left late, at three o'clock. It's Monday, April 14th.
Mayakovsky appeared at V. Polonskaya’s at 8.30. They left by taxi to the fateful apartment in Lubyanskoye. There Polonskaya warned that she had an important rehearsal at 10.30 and she could not be late. When she reassured Mayakovsky, who, according to her, demanded that she stay with him now, she said that she loved him, would be with him, but could not stay. Yanshin will not tolerate her departure in this form. "I left. She walked a few steps to the front door. A shot rang out... I screamed. I rushed along the corridor... I probably entered a moment later. There was still a cloud of smoke in the room from the shot. Vladimir Vladimirovich was lying on the floor with his arms outstretched..."
Skoryatin notes that “at that time, none of those present heard Polonskaya talk about the revolver in the hands of the poet when she ran out of the room.” This important detail would immediately explain everything: Polonskaya runs out - Mayakovsky immediately shoots in the heart. And no doubt about suicide. Maybe by that time the investigators had not yet managed to force Polonskaya to agree with the “everything explaining” version?
Skoryatin drew attention to the fact that everyone who came running immediately after the shot found the poet’s body lying in one position (“with his feet towards the door”), and those who came later found him in another (“with his head towards the door”). Why did they move the body? Maybe in that turmoil, someone needed to imagine such a picture - at the moment of the shot, the poet was standing with his back to the door, then a bullet hit him in the chest (from inside the room) and knocked him over, head to the threshold. Definite suicide! What if he was facing the door? The same blow would again have knocked him over backwards, but with his feet towards the door. True, in this case, the shot could have been fired not only by the poet himself, but also by someone who suddenly appeared at the door... The leader who arrived first secret department GPU Ya. Agranov immediately took the investigation into his own hands. L. Krasnoshchekova recalled that she persuaded Agranov to wait for Lilya, but he said that the funeral would be “tomorrow or the day after tomorrow” and they would not wait for the Briks. Then, apparently, Agranov realized (or someone told him) that such a hasty funeral would undoubtedly cause unnecessary suspicion.
In the evening, the sculptor K. Lutsky arrived and removed the mask from Mayakovsky’s face. On June 22, 1989, in the Leningrad television program “The Fifth Wheel,” the artist A. Davydov, showing this mask, drew the attention of viewers to the fact that the deceased had a broken nose. This means that Mayakovsky fell face down, he suggested, and not on his back, as happens when he shoots himself.
Then dissectors arrived to remove the poet's brain for scientific research at the Brain Institute. The fact that Mayakovsky’s name was among the “selected few” seemed to Skoryatin “a sure sign that the course of tragic events is controlled by almighty forces.”
“Around midnight,” recalls E. Lavinskaya, “Agranov’s voice was heard from the dining room. He stood with papers in his hands and read aloud the last letter of Vladimir Vladimirovich Agranov read and left the letter with him.”
And the autopsy of the body, as required by investigative laws, was never carried out if not for V. Sutyrin, who demanded an autopsy on April 16, when he heard rumors of Mayakovsky’s incurable venereal disease, which allegedly led him to suicide (“Swift Disease” - this was said even in the official obituary of “In Memory of a Friend” in Pravda, signed by Y. Agranov, M. Gorb, V. Katanyan, M. Koltsov, S. Tretyakov, L. Elbert and others). The autopsy results showed that the malicious gossip had no basis. But this conclusion was not published.
Agranov also took the photograph that E. Lavinskaya saw in his hands when he showed it at the FOSP club to a group of Lefovites: “It was a photograph of Mayakovsky, stretched out as if crucified on the floor, with his arms and legs outstretched and wide open in a desperate cry mouth... Meow explained: “They filmed it immediately when Agranov, Tretyakov and Koltsov entered the room. I never saw this photograph again." (Skoryatin thinks that the photograph was taken before the arrival of the investigative team.)
The Briks arrived, staying, as many knew, with Lily Yuryevna’s mother, E. Kagan, who worked at the Soviet trade mission in London. Brik never talked about who and how found her and her husband abroad.
The Briks alone were probably not surprised by anything. For them, the death of the poet never presented any mystery. K. Zelensky recalls how Osip Brik convinced him: “Reread his poems and you will see how often he talks... about his inevitable suicide.” Lilya Brik cited other motives for the poet’s supposedly inevitable suicide: “Volodya was a neurasthenic. With a temperature of 37 degrees, he felt seriously ill. As soon as I recognized him, he was already thinking about suicide. Dying farewell letters he wrote more than once.” L. Brik everything was clear.
Let's follow the thoughts of Valentin Ivanovich Skoryatin, the only person who seriously thought about the so-called “suicide letter” of Vladimir Mayakovsky. Maybe something will become clear to us too - and not only about the poet, but even about Lilya Brik herself.
SUICIDE LETTER: DOCUMENT OR FAKE?
Here is his text, always quoted to prove the poet’s intention to commit suicide (and Skoryatin’s commentary):
"Everyone
Don’t blame anyone for the fact that I’m dying and please don’t gossip. The deceased did not like this terribly.
Mom, sisters and comrades, forgive me, this is not a way (I don’t recommend it to others) - but I have no choice. Lilya - love me.
Comrade government, my family is Lilya Brik, mother, sisters and Veronica Vitoldovna Polonskaya. If you give them a tolerable life, thank you. Give the poems you started to the Briks, they will figure it out. As they say -
“the incident is ruined”, the love boat crashed into everyday life. I’m even with life, and there’s no need for a list of mutual pains, Troubles and insults, Stay happily.
Vladimir Mayakovsky.
Comrades Vappovtsy, do not consider me cowardly. Seriously - nothing can be done. Hello.
Tell Ermilov that it’s a pity - he removed the slogan, we should have a fight.
V.M.
I have 2000 rubles in my table. contribute to the tax.
You will receive the rest from Giza.
“Responding to the death of Mayakovsky, his enemy V. Khodasevich called this document “petty and insignificant” and sarcastically said that the poet carried a “letter” in his pocket for two days. It's written venomously, but... honestly, this letter does not paint Mayakovsky in the best light...
