More than 85 years ago, Russia, the former Russian Empire, lay in ruins. The 300-year reign of the Romanov dynasty ended in February, and in October the bourgeois-liberal Provisional Government said goodbye to the levers of control. Throughout the entire territory of the huge, once great power, which had been gathering inch by inch since the time of the Moscow principality of Ivan Kalita, the Civil War was blazing. From the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, from the White Sea to the Caucasus Mountains and the Orenburg steppes, bloody battles took place, and, it seems, except for a handful of provinces of Central Russia, there was not a volost or district where various authorities of all shades and ideological backgrounds did not replace each other several times. colors
What is any civil war? It is usually defined as an armed struggle for power between representatives of different classes and social groups. In other words, it's a fight inside countries, inside people, nation, often between fellow countrymen, neighbors, recent colleagues or friends, even close relatives. This is a tragedy that leaves a long-lasting wound in the heart of the nation and fractures in its soul.
How did this dramatic confrontation proceed in Russia? What were the features our A civil war in addition to its unprecedented geographical, spatial scope?
You can learn, see, and feel the whole palette of colors, thoughts, and feelings of the Civil War era by studying archival documents and memories of contemporaries. Also, answers to piercing questions can be found in works of literature and art from that time of fire, which are testimony before the court of History. And there are many such works, because a revolution is too huge an event in its scale not to be reflected in literature. And only a few writers and poets who came under her influence did not touch upon this topic in their work.
One of the best monuments of any era, as I have already said, is the bright and talented works of fiction. So it is with Russian literature about the Civil War. The works of those poets and writers who went through the crucible of the Great Russian Troubles are very interesting. Some of them fought “for the happiness of all workers,” others “for a united and indivisible Russia.” Some made a clear moral choice for themselves, while others were only indirectly involved in the actions of one of the opposing camps. And others even tried to get up above the fray. But each of them is a personality, a phenomenon in Russian literature, a talent, sometimes undeservedly forgotten.
For many decades we have viewed our history in two colors, black and white. Black are all enemies - Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and others like them, white are our heroes - Voroshilov, Budyonny, Chapaev, Furmanov and others. Halftones were not recognized. If we were talking about the civil war, then the atrocities of the Whites, the nobility of the Reds and, as an exception that confirms the rule, the “green” who accidentally slipped between them - Old Man Makhno, who is “neither ours nor yours.”
But now we know how complex and confusing this whole process actually was in the early 20s of the 20th century, the process of selecting human material, we know that it is impossible to approach the assessment of those events and literary works in black and white. dedicated to them. After all, historians are now inclined to consider even the civil war itself to have begun not in the summer of 1918, but on October 25, 1917, when the Bolsheviks carried out a military coup and overthrew the legitimate Provisional Government.
Assessments of the Civil War are very dissimilar and contradictory, starting with its chronological framework. Some researchers dated it to 1918-1920, which, apparently, cannot be considered fair (we can only talk about the war in European Russia). The most accurate dating is 1917-1922.
The civil war began, without exaggeration, “the day after” the Bolshevik Party seized power during the October Revolution.
I was interested in this topic, its embodiment in the literature of that time. I wanted to get acquainted in more detail with various assessments of the events taking place, to find out the point of view of writers standing on different sides of the barricades, who assessed the events of those years differently.
I set myself a goal -
get acquainted with some works about the civil war, analyze them and try to understand the ambiguity of this tragedy in our country;
consider it from different sides, from different points of view: from complete worship of the revolution ("Destruction" by Alexander Fadeev) to harsh criticism ("Russia, washed in blood" by Artyom Vesely);
to prove, using the example of literary works, that any war, in the words of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, is “an event contrary to human reason and all human nature.”
My interest in this topic arose after becoming acquainted with the journalistic notes of Alexei Maksimovich Gorky, “Untimely Thoughts,” which were previously inaccessible to the reader. The writer condemns the Bolsheviks for many things, expresses his disagreement and condemnation: “The new authorities are just as rude as the old ones. They yell and stamp their feet, and grab bribes, like the old bureaucrats grabbed, and people are driven into prisons in herds.”
Soviet readers also did not read “Cursed Days” by Ivan Alekseevich Bunin, who so called the time of revolution and civil war, “Letters to Lunacharsky” by Valentin Galaktionovich Korolenko and other previously banned works.
The Silver Age poet Igor Severyanin, who had not previously been included in school curricula, perceived the civil war and revolution as a fratricidal war (“why did they go against their brother, chopping and smashing...”), as the destruction of the “bright culture of their fatherland.”
Maximilian Voloshin sympathized with both the Whites and the Reds:
...And here and there between the rows
The same voice sounds:
He who is not for us is against us!
No one is indifferent! True, with us!
And I stand alone between them
In roaring flames and smoke.
And with all my strength
I pray for both.
More than eight decades have passed since the Civil War, but we are only now beginning to understand what a misfortune it was for all of Russia. Until recently, in literature, in the depiction of the Civil War, heroism came to the fore. The prevailing idea was: glory to the victors, shame to the vanquished. The heroes of the war were those who fought on the side of the Reds, on the side of the Bolsheviks. These are Chapaev ("Chapaev" by Dmitry Furmanov), Levinson ("Destruction" by Alexander Fadeev), Kozhukh ("Iron Stream" by Alexander Serafimovich) and other soldiers of the revolution.
However, there was other literature that sympathetically depicted those who stood up to defend Russia from the Bolshevik rebellion. This literature condemned violence, cruelty, and the “Red Terror.” But it is absolutely clear that such works were prohibited during the years of Soviet power.
Once the famous Russian singer Alexander Vertinsky sang a song about cadets. For this he was summoned to the Cheka and asked: “Are you on the side of the counter-revolution?” Vertinsky replied: “I feel sorry for them. Their lives could be useful to Russia. You can’t forbid me to feel sorry for them.”
“We will prohibit breathing if we find it necessary! We will manage without these bourgeois fosterlings.”
I got acquainted with different works about the civil war, both poetic and prosaic, and saw different approaches of the authors to what was depicted, different points of view on what was happening.
In this abstract I will analyze three works in more detail: Alexander Fadeev’s novel “Destruction,” Artyom Vesely’s unfinished novel “Russia, Washed in Blood,” and Boris Lavrenev’s story “The Forty-First.”
Alexander Fadeev's novel "Destruction" is one of the most striking works depicting the heroics of the civil war.
Fadeev himself spent his youth in the Far East. There he actively participated in the events of the Civil War, fighting in the red partisan detachments. The impressions of those years were reflected in the story “Against the Current” (1923), in the story “Spill” (1924), the novel “Destruction” (1927) and the unfinished epic “The Last of the Udege” (1929-1940). When Fadeev conceived the idea for the novel “Destruction,” the last battles were still raging on the Far Eastern outskirts of Russia. “The main outlines of this topic,” noted Fadeev, “appeared in my mind back in 1921 - 1922.”
The book was highly appreciated by readers and many writers. They wrote that “Destruction” “opens a truly new page in our literature”, that “the main types of our era” were found in it, classified the novel as one of the books that “gives a broad, truthful and talented picture of the civil war”, they emphasized that “Destruction” showed “what a great and serious force our literature has in Fadeev.” In Mayhem there is no character backstory leading up to the action. But in the story about the life and struggle of a partisan detachment for three months, the writer, without deviating from the main plot, includes significant details from the past lives of the heroes (Levinson, Morozka, Mechik, etc.), explaining the origins of their character and moral qualities.
There are about thirty characters in the novel (including episodic ones). This is unusually low for a work about the Civil War. This is explained by the fact that Fadeev’s focus is on the depiction of human characters. He loves to study an individual personality for a long time and carefully, observing her at different moments in public and private life.
