“Literature does not save from evil. She writes about him
They say that the whole village creates a legend, and a lone madman writes a book. If we recognize our Earth as a big village, and consider writers as crazy, then we can agree that the statement is not far from the truth. (True, the world in its quest to become crazy successfully overtakes its writers). And for literature, the concept of "legend" (both as a genre and as a definition of personality) is as characteristic as for any other kind of art or creative activity(and maybe even more).
The 20th century gave history a number of legendary literary names, adorned with the names of Tsvetaeva and Akhmatova, Pasternak and Bunin, Mayakovsky and Mandelstam, Yesenin and Brodsky, Bulgakov and Solzhenitsyn ... Next to them is our today's interlocutor, the world's most famous Slavist, writer, literary critic and publicist, who was well acquainted with Akhmatova, Pasternak and Brodsky, was friends with Okudzhava, Nekrasov, Sinyavsky and is the greatest specialist in the work of Solzhenitsyn. Already this enumeration is enough to understand and evaluate the originality of a person in the context modern literature. But the fact that Georges Niva (and we are talking about him) at the same time is a French citizen and a professor at the University of Geneva, adds to the characteristic a touch of uniqueness (legendary?).
The punctual Monsieur Niva (by the way, he is sometimes called Georgy Ivanovich at the university) set aside exactly an hour for a conversation, during which (in perfect Russian) he talked about many things - about life, literature, politics, Geneva ... And on questions asked promised to answer in writing. Which he did, confirming the reputation of a obligatory and thorough person (not just a writer, but a professor).
Unforgettable years
So what was the beginning of your literary activity? Why did it become associated with Russian literature for life? What was the rationale for this choice?
Zh.N.: My encounter with the Russian language took place in my native city of Auvergne, where the emigrant Georgy Nikitin, a kind and simple man, lived next to us. He was a bookbinder, knew and loved literature, and we talked a lot with him. Before that, of course, I was fond of Russian literature, primarily Dostoevsky, especially The Demons translated by Boris Schlozer.
Russian emigration fascinated me. For the most part, these were cultured, graceful people who had gone through terrible suffering. I was familiar with B. Zaitsev, G. Adamovich, V. Veidle, S. Makovsky… Thanks to them, then I began to feel a direct connection with the Russian Silver Age. By the way, the connection between life and poetry is very characteristic of that era. I am grateful to fate for these meetings.
It turned out that my teacher at the Sorbonne (later a friend and inspiration) Pierre Pascal was connected both with Berdyaev, Zaitsev and Weidle, as well as with Lenin, Chicherin, Russian anarchists. His break with Bolshevism in my eyes personified both poles of that Russia, utopian and elegant. I began to study Andrei Bely. In his work I saw this utopia, and a premonition of a catastrophe, and an exit to the Sun, to the Absolute. The translation of his Petersburg became a milestone in my life.
What do you remember about the years of study in Moscow, the literary atmosphere of that time?
JN: By the way, I am not a Swiss, but a Frenchman; in Geneva, a third of the professors are not Swiss. They don't pay much attention to nationality. A very patriotic country, and at the same time open to the outside world. And I became a Slavist in Europe, split into two parts. But, nevertheless, as a French trainee, I was accepted into the USSR. It will seem to you prehistoric times, but the first time I appeared in Moscow was in the autumn of 1956. My life is connected with Boris Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Okudzhava, I helped the publication of "The Yawning Heights" by Alexander Zinoviev and many other less famous authors.
The years spent at Moscow State University are unforgettable. The thaw, stormy meetings, the exclusion of rebel students ... The acquaintance and close communication with Boris Pasternak, with the family of Olga Ivinskaya, became a landmark. Remember not only pleasant moments. There was also an attempt to poison me, a stay in Moscow hospitals, surveillance. In the end - the expulsion in August 1960.
At Moscow State University I saw Ehrenburg closely, attended Selvinsky's anniversary, attended lectures by Professor Bondy, and attended N.K. Gudziy's seminar on Tolstoy. And there were also two years of study at Oxford, acquaintance with the Russian emigration in London. I remember the conversation with the historian and philosopher G. M. Katkov, as well as with the amazing Slavist, translator of Doctor Zhivago M. Naiditsch. And, of course, with the professor, Sir Isaiah Berlin, an amazing philosopher of freedom, an expert on Russian literature, and a close friend of Anna Akhmatova.
He profoundly changed France
In the same years, your acquaintance with A.I. Solzhenitsyn, friendship with whom continues to this day. Does the assessment of his work, influence on literary process in Russia, CIS?
Zh.N .: Before meeting Solzhenitsyn, my life was service in French army, wounded in Algeria ... And in parallel - constant improvement in Slavic studies, in the profession. There was work at the university, getting the title of "professor". My wife and I translated into French " cancer corps"," From under the rocks. At the same time, a meeting with Alexander Isaevich took place, first in Paris, and then in Cavendish, where he lived.