First of all, let us turn to the line where the poet lists the composition of the “family.” He mentions his family twice. But where the appeal is purely emotional in nature, they are named first, and in the place where, in fact, the heirs are listed, the relatives for some reason end up after L. Brik. (Later, the right to inheritance will be secured by the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR: 1/2 of the share is assigned to L. Brik, 1/6 each - to the mother and sisters, V. Polonskaya, in violation of the will of the poet, will not receive anything). But, in fact, it is not this truly unjust decision that causes bewilderment, but the moral meaning such a "list". It is well known that Mayakovsky, who allowed harshness in public polemics, was extremely noble with people close to him. Why, when addressing “Comrade Government,” does he so carelessly cast a shadow... no, not on L. Brik (she, in the official opinion, has long been known as the poet’s unofficial wife during official husband), and above all for a married young woman? Moreover, having made his relationship with her public, he immediately humiliates her once again with the exclamation: “Lilya - love me.”
And it would be okay if the letter was compiled hastily, in the mortal languor of the last minutes, but on the double sheet of paper from the ledger there is a date - April 12. Another thing is striking: why, preparing for a decisive conversation with his beloved, Mayakovsky in advance, already on April 12, predetermines the outcome of a conversation that has not yet taken place with her - “the love boat crashed...”? But in general, it didn’t crash: as we know, the poet’s proposal was accepted by Veronica Vitoldovna...
However, the poems did not apply to Polonskaya. They were written by the poet... back in 1928. The sketch was transferred by the poet from one notebook to another. And so it came in handy for appealing... to the government. It turns out that Mayakovsky, without straining either his mind or his heart, took his old preparations and incorporated them into his suicide letter, disorienting everyone about the addressee?
Not to mention the financial calculations at the end of the letter. What does a person think about in the face of eternity? What taxes, what GIS! Like it or not, you have to agree with V. Khodasevich on something.
I have to, but something gets in the way. I just can’t wrap my head around what, frankly, this vain letter came from the poet’s pen. However, just... not from the pen. According to the newspapers that reprinted the letter, readers did not understand that the original was written... in pencil.
It is known that it was very difficult to get a poet’s pen, even for a short time. And it’s almost impossible to fake someone else’s handwriting with a fountain pen. But all these difficulties are eliminated if you use... a pencil. And the handwriting itself is a mere trifle for the professionals from Agranov’s department. And if we accept this assumption, then all the distressing bewilderments about the pencil text will disappear.
The letter, like many other pieces of evidence, was “taken” by Agranov. It is known that even members of the government, when dividing Mayakovsky’s inheritance, were guided not by the original, but... by its newspaper reprint (an unprecedented fact!).”
The notes of film director S. Eisenstein, found by Skoryatin, say that he, noting in his suicide letter the “closeness of the rhythmic structure” to “thieves’ Odessa poetry”, as well as “foolish folklore” from the times of the Civil War (thus hinting at the impossibility of Mayakovsky being the author of the letter), makes an unambiguous conclusion: “Mayakovsky never wrote anything like this!” And one more thing: “He should have been removed. And he was removed..."
The insulting tone of the letter towards his mother and sister, as well as the unprecedented violation of their inheritance rights, prove that the poet wrote nothing of the sort.
Mayakovsky spent the most tragic year with Polonskaya and wanted to introduce her to his new home as his wife. Mentioned in Mayakovsky's suicide letter as a member of his family, she was cleverly removed from any rights to the poet's inheritance. . All she got was painful conversations with Syrtsov and Agranov, gossip, a quick divorce from her husband and an ambiguous position in society, when L. Brik for some reason was considered “Mayakovsky’s widow”, being not divorced from O. Brik, but she; Polonskaya, in fact, is the poet’s “illegal” lover. And in nightmare The young actress could not have dreamed of what a thankless role was destined for her in this Brikov theater of the absurd.
Considering that from 1930 to 1958 the letter was in the top-secret archives of the OGPU, and then in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, it can be argued that it was a fake, compiled by the OGPU and designed to convince everyone as the main evidence of Mayakovsky’s suicide.
"CRIMINAL CASE No. 02-29"
Several years ago, after numerous searches, Skoryatin managed to obtain in the secret archive “Criminal Case No. 02-29, 1930, People’s Investigator 2nd case. Baum. district of Moscow I. Syrtsov about the suicide of V.V. Mayakovsky.”
Here are just a few facts from the police report that caused serious confusion:
The report does not mention a suicide letter;
The calendar reported by V. Polonskaya is not mentioned. Now there is a calendar in the Mayakovsky Museum;
The “book peddler” was not found and interrogated (did a person participating in the preparation of the murder come under the guise of him?);
No examination of Mayakovsky's shirt was carried out. L. Brik took the shirt and donated it to the museum only 24 years later. It is impossible to guarantee that she was not “worked on” in such a way that she corresponded to the version of suicide.
This protocol, conveying the strange and undeniable interference in the case of Agranov and his “colleagues,” was then, for some reason, transferred along with the case to investigator I. Syrtsov, who was in charge of another participant in the district. Syrtsov was apparently more accommodating to Agranov.
The contradictions between V. Polonskaya’s memoirs and her testimony to the investigator, in Skoryatin’s opinion, are explained by the fact that she wrote them eight years later and not for the general public, and it apparently seemed to her that the damned interrogation pages had forever sunk into obscurity.
As for the tsetsa of the protocol testimony (“she was annoying”, “she had no intention of leaving her husband”), this is exactly the version that investigator I. Syrtsov wanted to get from her.
On April 14, I. Syrtsov, after interrogating V. Polonskaya at Lubyanka, declares: “Suicide is caused by personal reasons,” which will be published in the press the next day.
On April 15, Syrtsov takes a sudden “unreasonable” break in the investigation, which Skoryatin explains by the fact that on that day Syrtsov received the necessary instructions for further actions at Lubyanka. There is a document in the case that speaks of acute interest in the death of the poet on the part of two OGPU divisions at once: counterintelligence (Gendin) and secret, which was led by Agranov, in whose hands all the threads of the case later ended up. Probably, the GPU was confused by the phrase in the recording of the interrogation: “I went out the door of his room...” It turns out that the poet was left alone for some time, and this could give rise to all sorts of rumors.