War episodes in the novel are given little space. Their description is subject to an in-depth analysis of changes in the inner world of the participants in the struggle. The main event - the military defeat of a partisan detachment - begins to play a noticeable role in the fate of the heroes only from the middle of the work (Chapter 10 - “The Beginning of the Defeat”). The first half of the novel is a leisurely narrative about human destinies and characters, the life orientation of the heroes during the years of the revolution. The author then shows the battle as a test of the people. And during military operations, the writer pays attention primarily to the behavior and experiences of the participants in the battles. Where he was, what he was doing, what this or that hero was thinking about - these are the questions that concern Fadeev.
“A real person awakens at his best when faced with a great challenge.” This conviction of Fadeev determined his artistic technique - to complete the characterization of a person by depicting his behavior in that difficult situation, which requires the highest effort.
If we take the purely external shell of the development of events in the novel “Destruction,” then this is really the story of the defeat of Levinson’s partisan detachment, because A.A. Fadeev uses for his narration one of the most dramatic moments in the history of the partisan movement in the Far East, when the joint efforts of the White Guard and Japanese troops dealt heavy blows to the Primorye partisans.
By the end of the novel, a tragic situation develops: the partisan detachment finds itself surrounded by the enemy. The way out of this situation required great sacrifices. The novel ends with the death of the best people of the detachment. Only nineteen remained alive. But the spirit of the fighters is not broken. The novel affirms the idea of the invincibility of the people in a just war.
The system of images of "Destruction", taken as a whole, reflected the real correlation of the main social forces of our revolution. It was attended by the proletariat, peasants and intelligentsia, led by the Bolshevik Party. Accordingly, “Destruction” shows the “coal flame” at the forefront of the struggle, the peasants, the intellectual devoted to the people - the doctor Stashinsky, the Bolshevik - commander Levinson.
However, the heroes of the novel are not just “representatives” of certain social groups, but also unique individuals. The calm and reasonable Goncharenko, the hot-tempered and hasty Dubov in his judgments, the willful and enthusiastic Morozka, the submissive and compassionate Varya, the charming, combining the naivety of a young man and the courage of a fighter Baklanov, the brave and impetuous Metelitsa, the modest and strong-willed Levinson.
The images of Baklanov and Metelitsa, whose youth coincided with the revolution, open a portrait gallery of young heroes, so richly and poetically presented in Fadeev’s subsequent work, and especially in his novel “The Young Guard.”
Baklanov, who imitated the Bolshevik Levinson in everything, becomes a true hero during the struggle. Let us recall the lines preceding the episode of his heroic death: “... his naive, high-cheeked face, slightly leaning forward, waiting for an order, burned with that genuine and greatest of passions, in the name of which the best people from their detachment died.”
The former shepherd Metelitsa stood out in the partisan detachment for his exceptional courage. His courage admires those around him. In reconnaissance, in White Guard captivity, and during the brutal execution, Metelitsa showed a high example of fearlessness. The vitality surged through him in an inexhaustible spring. “This man could not sit still for a minute - he was all fire and movement, and his predatory eyes always burned with an insatiable desire to catch up with someone and fight.” Metelitsa is a hero-nugget, formed in the elements of working life. There were a lot of people like that. The revolution brought them out of obscurity and helped them fully reveal their wonderful human qualities and capabilities. The blizzard represents their destiny.
Each character in "Destruction" brings something of his own to the novel. But in accordance with the main theme of the work - the re-education of man in the revolution - the artist focused his attention, on the one hand, on the ideological leader of the detachment - the communist Levinson, and on the other - on a representative of the revolutionary masses in need of ideological re-education, which is Morozka. Fadeev also showed those people who accidentally found themselves in the camp of the revolution were incapable of a real revolutionary struggle (Mechik).
The particularly important role of Levinson, Morozka and Mechik in the development of the plot is emphasized by the fact that the author names them or mainly devotes many chapters of the novel to them.
With all the passion of the communist writer and revolutionary A.A. Fadeev sought to bring the bright time of communism closer. This humanistic belief in a beautiful person permeated the most difficult pictures and situations in which his heroes found themselves.
For Fadeev, a revolutionary is impossible without striving for a bright future, without faith in a new, beautiful, kind and pure person. The image of such a revolutionary is the commander of the partisan detachment Levinson.
This is one of the first realistically truthful types of communists in young Soviet prose who led the people's struggle on the fronts of the Civil War.
Levinson is called a man of “a special, correct breed.” Is it so? Nothing like this. He is a completely ordinary person, with weaknesses and shortcomings. Another thing is that he knows how to hide and suppress them. Levinson knows neither fear nor doubt? Does he always have unmistakably accurate solutions in stock? And that's not true. And he has doubts, and confusion, and painful mental discord. But he “did not share his thoughts and feelings with anyone, he presented ready-made “yes” and “no.” It is impossible without this. The partisans who entrusted their lives to him should not know about any discord and doubts of the commander...
The actions of the communist Levinson were guided by “a huge thirst, incomparable to any other desire, for a new, beautiful, strong and kind person.” He sought to cultivate such character traits in the people he led. Levinson is always with them, he is completely absorbed in everyday, everyday educational work, small and imperceptible at first glance, but great in its historical significance. Therefore, the scene of the public trial of the guilty Morozka is especially indicative. Having convened peasants and partisans to discuss Morozka’s offense, the commander told those gathered: “This is a common matter, as you decide, so it will be.” He said - and “went out like a wick, leaving the gathering in the dark to decide the matter on its own.” When the discussion of the issue took on a chaotic character, the speakers began to get confused in details and “nothing could be understood,” Levinson quietly but clearly said: “Let’s, comrades, take turns... We’ll talk at once - we won’t solve anything.”
Platoon commander Dubov, in his angry and passionate speech, demanded Morozka’s expulsion from the detachment. Levinson, appreciating the speaker’s noble outburst of indignation and at the same time wanting to warn him and all those present against excessive decisions, again quietly intervened in the discussion:
“Levinson grabbed the platoon commander by the sleeve from behind.
Dubov... Dubov... - he said calmly. - Move a little - you’re blocking people.
Dubov’s charge immediately disappeared, the platoon commander stopped short, blinking in confusion.”
Levinson's attitude towards the masses of workers and peasants is imbued with a sense of revolutionary humanism; he always acts as their teacher and friend. In the last chapter, when the detachment has gone through a path of difficult trials, we see Levinson tired, sick, and fallen into a state of temporary indifference to everything around him. And only “they were the only ones who were not indifferent, close to him, these exhausted, faithful people, closer than anything else, closer even to himself, because he never for a second ceased to feel that he owed something to them...”. This devotion to the “exhausted faithful people”, the feeling of one’s moral obligation to serve them, forcing one to go with the masses and at the head of them until the last breath, is the highest revolutionary humanity, the highest beauty of the civic spirit that distinguishes communists.
But two episodes of the novel cannot but be alarming, namely the confiscation of a pig from a Korean and the poisoning of Frolov. In this case, Levinson acts on the principle: “The end justifies the means.” In this regard, Levinson appears before us, who does not stop at any cruelty to save the squad. In this matter, he is helped by Stashinsky, a doctor who took the Hippocratic oath! And the doctor himself and, it would seem, Levinson come from an intelligent society. To what extent does one have to change in order to kill a person or condemn an entire family to starvation? But aren’t the Koreans and his family the very people in the name of whose bright future the civil war is going on?
Levinson's image should not be assessed as an ideal personification of the spiritual image of a communist figure. He is not free from some misconceptions. So, for example, he believed that “you can lead other people only by pointing out their weaknesses and suppressing, hiding yours from them.”
