Religion and literature. Solzhenitsyn and attitude towards him

Archpriest Nikolai Chernyshev, a cleric of the church in honor of St. Nicholas in Klenniki, who has been the confessor of the Solzhenitsyn family for the past several years, shared his memories of the writer with the Patriarchia.ru portal.

— Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn was seen off on his last journey in accordance with Orthodox tradition. Tell me, please, what was the writer’s path to faith?

— I would like to refer you to Lyudmila Saraskina’s book dedicated to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which was recently published in the “Life of Remarkable People” series. In this book, the writer’s biography is described most fully and soberly.

Alexander Isaevich grew up in an Orthodox, deeply religious family and from the very beginning recognized himself as an Orthodox Christian. These were the years of militant atheism, so at school he had problems with classmates and teachers. Naturally, he did not join either the pioneers or the Komsomol. The pioneers tore off his cross, but he put it on again every time.

At that time, in the Rostov region (Rostov-on-Don), where the writer was born and lived at that time, churches were closed one after another. By the time he grew up, there were no longer any functioning churches in the area hundreds of miles from Rostov. At that time, the ideas of Marxism and Leninism were imposed, as we know, not just actively, but aggressively. It was necessary to study “diamat” in educational institutions. A young man, Sasha Solzhenitsyn became interested in Marxism, dialectical materialism, and this conflicted with his childhood beliefs. Something unbearable was saddled with a fragile soul. At that time, many people broke under this burden.

As Alexander Isaevich said, it was a period of painful doubts, rejection of childhood beliefs and pain. He saw that there was no truth in what was happening around him. But the theory, smoothly expressed in books, was seductive.

The real return to God and rethinking took place not even at the front, but in the camps, after the war. In these most painful moments of his life, he remembered the “leaven” that was given by his mother in the family. Therefore, it cannot be said that his coming to faith was abrupt and unexpected. Faith was passed down in his family from generation to generation, and it turned out to be stronger.

He described the change that happened to Alexander Isaevich in the camps in his 1952 poem “Akathist”. In a sincere, poetic form, he talks about that breakdown, about what happened in his soul during the period of this change:

Yes, when will I be so allowed, completely clean?
Have you scattered all the good grains?
After all, I spent my adolescence
In the bright singing of Your temples!

The wisdom of the books began to shine,
My arrogant piercing the brain,
The secrets of the world appeared - comprehended,
The lot of life is as malleable as wax.

The blood was boiling - and every rinse
It seethed in other colors ahead, -
And, without a roar, quietly, it fell apart
The building of faith in my chest.

But having passed between being and non-being,
Falling and holding on to the edge,
I look in grateful awe
For the rest of my life.

Not with my mind, not with my desire
Every fracture of it is sanctified -
The meaning of the Supreme with an even radiance,
Explained to me only later.

And now, in returned measure
Having scooped up living water, -
God of the Universe! I believe again!
And with the one who renounced, You were with me...

— Alexander Isaevich himself said about himself that he is “not an expert in church matters.” What aspects of church life interested him?

“He, of course, was not a “church man” in the sense that he was not interested in church canons, the structure of worship, or the structure of one or another external aspect of church life. This was the life of the soul. Life as prayer and as the fulfillment of the Gospel. But what he suffered and worried about, if we talk about aspects of the life of the Russian Church, is that the Church is in a depressed state. It was open, obvious, naked and painful for him. Starting with divine services, which are becoming more and more incomprehensible and performed separately from the people, and ending with the ever-less participation of the Church in the life of society, in caring for young people and older people. He was interested in how the life of the Church should be structured in accordance with the Gospel.

He was concerned about the problem of the unity of the Church. This is something that the heart of a believer cannot help but ache about. Alexander Isaevich felt this as personal pain. He saw that church divisions, of course, affected society. He perceived the schism of the 17th century as an unresolved problem. He was extremely respectful of the Old Believers and saw how much truth there was in them. And he was worried that there was no real unity, although canonical communication was observed.

All problems of any divisions in church life were experienced extremely painfully by Alexander Isaevich.

— Now many people recall the famous “Lenten letter” of the writer to Patriarch Pimen (1972) and say that Solzhenitsyn expected and demanded from the Church a more active participation in the life of society. What were his views on this matter at the end of his life?

— Alexander Isaevich himself was one of those people who could not remain silent, his voice was constantly heard. And of course, he was convinced that the words of the Savior “Go preach the Gospel to every creature” must be fulfilled. One of his convictions, his idea was that the Church, on the one hand, should certainly be separated from the state, but at the same time in no way separated from society.

He believed that this was completely different, that these were exactly the opposite things. Non-separateness from society must become more and more apparent. And here he could not help but see the encouraging changes in recent years. He perceived with joy and gratitude everything positive that was happening in Russia and in the Church, but he was far from calm, because during the years of Soviet power the entire society had become twisted and sick.

He understood that if a sick man leads a sick man or a lame man leads a lame man, no good will come. The activity that he called for, that non-separation from society, should in no case be expressed in a violent, suppressive system of thoughts and actions familiar to the Soviet era.

The church, he believed, on the one hand, is called upon to lead society and more actively influence public life, but in no case in our days should this be expressed in the forms that were adopted in the ideological machine that broke and mutilated people. The situation has changed in recent years. And he could not help but sense new dangers.

Once he was asked what he thought about the freedom for which he fought, how he felt about what was happening. He answered with one well-known phrase: “There is a lot of freedom, but little truth.” He felt this danger of substitution very well and therefore was far from calming down.

When he returned to his homeland and began traveling around Russia, its entire plight was revealed to him. And this concerned not only the economic side, but also her spiritual state.

He, of course, saw a fundamental difference between what was in the 30s and 50s and the current state of affairs. He was not a dissident who was always confrontational about everything. This is wrong. There are people who try to present him this way. But he wasn't like that. Always, despite his exposure of these terrible wounds of society, a powerful life-affirming force is visible in what he wrote and did. He had a positive, life-affirming and bright Christian attitude.

— A.I. Solzhenitsyn was one of the outstanding thinkers of the last century in Russia. Tell me, did a contradiction arise in his soul between reason and religious feeling?

— The contradiction took place in his youth, starting in high school, during the years at the front. It was a time when all churches were closed, and there was no one to consult with, when church life was almost completely destroyed by the Bolshevik machine of repression. There was a contradiction then. What began in the camps was a return to the origins of faith, a revival of the sense of responsibility for every step and every decision.

Of course, Alexander Isaevich was a controversial person. There will be and should be debate about it. With a personality of such magnitude and magnitude it cannot be otherwise. This man did not simply repeat memorized thoughts after someone else, but walked towards the Gospel truth through his own search.

His Holiness the Patriarch, in the word with which he honored Alexander Isaevich at the funeral service, quoted the Gospel commandment from the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are those who are exiled for the sake of righteousness.” This concerns the long and painful pages of Alexander Isaevich’s life. The words of the Savior also apply to his entire life - from his school years to his last days: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” Of course, we focus on the first part of this phrase. But I saw that he experienced the bliss and spiritual saturation possible in this earthly life, and joy in his last days came to him for fulfilling his calling.

He said: “If I were to build my life according to my own plan, it would all consist of terrible mistakes. Now I can see it. But the Lord corrected and rebuilt my life all the time, sometimes in invisible, sometimes obvious ways. Now I see that everything has turned out in such a way that it could not have been better.” These are the words of a deeply religious person, grateful to God and accepting with gratitude everything that the Lord sends to him.

— Could Alexander Isaevich be called a parishioner of any church? Did he often go to church?

— When we met Alexander Isaevich, he was already ill and almost never left the house. When the Solzhenitsyn family returned to Russia, Alexander Isaevich and Natalya Dmitrievna came to our church and met the clergy and parishioners. After this, Natalya Dmitrievna began to come often and ask her to come and confess, offer unction and give communion to her husband in their home in Trinity-Lykovo.

This form of communication between us was connected only with the fact that Alexander Isaevich no longer had the strength or opportunity to come to services himself. I must say that I visited them regularly, and not occasionally.

— What memories do you, as a priest and confessor, have of the deceased?

“What was most striking about him was his simplicity and artlessness. Amazing tenderness and care for each other always reigned in their family. This is also a manifestation of his Christian attitude towards loved ones, building the house of a small Church. This was truly amazing. Artlessness, simplicity, sensitivity, care, attentive attitude - all this was characteristic of Alexander Isaevich.

At the time we met him, he was asking himself a question - a question to which the answer had previously been obvious to him: what should he do? He said: it seems to me that I have fulfilled everything, it seems to me that my calling has been fulfilled; I don't understand why I was left. Everything that I considered necessary to say and write was all done, all my works were published. What's next? The children have grown up, he gave them a real upbringing, the family has the order it should be. And in this situation, I had to remind him that if the Lord leaves you in this world, it means there is some meaning in this, and you, please, pray about this, in order to understand why this time was given. And then, when some time had passed, he said: “Yes, I understood, this time was given to me for myself - not for external work, but for looking into myself.”

He spoke about this in one of his interviews: old age is given to a person in order to peer into himself, in order to evaluate, rethink and treat every moment of his life more and more strictly.