“The fears of the GPE officers were not in vain,” V. Skoryatin develops his guess, “for the question of where Polonskaya was at the time of the shot caused a lot of misunderstandings. Y. Olesha wrote to V. Meyerhold in Berlin on April 30, 1930: “...She ran out shouting “Save,” and a shot rang out...” And the poet’s sister Lyudmila Vladimirovna believed that Polonskaya not only “went out the door of his room,” and was already “running down the stairs.” In her notebook she wrote: “When P. (Polonskaya) was running down the stairs and a shot rang out, Agran was immediately there. (Agranov), Tretyak. (Tretyakov), Koltsov. They came in and didn’t let anyone into the room.”
The case materials did not answer the question: did Polonskaya manage to run out of Mayakovsky’s room or apartment, or did the shot occur in her presence? They didn’t give it because, apparently, such an answer was simply not needed.
All the haste and incompleteness, Skoryatin believes, is explained by the fact that Syrtsov was clearly “pushing” the case, and already on April 19 he closed it, issuing a resolution where the suicide letter “note” is mentioned for the only time.
The prosecutor's office adds another document to the case: “Receipt. I received money in the amount of 2113 rubles from P.M.O., Comrade Gerchikova, found in the room of Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky. 82 kopecks and 2 gold rings. Two thousand one hundred thirteen rubles 82 k. and 2 gold. I received the rings. L. Brik. 21.4.30.”
“Lilya Yuryevna,” comments V. Skoryatin, “who was not (while her husband was still alive!) in any official family relationship with Mayakovsky, for no apparent reason receives money and things found in his room, and then that’s it.” his inheritance - and in material values, and in priceless archives, which are essentially public property. The special cynicism of this situation is this. A letter from the poet’s sister Olga Vladimirovna, sent to relatives a few days after the tragedy, says: “On the 12th I spoke to him on the phone... Volodya ordered me to come to him on Monday the 14th, and, leaving home in the morning, I I said that I would come to Volodya after work. This conversation was the last on the 12th.” Clear; the same thing that “Volodya” prepared an envelope for his sister with fifty rubles as an ordinary, ordinary help to the family. And this benefit is given out in the case materials almost as a final, supposedly dying settlement between the poet and his loved ones! Not to mention the fact that this fact best demonstrates: the poet had no thought of leaving this life of his own free will.”
Let us add to the words of V. Skoryatin that the entire behavior of Y. Brik is the best evidence of the numerous areas of personal interest of L. Brik and her husband in this matter, of her extensive connections with the KGB circles, which she developed thanks to her husband’s work in the Cheka since 1920 (first in the speculative department, and then “authorized by the 7th department of the secret department”). As Skoryatin discovered, Lilya herself was an agent of this terrible department. Her KGB ID number is 15073, and Osip Brik’s is 25541. It is clear which organization helped the Briks urgently leave Moscow in February 1930 to leave the poet alone. In connection with this reasoning by Skoryatin, it becomes clear why Lilya Brik organized the transfer of her letter through Agranov to Stalin in 1935. Stalin's resolution (“Mayakovsky was and remains the best, most talented poet of our Soviet era") was supposed to force Soviet publishers to publish Mayakovsky's works in huge editions, in which Lilya Brik, as an heiress, was directly interested.
After what Skoryatin said, a natural conclusion suggests itself: L. and O. Briks could not help but know that Mayakovsky would soon be killed. All their behavior proves this.
And one last thing. In the criminal case file, instead of “Mauser No. 312045” mentioned in the police report, Skoryatin
The reader, of course, drew attention to how many bewilderments, violations, and questions this case of such a simple and ordinary suicide “for personal reasons” caused, nevertheless surrounded by the strictest secrecy. But all questions and problems disappear or are explained if we assume that the poet was killed. Skoryatin also makes the same conclusion. And then the last question really remains: why was this done and by whom? Skoryatin admits that until the end of his life “the poet was faithful to the romantic ideals of the revolution. But more and more often notes of tragic disappointment burst into his “party books,” and he sang more and more forcefully about reality. But the satirical denunciation of “rubbish” grew stronger. As the rejoicing over successes grew, the poet’s voice began to sound dangerously dissonant. Formidable warning signals also appeared: performances based on the plays “The Bedbug” and “Bathhouse” were defamed, a portrait from a magazine was removed, the persecution in the press became more and more vicious.”
Reflecting on how quickly the circle of security officers around the poets narrowed last month, Skoryatin believes this is not accidental. (Immediately after Brikov’s departure, L. Elbert, who in 1921 worked in the Cheka as deputy head of the information department and special representative of the foreign department involved in espionage and international terrorism, moved to his apartment, often, the family of security officers Volovich, and finally came Y. Agranov, about whom Roman Gul writes: "Under Dzerzhinsky, and under Stalin, the bloodiest investigator of the Cheka, Yakov (Yankel) Agranov, was in the highest security posts... who became the executioner of the Russian intelligentsia. He... destroyed the flower of Russian science and the public. .. This same bloody nonentity is the actual murderer of the wonderful Russian poet N.S. Gumilyov...") Mayakovsky, apparently, did not understand “with what all-consuming fire he was playing” when coming into contact with some secrets of the GPU. And therefore there are the most serious grounds for the conclusions about the murder of the poet. An analysis of the poet’s last days suggests that the murder was prepared under the leadership of the GPU on April 12, but for some reason it fell through. (Skoryatin’s brilliant guess, explaining why this date is on the poet’s supposed suicide letter.) The influx of GPU employees on April 14 (from the secret department, counterintelligence and the operational department involved in arrests, searches, provocations, terrorist attacks), Skoryatin believes, on the one hand, throws a shadow on the reputation of the proletarian poet, forcing us today to suspect him not only of creative collaboration with the regime, but on the other hand, it may become evidence of the authorities’ distrust of the poet.
Skoryatin established that on the day of Mayakovsky’s death the activity of GPU employees was clearly higher than on other days. Apparently, having discovered the surveillance long ago, the poet was constantly upset about it. From the testimony of V. Polonskaya it follows that when she ran out into the street after the shot, “a man,
asked for my address." The same thing happened with the bookseller, whose interrogation protocol was kept in the deepest secrecy for decades. And the bookseller Loktev: he probably ended up in the apartment only a few minutes before the shot, because he accidentally saw how “Mayakovsky was standing in front of her (Polonskaya) on his knees...”. From the protocol of the examination of the poet’s body, it is clear that the shot was fired from top to bottom & i (since the bullet entered near the heart, and was felt near the last ribs at the bottom of the back) “and it seems,” Skoryatin concludes, “at the moment when Mayakovsky was kneeling " This is the last thing he came up with in his investigation.