A communist acting in the role of a leader is characterized not only and not so much by pointing out weaknesses, but by the ability to discover virtues in the people he leads, to instill in them faith in their own strengths, and to encourage their initiative. And only because this is what Levinson did in most cases, the reader recognizes and recognizes him as a typical representative of the communists who worked among the masses on the fronts of the civil war.
The characterization of the Bolshevik Levinson, one of the main characters of the novel “Destruction,” as a person striving and believing in the best, is contained in the following quote: “... everything he thought about was the deepest and most important thing he could think about, because in overcoming this scarcity and poverty was the main meaning of his own life, because there was no Levinson, but there would have been someone else if there had not lived in him a huge thirst for something new, beautiful, strong and incomparable with any other desire. a kind person. But what kind of conversation can there be about a new, wonderful person while huge millions are forced to live such a primitive and pitiful, such an unimaginably meager life.”
The main idea of the novel - the re-education of a person during the revolutionary struggle - is solved mainly in the image of Morozka. Partisan Morozka is a true personification of that mass of ordinary proletarians for whom only the revolution opened the way to spiritual growth and restoration of trampled human dignity.
The main features of his character are revealed in the first chapter of the novel. Morozka resists fulfilling the commander’s assignment, preferring a date with his wife to “boring official travel.” But in response to the commander’s demand - to hand over his weapons and get out of the detachment - he declares that it is “in no way possible” for him to leave the detachment, because he understands participation in the partisan struggle as his lifelong mining business. Having set out on an errand after this stern warning, Morozka, on the way, risking his life, saves the wounded Mechik.
These episodes revealed the essence of Morozka’s nature: before us is a man with a proletarian worldview, but insufficient consciousness. The feeling of proletarian brotherhood dictates to Morozka the right actions at decisive moments of the struggle: he cannot leave the detachment, he must save a wounded comrade. But in everyday life, the hero showed indiscipline, rudeness in his treatment of women, and could drink.
People like Morozka made up the mass army of the revolution, and participation in the struggle was for them a great school of ideological and moral re-education. The new reality has revealed the unsuitability of the old “norms” of behavior. Partisan Morozka stole the melons. From the point of view of his previous life experience, this is an acceptable act. And suddenly now the commander is gathering a peasant gathering to judge Morozka by public opinion. The hero received a lesson in communist morality.
In the revolutionary struggle, yesterday's slaves regained their lost sense of human dignity. Let us remember the scene at the ferry, when Morozka found himself in the role of organizer of a crowd frightened by the imaginary proximity of the Japanese. “Morozka, having found himself in this confusion, wanted, out of old habit (“for fun”), to scare him even more, but for some reason he changed his mind and, jumping off his horse, began to calm him down... He suddenly felt like a big, responsible person... rejoicing in the unusual his role." Thus, in the everyday phenomena of partisan life, Fadeev with rare insight comprehended the moral result of the revolutionary struggle, its echo in the human heart, its ennobling effect on the moral character of the individual.
Participation in big events enriched Morozka’s life experience. His spiritual life became deeper, the first “unusually heavy thoughts” appeared, and the need to comprehend his actions and the world around him was born. Before, before the revolution, living in a mining village, he did a lot thoughtlessly: life seemed simple, unsophisticated and even “fun” to him. After his experience in the partisan detachment, Morozka overestimated his previous life, his “careless” mischief, he now tried to get on the right road, “on which people like Levinson, Baklanov, Dubov walked.” During the revolution, he turned into a conscious, thinking person.
“The Defeat” by Alexander Fadeev, together with “Chapaev” by Dmitry Furmanov and “The Iron Stream” by Alexander Serafimovich, are bright milestones on the path of realistic comprehension of revolutionary changes in the life and creation of the people. But for all the commonality of the novels, each author has his own approach to the topic, his own style of artistic illumination. Serafimovich depicted the process of the birth of revolutionary consciousness among the masses primarily on the basis of their own experience of struggle. Furmanov and Fadeev spoke about the great role of the party in organizing the revolutionary struggle of the people and in their ideological and moral education. They showed the beauty and greatness of the socialist revolution as the beauty and greatness of advanced ideas that raise the self-awareness of the masses and direct their spontaneous revolutionary impulse towards a high goal.
But the main thing in the novel is its optimistic idea, which is manifested in the final words: “... it was necessary to live and fulfill one’s duties,” - a call that united life, struggle and overcoming, and in the entire structure of the novel, namely in the arrangement of figures, their destinies and characters. Thanks to all this, the novel does not sound pessimistic, it is optimistic. The optimism of the novel lies in the belief in the victory of the revolution.
The next work paints the revolution with completely different colors and is remembered by different characters and episodes. This is the book by Artyom Vesely “Russia, washed in blood.”
Artem Vesely (real name Nikolai Ivanovich Kochkurov) belonged to the generation of Soviet writers whose youth fell on the years of the revolution and the Civil War. They were shaped by a time of great unrest. Vesely’s arrival in the Reds is quite natural. The son of a Volga hooker, he had a hard time since childhood, combining work - sometimes hard and quite adult - with studying at the Samara elementary school. He became a Bolshevik already in the February Revolution; after October - a fighter in the Red Army. He fought with the White Czechs, then with Denikin, and was at party work. Artyom Vesely noted in his autobiography: “Since the spring of 1917, I have been involved in the revolution. Since 1920, I have been writing.”
In "Russia, Washed in Blood" there is no traditional single plot, held together by the history of the destinies of individual heroes, there is no single intrigue. The originality and strength of the book lies in its reproduction of the “image of the times.” The writer believed that his main task was to embody the image of revolutionary, rallying Russia at the front, at train stations, in sun-scorched steppes, on village streets, in city squares. The style and language of the narrative, its intense pace, dynamic phrases, and the abundance of crowd scenes with their diversity and polyphony correspond to the image of the times.
“Russia, washed in blood” is one of the significant works of Russian literature. It reflects with extraordinary power and truthfulness the great disruption of Russian life during the First World War, the October Revolution and the Civil War. .
Starting from the spring days of 1920, when young Nikolai Kochkurov saw through the window of a carriage the Don and Kuban Cossacks, who had been defeated by the Red Army and now, disarmed, were returning home in marching order on their horses (it was then, by his own admission, “the image of a grandiose books about the civil war" and appeared before him "in full height"), and ending with the second half of the 30s, work was underway on a novel that can be called the main book of the writer.
The work developed as a single artistic whole for a separate publication in 1932. It was then that a two-part division appeared - into “two wings”, and between the “wings” there were sketches, which the author himself interpreted as “short, one or two pages, completely independent and complete stories, connected with the main text of the novel with their hot breath, place action, theme and time..."
The action of the first part of the novel takes place in the south: Russian positions on the Turkish front during the First World War, return from the front, civil war in the Caucasus and near Astrakhan. The action of the second part is transferred to the middle Volga. None of the characters from the first part are included in the second: thus, there are no plot motivations that bind both parts together. Each of the two parts is a spatially closed narrative within itself.
Closed spatially, they are also closed in time. The first part covers the initial period of the civil war, when the previous national and general ideological institutions were being broken down. This is the period when, according to John Reed, “old Russia was no more”: “The formless society melted, flowed like lava into the primeval heat, and from the stormy sea of flame a powerful and ruthless class struggle emerged, and with it the still fragile, slowly solidifying cores new formations." The second part covers the final stage of the civil war, when the whites had already been driven away, the “nuclei of new formations” were structurally identified, a new state power was formed and this power entered into complex relations with the peasantry - relations fraught with tragic conflicts.
