The revolution of 1905 completely owned Gorky. He joins the Social Democratic Party and takes an active part in the revolutionary struggle. At the end of the year, he becomes one of the organizers of the first legal Bolshevik newspaper " New life”and first meets with V.I. Lenin.
High mental attitude does not leave Gorky and abroad. The party instructed him to speak abroad against the provision of foreign loans to the tsarist government, and also to organize the collection of funds in America to help the struggling people.
Comparison of bleeding Russia with self-satisfied Europe and rich America, gripped by a violent desire for profit, led Gorky to the idea that Russia was becoming the center of the revolutionary movement and that it was in her, in this backward country, that events were brewing that would shake the world.
“Now we Russians will drag the world forward,” writes Gorky in August 1906. And in one of the December letters we read: “I live in delight, in fear high spirits- every day more and more convinces me of the nearness of the world revolution.
In this elevated mood, saturated with revolutionary thought, Gorky enthusiastically writes the play "Enemies" and the novel "Mother", which marked a new milestone in the development of not only Russian, but also world literature.
The fact that Gorky did not fit into the framework traditional realism, was already clear when he entered literature. In the article “New Trends in Russian Literature”, A. Skabichevsky stated: “... Mr. Gorky is a completely peculiar phenomenon, having very few points of contact with the literary traditions familiar to us.
The critic was not yet able to define the new that sounded in the "songs" about the Falcon and the Petrel, in the stories about the tramps, but for him there was no doubt that this was not realism in the old sense and not decadence.
At the turn of the century working theme imperiously entered literature, sounding especially loud in 1905-1907. In the works of these years, the entry into the historical arena of the working class, the heroism of the masses, and involvement in the liberation struggle were shown. broad circles population.
In the development of these themes, the contribution of Znanev writers was especially significant. They saw a new social force - the proletariat, but, as A. Lunacharsky rightly remarked, they saw it "without fully understanding it, not yet embracing all the grandiosity of what it brings with it." The appearance of "Enemies" and "Mother" - new stage in the socio-artistic comprehension of this problem.
Both works provoked a hostile reaction from bourgeois criticism, including symbolist criticism. Having been defeated in her early attempts to ideologically crush Gorky as a spokesman for the aspirations of the lower classes of society, she now tried to prove the aesthetic failure of his speeches. Appeal to social problems was declared by her contraindicated for artistic creativity.
For Libra employees, artistry and sociality are incompatible concepts. Works that depict the struggle of the people are "business", "practical" literature for them. A. Bely wrote: "We do not agree that art expresses class contradictions." Z. Gippius argued that the party position destroyed the writer in Gorky. D. Filosofov made a sensational article "Gorky's End".
There was a fierce dispute about the development of Russian literature, about who would win in it - representatives modernist art isolated from acute social problems, or Gorky and his "school", representing the art associated with the struggle of the people, with the revolution.
But what was rejected by Gorky's opponents under the guise of protecting aesthetics from foreign, in this case, social "intrusions", in fact, served as the basis for the emergence of a new aesthetics, new criteria of beauty. "Mother" and "Enemies" were Gorky's social and aesthetic manifestos, based on his long-standing artistic search. The man of labor was put forward to the fore, life was seen as an act and a struggle directed to the future.
After the appearance of "Resurrection" and "Foma Gordeev" in the field of the novel there was a "calm". He was supplanted by the drama and the story. "Mother" marked the emergence of a new type social novel. But at the time of its publication, only L. Andreev, sensitive to innovative searches in literature, recognized "Mother" major work, in which the people themselves "talked about the revolution in big, heavy, cruelly suffered words."
And yet, not accepting "Mother", the writers of various literary camps could not but admit that it was Gorky who was the writer who had the right to speak on behalf of the people. It is characteristic that when, in the spirit of his article, D. Filosofov accused Gorky of betraying former views at one of the literary meetings, N. Minsky responded by saying that “the revolution, having brought with it a reassessment of all values,” threw “ New World and Gorky” and that “Gorky is as much a writer as he is a bearer of the feelings of an entire people, a prophet of his era”, he belongs not only to Russian literature, but also to Russian history.
Gorky's organic connection with the people will be noted by A. Blok and many others. Thus, the scale of the figure of the writer and his latest works was recognized.
History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983
But a strange thing - against the backdrop of the Russian intelligentsia, who were completely fascinated and admired by February, Gorky stands out with skepticism and grumbling. Still, he knew Russia better than most of his contemporaries.
Revolutions and other cataclysms, as a rule, are enthusiastically welcomed by people with an internal crack, with a breakdown: their own tragedy resonates with the world, and constant anxiety is finally resolved by a social storm. In Russia - due to the rather bestial conditions of her life - there are, as a rule, many such people.