Moreover, such thoughts were not fruitless soul-searching; they served as the basis for feasible service even in recent times. Already a weak man, he nevertheless did not allow himself any relaxation or carelessness. He strictly planned his schedule until recently. Along with such a strict work schedule, he tried to accommodate people. Many, many, from completely different circles. And he tried not to leave without an answer - in personal conversation or in writing - everyone who contacted him.

Many people called him and still call him a recluse, they say that he supposedly secluded himself and did not participate in anything. This is not entirely true. Many people came to him, many asked for help.

The fact that he was buried in the Orthodox rite is not just a tribute to tradition. This is evidence that a person who truly served Christ and His Church ended his earthly life.

Interviewed by Maria Moiseeva

Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn constantly turned to God throughout his life and work. And for him it was essentially a tragedy that people were losing God. In his interview he said: “Democratic society has undergone significant development over the past at least two centuries. What was called a democratic society 200 years ago and democracies today are completely different societies. When democracies were created in several countries 200 years ago, the concept of God was still clear. And the very idea of ​​equality was based, was borrowed from religion - that all people are equal as children of God. No one would then argue that a carrot is the same as an apple: of course, all people are completely different in their abilities and capabilities, but they are equal as God’s children. Therefore, democracy has full real meaning as long as God is not forgotten.”

Alexander Isaevich recalled that he spent his childhood in a church setting, his parents took him to church, where he regularly confessed and received communion. When the Solzhenitsyn family moved to Rostov-on-Don, young Alexander witnessed the total destruction of church life. Already in exile, he described “how armed guards interrupt the liturgy and go into the altar; how they go wild around the Easter service, tearing out candles and Easter cakes; classmates are tearing off my pectoral cross; how they throw bells to the ground and hammer churches into bricks.”

There is not a single functioning church left in the capital of the Don region. “This was,” continues Solzhenitsyn, “13 years after the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so we have to admit that that declaration was not the salvation of the Church, but an unconditional surrender, making it easier for the authorities to “smoothly” silently destroy it.”

In his life, the writer never took off his pectoral cross, even if it was required by prison or camp authorities.

Being a brilliant creator, Solzhenitsyn nevertheless always remained a recluse. He did not belong to this world.

In his works, Solzhenitsyn was the first to speak about God at a generally popular level, understandable to the Soviet people of that time. In Cancer Ward, people on the verge of death rethink their lives. “In the First Circle” - the hero - apparently the prototype of the author himself - suddenly understands that God exists, and this discovery completely changes his attitude towards arrest and suffering. Because God exists, he feels happy.

This is “Matrenin’s Dvor”, which was originally called “A village is not worth it without a righteous man”. And “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” where, like Matryona, Ivan Denisovich is distinguished by his undoubtedly inherited humility before the blows of fate from his Orthodox ancestors.

In 1963 in the cycle “Little Girls” A. I. Solzhenitsyn wrote “PRAYER”

How easy it is for me to live with You, Lord!

How easy it is for me to believe in You!

When he parted in bewilderment

or my mind fades,

when the smartest people

and don’t know what to do tomorrow, -

You give me clear confidence,

what are you

and that You will take care,

so that not all paths to good are closed.

On the ridge of earthly glory

I look back on that path with surprise

through hopelessness - here,

from where I was able to send humanity

the reflection of Your rays.

And how much will it take?

so that I can reflect them again, -

You will give me.

And no matter how much I don’t have time -

it means that You have determined it for others.

Patriarch Kirill (in 2008, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad) in his condolences on the occasion of the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn said “The prophetic ministry that the deceased carried out for many decades helped many people find the path to true freedom.” “Alexander Isaevich boldly exposed untruth and injustice.”

In 1972: Solzhenitsyn sent a Lenten message to Patriarch Pimen, which, in particular, said: “What arguments can you convince yourself that the systematic destruction of the spirit and body of the Church under the leadership of atheists is the best way to preserve it? Saving for whom? After all, it is no longer for Christ. Saving by what? Lies? But after the lie, with what hands should we celebrate the Eucharist?”

One day, while in a Gulag deep in Siberia, Solzhenitsyn decides never to lie again. According to Solzhenitsyn this means “not to say what you don’t mean, but certainly not in a whisper, not in a voice, not by raising a hand, not by lowering a ball, not by a fake smile, not by presence, not by standing up, not by applause”

“Don't lie! Don't take part in lies! Don't support lies!

Not lying means not saying what you don't mean. . It was a rejection of lies, seemingly purely political, but this lie had the dimension of eternity.

Solzhenitsyn's undoubted merit is that he remained faithful to the principle he had once chosen. This is how a person takes the path leading to knowledge of the truth. A word of truth in the midst of general silence in an atmosphere of godless lies is no small thing.

Christ says the truth will set us free. One of the new martyr bishops wrote in those years: “Blessed are those who did not bow to lies. Eternal life belongs to them. And they help us survive today."

Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy) writes this about the author of “The Archipelago”: “There is no malice in his word, but repentance and faith”: “The Gulag Archipelago is the wine of the Russian conscience, fermented on Russian patience and repentance. There is no malice here. There is anger, the son of great love, there is sarcasm and its daughter - good-natured Russian, even cheerful irony." While living abroad, Solzhenitsyn joined the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR).

In 1974, the writer addressed a message to the Third All-Diaspora Council, in which he analyzed the problem of the schism of the 17th century. He called the “Russian Inquisition” “the suppression and defeat of established ancient piety, oppression and reprisals against 12 million of our brothers, co-religionists and compatriots, cruel torture for them, tearing out tongues, pincers, racks, fire and death, deprivation of churches, exile thousands of miles away.” and far into a foreign land - them, who never rebelled, who never raised weapons in response, staunchly faithful ancient Orthodox Christians.”

In the atheistic persecution of the Church in the twentieth century, the writer saw retribution for the fact that “we doomed” the Old Believers to persecution - “and our hearts never wavered with repentance!” “250 years were allotted to us for repentance,” he continued, “and we only found in our hearts: to forgive the persecuted, to forgive them for how we destroyed them.” The council was imbued with the word of the prophet, recognized the old rites as saving, and soon even installed a bishop serving according to the old rites and asked for forgiveness from the Old Believers.

In America, Solzhenitsyn traveled from his “Vermont seclusion” thousands of kilometers to the “opposite” American state of Oregon, where the largest Old Believer parish of Belokrinitsky Harmony in the USA is located, and prayed there.

Solzhenitsyn actively acted, calling on the ROCOR for the canonization of the entire host of Russian new martyrs and confessors of the twentieth century, which ultimately took place in 1981. He personally provided many documents about the martyrs to the Council of the Church Abroad.

Priest Vladimir Vigilyansky said that in Soviet times the writer “paid for expeditions to Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and other regions, where volunteer assistants went to villages and villages and collected information about the victims of terror and the new martyrs.”

Solzhenitsyn maintained close relations with the Old Believers to the end. Returning to Russia, living at his dacha in Trinity-Lykovo, he often hosted many Old Believers.

There, the ROCOR priest gave communion to the writer.

Remembering and honoring Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, we can and should say about him the words of another Nobel Prize laureate, Boris Pasternak:

“I disappeared like an animal in a pen.

Somewhere there are people, will, light,

And behind me there is the sound of a chase,

I can't go outside.

Dark forest and the shore of a pond,

They ate a fallen log.

The path is cut off from everywhere.

Whatever happens, it doesn't matter.

What kind of dirty trick did I do?

Am I a murderer and a villain?

I made the whole world cry

Over the beauty of my land.

But even so, almost at the grave,

I believe the time will come -

The power of meanness and malice

The spirit of goodness will prevail"

Being endowed with the gift of prophecy, Solzhenitsyn spoke “..the path of humanity is a long way. It seems to me that the known historical part we have lived through is not such a large part of the entire human journey. Yes, we went through the temptations of religious wars, and were unworthy in them, and now we are going through the temptation of abundance and omnipotence, and again we are unworthy. Our story is that, going through all the temptations, we grow. Almost at the very beginning of the gospel story, Christ is offered temptations one after another, and He rejects them one after another. Humanity cannot do this so quickly and decisively, but God’s plan, it seems to me, is that through centuries of development we ourselves will be able to begin to refuse temptations.”

Alexander A. Sokolovsky

Alexandra answers

I have a bad attitude towards Solzhenitsyn. And you can read it.
And talk about him, and tell friends
Even under Brezhnev, when Solzhenitsyn’s first book, “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” was published, I, unable to analyze then due to lack of information, admired Solzhenitsyn and copied into a notebook all his statements, oral and written, from publications.
Here are some of them:.
"Two circumstances came together and directed me. One of them is our cruel and cowardly secrecy, from which all the troubles of our country. It’s not like we openly write and speak, and tell our friends what we think and how true the matter was - we and paper We are afraid to trust, because the ax still hangs over each of our necks, just in case it falls.”
Yes, at that time it was so, and it was joyful to hear about it. Like the forbidden fruit, which is known to be sweet.
Then, in January 1974, an interview with Times magazine appeared. Complete delight. It turns out that something can be changed in life by overcoming fear!
Next is the statement of February 2, 1974. “I never doubted that the truth would return to my people. I believe in our repentance, in our spiritual cleansing, in the national revival of Russia.”
Hooray! Eureka!.
Next: letter to the prosecutor's office of the USSR:
“In an atmosphere of impenetrable general lawlessness that has reigned in our country for many years, I refuse to accept the legality of your challenge. Before asking the law from citizens, learn to implement it yourself...”

