Writer's criticism. Review of Literary Critical Activity A

First of all, a few words to the reader. Taking up this topic, I expected to limit myself to a small essay, since my personal front-line memories are connected with the odious name "Solzhenitsyn" and thought-provoking impressions.

However, the circle of phenomena taking place around this name turned out to be so wide, and the introduction of “Solzhenitsizm” into the system of secondary and higher education in post-Soviet Russia causes serious concerns among us, the front-line soldiers of the Great Patriotic War. Modern politicians like to shout that the Soviet Union, in their opinion, was one big "Gulag". But everyone who watches our TV shows today cannot get rid of the idea that right now we are all either behind bars in the bullpen, or in the courtroom, or even worse - in the midst of gang warfare. Since television is now broadcasting to the whole world, we create an unambiguous opinion abroad about Russians as a wild, bandit people, far from civilization.

First of all, our fears are connected with the fact that the process of instilling patriotism among new generations is directed along a false, precisely Solzhenitsyn direction. Even more dangerous is the fact that the rewriting of our Russian history has a detrimental effect on the formation of the moral qualities of society. The materials offered to the reader, of course, do not exhaust this topic and do not claim to be the ultimate truth.

But if those who read them can overcome the artificially created image "truthful gulag expert" and his perverted idea of ​​the Soviet period in the history of our Motherland, then I will consider my work useful.

1. Where does it begin ... Solzhenitsyn in the memory of his contemporaries and in Russian history

The appearance of Solzhenitsyn in my memory was "staken out" back in the years of the Great Patriotic War. In March 1945, after heavy fighting for the German Stargard (now Polish Stargard-Szczecinski), we, the company commanders of the penal battalion, I remember, were struck by one message from the battalion "special officer" Glukhov. He said that some time ago he was exposed in the troops, and by order of the big boss from Smersh, the commander of an artillery battery was arrested. According to him, this artilleryman created an anti-Soviet group or party, and was going to organize the overthrow of Stalin after the victory.

Then, at the beginning of the spring of 1945, in response to our "Special Smershevite" I said that I would like to take him into my company if he was sent to the penal battalion. My penalty box could shake the crap out of him. To which Glukhov said that, firstly, this gunner political arrested, and he will be taken away from the front so that he does not run away to the enemy. Secondly, in order to unwind all the ropes and his connections with this group, the authorities should tinker with him and his "friends". And then it became clear that this artilleryman deliberately created a situation that entailed mandatory arrest and removal from the front, that is, it was an actual malicious desertion from the battlefield.

In our officer's penal battalion, there were practically no deserters. There were officers who were late from vacation not for a day or two, but for more significant periods. There were even those who returned from hospitals at the wrong time after being wounded, who were also charged with some form of desertion (justified or not is another question). But I simply don’t know outright deserters from the battlefield among officers, and there was an unequivocal attitude towards such crimes: disgusting, as with the lowest human act in the war. Approximately the same, if not more vile crime, in our opinion, was committed then by this artillery captain.

I didn’t pay attention then or simply didn’t remember whether the special officer called the name of this battery commander, but we were all surprised how this combat artillery officer conceived such an evil deed before our near Victory, to which we are confidently moving precisely under the leadership of Stalin. Yes, even in my poems, written back in December 1944, I believed that Victory would come "in the spring, at the beginning of May." We did not then pay attention to the fact that this was not such a combat officer, “from a sound reconnaissance battery”, “a battery without guns”. Then, behind the affairs of the front-line combat, this message of the "special officer" was generally forgotten.

I remembered him only after I read the sensational One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in Novy Mir in November-December 1962. I found out that his "writer" Solzhenitsyn had written that he was at the front the commander of an artillery battery, and was arrested 3 months before the victory. It seemed to me something familiar, the so-called. " deja vu like something similar has happened to me before. Then I clearly remembered the story that our battalion "special officer" Senior Lieutenant Glukhov told. And the more I learned about this Solzhenitsyn, the more I was sure that then it was about him.

From the first publication of "... Ivan Denisovich", underground and foreign, and then the mass editions of his "Archipelago ..." in post-Soviet Russia, and to this day, the personality and work of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn cause unceasing disputes. And the attitude towards him as a “new genius” of Russian literature, history, morality and morality is far from unambiguous.

The purpose of these my reflections on Solzhenitsyn is to reveal him as a dishonorable, vile, deceitful person, although many of the facts I mentioned have long been made public and will not be a sensation for the reader. However, it is too obvious that in our time, society is stubbornly stuffed with wild Solzhenitsyn myths based on shameless lies and ignorance. And today, when the authorities in power from history, culture and education are trying by all means to revive the "greatness" of the "genius" rejected by the Soviet public and the authorities, the main thing is to help get rid of the myths artificially created around the "great prophet". Maybe these considerations of mine will help those who are lost in assessing the significance of this person, to objectively assess his personality and the enormous harm he caused to national history and literature, the Russian people and Russia in general.

On December 12, 2013, President Vladimir Putin announced his annual Address to the Federal Assembly. Perhaps one of the theses not mentioned by any representatives of the modern Russian authorities for a long time was about the reconstruction of the system statistical evaluation the level of the technological state of the sectors of the economy.

“In the Soviet period, such a system worked - it was liquidated, nothing was created on this basis, it needs to be recreated” - said the President.

Yes, many systems worked in Soviet times, for example, social security, education, healthcare, and many others. Maybe not in the most ideal way, but the anti-corruption system worked well. Now, apart from loud statements and declarations that this trouble continues to corrode the country, no decisive measures are being taken, which can be seen at least in Serdyukov, Vasilyeva and many others.

It has long been clear to everyone that many of the achievements and positions of the socialist motherland, which was the USSR, have been undeservedly rejected, forgotten, and slandered. I remember how many tales heaped on the Soviet system of planning, on the historical five-year plans. Everyone tried to close with the slogan “the market itself will set the necessary priorities”, “the market will regulate everything”. And now, 20 years later, they have come to their senses and understood that the country cannot live without a planned system of development. And then they began to resort to incomprehensible "road maps" according to the American model. After the total destruction by Serdyukov of the military-scientific basis of the officer training system, we are already trying to restore it with great losses, even returning to the reconstruction of military departments in universities. So, most likely someday it will happen with an objective assessment of Solzhenitsyn. But, apparently, it will not be very soon, but it may be too late.

Indeed, so far in post-Soviet Russia they have not yet recognized even the obvious truth about the best Soviet system of education and science in the world. Alien to our society " Bologna system"and" Unified State Exam. The public health system has been replaced by the commercialized "medical service" of hospitals and polyclinics, their further destruction and sale continues,

As soon as they didn’t accuse both the Soviet government and the public of persecuting the “fighter for truth”, of persecuting the “dissident genius”, as soon as they didn’t forcibly plant “ co-false-nitism» to new generations almost from preschool age. But in fact, if you slightly change the letters in this new "... change", it only turns out " co-FAU-cynicism", exactly CYNICISM in the full sense of the word.

The time will come, however, when we recognize that the assessment of the personality and creativity of Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet era " worked correctly' and 'it needs to be recreated'. Is it possible to recreate the ruined morality and morality many generations, into whose minds will be hammered Solzhenitsyn's concept of these personality traits.

Even during the Cold War against the USSR, catchy, effective phrases and slogans were used to varying degrees, concentrating the attention of the masses, distracting them from the essence of everyday phenomena. So our language began to abound with banal liberal phrases or the words " human rights», « freedom of speech», « democratization», « free market". As well as " thaw», « discharge», « Stalinism», « more glasnost - more socialism», « perestroika», « new thinking», « socialism with human face and they are numberless.

Standing apart is the "slogan", created by Solzhenitsyn, and aired with the colossal information support of the West, and now Russia itself - this is " Gulag Archipelago».

Having created it, Solzhenitsyn deliberately made a personal contribution to the destruction of the great state of the USSR, comparable to weapons of mass destruction. The catastrophic destruction of the USSR brought suffering, war and premature death to tens of millions of former Soviet citizens. These massive sacrifices are largely on the conscience of Solzhenitsyn, who became a Nobel laureate precisely for this, and not for "literary exploits", no matter what he claimed during his lifetime, and no matter what his "benefactors" say about him today.

Many sane people note that in Germany itself, for example, there was no German author who branded the Germans for the atrocities of the Second World War to the whole world. There was no one in America who would call on the Yankees to repent for the many cruel episodes of mass extermination of people and the chemical war in Southeast Asia, and the cold-blooded murder of already millions of defenseless people in Africa, the Middle East, not to mention the atomic bombing of Japan. There is no author who cursed all the Chinese, Mao Tse Tung and China for the tens of millions of victims of the Cultural Revolution. But in Russia there was a Russian author who cursed his country for socialism, for the development and enrichment of the country and its peoples, who demanded repentance for the Great Victory over world evil - Hitler's fascism. Moreover, he called on the forces of international imperialism to practically destroy his homeland only because a power was firmly established in it, not pleasing to him, Solzhenitsyn and the same renegades!

2. "Criticism of Stalin" or thoughtful desertion from the front

All the events related to Solzhenitsyn, connected both with my front-line, penal battalion past, and with modern publications that distort the truth about this man unworthy of such praise, as the former front-line soldier Solzhenitsyn turned out to be, prompted me to familiarize myself with objective literature about his life and betrayal. Among other things, I read with great interest the book by Solzhenitsyn's first wife, Natalya Reshetovskaya, " In dispute with time» (Publishing house APN, Moscow, 1975).

Of great interest was the well-documented work of the Czech writer Tomas Rzhezach, who lived for some time in Switzerland and belonged to the narrow circle of friends of AI Solzhenitsyn. Moreover, he was at first his admirer and even his employee. But not only in Switzerland, after the appearance of Solzhenitsyn's opuses, many of his friends expressed their indignation and turned away from him forever. Having come into close contact with him and his moral positions, having known the writer quite well, Rzhezach, upon returning to his homeland, began to comprehend the contradictions discovered during direct communication with Solzhenitsyn and acquaintance with his life. The author gathered a lot of factual material during his tourist trips around the Soviet Union, where he also met Solzhenitsyn's former friends and assistants, who were involved in his unclean political game. All this allowed Tomasz Řezacz to write a large, well-reasoned book based on authentic documents. Solzhenitsyn's spiral of betrayal» (Authorized translation from Czech, PROGRESS Publishing House, Moscow 1978).

This book is distinguished above all by its strict objectivity. The author opposes Solzhenitsyn's fictions with irrefutable and documented facts, which is especially valuable.

Already after Solzhenitsyn's "imprisonment" and after the publication of his "works", it became clear to me, and to most researchers of the "phenomenon" of the "Prisoner of the Gulag", that Solzhenitsyn knew what kind of activity was not only in the army during hostilities, but anyone is waiting for a tribunal and execution, unless ... you find some way out. And they found a way out, even predetermined. Solzhenitsyn has thought out his plans to the smallest detail, and is doing everything to get on his trail as soon as possible. Apparently, he had an undesirable prospect of transferring sound reconnaissance from the battery, which had been safely deployed throughout the war at a sufficient distance from the front line, to fire units, where the probability of falling under enemy fire is many times higher. Not otherwise, how banal cowardice and the realization of the possible death of him, Solzhenitsyn, who had not yet become the “Great Celebrity”, the second “Leo Tolstoy”, jumped up in a person, which he had been imagining so annoyingly for many years since his student days. The only possibility of salvation was by any means to safely leave the front that had become so dangerous for the “precious life of the future genius”.

And so, in order to create the impression not of a single anti-Soviet, but of some kind of military-political conspiracy, Solzhenitsyn draws into his epistolary networks as much as possible more people, even unaware of the true goals of conversations with a talkative fellow traveler or the content of his letters.

At the front, at least, the entire officer corps knew very well that all letters from the front (and to the front) were strictly and 100% controlled by the huge apparatus of military censorship. For example, we even got the hang of telling relatives through censorship slingshots the names of cities that took place with battles, mentioning in letters only the names of “acquaintances”, to whom or from whom they betrayed greetings, and our addressees recognized this secret information by the initial letters of these names.

So: Solzhenitsyn knows for sure (he must know!) that the letters are being censored., and yet he does not just “criticize Stalin,” as Solzhenitsyn himself says, but in his numerous correspondences he writes about how, after the victory, he will wage a “war after the war.” And at the same time he keeps in his field bag “Resolution No. 1”, where it says: “ Our task is this: to determine the moment of transition to action and deliver a decisive blow to the post-war reactionary ideological superstructure. And further: “The fulfillment of all these tasks is impossible without organization. It should be clarified with which of the active builders of socialism, how and when to find a common language ". Even without any exaggeration it was a document confirming the emergence of a seemingly well-organized hostile group. It is not simple " anti-Stalin curses”, and not even just criticism of the Supreme by some junior artillery officer. This is on the same level as if the battery commander kept Mein Kampf and a portrait of Hitler. Nikolai Vitkevich, his addressee, framed by his school friend as an accomplice, admits: “ Well, there is nothing to be offended that they gave the deadline. (From an interview in 1992). Although, what can I think: 26-year-old captain: not just to scold Supreme Commander during the war! Yes, even in military correspondence, deliberately subjected to censorship ».

In this regard, I recall the autumn battles of 1944 at the Narew bridgehead in Poland as part of the 65th Army of General Batov. From the combat situation and from the clearly manifested attitude towards the penitentiaries in this army, it became clear to us, and the penitentiaries understood this, that the new battalion commander Baturin and the senior commanders, under whom we were transferred for the duration of the battles, would not let out a single penitentiary from here who did not atone for his guilt with his life or blood. Then we began to lose our comrades-in-arms, including those who were considered deserving of release for military exploits, without wounds, as was normal under the battalion commander Osipov in the army of General Gorbatov. But we thought so, and here is Baturin, and apparently General Batov with his divisional commanders, as it turned out, had a different opinion. And then my platoon commander brought me a piece of paper on which there were verses:

Us with Baturin-combat
I took Batov to my Narev.
Well, this is not Gorbatov,
He did not spare the fighters of the penal battalion.
For him, the penalty box is a footcloth.
He only freed those
Who was wounded, who died under the tank,
And he drove the rest to the bullets!

To be honest, I was afraid that this rhyme might reach the battalion commander, or even the commander Batov himself, and then they would find the authors, and not be good to them, or maybe to one of us, their commanders. That is why I destroyed this verse, which, however, is firmly embedded in my memory. After all, everyone understands that in general in the army, especially at the front, and even among the penalized, any criticism, not to mention the accusation of the chiefs, could end in failure. At the front, where “The order of the chief is the law for the subordinate” is a hundred times stricter than in the army in general, subordinates cannot in any way be in opposition to the chief, criticize his orders and even the personality, especially to the chief high rank.

Officer Solzhenitsyn did not just "criticize" Stalin, his letters were clearly of an organizational anti-Soviet nature, documentary evidence of the preparations for the overthrow of Soviet power. It was a "cunning move" to deliberately get under the "political" 58th article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, and at the same time avoid the worst - to get into the penal battalion (they were not sent there according to the 58th!). And, of course, exclude a possible transfer from a successful sound reconnaissance battery, albeit from the near, but still the rear, to a firing battery with real guns and a real line of fire. Such castling was often practiced at the front, and especially in the last six months of the war. At that time, officers from the second echelon troops were sent to our penal battalion for command positions. And from Solzhenitsyn at that time, in plain text, letters were flying to various field posts and cities of the country “ about an organization that, after the war, will overthrow Stalin and the Soviet government". They are received by school friends, and a random fellow traveler, and even his own wife. From the outside, a stable impression is created of a wide, ramified network of anti-Stalinists and anti-Sovietists.

