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

One day, while in the Gulag deep in Siberia, Solzhenitsyn decides never to lie again. According to Solzhenitsyn, this means “not to say what you don’t think, but not in a whisper, not in a voice, not by raising a hand, not 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 to lie means not to say what you do not think. It was a rejection of lies, as if purely political, but this lie had the dimension of eternity.

The undoubted merit of Solzhenitsyn is that he remained faithful to the principle he once chose. Thus, a person embarks on the path leading to the knowledge of the truth. The word of truth in the midst of general silence in an atmosphere of godless lies is an undoubted merit.

After the news of the seizure of the "Archipelago" on September 5, 1973, A.I. Solzhenitsyn sends an order to print it immediately in the West. On the same day, he sends a "Letter to the leaders of the Soviet Union." At first this letter was closed. It was published a few months later. In the letter, the writer reflects on the fate of the peoples and warns the government against the imminent national-state catastrophe if conclusions are not drawn in time. The ways to avoid this catastrophe are seen as the rejection of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the cessation of the imperial policy of conquest and expansion, the path of self-restraint with an emphasis on internal rather than external development.

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 his daughter is a good-natured Russian, even a cheerful irony.

While living abroad, Solzhenitsyn joined the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR).

In 1974, the writer sent a message to the III All-Diaspora Council, in which he analyzed the problem of the schism of the 17th century. "Russian Inquisition" he called “pressure and destruction of established ancient piety, oppression and reprisals against 12 million of our brothers, fellow believers and compatriots, cruel torture for them, pulling out tongues, pincers, racks, fire and death, deprivation of temples, exile thousands of miles and far to a foreign land—their who never rebelled, who never took up arms in response, staunchly faithful Old 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 trembled with remorse! 250 years were allotted to us for repentance,” he continues, “and we only found in our hearts: to forgive the persecuted, to forgive them, as we destroyed them.”

The cathedral was imbued with the word of the prophet, recognized the old rites as salvific, and soon even appointed a bishop serving according to the old rites and asked for forgiveness from the Old Believers.

In his work “Christianity in Russia” (chapter from The Red Wheel), Solzhenitsyn says that only the Church can be the revivalist of life, only she can answer the impasse of the modern world, “whence neither science, nor bureaucracy, nor democracy, nor more than all the inflated socialism cannot give an outlet to the human soul.”

In America, Solzhenitsyn traveled thousands of kilometers from his "Vermont retreat" to the "opposite" American state of Oregon, where there was the largest Old Believer parish of Belokrinitsky Accord in the United States, and prayed there. Solzhenitsyn was active in calling on ROCOR to canonize the entire host of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th century, which eventually took place in 1981. He personally presented many documents about the martyrs to the Council of the Church Abroad.

In a speech at the Templeton Prize ceremony for "progress in the development of religion" on May 10, 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said:

“More than half a century ago, as a child, I heard from many elderly people in explanation of the great shaking that befell Russia: “People have forgotten God, that’s all.” Since then, having worked on the history of our revolution for a little less than half a century, having read hundreds of books, collecting hundreds of personal testimonies, and having already written 8 volumes myself to clear that collapse, today, at the request, to name as briefly as possible the main reason for that destructive revolution that swallowed our up to 60 million people, I can’t express it better than to repeat it.”

In 1996, at the V Christmas Educational Readings by A.I. Sozhenitsyn urged: "It is necessary for the Orthodox to be active outside the temples." In his actions, creativity and journalism, he again returns us to the fundamental principles of faith. To the fact that the world of God is one and the separation of the church from society is largely artificial, therefore church diseases inevitably respond to the diseases of society. And vice versa - ignoring the diseases of society by the church leads to the fact that these diseases are spread from society to the church. Thus, the conversation about the boundaries of the church turns into a conversation about the Christian's responsibility for the world.

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

Solzhenitsyn maintained close relations with the Old Believers to the end. Returning to Russia, living in a dacha in Trinity-Lykovo, he often hosted many Old Believers. The ROCOR priest also communed the writer there.

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

“I disappeared like an animal in a pen.
Somewhere people, will, light,
And after me the noise of the chase,
I have no way out.
Dark forest and the shore of the pond,
They ate a fallen log.
The path is cut off from everywhere.
Whatever happens, it doesn't matter.
What did I do for a dirty trick,
Am I a killer and a villain?
I made the whole world cry
Above the beauty of my land.
But even so, almost at the coffin,
I believe the time will come
The power of meanness and malice
Will overcome the spirit of good "

From wisdom to insight

Being a brilliant creator, Solzhenitsyn nevertheless always remained a recluse. He was not "their" for this world. Life of A.I. Solzhenitsyn shows us the religious dimension of history. His actions, his choices are permeated with a calling from above.

He wrote:

“Although acquaintance with Russian history could have discouraged long ago to look for some kind of hand of justice, some kind of higher universal meaning in the chain of Russian troubles, but in my life I have become accustomed to this guiding hand, this very bright, not depending on me meaning feel the prison years. I was not always able to understand the throws of my life in time; often, due to the weakness of the body and spirit, I understood them back to their true and far-calculated meaning. But later, the true reason for what had happened was certainly explained to me - and I only became dumb with surprise. I did a lot in my life contrary to my main goal, not understanding the true path, and Something always corrected me. It became so familiar to me, so reliable, that the only task left for me was to understand every major event of my life more correctly and quickly.

Solzhenitsyn A.I. there is a deep mystical feeling of the presence of God, God acting, God creating, God saving.

Alexander Isaevich valued time very much. He said: “Every day you need to imprint your life path with your deed.”

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

Alexander Solzhenitsyn himself said:

“Our life is not in search of material success, but in search of worthy spiritual growth. Our entire earthly life is only an intermediate stage of development to a higher one - and from this stage there is no need to break loose, and there is no need to trample fruitlessly. Some material laws do not explain our life and do not open the way for it. The laws of physics and physiology will never reveal to us the undoubted how the Creator constantly and daily participates in the life of each of us, invariably adding to us the energy of being, and when this help leaves us, we die. And with no less participation, He contributes to the life of the entire planet - this must be felt in our dark, terrible moment.

Solzhenitsyn always showed the ability to sacrifice, the readiness to stand to the end, hence the wisdom in actions, bordering on insight. He argued "Orthodoxy, preserved in our hearts, customs and actions, will strengthen the spiritual meaning that unites Russians above tribal considerations."

Being endowed with the gift of prophecy, Solzhenitsyn, as it were, bequeathed: “... the path of humanity is a long path. Our history is that, passing through all the temptations, we grow up. Almost at the very beginning of the gospel story, one temptation after another is offered to Christ, and he rejects them one by one. Mankind cannot do it so quickly and decisively, but God's plan, it seems to me, is that through centuries of development we will be able to begin to refuse temptations ourselves.

Bibliography:

• Dudarev A. Exorcist of the Russian Soul: A.I. Solzhenitsyn, "Siberian Lights" 2008, No. 10
• Interview of Alexander Solzhenitsyn to the magazine "Der Spiegel". Izvestia, No. 129, M., July 24, 2007
• Memory and unconsciousness in the Church and society: the results of the twentieth century. Materials of the international scientific-theological conference. M., 2004
• Solzhenitsyn, Alexander Isaevich http://ru.wikipedia.org/
• Solzhenitsyn A.I. Speech at the V Christmas Educational Readings. http://www.solzhenitsyn.ru
• Solzhenitsyn A.I. Publicism. In two volumes, Yaroslavl, 1996
• Solzhenitsyn A.I. Collected works in nine volumes. M., 2001

Alexander A. Sokolovsky

Faith in the crucible of doubt. Orthodoxy and Russian literature in the XVII-XX centuries. Dunaev Mikhail Mikhailovich

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn

In 1952 Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn(b. 1918) wrote poetic terms through which one can comprehend his whole life:

But passing between being and non-being,

Falling down and holding on to the edge

I watch in grateful awe

For my life.

Not by my mind, not by desire

Its every fracture is illuminated -

The meaning of the Supreme with an even radiance,

Explained to me only later.

And now, by the returned measure

Having scooped up living water,

God of the Universe! I believe again!

And with the forsaken You were with me...