Hero!!!

“And may the paralysis with which God punished your first leader serve you as a prophetic prophecy of that spiritual paralysis that is now inevitably approaching you.”
Don't doubt it, there is. And he asks - answer. Take Russia away from Cain and give it to God."
This was written, however, not by Solzhenitsyn, but by L.L. Regelson, his friend and adviser, is a Jew, by the way.
The book “200 Years with the Jews” was written under his dictation.

Jews were not persecuted then and were not considered enemies. External Jews.
The government was full of its own (as it is now). But these are our genetically altered Jews, we thought while reading Regelson.

Again to Sozhenitsyn - hurray!

Then the “Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of Writers” is published. There are a lot of new thoughts here, I’ll give one of them:
“For a long time it was impossible to pronounce the name of Pasternak out loud, but now he died - and his books are published, and his poems are quoted even at ceremonies. Pushkin’s words truly come true: “They only know how to love the dead.”

Again he is right and again he is a hero.

Then a book he wrote in the camp “Feast of the Winners” was published.
What a controversy erupted among all absolutely writers.

There was an opportunity to speak out.
And Solzhenitsyn achieved it!

Solzhenitsyn responds to this with a wonderful letter to the Congress of the Writers' Union:

"Now on the charge of the so-called denigration of reality. Tell me: when, where, in what theory does the REFLECTION of an object become more important than the object itself?
It turns out this way: it doesn’t matter what we do, but what matters is what they say about it. And so that nothing bad is said, we will remain silent, silent, silent about everything that happens. But this is not a solution. You should not be ashamed of abominations when they are talked about, but when they are done. As the poet Nekrasov said: “He who lives without sadness and anger does not love his homeland.” And he who is joyfully azure all the time, on the contrary, is indifferent in his homeland.”

How...

Further:
“...they want to forget, to cover up Stalin’s crimes, not to remember them.
“Is it necessary to remember the past?” - Leo Tolstoy was asked by his biographer Biryukov. And Tolstoy replied: “If I had a bad illness and I was cured and became clean from it, I will always remember it with joy. I will not remember it only when I am still sick and even worse, and I want to deceive myself.” .
And we are sick and still sick. The disease has changed form, but the disease is still the same, only its name is different. The disease with which we are sick is the murder of people... If we remember the old and look it straight in the face, without justifying ourselves in any way and without looking for a reason from the outside, our new present violence will be revealed. It would be good to think: what moral impact does covering up this crime have on young people? This is the corruption of many new millions." (It is he who tramples Stalin: because of him he was imprisoned. Then he was a hero for us, since there could not yet be an understanding of Stalin’s role in Russian history).
Then Kozhevnikov speaks:
“In your letter you deny the leading role of the party, but we stand by this...”
Levchenko concludes the congress: “Exclude the writer Solzhenitsyn from the members of the Writers’ Union.”

Hero, sufferer, patriot!
How could it be assessed differently, not knowing Russian history as we know it now (not all of it, though).

Then open letters were sent to this and that. Suslov, Kosygin. It reached Andropov.

This is where his fall began in our still blind eyes. It became a shame for the fatherland.

Then - the novel "October 16th". And even worse. One description of the activities of our holy King is worth something...

Analyze his books concerning the monarchy. You will be horrified.

And he laid the resentment for his broken life from his youth on the Tsar and Stalin. Especially to Stalin.
The gulag could not forgive him.

Of course, at that time there was no akathist to Tsar Nicholas II, where Stalin’s historical mission for Russia was clearly voiced:
Kontakion 12.
"The grace of the Lord withdrew from Russia in the days of thy and sent HIS PUNISHING HAND - RULE JOSEPH, may he punish this rebellious people for disobeying the oath given anciently to the youth Mikhail Romanov, for this reason rivers of human blood poured out for the murder of the Lord's anointed and great darkness came upon Rus' and the plagues of Egypt..."

He returned to us, to his homeland, with clear eyes and a clear conscience, concerned only with the thought: “How can we organize Russia?”

I immediately forgave him everything.

But attempts were made to arrange things as if he were still in the Gulag: they neither allowed him to write nor talk about it...

Have you read his "Gulag Archipelago?" However, no, of course. But in vain.
And in "The First Circle?"

Let me give you a very typical excerpt from the latter:
“But the meaning of life? We live - and this is the meaning. Happiness? When it’s very, very good - this is happiness, it’s well known.
To understand the nature of happiness, let us first examine the nature of satiety. Let's remember that rare semi-watery, without a single star of fat - barley or oatmeal gruel! Do you eat it? - you join it with sacred trepidation, you partake of it, like that prana of the yogis! Eat, you shudder from the sweetness that opens in you in these boiled grains and the cloudy moisture that connects them. Is this comparable to the rough devouring of chops?
Satiety does not depend at all on how much we eat, but on HOW we eat!
So is happiness. It does not at all depend on the amount of external benefits that we snatched from life. It depends only on our attitude towards them!
This was said in Taoist ethics: “He who knows how to be content will always be satisfied.”

Neither God, nor Russia, nor the Tsar interested him. He was far from it. Denouncing the authorities without offering anything in return is his credo.
The kingdom of heaven to him, if he was baptized. Apparently not. I didn't find any mention of either one or the other.
God will be his judge.

In the last years of his life they sometimes wrote briefly about Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy: “VPZR recently said..., VPZR noticed...”. VPZR - Great Writer of the Russian Land. Nowadays, Solzhenitsyn’s admirers are ready to refer to Alexander Isaevich with the same respect.

Indeed, one can notice a great similarity between the influence of Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn on the minds of the Russian intelligentsia. It would seem that the “mirror of the Russian revolution” L.N. Tolstoy and the fighter against Soviet power A.I. Solzhenitsyn stand in directly opposite positions on many issues of existence. Tolstoy is a heretic excommunicated from the Church. The teaching created by Lev Nikolaevich, the angry denunciation of the “official religion”, the “false gospel” written by the count, led many people away from the Church, and therefore from Christ the Savior. Solzhenitsyn is an Orthodox Christian who even wrote an accusatory letter to His Holiness Patriarch Pimen, calling on him to boldly stand up for the rights of believers in the USSR.

But, if you look closely, you will see a lot in common between them. And, above all, this is the desire to be prophets and teachers of the people.

No matter what Russian intellectuals loyal to Solzhenitsyn say and write, we well remember the solemn return of Alexander Isaevich to Russia. His performances at train stops in front of the audience greeting the VPZR caused a feeling of disappointment. As did television appearances later. The fact is that the people have gone through a lot over the years, changed their minds and suffered. And this hard-won understanding of what was happening in Russia was much deeper than the writer’s teachings heard from the television screen. While Solzhenitsyn was sitting in Vermont, the Russian people were experiencing the death of a power, for the first time the Russians found themselves a divided nation, unexpectedly finding themselves in their native land as citizens of new ethnocratic regimes, the Russians found themselves vilely robbed by new “expropriators,” blood was shed, the White House was shot, two Chechen wars. But Solzhenitsyn worked hard all these terrible years on “The Red Wheel” - this was then more important for VPZR.

The “Vermont recluse” made a great mistake by not returning to Russia in 1991. Solzhenitsyn did not return to Russia after the collapse of Soviet power, explaining his stay in Vermont by the need to finish The Red Wheel. And at this time, our country and the Russian people were already being ground by the millstones of the “Yellow Wheel,” which rolled into Russia with inexorable cruelty.

That is why the people did not accept the teachings of the VPZR from the television screen. If he had been with the people, he might have left the “Red Wheel” unfinished, but he would have been able to do something to stop the terrible work of the “Yellow Wheel”. It was impossible to do this from Vermont. Returning to Russia, Solzhenitsyn became disillusioned with the “Yeltsin” democracy, but, it seems, he was never able to understand what had been happening in the country all these years.

And today, young schoolchildren will be hit over the head with the “Gulag Archipelago” in literature lessons. Although Solzhenitsyn’s clumsy attempts at word creation hurt the ear, and the artistic merits of his works (unlike Tolstoy’s works) are very doubtful, for some reason Solzhenitsyn is still called a great Russian writer and master of words.

But even the most ardent admirers of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn will never be able to prove that “Archipelago” is a pearl of Russian literature that must be studied in literature classes. And it is impossible to compare “The Red Wheel” with “Quiet Don” by Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov. Maybe that’s why Solzhenitsyn didn’t want to believe that the brilliant book about the Russian tragedy was written by Sholokhov?

In the Soviet school, we were beaten over the head by Chernyshevsky, forcing us to study “What to do” and retell Vera Pavlovna’s dreams. Today, schoolchildren will have to retell the horrors of camp life in class. The “Yellow Wheel” skillfully integrated the work of Alexander Isaevich into one of its gears and teeth.

I will not remember what service the “Gulag Archipelago” served to the historical enemies of Russia in the information war with our country. In the end, Maksimov’s words “They aimed for Soviet power, but ended up in Russia” can serve as some justification for Solzhenitsyn.

Although it is impossible to justify how fiercely, with all his soul, the Russian writer wished for the “free world” victory over the “evil empire,” as Russia was called in the West at that time.