But few healthy people they perceive revolutions as they should: as a serious danger, the collapse of the world order and a threat to culture. Gorky's attitude to the revolution of 1917 shows that at that time he was mentally much healthier and more normal than in 1905, when he rejoiced at the Moscow uprising.
However, there is another reason: Russia was different. The revolution of 1905 was the result of a colossal social upsurge, and the revolution of 1917, which is usually forgotten, was the result of an unprecedented decline. The revolution of 1905 was made by revolutionaries - propagandists, proletarians, intellectuals.
The revolution of 1917 was largely made by circumstances - it did not have its own driving class: Russia collapsed not as a result of the targeted efforts of a handful of emigrants who called themselves Bolsheviks, but by itself, the course of things. The revolution of the fifth year was a creative effort of the masses - but what happened in the seventeenth, strictly speaking, was no revolution at all. There was no coup. There was a progressive anarchy, which could be resolved either by the usurpation of power, or by the seizure of the country from outside. Under these conditions, the Bolsheviks won - simply organized first. Gorky himself saw in what was happening only a rebellion of the primitive, a rebellion of instinct - and branded it earlier than others in Untimely Thoughts.
"I expect some of the 'real politicians' to exclaim with disdain: 'What do you want? This is a social revolution! No - in this explosion of zoological instincts, I do not see pronounced elements social revolution. This is a Russian revolt without socialists in spirit, without the participation of socialist psychology. And other workers say and write to me: "Comrade, you should rejoice, the proletariat has won!"
I have nothing to rejoice at, the proletariat won nothing and no one. Just as he himself was not defeated when the police regime held him by the throat, so now, when he is holding the bourgeoisie by the throat, the bourgeoisie has not yet been defeated. Ideas do not win by methods of physical violence. The victors are usually generous - perhaps because of fatigue - the proletariat is not magnanimous.
February could only cause delight among the thoroughly politicized - and therefore petty-short-sighted intelligentsia like the circle of Zinaida Gippius, or among those political prisoners and exiles to whom he returned freedom. Others knew perfectly well how it would all end. Among them was Gorky - who did not experience enthusiasm for February and became angry when others expressed them in his presence.
"In a country generously endowed with natural riches and talents, it was discovered, as a result of its spiritual poverty, total anarchy in all areas of culture. Industry, technology - in its infancy and without a strong connection with science; science - somewhere in the backyard, in the dark and under the hostile supervision of an official; art, limited, distorted by censorship, has become detached from the public, immersed in the search for new forms, having lost its vital, exciting and ennobling content.
Everywhere, inside and outside of a person, devastation, shattering, chaos and traces of some long mama's massacre. And no matter how eagerly one would like to say a word of good consolation, the truth of harsh reality does not allow consolation, and it must be said with all frankness: the monarchical power in its desire to spiritually decapitate Russia has achieved almost complete success. The revolution overthrew the monarchy, yes! But perhaps this means that the revolution only drove the skin disease into the body.
By no means should one think that the revolution spiritually healed or enriched Russia. This people must work hard in order to acquire consciousness of their personality, their human dignity, this people must be calcined and cleansed from the slavery nurtured in it, by the slow fire of culture. Culture again? Yes, culture again. I don't know anything else that can save our country from destruction."
The fact that the long-standing national disease turned out to be driven inside and subsequently defeated the revolution itself was guessed by him quite accurately. But he understood it then, it seems he was alone. He was generally alone. difficult person, because he rejoiced so much at the slightest manifestation of humanity that few of these manifestations fell to his own lot. Partly to blame for this is his continuous, titanic work, partly - his love for abstract humanity and irritation about specific people.
His political position in 1917 was so at odds with other points of view that he could not choose a single suitable platform for himself and was forced to create it himself. This is how the newspaper Novaya Zhizn appeared, the first issue of which was published on May 1, 1917, and Gorky himself spoke about the sources of financing as follows.
"New Life" was organized by me, with money borrowed from E.K. Grubbe, in the amount of 275 thousand, of which 50 thousand have already been paid to the creditor, the rest I could have paid a long time ago if I knew where E.K. lives. Grubbe. In addition to this money, a part of the fee received by me from the Niva for the publication of my books was invested in the newspaper. All this money was transferred by me to A.N. Tikhonov, the actual publisher of Novaya Zhizn. In the loan I made for the organization of the newspaper, I do not see anything disgraceful to her and consider her accusations of venality - polemical meanness. But, for your information, I will say that during the period from 901 to 917, hundreds of thousands of rubles went through my hands for the cause of the Russian Social Democratic Party, of which my personal earnings amount to tens of thousands, and everything else was scooped from pockets of the "bourgeoisie".