The existence of Solzhenitsyn in Russian culture cannot be realized without the action of God's Providence. Of course, the providential will of the Creator operates in every life, but Solzhenitsyn was not only guided by this will, but was able to consciously follow it. This gave him the strength to endure the most difficult trials, and a small fraction of which would be enough to break a nature that does not rely on the authenticity of faith.

Solzhenitsyn rapidly emerged in literature, rising in it immediately, dramatically. The appearance of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (1962) became a milestone in its history: now everything is divided in it, into before and after this story. The very entry of Solzhenitsyn into literature showed how Providence operates: in cooperation with man. Of course, it was not the Politburo, not Khrushchev who created the possibility of publishing "One Day ..." - they only fulfilled what was determined by Providence. But… An opportunity was created, and there was a readiness to respond. After all, common sense could have won: why put effort into something that is not only not printed, but also scary to show and safe to store. And there would be an opportunity, but there would be nothing to answer. A strong will was needed to overcome that “healthy” inner whispering, and it responded to the will of the Creator.

Solzhenitsyn entered literature and immediately became a classic in it. He no longer had the need to develop his own artistic originality, to search for and build a system of ideas, because all the torments of formation had already been left behind.

The entire corpus of his works is a single whole with an indivisible system of values; it is also necessary to comprehend this unity in a non-fractional way, as far as it is accessible to analysis in general (after all, if you like it or not, it breaks down what is being studied into parts - and cannot do without it). This does not mean at all that the writer has become stagnant in his convictions. Unlike many, Solzhenitsyn just knows how to admit past mistakes, has the courage to talk about them openly, to get rid of them without regret. But even in this, the same wholeness of it is manifested, which it is not for us to crush.

First of all, Solzhenitsyn rejected the ideal of eudaimonic culture. "Happiness is a mirage," says Shulubin, one of the Cancer Ward characters, and the author, no doubt, entrusted much of his work to him. "And even more so the so-called" happiness of future generations ". Who can find out? Who talked to these future generations - what other idols will they worship? The idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhappiness has changed too much over the centuries to dare to prepare it in advance. Crushing white loaves with heels and choking on milk - we will not be happy at all. And sharing the missing - we will already today! If we only care about "happiness" and about reproduction, we will senselessly fill the earth and create a terrible society ... "

Here is the verdict - not only to "communist creation", but also to the ideal of "market prosperity". Feels the same at the bottom do not lay up treasures on earth...

However, Solzhenitsyn does not write about one on demand, but about the earthly - looking for a basis for a worthy stay in this life. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, we all do not avoid worries at all. Only there is always a danger of a skew of interests, an excessive enthusiasm for earthly things, even if of a higher order. Morality is also earthly treasure, let's not forget.

Looking ahead, already at the very end of the century, we find that already then, as the main goal, the writer points to the preservation of the Russian people and Russian statehood. Without looking any further, let's stop there. The people - the state ... The state - the people ...

The writer makes us think painfully about the relationship between these entities in the novel "In the First Circle". After all, the invisible motor of the entire movement of events (better: almost everything) is the treason of one of the central characters, the young diplomat Innokenty Volodin.

This is generally a painful problem of the entire dissident movement of the 70-80s. Doesn't the struggle against state power hit the people more painfully? The authorities will sit out in a concrete shelter, and who will be bombed on their heads first?

And yet: defending their land in the Patriotic War, the people defended Stalin, their own executioner, doubling the concepts: "For the Motherland, for Stalin!". (And earlier it wasn’t like this: “For the Tsar and the Fatherland”? No, not quite like that: there was also “for faith”.) Wasn’t it necessary “for Stalin”? How to share? Having turned the bayonets against Stalin, they also had to turn against their own people. After all, the Bolsheviks once decided that: to fight against the government of the landlords and capitalists (bloodsuckers of the people) - and they ruined Russia.

The Bolsheviks at one time were also aware of all this dialectic of the problem, and they found a solution: everything must be verified by some higher truths. Another question is what to recognize as truth. For the Bolsheviks, these were "interesting revolutions", but not everyone agrees with them. This is where the real impasse lies: if there is no absolute criterion, all searches and disputes are doomed.

For Solzhenitsyn (and his characters following him) the struggle against Stalin is undoubtedly true. Therefore, in the novel, Volodin's betrayal is not a moral compromise of the character for the author.

Volodin is trying to “take away” the bomb from Stalin (that is, to prevent its secret from being stolen from the Americans), because this bomb in the hands of Stalin can turn into a general death.

Conclusion - this is the state is disgusting in its essence and the fight against it is necessary. Should such a state be given a bomb?

A simple peasant, a janitor Spiridon, crippled by this power, system, advanced system, thinks cruelly. He is ready to call a bomb on the head of the whole people, only so that "Father Mustachioed" does not remain alive. And this is like a decisive argument in defense of betrayal: it is - the voice of the people.

But the "fighters against accursed tsarism" reasoned in the same way! Let me die, but others will see happiness! And so the Bolsheviks shouted (and then Mao, Chinese Stalin): let millions die, and the rest taste bliss on earth. One thing is doubtful: will they see and taste? What if those who already have the bomb will also use it for evil? But then everything falls apart, doesn't it? Why be so happy about Russia's weakness before the West? How can the West be given the role of supreme arbiter? And Volodin is still a traitor. And all his insights are worth nothing, no matter how true they are in themselves. Dead end.

And is there a way out of this impasse? Is the problem of attitudes towards tyranny generally solvable? What can be opposed to her?

Faith answers: humility and existence according to the truth of God. The writer later (in the "Archipelago") admitted: and the punishment of God - for the good of man. So, take it easy and don't call for the bombs. Especially for those nearby. Otherwise, how will you be better than the same tyrant? He took over your life, and the bomb called the better?

But will not humility be complicity in evil? And the thought went around again.

Humility is following the will of God.

But how to know it?

- Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

It is necessary not to call a bomb, but to cleanse the heart. What does he who digs in the dirt of his soul learn? Only your dirt. Internal cleansing is necessary, not a bomb. And this requires faith.

We all end up with the same thing. Otherwise, they are doomed to walk in circles - without a way out.

There is only one way out: to turn spiritually to Providence, to remember it. In fact, Nerzhin, the central character of the novel, renounces the well-being of the “sharashka” and dooms himself to the deeper circles of the camp hell, this is what he does: he surrenders himself to providential will. The author only hints at this most important thought, but he has a different concern: about something more topical, perhaps for the time of writing the novel. After all, it was necessary to realize: it is impossible to openly fight against the same Stalin (and his heirs). But what to do? Providence expects from a person the manifestation of his will. You can't just wait around for everything to fall apart. But what to do?

Solzhenitsyn then suggested a reasonable compromise: not to live by lies. That is, do not renounce the truth under any circumstances. This is the program of the writer.

He did not add only: so God commands. After all, he mainly spoke for a godless society. And the inconsistency remained forever.

To live not by a lie, you need to recognize this lie.

Understanding the communist idea is one of the central tasks in Solzhenitsyn's work. Both the idea itself and its carriers are important to him. However, there are few who believe in the purity and authenticity of ideology. Most stick to it, each for their own self-interest.

Even Stalin. His interest in history is the strengthening of the idea of ​​his greatness. But simply a banal self-affirmation of nature, initially crushed by a feeling of some kind of inferiority in life. Stalin lives with Solzhenitsyn in a fictional world that has little in common with reality.

However, the ideological communists could not help but understand the need to provide some kind of substitute for the manifestation of the religious need in man instead of the temple of God, and to strengthen morality in this way. Therefore, Rubin, while in his sharashka, draws up a majestic project for a new temple construction. In his constructions, not only is there no Christ, but there can be no abstract cult either: everything is mortified to the limit, counting only on the ritual side and strict normativity. This is the "religion" of communist ideology. One can still draw analogies with the various ideas of the authors of various utopias, but wouldn't it be better to admit that the beginnings of these ideas were realized in the practice of Soviet life. Not without reason, the unrealized Palace of Soviets was conceived on the site of the destroyed Cathedral of Christ the Savior. No wonder the Palace of Culture of the Moscow Automobile Plant was erected on the site of the destroyed Simonov Monastery. And it is not for nothing that dead ritualism was created for various Soviet events.

The reason has already been said many times, and Solzhenitsyn also has it in the words of Nerzhin: "After all, all and every socialism is some kind of caricature of the Gospel."