Still, it was possible for Solzhenitsyn to understand that it was not Soviet power, but historical Russia that aroused the hatred of the “civilized community.” Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin understood this back in the 50s, and was not mistaken about the plans of the “world behind the scenes” when he wrote his work “What the dismemberment of Russia promises the world.”

I'm not going to judge Solzhenitsyn's work. Once upon a time I myself had great respect for the writer’s struggle with the godless Soviet regime. Especially at a time when he was scolded by Voinovich and other dissident pack of Russophobes. They scolded me for Russian patriotism, monarchism and Orthodoxy. Therefore, I understand that for many, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn still remains an unquestioned authority. Solzhenitsyn’s attempt to break the unspoken “taboo” by writing “Two Hundred Years Together” also deserves respect. Solzhenitsyn's determination and faith in his mission as a writer and his ability to work cannot but inspire respect. But his conviction in his constant correctness, in his prophetic ministry, was too great. And she is not subject to any doubts, like a real Bolshevik-Leninist. Alexander Isaevich, as a genuine Russian intellectual, had no doubt that the truth had been revealed to him, and he had the right to teach the people, and when he advised to “equip Russia”, abandoning the construction of the Empire, discarding all the outskirts. Well, everyone can make mistakes.

But one cannot help but notice that Solzhenitsyn considered himself to have the right not only to teach the people. The VPZR considered it possible to lecture the Russian Orthodox Church from above.

In 1981, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia glorified the Holy Royal Martyrs. In 1983, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, discussing February 1917, wrote about the holy Sovereign:

“But with the same frail indecision as for 5 years - neither to install his strong, smart government, nor to give in significantly to the Cadets - the Tsar continued to hesitate after the November Duma attacks, and after the December furious congresses of Zemgor and the nobility, and after the murder of Rasputin, and a whole week of Petrograd February unrest - he kept hoping, he kept waiting for it to settle on its own, he kept hesitating, still hesitating - and suddenly, almost without external pressure, he himself wriggled out of his three-hundred-year-old nest, wriggled more than was demanded and expected of him.”

... "The monarchy is a strong system, but with a monarch not too weak."

“To be a Christian on the throne - yes, but not to the point of forgetting business responsibilities, not to the point of being blind to the ongoing collapse.”

“In the Russian language there is such a word as Tsing. This means: forget yourself while reigning.

Parades, exercises, parades of his beloved troops and flower stalls for the Empress at guards reviews obscured the Tsar’s view of the country.”

“After the first disastrous circle, Stolypin was sent to him by God. Once in his life, Nikolai chose not a nonentity, as usual, but a great man. This great man pulled Russia, the dynasty, and the tsar out of chaos. And the Emperor could not stand this great man next to him, he betrayed him.”

“He himself was more unhappy than anyone else due to his lack of strength, he never dared to take a bold step or even boldly express himself.”

“In August 1915, he once alone pulled his will against everyone - and defended the Supreme Command - but even that was a very dubious achievement, which moved him away from the helm of state. And with that, he dozed off again, especially since he did not show the ability and interest to energetically govern the country itself.”

Note that these lines are written about the decision of the Sovereign, in the most difficult days, to take upon himself all the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. The retreat was stopped, the “shell famine” was overcome. The Russian army enjoyed successes on the fronts; the famous Brusilov breakthrough ended in a brilliant victory. By the spring of 1917, the well-armed and equipped Russian army was preparing for an offensive. Victory in the Great War was close. The Emperor was at Headquarters, devoting all his strength and energy to the warring Army.

The betrayal of the generals who were part of the “military lodge”, members of the Duma and some members of the House of Romanov with the support of the “allies” led Russia to disaster. Traitors who violated the oath will then shift their blame onto the “weak king.” And VPZR in its “Red Wheel” will try to consolidate this lie in the minds of readers.

Solzhenitsyn, admittedly, pays tribute to the moral purity of the “weak tsar,” but:

“Again a sign of a pure loving heart. But to which historical figure was his weakness towards his family counted as an apology? When it comes to Russia, family feelings could be silenced.”

I think that the words “frail indecision”, “wriggled”, “betrayed”, “reigned”, and everything that Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Tsar-Martyr is clear evidence of how the VPZR treated the memory of the Sovereign. I repeat, this was written in 1983. In the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, starting from the 20s and 30s, there was a debate about the glorification of the Royal Family as saints. And all the arguments of opponents of glorification were convincingly refuted. Including lies about the “weak-willed” and “indecisive” Tsar. But the “Vermont recluse”, painstakingly and carefully working on his “Red Wheel”, did not want to find out why the voluntary ascent of the Sovereign to the Ekaterinburg Golgotha ​​was considered the greatest Christian feat by Saint John Maximovich and such outstanding hierarchs as Averky Taushev and Nektary Kontsevich. Getting from Vermont to Jordanville is easy. It was not difficult to talk with those who prepared materials for the glorification of the Royal Family. I did not want to familiarize myself with the numerous studies of the reign of the Martyr Tsar. Alferyev’s books “Nicholas II as a Man of Strong Will”, “Anatomy of Treason” by Kobylin, “The Reign of Nicholas II” by Oldenburg are also widely known. Even the Soviet writer Mikhail Koltsov, in his preface to the collection of documents and eyewitness accounts “The Abdication of Nicholas II. How it Happened,” describing the betrayal of the generals, concludes that the Tsar was the only one who fought to the end, trying to save the Autocracy. Koltsov, exploring the behavior of the Sovereign and the incredible pressure of traitorous generals, writes : “The king is firm and adamant... Where is the rag? Where's the icicle? Where is the weak-willed nonentity? In the frightened crowd of defenders of the throne, we see only one person true to himself - Nicholas himself. He is steadfast and the least likely to chicken out.”

“This collection contains rich material related to renunciation. A number of generals, dignitaries, courtiers - almost all of them in their foreign memoirs paint vivid pictures of their heroism, loyal perseverance in defending the dynasty. All this, according to them, was broken by the tsar’s soft “Christian” compliance, his non-resistance and peaceful character.

Of course, this is a historical lie that needs to be exposed. Even a cursory acquaintance with the general’s memoirs is enough to see the thick white threads with which they are sewn. There is no doubt that the only person who tried to persist in preserving the monarchical regime was the monarch himself. Only the king saved and defended the king.

He didn’t destroy, he was destroyed.”

Koltsov was mistaken in thinking that the traitorous generals and dignitaries had chickened out. They acted consciously, according to a pre-prepared plan. Any honest researcher can clearly and clearly see the picture of unprecedented betrayal and vile treason that the Sovereign faced in those tragic days, trying to save Russia. And every Orthodox Christian understands that the Dno station was the Gethsemane of the Tsar-Martyr on his voluntary path to the Russian Golgotha. The Emperor, understanding the spiritual meaning of the events, voluntarily ascended to his Cross, humbled before the will of God. Before this, having fully fulfilled his duty, having done everything possible to save Russia. Your heart aches when you think about the prayer and suffering of the Emperor in these days of terrible betrayal and human ingratitude. In response to this fervent prayer, to the Tsar’s readiness to fulfill his words: “If a sacrifice is needed for Russia, I will become this sacrifice,” and the Sovereign Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos was revealed in those days.

But Solzhenitsyn, without thinking about the feelings of Orthodox Russian people who deeply revere the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, writes his disgusting lines about the Sovereign. VPZR does not even try to delve into what saints, outstanding theologians and prayer books, such as St. John Maksimovich and St. Macarius of Nevsky, wrote about the feat of the Tsar-Martyr. He is not interested in the words of many ascetics who honor the memory of the Royal Family. Solzhenitsyn is proudly convinced that he is right. What the Church thinks about the feat of the Sovereign is not important for the VPZR. He is confident that he knows better than anyone what was happening at that time. And in his “Red Wheel” he deliberately affirms the lies of those “monarchists” who tried to justify their treason with tales about the “weak-willed king.” So the “monarchism” of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is close to the “monarchism” of the traitor Rodzianko, and not of General Fyodor Arturovich Keller, or St. John Maksimovich.

In Russia, the controversy before the glorification of the Royal Family was even more heated than abroad. And the lie about the weak Tsar was again convincingly refuted and exposed. Exposed by such serious historians as Alexander Nikolaevich Bokhanov and many other conscientious researchers. In 2000, the glorification of the Royal Martyrs took place. This glorification took place through the fervent prayers of Orthodox people, who all these years have preserved the memory and love of the holy Sovereign. And they kept in their hearts the truth about the Tsar-Martyr, which was captured in his poems by the Tsar’s guslar Sergei Sergeevich Bekhteev. Truly, this was a real popular glorification of the Russian Tsar-Martyr by Russian people. And the glorification of the Royal Martyrs was accompanied by many miracles and signs of God’s mercy.

But what about this VPZR Solzhenitsyn. A “prophet” cannot be wrong. After the glorification of the Royal Family, his brochure “February 1917” was republished in a million copies. Only a devout fan of VPZR will be able to master the “Red Wheel”. And the lies and blasphemy against the holy King must be conveyed to the “broad masses.”