Skoryatin did not find who the killer was. But with his research he proved that the Soviet official myth about the suicide of the poet Mayakovsky no longer exists, that the secret of this tragic event It was revealed to them that the poet Mayakovsky was killed.
The killer's name is unknown. But we know who benefited from it, who was interested in it, who didn’t like his plays, the desire to write the poem “Bad,” and much of what was already born inside him and was just looking for a way out. Hence his desire to free himself from the yoke of the Briks, who had long become spiritually alien people to him, to break with the Chekist environment, the desire to speak “out loud” what was born in his heart. It is no coincidence that on one of his visits to Paris, he tells Yu. Annenkov with amazing frankness, “that communism, the ideas of communism, its ideal, is one thing, while the “communist party” is very powerfully organized... and led by people who enjoy all the benefits of “full power” and “freedom of action” are a completely different thing.”
It is no coincidence that his faith wavers. Late in the evening of April 13, 1930, “... he exclaimed: “Oh, Lord!” Polonskaya said: “Incredible! World turned upside down. Mayakovsky calls on the Lord. Are you? believer?" And he replied: “Oh, I myself don’t understand anything now... what I believe in!”
If Mayakovsky wanted to adapt, he would have written the poem “Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.” The poet did not agree to this, although he was probably persistently prompted. But the main mistakes he made in life and in poetry (getting up artistic words on the side of those who needed to be deprived of this word), they were sincere. And like any person who is sincerely mistaken, he is very slow to see the light. But when he begins to see clearly, such a steel will is born in him, such colossal power, given to him by the very truth of his life, then this person can no longer be controlled. He will do anything and do what needs to be done. And this is how Mayakovsky was born.
I know the power of words,
I know the words alarm.
They are not the same
to whom the lodges applaud...
Isn’t this colossal spiritual power audible, just supported in unclear lines, just emerging from the soul of his heart, but already announcing that old Mayakovsky with his countless volumes of his “party books” will never exist again, even if for this it will be necessary for him not to be himself. Mayakovsky, being born again, does not want to put up with what he put up with before, no longer wants to listen to those whom he listened to before, no longer wants to bow to anyone, but wants to BE, no matter what it costs him. He challenges Death itself - ... and it accepts him.
On one thing, perhaps, we can agree with Lilya Yuryevna and Osip Maksimovich - yes, Mayakovsky really predicted his death, but a violent death! And he not only predicted, but also wanted, but also called, but also thirsted with all his soul. And the closer to the 30th year, the stronger this unknown impulse of the soul, breaking through only in poetry.
There are many rumors about the reasons for the suicide of a person who “hates all kinds of dead things and adores all kinds of life,” but there is still no definite answer. A special correspondent for Culture, who recently completed a book and film script about Vladimir Mayakovsky, offers his own version of his death. It was not the love boat that crashed into everyday life that led to the poet’s tragic outcome.
Before meeting the actor Yevgeny Leonov, I was not too interested in the fate of Mayakovsky. Once, it was back in the early nineties, I had the opportunity to interview Yevgeny Pavlovich, and during the conversation he admitted that among the poets he loved Leonid Martynov and early Mayakovsky most of all. Wanting to demonstrate my awareness, I immediately recalled the sensational publications at that time about the murder of the poet by OGPU officers. But in response, the actor narrowed his eyes mysteriously:
“I know for sure that Mayakovsky shot himself.” There were no security officers nearby.
After Evgeniy Pavlovich enjoyed my surprise, he spoke in great detail about what happened on April 14, 1930 at the poet’s Lubyanka apartment. What I heard made me open my mouth in surprise. But how does Leonov know all this?
The casket opened simply. Veronica Polonskaya, last love poet, was the wife of actor Mikhail Yanshin, and he, in turn, was Leonov’s mentor, who, by the way, gave him the wonderful role of Lariosik in the play “Days of the Turbins.” I had no reason not to believe Leonov - Yanshin could well have told his beloved student what his wife told him when she returned home on that fateful day.
Woman with a gun
The version of the murder of Mayakovsky by OGPU officers is, of course, spectacular. And for the 90s it was also ideologically correct. They say they shot him because he was a danger to Soviet power with his rebellious character and unhealthy craving for White Guard emigrants. But the case is full of inconsistencies. For example, the protocol records that Mayakovsky shot himself with a Mauser, and doctors removed a bullet from a Browning gun. Then the Mauser strangely disappeared from the case, and a Browning appeared in its place.
According to Polonskaya’s testimony, the poet lay with his feet towards the door, but the protocol recorded the opposite - with his head towards the door. In addition, the police reports do not mention at all the person who saw the woman on the stairs with a pistol in her hands - this is the postman Timofey Sigalaev. I myself learned about his existence quite by accident - from his then elderly grandson, who worked in the writers' village of Peredelkino, where we, graduates of the Gorky Literary Institute, loved to visit venerable writers. Timofey Sigalaev, his grandson told me, entered the entrance and saw a woman coming down the stairs with a pistol in her hands. I immediately compared this with Leonov’s story. So that’s who the postman saw, I realized: Polonskaya!
The actress herself does not mention this fact either in the protocol or in her memoirs. She admits to investigators that she told Mayakovsky about the final break with him, which is why he became so nervous. But in her memoirs she writes differently - that she agreed to become his wife, but refused to quit the theater. Further, the protocol and memories coincide: she leaves the apartment and already outside hears a shot.
However, to her husband Mikhail Yanshin, for whom the news that his wife had love relationship with Mayakovsky, it was a shock, Polonskaya reveals the full truth.
Criminal Mauser
The version I heard from Leonov (in fact, this is Polonskaya’s story to her husband) puts everything in its place and explains the inconsistencies. Here is how it was. Polonskaya declares to Mayakovsky that their romance was a mistake, and they break up forever. The poet, as usual, takes out his Browning and threatens that he will shoot himself in front of her. It was in Mayakovsky’s character to take out a pistol on every occasion and threaten to shoot himself. He “shot” three times in the presence of Lily Brik, but in the first case there was a misfire, in the second - he “missed”, in the third - Osip Brik took the pistol away from him. On the evening before the tragedy, Mayakovsky also played with a Browning - it was in the house of the writer Valentin Kataev, when he and Polonskaya retired to one room, and Yanshin was in the next room. But Veronica Vitoldovna, seeing the pistol in the poet’s hands, acted wisely - she simply left the room. The actress, who had studied the character of her lover well, already knew that he was a lover of shocking behavior and needed an audience. Therefore in similar cases It's better to leave him alone as soon as possible.