Iskra was published with the money of Savva Morozov, who, of course, did not lend, but donated. I could name a good dozen respectable people - "bourgeois" - who helped materially the growth of the Social-Democrats. parties. V.I. knows this very well. Lenin and other old workers of the party. There is no "donation" in the "New Life" case, but only my loan. Your slanderous and dirty antics against Novaya Zhizn disgrace not her, but only you. "Grubbe is a well-known banker, the owner of the Grubbe and Nebo bank. Both Grubbe and Nebo emigrated before the October coup. Gorky had to justify himself in this way because already in October 1917 his recent friends, the Bolsheviks, began to reproach him for playing into the hands of the enemies of the working class and doing it clearly not for selfish reasons. , already stopped responding to them - but then he could not help but bite in response: you yourself, on whose money did you publish your Iskra? books - " Untimely Thoughts and Revolution and Culture.
In his notes in the spring and summer of 1917, he congratulates the Russian people on their newfound freedom, but immediately raises the question: are we ready for it? Almost all of his pre-October journalism is a call to engage in science and creativity, to preserve culture and overcome ignorance; to read all this in the midst of dual power was, it seems, rather strange. He is especially alarmed by the lustration that has begun in the country and the publication of lists of secret employees of the security department: they turned out to be unexpectedly, inexplicably many.
"This is a shameful indictment against us, this is one of the signs of the collapse and decay of the country, a formidable sign," he wrote.
Almost immediately, a peasant theme appeared in "Untimely Thoughts" - Gorky had been unfriendly and suspicious of the peasantry since the tramp times, from the first printed appearances, seeing in the peasant only the owner, and in addition a brutal one. Now all the new facts of senseless atrocities are at his service, and Novaya Zhizn tirelessly records them.
“Recently, the estates of Khudekov, Obolensky and a number of other estates were plundered by peasants. The peasants took home everything that had value in their eyes, and the libraries were burned, the pianos were cut with axes, the paintings were torn up. Objects of science, art, tools of culture do not have prices in the eyes of the countryside - can one doubt whether they have a price in the eyes of the urban masses?
Even those who cannot stand Gorky must admit that the main feature of his journalism of that time was nobility. He stands up for the deposed Romanovs, over whom the drunken crowd cackles, which yesterday still servilely before them; he also notices that the mocking libel about the Romanovs is signed Jewish surname- and immediately predicts that the blame for the abominations of the Russian revolution will certainly be shifted to the Jews, since they are doing everything possible for this, demonstrating amazing tactlessness and cynicism.
“I consider it necessary, according to the conditions of the time, to point out that nowhere is so much tact and moral instinct required as in the attitude of a Russian to a Jew and a Jew to the phenomena of Russian life. It does not mean at all that in Russia there are facts that should not be critically concern a Tatar or a Jew, but it is imperative to remember that even an involuntary mistake - not to mention a conscious muck, even if it was made out of a sincere desire to please the instincts of the street - can be interpreted to the detriment not only of one evil or stupid Jew, but to all Jewry."
Gorky's journalism is a unique chronicle of the rebirth of the revolution.
The ideals, banners, slogans under which they fought against the autocracy were trampled down and forgotten as soon as the autocracy collapsed. It cannot be said that Gorky dreams of the restoration of Romanov's Russia - he remembered everything too well. But what is happening around makes him very critical of the Social Democrats, whom he helped with money and words for twenty years. Later, a legend was formed that it was in Novaya Zhizn that Kamenev and Zinoviev gave the Provisional Government plans for an armed uprising, scheduled at Lenin's request for October 25. This is not so, and there was no publication of Kamenev and Zinoviev in the Gorky newspaper. On the contrary, both of them - in particular the future owner of Petrograd Zinoviev - did not treat Gorky in the best way at least in 1917. Novaya Zhizn learned about the secret letter that Kamenev and Zinoviev sent to the party committees, protesting against what they thought was Lenin's adventurous plan to seize power. It is possible that Zinoviev later could not forgive Gorky for this publication - it infuriated Lenin, although he was well aware of Zinoviev's position.
In the 1938 film "Lenin in October" - we will return to this Rommian duology - Lenin is indignant at the betrayal of Kamenev and Zinoviev as loudly as if it were happening directly during the Stalinist trials. But 20 years remained before the Stalinist trials, and Kamenev and Zinoviev were forgiven. Moreover - on the sidelines of the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which took place in Smolny, Kamenev allegedly said: "We did something stupid, we took power - now we need to form a cabinet." So there was no betrayal, there was disagreement, which the Gorky newspaper reported - probably in the hope of preventing bloodshed.
But the coup on October 25 was already almost bloodless - blood poured later, from the Red Terror, from the Civil War. One of the first victims of this terror was the free press. Novaya Zhizn was closed on July 29, 1918, and Untimely Thoughts was not published in Russia for seventy years. But today it is one of those Gorky writings that save his reputation and ensure immortality.