And after this, it can be argued that Solzhenitsyn did not arrogantly consider his opinion above the conciliar reason of the Russian Orthodox Church? The one who is called the “prophet” and the “conscience of the people” did not consider it important for himself to listen to the voice of the Orthodox Russian people, who lovingly honor the memory of the Royal Family. The writer, whom Russian intellectuals declare to be a prophet, could not understand the meaning of the greatest event in Russian history - the Christian feat of the holy Royal martyrs and the appearance of the Sovereign Icon of the Queen of Heaven. Without realizing the spiritual meaning of these events, is it possible to correctly talk about the history of Russia in the twentieth century, to understand everything that happened to Russia in this tragic century?

While carefully examining the causes of the Russian tragedy of 1917, Solzhenitsyn, unfortunately, retained that arrogant attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church, that mentoring, teaching tone that was characteristic of the majority of Russian intellectuals at the beginning of the twentieth century. This attitude persisted in dissident circles in the 60s and 70s. And it has been safely preserved to this day.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn went to the Lord as an Orthodox man. And the Lord will judge him not for his mistakes and mistakes, but for his intentions and states of heart. I have no doubt that he loved Russia and wished it well. And therefore it is a pity that the writer did not correct his “February 1917”. The “Yellow Wheel,” trying to grind Russia and the Russian people, skillfully inserts into its gears all the lies and slander against the Holy Tsar, and Solzhenitsyn, unfortunately, confirms this lie and slander in the minds of his readers.

History will put everything in its place. Still, the prophets and teachers of the people in Russia are not writers, even great ones, and not public figures. And the saints, elders and saints of God. And our people will judge the Holy Tsar not by Solzhenitsyn’s reasoning in The Red Wheel, but will listen to the words of Father Nikolai Guryanov, Archimandrite John (Krestyankin), Archimandrite Kirill Pavlov. The people's Orthodox heart knows the highest Truth about the feat of the holy Royal martyrs.

The life of Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy ended tragically at the Ostapovo station. The Lord did not allow Elder Barsanuphius to accept Tolstoy’s repentance and, uniting him with the Holy Church, to communicate the Holy Mysteries. The words of Saint John of Kronstadt came true: “As I sinned publicly, so I will have to repent publicly. But does he have enough strength for this?

But still, Tolstoy is known in the world not as a heresiarch and “mirror of the Russian revolution,” but as a great Russian writer. “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina” have been translated into many languages. Tolstoy is read by the Germans and the French, the British and the Japanese. They read it in the 20th century and will continue to read it in the 21st century. But I doubt that anyone other than professional “Sovietologists” and historians will read “The Gulag Archipelago” or “The Red Wheel” in the near future. But Sholokhov’s “Quiet Don” has been read and will continue to be read.

And we will stop the movement of the “Yellow Wheel” on Russian soil. With God's help, the intercession of the Queen of Heaven and through the prayers of the Holy Royal Martyrs and All the Saints who shone in the Russian land.

Most Holy Theotokos save us!

Payment instructions (opens in a new window) Yandex.Money donation form:

Other ways to help

Comments 22

Comments

22. Bikerider17 : Reply to 19., F. F. Voronov:
2012-12-24 at 03:33

I remember how puzzled I was at one time by A.I.’s appeal. Solzhenitsyn to the US leadership with a call to drop a nuclear bomb on our country Yes... Something happened to my memory :-) everything that was not with me - I remember :-) Something like this would also puzzle me :-) Is it possible to quote on the table?

21. Elena L. : Re: VPZR and “Yellow Wheel”
2012-04-25 at 10:17

I also remember how Solzhenitsyn was traveling across the country. We then expected from him the word of Truth, help, so that he would tell us how to continue to live, we then believed him. But instead, he began to expose our Russian reality. Who remembers the early 90s? Empty shops, unemployment, devastation. And suddenly the Chinese poured into the country with their cheap goods. How glad we were then for this consumer goods. The country may not have dressed in high-quality clothes, but it’s better than nothing. He began to mock the people that we were buying something that the rest of the world would not buy. Then we realized how terribly far he was from us, from the people. Well-fed and rich, he came to teach us how to live. I remember one of his speeches on TV, how he was even shaking with anger, like someone possessed. I had to turn off the camera. Then I finally understood him. I don't presume to judge his works. I haven’t read his books and never will. May the Lord forgive him and rest his soul.

20. Dear Reader : Reply to 18., Andrey:
2012-04-05 at 06:52

In this light, another well-known paradox seems completely natural - in his program article “How can we develop Russia”, widely disseminated by the pro-government media, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, being undoubtedly a believer, did not say a WORD about God - obviously the liberal inoculation turned out to be stronger than the virtues inherent in him from childhood...

“A word of truth in the midst of general silence in an atmosphere of godless lies is no small thing. To those who courageously preserve human dignity, even without knowing God, more is often revealed. Christ says that the truth will set us free. One of the new martyr bishops wrote in those years: "Blessed are those who did not bow to lies. Eternal life belongs to them. And they help us to endure today."

Solzhenitsyn was the first to speak about God at a generally popular level, understandable to Soviet people. This is the “Cancer Ward”, where people on the verge of death rethink their lives. “In the First Circle,” where the hero - apparently the prototype of the author himself - suddenly realizes that God exists, and this discovery completely changes his attitude towards arrest and suffering. Because God exists, he feels happy. This is “Matrenin’s Dvor”, which was originally called “A village is not worth it without a righteous man”. And “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” where, like Matryona, Ivan Denisovich is distinguished by his undoubtedly inherited humility before the blows of fate from his Orthodox ancestors.” Archpriest Alexander Shargunov.
http://www.moral.ru/Solzh.html

19. F. F. Voronov : Reply to 18., Andrey:
2012-04-05 at 03:35

I remember how puzzled I was at one time by A.I.’s appeal. Solzhenitsyn to the US leadership with a call to drop a nuclear bomb on our country

Yes... Something happened to my memory :-) everything that was not with me - I remember :-)

Something like this would puzzle me too :-)

Could I have a quote on the table?

18. Andrey : Relevant and balanced
2012-04-05 at 00:24

Congratulations to dear Viktor Aleksandrovich on yet another worthy material! Typos like M.V. Sholokhov does not count; it is to them that opponents cling, without having any compelling objections on the merits. I remember how puzzled I was at one time by A.I.’s appeal. Solzhenitsyn to the US leadership with a call to drop a nuclear bomb on our country - obviously, and the well-known expression can be attributed to this regrettable action of an undoubtedly talented writer - he aimed at communism, but ended up in Russia... There were many writers in Russia at the beginning of the last century who were not lacking in talent who used their talent against the Sovereign and the state - the deplorable consequences are well known...Especially indicative is the writer's WITNESS BJUDGED ATTITUDE towards the Holy Royal Martyrs, which is well stated in the article - an approach that is absolutely not disgraceful to a decent person was manifested here - if the facts do not correspond to my version, then so much the worse for the facts.... In this light, another well-known paradox seems completely natural - in his program article “How can we develop Russia”, widely circulated by the pro-government media, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, being undoubtedly a believer, did not say a WORD about God - obviously the liberal inoculation turned out to be stronger than the virtues inherent in him from childhood...

17. lexa : by 6
2012-04-04 at 23:14

From rooms 8 and 6 it follows that you, as an employee of the Gulag, tortured and executed people, and Solzhenitsyn wrote all this in his heart. Now he is a great writer, and you are a dear reader.

16. grandfather is a pensioner : 11. Orlov: V. Saulkin: /"Today schoolchildren will have to retell the horrors of camp life in class"/.
2012-04-04 at 23:05

“After all, if they do not learn these lessons, they will not retell, but EXPERIENCE the “horrors of camp life.”

And some commentators are quiet comfort nuts. dispensary...

15. F. F. Voronov : And one more thing: a good article by Maxim Sokolov in Izvestia
2012-04-04 at 22:31

An article that directly answers all Solzhenitsyn’s detractors. (It is possible that Saulkin read it at one time and something settled in the subconscious, where his title and initial passages come from.)

Here, read:

Great writer of the Russian land

During the life of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, and quite early, since the 70s, when his separation from the liberal public began, the ironic abbreviation VPZR came into use. It took the death of the writer for the abbreviation to disappear overnight. And not so much because irony is inappropriate de mortuis nil nisi bene and over a body that has not yet been buried - we are not always embarrassed by this - but because, in principle, it is not clear what to ironize about. The writer is great, but the land is Russian - and what’s funny about that?

14. F. F. Voronov : Answer to 2., F. F. Voronov:
2012-04-04 at 22:28

As far as I remember, the expression “great writer of the Russian Land” was used by the dying Turgenev, calling in a letter from Count Leo Tolstoy to return to literary creativity.

Yes, I remember correctly:

In the early 80s, L. N. Tolstoy, who entered into a period of religious and moral quest, moved away from fiction. I. S. Turgenev, who highly valued Tolstoy the artist, was deeply saddened by this. In June 1883, two months before his death, Turgenev wrote a letter to Tolstoy to express his last request: “My friend, return to literary activity... My friend, the great writer of the Russian land, heed my request... "(P.I. Biryukov, Biography of L.N. Tolstoy, vol. II, M.-Pg. 1923, p. 212). A phrase from Turgenev’s letter in a slightly modified edition - “The Great Writer of the Russian Land” - became the honorary title of L. N. Tolstoy.