Circumstances influenced the fate of a person, but not the basis of character: it was determined by certain deep properties of nature. This is how the writer affirms the truth that was revealed to him through the hardships of the trials (and Christianity has always known): the border between good and evil passes through the human heart.

It turns out that the fate of becoming Stalin, which fell to one person, could be chosen by almost everyone: according to internal gravity. Even if circumstances did not help to realize what the inclination lives for, Stalin must be suppressed in oneself. And don't live by lies.

But does Solzhenitsyn have some kind of beginning in his works of art that carries within itself the fullness of Orthodox Truth?

It's time to reflect on the image people and understanding of the problem of the people by the writer. For where else to look for this religious principle? Dostoevsky asserted: the Russian people are God-bearers. And Solzhenitsyn?

And Solzhenitsyn believes that people should be judged precisely by the properties of those people, of which the people are made up. Here is one of them - the janitor Spiridon (the one that called for a bomb on Stalin's head, and his own, and another million compatriots).

In Spiridon there is a certain elemental morality. But what is its nature and nourishing source at all times? To say that it simply took shape over the course of many centuries of the existence of the people would mean to be half a step away from Marxism. And if we admit that it is religious by nature, that it was precisely Orthodoxy that throughout these centuries did not allow it to wither and die, then it must be said that outside of faith everything will collapse very soon, lingering by inertia among the generation that still grabbed the remnants of faith from fathers. It seems that the author relies on some infallible moral feeling, which lives in the same Spiridon: "He was sure that he sees, hears, smells and understands everything - not wrong." But this is the weakest point. He was sure, but suddenly he blundered at least in something already? In the same argument about the bomb, for example ...

Is there faith in these people? The same Spiridon, only called Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, remembers God when he is in great need, but rarely:

And then he sharply, loftily prayed to himself: “Lord! Save! Don't give me a punishment cell!"

According to the proverb, "Until the thunder breaks out, the peasant will not cross himself."

Shukhov, out of habit, can glorify: "Glory to you, Lord, another day has passed!" But Alyoshka the Baptist answers the words not without skepticism:

“Alyoshka heard Shukhov out loud. He praised God and turned around.

After all, Ivan Denisovich, your soul asks God to pray. Why don't you give her the will, huh?

Shukhov squinted at Alyoshka. Eyes, like two candles, glow. I sighed.

Because, Alyoshka, those prayers, like statements, either do not reach, or "refuse the complaint."

And in general, it is imperceptible that Russian Orthodox pray, and if someone suddenly stands out, then a special one:

“There, at the table, without even dipping a spoon, a young guy is baptized. A Bendera, which means that he is a newcomer: the old Bendera, having lived in the camp, lagged behind the cross.

And the Russians have forgotten with which hand to be baptized."

The scripture in the entire Shukhov barracks is just reading." the same Baptist Alyoshka (and there are no other believers besides the sectarian? It turns out so), he talks about faith. True, the author chose a text for him to read, conspicuous, as sanctifying the entire camp seat :

“The Baptist read the Gospel not at all to himself, but as if into his breath (maybe on purpose for Shukhov, after all, these Baptists like to agitate, like political instructors):

If only one of you did not suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or a villain, or as an encroachment on someone else's. And if you are a Christian, then do not be ashamed, but glorify God for such a fate.

The Baptist reads not the Gospel, but the Apostolic Epistle (1 Pet. 4:15-16), but for Shukhov there is no difference. However, the text of Scripture shines through: why are these people sitting here? No, the majority are not at all like villains, but not in the name of Christ, but for the sake of their "homeland" and their "religion" - family and land. Let's not say this in condemnation (it's disgusting, it's a sin to condemn here), but simply note it as a given.

The people appear in Solzhenitsyn as some kind of semi-pagan mass, not fully conscious of their faith. Here is the righteous Matryona, without whom "our whole land" will not stand. What is her faith? She is very uncertain. What is the righteousness of Matryona? In non-possessiveness. Maybe she lived simply to her liking, showing her natural Christian essence? Or maybe it's not so important, there is faith, isn't it - would a person be a good person and would not live by a lie? No, Solzhenitsyn himself opposes such an understanding.

The story "The Incident at the Kochetovka Station", placed under the same Novy Mir cover with "Matryonin's Dvor", was not, it seems, should have been appreciated in its time: all the critics then rushed at Matryona in unison. And in that story, the writer dared to take on one of the most difficult tasks: to show a positively beautiful person. And, indeed, he gave a striking image of the righteous, not inferior to Matryona.

Lieutenant Vasya Zotov, the main character of the story, is a non-possessor, an ascetic in everyday life, with a heart for his work: without such ... well, not the earth, but at least the right thing is not worth it. Around - they are more concerned about their own, not about the general need. He is ready to sacrifice for the sake of the universal. Vasya is conscientious, pure, and will not sin in small things. Left under the Germans, his wife remains faithful, resisting the pressure of others. Not sticks his Wednesday. His brisk women are trying to seduce him openly - he cannot go against himself.

And suddenly the case. A defenseless person who trusted Zotov is doomed by him, this positively wonderful hero, to death in the Beria camp. Yes, Lieutenant Volkova will commit atrocities there, but he will give a person into his power - a pure boy, Lieutenant Zotov. Out of spite? No, no, caring about the same higher good.

Vasya Zotov serves the Revolution (that's right, with a capital letter: this is his deity). He serves the "cause of Lenin", he serves evil and creates evil, without even realizing it (only conscience dulls the soul). It turns out that evil can come from a good person. Because it is not indifferent to anyone what his faith is. False faith closes the true difference between good and evil, and a person turns out to be defenseless: he does evil. Such righteous Vasya Zotov. Let us recall from Dostoevsky: conscience without God can reach the most terrible.

And the true faith among the people is neglected. For Solzhenitsyn, temples devastated all over the world become a symbol. Not only time and the elements - the people themselves destroyed (and are destroying today) God's temples. There is no escape from this cruel truth.

But if so, then why all the calls to "live not by lies"? To whom? To those who trample on everything? And they will ask: why "not by lies", if it is more convenient, easier and more pleasant? They don't look ahead.

Morality is good, but where do you get it from?

Many in Solzhenitsyn speak of morality. About justice, about conscience, the soul of people hurts. But here one cannot do without faith, and without true faith.

Why is she needed? Yes, so that there is at least a single point of reference, without which lies and truth cannot be recognized and sometimes live according to a lie: like Vasya Zotov. People will begin, pronouncing the same words, to speak different languages, not understanding each other: each will understand his own and how to convince that it is impossible to do so? And what Solzhenitsyn already has is shown perfectly. In the absence of faith, it is not the moral, but the rational principle that seems more reliable to the majority.

But rationally, you can justify anything, justifying any villainy. Man becomes a grain of sand at the disposal of impersonal chance, indifferent to man. The intellect cannot rise higher.

Closing on purely moral or rational problems, a dead end cannot be avoided. Much deeper than in novels, the writer scooped up in his multi-volume work on the Stalinist camps.

The creation of an artistic study "The Gulag Archipelago" is a feat of the writer.

The genre is defined correctly: in terms of the scope of the material, in terms of its multidimensional comprehension, in all its details, the book is a historical and sociological study, which only a considerable team can do; and according to the figurative vision of life, it rises to aesthetic heights that are not accessible to every artist.

The semantic center of the whole work seems to us its fourth part "Soul and barbed wire". Here all the threads converge, tightening into knots, here the highest point for the writer is established, from which he examines the entire space displayed by him.

Solzhenitsyn's names are always surprisingly accurate. And now the most important question is indicated: what is the fate of the soul in the cruelty of captivity? And what will help the soul, to survive, to save itself from that terrible thing that lies in wait for it even faster than the body?

The writer claims that the path of the prisoner can become the path of moral ascent. He began to perceive the tests themselves as indicating the influence of some higher will, necessary for the mind, which is not always able to find out the truth.

Whose the will directs the person? Such a question cannot but arise, the author also asks him. He recalls his conversation in the camp hospital with one of the prisoner doctors. He argued: any punishment, even if it has the wrong reason, is just, because "if you sort through life and think deeply, we will always find our crime, for which we have now been struck." But after all, this very argument once arose among the friends of the long-suffering Job and was rejected as untrue by God Himself. God directed the thought of the righteous to the need to accept His will without reasoning - with faith. This is a single universal answer to a person in all his doubts, and we are talking, although the word is not named, about Providence.