However, on that tragic morning of April 14, in the poet’s house, Polonskaya screams and attacks Mayakovsky, snatches his pistol and shouts “Help!” leaves the apartment. With a pistol in her hands, she runs to the first floor, where the postman Sigalaev sees her. At this moment a shot is heard above. It turns out that the poet had another pistol in his desk drawer - a Mauser.
When Polonskaya returned to the room, Mayakovsky was still alive. Neighbors called an ambulance. Polonskaya ran to meet the carriage. After some time, she returned with two orderlies, but Mayakovsky was no longer breathing. Neighbors, while waiting for doctors, turned the still living poet with his head towards the door so as not to carry him forward with his feet.
After that, three people entered the apartment: the head of the Secret Department of the OGPU, Yakov Agranov, and two of his employees. They demanded that everyone except the witness leave the room. It was then that Polonskaya handed them the Browning, which she had snatched from Mayakovsky’s hands. Agranov advised not to mention him to the investigator. Let me clarify, this happened before the arrival of the investigative team.
As criminologists later stated, Mayakovsky no longer had any “original” Mauser cartridges left, so he loaded it with a Browning cartridge that was suitable in caliber. Later, the Mauser will be removed from the case and the same Browning gun with which Polonskaya ran out of the poet’s apartment will be planted. Agranov will do this. For what? Leonov had an answer to this: the Mauser was given to Mayakovsky by Agranov himself, and this barrel, as they now say, had criminal origins.
Merchant's word
However, despite the fact that Mayakovsky shot himself (this was clearly confirmed by criminologists), the feeling that the security officers still had a hand in this matter cannot escape. But why - that is the question. Did Mayakovsky really pose a danger to the country of the Soviets with his works or rebellious character? That's just the point, not the slightest! The same Platonov with his “Builders of Spring” (later renamed “Chevengur”) was much more dangerous from the point of view of fermentation of minds.
Perhaps the intelligence services were afraid that Mayakovsky would emigrate? Indeed, if on the eve of industrialization the poet had gone to France, for the sake of reputation Soviet Union that would be a painful blow. But by that time Mayakovsky had already broken off all relations with Yakovleva and was not thinking about Paris.
We'll talk about security officers later, but now let's get back to last minute poet's life. There is something strange in the story told by Polonskaya. Maybe she's not saying something? Maybe she didn’t run out of the room, but Mayakovsky shot himself right in front of her eyes? Knowing his craving for shocking, it is more logical to assume just such an ending. But then what are her reasons for hiding this fact from Yanshin? If this were the case, it is unlikely that she would not have shared this heavy psychological burden with her husband.
But if Mayakovsky really shot himself after Polonskaya left, then he had much more serious reasons for suicide than a break with a woman...
Now let's fast forward to the beginning of the twentieth century. A very curious bill of sale from that time is gathering dust in the archives. It is interesting not by its content, but by the signatures of its partners: the merchants of the first guild, Max Pavlovich Brik, father of Osip Brik, and Abram Shatskin, father of Lazar Shatskin - yes, the same one who founded the Komsomol, and later became one of the organizers of the “right-wing” opposition to Stalin. leftist,” as the leader of the bloc puts it.
In the hungry year of 1919, Mayakovsky and Lilya worked in the windows of ROSTA, and Osip Brik, with his legal education, could not find work. Father Brik once came to visit his son on Poluektovsky Lane and was speechless when he saw the conditions in which his Osya lived. Moreover, he shares his wife with some kind of loudmouth. It was then that he decided to bring his son together with the son of his former partner in merchant affairs.
The life of Lazar Shatskin was stormy. At the age of 15 he threw himself into the revolution, then fought on the fronts Civil War. Then he became friends with Boris Bazhanov, Stalin’s personal secretary. In 1918, he came to Lenin with the idea of creating a communist youth union. Charming Lazar managed to win over the secretary of the Small Council of People's Commissars, Yakov Agranov, who worked directly with Ilyich, and even, according to some sources, persuade him to make copies of documents for Stalin, who was not yet a member of this body. The future father of nations appreciated Agranov’s efforts and recommended him to Dzerzhinsky to work in the Cheka. Having accepted the offer, he made the right decision - he rose to the rank of head of the Secret Department of the OGPU. True, in 1938 he suffered the same fate as many - he was shot.
But that will come later. And in 1919, Shatskin, who at the instigation of Lenin became the secretary of the Central Committee of the RKSM, helped Osip with patronage for service in the Cheka. In the police, Osip became close friends with Agranov, and he became a friend of the “family” of Brikov and Mayakovsky.
Now let's fast forward to 1928. The First All-Union Congress of Proletarian Writers is taking place in Moscow. The task is very clear - to bring all literary unions into one organization in order to take control of them. They intended to put Mayakovsky in charge. However, to his misfortune, Gorky came to the country. He was still wondering whether to stay here permanently, and Stalin, sensitively perceiving these hesitations, invited the proletarian writer to head Soviet writers. Gorky accepted the offer. What about Mayakovsky? He and the Left Front of the Arts were not even invited to the congress.
Mayakovsky's exit from LEF came as a surprise to everyone. Meanwhile, nothing unexpected. Remaining with the “left”, Mayakovsky would have found himself in opposition to the revolution. Well, the laurels of an oppositionist never attracted him.
Conspiracy of the Doomed
In the fall of 1928, three days before his trip to Paris, the very event that subsequently led to Mayakovsky’s death occurred. Let us recall the situation of that year. The country was in a fever. The army did not have time to suppress the peasant riots. According to official data alone, by the beginning of 1929, 5,721 peasant uprisings were recorded in the country and 1,307 terrorist attacks were committed. It seemed that a little more and the Soviets would collapse. The party split. Even his most devoted comrades began to turn away from Stalin. Personal secretary Boris Bazhanov fled to Persia. Yakov Blumkin, sent to liquidate him, became imbued with the ideas of the opposition and established contact with Trotsky. Then that very “right-left” bloc was formed, the ideologist of which was the former head of the Komsomol, and then a member of the Central Control Commission of the party, Lazar Shatskin.