(See for example: http://apetrovich.ru...li_russkoj/4-1-0-351)

13. F. F. Voronov : Reply to 8., Dear Reader:
2012-04-04 at 22:25

Thank you Fedor Fedorovich for your honest position and defense of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. Sorry, a little about myself. My paradox is that I am a former employee of the Gulag, trying to defend the former “prisoner” Solzhenitsyn. As I understand it, those who do not have similar life experience, who have hardened hearts and do not develop empathy and compassion, do not like or accept him. And if we talk about literary data, then rejection comes from ordinary human envy.

Thank you, dear Kind Reader! I completely agree with both of your assessments: both about envy and about the hardness of the heart... Alas.

12. Priest Ilya Motyka : Re: VPZR and “Yellow Wheel”
2012-04-04 at 20:05

11. Orlov : Lessons from camp life
2012-04-04 at 18:04

V. Saulkin: /“Today schoolchildren will have to retell the horrors of camp life in class.”/.
Of course, “they will have to,” dear Viktor Alexandrovich. After all, if they do not learn these lessons, they will not retell, but EXPERIENCE, “the horrors of camp life.”
As we see, we again have plenty of people who want to restore the Gulag.

Sorry, a little about myself. My paradox is that I am a former employee of the Gulag, trying to defend the former “prisoner” Solzhenitsyn. As I understand it, those who do not have similar life experience, who have hardened hearts and do not develop empathy and compassion, do not like or accept him. And if we talk about literary data, then rejection comes from ordinary human envy. You have provided a good link where you can listen to some works in an unforgettable author’s performance. I highly recommend it to people of good will.

2. F. F. Voronov : Saulkin has a thin gut. Read better than Solzhenitsyn himself.
2012-04-04 at 06:43

In the last years of his life they sometimes wrote briefly about Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy: “VPZR recently said..., VPZR noticed...”. VPZR - Great Writer of the Russian Land.

What nonsense? In those years, they did not use abbreviations that became fashionable during the Soviet era. Where did the author get this from? Isn’t it from Voinovich’s lampoon?!

As far as I remember, the expression “great writer of the Russian Land” was used by the dying Turgenev, calling in a letter from Count Leo Tolstoy to return to literary creativity. It’s a shame to parody these words (and illiterately).

The rest of the article shows the same illiteracy and loose handling of facts. There was a rush to kick and discredit.

Mikhail Vasilievich Sholokhov

Sholokhov's patronymic (unlike Lomonosov) is Alexandrovich. But no matter what his name is, it is now difficult to sincerely refer to him as the real author of "Quiet Don". Its role as, at best, an independent compiler based on someone else's manuscript, and at worst, a front for a group of compilers, can be considered convincingly proven.

we remember well the solemn return of Alexander Isaevich to Russia. His performances at train stops in front of the audience greeting the VPZR caused a feeling of disappointment. As did television appearances later. The fact is that the people have gone through a lot over the years, changed their minds and suffered. And this hard-won understanding of what was happening in Russia was much deeper than the writer’s teachings heard from the television screen.

I remember everything perfectly well. What has been said is not true. Solzhenitsyn did not “teach” anyone. He tried to hear those people whom he met on his trips around Russia (starting from the first days of his arrival, who were silenced or slandered by the then “democratic” press - isn’t that where Saulkin got his information?), and then act as a kind of "repeater" of their voices. Solzhenitsyn's speeches on television were quickly “silenced” by the Yeltsin government.

Regarding Solzhenitsyn’s views on the Tsar-Martyr: one can agree or not completely agree with his assessments given in his journalistic works, but first of all you need to read the *artistic* pages from the “Red Wheel” dedicated to the Tsar, and they speak for themselves.

Saulkin’s desire to belittle Solzhenitsyn as a writer is striking. It is a personal matter for every person to love this or that writer or not. However, the mischievous argument that Solzhenitsyn is not read, or will not be read, is ridiculous.

The mathematical fact is that all the journalistic and political intoxication that Solzhenitsyn acquired over time (and which, it seems, is the only thing that interests Solzhenitsyn’s attackers with “”), he acquired thanks to his artistic gift. He first became famous as the author of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", "Matryonin's Court" and other early stories (and plays - which he himself considered "unsuccessful"), and the novels "In the First Circle" and "Cancer Ward" - for which received the Nobel Prize, --- and only after that appeared “The Gulag Archipelago”, which, despite its acute political explosiveness, was not a “political” work par excellence. (“May the reader who seeks political denunciation in it slam my book,” Solzhenitsyn himself wrote in “Archipelago.” The most important pages of this “artistic study” are about the human soul.) The knots of the “Red Wheel”, which is so arrogantly dismisses Saulkin, they are not political propaganda for the needs of the left or right, but artistic prose of the highest standard. And after “The Red Wheel,” already having artistic experience working on it, Solzhenitsyn again returned to “small” prose, to stories.

And all of Solzhenitsyn’s works of art are read and published, and republished, and translated. None of this would have happened if Saulkin and other detractors had been right. Who will remember them in ten years? Big question. They won’t be remembered even in connection with the current attacks on the writer, they are too small fry.

When asked whether Solzhenitsyn acted correctly in not returning several years earlier and not becoming a “people’s leader,” for which, apparently, the author of the article reproaches him most, it is difficult to answer unequivocally. Yes, maybe it's a pity. But I wouldn’t want to see him as the leader-demagogue that our failed “patriots” dreamed of back then (I know well, partly from personal experience of those years). Yes, he wouldn’t have become one. If I had dreamed, I would have elected Solzhenitsyn as Tsar! He would be a worthy autocratic Tsar. And the children are good. There would be no heirs left. But --- it didn’t happen. It was not God's will for this.

And to blaspheme... It doesn’t take much intelligence. It’s not difficult to concoct a one-day article. Go and write books. And so that they are read. And to be called a “great writer” without irony, the heir of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy (there, above, below, there are no such instruments to measure)...

Publicists have little guts.

For those who want to know the truth, read Solzhenitsyn yourself. (And about him, at a different level of quality. Here is a good one, although not the only one

We are publishing an interview with the writer given a year ago to the German publication Der Der Spiegel. We ask our readers to pray for the repose of the servant of God Alexander.

SPIEGEL: Alexander Isaevich! We found you just at work. At 88 years old, it seems that you have not lost the feeling that you must, must work, although your health does not allow you to move freely around the house. Where do you get this strength from?

Solzhenitsyn: There was an internal spring. Was there from birth. But I was happy to devote myself to work. Work and struggle.

SPIEGEL: We only see four desks here. In your new book, which comes out in Germany in September, you recall that you wrote even while walking in the forest.

Solzhenitsyn: When I was in the camp, I even wrote on the stonework. I wrote on a piece of paper with a pencil, then I remember the content and destroy the piece of paper.

SPIEGEL: And this strength did not leave you even in the most desperate moments?

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, it seemed: as it ends, so it ends. What will be will be. And then it turned out that something good had come of it.

SPIEGEL: But you hardly thought so when in February 1945, military counterintelligence in East Prussia arrested Captain Solzhenitsyn. Because his letters from the front contained unflattering statements about Joseph Stalin. And for this - eight years of camps.

Solzhenitsyn: It was south of Wormditt. We had just emerged from the German pocket and were breaking through to Königsberg. That's when I was arrested. But I always had optimism. Like the beliefs that pushed me.

SPIEGEL: What beliefs?

Solzhenitsyn: Of course they have evolved over the years. But I was always convinced of what I did and never went against my conscience.

SPIEGEL: Alexander Isaevich, when you returned from exile 13 years ago, what was happening in the new Russia disappointed you. You rejected the State Prize that Gorbachev offered you. You refused to accept the order that Yeltsin wanted to award you. And now you have accepted the State Prize of Russia, which was awarded to you by Putin, once the head of that special service, whose predecessor so cruelly persecuted and persecuted you. How does this all rhyme?

Solzhenitsyn: In 1990, I was offered - not by Gorbachev, but by the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, which was part of the USSR - a prize for the book “The Gulag Archipelago”. I refused because I could not accept personally the honor for a book written in the blood of millions.

In 1998, at the lowest point of the people’s plight, the year when I published the book “Russia in Collapse,” Yeltsin personally ordered that I be awarded the highest state order. I replied that I could not accept a reward from the Supreme Power, which had brought Russia to a disastrous state.

The current State Prize is awarded not by the president personally, but by a high-ranking expert community. The Science Council, which nominated me for this prize, and the Cultural Council, which supported this nomination, include the most authoritative and highly respected people in the country in their fields. Being the first person of the state, the president presents this award on the day of the national holiday. Accepting the award, I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, to the study and description of which I devoted my whole life, will prevent us from new disastrous breakdowns.

Vladimir Putin - yes, was an officer of the special services, but he was neither a KGB investigator nor the head of a camp in the Gulag. International, “external” services are not condemned in any country, if not praised. George Bush Sr. was not reproached for his past position as head of the CIA.

SPIEGEL: All your life you have called on the authorities to repent for the millions of victims of the Gulag and communist terror. Was your call truly heard?

Solzhenitsyn: I am already accustomed to the fact that public repentance - everywhere in modern humanity - is the most unacceptable action for political figures.