Solzhenitsyn leads to the realization of the need for a religious understanding of being - everything else only leads away from the truth. Through cruel experience, he acquires this truth, which is already mentioned in the Scriptures and about which the Holy Fathers have always warned in teachings, in prayers. But it is always better to strengthen the truth with one's own experience. The realization of such truth becomes invaluable. result(but not material, which was discussed earlier), which was acquired by the artist. Bought at a heavy price.

“That is why I turn to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes surprising those around me:

- Bless you, prison!"

The view of the world becomes multidimensional.

Even if only this place survived from everything Solzhenitsyn wrote, like a fragment of a huge fresco, and then it could be argued: this is the creation of a powerful talent.

There is a contradiction here; and like Tvardovsky: "I know, no fault of mine, ... but still, nevertheless, nevertheless!" I It is possible to resolve the contradiction only if time passes for man into eternity. Otherwise, everything is meaningless. And the blessing of the prison will turn into a mockery of the dead. The need for immortality arose not at all from the thirst of insatiable people in pursuit of pleasures, as Epicurus, who did not know Christian truths, believed. It is born of a thirst to find meaning in being, which goes beyond the material world.

The material world demands its own. And another camp writer, Varlam Shalamov, argued the opposite: the requirements of this

worlds do not force a person to ascend, but doom him to corruption. When it comes to the simplest bread, Solzhenitsyn also picks up, joining in the argument, "should you think about your grief, about the past and the future, about humanity and about God?" But it's not about the simplest thing...

The dispute between Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov is a dispute about the essential foundations of being. What caused this dispute in general, such different views on what was happening? It's just that the argument went on at different levels of understanding reality. If you read Shalamov's "Kolyma Tales", this is a terrible testimony of a sufferer who has gone through all the circles of earthly hell, then it is easy to see: the author sees a person's life at the level of existence of his body, not higher. It is the body, as if rejecting the soul with its needs, remaining with its own instincts, with a craving for survival, for the sake of which it is ready for anything - that's what remains of a person in Shalamov's stories. At this level, talking about "ascension" is meaningless.

Solzhenitsyn appeals to spirit. The spirit can fall, but it can also rise powerfully.

Staying at such different levels, never come to an agreement.

Solzhenitsyn bluntly states: faith protected people from corruption even in the camps. Those rotted. who was deprived of the "moral core" even before the camp - the writer is convinced. Who was also corrupted by the "free" life.

This once again reveals the viciousness of the eudaimonic ideology, which is godless in essence, not burdened no spiritual education.

The camp system was designed to turn a person away from spiritual inner labor.

Narrative in a measured time frame The "Red Wheel" (and it began to be created even before the exile) immediately became an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of world literature.

This grandiose epic is built by the author according to the laws of counterpoint, in conjugation of themes, problems, ideas related to different layers of reality, to many levels of human existence. The personal and the universal become inseparable for the writer from one another, the narrative pattern is superimposed on the dense historical background presented in the documents, but it is also combined with the garbage of history, littering the space with newspaper scraps, the petty fussiness of the characters, the unworthiness of even significant figures. What can you do? History moves not along the swept sidewalks of avenues, but along impassable roads with sometimes impassable mud, from which there is no escape.

The destiny of man is thrown into history, history begins to be decided by the destinies of individual people. It is built on the model of relationships between people. The threads of history are drawn together from time to time nodes, where events take on a fateful meaning, the author examines them intently, in all details, large and unimportant. Of these nodes he writes his own story.

Solzhenitsyn undoubtedly has something that Bakhtin unfairly attributed to Dostoevsky: the Red Wheel epic is a great polyphonic a canvas where, in the chaos of ideas and concepts, everything sometimes seems to be equivalent. Who is right, who is wrong? Sometimes it doesn't work right away. This was already manifested in the former work of the writer, now it is becoming especially noticeable.

Here Solzhenitsyn reaches a special level of psychological analysis: he absolutely gets used to each of his characters, begins to think and feel in the fullness of his inner state. Even in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, these recognized psychologists (and in Solzhenitsyn himself when he wrote about Stalin), there is always a certain distance between the author and his hero, even when a deep penetration into the human experience is made. Now with Solzhenitsyn this distance disappears. Lenin, Nicholas II, the Empress, the murderer Bogrov, fictional characters - all acquire absolute independence from the narrator, as if asserting the irrefutability of their own rightness in their vision of the world and in their actions. Everyone gets their own way right and the narrator cannot refute this correctness in the very course of the character's self-disclosure: for this, that distance, that gap between the author and the hero, which Solzhenitsyn does not have, would be needed. He completely transforms into another person and is forced to sympathize with his rightness.

Maybe Solzhenitsyn is a naive relativist? No. It simply objectifies to the utmost the criteria for evaluating everything that happens. And then he believes the truth with the wisdom that stands not only over the characters of the epic, but also over himself - at some unattainable height, which allows him to comprehend everything quite soberly and impartially. For the writer, clear clots of human experience, even graphically highlighted in the general flow of the narrative text, become signs of this high wisdom.

Of course, everything is revealed in the overall complex aesthetic system of the work, in the interweaving of figurative connections, the conjugation of events, in the verified correlation of the external mode of action and the internal state of each person. However, polyphony is not a spontaneous, but a conscious aesthetic principle of the writer.

We dare to assert that the central idea of ​​the epic, penetrating it all from beginning to end, was the thought expressed on the very first pages - the thought that determines the fate of one of the most important characters, which, moreover, has too clear designation - Sanya (Isaac) Lazhenitsyn: "Russia ... pity ..."

pity Russia...

And then a furious rebuff:

"- Whom?" "Russia?" Varya stung. "Whom Russia? The emperor's fool?

Question for all time. And the answer requires, no matter how that question is disgusting to someone. What kind of Russia, whose Russia requires compassion and love? And does it require? And is it worth it?

Rolling across Russia red wheel stories. This image rushes like a refrain through the entire space of the narrative. And even when it is not visible, it is always felt as a lurking threat - to everyone, the people, the state, every person.

"Only unbelieving souls regret what did not take place. The believing soul is affirmed on what is, on that it grows - and this is its strength."

Although not named, it becomes clear that we are talking about Providence, which a person should accept in the fullness of God's will.

Solzhenitsyn is intent in describing the religious life of a person, because for the writer, faith becomes the most important criterion in determining what is most characteristic of the participants in the movement of history. That is, by that series of milestones that helps to find the right path through the polyphony of the epic space.

Where there is faith, where the most important thing is the spiritual, there is no way around the understanding of humility as the basis of this spiritual. As Solzhenitsyn deduces the law: "He who is little developed - he is arrogant, who has developed deeply - becomes humble." Here is another milestone along the way. Here is another measure for application to a person. Here is the criterion in the dispute.

Descriptions of a man in the church by Solzhenitsyn can be attributed to a number of especially heartfelt ones in Russian literature. The prayer of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich on the night after his abdication can be recognized as a masterpiece.

But not only is a man praying, he can also tremble, rejecting faith in the seeming evidence of world atheism. Perseverance in faith is not enough at times.

High doubts, available to sincere seekers of truth, are always accompanied by littering noise of those who, in understanding being, are not able to rise above the level of ordinary consciousness. Solzhenitsyn does not ignore them either, citing excerpts from "free newspapers" as a conscientious historian.

However, these are all accompanying circumstances, but how does the author think of the role of Orthodoxy itself in Russia, the features of the existence of the Church? He also speaks about this briefly and bluntly (outwardly dressed his thoughts in the inner thoughts of Father Severyan, but this is only a conditional device):

“Let her not just accept Christianity - she fell in love with him with her heart, she was disposed towards him with her soul, she poured out all her best to him. I took it for general protection, I replaced every other counting calendar, the whole plan of my working life, with its personal calendar, I gave the best places of my surroundings to its temples, to its services - my forerunners, to its posts - my endurance, to its holidays - my leisure, to its wanderers - your shelter and bread.

But Orthodoxy, like any other faith, must disperse from time to time: imperfect people cannot preserve the unearthly without distortion, and even for thousands of years. Our ability to interpret ancient words is both lost and renewed, and so we split into new ruins. And also the robes of the church organization are ossifying - like any woven by hands, not keeping up with the living fabric. Our Church, exhausted in the devastating and harmful battle against the Old Believers - against itself, collapsed blindly under the hand of the state and in this collapsed position began majestically to petrify.