According to Cyril. Simonyan, Nikolai Vitkevich, school friends, and now the main addressees of Solzhenitsyn, you can find out that during the investigation he “laid down” literally all of them. Vitkevich, who allegedly " since 1940 systematically conducted anti-Soviet agitation ", and the same close friend of Simonyan, who, it turns out," enemy of the people, it is not clear why walking free ". Even his wife Natalya Reshetovskaya, school friend Lydia Yezherets and a random fellow traveler on the train, a certain sailor Vlasov, indicated as his accomplices, members of the "operational five".

True, at first they put only the direct addressee - Vitkevich. When, many years later, Professor Simonyan made an open criticism of Solzhenitsyn's views, he publicly regretted in response: “ Oh, it's a pity you weren't imprisoned then! How much have you lost ". In a 1992 interview, Solzhenitsyn even expressed regret that “ the investigation was carried out so negligently , because if you wish (he was even sure) that according to his notes " it was possible to count everyone, it is possible to plant 5 more people jokingly, from our division. And the investigator is too lazy to read, fool ».

Now, while working on this material, I managed to find out that then on February 2, 1945, a telegraph order was indeed followed by the deputy head of the Smersh Main Directorate of Counterintelligence of the People's Commissariat of Defense of the USSR, Lieutenant General Babich. It prescribed immediately arrest the commander of the sound reconnaissance battery, Captain Solzhenitsyn, and deliver him to Moscow at . On February 3, the army counterintelligence began an investigation, and on February 9, Solzhenitsyn was arrested at the headquarters of the division, and then sent in accordance with the instructions. As they say, “what was required to be proved”: the goal of leaving the front has been achieved, the precious life of the “genius” is out of danger. Soon the war will be over, and on this long-awaited event a mass amnesty will break out, you just need to adapt to the new conditions.

The investigation into the Solzhenitsyn case lasted almost six months. After all, it was necessary to find out whether the junior officer Solzhenitsyn was really the leader of the anti-Soviet military organization he had created. When everything became clear, on July 27, 1945, the former captain Soviet army Alexander Solzhenitsyn was sentenced by the Special Meeting under Article 58, paragraph 10, part 2, and paragraph 11 of the same article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to 8 years in labor camps ( only 8 years for this!) and eternal exile at the end of the term of imprisonment. Why such a short term of imprisonment for that time, we will try to explain.

3. The price of a short term for a big crime is "squealing"

« I do not want my father's name to be mentioned next to the name of the bastard Solzhenitsyn! ”- these words of Nikolai Vitkevich-son at first glance look like sacrilege. How so, "genius" of literature, who overshadowed Gorky, Sholokhov, pushed Chekhov and even Leo Tolstoy himself, " the conscience of the Russian people a ”and so on, and so on, and so on, and suddenly - a bastard! But the son of the former convict Vitkevich has good reasons to say so - "elected" to the position " all-Russian messiah Alexander Solzhenitsyn began his “career” by “creating” a counter-revolutionary group on paper, in which he enrolled himself, his wife and his friends, and even random fellow travelers, and immediately gave a subscription to denunciation.

Investigator Baldasov, who interrogated the arrested captain Nikolai Vitkevich. showed him Solzhenitsyn's handwritten testimony during the investigation. The meaning of these testimony of an old, still school friend, boiled down to the fact that that not he, Solzhenitsyn, but Vitkevich, Simonyan, Reshetovskaya (Solzhenitsyn's wife), in collusion with some Vlasov, "put together a criminal group that has long and regularly been engaged in slandering the leaders of the party and government." “Our entire “five”, including Vlasov, are anti-Soviet people who have been engaged in this activity since their student years ».

It turns out that Solzhenitsyn also interrogated his random fellow traveler, a certain sailor Vlasov, with whom he was traveling on a train, and under the pretext of continuing a pleasant acquaintance, took his address for correspondence, which he used to present the random fellow traveler as a member of a conspiratorial group .

The investigator gave Kirill Simonyan a solid notebook of 52 pages to read, which were written in the handwriting of “friend Sanya”, so familiar to him. On every page it was proved that " he, Simonyan, was anti-Soviet from childhood, spiritually and politically corrupted friends and especially Sanya Solzhenitsyn, tried to create an illegal organization ... Since 1940, he systematically conducted anti-Soviet agitation ... developed plans for a violent change in the policy of the party and state, slandered (even " viciously "(!) at Stalin."

So a good impression was thrown on one side of the scale, which had to be made on the investigator. On the other - 5 or 6 human destinies. What could they mean in comparison with the future "genius", who had long been predicted to be a very young student!

Much has become clear since the Khrushchev-Gorbachev period of unrestrained exaltation of Solzhenitsyn, and even the current recognition of his “messiahism”. Now it is no longer considered bad form to say that the “All-Russian Messiah” is almost out of “patriotic motives”, cooperated with the investigation in full program. He frankly and unequivocally collaborated with the very "Gulag" special service, which he so destroys with his "evidence" and "observations", "exposing its atrocities" in detail. And such "cooperation" is very much welcomed in our time, which allows the judiciary to issue even "conditional" sentences to "cooperate". Solzhenitsyn, in his "truthful" writings, spoke about the horrors of the Soviet camps, but for some reason he himself got off quite lightly - he got 8 years. At that time, this was a completely unnatural, very short term in view of the combination of two articles, of which 58.11 (the creation of an anti-Soviet group) was more threatening than a simple 58.10 "without confiscation of property and deprivation of awards."

It turns out that, looking at his ability to easily betray friends and shift his sins onto them, Solzhenitsyn was recruited without much pressure, and the future Nobel laureate signed a cooperation agreement. For this, he, obviously, as a snitch, was given only eight years.

For comparison, I will cite a fact well known to me: my father only for swearing at Stalin in 1942 they gave 8 years. And then the same 8 years for the creation of an anti-Soviet group, and even with specific goals and plans for the overthrow of state power! This, as is quite obvious, was "compensation" for the snitching done, and for the future. In a group of prisoners (without an escort), he was first assigned to work in Moscow on the construction of residential buildings on the Kaluga outpost (not in Magadan!). As Reshetovskaya recalled, “ In the future, the husband still wanted to get “to some clerical place. It would be great if it could... ". And this, it turns out, succeeded, too, presumably, for "cooperation" in the past and in the future.

If a fear drove him from the front behind prison bars, he needs to somehow distinguish himself and again be the first in new conditions, like a schoolboy or student in the past, in order to get rid of camp-prison "inconveniences" ... Let others endure the severe frosts of Vorkuta and hard labour in the mine, he should only take care of his own safety, comfort for himself.

According to Solzhenitsyn himself, he at one time gave a signature on "cooperation" with the investigating authorities (which means also to condemnation!) and took a pseudonym (nickname!) "Vetrov". So he becomes... secret informant. It is an indisputable fact that it was this subscription that led him to various “sharashkas”, of which he spent almost half of his term at Marfino. The profile itself and the secret nature of scientific research in Marfinskaya Sharashka gave reason to the special services to send Solzhenitsyn there, as secret informant.

However, Vetrov assured that he had not actually done this, had never presented any reports, didn't report to anyone .

Mr. Solzhenitsyn is bluffing. Under no circumstances should it even be assumed that security or investigative officials, having received from someone the consent to become a secret informant, would allow him not to submit any reports. This person is already sexot(secret collaborator) not only for the term of imprisonment, but in most cases for the rest of his life. " Did you subscribe? Are you taking advantage? In that case, work! “Otherwise, you won’t get a warm bed and decent food, but felling in the Kolyma, or Vorkuta coal will have to be “chopped”. These are the strict laws of all security services around the world. Otherwise, he would not have been sent to a “sharashka”, but to a camp with a strict regime, somewhere in Kolyma or even worse.

4. "Sharashka", or heavenly conditions to a serviceable prisoner-informer

In June 1946, Solzhenitsyn was transferred to the system of special prisons of the 4th Special Department of the NKVD. In September, he was sent to a closed design bureau (“sharashka”) at the aircraft engine plant in Rybinsk, five months later - to a “sharashka” in Zagorsk, in July 1947 to a similar institution in Marfino (near Moscow). According to the reference materials of the NKVD, "Marfinskaya sharashka" - created on the basis of the Research Institute of Communications (special prison N 16 of the Ministry of State Security of the USSR), also known as "object number 8", created in 1947-48. Described in the book by A. I. Solzhenitsyn "In the first circle." It is clear that the transfer of Solzhenitsyn, for example, not to a camp at the Vorkuta mines or to the Kolyma, but to "special sharashki", where scientists and specialists worked on secret programs, was carried out "not for beautiful eyes." Such a decision to the leadership of the Gulag, presumably, was dictated not so much by the fact that they needed the highest mathematical training of the "stunned" prisoner, but by his willingness to continue reliable "cooperation", denunciation of a person with a higher education, who could more easily "infiltrate" among scientists and highly educated professionals.

The special prison or "sharashka" "Marfino" is a special prison where scientists and prominent specialists deprived of their liberty are gathered, guarded as an important secret object. It was placed in the old building of the former Alexander-Marfinsky orphanage, closed in 1923, in which there had been an orphanage since the time of the Cheka's struggle with homelessness. There are no blindly barred windows, no buckets, no bunks, good (albeit "two-story") beds, clean linens. After the war, the Research Institute of Communications moved in here, in an isolated part of which prisoners from among the specialists worked, among them were physicists, mathematicians, and representatives of other scientific specialties in the field of radio and telephone communications. This research institute became the very “sharashka”. According to the testimony of its inhabitants, it was actually privileged and secret, guarded camp where specialists worked on problems and tasks of particular importance. The security forces carefully selected the people who were sent there.”

Here are a few fragments from the book in "The Dispute with Time" by Natalia Reshetovskaya:

«... Here Sanya spends most days: from 9 am to the end of work. At lunchtime, he rolls in the yard right on the grass or sleeps in the hostel. In the evening and in the morning he walks under the lindens he has grown fond of. And on weekends he spends 3-4 hours outdoors, playing volleyball. We sometimes got into the courtyard adjoining the "sharashka" and, after waiting for the lunch break, through the crack in the fence we watched the prisoners resting: either just walking, or lying on the grass, or playing volleyball. We talked to people passing by... husband and wife work at Marfino. We did not hide the fact that our husbands were there. “Don't worry about them,” the woman reassured us, “they are well fed there! ».

According to Solzhenitsyn himself, here are some of the norms that were there during his stay in Marfino:

-Four hundred grams of white bread (black is on the tables as needed).

-Forty grams of oil for professors and twenty for engineers.

Doesn't that seem like enough to us? However, who in the Soviet Union those hungry post-war years can say that he received daily twenty or forty grams of butter, almost half a kilo of white and plenty of black bread? Ukrainian or Belarusian children? Collective farmers who replaced their dead husbands at work or their children in deep Siberia? .. And the prisoners were given so much every day, just work hard!

Reshetovskaya further writes: The inhabitants of the "sharashka" were quite full. And you can add! The prisoners bought groceries. Sanya bought himself, for example, potatoes. Either he boiled it or fried it himself, or he gave it to the kitchen to bake in the oven "...

Dormitory: a semi-circular room with a high vaulted ceiling, it has a lot of air, bunk beds. On the bedside table is a table lamp. I read until 12 noon. And at five minutes past one I put on my headphones, turned off the lights and listened to a nightly concert.

“A desk, next to a window open all day. Radio wiring right at the workplace. At the table, there are sockets for turning on a convenient table lamp, your own electric stove, which you can use unlimitedly. Portable lamp for illuminating bookshelves.

“On the radio during the years spent in the Sharashka, I listened with pleasure to the 2nd part of the 2nd concert of Chopin, Tchaikovsky’s Dumka, Walpurgis Night, the cycle of Rachmaninov’s symphonies ...”.

“Marfino has a good library. Besides, you can get everything you want by order from the Lenin Library, you can get any book from the vast collections of Soviet scientific and university libraries. As for fiction, I read it “with a cruel choice”, only very great masters: “War and Peace”, even Dostoevsky, Al. K. Tolstoy, Tyutchev, Fet, Maikov, Polonsky, Blok, Anatole France ... The third volume of Dahl's dictionary is in his personal possession ... ".

“Over time, the inhabitants of the“ sharashka ”begin to show films on Sundays, the first film“ The Legend of the Siberian Land ”watched 2 sessions in a row ».

I describe in such detail the life and conditions in which I was kept state criminal Solzhenitsyn to see the contrast between the facts and how they are presented by the “prisoner of the Gulag” Solzhenitsyn.

In his book Solzhenitsyn's Spiral of Betrayal, Thomas Rzezach writes: You must understand, - he (Solzhenitsyn) told me, - that the difference between the Soviet and Hitler camps was very insignificant. It consisted only in the fact that we did not have such equipment as the Germans had; therefore, Stalin could not install gas chambers in the camps ».

It would be interesting to ask Solzhenitsyn in which Nazi camp - Auschwitz, Buchenwald or Majdanek, or in any other - a prisoner, not even a criminal, but just a prisoner of war had the opportunity to order literature from the Berlin library, or read with pleasure the novels of Anatole France or Leo Tolstoy, watch your favorite movies for 2 sessions in a row? Every day there is almost half a kilo of white bread, and black - enough? At the same time, "working in a secret research institute", to assure that only the technical backwardness of the USSR did not allow Stalin to install gas chambers . By what measure of meanness can one measure the meanness of a contender for the title of a Russian person.

For three years, Isaevich lived in Marfin as if in paradise, only his wife was not allowed into his bed. " It was a "golden island - he writes in "Archipelago", - where the prisoners were fed, watered, kept warm and clean ».

True, it cannot convict such a “high intelligence” to be absolutely pleased with everything. For example, he plaintively reports that “the warden constantly watched that the prisoners did not spoil the tea table, or that they did not receive more than one book a week, which was brought to them by a vulgarly painted librarian. “And with this they wanted to hurt us” , - he writes in the hearts. However, this is how he himself ends up describing his life at this time: Ah, well, the sweet life! Chess, books, box springs, feather pillows, solid mattresses, shiny linoleum, clean linen. Yes, I have long forgotten that I also slept like this before the war. Scuffed parquet floor. Almost four steps can be taken in a walk from the window to the door. No, seriously, this central political prison is a real resort. ».

But, the convict scammer, who had previously been serviceable before, was guilty of something before the servants of the "sharashka". May 19, 1950 Solzhenitsyn " because of a quarrel"He was transferred to the Butyrka prison with the authorities of the Sharashka, from where he was sent to the Steplag, a special camp in Ekibastuz, in August. Here I will only allow my assumption about the "quarrel". Firstly, it is quite likely that highly educated prisoners, among whom were doctors of sciences and professors, “saw through” the sniffing informer and began to shun him, which greatly narrowed his possibilities, and maybe even “marked” on him. And he himself became not so much useless as simply a harmful "employee". Secondly, it is quite natural that the administration of prisons and other places of detention of convicts always has several informers in order to compare their secret information. Apparently, due to the fact that the “conversants” who “saw through” him stopped contacting him, the “Winds” secret officer missed some detail from the words or actions of one of the supervised, and some of his “understudy” reported in more detail. That didn't slow down the punishment.

It is also clear that the signature on "cooperation" is a "long-term" document, which was constantly in force, both before Marfino, and there, and in Ekibastuz. Immediately, “Vetrov”, on the instructions of the camp administration, is taken to “work”, portraying friendship with the prisoners of Bandera. The most famous "feat" of Solzhenitsyn the informer is the "Ekibastuz denunciation", which helped the authorities to brutally suppress the uprising in the very bud. Ukrainian nationalists in this camp.