"Untimely Thoughts" marked the "zigzag", it would seem, of Gorky's direct path to the revolution. But this was not a departure from the very theme of the revolution. As has already been rightly said, “Gorky and revolution” is a combination of words that is familiar, natural and legitimate, because revolution and are inextricably linked not only in the minds of readers, but also in essence” (34; 3).
Studies of the relationship between Gorky and the revolution became one of the main motives for the speeches of the participants in the "Gorky Readings" in 1990. in the writer's homeland Nizhny Novgorod. L.A. Spiridonova, S.I. Sukhikh, A.F. Tsirulev, N.N. Ivanov, M. Minakova, L.P. Egorova, L.K. Olander, A.A. Gazizova, N.N. Dikushina and others. The idea was expressed that "in the revolution, M. Gorky was attracted not by the very fact of seizing power, but by the possibility of subsequent realization in new, more favorable conditions of a person's potential abilities, his spiritual wealth and intellect" (11 ; 93). It was emphasized that during the years of the revolution for Gorky the most significant was "the opposition of pure revolutionism, ideal socialism and their everyday incarnation. (4; 88-89), that the years of the revolution in Gorky's life were" key "," explaining the past and helping to understand the tragedy of the future "(8; 87).
The ideas of the Gorky forum were also developed in the book by S.I. Sukhikh "The Delusion and Enlightenment of Maxim Gorky" (N. Novgorod, 1992), in which the author claims that in "Untimely Thoughts" the writer was driven not by fear of the revolution, but by fear of revolution: it seemed to him that the Bolsheviks were destroying it with their extremism "(34; 39). A little lower, the author again returns to the same thought: "Untimely thoughts" are essentially not against, but for the Bolsheviks. Their main pain, the main idea, the main mood is fear for the fate of the revolution. The point is not only that the new Shigalevs and Nechaevs are destroying Russia for the sake of the world revolution. The point is that together with Russia they are ruining both the revolution and themselves" (34; 41).
Finally, in one of the latest publications, it is emphasized that Gorky argued with Lenin and the Bolsheviks "not from the position of denying the revolution, but with the aim of giving it a more humane and dignified appearance, transforming the individual, realizing the newly discovered possibilities of cultural construction", from which follows his the desire to introduce into the Russian revolution "a moral principle, to humanize the very process of the destruction of the old and the birth of a new world" (19; 252).
The validity of the above assumptions can be confirmed by references to Untimely Thoughts, quotations from interviews and letters from M. Gorky. So, for example, in the article "The Fruits of Demagogy" dated January 5, 1918. Gorky once again emphasized what he had repeatedly expressed before: "... an experiment is being made with the Russian proletariat, for which the proletariat will pay with its blood, life and - worst of all - long-term disappointment in the ideal of socialism." A week later, he returned to this topic again: "... now there is not a process of social revolution, but for a long time the soil is being destroyed, which could make this revolution possible in the future."
Considering the bulk of the Russian people to be lazy, inert, indifferent to their own fate, Gorky saw the positive beginning of the revolution in the fact that it shook off sleepy apathy from the peasant, forced him to effectively relate to the world around him. The writer hoped that "cruel, bloody lesson, given (...) by history, will shake off our laziness and make us seriously think about why, why are we, Russia, more unhappy than others?
Scolding the Bolsheviks for attempting an inhuman experience, unleashing despotism and anarchy, for giving "full play to all bad and bestial instincts, discarding "all the intellectual forces of democracy, all the moral energy of the country", from this point of view the writer still found justification their activities: "... psychologically, the Bolsheviks have already rendered the Russian people an enormous service, moving their entire mass off the dead center and arousing in the entire mass an active attitude towards reality, an attitude without which our country would perish."
Variations of this idea will be repeatedly encountered in Gorky's interviews with the foreign press. In 1922 In the book On the Russian Peasantry, Gorky literally repeats the idea expressed in the newspaper Nakanune: “I find it necessary to declare that the Soviet government is for me the only force capable of overcoming the inertia of the mass of the Russian people and arousing the energy of this mass to the creativity of new, more just and intelligent life forms.
But with all this, I think it would be wrong to completely identify Gorky and October in the specified period. It must not be forgotten that the moral significance of the revolution was undermined in the writer's soul, its cultural meaning. B.A. Byalik believes that Gorky's attitude to the prospects for the revolution in 1923 was quite contradictory and confirms his point of view with a reference to Gorky’s letter to R. Rolland: “During the four years of the revolution, it (the soul of a Russian person - P.Ch.) unfolded so terribly and widely, flared up so brightly, Well, it will burn out and only ashes - or?" (2; 294).
The duality of Gorky's attitude to the revolution was also reflected in a number of works of art Soviet period.