There is a mighty Orthodox power that everyone can see, from the outside - it amazes with a fortress. And the churches are filled on holidays, and the deacon's basses rumble, and the choirs ascend heavenly. And the former fortress is gone."

And further on, the writer correctly names many church disorganizations. But again, it seems that he does not quite distinguish between the Church and the church organization. Because it was the Church that kept the unearthly for thousands of years without distortion. The same Church that did not “renew” the foundations of the faith and did not interpret it wisely is the Orthodox Church. In this Church there is not and cannot be discord. And among people, even if they are hierarchs, anything can happen.

And another question: what then is Russia? Is it just a tribal mass living on a vast territory, and perhaps not organized through a certain external form, a state structure?

"They need - great upheavals, we need - great Russia!" - this Stolypin phrase, which seems to be accepted by the author inseparably, presupposes, among other things, the power of the state. And if Russia is a pity, then it is because its state foundation is being corroded, that the state is being destroyed primarily by the servants of this state themselves: thoughtlessly, or selfishly, or with malicious intent. BUT great Russia- it is also "full of proud confidence peace." So it was those who undermined the state foundation who contributed to the war. Paradox?

The writer notes what is still not redundant, fed by liberal ideas: defamation of the very love for the motherland. "Indeed, it was difficult for the ear to get used to distinguishing "patriot" from "Black Hundreds", they had always meant the same thing before.

pity Russia...

One of the most memorable images of the epic "Red Wheel" is the cry for Russia, made by an unknown gray-haired grandfather dressed all in white - not just a saint? - inconsolable sobbing about what "even the heart does not contain" (Knot III, ch. 69).

pity Russia...

The question of the state system is not the last one in reflections on the fate of Russia.

The comprehension of the monarchical idea still disturbs the consciousness of the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn relies on the ideas of I.A. Ilyin, perhaps, the pinnacle of monarchist ideology - trusting Professor Andozerskaya to retell them. First, the special nature of the monarchy, the handing over of power from above, is highlighted, so that the true monarch becomes not a ruler, but bearing the burden of power, which he cannot refuse. A monarch cannot become a tyrant either, because he is responsible to the Supreme Power, which the tyrant does not know.

What is higher - given from God or coming from imperfect human understanding? This is the essence of the dispute about the mode of government.

The monarchy reflects the hierarchy of values ​​established from above (not always perfectly - yes), the republic - a mechanical equality, meaningless in truth.

Solzhenitsyn shares in the royal passion-bearer Nicholas II, the bearer of supreme power, the monarch and the man. The writer does not miss many royal blunders, but he also claims: "Only the ridiculed and slandered tsar went through the whole dregs of the revolution without a single ignoble or unregal gesture." Still, the bitter conclusion is: "The monarchy did not fall because a revolution took place, but the revolution happened because the monarchy was infinitely weakened."

But how much effort was made to weaken it! Crowds of perpetrators of evil deeds pass through the space of the epic: from high dignitaries, military leaders, political leaders to large and small demons of revolutionary ruin. Some mindlessly, only worrying about their own selfishness, destroyed Russia, others - realizing the meaning of what they were doing.

The incompetent leadership, civil and military, who knew nothing and had little understanding of the business they had taken on, gave rise to that atmosphere of lack of will and instability, in which all the liberal and revolutionary vile felt especially at ease.

The freedom of base passions more and more overwhelmed being. Beginning in 1905, the left unleashed unprecedented terror. And until now, the progressive public is not ashamed to blame the government, exalting ordinary criminals, giving them a noble appearance. The verdict of this abomination is the words of Solzhenitsyn:

"Just numbers, gentlemen! For the first year of the Russian freedom, counting from the day of the Manifesto, 7 thousand people were killed, 10 thousand were injured. Of these, less than one-tenth were executed, and government officials were killed twice more. Whose terror was it?…"

Solzhenitsyn clearly shows that in this revolutionary atheism, freedom can be broadly interpreted to please anyone's self-interest. The desires of the same criminals whose participation in the revolution was predicted by Dostoevsky.

Among others, the figure of Lenin is especially interesting. The most important thing in Lenin is shown in the epic: his complete ignorance of any moral principles. For him, it is moral that is beneficial. This, in the living fabric of artistic narration, becomes especially visibly disgusting. Lenin is revealed by the author as a politician, limited in the general comprehension of events, in the very scope of being, but too tenacious in those particulars that give temporary (on a general historical scale) and undoubted success. He could not guess the general, but in the murk created by all the revolutionary rubbish, he instantly got his bearings. The worst thing is that "Lenin led his every thought straight to the death of Russia." That's what's scary: he doesn't feel sorry for Russia at all.

The very methods of Bolshevik rally propaganda, behind which one feels the leader's hard mind, are distinguished by savage morality.

Solzhenitsyn did not fail to show that in all this rubbish the idea of ​​their own "religious", allegedly spiritual understanding of what was taking place was ripening. The essence of this “spirituality” was revealed truly and symbolically in the ringing of bells that rang out over Moscow at the beginning of all disasters: “Yes, the Kremlin rang. Many bells. And, as always, Ivan stood out among them.

During the sixty years of his life in Moscow and at one point - hasn't Varsanofiev heard enough of both bells and bells and whistles? But this one was - not only not a predetermined one, not explained by the church calendar - on the morning of Friday in the third week of Lent - he was like a slacker among decent people, like a drunkard among sober ones. There were many, and stupid, and hectic, and flimsy blows - but without any harmony, without absurdity, without skill. These were blows - not ringers.

That's breathless. That is through measure. That is sluggish and completely silent.

These were blows - as if the Tatars climbed the Russian bell towers and, well, to pull ...

As if in mockery ... the swashbuckling revolutionary ringing laughed.

pity Russia...

Because many only dreamed of how to break it. Continuing the old nihilistic encroachments, that old nonsense, even the ensign of the Russian army ruthlessly cuts in response to the timid remark that Russia needs workers, workers: "More to finish building this infamy! You need to break it without regret! Open the way to the light!" They also glimpsed the light in that darkness that was approaching.

We now know how answered then historical time for all the most important questions. But questions remain because topics time is not the end of history. swept wheel, but Russia survived.

Did you survive?

Questions remain and require an answer: to which fork in a hurry? under which stone are you preparing to lay yourself?

Does Solzhenitsyn's epic help answer these questions? It certainly helps if you think about what is written.

Is this book for our hurrying time?

It is required to slowly enter into it, as into deep water, and stay in it for a long time. And we are already accustomed to the fast fussy shallow water ...

He painted The Red Wheel as an artist and as a researcher. For the artist, the accuracy and capacity of images are important, when particulars can be discarded for the sake of the wholeness of the general; the researcher needs the completeness of the acquired material, when no particularity is superfluous. These two principles cannot but conflict. But if in the "Archipelago" they were established in harmony, then in the "Wheel" the researcher often overcame - he overloaded the space with those details that the artist should get rid of.

Let's take a look at why this happened. Solzhenitsyn, exercising his powerful talent in creativity, nevertheless remained within the framework of the old realism, which did not provide genuine opportunities for the development of the artistic system. Therefore, with all the external novelty of his aesthetic techniques, Solzhenitsyn complicated the structure and content of the narrative quantitatively, but not qualitatively. And it affected the result.

After the aesthetic discoveries of Chekhov (and before that Pushkin in "Boris Godunov" and Dostoevsky in "The Brothers Karamazov"), with his multi-level capacious and laconic reflection of being, after Shmelev's creative search (in "The Ways of Heaven"), the system of a measured and burdened with details of a linear one-dimensional (for all the structural volume) the narrative seems outdated.

And there is one more thing that leaves some dissatisfaction after reading the epic. That much that is truly wise and deep cannot be grasped in it, and the questions are posed only correctly. And there doesn't seem to be a single correct answer.

To understand this, it is necessary to cover the whole system of views of the writer.

Solzhenitsyn is excessively strong when he reveals the true nature of Bolshevism or Western liberalism (and ours is derived from that), he is insightful in specific observations on the post-Soviet time and in advice on how to get rid of many of the vices of modern reality. But what is his main sorrow? About the time. This is important, but not enough for a writer of this magnitude.