Consequently, the first and second parts of “Russia, Washed in Blood” are two moments in the development of the revolution, connected to each other according to the principle of historical sequence.
The country is up in arms. Artem Vesely creates a sense of drama and grandeur through the activity of his speech style and the emotional intensity of the plot of the story.
The chapters of the first and second parts open with the author's folklore stylized openings:
"There is a revolution in Russia - the mother earth trembled, the white light became clouded...";
“There is a revolution in Russia, all of Russia is a rally”;
“There is a revolution in Russia, all of Russia is at knifepoint”;
“There is a revolution in Russia - all over Raseyushka, thunderstorms are thundering, downpours are making noise”;
“There is a revolution in Russia, the whole Raseyushka took fire and swam with blood”;
“In Russia, the revolution is fervor, fire, fury, flood, fitful water”;
“In Russia there is a revolution - villages in the heat, cities in delirium”;
“There was a revolution in Russia - a flame broke out and spread like a thunderstorm everywhere”;
“There is a revolution in Russia - dust rose in a column from all over the world...”;
“There is a revolution in Russia - the country is boiling in blood, in fire...”
Carrying the memory of the epic archaic, the beginnings give the novel's speech style a tradition of solemn elation of the narrative, creating a feeling of shock at what is happening. At the same time, the plot of the story is not reduced to a layer of folklore stylization. The reader gets an idea of how the reality exploded by the revolution lives and develops from different sides, as if from different people, sometimes through the vision of a narrator close to the author.
The seventeenth - the beginning of the eighteenth year: a flood of destructive hatred spreads across Russia. A terrible in its simplicity story emerges from an ordinary soldier, Maxim Kuzhel, about how a commander was killed at a rally on the positions of the Turkish Front: “We tore the commander’s ribs, trampled on his intestines, and our atrocity only gained strength...”
This is really just the beginning. What follows will be a series of episodes in which reprisals against people who personify the hated tsarist regime become a system, a stable line of behavior, so to speak, a common thing - so common that the murder of even a large crowd of curious people is not able to gather - it’s not interesting, we see, we know:
"There are three crowds in the station garden. In one they played toss, in another they killed the station chief, and in the third, largest crowd, a Chinese boy showed tricks...”
“The big black-bearded soldier, pushing aside the people and sucking the last chicken leg as he walked, flew like a kite to finish off the station commander: they said that he was still breathing.”
As we see, centrifugal tendencies of existence predominate - the desire to overturn and trample all previous life. There are no valuables left - everything is negative.
These are still the beginnings - the narrative is just gaining height. It is characteristic, however, that in the plot of the novel, the sailor ship republic appears as an episodic phenomenon, as a short-term military brotherhood, which, according to Vesely, does not have a social perspective as an independent organizing force: with the death of the fleet, the existence of the ship republic ends; Under the influence of the Bolshevik mechanic Yegorov, in response to his “short and simple word,” the sailors enlist in the detachment and are sent to the front, to join the ranks of the Red Army.
Artem Vesely reveals the dramatic complexity of social life in the transition period in symmetrically corresponding episodes of the first and second parts. Contradictions separate Cossacks and settlers in the North Caucasus, rich and poor men in the Trans-Volga village of Khomutovo, hungry cities and a relatively well-fed village.
Soldiers returning from the front dream of redistributing the Kuban lands on the basis of equality, since “a rich land, a free side” contains the Cossack class satiety and next to it the degraded existence of newcomer men. In the same village, Cossacks and newcomers settle separately, mutually separating themselves according to the principle: poverty - wealth.
"On the Cossack side there was a bazaar, a cinema, a gymnasium, a large, splendid church, and a dry high bank, on which a brass band played on holidays, and in the evenings the walking and bawling youth gathered. White huts and rich houses under tiles, planks and iron stood in strict order, hiding in the greenery of cherry orchards and acacias. Great spring water came to visit the Cossacks, right under their windows."
It is no coincidence that the novel compositionally correlates the ending of the chapter “Bitter Hangover” (the first part) and the chapter “Khomutovo Village” (the second part). The whites took Ivan Chernoyarov to the market square to hang him: “Until the very last minute of his death, he surrounded the executioners with a red-hot obscenity and spat in their eyes.” This is the result of "Bitter Hangover". In the chapter “Khomutovo Village”, a worldly bull named Anarchist, unleashed from his leash, enters into an absurdly desperate single combat with a grain train:
"The locomotive skidded, panted wearily, groaned and dragged its tail with such difficulty that it seemed to move no more than one fathom per minute. The anarchist whipped himself on the sides with a tail heavy like a rope with a fluffy tip at the end, threw sand with his hooves and, bending his head to the ground, with a deadly roar, quickly rushed to meet the locomotive and drove his powerful horns into the chest of the locomotive... The lanterns were already knocked down, the front was crushed, but the locomotive - black and snorting - was advancing: on the rise the driver could not stop. ...A white bone splashed out from under the cast iron wheel. The train passed Khomutovo without stopping - the driver couldn’t stop it on the way up...”
Let us pay attention to the twice repeated “the driver could not stop on the rise” - this is a signal that the law of historical inevitability is in effect. The bearers of the new statehood come into tragic conflict with the breadwinners of a huge country, representatives of the “earth power”, and supporters of the “third way”. Terrible in its senselessness, the duel between a bull and a locomotive sets the stage for an episode in which the rebels forge “spears, darts, hooks and hooks, with which the chapan army was armed.” This medieval equipment is as powerless against the technically equipped new government as the Anarchist bull is powerless compared to the mechanical power of a steam locomotive. The tragic finale of the fate of Ivan Chernoyarov and the death of the Anarchist under the wheels of an ascending steam locomotive are symbolic: casting a mutual reflection on each other, both episodes are at the same time projected onto the development of the epic action as a whole - preparing the defeat of the “straw force”, which is trying and cannot find for itself "third way".
The ability to tell the bitter truth about the victims of the tragic conflict revealed the dialectical capacity of Artem Vesely’s artistic vision, which incorporates both “you can’t feel sorry” and “you can’t not feel sorry,” to use the well-known aphorism from A. Neverov’s story “Andron the Unlucky.” In how Ivan Chernoyarov, who finds himself in a dead end, dies, how a bull with the meaningful nickname Anarchist falls under the locomotive wheels, how the “chapans” are defeated, the author’s through-and-through idea manifests itself, allowing us to talk about “Russia, washed in blood” as a novel of tragic intensity .
The tragedy is already set in the introductory chapter “Trampling Death on Death.” A panoramic image of the all-Russian grief of the First World War appears here as a disaster befalling individual human destinies:
"A hot bullet pecked the bridge of the nose of fisherman Ostap Kalaida - and his white hut on the seashore, near Taganrog, was orphaned. The Sormovo mechanic Ignat Lysachenko fell and wheezed and twitched - his little woman with three small children in her arms was drinking hard. The young volunteer Petya Kakurin, thrown up by a landmine explosion along with lumps of frozen earth, fell into the ditch like a burnt match - this will be the joy of the old people in distant Barnaul when the news about their son reaches them. The Volga hero Yukhan stuck his head in a hummock and remained lying there - no longer swinging an ax at him and no longer singing songs in the forest. The company commander, Lieutenant Andrievsky, lay down next to Yukhan, and he grew up in his mother’s affection.”
We learn nothing more about the victims and their families, but the rhythm is set: any war is terrible, contrary to human nature, and a civil war is doubly tragic.
The final lines of “Russia, washed in blood” are also indicative: “Native country... Smoke, fire - there is no end!” In the context of the work, we have a novel-style open ending: the plot rushes into an extensively expanded future; life appears as fundamentally unfinished, knowing no stops, and constantly moving forward.