"Untimely Thoughts" marked the "zigzag", it would seem, of Gorky's direct path to the revolution. But this was not a departure from the very theme of the revolution. As has already been rightly said, “Gorky and revolution” is a combination of words that is familiar, natural and legitimate, because revolution and Gorky are inextricably linked not only in the minds of readers, but also in essence” (34; 3).
Studies of the relationship between Gorky and the revolution became one of the main motives for the speeches of the participants in the "Gorky Readings" in 1990. in the homeland of the writer - in Nizhny Novgorod. L.A. Spiridonova, S.I. Sukhikh, A.F. Tsirulev, N.N. Ivanov, M. Minakova, L.P. Egorova, L.K. Olander, A.A. Gazizova, N.N. Dikushina and others. The idea was expressed that "in the revolution, M. Gorky was attracted not by the very fact of seizing power, but by the possibility of subsequent realization in new, more favorable conditions of a person's potential abilities, his spiritual wealth and intellect" (11 ; 93). It was emphasized that during the years of the revolution for Gorky the most significant was "the opposition of pure revolutionism, ideal socialism and their everyday incarnation. (4; 88-89), that the years of the revolution in Gorky's life were" key "," explaining the past and helping to understand the tragedy of the future "(8; 87).
The ideas of the Gorky forum were also developed in the book by S.I. Sukhikh "The Delusion and Enlightenment of Maxim Gorky" (N. Novgorod, 1992), in which the author claims that in "Untimely Thoughts" the writer was driven not by fear of the revolution, but by fear of revolution: it seemed to him that the Bolsheviks were destroying it with their extremism "(34; 39). A little lower, the author again returns to the same thought: "Untimely Thoughts" is essentially not against, but for the Bolsheviks. Their main pain, main thought, main mood - fear for the fate of the revolution. The point is not only that the new Shigalevs and Nechaevs are ruining Russia for the sake of the world revolution. The point is that together with Russia they are ruining both the revolution and themselves "(34; 41).
Finally, in one of the latest publications, it is emphasized that Gorky argued with Lenin and the Bolsheviks "not from the position of denying the revolution, but with the aim of giving it a more humane and dignified appearance, transforming the individual, realizing the newly discovered possibilities of cultural construction", from which follows his the desire to introduce into the Russian revolution "a moral principle, to humanize the very process of the destruction of the old and the birth of a new world" (19; 252).
The validity of the above assumptions can be confirmed by references to Untimely Thoughts, quotations from interviews and letters from M. Gorky. So, for example, in the article "The Fruits of Demagogy" dated January 5, 1918. Gorky once again emphasized what he had repeatedly expressed before: "... an experiment is being made with the Russian proletariat, for which the proletariat will pay with its blood, life and - worst of all - long-term disappointment in the ideal of socialism." A week later, the writer returned to this topic again: "... now it is not the process of social revolution that is going on, but the soil that could make this revolution possible in the future is being destroyed for a long time."
Considering the bulk of the Russian people to be lazy, inert, indifferent to their own fate, Gorky saw the positive beginning of the revolution in the fact that it shook off sleepy apathy from the peasant, forced him to effectively relate to the world around him. The writer hoped that "the cruel, bloody lesson given (...) by history will shake off our laziness and make us seriously think about why, why are we, Russia, more unhappy than others?"
Scolding the Bolsheviks for attempting an inhuman experience, unleashing despotism and anarchy, for giving "full play to all bad and bestial instincts, discarding "all the intellectual forces of democracy, all the moral energy of the country", from this point of view the writer still found justification their activities: "... psychologically, the Bolsheviks have already rendered the Russian people an enormous service, moving their entire mass off the dead center and arousing in the entire mass an active attitude towards reality, an attitude without which our country would perish."
Variations of this idea will be repeatedly encountered in Gorky's interviews with the foreign press. In 1922 In the book On the Russian Peasantry, Gorky literally repeats the idea expressed in the newspaper Nakanune: “I find it necessary to declare that the Soviet government is for me the only force capable of overcoming the inertia of the mass of the Russian people and arousing the energy of this mass to the creativity of new, more just and intelligent life forms.
But with all this, I think it would be wrong to completely identify Gorky and October in the specified period. We must not forget that the moral significance of the revolution was undermined in the writer's soul, its cultural meaning was shaken. B.A. Byalik believes that Gorky's attitude to the prospects for the revolution in 1923 was quite contradictory and confirms his point of view with a reference to Gorky’s letter to R. Rolland: “During the four years of the revolution, it (the soul of a Russian person - P.Ch.) unfolded so terribly and widely, flared up so brightly, Well, it will burn out and only ashes - or?" (2; 294).
The duality of Gorky's attitude to the revolution was also reflected in a number of works of art of the Soviet period.