The most important question for every Russian person, although he was not always aware of it, is Russian same and question. Solzhenitsyn could not get around it, writing a work, and designated: "Russian Question" by the end of the 20th century(M., 1995). The writer gives an extensive digression into history. With something in it you can agree, something to discuss further. But this is not the main thing. More importantly, at what level he is aware of that question. He thinks the problem in terms of first of all geopolitical, then cultural-national, also ecological, does not ignore Orthodoxy, but sees in it (at least by the total volume of the text, which is very insignificant, which is devoted to this topic, one can judge that) only one of the features of folk life, almost equal among others - and this is, after all, the pivotal beginning of Russian life.

Myself Russian question Solzhenitsyn interprets as a question savings of the people. But this cannot be the ultimate goal of understanding the question. For there is, of course, a possible bewilderment: for what that Saving? The question remains open.

Solzhenitsyn talks a lot (and not only in the above-mentioned work) about the need to strengthen the Russian statehood and save the Russian people, but nowhere does he answer the question: why?

That is, he can say that the answer is conceived within the framework of his own (deep and just) conviction: the nation is the wealth of mankind: with the loss of any national principle, humanity will inevitably become poorer. Why, humanity has already done so much for its impoverishment that it will not worry about a new loss. And the question will sound again and again, as in those poems of Altauzen about the saviors of the fatherland: was it worth saving?

If a question is raised by someone, then no matter how disgusting it may be to our consciousness, our soul, it begins to exist and requires an answer. And if the Russians, in justified indignation, turn away from him, considering it blasphemy, then they will be found - they have been for a long time! - those who dare to answer in Russian silence in a completely Smerdyakovian way. And the enemies of Russia will pick up many voices, so that all attempts to object will immediately get bogged down in the surrounding ora.

Why is it necessary to save Russia? After all, the existence of the Russian principle prevents humanity from moving along the path of material progress and civilization. (And the one who thinks so will be right.) Because the Russian principle (our literature confirms this) is focused on the acquisition treasures in the sky not material progress. The Russian beginning is aimed at eternity, not time. Because it is Orthodox. (Dostoevsky once said correctly: whoever ceases to be Orthodox loses the right to be called Russian.) Here everything is so closely interconnected. The Russian principle, however, does not stand in the way of progress, but calls: first, let's think about the heavenly, and the earthly things will follow. For godless mankind, this is simply ridiculous, and therefore the Russian principle only hinders it. Why save these people?

The problem can be solved only in one case: if you combine the national idea with a supra-national, supra-national goal, constantly remembering the truth expressed by Dostoevsky: the truth (of Christ) is higher than Russia.

Solzhenitsyn constantly calls do not live by lies. He writes even now: "We must build Russia moral Or none, then it doesn't matter. All good seeds, which in Russia have not yet been trampled down miraculously, we must protect and grow.

What for? In general, high morality (the writer himself convincingly showed that) often, if not always, interferes with material well-being. Yes, every person can feel it. The ideal of consumerism is now being imposed on us, and for it morality is only a hindrance.

All questions can be dispelled by realizing: if you do not want your own death in eternity, then do not pursue exclusively earthly things - this is what God Himself says. But in order to realize it, you need to have faith.

Everything will collapse without faith. Here the writer claims, almost as the highest formula of the moral law, expressed by the janitor Spiridon: "The wolfhound is right, but the ogre is wrong." Yes, here is the exact division of the laws of the animal world and the human world. But how not to make a mistake: where wolfhound, where cannibal. Of course, with such characters as Lenin, Stalin, Abakumov or Lieutenant Volkova, there is no doubt ... but what about Vasya Zotov? He's sincere, pure, perfect in a sense. He will probably accept Spiridon's law let it not figure out where someone is. And he himself will go to the cannibals (and went) with a clear conscience. Conscience without God will come to the most terrible.

Shulubin in "Cancer Ward" appeals to some inner feeling (remembering Fyodor Ioannovich from the tragedy of A.K. Tolstoy) that helps to distinguish good from evil, truth from lies. An unreliable criterion: many were sincerely mistaken (having no faith, what kind of character of the tragedy carried in himself, the main thing should not be missed).

This means that in order to establish morality, it is necessary to strengthen faith. This is why the Russian beginning is necessary: ​​it carries faith in itself (and whoever does not carry it is not Russian). Faith and the Church are therefore primary in any scenario.

Solzhenitsyn writes differently: The Church thinks as an auxiliary means for strengthening morality. He asks: “Will the Orthodox Church help us? During the years of communism, it has been destroyed more than anyone else. And yet, it has been internally undermined by its three centuries of obedience to state power, it has lost momentum for strong public actions. And now, with the active expansion of foreign confessions into Russia, under the “principle equal opportunities" for them with the poverty of the Russian Church, there is a general ousting of Orthodoxy from Russian life. However, a new explosion of materialism, this time "capitalist", threatens all religions in general."

From the book Sacred Nativity author Taxil Leo

ALEXANDER THE THIRD. After the death of Adrian IV, Cardinal Rolando Bandinelli was elected pope - the same cardinal who, being a papal legate, at one of the diets was almost killed by a German nobleman for arrogant words spoken in anger to Frederick: “From whom

From the book First Prayer (collection of stories) author Shipov Yaroslav Alekseevich

From the book Bibliological Dictionary the author Men Alexander

Alexander We met him at a celebration that happened because of the sixtieth birthday of a local harmonica player. This Igrun was known in the region, and therefore they arranged a big holiday, to which other famous virtuosos of three-row and balalaikas came, and after them - St. Petersburg

Blavo Ruchel

A. I. Solzhenitsyn. Easter procession In the work of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn (born in 1918) there is often an appeal to Christian morality, to biblical motifs. In one of his most famous and talented works, the story "Matryona Dvor" (written in

From the book The Most Famous Saints and Wonderworkers of Russia author Karpov Alexey Yurievich

Seraphim and Alexander When I heard the story of grandfather Vakhramey about the Keeper of the secrets of the Kurumchi blacksmiths, I immediately felt something that had not been in my life for a very long time, but without which this very life of mine would be hopelessly empty and cold. I felt

From the book Lessons of History author Begichev Pavel Alexandrovich

ALEXANDER NEVSKY (d. 1263) Prince Alexander Nevsky, one of the greatest heroes of ancient Russia, was born in the city of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky on May 30, 1220. He was the second son of Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Pereyaslavl, the future Grand Duke of Vladimir. Alexander's mother

From the book "Paradise Farms" and other stories author Shipov Yaroslav Alekseevich

From the book Saints and Vicious author Wojciechowski Zbigniew

Alexander We met him at a celebration that happened because of the sixtieth birthday of a local harmonica player. This player was known in the region, and therefore they arranged a big holiday, to which other famous virtuosos of three-row and balalaikas came, and after them - St. Petersburg

From the book And there was morning ... Memories of Father Alexander Men author Team of authors

Alexander Nevsky Alexander Yaroslavich, named by the people of Nevsky, Prince of Novgorod, Grand Duke of Kyiv and Vladimir, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint ... He was born on May 30, 1221 in Pereslavl-Zalessky. His father, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, "prince

From the book Guide to the Bible author Asimov Isaac

Father Alexander, Alexander Vladimirovich, Sasha. (V. Feinberg) Dear father Alexander, Alexander Vladimirovich, Sasha, What happened on September 9, 1990, my soul cannot contain. No reason, not even a grave in the corner of the churchyard - nothing can make you get used to it.

From the book Encyclopedia of Classical Greco-Roman Mythology author Obnorsky V.

Alexander The twenty-year-old son of Philip, who ruled as Alexander III, ascended the throne. However, due to his amazing career, he is known throughout the world as Alexander the Great or Alexander the Great. Alexander began by restoring his father's power, suppressing

From the book HISTORICAL DICTIONARY ABOUT THE SAINTS GLORED IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH author Team of authors

Alexander Epifan Perhaps the situation was unstable, and it did not last long. After Demetrius I Soter, of relatively little ability, ruled for ten years, dynastic quarrels again threw the Seleucid monarchy into chaos: 1 Mac 10:1.