In order to preserve and consolidate “Russia, washed in blood” exactly how novel unity, Artem Vesely makes a bold attempt to place relatively complete individual destinies and separate, also relatively complete in themselves, destinies of social groups in a special section - “Etudes”, which, as already mentioned, act as a kind of spacer between the first and second parts of the novel . Before us is a chain of short stories, each of which is built on a plot-exhausted event.
The grandiose metaphor in the title of the book is projected onto both a panoramic image of mass life and a close-up image of individual human destinies. Both the title and the subtitle (“Fragment”) led the writer to new horizons of boundless reality, which offered new artistic tasks. It is not surprising that, having published the book in several editions, the writer continued to work on it. Artem Vesely wanted to complete the novel with battles on the Polish front, the storming of Perekop, and intended to introduce into the novel the image of Lenin, episodes of the activities of the Comintern...
It was not possible to implement these plans: the writer, as already said, fell victim to lawlessness. However, we can say with confidence: even in its current, relatively unfinished form, the novel took place. He reveals to us the scope of the "common people's revolution", its tragic collisions and its hopes.
Not a single writer of those years had such powerful confidence in his speech - speech directly received from the people. Words, gentle and rough, menacing and spiritual, were combined in fragmentary periods, as if escaping from the lips of the people. The rudeness and authenticity of some of the shouts repelled lovers of the elegant prose of Turgenev's style. Therefore, the wonderful epic “Russia, washed in blood” did not cause long discussions and deep assessments, serving most likely as an example of revolutionary spontaneous prowess, and not as a completely new literary phenomenon. Artem Vesely tried, and not only tried, but also carried out a novel without a hero, or rather with a mass hero, in which such a plurality of traits of the peoples that formed the population of the former Russian Empire was combined that it was not possible to perceive these traits as uniting any one person. None of the writers of the past and present known to me had such freedom of expressive speech, such reckless and at the same time strong-willed proclamation of it. In my opinion, Artem Vesely could have become a completely unprecedented and unheard of Soviet writer, opening the way to the entire language, all the feelings of the people, without embellishment or exaggeration, without pedagogical considerations, which is allowed in the structure and style of the work.
For many years, the name of Artem Vesely was not mentioned anywhere, his books were removed from state libraries, and generations grew up who had never heard of this writer.
In 1988, Goslitizdat published a one-volume book by Artem Vesely, since then his works - and above all "Russia, Washed in Blood" - have been published more than once both in our country and abroad, many readers are rediscovering Artem Vesely. Valentin Rasputin wrote about this in 1988: “The prose of Artem Vesely was a revelation for me back in my student days. Today I re-read it. A considerable part of the Soviet classics ages very noticeably over time, this book does not face a similar fate, because it is talented and in many ways a modern book."
A civil war is a war that goes on within the country, forcing a father to kill his son, and a brother to kill his brother. This war brings only destruction and suffering. Why is it needed? What causes it? What is the goal? Two works are devoted to the theme of the Civil War, about the difficult formation of a new life: “Destruction” by A. Fadeev and “Quiet Don” by M. Sholokhov.
In M. Sholokhov’s epic novel “Quiet Don” you can see the whole tragedy of the bloody civil war. A book about the brutal struggle for the victory of Soviet power on the Don, about the life and way of life of the Don Cossacks. They lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, and fought for them and for the state. All families lived from their labor, in prosperity and respect. But this calm, normal life was interrupted by the war.
A very difficult time has come in the life of Russia, which has brought great social and moral upheaval. Talking about the fate of Grigory Melikhov and his family, the writer shows these events not only as a misfortune for one family, but also as a tragedy for the entire people. This disaster brought with it pain, devastation and poverty. After the First World War, the Cossacks were drawn into the Civil War. Among all these events, the author especially focuses on the fate of the main character of the novel, Grigory Melikhov. The war embittered the peace-loving Cossack; it forced him to kill. After his first murder, when he hacked to death an Austrian in battle, Grigory could not come to his senses for a long time. He was tormented by sleepless nights and conscience. The war changed Gregory's life. His hesitation between the whites and the reds speaks of unsteadiness of character, that he is looking for the truth in life, rushing about and does not know “who to lean against?” But Gregory does not find the truth either among the Bolsheviks or the White Guards. He wants a peaceful life: “My hands need to work, not fight.” But the war took that away from him. The war also brought disagreements into the Melikhovs’ family relationships. She broke the habitual way of life of these people. The grief and horrors of war affected all the characters in the novel.
Another work, A. Fadeev’s novel “Destruction,” also covers the theme of the civil war. Shows people who ended up in a partisan detachment. Among them there were many truly dedicated people, but there were also those who got into the detachment by accident. In fact, both of them are experiencing tragedy. Some are disappointed in their ideals, others give their lives for these ideals. Fadeev said that in a civil war “there is a selection of human material, everything that is not capable of a real revolutionary struggle is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution grows and develops in this struggle. A huge transformation of people is taking place.” All people in the squad are connected by the events that happen to them. Against the backdrop of these events, the true character of the heroes is revealed. Testing a person is a choice between life and death. Morozka, at the cost of her own life, warns the squad about the ambush, and Mechik, sent on patrol, in this situation saves his life: he abandons and betrays his comrades. He did not realize his place in life, but in contrast to him, Morozka appears to us in the end as a mature, responsible person, aware of his duty to people.
Drawing a conclusion, we can say that a civil war is a cruel and merciless war. It destroys families and people's destinies. This is the tragedy of the country and its people.
Updated: 2018-05-21
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefits to the project and other readers.
The tragedy of the Civil War is indelible in the people's memory, its victims are innumerable. Among them, according to I. S. Shmelev, “there is a sacrifice, the meaning of which is not, perhaps, comprehended by everyone with due completeness and clarity: this sacrifice is our literature, the Russian artistic word”1. Many Russian writers were forced to leave their homeland in order to never return back. Among them are Ivan Shmelev and Boris Zaitsev. The fates of both writers unfolded differently, but the trials they faced for a long time were very similar.
In 1918, Shmelev with his wife and son traveled to Crimea. Here the writer was destined to live probably the most terrible days of his life. The Shmelevs did not think about emigration; even his son Sergei, an officer of the Volunteer Army, remained in Crimea during the retreat of P. N. Wrangel in November 1920. The reluctance to leave turned into a tragedy. Sergei Shmelev "was arrested by the Bolsheviks and taken to Feodosia [...] There he was kept in a basement on a stone floor, with a mass of the same officers, priests, officials. They starved him. After keeping him sick for a month, they drove him out of the city at night and shot him" 3. This is how the writer himself describes the fate of his son. This death shocked the Shmelevs, but was not their only test: they had to survive the terrible months of the Red Terror and famine. Shmelev spoke about everything he had suffered in his first emigrant work, the epic “Sun of the Dead” (1923). This book immediately caused a lot of responses abroad: it was compared with both the Apocalypse and Dante’s Inferno, for, according to A. V. Amfiteatrova, “a more terrible book has not been written in Russian”4. Describing the picture of the death of all living things, Shmelev strove for accuracy and documentation of his story. There is nothing fictitious in the epic; the writer experienced all this horror himself. The reader is presented with the tragedy that occurred in Crimea, when the Bolsheviks “those who want to kill” came to it. Having received an order from the capital to “sweep Crimea with an iron broom,” the “new creators of life” eagerly began to carry it out: “And so they killed, at night. During the day... they slept. They slept, and others, in the basements, waited. Young, mature and the old ones - with hot blood. Recently they fought openly. Now, tortured, they were locked up in the basements, they were starved, they were taken from the basements and killed."5
Later, Shmelev will return to the Crimean tragedy in a letter to the “Defender of the Russian officer Conradi, Mr. Ober, as material for the case,” where he will once again describe in detail all the crimes that he witnessed: “I saw and experienced all the horrors, surviving in Crimea from November 1920 to February 1922. If an accidental miracle and a powerful international commission could obtain the right to conduct an investigation on the ground, it would collect such material that would abundantly absorb all the crimes and all the horrors of beatings that have ever happened on earth." 6.