Stories 1922-1924
In the early 20s. Gorky continues to work on autobiographical trilogy: creates "My Universities" (1923) and a series close to them in content "Autobiographical Stories" (1923): it was composed by "Korolenko's Time", "Watchman", "The Story of First Love", "On the Harm of Philosophy". Soon Gorky's books "Notes from a Diary. Memoirs" (1924) and "Stories 1922-1924" were published. (1925). The last one, which included "hermit", "Karamora", " blue life"," The Story of the Extraordinary ", etc. They reflected the writer's interest not only in the realities of reality, in the interaction of the social and the natural in man, but also in the experience of Dostoevsky, in the philosophical concepts of the era, represented by the names of N. Fedorov, N. Berdyaev and others .
The peculiarity of the writer's position was immediately noticed by A. Voronsky:
“Gorky now pays so much attention to mischievous people and eccentrics. He has not only curiosity for them, but also love. He is silent about the Pavels (Vlasovs - P.Ch.) and the new environment, but with exceptional diligence he seeks out the strange, wonderful and mischievous ( ...) He loves confused people" (3; 46-48).
Obviously, what has been said can be explained by the writer's desire to penetrate into the essence of the people's element, into the depths national character, which, by the way, he himself spoke about: “I see the Russian people as exceptionally, fantastically talented, original. Even fools in Russia are stupid in an original way, in their own way, and lazy people are positively brilliant. turns, so to speak - in terms of the figurativeness of thought and feeling, the Russian people are the most grateful material for the artist "(" Notes from the diary. Memoirs ").
And in pure artistically it was a new step. Voronsky believed that Gorky "writes better now", that "the writer has risen to a balanced and complete skill. He no longer abuses aphorisms, does not interrupt beautiful pages with rhetoric and journalism, and writes only about what is most characteristic of his talent. Attentive attitude to the word brought to the highest severity ... In this sense, we can talk about the new Gorky. And recognizing that these stories are popular with contemporary readers, especially young readers, Voronsky prophetically predicted: "To live the works of recent years, presumably, will be longer "(3; 48-49). Voronsky's main thesis sounded weighty and convincing:
"Gorky was and remains a great and in his own way the only and inimitable writer."
However, more often Gorky's contemporaries - A. Lunacharsky, D. Gorbov - reproached him for the uncertainty of the author's position (although they appreciated new prose for parable, symbolic character). Even more severe to the writer was Nalitpostovskaya criticism, considering him a poet of "freaks" who betrayed his revolutionary past. Recognizing the artistic perfection of the story "The Hermit", the splendor of figurative depiction, long unseen in post-revolutionary prose, criticism blamed the author for the choice of the hero: "... The most vile sample of the human breed was taken" (). This did not take into account the author's super-task to objectively explore all the "twists" of the human soul.
The story opens with a lyrical landscape sketch:
"The forest ravine gently descended to the Oka, a stream ran along its bottom, hiding in the grasses; above the ravine - imperceptibly during the day and tremblingly at night - the blue river of heaven flowed, stars played in it like golden ruffs."
“The magical power of poetry, contained in these simply and densely composed words,” A.I. Ovcharenko spoke of this introduction, “picks up and takes us to a world full of joy. You feel as if you are bathing in a transparent, at the same time refreshing and warming source "(21; 71-72).
A further description of the hermit’s habitat even takes on some “primitive” outlines: “A bush has grown tangled and densely along the southeastern shore of the ravine, in the thicket of it, under a steep slope, a cave was dug, covered with a door skillfully knitted from thick branches, and in front a square reinforced with cobblestones was poured through the door, heavy boulders descend from it to the stream with stairs. Three young trees grow in front of the door - linden, birch and maple.
Unlike the strong and courageous romantic heroes Early Gorky's appearance of Savel the Sawyer is emphatically ugly: "An old man of medium height, dense, but all sort of crumpled, bitten. His face, red, like a brick, is ugly, his left cheek is cut from ear to chin with a deep scar, he twisted his mouth, giving it the expression is painfully mocking, the dark eyes are mutilated by trachoma - without eyelashes, with red scars in place of the eyelids, the hair on the head came out in tufts, one - small - on the top of the head, the other exposed the left ear ... "
In the twentieth century, none of the writers spoke about his time as exhaustively and multifaceted as Alexei Maksimovich Gorky, the author of the story "Mother", the plays "At the Bottom", "Vassa Zheleznova", the trilogy "Childhood", "In People", " My Universities”, novels “The Artamonov Case” and “The Life of Klim Samgin”. But he was not a third-party descriptor of events. From his youth, Gorky joined the revolutionary movement and honestly served him with his pen. From the first days literary biography Gorky is among the fighters against the autocracy. Needless to say, it was a dangerous path. And the writer experienced the cold of the prison walls many times. But he considered it necessary to fight against the long-obsolete monarchical foundations, against the omnipotence of the church bureaucracy and the preaching of humility, against the obstacles that the authorities erected between the popular majority and enlightenment.