In general, since 1974, there was just a stream of emigrants from the USSR. Brezhnev sent people to the West. Of its own accord, the country deprived itself of its talents - Rostropovich, Baryshnikov, Shemyakin ... It was a disaster. And we, the West, received these people as a gift. The end of the Brezhnev era was the most ridiculous time for the USSR. There is more sense in Stalinism! Stalin destroyed people because he is a dictator. These did not destroy, but simply got rid of dissidents. My friends Viktor Nekrasov, Andrei Amalrik, Andrei Sinyavsky have been to Geneva. Collaboration with Natalia Gorbanevskaya, Joseph Brodsky, Mikhail Geller, Vladimir Maksimov, Alexander Galich was very interesting.
I think the country collapsed because it felt like it was killing itself. This never happened under the old regime. Yes, Herzen was in exile, but Turgenev was not. Lev Nikolayevich was never in exile, although some of his phrases were forbidden, and gaps gaped in Resurrection. But this did not reach the point of complete absurdity.
At one time the West (or rather, the West reading: let's not exaggerate) lived on the ideas of Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. Their dispute, a dispute about which ways to free yourself internally. Sakharov - on the positions of enlightenment philosophy, and Solzhenitsyn - rather, on the positions of the Christian faith.
This discussion was hypnotizing. And when we received books by Evgenia Ginzburg, General Grigorenko, they amazed us, because they were existential books. Because the authors talked about their own torment, own experience and your own salvation: how special person rescued from cowardice. And those were very individual responses. Ginzburg, Grigorenko, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Nekrasov - these are different answers and wealth of that period.
When Solzhenitsyn's typist was arrested and hanged herself, the writer called and, with a prearranged prearranged signal, made it clear that The Gulag Archipelago should be published. He was aware that this was an ax blow on Soviet power. In my opinion, this book somehow turned the history of the twentieth century. This is not well understood now. Moreover, in Russia they still do not write about this objectively and calmly. And our French prose writer Philippe Soles said about Solzhenitsyn: "This is the Dante of modern times." great book This is a book that changes the life of the reader.
Solzhenitsyn's problem is that he plays two roles at the same time. On the one hand, it is known and published as a classic. And so, it's like it's gone. On the other hand, he is still a living person who wants to have his say. He complains about not being read. Probably, he himself is partially to blame ... Although these words also have no meaning. And yet, probably, in our changed world there is no place for a prophet. Tolstoy had ups and downs in relations with the public, but the aging Tolstoy was adored and respected by the whole world. In general, all the great voices show how the world will collapse and predict salvation. But it is not yet known what. They say that another world will come after the present one, the one they hate, they bury and expose in every possible way.
Solzhenitsyn is a very Russian writer, with a complicated language - a la Remizov, he is keenly worried about his Motherland, feels it like a sick member of his own body, but he is also a European author, one of the creators and poets of post-topic Europe. He changed France profoundly.
From Solzhenitsyn to Sorokin - the abyss
What is happening with literature (not only Russian) today? Is a serious book in demand? Is the insane growth in the popularity of detectives, action films, "women's" novels characteristic of Western society, or is this a sign of the current post-Soviet space?
Zh.N.: I do not share the general lamentation about the decline in the level of current literature. Let people rest. It will be necessary: let them open Dostoevsky, Grossman, the Bible... There are no "serious" books. Pushkin did not like them. But there are sincere books that have passed through the fire of tragedy. Unfortunately, they are not written to order. Pay attention - we no longer have vital writers, prophets. The prophets turn pale, repent own lies like, for example, Günther Grass.
From Solzhenitsyn to Sorokin is not just a long distance, but an abyss. This different worlds. We publish a lot of Pelevin, Sorokin. Everyone wants to explain that instead of the USSR today, what kind of Sphinx is this?
And for some reason they think that here they are, Pelevin, Sorokin, Kochergin, they will explain everything to us. But this is deeply wrong, this is some kind of primitivism. What can the literature of mockery, sacrilege, the triumph of the material-corporeal bottom explain - does this express the essence of life?
In my opinion, Petrushevskaya or Pietsukh are much richer writers from this point of view. Reading them, you see scenes from current life, which really help to understand what is happening in Russia or Ukraine. And how to understand something according to Pelevin? Or by " blue fat"? Of course, I do not require literature to become a mirror of reality, however, any real literature helps to understand this reality. A novel, a story is not a document, but they help the reader. Postmodernism is not at all an expression of our time. It is not expression of the terrible spiritual poverty that exists today, and the terrible social stratification, which exists. The playfulness of postmodernism is not only in Russia, it is everywhere. As for the Russian postmodernists, they are, say, Nabokov's children. I love Nabokov very much, by the way, I knew him, but I do not turn to him for spiritual food. His "otherworldliness", his "other worlds" do not convince me in any way. But playfulness, observation, autoquotation ...