Here are a few lines from it:

« Sov.secret. Report from the c / o (secret informant) dated 20/1-52

At one time, on your instructions, I managed to get close to Ivan Megel ... It turned out that on January 22, cons Malkush, Koverchenko and Romanovich were going to raise an uprising. To do this, they have already put together a reliable group, mainly from their own - Bandera, hid knives, metal pipes and boards. Further, Vetrov writes that, according to Malkusha “One group will also deal with informers. We know everyone! »...

« I have previously reported that the former Colonel Polish army Kenzirsky and military pilot Tishchenko managed to get a geographical map of Kazakhstan, the schedule of passenger planes and are collecting money.

...Apparently they want to use it to escape. This assumption is also confirmed by the words of Megel “and the Pole, it seems, wants to be smarter than everyone else, well, let's see! »...

« I remind you once again regarding my request to protect me from the reprisals of criminals who, in recent times pestered by suspicious questions. Vetrov ".. 77)

The consequence of this denunciation was, of course, the execution of the entire above-named group of about 30 prisoners on January 22, 1952.

So that the surviving prisoners from Bandera would not “decipher” the informer and take revenge on him, “Vetrov”, aka Solzhenitsyn, was hidden in a camp infirmary, and then transferred to another camp.

Maybe this is the time to finish the story about Solzhenitsyn-Vetrov's "sinless" subscription to cooperation with the relevant authorities. For the fact that such subscriptions do not lose weight, at least for the entire time of imprisonment, and "travel" with him, and more often, even overtaking him, no matter where this signatory is, can not be denied by any employee of the camp administration or the past , no present tense.

As Solzhenitsyn himself wrote to his wife, recalling the Marfinskaya "sharashka", " I don't remember that my life was ever arranged as well as these 3 years in Marfino ". Of course, if we forget about the “lordly” position that he managed to create in the sound intelligence battery at the front, which is discussed below ...

5. On the front-line "privations" of Solzhenitsyn or Barin-Isaevich at the front

About how Solzhenitsyn was arrested and for what, how he was in the “sharashka”, and then in the camp, how he lived in exile, how he “butted the oak”, etc., etc., a lot has been rewritten and discussed . But how he fought - Alexander Isaevich himself did not write a single line anywhere. A solid white spot on the background of work with sound recording equipment. And only from the award lists you can find out that both of his orders were awarded by no means for military exploits, but only "for conscientious performance of official duties." So, Solzhenitsyn received the Order of the Patriotic War II degree, against the backdrop of encouraging a large number of soldiers of all degrees and military specialties, which ensured success in the Battle of Kursk in 1943. The same story repeated itself in the summer of 1944 in Belarus during the successful offensive of troops in June operation "Bagration".

First, let's trace his front-line life, as Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn himself, a senior lieutenant, commander of an artillery sound reconnaissance battery without guns, a battery that itself could not fire a single shot at the enemy. And, looking ahead, we will inform you that the rumors or deliberate misinformation about the special merits of this battery commander in the liberation of the Belarusian city of Rogachev are clearly not true, as will be shown in a special section a little lower.

After the liberation of Rogachev by the troops of the 3rd Army of General Gorbatov, in which our 8th penal battalion acted with a special task, the completion of the Rogachev operation by us seizing a bridgehead on the Druti, a relative calm came on the 1st Belorussian Front. Kombat Solzhenitsyn ( com andir baht arei, which corresponds to the commander companies, not battalion commanders, battalion commander in the infantry), taking advantage of this lull, sent a devoted subordinate to him, and a very dodgy sergeant Ilya Solomin, on a “business trip” to Rostov-on-Don. The future Nobel laureate at the front did not have a person closer and more devoted to him than Solomin. It was not for nothing that Solzhenitsyn entrusted him with the most intimate assignment: to bring to him illegally to the front, his then wife Natalya Reshetovskaya.

He provided Ilya Solomin with vacation (or travel, it doesn’t matter) documents that did not arouse suspicion among the special officers and guards and, of course, the necessary food supply. The path is not close. Today, according to the road map, there are about one and a half thousand kilometers there. In wartime, when there was no regular rail or bus service, you couldn’t manage it in a day or two. The battery commander managed to foresee everything: and to provide the necessary forms of documents with stamped seals, as if he had a whole headquarters of a military unit under his command, and the division’s food service, which at that time was headed by Major Arzon, and much more had to be foreseen and reliably provided. And all in order to illegally smuggle along the front-line roads, where the war has placed reinforced patrols, and deliver a woman to a part of special importance, where even outside military personnel, let alone civilians, were not allowed.

Especially considering that the Germans occupied Rostov-on-Don twice: the first occupation lasted eight days, the second - 205 days. And it was not easy to smuggle a woman through almost the entire European part of the country from the city that was under occupation, especially to the front zone, without a special pass, given the vigilance of our relevant authorities. How did the battery commander, senior lieutenant, manage to get documents for Reshetovskaya with signatures, seals, stamps that were so reliable that not a single patrol recognized the fraud? Who obtained a travel order for Sergeant Solomin, and under the pretext of what urgent task could he leave the front line? The battery commander could not give such an order! And it was clearly not enough for a woman to just put on a man's tunic to set off on a journey with some sergeant. Everything was thought out to the subtleties in order to deceive everyone. It's all in his "principle" "To live not by lies."

In general, the wife of a commander at the front, if she not a soldier, is pretty a rare event, not counting the "temporary", the so-called PPJ, which, by the way, most often were precisely from military doctors or signalmen. Of course, real, not temporary wives could afford at the front either army commanders, or high-ranking commanders, for example, some commanders of corps, divisions and above. This could be in cases where their command posts were located at such a distance from the line of fire that they could place their wives somewhere nearby in safety. As for the lower commanders, these are exceptional cases for them. For example, the commander of our penal battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Baturin, also took advantage of this opportunity, when from September 1944 the battalion fought not in full strength, but in separately formed companies. Then the battalion commander actually did not participate in the battles, the company was transferred to the disposal of the military commander, and the battalion headquarters was usually located near the command post of the division to which the battalion was attached. And I myself, being a company commander of a penal battalion, for example, married a front-line hospital nurse, but my wife was a sergeant who received military oath. She was somewhere in the near rear, in a hospital, and only shortly before the Victory was officially transferred to the battalion as a nurse. And then she could be with me only during the periods when the battalion was in formation.

But how Solzhenitsyn “demanded” his wife, she herself, Natalya Reshetovskaya, recalled this in her book “ In dispute with time»:

« Ilya Solomin brought me to Rostov a tunic, a wide leather belt, shoulder straps and an asterisk, which I attached to a dark gray beret. The date of issue of the Red Army book testified that I had already served in the unit for some time .... There was even a vacation certificate. But I wasn't afraid. After all, they won’t do anything to a front-line officer for such a small deception. ».

Wow, little one! But, judging by the words of Reshetovskaya, the commander of the sound reconnaissance battery (BZR-2, as they called this battery without guns) did it quite well. And he got a clean Red Army book somewhere, and made the necessary entries, and managed to put official seals in the right places, and correctly draw up the form of the vacation certificate. What an ability to arrange personal affairs! Yes, solve this "small" deception by the patrol of the military commandant or the bodies of "SMERSH" - senior lieutenant Solzhenitsyn would not have missed our penal battalion! But in how many of his compositions and speeches did he convince readers and listeners of his "crystal" honesty!

Well, how did the commander of a cannonless artillery battery arrange for himself at the front? Let's give the floor to the same Reshetovskaya:

« And here we are together with my husband in his dugout. The divisional commander (this is not a division commander, but only a division commander, - WUA) invites over the phone .... A large frying pan of perfectly fried potatoes with American stew is tempting, after Rostov corn bread. In his battery, Sanya was a complete master, even a gentleman .. The “people” entrusted to him, his soldiers, in addition to their immediate official duties, served their battery commander. One copied his literary opuses for him, the other cooked soup, washed the bowler hat, the third brought notes of intellectuality to the rough front-line life. Yes, indeed, a front-line artilleryman created lordly conditions for himself!

And here is the testimony of the same Ilya Solomin, who ( from the Belarusian sector of the front north of Rogachev!) went to Rostov for the wife of his boss: “ The sound reconnaissance battery did not take part in the battles, we had a different task. The sound posts were located about a kilometer away, Central Station- deeper. Solzhenitsyn's orderly was Zakharov, from Tashkent. Before the war, they said, he worked as a chef in some restaurant. He prepared Isaich ... ».

Natalya Alekseevna stayed with her husband "at the front" for three weeks. Why not a rest home or a sanatorium without annoying doctors! And in the same way, "without a hitch, without a hitch" by the dodgy sergeant Natalya Reshetovskaya was taken to Rostov.

I have no doubt that the work of sound reconnaissance officers, including a competent mathematician commander, was sometimes very tense, and was so necessary for gunners-firemen. But we will not continue to describe the "front-line life" of the commander of the sound reconnaissance battery with "privations" and "dangers". Our memories of the front will be completely different, dissimilar, which is quite natural.

And now let's move on to all sorts of unreliable information about the participation of senior lieutenant Solzhenitsyn, in particular, in the battles for the liberation of the city of Rogachev, Gomel region of Belarus.

6. Solzhenitsyn - Rogachev's "liberator"

In 2008, I was awarded the title of Honorary Citizen of the Rogachev District of the Republic of Belarus, as a participant in the liberation in February 1944 of the Belarusian city of Rogachev and the restoration historical events and places associated with it.

In post-Soviet Russia, as well as abroad, at that time Alexander Solzhenitsyn was already considered " recognized classic» Russian Literature, front-line hero and a brave fighter against injustice in the army and social structure Stalinist USSR, unjustly convicted, who endured inhuman trials and torture in the Gulag. It was then that in a short note from the Rogachev regional newspaper of the Republic of Belarus, I learned that military fate decreed that with Solzhenitsyn, I, a participant in the liberation of Rogachev, seemed to be at one and the same 1st Belorussian Front. And even as if both of us were related to the same, purely Belarusian river Drut.

This river, the right tributary of the Dnieper, cannot be compared with the Dnieper itself, the common river of the three Slavic republics of the USSR, and now the CIS states. But the Drut flows only through the Vitebsk, Mogilev and Gomel regions of Belarus. However, its length is 295 km, so that we could indeed be at this river at the same time, but only far apart. In February 1944, after the capture of Rogachev, I had to participate in the capture of the bridgehead behind this Drutya, and during the night assault on its ice, I even almost drowned, having landed in a hole formed by a German shell. So, the river Drut is very memorable to me.

At that time I did not pay attention to the author of that note, and perceived this publication as simply joining the obscure author to the laudatory odes to the "genius" in neighboring Russia. But in the same Rogachev regional newspaper " free speech”, Already on Tuesday, 02.26.2013, I saw in the heading “ACTUALITY” a large article by its editor-in-chief Andrey SHISHKIN, in which I read the following: “ It turns out that Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn - participant in the liberation of Rogachev from the Nazi invaders in 1944! Moreover, as a result of this military operation, he was awarded a government award - the Order of the Red Star! In the battles for the city of Rogachev, battalion commander Solzhenitsyn also beat the enemy skillfully and mercilessly, showing all his military skill and courage».

I emphasize that in this article by Andrey Shishkin it is quite clearly written that “ as a result of this military operation (that is, Rogachevskaya) he was awarded a government award - the Order of the Red Star! ". Andrey Shishkin further states: “ As he wrote in the presentation of the award A.I. Solzhenitsyn with the Order "RED STAR" July 6, 1944 Commander of the Reconnaissance Artillery Division, Major Pshechenko: “... managed to provide reconnaissance to the left flank of our advancing units. 24.06.44 ( there is a mistake in the document - the month is incorrectly indicated. - Approx. Author A. Shishkin) . The Order of the Red Star for the capture of Rogachev caught up with Captain Solzhenitsyn in mid-July 1944. And further: “... even the 794th artillery battalion had a hope to receive the honorary name “Rogachevsky ". However, the author apparently "forgot" that this presentation to the order is dated exactly 6th July 1944, that is, 2 weeks after the start of that famous operation "Bagration" to liberate Belarus, and not on February 24 after the liberation of Rogachev.

Here I am forced to disavow some distortions of reality, committed or deliberately made by Andrei Shishkin, either under the influence of the exaggerated authority of the “celebrity”, or, even worse, to please her.

First, in the document (the words in the paragraph above are underlined by me), which the author of the article cites, there is no error. it words from a real war document, submissions for the award of Captain Solzhenitsyn precisely in the days when the success of the strategic offensive operation "Bagration", which, as you know, began exactly on June 24, 1944, 4 months after the release of Rogachev, was obvious. At the time signing the submission (precisely by July 6) Vitebsk, Zhlobin, Orsha, Bykhov, Bobruisk, Mogilev, the capital of Belarus, Minsk, and many other small and large cities and villages have already been liberated. It is quite reasonable that then, based on the first exceptionally effective results of the Bagration, the troops could receive an order to massively present soldiers for awards, including artillerymen, who ensured the success of the operation, as was the case with the successful results of the Battle of Kursk in 1943 on the Central Front .

Secondly, during the Rogachev operation in February 1944, the sound reconnaissance battery, like the entire 794th Separate Army Reconnaissance Artillery Division of the 68th Army Cannon Artillery Sevsko-Rechitsa Brigade, was part of the 65th Army (and then the 48th Army ) of the 1st, and then the 2nd Belorussian Front. According to data from " Handbook "Liberation of cities» (M., Military Publishing, 1985), this brigade was never part of the 3rd Army that liberated Rogachev. She was then on another sector of the front, much north of Rogachev, and had nothing to do with his release. In the orders of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the 68th PABR was noted only three times: for participation in the liberation of Sevsk Bryansk region 08/27/43 during the Battle of Kursk as part of the 65th Army and for participation in the liberation of Rechitsa, Gomel region on 11/17/1943 as part of the 48th Army. The third time she was mentioned in the order of the Supreme on March 29, 1945, as having distinguished herself during the capture of Braunsberg (now it is the Polish Braniewo) as part of the same 48th Army, when Solzhenitsyn was already arrested and interrogated in Moscow. As it says in " Battle way Sevsko-Rechitsa PABR", " Captain Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Order of the Red Star for the liberation of Bobruisk ”, and not at all for Rogachev. Yes, and the title of "captain" was awarded to him on May 7, 1944, even before the start of Operation Bagration, but much later than the release of Rogachev, so at that time Alexander Solzhenitsyn could not be a captain.

True, Solzhenitsyn himself spoke somewhat vaguely about his orders: “ And I received these two orders for the successful detection and proofreading of the suppression of enemy firing points in the battle of Orel and in the breakthrough near Rogachev ". Apparently, Solzhenitsyn’s words about the “breakthrough near Rogachev” confused Andrei Shishkin, who realized that this happened precisely in February 1944. , unforgivable, especially for a sophisticated journalist, editor-in-chief of a newspaper. It is documented that in fact this situation with the award did not develop during the capture of Rogachev, but in Operation Bagration, which in June of the same year was launched from the Rogachev bridgehead that was captured in February by the 3rd Army, which included boldly acted behind enemy lines and our 8th penal battalion.

Further: in that performance of July 6, it is actually recorded about covering the crossings over the Drut, which once again confirms that it was already summer, and not fierce February. Yes, and the application for the award was signed by the division commander, Major Pshechenko, I emphasize once again, only on July 6, 1944. So doubt the date historical document even the editor-in-chief of the newspaper is not allowed. Only notorious deliberate distorters of our heroic history act in this way. District newspaper- a powerful weapon, especially since it is closer than all others to the reader. She is sometimes more trusted than regional or central. And it is a pity that, in pursuit of a sensation or for the sake of something, they sometimes publish distorted data.