In 1922, the Shmelevs, with great difficulty, managed to move from the devastated Crimea to Moscow, and then from there abroad. Expulsion was a heavy cross for Shmelev. However, amid all the hardships and deprivations of emigrant life, the writer “not for a minute [...] stops thinking about Russia and is tormented by its misfortunes”7 (K. D. Balmont).
After completing work on “The Sun of the Dead,” Shmelev wrote a number of stories. Some of them, included in the collection “About an Old Woman,” are about post-revolutionary Russia, about the sorrows and deprivations of the Russian people. Others are devoted to the Crimean theme, in which the writer continues to comprehend everything that happened in Russia in general and on the peninsula in particular. For example, the story “The Huns” is dedicated to the entry of the Reds into the Crimea, and here the author draws clear parallels between the “new creators of life” and the wild hordes of the Huns. This comparison of the Bolsheviks with the horde was quite common among emigrant writers. The story "Panorama" shows the fate of a family of intellectuals who were forced to keep a cow in their office, among books and manuscripts. The hero of the story "The Fog" - a former lawyer - defends his last right - the "right of a slave." All these broken destinies, complementing each other, help to see the tragedy that happened to Russia in its entirety and, most importantly, allow us to reveal its essence and understand the meaning of what happened.
The theme of the revolution and the Civil War from Shmelev’s artistic works passes into his journalism, which is quite extensive: the writer never remained indifferent either to the life of the Russian emigration, or to the events that took place in the Soviet Union and in the world, responding to them in articles, appeals, and appeals . Like his artistic creativity, all of the writer’s journalism is imbued with a feeling of love for Russia, pain for its fate and faith in its revival.
The theme of the White movement is of great importance in Shmelev’s creative heritage. This was caused not only by the memory of his son, but also by the writer’s genuine attention to the White Idea, to the fate of the Volunteer Army.
Disputes about the White movement, which had not subsided among emigrants since the first day of exile, flared up with renewed vigor after the publication of I. A. Ilyin’s treatise “On Resistance to Evil by Force.” In this discussion, Shmelev tried to comprehend the performance of the Volunteer Army from the point of view of the Orthodox worldview. In resolving this issue, the writer clearly takes the side of Ilyin, whom he called “the conscience of the Russian intelligentsia”8. Shmelev expressed his attitude towards the White movement most clearly in his article “The Soul of Russia” (1927). The title itself speaks volumes about the author's position. The entire article as a whole is truly a hymn to the White warriors who “saved the honor of Russia.” As we have seen, the Red Army in Shmelev’s works appears as a horde, as hordes of wild people, intoxicated with blood and maddened. As for the White movement, the writer, on the contrary, emphasizes that this “is a selection, a selection of the best Russian in Spirit, in the feeling of Russia, a selection of that which could not imagine being without Russia, could not put up with Her distorted face, with outrage over her soul"9. The title “White Warrior” is for the writer a sign of purity, perseverance, and loyalty. However, Shmelev not only glorifies the Volunteer Movement, but also tries to reveal its essence, to comprehend its significance in the fate of Russia. The writer comes to the conclusion that the years of the White struggle are “a break in Russian history,” and “behind it is a New Russia, which will certainly be. Behind it is the most intense search for a true national existence, national renewal, collecting and preserving what Russia is [ ...] without which it cannot exist, that there is an Orthodox Great Russia"10. In Shmelev’s understanding, White warriors are carriers of the national idea. But they also represent “a lofty and terrible example of national Redemption”, “they are a stunning example of the suffering of an innocent generation for the mistakes and crimes of their fathers and grandfathers”11. Shmelev interprets the path of the Volunteer Army as a whole as the way of the cross, leading through death and defeat, through Golgotha and the Redemptive Sacrifice to the Resurrection.
In later articles - “Feat” (1936), dedicated to the anniversary of the Ice Campaign, and “Sons of Russia” (1937) - Shmelev penetrates deeper into the essence of the White struggle, emphasizing its not earthly, but higher meaning: “This is a fight against Evil, which has taken the mask of Bolshevism." “Here are not ordinary events of history, but something immeasurable by time - the tragedy of the struggle between the Divine and the Devil”12. And again the writer points to the sacrifice of the White movement, to the resigned bearing of the Cross taken upon itself: “The Russian Volunteers had the honor of the Cross: the first to withstand the blow of evil embodied in Bolshevism, to initiate the struggle for the Divine image in man”13.
Shmelev addresses the topic of the White movement in many publications throughout his emigrant work. In 1947, in the article “In Memory of the “Invincible””, dedicated to the death of General Denikin, the writer speaks of the extraordinary “purity of service” inherent in one of the last leaders of the Russian Volunteerism, once again proving his idea that “the sacred name is the White Warrior " - is a "sign of high spiritual selection"14.
Thus, in the person of I. S. Shmelev, the White movement found a staunch and loyal supporter and defender, who made the feat of Russian Volunteerism the property of Russian literature.
The tragedy of the revolution and the Civil War passed through all of Shmelev’s emigrant work. The writer returned to what he had experienced long ago, comprehending it again, and introduced it into his works. All the suffering that befell Shmelev - the loss of his son, wife, homeland - allowed the writer to see the falsity of the path he had followed before, brought him closer to the Church and to understanding the soul of Russia, made him a truly Russian person and writer.
 |
Zaitsev responds to everything that happens in Russia with a series of lyrical essays written in 1918-1922: “Solitude”, “St. Nicholas Street”, “White Light”, “Soul”, in which he tries to reveal the eternal, timeless meaning Russian tragedy. In the quiet words of the writer there is a call not to hatred, but to love: “Will I see a brother in the beast?” But Zaitsev in no way justifies the murderers and criminals who seized power in the country. According to the correct statement of A. M. Lyubomudrov, “Zaitsev’s position has nothing in common either with Tolstoy’s “non-resistance to evil,” or with fatalistic submission to “fate,” or with the preaching of a passive existence, indifferent to good and evil.” The writer’s “meekness” is “not soft and amorphous [...]: behind it stands firmness and severity in upholding the Truth, a calm determination to face any sorrow and even death”16.
In June 1922, Zaitsev left his homeland forever. Like thousands of other exiles, separation from Russia was a heavy cross for the writer, but Zaitsev always remained true to his intransigence towards the Bolshevik regime and in 1953, in “Letter to the Motherland,” he explained his position as follows: “Emigration, of course, is a drama: separation But the murder of a living soul, violence against it, is something infinitely worse. So not only do I not envy those of my brothers in Russia who, living a much wider, richer life than me, are forced to adapt, write to order and bend their backs to nonentities. I sincerely regret their fate."17
Zaitsev's first major work written in exile was the novel "The Golden Pattern". It contains the author’s attempt to comprehend the Cause of the tragedy that happened, to point out its origins. The writer talks about the fate of Russian intellectuals, paints pictures of their pre-war life - idle, empty, irresponsible; then - war, revolution, exile and the turning point that takes place in the souls of the heroes. Of course, the novel has an autobiographical basis. It clearly contains the motive of repentance and admission of guilt. This is the author’s judgment of himself, his generation, which is largely responsible for what happened. Having gone through all the trials and tribulations, at the end of the book the main characters come to the Church. This is a reflection of the fate of the writer himself and many other destinies.