In the fall of 1928, as a member of the editorial board of Pravda, he met Mayakovsky in the editorial office. It’s not difficult to guess what was discussed. It is enough to trace Mayakovsky’s subsequent actions. The poet began to speak rather critically of the current government, although he had never allowed himself to do anything like that before. He creates the Revolutionary Arts Front (REF) and begins to attack Russian Association Proletarian Writers (RAPP). And RAPP, let us remind you, is the mouthpiece of the party’s general line.
Did Mayakovsky agree to support the conspirators during a conversation with Shatskin? For sure. In return, Lazar Abramovich promised him the same position that Stalin offered Gorky. But, of course, after the removal of the Kremlin highlander from leadership. They intended to remove Stalin from office at the next plenum - it was assumed that a regular vote would be enough for this. It is unlikely that the most loyal Mayakovsky felt like a conspirator - most likely, he perceived all this as an ordinary verification of positions before the meeting, of which there were a great many at that time.
Between the devil and the deep sea
But Stalin, of course, assessed this differently. It is naive to think that he did not know about the plans of the opposition. Another thing - there was little I could do about it. At that time he did not yet have the power with which we associate him today. How powerful the opposition was is evidenced by the fact that in place of the removed Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, Alexei Rykov, it replaced the Siberian Bolshevik Sergei Syrtsov, respected in the party. Unlike the weak and indecisive Rykov and Bukharin, he was a real leader. He was supported by former Komsomol members Reznik, Lominadze, and the inexhaustible generator of ideas Shatskin. From the very first days of his appointment, Syrtsov gained wild popularity among the people. Stalin, for his part, took a number of statist measures. He announced that the first year of the five-year plan (1928) was overfulfilled by 25%, which means that the country was on the right course, and from October 1, 1929, he introduced a continuous (four working days, then a day off) week.
In parallel with the rivalry in politics, since the autumn of the same year, a struggle for Mayakovsky has been unfolding between Stalin and Syrtsov. Stalin's entourage begins to actively bring the poet closer to them. Despite the fact that Mayakovsky attacks the RAPP, he is given a concert at the OGPU, at the Polytechnic Museum, and is even invited to perform before Stalin at the Bolshoi Theater.
In response, Shatskin, Syrtsov’s man, reveals to Mayakovsky the names of high-ranking oppositionists (and, one might say, conspirators) in order to show how strong their positions are, saying that Stalin has no chance of remaining in power.
However, when “officials” did not appear at Mayakovsky’s exhibition, Mayakovsky guessed that Stalin knew about his relationship with the opposition, and, leaving the REF in panic, joined RAPP, demonstrating that he had finally gone over to the side of the official authorities.
Deadly Slope
Today it is unknown whether Stalin celebrated victory when Mayakovsky, leaving the ranks of the oppositionists, joined the RAPP. However, the poet’s tossing could not help but alarm the head of the Secret Department of the OGPU, Yakov Agranov, who sympathized with Syrtsov, but outwardly maintained a neutral position. As a loyal Stalinist who knew the names of the opposition conspirators, Mayakovsky frightened not only Agranov, but also Shatskin.
An attempt on the singer of the revolution was ruled out. Stalin would have immediately understood whose hands this was. But Agranov knew very well Mayakovsky’s habit of grabbing a pistol at every occasion. And there were enough such reasons. Psychological condition the poet's life in those days was far from cloudless. At RAPP they treat him with disdain and every time they emphasize that he is a defector who betrayed his comrades. Mayakovsky tries to meet with the head of the association, Vladimir Sutyrin, but he avoids him in every possible way. There is no personal happiness either. Lilya and Osip unexpectedly leave for Europe, leaving Mayakovsky alone with his fears. After their departure, OGPU officer Lev Elberg, who appears in Lily’s diary under the nickname Snob, moves into his apartment. He explains that Lilya asked to look after him.
Mayakovsky runs out into the street in a panic, sees the poet Zharov from RAPP and rushes to him with a question:
Will I be arrested soon? What do they say at RAPP?
Polonskaya, who announced a break in relations, dealt the final blow. The poet’s psyche could not stand it... Those who feared that Mayakovsky would become too talkative were counting on this. On April 14, the poet passed away. And two days later, on the 16th, the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) began, at which Stalin made a speech “On the right deviation in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” - this is where the defeat of the opposition began.
Seven months later, Syrtsov’s conspiracy will be exposed. Lominadze will be forced to write a report on the eve of the December plenum. Oppositionists will be removed from leadership positions and sent to less responsible positions. Lominadze would be arrested in 1935 and commit suicide. Syrtsov and Shatskin would be shot in 1937.
And one last thing. In his suicide letter, Mayakovsky, quite obviously, addresses himself directly to Stalin. “Comrade government, my family is Lilya Brik, mother, sisters and Veronica Vitoldovna Polonskaya. If you give them a tolerable life, thank you.” What is this about - a lifelong pension or improved living conditions? Hardly. Rather, please do not persecute loved ones for his participation in the conspiracy; he already paid for his apostasy at the highest price - his life. “Mom, sisters and comrades - sorry!” It is generally accepted that Mayakovsky asks for forgiveness for his passing away. But I think not: he asked for forgiveness for taking the side of the opposition and thereby putting his loved ones at risk. And in the same line he advises no one to repeat his mistake, because “there are no ways out.” Except for the bullet in the temple.
The question of why the great Russian poet Mayakovsky shot himself has still not received and probably will not receive an unambiguous answer. It is difficult to understand what exactly prompted a person to commit suicide.