Literature is the most best letter, which one country can send to another country. Genius does not depend on the needs of society. We do not know who may appear in the near future. A new Balzac, Proust or Dostoevsky may appear, who will comprehend this time in his own way. I read, as best I can, the new Russian fiction. I see something, but I don't see the Proust equivalent yet. Although I could be wrong...
By the way, censorship really helps to create - just like death. Because without death there would be no motivation for creativity. But this does not mean that we should sing the anthem of death, plague and censorship. Of course, censorship in some way gives rise to a metaphor. She forces the poet to find a roundabout, metaphorical way. Today, in conditions of complete creative freedom, there is another danger. You just won't be interested. Maybe you thought you invented shocking number one, but in the West this no longer surprises anyone. The civil, prophetic, visionary mission of the poet is over. No one asks him how to arrange life. In my opinion, born new literature, she is "miniature", she reduces all anxiety modern man who lost utopian dreams, religious faith and very often even himself.
Great literature could not prevent world wars, conflicts, upheavals either in the past or now ... Why does humanity not listen to good advice, does not read wise books, does not follow Christian morality, after all. After all, the Word, which was in the beginning, taught goodness and mercy. Where is it?
JN: Literature does not protect against evil. She writes about him. About murder, about Cain and Troy, about peoples gone mad. She heals, she is a catharsis, not a surgeon. Pasternak composes "My Sister Life" in 1917. Not a word about the revolution. Silence is a heroic feat.
Croatian artist Musić writes a terrifying series "We are not the last" about the victims of the Holocaust. The American Littell creates a huge fresco about the desecration of the mind and body of Europe by Hitler's psychopathology and seeks from the Greek tragedians the "key" to the horror that cannot be understood. What was, was. There are no mitigating circumstances. And literature is sometimes an aggravating circumstance. She can set fire, provoke, love blood and mayhem. Do you know how many books are published in France every year? 50 thousand different items. That's a lot, I'd say it's insane. And I am absolutely not convinced that this should be rejoiced. Among these tens of thousands of books, there are a huge number of books published at random, by chance, bad books. But, of course, there were, remain and will be works that, with the talent and kind thoughts of the author, help the reader to better understand life, to become nobler, more sublime. But for that, you need to read the book. And the habit, the desire for reading - to educate.
Feast during freedom
Which of contemporary writers do you consider the most interesting, significant? Who do you think determines the level writing skills, combining the depth of thoughts and sincerity of feelings with reader popularity?
Zh.N .: From not quite young - Mark Kharitonov. From a newer galaxy - Andrey Dmitriev - "A Closed Book", Marya Kucherskaya - " Modern patericon”, Alexei Ivanov - “Gold of Revolt”, from poetry - Olga Sedakova, Oleg Chukhontsev, Sergey Gandlevsky. I have my own collection in Paris of books translated from Russian. But it is small, the publisher does not really want to develop it. I published in it Mark Kharitonov, the diaries of David Samoilov, the diary of Korney Chukovsky, Mikhail Shishkin "The Capture of Ishmael", he, by the way, received the "Booker".
Concerning Ukrainian literature, familiar with the works of Vasyl Stus, Boris Chichibabin, Vasyl Bark, Friedrich Gorenstein. I know that there are now several writers' unions in Ukraine, and the center of one of them is in Luhansk. This is a sign of democracy, although I have always eschewed writers' organizations.
I try to follow the events in Ukraine, not only literary ones. I think disappointment and failure are essential parts of freedom. A feast during freedom can end in chaos and displeasure for all. For both Ukraine and Russia it is useful lesson: freedom is needed, but freedom is not everything. We urgently need decency, culture, honesty, love for our neighbors, and not just for our own pocket. Basically, great literature teaches this. But only those who want to learn.
I sincerely wish for peace, democratic compromise and respect for each other. And for Russia to look at the Ukrainian experience with sympathy and openness. Pushkin loved empire and freedom. It's time to love freedom and begin to understand each other. For both Ukraine and Russia are Europe, among the principles of which are culture, civilization, tolerance.
And in my plans - to master Ukrainian language and do translations into french works Frying pans and Stus.
"To the end of the Russian myth", "Russia - Europe, to the end of the split" - these are the titles of the first two volumes of Georges Nive's works on Russian literature and culture in its relationship with the rest of Europe. Not so long ago, the third volume was published in Lausanne - “Live in Russian”. This statement by a French professor teaching at a Swiss university contains a certain key to democratic life position: not with a fist, not with malice and deceit - with a word, understanding and respect to achieve the goal. To live in a language - Russian, Ukrainian or French, to live, trying to understand words and deeds, as Professor Georges Niva does.