SPIEGEL: The current president of Russia calls the collapse of the Soviet Union the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. He says that it is time to stop Samoyed digging into the past, especially since attempts are being made from outside to awaken an unfounded sense of guilt among Russians. Isn’t this complicity with those who already want everything that happened during the Soviet times inside the country to be forgotten?

Solzhenitsyn: Well, you see that anxiety is growing all over the world: how the United States, which has become the only superpower as a result of geopolitical changes, will cope with its new, monopoly-leading global role.

As for “digging in the past”, then, alas, the very identification of “Soviet” with “Russian”, which I so often spoke out against back in the 1970s, has not been eliminated today - neither in the West nor in the countries of the former socialist camp, nor in the former republics of the USSR. The old generation of politicians in communist countries turned out to be not ready to repent, but the new generation of politicians is quite ready to make claims and accusations - and today’s Moscow is chosen as the most convenient target for them. It’s as if they heroically liberated themselves and are now living a new life, while Moscow remains communist.

However, I dare to hope that this unhealthy stage will soon pass, and all peoples who have experienced communism will recognize it as the culprit of such a bitter stain on their history.

SPIEGEL: Including Russians.

Solzhenitsyn: If we could all look at our own past soberly, then in our country the nostalgia for the Soviet system, which is shown by the less affected part of society, would disappear, and in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics the desire to see the source of all evil in the historical path of Russia would disappear. The personal atrocities of individual leaders or political regimes should never be blamed on the Russian people and their state or attributed to the “sick psychology” of the Russian people, as is often done in the West. These regimes were able to stay in Russia only by relying on bloody terror. And it is quite obvious: only a feeling of conscious, voluntarily admitted guilt can be the key to the recovery of the nation. While incessant reproaches from the outside are rather counterproductive.

SPIEGEL: Admission of guilt presupposes a sufficient amount of information about one’s own past. Historians, however, blame Moscow for the fact that the archives are no longer as accessible as they were in the 90s.

Solzhenitsyn: The question is not easy. It is an indisputable fact, however, that over the past 20 years an archival revolution has occurred in Russia. Thousands of funds have been opened, researchers have gained access to hundreds of thousands of documents that were previously closed to them. Hundreds of monographs have already been published and are being prepared for publication, bringing these documents to public view. But in addition to the open ones, in the 90s many documents were also published that did not undergo the declassification procedure. This is how, for example, military historian Dmitry Volkogonov and former Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev acted - people who had considerable influence and access to any archives - and society is grateful to them for their valuable publications. And in recent years, indeed, no one has been able to bypass the declassification procedure anymore. This procedure is proceeding more slowly than we would like.

However, the materials contained in the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF), the main and richest archive of the country, remain as accessible today as they were in the 90s. In the late 90s, the FSB transferred 100 thousand forensic investigative cases to the GARF - and they are still open to both private citizens and researchers. In 2004-2005, GARF published the documentary “History of Stalin’s Gulag” in 7 volumes. I collaborated with this publication and testify that it is as complete and reliable as possible. It is widely used by scientists from all countries.

SPIEGEL: Almost 90 years have passed since Russia was shocked first by the February and then the October revolutions - events that run like a red thread through your works. A few months ago, in a long article, you confirmed your thesis: communism was not a creation of the previous Russian regime, and the possibility of a Bolshevik coup was created only by the Kerensky government in 1917. According to this line of thinking, Lenin was just a random figure who came to Russia and managed to seize power only with the assistance of the Germans. Do we understand you correctly?

Solzhenitsyn: No, that's not true. Only extraordinary individuals can turn opportunity into reality. Lenin and Trotsky were the most clever, energetic figures who managed to take advantage of the helplessness of the Kerensky government in time. But I’ll correct you: the “October Revolution” is a myth created by victorious Bolshevism and completely adopted by the progressives of the West.

On October 25, 1917, a one-day violent coup took place in Petrograd, methodically and brilliantly developed by Leon Trotsky (Lenin in those days was still hiding from trial for treason). What is called the “Russian Revolution of 1917” is the February Revolution. Its driving reasons really stemmed from the pre-revolutionary state of Russia, and I never argued otherwise. The February Revolution had deep roots (which I show in my epic “The Red Wheel”). This is, first of all, a long mutual bitterness between educated society and the authorities, which made no compromises, no constructive government solutions possible. And the greatest responsibility - of course, lies with the authorities: for the wreck of a ship - who is more responsible than the captain? Yes, the preconditions for February can be considered “a product of the former Russian regime.”

But it does not follow from this that Lenin was a “random figure”, and Emperor Wilhelm’s financial participation was insignificant. There was nothing organic for Russia in the October Revolution; on the contrary, it broke its backbone. The Red Terror unleashed by its leaders, their readiness to drown Russia in blood is the first and clear proof of this.

SPIEGEL: With your two-volume book “200 Years Together” you recently made an attempt to overcome the taboo that for many years prohibited discussing the joint history of Russians and Jews. These two volumes caused rather bewilderment in the West. There you describe in detail how in tsarist times a Jewish innkeeper enriched himself by taking advantage of the poverty of drinking peasants. You call the Jews the vanguard of world capital, marching in the forefront of the destroyers of the bourgeois system. Do you really conclude from your wealth of sources that Jews, more than others, bear moral responsibility for the failed experiment with the Soviets?

Solzhenitsyn: I do not do exactly what your question hints at: I do not call for any weighing or comparison of the moral responsibility of one and another people, and even more so I deny the responsibility of one people to another. My whole call is for self-awareness. In the book itself you can get the answer to your question:

“...Every nation has to be morally responsible for its entire past - and for that which is shameful. And how to answer? An attempt to understand why this was allowed to happen? what is our mistake here? and is it possible again? In this spirit, the Jewish people should be responsible both for their revolutionary thugs and for the ready ranks who went to their service. Not to answer to other nations, but to yourself and to your consciousness, to God. “Just like we, Russians, must be responsible for the pogroms, and for those merciless peasant arsonists, for those mad revolutionary soldiers, and for the beast sailors.”

SPIEGEL: It seems to us that the “GULAG Archipelago” caused the greatest resonance. This book shows the misanthropic nature of the Soviet dictatorship. Today, looking back, can we say how much this contributed to the defeat of communism throughout the world?

Solzhenitsyn: This question is not for me - it is not the author who should give such assessments.

SPIEGEL: Russia took on and survived the gloomy experience of the 20th century - here we quote you according to the meaning - as if in the name of all humanity. Were Russians able to learn lessons from the two revolutions and their consequences?

Solzhenitsyn: It feels like they are starting to extract it. A huge number of publications and films about Russian history of the twentieth century (of uneven quality, however) indicate a growing demand. Just now - the terrible, cruel, in no way softened truth about Stalin’s camps was shown to millions of people by the state channel “Russia” - in a television series based on the prose of Varlam Shalamov.

And, for example, I was surprised and impressed by the fervor, scope and duration of the discussion that arose after the publication of my old article on the February Revolution in February of this year. A wide range of opinions, including those that disagree with mine, makes me happy, because it finally shows a living desire to understand one’s own past, without which there can be no meaningful path to the future.

SPIEGEL: How do you assess the time during which President V.V. has been in power? Putin, - in comparison with his predecessors, Presidents B.N. Yeltsin and M.S. Gorbachev?

Solzhenitsyn: Gorbachev's rule is striking in its political naivety, inexperience and irresponsibility to the country. This was not power, but its thoughtless capitulation. The response from the West only reinforced the picture. But we must admit that it was Gorbachev (and not Yeltsin, as it now sounds everywhere) who first gave the citizens of our country freedom of speech and freedom of movement.

Yeltsin's government was characterized by no less irresponsibility towards the people's life, only in other directions. In his reckless haste to quickly, quickly establish private property instead of state property, Yeltsin unleashed a massive, multi-billion-dollar robbery of national property in Russia. In an effort to gain the support of regional leaders, he supported and pushed separatism and the collapse of the Russian state with direct calls and actions. At the same time depriving Russia of its well-deserved historical role and its international position. Which caused no less applause from the West.

Solzhenitsyn: Putin inherited a country that was plundered and knocked down, with the majority of the people demoralized and impoverished. And he set about the possible - note, gradual, slow - restoration of it. These efforts were not immediately noticed, much less appreciated. And can you point out examples in history when measures to restore the strength of government were met favorably from the outside?

SPIEGEL: The fact that a stable Russia is beneficial to the West gradually became clear to everyone. But one circumstance surprises us most of all. Whenever it came to the right state structure for Russia, you spoke out for civil self-government, contrasting this model with Western democracy. After seven years of Putin's rule, we are seeing a movement in the completely opposite direction: power is concentrated in the hands of the president, everything is oriented towards him; There is almost no opposition left.

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I have invariably insisted and insist on the need for local self-government for Russia, while not at all “contrasting this model of Western democracy,” on the contrary, convincing my fellow citizens with examples of highly effective self-government in Switzerland and New England, which I observed with my own eyes.

But in your question you confuse local self-government, which is possible only at the lowest level, where people personally know the governors they elect, with the regional power of several dozen governors, who during the Yeltsin period, together with the center, unanimously suppressed any beginnings of local self-government.