Therefore, there could be no hope of becoming "Rogachevsky" to the 794th division, which, according to the "testimony of Andrey Shishkin" So much sweat and blood has been shed ", as not participating in the release of Rogachev. For example, a smaller unit, the 141st separate company of flamethrowers, only one platoon of which heroically acted in the raid of our penal battalion behind enemy lines, received the name "Rogachevskaya". (Checked according to the "Handbook" Liberation of cities» M., Military Publishing, 1985). The fact is that the author of the article A. Shishkin probably took incorrect data from the 3rd part of the biased book by Lyudmila Saraskina “ Alexander Solzhenitsyn", released in Russia, in the ZhZL series," Life of wonderful people", and was not convinced of the correctness of the words Saraskina , member of the jury A. Solzhenitsyn Prizes.

At the expense of such a high-profile publication by Shishkin, the director high school, to whom I informed about his article, replied indignantly:

« As for my opinion on Shishkin's article, I cannot understand how, being an amateur, one can take the liberty of falsifying history in such a way?! Once again we would like to thank you ". And, finally, as you can see, all of the above indicates that we were not neighbors on the Druti either. Sound reconnaissance batteries, as a rule, are deployed no closer than 3-5 kilometers from the front line, not at all where the opposing troops are in contact.

For your information: in the future, the 68th army PABR of Colonel Travkin Zakhar Georgievich, where Solzhenitsyn was the commander of the sound reconnaissance battery, transferred from the 1st Belorussian Front to the 48th Army of the 2nd Belorussian Front and was there until the end of the war.

In "Chronology of the life and work of A. I. Solzhenitsyn

Http://solzhenicyn.ru/modules/pages/Hronologiya_zhizni_i_tvorchestva_A_Solzhenicyna.html) this period of his life is indicated as follows:

"1944, January 1-3 - during eighth front-line meeting between Solzhenitsyn and Vitkevich

“Resolution No. 1” was drafted.

January - standing in the forest near Rogachev on the defensive.

Early March - crossing the Dnieper.

From 6 to 7 March - 300-kilometer march and occupation of the bridgehead between the Dnieper and the Berezina.

End of March - Solzhenitsyn leaves for a two-week vacation, the first for the war.

A few clarifications on this chronology. First, on New Year's Day in 1944, Solzhenitsyn spends eighth front meeting with Vitkevich, his school friend, serving as the head of the chemical service in another military unit of the same 1st Belorussian Front. What comfortable conditions at the front for celebrations and such frequent meetings!

Secondly, even then "Resolution N1" was being drafted on the organization of an "anti-Stalinist group".

Thirdly, “standing in the forest”, “crossing the Dnieper”, and not forcing it under enemy fire, and the “300-kilometer march” are, of course, not types of hostilities and not the intense work of the sound meters of the Solzhenitsyn battery.

By the way, only the author of the “chronology” probably understands how it is possible to “take a bridgehead between Dnieper and Berezina. By the way, some thoughtless admirers of Solzhenitsyn use the term "sound reconnaissance battery" to stick to its commander the epithet of a dashing intelligence officer!

And one more thing: all the front-line officers of the front line, including my comrades in the penal battalion, and I myself could not go on vacation or go home to visit my mother, even after severe injuries. But Solzhenitsyn managed to go on vacation from the front, and not from the hospital for wounds, and, it turns out, more than once. So, he had such an opportunity, which the officers of the front line did not have.

Perhaps it is time to move on to the study of the entire period of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's military service.

7. "Chronology of life and work" Solzhenitsyn during the war years

As already known, Solzhenitsyn was the son of a white officer, his father and mother came from families of very wealthy landowners and cattle breeders. According to the mother's secret confession, her husband Isai (or Isaac) Semyonovich was executed by the Reds. Grandfather Semyon Efimovich Solzhenitsyn is, as it were, a figure transferred by the genius of Maxim Gorky into literature from a cruel, primitive and backward reality. tsarist Russia. He was an intractable and cunning rural rich man who owned two thousand hectares of land and twenty thousand sheep, and on whom fifty farm laborers bent their backs, dragging out a miserable existence. A man famous for his cruelty far beyond his own estate.

The not quite “correct” social origin, however, did not prevent the future “chief Gulag scholar”, who imagined himself to be a “new classic of Russian literature”, from entering the mechanics and mathematics department of Rostov State University in 1936. Stalin Scholar Alexander Solzhenitsyn graduated with honors in 1941. Solzhenitsyn, while still a 3rd year student at the Russian State University, in 1939 entered the correspondence department of the Faculty of Literature of the famous Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History in Moscow.

His first wife, Natalya Reshetovskaya, was also the daughter of a white officer. The second wife, also Natalya, born in 1939, until 1956 lived under the surname Velikorodnaya, since she was born in Moscow, in the family of the “native Muscovite” Ekaterina Ferdinandovna Svetlova and Dmitry Ivanovich Velikorodny from the “Stavropol peasants”. (Isn't it strange for the Stavropol peasants to bear the name of Ferdinand and the names of the Great-born!). Maternal grandfather Ferdinand Yuryevich Svetlov, at the beginning of the century a Socialist-Revolutionary Maximalist, then, in Soviet times, a major worker of the Izvestia newspaper, was repressed in 1937. In 1956, during the period of mass Khrushchev's "rehabilitation" of both innocent and outright wreckers or bandits, this old case of the "maternal grandfather" surfaced on the favorable side, and Natalya Velikorodnaya became Natalya Dmitrievna Svetlova. The time has come when it was necessary to replace Reshetovskaya and Natalya Dmitrievna Solzhenitsyna became.

This does not change anything in the assessment of Solzhenitsyn's activities as an ardent anti-Soviet and anti-patriot. We know very many representatives of the highest military nobility of the tsarist, pre-war period, who honestly served in the Red Army and earned the honor and respect of our people.

Of the 150 thousand professional soldiers who served in the officer corps of tsarist Russia, half of them fought in the Red Army: seventy five thousand people against 35 thousand old officers in the service of the Whites. A good half (53%) of the command staff of the Red Army were officers and generals of the Imperial Army. In the Great Patriotic War, such well-known military leaders as the former second lieutenant L.A. became marshals of the Soviet Union. Govorov, staff captains F.I. Tolbukhin and A.M. Vasilevsky, as well as Colonel B.M. Shaposhnikov and they are not alone.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, born in 1918, touched the Red Army only at the age of 23, after he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Rostov State University in 1941. By that time, he had also completed 2 courses of the correspondence department of the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History. According to the memoirs of school and university friends, “ studied mathematics "excellent" (Stalin scholarship), studied history and Marxism-Leninism».

Molotov's speech on June 22 about the beginning of the war found him in Moscow. He did not go to the Moscow draft board, explaining that the military ID was in Rostov-on-Don. It turns out that in that document there was a restriction to military service, which the Moscow military registration and enlistment offices would not take into account. And this limitation was connected with the hysterical character of Solzhenitsyn, which sometimes manifests itself even as a loss of consciousness. True, those who knew him well believed that it was his ability to “play out” such a state. No wonder in the summer of 1938 he tried to pass the exams at the theater school of Yu. A. Zavadsky in Moscow, but unsuccessfully. Solzhenitsyn's first wife, Natalia Reshetovskaya, in her " In dispute with time"led a conversation with a doctor of medical sciences, a famous surgeon Kirill Simonyan, a classmate of her husband:

« “You know,” he said, “that Sanya was very impressionable as a child and was very upset when someone received a grade higher than himself in a lesson. If Sanin's answer did not lead to an "A", the boy's face would change, turn white as chalk, and could faint. Therefore, the teachers said hastily: "Sit down. I'll ask you another time." And they didn't mark it. Such a painful reaction to the slightest irritant kept us, his friends, from any criticism of him. ».

How this "quality" in the future served the already adult Sanya Alexander favorably is evident from his whole life. Let's make a short digression into the future of Solzhenitsyn, confirming the ability to use this "feature" of his. Here is one example from Řezacz's book "Solzhenitsyn's Spiral of Treason", where he describes a similar trance, demonstrated more than once by Solzhenitsyn in the Zurich rented apartment of the Czech emigrant Dr. Golub in front of the assembled journalists: Silence. Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn leans forward again. First, he wraps his arms around his knees, then spreads his arms in a broad prophetic gesture. Consumption spots appear on the cheeks, facial features instantly become aggravated, the gaze becomes cloudy, and it seems that he does not perceive either persons or objects, and all his attention is turned inward, absorbed in the contemplation of his own intangible visions.

... Only the hoarse breathing of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is heard. The triangular face, still covered with a blush a moment ago, suddenly turns pale. - My friends! I feel bad, incredibly bad, - he uttered in a trembling voice and, without saying goodbye, ran out into the next room. Champions in karate (bodyguards - WUAs), carefully picking him up by the arms, take him to the hall and transfer him to the care of Dr. Przhenosil. A car with closed curtains takes Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn to his villa, where only four or five chosen and carefully checked have access. I go to the personal doctor of the laureate Nobel Prize and I ask:

- What happened to Alexander Isaevich, doctor? Heart attack? The doctor smiles condescendingly: - Already everything is in order. It's hysteria, as usual. Then, sighing, he adds: “You know, I thought that I would treat Leo Tolstoy of our century, but for now I’m running like a dog around a man who looks unbelievably like Grishka Rasputin ...” Here is another continuation of that scene : “- Gentlemen, - begins the Christian Democrat Dr. G .... - Never, gentlemen, there has never been such a dictatorship in the world as this savage would have established if he had seized power ».

Solzhenitsyn demonstrates quite a few such artistic gestures and poses in Zurich. As the same Tomasz Rzhezach says, “ He spreads his arms wide again. « - I was left alone... Alone. And with me is God, who entered me, And the Russian spirit. Is this not enough? Enough to deal with the communists! ».

May the reader forgive me my personal assumptions that Solzhenitsyn's repeated use of this spectacular reflex leads to one trivial thought. In my opinion, sometimes, “in moments of enlightenment,” he realized that Leo Tolstoy would not work out of him. So why not pretend sometimes to be blissful, holy fool? In Russia, many of them were considered seers, healers, if not of the flesh, then of human souls. And the names of the Russian Saint, the holy fool Basil the Blessed and the Holy Blessed Xenia of Petersburg are especially revered by the church. Maybe Solzhenitsyn had hope for such a special reverence, even if they are not recognized as a genius?

Let us return, however, to Moscow on the first day of the war. As we have already said, he did not go to the draft board, but left Moscow for Rostov. I didn’t sign up as a volunteer there either, but waited until I was mobilized only in October 1941. As a limited fit for military service due to the same psycho-neurological imbalance, after mobilization he ended up in the guzhtransport battalion. And joked to his friends: Since the beginning of the war, bring the tails of horses l".

Here is how the meticulous biographer of Solzhenitsyn (Lyudmila Saraskina) records these events in the "Chronology of the life and work" of his hero:

1941, October 18 - assigned as a rider to the 74th Separate Transport Battalion.

The year 1942 is coming. There is still neither Stalingrad nor Kursk. Leningrad is closed in the ring, and Solzhenitsyn, a graduate of the Mekhmat of the Russian State University, "carries the horses' tails."

1942, March 18 - seconded to the headquarters of the Stalingrad district, from where he was sent to artillery advanced training courses for command personnel in the Gorky region.

Military experts rightly considered that a mathematician with a higher education would better and faster master artillery, the science of notching with complex special equipment by the sound of enemy battery shots. It will correctly and timely give the coordinates of the targets of enemy batteries, and at the same time, its limitation from the tension and stress of direct participation in battles will be taken into account.

April 14 - sent to Kostroma, to the 3rd LAU (Leningrad Artillery School).

Having graduated from the artillery school in Kostroma on November 2, 1942 (short course) and having received two head over heels in his buttonholes, the freshly baked lieutenant arrived at the reserve artillery regiment in Saransk, where Separate reconnaissance artillery battalions were formed, including the 794th ORAD . Solzhenitsyn was initially appointed deputy commander of a battery of sound reconnaissance, as having a higher mathematical education, but soon also commander of a battery. Then Alexander Isaevich realized the value of his university mathematician's diploma "with honors" from Rostov and two courses of the correspondence department of the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History. Naturally, he made an impression by this, and skillfully used his position as an expert, feeling his superiority over his seniors in position and rank in the future.

It took three months to form and coordinate, and on February 13, 1943 - departure for Leningrad Front, not far from Staraya Russa. The commander of an artillery battery of sound reconnaissance, that is, a “gunner” without guns, does not need to prepare data for firing for the guns of his battery and give the command “Fire!”. His job: to detect from afar with sound recording equipment and determine the positions of German guns, calculate the coordinates and transmit information to the firing batteries. Together with complex devices that record many curves from advanced sound posts on paper, you will need not instruments for calculating the trajectory and goniometers, but a map, and compasses, a protractor, a ruler, and even a curvimeter in order to skillfully decipher all these graphs. He does not need to worry about the number of shells and the choice of positions for the battery.

1943, February 13 - the formed division is redeployed to the North-Western Front , took positions 11 kilometers from the front line of defense only on March 4.

End of March - the division is transferred to the Central Front.

By decision of the Headquarters, the division, together with other forces, is focused on the direction of the main planned events - the future Battle of Kursk. A grandiose battle after Stalingrad is being prepared there.

End of April - July 12 - the division was transferred to the reserve Bryansk Front .

The success of the battle on the Kursk Bulge once again raised the artillery to the heights of the "God of War". 794th OARAD as part of a cannon artillery brigade, then he was part of the 63rd Army of General V.Ya. Kolpakchi of the Bryansk Front, and this brigade, which distinguished itself in the capture of Sevsk, received the honorary name "Sevskaya". Solzhenitsyn receives the Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd class. Further, the offensive on a wide front goes through Ukraine, and the direction to Belarus is determined for the Central Front. Soon the Central Front is renamed into Belorussian. It is now clear to us how the commander of an unusual artillery battery experienced and endured at the front, how he showed himself, what “hardships” he experienced and endured. How he paid for his desertion from the front and how he used his hypertrophied pride, "acquired reflex", lies, deceit and cowardice, was also found out. Now let's move on to his "creativity".

Alexander Pyltsyn , penal battalion veteran of the Great Patriotic War, full member of the Academy of Military Historical Sciences, author of books on penal battalions, retired major general

(To be continued)

The problem of highlighting writer's criticism

In literary criticism, a special place is occupied by the speeches of writers. Such creativity is called writer's criticism and is considered one of the types of literary criticism generally.
From the point of view of the subject of activity in modern Russian philology, 3 types of literary criticism are usually distinguished: professional, writer's and reader's (or amateur). Let's give a brief description of them.
Professional criticism is a creative activity, which is the author's predominant occupation. Traditional genres - literary and critical article, review, review, annotation, bibliographic notes, etc. Famous representatives - Belinsky V.G., Dobrolyubov N.A., Druzhinin A.V., Merezhkovsky D.S.
Writer's criticism - literary-critical and critical-journalistic speeches of a writer whose main activity is artistic creativity. Traditional genres - essays, notes, excerpts, diaries, etc. Representatives - A.S. Pushkin, A. Blok, F. M. Dostoevsky, O. E. Mandelstam.
Reader (amateur) criticism is a diverse reasoned reaction to modern fiction, owned by people, professionally not associated with literary activity. Traditional genres are letters to writers, reviews on the Internet, speeches at literary meetings, etc.
Next, we consider the problem of identifying writer's criticism as a special type of literary criticism.
Not all researchers recognize this type of criticism, believing that it can be attributed to the other two. According to this point of view, rather “scientific” writing criticism containing a special study can be classified as professional, and more free, emotional, “non-scientific” - as reader's.
However, most researchers (for example, Prozorov V.V.) consider it appropriate to single out writer's criticism as a separate type, since it has some distinctive features:
- taste unconventionality, surprise of associative rows;
- lack of strict logic and consistency;
- the desire to understand "someone else's word" in the light of their own poetic practice, their own aesthetic quest, etc.
I agree with the point of view of V.V. Prozorov and I believe that literary criticism is one of the three types of literary criticism along with professional and reader criticism. Of course, all three types are close to each other, and sometimes it is difficult to draw a line, to determine exactly what type this or that author will belong to. If a writer begins to engage in criticism on purpose, then he can be attributed to either of the two types, that is, in this case, the boundary between literary and professional criticism is erased. History knows such examples - N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M.V. Lomonosov and others. criticism takes place.
It is distinguished from professional criticism by expressiveness and even some expressiveness, literary language, the writer's desire to convey his thought using artistic images.
Writer's criticism is a special kind of creativity, less strict in assessments, more emotional and trusting in relation to the subject of critical research. Often such works are not intended for a wide range of readers, they can be of a rough, "home" nature. In addition, writer's criticism is inherent in special variety, which is not characteristic of the other two types, is an auto-characterization, auto-review or auto-comment, in which the author can reveal the features of his work or his characters.
Relying on all the features and characteristics of literary criticism listed above, which are not characteristic of the other two types, I consider it necessary and correct to consider it as a special type of literary criticism as a whole.