J. Niva
Georges NIVA is a legendary man. He has many titles: he is a professor at the University of Geneva, an academician of the European Academy (London), an honorary professor at many European universities, the president of the International Geneva Meetings, which annually bring together writers, historians, philosophers, cultural figures, but above all he is the most famous Slavist. They say that he loves to be called in the Russian manner - Georgy Ivanovich. Russia became for him, still very young, not just an object of study, but also a love for life. He was well acquainted with Akhmatova, Brodsky, was friends with Okudzhava, Nekrasov, Sinyavsky, translated Solzhenitsyn and Bely. But the first poet he met in Russia was Boris Pasternak. It so happened that Boris Leonidovich and his entourage largely influenced the fate of Georges Niva. We started the conversation from the beginning - with the discovery of Russia.
Georges, how did you end up in Russia in 1956?
At the age of 19, I became an intern at Moscow State University. Then, in the mid-1950s, only the French could come to the USSR from capitalist countries on an official exchange (there were also Italians, but they came to the USSR not on an official exchange, but on the direction of the Italian Communist Party), and I was among them.
B. Pasternak with O. Ivinskaya and her daughter Irina. Peredelkino. 1958
But I am indebted to my teacher for the outbreak of interest in Russia and further commitment to this country. I studied at the Sorbonne in the English department, over time this occupation bored me, and I tried to find something new and interesting. Once, looking into the next room, I saw a person who later greatly influenced my life - it was Professor Pierre Pascal. He immediately captured me, made a strong impression, and then won me over. Pascal was an amazing personality with a very rich, varied biography, closely connected with Russia, in which total he lived for 17 years. By the way, in 1917 in Moscow it was he who founded the French Bolshevik group. Pierre Pascal was connected both with Berdyaev, Zaitsev and Weidle, as well as with Lenin, Chicherin (for some time Pascal was his secretary), Russian anarchists. Then followed his break with Bolshevism.
Pascal knew how to captivate. We can say that this mysterious, very attractive person just sent me to Russia.
Did you have certain political beliefs back then?
No. But I had not very well-formed thoughts that the USSR is a country where a certain utopian order prevails. Therefore, it was somewhat of a shock - rather pleasant than vice versa - that in the USSR I found much more chaos than order. This state of affairs did not at all correspond to my teenage ideas about Soviet Russia.
Under what circumstances did you meet Ivinskaya and Pasternak?
My dormitory friend said that he was familiar with the family in which mother and daughter were in the camp - it was about Olga Vsevolodovna Ivinskaya and her mother Maria Nikolaevna. At that time I didn’t even know such a word - “sit” - but my friend filled in the gap and clearly explained its meaning by talking about the Stalinist camps. Naturally, this piqued my interest. And I enthusiastically accepted the opportunity to meet women who were "sitting". In the autumn of 1956, I ended up at Olga Vsevolodovna's house and over time became very friendly with her entire family. This house was often visited by Boris Leonidovich Pasternak, whom everyone called only “classic”. I constantly heard: the “classic” should come, the “classic” called. Finally the "classic" came while I was there and we got to know each other.
And with the daughter of Olga Vsevolodovna Irina Emelyanova, I began an affair.
Did Irina win your heart right away?
No, not immediately, but gradually. In 1956-1957 I was in Moscow. Then I lived in Oxford for a year, during which time I corresponded with Irina and received books by Boris Leonidovich from her. In the autumn of 1959 I returned to Moscow. And that's when our relationship took shape love story we decided to get married. Then I developed a mysterious disease - encephalitis. There is no evidence, but there are suspicions that this disease arose in an unnatural way. I went to France for treatment and returned. Then Boris Leonidovich fell ill, followed by his death. I experienced all this very much - after all, I was going to marry Irina, and I perceived Olga Vsevolodovna as a second mother. I fell ill again - no longer with encephalitis, but also with a very unpleasant and out of nowhere illness. And two days before the registration of marriage with Irina and two weeks before the arrest of Olga Vsevolodovna, I was expelled from the USSR.
I did not want to leave at all, but, accompanied by four KGB officers, they put me on a plane that was flying to Helsinki. The wife of a French diplomat, who accompanied me to the plane, asked if I had money, I answered no. I didn't have any money with me. She gave me several Finnish marks, and this later gave me reason to say that a petty intriguer who was smuggling money had been expelled from the USSR. For almost two weeks, an attack was carried out on the radio on all of Pasternak's entourage, including me, in order to arrest Olga Vsevolodovna.
How did you know she was under arrest?
I called Moscow all the time. First they arrested Olga Vsevolodovna, and 20 days later - Irina. I continued to receive information about them through the housekeeper Polina Egorovna, who was almost a member of this family. For four years I called her and she gave me all the camp news.