From the author's book

Alexander - 1) the name of Paris ("reflecting husbands"), when he lived with the shepherds and did not know about his origin. - 2) the son of Eurystheus, king of Mycenae, and Amynto. Brother of Ifhimedon, Eurybius, Mentor, Perimedes and Admeta; died in battle with

From the author's book

ALEXANDER NEVSKY saint, noble grand duke, son of Yaroslav II; was born on May 30, 1220. In 1236, he received the princedom of Novogorod as an inheritance, and knew how to win the love and commitment of citizens. The victory he won in 1241, July 15, over the Swedes, on the banks of the Neva, near the mouth of the Izhora,

Dealed a powerful blow to the communist ideology, says the head of the Synodal Department of the Russian Orthodox Church for interaction with the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies, Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov. “The way Solzhenitsyn managed to capture and show our tragedy made a powerful impression both on Russia and on the whole world. It was the strongest blow to the communist religion. But, unfortunately, now he is better known in the West than in Russia, especially among the common people. But this is a real classic of Russian literature, appealing to truth and justice, who has become the personified conscience of the nation, ”said Father Dimitri in an interview with the Regions.ru website.

“Its importance in world culture will only increase. Like no one else, he gave a comprehensive and profound assessment of the Soviet era. In this sense, both the Gulag Archipelago and the Red Wheel have dotted the i's," the priest believes. “My acquaintance with his work began in my school years - “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “Cancer Ward”. As a student, I read The Gulag Archipelago, and it was not only an aesthetic shock, but this book had an important influence on the choice of my path in life,” Father Dimitry concluded.

In the opinion of Archpriest Boris Mikhailov, rector of the Church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos in Fili, the significance of AI Solzhenitsyn "stretches much further than what we conditionally call culture." “It generally goes beyond certain areas of activity. The Lord Himself gave him strength for prophetic and convicting ministry. God sent to our country and our people in the age of the greatest catastrophe sent two great people - Solzhenitsyn as a prophet and Sakharov as a holy fool, so that they denounced the untruth of our entire Soviet life, ”the priest believes.

“Solzhenitsyn was able to feel and express the nationwide tragedy. His life - or rather, life - became a bold response to the Russian history of the twentieth century. The Lord blessed him: having led him through all the difficult life trials, he gave him the opportunity to creatively comprehend and portray this story. I'm talking not only about the "Archipelago", but also about the "Red Wheel", - Father Boris explained.

“My first book by Solzhenitsyn was published under Khrushchev, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. I was very impressed. And the Gulag Archipelago made a real revolution in my soul. I still remember the first Paris edition - the one that for many has become a real shrine, because those groans and tears of millions of people, all that untruth and challenge to heaven, in which the communists and their entire system are guilty - all this was discovered by Solzhenitsyn and became known to people,” said Archpriest Boris Mikhailov.

And according to the rector of the Church of the All-Merciful Savior of the former Sorrowful Monastery on Novoslobodskaya Archpriest Alexander Ilyashenko, the name of Solzhenitsyn is forever inscribed in the history of Russian culture and Russian society. “He was not afraid to tell the truth about the terrible repressions and hardships that our people endured,” the priest said. “When I was 14, I read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which had just been published then. And for me, and for many people then, this work was like a bolt from the blue. And "In the First Circle", and "Cancer Ward", and, of course, "The Gulag Archipelago" - these are works of high artistic merit, and high journalistic sound. In them, Solzhenitsyn was not afraid to oppose the entire totalitarian system,” the pastor noted. “In the personality of Alexander Isaevich, it is this unity of literary talent and the courage of a citizen and patriot that is very important,” Father Alexander noted.

We are publishing an interview with the writer given a year ago to the German publication 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 your age of 88, you seem to have a feeling that you must, must work, although your health does not allow you to move freely around the house. Where do you draw this strength from?

Solzhenitsyn: There was an internal spring. Was from birth. But I enjoyed my work. Work and struggle.

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

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

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

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, it seemed: as it ends, so it will end. What will be will be. And then it turned out, like something worthwhile came out.

SPIEGEL: But it is unlikely that you thought so when in February 1945 the military counterintelligence in East Prussia arrested Captain Solzhenitsyn. Because in his letters from the front there were unflattering statements about Joseph Stalin. And for this - eight years in the camps.

Solzhenitsyn: It was south of Wormditt. We just got out of the German pocket and broke through to Königsberg. Then I was arrested. But I have 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 was doing 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, the predecessor of which so cruelly persecuted and hounded you. How does it all rhyme?

Solzhenitsyn: In 1990, I was offered - by no means 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 personally take credit for a book written with the blood of millions.

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

The current State Prize is awarded not personally by the president, but by a high expert community. The Council for Science, which nominated me for this award, and the Council for Culture, which supported this nomination, include the most authoritative in their fields, highly respected people of the country. 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, the study and description of which I devoted my whole life to, will warn us from new disastrous breakdowns.

Vladimir Putin - yes, he 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, however, are not condemned in any country, and even praised. George W. Bush Sr. was not reproached for his past position as head of the CIA.

SPIEGEL: All your life you called the authorities to repentance for the millions of victims of the Gulag and communist terror. Has your call been truly heard?

Solzhenitsyn: I have already got used 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 biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. He says it's time to end the Samoyed digging into the past, especially since attempts are being made from outside to arouse an unfounded sense of guilt in Russians. Isn't this aiding those who already want to forget everything that happened during the time of the Soviets inside the country?

Solzhenitsyn: Well, you can see that anxiety is growing everywhere in 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 world role.

As for “digging into the past”, then, alas, the very identification of “Soviet” with “Russian”, which I opposed so often back in the 1970s, has not been outlived today either in the West or in the countries of the former socialist camp, nor in the former republics of the USSR. The old generation of politicians in the communist countries turned out to be not ready for repentance, 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. As if they heroically liberated themselves and are now living a new life, while Moscow has remained communist.

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

SPIEGEL: Including Russians.

Solzhenitsyn: If we all could 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 evils in the historical path of Russia. It is never necessary to blame the Russian people and its state for the personal atrocities of individual leaders or political regimes, or to attribute them to the “sick psychology” of the Russian people, as is often done in the West. These regimes were able to hold on 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 nation's recovery. While incessant reproaches from the outside are rather counterproductive.

SPIEGEL: An admission of guilt requires a sufficient amount of information about one's own past. Historians, however, reproach Moscow for the fact that the archives are no longer as accessible as they were in the 1990s.

Solzhenitsyn: The question is not easy. However, the fact is indisputable that over the past 20 years an archival revolution has taken place 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 the public. But in addition to the open ones, in the 90s many documents were published that did not pass the declassification procedure. For example, the military historian Dmitry Volkogonov, the former member of the Politburo Alexander Yakovlev acted in this way - people who had considerable influence and access to any archives - and society is grateful to them for valuable publications. And in recent years, indeed, no one else has been able to bypass the declassification procedure. This procedure is going on - more slowly than we would like.

Nevertheless, the materials contained in the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF), the country's main and richest archive, remain as accessible today as they were in the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the FSB transferred 100,000 forensic and investigative cases to the GARF - and they are still open to both private citizens and researchers. In 2004-2005, the 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 of all countries.

SPIEGEL: Almost 90 years have passed since Russia was shaken 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 product of the former 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 got into Russia and managed to seize power only with the assistance of the Germans. Do we understand you correctly?

Solzhenitsyn: No, it's not true. Turning a possibility into reality is only possible for extraordinary individuals. Lenin and Trotsky were the most dexterous, energetic figures who managed in time to exploit the helplessness of the Kerensky government. But I will correct you: the “October Revolution” is a myth created by the victorious Bolshevism and fully assimilated 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 the court for treason). What is called the “Russian Revolution of 1917” is the February Revolution. Its driving causes - indeed flowed from the pre-revolutionary state of Russia, and I never claimed otherwise. The February Revolution had deep roots (which I show in my epic “Red Wheel”). This, first of all, is a long mutual exasperation of an educated society and government, which made it impossible to make any compromises, any constructive state solutions. And the greatest responsibility - of course, lies with the authorities: for the wreck of the ship - who is responsible more than the captain? Yes, the prerequisites 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 that Emperor Wilhelm's financial contribution was insignificant. There was nothing organic for Russia in the October Revolution - on the contrary, it broke its back. 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 200 Years Together, you recently made an attempt to overcome the taboo that for many years forbade discussion of 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 front ranks of the destroyers of the bourgeois system. Is it really the conclusion drawn from your richest sources that the Jews, more than others, are morally responsible for the failed experiment with the Soviets?