The theme of guilt and repentance continues to be heard in other works by Zaitsev. Thus, in the essay “On the Road,” he again points to “fatigue, debauchery and lack of faith both at the top and among the middle intelligentsia” as one of the reasons for the tragedy: “It’s hard to remember. We paid dearly, but that means we’ve gained enough sins. Revolution is always a reckoning. There is no point in reproaching the former Russia: it’s better to look at ourselves. What kind of citizens were we, what kind of sons of Russia, of the Motherland?”18.
An important step in the creative path of Boris Zaitsev was the book “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh” (1924) - a biography of the great Russian saint of the 14th century. It would seem that the topic chosen by the author leads away from the events of reality and does not come into contact with them in any way. However, it is not. As A.M. Lyubomudrov points out, “probably one of the main reasons for turning to the image of Sergius was the similarity of historical eras. The revolution was perceived by many as a new enslavement of Russia; in the blood, sacrifices, and devastation of the post-October years, the consequences of the new “Horde yoke” were seen19. And therefore, the image of St. Sergius, who blessed Dmitry Donskoy for the battle with the Horde, personified a light force capable of resisting the horrors of wars and revolutions, and was the guarantee of the future revival of Russia. It is noteworthy that, in the writer’s opinion, it is precisely who can win in this struggle between the Divine and the demonic. St. Sergius is not a prince, nor a warrior, but a “modest monk,” whose main qualities are meekness and humility. But it is these qualities, according to Zaitsev’s deep conviction, that are the only weapon with which one can fight and defeat the spiritual enemy. And yet Sergius. blesses Dmitry Donskoy for battle, for the shedding of blood, because against a physical enemy one must also fight with a sword: “If a tragic matter is going on on a tragic land, he will bless the side that he considers right. He is not for the war, but since it happened, he is for the people and for Russia, the Orthodox. As a mentor and a comforter, “The Paraclete of Russia,” he cannot remain indifferent.”20 These words can be considered the writer’s answer to the question of resisting evil by force.
Like Shmelev, Boris Zaitsev returned to depicting the tragedy of the revolution and the Civil War throughout his entire work. Thus, in the essay “Savior on Spilled Blood,” the author recalls all those who were innocently tortured and shot during the terrible revolutionary years. But through the pain and suffering of the writer, the belief is that “that in the new Russia (and it is coming!), as of old, we will have to go again with words of mercy and humanity.” And in this new Russia the remains of all the victims will be found and collected and “combined into one, truly now a mass grave, and the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood erected over it”21.
Zaitsev also touched upon the Crimean tragedy in his work. In 1926, he wrote the essay “The Shining Path,” dedicated to the memory of the Russian poetess Adelaide Iertsyk and preceding the publication of her “Basement Sketches.”
The writer reveals to us the fate of a talented wordsmith and an unusually strong-willed woman who survived arrest, a stay in a basement prison in Crimea, hunger, the death of loved ones - and yet unbroken: on terrible winter nights, “trembling in a fever from hunger and cold, - this the unquenchable soul composed its poems, sang its hymns and praised God"22. Zaitsev cites an eyewitness account of those days in Crimea, which echoes the most terrible pages of Shmelev’s “Sun of the Dead”: “At night they were taken out naked, in the winter cold, far behind a rock jutting out into the sea, and there, standing over a crevice, they shot, then they threw stones at everyone - those who had been shot and those who had not been shot. And those who were fleeing were shot anywhere, and their corpses were often lying right next to our homes, and on pain of being shot they could not be buried."23. And yet the poetess, who experienced everything to the fullest, demonstrated “the greatest affirmation of humility and love for God - in moments of such trials that lead back to ancient Job.” “The late A.G. is a vivid and wonderful example of overcoming evil with good. The revolution interrupted her life. But she defeated the revolution, because no suffering burned her soul”24.
Zaitsev’s lines, dedicated to his dearly beloved Motherland, to the Russian people, who are an example of meekness and purity of soul, were imbued with the lyricism characteristic of the writer. However, for the enemies of Russia, to expose evil, Zaitsev found harsh, harsh words that revealed the essence of the lawlessness that was happening. One example of such an uncompromising journalistic performance is the response to the kidnapping of General A.P. Kutepov - “Cross” (1930). Here the writer’s artistic word openly exposes those who crucified Russia on the cross: “On the Cross is our Motherland, what can I say: they crucify it, before our eyes they crucify it, every day, they drive the nails deeper. It’s not covered with snow, a terrible, swirling cloud, with a devilish task: in five years to “disinfect” everything, destroy everything, exterminate the stronger peasantry, destroy the intelligentsia, morality, religion - place a naked savage on the throne of glory"25. And General Kutepov, according to the writer, is “the banner of martyrdom, the banner of Russia being crucified, he cannot but be one of every Russian, no matter what his views may be”26.
Everything created by Boris Zaitsev in exile was written about Russia and for Russia. The writer was given the opportunity to comprehend the highest meaning of the tragedy that occurred in his homeland, and in his work he discovered this meaning for his readers.
During the years of the revolution, the Civil War, and exile, Russian writers Ivan Shmelev and Boris Zaitsev had a chance to drink a full cup of troubles and suffering. However, in the work of both writers, personal tragedy recedes into the background. The tragedy of Russia and its people is mainly depicted. And yet, the main thing that their works convey is an unquenchable faith in God’s Providence, in the affirmation of Truth and in the Revival of Russia.
Notes
1 Shmelev I. S. Collection cit.: In 5 vols. T. 7 (additional): It was: Stories. Journalism. M., 1999. P. 445.
2 Shmelev I. S. Murder // Smena. 1991. N 7. P. 25.
3 Shmelev I. S. Collection op. T. 7 (additional). P. 402.
4 Quoted By: Kutyrina Yu. A. The tragedy of Shmelev // Word. 1991. N 2. P. 65.
5 Shmelev I. S. Heavenly paths: Selected. prod. M., 1991. P. 41.
6 Shmelev I. S. Collection op. T. 7 (additional). P. 404.
7 Shmelev I. S. Heavenly paths: Selected. prod. S. 3.
8 Shmelev I. S. Collection op. T. 7 (additional). P. 394.
9 Ibid. P. 392.
10 Ibid. P. 392.
11 Ibid. P. 393.
12 Ibid. P. 506.
13 Ibid. P. 512.
14 Ibid. P. 391.
15 Quoted. By: Lyubomudrov A. M. Book by Boris Zaitsev "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" // Literature and history. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 264.
16 Ibid. P. 265.
17 Zaitsev B.K. Sign of the Cross: Novel; Essays; Journalism / Comp., will enter, Art. and comment. A. M. Lyubomudrova. M., 1999. P. 507.
18 Quoted. By: Mikhailov O. N. Literature of Russian Abroad. M., 1995. P. 276.
19 Lyubomudrov A. M. Book by Boris Zaitsev "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh". P. 267.
20 Zaitsev B.K. Autumn light: Novels, stories. M., 1990. P. 505.
21 Zaitsev B.K. Sign of the Cross. P. 406.
22 Ibid. P. 398.
23 Ibid. P. 396.
24 Ibid. P. 399.
25 Ibid. P. 431.
26 Ibid. P. 433.
Article from the collection: White Russia: Experience of historical retrospection: Materials of the international scientific conference / A.V. Tereshchuk. St. Petersburg - M., Sowing. 2002.
GENERAL EDUCATION MATERIAL
Study the texts and determine what images of “reds” and “whites” are present in the mass consciousness of the descendants of participants in the Civil War in Russia.