Rumors and speculation about Mayakovsky’s suicide
True, in recent years, more and more publications have begun to appear in the press claiming that there was supposedly no suicide, and that the poet’s death was the result of a well-thought-out and successfully carried out conspiracy. According to one of the versions, which is especially popular with the masses and therefore has become quite widespread, Mayakovsky was killed and then disguised as a suicide by security officers, that is, agents of the OGPU. Yulian Semenov, who is the author of everything, tried to promote this famous painting"Seventeen Moments of Spring". But, judging by the theme of his masterpiece, he saw the machinations of the secret service in everything and generally had a tendency to exaggerate everything. If you start to analyze it in detail, you end up with continuous gaps, inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Most likely, the fact was that at one time the then young Mayakovsky met an equally young Moscow Art Theater actress named Veronika Vitoldovna Polonskaya. But, unfortunately, love does not choose, and she was already married to Mayakovsky’s colleague, also a poet Yanshin. They had a love relationship that periodically reached a peak in the intensity of passions, then subsided and almost completely came to naught. But thin poetic soul Mayakovsky, in the end, got tired of this and he delivered an ultimatum, they say, either she gets a divorce, or everything will be over between them. Moreover, then he simply will not be able to live and will shoot himself.
The day before, the lovers had a meeting in the apartment at that time famous writer, Kataeva, during which Veronica tried to dissuade her beloved from such drastic actions. Mayakovsky, who had permission to carry firearms, carried a pistol with him everywhere. Earlier, at a similar meeting, he had already threatened to shoot himself if Polonskaya did not leave her husband for him, but now, apparently, his patience has run out. Being an unbalanced and very emotional person, he acted impulsively and without thinking. Throughout the evening there was correspondence between Mayakovsky and Polonskaya. The poet was quiet, thoughtful, even sad, and kept looking for her with his eyes. Then he spent late at night them home, he called a car and drove to his place. In the morning he picked up Veronica to take her to a rehearsal at the theater. But in the end they had a row again, because he was jealous of his husband and even of the theater itself. But, according to Polonskaya, he no longer thought about suicide. His life ended just a few hours later, on a sunny, fine day. This is not so surprising in light of the disorder of his actions and susceptibility to emotions. In fact, love and the subtlety of an oversensitive soul are to blame, as well as circumstances. But it’s unlikely that the security officers cared about this.
On April 14, 1930, in Moscow, in Lubyansky Proezd, a shot was fired in the workroom of Vladimir Mayakovsky. The debate over whether the poet died voluntarily or was killed has not subsided to this day. One of its participants, professor of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Sechenov MMA, Alexander Vasilyevich Maslov, talks about the masterly investigation of the experts. 
Versions and facts
On April 14, 1930, Krasnaya Gazeta reported: “Today at 10:17 a.m. in his work room, Vladimir Mayakovsky committed suicide with a revolver shot to the heart area. Arrived " ambulance“I found him already dead. IN last days V.V. Mayakovsky did not reveal any mental discord and nothing foreshadowed a catastrophe.”
In the afternoon the body was transported to the poet’s apartment on Gendrikov Lane. Was removed by sculptor K. Lutsky death mask, and badly - he tore off the deceased’s face. Employees of the Brain Institute extracted Mayakovsky's brain, which weighed 1,700. On the very first day, pathologist Professor Talalay performed an autopsy at the prezector clinic of the Faculty of Medicine of Moscow State University, and on the night of April 17, a re-autopsy took place: due to rumors that the poet allegedly had a venereal disease, which were not confirmed. Then the body was cremated.
As with Yesenin, Mayakovsky’s suicide caused different reactions and many versions. One of the “targets” was the 22-year-old Moscow Art Theater actress Veronica Polonskaya. It is known that Mayakovsky asked her to become his wife. She was the one last person who saw the poet alive. However, the testimony of the actress, apartment neighbors and investigative data indicate that the shot rang out immediately after Polonskaya left Mayakovsky’s room. That means she couldn't shoot.
The version that Mayakovsky is not figurative, but literally“lay his head on the barrel”, put a bullet in his head, cannot stand criticism. The poet’s brain has been preserved to this day and, as the staff of the Brain Institute rightly reported in those days, “by external examination, the brain does not present any significant deviations from the norm.”
Several years ago, in the program “Before and After Midnight,” the famous television journalist Vladimir Molchanov suggested that the post-mortem photograph on Mayakovsky’s chest clearly shows traces of TWO shots.
This dubious hypothesis was dispelled by another journalist, V. Skoryatin, who conducted a thorough investigation. There was only one shot, but he also believes that Mayakovsky was shot. Specifically, the head of the secret department of the OGPU, Agranov, with whom, by the way, the poet was friends: hiding in the back room and waiting for Polonskaya to leave, Agranov enters the office, kills the poet, leaves a suicide letter and again goes out into the street by the back door. And then he goes up to the scene as a security officer. The version is interesting and almost fits into the laws of that time. However, without knowing it, the journalist unexpectedly helped the experts. Mentioning the shirt the poet was wearing at the time of the shot, he writes: “I examined it. And even with the help of a magnifying glass I did not find any traces of a powder burn. There is nothing on her except a brown blood stain.” So the shirt was preserved!
Poet's shirt
Indeed, in the mid-50s, L.Yu. Brik, who had the poet’s shirt, gave it to State Museum V.V. Mayakovsky - the relic was kept in a box and was wrapped in paper impregnated with a special composition. On the left side of the front of the shirt there is a through wound, with dried blood visible around it. Surprisingly, this “material evidence” was not examined either in 1930 or later. And how much controversy there was around the photographs!
Having received permission to conduct the research, I, without revealing the essence of the matter, showed the shirt to a major specialist in forensic ballistics, E.G. Safronsky, who immediately made a “diagnosis”: “Entry bullet damage, most likely a point-blank shot.”
Having learned that the shot was fired more than 60 years ago, Safronsky noted that such examinations were not carried out in the USSR at that time. An agreement was reached: specialists from the Federal Center for Forensic Expertise, where the shirt was transferred, would not know that it belonged to the poet - for the purity of the experiment.
So, a beige-pink shirt made of cotton fabric is subject to research. Front on bar 4 mother of pearl buttons. The back of the shirt from the collar to the bottom is cut with scissors, as evidenced by the ledge-shaped edges of the cut and the straight ends of the threads. But it is not enough to assert that this particular shirt, bought by the poet in Paris, was on him at the time of the shot. In photographs of Mayakovsky’s body taken at the scene of the incident, the fabric pattern, texture, shape and location of the blood stain and gunshot wound are clearly visible. When the museum shirt was photographed from the same angle, magnification and photo alignment was carried out, all the details coincided.