Review of the literary-critical activity of A.I. Solzhenitsyn

A.I. Solzhenitsyn is one of those authors who turned to literary criticism, and literary criticism occupies a special place in his work.
Solzhenitsyn turned directly to literary criticism relatively recently, in the 90s, in contrast to the journalistic speeches that accompanied him throughout his entire work, starting with the “Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers” (1967), so his critical activity is still not enough studied. Below is a list of works with a critical focus, with a brief description of them. In addition to special works (for example, “Literary Collection”), Solzhenitsyn’s literary criticism includes individual fragments of the narrative of the memoirs “A calf butted an oak tree” and “A grain fell between two millstones”, as well as that part of journalism that concerns the nature of art, artistic creativity.

Chronology of literary criticism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn:

1. It is not customary to whitewash cabbage soup with tar, for that it is sour cream: [About Art. V. Vinogradova "Notes on the style of modern Soviet literature" (Lit. Gaz. 1965. Oct. 19)] // Lit. gas. 1965. 4 Nov.- The only newspaper publication of AI Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet Union until his exile. Solzhenitsyn believes that the article "gives rise to an unfortunate feeling: both in its tone, and in its unsatisfactory selection of examples, and ... in its own bad Russian language." He criticizes the language and style of Vinogradov, believing that the language of such an article should be on the same level with the subject being analyzed. Solzhenitsyn also talks about the benefits and harms of borrowing, convinces the reader of the need for "word-creation" based on the word-formation models of the Russian language (for example, this TV was given to me). He opposes journalistic jargon and believes that it is necessary to stop the damage to Russian written language.

2. Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers" (May 16, 1967)- Solzhenitsyn denounces censorship, "the arbitrariness of literary illiterate people over writers." He considers it senseless and humiliating, demands its elimination, speaks of the writer's rights.

3. Open letter to the Secretariat of the Union of Writers of the RSFSR (1969)- Solzhenitsyn writes this letter in response to his own exclusion from the Union. He expresses his indignation not only for this reason, but also cites a number of similar cases, reflecting on the position of the writer in the country, on the infringement of his rights and deprivation of his right to vote, on the “hushing up” of many valuable works of art.

4. On the death of Tvardovsky: [Memorial word, 27 Dec. 1971] // Vestn. Russian student Christian. movement. Paris; New York, 1971. No. 101/102. pp. 229-230.- In the memorial speech, Solzhenitsyn speaks about the main reason for the death of Tvardovsky - his magazine was taken away from him. He admires this poet and his work and denounces all those "enemies" who used to poison him, and now pretend to be a friend.

5. Press statement (February 2, 1974)– In the article, Solzhenitsyn talks about the reaction of the state security to the publication of his novel The Gulag Archipelago. He reveals the main idea of ​​the novel, which was never understood by the authorities: the novel is “not a pamphlet, but a call to repentance”, trying to reflect all the charges against him. In conclusion, he talks about the truth, which still can never be hidden.

6. A Calf Butted an Oak: Essays on a Literary Life (1974)– This book presents Solzhenitsyn's memoirs in all the variety of genres. Here he evaluates his own work and the work of other authors, argues with Tvardovsky and expresses numerous arguments about the fate of Russian literature.

7. Shakes your tripod: [About the book. A. Sinyavsky "Walks with Pushkin"] // Vestn. Russian Christian. movement. Paris; M.; New York, 1984. No. 142. S. 133-152.– In this article, Solzhenitsyn disputes Sinyavsky's point of view on the works of Pushkin and the poet himself as a whole. He quotes from the original article and gives them ironic, sometimes even sarcastic comments. He talks about a new trend in Russian literature - about the desire to "belittle" classical literature, to prove that Russia has no past, including a literary one. Solzhenitsyn expresses the idea that this "branch" of literature will not last long. Since the basis of such reviews is not a real rejection of the classics, but simply a struggle with all sorts of authorities. There is no doubt that Pushkin is an indisputable spiritual authority.

8. The Untorn Mystery: Preface. to the book. D * "Stirrup" Quiet Don ""; Fedor Dmitrievich Kryukov (1870-1920): Biogr. or T. reference // Medvedeva I. (D*). Stirrup "Quiet Flows the Don": (Mysteries of the novel). 2nd ed. M., 1993. S. 3-8, 119-120.- Solzhenitsyn reveals the essence of the problem in determining the authorship of the novel, sets out arguments against authenticity, tells the history of its publication. He talks about the need for a literary study of this novel in order to finally confirm or refute the point of view about plagiarism.

9. A word about a friend: [In memory of B. A. Mozhaev] // Tomorrow. 1996. March. (No. 11). S. 6; Our country. Buenos Aires, 1996. June 8.- In his speech, Solzhenitsyn briefly outlines the history of his acquaintance with Mozhaev, praises his work and his merits in raising the peasant theme ( peasant uprisings against collectivization). He mentions the author's interest in Far East, to small nations, to the fleet.

10. Naked Year" by Boris Pilnyak: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1997. No. 1. S. 195-203.- At the beginning of the article, Solzhenitsyn says that his work is not a critical article in full, but "an attempt to enter into spiritual contact with the chosen author, to try to penetrate his intention." Further, he analyzes the title and plot of the work, characterizes the images of the characters, highlights the main idea - the enthusiastic acceptance of the revolution and the Bolsheviks. From the point of view of linguistic and stylistic devices, Solzhenitsyn emphasizes repetitions, deliberate vagueness of presentation, and, among compositional devices, breaking sentences with their transfer to the next line. Separately, the critic emphasizes the figurativeness of the work, which is often based on observations of nature, and the language - "Peasant speech - is not exaggerated and is good everywhere"

11. “Death of Vazir-Mukhtar” by Yuri Tynyanov: From “Lit. collections" // New World. 1997. No. 4. S. 191-199.- According to Solzhenitsyn, the novel is not focused enough on the character of Griboyedov himself as a writer. He notes the writer's sympathy for the Decembrists and coldness towards Russia, traced in the novel. Solzhenitsyn believes that in the novel there is no understanding of Russian history and penetration into life, there is no necessary "emotional relief". Among the techniques, he singles out “hanging half-drawn thoughts” and short paragraphs. The critic considers the choice of epigraphs, the caricature of the characters and the composition of the novel as a whole a failure. Solzhenitsyn concludes: this is a necessary novel, it enriches Russian literature, but it could have been written better.

12. "Petersburg" by Andrei Bely: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1997. No. 7. S. 191-196. - Solzhenitsyn speaks about Bely himself, about the peculiarities of his worldview - “Everyone is sick”, expresses his impression of the novel: “something - before that completely unseen in Russian prose, completely breaks with a detailed, calm story from the outside in the spirit of the XIX century. It cannot be denied that literary is very interesting. Expands ideas about the possibilities of prose. Solzhenitsyn opposes the characterization of prose as rhythmic, he calls it "unrestrainedly ornamental"; emphasizes the caricature of most images. In terms of language, he notes the abuse of superlatives and diminutive suffixes.

13. From Evgeny Zamyatin: “Lit. collection" // New World. 1997. No. 10. S. 186-201.- At the beginning of the article, the critic gives a brief biography of Zamyatin and an assessment of his work in general, he says that he lacks sincerity, cordiality and warmth. Then Solzhenitsyn consistently analyzes the works of the writer (from "County" to "Scourge of God"). Separately, he singles out the richest language of the writer, both at the lexical and syntactic levels, and the skill of landscape sketches.

14. Four Contemporary Poets: From Lit. collections": Semyon Lipkin - "Will"; "Favorites"; Inna Lisnyanskaya - "Rain and Mirrors"; Naum Korzhavin - "Plexus"; Leah Vladimirova - "Among unnamed roads", "Transitions of flying moments", etc. // Novy Mir. 1998. No. 4. S. 184-195.– He analyzes the works of selected poets, identifies images and motifs characteristic of each (Lipkin - Russia and the Russian village, the Jewish theme, the search for the essence of things; Lisnyanskaya - love themes and personal, Russian and Jewish themes; Korzhavin - patriotic themes; Vladimirova - Russian theme , nature, melancholy, loneliness). All four poets are united by the themes and mood – emigrant longing for Russia, but at the same time each style is unique and beautiful: Semyon Lipkin’s chased lines, Inna Lisnyanskaya’s sincere lyrics, Naum Korzhavin’s tense stanzas and Lia Vladimirova’s impulsive verse.

15. Ivan Shmelev and his "Sun of the Dead": From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1998. No. 7. S. 184-193.– The main feature is “an in-depth return to Russian traditions and Orthodoxy”. The critic consistently examines the works of Shmelev, notes the advantages and disadvantages. The main success of the author, according to Solzhenitsyn, is in the "truly petty-bourgeois language." When analyzing the main work ("The Sun of the Dead"), the critic highly appreciates sincerity - a manifestation of the writer's inner truth.

16. A grain fell between two millstones: Essays on exile. (1987)- The second book of Solzhenitsyn's memoirs, in which the writer talks about the controversy with emigrants, the characteristics of journalism and publishing. The book is multi-genre, includes elements of critical observations.

17. Plunging into Chekhov: From “Lit. collections" // New World. 1998. No. 10. S. 161-182.– The article provides an analysis of the selected stories by Chekhov, highlighting their features, analyzing the titles and characterizing the images of the characters. Solzhenitsyn examines the language, notes the most successful phrases. Some stories are analyzed in detail, others are only characterized by a couple of phrases. As the main features of creativity Solzhenitsyn calls vitality, conciseness, impressionism.

18. Felix Svetov - “Open the doors for me”: From “Lit. collections" // New World. 1999. No. 1. S. 166-173.– According to the critic, this book combines questions of metaphysical, theological, historical retrospection, the real Soviet life of the 70s, the psychological throwing of the metropolitan educated circle and the acute political and moral problems of those years. The genre is similar to Dostoevsky's novel. The composition reflects the hero's throwing, fragmentary and quick transitions. The Jewish theme and questions of the painful search for truth are raised.

19. With Varlam Shalamov // New World. 1999. No. 4. S. 163-169.- A significant part of the article consists of the critic's memoirs, biographical information about Shalamov. Solzhenitsyn tells about their meetings, points out the relatedness of the subject. The critic believes that, unlike poetry, Shalamov's stories are inexpressive, the characters are only surnames, they are not endowed with individual features. Another disadvantage noted by Solzhenitsyn is a vague composition.

20. [Word on delivery literary prize Alexander Solzhenitsyn Inna Lisnyanskaya / Note. ed.] // Lit. gas. 1999. May 19. P. 10: ill. (She never catered to the era).- Solzhenitsyn speaks warmly about the poetess, about the feeling of compassion inherent in her from her youth. He tells her biography and names the main features of her work: cordiality, sincerity, sympathy. The poetic principles of Lisnyanskaya are extremely natural: not to construct a verse, but to write as you breathe - that's the whole method.

21. Panteleimon Romanov - stories of the Soviet years: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1999. No. 7. S. 197-204.– In this article, Solzhenitsyn analyzes two collections of short stories - Enchanted Villages (1927) and Selected Works (1988). Among them are stories about Soviet awkward life (some of them contain a share of humor), about peasant psychology, about intellectuals. "Romanov has always been firmly committed to the traditional realistic manner," writes Solzhenitsyn. His strength is the liveliness of dialogue, especially everyday, the abundance of juicy humor (sometimes with a bias towards satire) and a sharp vision of problems - with inexhaustible novelty Soviet life.

22. Alexander Malyshkin: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1999. No. 10. S. 180-192.- In this article, Solzhenitsyn changes the order of analysis of the work - he considers them not in chronological order, but "along the core of the author's life." The works reflected the search for new lexical and syntactic resources, attempts to "refresh" the literary language, interesting artistic images (all the snowy openness). Malyshkin's language is rich and flexible, he is especially good at landscape sketches and short folk dialogues.

23. Joseph Brodsky - Selected Poems: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 1999. No. 12. S. 180-193.- The critic begins his article with an attempt to explain the principle of the arrangement of poems in the collection, and then considers the main themes of creativity on the example of specific poems and highlights the main features. He calls irony as a through line as a way of looking at the world and as a form of self-defense. Another feature is the "all-penetrating coldness", because of which Brodsky's poems do not touch the soul. The rhymes in his poems are very resourceful and interesting. Solzhenitsyn notes that the poet is fond of "verbose talk". There is no musicality, rich sounding in the verses.

24. Evgeny Nosov: From "Lit. collections" // New World. 2000. No. 7. S. 195-199.- The critic notes that all the stories are plot-based - and varied in content, do not repeat, but are also devoid of plot rigidity. In each of them, "the plot is seeped by a flooding mood." Cross-cutting mood - disposition and love for people. In the stories, peasant life is very naturally presented, practically no techniques were used, it reflects a lively colloquial. AT later stories more and more clearly and drearily comes through the condensed bitterness of the abandoned, destitute, if not ridiculed veterans of the Great War.

25. Vasily Grossman - Dilogy // New World. 1998. No. 1. S. 172-190.– The article deals with Grossman's dilogy "For a Just Cause" and "Life and Fate". The main attention of the critic is focused on the substantive part of the dilogy. Solzhenitsyn notes some anachronisms in the writer, emphasizes that there is no cynicism in the novels. Further, the critic consistently analyzes the plot features of the dilogy and the images of the characters.

26. Double Yuri Nagibin // New World. 2003. No. 4.- The article provides an analysis of some of the stories of Yuri Nagibin, highlighting the most striking features. The main feature is rendered in the title of this article-essay - "doubling", by which Solzhenitsyn understands the inner untruth, insincerity. Describing the image of the writer himself, the critic expresses hostility and even some contempt.

27. Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy - a dramatic trilogy and more: From the "Literary Collection" // New World. 2004. No. 9.– Solzhenitsyn highly appreciates the mastery of dealing with historical facts, which manifested itself in the novel “Prince Silver”, notes the liveliness and dynamism, the use of folklore elements. The critic then considers drama trilogy, analyzing each piece separately. In general, he notes the "laconic dynamism", the brightness of the characters and the folk spirit. In the third part of the article, Solzhenitsyn gives an assessment of Tolstoy's poetry.