In the mass consciousness of the descendants of participants in the Civil War in Russia, there are opposing images of “Reds” and “Whites”: Reds are good, brave, honest heroes, and Whites are treacherous, cruel, stupid people. And exactly the opposite: whites are noble, honest heroes, and reds are negative, rude, and cruel.
In what ways do you think they contradict each other? What question might arise to you based on this contradiction?
Who are the heroes in the Civil War?
Formulate your version of the educational problem, and then compare it with the author’s.
Who is right in the Civil War
REPEATING THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE
Explain the meaning of the term Civil War.
Civil war is a large-scale armed confrontation between organized groups within a state or, less commonly, between nations that were part of a previously single unified state. The goal of the parties, as a rule, is to seize power in a country or in a particular region.
Signs of civil war are the involvement of the civilian population and the resulting significant losses.
Methods of waging civil wars often differ from traditional ones. Along with the use of regular troops by the warring parties, the partisan movement is becoming widespread, as well as various spontaneous uprisings of the population and the like.
Remember in the history of which countries there were civil wars (10th grade).
Civil wars happened in the history of the USA, Italy, and Spain.
What events of the revolution of 1917–1918 led Russia to the Civil War?
Russia was led to the Civil War by the events of the revolution of 1917–1918:
Dispersal of the Constituent Assembly,
Signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany,
Activities of Bolshevik food detachments and committees of poor people in the countryside (seizure of grain from wealthy peasants)
Decree on land that caused an economic crisis
Ban on free trade in bread
Analyze the composition of the opposing forces.
Draw a conclusion: whose side was the truth in the Civil War?
Three opposing forces:
Reds, Bolsheviks (most of the workers, the poorest peasantry, part of the intelligentsia);
- “democratic counter-revolution”, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, anarchists (part of the workers, the middle peasantry);
Whites, KaDet and monarchists (Cossacks, former landowners, capitalists, officials, officers, a significant part of the intelligentsia)
Conclusion: It is difficult to determine the right in the Civil War. The “Whites” defended legality and statehood, the “Reds” fought for something new, for changes, but using dictatorial, violent methods.
The White movement began to take shape at the beginning of 1918, when generals M. Alekseev, L. Kornilov and A. Kaledin gathered volunteer units in Novocherkassk. The volunteer army was led by General A. Denikin. In the east of the country, Admiral A. Kolchak became the leader of the Whites, in the north-west - General N. Yudenich, in the south - A. Denikin, in the north - E. Miller. The white generals failed to unite the fronts.
The Whites, like the Reds, used the peasantry for constant extortion - the army had to be fed. This caused discontent among the peasants.
Analyze the text and draw a conclusion about the lesson problem “Whose side was the truth on in the Civil War?”
In the Civil War, whites fought for legal order and the preservation of a country with a thousand-year history. The Reds are for the idea of building a new, fair socialist society. “Greens” (peasant groups) - for the right to live on their own land, without paying taxes to anyone and without government intervention. Any citizen of Russia must determine the share of guilt of each side himself. The only thing that can unite us on this issue is the desire not to repeat the tragedy of the Civil War, to avoid violence and learn to negotiate with each other.
Moscow: the rebellion of the left Socialist Revolutionaries is suppressed - the formalization of a one-party Bolshevik dictatorship in Soviet Russia.
Highlight 3-4 main events that, on the one hand, predetermined the victory of the Reds, and on the other, the defeat of their opponents
Armed suppression of opponents of Soviet power by Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary detachments of the Red Guard. The formation of anti-Bolshevik governments in Ukraine, the Don, Transcaucasia and other outskirts of the former empire.
Soviet Russia: announcement of the “Red Terror” (September 5, 1918) - taking hostages from the “former propertied classes” and shooting them for each attempt on the life of Soviet leaders. Formation of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic headed by L.D. Trotsky (a supporter of strengthening discipline by executions for desertion), the abolition of the election of commanders, the involvement of military experts - former tsarist officers, control of the army through communist commissars.
Moscow: 10th Congress of the RCP (b) (March 1920): rejection of “war communism” (prodrazvyorstka, trade ban) and transition to the NEP (tax in kind, free trade), but confirmation of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the Communist Party.
PROFILE MATERIAL
Complete your solution to the general education problem by looking at it from a new perspective: “Why did the Reds win the Civil War?”
Conduct a critical analysis of the sources and draw a conclusion on the lesson problem “Why did the Reds win the Civil War?”
The Reds won the Civil War because their actions were clearly organized, centralized, and tough. In addition, they announced a transition to a new economic policy, which attracted the peasants to their side. The Whites did not have such centralization; on the contrary, the commanders of their troops competed with each other and they acted more brutally than the Reds, restoring the pre-revolutionary order.
Conduct text analysis. What reasons for the Reds' victory are highlighted in each of them?
Each of these texts gives similar reasons:
Unity and centralization of the Bolsheviks
Bringing military specialists from the tsarist army to the side of the Bolsheviks
Draw a conclusion on the lesson problem “Why did the Reds win the Civil War?”
The Reds won the Civil War because their actions were clearly organized, centralized, and tough. In addition, they announced a transition to a new economic policy, which attracted the peasants to their side. The Whites did not have such centralization; on the contrary, the commanders of their troops competed with each other and they acted more brutally than the Reds, restoring the pre-revolutionary order.
The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How it happens that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - M. A. Sholokhov’s epic “Quiet Don”.
In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their labor, in prosperity and respect. The cheerful, joyful life of the Cossacks, full of work and pleasant worries, is interrupted by the revolution. And people were faced with a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, who to believe - the Reds, who promise equality in everything, but deny faith in the Lord God; or whites, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But do the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would need to be made, what difficulties to overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the main character of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others. Of course, the first murder of a man
it hits him deeply and painfully, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the war makes him cruel. “I’ve become scary to myself... Look into my soul, and there’s blackness there, like in an empty well,” admits Grigory. Everyone became cruel, even women. Just remember the scene when Daria Melekhova kills Kotlyarov without hesitation, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about why blood is shed, what is the meaning of war. Is it really “for the needs of the rich that they drive them to death”? Or defend rights that are common to everyone, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases occurred both from the whites and from the reds. “They are all the same... they are all a yoke on the neck of the Cossacks,” says the main character.
In my opinion, Sholokhov sees the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, in the dramatic transition from the old way of life, which had been formed over centuries, to a new way of life. Two worlds collide: everything that was previously an integral part of people’s lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new still needs to be accepted and accustomed to.
M.A. Sholokhov is rightly called the chronicler of the Soviet era. "Quiet Don" - a novel about the Cossacks. The central character of the novel is Grigory Melekhov, an ordinary Cossack guy. True, maybe too hot. In Gregory's family, large and friendly, the Cossacks are sacredly revered...
If we step back for a while from historical events, we can note that the basis of M. A. Sholokhov’s novel “Quiet Don” is a traditional love triangle. Natalya Melekhova and Aksinya Astakhova love the same Cossack - Grigory Melekhov. He is married...
Many works have been written about forced collectivization and the massacre of the peasantry. The books of S. Zalygin “On the Irtysh”, “Men and Women” by B. Mozhaev, “A Pair of Bays” by V. Tendryakov, “The Roundup” by V. Bykov told us about the tragedy of the Russian peasant...
P.V. Palievsky: “Almost all of us know that in our literature there is a writer of world significance - M.A. Sholokhov. But we are somehow poorly aware of this, despite the achievements of criticism. What is new is not visible that Sholokhov brought to literature, perhaps...
Mikhail Sholokhov's novel "Quiet Don" tells the story of one of the most intense and eventful periods in the history of our country - the time of the First World War, the October Revolution and the Civil War. The plot is based on the fate of the Don Cossacks...