In France I developed vigorous activity to free his fiancée and her mother from the camp. I asked to influence this scary monster- USSR - to Bertrand Russell, Francois Mauriac, Mrs. Roosevelt and many others famous people: it’s one thing when they heard something about the unjust arrest of people close to Pasternak, but it’s completely different when a living groom appeared and told all the details of this horror story. I asked for the release of completely innocent people very close to me. In general, I did everything I could.
For me, the news was a big blow that Irina fell in love with another person in the camp, it turned out to be the poet and translator Vadim Kozovoi, with whom we became friends later, after his emigration to France. Then I canceled the postponement in the army and went to fight in Algeria, where I participated in the suppression of the putsch of four generals against de Gaulle.
Did you shoot?
Shot.
Killed someone?
I don't know, I shot at someone when we were surrounded, but they wounded me. It was a wound in the liver, and I was taken to the hospital on an ambulance plane. Since that time, I have a 10 percent disability. After being discharged from the hospital, I returned to duty and continued to fight.
So you are a militant person?!
Turns out he's belligerent. (Laughs.) I even received a medal "For military valor."
Let's get back to your impressions of Boris Pasternak.
Gradually, Boris Leonidovich and I developed quite close relations. From time to time I was left alone in the house rented by Olga Ivinskaya in Peredelkino, and Boris Leonidovich visited it almost daily. Often we led long and sometimes very frank conversations. And sometimes it was talk about his relationship with Olga Vsevolodovna, about his sense of guilt for the duality of the situation. I confess that at that time I was somewhat embarrassed: after all, I was quite young, and it was somehow embarrassing for me to listen to these confessions of Boris Leonidovich - a man much older than me, famous poet as if confessing to me!
I have repeatedly come across, including in the "Memoirs" of Nadezhda Mandelstam, with an assessment of Pasternak as a very egocentric, very self-centered person. What can you say about this?
This is wrong. Boris Leonidovich was a very sympathetic person, there was absolutely no egocentrism in him. Moreover, his kindness and responsiveness extended not only to relatives and family. He was concerned about the fate of the most different people. He could talk for a long time about some beggar woman whom he met by chance, and she told him her story. Many people who have nothing to do with literature and hardly imagine what kind of poet they are talking to turned to Pasternak for advice. And he said embarrassedly: “They ask me for advice, as if I were a sage or a spiritual father, what can I tell them?” But he never refused anyone, and always, when they turned to him, he stopped and talked. He sowed happiness around him.
Boris Leonidovich had a wonderful children's laughter, many things seemed interesting and funny to him, he was surprisingly mobile and perceived life as a child, and a happy child. As if it was his duty to live happily even in a tragic time. And yet the tragedy of life entered his work.
I remember his story about the famine of the early 1930s: Boris Leonidovich and his family visited the Urals, they lived in a hotel where they were good conditions and great food, and there were a lot of hungry people around. And suddenly he saw an inscription indicating that the hotel belongs to the Cheka. Pasternak was shocked. The tragedy of life entered his poetry, his worldview. But it seems to me that he really wanted the world to remain happy - under the "shower of happiness", as in "The Sister of My Life."
What did Boris Leonidovich look like when you met him?
When we met, Boris Leonidovich was well over 60, but he had a surprisingly youthful appearance. He was one of those men who last hour of their lives remain young. I knew the second such - this is Viktor Nekrasov. Of course, his horse's face, expressive mouth, thinness were absolutely unique! He was handsome and young. He always had simple, but very suitable clothes for him - whether it was a sweater or a raincoat. After all, Pasternak is a dandy, but a dandy involuntarily.
You witnessed the relationship between Olga Ivinskaya and Boris Pasternak. What did you observe? What kind of conversations did they have?
They talked a lot about poetic translations, because both Olga Vsevolodovna and Boris Leonidovich were engaged in them. They joked a lot. But since I caught the time of the publication of Doctor Zhivago abroad, the discussions revolved mainly around these events. Ivinskaya helped Boris Leonidovich as best she could, but it was very difficult to orient and develop the correct line of conduct. They turned to everyone for advice and were ready to listen to anyone, but no one really knew how this whole story would end. The only thing Pasternak definitely wanted was for the novel to come out. He gave strict instructions to Feltrinelli: whatever telegrams, letters and phone calls(Boris Leonidovich was afraid that he himself would be able to do this under pressure) that Pasternak demands the return of his text, in no case should this demand be taken seriously. There was an agreement - to print under any circumstances. So in this sense, he challenged the Soviet regime.
Did Boris Leonidovich somehow evaluate the existing system in conversations?