-- [ Page 1 ] --

As a manuscript

Altynbayeva Gulnara Monerovna

Literary criticism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn:

Specialty 10.01.01 - Russian literature

dissertations for a degree

candidate of philological sciences

Saratov - 2007

The work was done at the Department of Russian Literature of the 20th Century, Saratov State University named after V.I. N.G. Chernyshevsky"

Scientific adviser - candidate of philological sciences, professor

Ludmila Efimovna Gerasimova

Official opponents - Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor

Vladimir Petrovich Kryuchkov

Candidate of Philology

Anastasia Alexandrovna Kochetkova

Leading organization - GOU VPO "Ulyanovsk State

Technical University"

The defense will take place on May 30, 2007 at 12.00 at a meeting of the dissertation council D 212.243.02 at Saratov State University. N.G. Chernyshevsky at the address: 410012, Saratov, st. Astrakhanskaya, 83, building 11, Faculty of Philology and Journalism.

The dissertation can be found in the Zonal Scientific Library of the Saratov State University. N.G. Chernyshevsky.

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council,

candidate of philological sciences, professor Yu.N. Borisov

I. general characteristics work

From the moment of the first publication to the present day, the personality and work of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn arouse unceasing interest, and the attitude towards the writer is far from unambiguous.

Despite the fact that there is already an extensive body of literature about A.I. Solzhenitsyn, the study of his work is just beginning. Very important in this, according to all those who write about Solzhenitsyn, is the synthesis of various aspects, methods and genres of study. This is undoubtedly true, although there are still areas of the writer's creative activity that require preliminary systematization and careful analysis. One of them is literary criticism. “Pushing the boundaries” of literature, Solzhenitsyn also pushes the boundaries of literary criticism.

Solzhenitsyn, the interpreter of Russian literature, is mentioned in the publications of P. Basinsky, V. Bondarenko, L. Borodin, R. Kireev, P. Lavrenov, I. Prusakova, and the works of L. Gerasimova, I. Efimov, N. Ivanova, N. Korzhavin, L. Losev, A. Molko, A. Nemzer, L. Saraskina, I. Sirotinskaya, L. Stern, participants in two editions of the collection “A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian culture” (Saratov, 1999, 2004), etc.

There is practically not a single significant study of Solzhenitsyn's work that does not take into account the writer's literary-critical, journalistic judgments, but most often they are used as auxiliary material for verifying, confirming, and expanding the results of the analysis of literary texts. To journalistic speeches by A.I. Solzhenitsyn are cited in their works by M. Golubkov, Zh. Niva, R. Pletnev, P. Spivakovsky, A. Urmanov, N. Shchedrina and others.

The first approaches to the analysis of literary criticism by A.I. Solzhenitsyn as an independent object of research are made in the Ph.D. thesis of T. Avtokratova “From the “Literary Collection” of A.I. Solzhenitsyn as a Phenomenon of Writer's Criticism" (Tyumen, 2004).

So far, literary criticism of Solzhenitsyn as a whole has not become the subject of special study. Concerning novelty and relevance dissertation work are seen in the system analysis of the complex of literary-critical views of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, genre and stylistic specifics of his literary and critical work.

Object of study in the dissertation were: "Literary collection"; literary-critical articles and notes; Nobel lecture; prefaces and "introductory words" to publications of writers and scientists; genre “words at the presentation of the A.I. Solzhenitsyn"; journalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn; memoirs “A calf butted with an oak tree” and “A grain fell between two millstones”; autobiographical essays "With Varlam Shalamov" and "With Boris Mozhaev"; excerpts from the R-17 Diary; interview. For comparison, works of art by A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Subject of research are the problems, genres, style and image of the author in the literary criticism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Objective is to identify the system of aesthetic views of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, his historical and literary ideas, which became the basis of literary criticism, and to show the implementation of the theoretical position of the artist in the genres, the style of his critical works, in the specifics of the image of the author growing from them.

The aim of this work is to solve the following tasks:

• identify the corpus of texts by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, related to literary criticism or containing aesthetic judgments that are fundamental for the author;
• to systematize the aesthetic, theoretical and literary judgments of A.I. Solzhenitsyn; to reconstruct his criteria for literary-critical evaluation of a work;
• to analyze the specifics of genres and their synthesis in A.I. Solzhenitsyn;
• explore the stylistic devices and author's strategies of Solzhenitsyn-critic;
• to reveal the features of the author's image in the literary-critical field of activity of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, to compare with the image of the author in journalism, memoirs and literary texts of the writer.

Methodology dissertation research involves the use of historical-literary, historical-cultural, intertextual, theoretical-literary, stylistic methods of studying the text. The methodological basis of the study was the works of M.M. Bakhtin, A.I. Beletsky, V.V. Vinogradova, L.Ya. Ginzburg, G.A. Gukovsky, B.F. Egorova, B.A. Larina, A.F. Loseva, Yu.M. Lotman, A.P. Skaftymova, A.N. Sokolova, B.A. Uspensky.

The studies of B.I. Bursova, V.I. Baranova, A.G. Bocharova, E.G. Elina, S.P. Istratova, A.P. Kazarkina, S.P. Lezhneva, S.I. Mashinsky, V.V. Prozorova, G.V. Stadnikova, I.S. Eventova and others.

Theoretical significance research - in the systematization of aesthetic and literary-theoretical judgments of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, in the results of their comparison with his literary-critical practice, in the expansion of ideas about the forms of literary criticism in the twentieth century.

Practical significance work: the results of the dissertation research can be used in the study of A.I. Solzhenitsyn in the context of the latest Russian literature, in the preparation of lecture courses, special courses dedicated to the writer's work, in the theoretical and practical study genres of literary criticism, as well as when reading courses on the history of Russian literature and criticism of the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries, in the work of special seminars.

Provisions for defense:

1. Moral-philosophical, religious understanding of A.I. Solzhenitsyn of responsibility, freedom, self-restraint defines the main aesthetic coordinates of his literary criticism: truth, authenticity, sincerity, memory, measure and harmony, "nativeness" of ideas, laconicism, the unity of spiritual and aesthetic criteria.
2. Solzhenitsyn's aesthetics are realism-centric. In the light of the realistic tradition, the problems of the correlation of life material and fiction, artistic conventionality, creative continuity and avant-garde, dynamism are being solved. literary forms in the twentieth century.

From a realistic standpoint, the falsity of socialist realism is denied, the works of modernists and postmodernists, the achievements of modern writers are evaluated.

1. The dialogism of Solzhenitsyn's literary criticism is also manifested in the theoretical understanding of the triad: author - work - reader - and in the creation of a dialogical - and more broadly - intertextual field in critical essays, and in the ability to evoke a resonant need of the "interlocutor" for self-reflection and internal self-examination, and, finally , in the two-level composition of each publication from the "Literary Collection", when both the analyzed and analyzing writer are present "on an equal footing".
2. Literary criticism of Solzhenitsyn is polygenre and polystylistic. At the same time, we can talk about its stylistic unity, about the essential features of Solzhenitsyn's style as a critic, which correspond to his artistic style.
3. The study of the means of creating the image of the author in both literary-critical, journalistic, memoir, and artistic forms of A.I. Solzhenitsyn allows us to assert the unity of the author's image for all genres in which the writer works.
4. Literary criticism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn promotes understanding new nature artistry in the literature of the twentieth century, contributes to the real "linguistic expansion", to the historical and theoretical understanding of its paths.
5. The writer's laboratory and the reader's laboratory, opened ajar by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, is an important means of comprehending his artistic creativity and the integrity of his personality.

Thesis materials passed approbation at the annual All-Russian Scientific Conferences of Young Scientists “Philology and Journalism at the Beginning of the 21st Century” (Saratov, 2001-2006), the All-Russian Scientific Seminar “A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian Culture" (Saratov, 2002), the All-Russian Scientific Conference "The World of Russia in the Mirror of Modern Fiction" (Saratov, 2004), the V International Zamyatin Readings " creative heritage Evgenia Zamyatina: a view from today” (Tambov-Yelets, 2004), the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Changing Russia – Changing Literature: Artistic Experience of the 20th – Early 21st Centuries” (Saratov, 2005), Internet conference "Literature and reality in the 20th century", section "Literature of fact" and its varieties in the 20th century" (Department of Theory and Methodology of Literary and Art Studies of the A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature ( IMLI) RAS, Development Association information technologies in education "INTERNET SOCIETY", Educational portal auditorium.ru, www.auditorium.ru, 01.04-31.05.2005), IV All-Russian scientific conference "Fictional text and language personality"(Tomsk, 2005), International Scientific Conference "Literature in the Dialogue of Cultures-4" (Rostov-on-Don, 2006), International Scientific and Theoretical Internet Conference "Hermeneutics of Literary Genres", section "Genre Space of Culture" (Department of History Russian and foreign literature of the Stavropol State University, http://www.conf.stavsu.ru, 03.10-07.10.2006), in the International Scientific Internet Seminar “The Theory of Synthetism by E.I. Zamyatin and the artistic practice of the writer: an aesthetic resource of Russian literature of the 20th – 21st centuries” (Tambov State University, http://www.tsu.tmb.ru, 21-30.11.2006).

The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in 13 publications.

Work structure. The dissertation research consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliographic list, including 392 titles. The total volume of the dissertation is 229 pages.

II. The main content of the work

The Introduction defines the goals, objectives and methodological foundations of the dissertation research, substantiates its relevance, establishes the scientific novelty, practical and theoretical significance of the work, gives the history of the issue, clarifies the necessary theoretical concepts, the provisions submitted for defense are formulated.

First chapter “Ideological and aesthetic “knots” of literary criticism by A.I. Solzhenitsyn" is devoted to a systematic understanding of the ethical and aesthetic categories that are key to the writer's work, the theoretical and methodological foundations of his literary and critical work.

Center of the first paragraph "Responsibility, Service and Freedom"- the central ethical and philosophical categories for Solzhenitsyn, including him in the tradition of Russian religious and philosophical thought and at the same time individually refracted in the "hot hour" of the world - the second half of the twentieth century. The question of the relationship between ethics and aesthetics, which cannot be removed by the history of culture, Solzhenitsyn solves, seeing their common source, feeling himself "a little apprentice under the sky of God."

The unity of personality A.I. Solzhenitsyn and the unity of his work - in responsibility before God, before Russia, before the reader. Solzhenitsyn connects the high responsibility of the artist primarily with the power of art, with its nature. In the Nobel lecture, he speaks of the great unifying power of art, which “warms even a cold, darkened soul to a high spiritual experience. Through art, sometimes they send us, vaguely, briefly, such revelations as cannot be worked out by rational thinking. A.I. Solzhenitsyn speaks of “rating scales”, which, if combined, “to create for mankind single system reference - for atrocities and good deeds, for the intolerant and tolerant" only art, literature is capable - "the only substitute for the experience we have not experienced."

The dissertation student follows the path of consistent consideration of Solzhenitsyn's understanding of responsibility and service, conceptualized by the Russian literary tradition (Pushkin, Dostoevsky), the writer's assessment of the measure of responsibility in the work of his contemporaries, Solzhenitsyn's own responsibility as an "underground worker" and a freely published author.

The problem of responsibility is considered by Solzhenitsyn not only in the general aesthetic or moral aspects, but also in the aspect of the "technology" of writing. He speaks about the responsibility to the reader in the presentation of material in his essays in the Literary Collection (“Techniques of Epics”, “Leonid Borodin - “Queen of Troubles”, “Vasily Belov”, etc.).

The problem of responsibility in Solzhenitsyn's aesthetics is inseparable from the problem of the artist's freedom.

Based on Solzhenitsyn's literary criticism, memoirs and journalism, this paragraph deals with all forms of the writer's protest against the external restriction of the artist's freedom, understanding the gift of freedom and its paradoxes, and the relationship between independence and spiritual freedom. The ethical, metaphysical, social, aesthetic content of the most important category of self-restraint for Solzhenitsyn is specially analyzed.

Organic for A.I. Solzhenitsyn, the connection between the ethical and aesthetic nature of artistic creativity is manifested in the interpretation truth and ways of expressing it. Consideration of this connection is devoted to the second paragraph of the first chapter.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn is concerned about the problem of authenticity. This category, according to him, is fundamentally important for the literature of the 20th century; he reflects on it literally in every essay in the Literary Collection. Often, within one work, Solzhenitsyn notices the simultaneous presence of reliable and unreliable features, plausibility and improbability. In the "Literary Collection" he talks about the relationship of real historical facts with fiction, as well as the place and significance of anachronisms (temporal mismatches) in the work, finds out for himself how much the analyzed author (for example, V. Grossman) "understood the truth or allowed himself understand". Solzhenitsyn understands the highest task: “to recreate the trampled, destroyed, slandered reality” in the unity of the historical, moral and aesthetic aspects. Correlating the artistic reality of the novel with historical reality, Solzhenitsyn the critic draws for himself those aspects of reality that did not interest the writer under review or that were closed to him. ideological orientation, censorship requirements, etc. Solzhenitsyn the artist, by all means and methods of poetics, constantly appeals to reality.

Reality is multifaceted in the interpretation of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. Its artistic comprehension is closely connected with memory. Literature is endowed with “irrefutable condensed experience: from generation to generation. Thus it becomes the living memory of the nation.” Solzhenitsyn carefully "collects" historical, domestic, cultural details of a distant time, preserved by the artistic memory of writers and the memory of the language. The additions to the "Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion" are also an expansion of the reality of the past, present and future, expressed in language and stimulated by language. special attention Solzhenitsyn uses such a way of preserving reality as memoirs. The author of memoir books, he acted as the organizer of the All-Russian Memoir Library.

For Solzhenitsyn, factual, documentary credibility is inseparable from personal credibility (sincerity).

A.I. Solzhenitsyn singles out P. Romanov, I. Shmelev, E. Nosov, I. Lisnyanskaya, N. Korzhavin. Writer's sincerity is a form of manifestation of the writer's inner truth. For the absence of this trait, A.I. Solzhenitsyn does not spare even his favorite authors - for example, E. Zamyatina. Along with the inner truth, A.I. Solzhenitsyn also speaks of internal untruth, calling it "doubles." About this - briefly in the "Nobel Lecture", in detail - in an essay on Yuri Nagibin.

The paragraph reveals the fundamentally important aspects of Solzhenitsyn's controversy - in his literary and critical texts - about the truth in art and the ways of its embodiment with the theorists and practitioners of socialist realism, with modernist and postmodernist writers. Solzhenitsyn preserves with special care all the achievements of realism in Russian literature of the second half of the 20th century (essays and speeches on the work of V. Belov, B. Mozhaev, V. Rasputin, G. Vladimov, and others). The historical path of Russian literature of the twentieth century appears to him as a way of expanding and deepening realism in confrontation with currents that deny it.

The corrective moments in relation to such a representation are seen by the dissertator as noted by Solzhenitsyn himself and his researchers, the influence of modernist writers on his work and the artistic dispute with V.T. Shalamov. Based on research on Shalamov's prose, the dissertation raises the question of the nature of artistic communication in the texts of Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov, which convey the inhuman camp experience; argues that if for Solzhenitsyn this experience expands the possibilities of realistic prose, then for Shalamov it radically changes, up to denial.

The third paragraph focuses on the analysis nature of artistry and poetics of the work in the interpretation of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Aesthetics A.I. Solzhenitsyn is realism-centric, but he undoubtedly proceeds from an understanding of artistry as a historical category. This is evidenced by his judgments about the roots of Russian literature, about the influence of Orthodoxy on the content and form of Russian literature, about the historical life of the language, about a significant change in the nature of artistry in the 20th century.

Collecting and systematizing Solzhenitsyn's judgments related to the theory artistic text, the dissertation shows how they are directly related to the practice of analyzing a work.