Universities
Writer Alexei Peshkov found himself among those whom the gendarmes considered unreliable. literary name"Maxim Gorky" appeared in 1892 in the Tiflis newspaper "Kavkaz", where the first story of Alexei Peshkov "Makar Chudra" was published. Gorky was friends with the revolutionaries even before Georgia, he was a member of underground circles. Even as a young man, he sympathized with those who were trying to radically change the existing political system. He was fascinated by the element of rebellion, rebellion. But not in the name of anarchy, but for the sake of the triumph of civilization, science, enlightenment. In Kazan, he participated in the work of underground populist circles, his lanky figure was already interested in the police. Then he joined the circle of Nikolai Fedoseev, one of the first Russian Marxists. “I liked his pale, nervous face with deep eyes,” Gorky recalled. The gendarmes followed his every step. There were also arrests. Among the policemen there were curious characters who would enter Gorky's dramaturgy. One of the “satraps”, General Poznansky, talked with the prisoner Peshkov about songbirds, of which he was a great lover, about old medals and the melodiousness of Gorky’s poems, selected during the search, reminding him of “a thoroughbred dog, which, from old age, is hard and boring to bark” .
And in Tiflis, the exiled Alexander Methodievich Kalyuzhny became his closest comrade. He advised the young writer to take a pseudonym with a hint of criticism of the existing system, and at the same time in memory of his father, whom Alexei Maksimovich practically did not know. “You were the first ... to look at me not only as a guy with a strange biography, an aimless tramp, as something funny ... You were the first ... made me look at myself seriously. I owe your impetus to the fact that I have been serving Russian art for more than thirty years, ”Gorky wrote to Kalyuzhny in 1925, already a world-famous writer.
In March 1901, the young writer learned about the dispersal of a student demonstration near the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. On the same evening, he sketched the lines: “Over the gray plain of the sea, the wind gathers clouds. Between the clouds and the sea, the Petrel flies proudly, black lightning like". For such foresights, prose is not suitable, only poetry, even if it is white, without rhyme. AT last moment before publication, Gorky changed the final phrase: instead of “Wait! The storm is coming soon!" put "Let the storm break harder!"
The censor snarled in his report to the authorities: “The said poem produced strong impression in literary circles known direction, and Gorky himself began to be called not only a “petrel”, but also a “storm herald”, since he not only announces the coming storm, but calls the storm behind him.
Burevestnik was banned. But it's too late. Gorky's appeal was rewritten by hand and illegally reprinted in huge numbers. Without exaggeration, multi-million dollar! The writer did not shy away from the draft revolutionary work. Gorky became a member of the Moscow group of the Iskra newspaper in early October 1903, in the list of its members compiled by the tsarist secret police, he was listed under serial number 27 as "Alexey Peshkov".
And Gorky's mighty poem became the true anthem of the Russian Revolution.
1905
But still, who was the creator of the revolution? A handful of "adventurers"?
Among those who hate the revolution, this view of October is popular. These gentlemen should look into the history of 1905. Rise of Russian capitalism. I - wide revolutionary movement, real Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of people rose up against the autocracy. The history of 1905 proves that Russia had been nurturing October for a long time; it was not only a Great, but also an organic phenomenon. This must be recognized even by staunch opponents of socialism. The year 1917 is the pace of history, not a coincidence. This is how he appears from Gorky's pages.
For Gorky, 1905 was a turning point. And Bloody Sunday is the frontier, after which he declared a war of annihilation on the empire. On that day, the writer walked in a column of workers from the Vyborg district and witnessed the execution of people at the Trinity, Police, Pevchesky bridges and on Palace Square.
Arriving home, he found there deathly pale Georgy Gapon. Gorky dictated to the priest an appeal to the people with the words “Brothers, soldered by blood! We no longer have a king." In the evening, Gorky wrote an appeal "To all Russian citizens and public opinion European states". "Everywhere you can see the vile work of a handful of people who are mad with fear of losing their power over the country - people who seek to pour blood on the brightly flared fire of consciousness by the people of their right to be the builder of life forms."
Like many other revolutionaries, Gorky was arrested in those days and kept for a month in Petropavlovka. Thousands of people all over Europe rose up in his defense. In Paris, the Society of Friends of the Russian People, headed by Anatole France, published an appeal in support of a fellow writer: “To all free people! great writer Maxim Gorky will have to appear, for closed doors, facing an unprecedented trial for conspiracy against the state. His fault lies in the fact that he tried to stand between loaded guns and the chest of defenseless workers!”
When the revolution spilled over to Moscow and barricade battles began on Presnya, Gorky wrote: Good fight! It started yesterday at 2 pm, went on all night and has been buzzing continuously all day today... The workers are behaving amazingly!.. At the Nikolayevsky railway station, the square is littered with corpses, there are 5 cannons, 2 machine guns, but the workers' squads still contrive to inflict damage on the troops... In general, there is a battle going on all over Moscow!”