Certainly. I remember we were talking about translations of Shakespeare's monologues, and Boris Leonidovich said: “Until 1936, I thought that monologues were a theatrical device when a character speaks to himself for the audience, but in 1936 I realized that this was not entirely true. It suddenly became obvious to me that I could only tell the truth to myself. Even with a wife to the end, a truthful conversation is dangerous. I looked at the Kremlin and delivered a monologue against the tyrant.” The realization that he lives under the most terrible tyranny that puts pressure on his relationship with his wife and closest friends, he had.
Could Pasternak be frank with Ivinskaya?
Could, but it was already another period. Boris Leonidovich tried to discuss everything with Olga Vsevolodovna.
Was their relationship emotional?
It was a very emotional, very happy relationship.
Do you think this dual existence between the official family and Ivinskaya was a difficult test for Boris Leonidovich?
One cannot think that he experienced such a situation as something natural. He personally told me that after the arrest of Olga Vsevolodovna he should have left his house and joined her.
Boris Leonidovich began to write Lara from Zinaida Nikolaevna, with time Olga Vsevolodovna became the prototype of Lara. And yet Lara is Ivinskaya?
There is not the slightest doubt that Lara is Olga Vsevolodovna. It was she who inspired the final image of Larisa Feodorovna. This was not invented by literary critics, Boris Leonidovich himself told me about this. Incidentally, the awkwardness of the existential situation between the two families of Yuri Zhivago reflects the awkwardness of Boris Leonidovich's position.
Around Olga Vsevolodovna and her role in the fate of Pasternak, so much has been said. A certain number of memoirs have been published, in particular by Emma Gerstein and Lydia Chukovskaya, where at least disparaging reviews are found about Ivinskaya. Lidia Korneevna Chukovskaya generally accuses her of theft: she allegedly took parcels to send to her friend in the camp and appropriated them.
All these disgusting allusions about Olga Vsevolodovna's uncleanliness simply infuriate me, because I knew Ivinskaya for a very long time and watched her very closely. I explain these hints and prejudice with jealousy. Including Lydia Korneevna, who in her memoirs repeats the wrong story of the theft. After all, the first thing that, having been released, the camp friend did was pay a visit to Olga Vsevolodovna, and all subsequent long life they remained close friends. All these accusations have nothing to do with her character and image.
Olga Vsevolodovna was very beautiful woman. I think that for the poet she personified the Russian beauty. And - amazing phenomenon- she retained this beauty in old age. But when I met her in 1956, she was still young, in full strength. Ivinskaya was an unusually cheerful woman and with a very pure soul.
Highly authoritative ladies - both Lidia Korneevna and Anna Andreevna - believed that she had bewitched the poet. They could not understand why Boris Pasternak chose her, why his muse and last love became a woman who had three husbands and a very turbulent youth.
But did Anna Andreevna have no less husbands?
There is no logical reasoning in these cases. When my wife - she is a Slavist - was translating into French Lidia Korneevna's book "Memories of Anna Akhmatova", then we received permission for some reductions. I told Lydia Korneevna's daughter Elena that we would definitely make one reduction: these are discussions about Olga Ivinskaya, because I consider them biased and completely unfair.
Today, the role of Boris Pasternak's memory keeper has been taken over by his son Yevgeny Borisovich, and his wife has taken on the role of a publisher. They are doing a very good, good deed, but in the biography of the poet, which was written by Yevgeny Pasternak, the role of Olga Vsevolodovna is underestimated in every possible way. This does not correspond to what I saw with my own eyes and felt: there was an amazing harmony between Olga Vsevolodovna and Boris Leonidovich. By the way, this part of the biography of Boris Pasternak, in my opinion, is underestimated in Dmitry Bykov's very good book Boris Pasternak.
And what can you say about property disputes between Ivinskaya and the official family of Boris Leonidovich?
Feltrinelli had instructions from Boris Pasternak to divide the royalties from the publication of his works abroad equally between Ivinskaya and the official family. But legally, all this was formalized with Olga Vsevolodovna. By the way, that's what she was jailed for. Already after the release of Ivinskaya from the camp, she was invited to the Pasternak family to settle this matter, and only after that the relatives of Boris Leonidovich received the legal right to use his inheritance.
Did you continue your relationship with Ivinskaya after Pasternak's death?
Yes, our relationship continued until her last days, and Olga Vsevolodovna lived a long life and remained the same attractive and cheerful person as under Pasternak. Her life was full: she wrote and published a book of memoirs, wrote poems, which, however, were published after her death. When we met, she read poetry, both her own and “classics”. And with Irina Emelyanova, who married Vadim Kozovoy and emigrated to France, we are still friends.
The interview was conducted by Elena Garevskaya
Georges Niva Youtube
In St. Petersburg, in the editorial office of the literary and artistic magazine "Zvezda", a presentation of the collection "Window from Europe" was held. It contains articles, essays and poems dedicated to the French Slavist, one of the leading Western researchers of Russian culture, Georges Niva. In an interview with RFI, Niva shared his views on contemporary Russian culture and politics.