Experts from the Federal Center had a difficult job to do - to find traces of a shot on the shirt that was more than 60 years old and to establish its distance. And in forensic medicine and criminology there are three of them: a point-blank shot, at close range and at long range. Linear cross-shaped damage characteristic of a point-blank shot was discovered (they arise from the action of gases reflected from the body at the moment the tissue is destroyed by the projectile), as well as traces of gunpowder, soot and scorching both in the damage itself and in adjacent areas of the tissue.
But it was necessary to identify a number of stable signs, for which the diffusion-contact method was used, which does not destroy the shirt. It is known: when a shot is fired, a hot cloud flies out along with the bullet, then the bullet gets ahead of it and flies away further. If they shot from a long distance, the cloud did not reach the object; if from a close distance, the gas-powder suspension should have settled on the shirt. It was necessary to investigate the complex of metals that make up the bullet shell of the proposed cartridge.
The resulting impressions showed an insignificant amount of lead in the damaged area, and practically no copper was detected. But thanks to the diffuse-contact method of determining antimony (one of the components of the capsule composition), it was possible to establish a large zone of this substance with a diameter of about 10 mm around the damage with a topography characteristic of a shot at the side. Moreover, the sectoral deposition of antimony indicated that the muzzle was pressed against the shirt at an angle. And intense metallization on the left side is a sign of a shot being fired from right to left, almost in a horizontal plane, with a slight downward inclination.
From the “Conclusion” of the experts:
"1. The damage on V.V. Mayakovsky’s shirt is an entrance gunshot wound, formed when fired from a “side rest” distance in the direction from front to back and slightly from right to left, almost in a horizontal plane.
2. Judging by the characteristics of the damage, a short-barreled weapon (for example, a pistol) was used and a low-power cartridge was used.
3. The small size of the blood-soaked area located around the entrance gunshot wound indicates its formation as a result of the instantaneous release of blood from the wound, and the absence of vertical blood flows indicates that immediately after receiving the wound V.V. Mayakovsky was in horizontal position, lying on your back.
4. The shape and small size of the blood stains located below the injury, and the peculiarity of their arrangement along an arc, indicate that they arose as a result of the fall of small drops of blood from a small height onto the shirt in the process of moving downwards right hand splattered with blood, or from a weapon in the same hand.”
Is it possible to fake suicide so carefully? Yes, in expert practice there are cases of staging one, two, or less often five signs. But it is impossible to falsify the entire complex of signs. It was established that the drops of blood were not traces of bleeding from a wound: they fell from a small height from a hand or weapon. Even if we assume that the security officer Agranov (and he really knew his job) was a murderer and inflicted drops of blood after being shot, say, from a pipette, although according to the reconstructed timing of events he simply did not have time for this, it was necessary to achieve complete coincidence localization of blood drops and location of traces of antimony. But the reaction to antimony was discovered only in 1987. It was the comparison of the location of antimony and drops of blood that became the pinnacle of this research.
Autograph of death
The specialists of the laboratory of forensic handwriting examinations also had to work, because many, even very sensitive people, doubted the authenticity suicide letter poet, drawn in pencil with almost no punctuation:
“Everyone. Don’t blame anyone for the fact that I’m dying and please don’t gossip. The deceased did not like this terribly. Mom, sisters and comrades, I’m sorry this is not the way (I don’t recommend it to others), but I have no choice. Lilya - love me. My family is Lilya Brik, mother, sisters and Veronica Vitoldovna Polonskaya...
The love boat crashed into everyday life. I’m even with life, and there’s no point in listing mutual troubles and grievances. Happy stay. Vladimir Mayakovsky. 12.IV.30"
From the “Conclusion” of the experts:
“The presented letter on behalf of Mayakovsky was written by Mayakovsky himself under unusual conditions, the most likely cause of which is a psychophysiological state caused by excitement.”
There was no doubt about the date - exactly April 12, two days before death - “immediately before the suicide, the signs of unusualness would have been more pronounced.” So the secret of the decision to die lies not in the 14th day of April, but in the 12th.
"Your word, Comrade Mauser"
Relatively recently, the case “On the Suicide of V.V. Mayakovsky” was transferred from the Presidential Archive to the Museum of the Poet, along with the fatal Browning, bullet and cartridge case. But the protocol for examining the scene of the incident, signed by the investigator and the medical expert, states that he shot himself with a “Mauser revolver, caliber 7.65, No. 312045.” According to his identification, the poet had two pistols - a Browning and a Bayard. And although “Krasnaya Gazeta” wrote about a shot from a revolver, eyewitness V.A. Katanyan mentions a Mauser, and N. Denisovsky, years later, a Browning, it is still difficult to imagine that a professional investigator could confuse a Browning with a Mauser.
Employees of the V.V. Mayakovsky Museum appealed to the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Expertise with a request to conduct a study of the Browning pistol No. 268979 transferred to them from the Presidential Archives, bullets and cartridges and establish whether the poet shot himself with this weapon?
Chemical analysis of the deposits in the Browning barrel led to the conclusion that “the weapon was not fired after the last cleaning.” But the bullet once removed from Mayakovsky’s body “is indeed part of a 7.65 mm Browning cartridge of the 1900 model.” So what's the deal? The examination showed: “The caliber of the bullet, the number of marks, the width, angle of inclination and right-hand direction of the marks indicate that the bullet was fired from a Mauser model 1914 pistol.”
The results of the experimental shooting finally confirmed that “the 7.65 mm Browning cartridge bullet was fired not from Browning pistol No. 268979, but from a 7.65 mm Mauser.”
Still, it’s a Mauser. Who changed the weapon? In 1944, an NKGB officer, “talking” with the disgraced writer M.M. Zoshchenko, asked whether he considered the cause of Mayakovsky’s death clear, to which the writer responded with dignity: “It continues to remain mysterious. It is curious that the revolver with which Mayakovsky shot himself was given to him by the famous security officer Agranov.”
Could it be that Agranov himself, to whom all the investigation materials flocked, switched weapons, adding Mayakovsky’s Browning to the case? For what? Many people knew about the “gift,” and besides, the Mauser was not registered with Mayakovsky, which could have come back to haunt Agranov himself (by the way, he was later shot, but for what?). However, this is a matter of guesswork. Let’s better respect the poet’s last request: “...please don’t gossip. The dead man didn’t like it terribly.”