Solzhenitsyn: I just do not do 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 to self-understanding. In the book itself you can get the answer to your question:

“... Every nation has to be morally responsible for all its past - and for the one that is shameful. And how to answer? An attempt to comprehend - why this was allowed? what is our mistake here? and is it possible again? In this spirit, the Jewish people should be held accountable both for their revolutionary cutthroats and for the ready-made ranks that went to serve them. Do not answer to other peoples, but to yourself and to your consciousness, to God. “Just like we Russians, we must be responsible for the pogroms, and for those merciless peasant arsonists, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, and for the sailor animals.”

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 - not the author should give such assessments.

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

Solzhenitsyn: It seems that they are starting to extract. A huge number of publications and films about Russian history of the twentieth century (albeit of uneven quality) testify to the growing demand. Just now - the terrible, cruel, not at all softened truth about the Stalinist 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 vehemence, scope and duration of the discussion that arose after the publication in February of this year of my old article on the February Revolution. A wide range of opinions, including those who disagree with mine, pleases me, 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. 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 towards the country. It was not power, but its thoughtless capitulation. Reciprocal enthusiasm from the West only reinforced the picture. But it must be admitted 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 power was characterized by no less irresponsibility before 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 treasures in Russia. In an effort to get the support of regional leaders, he supported and encouraged separatism and the collapse of the Russian state with direct appeals and actions. At the same time, depriving Russia of the historical role it deserves, its international position. That caused no less applause from the West.

Solzhenitsyn: Putin inherited a country plundered and knocked down, with a demoralized and impoverished majority of the people. And he set about the possible - let's note, gradual, slow - restoration of it. These efforts were not immediately noticed and, moreover, appreciated. And can you point to examples in history when measures to restore the fortress of state administration met favorably from outside?

SPIEGEL: The fact that a stable Russia is beneficial to the West has gradually become clear to everyone. But one circumstance surprises us most of all. Every time when it came to the right state structure for Russia, you advocated civil self-government, opposing this model to Western democracy. After seven years of Putin's rule, we are seeing a movement in a 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 continue to insist on the need for local self-government in Russia, while not at all “opposing this model to 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 are confusing local self-government, which is possible only at the lowest level, where people personally know the rulers they elect, with the regional authorities of several dozen governors, who in the Yeltsin period, together with the center, unanimously crushed any beginnings of local self-government.

Even today I am very depressed by the slowness and ineptness with which we are building local self-government. But it still happens, and if in the Yeltsin era the possibilities of local self-government were actually blocked at the legislative level, now the 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? - undoubtedly needed and desired by all who want the country to develop healthy. Now, as under Yeltsin, only the Communists are in opposition. However, when you say “there is almost no opposition left” - of course you mean the democratic parties of the 1990s? But take an unbiased look: if all the 1990s there was a sharp drop in living standards that affected three-quarters of Russian families, and all under the “democratic banners,” then it is not surprising that the population receded from under these banners. And now the leaders of those parties - still can not share the portfolios of an imaginary shadow government.

Unfortunately, there is no constructive, clear and numerous opposition in Russia yet. It is obvious that its formation, as well as 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, while representatives of political parties occupied a dominant position. After the reform of the electoral system carried out by Putin, there were no direct mandates at all. It's a step back!

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I consider this a mistake. I am a staunch and consistent critic of “party parliamentarism” and a supporter of the non-party nature of electing genuine people's representatives who are personally responsible to their regions and districts and who, if their performance is unsatisfactory, may be recalled from their deputy posts. I respect, I understand the essence of economic, cooperative, territorial, educational, educational, professional, industrial associations - but I don’t see organicity in political parties: political connections may not be stable, and often not disinterested. Leon Trotsky (during the period of the October Revolution) aptly put it: "The party that does not set itself the goal of seizing power is worth nothing." Speech - about the benefits for themselves, at the expense of the rest of the population. Like the seizure of power unarmed. Voting according to faceless party programs, names of parties - falsely replaces the only reliable choice of the people's representative: a nominal candidate - a nominal voter. (This is the whole point of “representation of the people”.)

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

Solzhenitsyn: I consider the gap between the poor and the rich in Russia to be a most dangerous phenomenon that requires the urgent attention of the state. But, although many fabulous fortunes were created during the Yeltsin period by shameless robbery, today the only reasonable way to remedy the situation is not to destroy large enterprises, which, admittedly, the current owners are trying to manage more efficiently, but to give medium and small ones the opportunity to breathe. And that means - to protect the citizen and small entrepreneur from arbitrariness, from corruption. To invest the proceeds from the people's bowels in the national economy, in education, in health care - and learn how to do this without shameful thefts and embezzlement.

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 is a once popular idea, a vision of the desired way of life in the country, which owns its population. Such a unifying view of the concept may also be useful, but it should never be artificially invented at the top of power or introduced by force. In foreseeable 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 down with the objection that, after all the debilitating losses we have experienced, the task of Preserving a perishing people is enough for us for a long time.

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

Solzhenitsyn: There are several reasons, but I'm most interested in the psychological ones, namely: the divergence of illusory hopes - both in Russia and in the West - with reality.

When I returned to Russia in 1994, I found here almost the deification of the Western world and the political system of its various countries. It must be admitted that this was not so much real knowledge and conscious choice as a natural disgust with 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 strata of Russian society. Then the situation was aggravated by NATO's steps to draw parts of the disintegrated USSR into its sphere, and especially sensitively - Ukraine, so related to us through millions of living concrete family ties. They can be cut overnight by the new border of the military bloc.

So, the perception of the West as, for the most part, the Knight of Democracy has been replaced by a disappointed statement that pragmatism, often self-serving and cynical, lies at the heart of Western politics. Many in Russia experienced this hard, as the collapse of ideals.

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

SPIEGEL: He had 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 cunning?) that in Russia there is a young democracy, when it did not exist at all. Of course, Russia is not yet a democratic country, it is just beginning to build democracy, and nothing is easier than to show her a long list of omissions, and violations, and delusions. But hasn't Russia extended its hand to the West, clearly and unambiguously, in the struggle that began and continues after September 11? And only psychological inadequacy (or failed short-sightedness?) can explain the irrational repulsion of this hand. The United States, having accepted our most important assistance in Afghanistan, immediately turned to Russia only with new and new demands. And Europe's claims to Russia are almost undisguisedly rooted in its energy fears, moreover unfounded.

Isn't this repulsion 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 clearly in the 21st century and a time when the United States, together with Europe, is still strongly forced to 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 of Germany and Russia - otherwise it would not have survived two crazy world wars.

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

Solzhenitsyn: Schiller and Goethe accompanied my childhood and youthful development. Later I experienced a passion for Schelling. And the great German music is precious to me. I cannot imagine my life without Bach, Beethoven, Schubert.

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

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

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

SPIEGEL: The idea of ​​the influence of Orthodoxy on the Russian world runs through all your work. How is the moral competence of the Russian Orthodox Church today? It seems to us that it is again turning into a state church, which 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 total subordination of the Church to the communist state, she managed to acquire a fairly independent position. Do not forget what terrible human losses the Russian Orthodox Church suffered for almost the entire 20th century. She is just getting back on her feet. And the young post-Soviet state is only 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 lately, Metropolitan Kirill, the most prominent spokesman for the church's position, has been persistently calling, for example, to change the taxation system, far from being in unison with the government, and he is doing it publicly, on central television channels.

“Legitimation of the Kremlin ruler”? You obviously mean the funeral of Yeltsin in the cathedral and the rejection of the civil farewell ceremony?

SPIEGEL: And this too.

Solzhenitsyn: Well, this was probably the only way to contain, to avoid possible manifestations of the still not cooled down popular anger during the funeral. But I see no reason to consider this as a protocol for the funeral of Russian presidents approved for the future.

And as for the past, the Church offers around-the-clock prayers for the dead for the victims of communist executions in Butovo near Moscow, on Solovki and in other places of mass graves.

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

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

SPIEGEL: Are you afraid of death?

Solzhenitsyn: No, I have not felt any fear of death for a long time. In my youth, the early death of my father hovered over me (at the age of 27) - and I was afraid to die before I realized my literary plans. But already between my 30s and 40s, I found the most relaxed 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 years of creative life!

Solzhenitsyn: No no. No need. Enough.

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