The article by Valentin Rasputin, dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, unfortunately, came to us after the previous Saturday issue had been made up. But has it lost its relevance? After all, the significance of a great writer is not determined by anniversaries. Our reader, no doubt, will be interested in the assessment given by our famous countryman to the work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

As in all great literature, there are several breeds of talent in Russian literature. There is a breed of Pushkin and Lermontov - young, sparkling, sensual light-winged writing, which has come down to Blok and Yesenin; there is Aksakov-Turgenev, which absorbed Leskov and Bunin, an unusually warm, unusually Russian mood and a sharp sense of smell of life that has now been lost; their conception and gestation have some kind of deep, pagan origin, from the very inside of the national mortgage hidden in the steppes and forests. There are other breeds where Gogol and Bulgakov, and Nekrasov and Tvardovsky, and Dostoevsky, and Sholokhov, and Leonov will stand. And there is a breed of Derzhavin - the heroes of Russian literature, who wrote powerfully and resoundingly, thought universally, endowed, moreover, with a heroic reserve of physical strength. Tolstoy and Tyutchev should be included here. Here, in the twentieth century, Solzhenitsyn rightfully took his place.

Almost everything written by A.I. Solzhenitsyn had a great resonance. The first work to anyone then, in 1962, by an unknown author, was read by the whole country. I read it avidly, with surprise and bewilderment before the sudden expansion of life and literature, before the expansion of the Russian language itself, which sounded unusual, in native forms and curves that had not yet laid down on paper. An unfamiliar, outcast world opened up, which was somewhere beyond the limits of our consciousness, torn from normal life and inhabited on the islands of abnormal life - the world from which Ivan Denisovich Shukhov emerged, a small unassuming man, one of the darkness of thousands. And he went out for one day of the darkness of his days between life and death. But this was enough to make the multi-million reader stunned, recognizing him and not recognizing him, bringing down on him an avalanche of compassion along with distrust, guilt and anxiety at the same time.

Messages of a literary nature also came from that world before, but they were scattered, intermittent, indistinct, as in Morse code, signals, the key to deciphering which was owned for the most part by those who had been there. Ivan Denisovich, on the day allotted to him, taken out of the barracks to work sick and recovered and even inspired in work, did not demand anything from us, did not reproach us with anything, but only presented himself as he is, turned out to be commensurate with our innocent consciousness and entered into it. easily. Willingly or unwittingly, the author acted prudently, preparing the insinuating and tattered Shukhov, who did not infringe on the reader's well-being in any way, for the advent of the Gulag Archipelago. Without Shukhov, an encounter with the Gulag would have been too cruel an ordeal. Test - read? "And the test to endure, to be inside this terrible machine?" - we have the right to ask ourselves. Yes, these are incomparable concepts, existence on different planets. Nevertheless, the test in one's own skin does not cancel the "transferable" test, the test by evidence. Measured, calculated, many-voiced and incessant life-size GULAG and "productivity" - even after Ivan Denisovich, it was an excessive blow for many; unable to bear it, they left reading. They could not stand it - because it was a blow close to physical impact, to the perception of torture exhaled by the victims. The impact of "Ivan Denisovich" was not weaker, but of a different - moral - order, along with pain, it also gave consolation. In order to recover from the "Archipelago", one had to return to "Ivan Denisovich" again and feel how martyrdom from the punishing force squeezes out healing lachrymation.

Immediately after "Ivan Denisovich" - stories, and among them "Matryona Dvor". Here and there in the heroes there is a striking, some kind of supernatural tenacity for life and in general is characteristic of a Russian person, but little noticed, not taken into account when looking at his viability. When patience is beaten up by tenacity, it is no longer weak-willed, much can be overcome with it. Solzhenitsyn himself, who had been sentenced more than once, showed this quality in the last effort, using his own word, when the light dimmed in his eyes, to rise to his feet again and again. L.N. Tolstoy seemed to be born in swaddling clothes great. A.I. Solzhenitsyn to his greatness had to wade too far. "He won't kill, so he will break through" - this is for him, for a Russian person! - and let's beat him, beat him on all the potholes, and let's look after him from every corner, and let him on such a rack that the sky is like a sheepskin! It was along this road that Alexander Isaevich went to his recognition. He survived, learned to take a hit, acquired the science to figure out what was worth - after that, gifts in full measure in all "capacities", no norms.

Matrenin Dvor ends with words that have remained on our lips for almost forty years:

“We all lived next to her (with Matryona Vasilievna. - V.R.) and did not understand that she was the very righteous man, without whom, according to the proverb, neither the village stands. nor the city. nor our whole land.”

It is hardly true, as it has been said more than once, that all "village" literature came out of " matryona yard"But with her second layer, the layer of my peers, she visited it. And then she didn’t think how it was possible, speaking about her cradle - about the village, to do without a righteous man, akin to Matryona Vasilievna. They didn’t even need to be looked for - they had to be only to look at and remember.And immediately a candle lit up in the soul, under which it was so sweet and gratifying to compose the life of each of our quiet homeland, and they got up, old women and old men who lived in truth, friend after friend, in some single system of eternal support for our land.

In addition to this commandment - to live in truth - we have less and less other inheritance. And we neglect this.

Large figures have their own scale of activity and lifting power. I can't understand how Solzhenitsyn, even before his exile, in very cramped conditions, managed to collect, process and put into the mainstream of the book all that huge and burning that made up the "Gulag Archipelago"! And where did the forces come from already in Vermont to cope with a mountain of material, one must think, several archival premises for the "Red Wheel"! At the same time, he manages to conduct a journalistic guide for Russia and the West, manages to compile and edit two multi-volume library series on recent Russian history! Only one comparison is suitable here - with "War and Peace" and Tolstoy. Solzhenitsyn has much in common with Tolstoy. The same blocky figures, great will and energy, epic thinking, the need for both one and the other, after about sixty years of distance from historical events, to turn to the founding fateful centuries of the beginning of their century. It's kind of a mystical coincidence. Huge popularity in the world, booming articles, sounding on all continents. One is excommunicated from the church, the other from the Motherland. Help for the starving and help for political prisoners, then literature. Both are great rebels, but Tolstoy created his rebellion "out of the blue", in conditions of personal and paternal (relatively, of course) well-being, Solzhenitsyn completely came out of rebellion, he was raised in him by the system. Solzhenitsyn's fate abruptly threw him from one steepness to another; after the Caucasian campaign, Tolstoy's biography took a safe haven in Yasnaya Polyana and was completely devoted to writing and spiritual life. But even after that: turns that bring them closer to each other. Solzhenitsyn in America plunges into seclusion, Tolstoy, before his death, commits not the senile deed of an eternal rebel - his famous departure from Yasnaya Polyana.

And most importantly: "Leo Tolstoy as a mirror of the Russian revolution" and Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a mirror of the Russian counter-revolution seventy years after the revolution.

A rare person, setting himself an unbearable goal, lives to win. This happened to Alexander Isaevich. Having declared war on a powerful system, in his homeland calling on the subjects of this system to live not by lies, but in exile constantly calling on the West to increase pressure on communism, Solzhenitsyn could hardly count on anything else during his lifetime, except for ideological weakening and the retreat of communism to softer positions. . More happened, however, and, as it soon turned out, worse: the system collapsed. History loves strong and fast moves, for the justification of which huge sacrifices are then made. So it was in 1917, so it happened this time.

Fearing just such an outcome in the future, Solzhenitsyn warned more than once: “... but suddenly the party bureaucracy will fall off tomorrow ... and our remnants will be smashed in another February, in another collapse” (“Our Pluralists”, 1982). And over the past half century, Russia's readiness for democracy, for a multi-party parliamentary system, could only decrease. Perhaps, its sudden introduction now would only be a new sorrowful repetition of 1917" ("Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union", 1973).

According to the hours of Russian critical life, the course of which Solzhenitsyn studied well, it was difficult to make a mistake: as February was inevitably followed by October, so predators will come to the place of the educated people who have flocked to power, petty, vile and rogue, incapable of governing. high flight and arrange the state for themselves. All this was foreseen by Solzhenitsyn and said, but the rebel, longing for a final victory over his old adversary, spoke stronger in him and drowned out the voice of the seer. The “Red Wheel”, which had rolled from the beginning to the end of the century, burst ... but if only the rim was red in it, which can be urgently and painlessly replaced and move on! .. No, the rim has grown together with both the axle and the hub , that is, with everything domestic move, with a national body - and they began to tear it with fury and fury, the body ... and they are still tearing, thickly smeared with blood.

But what was said for a long time could not fall and be silent with the change of power. And it is not surprising that much of what belongs to one system has now of itself been redirected to another and even received an increase - along with an increase in our misfortunes. This is how it should be: justice is fighting the crime against national Russia, and the new banner put up by the malefactors will not embarrass an honest judge.

“When violence breaks into peaceful human life, its face is blazing with self-confidence, it carries the flag and shouts: “I am Violence! Disperse, make way - I will crush!" But violence quickly grows old, a few years - it is no longer confident in itself and, in order to hold on, to look decent, it will certainly call Lies into its allies. For: violence has nothing to hide behind, except lies, and Lies can hold on only by violence "(Live not by lies").

"A lie can stand against much in the world - but not against art. And as soon as a lie is dispelled, the nudity of violence is disgustingly revealed - and decrepit violence will fall" (Nobel lecture).

No, this is not Solzhenitsyn turned around - all the same, stigmatizing evil, no matter what hypostases it takes.

But this is quite curious - despite some old notation:

“An American diplomat recently exclaimed: “Let the American stimulant work on Brezhnev’s Russian heart!” A mistake, it should have been said: “on the Soviet one.” Nationality is not determined by origin alone, but by soul, but by the direction of devotion. The heart of Brezhnev, who allows his people to be destroyed in in favor of international adventures, not Russian" ("What threatens America with a poor understanding of Russia").

Exactly.

The return of Alexander Isaevich to the long-suffering Motherland, which began four years ago, finally ended only recently, with the release of the book "Russia in a collapse" (publishing house "Russian Way"), now we can say that after a 20-year absence, Solzhenitsyn has again grown into Russia and occupied according to his moral influence, and from now on the guessing of soil currents coincides with him, the first place in Russia, choosing him at a distance from all political parties, at the crossroads leading to the hinterland, where there remains hope for democracy, which he understands as zemstvo. Again: not everything in the last book can be agreed unconditionally. But this is a separate conversation. This is a separate reflection, and again it could not have done without Tolstoy, who, of course, did not achieve either February or October, but with his loud denials of the foundations of contemporary monarchical life, he involuntarily turned his shoulder to them. This is a reflection on the preparation, as if by the people themselves, and as if against their immediate interests, of great moral authorities, whose influence and teaching is consistent with the long-term perspective of the national destiny.

80th anniversary of A.I. Solzhenitsyn is the impetus for many serious reflections on the way of the cross in Russia. They are, of course, everyday, we fall asleep with them and wake up with them. But one day a day like this one comes, raised above the fatal routine into which we are sucked more and more - and then everything seems bigger and more significant. If the Russian land gives birth to such people, it means that it is still stocky, and no villainy, no allowance can so soon grind it into dust. If, after all the beatings inflicted on her by bad weather, she only managed to grow stronger and enrich herself with new growth, why shouldn’t she also grow stronger and turn her hardships into experience and wisdom over time?! There are people in whom contemporaries and descendants see the parenthood of the earth as greater than father and mother.

That's why it sounds like this: Motherland, Fatherland!

G.P. Semenova

A.I. Solzhenitsyn belongs to that type of writers, not uncommon in Russian literature, for whom the Word is equal to the Deed, Morality consists in Truth, and politics is not politics at all, but "life itself." According to some critics, this is what destroys the "mystical essence of art", giving rise to a bias on the political shoulder to the detriment of the artistic one. At best, such critics say: "With unequivocal admiration for Solzhenitsyn the man, unfortunately, I do not rate Solzhenitsyn the artist highly." However, there are others who “rank him low” as a thinker, as an expert in Russian history and modern life, and even as an expert in the Russian language. This does not mean that the well-known Russian rule is confirmed in the attitude towards this writer: there is no prophet in the fatherland. It is he who is put forward by many for such a role, moreover, some people believe that the time for criticizing A. Solzhenitsyn has not come and, perhaps, will not come. So, in Russian, the heart does not know the middle: either-or ...

It is known that one of the writer's constant worries is why people often do not understand each other, why not every word - artistic or journalistic - reaches the consciousness and heart, why other words leave without leaving a trace. In part, he answered this question himself, saying in his Nobel speech (1970) that a true word should not be faceless, “tasteless, colorless, odorless”, it should correspond to the national spirit, this ancestral basis of the language.

In the search and selection of such words, in the change of word-formation elements in the most "worn out" of them - one of the important components of his work, his poetics. Reflecting, for example, on those who “selflessly or recklessly” call themselves the intelligentsia, essentially not being one, he proposes calling them “educated”, which, from his point of view, “is in the spirit of the Russian language and is true in meaning” ( "Education"). The common variant “intelligentsia” was rejected, probably because the meaning of the original concept of “intelligence” is wider than the meaning contained in the concept of “education”, and, therefore, the noun “intelligentsia” would not express what the author wanted to say.

When setting for a harmonious, adequate language design of any content, A. Solzhenitsyn sometimes uses a different font to highlight the most significant, key concepts and terms related to the topic, specific words and expressions, commenting and explaining them either in special notes or directly in the text. "Oh good Russian word- prison \ - we read in his book "The Gulag Archipelago" (part 1, chapter 12), - and what a strong one! and knocked together like! In it, it seems, is the very fortress of these walls, from which you cannot escape. And everything here is tightened in these six sounds - both severity, and prison, and sharpness (hedgehog sharpness, when with needles in the face, when a frozen face blizzard in the eyes, the sharpness of the hewn stakes of the preson and, again, the barbed wire), and caution (prisoner) somewhere nearby it adjoins, - and the horn? Yes, the horn sticks out straight, sticks out! right in us and instructed. Evaluating the word as “kind”, the writer means that it is sound, good, well done.

But the fact that our language calls “good” household items, clothes, household utensils seems strange to him (see “Matryonin’s Dvor”). Strange, however, is something else - that with such an attentive attitude to the word, the writer in this case did not feel, almost on the surface, the predestination of this colloquial word usage of folk ethical values, a careful attitude to the necessary that serves a person in his daily life and that is not profitable. suddenly not easy. To express an ironic attitude towards hoarding, hoarding, increased interest in things, people use other words - such as "rags", "junk". Perhaps, in this case, the writer himself found himself, in a sense, in the grip of those “stamps of forced thinking” that, according to his observations, so prevent people from understanding each other, and wanted to be “more moral” over the centuries of the elements of folk ethics that have been taking shape and asserting themselves. .

But the temperamental characterization of the word “massovization” and the process it designates as “vile” does not cause such doubts, although one could say that here the form and content surprisingly coincided: what is the process, such is the word, official, non-aesthetic, hastily cobbled together according to the canons of revolutionary newspeak. But A. Solzhenitsyn is right that for many years of such massivization, “everything individual and everything folklore was knocked out of many heads, they pushed the stamped one, trampled and littered the Russian language”, flooded it with lofty ideological clichés that penetrated into the speech of even the most educated and thinking representatives of society, forcedly or habitually using this "handy, inexpressive political language" ("Education").