He decided once and for all: in the fight against the old world, the bridges were burned. In 1905 Gorky joined the party. Became a Bolshevik at a time when it was most dangerous. His wife, Maria Andreevna Andreeva, was also a party soldier. First beauty Silver Age she dedicated herself to fighting for better share for the people. She fought disinterestedly - like Gorky. They got money for the party, found patrons. Often, the writer donated to party needs and his own funds.
New world
The central event of the century and its main mystery is, of course, October and the building of a socialist society that followed the revolution. When is that historical phenomenon they are trying to belittle, to declare it almost an accidental adventure - I remember the eternal opponent of Gorky's heroes. Reasonable Already from the "Song of the Falcon", sweet-spoken Luka from "At the Bottom" ... Gorky's revolutionary nature was a deeply thought-out position. Not a tactic, but a mindset. This ideology he suffered and experienced many times. It is based on faith in progress. In technology, changes for the better are obvious. How about with social life? Is it possible to be satisfied with the "original" order with privileged classes and the power of money? Gorky was convinced that these atavisms must be fought. Note in the margins: destroying Soviet Union, the ideologists of the bourgeois renaissance also attacked the idea of progress. And this is a pattern.
And Gorky understood: it is necessary new person worthy of a socialist future. A revolution in worldview is no less important than the storming of the Winter Palace and the capture of the telegraph... Strong personality, collectivism, labor, freedom, creativity, science - such is Gorky's ideal. “We need to raise to the right height the idea of historical working man, a reservoir of energy that organizes and transforms the world, creating its own “second nature” - the culture of socialists, ”wrote Gorky and did not at all limit himself to appeals. He acted.
There is much more meaningful truth about the revolution in Gorky's books than in the current biased discussions, when respectable speakers retroactively try to "cancel" October, humiliate it to the status of an ordinary coup. To board up a window into a world in which labor, education and justice were the main values.
Gorky sang of freedom, admired the strong, free people, Prometheus, who challenged the age-old darkness. But he saw the highest manifestation of strength not in an individual, but in a collective feat. This is his subtle understanding of the features of the new time, the features of socialist construction, about which Gorky thought incessantly: “Freedom of thought is possible only with complete freedom of labor activity, which absolutely did not find and does not find a place in the conditions of the capitalist system of society and is obligatory for everyone under the socialist system” .
A person should not feel small and insignificant. It's time to straighten up to your full height. Gorky saw that only the proletariat could become the basis of liberation. And he joined the revolutionary party, which defended the interests of the workers. The writer was attracted not only by ideas, but also by people. To such fighters as Lenin, he treated with fierce interest!
If you count Soviet history « black hole”in the fate of mankind, then, of course, Gorky should be forgotten. You can even write him down as an extremist and ban him. There are also such plans, quite understandable: by the standards of bourgeois splendor, Gorky is a dangerous criminal. But there is a country built by the Gorky Sokols both in history and in the people's memory. The writer was not just the ideologist of this country, he is one of its creators.
It is known that Gorky did not immediately support October. Criticizing the excesses of the first months Soviet power, he anticipated the struggle against Trotskyism. The writer was afraid that the Russian proletariat might be thrown into the fire of the world revolution like brushwood. But when he saw that the Bolsheviks were starting a big construction project in the country, he stood next to Lenin. And this happened in the most dangerous days for the revolution, when the counter-revolutionary terror began. Gorky was not a supporter of total unanimity. He believed that people of different beliefs should create a new culture, called for a broad union Soviet state with the intelligentsia, with talented professionals - even if they are skeptical of the Bolsheviks.
But whites - with any sauce - Gorky did not accept. “In Russian history, they left a memory of themselves as traitors to their people. For four years they betrayed and sold their people to your capitalists, gentlemen of the intellectuals of Europe. They helped Denikins, Kolchaks, Wrangels, Yudenichs and other professional murderers to destroy the economy of their country, which had already been devastated by a four-year massacre, shameful for all of Europe. With the help of these despicable people, the generals of the European capitalists and the tsar exterminated hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants of the Union of Soviets, burned hundreds of villages and Cossack villages, destroyed railways, blew up bridges, spoiled everything that could be spoiled in order to completely weaken their country and betray it into the hands of European capitalists ... ”- these are the words of Gorky.
Wherever the writer lived - in Sorrento or at the Nikitsky Gate - his house became the headquarters of the construction new culture, new world. And the monument to the writer, again standing on the Moscow square near the Belorussky railway station, reminds us of the great time of socialist construction. About the prophet of the Russian revolution, who believed in the high destiny of man. And we believe that history will not let Maxim Gorky down.