RFI: In Soviet times you were intimately acquainted and even friendly with writers who were either banned or not well received by officialdom. What influence, in your opinion, did the literature published by Samizdat have on the mentality of Soviet readers?
George Niva: At first, of course, I did not get acquainted with dissidents - by the way, they did not exist yet. I just got into the family of Olga Vsevolodovna Ivinskaya, met Boris Pasternak. He gave me books, gave me Doctor Zhivago to read before publication.
After I was expelled from the USSR, I was banned from entering the country for 12 years. During this time, dissidence developed: the case of Sinyavsky and Daniel, the trial of Brodsky, Grigorenko, Sakharov. And, of course, the transformation of Alexander Isaevich (Solzhenitsyn) into a kind of dissident, although he did not like this word.
My connection began with the fact that I met these dissident writers. For example, Amalrik, with whom I immediately became friends, Andrei Sinyavsky, his wife, Viktor Platonovich Nekrasov, Delaunay, who died early and was unhappy in Paris, I still remember.
It was an emotionally overwhelming moment, I got to know them as they came (to France), and I felt that we were getting the most valuable part of Soviet Russia. And, of course, so far the correspondence meeting with Solzhenitsyn played a big role.
In the Soviet Union, the beginning of a real “thaw” was associated with the publication of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” in the November issue of Novy Mir in 1962. And the beginning of real glasnost and de-Stalinization during the years of perestroika is associated with the first publication in the USSR of The Gulag Archipelago. Now in Russia there is a reverse process - the rehabilitation of Stalin, and not only from above, but also from below. The latest examples are the installation of a commemorative plaque on the building of the Moscow State Law Academy and the first place in the list of outstanding historical figures, according to the latest . What feelings do these messages evoke in you, a specialist in the work of Solzhenitsyn?
Thank God, everything is not so absolute. In the sense that, after all, the "Gulag Archipelago" in an abbreviated version, which was made by Natalya Dmitrievna (Solzhenitsyna), as far as I know, is taught in gymnasiums, in schools. And as long as The Gulag Archipelago is sold freely and read by young people, hope has not been lost, truth has not disappeared.
On the other hand, it's over, in today's Russia there are a lot of completely annoying and not entirely clear phenomena for me. Why such longing for a past that killed so many people? Why such longing for the dictatorship, for the demographic and other catastrophes that took place then, in the USSR?
I hope this is a temporary phenomenon in Russia. If this does not pass, then everything will go for the worse. Where it's going now, we don't know. This is the main thing that worries me when I follow the political situation here. The main thing is that even the near future is not clear. Still, any country should have some kind of system of change of power. But here it seems that there is no (such a system). And this is alarming for the current regime, for the current generation.
Generally, in modern Russia Literature is still relevant not only to culture, but also to politics. Examples of this are the popularity of satirical and journalistic poems by Dmitry Bykov and Andrey Orlov (“Orlushas”), a lively discussion military career Zakhara Prilepin in ORDLO (certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions), disputes over a recent interview by Svetlana Aleksievich, where the topics of forced Russification in Belarus and Ukraine were raised. And so on. What, in your opinion, caused such an increased politicization of literature in Russia?
This is not exactly politicization. Firstly, as far as I feel it, Bykov is already leaving a little. I don't feel the same urgency. Aleksievich, after Second Hand Time, may have exhausted her talent as a writer-interviewer and is looking for other ways.
Now it is not the book that is being discussed, but the interview, which made a lot of noise.
I fully respect and accept her opinion, but this is not part of her literary portrait. I think that in Russia or in Minsk it is very difficult to be a writer and politician. Because there is such pressure that this is not the time for prudent reasoning, as, for example, in Pushkin. His political reflections are distinguished by an amazing balance between tendentiousness and analysis. Svetlana Aleksievich does not have this, but that it causes controversy is useful.
Prilepin is another matter, now, as far as I understand, he is at war. This is not clear to me. But I must say that I really loved his novel The Abode.
Since you have been studying not only Russian since Soviet times, Russian culture, but also Ukrainian, then the question is for you, as a person who is immersed in the history of these countries, which diverge further and further. How do you perceive the events that have been taking place in Ukraine with the participation of Russia since 2014?
I know the Ukrainian language, the Ukrainian side, much worse than the Russian one, because I devote nine-tenths of my time to reading Russian sources. But I also read Ukrainian. There's a war going on. She, thank God, is not full, she is a hybrid, as they say, but still some shoot at others. Means war. There are refugees from Lugansk, Donetsk. For example, I know a Ukrainian Russian-speaking poet from Luhansk who now lives in Germany - he is a refugee.