Even today I am very disheartened by the slowness and ineptitude with which local self-government is being built in our country. But it still happens, and if in Yeltsin’s times the possibilities of local self-government were actually blocked at the legislative level, now state power, along its entire vertical, delegates an increasing number of decisions - to the discretion of the local population. Unfortunately, this is not yet systemic.

Opposition? - is undoubtedly needed and desired by everyone who wants the country to develop healthy. Now, as under Yeltsin, there are only communists in the opposition. However, when you say “there is almost no opposition left” - of course, you mean the democratic parties of the 90s? But look with an open mind: if throughout the 90s there was a sharp drop in living standards, affecting three quarters of Russian families, and all under the “democratic banners,” then it is not surprising that the population fled from under these banners. And now the leaders of those parties still cannot divide the portfolios of the imaginary shadow government.

Unfortunately, in Russia there is still no constructive, clear and numerous opposition. It is obvious that its formation, like the maturity of other democratic institutions, will require more time and experience.

SPIEGEL: During our last interview, you criticized that only about half of the directly elected deputies sat in the Duma, and the dominant position was occupied by representatives of political parties. After Putin’s reform of the electoral system, there were no direct mandates left at all. This is a step back!

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I think this is a mistake. I am a convinced and consistent critic of “party parliamentarism” and a supporter of the non-partisan election of genuine people’s representatives who are personally responsible to their regions, districts and who can be, if their performance is unsatisfactory, recalled from their deputy posts. I respect and understand the essence of economic, cooperative, territorial, educational, professional, industrial associations - but I do not see organicity in political parties: connections based on political convictions may not be stable, and often not selfless. Leon Trotsky (during the October Revolution) aptly put it: “The party that does not set as its goal the seizure of power is worth nothing.” This is about benefiting oneself at the expense of the rest of the population. Just like an unarmed seizure of power. Voting according to faceless party programs and party names falsely replaces the only reliable choice of the people's representative: a named candidate - with a named voter. (This is the whole point of “representation of the people.”)

SPIEGEL: Despite high revenues from oil and gas exports and the formation of a middle class, the social contrasts between rich and poor in Russia remain enormous. What can be done to improve the situation?

Solzhenitsyn: I consider the gap between the poor and the rich in Russia to be a most dangerous phenomenon that requires urgent attention from the state. But, although many fabulous fortunes were created during the Yeltsin period by unscrupulous robbery, today the only reasonable way to correct the situation is not to destroy large enterprises, which, admittedly, the current owners are trying to manage more efficiently, but to give the medium and small ones the opportunity to breathe. This means protecting citizens and small entrepreneurs from arbitrariness and corruption. Invest the proceeds from the people's subsoil in the national economy, in education, in healthcare - and learn to do this without shameful thefts and waste.

SPIEGEL: Does Russia need a national idea, and what might it look like?

Solzhenitsyn: The term “national idea” does not have a clear scientific content. We can agree that this was once a popular idea, an idea of ​​the desired way of life in a country that possessed its population. Such a unifying concept may be useful, but it should never be artificially invented at the top of power or introduced by force. In observable historical periods, such ideas have become established, for example, in France (after the 18th century), Great Britain, the United States, Germany, Poland, etc., etc.

When the discussion about the “national idea” arose rather hastily in post-communist Russia, I tried to cool it with the objection that, after all the debilitating losses we have experienced, the task of Preserving a dying people is enough for us for a long time.

SPIEGEL: Despite all this, Russia often feels lonely. Recently, there has been some sobering in relations between Russia and the West, including in relations between Russia and Europe. What is the reason? In what ways is the West unable to understand modern Russia?

Solzhenitsyn: Several reasons can be named, but the most interesting to me are psychological ones, namely: the discrepancy between illusory hopes - both in Russia and in the West - with reality.

When I returned to Russia in 1994, I found here an almost deification of the Western world and the political system of its various countries. It must be admitted that this was not so much actual knowledge and conscious choice as a natural disgust from the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. The situation was first changed by the brutal NATO bombing of Serbia. They drew a black, indelible line - and it would be fair to say that in all layers of Russian society. Then the situation was aggravated by NATO’s steps to draw into its sphere parts of the collapsed USSR, and especially sensitively Ukraine, which is so related to us through millions of living concrete family ties. They can be cut off overnight by the new border of the military bloc.

So, the perception of the West as, par excellence, the Knight of Democracy has given way to a disappointed statement that Western policy is based primarily on pragmatism, often self-serving and cynical. For many in Russia this was a hard experience, as a collapse of ideals.

At the same time, the West, celebrating the end of the grueling “Cold War” and observing a decade and a half of Gorbachev-Yeltsin anarchy inside and the surrender of all positions outside, very quickly got used to the relieving thought that Russia is now almost a “third world” country and will always be so . When Russia again began to strengthen economically and politically, this was perceived by the West, perhaps on the subconscious level of fears that had not yet been overcome, in panic.

SPIEGEL: He developed associations with the former superpower - the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn: In vain. But even before that, the West allowed itself to live in the illusion (or convenient deceit?) that Russia has a young democracy, when it did not yet exist at all. Of course, Russia is not yet a democratic country, it is just beginning to build democracy, and nothing is easier than presenting it with a long list of omissions, violations, and delusions. But in the struggle that began and continues after “September 11,” did not Russia extend its hand to the West, clearly and unequivocally? And only psychological inadequacy (or disastrous shortsightedness?) can explain the irrational repulsion of this hand. The United States, having accepted our most important assistance in Afghanistan, immediately turned to Russia with new and new demands. And Europe’s claims to Russia are almost undisguisedly rooted in its energy fears, which are also unfounded.

Isn't this pushing away of Russia by the West too much of a luxury, especially in the face of new threats? In my last interview in the West before returning to Russia (in April 1994 to Forbes magazine), I said: “If you look far into the future, you can see in the 21st century a time when the United States, together with Europe, is still in great need of Russia as an ally.”

SPIEGEL: You read Goethe, Schiller and Heine in the originals and always hoped that Germany would become something of a bridge between Russia and the rest of the world. Do you believe that the Germans are still capable of playing this role today?

Solzhenitsyn: I believe. There is something predetermined in the mutual attraction between Germany and Russia - otherwise it would not have survived two crazy world wars.

SPIEGEL: Which German poets, writers and philosophers had the greatest influence on you?

Solzhenitsyn: My childhood and adolescence were accompanied by Schiller and Goethe. Later I became interested in Schelling. And great German music is precious to me. I can't imagine my life without Bach, Beethoven, Schubert.

SPIEGEL: In the West today they know practically nothing about modern Russian literature. How do you see the situation in Russian literature?

Solzhenitsyn: A time of rapid and dramatic change is never the best for literature. Not only great, but at least significant literary works were almost always and almost everywhere created in times of stability - good or bad, but stability. Modern Russian literature is no exception. It is not without reason that today’s enlightened reader’s interest in Russia has shifted to the literature of fact: memoirs, biographies, documentary prose.

I believe, however, that justice and conscientiousness will not disappear from the basis of Russian literature and it will still serve to illuminate our spirit and depth of understanding.

SPIEGEL: Throughout your work the idea of ​​the influence of Orthodoxy on the Russian world runs through. What is the situation with the moral competence of the Russian Orthodox Church today? It seems to us that it is once again turning into a state church, as it was centuries ago - an institution that actually legitimized the Kremlin ruler as the vicar of God.

Solzhenitsyn: On the contrary, one must be surprised how, in the short years that have passed since the time of the total subordination of the Church to the communist state, it managed to acquire a sufficiently independent position. Do not forget what terrible human losses the Russian Orthodox Church suffered throughout almost the entire 20th century. She's just getting back on her feet. And the young post-Soviet state is just learning to respect an independent and independent organism in the Church. The “Social Doctrine” of the Russian Orthodox Church goes much further than government programs. And recently, Metropolitan Kirill, the most prominent exponent of the church’s position, has been persistently calling, for example, to change the taxation system, certainly not in unison with the government, and he does this publicly, on central television channels.

“Legitimization of the Kremlin ruler”? You obviously mean Yeltsin's funeral in the cathedral and the refusal of a civil farewell ceremony?

SPIEGEL: And that too.

Solzhenitsyn: Well, this was probably the only way to contain and avoid possible manifestations of people’s anger that had not yet cooled down at the funeral. But I see no reason to consider this as a protocol for the funeral of Russian presidents approved for the future.

As for the past, the Church offers round-the-clock funeral prayers for the victims of communist executions in Butovo near Moscow, Solovki and other mass graves.

SPIEGEL: In 1987, in a conversation with the founder of Spiegel, Rudolf Augstein, you noted how difficult it is to publicly speak about your attitude towards religion. What does faith mean to you?

Solzhenitsyn: For me, faith is the basis and strengthening of a person’s personal life.

SPIEGEL: Are you afraid of death?

Solzhenitsyn: No, I haven’t felt any fear of death for a long time. In my youth, the early death of my father (at 27 years old) hovered over me - and I was afraid to die before I realized my literary plans. But already between my 30s and 40s, I acquired the calmest attitude towards death. I feel it as a natural, but not at all the final milestone in the existence of a person.

SPIEGEL: In any case, we wish you many more summers of creative life!

Solzhenitsyn: No no. No need. Enough.

SPIEGEL: Alexander Isaevich! We thank you for this conversation.