The phenomenon of Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" is in the indissolubility of the truthful content and truthful language, which in the early sixties went "against" the usual political dogmas, common aesthetic clichés and moral taboos: the unknown author of the work that stunned his contemporaries chose freedom for himself "in the arrangement ... of one's own language and spiritual world" (Questions of Literature. 1991. No. 4. P. 16). Then, for many, not only the hero and the theme of the story became an event, but also the language in which it was written: “they plunged headlong into it, finished reading the phrase - and often returned to its beginning. It was the same great and powerful, and, moreover, free language, intelligible from childhood, and later more and more supplanted by speech substitutes for textbooks, newspapers, reports ”(Noviy Mir. 1990. No. 4. P. 243). Then A. Solzhenitsyn "not only told the truth, he created the language that the time needed - and there was a reorientation of all literature that used this language" (Noviy Mir, 1990, No. 1, p. 243). This language was focused on the elements of that oral speech, which the writer heard in the “thick of the people”, where, according to his observations, the “unscorched, untrodden” massovization still remained (“Educated”).

As is known, based on the analytical study of existing dictionaries of the Russian language, as well as the best examples Russian literature and everything heard “in different places ... from the root stream of the language” A. Solzhenitsyn compiled the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”, the purpose of which he saw in serving the national culture, “to make up for the debilitating impoverishment of the Russian language and the general decline in the him "(" Explanations "to" Russian Dictionary ... ").

Of course, the essence of this work is not, as it seems to some linguists, to try to return contemporaries to the past linguistic consciousness. He is not talking about replacing the foreign word "galoshes" with the Russian "wet shoes", as the zealots of the purity of the Russian language suggested long before him. And not about replacing the widely used vocabulary with forgotten or almost forgotten words collected by him: “wasted” instead of “slander”, “laughing” instead of “ironicism”, “vanity” instead of “vanity”, “women-bearing” instead of “womanly love”, “schooling” instead of "educate" or, perhaps, "scold", "star grab" instead of "grabbing stars from the sky", "maybe" instead of "doing something at random", etc. The collected words are offered to them only as possible synonyms for common ones on the grounds that they contain additional semantic or expressive shades. Just as historically and philosophically the work of A. Solzhenitsyn is aimed at restoring not the former order in general, but specifically “the capable norms of the former Russian life” (Questions of literature. 1991. No. 1. P. 193), so from a linguo-aesthetic point of view, his dictionary and literary work is driven by the desire to return compatriots to speech, to Russian literature from the storehouses of the language "still quite flexible, fraught with a rich movement of the word", which can find application, enrich modern speech, express content, perhaps, to a due extent inexpressible by known language means.

It is significant that A. Solzhenitsyn himself was able, as he believes, “quite appropriately” to use in his own works only five hundred lexical units from his Dictionary. He expects the same caution in word usage from his fellow writers, not accepting “linguistic sloppiness”, when the writer strives “out of tune, out of line with the subject of consideration, out of the planned height of discoveries to cram coarse expressions into the text, not hearing the falsity of his own voices” (“... Your tripod shakes”). An undoubted example of such bad taste for A. Solzhenitsyn is the camp jargon in the essay by A. Tertz (A. Sinyavsky) “Walking with Pushkin”: “learned to slander in rhyme”, etc. With his characteristic categoricalness, he accuses not only this author, but the domestic emigration in general of striving to "destroy exactly what was high and pure in Russian literature." “Debauched and sick with her licentiousness, to the point of breaking the facets of dignity, with suffocating portions of antics, she,” writes A. Solzhenitsyn, “strives to present all-irony, a game of liberties with a self-sufficient New Word, often hiding behind them barrenness, flashes of insignificance, replaying the void” (Ibid.). Of course, this cannot be applied to all Russian-language emigrant literature, which, in its best examples, has done a lot for the glory of Russian literature and for the preservation of the Russian language. And "Walks with Pushkin" is also by no means exhausted by A. Solzhenitsyn's assessment. But fury is in the Russian spirit.

Is it not this frenzy that sometimes interferes with A. Solzhenitsyn himself in his work on the word? And in this case, do not his own texts lose from the fact that after the first publications in their homeland, apparently, no one professionally edited them, but in domestic publications recent years even his spelling turned out to be untouchable: “girl” (“Cancer Ward”), “musical” (“Nobel speech”), “myatel” (“Gulag Archipelago”), “semyachki” (“A calf butted with oak”), etc. ? “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, perhaps the best work of art by A. Solzhenitsyn, only benefited from the fact that, without losing in the main thing - in the authenticity of character and language - the author agreed “to use the word “butt” less frequently for escorts ... less often - "reptile" and "reptiles" about the authorities; at first these words were “thick” in the text,” he admits in Essays on Literary Life. It’s just as thick on some pages of his other works from deliberate linguistic searches, forcing the reader, as Alexander Isaevich himself would say, now and then “get drunk”, distracting from the content, losing the sharpness of perception.

Perhaps, among such failures, one should include such word usages of the writer as “common-minded Max” (“In the first circle”), which in the context means “courteous”, but in form gravitates towards the meaning of the participle “caring”; in the expression “poke us into our souls” (“Nobel speech”), the verb confuses with the same vague semantic orientation - “horse”, “to spoil”? ... it all began to rise again, narrow, stern, shiver" ("The Gulag Archipelago"), reminiscent of Tsvetaeva's famous verbal escapades, but taken separately, without context, the same verb becomes completely incomprehensible ("rage", "mug"? ..). Some word formations are also doubtful, such as “grass oozes around after the rain” (“Breathing”), although none of the “correct” turns (exude aroma, spread smell, ooze moisture, etc.) - and the writer, moreover, only one word is needed - I would not convey all the information, I would impoverish a beautiful and lively picture, because after the rain, the herbs, in fact, not only smell of freshness, but also, drunk with moisture, fill it up, breathe, drop the excess, evaporate outside, smoke. .. However, with such a passionate passion for language creation and with such an absolute rejection of "common language", "common concepts", costs and overexposure - let's use his word - are "inevitable"; besides, there are far fewer of them in the works of A. Solzhenitsyn than finds.

By weeding out boring forms from his texts, the writer not only struggles with clichés, but often clarifies or makes the meaning heavier, makes the word more meaningful both meaningfully and emotionally. At the same time, the methods used by them are very diverse. So, colloquial, colloquial words work productively in the language of not only the heroes, but also A. Solzhenitsyn himself. In some cases, they are used to diversify, enliven speech, to save it from repetition, as, for example, the verb "help" along with the neutral "help" in the "Nobel speech"; in others, phonetic and grammatical vernaculars included in the author's speech become a means of additionally characterizing the characters as "drunk" and "for show" in the "Easter procession"; thirdly, vernacular, for example, “born”, should neutralize the high sound of the word “born”, which is inappropriate in the context of the named story. Let's try in the same story to return the “legal” verb “surrounded” or “surrounded” to its place, and the effect of the word-find will immediately disappear, and the meaning will be simplified, impoverished: “Girls in trousers with candles and guys with cigarettes in their teeth, in caps and in unbuttoned cloaks ... tightly surrounded and watching a spectacle that you will not see anywhere for money. These goals are also served by the verb “bearing”, used instead of “embarrassed” (“The calf butted ...”). At the same time, A. Solzhenitsyn, as usual, strictly monitors the appropriateness of the words used: girls in trousers “tap” in church with old women (“Easter Procession”), but the doctor Gangart and nurse Zoya, in the presence of Kostoglotov, who is not indifferent to both, “crossed over”. Both verbs bear the imprint copyright to the characters, the author's assessment - this is another important meaning of the replacements made by the writer.

To break the habitual cliché, instead of neutral words, the writer uses reduced, say, “tricks”, and not “methods” or “techniques” (“Easter procession”); then he introduces unexpected, unhackneyed definitions, such as "disturbing Leningrad" ("In the first circle"), "hot hour" ("Nobel speech"); then connects words that are not very suitable from the point of view normative usage: “against Marxism” (“On the return of breath and consciousness”), “a lively appraiser” - about a literary critic (“... Your tripod shakes”), “does ... optimists itch” (Ibid.); then in a compound word it replaces one of the parts or swaps them - “silent” (“Matryonin Dvor”), “middle-aged old man” (“Cancer Ward”), “the sad Soviet “Literary Encyclopedia”” (“... Your tripod shakes ”), “praised the tyrant” (“In the first circle”), “political fleeting needs” (“Nobel speech”), “simple-lipped” (“Easter procession”), etc.

Sometimes, by replacing the root in the word, A. Solzhenitsyn achieves an ironic effect, caricaturizes the named object or person, for example, when he calls the author of the essay about Pushkin mentioned above "ulcerative", and "tribunalists" - "indulgent" ("Gulag Archipelago"). In other cases, the same technique is used for opposite purposes - to “ennoble” the phenomenon; to say about the beloved hero that he “snarled”, of course, even A. Solzhenitsyn’s tongue will not turn, although the point is that he “snarled” is really closer to the character and state of Kostoglotov; Rusanov (The Cancer Ward) could, perhaps, have "grunted" in accordance with the concept of the novel. Finally, the replacement of a familiar root or the formation of a new word by analogy with one or another group of words by substituting a root that is necessary in meaning gives the writer a wonderful opportunity to economically and succinctly express the necessary completeness of the content. So, in the expression "general ... holocaust of the country" ("Gulag Archipelago"), the first word, formed from the original "hunger" according to the type of nouns "chilling", "freezing out", "chilling out", etc., emphasizes the magnitude and premeditation of the disaster; the impersonal “cleared up” (ibid.), derived from the noun “darkness” on the model of the verb “cleared up”, should clarify what kind of change occurred in nature; in the sentence “Art warms even the cold, darkened soul” (“Nobel speech”), the verb, built according to a well-known model, more successfully than the other speaks of the gradualness of the process.

Another method often used by A. Solzhenitsyn for updating the common vocabulary is to replace prefixes and suffixes while maintaining the roots, which sometimes, as in the following text, is accompanied by the translation of a familiar word into another part of speech: “What is more promising than the slogans of a commando? what is more dangerous than the machine guns of CHON ...! ("The Gulag Archipelago"). But more often, such experiments concern only prefixes, which are either reduced or discarded entirely: “... forced me to some kind of breakthrough” (“The calf butted ...”), “last year” (“Cancer Ward”), “ otherworldly world ”“ In the first circle ”); or, on the contrary, they are added where you don’t expect them: “God overcame me with creative crises” (“The calf butted ...”), / “an irreversible magic crystal” (“... Your tripod shakes”); \ Or they change to others to express a shade that is not contained in the “neutral version”, or “refresh” the latter: for example, the main lines that are “already marked” (“Gulag Archipelago”) are not those that are just outlined or planned, but those that already show through and become visible. Where many would say "surging", the author of the novel "In the First Circle" writes: "five of them were washed over by the bittersweet feeling of the homeland." The chosen word is more correct and more successful for this context, because the verb with the prefix “on-” often means an action directed to one side of the object, while the actions indicated by the verbs “washed”, “faned”, “enveloped”, etc., apply to the entire object from all sides. In the same way, “faded eyes” will tell the reader more than those that have faded or faded about the duration of the “sparks of pain” endured by a person (“Cancer Ward”).

Perhaps, A. Solzhenitsyn’s prefix “from-” works especially a lot and, for the most part, productively for the semantic “weighting” of the text: “longer than all the old-timers” (“Cancer Ward”), “wrote reluctantly memories” (“The Gulag Archipelago” ) etc. At the same time, the writer's artistic logic often turns out to be more convincing than grammatical or stylistic rules, appeals to the frequency of the use of certain forms. The verb “to love”, perceived by readers in the meaning that it has, for example, in Sergei Yesenin’s poem “They loved you, tortured you ...”, in A. Solzhenitsyn’s miniature “Lake Segden” takes on a completely different meaning: “... this place on earth you will love for all your life. The writer does not seem to remember Yesenin's interpretation and, not being satisfied with the usual "love", by changing the prefix, he loads the word with additional content, coming from the forms "favorite", "favorite", that is, "beloved", "loved" - most of all. Such is the logic of the use of this verb in the "Cancer Ward": "he loved and chose the wall."

No less diverse and instructive is the work of A. Solzhenitsyn with suffixes, from which, as usual, he selects unhackneyed and, moreover, more economical ones: “he has improved in horse breeding” (“Gulag Archipelago”), “he has accomplished something” (“In the circle first”), “reassuring foresight of thoughtful heads” (“Easter procession”), “tousled ... her hair” (“Cancer Ward”), etc. As a rule, this helps to move away from the book or clerical style to the colloquial, sometimes fairy tale epic; such an effect occurs, for example, when replacing the noun “appeal” with “call” (“On the return of breath and consciousness”), “exclamation” with “exclamation” (“The calf butted ...”). It seems that the use of words created by replacing or reducing certain word-building elements - both roots and affixes - contributes to the multiplication of the lexical riches of the modern Russian language and, in some cases, to its rejuvenation.

Solzhenitsyn's texts convince us that the language already has everything: a verb, perceived as one-species, turns out to have a pair, even if it is colloquial; having said “the “revolutionary idealists” began to come to their senses” (“... Your tripod shakes”), the writer used a form that absorbed meaningful shades from both the single-species “wake up” and from the pair colloquial “wake up - come to your senses”. The same work reminds that the verb perfect look“Shelter” in the storerooms of the language is a specific, today unused pair - “housing”. The writer does not stop before using rare in prose - in poetry there were - participial authorial formations such as “crying or groaning” (“Cancer Ward”). Convincingly, communicating an additional expressive connotation not contained in neutral words, colloquial passive participles work in his texts: “It was threatened that they would shoot him” (“In the first circle”), “it was also possible about Dostoevsky” (“... Shakes your tripod"). At the same time, an amazing feature of the language of A. Solzhenitsyn is that the vernaculars he introduces sometimes lose their reduced coloring in his works and are perceived almost as literary due to the exact choice of the word for each specific situation.

Of course, the nationality and “Russianness” of the language of A. Solzhenitsyn is not only in the fact that his characters speak a living dialect, overheard “in the midst of the people”, but also in the fact that in his linguistic work he takes into account the experience of different layers of national culture - folklore, realistic prose, poetry silver age"and, perhaps, especially - Marina Tsvetaeva and Vladimir Mayakovsky. With Tsvetaeva, too, they don’t “fall in love”, but “fall in love”, they don’t “fall”, but “fall into: memory”; instead of “think” she has “think”, instead of “stringing” - “lower”, etc. (see: Zubova L.V. Poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva: Linguistic Aspect. L., 1989); and, finally, in her poems and poems, too, "a full bell rattles ...", as in Mayakovsky with his "rushing around, yelling", "I have to split in two" ("Happy meetings"), "barely parted, hardly parted", " come, respond to the verse ”(“ I love ”), etc. Sometimes Solzhenitsyn's syntax makes one recall the sharply peculiar style of Andrei Platonov. Here are examples of frank reminiscences: “I have to suffer for another twenty years for the sake of the general order in humanity”, “the thought did not reach clarity” (“In the First Circle”), etc.

Apparently, one of the main reasons for the return of A. Solzhenitsyn to his homeland is his intention to personally and "close" to participate in the "development of Russia." Back in the seventies, during emigration, he warned of the danger that lies in wait for writers who take on the role of accusers of their fatherland and people and, having renounced the feeling of guilt, demand repentance only from others: “This alienness of them,” he believed, “punishes them and in a language that is not at all Russian, but in the tradition of hastily translated Western philosophy” (“Repentance and self-restraint as categories national life"). The writer, who does not fence himself off from the pain of the people, in his opinion, has much more possibilities become "the spokesman of the national language - the main bond of the nation, and the very land occupied by the people, and in a happy case, the national soul" ("Nobel speech").

With A.I. Solzhenitsyn can and should argue, but first - to hear and understand. And - let the Word be the Deed ...

Keywords: Alexander Solzhenitsyn, criticism of the work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, criticism of the works of A. Solzhenitsyn, analysis of the works of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, download criticism, download analysis, free download, Russian literature of the 20th century