What can I say... It's almost a dead end situation. I personally see a way out of this in solving the problem by Europe, when a “third Europe” will turn out. The “first” are the founders: France, Germany, Benelux, Italy. The “second” is after the fall of communism: Poland, Romania, and so on. And the “third” is what will become of Ukraine and Russia. I don't want to say that Russia should become a "new Belgium" or a "new Holland", although it is connected with Holland by its history, but it cannot sever its connection with Europe. Because it is a European country by culture.
She received a lot, she gave a lot - in music, in art, in philosophy. But some people in Russia now deny the connection. It doesn't make sense for the future Western Europe and for the future of Russia - that is of Eastern Europe. Europe must breathe with its two "lungs", as the late Pope John Paul II said. This is the key to the future for me, but I do not know how it will be realized, because I am not a prophet.
French literary historian, Slavist, professor at the University of Geneva (1972-2000), Academician of the European Academy (London), honorary professor of many European universities, president of the International Geneva Meetings, which annually bring together writers, historians, philosophers, cultural figures.
Main interest Georges Niva is focused on literature. Author of numerous publications on the history and state of the art Russian literature. Author of works of various genres - from treatises to essays and translations. But in his numerous works, he also manifests himself as a politician, historian, sociologist, human rights activist, culturologist. He thinks with equal ease about art and etymology, globalization and terrorism, dialogue between Russia and the West, and the place of religion in society. He was engaged in translations and creativity of AI Solzhenitsyn for a number of years. He also translated the prose of Andrei Bely. Editor of the collection "Tracts of Russian Memory". The first volume of the collection was published (Fayard, Paris publishing house). In 1995, Bulat Okudzhava dedicated a poem to Georges Niva: Ah, Georges Dantes killed the poet! And he was cursed for centuries for this. And Georges Niva is a friend to poets - I know firsthand. In love with Russian literature, he flies from the mountains, inspired, and brings an unquenchable light to the University of Geneva. "Republic of children" and a man in the understanding of philosophers. Why did I remember Dantes? He was a bum and a rake. Georges Niva is another matter - my friend, professor, head. And I remembered, probably because there is good and bad in the world, that the principle of our life is two Georges of different sewing. And I am happy that I am friendly with this, that this Georges is dear to me and I need that I have conversations with him ... And let him burn in hell. Ann Niva's daughter, a journalist, gained fame in connection with scandalous decision The Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation about her expulsion in February 2012 from Russia due to the use of a business visa for conducting creative activities and meetings with Russian oppositionists.
French literary historian, professor at the University of Geneva
Scientific activity
- He studied at the Higher Normal School in Paris (1955-1960), at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, at Saint Antony's College (Oxford).
- Co-editor of the multi-volume History of Russian Literature, published in French and Italian(Histoire de la littérature russe in seven volumes, five have alreaady been published at the Editions Fayard, Paris).
- Member of the editorial board of the literary, journalistic and religious magazine "Continent".
- Member of the Board of Trustees of the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute.
literary work
Georges Nive's main interest is in literature. Author of numerous publications on the history and current state of Russian literature. Author of works of various genres - from treatises to essays and translations. But in his numerous works, he also manifests himself as a politician, historian, sociologist, human rights activist, culturologist. He thinks with equal ease about art and etymology, globalization and terrorism, dialogue between Russia and the West, and the place of religion in society. He was engaged in translations and creativity of AI Solzhenitsyn for a number of years. He also translated the prose of Andrei Bely. Editor of the collection "Tracts of Russian Memory". The first volume of the collection was published (Fayard, Paris).
In 1995, Bulat Okudzhava dedicated a poem to Georges Niva:
Ah, Georges Dantes killed the poet!
And he was cursed for centuries for this.
And Georges Niva is a friend of poets -
I know first hand.
In love with Russian literature,
he flies from the mountains, winged,
and brings inextinguishable light
at the University of Geneva.
Why did I remember Dantes?
He was a bum and a rake.
Another thing Georges Niva -
my friend, professor, head.
And I remembered because, probably,
that there is good and bad in the world,
that the principle of our life is
two Georges of different sewing.
And I'm happy that I'm friendly with this,
that this George is dear and necessary to me,
that I'm talking to him...
And let him burn in hell.
Personal life
The daughter of Ann Niva, a journalist, gained fame in connection with the scandalous decision of the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation on her expulsion from Russia in February 2012 due to the use of a business visa for conducting creative activities and meetings with Russian oppositionists.
Publications
- Sur Soljenitsyne, Lausanne, 1974.
- Soljenitysne (Paris, 1980, Russian traslation in London, 1985, then in Moscow 1990 and 1993).
- La Russie de l'An I, Paris 1993.
- Regards sur la Russie de l'An VI, Editions Bernard de Fallois, Paris.
- Return to Europe. Articles about Russian literature. M.: graduate School, 1999.
